Toward AI-Scaffolded Pedagogical Stylistics: A Conceptual Framework for Bridging the Language–Literature Divide in L2 English
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Literature has a long-standing place in second-language (L2) English teaching because it offers learners language that is rich, patterned, and affectively charged, and pedagogical stylistics provides a principled way of turning that language into learning by having students notice the choices through which literary effects are achieved. Recent classroom evidence is sobering. Large-scale observation and competence profiling show that literary texts still appear in L2 classrooms yet work with them seldom moves beyond literal comprehension and personal reaction; furthermore, learners’ aesthetic-stylistic competence lags well behind their interpretive and empathic competence. The reason is structural rather than attitudinal: contingent stylistic guidance, responsive to what each reader notices, cannot be given to thirty readers at once. This article proposes AI-Scaffolded Pedagogical Stylistics (ASPS), a conceptual framework in which a generative language model is positioned not as an interpreter but as a semiotic tool within a teacher-designed activity, one that issues questions directing attention to stylistic features while the learner’s aesthetic response and interpretive authority remain primary. Its contribution is threefold: it defines the construct of AI-scaffolded stylistic noticing by conditions that separate it from neighboring ideas; it specifies the mechanism by which repeated, progressively faded questioning is internalized as a transferable reading routine; and it advances the distinction between scaffolding and substitution as a falsifiable claim, namely the prediction that the same tool used to question rather than to answer will yield more learner-initiated stylistic noticing, and better delayed transfer to unaided reading, a difference traceable in a transcript. A preliminary coding framework and a set of testable propositions set out how the claim can be examined empirically.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).References
Alexander, R. (2020). A dialogic teaching companion. Routledge.
Bellot, A.-R., & Gutiérrez-Colón, M. (2026). All assignments are equal, but some assignments are more equal than others: Exploring student responses to AI and peer-generated alternative endings in Orwell’s Animal Farm. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 69(4), Article e70025. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.70025
Bloemert, J., Jansen, E., & van de Grift, W. (2016). Exploring EFL literature approaches in Dutch secondary education. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2015.1136324
Bloemert, J., Paran, A., Jansen, E., & van de Grift, W. (2019). Students’ perspective on the benefits of EFL literature education. The Language Learning Journal, 47(3), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1298149
Bobkina, J., Domínguez Romero, E., & Sastre-Merino, S. (2021). Literature and language education: Exploring teachers’ views on teaching foreign language through literature in bilingual secondary schools in Madrid (Spain). AILA Review, 34(2), 145–186. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.21003.bob
Caines, A., Benedetto, L., Taslimipoor, S., Davis, C., Gao, Y., Andersen, Ø., Yuan, Z., Elliott, M., Moore, R., Bryant, C., Rei, M., Yannakoudakis, H., Mullooly, A., Nicholls, D., & Buttery, P. (2023). On the application of large language models for language teaching and assessment technology. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.08393
Calafato, R., & Hunstadbråten, S. (2025). Literature in language education: Exploring EFL learners’ literary competence profiles. English Teaching & Learning, 49, 537–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-024-00193-w
Carter, R., & Long, M. N. (1991). Teaching literature. Longman.
Dodou, K., & Brevik, L. M. (2025). From pages to practice: 10 years of teaching literature in English classrooms in Norwegian lower secondary school. Reading Research Quarterly, 60(4), Article e70039. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70039
Erdem Coşgun, G. (2025). Artificial intelligence literacy in assessment: Empowering pre-service teachers to design effective exam questions for language learning. British Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 2340–2357. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4177
Graham, S., Zhang, P., Hofweber, J., Fisher, L., & Krüsemann, H. (2024). Literature and second language vocabulary learning: The role of text type and teaching approach. The Modern Language Journal, 108(3), 579–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12946
Hall, G. (2005). Literature in language education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hanauer, D. I. (2001). The task of poetry reading and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 22(3), 295–323. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.3.295
Hanauer, D. I. (2012). Meaningful literacy: Writing poetry in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 45(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000522
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and language teaching: A guide for teachers and trainers. Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G., & Short, M. (2007). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose (2nd ed.). Pearson Longman.
Li, B., Tan, Y. L., Wang, C., & Lowell, V. (2025). Two years of innovation: A systematic review of empirical generative AI research in language learning and teaching. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, Article 100445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100445
Lin, C.-C., Lin, T.-H., & Tang, C.-K. (2025). Enhancing English reading comprehension, learning motivation and attitude through AI-supported pre-reading scaffolding. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(6), Article e70150. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70150
Paran, A. (2008). The role of literature in instructed foreign language learning and teaching: An evidence-based survey. Language Teaching, 41(4), 465–496. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480800520X
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory Into Practice, 21(4), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848209543018
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Short, M. (1996). Exploring the language of poems, plays and prose. Longman.
Simpson, P. (2014). Stylistics: A resource book for students (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Sun, X. (2023). Literature in secondary EFL class: Case studies of four experienced teachers’ reading programmes in China. The Language Learning Journal, 51(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2021.1958905
Teng, M. F. (2024). A systematic review of ChatGPT for English as a foreign language writing: Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 6(3), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.58304/ijts.20240304
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
Widdowson, H. G. (1975). Stylistics and the teaching of literature. Longman.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Xiao, F., Zhu, S., & Xin, W. (2026). Exploring the landscape of generative AI (ChatGPT)-powered writing instruction in English as a foreign language education: A scoping review. ECNU Review of Education, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241310881
