Semiotic analysis of textual communication in Snow by Julia Alvarez

Öz The use of literary texts in language classes does not find enough space within the scope of English language teaching programs in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) settings, where direct exposure to second language (L2) is considerably limited due to pseudo communicative language teaching environment. Literary texts provide ample opportunity for the learner to study the target language in a natural way with all the necessary corpora rich in powerful textual communication where linguistic, pragmatic and literary studies are presented in the same medium concurrently. The whole idea behind this article is not to substitute criticism for literature, but to make it the object of study in an inter-textual system of relations by connecting one text to the already existing ones created in the same literary tradition. The relation between semiotic analysis and textual communication with reference to the seven standards of textuality is provided within a mellifluent blend for the sake of comprehensive understanding of the semiotic analysis of textual communication in the story. Textual analysis of the story by considering all the standards of textuality is displayed with all the necessary input in order for the learner to move on to semiotic analysis of textual communication in the short story. Semiotic analysis of the story is presented in line with the accepted strategies of the reading activity developed in consecutive steps. Having provided with the phases of the approach the reader is expected to develop a comprehensive view of how to become autonomous learner responsible for his own learning. The reader not only develops the interpretative skills by acquiring the accepted strategies of semiotic analysis, but also enhances awareness of life, for literary studies help develop a thorough perception of life by going through the private psychological experience of the protagonist. The reader is expected to appreciate and acquire the sort of wisdom lying behind the moral lesson of the story to understand life better, and in turn to appreciate the unalienable human rights that guarantee freedom of the mankind in this world.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

standards of textuality; semiotic analysis; literary studies; critical reading

PDF

___

Abrams, M. H. (Ed.). (1993). The Norton anthology of English literature. (Vol.2). New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Alvarez, J. (1991). How the Garcia girls lost their accents. New York: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

Barthes, R. (1994). Elements of semiology. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

Beaugrande, R. A., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.

Brown, G., &Yule, G. (1985). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Derrida, J. (1997). Writing and difference. London: Routledge.

Eco, U. (1979). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Eco, U. (1985). The role of the reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Errol, M. (1993). The fog of war: Eleven lessons from the life Robert Strange McNamara. New York, NY: Columbia Pictures.

Erton, İ. (2006). Semiotic nature of language teaching methods in foreign language teaching and learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 2(1), 73-86.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage.

Haba, J. (1995). (Ed.). The language of life: A festival of poets. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Halliday, M. K., & Hasan, R. (1975). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Hawkes, T. (1992). Structuralism and Semiotics. London: Routledge.

Hopkins, K., & Beard, M. (2011). The colosseum. London: Profile Books.

Hunter, J. P.; Booth, A., & Mays, K. J. (Eds.). (2007). The Norton introduction to poetry. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Kumral, N. (2006). Incorporating semiotic communication into EFL reading classes. Education and Science, 31(141), 21-31.

Kumral, N. (2009). Prufrock is alive and doing well: How to make use of CALLA in semiotic reading of literary texts. Ekev Academic Review, 39, 321-340.

Kurtul, K. (2013). Cellât ve Ağlayan Yüz adlı hikâyenin göstergebilimsel açıdan çözümlemesi. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 9(1), 81-94. Retrieved from http://www.jlls.org/vol9no1/81-94.pdf

Leech. G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Lodge, D., & Wood, N. (Eds.). (2000). Modern criticism and theory (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.

Lyon, J. K. (2005). Alvarez: Writing a new place on the map. Albuquerque, NM: The University of New Mexico Press.

Lyons, J. (1990). Language and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Queiroz, J., & Merrel, F. (2006). Semiosis and pragmatism: Toward a dynamic concept of meaning. Sign System Studies, 34(1), 37-65.

Salkie, R. (1995). Text and discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

Schärer, G. (1985). A plea for poetry in the African secondary school. English Teaching Forum, 23(1), 12-14.

Schiffren, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.

Scholes, R. (1982). Semiotics and interpretation. New York, NY: Yale University Press.

Scholes, R. (1985). Textual power. New York, NY: Yale University Press.

Sert, O. (2006). Semiotic approach and its contributions to language learning and teaching. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32, 106-114.

Sirias, S. (2001). Julia Alvarez: A critical companion. West Port, CT: Greenwood Press.

Sless, D. (1986). In Search of semiotics. London: Croomhelm.

Şenel, M. (2007). The semiotic approach and language teaching and learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 3(1), 117-132. Retrieved from http://www.jlls.org/Issues/Volume%203/No.1/msenel.pdf

Van Dijk T. (1981). Studies in the pragmatics of discourse. Paris: Mouton.

Yule, G. (1997). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.