The study demonstrates that Literature in English and English Language are inherently related disciplines. The existence of one is dependent on the other. Richard [2] shares the same aspirations that the two subjects are closely related because literature presupposes language and it cannot be discussed without reference to language. That is, some components that are found and applicable in either of the disciplines could have relevance to the other thus making the two mutually integrated. They are each a context for the other. In line with the interrelatedness is Ansari [3]’s argument that literature is the product of language. The implication is that literature cannot exist without language. Similarly, language cannot exist outside the society whose identity is language that is reflected in its literature. Literature is therefore a reflection of a particular society depicted in a language. This analogy implies that Language and Literature are almost inseparable. Parkinson and Reid [4] reiterate that literature provides a good model for good writing since it is memorable, non-trivial and challenging which means that students can remember good language expressions from literary texts because they are textual and can use them in a language class. On the basis of the above correspondence, the two disciplines seem pedagogically related in the sense that when they are studied in juxtaposition, they enable students to acquire proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two. Parkinson and Reid [4] discuss the dichotomy further by noting that literature can be seen as an instrument to teach specific vocabulary and structures. It improves language acquisition, expands students’ language awareness and interpretation abilities. A student who studies Linguistics may not acquire or learn the content/concepts of English Language successfully without close reference to reading the literature material/information material related to that field (English-Linguistics). It can be deduced that Literature in English is an extension of English Language [5,6]. More English structures and expressions are displayed in literature. A literary scholar may have challenges of learning/acquiring, understanding, conceptualising or even analysing literary concepts without sound linguistic and communicative competences which enable acquisition of content knowledge of Literature in English. Starja, concurs that literary texts develop the linguistic and literary skills and that; students cannot develop their literary competence unless the linguistic competence develops. This observation points to the symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines. Literature as a subject of study is an activity that involves and uses language [2,7]. The implication of the above assertions is that the pedagogical juxtaposition of the two disciplines in institutions of higher learning triggers students’ ability to acquire proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two.

Literature Review

Research on the relationship between Literature in English and English Language has been carried out by scholars such as [2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. These researchers discussed the interface between the two disciplines and how they can complement each other in different settings.

Study Rationale

Studies carried out in the area of the relatedness between Literature in English and English Language in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge in institutions of higher learning were related to the relationship between Literature in English and English Language and how such a relationship could improve the learning of English language in secondary and high schools in other countries. A study almost similar to this one was conducted in Nigeria where the researcher was looking at the symbiotic relationship between English Language and Literature in English at secondary school level and senior secondary level. According to the study in the Nigerian context, Richard [2] states that Literature in English and English Language are separated and treated as independent subjects. The study indicates that there are some problems in terms of English Language competence and English language awareness from that level even up to tertiary, possibly as a result of the separation of the two subjects. It also claims that a good number of secondary school leavers and tertiary institution graduates hardly express themselves fluently in both spoken and written English; this separation of disciplines leads to poor academic performance threatening all levels of education in Nigeria. That study has shown that at senior secondary school level, the subjects are taught at different classroom settings by teachers that are either designated Literature in English or English Language. The present paper focuses on the integration of Literature in English and English Language in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two in institutions of Higher Learning. Students who major in English Language at NUL are not forced to major in Literature in English and vice versa. The researcher was interested in exploring the integration of the two disciplines and acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two in Institutions of Higher Learning. 

Questions and Objectives

The paper investigates the symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two in Higher Education. It answers the following question:

• What is the relationship between Literature in English and English Language in relation to acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two by Higher Education students? 

• Do the two relate to each other?

• Do they help each other in acquisition of proficiency?

Theoretical Framework

The interpretivist and constructivist paradigms have been used to guide this study as well as qualitative research design of a case study type. Data was analysed following Castleberry and Amanda’s [1] Thematic Analysis. Interpretivist and constructivist have been discussed in juxtaposition as a justification of their interchangeable use in this study. The rationale behind their substitutable use is that they share some of the philosophical assumptions, for example, knowledge is socially constructed therefore there is multiplicity of socially constructed reality. In line with the knowledge construction is Schwandt [16]’s understanding that researchers should attempt to understand the complex world of lived experiences from those who live it. The assumption is that in the constructivist/interpretive paradigm reality/truth is dependent on people’s views about life because of their knowledge and experiences. In this study, people who are active are the researchers, students and the lecturers from the Faculties of Education and Humanities. It is from the individuals’ knowledge of reality after interpretation that philosophical construction exists. One may not exist without the other. The interdependence of the construction and interpretation of meaning indicates that the two paradigms are intrinsically intertwined and interdependent. Consequently, the interpretivist/constructivist paradigm has been used in this study for the same cross-pollination analogy applied in the pedagogical symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language at NUL. The study is also supported by a plethora of overlapping theories namely; schema theory, Language in/for/with Content Theory (LCT) and structuralism. According to Chang, Schema theory is defined by Bartlett [17] as a mental structure that stores people’s common knowledge learnt from their life experiences. It also represents the existing knowledge units in people’s minds and it can be created and modified. Bartlett postulates that when people meet new situations or problems, they use their stored knowledge and existing frame (schemata) to perceive their new environment and select corresponding strategies. The implication is that the schema theory is about the information acquired and stored in the knowledge tank which is retrievable when one meets new information/environment [18] further states that Schema theory describes the way knowledge is acquired, processed and cerebrally organized. Implicit is the understanding that the theory is about how information is absorbed, managed and controlled in the mind. It strengthens the significance of prior knowledge to the new one [19]. The assertion denotes that the already stored knowledge determines the acquisition and interpretation of the new information. Ivanic [20] states that reading literary texts is an interactive process between what the reader already knows about a given topic/subject and what he reads about. The schemata in the context of this study, refers to the knowledge of English language or literary words, phrases, sentences and expressions that students already have. Such knowledge is brought to the surface when one encounters new information because it assists the understanding, interpretation and acquisition of new knowledge. When students study Literature in English, the linguistic schemata that they already have, are appropriate for interpreting, understanding and learning new literary concepts. Similarly, in an English Language class the literary knowledge in the form of vocabulary, reading approaches and requisite skills are helpful in learning and grasping new linguistic concepts. The interrelatedness of the schemata points to the inherent symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language.

Schema theory forms the basis for this research. For instance, upon enrolling into English-medium higher education institutions, students (from a first or second language background), do not interact with the new environment or concepts in their subjects of specialisation with a blank/clean slate/empty minds (tabularasa). By the time they enroll in tertiary education, they have been exposed to education for a minimum of twelve years. They have presumably already acquired information/knowledge from their previous exposure to English medium education and personal life experiences. At university level, the students’ schemata can become handy in the acquisition and learning of new concepts. It therefore made academic sense to assume that in their learning of English language for a specialisation, university students bring to the text the already acquired information. They would be able to draw from their previous exposure to follow the rules of grammar such as subject verb agreement, tense, punctuation marks and spelling. The students have already learned and acquired the fundamentals in their English Language classes at primary and high schools. Such pre-existing knowledge facilitates their acquisition of and engagement with the requisite new and argumentative knowledge in English Language and Literature in English as separate subjects. Similarly, the Literature in English students require a certain degree of their existing linguistic competence to internalize the new knowledge. The theory advocates for interdependency and juxtaposition in the teaching of the two disciplines, without necessarily presuming the synonymy of the subjects. It is reasonable on the basis of the explanations of interdependence to assume that interdependency and pedagogical juxtaposition may be exploitable interventions/initiatives towards the enhancement of acquisition of proficiency in English as a medium of teaching and learning the two related disciplines. The schema theory was therefore deemed relevant in this study because of its advocacy for need to recognize interdependency of the two subjects, inseparability and reciprocity of the schemata and the new concept. It forms the basis for the symbiotic interconnected relationship between Literature in English and English Language that the study focuses on.

Structuralism is another theory that has guided the study. It does not look at bits and pieces of a sentence in isolation but as a connected whole. Peter [21] declares that structuralism is an intellectual movement which began in France in the 1950s and is first seen in the work of the anthropologist Claude Le Vi-Strauss and the literary critic, Ronald Barthes. Peter further, points out that structuralism is the belief that things cannot be understood in isolation; they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures that they are part of, hence the term (structuralism). The assertion implies that a literary text is analyzed or looked at from a holistic point of view. That is, words, phrases and sentences are not looked at individually but from the totality of every aspect of the structure. The combination of all the ingredients (structure) of a piece of literary writing is examined as a whole to arrive at the meaning of a text not as individual structures. The English Language teacher can teach vocabulary or certain English language structures using the literary text to drill students into working out the meaning of words from looking very closely at the other words around such a particular word. In other words, students would be able to infer. This is a reading skill applicable in Literature in English as well as in English Language, hence the advocacy of a pedagogical symbiosis of the two disciplines. 

Language in/for content learning theory also formed the basis for this study. The theory advocates for the teaching of English language through stimulating content. Sharing the same view point is Wolff [22] who stipulates that language in/for content approach is based on the well-known assumption that foreign languages are best learnt by focusing on the classroom and not so much on language, its structure and form but on the content through which language is transmitted. This supposition implies that English can be taught or learnt through appropriate, relevant and motivating content. If students are learning certain English Language structures, they have to learn them through content which is provided by literary texts. This chain points to the close relationship between language (English Language) and content (Literature in English).

English Language lessons which are meant for students to acquire particular English language content result in the acquisition of linguistic competence. Lee [23] has the view that English Language learners in content-based English Language classes, naturally and incidentally, acquire English and its structures. The reason behind this kind of exposure is that students comprehend the language expressed in content related concepts. He further explains that if English learners are to be proficient in academic language, different kinds of comprehensible input have to be provided. This implies that teaching English Language outside content makes learning complicated, hence the need for this research study which aims at finding out how Literature in English and English Language relate pedagogically. At NUL Literature in English and English Language are offered separately. Each of the two disciplines is treated as an independent course; therefore students who major in English Language are not compelled to choose Literature in English as the second major or vice versa. Students who major in English Language can either choose Literature in English or Development studies or Geography or History or African Languages or Theology or Philosophy or French or Sociology in the Faculty of Humanities as the second major subject. The same thing applies to Literature in English majors. They can also choose English Language and any other course from the ones mentioned above as their second major subject. The double major policy is not enforced in the Faculties of Humanities and Education. The challenge of such a policy is that the pedagogical relationship between the two disciplines has affected the teaching, learning and academic performance of the students in the two subjects at NUL. This study therefore explores the relationship between the two disciplines. It is assumed to be a symbiotic relationship and that can pedagogically influence each other.

Richard [2] says that Literature in English and English language are closely related because Literature presupposes language, that is, language is dependent on literature so is literature on language. It is therefore not advisable for students to study Literature in English without studying English Language. The reason is that there are lots of pedagogical benefits when the two are taught in tandem unlike when they are taught independently from each other. The existence of Literature in English is dependent on its language because the latter is authentic. English language is in proper use in Literature in English. 

Although Richard points out that Literature in English cannot exist without language, he does not show how the two are symbiotically related and how they can influence each other pedagogically in the classroom situation. This study therefore attempts to fill the niche, especially at NUL.

The study adopted qualitative research method because it allowed a personal voice and a thorough scrutiny of a phenomenon which is interpretive [24]. A qualitative research design corresponds to an interpretivist/ constructivist paradigm because in order to achieve an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon one has to examine it from multiple angles. Consistent with the in-depth study is Cilliers et al. [25] aversion that interpretivist’s research uses methods that are sensitive to the context for purposes of in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. The Constructivist paradigm is interpretive by nature and so is its qualitative research design which is that of a case study type. A case study design was adopted in this study because of its reliance on constructivist/interpretivist paradigm which scrutinizes the phenomenon in-depth to form an interpreted understanding. The researcher probed for an interpretivist understanding of the symbiotic pedagogical relationship between Literature in English and English Language in relationship to acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two in Higher Education.

The aim of the paper was to explore integrated pedagogical relationship between Literature in English and English Language in relation to acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two in Higher Education. Interpretivist/Constructivist and Qualitative research design were appropriate in this study because students and lecturers’ knowledge and experiences (multiple realities) were interpreted and analysed. The method allowed an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in discussion. The participants’ knowledge and experience revealed the reality the researcher hoped to achieve in this study. 

Data Collection  

Data was collected from students and lecturers from the National University of Lesotho. Students were year three and four who majored in English Language and Literature in English. They were all from DELL and LASED in the Faculties of Humanities and Education. Lecturers were also from the same departments and faculties but specialised in teaching Literature in English and English language. The study has adopted focus group discussions with students and face-to-face open-ended interviews with lecturers because the two data collection tools allow easy interaction, communication and sharing of ideas between the interviewer and the interviewee. This is consistent with the understanding that unstructured interviews focus on a broad area for discussion and they enable the participants to talk about the research topic in their own way [24,26]. The implication of the supposition is that participants are allowed to share their experiences and knowledge from their comfortable zone. They are not forced to talk about something they are not comfortable with but are guided and probed to provide required information.

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were used to collect data from the students who majored in Literature in English and English Language. Maree [27] argues that unlike in a one-to-one interview, a focus group discussion can provide the opportunity for people to explore and challenge the experiences and opinions of others and to reflect on their own within a facilitated environment. Participants were therefore able to share their experiences, knowledge and ideas related to the interrelatedness of the two disciplines in promoting proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two disciplines. According to Matthews and Liz [28] FGDs bring together a group of between 5 and 13 people who have something common which is connected to the research topic. In this study, four groups of ten students majoring in the two subjects from the two departments were formed. The groups consisted of year three and four students from LASED and DELL. The participants were purposely selected because they were knowledgeable about the relationship between Literature in English and English Language. They were also chosen because some were half way through their studies (year three) while others (year four) were about to complete their programs. Questions were open-ended in order to allow more discussions and probes from the researcher. This is consistent with Mertens [24]’s understanding that in focus group discussions, the interviewer will probe the interviewee for more information. I asked for clarifications and more information from the students during the discussions. Students were able to rephrase and expand on their responses. The discussions were recorded for purposes of authenticity and interpretation during data analysis stage.

Face-to-face open-ended interviews were also held with the lecturers from the two departments. The questions were open-ended so as to enable lecturers to clarify and expand on their ideas. The idea is in line with Maree, [27]’s understanding that in face-to-face open-ended conversations, the researcher explores with the participants’ ideas, beliefs and attitudes about certain events or phenomena. The researcher guided the interaction but allowed lecturers to discuss the relationship between Literature in English and English Language in a manner comfortable to them. They were also probed where necessary. The interviews were also recorded for better analysis and interpretation. Notes were also taken during the interviews. Course synopses and outlines for the two disciplines in the two faculties were also analysed for their relatedness in terms of content and competences. The researcher analysed data collected from students and lecturers following Castleberry and Amanda’s [1] five steps of Thematic Analysis strategy (TA). Such steps were compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting and conclusion. Data revealed the following as the Areas of Relatedness; rules of grammar, requisite skills, creativity and interpretation, reading skills, linguistic and communicative competences.

Data Analysis

The data was analysed qualitatively because it allowed the researcher’s personal interpretation of the participants’ multiple realities. Qualitative studies are within the constructivist/interpretivist paradigm with its principle that reality is constructed by those who are familiar with the phenomenon in question therefore there are multiple realities. This study has adopted a thematic data analysis strategy (TA). TA is a process of segmentation, categorization and relinking of aspects of the data prior to the final interpretation [28]. The analysis of qualitative data largely depends on the interpretation of raw data by the researcher. Dairy was therefore kept in order to record one’s own ideas, notes and reflections during the periods of both data collection and data analysis [28]. In addition, thematic analysis is also defined as a method of identifying, analyzing and reporting the patterns and themes within the data [1]. Generally, Castle and Amanda explain that the analysis of qualitative data can be outlined in five steps, namely; compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting and concluding. The FGDs and FFOIs were recorded, transcribed verbatim so that all data could be feasible and accessible. It was then disassembled and rearranged into meaningful themes (areas of symbiosis). The themes were then interpreted and conclusions were made in relation to the relationship between Literature in English and English Language. The analysis of the data of the current paper reflects the following findings: 

Rules of Grammar

The findings of the study point to the rules of grammar as one’s ability to write accurate sentences, observing subject verb agreement, punctuation marks and tense. English Language as a discipline is about prescriptiveness underpinning the use of the English language while Literature in English is the actual application of grammar rules; thus it is descriptive in different contexts. The observation is consistent with Nordiquist [29]’s understanding of the descriptive use of language as an examination of how a language is actually used in writing and speech while the prescriptive use is how it should be used. The understanding is in line with one of the principles of structuralism which states that meaning in a text is established by looking at the construction of the whole text, not individual elements such as words, sentences, tense, punctuation marks and the use of articles but the combination of all these holistically to communicate meaning. Peter [21] avers that the essence of structuralism is the belief that things cannot be understood in isolation, they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures they are part of. This understanding implies that the two disciplines are interwoven in the sense that in English Language students learn how to use language correctly in writing and in speech while in Literature in English they are able to see the application of the learnt rules of grammar. So in order for students to learn appropriate use of language they look at the words in connection to others (structure) in a sentence to make meaning. Similarly, to make meaning (content) of a text in a literary text book, words, sentences and ideas are examined and analysed in relation to others hence the structure. This analogy depicts the cross-fertilisation between acquisition of language and content so is the case with English Language and Literature in English. In addition, reading literary materials exposes students to the language itself. As a matter of fact, literary texts serve to develop linguistic and literary skills, for example, poetry prepares the means of learning and teaching of the basic language skills [30]. This connection signals the mutual relationship between the two disciplines in relation to the correct application of grammar rules (proficiency) which lead to meaning making (content).Consequently, students can gain proficiency in English as well as the content knowledge in the pedagogical juxtaposition of the two disciplines. The appraised position is in fact in line with the affirmation that Literature as a subject of study is an activity that involves and uses language [2,7,31]. This assertion suggests that by virtue of dependence on language for access to and communication of knowledge making, Literature in English is consequently language in use. It also implies that the two disciplines are structured around the same English language that follows the same rules of grammar. Ihejirika [32] and Birch [31] hold the same view point that the study of Literature is basically the study of how language is in action. That means Literature in English is an extension of English Language [5,6].

Requisite Skills

Data from the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and course outlines show the requisite skills. Language skills are competences that students require in order to learn. For example, the ability to listen, speak, read and write. In fact, in order to learn effectively, students should build up the four competences [33]. Students from the Faculties of Education and Humanities perceive that studying Literature in English and English Language improves the requisite skills in the two subjects because effective learning takes place through the same aptitudes. For this reason, competent application of the requisite skills in the learning process enhances acquisition of English and convenient learning of the content of the two disciplines equally. Substantiating this perception, one student responded:

Requisite skills apply in both disciplines. Literature deals with literary texts which we read and analyse. We then write our interpretation and we listen to the presentations. Similarly, in English Language we read texts, interpret, discuss, analyse and write essays on what we have read.

The excerpt denotes that requisite skills are part of the learning process. In order for students to be linguistically proficient, their four basic language skills must be sharpened. Acquisition of proficiency in English is the gate way to content learning of the two disciplines. The skills mentioned above overlap because they are both linguistic and literary. The competences complement each other in the teaching, learning and acquisition of proficiency in English language. The similarity of the requisite skills denotes that if topics such as reading approaches are taught in Literature in English, they may not be taught again in an English Language class, rather, they can be applied if students major in the two disciplines. English drama and poetry reading helps students to improve their listening skills while writing short paragraphs and lengthy articles on their own with the use of reading materials improves their writing skills [30,34]. These proclamations concur with the perception that reading literary texts improves literary and linguistic skills. The aforementioned skills are interrelated and therefore requisite for students who major in the two disciplines thus the inseparability of the two disciplines.

Requisite skills are in line with the schema theory. The theory holds that a human being is not a tabularasa. He/she has in store, knowledge acquired from life experiences that help in acquisition and learning of new information. According to Chang, Schema theory is defined by Bartlett [17] as a mental structure that stores people’s common knowledge learnt from their life experiences. In the context of this study, university students’ brains are no longer clean slates but are filled with life experiences and knowledge accumulated over a period of time. The background that a student brings into the new environment assists him/her to interpret the new concept. Sharing the same understanding is Sun [35]’s argument that the already existing knowledge is appealed/applied to, in learning new concepts. In the symbiotic integrated pedagogical context, students bring with them the requisite skills and knowledge they already have. These competences are key factors to interpreting and understanding the new information. For example, when one is teaching English Language concepts, students require their language skills so that learning may take place. The same analogy applies in a Literature in English class. This depicts the mutual relationship between the two disciplines. Requisite skills are therefore within the structures of the Schema theory; every individual uses the already shelved knowledge and experience to learn new concepts. If the schemata were not there it would be difficult for people to acquire and learn new information. This demonstrates that schemata and new knowledge are inseparable.

Creativity and Expression

Creativity and expression is another theme that emerged from categorisation of data from students’ FGDs. According to the students, the symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines enables students to be original in their expression. Literature is about the situations that are close to students’ own experience so it enables them to be inventive and relate. In fact, it is a sort of incubator for any type of creativity in language [36,37]. This infers that literature is a suitable environment that enhances inventiveness and imagination. The ability to construct own ideas and communicate them verbally or in writing signifies originality and effective communication. The pedagogical integration between the two disciplines can reasonably be deemed to augment students’ capability to creatively operationalise language to express themselves successfully around subject-based concepts and thoughts. Affirming this idea is one of the students who states:

I think ok, um, literature develops one’s eh… I was saying Literature develops a learner’s language awareness and creativity in the sense that coming across new words everyday makes me as a learner improve my writing and communication styles. It also instills the curiosity of wanting to know the meaning of words and putting them in use. 

The extract indicates that the mutual relationship between the two disciplines signals the two disciplines as pedagogically related; therefore students benefit from the use of English language as a means of instruction in the two disciplines. In addition, the pedagogical juxtaposition of the two disciplines improves students’ originality and ability to express themselves adequately. Students further argue that when they read literary material written in English by people from different ethnic groups, they acquire numerous expressions of English language used in various contexts such as poetry which exposes them to the literal and figurative use of English language. A novel also exposes them to new expressions and linguistic structures which sharpen their imagination, creativity and expression. This is consistent with Hernandes’, idea that ‘‘…texts can be used as a springboard for any type of language activity so literary texts seem to be an ideal vehicle for developing communicative skills since they provide authentic language, numerous opportunities for expression of ideas, opinions and beliefs.’’ Literature therefore, provides a platform for students to sharpen the skills of originality and effective communication.

The FGDs further unfold that a thorough exposure to different literary genres exposes a reader to different communicative techniques which increase students’ ability to create their own ideas. This is in line with the statement that literary genres use different styles of writing which can help students to improve their own writing style, sentence construction, vocabulary development, ideas of their own and expression [4,38,39]. The inference of the proclamation is that when studying English Language in the context of literary genres, students gain a lot in terms of linguistic and communicative competences as well as content knowledge involved in these two disciplines.

Furthermore, creativity and expression is reinforced by accessibility of the relevant examples of English language expressions in different contexts from literary texts. Therefore, students stand a better chance to acquire and learn new words and structures that will be used to enhance their creativeness and fluency in English. Proficiency in English and attainment of the subject matter for the two disciplines are equally implanted. In line with this perspective is Ajoke and Aspalila [8] and Widdowson’s [40] view point that the teaching of the two subjects gradually assists students to developing their English proficiency through a systematic study of English language and exposure to English literary texts. In addition, they argue that creativity and expression promote students’ proficiency in English and acquisition of content knowledge.

Creativity and expression is consistent with Language in/for/with Content Theory (LCT) or Content Based Instruction (CBI) guiding principles that hold that acquisition and learning of language happens during the delivery of content. Since the mode of instruction is English, students acquire the new structures and expressions as well as the content knowledge of the two courses simultaneously. Lee [23] has the view that English Language learners in content-based English Language classes, naturally and incidentally, acquire English and its structures. In this context, the focus is not on language acquisition per say but on the subject matter. LCT however, emphasises learning within the inspiring content. During the process of content presentation students do not only learn and acquire language related to the subject matter but can also come up with their own English language expressions for effective communication hence creativity and expression.

Vocabulary Development

Another revelation is the development of the new vocabulary. Literature in English is structured around English language so the two disciplines use the same English words. This similarity points to the fact that the symbiotic pedagogical approach between the two disciplines enhances the development of new words on both sides. Best capturing this is one of the students who states:

I am doing Literature in English and English Language. Literature requires a lot of reading and I now have a passion for reading. It has helped me in English. Literature books have a lot of vocabulary, in other words, we come across new words and how they are used so we are undoubtedly able to improve our vocabulary via Literature.

The quote signifies the relationship between the combination of the two disciplines and enhanced acquisition of vocabulary in English for specialists. Competence in variation of diction is on record as facilitative in learning, understanding, effective communication and essentially a display and management of content knowledge in content-subject learning and teaching [10,32,34]. New words found in the literature text books are actually words that are used in English Language. This shows that the more one reads literary text books the more one acquires new and unfamiliar words that are applicable in English language. Hall [41], Omijiuwa [42], Wilkins [43] situate the findings in a documented position that literary texts promote students’ acquisition of vocabulary, reading and writing skills. Emerging from the cited utterance is the explicitly put need for the two disciplines to be taught and learned side by side because there is seemingly no Literature in English without the mastery of aspects of English Language and English Language without the literary linguistic vibrancy and authenticity embedded in Literature in English would be too dry to be educationally meaningful [10,11,36,44]. Students’ responses coupled with the claims from documented scholarship [2,3] spotlight, among others, the diction-grounded complementary relationship between English Language and Literature in English. Vocabulary, structures and expressions that students acquire in the learning of the two disciplines are complementary. It further surfaces from the finding that although Literature in English has its own special terminology, such literary jargon is not confined to literary contexts only but it is still applicable in English Language.

Vocabulary development is consistent within the schema theory. The theory is about individual experience and stored knowledge that is brought to the new context. The schemata are retrievable when the learners meet new information. The understanding about the value/role of already acquired knowledge and even skills is consistent with Pankin’s [45] position that schema is based on past experience and is accessed to guide the current understanding or action. Acquisition/learning of new words and structures is determined by what students already know. In the symbiotic relationship between the two subjects, students are able to acquire/learn and understand new vocabulary and language structures from literary texts because of the knowledge, for example, knowledge of word formation that they already have (schemata), which forms the base. Likewise, in a language lesson, students are able to learn/acquire linguistic structures because of the already stored information which could be the verb forms, tense, syntax and semantics literary skills such as extrapolation, analysis and synthesis. Accordingly, in the integrated teaching of the two subjects, the application of these skills in the new context may help learners to acquire and comprehend new structures, striking and unfamiliar words. Holistically, this process is activated by the knowledge and experience that students bring to the new context. It is the schemata that enable them to relate, think, infer and make connections for a better understanding. It is against this background that the schema theory also formed the basis for this study.

Linguistic and Communicative Competences

The findings from the lecturers reveal linguistic and communicative competences. The two competences are crucial in learning and acquisition of proficiency in English because effective communication comes as a result of knowing the rules of grammar and using them appropriately. Best encapsulating this viewpoint is one of the lecturers who states: 

Literature in English and English Language are related in that in language we teach students how language is used. That is following the rules while literature students do not only learn the subject matter but also the authentic use of language (rules of grammar in application).

The text above implies that the two disciplines are related. One is the base for the other. In the teaching and learning of the two disciplines, students gain linguistic and communicative competence when the two are pedagogically integrated. Linguistic competence, according to Chomsky’s 1960’s theory of language, refers to sub-conscious knowledge of the rules of grammar of a language that enables the speaker to use and understand a language [46,47]. It may also be referred to as grammatical competence. Habermas [46] and Newmeyer [47] imply that human beings are born with the ability to acquire and learn the structure of a language. Communicative competence on the other hand refers to ability to use language correctly or the application of the knowledge of the rules of grammar that govern a language. This is in line with Cejudo et al. [48]’s supposition that communicative competence involves ability to use grammar correctly at social contexts.The assertion implies that since English Language is prescriptive, that is how language is structured and should be used in different social settings, Literature in English, on the other hand, is descriptive. That is, it is the practical use of English language following the learnt rules of grammar. The two disciplines therefore complement each other. In the context where they are studied separately as it is the case at NUL, the process of learning and acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge are challenged.Linguistic and communicative competences are inseparable so is English Language and Literature in English. Competence in one (linguistic and/English Language) paves way for learning and understanding of the other (communicative and/Literature in English). 

The innate linguistic knowledge allows one to communicate effectively in the language learnt. Effective communication comes as a result of the individual’s grammatical competence. In addition, what also emerges from the lecturers is that the two disciplines use the same medium which is English language. It is therefore beneficial that they are studied in juxtaposition as that would help students acquire proficiency in English. Students’ innate knowledge of grammar rules and proper application improves proficiency in English and acquisition of content knowledge for the two subjects. 

Linguistic and communicative competences are also consistent with the schema theory. The theory is about the mental structure that stores the individuals’ already existing knowledge that comes as a result of experience. This postulation is in line with Zhao‘s and Lei‘s, assertion that schema theory clarifies that in order to comprehend a text, one has to combine own background knowledge with the information in a text. The already stored knowledge is resuscitated when new information is learned or acquired. In the integrated pedagogical approach of Literature in English and English Language, students are expected to be linguistically and communicatively competent. They are expected to be knowledgeable about the rules of grammar because it helps them acquire proficiency in the language. It further assists them to understand the content of the two subjects but if one is not competent with the rules of grammar, there may be challenges in terms of acquisition of proficiency in the language and even the content itself.

Concurrently, students should also be able to apply the rules of grammar correctly. If a student does not apply the knowledge of the rules of grammar correctly, the understanding of the content is hindered. In this regard, the schema theory advocates that learners are able to apply their knowledge of grammar effectively because of the already stored linguistic competence (schemata). The application of grammar rules is applicable to the two disciplines. For this reason, the two subjects are considered symbiotic. Linguistic and communicative competences are equally applicable in the two integrated disciplines hence their relatedness that activates their ability to acquire proficiency in English and the mastery of content knowledge of the two subjects.

The findings of the present paper reveal a number of ways in which English Language and Literature in English are symbiotic and pedagogically related. Firstly, the findings reflect that Literature in English and English Language share the same rules of grammar examples that include subject-verb agreement [2,7,15,31]. Secondly, prescriptive and descriptive uses of English language for effective communication are similar in the two disciplines, for instance, English Language is about the grammar rules required for writing correct sentences, observing subject-verb agreement, tense and punctuation marks. Literature in English is the application of those grammar rules. Thirdly, reading literary texts written in English probes the application of linguistic competences acquired in English Language, thereby enhancing students’ proficiency in English language as the medium of learning. 

Fourthly, the two disciplines are intertwined in the sense that they share the same requisite skills which are listening, speaking reading and writing as articulated by [30,34,49]. These findings imply that when students study the two disciplines in tandem, the requisite skills may be improved and sharpened for acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. It can also be understood that mastery of requisite skills activates effective teaching and learning of the two disciplines.The findings point to the symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines. They are in line with the schema theory, with its spotlight that acquisition and learning of new information is dependent on the already known and stored information/knowledge [19]. New information/knowledge and the already stored one are inseparable. Knowledge and proper application of the rules of grammar, requisite skills, linguistic and communicative competences as well as the reading of literary texts are inseparable from studying the two disciplines. When one studies the two disciplines in juxtaposition, one brings to the context the already stored knowledge of grammar rules and application as well as the requisite skills in order to acquire new knowledge/information. This makes the schemata inseparable from knowledge acquisition. The same analogy applies to the two disciplines in the sense that acquisition of linguistic or literary knowledge is dependent on the knowledge and proper application of rules of grammar and requisite skills that are brought to the context. Rules of grammar, requisite skills, linguistic and communicative competences therefore make the two disciplines pedagogically interrelated because they function as the schemata requisite in acquisition of new information so is English Language for the study of Literature in English and vice versa.

The main objective of the study was to explore the relationship between Literature in English and English Language in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge in Higher Education. The assumption was that the two disciplines are intrinsically interrelated and such a relationship can enhance acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two in institutions of higher learning. This paper concludes that there is a close relationship between Literature in English and English Language in the sense that the two disciplines are inherently intertwined. Such a relationship has pedagogical contribution that can enhance acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two. The paper reveals that students in institutions of higher learning who major in the two disciplines can consciously and subconsciously improve their performance in the two subjects because of their interrelatedness. The paper further sheds light in the areas of symbiosis between the two disciplines as; rules of grammar, requisite skills, creativity and expression, vocabulary development, linguistic and communicative competences. The paper demonstrates that the two disciplines share the same competences even though it may not be on equal basis but to a large extent, they cross-fertilise in terms of skills applicable to both when they are studied together. The synergy implies that the two disciplines should be taught in juxtaposition for the improvement of acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two.

Recommendations

The paper recommends that students who major in Literature in English either as a teaching subject or not should also major in English Language and vice versa for pedagogical benefits. In relation to the areas of symbiosis which are the rules of grammar, language skills, reading of literary texts and linguistic and communicative competences, the study recommends that the two disciplines could be taught in juxtaposition, with special attention on these cross cutting skills and competences. There is literature-supported evidence pointing to the need for the integration of the two disciplines as they are complementary learning contexts for each other. The understanding is that such an arranged plan of work could augment acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge.

The theoretical framework as the base for the symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines as a finding in this paper leads to the recommendation that the symbiotic relationship could be used not only for acquisition of language proficiency but also for content of the two disciplines. Language and content are inseparable. It is also recommended that student teachers from LASED be encouraged to major in the two disciplines because of literature-supported pedagogical benefits. Student teachers could study the two disciplines in the context of each other and even teach them in juxtaposition. However, in the case where a student teacher majors in either of the two disciplines and any other discipline such as (Geography/History) as the second major, the study recommends that LASED could provide English Language education and Literature in English education courses that would cater for the missing pedagogical proficiencies from the other course. The courses could equip prospective teachers with skills and competences to teach the two disciplines competently as prescribed in the Lesotho curriculum and assessment reforms such as Curriculum and Assessment Policy (CAP) and Lesotho integrated curriculum reform.

The paper also recommends that in DELL, students could be encouraged to major in Literature in English and English Language because of content learning and acquisition-related benefits that the students gain from studying the two disciplines side by side. In the case where a student decides to be a literary scholar not a linguist or vice versa, the present paper recommends that the Department of English Language and Linguistics could also offer Literature in English and English Language course that would cater for the missing proficiencies from the other side. The reason is that the two disciplines are inherently and pedagogically interdependent and should be seen as interdependent. When the two are taught independently, oblivious of their linguistic commonalties, lecturers are denied the opportunities to use one discipline to teach the other. Likewise, students from LASED and DELL are also denied the chances to learn one discipline assisted by the other. The paper further recommends that the two disciplines be taught alongside each other. The recommendation is in line with the theory underpinning this study. This is Language in/for/with content theory and its principle of interdependence of acquisition of language and content. The principle explains that language can neither be learned nor acquired independent of content; in fact, the two are simultaneous. In this context, Literature in English provides the content for English Language while the latter is the medium of expression of both literary and linguistic ideas and elements. It pedagogically makes sense therefore to study the two disciplines in tandem. More research is required on the benefits of the pedagogical integration of the two disciplines.

1. Castleberry, A. and N. Amanda. “Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds.” Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, vol. 10, no. 6, 2018, pp. 807–815.

2. Richard, C. “English language teaching: Literature and language teaching and learning, a symbiotic relationship.” Canadian Centre of Sciences and Education, 2014.

3. Ansari, A. “Understanding language and literature.” International Journal on English Language and Literature, vol. 2, no. 1, 2013.

4. Parkinson, B. and T. Reid. Teaching Literature in a Second Language. Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

5. Mingu. “The relationship between English and literature.” London, 2013.

6. Keshavarzi, A. “Use of literature in teaching English.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 46, 2012, pp. 554–559.

7. One, J. and P. Jaya. “The Malaysian English Language Teaching Association (MELTA).” Annual General Meeting (AGM), 23 Feb. 2018.

8. Ajoke, A.R. and S.H. Aspalia. “Problem and prospect of using literature to teach writing in English as a second language.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, vol. 6, no. 2, 2017, pp. 53–57.

9. Basnett, S. and P. Grundy. Language through Literature. London: Longman, 1993.

10. Carter, R. and M. Long. Teaching Literature. Harlow: Longman, 1991.

11. Collier, J. and S. Slater. Literature in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

12. Brumfit, C. “Reading skills and the study of literature in a foreign language.” In Language and Literature Teaching: From Practice to Principle, edited by C. Brumfit, Pergamon Press, 1986, pp. 105–110.

13. Pretorius, W. and J. Swart. Teaching African Literature: A Theoretical and Methodological Introduction. University of South Africa, 1982.

14. Quirk, R. and A. Smith. The Teaching of English. London: Martin Secker and Warburg Ltd., 1959.

15. Halliday, M. and A. Peter. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman, 1964.

16. Schwandt, T. “Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics and constructionism.” In The Landscape of Qualitative Research, edited by N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 2nd ed., Sage, 2000, pp. 292–331.

17. Bartlett, F.C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press, 1932.

18. Christopher, P. “Instructional design models and theories: Individualized instruction model.” 2014.

19. Merriam, S., R. Caffarella and L. Baumgartner. Learning in Adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

20. Ivanic, R. Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998.

21. Peter, C. “Language and literature: Metaphorical proposition.” International Journal of Stylistics, Feb. 2002, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947002011.

22. Wolff, D. “Integrating language and content in the language classroom: Are transfer of knowledge and of language ensured?” Accueli, no. 41–42, 2003.

23. Lee, B. “Content-based ESL instruction and curriculum.” Academic Exchange Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, 2007, pp. 114–120.

24. Mertens, D. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods. 2nd ed., Sage, 2005.

25. Cilliers, F.D., C. Davis and R. Bezuidenhout. Research Matters. Cape Town: Juta & Company Ltd., 2014.

26. Goddard, W. and M. Stuart. Research Methodology: An Introduction. Lansdowne: Juta & Co., Ltd., 2007.

27. Maree, K. First Steps in Research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers, 2012.

28. Matthews, B. and L. Ross. Research Methods: A Practical Guide for the Social Sciences. Pearson Education Limited, 2010.

29. Nordquist, R. “Descriptive grammar.” ThoughtCo., 2019.

30. Khdihr, H. and N. Mariwan. “Pedagogy of English language through literary texts to non-native learners of English language.” International Review of Social Sciences, vol. 4, no. 12, 2016.

31. Birch, D. Language, Literature and Critical Practice. Routledge, 1991.

32. Ihejirika, R. “Literature and English language teaching and learning: A symbiotic relationship.” English Language Teaching, vol. 7, no. 3, 2014.

33. Bacon, R. “Language across the curriculum approach.” Physics Catalyst, 2019.

34. Fernandes, L., N. Hadi and Q. Alsaeed. “Using English literature for the teaching of English.” International Journal of English and Literature Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, 2014, pp. 126–133.

35. Sun, F. “The application of schema theory in teaching college English writing.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol. 4, no. 7, 2014, pp. 1476–1482.

36. Ritlyova, A. “Creative use of literature in language teaching.” Online Konferencia, 29–30, 2014.

37. Jovanovich, Z. “The significance of William Shakespeare for the development of English word-formation.” Interfaces and Integrations Proceedings, vol. 1, University of Belgrade, 2006, pp. 109–122.

38. Akyel, A. and E. Yalcin. “Literature in the EFL class: A study of goal achievement incongruence.” ELT Journal, vol. 44, no. 3, 1990, pp. 174–180.

39. Phelps-Teraski, D. et al. Remediation and Instruction in Language: Oral Language, Reading and Writing. Texas: PRO-ED, 1983.

40. Widdowson, H. “Ownership of English.” TESOL Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2, 1994. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587438.

41. Hall, H. Using Novels in Language Education. New York: Palgrave, 2005.

42. Omijiuwa, T.O. “Enhancing reading and writing skills in the JSS through newspaper.” Literacy and Reading in Nigeria, vol. 7, 1997, pp. 211–220.

43. Wilkins, D. Second Language Learning and Teaching. London: Edward Arnold, 1978.

44. Zhen, C. “Characteristics and strategies of literature teaching in the EFL context in China.” International Journal of Electronics P & Communication Engineering, vol. 5, no. 3, 2012, pp. 35–43.

45. Pankin, J. “Schema theory.” Fall 2013.

46. Habermas, J. “Towards a theory of communicative competence.” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, vol. 13, 2008, pp. 360–375.

47. Newmeyer, J. “The current convergence in linguistic theory: Some implications for second language acquisition research.” Second Language Research, vol. 3, no. 1, 1983.

48. Cejudo, J. et al. “Effect of a programme to enhance proficiency in linguistic competence in secondary education.” Revista de Psicodidactica (English Edition), vol. 22, no. 2, 2017, pp. 135–141.

49. Berkley, A. Literature Resource Books for Teachers. Oxford University Press, 2009.