There seems to be a deliberate distinction between a high theory and a mere theory of teaching among scholars. Teaching a theory, then, appears to embody a consumerist spirit that necessarily disdains the genius of this same theory. Besides, the urge towards professionalism at universities has contributed to spoil the uniqueness of individual responses to literary texts. In this respect, the present paper, first, points out the limitation of Reader-Response theory as the latter has gained educational settings in general and university practice in particular. Second, it aims at unveiling the reasons behind the ill implementation of this same theory. Finally, it puts the emphasis on the danger of perpetuating canonical literary texts.

Texte intégral :



Ciea, C. (2001). Professing Literature: Teacher-response Criticism. Paper submitted at the International Association for the Improvement of Mother Tongue Education, Amsterdam, Holland, July 11-13th, 2001.

Eagleton, T. (1983)2005. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Fish, S. (1986). Is there a text in this class? In C.Kaplan (ed.). Criticism: The Major statements (2nd ed.) (pp.623-38). New York: St. Martin’s.

Graff, G. (1987). Professing Literature- An Institutional History. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Harkin, P. (2005). The Reception of Reader-Response Theory. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Feb., 2005), pp. 410-425, available at:

Johnston, A., (2000). Objectifying Sensibilities: Reader Response and its Discontents. In Radical Pedagogy, ISSN: 1524-6345, available at:

radicalpedagogy.icaap org/content/issue2_1/04Johnston html.

Kàlmàm, G., available at html) downloaded April 23rd, 2009.

Martin, B. (1997). Teaching literature, changing cultures. PMLA, 112, 7-25.

Miall, D. S. (1996). Empowering the reader: Literary response and classroom learning. In Roger J. Kreuz and Susan M. MacNealy, Eds., Empirical Approaches to Literature and Aesthetics(pp.463-478). Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Miall, D. S. (2006). Literary Reading: Empirical & Theoretical Studies. Peter Lang Publishing. New York.

Shafer, G. (1997). Reader response makes history. English Journal, 86(7), 65-68. (Pzriodical Abstract No.03503802)

Shaifur, R., (2008). Is accepting the literary canons very natural? In Literature by Shaifur Rahman, available at:

Shavit, Z., (1991). Canonicity and Literary institutions. In E.Ibsch, D. Schram, & G. Steen (Eds.), Empirical studies of literature: Proceedings of the second IGEL-Conference, Amsterdam 1989 (pp. 231- 238). Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.


  • Il n'y a présentement aucun renvoi.