Do Graded Readers That Are Considered Good Take into Consideration the Use of Literary Language?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
International Conference on Business Studies and Education (ICBE)
e-ISBN: 978-967-19611-0-0
________________________________________________________________________________________
Do Graded Readers That Are Considered Good
Take into Consideration the Use of Literary
Language?
June Chiang Kai Sing1, Collean Lean Lee Nah2, Syahmi Zainal Azhar3
1,2,3 Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Georgetown, Penang, Malaysia
1
chiangks@tarc.edu.my
2
leanln@tarc.edu.my
3
syahmiza@tarc.edu.my
__________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
For reader-text engagement to take place, the use of literary language plays an important role. The question is, do
Graded Readers (GRs) that are considered good place importance on the use of literary language? The Extensive
Reading Foundation (ERF) set up by Day and Bamford to promote extensive reading gives out the Language
Learner Literature (LLL) Award every year to the best GRs. To answer the question posed, this study investigated
the extent of stylistic devices used in LLL award-winning GRs and their non-winning counterparts. Winners of
three years (2013, 2015, 2016) at the Intermediate level and the non-winners were analysed for the extent of
figures of speech. The results of the stylistic analysis revealed that for all the three years, the use of literary
language did not contribute to the GRs being winners. Despite the importance of the use of literary language in
reading material, the use of literary language has been neglected when giving recognition to GRs that are
considered good. It is therefore significant that the ERF reconsider their priorities in giving out awards, and that
language educators give appropriate priorities to non-winners when selecting GRs for language learners.
Keywords: Extensive reading; Graded Readers; Language Learner Literature; L2 reader-text engagement;
stylistic devices
complement the teaching of language with the
I. INTRODUCTION universal notion embraced by most language
Graded readers (GRs) are laddered reading material educators of the importance of reading extensively.
which come under the umbrella of Language For ERPs to be successful, GRs must be appealing
Learner Literature (LLL), a term coined by Day and to the readers.
-Bamford [1] for reading material specially written Keeping in mind how GRs are to be used,
for language learners. The coinage of the term was it is crucial that they make engaging reads. The core
an act to recognise material written for language of good GRs is the story, and there is no discord
learners as a genre of literature. To recognise its among all the key players in the GR industry [2].
status as a genre of its own and to ensure a good Readability is another requisite of good GRs which
development of the literature, the LLL Award was receives no contention. However, there have been
introduced by the Extensive Reading Foundation disparities among the stakeholders of GRs on the use
(ERF), a foundation co-set up by Richard Day and of literary language [3]. Some stakeholders opine
Julian Bamford in 2004. The ERF has been giving that the use of literary language might affect
out awards for the best GRs every year since then. readability, whereas some believe in the use of good
Quality GRs, according to the judges' template, are authentic language to achieve its aims of effective
those that have appealing themes or topics, are of a communication. Still, there are some who advocate
suitable level and possess quality of writing. the use of it to help with language acquisition [4].
GRs are widely used in extensive reading Drawing from definitions of "literature", Day and
(ER), which carries the commonly accepted Bamford [1] arrived at the concept of literature or
denotation of plentiful and fast reading for pleasure. literariness as using words to create effect, and a text
Extensive reading programmes (ERPs) are usually that will stimulate response. In essence, literariness
conducted in or outside the classroom to
20
Received: 07 June 2021
Revised: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 02 July 2021
Publisher: ICBE PublicationInternational Conference on Business Studies and Education (ICBE)
e-ISBN: 978-967-19611-0-0
in text refers to texts possessing stylistic devices or The research questions are:
art. 1. To what extent are selected stylistic devices used
According to Day and Bamford [1], learner in award-winning graded readers and non-award
material is written with the aim of communicating winning graded readers?
with the audience, as with all genuine writing. 2. What is the significance of the role of stylistic
Therefore, a successful piece of learner material is devices in graded readers that are considered good?
marked by the response of its readers. Rosenblatt [5]
premised that successful communication is signified II. LITERATURE REVIEW
by the evocation in the reader, which is the
A. Transactional Reader Response Theory
experience of the reader with the text. It is the
evocation that positions the reader on the aesthetic Rosenblatt's [6] transactional reader response theory
or pleasurable stance. This means a good or is a theory that focusses on both the reader and the
successful piece of LLL must be able to text for the communicative interaction to take place
communicate with the L2 reader with affect. during the reading journey. She postulated that the
Literariness plays a role in increasing the reader experiences the text when she responds to it
reader’s aesthetic or pleasurable reading experience from her personal experience. However, it is the
since it is the words that are the stimulus for an linguistic strand that complements the act of
aesthetic experience [5], [6], [7]. In other words, the transaction. This means a transaction can only take
use of stylistic devices is what evokes the reader [6]. place when the reader pays attention to "the
Echoing the same doctrine is the foregrounding overtones of feeling, the chiming of sound, sense,
theory [8] which states that linguistic elements that idea, and association" that create a transaction [5,
are not of the regular such as figures of speech
p.26]. The reader connects the words felt to her ideas
enhance the potential of meaning, and give the
reader a possible aesthetic experience. It is the drawn from her life experiences [5], [6], [7].
unexpectedness that gives rise to the increased Rosenblatt [6] specifically stated that
feelings [9]. Studies on language learners have stylistic devices present in texts transpire a reader-
shown that learners do experience a heightened text transaction, which contributes to an aesthetic or
reading experience with texts that utilise literary pleasurable reading journey. This means content
language [10], [11]. Puspitasari and Aufar [12] alone is insufficient to bring forth a transaction, and
discovered that language learners find books with contribute to a complete aesthetic reading
watered down description to be less enjoyable as experience. Since content alone is insufficient to
they are not able to immerse themselves in the story. yield such an experience, the form, or the use of
It is important to take note that it is descriptive language, plays a particularly important role.
language that will largely help to provide the details. Although Rosenblatt's [6] theory was
As such, it is only appropriate that literariness be
formed based on first language readers, her theory
viewed as an important element in GRs, despite the
has been utilised in second language (L2) studies
conflicting priorities by the stakeholders of GRs.
Neologists of the term LLL, Day and [11]. In a study by Khairul [11] which partly utilised
Bamford [1, p.76] themselves appreciate the use of Rosenblatt's [6] theory, she discovered that
literary language in GRs, describing editors who seventeen-year-old L2 Malaysian students were able
allow the use of “unexpurgated poetic and figurative to respond aesthetically to foregrounding elements
expressions” to remain as “sensitive editors”. The in texts. Claridge [2] opined that both language
question that arises then is, what is the significance learners and non-learners create evocations of texts
of the role of stylistic devices in GRs that are in the same manner; hence, Rosenblatt's [6] theory
considered good. In the present paper, good GRs is not inapplicable to learner reading materials. In
refer to award-winning GRs since they hold the applying Rosenblatt's [6] theory to GRs then, it is
official recognition of good reading materials. This quite evident that for the learner reading material to
research, therefore, investigates literariness in GRs engage readers, the use of stylistic devices, or
to determine if the use of literary language plays an
language form, should be considered an important
important role in GRs that have been considered
criterion.
good. There have been no known stylistic analyses
done on learner literature.
The objectives of the research are: B. The Foregrounding Approach
1. To compare the extent of selected stylistic devices The foregrounding approach is a theory refined by
used in award-winning graded readers and non- Jan Mukařovský from the concept of
award winning graded readers defamiliarization [14]. In writing, foregrounding,
2. To interpret the significance of the role of stylistic which is also known as deviation, is achieved when
devices in producing graded readers that are choices are not of the regular [15]. The theory states
considered good that stylistic devices used in foregrounding, such as
figures of speech, enhance the potential of meaning
21
Received: 07 June 2021
Revised: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 02 July 2021
Publisher: ICBE PublicationInternational Conference on Business Studies and Education (ICBE)
e-ISBN: 978-967-19611-0-0
and as such, stylistic devices create a possible compared the numbers with that of the text she was
aesthetic reading experience [15], [16]. analysing.
However, unlike the transactional reader In any stylistic analysis, what can be said
response theory, the foregrounding theory focusses with certainty is that the approaches adopted must
on the text, rather than reader-text. Utilising this map the aspiration of the study. Style markers have
theory means the object of study is the text, or its to be established and their selections are based on
form. The study of the text excludes the role of the the aspiration of the study. As Leech and Short [22,
author, symbolism, or any form of representation or p.12] put it, "In studying style, we have to select
interpretation. Devices should be abstracted from what aspects of language matter, and the principle of
the text and its context, premising dualism, that is selection depends on the purpose we have in mind."
form and content are separable [17]. The tenet of As such, in relation to the present study, the
defamiliarization is that the image revealed through quantitative approach was deemed to be appropriate
form is not for the reader to perceive meaning but to to fulfil the goal of making comparisons and the
create a perception of the object. Where there is style markers selected were figures of speech (see
form, there is likely to be defamiliarization [18]. Section B, The Taxonomy for Analysis).
Form, therefore, is synonymous with literariness,
which is the object of the present study. It is the III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
device that makes literature science since formal A. The Data
devices are the means to defamiliarisation [17]. In order to determine if the use of stylistic devices
plays an important role in GRs that are considered
C. Stylistics good, nine GRs from the Adolescent and Adult
division were selected for stylistic analysis based on
To investigate literariness is the department of
the theory of foregrounding by Mukařovský [14],
stylistics. A stylistic analysis involves selecting
which focuses on foregrounded features which are
salient features for analysis. The salient features deautomised textual features.
selected for analysis are called style markers [19]. Three of the GRs are award-winners
Different researchers may select different style (considered good GRs) and the remaining six are
markers for their studies. their non-winning counterparts. The GRs were
Stylistic analysis can be qualitative or selected based on purposive or judgement sampling
quantitative. Both have their use. Qualitative whereby the sample elements are considered to be
analysis is descriptive in nature and involves short typical or representative. The most recent winners
or stand-alone texts [20]. Quantitative analysis (at the time of the research) from three years were
involves characteristics that are measurable [21] and picked as they were considered to be typical or
is usually an approach taken with copious texts [20]. representative of winning entries since the
Quantitative methods fulfil the need for firm introduction of the LLL Award in 2004. Also, they
reflected the current principles of selection of
evidence [22]. Part of the focus is on frequency of
winners by the LLL Award. However, the winner of
linguistic units [23]. Measuring style using the
2014 was excluded since it is a non-fiction.
statistical or quantitative method is only a natural Two non-winners for each corresponding
gravitation in stylistic analysis due to the aspiration winner were selected from those submitted by
to be scientific and objective in stylistic description. publishers for the award but did not win. Finalists
For statistical findings to bear significance, were excluded since they were considered winners
Jeffries and McIntyre [20] instructed any as well, or “lesser” winners. The non-winners were
quantitative method to involve comparison. This selected based on the corresponding year, level and
will allow interpretation based on the statistical headword count. Genre was also taken into
differences. For example, in Chan's [24] consideration where possible.
investigation, she counted the occurrence of Table 1 shows the books selected for the
adjectives of the first 1000 words of six texts and stylistic analysis.
22
Received: 07 June 2021
Revised: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 02 July 2021
Publisher: ICBE PublicationInternational Conference on Business Studies and Education (ICBE)
e-ISBN: 978-967-19611-0-0
Table 1 Graded Reader Titles Selected for Analysis
Year of Award-winning Title ( Level) Non-award winning Title (Level)
Award
2016 A New Song for (Intermediate – A2) The Right Thing (Intermediate – B1)
Nina Othello (Intermediate – B1)
2015 Kilimanjaro (Intermediate – B1) Life of Pi (Intermediate – B1)
Resistance (Intermediate – B1)
2013 The Green Room (Intermediate – B1) A Time of Waiting: (Intermediate – B1-
Stories from Around B2)
the World
Jane Eyre (Intermediate – B1)
The first 2,000 words from each GR were Chiang [25] to produce a more comprehensive and
selected for analysis except for the GR which workable model. In producing the adapted model,
consisted of short stories. For the said GR, the first Chiang [25] consulted Burton’s [27] Silva
154 words of each short story were selected since Rhetorica: The Forest of Rhetoric, a manual of
each short story was written by a different writer. rhetoric which was commended by the Oxford
Nevertheless, the adaptation of the stories was done Dictionary of Literary Terms [28] for its huge list of
by the same person. The method of selecting the first figures.
2,000 words reflected a consistent and unbiased The adaptation involved removing one
manner of selection. figure and inserting two figures. The figure
"imagery" was removed since other figures of
B. The Taxonomy for Analysis speech are usually involved for the appeal to work
The style markers arrived at for analysis were and also the definition of this figure provided by
figures of speech. Figures of speech were selected as Leigh [26, p.20] – “use of words to appeal to one’s
the style markers as they are stylistic devices which senses” -- is too broad and subjective for
reflect literariness, and which have the capacity to identification and quantification. In Burton’s
evoke an aesthetic reading response. manual, "imagery" is not listed. Based on these
The framework for the analysis was an reasons, "imagery" was removed from the adapted
adapted framework by Chiang [25] which was based framework. Two figures, "synonymia" and
on Leigh’s [26] taxonomy. Leigh had worked out an "ennalage", were added in the adapted model as they
all-encompassing yet parsimonious working are two relevant figures left out by Leigh [26]. The
framework which listed figures grouped together adapted model is shown in the following figure:
based on their types. The framework was adapted by
23
Received: 07 June 2021
Revised: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 02 July 2021
Publisher: ICBE PublicationInternational Conference on Business Studies and Education (ICBE)
e-ISBN: 978-967-19611-0-0
Figures of speech
The Tropes
The Schemes
Puns
antanaclasis, Word order - anastrophe,
paronomasia, syllepsis, coordinated antithesis,
other types apposition,
Associations
climax,
parallelism
Animate associations allusion, Deliberate
personification, simile erroneous ennalage
grammar
Contradictory irony, metaphor,
associations oxymoron, paradox, asyndeton,
parody Deliberate word
omissions and ellipsis,
parenthesis,
insertions
polysyndeton
Visual associations onomatoepia
through words
Repetitions
alliteration,
Verbal substitutions anthimeria, anadiplosis,
metonymy, anaphora,
periphrasis antimetabole,
assonance,
Exaggerations and epanalepsis,
understatements euphemism, epistrophe,
hyperbole, litotes, polyptoton,
synonymia repetition
Rhetorical questions
Rhyme end rhyme,
internal rhyme
Figure 1 Leigh's taxonomy of figures of speech (adapted by Chiang [25])
C. The Analysis
The analysis was done by identifying and counting The raw numbers of figures of speech of
the figures in the selected texts. Each figure of the award-winning GRs were then compared with
speech identified was counted as one. Three the raw numbers of figures of the non-winners.
precautionary measures were taken to ensure a For interpretation of significance, the
comprehensive, reliable and valid analysis. The first distinctiveness ratio (DR) was calculated. The DR
was by reading the texts with prudence at least thrice was obtained by dividing the frequency of the
at different sittings. The second was by engaging figures of the winners with the frequency of figures
two raters with post-graduate qualifications in of the non-winning GRs. Calculating the DR was
Literature to carry out the stylistic analysis necessary to show the significance of differences.
individually. The raters were briefed on the Hoover [29] deemed ratios below 0.67 or above 1.5
taxonomy and provided with examples of the figures to be significant for investigation, which can be
listed. Their analyses were then compared with the interpreted as having sufficient distinction. In other
researcher’s and where there were markers left out words, such ratios exhibit differences that are
by the researcher, they were included; where there marked enough to suggest valid interpretations.
were disagreements, the final decision rested with
the researcher. Lastly, the analysis was validated by IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
a stylistic expert. The raw numbers obtained from the text analysis are
as shown in Table 2:
24
Received: 07 June 2021
Revised: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 02 July 2021
Publisher: ICBE PublicationInternational Conference on Business Studies and Education (ICBE)
e-ISBN: 978-967-19611-0-0
Table 2 Raw Numbers of Figures of Speech
Title (award- Number of figures of Title (non award- Number of figures of
winning)/ Year speech winning) speech
A New Song for Nina Tropes 28 The Right Thing Tropes 86
(Intermediate – B1, Schemes 68 (Intermediate – B1) Schemes 90
2016)
Total 96 Total 176
Othello Tropes 101
(Intermediate – B1) Schemes 133
Total 234
Kilimanjaro Tropes 36 Life of Pi Tropes 78
(Intermediate – B1, Schemes 65 (Intermediate – B1) Schemes 79
2015)
Total 101 Total 157
Resistance Tropes 55
(Intermediate – B1) Schemes 86
Total 141
The Green Room Tropes 25 A Time of Waiting: Tropes 110
(Intermediate – B1, Schemes 57 Stories from Around Schemes 120
2013) the World
Total 82 Total 230
(Intermediate –
B1-B2)
Jane Eyre Tropes 86
(Intermediate – B1) Schemes 103
Total 189
The results presented demonstrate that the affect readability, an important element in good
selected stylistic devices, figures of speech, are GRs.
present in both award-winning and non-award In answering the first research question ‘To
winning GRs, with figures of speech totalling what extent are selected stylistic devices used in
between 82 and 234. However, the numbers of award-winning graded readers and non-award
figures for the non-winners ranged from 141 to 234, winning graded readers?”, the percentages of
and the numbers of figures for the winners ranged density of figures of speech were obtained to
from 82 to 101. “measure” the extent. The percentages of density of
The raw numbers portray a very significant figures found in each analysed text of 2,000 words
and consistent pattern of the award-winning GRs are portrayed in Table 3:
having fewer figures of speech than the non-award
winners for all the three selected years. The numbers
also reveal that the instances of figures that fall
under the Schemes are consistently higher than the
instances of figures under the Tropes for all the GRs.
However, a pattern emerges for the award-winning
GRs. The instances of the Schemes are almost
double or more than double of that of the Tropes. For
the non-winners, the differences of instances
between the Schemes and the Tropes are not that
marked, with Life of Pi having almost equal
distribution. The revelation that the Schemes are
more favoured than the Tropes is not surprising
since the Schemes involve the play of grammatical
structure, unlike the Tropes which involve the play
of meaning and may pose a cognitive challenge.
Therefore, employing the Schemes would not likely
25
Received: 07 June 2021
Revised: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 02 July 2021
Publisher: ICBE PublicationInternational Conference on Business Studies and Education (ICBE)
e-ISBN: 978-967-19611-0-0
Table 3 Density of Figures of Speech in Analysed Texts
Year of Award Award-winning % of figures of Non-award % of figures of
speech per 2,000 winning speech per 2,000
words words
A New Song for The Right Thing 8.8
2016 4.8
Nina Othello 11.7
Life of Pi 7.9
2015 Kilimanjaro 5.1 Resistance 7.1
A Time of Waiting:
Stories from 11.5
4.1
2013 The Green Room Around the World
Jane Eyre 9.5
From Table 3, it is apparent that the (Intermediate Stories from
percentages of figures in award-winning GRs fall – B1) Around the
below 6% whereas the percentages of figures in non- World
winners exceed 7%, with two of them exceeding (Intermediate
10%. On the whole, the results of the analysis – B1-B2)
suggest that stylistic devices are used to a much Jane Eyre
larger extent in the non-winners as compared to the (Intermediate 0.43
winners. – B1)
The significance of differences is shown by
the DRs in Table 4: The DRs of below 0.67, save for
Resistance, indicate that the differences in the
Table 4 density of figures of speech between the winners and
Distinctiveness ratio non-winners are distinctive enough, or have a
significant difference. This means the densities of
Title (award- Title (non DR figures of speech between the winners and the non-
winning) award- winners have a difference distinctive enough to
winning) indicate an implication.
A New Song The Right Therefore, in answering the second
for Nina Thing research question, “What is the significance of the
0.55
(Intermediate (Intermediate role of stylistic devices in graded readers that are
– B1) – B1) considered good?”, the DRs suggest that stylistic
Othello devices do not play an important role in GRs for
(Intermediate 0.41 them to be considered good since the use of the
– B1) devices occur less frequently in winners than in non-
Kilimanjaro Life of Pi winners.
(Intermediate (Intermediate 0.64 Conversely, the results could also suggest
– B1) – B1) that the use of stylistic devices in GRs may in fact
Resistance be an impediment for them to be considered good.
(Intermediate 0.72 In the LLL Award template for the jurors,
B1) readability comes before quality of writing,
The Green A Time of implying that readability eclipses aesthetic matters.
0.36
Room Waiting:
V. CONCLUSION GRs. However, literariness did not contribute to
GRs that were considered good officially. All the six
This study sought to determine if literariness played non-winners exhibit a higher density of stylistic
an important role in award-winning GRs, devices.
considering that stylistic devices have the capacity Since only GRs from the Intermediate
to evoke an aesthetic reading experience. The Adult and Adolescent division from three years were
stylistic analysis conducted on three award-winning analysed, having more GRs from other years as well
GRs and their six counterparts suggest that stylistic as other divisions could be analysed for a broader
devices were used in both winning and non-winning and more accurate generalisation. Nevertheless,
26
Received: 07 June 2021
Revised: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 02 July 2021
Publisher: ICBE PublicationInternational Conference on Business Studies and Education (ICBE)
e-ISBN: 978-967-19611-0-0
despite the limitations of the study, the findings of non-winners which they deem to be literarily
this research indicate that award-winning GRs may appealing for their ERPs.
not have reached its potential in its objective of
providing language learners with an aesthetic ACKNOWLEDGMENT
reading experience, which could contribute to the
The authors would like to thank MyBrain15 for
success of ER.
funding this research work. Our gratitude also goes
It is therefore imperative that GR
to the Extensive Reading Foundation which has
stakeholders who contribute to the production of
GRs and who are concerned about publishing the kindly supplied us with the titles of books which
best possible GRs re-evaluate their stance. Perhaps were submitted for the Language Learner Literature
Award but did not win.
the ERF should also reconsider their priorities in
giving out awards. More importantly, language
educators should take into consideration selecting
[9] W. van Peer and J. Hakemulder,
“Foregrounding,” in Encyclopedia of
REFERENCES Language & Linguistics, 2nd ed. K. Brown,
Ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006, vol. 4, pp. 546-
[1] R. Day and J. Bamford, Extensive Reading in 550.
the Second Language, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998. [10] J. K. S. Chiang, G. Malini, and D.A. L. Tan,
“Aesthetic response of language learners to
[2] G.M.H. Claridge, “What makes a good stylistic devices,” Pertanika Journal of
graded reader: Engaging with graded readers Social Sciences and Humanities, vol. 28, S2,
in the context of extensive reading in L2,” pp. 139-156, 2020.
2011. Accessed on Feb.5, 2018. [Online].
Available: http://hdl.handle.net/10063/1749 [11] H.A. Khairul, “Literature, reader response
and 21st century education: A pedagogical
[3] A. Maley, “Extensive reading: Maid in model, Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty of
waiting,” in English Language Learning Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
Materials: A Critical Review. B. Tomlinson, Bangi, Selangor, 2016.
Ed. London: Continuum, 2008, pp. 133-156.
[12] E. Puspitasari and A.Aufar, “A phenomenal
exploration of EFL students' experiences
[4] S. Askarova, K. Tursyabayeva, and A. with graded readers,” Advances in Social
Boltabekova, “Usage of stylistic devices in Science, Education and Humanities
the process of language acquisition,” Research, vol. 518, pp. 412-418, Jan. 2021.
Scientific Collection, Interconf, no. 46, pp. Accessed on: June 26, 2021. [Online].
51-57, March 2021. Accessed on June 26, Available: doi
2021. [Online]. Available: doi: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210120.154
10.51582/interconf.19-20.03.2021.005
[13] Iskhak, “The application of reader-response
[5] L. Rosenblatt, “The literary transaction: theory in enhancing student teachers'
Evocation and response,” Theory into affective and linguistic growth: A classroom
Practice, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 268-[29]7, 1982. action research in EFL teacher education in
Indonesia,” The English Teacher, vol. 44, no.
[6] L. Rosenblatt, The Reader, the Text, the 2, pp. 43-55, 2015.
Poem: the Transactional Theory of the
Literary Work, Carbondale: Southern Illinois [14] J. Mukařovský, “Standard language and
University Press, 1978. poetic language,” in Linguistics and Literary
Style, D.C. Freeman, Ed. New York: Hold,
[7] L. Rosenblatt, “Writing and reading: The Rinehart and Winston, 1970, pp.40-56.
transactional theory,” Technical Report
No.416, 1988. Accessed on: Oct. 18, 2017. [15] R. Chapman, The Language of English
[Online]. Available: Literature, London: Edward Arnold, 1982.
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED292062.pdf.
[16] B. Dancygier and E. Sweetser, Figurative
[8] S. Miall and D. Kuiken, “A feeling for Language, New York: Cambridge University
fiction: Becoming what we behold,” Poetics, Press, 2014.
vol.30, no.4, pp. 221-241, 2002.
27
Received: 07 June 2021
Revised: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 02 July 2021
Publisher: ICBE PublicationInternational Conference on Business Studies and Education (ICBE)
e-ISBN: 978-967-19611-0-0
[17] A. Jefferson, “Russian formalism,” in Modern selected stylistic devices,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Literary Theory: A Comparative School of Languages, Literacies and
Introduction, A. Jefferson and D. Robey, Eds. Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
London: Batsford Academic and Educational Gelugor, Penang, 2019.
Ltd, 1982, pp. 16-37.
[26] J.H. Leigh, “The use of figures of speech in
[18] V. Shklovsky, “Art as technique,” in Literary print ad headlines,” Journal of Advertising,
Theory: An Anthology, J. Rivkin, and M. vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 17-33, 1994.
Ryan, Eds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,
1998, pp. 17-23. [27] G.O. Burton, “Silva rhetoricae: The Forest of
Rhetoric,” 2007. Accessed on: Oct. 16, 2017.
[19] N.E. Enkvist, J. Spencer, and M.J. Gregory, [Online]. Available: http://rhetoric.byu.edu/
Linguistics and Style, London: Oxford
University Press, 1964. [28] C. Baldick, Oxford Dictionary of Literary
Terms, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford
[20] L. Jeffries and D. McIntyre, Stylistics, New University Press, 2008.
York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
[29] D. L. Hoover, A companion to digital literary
[21] D. I. Holmes, “The analysis of literary style studies, S. Schreibman and R. Siemans, Eds.
– A review,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Oxford: Blackwell, 2008.
Society, Series A (General), vol. 148, no. 4,
pp. 328-341, 1985.
[22] G. Leech and M. Short, Style in Fiction: A
Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional
Prose. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Longman,
2007.
[23] M. Stubbs, “Quantitative methods in literary
linguistics,” in The Cambridge Handbook of
Stylistics, P. Stockwell and S. Whiteley, Eds.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2014, pp. 46-62.
[24] M. Chan, “A stylistic approach to the god of
small things,” M.Phil. Thesis, Dept. of
English, Lingnan University, Hong Kong,
2007. Accessed on: Feb.7, 2018. [Online].
Available:
https://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1002&context=eng_etd
[25] J.K.S. Chiang, “A stylistic analysis of
selected graded readers and Chinese second
language learners' aesthetic response towards
28
Received: 07 June 2021
Revised: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 02 July 2021
Publisher: ICBE PublicationInternational Conference on Business Studies and Education (ICBE)
e-ISBN: 978-967-19611-0-0
AUTHORS’ INFORMATION
First Author: June Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Tunku Abdul Rahman University
Chiang Kai Sing College
77 Lorong Lembah Permai Tiga, 11200 Tanjung Bungah, Penang, Malaysia
E-mail: chiangks@tarc.edu.my
Second Author: Colleen Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Tunku Abdul Rahman University
Lean Lee Nah College
77 Lorong Lembah Permai Tiga, 11200 Tanjung Bungah, Penang, Malaysia
E-mail: leanln@tarc.edu.my
Third Author: Syahmi Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Tunku Abdul Rahman University
Zainal Azhar College
77 Lorong Lembah Permai Tiga, 11200 Tanjung Bungah, Penang, Malaysia
E-mail: syahmiza@tarc.edu.my
29
Received: 07 June 2021
Revised: 28 June 2021
Accepted: 02 July 2021
Publisher: ICBE PublicationYou can also read
