SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS‟ POETIC APPRECIATION SKILLS
SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS‟ POETIC
APPRECIATION SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
Abstract
The
paper examines the teacher factor in the development of poetic appreciation
skills among Senior Secondary School (SSS) students. A questionnaire was
administered and data collected from two secondary schools in Ibadan, Oyo
State, Nigeria. The data is analysed using mean average, frequency count,
column chart, and rank scale. The major finding is that the teacher is a significant
factor in the development of Senior Secondary School students’ poetry
appreciation proficiency. Moreover, the effect of book scarcity, which could be
severe due to the current economic problems worldwide, could be mitigated
through the teacher’s creativity. A reconsideration of curriculum choices in
terms of recommended poetry texts to reflect familiar African cultural products
before the unfamiliar European ones is also advocated.
Index
Terms—poetry, teacher factor, linguistic incompetence, L2 learners, English
language, literature education
INTRODUCTION
Poetry
has been described by many as an artistic creation which is meant to excite the
senses. It has also been described as a product of imagination and emotional
and imaginative discourse in metrical form, which represents ideas that have
special reference to emotional significance (Senanu & Vincent, 1976;
Abrams, 1981). Poetry is an imaginative art and therefore very personal to the
poet. Being a product of imagination personal to the poet, it becomes coloured,
inspired by the emotions of this person (Akporobaro, 2008; Dasylva &
Jegede, 2005; Egudu, 1977). It is these emotions and ideas private to the poet
that we must get at and try to unravel through poetic appreciation.
Poetry
is also a discourse. Every discourse makes use of language (Leech, 1969;
Toolan, 1998; Chase & Collier, 1985). This is why some scholars tend to
call it language of feeling, which is the perceived notion of poetry by the
18th century Romanticists. William Wordsworth went as far to as to define
poetry as the expression of powerful feelings recalled in tranquillity
(Wordsworth, 1802). This indicates one quality of poetry that is very obvious
and, to many, ominous: intensity (cf. Knapton & Evans, 1967). Beyond mere
emotive display by poetry, some scholars regard it as an organisation of
language (Fowler, 1981; Short, 1996; Simpson, 1997). This seems to vindicate
the Russian formalists‟ position that poetry is all sufficient in itself.
The
question however is this: Is poetry really self-sufficient? Is the structural
form of a poetic piece adequate to give all the meanings derivable from it as a
work of art? This remains a source of great controversy for the simple fact
that poetry seems to have as its pivot language, because the forms and meanings
of literature (poetry) are linguistically generated. It is the tool with which
the poet creates their work. Though, it is not a kind of language, it certainly
is a use of language. It is a rich exploitation of the reference and
relationships inherent in language ((Empson, 1936) in Fowler, 1973).
While
linguists, psychologists, and philosophers have pondered on the nature of
language for years, the essential consensus is that language is a tool or channel
through which information is passed from person to person (cf. Medina, 2005).
Language is also seen as an avenue of expressing ideas, and one may dare say,
the poet‟s ideas. As a channel of information (Miller, 1951), language seeks to
be meaningful for the receiver of the information to decode the intended
message. Poetic language may, therefore, be seen as the language of poetry, or
what may also be called poetic diction. If language is thus the expression of
ideas, poetic language may be called that which expresses the poet‟s ideas. It
conveys information from the poet to their audience. Obviously, the poet makes
use of ordinary language to achieve „effect‟, which often arose from a rich
exploitation of the references and relationships inherent in language.
No comments