| The problem of this study was to examine the basic propositions describing literature as presented by Northrop Frye, and Rene Welleck and Austin Warren. The principle aim was to derive implications for program development in literature for secondary schooling. This study examined Frye's book, Anatomy of Criticism and Parts One and Four of Welleck and Warren's book, Theory of Literature.;Chapter II demonstrated that Welleck and Warren unsuccessfully attempted to constrain literature by classifying it as a special use of language. They attempted to constrain literary study to a group of methods for analyzing the so-called norms of literature.;Chapter III showed that because Frye asserted there was no structural difference between literature and non-literature, and that the difference must lie in whether the work describes or makes assertions about a hypothetical, created world or about reality, there was, at last, no demonstrable difference between literature and non-literature.;Chapter IV showed that Welleck and Warren had no basis in the work of Roman Ingarden for their claims about the normative nature of literature. Their attempt to demonstrate that literature is a special use of language was inconsistent, and they established no consistent basis for the selection of methods of analysis.;Chapter IV further demonstrated that Frye had not constrained his use of the term "structure," and had not demonstrated that there was no structural difference between literature and non-literature. He was inconsistent in his selection of examples, using works that refer to reality as though they were literature.;Chapter V identified problems arising from Theory of Literature and Anatomy of Criticism that need to be addressed by literary scholars. Implications for program development in literature in secondary schooling based on Theory of Literature and Anatomy of Criticism, as well as implications with which the authors of both works might concur, were derived. Recommendations were made for further research. |
