40264049

Conceptions of Literature in University Language CoursesAuthor(s): Cecilia Alvstad and Andrea CastroSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 93, No. 2 (Summer, 2009), pp. 170-184Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264049 .

Accessed: 21/12/2013 02:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.208.189.171 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 02:09:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264049?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Conceptions of Literature in University Language Courses CECILIA ALVSTADa and ANDREA CASTROb*

In this article we set out to explore and discuss reasons for reading literary texts in university curricula of foreign languages. Our analysis is based on 2 sources of information: 16 syllabi of Spanish as a foreign language and a questionnaire in which 11 university instructors teaching these syllabi express their intentions. We point to a number of risks when emphasis is predominantly placed on instrumental goals such as acquisition of vocabulary and grammar or cultural knowledge. We suggest, instead, that the literary modules within language curricula should formulate their own specific goals. Rather than privileging linguistic and cultural competences to be trained, the literary modules could, for example, raise students' awareness of the facts that there are many ways of reading a text but that interpretation nevertheless remains a historically situated and constrained activity.

LITERATURE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A STAN- dard component of university curricula of foreign languages. Although traditionally one of the ul- timate goals of language studies was to read literary masterpieces in the foreign language, the reasons for incorporating literary texts in foreign language curricula have changed over the last century. Kramsch and Kramsch (2000) pointed out that this is evident from the pages of the ML]} The audiolingual and communicative approaches to second language acquisition that were developed during and after the Second World War (Tornberg, 1997) and the general growth of the discipline of linguistics have opened up a conception of literature as a tool for acquisition of foreign languages and cultural competences (Davis, 1989; Schultz, 2002; Sitman & Lerner, 1999). This conception of literature as a means contrasts sharply with the previously mentioned conception of literature as the end goal of language studies. Inter- estingly, both conceptions coexist today in foreign language programs.

This combination puts literature into a somewhat awkward position. On the one hand, literature is to contribute to the acquisition of language skills; on the other, it is to be read for its poetic dimensions. Approaches to literature within language study must negotiate between these two roles. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the literary modules must be related to the general aims of Higher Education, such as to foster critical thinking. Bearing this in mind, we would like to claim that the role of literature in foreign language curricula today is far from clear. We see this confusion as problematic because the lack of a clear role in accordance with higher education regulation will inevitably lead to insecurity among teachers as to how to actually work with literature in class.

In our everyday work as Spanish teachers at two Scandinavian universities we are part of this situation. Some of the students we meet are in- terested in studying literature, whereas others, confirming observations made by scholars such as Castro (2004) and Davis, Gorell, Kline, and Hsieh (1992), have difficulty understanding why literature is part of language study. Many of our students are not used to reading literary texts, even in their mother tongue, and do not see how literature can advance their language skills any further than nonliterary texts. Seeking to convince these students of the importance of including literature in the curricula, we have found ourselves repeating two standard arguments: that studying literature helps us develop linguistic competences

a University of Oslo, Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, P.O. Box 1003 Blindera, NO- 0315 Oslo, Norway, Email: [email protected] b University of Gothenburg, Department of Languages and

Literatures, Box 200, 405 30 Goteborg, Sweden, Email: andrea. castro@gu. se * The authors share equal responsibility for this article.

The Modern Language Journal, 93, ii, (2009) 0026-7902/09/170-184 $1.50/0 ©2009 The Modern Language Journal



Cecilia Alvstad and Andrea Castro 171

and that it also furnishes knowledge about foreign cultures. These and similar arguments can also be found in countless syllabi. Yet they are scarcely convincing, as they do not address the crucial query. All texts (including those to be found in newspapers, magazines, history books, songs, advertisements, etc.) can help develop linguistic competences and can serve as points of entry into foreign cultures. So why do so many of us persist in giving priority to literary texts?

Although we intuitively defend the idea that literature does play an important role in our courses - a role that cannot be substituted by nonliterary reading material2 - the present study springs from our own quest to formulate a clear answer to this fundamental question. We aim to highlight the contradictions inherent between focusing on the poetic dimensions of literature and the linguistic goals of language courses. We also explore to what extent the reading of literature in language studies is related to objectives of critical thinking. Our hope is that a deeper understanding of the different roles literature can and does play in language instruction will enable university teachers of foreign languages (ourselves included) to formulate and articulate these roles more clearly, both in terms of course syllabi and in terms of direct interaction with our students.

Covering other contexts than the Scandinavian, the 2007 Modern Language Association (MLA) report on Foreign Languages within Higher Ed- ucation points out the necessity of transforming academic programs in the United States. In the report, foreign language departments within higher education are described as harboring a split between the language curriculum and the literature curriculum, appearing as a two-tiered system that "has outlived its usefulness and needs to evolve" (The MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Lan- guages, 2007, p. 3) .3

The MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Lan- guages (2007) suggested that this fault-ridden language-literature structure should be replaced "with a broader and more coherent curriculum in which language, culture, and literature are taught as a continuous whole" (p. 3). Language, literature, and culture are already, today, rather inte- grated in Swedish foreign language programs. We see many advantages with this system and basically we agree with the transformation of foreign language programs that is called for in the report. However, we wish to emphasize what we see as one of the major risks involved - namely, that the desired "continuous whole" (p. 3) may be achieved at the expense of the integrity of its parts. In other words, we see it as both essential and achievable

that a curriculum motivate all of its components - for example, literature- on their own terms, not just as means to achieving some other goal - for example, language proficiency, or, quoting the report, "translingual or transcultural competence" (p. 3).

In an effort to establish a more solid point of departure than that which our own teaching experience would allow, we set out to analyze two sources of information. The first consists of 16 Spanish syllabi from the eight universities in Sweden where Spanish is currently taught. The second consists of a questionnaire, to which 1 1 Spanish teachers working with these courses re- sponded by answering pertinent questions about their teaching as well as about their own particular syllabi. The sources we analyze are exclusively Swedish. Nonetheless, we believe the discussion is of relevance for university language learning environments in general.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE CURRICULA WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION

Foreign language university courses are de- signed to correlate with the general objectives of undergraduate education. In Sweden, higher education is regulated by the Higher Education Act, which prescribes that one should promote students' capacities for independent and critical judgment as well as their ability to solve problems independently:

Undergraduate education shall, in addition to knowledge and skills, provide the students with a capability of independent and critical judgment, an ability to independently solve problems and an ability to follow the development of knowledge, all within the field covered by the education. The education should also develop the students' ability to exchange information at a scientific level. (Swedish Higher Education Act, Statute 9, Act 2001, 1263)

The aim of a foreign-language undergraduate course at a Swedish university can thus never be focused exclusively on the development of linguistic skills or on the acquisition of cultural knowledge. From this also follows that our own arguments presented earlier - promoting literature as a means to develop linguistic competence and to obtain knowledge about foreign cultures - are not only far from convincing, but also they do not by themselves meet the standards of undergraduate education as expressed in the Swedish Higher Education Act. It should also be noted that the Higher Education Act deals only with general objectives and, therefore, nothing in it refers



1 72 The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)

to specific areas of study. This means that literature, in our specific context, cannot be inferred as a compulsory component of university language courses.

The objective of critical thinking can, in turn, be concretized by referring to the description by Marton, Dall'Alba, and Beaty (1993) of six qualita- tively different conceptions of learning.4 The first three - (a) increase of knowledge, (b) memorization, and (c) application - are described as surface approaches to learning. The other three - (d) "learning as understanding," (e) "learning as seeing something in a different way," and (f) "learning as changing as a person" - are identified as deep approaches. The difference between surface and deep approaches is related to meaning:

Throughout the first three conceptions the knowledge that is acquired by learning is seen as something ready-made, given, something that exists "out there," waiting to be picked up, taken in and stored There is an important dividing line between conceptions A, B and C on the one hand and conceptions D, E and F, on the other hand. The watershed is meaning. (Marton et al., 1993, p. 288)

Surface approaches, it should be stressed, are not without value. However, university professors must also aspire to guide their students to deeper approaches to learning, so that students may thereby develop "a capability of discerning and focusing on critical aspects of situations and seeing the pat- terns characterizing those situations" (Bowden & Marton 1998, pp. 11-12).5 We will return to the themes of surface and deep approaches to learning when we discuss the objective of critical thinking as it relates to the results of the analyses.

SYLLABI

For the purposes of this study, the syllabi we chose to analyze were used in first- and second- semester Spanish courses at Swedish universities in the fall of 2004. Students were required to demonstrate basic knowledge of Spanish from high school (or the equivalent) to enroll in the course and were thus deemed to be prepared for engagement with target-language literary texts starting in the first semester.6

In Sweden, syllabi are official documents ap- proved by the board of the relevant department as well as by the board of the faculty/university. Their design is regulated by the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance.7 Teachers are generally involved in the process of syllabus development, but the fact that syllabi are remitted through several

instances in effect makes them collective documents. As such, Swedish syllabi can be said to represent the predominant conceptions of literature at their specific department and university.

In addition to being available on the Web site of each department, syllabi are usually presented to the students at the beginning of each course. In this way, they function as a binding contract between teacher/ university and student, an agreement through which the relevant department commits itself to helping students reach the stipulated goals. Thus, just as teachers expect their students to be familiar with the description of the course set forth in the syllabi, so too do students expect their teachers to follow previously agreed-upon instruction and assessment procedures.

It should be noted that syllabi in Sweden are more strongly regulated than in some other countries. In Norway, for example, it is easier for individual teachers to make changes in their syllabi from semester to semester because reading lists and documents that describe aims and objectives do not need to pass through either the department or the faculty board. Nevertheless, throughout Scandinavia, the basic constraint imposed by syllabi (as well as their contractual nature) remains the same.

The main reason we chose syllabi as the focus of our analysis is that we believe they have a strong influence on how both students and teachers conceive of the learning goals of the courses in which they are engaged. On the one hand, we believe that syllabi are bound to bear traces of deep-rooted views of the subject(s) they aim to il- luminate. Syllabi can, of course, be changed, but because the process involves many steps and sig- nificant amounts of time, teachers must present solid and thoroughly grounded reasons for want- ing to do so. Even when syllabi are modified, the new versions are usually still substantially based on extant ones. On the other hand, we maintain that syllabi can also be effective in introducing and promoting new ways of conceptualizing knowledge and learning (Ramsden, 1992).

A preliminary observation on the 16 syllabi in question is that Literature is included in all of them, together with modules such as Grammar, Written and Oral Proficiencies, Phonetics, and Civilization. Thus, we feel compelled to make the somewhat obvious but nevertheless important point that literature is seen as a crucial element in these courses.

Another observation regarding the syllabi we studied is that they are, perhaps inevitably, rather vague. To a certain extent, this is characteristic




of the genre, as syllabi must be flexible enough to allow the department and its faculty certain freedom of action from semester to semester.

A third general observation is that the syllabi examined present striking similarities, the most salient of which is the repeated use of three key concepts: language, culture, and literature. A variety of course aims are related to some or all of these areas; however, they are more consistently and explicitly related to language and culture than they are to literature. This brings us back to the two arguments that began our discussion - namely, that the study of literature is seen both as a tool for developing language proficiency and as a means with which to acquire cultural knowledge.

Let us examine a few examples from the syllabi under study:

(1) Reading comprehension is trained by translating parts of the texts into Swedish. Moreover, the texts are to be discussed from a cultural perspective through which the Swedish and the Spanish-speaking cultures can be illustrated. (Syl- labus SP1100, University of Gothenburg, first semester)8

(2) The study of literary and nonliterary texts to an extension of about 1000 pages. The texts are treated from the point of view of both language and content. Special attention is paid to aspects that concern the culture, literature, history and societal conditions of the Spanish-speaking countries. Written tasks are performed and oral proficiency is trained in relation to the reading of texts. (Syllabus RO1880, Stockholm University, first semester)

(3) By studying literary texts, the student's knowledge of modern Spanish and Spanish-American literature, culture and societal change in modern times is developed. The study of literary texts furthermore has the objective of noticeably im-

proving oral and written proficiency, which are practiced in oral presentations and group discussions. (Syllabus SPAB01, Karlstad University, second semester)

(4) The course aims at providing knowledge about language, literature, art and politics from early epochs putting the focus on the so-called "Golden Era" [i.e., the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Spain] Students will have to

present their own work on different aspects of this period. Great importance will be attached to a correct presentation as regards both content and delivery. (Syllabus SPA602, Lund University, second semester)

In all four examples we observe a fairly instrumental view of literature. On the one hand, literature is posited as a means to develop language acquisition: Students may practice and improve their proficiencies through individual and collective readings of literary texts

(Examples 1-3). 9 On the other hand, literature is implicitly seen as a provider of knowledge about language, history, culture, society, and literature (most markedly so in Example 4) , which, in turn, rests on a specific view of knowledge as transfer- able information. Whereas acquisition is emphasized, nothing is said about helping students perceive critical aspects of the language and the culture they are studying or about helping them see things in new and more varied ways (Bowden & Marton, 1998; Ramsden, 1992). Nor is anything said about helping students grow as readers, so "that they can take up informed positions of their own which they can actively defend in relation to texts" (McCormick, 1994, p. 88).

If we take a closer look at Example 1, we note that an opposition is presented between reading comprehension and cultural perspective. The former is to be trained through translation, which recalls the traditional grammar-translation method.10

Students are expected to reach deeper un- derstandings of a literary text by translating it into their first language. This translating occurs while the text in question is also to be discussed from a cultural perspective. Regrettably, no link is established between these two aims. Focusing on comprehension as a purely linguistic issue means that reading and translating are both ap- proached in an artificial, isolated way. Valuable opportunities to foster students' critical awareness of reading and translating (not merely as linguistic-mechanistic activities but also as complex cultural processes in which different sets of power relations are put in play) are thus neglected.11

The use of the terms "literary" and "nonliterary" texts in Example 2, without specification of the roles that each of these will play in the learning situation, is also worthy of comment. The syllabus in question does not make clear if these two types of text are interchangeable or if they are meant to be seen as two distinct entities that interact with and complement each other. If the latter is true, it would be useful to include some form of information about the ways in which this complementarity works, as well as about the didac- tical consequences it might have for the students when presented with the curricula into which to gain some insight.

As mentioned previously, culture is frequently mentioned in the presentation of the literary modules. Looking back to the first four examples, we see that many of the syllabi emphasize the potential of literature to contribute to better cultural understanding. Here are some syllabi excerpts (emphasis added) :




(5) Moreover, the texts are to be discussed from a cultural perspective through which the Swedish and the Spanish-speaking cultures can be illustrated. (Syllabus SP1100, University of Gothenburg, first semester)

(6) Special importance is given to aspects that concern the culture, literature, history and society of Spanish-speaking countries. (Syllabus RO1880, Stockholm University, first semester)

(7) The student's knowledge of literature in Spanish as well as culture and societal change in modern times is furthered by the study of literature. (Syllabus SPAB01, Karlstad University, second semester)

As evident in these examples, the term culture is used in a very broad sense. However, this would not be a major problem were it not for the vagueness of the usage. In Example 5, cultural perspective and Swedish and Spanish-speaking cultures seem to gesture toward an ethnographic usage of the word. In Example 6, culture is made to stand together with literature and societal change; in Example 7, it is distinguished from but put on equal terms with literature, history, and society. These usages are more than a little confusing: Is literature not a part of culture? If this is indeed the case, how are "distinct" concepts like culture, literature, history, and society actually related?12

There is yet another syllabus that, although in line with the above examples, articulates the ad- ditional idea of a one-way relation between literature and society/culture. It presents literature as "mirroring the society and culture in the Hispanic countries during the nineteenth and the twenti- eth century" (Syllabus 2840, Stockholm Univer- sity, second semester). As will be noted, society and culture are placed beside each other in a phrase that recalls a formula. Overall, the concept of culture is used in such a vague and formulaic way in the syllabi that it becomes almost devoid of meaning. Moreover, something all of the syllabi in this study seem to manifest is an implicit view of the cultures of Spanish-speaking countries (and that of Sweden for that matter) as homogenous. This view constitutes a regrettable (in our opin- ion) lack of problematization of the concept of culture.

A reified conception of culture can also be inferred from the syllabi. Culture is presented as something that can be studied and learned, not ever alluding to the problems that arise when one is approaching something that has been implicitly defined as alien. Jauss's (2001) notion of horizon sheds light on the fact that in addition to being functional and changeable, cultures are understood differently by different observers:

The recognition and acceptance of the 'dialogicity' of literary communication brings into play in more than one way the problem of otherness: between producer and recipient, between the past of the text and the present of the recipient, between different cultures, (p. 9)

In other words, otherness is a constituent part of literary communication. Dialogue will not be possible if students (and teachers) do not accept and discuss all of the problems entailed in trying to "learn," in our specific case, a foreign culture.

Literature is not introduced as a verbal form of artistic expression in any of the 16 syllabi; nei- ther is any theoretical issue related to literature or the reading of literature mentioned. This lack of a consistent literary-oriented approach relates to our own two standard arguments for including literature in language courses presented in the beginning of this article. There are a few cases, however, in which the more "literary" aspects of literature are not completely left aside. Consider the following example:

(8) Besides reading prose as literature, it is important to study the texts carefully so that they also serve the purpose of developing the student's knowledge about language. This can be achieved by continuously taking note of new vocabulary, phraseology, grammatical structures, etc. (Syl- labus SPAA02, Umeâ University, first semester)

In this syllabus, an awareness of the existence of different modes of reading is implied in the phrase "reading prose as literature." It must be noted, though, that whereas the idea of reading literature qua literature is presented in a sub- ordinate clause and not developed further, the opposite occurs with the idea about using literature to learn more about the second language. Apart from the fact that the latter is brought forward in the main clause, it is immediately fol- lowed by detailed indications about how to bring it about. Furthermore, the contrast established between "reading prose as literature" and "studying the texts carefully" might suggest that "reading prose as literature" is considered to be a less de- manding task. This judgment leaves no real room for the possibility that "reading prose as literature" might also require careful study, with attention to, for example, a work's narrative voices, levels of narration, and diverse intertextual relations to other texts. The opposition established in this syllabus between two kinds of reading therefore exposes an underlying hierarchic relation between language and literature in foreign language studies.



Cecilia Alvstad and Andrea Castro 1 75

Other syllabi introduce the idea of analyzing literary texts:

(9) The primary aim is text comprehension, furthermore the works are to be analyzed with basic text-analytic methods, and finally they should be framed in their literary, cultural and historical context, through the reading of about 300 pages of specialized literature. (Syllabus SP2400, Uni- versity of Gothenburg, second semester)

(10) An intense training of vocabulary and oral proficiency should ensue when the contents and the literary analysis of the texts are presented. (Syllabus HSPB02, Linkôping University, second semester)

(11) The capacity to analyze literary texts is trained. (Syllabus 5SP210, Uppsala University, second semester)

In these examples, we welcome the presence of an analytic, highly process-oriented stance, which constrasts with the more product-oriented views brought forward by other syllabi. Still, we see a risk in presenting analysis as an end in itself (as in Examples 9 and 10) , thereby leaving aside the reasons why one ought to analyze texts. In Example 9, textual analysis is differentiated from contex- tual framing of the text, which implies that these are considered to be separate activities. In Exam- ple 11, we do meet an approach to analysis as a process - it is presented as a capacity to be trained. However, here, again, nothing much is said about what this capacity means or why anybody should endeavor to train it.

The main problem we identify is that, more often than not, literary analysis is presented as the mere application of a model and not, for example, as a means of developing ways of reading to gain a better understanding of the text, oneself, or the world.13 A possible consequence is that students might be led to adopt a surface approach to reading, in particular (or to learning, in general). Taking into account the fundamental fact that syllabi ought not only to guide teachers but also students in their work when trying to understand what is expected of them, these kinds of formulations must be seen as counterproductive, or at the very least confusing.

There is one syllabus that stands out against the others, in that it (however briefly, in following the conventions of the genre) calls up the complexity of literature:

(12) The reading of [literary] texts is completed with literary analysis. Furthermore, the skills of pro- ducing and meeting various interpretations of the works read are developed. (Syllabus 2840, Stockholm University, second semester)

In considering the importance of training students in both expressing and reacting to a variety of interpretations that the literary work may bring about, this syllabus focuses on a fundamental aspect of literature (viz., polysemy). Consequently, the syllabus acknowledges, at least in part, the relevance of reading literature during language studies, as discussions about literature, reading, and interpretations might well contribute to a wider consciousness of the multiplicity and complexity of literary texts. We would like to suggest that this syllabus is a good beginning to the process of articulating an answer to the question of what specific benefits the reading of literature (as opposed to the reading of other kinds of text) may have to offer students and teachers.

THE TEACHERS' STATEMENTS

To approach university teachers' conceptions about the role (s) of literature in language courses, we distributed a questionnaire to the 15 teachers who were responsible for literary modules in the first and the second Spanish courses at Swedish universities during the fall of 2004. Eleven teachers working at seven different universities re- sponded to the questionnaire.14 We anticipated that the syllabi and the questionnaire responses might point to slightly different conclusions. We therefore chose to contrast the two sources by analyzing the conceptions of literature that are expressed (explicitly and implicitly) within them.

The questionnaire consisted of 28 questions. Most items invited the teachers to write about some aspect of their teaching (their goals, choices of books to be studied, pedagogical methods, examination, and the syllabi).15 Their answers should be understood as informal, semisponta- neous articulations of their ideas about the role of literature in language learning. They gave us access to a certain spectrum of the teachers' ideas but, naturally, not to the full range of their ideas about literature or to the actual classroom prac- tices. Assessed as a whole, however, it is our position that the questionnaires provided a reveal- ing (albeit unofficial) glimpse at these particular teachers' values and beliefs.

The teachers' statements proved to manifest many similarities with the formulations contained in the syllabi. We do not find this particularly surprising, as the teachers are, of course, familiar with the formulations about goals expressed in the syllabi. As a matter of fact, the teachers involved were at the time guided by 1 or more of the 16 syllabi analyzed in the previous section.




Some had even been involved in the drafting of these documents. Furthermore, there were con- crete questions about specific formulations in the teachers' respective syllabus in the questionnaire, which might have enhanced the teachers' awareness of these guiding documents while in the process of answering the questions.

When we formulated a question asking the teachers to interpret certain words or passages from their respective syllabi, we assumed that they would adopt a critical stance toward these formulations. We were therefore surprised to learn that most of the teachers answered the question neutrally - that is, commenting on the formulations as if they were set in stone, instead of pointing at possible problems the formulations might generate when implemented. Only one of the teachers (T6) met our expectations. As we will see below, this teacher clearly stated that she16 does not share the underlying theoretical back- bone of the syllabus that is supposed to guide her. Although only one teacher challenged the assumptions underlying the formulations of the syllabi, it should be noted that 4 teachers left this question unanswered. A possible explanation for this omission is that the question may have raised a certain level of insecurity or doubt on the part of the teachers.

The most salient similarity between information expressed in the teachers' statements and information contained in the syllabi is the frequent use of the key concepts of language, culture, and literature. More often than not, teachers used these concepts without commenting on their vagueness or complexity, which we find reminiscent of the casual way that these concepts are used in the syllabi. For example, Til used all three words when expressing one of her goals for the course: "My intention is to, through literature, transmit knowledge about a) the language, which is our tool and our goal, b) culture and society and c) literature and literary analysis."17 Another example can be found in the utterance of T10, who pointed out that the students should work with the texts on the following three levels: linguistic, historical/ cultural, and literary.

Another similarity between the syllabi and the teachers' statements is that all 1 1 clearly expressed instrumental stances toward the reading of literature. Reading is seen as a way of developing linguistic competence and acquiring literary and cultural knowledge. It is especially noteworthy that there was considerable overall emphasis on linguistic goals. In the following subsection we provide an account of (and comment on) how

the teachers use the key concepts of language, culture, and literature in their statements.

Teachers on Language

The most frequently mentioned linguistic feature is vocabulary acquisition (e.g., statements by T4, T5, and T10). Students are supposed to study and actively learn the vocabulary of the books they read. Vocabulary tests (through word lists or short translation tasks) frequently form part of the exams of the literature course in question (e.g., those ofT2,T10, and Til).

Another linguistic feature taught in the courses is grammar. As one of the teachers put it, the students are supposed to "strengthen their grammatical knowledge" (T4). Another teacher declared that one may discuss "why the subjunctive and not the indicative mood is used in a specific context or why the durative aspects of the story are best por- trayed with the use of the imperfect tense" (T9) . A third teacher stated that many students have a more positive attitude toward literature than linguistics and that certain elements of the literary works (such as periphrasis, or the use of indi- rect or overly intricate language) can therefore be used to train and compare grammatical con- structions, pragmatic elements, and so on (T8).

The linguistic and instrumental stance toward the reading of literature comprises the furthering not only of comprehension but also of production abilities. Consequently, literary texts are also used as material for the teaching of oral and written proficiencies (e.g., by T6 and T10). As we saw in the previous section, this usage dovetails with the explicit formulations set forth in a number of the syllabi.

Several teachers reported that linguistic aspects affected their choice of literary works. If the students consider a book to be too difficult as far as language is concerned, for example, it will likely be replaced by another, more comprehensible source. Two teachers rationalized this decision by stating that the text would not be of any benefit for the students if they do not understand it (T4 and T9). Furthermore, the teachers wrote that an overly taxing book might contribute to a negative attitude toward the reading of literary texts. According to the questionnaire data, language-related considerations are highly important in the context of end-of-course examinations. To pass the exams, students must be able to understand the text "linguistically," give an account of the story, and express themselves orally and in writing in a comprehensible way (Tl).




The formulation "linguistic understanding" is interesting in that it reveals a differentiation between kinds of understanding, according to which linguistic understanding would connote making sense of the words of the text. However, this distinction raises the question of how other kinds of understanding could be characterized. Other teachers make similar distinctions; an example of this is provided by T2, who wanted the students to understand both the language and the content. (She did not, however, provide any further details about how to understand this formulaic dichotomy.)

On the whole, there is a strong emphasis on linguistic aspects in the teachers' statements. With one exception (T7, who did not mention linguistic issues at all), all others expressed that the reading of literary texts is an important part of students' training of linguistic capacities. On the one hand, this position seems reasonable given that the students are in fact in the process of learning a language and that they do have to develop a satisfactory measure of linguistic competence. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that other parts of the course are more explicitly aimed at developing such capabilities (grammar, oral proficiency, written proficiency, etc.) . In addition, literary texts usually contain many so-called "ungrammaticalities" of various kinds, from lexi- cal and syntactical deviations to illogical leaps and paradoxes (Riffaterre, 1978). It is therefore not obvious that the training of language should constitute the predominant objective also in the literary modules. Interestingly, in their statements, the teachers seem to give even more importance to language-related issues than the syllabi do.

We wonder why teachers regard the instrumentally linguistic raison d'être to be the most important one. Do they believe it to be the best way to justify the existence of literature in the syllabi (to themselves, students, and/or nonliterary-oriented colleagues)? We take this to be likely. Nevertheless, without refuting the fact that the reading of literary texts can en- hance students' linguistic skills, we claim that there is considerable risk involved in justifying literary modules on predominantly instrumental- linguistic grounds. As it has not been ascer- tained that literary reading furthers language acquisition in more efficient ways than the reading of, say, newspaper articles, referring to linguistically oriented arguments does not fully justify the inclusion of literary modules in course syllabi. On the contrary, this mode of argumentation only serves to highlight potential lack of applicability

of literature to the goal of developing students' linguistic competence.

One possible way of strengthening the position of literature would be to back up the teachers' argumentation with Riffaterre 's (1978) distinction between the heuristic and hermeneutic stages of reading:

This first, heuristic reading is also where the first interpretation takes place, since it is during this reading that meaning is apprehended. The reader's input is his linguistic competence, which includes an assumption that language is referential It also includes the reader's ability to perceive incompatibilities between words: for instance, to identify tropes and figures, that is, to recognize that a word or phrase does not make literal sense The second stage is that of retroactive reading. This is the time for a second interpretation, for the truly hermeneutic reading, (p. 5)

From this perspective, we can regard linguistic comprehension as a fundamental step in the reading process, but only as a first step among possible others. Further steps might include hermeneutic reading through which students (as well as teachers) could develop a further understanding of the literary text. Reflecting on and talking about how texts are read at different junctures and what the aim of each reading is (e.g., heuristic or hermeneutic) , can help students develop an awareness of the process of reading literature as a complex one that trains more competences than the merely linguistic.

Teachers on Culture

With regard to the key concept of culture, we can verify in the teachers' statements a vague usage of the term that dovetails with the formulations in the syllabi. In the first of the following quotations, literary texts are presented as a source of knowledge about culture. Thus, knowledge appears here as something that readers can acquire passively:

The literary texts are used as a material that can teach us things about the culture of the Spanish-speaking countries We look at language, that is, vocabulary, id- iomatic expressions and grammatical problems, as well as contents, which are related to the socio-cultural and historical context. (Til, emphasis added)

In the latter section of this utterance, we observe a traditional conception of the literary text according to which the text, comprehended as language in extension, comprises the couplet form/content in a hierarchic relation. In this opposition, content is related to the sociocultural and historical



1 78 The Modem Language Journal 93 (2009)

contexts, whereas form stands by itself. Form is thus considered to be neutral and ahistorical, isolated from the mentioned contexts. These and similar formulations reproduce a simplified view of literature and its relations to language and culture.

In the following utterance, the idea of the literary text as a source of knowledge is presented again, but from a more interesting vantage: "To me, the biggest challenge is to get students to see how much they can learn from reading literature. Language, culture, history, all in one, if only you give them the tools" (Til, emphasis added). This utterance points to the importance of hav- ing (conceptual) tools that make it possible to access knowledge. The teacher talked about helping students see that there is much to be learned through reading literature. She underlined the process instead of the result - the seeing and the reading - and mentioned the importance of providing the students with methodological tools. To make students conscious of different methods is a good way of helping them to develop deeper approaches to learning. Another teacher wanted "to give the students an insight into the history and culture of the Spanish-speaking countries" (T7; emphasis added). We believe that the choice to use this particular word is especially important because it focuses on a procedural aspect of knowledge that has to do with seeing things in new ways.

While pointing out the multilayered quality of literary texts, one teacher conceptualized the linguistic aspects of a text ("a story with new words and grammatical difficulties") as a doorway to other kinds of insights and knowledge:

Personally, I introduce, little by little, the possibility for students to grasp that a literary text is not only a story with new words and grammatical difficulties. I try to help them realize that a text opens the possibility of starting to read "between the lines" a number of aspects and elements that will help them better understand the reality and the world-view of the writers that represent the culture and the language they [the students] are trying to learn. (T4, emphasis added)

Here, the concept of culture relates to the writers' national or regional belonging. The writers "represent the culture and the language that they [the students] are trying to learn." According to our interpretation of this utterance, it is through literary texts that students have access to the reality and worldview expressed by the writers. The utterance represents a clear theoretical positioning toward the reading of literature that, as far as this formulation is concerned, seems largely to be taken for

granted. It would certainly be a very interesting starting point for a discussion about the relations among literature, writers, society, language, and culture, as it would allow students to experience and become aware of different cultural theories, older as well as current ones.

Commenting on a syllabus for a first course, one of the teachers stated the following: "My intention ... is to take a step away from literature and treat other cultural phenomena in order to show that literature is a part of culture The contents are discussed from cultural and literary aspects" (T10, emphasis added). With the phrase "other cultural phenomena," we believe that the teacher is referring to other kinds of texts, such as newspaper articles or reviews. (These references are more obvious in a part of her answer that is not included here.) The teacher expressed her intent of demonstrating literature as belonging to a larger context of written work. This move to situate literature could serve as a good point from which to discuss the ways in which literature informs culture and what the specific contribu- tion (s) of literature to culture might be. Keeping in mind the fact that no culture is monolithic, this view could perhaps instigate discussions of not only to what culture but to whose culture to we are referring. With regard to the second part of the quotation, the question arises as to what the cultural aspects discussed in relation to the content are. Once more, we note that content is deemed worthy of discussion in relation to culture, whereas form appears to have been implicitly left out of the discussion.

As briefly mentioned earlier, one teacher's response seems to characterize the syllabus as a somewhat formulaic and empty document, thus expressing a distanced and critical attitude toward it:

Regarding the specific formulation, I take it as a mere bureaucratic description, since I do not believe in the obsolete theory of art as a reflection of society. I rather believe that texts represent and construct possible worlds that keep différent kinds of relations with the real world, and that they certainly are products of a society and a culture but at the same time produce that culture. (T6)

This distancing from the syllabus lets the teacher affirm her own stance toward the posited relationship between literature and culture. The state- ment calls attention to the naïveté inherent to presupposing such a hierarchical relationship in our (post) modern age, and instead it proposes a wide variety of textual stances vis-à-vis "the real world."




In answering another question, the same re- spondent pointed to the need of studying the subject's history and culture in other modules. She also argued that both of these concepts should be related back to literature in some way. These statements reflect her underlying belief that literature should not be the only source for learning about history and culture.

Teachers on Literature

It is an underlying assumption in many of the teachers' utterances that literary texts have special qualities that other texts do not have and, therefore, they are believed to be especially well suited for the students. One of the teachers wrote that it is important to "make the students see how much a literary text transmits as compared to, for example, a newspaper article" (T7). Interestingly, she did not specify what it is that literary texts transmit that other texts do not transmit. In other words, she took as a given that literary texts differ from other texts and did not specify in what ways. There- fore, the "how much" in her formulation becomes very vague. Additionally, we find the phrase "the text transmits" especially interesting, as it presup- poses an active text and a passive receiver and not, for instance, a reader actively involved in the process of composing meaning. In this short formulation we thus meet several implicit theoretical positionings.

We now revisit an utterance partly quoted in an earlier section:

To me, the biggest challenge is to make students realize how much they can learn from reading literature I know that many new students cannot understand what literature is good for, but at the end of the course they are often astonished at what reading has given them. There lies the great pleasure of teaching, and I believe literature should constitute a more sizeable portion of language teaching. (Til, emphasis added)

The difference between the literary and the nonliterary in these statements is felt to reside in the text itself and not in the stance the reader adopts toward the text. However, there is no con- sensus among literary scholars regarding this issue. Text-oriented reader-response theorists like Iser (1980) and Stierle (1980) regard the literary as something that resides in the text. However, more reader-oriented scholars, such as Rosen- blatt (1978), stress the reader's relationship to the text.18

As far as the literary-oriented objectives are concerned, there are both similarities and differences

between the teachers' statements and the syllabi. One of the frequent similarities appears in the re- current use of the words literary analysis and interpretation. One of the teachers formulated her goal as one of making "students learn to use elemen- tary concepts of literary analysis" (Til), whereas another wished that students "shall become ca- pable of interpreting the text following some ele- mentary ways of analyzing literature" (T6) . A third teacher said: "I also teach them literary concepts so that they can use them in their analysis" (Tl). These ideas come across as rather undefined, and it is difficult to picture exactly what the teachers want to promote, why, or how.

From the questionnaires it also becomes clear that the teachers want to further the students' general literary knowledge with regard to both literary history and theory. The teachers refer to concepts such as genre, narratologyy and compo- sition when expressing their objectives. One of the teachers stated: "I want them to simultane- ously learn about the content, the structure and the narrative techniques of the works" (T7) . An- other teacher commented: "In the first class and every time a new literary genre appears I teach them basic notions of literary theory" (T6). A third teacher required the students "to be able to identify literary key-concepts and to give a rough account of the structure of the work" (T8). Still another teacher included "relevant theoretical aspects" (T9) , providing tropology, metaphors, and metonyms as examples of what these would be.

Some of these literary-oriented intentions clearly go beyond what is expressed in the syllabi. As we have drawn attention to earlier, literary theory is not mentioned explicitly in any of the syllabi and, consequently, no references to specifically literary concepts like genre, narratology, or tropology are made. This "transgression" on the part of the teachers would seem to indicate that they bear other objectives in mind above and beyond those presented in the syllabi. By promoting deeper literary-theoretical knowledge on the part of students, an understanding of literary texts as works of art related to other forms of artistic and literary expression might be furthered. This understanding might also draw attention to the ability of art to expand the reader's consciousness (i.e., to make her consider things from a novel perspective). Of course, much depends on how these and other literary issues are handled in class.

Noninstrumental Approaches to Literature

In the questionnaires gathered, there are also a number of formulations that do not have a



180 The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)

counterpart in the syllabi. These formulations are oriented toward the students' feelings and motiva- tions. For example, one of the teachers wrote that the common intent is to "try to jointly discover the mystery of literature. But above all, I want to awaken an interest in reading and to help them [the students] learn to do so in a critical way" (T8) . Another wanted the students "to love literature, that they come to understand that it is interesting and entertaining" (T6) . A third declared that she "tries to create a space where the exchange of reflections, ideas and feelings about the texts is possible" (T3) . A fourth, in turn, found it "important that the students learn to understand the value of literary works, that literary works are not luxury goods but a real necessity" (T7) .

In these formulations, we meet conceptions of literature completely at odds with the consistently instrumental approaches of the syllabi. The main objective expressed in these statements is to help students engage actively with the literary texts involved. Additionally, it should be noted that one of the teachers (T8) mentioned the critical perspective required by the Higher Educa- tion Act that is missing both in the syllabi and in most of the answers to the questionnaires. We would like to propose that these latter teacherly approaches are more aesthetically oriented than many of the other above formulations, according to which literature is read primarily for language or culture acquisition. The verbs discover, awaken, understand, and love signal an approach to learning that is procedural rather than product oriented. There are also a few teachers who actually alluded to the various ways of interpreting a literary work and who stressed the importance of discussing the different interpretations. One of them is T3, as seen earlier. Another wrote that to pass the course, the students are required to ven- ture the following: "from their own point of view dare to discuss other ways of conceiving the work" (T8).

To summarize our arguments, answers to the questionnaire items provide a more complex picture of literature in language learning than the syllabi do. As part of the teachers' conceptions, there are also literary-oriented approaches that do not have a counterpart in the syllabi. To some extent, the teachers' statements can be said to be more oriented toward the poetic dimensions of literature than the syllabi, but it should be noted that the aesthetical stances in the teachers' statements are not emphasized, let alone elaborated upon. Generally, knowledge comes across in the responses as a product that can be passed from the teacher to the student rather than as a process in

which the student must actively engage. Further- more, literary texts tend to be seen as containers of knowledge ready to be consumed. Consequently, in both the teachers' formulations and the syllabi, litde attention is paid to reading as an activity in its own right or to the various ways readers can interact with texts. In some of the brief formulations we have received from teachers, learning is predominantly presented as an increase in knowledge, memorization, and, in some cases, application. In other words, the general foci prove to be held on the three surface approaches to learning as presented earlier.

CONCLUSION

The objective of this article has been to promote reflection about the roles of literature in university language courses. Through careful analysis of implicit and explicit views - expressed in course syllabi and in teachers' questionnaire responses - we have sought to explore and discuss a number of reasons for reading literary texts in university- level foreign language curricula. Along the way, we have had occasion to revise our own assumptions (frequently reflected in the syllabi and in our colleagues' utterances) about the role of literature in language courses. Altogether, this has allowed us to develop methods of formulating more clearly what we consider to be crucial topics in curriculum design.

We started out by observing that the key concepts of literature, language, and culture tend to be employed in an unproblematized manner, both in the syllabi and in teachers' utterances. This usage leads to the representation of simplified ideas and distinctions. These concepts are frequently employed throughout all of the syllabi, and it is interesting to note that they are almost always used without definitions, as if there could be no doubt about their meaning. However, language, culture, and literature are exceedingly complex concepts that can only be understood in relation to each other. For example, in the syllabi it is often unclear whether the word "literature" only refers to more or less canonized literary texts or if it encompasses popular literary expressions, as well. Similarly, there is an imprecision regarding whether literature is understood as a separate phenomenon or as an integral part of culture (as in "literature and culture"). These are vexing questions that require more complex definitions than any syllabus would allow. The main issue is not that terms are imprecisely defined but that the syllabi do not mention or allude to the complexity of these terms. Instead they are presented




as clear and self-evident, a position that we find problematic.

Further analysis shows that the objectives expressed for the literary modules, both in the syllabi and in the teachers' answers to our questionnaire, are mainly instrumentally oriented. This approach to literature is primarily focused on acquisition of not just language but culture, as well. The predominant idea is that reading literary texts will allow students to learn vocabulary, phrases, grammar, as well as things about literature, culture, and society. Literature is taken to more or less automatically provide such knowledge, and hardly anything is mentioned about the specific problems, questions, or experiences that the reading of literary works might entail. In many respects, therefore, the objectives for these literary modules do not differ from the general objectives for the language course as a whole. The instrumental approach is predominant also when what could be considered specific literary objectives are mentioned. The most common case is when the reading of literary texts is presented as a way of acquiring knowledge about literary history (i.e., the focus is on using the texts to extract a certain kind of knowledge, rather than on the literary works themselves) .

Despite the fact that the teachers' answers are by-and-large instrumentally oriented, some of them do underscore the importance of encouraging the students to analyze the texts they read. This emphasis could be interpreted as a way of stressing a procedural and noninstrumental aspect of learning. However, by the brief formulations we encountered, we could infer that textual analysis is generally viewed as a near- mechanical application, and literary texts are presented as sites amenable to such applications. Consequently, the objectives formulated in the syllabi and by the teachers basically lie within the range of what Marton et al. (1993) and Bowden and Marton (1998) defined as a surface approach to learning.

We believe that the teachers' deference to general and instrumental objectives when teaching literature can be, at least partially, attributed to an anxiety on their part to justify the status of literature in the context of university language studies. Unfortunately, an important consequence of this argumentation becomes contrary to the desired one. It effectively undermines - not enhances - the position of literature, as evinced by the following paradox: If literature does not introduce anything specific or provide any specific benefits, why should it constitute a specific part of university language studies?

We suggest that literary modules will benefit from the formulation of more specifically literary or aesthetic objectives that take into account the poetic dimensions of literature and hence differ from the ones of the language course as a whole. The formulation of such objectives would give literature a clearer and more solid place in language syllabi. In order to formulate specific literary or aesthetic objectives, we believe that it is necessary to focus on learning as a process (in which a certain degree of distancing from the material is required) rather than on knowledge as a product. Moreover, we consider the development of knowledge and awareness about how texts are read to be of the utmost importance, which, in turn, fos- ters awareness of the idea that different ways of reading may lead to different kinds of learning.

We deem it essential to underscore the activity of reading as an interpretive process. This being the case, one specific objective to be included would be the increase of students' awareness of the fact that literary texts are polysémie, that there are many ways of interpreting a text, and that these ways are historically situated and constrained. Literary-oriented modules in undergraduate education can take as a point of departure the ambiguity and polysemy of literary texts. Am- biguous texts invite readers to reflect and arrive at independent conclusions about what is being said and how. Students tend to argue for their own, often divergent interpretations, which, in turn, may lead to discussions about basic complexities of literature and reading. Are diverging interpretations related to the fact that the text itself opens up for various possibilities of interpretation, or are they primarily related to individual readers and their particular body of knowledge, life experiences, and/or beliefs? In what ways does knowledge about the historical and cultural context of the literary text in question affect its interpretation? Additionally, in what ways does knowledge of literary traditions affect the reading? Can some interpretations be said to be more valid than others? Of course, it is not possible to give simple answers to these oft-debated questions, but pay- ing attention to them in syllabi and in class will help students become aware of their own ways of reading and of the fact that not only texts but also readings/ interpretations of those texts are cultur- ally as well as historically situated. In other words, students may come to realize that reading is not an innocent activity. (This realization is precisely why the reading of literature can strengthen the students' capabilities and abilities of independent and critical judgment.) We believe that this is a goal, as stipulated by the Higher Education Act,



182 The Modem Language Journal 93 (2009)

toward which all undergraduate education ought to aim.

To sum up, in this article we have tried to draw attention to how crucial it is that the reading of literature in language syllabi is presented and carried out on its own terms. Rather than suggesting a formula on how to achieve this, we have emphasized the importance of including opportunities for reflection about the nature of literature and reading in course syllabi. We have also emphasized the importance of these and other regulating documents in encouraging teachers to continuously foster awareness of their own and of their students' previously unexamined assumptions.

NOTES

1Kramsch and Kramsch (2000) studied different conceptions of literature in articles published in the Modern Language Journal during the period 1916-1999. They concluded that "throughout the 20th century, literature has been given many purposes in language study. It has been used for the aesthetic education of the few (1910s), for the literacy of men (1920s), for moral and vocational uplift (1930s-1940s), for ideational content (1950s), for humanistic inspiration (1960s-1970s), and finally for providing an 'authentic* experience of the target culture (1980s-1990s)" (p. 568).

2See Shanahan (1997) for a discussion about how "to develop a systematic rationale for the intuitive faith that many of us place in the value of literature in the language learning experience" (p. 169).

3The hierarchic situation within U.S. academia as described by the MLA report and by Scott and Tucker (2002) does not apply to Swedish academia. This description shows an inherent inequality by which the "literature group" (teachers of foreign language literature) is the "elite" in relation to the SLA group ("researchers who explore how a second language is acquired," "specialists in foreign language teaching and learning," and "university teaching assistant supervi- sors"; Scott & Tucker, pp. ix-x). In Swedish academia, the "literature group" within foreign language departments has traditionally not really been considered "in- tellectual enough" by their comparative literature or philosophy colleagues. This means that the hierarchy based on "real intellectualism" described by Scott and Tucker exists in Swedish academia, but it ranks as "second class" all teachers within foreign languages; whereas within foreign languages there is no clear hierarchy, since both language and literature teachers do both research and teaching.

4Marton et al. (1993) started off from Sâljô's (1979) description of five conceptions of learning. In addition to trying "to characterize the conceptions in greater de- tail" (Marton et al., 1993, p. 283), they add the sixth conception.

In a discussion about how literary texts can contribute to develop critical thinking skills in the context

of foreign language teaching in American universities, Schultz (2002, pp. 10-13) drew upon similar ideas.

°In terms of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, the starting level for the first semester is A2-B1, and for the second semester, it isB2.

'Following the regulations of the Higher Education Ordinance, syllabi in Swedish universities cover the following aspects: (a) general aims of the course, (b) contents, (c) forms of instruction, (d) ways of assessment and evaluation, and (e) marks that may be achieved. Reading lists are usually specified separately.

8A11 translations of the syllabi and all italics are ours. 9According to Thorson (2005), the individual read-

ing occurs when students read on their own and think about their reading, whereas the collective reading is what ensues in the classroom situation or when discussing the text with other people.

10"From the late eighteenth century to the 1960s, lan-

guage learning in secondary schools in many countries had come to be dominated by what was known as the

grammar-translation method Translation exercises were regarded as a means of learning a new language or of reading a foreign language text until one had the linguistic ability to read the original. However, the grammar-translation method fell into increasing disre-

pute, particularly in many English-language countries, with the rise of the direct method or communicative approach to English language teaching in the 1960s and 1970s. This approach places stress on students' natural capacity to learn language and attempts to replicate 'authentic' language learning conditions in the classroom." (Munday, 2001, pp. 7-8). 11 "Translation is ... always enmeshed in a set of power relations that exist in both the source and the target contexts. The problem of decoding a text for a translator involves so much more than language, despite the fact that the basis of any written text is its language. More- over, the importance of understanding what happens in the translation process lies at the heart of our understanding of the world we inhabit" (Bassnett 8c Lefevere, 1998, p. 137).

12Eagleton (2000, p. 34) suggested that when one equates the cultural with the social, the concept of culture is rendered ineffective. Greenblatt (1995) also commented on this issue: "'Culture' is a term that is

repeatedly used without meaning much of anything at all, a vague gesture toward a dimly perceived ethos: aris- tocratic culture, youth culture, human culture. There is nothing especially wrong with such gestures - without them we wouldn't ordinarily be able to get through three consecutive sentences - but they are scarcely the back- bone of an innovative critical practice" (p. 225). Both Eagleton and Greenblatt touched upon the nodal point that needs to be addressed. The vague usage of culture in syllabi - a key term in language studies - will not help students to perceive the complexity of the concept nor contribute to the critical judgment that university courses should foster.

13 We refrain from defining what literary analysis is, but we believe that these syllabi might wrongly contribute to the idea among students that literary analysis




merely involves learning how to "pick" different literary devices without understanding why or to what end. The following quote comes from a student recalling a literature class in eighth grade as Miall (1996) recorded it: "We did an Edgar Allan Poe poem: we did The Raven.' . . . She got us to look for specific examples of literary devices, like symbolism and irony, etc. We did a lot of picking out of things like that, with that and other poems." Although it does not recall a university class situation, it is very illustrative of how things can turn out badly even when intentions are good. 14 We assume that all of the teachers felt a certain time pressure when answering the questionnaire. Com- pared to other European countries, Swedish modern language teachers have a difficult vocational situation, as they often work in small departments with few teachers and researchers and with scant student loyalty: Less than half of those who enroll the first semester go on to the second, and very few indeed continue to the third and the fourth semesters (Enkvist, 2005) . Some teachers refer explicitly to their perceived heavy teaching load in their answers.

15 The questionnaire was prepared in collaboration with Sonia Lagerwall, Ph.D., and other members of the project "Estrangement and Desautomatization: Ap- proaches to Literature in Academic Teaching Situa- tions." We also wish to thank the 11 teachers who answered the questionnaire as well as our fellow members of the project for their comments on several drafts of this article.

lbTo warrant the teachers' anonymity we refer to all the teachers with feminine pronouns. 17 We have numbered the questionnaires/teachers so that several statements of the same teacher can be related to each other by the reader of this article. Tl stands for Teacher 1, T2 for Teacher 2, and so forth. Because the respondents answered either in Swedish or in Span- ish, all translations are our own. All italics in the teachers' quotes are also ours.

18Rosenblatt (1978) identified two kinds of reading: an aesthetic and a nonaesthetic or efferent. These should be understood as the two poles of a continuum. "In aesthetic reading, . . . the reader's primary concern is with what happens during the actual reading event The reader's attention is centered directly on what he is living through during his relationship with that particular text" (pp. 24-25). In an efferent oi "non-aesthetic reading, the reader's attention is focused primarily on what will remain as the residue after the reading - the information to be acquired, the logical solution to a problem, the actions to be carried out" (p. 23) .

REFERENCES

Bassnett, S., & Lefevere, A. (1998). Constructing cultures. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning. London: Kogan Page.

Castro, A. (2004). Skônlitteraturens roll i sprâkunder- visningen pâ universitetet. The role of literature in

language teaching at university. LMS Lingua, 2, 13-24.

Davis, J. N. (1989) . The act of reading in the foreign language: Pedagogical implications of Iser's Reader- Response Theory. Modern Language Journal, 73, 420-428.

Davis, J. N., Gorell, L. C, Kline, R. R., 8c Hsieh, G. (1992). Readers and foreign languages: A sur- vey of undergraduate attitudes toward the study of literature. Modern Language Journal, 76 ', 320- 332.

Eagleton, T. (2000). The idea of culture. Oxford, UK* Blackwell Publishers.

Enkvist, I. (2005). Tràngd mellan politik och pedagogik. Svensk sprâkutbildningefter 1990. Hard-pressed between politics and pedagogy. Swedish language education after 1990. Hedemora, Sweden: Gidlunds Fôrlag.

Greenblatt, S. (1995). Culture. In F. Lentriccia & T. McLaughlin (Eds.), Critical terms for literary study (2nd éd.; pp. 225-232). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Iser, W. (1980). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jauss, H. R. (2001). The identity of the poetic text in the changing horizon of understanding. In J. L. Machor & P. Goldstein (Eds.), Reception study: From literary theory to cultural studies (pp. 7-28). London: Routledge.

Kramsch, C, & Kramsch, O. (2000). The avatars of literature in language study. Modern Language Journal, 84, 553-573.

Marton, F., Dall'Allba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Concep- tions of learning. International Journal of Educa- tional Research, 19, 277-300.

McCormick, K (1994). The culture of reading and the teaching of English. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Miall, D. S. (1996). Empowering the reader: Literary response and classroom learning. In R. J. Kreuz 8c S. M. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 463-478). Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.ualberta.ca/ ~dmiall/reading/EMPOWER.htm

The MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Re- trieved February 20, 2008, from http://www. mla.org/flreport

Munday,J. (2001). Introducing translation studies: Theo- ries and applications. London: Routledge.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

Riffaterre, M. (1978) . Semiotics of poetry: Advances in semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Sâljô, R. (1979). Learning in the learner's perspective. I. Some common-sense conceptions (Rep. No. 76). Gôteborg: University of Gôteborg, Department of Education.



184 The Modem Language Journal 93 (2009)

Schultz, J. M. (2002). The Gordian Knot: Language, literature and critical thinking. In V. Scott & H. Tucker (Eds.), SLA and the literature classroom: Fos- tering dialogues (pp. 3-31). Boston: Heinle.

Scott, V., & Tucker, H. (2002). Introduction. In V. Scott & H. Tucker (Eds.) , SLA and the literature classroom: Fostering dialogues (pp. ix-xviii). Boston: Heinle.

Shanahan, D. (1997). Articulating the relationship between language, literature, and culture: Toward a new agenda for foreign language teaching and research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 164- 174.

Sitman, R., 8c Lerner, I. (1999). La literatura del mundo hispanohablante en el aula de E/LE: ,;un lugar de encuentro o de desencuentro? Literature from the Spanish-speaking world in the Spanish foreign language classroom: a place for meeting or confrontation? Espéculo. Revista deEstudios Literar- ios. Nro. 12. julio-octubre 1999. Retrieved March

2, 2008, from http://www.ucm.es/info/especulo/ numéro 12/cbelatxt.html

Stierle, K. (1980). The reading of fictional texts. In S. R. Suleiman & I. Crosman (Eds.), The reader in the text: Essays on audience and interpretation (pp. 83- 105). Princeton, NT: Princeton University Press.

Swedish Higher Education Act. (1992). Retrieved May 16, 2006, from http://english.hsv.se/legal/ higher/act/entirety/#l

Swedish Higher Education Ordinance. (1993). Re- trieved May 16, 2006, from http://english.hsv.se/ legal/higher/ordinance/

Thorson, S. (2005). Den dubbla receptionen. Om litteratur- samtal mellan élever och deras svensklàrare. The dou- ble reception. Literary talk between pupils and their teachers. Gôteborg: Litteraturvetenskapliga institutionen vid Gôteborgs universitet.

Tornberg, U. (1997). Sprâkdidaktik. Language didactics. Malmô: Gleerups.

Forthcoming in Perspectives, ML/93.4 (2009)

Internationalizing the curricula of institutions of higher education is by now a well-established goal with which few would disagree. On the contrary, in the age of globalization, there could surely be little counterargument about the worthiness of such a project. But what does "internationalizing" really mean? More particularly, what role or roles might collegiate foreign language (FL) departments play in advancing that educational goal, both in terms of their own curricula and that of others, from general education curricula to discipline-specific requirements? What challenges do departments encounter as they take on these roles, in terms of the hurdles they must address in their own house, those that others put in their way, and those that are inherent to the project?

That is the topic to be explored in Perspectives 93 A (December 2009) under the title The role of FL departments in internationalizing the curriculum. As usual, the column will include a diversity of voices from different vantage points. Each voice will express unique viewpoints on a topic that, upon closer consideration, reveals itself to be considerably more complex than our cheering support might lead us to believe.



40264049

Documents

language acquisition

foreign language curricula

foreign language programs

modern language journal

end goal of language

jstor terms

jstor archive

ception of literature