Reflection 4: “But, for my own part, it was Greek to me” –Casca, Julius Caesar
Students will swear that Shakespeare is written in a foreign language. As an English teacher, their protests are disheartening because it is the language that makes Shakespeare’s plays so wonderful and brilliant. I can get them to understand the themes, and I can get them to understand the characters, but I often have a difficult time getting them to understand the language. They will swear, as Casca tells Cassius in Julius Caesar, that it is Greek to them until I paraphrase lines into a more modern dialect. This is why I found the chapter on language in Rex Gibson’s book Teaching Shakespeare (1998) to be especially useful. I like how he dissected Shakespeare’s language into specific elements that are easy to identify within the plays. I can see how focusing on specific elements helps students overcome the anxiety that stems from whole text analysis. I guess, intuitively, I knew that it made good sense to break texts down into parts, but I never thought to break it down according to a specific element being used. For example, to say, “okay, now we are going to look at repetition and how that affects meaning,” or, “now let’s look at Shakespeare’s use of lists.”
I think another good way to get students engaged with Shakespeare’s language is to start with a discussion about the evolution of the English language. Gibson writes that language in Elizabethan England “was exceptionally fluid and malleable and that lack of fixity offered endless dramatic possibilities. Rules of grammar, spelling, pronunciation and punctuation were relatively relaxed” (1998, p. 45). I would argue that, much to the dismay of language purists, the same holds true today. I was recently at a conference where the keynote speaker kept telling us to “internationalize” our thinking, and it was driving my neighbor crazy. She would twitch every time he would say “internationalize” and forcefully whisper, “that’s not a word!” Learning to internationalize made sense to me, and I was not bothered by the word. My point is that I think students understand this concept…they make up words all the time. We are surrounded by new, made up words all the time (“Google it” or “that’s phat”). In fact, I think made up words can be fun. I like Gibson’s suggestion that teachers have students invent their own words within the context of a scene. However, I can already hear arguments against this type of activity, such as it will encourage bastardization of the language or misuse of proper English. I don’t agree with these arguments because I think fluidity is what makes language so great, but I am curious about what other people think. Are we asking for trouble by encouraging students to invent language? Is it like justifying their misuse of Standard English?
February 18th, 2008 at 10:57 am
You say that you appreciate how Gibson breaks each element down into parts, but how would approach teaching this? It seems like going through the text and finding alliteration, then bombast, then punctuation, then lists, then parody, etc, would be tedious for the students. Do you have a vision for integrating this into your classroom? I often have trouble having students identify and apply literary devices, particularly on block scheduling—we have just a few weeks for each major unit, and literary devices often fall to the wayside in favor of simply understanding the content and plot of the text.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I do not, as of yet, have a vision for how this will actually work. I am going to try it when I teach Shakespeare this spring. I think I will approach it how Gibson suggests, though, and pick and choose which devices we tackle. Time is not our friend on the block schedule (even though you would think that it would be). So, to answer your question, I think I am only going to select a few devices and have students analyze portions of text using those particular devices.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
2. “I like Gibson’s suggestion that teachers have students invent their own words within the context of a scene. However, I can already hear arguments against this type of activity, such as it will encourage bastardization of the language or misuse of proper English.”
I think that it could be very helpful for students to put scenes in their own words. For a project on The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, I had students choose a scene to act out. They had to memorize lines and look at the language present in the script. However, I let them adapt their own script. I think that, by using their own words, the language that they use every day, students can show an understanding of what is going on in the text of the play. To adapt lines, students must first know what the lines are saying. Creating the scene in their own language makes the story more accessible to the whole class, as well as interesting to their cultures.
I do think that there is a time and a place for Standard English. Students should learn to code-switch and be able to use “proper” English competently and powerfully in formal settings.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
You ask the questions “Are we asking for trouble by encouraging students to invent language?” and “Is it like justifying their misuse of Standard English?” I don’t think so. I think that if anything it would help them feel better about unfamiliar terms. When I explained to my kids that many of the word that Shakespeare used where new to his audience, they seemed to become a little less stressed. One student even said “Well, I’m not dumb and if they could learn some new words, so can I.”
We all make up new words and as long as students can understand the benefits of being able to code-switch, I think that allowing them to create there own words would be neat and it would allow them to connect with the great bard himself.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I think the original post hits on a really important idea: that English is currently in a tremendous state of flux, from how it is written, published, and so on. Our students are as fluent in their text language now as I was in pig latin in grade school. I think it is important to teach students about language, its history, how it is constructed, and how it can be experimented with. There are many wonderful texts that exemplify the range of language (I’m thinking specifically of Jabberwocky–a traditional favorite–and Finnegans Wake–a bit obscure, but endlessly fascinating for its wordplay and allusion). And I think that allowing students to put the language of Shakespeare into their own words is a great activity; I like all kinds of re-mediation, especially drawing. My mentor does an activity in which she has students rewrite scenes in different dialects, such as country, valley girl, hip-hip, etc.
I think you could pull of the activity you describe–having students identify and describe different devices–in a timely manner by doing them in a lit circle type activity or as part of a reading log. It’s a really great idea to use because so many of the devices have a purpose integral to the plot or defining a character, which you can relate back to understanding the work as a whole.