Comment

captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

as one is still comprehending the work while reading it.

Especially in something like Shakespeare’s case I don’t think that’s necessarily true, because 1. a lot of the vocabulary is just…not English anymore. Let me ask you: what part of speech is the word “contumely”? Is it a noun? An adverb? An adjective? 2. Not all of the information is there. Shakespeare only ever wrote down the dialog not the stage directions because he told that stuff to his actors in person. Comprehending the play by reading the dialog alone is difficult because the context is missing.

The gravedigger in Hamlet is in the habit of saying “argal.” Because he heard someone literate say “ergo” and he uses it right, as a synonym of “therefore” but he doesn’t pronounce it right. It’s an interesting bit of characterization because it shows the gravedigger maybe should have had a chance at some school. I realized this watching the Kenneth Branaugh production years later when I found it in an old stack of VHS tapes, not in 12th grade listening to my classmate Jeremy try to read it without having it explained to him first. He kept pronouncing it “ARgul” rather than “arGALL” so he never heard himself say the joke.

Perhaps my English teacher could have done a better job conducting this lesson but was this really a useful exercise in reading comprehension?

source

Sort:hotnew top

Don_alForno@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

not in 12th grade listening to my classmate Jeremy try to read it without having it explained to him first. He kept pronouncing it “ARgul” rather than “arGALL” so he never heard himself say the joke.

Perhaps my English teacher could have done a better job conducting this lesson but was this really a useful exercise in reading comprehension?

My money is on your teacher not knowing the joke either.

source
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

[…] I don’t think that’s necessarily true, because 1. a lot of the vocabulary is just…not English anymore. […] Comprehending the play by reading the dialog alone is difficult because the context is missing. […]

I think you may be missing the point that I was trying to make. I agree with you that I think Shakespeare can be difficult to read, but, regardless of that, trying to comprehend it is still trying to comprehend it. If one is practicing their reading comprehension, no matter the difficulty of the material, imo it could still be said that they are improving their comprehension. Now, it could be that there is material that is more efficient at improving one’s reading comprehension ability than Shakespeare, but I think that’s a separate argument.

source
- captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  
  no matter the difficulty of the material, imo it could still be said that they are improving their comprehension
  
  Nope, that’s not how education works. Due to the Principle of Effect, lessons which are too confusing can do more harm than good. If, as some other commenters have suggested, students are arriving to 12th grade English class reading at an elementary school level, handing them a copy of Hamlet isn’t going to accomplish anything, it’ll just frustrate them, convince them that they really can’t do this and they’ll just give up. Even honors students who are reading at advanced levels might start second guessing themselves.
  
  Shakespeare’s work was all written ~400 years ago, reading a Shakespeare play is an exercise in translation as much as comprehension. Take a copy of Hamlet to a 16 year old, open it to a random page, point to a line and ask a teenager to read it. They’ll probably stumble through it. Ask them what it means and they won’t have taken it on board.
  
  It may have more of a value in teaching the history of the English language than a reading comprehension exercise.
  
  In 11th and 12th grade English class we mostly focused on themes and such; it was treated more as an art appreciation course than communication practice. And art appreciation should be elective rather than required. If we’re really honest with ourselves, the reason we teach Shakespeare in high schools is because English teachers like it, and English teachers majored in English in college because they like it, and there’s exactly one job an English degree qualifies you to do: Teach high school English class.
  
  Hell, replace Shakespeare lessons with descriptive or persuasive writing classes.
  
  source
  - Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    
    […] the reason we teach Shakespeare in high schools is because English teachers like it […]
    
    Hm, this feels like conjecture. Do you have proof of that?
    
    source
  - Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    
    […] reading a Shakespeare play is an exercise in translation as much as comprehension […]
    
    I am a little confused now — is this you agreeing that reading Shakespeare improves reading comprehension?
    
    source
    captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    I can tell you are confused.
    
    The scenario I got in high school was “Here, one or more high school students, is a copy of Hamlet as Shakespeare wrote it preserved down to the punctuation and page layout. Read it just like you read To Kill A Mockingbird.” I assert that this is a poorly designed exercise in reading comprehension for modern 21st century English. This exercise will not substantially improve anyone’s ability to understand, say, the Pilot’s Operating Handbook for a Cessna 172.
    
    I would say exactly the same thing of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, if it was presented to teenagers in its original Middle English. It isn’t though; textbooks are printed with the Canterbury Tales translated into modern-ish English. At the very least
    
    And broghte hire hoom with hym in his contree
    
    becomes
    
    And brought her home with him into his country
    
    We don’t do that with Shakespeare though; it has to be enjoyed in the original nonsense. Which I take as evidence it’s an aesthetic choice rather than a practical one.
    
    I would assert that - if you’re trying to increase proficiency in reading normal 21st century English as a general life skill - you wouldn’t design the lesson like my English teacher did. If that was your goal you’d probably use a modern translation, maybe you’d study Ten Things I Hate About You rather than The Taming Of The Shrew.
    
    Which is why I’ll also assert that Literature classes as taught in later high school and into college aren’t really designed to be communication proficiency classes but art appreciation classes. Which should be electives like band, orchestra, painting or photography, not required classes like math and science.
    
    The English literature classes I took from my teenage years on all assumed you were proficient at reading.
    
    source
  - Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    
    Nope, that’s not how education works. Due to the Principle of Effect, lessons which are too confusing can do more harm than good. If, as some other commenters have suggested, students are arriving to 12th grade English class reading at an elementary school level, handing them a copy of Hamlet isn’t going to accomplish anything, it’ll just frustrate them, convince them that they really can’t do this and they’ll just give up. Even honors students who are reading at advanced levels might start second guessing themselves.
    
    I wasn’t arguing that Shakespeare would make the students more interested in literature. I was only arguing that the act of reading, no matter what is being read (within reason), improves one’s reading comprehension.
    
    source