The study demonstrates that the symbiotic relationship between English Language and Literature in English as academic disciplines has pedagogical implications in the enhancement of acquisition and learning of expertise in English and content knowledge of the two.Literature cannot exist without language therefore Literature in English came into existence because of English Language though the same may not be said about English Language. In support of this observation is Ihejirika’s [2] view that language is the raw material with which literature is manufactured. That is, literature is the product of language. The author even states that ‘it is with the instrument of language that literature is concretized’. By implication, literature exists and becomes authentic because of language. Language may also not be authentic and reliable without its written form (literature). Sapir, also opines that language is the medium of literature as a marble or bronze or clay is the material for the sculptor. The assertion above points to the inseparable pedagogical relationship between Literature in English and English language. English Language may not be effectively learned and acquired outside Literature in English. The interface between the two disciplines therefore is suggestive of the pedagogical juxtaposition for effective learning and teaching. It can therefore be understood that the learning and acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two are interdependent. That is the teaching and learning of English Language is dependent on the reading of literary texts and information material. Reading helps learners not only to acquire and learn the content but also new vocabulary, sentence structures and grammar. Curry and Ogunnaike, aver that persistent reading with some enjoyment or even with avidity, improves understanding which will in the final analysis improve the use of English in writing and speaking. They also state that proficiency in English comes as a result of reading literary material. In the context of English Language teaching, broad reading enhances chances of acquisition of proficiency in English and also helps in the effective teaching of the two disciplines. Taking the discussion further is Bro’s, claim that there is no sharp line of demarcation between Literature in English and English language but a continuum in the sense that in literature, language is in use continuously. In Literature in English, communication in English is taken to the next level which is that of a literary form. This implies that English language is embedded in its literary form because the two exist concretely in the presence of the other. Students who study the two subjects separately at NUL are at a disadvantage of not fully being engrossed in the act of effective learning of the two subjects. This paper sets out to explore the insinuations of teaching the two disciplines in juxtaposition in relation to acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge in institutions of higher learning.

Literature Review

Research on the pedagogical interface between Literature in English and English Language has been carried out by researchers such as [2,3,4,5]. These researchers did not discuss the implications of the symbiotic pedagogical relationship between Literature in English and English Language in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. 

Rationale

Unlike studies that focused on the interface between literature and language in different contexts, this paper specifically focuses on the implications of the integrated pedagogical relationship between Literature in English and English Language with regard to acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two in Higher Education. Studies carried out in this area focused mainly on the relationship between the two disciplines and the importance of literature in language learning and teaching. In the context of this study, not many students who major in English Language also major in Literature in English or vice versa at NUL. Students do not recognise the pedagogical implications of studying the two in juxtaposition. This is evident in their combination of subjects. It is either they choose English Language and another subject or Literature in English and another subject in Arts instead of majoring in the two simultaneously. The researcher was interested in the pedagogical insinuations of studying and learning the two disciplines concurrently for acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge in Higher Education. 

Questions and Objectives

The paper explores the implications of the pedagogical interrelatedness of Literature in English and English Language in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. It answers the questions:

• What are the implications of the pedagogical interrelatedness between Literature in English and English Language in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge in Higher Education?

• How can the pedagogical implications of the symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language enhance acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two in Higher Education?

Theoretical Framework 

The constructivist paradigm was used to guide this study as well as qualitative research design of a case study type Castleberry and Amanda’s [1]. Thematic Analysis was used to analyse data in this study. The paradigm is premised on the axiom that reality/knowledge is socially constructed therefore there is a multiplicity of socially constructed realities. In line with reality construction is Schwandt’s, understanding that researchers should attempt to understand the complex world of lived experiences from those who live it. Consistent with knowledge construction is the comprehension that truth is a social construction that is dependent on the meanings that people ascribe to and their own experiences and interactions with others [6]. The scholars also argue that the social world is what people perceive it to be. In essence the implication of the scholars’ assertions is that knowledge/truth is authentic when shared by those who have the experience of the situation because they have been part and parcel of the phenomenon. They have also been affected by the situation so they can describe it better. In this paper, students and the lecturers from the Faculties of Education and Humanities are the participants who are affected by the pedagogical implications of the relationship between the two disciplines in relation to acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. Students in LASED and DELL major in the two disciplines whilst lecturers teach them so the two participants are well-informed about the phenomenon in discussion. The constructivist paradigm is used in this paper because of its premise on multiple truths that are socially constructed from those who are knowledgeable about the phenomenon. The researcher expected different perspectives from the participants because their experiences differ. The study is supported by a number of theories namely; Language and context, Language in/for/with content and Schema theories.

Language and context theory is applicable to this study because of the concept of context which was initiated by Malinowski, a Polish professor of anthropology. He introduced the notion of context of situation which is meaning by environment [7]. He furthermore states that context is some sort of environment. It is what is going on around where language is somehow involved. He affirms that context of situation; originally context meant the accompanying text, the wording that came before and after whatever was under attention. What Halliday means in the two texts above is that meaning is not arrived at from looking at individual words in a text; rather, it is deduced from looking at the environment/situation that is words surrounding the area of focus (co-text). In other words, for the construction of meaning, this theory looks at the structure of the text as a whole, not words in isolation but phrases, sentences, grammar, punctuation and tense as well. Meaning and situation are therefore inseparable. In Literature in English sometimes in order to understand a meaning of a particular concept or word in a given text students have to look at the words and structures surrounding such a word to infer the meaning. Similarly, in English Language lessons the same reading skill is requisite when teaching English Language concepts, for example, comprehension passage. By implication a concept or skill can be taught in the context of the other discipline. In the context of the pedagogical implications of the interface between English Language and Literature in English, the symbiotic relationship points to the interrelated teaching of the two disciplines for effective teaching/learning and acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. English Language can also be taught better if co-text is looked at together with context (literature). Language and context theory shares the same principles as structuralism which looks at meaning holistically, not in isolation. 

Language in/for/with 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 Lazar’s [8] assertion that literature should be seen as an irreplaceable resource of motivating material. The scholar further declares that literature encourages language acquisition, expands students’ language awareness and interpretation abilities [9,10,11]. The implication of the above statements is that literature is the best tool for language teaching. It helps and motivates students to acquire and learn language because the content is familiar therefore fascinating. It is actually the practical use of language. Students put more effort in their studies when the subject matter is stimulating. Lazar [8] discusses the motivating content further that literature should be used with students because it is a motivating stimulus for language students as it teaches English grammar and syntactic structures implicitly with clear examples. A teacher can use literary texts to his/her advantage by showing the students the structures of English Language in action. This means Literature in English exposes the English Language structures which students can acquire and consequently improve their proficiency in English in a relaxed familiar Literature in English class/environment. The theory is therefore relevant in this study because of the motivating aspect that Literature in English provides in the teaching and learning of English Language thus making the two disciplines inseparable and pedagogically related.

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. Every language has got its literature hence the latter’s existence. Ansari [12] contends that literature is the product of language and so it depends on language meaning that if language is dead, automatically its literature is dead. For the survival of each of the two disciplines there is inevitable innate interdependency which leads even to classroom situation where the two should be taught or even studied in juxtaposition for effective learning because they are each a context for each other. It is therefore not advisable for students to study Literature in English without studying English Language. The reason is there are lots of pedagogical benefits when the two are taught in tandem. 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. The interrelatedness between the two disciplines points to the teaching of the two side by side. Sharing the same view point is Horowitz’s, assertion that Literature in English may have a place in English teaching more than any other subject. Horowitz approves of Literature in English as having located itself in promoting the effective teaching of English Language. By its virtue of being a language, it has all linguistic structures students should learn. It is exemplary; it portrays the ideal usage of language in different contexts. Literature’s contribution in English Language teaching is unique in that its existence is dependent on language itself and also goes beyond the boundaries of just being considered literature but an English Language teaching aid. Its authenticity reciprocally forces the language itself to then rely on Literature in English for a number of reasons such as reliability and reference in academic setting. Language in/for/with content theory is relevant in this paper because of its emphasis on acquisition of language in a stimulating environment which literature provides thus pointing also to the simultaneous acquisition of language and content. This reciprocity suggests that there is inherently a close pedagogical symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines. If institutions of higher learning such as NUL may consider this observation, the teaching, learning, acquisition, English language competence and proficiency in English could improve. Such a development could also upgrade the academic perform of the students.

Schema theory is also used in this paper because of its relevance to the constructivist theory about knowledge construction. According to Axelrod, schema theory is about how a single person observes and makes sense out of a complex environment. Axelrod indicates that schema describes the perceptual and cognitive process of a single person. In totality, the above-mentioned scholar’s postulation on schema theory is that schemata are experiences and knowledge of life that individual human beings have. The already stored knowledge helps human beings to construct new knowledge hence constructivist theory. The background exposure helps students to interpret, understand and critically analyze the new knowledge. Essentially, the cognitive structure helps students to learn new information easily because the schemata works as the stepping stone to the learning of new concepts. In the context of this study when students study Literature in English, the linguistic schemata they already have become handy in interpreting, understanding and learning of new literary concepts, for example, communicative and linguistic competences. Similarly, in an English Language class the literary knowledge in a 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 which implies the necessity of the pedagogical juxtaposition of the two disciplines. The successful and effective reading is dependent on the schemata an individual possesses which are relevant to the text. Consistent with the understanding of effective reading which is applicable to the teaching of the two disciplines is Short’s [11] observation that the reader’s understanding of a text is determined by what he/she already knows which will be useful during the reading process. 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. Sharing the same idea is Sun’s, understanding that the background knowledge is applied in learning new concepts. By implication acquisition of proficiency in language and content are inseparable so are the two disciplines in the sense that absorption of new information (linguistic/literary) is determined by the already stored knowledge of either of the two. The same analogy applies in the context of this dialectic because acquisition of English and content knowledge for either of the two disciplines requires integrated pedagogical approach for effective learning and teaching. 

The understanding about the value/role of already acquired knowledge and even skills is consistent with Pankin’s, position that that schema is based on past experience and is accessed to guide the current understanding or action. In this inquiry, the understanding was adopted to argue that at university level students’ schemata can become handy in students’ acquisition and learning of new concepts. It therefore made academic sense to reason that, in their learning of English language for a specialisation, university students would be able to draw from their previous exposure to follow 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 to high school. Such pre-existing knowledge is hoped to facilitate their acquisition of and engagement with the requisite new and argumentative knowledge in the subjects English Language and Literature in English. Similarly, Literature in English students require a certain degree of linguistic competence which they already have in order to internalise 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. This is clearly demonstrated by the findings from the inquiry in question. It is reasonable on the basis of explanations of interdependence to position that interdependency and pedagogical juxtaposition could be an exploitable intervention/initiative towards enhancement of acquisition of proficiency in English as a medium of teaching and learning of the two related disciplines. The schema theory was therefore deemed relevant in this study because of its advocacy for need to recognise pedagogical interdependency of both subjects especially in the use of old knowledge and the new one.

The study adopted a qualitative research method. The research design is of a case study type. Case study is defined as an in-depth quantitative or qualitative study on an organization or an institution [13]. This intensive study of the implications of the pedagogical symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language was carried out at NUL. From a constructivist perspective, the typical characteristic of case studies is that it strives towards a comprehensive (holistic) understanding of how participants relate and interact with each other in a specific situation and how and why they make meaning of a phenomenon under study [13]. The researcher wanted to find the in-depth knowledge lecturers and students had in relation to the implications of the pedagogical integration of the two disciplines. A case study design was adopted in this study because of its reliance on constructivist paradigm which scrutinises the phenomenon in-depth/holistically to form an interpreted understanding. 

Data Collection Strategies

Data was collected from lecturers and students from the faculties of Education and Humanities. The participants were purposefully selected because they were knowledgeable about the implications of the pedagogical symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two in Higher Education. This is consistent with the understanding that the selection of participants in qualitative research is purposeful and should best inform the research questions by enhancing an understanding of the research phenomenon [14,15]. Participants were from the DELL and LASED. Lecturers specialised in teaching English Language and Literature in English whilst students majored in the same subjects. Students were also in year three and four of their study. Data collection techniques employed were Focus GROUP Discussions (FGDs) with students and Face-To-Face Open-ended Interviews with Lecturers (FFOIs). In focus group discussion, students discussed ideas among themselves before a consensus was reached. Consistent with the open discussion and consensus reaching is Mertens’ [6] clarification that the reliance on interaction between participants is meant to get more from the participants’ point of view that would be guided by the researcher before a consensus is reached. The role of the researcher was to guide the discussion so that participants discuss the demands of the question. In face-to-face open-ended interviews, the interviewer asked the lecturers questions and even probed them for clarification where necessary [6]. This paper adopted a thematic data analysis strategy. 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 implications of the pedagogical interrelatedness between the two disciplines: direct learning, reading culture, integrated pedagogical approach, collaborative teaching, departmental close working relationship and teaching strategies (flexibility and contextualisation).

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 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 is a process of segmentation, categorisation and relinking of aspects of the data prior to the final interpretation [16]. The analysis of qualitative data largely depends on the interpretation of raw data by the researcher. Diary was therefore kept in order to record one’s own ideas, notes and reflections during the periods of both data collection and data analysis [16]. The researcher also recorded the conversations to be transcribed later. Thematic analysis can also be defined as a method of identifying, analyzing and reporting the patterns and themes within the data [1]. Castleberry and Amanda further explain that the analysis of qualitative data can be outlined in five steps, namely; compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting and concluding. The implication of the assertion is that data analysis is understood as classifying collected information into workable chunks. 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 (implications of the pedagogical interrelatedness between Literature in English and English Language in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge). The themes were then interpreted and conclusions were made in relation to the phenomenon in discussion. The analysis of the data of the current paper reflects the following findings: 

Direct Learning

Direct learning is defined as “the learning of language in relevant setting…” [17]. It emerged from the FGDs with students as one of the implications of the synergetic pedagogical setting between Literature in English and English Language. The finding is in line with the understanding of the intrinsic and therefore complex nature of the relationship between academic disciplines and language [4,12,19,20]. Firstly, the understanding depicts academic disciplines as content-matter and language learning contexts. By this virtue they dictate the type of language requisite for conceptualisation of the concepts making the content therein [21]. Literature in English and English Language are both academic disciplines and therefore, in this study evidentially related and relevant contexts in which direct learning of both subject-matter and language can be lived by both students and their lecturers across faculties. Secondly, the cited literature spotlights language as context-governed for clarity and relevance of interpretation of meaning and knowledge creation. 

Direct learning as a finding from this study makes it research-based academic sense to posit that Literature in English as a literary content-based discipline dictates the need for proficiency in literary linguistics and language which English Language as a linguistics and language-based discipline can be a base for. The finding therefore points to a pedagogical symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines. This is so in the sense that the negotiation of meaning, clear conceptualisation and effective communication of knowledge of concepts that make the content of Literature in English are all dependent on proficiency in the different aspects of the content of English Language. The finding on the notion of direct learning, coupled with its consistence with already existing scholastic claims about the relationship between language and relevant context, makes relevant the researcher’s position that Literature in English and English Language are so intrinsically related that given a reasonably appropriate pedagogical space, both can be contexts for complementary direct learning and teaching of language and content aspects, one of the other. Literature in English can, for instance, be a context in which direct learning becomes a pointer through which learners get exposed to functional knowledge and use of language in literary texts; while in the discipline English Language direct learning facilitates acquisition of proficiency in generic linguistics and language which get explored, exploited and appropriately functionalised per requisite linguistic demands in the context of Literature in English. Direct learning as a finding is consistent with documented knowledge that Literature in English enables direct learning of English language because it is the actual application of what is taught in a language class. It develops language awareness and curiosity [2,3]. The insinuation from the authors’ assertion is that in the integrated pedagogical set up, students majoring in the two disciplines are able to perceive the application of numerous linguistic concepts such as punctuation marks, sentence types, definite and indefinite articles in different literary contexts. The implication is congruent with Ihejirika’s [2] perception that Literature in English demonstrates English Language at work because it offers good models of language display. The scholar’s statement also confirmed by the finding implies that literary text-books use language which students can acquire and learn better if they read such text-books. Situating the finding on direct learning in existing knowledge is Ruutmann and Hants’, understanding that direct instruction is more appropriate when the content in literary texts is stimulating to the students. Implicit in the cited authors’ claim is that students are directly engulfed into learning a linguistic concept easily if they are intrigued by the subject matter. It therefore makes academic sense to opine, based on evidence enhancing current knowledge, that language is learned in the context of literary text-books because they serve as samples.

Direct learning is seemingly a motivating process to the learners of English language because it is a method of teaching that helps students to acquire language easily and faster due to the exciting content. Students can see how language is used in literary texts. They could also learn the content of literature at the same time. Direct learning is therefore within the structures of language in/for/with content theory due to its platform offering of observing language in application. The finding reveals that teaching English Language in the Literature in English context is a direct learning because it is a straightforward way of teaching language; in fact, most of the linguistic structures are displayed. Best capturing the idea is the extract below:

When we read The River Between by Ngugi wa Thiong’o, we find linguistic and literary structures, for example, sentence types and kinds, tense, punctuation, definite and indefinite articles. There are also literary elements such as symbolism, cultural clash/difference and imagery which are interesting because we are familiar with them. Male and female circumcision is part of our culture. In Africanised Literature, African ideas are translated into English so the content and use of English language in the African context can help students improve proficiency in English due to the interesting familiar context.

The foregoing utterance points to a student’s awareness and appreciation of the role of Literature in English in acquisition of proficiency in English as a language and in the subject English Language. The finding has space in and contribution to research-appraised aversions such as Matsoso’s [21] that acquisition of proficiency in academic English by Higher Education students from Non-English–Speaking Backgrounds (NESB) is enhanced by the utilisation of such students’ local knowledge for negotiation of meaning and clarity. Students’ cultural knowledge is a problem solving strategy. Strategically explored, Literature in English can provide a pedagogical scenario towards acquisition of proficiency in English by higher education students. Consistent with Matsoso, is Keshavarzi’s, claim that reading literature as a subject enhances students’ knowledge of culture and society. This is more so because language is associated with culture. In fact, language is the carrier of the cultural message so literature is culture. It can be deduced from the cited claims and, more importantly, from the finding on direct learning that even students’ cultural background can serve as a motivating tool for acquisition of English language in African context. The context is not foreign to African students who are thus able to see the application of the linguistic structures in a familiar context. Ideally therefore, the evidentially indicated interrelationship between the two disciplines could be understood to be pointing to the need for pedagogical integration through direct teaching and learning of English language in the contexts of both Literature in English and English Language for purposes of enhancing the mastery of both as academic disciplines.

The finding on direct learning becomes a research–appraised contribution to the theories benchmarking not only curriculum design but also the teaching and learning of related academic disciplines. One of such theories and underpinnings of this study is the Language in/with/for content area theory with its spotlight that language and content learning are intertwined. Surfacing from this principle is the understanding that students do not learn English language without comprehending the subject matter related to that language, this indicates that acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge are simultaneous. Students are consciously and subconsciously bound to acquire and learn the language within context (subject matter). The principle is suggestive of the inseparability of language and content; this is the case with English Language and Literature in English Language. The essence of the finding on direct learning and therefore spotlighting the pedagogical symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language is that linguistic and literary proficiencies are interdependent. The study through depiction of direct learning as a finding and its implications stresses the binding nature of the pedagogical connection between Literature in English and English Language as well as acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge in both, thus the symbiotic relationship.

Another guiding principle is that the learning of a linguistic concept is more practical and effective if the content is stimulating [22]. Literature in English provides a rich motivating environment for acquisition of language and content because it is about life experiences that students are familiar with and can even relate. This is in line with the understanding that literature provides realistic examples of language use which motivates students to interact [8,23]. Direct learning as a finding therefore has space in the pedagogical symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines. The finding is about language learning in appropriate context; this implies that Literature in English and English Language are content-matter and language learning contexts. This is consistent with already existing scholarship that literature and language are pedagogically directly related as they are context for direct teaching and learning of each other [12,24]. The finding therefore denotes Literature in English as a literary content-based discipline which dictates the need for proficiency in literary language which English Language as linguistics and language-based discipline, can be a base for. It therefore can reasonably be argued to be spelling out the symbiotic pedagogical relationship between the two disciplines.

Reading Culture

Reading culture came to the surface as a finding from students’ FGDs. It is one of the implications of the pedagogical symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language. According to Ogugwa et al. [25] reading culture is defined as the habit of regularly reading text books and information materials. A reading culture also implies the habit of reading in one’s everyday life and not only for school purposes [26]. Reading culture as a finding in this study is reportedly habitual reading of literary text books and other information material written in English. It should be adopted as a pleasurable undertaking at school and home and should not be a forced activity. According to the students, reading culture equips them with linguistic and communicative competences and skills requisite in acquisition of proficiency in English and literary knowledge.

The study thus points to the reading culture as a catalyst for acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge for students who major in English Language and Literature in English. Furthermore, the reading culture according to this paper is about the need to perceive the two disciplines as providing the platform for acquisition/ learning of literary and linguistic knowledge. The discipline Literature in English involves ample exposure to reading literary material and is therefore a language rich context for acquisition of proficiency in English by this virtue. Similarly, English Language as a subject is the context for reading. It is the exposure to texts that often include even those which are literary in character. All these point to pedagogical interdependence, therefore, symbiotic interconnectedness between the two disciplines. Implicit in this inter-connectedness is the need for a juxtaposition integrated pedagogical approach to delivery and learning of Literature in English and English Language. Essentially, the reading culture has space in an argument that there is a symbiotic relationship between the two subjects in terms of content-based knowledge and pedagogical approach. This position on the part of the researcher draws from, among others, the following perception by one of the students.

The two disciplines are intertwined in the sense that in order to acquire linguistic or literary knowledge, a student has to read intensively and extensively. In the integrated pedagogical set up of Literature in English and English Language, the habit of reading is unavoidable.

An interesting and unanticipated finding within the reading culture as the main finding is the symbiotic nature of the relationship between reading and Literature in English. Strengthening this insight is Ihejirika’s [2] stance that reading is a characteristic feature of literature which characteristically enhances language acquisition in general and effective writing in particular. The perspective implies that first, the subject Literature in English and reading are intertwined in the sense that meaningful and effective engagement with literary works depends highly on linguistic, communicative and interpretive competences of the reader. Literary works are linguistically rich as texts about issues related to the real life of people. By this virtue, Literature as a subject exposes students and lecturers to the actualised meaning of language. Literature in English as a context for habitual reading as revealed in this study points to the pedagogical symbiotic relationship between the discipline/academic subject that is being read (Literature in English in this case), the mode of communication (English language) used to converse literary ideas and the rationale for engaging in reading, namely, access to content knowledge and acquisition of proficiency in English in the two involved disciplines. Literature in English by this character is an academic context for enhancement of the culture of reading as the study shows. Consistent with the idea is Mingu’s [4] understanding of Literature and English Language as inseparable because literature is based on language, thereby making English important. The finding augments Tikiz’s and Feryal’s [27] position that reading is crucial in learning and teaching English Language because learners need to read for communication of knowledge engaged with and internalised from reading in Literature in English and English Language as subject areas. Serpell [28] stipulates that the reading culture can be promoted through bicultural mediation which is the connection of the culture in school with the culture at home. The implication is that students should not only read at school because they are forced to but they should read extensively and voluntarily at home as part of their daily lives. In that context, students can acquire proficiency in English and content knowledge for the two disciplines. The reading culture is therefore incomplete if it takes place at one particular place which in most cases is at school. Acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge may be successful if the reading culture takes place at school and at home as part of students’ daily lives. The reading culture therefore incorporates learning at school and at home. The same analogy could be used in the context of Literature in English and English Language where learning and acquisition of one without the other makes the process incomplete. The reading habit is also connected to the basic literacy which is the ability to read, write and speak [29]. The perception is in line with the understanding that reading is a prerequisite for writing, vocabulary development, concentration and focus [2,30]. Couched in this claim is the insight that effective communication comes as a result of reading and other related language skills. The understanding that reading as a skill does not operate in silos but together with writing, listening and speaking takes the discussion further. The basic language skills are interwoven in the learning process in the two disciplines. The requisite skills which students gain from reading linguistic and literary material integrate the two disciplines because they are the same. The reading culture has space in the symbiotic pedagogical relationship between the two disciplines. This is so because reading is not the end in itself but writing, listening and speaking are also involved in the acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. In the context of the symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines, it is suggestive that reading and learning/acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge are inseparable.

The reading culture as a finding has pedagogical benefits that integrate the two disciplines. The discovery is consistent with Bulgurcuoglu’s, in Wema’s [29] stipulation that reading nurtures creative thinking, develops curious minds and enhances lifelong capabilities of an individual. The reading culture augments inventiveness, the desire to learn and acquisition of skills requisite in academia especially in the studying and learning of the two disciplines because they are interrelated. The finding points to inseparability of reading from the acquisition/learning of English which is analogous to inseparability of English Language and Literature in English. The reading culture and its pedagogical benefits point to the symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines.

The finding adds evidence-based value to and believability of the documented understanding that reading literary text-books enhances language acquisition [2,31,32,33]. Essentially therefore the finding spotlights studying Literature in English as a platform for acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. Furthermore, the finding signifies the interrelatedness of the two disciplines as one spurs the acquisition and the learning of the other through reading literary material. Consistent with the revelation is Ayo’s [33] proclamation that through the teaching of a novel, for instance, skills such as intensive and extensive reading as well as skimming and scanning can be developed. Ayo’s assertion reveals that students’ engagement in reading literary text-books improves their reading skills which will assist them in learning and acquisition of English and content knowledge of the two disciplines. Otike [34] concurs that without extensive reading, students cannot develop skills such as locating, selecting, organisation, manipulation, analysing, evaluating and processing information. The reading culture as a finding in this study implies that Literature in English facilitates acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge, thus the symbiotic pedagogical connection between the two disciplines.

The reading culture further enhances acquisition of language and content knowledge in the sense that it augments the teaching and learning of English Language and Literature in English. When students consistently read literary and information material written in English, they acquire not only content but also linguistic and communicative competences requisite in the teaching and learning of Literature in English and English Language. Specifically for Literature in English, it facilitates the acquisition of grammar, vocabulary, reading and writing [27,35]. Similarly, English Language is about the rules of grammar, the prescriptive use of the language, the reading approaches and the ability to communicate effectively. In order for students to acquire proficiency in English and content knowledge for the two disciplines, they should be habitual readers. The reading culture therefore binds the two disciplines because of their similar requisite competences that students gain and which make the two disciplines pedagogically related.

On the other hand, if students do not read literary texts, it implies that their acquisition of both linguistic and literary competences would be challenged. The poor reading culture also implies that students’ ability to acquire proficiency in English would be limited yet the reading practice equips students with a variety of language structures applicable in the two disciplines. This is consistent with Starja’s [36] understanding that literary texts develop the linguistic and literary skills and that; students cannot develop their literary competence unless the linguistic competence develops. It can be understood that students’ failure to be habitual readers implies the challenges in relation to acquisition of linguistic competence and ability to make meaning denotatively and connotatively. Figurative and surface uses of the language play an important role in understanding a text. Sharing the same view point are Khatib et al. [37]. Their perception is that literature is good for extensive and intensive reading. They further state that a novel is good for extensive reading while poetry is ideal for intensive reading and extraction of the deep meaning embedded in the texts. The implication is that reading exposes students to different situations of language use. For this reason, students who do not read literary texts may have challenges in acquisition of proficiency in English thus making the study of Literature in English and English Language complicated.

The observation on the reading culture becomes a research–appraised contribution to the theories benchmarking of curriculum design and the teaching and learning of related academic disciplines. One of such theories and underpinning the study in question is the Language in/with/for content area theory with its spotlight that the teaching of English Language is more effective and more practical if the content is stimulating [22]. Emerging from this principle is the understanding that content and language are closely connected and the choice of the content is crucial for effecting learning and teaching. Literature, for instance, provides motivating content for effective teaching of English. Consistent with the principle is Ajoke’s & Shapii’s [35] claim that literature can be used as motivating material which exposes learners to different themes and learning language skills subconsciously. Besides, motivated students put more effort into their learning [31]. Emerging from the scholars’ assertions is the motivation aspect that literary texts bring to the language classroom. It can also be deduced that stimulating content augments students’ performance in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge.

Another principle in Language in/for/with content theory is that language and content are interwoven. (Surfacing from this principle is the understanding that students do not learn English language without comprehending the subject matter related to that language. Students acquire language and content simultaneously. This is in line with Ahmed’s [38] and Parker [39] claim that literature offers stirring material for English Language and thus improves proficiency in the target language. The finding makes sensible a deduction that language acquisition and content knowledge for the two disciplines are intertwined. Students cannot learn language without understanding the content and the context within which the language is used. The learning process is easier if the content (which literature provides) is motivating. The reading culture has pedagogical space in the acquisition of English and content knowledge for Literature in English and English Language because it is a channel through which the content of language and literature are acquired and learned, thus binding the two disciplines.

This finding points to the pedagogical interconnectedness between Literature in English and English Language in terms of acquisition of proficiency and content knowledge in English. The reading culture as a revelation in this study is not only in line with but also adds research-appraised knowledge to the language in/ for/with content theory with its principle about the interdependent nature of the relationship between language and content. The principle is suggestive of language and content as intertwined; the same applies to Literature in English and English Language. The reading culture as a finding in this study depicts the relationship between Literature in English and content knowledge; that is language and content are interdependent. Through the depiction of the reading culture as a finding and its implications, the study emphasizes the binding nature of the pedagogical symbiosis between the two disciplines as well as acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge in both, hence the symbiotic relationship. The participants’ perspectives suggest the pedagogical benefit of adoption and implementation of the culture of reading among students majoring in the two disciplines as mutual teaching and learning contexts for each other.

Integrated/Interdisciplinary Approach to Language Teaching

FGDs data analysis suggests the integrated approach to the teaching of English Language as one of the pedagogical implications of the symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language. Okwara et al. [40], define integrated approach to the teaching of English Language as a method that involves using literature to teach English Language and using English language to teach Literature in English. Surfacing from this assertion is the understanding that the two disciplines are pedagogically and symbiotically related in that they each provide context for the teaching of the other. Students argued that the two disciplines are related and should be treated as such. The extract below captures this finding.

What I am suggesting is that students who major in English Language should also do Literature in English. The two disciplines should be treated as one major subject because they are related.

Implicit in the extract is the integration of the two disciplines and the application of the integrated pedagogical approach. The integration of language and literature fosters language and literary competence among students [17]. The pronouncement embodies two aspects. First is the synergetic intrinsic interrelationship between language and literature. Second is the empowerment of acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. Halls [41] shares the suggestion that Literature in English and English Language teachers should be made to have a common goal of promoting efficiency in the use of English language in their professional assignment. Implicit in the assertion is that the purpose of teaching Literature in English and English Language in a classroom is to help students acquire proficiency in English and content knowledge. It can therefore be deduced that the two disciplines are inherently symbiotic. The essence of the finding integrated approach in this study is that the purpose (acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge) of the two disciplines is the same. Documented knowledge claim the two disciplines as interrelated [17]. For this reason, the pedagogical juxtaposition of the two disciplines enables acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge thus depicting their interrelatedness. The finding points to a symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines. This is so because by virtue of inborn interrelatedness that exists between the two disciplines, automatically, the integrated teaching is inevitable. This way the finding augments existing knowledge to the effect that Literature in English and English Language are pedagogically interwoven [17]. A recurring reason for the integrated approach according to participants is that the context of Literature in English is the context of English Language; and vice versa. Specifically, participants note that literary language still follows the same rules of grammar, linguistic structures and expressions applicable in English language. The Finding is augmentative to the already existing knowledge that Literature in English as a strategy for teaching and acquisition of functional proficiency in key communication language skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) and language concepts, is consequently gaining pedagogical popularity in English Language as a language learning and teaching field [42,43,44]. Implicit in the authors’ assertion is that the pedagogical juxtaposition of the two subjects empowers language conceptions and requisite skills applicable in the two disciplines thereby, depicting interrelatedness. This is so because the skills and structures that students hone from the two disciplines are applicable in both. It therefore makes academic sense to pedagogically integrate the two disciplines because their end product (acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge) is the same. The finding is consistent with the declaration that the integrated model of teaching the two disciplines does not consider literature teaching as different from language teaching. This signifies the relevance of the integrated approach in the teaching of the two disciplines.

This paper reveals that student teachers from the Faculty of Education who major in one of the two disciplines and any other course as the second major encounter challenges in the teaching field. This is so due to the integrated curriculum that the Ministry of Education in Lesotho has just implemented. The new integrated curriculum requires teachers to teach Literature in English and English Language at Lesotho Junior Certificate (LJC) and even at Lesotho General Certificate of Secondary Education (LGCSE). On the contrary, NUL partially prepares student teachers to fit well into the new system. Currently, students who major in English Language may or may not choose Literature in English as a second major subject but may choose any course from the following; Geography, Sesotho, French, History and Development Studies. Similarly, students who major in Literature in English may also choose any course from English Language, Sesotho, French, Religion, Development Studies, History and Geography as their second major subject. In this kind of set up, students who are not double majors fail to teach the other subject that they did not major in at the university. It is from this background that the integrated approach for the two disciplines may be a necessity. 

The integrated approach as a finding in this study is in line with the schema theory and language in/with/for content theory. One of the principles of the schema theory is that students learn new information easily because of the already existing knowledge that they bring to the new environment [18]. The principle is suggestive of two aspects. First is the integration of new information with the old one. Second is the integration of Literature in English with English Language in which the content of Literature in English could be referred to as the already stored information that helps in the acquisition of the new knowledge (proficiency in English and content knowledge). The same analogy could also be applied to English Language in that knowledge of the rules of grammar is requisite in a Literature in English class. This is consistent with the understanding that engaging imaginatively with a fictional work is a complex process that requires readers to ‘‘recall, retrieve and reflect on their prior experiences or memories to construct meanings of the text’’ [18]. In the context of this study the claim that acquisition of new information is dependent on mental structures, what is already known, stored and retrievable to help interpret and understand the new information has space in the integrated teaching approach and in the symbiotic relationship between the two subjects. It denotes that the finding integrated teaching approach promotes pedagogical interrelatedness between the two disciplines because they rely on each other’s stored information (knowledge of grammar) for the successful acquisition and learning of literary concepts and vice versa.

Integrated pedagogical approach also features in Language in/for/with content theory with its principle that acquisition of language and content are simultaneous and interwoven [13]. The tenet is indicative of English Language and Literature in English as inseparable so acquisition/learning of the two are also pedagogically intertwined. It can therefore be inferred that literature can serve as the content for language whilst language is the mode of expression for both linguistic and literary content [3,45,46]. The theory also stipulates that teaching is done through stimulating content. In this context, Literature in English provides the motivating content for language learning [39,47]. The assertion points to the connectedness of the two disciplines in terms of acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge which calls for integrated pedagogical approach.

The essence of the finding spotlights the two disciplines as pedagogically symbiotic in that one acts as the base (the already existing schemata/knowledge/information) whilst the other as the new information to be learnt thus integration between what is to be learnt and what is already learnt. Similarly, stimulating content activates acquisition of language which points to close relationship between the two disciplines consequently the two can be studied in juxtaposition. Students require the contribution of one discipline in order to acquire/learn the other (new knowledge). This implies integration of Literature in English and English Language in which one is the content for the other. The use of literary text-books which are (stimulating) in the teaching of English Language breaks the monotony of teaching English Language in a dry context. The two disciplines bring together the experiences and knowledge (schemata) that students have in the subjects in order to come out with one end product which is proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two. This interconnectedness points to the symbiotic pedagogical relationship between the two disciplines.

Collaborative Teaching/Learning and Departmental Close Working Relationships

Collaborative teaching is referred to as ‘‘co-teaching, team teaching, cooperative teaching and partnership teaching’’ [48]. “It is also a process in which two or more teachers share the responsibility for planning the class or course, teaching a class and evaluating and assessing it including team playing, team teaching and team follow up’’ [49]. Collaborative teaching emerged as a finding related to the pedagogical implications of the symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language. Lecturers claimed that the sharing of work at departmental level could improve acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. The finding could be understood to mean a joint lecturers’ venture to teach a particular course by bringing all their expertise together and empowering one another with content knowledge and pedagogical skills.The finding is in line with the understanding that successful collaboration teaching benefits teachers. It promotes teacher development by creating a platform for teachers to learn from one another [50].

Collaborative teaching has space in the pedagogical interdependency of Literature in English and English Language because of teachers’ reliance on one another for successful teaching of the two disciplines in terms of acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. Collaborative teaching by lecturers points to the inseparability not only of the two disciplines but also of the departmental lecturers for successful teaching and learning. The finding also embodies interdependency of the content of the two disciplines which is more reason for the lecturers from LASED and DELL to work together. This is in line with Tasdemir and Tugba’s [50] understanding of collaborative teaching as a significant concept in the field of English Language teaching which involves teachers in sharing expertise, decision-making, lesson delivery and assessment. The assertion depicts collaborative teaching as interpersonal, a joint effort and sharing of skills, content knowledge and methods of teaching. In this context, topics such as types of sentences and kinds, paragraph development, summary writing, awareness of tense, figurative use of language, idiomatic expressions, proverbs and grammar are treated in English Language. In line with this assertion is the understanding that in Literature in English, students learn about syntax and the discourse functions of sentences, a variety of possible structures, different ways of connecting ideas which develop and enrich their own writing skills [12,32]. The assertion suggests that some of the topics that students learn in English Language are relevant to those in Literature in English, thus depicting interdependency of the two disciplines. It may not be necessary to repeat some of them in a Literature in English lesson because they are practically applied. Lecturers further argue that linguistic and literary competences attainable from the two disciplines are almost the same, for instance; students’ ability to communicate effectively through writing and speaking following the rules of grammar, proper sentence construction, the ability to infer and interpret and critical analysis are applicable in the two disciplines. The following excerpt has captured this observation.

When students are asked to write an essay on a particular text, possibly they are going to write in a continuous form (prose) hence paragraph development. Essay writing helps in the teaching of paragraph development, syntax and semantics. Students would already have an idea of the proper way of constructing sentences and paragraphs from the English Language class.

Surfacing from this analysis is the observation that close working relationships between the lecturers and departments for the two disciplines seem to be pertinent in the teaching and learning of the two disciplines in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions. Collaborative teaching therefore has a space in the integration of the two disciplines to orchestrate the joint improved teaching strategies which enable members to know what other lecturers are doing in class so that there is interdependency and continuity. The finding on collaborative teaching becomes a research-appraised contribution to theories benchmarking the teaching and learning of related subjects such as Literature in English and English Language. One of such theories supporting this study is schema theory with its principle that human beings have general knowledge about life that is stored in their minds. The knowledge (schemata) is based on individuals’ past experience and is only retrievable when one meets new information [51]. Surfacing from this principle is the understanding that students’ conceptualisation and interpretation of new information is guided by the schemata they already have. In this study, acquisition of English and content knowledge by students is directed by the Literature background they already have and vice versa. This depicts interdependency of the two disciplines. Another guiding principle is that schemata are dynamic; they develop and change as students encounter new experience [52]. Consistent with this is Blachowicz’s and Ogole’s, understanding of Literature in English as providing opportunities for teachers to guide students to think about a text and modify their ideas. Emerging from the scholars’ assertion is the comprehension that the new knowledge influences the old one. Students therefore think and view life differently.In essence the finding collaborative teaching points to the integration of the two disciplines in that acquisition of English is dependent on the contribution literary related skills make. Likewise, acquisition of Literature in English content knowledge is determined by the linguistic competence that students already have that can help in their understanding of the new literary concepts. Collaborative teaching as a finding in this study therefore has a space in the pedagogical symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines with its interdependency nature. Collaborative approach to the teaching of the two disciplines denotes interdependence which is a collective effort of a number of lecturers who put their expertise together and come up with a joint effort to facilitate the teaching of the two disciplines.

Departmental Close Working Relationships 

Another common finding from the FGDs and FFOIs is departmental close working relationship. The pedagogical implication of the symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language is close working relationship within and across members of LASED and DELL in the two faculties. The joint venture has pedagogical benefits such as sharing of content, teaching material, expertise, teaching methods and even team teaching within and across departments [48,50]. The structure could improve acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two disciplines. The finding has a place in the pedagogical symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines because of its binding nature. There is interdependency in a close working relationship as there is one in the teaching of Literature in English and English Language. The output of the finding which is effective teaching and acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge is the same. 

Teaching Strategies

Teaching strategies emerged as a finding related to the pedagogical implications of the relationship between Literature in English and English Language. The finding brought to the surface improved teaching methods that can be applied for the improvement of acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two disciplines in institutions of higher learning. Teaching strategies are methods that could be used in the teaching of both Literature in English and English Language. The following are the strategies that emerged from face-to-face interviews with the lecturers; teachers’ flexibility and contextualisation. 

Teachers’ Flexibility

Teachers’ flexibility surfaced as the pedagogical implication of the interrelatedness between Literature in English and English Language in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge in Higher Education. Lecturers may have to be ready to see any possible opportunity to teach a concept in one discipline in the context of the other, for example, when a lecturer is teaching a novel and notices different types of sentences and forms of tense which form part of the content in English Language, he/she could draw students attention to those and even make use of them. That is teaching a concept within a particular discipline. Teachers’ flexibility is consistent with Ayo’s [33] understanding that in a Literature in English class, a teacher can teach sentence types, paragraph development, topic sentences while in an English Language class a teacher can teach a descriptive essay which is characterisation in Literature in English.

Flexibility has space in the symbiotic pedagogical relationship between Literature in English and English Language. The ability to use the content of the literary texts to teach English Language depicts pedagogical interrelatedness of the two disciplines which can enhance acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. Similarly, English Language as a discipline can also be used to teach Literature in English concepts, for example, topic sentence, direct and indirect speech and punctuation. The finding on teachers’ flexibility is in line with the understanding that any literature can be utilised as long as it includes the components of the target language that is going to be taught by the teacher. Implicit from Florentino’s assertion is that Literature in English is a readymade tool to supplement the teaching of English Language. Flexibility as a finding in this paper points to the reciprocal pedagogical relationship that exists between the two disciplines. The relationship between the two disciplines provides a room for readiness to teach what seems possible at a particular time regardless of the discipline.

The finding on teachers’ flexibility becomes a research based contribution to the theories benchmarking the teaching and learning of Literature in English and English Language. One of the theories that form the basis for this study is language in/for/with/content theory with its spotlight that language and content learning are intertwined. This is in line with Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach with its spotlight that learning and teaching of both content and language are intertwined [53].Emerging from this tenet is the understanding that students make sense of the content because they understand the language used in the content. Acquisition of English and content are therefore simultaneous.

Sharing the same view point is Larsen’s, perception that a language is learnt more successfully when its content is acquired in that language. Implicit from the assertion is that acquisition of the content of English Language should be in English. In this paper, the principle that language and content are interwoven depicts the two disciplines as contexts for each other in which flexibility as a finding has space. Teachers’ flexibility stresses the preparedness of the lecturers to teach a concept belonging to one in the context of the other. Flexibility therefore points to the interrelatedness of the two disciplines because the teaching of each of the two could be done flexibly by the lecturer, making use of the opportunity provided by one discipline to teach the other.

Another principle in Language in/for/with content theory is that learning of a linguistic concept is more practical and effective if the content is motivating [22]. This is consistent with Parker’s, understanding that Literature in English provides motivating material for English Language and should be made a major course in institutions of higher learning. Fonseca [54] also avers that Literature in English and English Language should be integrated because the themes and plots of literary works provide stimuli for meaningful debates, discussions and other tasks which could develop students’ linguistic and communicative competences. Implicit in the scholars’ statements is the comprehension that the two disciplines are so mutually related that Literature in English acts as a catalyst for effective teaching of English Language by providing opportunities of acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge not only through writing but also through verbal engagement.Lecturers could also teach a number of concepts through literary texts as they provide authentic and stimulating material for language application [39,44]. Implicit here is that material that is used in English curriculum lacks passion, intellectual excitement and fun whilst literary material is meaningful, authentic and relevant to the learners’ lives. Teachers’ flexibility has space in the symbiotic pedagogical relationship between the two disciplines which provide contexts for the teaching of each other. It is inevitable that opportunities of teaching a concept in the context of the other can emerge thus flexibility plays a major part in this regard. 

Through the finding of flexibility as symbolic of the pedagogical interrelatedness between Literature in English and English Language, the paper contributes empirical knowledge to the already documented awareness that the use of literary genres and other forms of literature to teach language is an invaluable and enjoyable experience because aspects of grammar can be taught as they appear in literary pieces of work [47]. The implication of the text above is that through its different genres Literature in English provides a platform for various English Language teaching opportunities. This is consistent with Zhen’s [55] observation that an excellent teacher changes his/her teaching methods according to the new circumstances from time to time. This denotes that students with different levels of intelligence require different approaches for effective teaching thus teachers’ flexibility to teach one concept in the context of the other.

Contextualisation

Contextualisation as a teaching strategy emerged as the pedagogical implication of the symbiotic relationship between Literature in English and English Language. Moltz’s, in Perin’s, states that contextualisation can be seen as a form of ‘‘deep learning’’ that comes about through linking ideas and concepts across the courses. Implicit in the statement is students’ ability to relate the content (concepts, ideas) of the two disciplines for a better interpretation, inference and understanding. The finding is in line with an understanding that a student learning English Language should be able to apply language as a discipline to the study of Literature in English in order to contextualise the study of language [56]. In this context, contextualisation depicts using the context/literary concepts/ideas of Literature in English, link and apply them to infer meaning in English Language or vice versa. Consistent with the finding is Hassan’s [57] understanding of language conceptualisation as ‘‘putting language items into a meaningful and real context rather than being treated as isolated items of language for language manipulation practice only’’ British Council (BBC). Surfacing from Hassan’s perception is the comprehension that conceptualisation is an involving process that requires one to look at issues, words and ideas holistically and across disciplines for language acquisition and content meaning. Contextualisation as a finding from this study therefore denotes a close pedagogical relationship between the two disciplines.

Contextualisation as a pedagogical approach facilitates the integrated teaching of Literature in English and English Language. This is in line with Bax’s [58] perspective on contextualisation of language as the most important practice in teaching language. It involves appreciating the right context for using the language properly than sticking to grammar and the rules of a language [59]. The implication of the assertion above is that context is significant in language and content acquisition. Literature in English provides the rightful context for language use because it is about real context in which English Language is used rather that following grammar books which are prescriptive. The pedagogical integration of Literature in English and English Language enables students to acquire and learn English language structures better because they are able to see language in use. They can also relate and situate ideas and concepts to their own lives. Hardway and Young, proposes that one of the advantages of using literature in a classroom situation is contextualisation of language in which the learners become familiar with the use of language in different situations when they read a piece of literature. Implicit from the assertion is the understanding that contextualisation is a teaching strategy that focuses on the application of language in authentic situations. Contextualisation as a finding from this paper depicts language and context as inseparable. In fact, the understanding depicts the two disciplines as contexts for each other. The finding therefore points to symbiotic pedagogical relationship between the two disciplines.

The integrated setting of Literature in English and English Language denotes that students relate situations within a particular text to their real life situations. This is consistent with Ritlyova’s [31] understanding that situations described in literary texts are often closely related to students’ own experiences. This helps them to be independent thinkers, for example, participants state that in Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, students could situate the character of Okonkwo with their own or someone else’s personality. Contextualisation as a finding has a place in this context; students are able to use the context of the other discipline in order to make meaning. This is made possible because the two disciplines are inherently related in terms of acquisition of English and content knowledge. One provides the situation while the other provides the medium of expression. Literature in English plays a major role in the contextualisation of English Language. This is in line with Roselezam and Babale’s [56] observation above. The paper reveals that in the integrated setting, literature provides authentic language application.As soon as the learners learn grammar, literature provides examples of its application. Acquisition of proficiency in English outside context is challenging. In the symbiotic pedagogical relationship between the two disciplines, contextualisation facilitates acquisition of English and content knowledge. Students learn the correct use of language in context (Literature in English) and they can also use it appropriately in their own life (context), thus depicting the inseparability of the two disciplines in terms of language and content. 

The finding on contextualisation becomes a research-appraised contribution to the theories, thus benchmarking not only curriculum design but also the teaching and learning of related academic disciplines such as Literature in English and English Language. One of the theories which underpin this study is language and context theory with its limelight that context and meaning are interwoven [7]. Emerging from this claim is the understanding that students do not make sense of a word without understanding the situation/environment in which language is used. Students do not look at words in isolation. They also look at the surrounding words (co-text). Peter [60] and Hall [41] state that literature uses language in context and that it is not possible to separate literature from language. In the context of this study the tenet that language and environment are inseparable denotes that literature has space in the provision of the context in which language is used therefore Literature in English is the context of English Language and an appropriate platform for contextualisation. Literature is language in use [45,46]. It provides an ideal environment for interpretation of meaning in context. The study finds an inseparable context for the two disciplines. Language use cannot be divorced from the environment/context which is provided by the literature. Contextualisation as a finding from this study points to the symbiotic pedagogical relationship between the two disciplines because Literature in English provides context for English acquisition and content knowledge.

The study contributes empirical knowledge to the already documented awareness of the two disciplines as integrated. Literature is beneficial to language development because it is related to real life situations so it is a good resource of accurate diction, diverse sentence patterns and passionate narratives. This is consistent with Davison and William’s [61] understanding that literary texts are meaningful, authentic and relevant to the students’ lives. In the context of the pedagogical interrelatedness of the two disciplines, it can be presumed that literature is the raw material for language acquisition. It provides a realistic linguistic application that students can learn language better because they can bring the situations into their lives. Contextualisation as a disclosure in this study is in line with the language and context theory with its principle that context and meaning are interwoven. The theory is suggestive of inseparability of language from context/situation, that is, the situation between Literature in English and English Language. Meaning and situation are therefore intertwined. Through the depiction of contextualisation as a finding and its implications, the study stresses the interdependency of pedagogical integration between the two disciplines in terms of acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge.

The findings of the present paper reveal various pedagogical implications of the synergetic relationship between Literature in English and English Language in acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two in institutions of higher learning. The findings depict that the juxtaposition teaching of the two disciplines is a direct learning/teaching. This is so because a Literature in English lecturer can teach a linguistic aspect in a Literature in English class and/or vice versa. Direct learning is about learning a language in a relevant and related environment [17]. Literature in English and English Language are both related and relevant contexts in which direct learning of both subjects in content and language can be lived by students and the lecturers. It therefore makes academic sense to teach the two disciplines in juxtaposition because they are contexts for each other thus implying a direct way of teaching them. Direct learning makes it research-based sense to posit that Literature in English as a literary content-based discipline dictates need for proficiency in literary linguistics and language which English Language as a linguistics and language-based discipline can be a base for. Literature in English enables direct learning of English Language because it is the actual application of what is taught in a language class. Literature in English develops language awareness and curiosity [2,3]. Direct learning as a finding from this study therefore makes it research-based academic sense to posit that Literature in English as a literary content-based discipline dictates need for proficiency in literary linguistics and language which English Language as a linguistics and language-based discipline can be a base for. The finding therefore implies a symbiotic pedagogical relationship between the two disciplines. This is so in the sense that negotiation of meaning, clear conceptualisation and effective communication of knowledge of concepts that make the content of Literature in English are all dependent on proficiency in the different aspects of the content of English Language. The researcher’s position that Literature in English and English Language are so intrinsically related that given a reasonably appropriate pedagogical space, both can be contexts for complementary direct learning and teaching of language and content aspects of the other.

Secondly, reading culture is another implication of the pedagogical interrelated between the two disciplines. Reading is a characteristic feature of Literature which characteristically enhances language acquisition in general and effective writing in particular because literature is based on language [2,4]. Reading culture per the study is about need to perceive the two disciplines as providing the platform for acquisition/learning of literary and linguistic knowledge. The finding adds evidence-based value to and believability of the documented understanding that reading literary text-books enhances language acquisition [2,12,31-33]. Essentially therefore the finding spotlights studying Literature in English as a platform for acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. Furthermore, the finding signifies the pedagogical interrelatedness of the two disciplines as one spurs the acquisition and the learning of the other through reading literary material. Thirdly, the interface between Literature in English and English Language points to the integrated/interdisciplinary approach to the teaching of the two. The two are intrinsically related in fact, they facilitate the teaching of the other. The skills linguists and literary scholars require in studying the same disciplines are related. This is in line with Asefa’s [62] understanding that Literature in English plays important role in teaching the four basic language skills and they should be taught in an integrated way. Literature in English therefore provides the context/content for language teaching because it is language in use whilst English Language is the medium of expression for both literary and linguistic content [2]. It makes academic sense therefore to teach/learn the two disciplines in juxtaposition for pedagogical benefits. Students who major in the two disciplines can acquire proficiency in English and content knowledge better than those who major in one. 

Collaborative teaching as the pedagogical implication of the relatedness between the two disciplines suggests that lecturers can work together. Collaborative approach to the teaching of the two disciplines denotes interdependence which is a collective effort of a number of lecturers who put their expertise together and come up with a joint effort to facilitate the teaching of the two disciplines [48,49]. The paper reveals that lecturers can plan the content together, team-teach and share ideas together within LASED and DELL. Collaborative teaching therefore has a space in the pedagogical integration of the two disciplines for effective acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge even to orchestrate the joint improved teaching strategies. Teachers’ flexibility is one of the teaching strategies implied by the pedagogical interface between the two disciplines for acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge. It denotes teachers’ readiness to use every opportunity possible to teach a literary concept in language class and vice versa [33,42,47]. This is consistent with Zhen’s [55] observation that an excellent teacher will always change his teaching methods along with the new circumstances. Implicit in the assertion is the understanding that students differ in intelligence therefore require different approaches and situations for effective teaching. The paper unveils that acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge can be achieved when lecturers are flexible in their teaching strategies. Another strategy that emerged as a finding is contextualization. In this context, contextualisation depicts using the context/literary concepts/ideas of Literature in English, link and apply them to infer meaning in English Language or vice versa. This is in line with the understanding that contextualisation is about students’ ability to relate concepts (content) link them, apply them and put them together holistically even across the discipline in order to infer meaning for a better understanding [56,57]. Contextualisation is a pedagogical approach that facilitates integrated teaching of Literature in English and English Language for acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge in higher education. In essence the paper reveals that the two disciplines are pedagogically inseparable and therefore can enhance acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge if studied side by side.

The objectives of the paper were to explore the implications of the pedagogical interrelatedness between Literature in English and English Language and how such implications could enhance acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge in Higher Education. The researcher’s assumption was that the symbiotic pedagogical relationship between the two disciplines could enhance acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge when they are taught in juxtaposition. The paper concludes that there are pedagogical implications which can therefore strategically be purposively juxtaposed for acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge of the two. The paper reveals that students in institutions of Higher Education who major in English Language can also major in Literature in English and vice versa because the two disciplines are inherently pedagogically related. The paper further highlights the pedagogical implications of the symbiotic relationship between the two disciplines as; direct learning, reading culture, integrated pedagogical approach, collaborative teaching, departmental close working relationship and teaching strategies (flexibility and contextualisation). The paper demonstrates that the two disciplines are inherently related and when students study them separately, they are denied opportunity to acquire related linguistic and literary proficiencies which they can hone when they study them side by side.

Recommendation

The study recommends that in institutions of higher learning students who major in English Language should also major in Literature in English and vice versa because of cross-cutting skills and proficiencies. The paper also recommends that for acquisition of proficiency in English and content knowledge, the departments of English Language and Linguistics as well as Languages and Social Education should work collaboratively within (intra) and among/between (inter) departments by way of consultations, sharing of the teaching methods, expertise as well as substance for the two disciplines. They could also co-research and co-teach. This could be done where the two disciplines cross-pollinate in terms of content and related skills. The recommendation is consistent with interpretivist/constructivist paradigm adopted by this paper. Key in interpretivist/constructivist paradigm is the creation of reality from multiple sources and that reality/knowledge is socially constructed (Henning, 2004). Situated in this study, the collaborative work of sharing expertise, methods and content creates new knowledge, confidence, knowledge depth and a new perspective of operation therefore improved performance. Languages and Social Education Department trains student teachers to competently teach students at Lesotho Junior Certificate (LJC) and Lesotho General Certificate of Secondary Education (LGCSE) in schools whilst Department of English Language and Linguistics trains linguists and literary scholars. DELL also equips students with more content and requisite linguistic and literary competences for different professions such as journalism, acting, interpreting and authorship. Regardless of different intended professions, the aim of the two departments is to equip students with proficiency in English to be applied in different social and professional contexts. The paper therefore academically recommends that the two departments work together not necessarily as one department but as closely related departments. The study also recommends that even student teachers who major in the two disciplines could be introduced to the integrated pedagogical approach to the two disciplines because of their pedagogical relatedness. The reason is even according Lesotho’s curriculum and assessment reforms such as Curriculum and Assessment Policy Framework (CAP) and integrated Curriculum, Literature in English and English Language belong to linguistic and literary area which implies the inherent interrelatedness of the two disciplines. Future research is required on the implications of the symbiotic pedagogical interface between Literature in English and English Language for curriculum reform in Higher Education. 

1. Castleberry, A. and A. Nolen. “Thematic Analysis of Qualitative Research Data: Is It as Easy as It Sounds?” Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, vol. 10, no. 6, June 2018, pp. 807–815.

2. Ihejirika, R. “Literature and English Teaching and Learning: A Symbiotic Relationship.” English Language Teaching, vol. 7, no. 3, Feb. 2014, Canadian Centre of Science and Education. ISSN 1916-4742, E-ISSN 1916-4750.

3. One, J. and J. Petaling. The Malaysian English Language Teaching Association (MELTA). MELTA Annual General Meeting (AGM), 23 Feb. 2018.

4. Mingu. “The Relationship between English and Literature.” London, 2013. Mohammadzadeh, B. “The Application of Pedagogical Stylistics in EFL Literature and Language Teaching Courses.” International Online Journal of Primary Education, vol. 4, no. 1, 2015.

5. Udor, J. and E. Uhubahakwe. “Cognitive Evaluation of the West African School Certificate English.” In: The Teaching of English Studies: Reading for Colleges and Universities. E. Ubahakwe, Edn., Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, 1979.

6. Mertens, D. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity in Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods. California: Sage Publications, 2005.

7. Halliday, M.A.K. Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

8. Lazar, G. Literature and Language Teaching: A Guide for Teachers and Trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

9. Cook, G. Discourse and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

10. Anderson, M. and M. Short, editors. Reading Literature: Reading, Analysing and Teaching Literature. Harlow: Longman, 1988.

11. Short, M. Reading, Analysis and Teaching Literature. London: Longman, 1989.

12. Ansari, A. “Relationship between Language and Literature.” Nyeme Blogspot, 2013, http://www.nyeme.blogspot.com/.../relationship-between-language-and-lit.html.

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

14. Sargeant, J. “Qualitative Research Part II: Participants, Analysis and Quality.” Journal of Graduate Medical Education, vol. 4, no. 1, Mar. 2012, PMC33125114.

15. Creswell, J.W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. International Student Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007.

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

17. Debata, P.K. “Integrating Language and Literature in English Teaching: A Critical Study.” Research Journal of English and Literature (RJELAL), vol. 1, no. 3, Oct. 2013.

18. Tung and S. Chang. “Developing Critical Thinking through Literature Reading.” Feng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 19, 2009, pp. 287–317.

19. Clarke, Dickson. The Complete Guide to Becoming an English Teacher. London: Paul Chapman Publishers, 2004.

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

21. Matsoso, L. The Role of Traditional Knowledge in Acquisition of Proficiency in Academic English by Students in a Higher Education Institution: An Auto-Ethnographic Study. University of the Free State, 2012. Unpublished thesis.

22. Wolff, S. “The Importance of Fathers: A Psychotic Re-evaluation by Trowel, J. and Etchegoyen, A.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 44, no. 3, 2003, doi:10.1111/1469-7610.t01-5-00136.

23. Brumfit, C., editor. “Reading Skills and the Study of Literature in a Foreign Language.” In Language and Literature Teaching: From Practice to Principle, Pergamon Press, 1986, pp. 105–110.

24. Nunan, D. Designing Tasks for Communicative Competence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

25. Ogugwa, J. et al. “Developing a Reading Culture in Nigerian Society: Issues and Remedies.” Journal of Research in National Development, vol. 13, no. 1, 2015.

26. Jonson, A. Reading Culture of Literacy in Uganda: The Case of the Children’s Reading Tents. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, 2007.

27. Tikiz, G. and C. Feryal. “Symbiotic Interface between Literature, Culture and Language Learning.” The Journal of International Social Research, vol. 6, no. 26, 2013.

28. Serpell, R. “Cultural Dimension of Literacy Promotion and Schooling.” In L. Verhoeven and C. Snow, editors, Literacy and Motivation: Reading Engagement in Individuals and Groups, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2001, pp. 243–273.

29. Wema, E. “Investing Reading Culture among Students in Higher Learning Institutions in Tanzania.” University of Dar-es-Salaam Library Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, 2018, pp. 4–19. ISSN 1818.

30. Weidman, A. Academic Literacy. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers, 2003.

31. Ritlyova, A. “Creative Use of Literature in Language Teaching.” Online Conferencia, 2004, pp. 29–30.

32. Hismanoglu, M. “Teaching English through Literature.” Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, Apr. 2005.

33. Ayo, O. Reading in Language and Literature. Nigeria: Obafemi Awolowo University, 2003.

34. Otike, F. “Reading Culture, Cultivation and Its Promotion among Pupils: A Kenyan Perspective.” International Research Journal of Library, Information and Archival Studies, vol. 11, Aug. 2011, pp. 1–5.

35. [Author missing] and A. Shapii. “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.

36. Starja, A. “The Impact of Literature in Teaching a Foreign Language: A Case Study on the Use of Drama and Its Practical Implications.” Rate Issues: A Biannual Open-Source Peer-Reviewed TEFL Journal, 2015. ISSN 1844-6159.

37. Khatib, M. and S. Rezaei. “Why NAL Literature: A Task-Based Approach to Teaching Literature.” International Journal of English Linguistics, vol. 1, no. 1, 2011.

38. Ahmed, K. English Studies: English Language and Literature Majors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

39. Parker, J. “Humanities Higher Education: New Models, New Challenges.” Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001, pp. 21–36.

40. Okwara, M. et al. “Towards a Model of Integrated English Language Amends for Schools in Kenya.” Educational Research and Review, vol. 4, no. 5, May 2009, pp. 301–309.

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

42. Florentino, L. “Integrated Local Literature in Teaching English to First Graders under the K–12 Curriculum.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol. 4, no. 7, 2014.

43. Berkeley, A. Literature (Resource Books for Teachers). Oxford University, 2009.

44. Franklin, J. “Language and Literature Major.” Journal of English Studies, vol. 34, no. 5, 2009, pp. 143–55.

45. Birch, D. Language, Literature and Cultural Practice. New York: Routledge, 1991.

46. Halliday, M. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman Group Limited, 1964.

47. Keshavarzi, A. “Use of Literature in Teaching English.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 46, Dec. 2012, pp. 554–59.

48. Tasdemir, H. and Y. Tugba. “Collaborative Teaching from English Language Instructors’ Perspectives.” Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, Nov. 2017, pp. 632–42. Richards, J.C. and Thomas S.C. Farrell. Professional Development for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

49. Mandel, K. and T. Eiserman. “Team Teaching in High Schools.” Educational Leadership, vol. 73, no. 4, 2016, pp. 74–79.

50. Kazembe, P.T. Tina-March. Classroom Psychology: Piaget’s Theory and Educational Implications. 1971.

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

52. Coyle, D. et al. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

53. Fonseca, E. “Read, Discuss and Write.” English Teaching Professional, no. 42, 2006, pp. 29–31.

54. Zhen. “Characteristics and Strategies of Literature Teaching in the EFL Context in China.” International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering, vol. 5, no. 3, 2012, pp. 35–43.

55. Roselezam, W. and R. Babale. “Significance of Literature in Foreign Language Teaching.” Journal of International Education Studies, vol. 7, no. 4, 2014.

56. Hassan, Z. “Lay Contextualisation and Culture Procedure.” Social and Behavioural Sciences, vol. 136, 2014, pp. 31–35. Global Conference on Linguistics and Foreign Language Teaching (LINELT).

57. Bax, S. “The End of CLT: A Context Approach to Language Teaching.” ELT Journal, vol. 57, no. 3, July 2003, p. 287. Oxford University Press.

58. Peterson, E. and B. Coltrane. “Culture in Second Language Teaching.” Centre for Applied Linguistics, Jan. 2003.

59. Peter, I. The Importance of Literature in the Teaching and Learning of English: An Integrated Approach to the Teaching of English. Oreit, 2013.

60. Davidson, C. and A. William. “Integrating Language and Content: Unresolved Issues.” In C. Leung and C. Davidson, editors, English as a Second Language in Teaching, Learning and Diversity, Pearson, 2001, pp. 51–90.

61. Asefa, H. “Using Literature as a Tool for Teaching English Language: Annual Farm in the EFL Classroom.” International Journal of School of Sciences and Research (IJSR), vol. 6, no. 1, Jan. 2017.