Litterature

L'auteur: Tifour Thameur.

To make itself a less approximate idea of that is the literary text, it is necessary to specify concepts that it dons and features that it regains. This part has for objective to present the setting of research in what the question of the literary text can be asked. It seems to us that the vision of the literature that underlies the classic approach goes in equal with a certain vision of the world. It imports to clear the theoretical background to end to make emerge that therefore all over again that the classic speech doesn't show while presenting its codes and its room among the vast educational support field. 1. Modes of construction of the notion of the literary text 1.1. What's text? The text challenges didacticienses and critiques. The notion of the "text" is not often definite in a lucid manner. It's the most often "means the speech" and its use varies according to theoreticians. So certain limit its value to the statement writes "literary", others give him a very large extension, the one of "movies ". In accordance with the established use the text defines himself like "linguistic chain either spoken written forming a communicational unit and the speech like text in situation, product in a determined situation (participants, institutions, place, time)" 1. It is also the product of a complex network of mechanisms extra and intralinguistic; it serves to express a thought, it is therefore a discursive action. All text must obey a major rule: "the textual" cohesion. This rule requires that all textual sequence fits in a convincing manner in its context to establish ties of significances. Proceed there; seem to us him, the two objectives important of a text didactics: -

The kind of the text.

-

The manner to edge the text.

1.2 What's a literary text? Talking about the problem of the specificity of the literary communication received some various definitions. Of the antique until the XVIIe century, the term of "literature" designates an imitation of the real. The concept of the "beautiful" was placed to the second plan. It is only to the XIXe century where the term "literature" designated "beautiful letters".

It seems to us that the most satisfactory definition either the one of R. Jackobson that, name "poetic" function in a tentative to clarify functions of the language of which return account the diagram of communication. According to R. Jackobson, "the poetic function is the function where the attention is centered on the message"1. In his first definition, in 1920, this linguist tried to show the unifying element of the sound and the sense, mentioning the example following, "I Ike like: I like Eisenhower". Bringing closer the quoted example, we can notice that: -

The one that speaks (Subject) is inside two constituent of the sentence (V: like and the object: Ike).

-

The Object is also in the verb.

To his definition words are united by the sound and the sense. In other words, the literary text is characterized by the union of the sense and the shape. The undissociability of these two constituent some literary text shows indeed that all change of the shape leads ineluctably to a change of the bottom insofar as the summary, for example, serves to keep the main thing and to destroy the textual shape. This textual change leads to a destruction of the "aesthetic system of text littéraire"2. Under this optics, P., Benichou affirms that, "in the literary text the invoice is generating of the sense. It is the reason for which a survey separated of the bottom and the shape would let escape the main thing. The significance is inseparable of the shape that constitutes it and that the propose"3. We qualify therefore of "literary" all text whose shape contributes to give a supplementary sense of it. 1.3 Features of the literary text Under the optics of incentive, the literary text, of by its functions (emotional and aesthetic), imply a textual and educational approach different of the one used for the functional text. The first difference: The effect of the sense constructs by the one of interpretation regains an interpretative and semantic plurality as testifies B.Fradin of it (1984): "all literary text is a priori susceptible to contribute to the emergence of a semantic value multiplicity that only generates himself by interaction with environment contextuel"1. The second difference: The active literary text the imaginary and the reflection on relations between the textual signs, a relation of the "textus". Under this angle we appreciate the importance to prepare learning it for this level of construction of the

sense of a text: mobilization of its linguistic knowledge and its strategies of training. However our pupils are not accustomed to such an intellectual autonomy, to make take them responsibility in the cognitive process of the passage of a linear reading to another analytic that U. Eco names " cooperation interprétative"2. Indeed, the hold in conscience of their responsibilities and their statute of the reader researcher gives them a feeling of valorization that encourages their activities to analyze in a more dynamic optics, proud of their rights to the liberty of the expression. 2. Measurements of the literary text 2.1 Aesthetic dimension of the literary text The recognition of the literality of a text passes by his faculty to penetrate minds of lectors. The best servants of a language are writers who manipulate it and that, that making, the maximal exploitation3 of its potentialities. Their possibility to produce of a set of words of work chiefs, their esthete's vision, and creator of a world produces a certain resonance, capable to represent the world by the only power of the verb. The literary speech is a speech of the beautiful and the rhetoric whose thing presents him otherwise and words don't say all. The sensation to the art and the movement of words as undissociable whole of which the bottom and the shape found. Then, the construction of the sense of a literary text not only requires a knowledge of the lexicon but rather a sensitivity to the coming and going that exists between words to construct the effect of the sense established by the writer. This level of sociability of the sense gives to words a life of aesthetics and a harmony of writing. 2.2 linguistic dimension of the literary text The literary text is characterized by the set of ties that maintain him with the lexical characterization and the diagram first established by the author. The recognition of the semantic chain is indeed the relation that the movement of words assigns to construct the literality of a text. The literary speech is constructed by the power of the rhetoric where words maintain between them of relations of "semantic and aesthetic"2. The literary language defers the one of the scientific text and the language of the dictionary by the good and the beautiful use. For example, to summarize a scientific text makes himself usually but to summarize a literary text the destroyed because the sense of words mingles himself with links of significance that exist between says it and the non says.

2.3 Cultural dimension of the literary text The denomination literary culture/text ready to ambiguous. According to a critical conception the literary text constitutes the point of the "cultures crossing", it is the royal way to lead to the civilization and the development of a people's creativeness. But questions that stay important are: what literature? For what public? These questions oblige us to verify the efficiency of the choice of the text assigned by the institution and room granted to this didactic support.

Bibliography 1- Maingueneau, Dominique, "Les termes clés de l'analyse de discours", Paris, Le Seuil, 1996, p. 21. 2- Jackobson, R., "Essais de linguistique générale", Paris, Le Seuil, coll. Points, 1970, p. 15. 3- Grésillon, A., "Elément de critique génétique", Paris, PUF, 1994, pp. 27-28. 4- Benichou, P., "Le sacré de l'écrivain", Paris, J.Corti, 1973, p. 13. 5- Fradin, B., "Langue, discours et littérature", in Linx, n°10, 1984, p. 159. 6- Eco, U., "Lectora in fabula", Paris, Grasset, coll. Figures, 1985, pp. 64-86. 7- Everart-Desmedt, N., "Le processus interprétatif: introduction à la sémiotique de Ch.S.Peirce", Liège, P.Mardaga, 1990, p. 97. 8- Reuter, Y., "Pourquoi enseigner la littérature?", in Recherches, n°16, 1992, p. 17.