Creative Writing Vs Copywriting: Between the Art and Science 

Abstract: Initially, I viewed content writing as akin to creative writing, but team discussions stressed SEO-friendly language over linguistic flourish. Reader Response theory, suggesting varied interpretations based on context, blurred these boundaries. While content writing's SEO constraints may seem limiting, traditional poetic forms with strict rules show that structured creativity isn't new. Ultimately, creativity transcends words; it's about cognitive engagement, making the finesse of writing, not the medium, the true measure of creativity.

 

A few years back, when I joined my first position as a Content Writer while pursuing a Postgraduate degree in English Literature, I was confident that "Content Writing" was simply the art of weaving words from our mastery of language, much like writing poetry or prose, which I had already been doing. I aimed to be as creative as possible, but during team meetings, the discussions often revolved around the idea that "Creativity isn't a matter of utmost priority; rather, creativity should be palatable to a global audience." This was a common topic whenever I used rare words in regular social media posts that might not be optimal for SEO. In a nutshell, content writers must "Be Shakespeare but write textbooks.

My journey of defining and differentiating Content Writing from Creative Writing started there. Is there a difference? If so, how? If not, why?

The Reader Response theory in English Literary Criticism posits that "Every reading is a misreading." It depends on the context in which the reader finds themselves. It suggests that the same sentence can be understood in various ways. For example, if a highly influential person gets on stage before an enlightened crowd and says, "Nobody can bring change. We have to bring it ourselves," it becomes a moment of motivation for the audience. However, if the same words were spoken by a ticket conductor on a local bus, the meaning would be different. The textual gaps that readers interpret matter. According to this theory, there can be no universally accepted explanation of any sentence in a "Public discourse." Therefore, whether a sentence falls under "Creative Writing" or "Content Writing," the central core is essentially deconstructed.

I don't understand why people believe that "Content Writing" should not be creative. This notion might stem from the idea that being creative in language means using flowery language. Does creativity necessarily mean that? For me, it doesn't. If there's a discussion titled "What is creativity?" I doubt there would be a decisive answer. To be honest, textbooks which take this as their heading really do not answer it beacuse 'Creativity is something that cannot be taught' and ofcourse something that cannot be taught is hard to define. 

I think modern copywriting differentiates itself from Creative Writing due to the technical obligations imposed on it. The emphasis on keyword research and SEO requirements often places copywriting at an upper hand but makes it seem less creative. Is writing poetry different from copywriting? When we look back at traditional poetic forms where certain meters gauge creativity and prosody is a matter of concern, we see that this notion isn't new. Even Indian languages like Telugu have the concept of "Chandassu" and "avadaanam," which set certain rules for content creators (linguistic experts?) to follow. Aren't these similar to keywords derived from research? If that's the case, should sonnets be considered copywriting instead of creative writing?

It's time to associate creativity with cognitive abilities rather than physical attributes (of a language). Words alone do not determine whether something is creative or not.

People often say there's a thin line between Creative Writing and Copywriting, but I believe there isn't. The main difference is that Creative Writing aims to create different interpretations for different audiences, whereas Copywriting strives to create a common interpretation for public discourse, which doesn't always succeed.

So, the finer one's writing, the more creative it is.

- Pity Parker

25/5/24

Look back the Misogyny in Osborne’s Anger (Academic paper)

 

Look back the Misogyny in Osborne’s Anger 

Abstract:

Anger can be a positive and useful emotion if it is expressed appropriately. The outburst of anger may have its origin from different contexts but Osborne had dealing with the anger of the past and the play is recounting the anger legacy of Jimmy. The dramatist was successful in intersecting elements of his (Jimmy’s) working class agony into anger. The protagonist, Jimmy is presented as an angry young man who becomes the victim of his own disillusionment and despair.   In the process of venting out Anger, the agonized child born out of oppression had turned into arrogance. This working class anger has often been race-blind, class-blind, and gender-blind resulting in short-sightedness in feminist, Marxist, and ideological interpretations and the same happened in Osborne where he calls on apples to Oranges. The aim of this writing is to derive out the elements which blinded the readers or dramatist to look back at the elements of toxic masculine arrogance in the name of working class anger.

Main Paper

            The canonisation of the texts in English often has many intersectional reasons and it’s surprising that the majority of the mainstream literature is ‘man’s’. To be more significant ‘Male’s’. Woman’s writing yet competent was put a feminist tag rather than considering canonical in the mainstream literary space. Surprisingly, the texts branded as ‘feminist’ have a lot of critics to critique it for their quality whereas, on the other side, the texts which are called to be canonical (though Chauvinist) drape some other ideology and get presented before the audience in a different lens. Osborne’s play “Look Back in Anger” is one of such which is branded essentially radical play about our class-ridden society. The play is credited for being so different from the other plays in the middle fifties because of the ‘Stark realism’ it shows but the nature of the play seems far from this argument. It brings “unbridled abusiveness and sheer savagery on to the stage for the first time on the stage”[1]. It being called the working Class anger is the beauty of blinding the oppression. Osborne uses the insubstantial class element in the play as a tool to attack Women disguised in pseudo-social construct.

            The play “is a one-man play per excellence”[2]. From the beginning of the play, Jimmy is the only Heroic character in the play. The heroic character is given the absolute liberty to vent out his oppression. He goes to the extent of using a very odious language to anyone who talks against him and in extreme when it’s an woman and it has no justified reason. The hero is like “one sun around which all the other characters revolve as mere satellites. One single character is given all the strong language (often called ‘the good lines’), all the abuse, the invective, the caustic ‘humour’[3]. The audience has to take it for granted that the central character, Osborne’s mouthpiece, has the right to make any attack. Taylor has a very different opinion on this working class hero. She interprets, “It is difficult to see Jimmy as a heroic person, but he is a self – inflicted exile from the world, drawing strength from his own weakness and joy from his own misery”[4]

            Linda Hall discusses in her essay on Sex and class in John Osborne's Look back in Anger about this individual monarchy throughout the play. In this, she explains how the author skilfully carves the misogyny out of the play where the opposition is never given a chance to defend itself and allows the ranting angry young man to grow into “a figure that ‘outherods Herod’ to hog the play makes for very static drama and demonstrates thereby a singularly feeble and untalented approach to the dramatic craft.”[5] This emotion of anger portrayed as a working class emotion by the critics would definitely mean that “Anger seems to be a male prerogative”[6] and women should face that without any resistance and get back to their husband’s bed because Osborne didn’t allow women space enough to express their anger.  This one sided exercise of misogyny in the name of “vocal anger starts from the very beginning of the play and goes through many forms- invectives, parody, malice, mimicry, ruthless provocation and outright unbelievable cruelty right up to the end of the play” [7]

            In return to keeping up to all the humiliation and remaining calm, Alison’s “silence also angers him greatly which is the result of his incessant talking and he is unaware of its cause. Hence, he sarcastically calls her “monument to non-attachment” and tells Cliff: “Nothing I could do would provoke her”. Jimmy cannot understand that her silence is unnatural and rather forced by him”[8]. He comments about her silence from the very beginning of the play –

“She’s a great one for getting used to things. If she were to die, and awake up in a paradise – after the first five minutes, she’d have got used to it ”[9]

            Her silence in the face of Jimmy’s persistent provocation is a form of protest and to escape from this mental suffering she has to seek refuge in ironing and other household works all the time. For that too, Jimmy lashes out her for not reading a paper. The progressive man forgets that he and she are two different individuals and everyone has the right to do away with their life. If she tries to react, throwing a cup to the floor to vent out her anger he complains that she lacks backbone. He forgets that he is just a companion but acts like marrying one is like giving a license to be the slave. The chauvinistic nature does not recognise that he and her are two different creatures and this so called left progressive man unable to comprehend her rights is the irony.

            It’s better to call it Look back in rage than anger because Jimmy finds fault in everything that others do, especially women. He creates a fragile and tense atmosphere at the house that everyone fears him. It is evident when Alison says, “I dread him coming into the room”[10] The cause of his outburst of anger is “no real or imagined crimes but the communication collapses between them for no serious reasons”[11]. The anger and humiliation to Alison was not only at a mental level but also physical and it’s evident in the play where he pushes Cliff and Alison to the iron board by which Alison’s hand is burnt. The working class Jimmy answers very inhumane saying that he did it on purpose. “He is a tyrannical husband who drives his wife to despair by bullying her”[12]

            Jimmy’s anger at the start looks at an individual level but as the play progresses Alison is not seen as an individual but a representative of a whole class, not just women but upper class women. It is evident by his changing generalised rants with the common noun “woman”. The problem of this Class interpretation is not only with the readers and critics. Even Alison in the play mistakes Chauvinism to agony due to oppression in Act II, Scene I where she says –

“Together they were frightening. They both came to regard me as a sort of hostage from those sections of society they had declared war on.”[13]

            “If male-female relations are constructed in Class – terms, men are the ruling class, as Augusta Strindberg explains in his preface to Miss Julie – the aristocratic Julie is sexually ‘mastered’ by her father’s servant ‘simply because he is a man. Sexually he is an aristocrat. So Jimmy is a sexual aristocrat”[14]. So, it’s clear by here Jimmy has no clear Class consciousness as he claims, and to put it more clear his class anger only lies with Alison and her mother but not with her father Colonel. Redfern. It is evident in the play when Alison laments –

“He doesn’t seem to mind you so much. In fact, I think he rather likes you. He likes you because he can feel sorry for you”[15]

            It is fact that it is Alison’s father who starts and brings up all the problems relating to his marriage and Jimmy seems so negotiable in neglecting the Redfern since he’s a born male like Jimmy.

            Since the start of the play, Jimmy’s misogyny is clearly seen throughout the play. It is a fact that Alison is an independent woman of thought. That is the prime reason she left her Garden of Eden and landed in an uncanny room with jimmy expecting love. She is, of course, a symbol of resistance to breaking the bonds of tradition in the upper class women but Jimmy calls her “Lady Pusillanious” in a very triggering way that she lacks determination and audacity but it is Jimmy’s ideology that seems to be at the crossroads. “Alison is a trophy that he has won in the battle of classes. Jimmy’s misogyny becomes a substitute of class struggle. An abusive and aggressive masculinity becomes a replacement for the lost class identity”[16]

            Jimmy being violent always regards women as predators, crude and cruel creatures. This shows not only Jimmy’s hatred but also fear for women. To quote a few –

“Why do we let these woman bleed us to death”[17] (Act III, Scene I)

“Did you ever realize what a refined sort of Butcher she is. (turns in) Did you ever see some dirty old Arab, sticking his fingers into some mess of lamb fat and gristle? Well, she’s just like that”[18] (Act I, Scene I)

            Though he creates images of women with images of violence, death, and decay he did not stop himself from painting the picture of a woman as weak, meek, and many such generalised notions of the patriarchal society. It seems Jimmy left no chance in criticizing women. He calls women fragile in strength commenting on women energy as “frail little fists”[19] and asking Cliff, “Have you ever noticed how noisy women are”[20].

            Jimmy suffers from a confused personality. On one hand, he attracts women sexually but is not comfortable living with them on the other hand. It is because of his confused ideology which is outdated and Helena right calls that “he’s still in the middle of French revolution”[21]. He even treats virginity as a taboo and mocks them with that and Alison never understands what he actually wants. It’s hard to find out because he never gets into a dialogue. The majority of his presence in the play is long monologues that show his monarchical nature.

            Interpreting the play with the mask of Class anger would be an attempt to mask readers from the real issues. Concluding someone as the protagonist by painting a sympathetic picture seems to be the technique of the author to ease pity for the hero. He being Victim weighs less than his beastly acts as victimizer are placed on the other side.

***

Works Cited

 

Brooke, Stephen. Gender and Working Class Identity in Britain during the 1950s. Journal of Social History, vol. 34, no. 4, 2001. pp. 773–795. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3789418. Accessed 19 July 2021. (Web)

Gilleman, Luc M. The logic of Anger and despair in John Osborne: A casebook. Ed. Patricia D. Deninson. Newyork: Garland. 1997 (Print)

Hayman, Ronald. John Osborne. London: Heinemann. 1970 (Print)

Haque, Salma. Alison Porter in Look Back in Anger: Is She Responsible for her Sufferings?. IIUC Studies. 10. 65. 10.3329/iiucs.v10i0.27427. 2016. (Web)

Linda Hall. Sex and Class in John Osborne's Look back in Anger. Women's Studies International Forum. Volume 7, Issue 6, 1984. pp.505-510. ISSN 0277-5395, https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(84)90022-0. (Web)

Mukherjee, Sunanda. Why is Jimmy Porter Angry in Look Back in Anger: A Collection of Critical Essays. Amrita et all(ed.) Calcutta: Avantgarde Press. 2001(Print)

Muhammad, Rebwar. The Protagonist As a Victim and Victimizer in Osborne's look back in Anger. Journal of Koya University. ISSN. 2073-0713 (Print)

Osborne, John. Look Back in Anger. Pearson. p.42 (Print)

Works Consulted

 

Francis, Martin. The Domestication of the Male? Recent Research on Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century British Masculinity. The Historical Journal, vol. 45, no. 3, 2002. pp. 637–652. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3133500. Accessed 19 July 2021. (Web)

İzmir, Sibel. When Anger Turns into Rage: Displacement in John Osborne’s Look Back in Anger. ANQ A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles Notes and Reviews. 10.1080/0895769X.2020.1799740. 2020 (Web)

Kroll, Morton. The Politics of Britain's Angry Young Men. Social Science,vol. 36, no. 3, 1961. pp. 157–166. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41884871. Accessed 19 July 2021. (Web)

---

[1] Linda Hall. Sex and class in John Osborne's Look back in Anger. Women's Studies International Forum, Volume 7, Issue 6, 1984. p.505

[2] Hayman, Ronald. John Osborne. London: Heinemann. 1970. p.17

[3] Linda Hall. p.505

[4] Muhammad, Rebwar. The Protagonist As a Victim and Victimizer in Osborne's look back in Anger. Journal of Koya University. ISSN. 2073-0713. p.20

[5] Ibid, p.506

[6] Mukhopadhyay, Nabanita, Look of hatred: Misogyny in Look Back in Anger  in Look back in Anger. Pearson. p. 128

[7] Mukherjee, Sunanda. Why is Jimmy Porter Angry  in Look Back in Anger: A Collection of Critical Essays. Amrita et all(ed.) Calcutta: Avantgarde Press. 2001. p.12

[8] Haque, Salma. Alison Porter in Look Back in Anger: Is She Responsible for her Sufferings?. IIUC Studies. 10. 65. 10.3329/iiucs.v10i0.27427. 2016. p.66

[9] Osborne, John. Look Back in Anger. Pearson. p.42

[10] Ibid, p.45

[11] Muhammad, Rebwar. p.19

[12] Gilleman, Luc M. The logic of Anger and despair in John Osborne: A casebook. Ed. Patricia D. Deninson. Newyork: Garland. 1997. p. 33

[13] Osborne, John. p.42

[14] Mukhopadhyay, Nabanita. p.124

[15] Osborne, John. p.69

[16] Brooke, Stephen. “Gender and Working Class Identity in Britain during the 1950s.” Journal of Social History, vol. 34, no. 4, 2001. p. 778

[17] Osborne, John. p.19

[18] Ibid, p.89

[19] Ibid, p.58

[20]  Ibid, p.58

[21] Ibid, p.96

ESL Classroom: Learners’ Perceptions (An academic paper)

 

ESL Classroom: Learners’ Perceptions

 

Abstract

In a banking system where the teacher is the depositor and learner is the depository, the learners’ role and his needs are designed by teachers based on popular beliefs and canonical methodologies. Any learning involves two parties and the perceptions of both the parties needs to be taken into consideration to achieve the objective of the course. In a multi-cultural ESL classroom it’s challenging to have a uniform set of perceptions because the problems and solutions are intersectional in nature. This paper aims to look at the learners’ perceptions in an intersectional ESL classroom and find some commonality in the problems in learning a language.

Keywords: ESL Classroom, Learner centered pedagogy, ESL student

 

Introduction

            English as Second language (ESL) is the use of English by speakers with different native languages. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) unlike the mother tongue mostly is acquired by methods rather than instinct. In this crucial juncture in learning a language it is the classroom that acts as the mother’s lap where learners’ acquire/learn the second language. ESL students constitute only a half or quarter in native English speaking countries whereas the Indian English medium classrooms are ESL classrooms in absolute. Several methodologies competed to claim to have the best approaches for teaching or learning a language but no methodology is absolute.

Any teaching methodology/pedagogy is born out of the error correction of the existing methodologies and mapping neoteric methods. The method and the approaches should fulfil both the financer (teacher) and the stakeholder (learner). ESL classrooms are majorly multi-cultural and the researchers yielding a competitive methodology have many intersectional elements. To map a new method, the perception of the ESL learners should occupy the first place but unfortunately, that has been ignored in the mapping process. Even the reasons why Learners’ perception is given less heed also has intersectional answers.

The Scope

            The need or the necessity of Learners’ perception in designing a curriculum would be more important to devise the scope of the area. Learner beliefs may influence teachers' classroom activities (Borg, 2003; Burgess & Etherington, 2002), and unrealistic beliefs or misconceptions about language learning can impede the learning process (Sawir, 2002). Learner beliefs, which have been described as learners’ meta-cognitive knowledge about learning (Wenden, 1999), have, in general, received less attention than teacher beliefs.  In this banking system of education where the teacher is a depositor and the student is depository the learners’ perception has been titular in designing the curriculum. Allwright (1984) says that “very many teachers seem to find it difficult to accept their learners as people with a positive contribution to make to the instructional process” (p.167), and Rudduck (1991) refers to ignoring learners’ views as “our blind spot. Mori (1999) found those language learners' beliefs about general learning and language learning more specifically were independent constructs.    

            NCERT Position paper says, “The level of introduction of English is now a matter of political response to people’s aspirations rather than an academic or feasibility issue”. Though the prime source of ignition may be political, English has been acquired by the learners’ objectives which are diverse; career, Research, Job, Language proficiency, etc,. In such a Classroom, the individual perceptions and beliefs needs to be addressed with a learner-friendly curriculum which brings solution to many mutual problems of the different group or different problems in a mutual group in learning a language. 

            We cannot completely portray Teachers as the reasons for the curriculum  The hidden message in technical conceptions of teacher education is that teachers are merely implementers of instructional systems; there is no room for teacher questions, decisions, or the generation of knowledge. Teachers complain skill development being preferred to Critical questioning and problem solving. Technical conceptions serve to de-skill many teachers because they were never taught to make instructional decisions or directed toward viewing decision making as an integral part of their role (Ginsburg, 1988). The main tool for accountability is the standardized test. And although standardized tests are not necessarily linked to what is actually taught, test scores are used to rank, reward, or most often punish students, teachers, and schools. Teachers have been pressured to teach to the test. So, mending the curriculum is dealing with a two edged sword where the beliefs and perceptions of both have to taken into regard but that should second the scrutiny and it is this group which should be given space in scrutinising the learners’ belief to mend the curriculum

            Since, we cannot discuss the perceptions of all the methodologies, for the sake of our research let’s divide the language acquisition instruction into two types – one is form focussed and the other is meaning focussed. Meaning-focused instruction is based on the assumption that, like first language (LI) acquisition, L2 acquisition occurs unconsciously and implicitly. The theorists believe that there is little or no benefit in directing learners’ attention to form and its proponents argue that exposure to comprehensible input is sufficient for L2 learning and that grammar will take care of itself. Only the availability of comprehensible input and  low affective filter in the learner are necessary for language learning.  Any overt attention to linguistic form is unnecessary, and any corrective feedback is ineffective (e.g., Krashen, 1981; Newmark &: Reibel).   Counterevidence to the effectiveness of purely meaning-focused instruction has been raised, particularly by the research in Canadian (e.g., Swain, 1985) immersion programs, which suggests that even after many years of exposure to the target language (TL), L2 learners' production is still grammatically inaccurate.  

            The “Form-focused instruction” is an umbrella term. It was coined by Spada and consists of two broad types: focus-on-forms (FONFS) and focus-on-form (FONF). Long (1996) agreed with Krashen with focus – on – form that the overriding focus of L2 classes should be on meaning but he acknowledged the need for some focus on grammar. It should occur spontaneously in reaction to learners’ needs, be brief, and preferably implicit.  The FonFs alternative advocates a proactive approach to grammar and is often associated with traditional grammar-based L2 instruction, where the typical sequence of instruction is presentation of rules of preselected grammatical structures, followed by drills and then some controlled practice in the use of these structures. By these methods we can find out that the major considerations of language learning is about learning through grammar or without a grammar and we shall bring two important surveys in which learners’ opinions are recorded abou the same

BALLI Studies & MSU survey

            Interest in L2 learner beliefs was stimulated by Horwitz's (1988) creation of the well-known Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) questionnaire, which triggered the so- called "BALLI studies". Howritz opines that Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of grammar rules. Results from the BALLI studies (e.g., Peacock, 2001; Samimy & Lee, 1997) seem to suggest that most learners agree with this statement. Of the students, 90% thought it imperative to be corrected while speaking in class, whereas only 34% of the teachers thought this to be so, showing some discrepancies between student and teacher beliefs about oral error correction. Despite the discord between teachers and students regarding oral correction, around 90% of teachers and students agreed that errors should be explicitly corrected in written work. Bang (1999) found that most students felt that oral correction was necessary for language learning, but they disagreed on when and how it should be done. Thus, although students may believe that error correction is essential for language learning, there is no consensus on how this error correction should be implemented.

            Like BALLI studies, the researchers here in a questionnaire survey was conducted at Michigan State University (MSU) by Shawn Loewen, Shaofeng Li, Fei, Amy Thompson, Kimi Nakatsukasa, Seongmee Ahnand Xiaoqing Chen (2015) focussed on learners perceptions particularly from the BALLI studies’ results i.e., on Error Correction and Grammar. Majority of the Foreign language learners opined about grammar learning as complicated, but very interesting (Arabic) but English language learners blow up the opinion that they don't like memorizing grammars, to be given a list of grammar rules and then memorizing them. The interesting thing to say that learners are aware an mature is that despite the difficulties in learning English they feel that it is basic for academic success.

            ESL learners were less convinced about the need for grammar instruction and error correction and were more enthusiastic about improving communicative skills than were foreign language learners. English learners were living in an English-speaking context, they were more likely to have more opportunities for communicating in the TL, and for this reason, they may have placed a higher priority on such communication rather than on grammar instruction.  Error correction was viewed separately, and somewhat negatively, by the participants. It is interesting to note that learners viewed error correction and grammar instruction as distinct categories, whereas researchers might view error correction as a type of focus on form and, thus, a type of grammatical focus (Ellis, 2001; Long, 1996) It is almost clear by this that the learners’ pay no heed to the theoretical approaches that are drafted to distinguish between form and communication in a diversified ESL classroom. In Gardener’s socio-education model of SLA argues that language attitudes (to the target language group, to the target language, to learning the language, and to the language learning situation) determine the level of motivation, which in turn leads to various linguistic and non-linguistic outcomes as a result of acquiring language in formal and informal contexts. So, ending up with a distinct method would suffice nothing.

Observations

            The modern ESL classrooms have been (majority) dominated by worksheets and little instructional interaction, all students suffer at a double disadvantage. They often sit silently in these classrooms while teachers talk, and their language and academic development are therefore impeded.  Typical classroom language follows a pattern where teachers initiate the conversation, students respond, and teachers evaluate the students' responses. This model of classroom language was referred to by Mehan (1979) as IRE (initiate, response, evaluate). The problem with IRE is that it is dominated by teacher talk and its narrow framework does not encourage students to use language to learn.  KNOWN- ANSWER questions in these are in majority in this case too. An instructional method that inculcates reflex in communication has been a petition from the Learners’ side.

            Intelligence has been confined to be a body of experts and this body has been deciding the curriculum.. The Corpora of texts that are selected for ESL classroom mandates the learners’ growth. Jabbour (2001) points out that ‘‘a corpus approach befits teaching second language reading and writing, since both activities are text oriented and make use of words and word combinations, or lexical patterns, within the confines of discourse’’ (p. 294) Tao (2001) observes, of its ‘‘potential to make explicit the more common patterns of language use’’ (p. 116)

But, some texts may not be compatible with the cultural background of a student but it has been an obligation. This cult of expertise in designing a dominant curriculum which aligns to a particular culture may be considered as the hindrance in learning a language

Conclusion

No curriculum can claim to be truly learner - centred unless the learner’s subjective needs and perceptions relating to the processes of learning are taken into account”. It is hard for a diversified ESL classroom to have a significant pedagogy or methodology for teaching language.

Flexibility in the syllabi shall be the best answer to tackle such indifference can be the major findings from the Learners’’ perceptions. Critical thinking and independent learning should be the major takeaway of language learning process. The learners should not be made completely dependent on teachers or worksheets. Signature pedagogy needs to be brought where the students are allowed to draft or take part in making the curriculum where the students should turn depositors in the system and teachers shall mend and evaluate the curriculum amendments made by the student.

Works Consulted

LOEWEN, SHAWN & Li, Shaofeng & FEI, FEI & Thompson, Amy & Nakatsukasa, Kimi & AHN, SEONGMEE & CHEN, XIAOQING. (2009). Second Language Learners' Beliefs About Grammar Instruction and Error Correction. The Modern Language Journal. 93. 91 - 104. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x.

Ahmadi, Faezeh & Shafiee, Sajad. (2015). L2 TEACHERSʼ AND LEARNERSʼ BELIEFS ABOUT GRAMMAR. IJLLALW. 9. 245-261.

Clair, N. (1995). Mainstream Classroom Teachers and ESL Students. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 189-196. doi:10.2307/3587817

Barkhuizen, G. (1998). Discovering Learners' Perceptions of ESL Classroom Teaching/Learning Activities in a South African Context. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 85-108. doi:10.2307/3587903

Storch, N. (2018). Meaning-Focused Versus Form-Focused Instruction. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (eds J.I. Liontas, T. International Association and M. DelliCarpini). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0690

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.

Horwitz,E.(1988).The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294.

Jabbour, G. (2001). Lexis and grammar in second language reading and writing. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Ed.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading–writing connections (pp. 291–308). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press

Tao, H. (2001). Discovering the usual with corpora: The case of remember. In R. Simpson & J. Swales (Eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 symposium (pp. 116–144). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29, 177–195

Samimy, K., & Lee, Y. (1997). Beliefs about language learning: Perspectives of first-year Chinese learners and their instructors. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 32, 40–60

Bang, Y. (1999). Reactions of EFL students to oral error correction. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 3, 39–51

Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413–468).SanDiego,CA:Academic Press.

Newmark, L., & Reibel, D. A. (1968). Necessity and suf- ficiency in language learning. International Review ofAppliedLinguisticsinLanguageTeaching,13,35– 40

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehen- sible output in it development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisi- tion (pp. 235–252). Rowley, MA: Newbury House

Borg, S. (2003a). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109

Burgess,J.,&Etherington,S.(2002).Focus on grammaticalform:Explicitorimplicit?System,30,433–458.

Wenden, A. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: Be- yond the basics. System, 27, 435–441

Allwright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5, 156–171.

Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about theirlearning? Language Learning,49, 377–415.

Ginsburg, M. (1988).Contradictions in teacher education: A critical analysis. Washing- ton, DC: Falmer Press

 

The unknown Indianness hiding behind a ‘phalanx of quotations’ - A subaltern reading of ‘Is there an Indian way of thinking?’

Interpreting Ramanujan, I think I need to be more context sensitive. So, before starting with the discussion, I feel obliged to start with some biographical account. Many years back, during my Intermediate, I’ve read a novel called “The untouchable” that talks about a ‘Dalit’. I felt agitated, sorry and impatient against the dominant characters in the novel. Few years later, after having read Ambedhkar, I read the novel once again. The agitation now I feel is not just against the characters in the story but also against the author and his dominant castes’ saviour complex. Comparing it to the lines of a Dalit author, I significantly found the difference that the former is trying to gain self-pity for the characters and the latter is proclaiming the self-esteem. It was almost clear for me that people outside the community cannot voice for the community. It may not seem relatable to bring this parallel to start with Ramanujan but the impressions of experience were almost the same. The impressions after reading Ramanujan essay, “Is there an Indian way of thinking” is first mindboggling but later felt that my community casted out from the context.

            The first day, I read Ramanujan’s essay, “Is there an Indian way of thinking?” was so interesting but re reading it later made me feel that the essayist is a bit privileged to generalize the notions. His concept of being ‘Indian’ is highly feeble. Paradox! What he said in his essay may be true that Indians have this trait of hypocrisy in common and the essayist is also not an exclusion to it. It is true that though Ramanujan stayed in America, he hasn’t lost his connection with the native roots which he calls that ‘Indian’. Talking about Ramanujan, Pritish Nandi says in ‘Indian Poetry in English Today’ that “the Indian Poet in English represents his generation and speaks for it. Yet he knows his own generation is freak, part of an affluent subculture, rootless, often alienated from the mainstream of the Indian experience”. He may have did it well in his poetical context but the lens of his ‘Indian’ argument doesn’t seem to fit well in the subaltern lens.

            D’ Gennte in her book Fiction and Diction laughs at certain theoretical unanswerable questions. She says all ‘the celebrated texts that take the question as the title doesn’t really answer it’ and in the essay ‘Is there an Indian way of thinking?’ Ramanujan doesn’t decide his opinion in grey or black but hides in grey. The famous saying may go like not to ‘define your world in black and white because there is so much hiding among greys’ but when taking a concrete question as the title, we should either confirm whether it is black (left) or white (right) or specify if it’s grey (an inconclusive one) but the essayist seem to hide behind a ‘phalanx of quotations’ not just to rob readers of their convictions but also to confuse them.

The Hindu ‘and’ Indian

The concept of ‘Hindu’ is controversial. It’s an umbrella term that has been used by people to talk about Indian tradition which was proved wrong by Ambedhkar. Hinduism we say today is the triumvirate of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara and village gods have no place in it. Ambedhkar preferred to call it Brahmanism but not Hinduism because he is anticipated the fact that under this umbrella term, all the village gods and goddesses which have no connection with the religious texts of Brahmanism will be under threat and it is true that today all these nature gods and goddesses are brahminised. So, I can call that the term has been indoctrinated and it’s surprising that the intellectuals had fallen in trap to this term. Ramanujan is also not an exception.

While talking about karma, Ramajuna says that the ‘notion that is almost synonymous in circles with whatever that his Hindu or Indian’. Hindu and Indian are distinctive terms. Whatever that is Hindu is not Indian. He using ‘or’ between these two terms bring the problem in here. I feel that here is where the Brahminical privilege comes into existence. This confusion of the essayist had not just confined to this essay but also found in ‘Annaya’s anthropology’. He while talking about the Brahminic traditions he calls it ‘our ritual pollutions’. He continues to use the pronouns ‘our’ and ‘we’ and continues to generalise the Brahminic traditions as Indian. It may be true that Ramanujan may alienated himself from the caste lines and turned a liberal but still the privilege seems to expose in certain phrases. Quoting his words from Annaya’s anthropology is more appropriate here in which he says “Here I am, a Brahmin myself, yet I don’t know a thing about such things” putting himself high in the ladder. Surprisingly he doesn’t call them brahminical and continues to cite Manu with ease which is even more triggering. The essayist’s insistence on Brahminism in the name of Indianness continues to follow in the text.

Sanskritization

Wendy Doniger in his introduction to Ramanujan says, “A.K Ramanujan was one of those thinkers, like Freud (whom he greatly, though not uncritically, admired), who so transform our wat of looking at a subject that we are in danger of undervaluing their contribution.” It had to be admitted that Ramanujan has been torch bearer of the rich folk tradition to make it’s entry into Indian English literature. His ‘Flowering tree’ had in fact created ripples in the western circles. At a time when Indian literature meant Sanskrit, a language understandable to a privileged section in the society and is Greek and Latin to major communities in India, Ramanujan proved that folk traditions are equally rich. But still Ramanujan seems to put Sanskrit on the highest pedestal. In Speaking of Siva, Ramanujan says,

“A Sanskrit epic like the Mahabharata contains in its encyclopedic range much folk material, like tales, beliefs, proverbs, picked obviously from folk sources, refurbished, Sanskritized, fixed forever in the Sanskritic artifice of eternity.” 

Though he talks about the return to oral tradition later, he epitomizes Sanskrit and its text and places them on a higher pedestal. While trying to make his point on Indians as more materialistic, Ramanujan picks certain texts as Indian. Surprisingly, they are Ramayana, Mahabharatha and Manudharamasastra. He said that the local tales are materialised in these texts many a times and also worked close with Velcheru Narayana Rao, a renowned Telugu author to bring it out more brahminical. From a subaltern lens, these texts and the language are not Indian at the first space. Considering them as Aryan (The early colonizers), they feel the language more as an imposition which has been dominating them and their culture since ages. In fact, it is the culture in the Sanskrit texts that had over shadowed many aboriginal Indian cultures.

To cite an example, all the early Telugu literature was nothing but the translated versions and interpretations of these same texts. Until the entry of the triumvirate subaltern poets, Vemana, Gurram Jashuva and Sri Sri, not even a single character was from the Telugu culture. Weirdly, Ramanujan tries to find similarities between the Sanksrit Karma and Telugu talaratha or Tamil talaividi which is just cherrypicking to prove the point but not factually or historically correct. It just seemed as an attempt to generalize that the concepts in the Brahmanical texts and Indian texts are the same. A language that belongs to Indo – Aryan family of languages taken into the essay to prove the point ‘Indian’ in the text is counterfactual.  

The normalization of the Caste

The essayist seems to go to any extent to make a justification of his point. In this flow, he even takes the caste at a very lighter vein. In fact, he seems to be telling about the division of labourers with pride. He says –

“Even musical instruments have their caste properties; a vina, no less than the icon of god, has to be made by a particular caste, or family, after observing certain austerities, made on an auspicious day”   

Trying to make a point on context – sensitive, he fell into picking a sensitive content romanticizing the division of labourers. This comes out of a brahminical privilege. It is clear in all these contexts that the essayist’s understanding on the society is generalised as Indian on the whole which is unfortunately brahiminical. It may not be the intention but the privilege has already has an unconscious effort in the essay.  

***

Works Consulted

 

Ramanujan, A.K, The Collected Essays of AK Ramanujan, Oxford University press, 2006

Ramanujan, A. K, Is there an Indian Way of Thinking? An Informal Essay, Journal Article, Contributions to Indian Sociology, V 23, N 1, 1989 pp. 41-58 d.o.i 10.1177/006996689023001004, Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/006996689023001004

Ramanujan, A. K, Annaya’s anthropology, trans. by Narayana Hegde, Retrieved from https://vijeejournalist.com/2016/11/annayas-anthropology/

Phule, Jotirao, Caste laws in ‘Individual and Society’, Pearson, 2017

Ramanujan, Attipat Krishnaswami. Who needs folklore?: The relevance of oral traditions to South Asian Studies, Center for South Asian Studies, School of Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific Studies, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1990.

Iliah, Kanche , Why I Am Not a Hindu : a Sudra Critique of Hindutva, Philosophy, Culture, and Political Economy, Bhatkal Books International, 1996.

***