Besides these three models that literature develops, there are two maintheoretical approaches involved in teaching (Carter, McRae, 1996): the traditionalstudy of literature, also called
and the use of literature asa linguistic resource, or
. The first one involves anaesthetical reading of texts and the use of metalanguage and critical concepts, beingaccessible only to advanced learners, while the second considers literature languagein use which is exploited for language learning purposes.
or, as it has been named by other methodologists
, the language based approachfor teaching literature
(see Carter, Long, 1991) is founded on working withlanguage, different techniques being applied for the understanding of the texts and,afterwards, for the creation of new texts.Integrating language into teaching literature is the first stage of the process of teaching literature, as Ronald Carter and John McRae (1996) observe, which may beapplied not only to advanced learners, but also to lower levels. They mention itscharacteristics: activity-based, student-centered, process-oriented approach. Moredifficult approaches that aim at interpreting the texts will follow.When discussing language based approaches for teaching literature Michael N.Long refers to the “text-as-object” (Long 2000:44) which contains language items to be learnt. Students learn vocabulary, grammar, so the text proves useful because itmakes the students acquire certain language structures and it also reinforces them.Understanding the language of a literary text is the first step, an essential one,necessary for a following interpretation of it.Another methodologist, William T. Littlewood, referring to language basedmethods for teaching literature, distinguishes some levels: “language as a system of structures”, basically grammar and vocabulary, “language in a specific stylisticvariety”, which gives the students a chance to learn about different languagevarieties, “language as the expression of superficial subject matter”, which refers tothe situations and characters presented, and “language as the symbolization of theauthor’s vision” (Littlewood 2000:178-180). This proves that learning a language is