International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org TEACHING LITERATURE FROM CHAOS/COMPLEXITY
THEORY PERSPECTIVE
Mansoor Fahim
Associate Professor, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
[email protected]
Ayoub Dehghankar
PhD Candidate, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This research article aimed at investigating literature through the lenses of the relatively new
science of Chaos/Complexity Theory (CCT), arguing that the study of complex/nonlinear systems
is meaningful in dealing with literature as well. This article also argues that an abundance of
conspicuous congruity could be acknowledged between literature and complex nonlinear
systems. To this end, primarily, the different existing views on the nature of literature are touched
upon. Secondly, the curricular philosophies regarding literature are introduced and discussed.
Thirdly, the methodological approaches to teaching literature are coped with. Then, the twelve
distinctive features of complex nonlinear systems are introduced. Finally, the nature of literature
is analyzed based on these features. Accordingly, it is proposed that, dealing with literature, i.e.,
literary texts, as a controversial issue in second language learning/teaching milieu from a
chaos/complexity standpoint can put an end to the traditional and controversial debate on
whether to utilize or discard literature as an educational material in Teaching English as a
Foreign Language (TEFL) classes. Correspondingly, English as Foreign Language (EFL)
teachers could optimize the effectiveness and practicality of their classes through using literary
texts as a complex system with the distinguished feature of disproportion and asymmetry between
input and output.
KEYWORDS: Chaos/ Complexity Theory, Nonlinear Systems, Literature, TEFL.
INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, many studies have been conducted intending to link hard and soft sciences
together (Zadeh, 1994; Allen, 2001). Accordingly, it has been tried to put the principles of majors
such as Physics and Mathematics into practice in such disciplines as humanities and social
sciences. From among various proposed theories in hard science, Chaos Complexity Theory
(Lorenz, 1963), and Fuzzy Logic (Zadeh, 1965) have received the greatest attentions. These
theories have permeated the realm of language learning and teaching in recent years, and
numerous research projects have been conducted to fulfill this end (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2002;
Fahim & Dehghankar, 2014). As a pioneer, Larsen-Freeman (1997) argued that the principles of
CCT could be applied to both first and second language acquisition settings. Accordingly,
language could be potentially regarded as an optimal instance of complex systems whose
167
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org sensitivity to initial conditions is a crucial factor in analyzing such systems. In another parallel
study, Larsen-Freeman (2002) stated that a C/CT perspective supports the social view of second
language acquisition, encouraging the learners and teachers to think in relational terms, that is, to
think fuzzy. In a recent study, Fahim and Dehghankar (2014) investigated the applications of
Fuzzy Logic as a basis for scoring language tests. They introduced a new method of scoring
entitled “fuzzy scoring” suggesting that language test givers and scorers view the process of
scoring from a fuzzy-logic based perspective in line with the principles of critical thinking (see
Judge, Jones, & Mc Creey, 2009). As mentioned above, what all such studies have in common is
a tendency to compromise and bridge the gap between the two fields of science; that is, soft and
hard sciences. Therefore, this study probes the nature of literature in general and the teaching of
literature in particular from a CCT perspective aiming at introducing a new phenomenological
and science-based aspect of literature.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Using literature or literary texts as a means to the end of teaching second/foreign languages has
frequently been the subject of controversy and disagreement among TEFL/TESL teachers. One
source of controversy is the viewpoint from which literature is viewed. Although the lenses from
which literature can be viewed may be as much as those of the whole pros and cons, the most
frequently encountered beliefs about the inclusion or exclusion of literature in TEFL classes are
subsumed in two main categories (Maley, 1989). According to the first view called “literature as
study,” there is an immediate rivalry between teaching language and teaching literature. In other
words, the difference between literature and the teaching/learning of a foreign language is
dichotomous; that is, literature and foreign language learning are viewed as two quite
independent phenomena. In this regard, the focus of activity is on the literariness of the text
indicating literature as a cultural artifact.
The second view, which is called “literature as resource” deals with literature as a source from
among many others utilized to promote language learning. Hence, contrary to the first view that
took literature, per se, as primary, this second view sees literature as a means to an end rather
than an end itself. Consequently, three models have been proposed for the use of literature in EFL
classrooms, namely the linguistic, cultural, and personal models (Duff & Maley, 2007). Those
adhering to the linguistic model argue that literature offers a rich and varied linguistic resource,
providing optimal input for lexical, syntactic, phonological, discoursal, etc. acquisition and
growth. Those who emphasize the cultural issues maintain that literature optimally serves as a
sound basis for teaching culture, acquiring cultural awareness and, consequently, avoiding
cultural misunderstandings and misinterpretations. According to Kramsch (1993), literature
creates “third places” from which students critically examine both their own as well as other
cultures. Besides the linguistic and cultural impacts of literature, according to the third model,
literature promotes personal growth, by means of better understanding of human motivation and
action. It is proposed that literature increases the level of language learners’ critical thinking and
critical understanding and awareness of themselves as well as the world.
168
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org The Existing Views on the Nature of literature
How to teach literature hinges, to a high degree, on how literature and its nature are viewed.
From among various viewpoints, the following are the more frequently-encountered (Maley,
2010).
a) Literature as a collection of texts
According to this view, literature is a collection of texts considered as the most significant in a
language or culture. Such texts are characterized by long familiarity as well as academic
authority. As far as the English language is concerned, works authored by Shakespeare, Dickens,
Chaucer, etc. are typical examples of literary works. According to Calvino (2009), this view
gives rise to such great deals of critical discussions, debates, and interpretations that often remove
the original works from the center of attention.
b) Literature as a text to be read aesthetically
Kramsch (1993) defines literature as a body of text that needs to be read aesthetically rather than
efferently. McRae (1991) argued that literature is open to the representational interpretation
rather than a referential one. This view, which is frequently referred to as literature with lowercase “l”, is broader than the previous view in scope, including a variety of texts and a lessconfined approach to interpretation of the texts. According to Rosenblatt (1978), in such a view,
it is the text itself that receives the major attention. In other words, instead of reading and talking
‘about’ the text, the focal concentration is on the text, per se.
c) Literature as a rule-governed genre
This view defines literature as a corpus of rule-governed genres or text types. Genres such as
poetry, drama, fiction, essays and letters, biography and autobiography, history, philosophical
and religious texts, journalism, speeches, and their sub-genres such as songs, comedy, tragedy,
farce, etc. include the typical types of literary texts. The focus, then, would be on how such
bodies of literary texts are constructed, how they function, and of what value they are for the
society or community that uses them.
d) Literature as a special use of language
According to this view, literature comprises special uses of language peculiar to itself (Maley,
2010). In this regard, the literary devices and tropes found in literary texts such as metaphor,
personification, collocation, rhyme, alliteration, assonance, intertextuality, visual layout, etc. are
focused, with interoperation being assigned to them. Therefore, this view of literature suggests a
more technically oriented approach to the study of literary texts.
Why literature?
Those who adhere to the use of literature in the educational programs and curricula argue that
literature is beneficial in promoting students’ level of the second/foreign language knowledge in
various ways. Spack (1985) stated that literature provides real content in the ESL classroom. In
another parallel statement, Shih (1986) argued that literature suitably meets the needs of contentbased classes in providing authentic and real-life texts. Accordingly, Gajdusek and Van
Dommelen (1987) asserted that the issues and situations explored in a literary text pave the way
for contextualized teaching and practice of complex sentence grammar. Another merit of
literature is that it serves as a response to the call for cultural awareness. McGroarty and Galvan
(1985) indicated that exploring literary texts with readers from other cultures is an exercise in
cultural relativity. Thus, teaching literature may serve at the same time as teaching culture. Maley
169
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org (2010) listed seven features of literature making it a potent resource for teaching a second/foreign
language. These features include universality, non-triviality, personal relevance, variety, interest,
economy and suggestive power, and ambiguity. As far as the first feature is concerned, Maley
maintains that there is no language without literature whether in written or oral form.
Consequently, the themes literature deals with are common to all cultures. Some familiar and
ubiquitous themes include love, nature, life and death, war, etc. As a result, literature is not a
trivialized or talked down resource. The issues touched upon in literary works, as some were
mentioned above, are of utmost significance to human beings regardless of their different cultures
and languages. One of the unique and paradoxical but appealing features of literature is that
although its main themes are common among all nations, this does not imply that no place have
been improvised for personal feelings. This entails that every author or reader of literary works is
free and boundless in his/her interpretation; that is, the number of interpretations are as much as
the number of those who encounter the texts. In the same way, variety of literary genres and subgenres as well as the miscellany in the themes and subjects optimally intrigues and arouses the
users’ curiosity and attentiveness. Moreover, literary texts invite the reader to go beyond the
sentence level and have a deeper look at the phenomena. Finally, this feature results in the
emergence of many different meanings and interpretations on the part of the readers.
Curricular Philosophies and literature
According to Cook (2010), literature is bound up with the curricular philosophies that constitute
the teaching system principles. The underlying curricular principles include Academic,
Humanistic, Technological, and Reconstructionist/Social reformist ideologies. While, in the
academic view, the focus is on transmission of knowledge of a particular major or field of study,
in the humanistic view, education is deemed as a way of helping learners develop themselves
fully as individuals. Hence, this approach favors the methodologies emphasizing the learnercentered education. According to the third approach, education is regarded as serving practical
purposes through providing learners with skills and knowledge they require to fulfill a particular
task. Finally, the reconstructionist approach perceives education as a means or vehicle in order to
bring about desirable social changes. It is worth mentioning that although these four philosophies
have distinguished principles, the educational curricula may adopt and mix some principles from
two or more philosophies. As far as literature is concerned, however, Maley (2008) argues that
there is no reason for its exclusion from any model. Therefore, literature not only conforms to the
humanistic and academic approaches, it can also be placed within the propositions of
reconstructionist philosophy. Thus, literature can act as a prime resource for the instillation of
beliefs, values, critical skills, and world knowledge. As for the technological model, literature can
play its part through focusing on devices which literature employs and applying them to more
instrumental uses.
Methodological Approaches to Teaching literature
Based on the different and evolving viewpoints and philosophies regarding the nature of
literature, the following models were presented aiming at implementing literature in EFL/ESL
classes.
a) Maley’s (1989) Model includes the critical literary and stylistic approaches. The first
approach focuses on plot, characterization, motivation, value, psychology, background,
170
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
etc. while the second approach puts more emphasis on text, description, and analysis of
language prior to making any interpretation.
Carter and Long’s (1991) Model includes the three sub-models, namely language-based
model, content-culture model, and personal growth or enrichment model.
Amer’s (2003) Model includes the story-grammar approach and reader-response
approach.
Van’s (2009) Model includes new criticism, critical literacy, stylistics, reader-response,
language-based, and structuralism approaches.
Timucin (2001) and Savvidou’s (2004) Integrated Model that adopt an integrative
approach through compromising between previous models, especially language-based and
the stylistics approaches.
Khatib, Derakhshan, and Rezaee’s (2011) Model adopts a task-based approach according
to which a literary task is defined as a piece of activity that linguistically, aesthetically,
and subconsciously engages learners in the process of learning.
In spite the rise and fall of different models and approaches, it seems that no particular approach
managed to provide a thorough, exhaustive, and precise outlook of literature. Following a concise
introduction of the CCT, this article opens a new perspective from which a more scientific aspect
of literature could be revealed.
CHAOS/ COMPLEXITY THEORY
Emergence of the Field
Chaos Complexity Theory, also known as Chaos theory (Gleick, 1987; Kauffman, 1995;
Prigogine & Stengers, 1984), developed from the 1960s work of Edward Lorenz. As a
meteorologist, Lorenz developed a model based on differential equations. As a major discovery,
Lorenz discovered that a very minute difference in the initial conditions led to large changes in
the weather predicted by his model over time. This finding, known as sensitivity to initial
conditions, is one of the building blocks of chaos theory. Over the past few years, many scientists
in different fields of study, including natural sciences, as well as the social sciences, have tried to
put the principals of this theory into practice in their disciplines (Valle Jr., 2000). Chaos theory is
simply defined as the qualitative study of unstable aperiodic behavior in deterministic nonlinear
systems. This definition shed light on the elucidation of the features of the complex systems.
Features of Complex/Nonlinear Systems
According to the chaos/complexity theory, the following twelve features characterize complex
systems. They are dynamic, complex, nonlinear, chaotic, unpredictable, sensitive to initial
conditions, open, self-organizing, feedback sensitive, adaptive, possessing strange attractors, and
fractal-shaped. Although the existence of such attributes in the complex systems is crystal-clear,
the degree of such attributes may vary from one system to another. These features are briefly
discussed below.
Dynamicity: complex systems are dynamic since they change over time. According to Gleick
(1987), the study of chaos is aligned with the science of process and becoming rather than the
171
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org study of product and being. Therefore, the prime feature of complex systems is their dynamicity
and evolving nature.
Complexity: complexity of the complex systems is twofold. On the one hand, they are complex
because they comprise of large numbers of sub-systems and components (Davies, 1988). On the
other hand, they are complex because of their complicated and unobvious nature. Accordingly,
the nature and mechanism of complex systems cannot simply be perceived through the analysis
of its comprising units individually. This feature falls in with the Gestalt psychology (Kohler,
1970), according to which the whole is different from the sum of its parts.
Nonlinearity: While in linear systems there is a one to one relationship between the input and the
output, in nonlinear systems the relationship between input and output is not disproportionate.
This feature is also called “camel’s back effect”, according to which a light straw has the
potential to break a camel’s back. The original proverb in the English literature and culture is “it
was the last straw that broke the camel’s back.” According to this metaphor, millions of straws
may do not have the effect that the one last straw does.
Chaos: chaos refers to the period of complete randomness that complex systems enter into
irregularly and unpredictably. Never-repeating patterns and random-seeming patterns are two
associated features of such systems (Crutchfield, Farmer, Packard, & Shaw, 1986). This feature
results in another feature of such systems that is their unpredictability.
Unpredictability: Although the chaos of complex systems may be predictable, the onset of the
randomness of complex systems is unpredictable. In other words, it is possible to predict the
occurrence of the randomness; however, predicting exactly when it occurs is not that easy. This
feature of unpredictability is primarily subordinated to another feature known as sensitivity to
initial conditions.
Sensitivity to initial conditions: a foremost reason for the unpredictability of nonlinear systems is
their sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Based on this principal, a slight initial change in
the conditions can lead to and bring about prodigious changes in the future behavior of the
system. This feature is exemplified in the popular phenomenon called “butterfly effect”. This
theory proposes that a butterfly flattering its wing in a particular part of the world can bring about
a storm in another part of the world. This implies that minor differences in input could bring forth
major differences in the output (Gleick 1987).
In fact, if two systems with similar conditions differ only in their initial condition, the two
systems will diverge and show quite different behavior in a particular time thereafter. The degree
of divergence depends on the time elapsed after the initial change is implemented. To illustrate,
suppose two lines are drawn from a particular point. The more the lines are extended, the farther
they will be from each other.
Openness: the second law of thermodynamics in physics states that systems move inevitably
toward equilibrium. Moreover, once this equilibrium is fulfilled, the system maintains this state
172
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org permanently; that is, they are fixed and closed (Churchland, 1986). This is against what is
observed in complex systems, as they are evolving and open to change.
Self-organizing: the more open systems evolve, the more their order and complexity increases.
An example of a self-organizing system is a laser device in which particles of light are
concentrated and form a single powerful beam (Larsen Freeman, 1997).
Feedback Sensitivity: feedback can be in both positive and negative forms. Positive feedback
will increase the efficacy and productiveness of the systems, while negative feedback results in
the system’s deficiency and breakdown.
Adaption: complex systems are to be adaptive to the current conditions as well as to new
changes. Their versatility allows them to take advantage from every phenomenon they are
exposed to.
Strange Attractors: complex nonlinear systems tend to hold their activities within a particular
path or pattern called attractor. It is called attractor since it is the pattern which the dynamic
system is attracted to. Although static and closed systems may also possess such a tendency,
there is a major difference between the dynamic systems and the static ones in this regard. In
their path in the mould of the attractor, static systems tend to move toward a particular order; that
is, they have a fixed-point attractor, and tend to maintain the pattern aiming at reaching a settledown. One example of such movement is the swinging of a pendulum which finally finds its
track with a fixed amount of speed. On the contrary, despite maneuvering within a particular
framework, dynamic systems hinge upon a strange attractor; that is, they tend to move toward
entropy or lack of order—they constantly change. In other words, no motion or action takes the
same path as the previous or the next ones. One example of such systems is the weather patterns
observed or predicted by meteorologists in a particular region. Although all weather conditions
are accommodated in a particular climate, they are different from one day to another.
Fractal Shape: all strange attractors have a fractal shape. Fractal refers to groups that have
broken dimensions so that each one looks like an exact copy of the second. In other words,
complex systems are self-similar in their shape. Cauliflower is a tangible example of having a
self-similar fractal shape in which the head flower consists of many smaller flowers that resemble
each other and together form a larger similar whole. In mathematics, Mandelbrot group is an
instance of fractal shape.
CHAOS/ COMPLEX SYSTEMS AND LITERATURE
Adopting a scientific approach based on the CCT principles, and regarding the characteristics of
complex nonlinear systems, literature in general, and its genres and sub-genres in particular, can
be analyzed and introduced as a complex system.
Similar to complex nonlinear systems, literature is dynamic because its manifestations change
and differ over time. Formalism, modernism, post-modernism, and many other schools of thought
are the evolving modes in which literature has appeared. The materialization of literary texts such
173
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org as poem from traditional poetry to new poetry, also in changing from different types of poem
such as sonnet, ballad, elegy, ode, eclogue, quatorzain, sestina, roundelay, palinode,
prothalamium, etc. suggest the dynamic nature of literature.
Complexity of literature is conspicuous. Almost all literary texts enjoy a kind of complexity. A
piece of poem, novel, short story, drama or other literary products cannot be easily conceived
without having enough knowledge of the typical literary devices such as Irony, ambiguity,
suspense, foreshadowing, metaphor, conceit, allusion, simile, etc. which are frequently used by
literary authors.
A third characteristic of complex systems is their nonlinearity or disproportionateness of
in/output. As mentioned above, this attribute is in line with camel’s back metaphor according to
which a very light straw (input) can break a camel’s back if the required preconditions for a
complex nonlinear system are not fulfilled. Maybe this feature of nonlinearity is the point in
which literature and other complex systems share the highest level of resemblance. If one
considers a literary work like a poem as an input, one cannot exactly predict how much it will
affect the readers. While there is a direct and one to one relationship between input and output in
linear systems, for example the relationship between the time of exercising and the amount of
losing weight, in nonlinear systems this is not that straightforward. A piece of poem is an optimal
example of such nonlinear disproportionateness. Sometimes a fourteen-line sonnet or a fable has
such a strong life-changing impact on the reader from psychological, mental, emotional, or
ethical aspects that no other phenomena could be found to have such influence. Catharsis, a
unique outcome in Aristotle’s tragedy, which results in purgation or purification after reading a
tragic drama, is an instance of such literary experience (Abrams, 1993). Compared to other kinds
of input, a literary experience, as the subconscious involvement and absorption in the mainstream
flow of the events is a noteworthy consequence of a simple piece of poem or literary prose.
Being chaotic, unpredictable, and sensitive to initial conditions, which are characteristics of
nonlinear systems, are detectable in literary works too. As mentioned above, chaos of complex
systems is associated with their complete randomness leading to the unpredictability of the
system’s behavior. This situation is discernible in literature as well. Almost all literary works,
especially those written in prose, such as short stories, novels, drama, etc., do not follow a direct
and straightforward flow of happenings. In Aristotle’s tragedy, hamartia or the tragic flow that a
drama’s protagonist commits will manipulate the readers’ or the viewers’ feeling and
consequently evoke their sense of pity and fear. This evocation, of course, is not predictable and
the audience will not expect when or where it will exactly happen. Consequently, sensitivity to
initial conditions is a major factor affecting the whole flow of the theme or plot of a literary
work. Many lyric poems sung or written by famous poets are the mere result of a lover’s glance
at the beloved and looking at and absorbing in her enchantment and fascination.
Like complex systems, literature does not tend towards a consistency or equilibrium; but rather, it
is open and susceptible to interpretation. The number of interpretations and judgments on a
literary work may be as much as all those who expose the very literary work. Regardless of the
174
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org time and place of the creation of a poem or novel, a literary text may have dissimilar
connotations.
Another attribute of literature is its self-organizing and adaptive nature due to the feedbacks it
receives from both readers and critics. As far as a piece of poem is concerned, the notions like
stanza, rhythm, couplet, heroic couplet, triplet, quatrain, tetrameter, pentameter, iambic, rime
scheme, octive, sestet, Shakespearean sonnet, Italian sonnet, ballad, etc. are indications of the
existence of a particular organization in the poem in front of the reader. As for the prose works
like dramas and stories, elements like theme, plot, and structure are indicators of a text’s
organization. For instance, a Shakespearean sonnet should follow a particular structure including
fourteen lines in three quatrains and one couplet written in iambic pentameter with the rhyme
scheme of “ab ab cd cd ef ef gg.” As far as the Italian or Petrarchean sonnet is concerned, the
fourteen lines should be in an octive and a sestet order. This feature is also meaningful for the
other feature of complex systems called fractal shape. A complex system, as mentioned above, is
fractal in shape; that is, its sub-components are self-similar at different levels of scale.
Considering this feature, all literary works, especially poems in different styles and types,
regardless of their building vocabulary follow an orderly rhyming scheme causing all works of
the same style seem alike.
Of course, the content of the literary works and the meaning they convey differ depending on the
surrounding framework. For example, in the petrarchean sonnet, a problem is raised, and in the
sestet, the poet’s ideology is expressed towards that problem. In fact, these structures and
frameworks have been changing during different eras and depending on the kind of feedback they
received in different social and political conditions. Incontrovertibly, sometimes epic and heroic
poems were in vogue, and some other time lyric and passionate poems were in favor. As a result,
depending on the popular mode of the time, various styles and frameworks for literary works
were adopted and utilized.
As a characteristic of complex systems, strange attractor implies a kind of unpredictability within
a predictable pattern. Literature is nothing short of such attribute. Although the frameworks
literary works should reside within is something fixed and to some extent predetermined, it does
not imply that all bodies of literature are the same. Innumerous lyric, epic, dramatic, narrative etc.
literary works in both poem and prose forms and in different literary schools like classism,
futurism, existentialism, post/modernism, romanticism, occultism, neo/realism, structuralism,
symbolism, etc. have their own existence independent from their other counterparts in the same
category. This attribute indicates that regardless of the literary schools or styles, every piece of
literary work is a unique entity with its own idiosyncratic attributes.
APPLICATIONS IN CLASSROOM
According to Long (1990), dealing with language as a complex nonlinear system results in reevaluating the possible assumptions about the mechanisms operating in SLA. In a parallel
manner, seeing literature from a CCT perspective could shift the view from the focus on
linguistic aspects such as vocabulary expansion or grammatical and structural complexity to more
175
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org scientific and comprehensive aspects. Most previous studies advocating the inclusion of literature
in English language teaching classes share the following ideas that literature is beneficial in the
learners’ growth of vocabulary, syntax, cultural awareness, communicative competence, reading
comprehension, discourse analysis, learning autonomy, etc. (Spack, 1985; Gajdusek, 1988;
Sinclair, 1994). Such attitude towards literature provides a narrow view or a weak version of
literature analysis. A broader view or, as this study suggests, the strong version of literature
analysis takes literature into account not only from the linguistic aspects but also from the
scientific aspect of chaos complexity theory. This new approach proposes that TEFL teachers
view literature as a whole with its underlying and interrelated features rather than an entity with
isolated elements.
This approach also proposes a new definition for teaching based on which learning literature is
not just teaching some lexical or grammatical items; rather, it is the inculcation of conscious as
well as subconscious literary experiences and understandings. In teaching literature, it is also
recommended that teachers not only consider literary texts as the provided input but also consider
learners as the receivers of the input. As mentioned above, like complex nonlinear systems, the
impact a literary text may have is divergent and varying from one person to another. The
idiosyncrasy of the learners may be an influencing factor for language acquisition. Proponents of
CCT argue that in the process of language learning and teaching, the learner factor is, if not more,
as pivotal and effective as the teacher factor.
Finally yet importantly, the CCT perspective encourages the teachers to adopt a fuzzy logicbased view towards the phenomena of literature, language learning, and language teaching. To
think fuzzy requires thinking in relational terms. As an open system, literature is changing and
evolving over time; hence, fuzzy logic opposes absolute or deterministic thinking. As different
approaches and methodologies rise and fall regarding the nature of language acquisition and
language teaching, the definition of literature and the views on the nature of literature may
change over time. In sum, teachers should not adhere to a single approach or methodology, but
rather, to encourage learners think critically and with more autonomy.
CONCLUSION
This study argued that literature could be seen and coped with as a complex nonlinear system.
Accordingly, such a view can open a new perspective in studying literary texts as a teaching
material in EFL/ESL classes. The traditional views on literature used to focus on the linguistic
aspects to elaborate on de/merits of using literary texts; that is, they much talked about literature
rather than analyzing literature, per se. Through adopting a scientific approach, this study,
however, was a probe into the critical nature of literature and tried to shift the focus of studies on
this issue from a traditional perspective to a more modern and scientific one.
It is worth reminding that this study coped with literature in its general sense. It neither dealt with
the literature of a particular language nor with a particular literary type or literary work. It could
be the focus of other studies. This study, however, concentrated on the literature as it is defined in
its inclusive meaning.
176
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org REFERENCES
Abrams, M. H. (1993). A glossary of literary terms (6th ed.). Orlando: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.
Allen, W.J. (2001). The need to link 'soft' and 'hard' research activities within multi-disciplinary
science teams. New Zealand: Massay University.
Amer, A. (2003). Teaching EFL/ESL literature. The Reading Matrix, 3 (2), 63-73.
Calvino, I. (2009). Why read the Classics? London: Penguin Classics.
Carter, R., & Long, M.N. (1991). Teaching literature. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Churchland, P. (1988). Matter and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Crutchfield, J., Farmer, J. D., Packard, N., & Shaw. R. (1986). Chaos. Scientific American, 12,
46-57.
Davies, P. (1988). The cosmic blueprint. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Duff, A., & Maley, A. (2007). Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A. (2014). Towards fuzzy scores in language multiple-choice tests.
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 6(2), 291308.
Gajdusek, L. (1988). Toward wider use of literature in ESL: why and how. TESOL Quarterly, 22
(2), 227-257.
Gajdusek, L., & Van Dommelen, D. (1987, March). Exploring literature and teaching grammar
in intermediate ESL. Paper presented at the 1987 CATESOL Conference, Pasadena, CA.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking Penguin.
Judge, B., Jones, P., & McCreery, E. (2009). Critical thinking skills for education students.
Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe. London: Pinguin.
Khatib, M., Derakhshan, A., Rezaei, S. (2011). Why and why not literature: A task-based
approach to teaching literature. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), 213218.
Kohler, W. (1970). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology.
New York: Liveright.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition, Applied
Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity
theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language Acquisition and socialization (pp. 3346). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Long, M. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL
Quarterly. 24, 649-66.
Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 20, 130141.
Maley, A. (1989). Down from the pedestal: Literature as resource. In R. Carter, R. Walker & C.
Brumfit (eds.), Literature and the learner: methodological approaches. (pp. 1-9). Modern
English Publications and the British Counsel.
177
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (1), September 2014; 167-­‐178 Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Maley, A. (2008). Extensive reading: Maid in waiting. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language
learning materials: A critical review (pp. 32-37). Petaling Jaya: Pearson Malaysia.
Maley, A. (2010, October). Literature from the outside in and from the inside out. Paper
presented at the Asia TEFL Conference, Hanoi.
McGroarty, M., & Galvan, J. L. (1985). Culture as an issue in second language teaching. In M.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Beyond basics: Issues and research in TESOL (pp. 81-95). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
McRae, J. (1991). Literature with a small ‘l’. London: Macmillan.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos. New York: Bantam.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary
work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Savvidou, C. (2004, December). An integrated approach to teaching literature in the EFL
classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 10 (12) 4-5. Retrieved from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Savvidou-Literature.html
Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20,
617-648.
Sinclair, B. (1994). Learner autonomy and literature teaching. GRETA: Revised para profesores
de Ingles, 2(2), 17-24.
Spack, R. (1985). Literature, reading, writing, and ESL: Bridging the gaps. TESOL Quarterly, 19,
703-725.
Timucin, M. (2001). Gaining insight into alternative teaching approaches employed in an EFL
literature class. Revista de Filología y su Didáctica, 24, 269-293.
Valle Jr., V. (2000, April). Chaos, complexity, and deterrence. Paper presented at National War
College, retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/valle.pdf,Internet.
Van, T.T.M. (2009). The Relevance of literary analysis to teaching literature in the EFL
Classroom. English Teaching Forum, 3, 2-9.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control 8(3), 338–353.
Zadeh, L. A. (1994). Fuzzy Logic, neural networks, and soft computing. Communication of the
ACM, 37 (3), 77-84.
178