languge and literature

8/11/2019 Languge and Literature...

1/12

Articulating the Relationship between Language, Literature, and Culture: Toward a NewAgenda for Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchAuthor(s): Daniel ShanahanSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 81, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 164-174

Published by: Wileyon behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/328784.

Accessed: 28/09/2014 17:36

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 of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

WileyandNational Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associationsare collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmltahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/328784?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/328784?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmltahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/12

Articulating

he

Relationship

Between Language, Literature,

and

Culture:

Toward a

New

Agenda

for

Foreign Language

Teaching

and

Research

DANIEL

SHANAHAN

Departmentf nglish

Groupe EC

78351

ouy-en-Josas

France

Email:

[email protected]

Today,university

eachersof

foreign anguage

(FL)

in

the

U.S. face a

pedagogical

environ-

ment

in

which two

camps

have

developed,

one

basing

its

emphasis

on

communicative

competence,

the otheron

the

mportance

of

exposure

to culture

nd,

especially,

iterature.

The

reliance of

the

former

n data from

mpirical

studies often

onflictswith he

feelings

of

the latter hat

nonquantitative,

ntuitional

spects

of

language

learning

are

essential to

language

acquisition.

However,

much

research into the role of

culture and

literature

n

language

learning

remains tobe done so that hese

feelings

may

be articulated nd

applied

systematically

o the

development

f

materials,

yllabi,

nd curricula. Areas

in

which such

articulation

might

ake

place

include:

(a)

the extent o which

anguage

itself s

laden with

affect hat

may

be

catalyzed

as an inducement to

learning;

(b)

the extent to

which the

affective

lement

s

embedded

in

the

nature

of

symbolic

xpression-and

thus

metaphor,

myth,

nd

literature;

c)

the

specific

ways

n

which

language

and literature

may

encode

culture and have an affective

mpact

on

learners

n

the classroom.

Research

already

exists

that ends tself o a close examination of

these areas.

By

taking dvantage

of that

research,

FL

teaching

in

the U.S. could establish the

importance

of

literature

nd

culture

in

the

language

classroom

in

ways

that would

solidify

ts role in an environment

raught

with

transformation nd

change.

IN AN EXCEPTIONALLY THOUGHTFUL AR-

ticle

published

in the

ADFL

Bulletin

n

the

Win-

ter of

1993,

Henning

attempted

to confront

what

may

be

one of the most

pervasive

nd

yet

perennially

unresolved

dilemmas

faced

by

uni-

versity

eachers

of

foreign anguage

(FL)

in

the

U.S.

today.'

The

complexity

f this

dilemma

is

revealed

by

the

difficulty

ne has

in

stating

t

n

a

satisfactory ay.

ormulated

y management

professor,

t

mightgo something

ike

How

can

FL

departments justify offering

literature

courses

when our

students an't

speak

the

lan-

guage

well

enough

to

carry

on a routine

set

of

business

negotiations?

Formulated

by

a re-

searcher

in

applied

linguistics,

the

question

might

be

What does literature

ontribute to

language learning

when communicative

com-

petence

must

learly

e our

goal?

Expressed

by

a

member

of

a

FL

department

whose

degree

workwas

n

literarytudies,

ne

might

hear

any-

thing

from

Why

can't these

people

see that

literature

s as

central to

language learning

as

management vocabulary

and cloze tests? to

Should

I

go

on

beating my

head

against

this

TheModern

anguage

ournal,

1,

i

(1997)

0026-7902/97/164-174

$1.50/0

?1997

The

Modern

anguage

ournal

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


3/12

Daniel Shanahan

165

wall or

take

my

brother's

offer

o

oin

his

real

estate

firm? '2

All

these

questions

are,

of

course,

over-

simplified

characterizations

of the

more

ex-

treme

positions

n

the debate

thatwe are

trying

to describe.3 However, doubt that

anyone

fa-

miliar with the debate

would

fail

to

recognize

the tendencies and biases

that each characteri-

zation

represents.

Moreover,

t is

revealing

that

all the

questions

asked

in

these

characteriza-

tions

(except,

perhaps,

for the

ast)

are rhetori-

cal,

for it is

quite

clear

that

the

debate has at

least the undercurrent

f adversarial

perspec-

tives,

well staked-out

territory,

nd,

as

is

often

the case

in

cross-disciplinary

isputes,

onflict-

ing premises.

Those

premises

will be discussed

later n this article.

Professor

Henning

(1993)

tried to address

the

problem

as an

administrator

ituated

in

a

language

and literature

department,

who is

sympathetic

o the concerns of

all

sides.

She

offered what one

might

call

a

functional-

structural

solution,

asking

what

functional

goals

we

have

for

students and what structure

will allow them

to

reach those

goals.

She also

argues,

rightly,

hatculture

must

be

woven

nto

the curriculum and that

literature

s

one fea-

ture

among

many

n

the cultural domain that

provideswhat one might all added value be-

yond

the evelof

anguage acquisition. Through

literature,

she

says,

students

can

develop

a

full

range

of

linguistic

nd

cognitive

kills,

ul-

tural

knowledge

and

sensitivity

(p.

24).

In

other

words,

her article

suggests

that

one can

offer a

curriculum that satisfies the

practical

concerns

held

by

some while

serving larger,

more

humanistically

based

purposes

at

the

same time.

The solutions

offered

n

Henning's

(1993)

ar-

ticle are

important

nes,

and

they

highlight

s-

pects of the dilemma that are all too often g-

nored

by

both sides: the

need

for

a

clearly

identifiable

et

of

functional

oals,

for

nstance,

and

the need to

recognize

the added value that

the

study

of

literature-any

literature--brings

with

t.

However,

f

there

s a

weak

point

to

Hen-

ning's

article,

it is

its failure to

confront an

underlying-and

suspect

argely

nexamined--

assumption

about

the means and ends of lan-

guage

learning,

which is

implied

in

much of

today's

discussion about the

place

of

literature

in thecurriculum.Forwhile she argues-again,

rightly-that

language

teachers should relin-

quish

their

defensive

posture

and

adopt

a more

assertive

one,

she

does not

really

challenge

or

recastthe

premise

thathas

forcedthose teach-

ers onto the defensive: he

prevalent

ttitude

n

the

U.

S. that FL

learning

s

fundamentally

n

exercise with utilitarian

i.e., career)

goals

and

that those

goals

should be the

predominating

factor n the

development

of the

language

cur-

riculum,

specially

with

regard

to methodsand

materials.4

Although

t is

rarely

tated

so

baldly

as

this,

no one in or close to the

profession

s

likely

to

disagree

that the environment sur-

rounding

the

teaching

of FL is

heavy

with

uch

reductively

tilitarian

ogic.

Henning's

article

cites several llustrations

f that

ogic

at

work:

the

fact

that

FL

texts tend

to

take

a

touristic

rather than

a

cultural

approach;

the fact that

management

and,

one should add

in

fairness,

many

other)

departments

re often at the fore-

front fdemands to increase students' commu-

nicative

skills;

the fact that it is the

changing

global

and economic situation

(not

the inher-

ent value

placed

on

language,

literature,

r cul-

ture)

that

may

allow

language

teachers to be-

come more assertive bout their

mportance.

This

last

example, especially,

underlines

the

shortcomings--let

s

say

the

incompleteness-

of

any

functional-structuralolution to the di-

lemma

faced

by

teachers

of

anguage

and litera-

ture

today. Although

it

may

be

heartening

to

see that

the climate

of

opinion

seems

to be

changing in the favorof language learning,at

least

for

the

moment,

few would

be

foolish

enough

to think that this climate

reflects

an

enhanced

appreciation

of the

importance

of

liberal

education. Nor can one

be

justified

in

thinking

hat ncreased

nterest

n

language

ac-

quisition

by

those outside the

language

teach-

ing profession

makes a

structural-functional

approach

to

pedagogy

the

best

or most

com-

plete-although

it

certainly

oes make it an im-

portant

tool

in

curriculum

development.

The

danger

of

taking

too much

comfortfrom the

favorably hangingenvironment s that t may

distract s

from

question

that s far

more cen-

tral to

our own

profession

nd to its

premises:

What

is

it

that convinces us that

iterature

has,

in

and of

tself,

omethingdeeply significant

o

contribute o the

process

of

anguage

learning,

whatever

he ultimate

goals

of

the learner

may

be,

and

how

do

we articulatethat

something

in

a

way

thatestablishes us on firm

ground

in

the

contemporary rofessional

nvironment?

Clearly,

the

problem

of

the

contemporary

professionalenvironment s a formidable one.

Not

only

do we

operate

in

a

profoundly

util-

itarian

society,

but the last 30

years

have

wit-

nessed an

explosion

in

research

into

language

learning

that s based

largely

n

nonforeign

an-



4/12

166

The

Modern

anguage ournal

1

(1997)

guage teaching

(i.e.,

English

as a

second lan-

guage[ESL])

and

premised

on

the belief

that

data-based research s

the most

valid means of

developing

and

applying

a

language

teaching

rationale.

In

such an

environment,

the lan-

guage

and literature eacher

may

understanda-

bly

feel

like an alien from

another

planet

be-

cause

(a)

he

or

she believes

intuitively

n

the

value

of

iterature nd

(b)

data-based

rationales

seem

completely

napplicable

to that

ntuition.

With

respect

to the

second

of

these

points,

we

must, think,

emper any hopes

of

an

easy

rec-

onciliation of

views,

t least

in

the short

term:

Data-based research

on literature's

mpact

ust

does not seem to

work

though

this

might

ven-

tually

hange

if

we establish

firm

ground

upon

which t could be conducted),and thepremises

of the

two

camps--data-based

and

literature--

are not

ikely

o find

many

vert

points

of

agree-

ment

without further rticulationof

premises

on the

part

of the

latter.5

his

brings

me

to the

first

oint

of

my

rgument:

Although

the

itera-

ture

camp

(one

should

say,

perhaps,

iterature-

culture

camp

because

the

two,

when taken to

mean the

informingspirit'

f a whole

way

f

ife

(Williams,

1982,

p.

11),

are often

closely

inked

in

pedagogical

practice)

may

not

yet

be

able to

offer

onvincing

ata-based researchfor he

m-

portanceof literaturen the earningof a FL, I

believe that

t can do a

better,

more

comprehen-

sive,

and more

systematicob

of

explaining

the

underpinnings

of the intuitive

onviction that

literature

oes ave an

important

mpact

on de-

veloping

communicative

ompetence

n

the

an-

guage

learner.

Furthermore,

e must

not flinch

at

any

of the

implications

of that articulation

once it has been undertaken.

One of the

first

impediments

to be sur-

mounted

if

we

are to

develop

a

clearly

articu-

lated rationale

for the

impact

of literature

n

language learners s the fact that the intuitive

nature of our belief

n

the

value of iterature

or

the

anguage

learner

which

tself

prings

n

no

small

part

from the fact that much of litera-

ture's

impact

takes

place

at

a

subliminal

evel)

sometimes

spills

over

into our notions of how

that

mpact

can be articulated.

That is to

say,

n

a

utilitarian

environment,

we

feel the need to

resist

the

utilitarian

tide,

and

I

have

heard

many

a

good language

teacher

express

resis-

tance to

explaining

his or her intuitive onvic-

tion of literature'scontribution to language

learning

n

termsthat

are,

or seem to them to

be,

counterintuitive.

owever,

one

must

avoid

confusing

the issues here: The fact that intu-

itions about the

impact

of literature do not

seem at first

lance

reconcilable with

the more

empirically

based

premises

of data-based

re-

search

does not mean

that

ne

cannot

develop

a

rationale

for those

intuitive

beliefs,

even a

highly

detailed and

systematic

ne.

As

students

of iterature, e believe nthevalue of

analyzing

intuitive orms f

knowledge;

we

should not hesi-

tate to use

those same

analytical

kills o

deepen

our

understanding

of so

central an

aspect

of

our

own worldview as

literature's

mpact

on the

language

learner.

How

do

we

begin?

Where do we

uncover a

rationale n

the endless

volumes thathave

been

written

n

the nature of

iterature

nd,

if

possi-

ble,

match it

withwhat

we have learned

in

the

relatively

ecent

past

about the nature

of lan-

guage learning?I thinkwe can build on two

things:

a)

our

own

personal

encounters with

literature nd

(b)

a

gap

of

significant

ropor-

tions

in

current second

language acquisition

(SLA)

research with

respect

to

the role

of

af-

fect. Let me

address the firstof these

by

re-

counting

a

personal

experience

that,

although

it does not

specifically

reflect

the

language

learning setting,

llustrates ll the same an

im-

portant spect

of the nature of

iterary

ncoun-

ters

and,

especially,

some

of the

cultural fea-

tures

they mbody.

Shortly fter inishing raduateschool,I had

the

opportunity

o conduct a

travel-study

our

of the

People's

Republic

of China.

At

the

time,

was

involved

in

studying ideological

back-

grounds

to

literature,

specially

Marxism,

and

was anxious

to

discover what

the flavor of life

might

be like

in

a

country

where

Marxist

thought

had been institutionalized.

However,

during

the

trip

itself,

Marxism fell

into

the

background

as I

found

myself

ubmerged

n

the

East-West/North-South

ncounter that

trip

to

China

represented;

the

impact

of

the cultural

experience faroutweighedany ideological in-

sights might

have had.

Moreover,

month af-

ter

my

return,

accepted

a

year-long ulbright

fellowship

n the Dalmatian coast of

Yugoslavia,

and

very

uickly,

my

2

weeks

n

China became

a

distant,

dream-like

memory.

Five

years

later,

while

preparing

for course

on literature cross

cultures,

picked up

an

English

translation

f

Dream

of

Red

Mansions,

he classic

18th-century

Chinese

novel,

nd

began

to read the first

hap-

ter.

Suddenly,

after

only

a few

paragraphs,

I

found

myself

wash

n

the

sensationsof

my rip

5

years

before:

Here,

after o

long,

was

China,

the

mysterious,

efinitively

on-Western

ntity

that I had

experienced

so

intensely

but with

which

I had lost touch. It was

like

tasting



5/12

Daniel

Shanahan

167

Proust's

madeleinewith

n almost

hallucinogenic

intensity.

et

almost

mmediately,

was

brought

up

short

by

the

logical inconsistency

f

these

sensations.

I

had visited

20th-century,

post-

Mao,

Marxist

China;

how could

an

18th-century

novelabout aristocratic hina

trigger

he flavor

of

that

experience

so

intensely?

here could

be

only

one

answer,

f

course: the

power

of

iterary

language

and the

complex coding

of

culture

that

s

embedded into t. The

language

of Dream

of

Red

Mansions-a mere half

dozen

paragraphs

in

translation6-was

acting

much like a holo-

graphic plate,

reproducing

vivid and

complex

imagery

that had been

encoded into the me-

dium

and that

lay

there dormant

until

acted

upon

by

an

appropriate

agent-namely,

the

reader.7

This

episode

will

appear

to

some as a

digres-

sion

into

unverifiable

subjective

experience,

and

I

fear that

have little o

say

thatwill refute

such

objections,

at least on their

own terms.

However,

nyone

who has

enjoyed

iterature

will

understand that

(a)

literature s a

powerful

ve-

hicle for

ll kindsof

evocative

material,

b)

that

material is

released

in

a

moment

of

catharsis

when the

reader

is

exposed

to

it,

and

(c)

much

literature arries

with t

strong

undercurrents

of the time

and

place

in

which t

was

written--

undercurrents hathave ust as muchemotional

impact

when

they

re

released

as

do such fea-

tures of

literary

roduction

as

character,

truc-

ture,

pacing,

and the ike.

No one

who has

genu-

inely

exposed

himselfor

herself to a

work

by

Dickens can claim

to be a

stranger

o

the world

of

19th-century

ritain;

no

one who has

read

Dante can

visit

contemporary taly

without a

sense of

deja

vu.

These are

aspects

of

the

study

of

literature hat

we take for

granted.

However,

because

they

nvolve

experience

that s

heavily

laden

with

emotion-- affect

n

psychological

parlance-and because that may make them

suspect

when

scrutinized

in

a

formalisticre-

search

setting,

we oftenfail

to see

themfor

what

they

re:

data

-albeit of

a different

ind

than

the

word

normally

mplies-that

is,

clear evi-

dence

that here s

a

feature f the

iterary

xpe-

rience

that

goes beyond

aesthetics,

t least n

its

more

narrowly

defined

sense.

Most

language

teachers

who

have been

trained

in

literature

feel

that this

data

reflects hefact that

itera-

ture

represents

means of

powerfully

nergiz-

ing the learningof language.

Let us

shift or a

moment to

the

question

of

data-based

research in SLA.

Research in

ap-

plied

linguistics

has

experienced

an

exponen-

tial

leap

during

the

last 30

years,

thanks to

which we

now know much more about the lan-

guage learning

process

and

are much

better

able to

prepare

teachersof

anguage

to do

their

jobs

well.

However,

when one

surveys

he

land-

scape

of

language pedagogy through

examina-

tion of such features s textbooks

designed

for

teacher

training

programs

in

language

study,

one is struck

by

a

glaringgap

in research

about

the

extent o which the affective ide of the an-

guage

learning xperience may

be an

inducement

to the

learner's success. It is true that such

methods

as

Suggestopaedia

and the Silent

Way

play

to a

greater

or lesser extenton

the

positive

emotional

aspects

of the

learning process,

but

they

re not

infrequently elegated

to the

mar-

gins

of SLA

theory:

A

glance

at the index

of

almostanycontemporaryextfor teachertrain-

ing

under affect

r

emotion

reveals

entries

such

as affective ilter 8

r emotional

blocks

to

learning.

In other

words,

there s a

strong

tendency

to see the affective

ide of

language

learning primarily

as an

obstacle,9

and

one

finds almost

no

discussion

of how

language

it-

self

may

be laden

with ffect hat

can be

turned

to the learner's

advantage.

Yet the affective

lement of

language

clearly

has a

profound bility

o

engage

us,

to

motivate

us,

even to

move us

deeply.

We are

riveted

by

certain kinds of utterances: a Martin Luther

King

booming

Free at

last,

free

at

last,

a

Robin

Williams

manically

spewing

out

free-

association

one-liners,

or a Richard

Burton

intoning

Burgen

and

water

..

burgen

and

wa-

ter.

Such

utterances

ombine music

and mean-

ing,

sound and

sense,

to

draw us into

language

and

may

be

every

it as

strong

n

their

mpact

s

any

resistances

associated with

producing

speech.

Language

is

one of

the means

by

which

we

engage

in

those

most

human of

activities,

expression,

and

communication;

these

activ-

ities,

by

virtueof the factthat

they

re human,

contain

affective

lements,

whether

hey

re un-

dertaken

n our

native

anguage

or

in

another

tongue.

However,

current SLA

theory,

particularly

theory

that

springs

from

data-based

research,

rarely

ngages

the

question

of

how the

positive

featuresof

linguistic

ffect

may

be

brought

to

bear on

language learning.

There

is,

to be

sure,

no fault n

the fact:

Applied

linguistics,

y

its

very

name,

implies

attention

paid

to the

practi-

cal aspects of language. Learning is one of

them,

and

resistance to

language

learning

looms

large

on

the

landscape, especially

n the

American

environment.

Whatever the

vehicle,

the

squeaky

wheels

tend to

attractmore atten-



6/12

168

The

Modern

anguage

ournal

1

1997)

tion than

those that

pin

effortlessly,

nd thus t

is

only

naturalthat

he earner's

resistances

eap

to

the

forefrontof

the

researcher's field of

vision.

Practical

obstacles to

language

learning,

how-

ever,

representonly

halfthe

story

f the affec-

tive

aspects

of

the

earning process,

as

research

into first

anguage

acquisition

is

beginning

to

show

e.g.,

Ochs, 1986; Locke,

1995).

We need

to

knowmuch more about how to invoke

he

affec-

tivedomain as an

inducement o

learning, spe-

cially

with

espect

to the

ways

n

whichthe affec-

tive

oading

inherent

n

language

can be

turned

to the

earner's

advantage.

There is a

need

for

close and

systematic

ook at this

side of

lan-

guage learning

and for the

development

of

a

model that would help us betterunderstand

how

t

works.

Moreover,

would

argue

that

uch

research,

when combined

with

a

systematic

r-

ticulationof some of

the ntuitive eliefsof an-

guage

teachers whose

background

is

in

litera-

ture

and

culture,

ould form he basis of a

new

agenda

for

xamining

the

relationship

between

language

learning,

iterature,

nd culture. The

premises upon

which such

an

initiative

would

be

based are

quite

simple:

1.

There

is

a clear

gap

in

current LA

theory

and research about the affective eatures f an-

guage itself and the ways n which those fea-

tures

might

ecome an inducement o

language

learning.

2.

Literature

s one of

the

formsof

language

that

most

calculatingly lays upon

affect s an

inducement

to communication.

3. The cultural features

of

literature

repre-

sent a

powerful merging

of

language,

affect,

and intercultural ncounters nd often

provide

the

exposure

to

living

anguage

that

a FL

stu-

dent lacks.

We

have,

in

reverse

order,

discussed the first

two of these items; et's look at the thirdfor a

moment.

n

Contextnd Culturen

Language

Teach-

ing,

Kramsch

(1993)

has

masterfully

aid out

some

of the

questions surrounding

he

ways

n

which

one

deals with

the cultural and

literary

interface

n

the

teaching

of FL.

Among

her

mostvaluable constructs

s

the notion

of

third

places -a

kind of neutral

ground

that the

learner

must discover for him or herself

in

order to arbitrate etween the familiarworldof

the native

tongue

and thenewworld of the

FL

(chap. 8). This notion of thirdplaces illus-

tratesa

pivot upon

which the

relationship

of

affect nd cultureturn.

magine,

for

moment,

that

anguages

and

the cultureswithwhich

they

are associated are

planets,

each with a

gravita-

tional

pull.

A

learner s a

kind of

space

traveler

attempting

o move from

Planet A-his or her

own native

language

and culture-to

Planet

B-a

second or

foreign

anguage

and

culture.

The

gravitational

ull

of

the home

planet,

A,

is

one of the

many

ffective esistances hatmake

liftoff nd

planet escape

difficult.

How-

ever,

as

the motion

of the

tides

on

the

earth

demonstrates,

other

planetary

bodies exert

their

gravitational

influence

even

before

a

space

traveler

mbarks,

nd that

nfluence will

draw

the traveler

towards Planet

B

from the

outset,

with

ncreasing

force as the final

desti-

nation

is

neared. In

the case of

many

FL

learners,

Kramsch's third

places might

be

seen as

reflecting

he

period

during

the

our-

neywhen thegravitational ull of Planet B be-

gins

to

become

dominant,

but at which

point

the

learner

begins

to become conscious

of

the

differing

eaturesof

Planet

B's

gravity.

t this

stage,

the

pull

of Planet

B is

potentially

much

greater

than that

of

Planet

A

and

can

greatly

facilitate

the

passage

across

the

space

that re-

mains.

However,

t the same

time,

the

new

and

perhaps

very

istinct eatures

f

Planet B's

grav-

itational

pull begin

to

become

apparent,

and

the

travelermust

begin

to

negotiate

the differ-

ences

between

A

and

B

in a

whole

variety

of

ways:Planet B's relativemass may be smaller

than

thatof Planet

A,

its

densitymay

be

greater,

its

magnetic poles

may

be

reversed,

nd it

may

or

may

not

rotateon an axis. All of these factors

may

nfluence the nature of Planet

B's

gravita-

tional

pull,

and those

who

attempt

o

inhabit

ts

surfacemust earn to

adjust

to

these nfluences.

Language

teacherswho believe

intuitively

n

the

power

of literature o influence

language

learning

have tended to do

so

on the

basis of

their wn travels cross

anguages

and

cultures,

many

of

which

may

have

been

undertaken be-

cause of

necessity,

atural

gifts,

barnstorming

style,

or coincidence

of

personal

history.

We

have made

our

voyages

and

discovered

in

the

process-as

I

did

in

my

xperience

withDream

f

Red

Mansions--that

iterature

s an instrument

that

gives

us

powerful readings

about the

na-

ture of the

gravitational

ield(s)

that we have

encountered

or will encounter.10

owever,

f

we

are tomake

the

most of

the

personal

discovery

that iterature s one

form of

very

valuable

in-

strumentation

on these

voyages,

we need

to

know muchmore about thephysics f cultural

and

linguisticgravitational

ull

and the

way

n

which literature

helps

us to read it. Further-

more,

we

especially

need to know much more

about the

way

n

which the

gravitational

ull

of



7/12

Daniel Shanahan

169

our students' destinations

an be used to

make

their

voyage

easier and more

productive.

Work

done

by

Kramsch

(1993)

and

others

has

greatly

nhanced our

appreciation

of

how

certain

parts

of the

voyage may

be facilitated

y

increased awarenessof the features f the desti-

nation culture

and

their relation to

language

learning,

llowing

us to focus on such

elements

of

interculturalencounters as

resistance,

the

need for olerance of

ambiguity,

nd a

compara-

tive

approach

to

values and mores.

However,

we

lack an

interpretive

ramework hatwill allow us

to

map

out

systematically

uch

questions

as

what

the affectivenature of

language

is,

how

language

allows literature o

capitalize

on the

affective,

ow literature

mpacts

the

language

learner,how that mpactcarriesculturalcoding

along

with

ffective

mpact,

nd so

on.

In

other

words,

we

need

an

initiative hat

will allow us

to

learn

much more about

affect,

anguage,

litera-

ture,

nd culture

nd to use the

findings

ained

therein o

enhance the

anguage

learningexpe-

rience.

Specialists

n

a

variety

f

related

fieldswill be

more

qualified

than to

identify

hich

specific

areas of current

research

in

first,

econd,

and

foreign

language

acquisition,

discourse anal-

ysis,

iterary

heory

nd

criticism,

ross-cultural

communication and anthropology-to name

only

the

most obvious

related

fields-should

play

a role in

the kind of

initiative

being

pro-

posed

here.

Moreover,

think

we mustbe

aware

of what

Langer

(1957)

calls

the obstacle of

too

much

nowledge,

hat

s,

the

nability

o assemble

an

overview

by

virtue of

the

so-called 'find-

ings'

of

specialists

n

other

fields,

findings'

hat

were

not

made with

reference to

our search-

ings,

and often

eave the

things

that

would be

most

mportant

or

us,

unfound

(p.

218).

How-

ever,

f

the

ultimate

goal

is

kept

in

mind-the

need to develop a systematic ationale forthe

intuitive

aith

hat

many

of

us

place

in

the

value

of

literature n

the

language

learning

experi-

ence-it

should be

possible

to

distill

the infor-

mation

that

we

need from

he

myriad

ources at

our

disposal

and to

construct hat

ratidnale.

There

are several

areas

that seem

to

require

close

examination.

First,

here s

much

work to

be

done,

even at

the

epistemological

level,

about the

relationship

between

affect nd lan-

guage.

Because of

language's

unique

role as

a

vehicle forhigher cognitive functions,which

also

makes it the

ideal medium

through

which

to

viewsome of

those

functions,

discussion of

language

tends to

focus on the

cognitive.

As we

have

seen,

this s

no less

true of the discussion

of

language learning.

However,

t is

quite

clear

that

language

has roots

deep

in the

affective

dimension

of the human

experience,12

nd

the

nature

of that

relationship

s critical to our

un-

derstanding

of the

process

of

language

learn-

ing, especially

with

respect

to the role oflitera-

ture and culture

and to the

way

n which

they

can contribute

o what

we

might

all the

affec-

tive

magnet,

that

s,

the

power

to turn

affect

into an inducement

ratherthan an obstacle to

learning.

Some of the work

currently

being

done

in first

anguage

acquisition

will

help

even

out the balance

of our interest n the

cognitive

and affective

ides of

anguage.

However,

much

remains

to be done to illuminatethe

extent to

which

the

very

nature

of

anguage

itself

s

inher-

ently aden with ffect, ven at such basic levels

as

morphology

nd the

origins

of

language.13

Moreover,

ny

discussion of

the affective

a-

ture of the interaction

between

the

language

learner and

the

iterature

f the

target

anguage

will,

by

necessity,

have to take

into

account

reader-response theory.

Space

travelers'

en-

counters with new

worlds are

made with

the

equipment

that

the travelers

ring

with

them,

and new

worlds

may

require

interpretive

ools

that not

only

measure

things differently,

ut

also measure

things

heretofore

unmeasurable.

Iflanguage teachersare to make such encoun-

ters

a

successful

part

of

the

language learning

experience, they

must be

aware not

only

that

the new worlds

may

be

strange

to

the

learner,

but that

the learner's

instrumentation

may

need

recalibration

f

he or

she is

to

understand

the new

environment

ully.

Any

attempt

o

un-

derstand

systematically

he role of

affect n

the

language

learning process

will have

to include a

detailed

examination of

the

earner's

character

and

culture

and

all

the

variables

implied

therein.14

Second, ifwe are to

probe

deeply

into the

nature of

literature's

mpact

on

the

language

learner,

we also

need to

develop

a

model that

takes us

from

anguage

throughmyth, ymbol-

ism,

and

metaphor

to the

literary

work itself.

That is

to

say,

we

need to

revivify

branch of

theoretical

discourse

that

contributedmuch to

our

understanding

f

these

elementsof

human

expression

in

the

early

and

middle

part

of

this

century,1'5

ut that seems to

have borne

little

subsequent

fruit n the

rise of

structuralistnd

postmodernist schools of literarycriticism.

There is

much to

be

gleaned

from

he

analytical

methods

hat

deal with he

question

of

symbolic

expression,

such as the

Freudian

and

Jungian

schools,

theworkof

anthropologists

uch as

Sa-



8/12

170

The

Modern

anguage

ournal

1

(1997)

pir

and

Malinowski,

nd even the

structuralist

anthropologists

uch

as Levi-Strauss.

However,

we need a

unified model

that,

without

disput-

ing

the

nterpretation

f one

school

or

another,

posits

symbolic

expression

as

a

fundamentally

human characteristic and traces its

develop-

mentfrom he

emergence

of

anguage

through

the birth

of

myths,

ymbols,

nd

metaphor

to

the

literary

work. There is an

obvious intersec-

tion

here between the

analysis

of

the role of

affect

n

language

and the

development

f

such

a

model: Much of

what

myths, ymbols,

and

metaphors

do is

rooted

in

the affective

imen-

sion of the

human

experience. By

developing

a

unified model

of

how

symbolic

expression

movesfrom

anguage

to literature-and

adding

theassumptionthat, n someway, hylogenye-

capitulates ontogeny-we

establish a means

by

which we can

link

what we discover about the

affective

nature

of

language

with

the

way

in

which that affect

s

put

to work

n

the creation

of other formsof

symbolic

xpression,

uch

as

the

literary

ext.

Third,

points

one and two

are,

of

course,

only

two

legs

in a

tripod

that must

engage,

not sim-

ply

the

gravitational impact

of affect

n

lan-

guage

and artistic

expression,

but

the added

dimension

of

learning

a

FL,

which turns stu-

dents ntovoyagers cross nterculturalpace. A

working

model of the

relationship

between an-

guage

and culture that can be

applied

to

the

language

learning experience

is

absolutely

es-

sential to

any ystematic

rticulation f

the

ways

in

which

iterature

may

ontribute o that

expe-

rience. The

relationship

between

culture and

language

is a

topic

with curious and somewhat

controversial

istory

n

the

20th-century,

ue

in

no small

part

to the fact that

t is

often

associ-

ated with

the

Sapir-Whorf

nalysis,

which

has

itself

wung

n

and out

of favor

ince

t

began

to

emerge

on the

linguistic

cene overa halfcen-

tury go.16

The

notion that

anguage

is instru-

mental

in

both

creating

and

expressing

a

cul-

ture's

informing

pirit

Williams,

1982,

p.

15)

is as

old

as

Herder

and

Vico,

but

a

debate that

hovers between

cultural determinism

nd

cul-

turalrelativism

as sometimesmade it difficult

to

focus on

developing

a

model

of

how

lan-

guage

may

reflect ulture and

vice versa. How-

ever,

uch a model will

be

essential

to

anysys-

tematic

examination of the

ways

in

which

literaturemaycontribute o language learning,

and

its

development

will

require

us to

identify

more

rigorously

he

specific

discourse

strate-

gies,

from

grammatical

nuances to rhetorical

and

metaphorical

devices,

that haracterize ul-

tures where the

target

anguage

is

spoken,

as

well as those

that

may

distinguish

one

target

language

culture or

subculturefrom

nother.17

Recent

works8

n

discourse

analysis

and

sys-

temic

grammar uggests

hat he

conceptualiza-

tionsthatone needs to

develop

such a

working

model

have

begun

to

appear.

Some

of

this

work

follows

pon

Kaplan's

(1966)

seminal

Cultural

Thought

Patterns

n

Intercultural

ducation,

taking

the notion

that the rhetorical

tructure

of

languages

differs

Kaplan,

1987,

p.

9)

and

applying

it

to

a

much broader

range

of

dis-

course

strategies.

Other

researchers take

as

their

premise

the notion that

discourse

emerges

from social

context nd that such

features

s

register repertoires

are

not identical across

[language] communities (Hasan & Perrett,

1994,

p.

182):

This

approach

then

sets out to

analyze

the

variety

f

ways

n

which the

cultural

context

may

influence,

not

merely

the

values

and

perceptions

that one tries to

express,

but

the

ways

n

which

they

re

expressed,

even at

the level of

grammar

nd

syntax.

It remains

to be seen whether

r

not

the

de-

velopment

of such a

working

model-or mod-

els,

because we are

dealing

here with

n almost

infinite number

of

languages,

cultures,

and

subcultures--would

then allow

us

to

develop

a

templatewhereby ne could use a culture's in-

guistic practices

to

identify

ts salient charac-

teristics.

Anyone

who

might

squirm

at the no-

tion that

this

pproach

runs the riskof

cultural

determinism should

remember Kramsch's

(1993)

remark,

Because

of

the

multiplicity

f

meanings

nherent

n

any

stretch

f

speech

...

any

established

culture'

is

alternately

dopted

and

contested,

adapted

and

ironicized,

by

the

emergence

of

new

meanings

(p.

67).

By

devel-

oping

a

profile

of the discourse

strategies

har-

acteristicof a culture's

use

of

its

language,

we

should then be able to enter nto a discussion

about which

kindsof

iterary

exts erve

as

navi-

gational

instruments or students

s

they

make

their

inguisticvoyages

across cultures.

n the

absence of

discovering

DNA-likefeaturethat

allows us

to

identify

ultural

coding

in

litera-

ture,

a

quest perhaps

better

eft to the struc-

tural

nthropologists

or he foreseeable

future,

such

discussions

ould

be

expected

to afford

s

a much-needed

methodological

basis

upon

which both to choose

materialsfor studentsof

language and to help new teachersbringtheir

own ntuitions o

bear on the use of iteraturen

their

yllabi.

Of

course,

the use of literature

for FL stu-

dents

is,

a

priori,

imitedto the

degree

of

profi-



9/12

Daniel Shanahan

171

ciency

that

they enjoy

in the

target anguage.

Even

with

model

or models of

the kind

have

described

here,

one mustdecide such

questions

as

how

much,

when,

and

which

literary

works before

reaching

the final

goal

of

syllabi

that maximize the

potential

that iteraturehas

to

offer.19

owever,

ll too

often,

the fact that

not all literature

is

accessible

to

language

learners at all

proficiency

evels

provokes

ten-

dency

to fall back on the kind of

reductively

utilitarian

ogic

mentioned at the

opening

of

this article.

f

research nto the areas described

in

this article

begins

with

the

premise

that

any

use of iteraturemustbe based on the extent o

which students' levels allow them

access to

a

literary

work,

nsights

offered

by

that research

could be correlated and combined withwhatwe

already

know

about

how culturalvalues are em-

bedded

in

such

literary

eatures

s

theme and

narrative20

nd with

many

of

the

topics

that tu-

dents

of

iteraturehave discussed for centuries:

the

power

of

magery,

he rhetoric f the work

of

art,

he

ways

n

which the affective eatures f

language qua language

resonate with the affec-

tive

anguage

and contentof

literature,

nd so

on.

One would also

hope

that these efforts

would

help

us

understand

a

great

deal more

about the

relative

potency

that

other kinds of

cultural artifacts, uch as television,popular

music,

and even commercial

advertising,might

have on

the

language

learning experience.21

What is the

likely

utcome of all of this? No

doubt therewill be some

adjusting

of

our intu-

itive

assumptions.

There remain those scholars

and

teacherswho like to think

hat iterature s

nothing

ess than the

epitome

of

linguistic

x-

pression

and

thatwe should

be asked to do

no

more than

expose

studentsto the

pinnacles

of

language

and civilizationthat

iterature

epre-

sents. As one

who would be

happy

to live a life

in deep contemplationof great literaryworks

with

engaged

students,

have no doubt that

such

expectations

and the

attitudes

hey

epre-

sent must be

balanced

by

realistic assessments

of

how

literature and

communicative

compe-

tence

complement

ne

another;

a

systematic

e-

view of the

premises upon

which we base

our

belief

n

literature's

alue

in

the

anguage

learn-

ing

classroom

will,

no

doubt,

forceus to

temper

our

grandest

dreams a bit.

Our

fundamental

goal

as

language

profes-

sionals is to expand and enrich the livesof our

students

nd the

society

n

which

they

ive. Our

dedication to that

goal,

both at the

personal

and

professional

evels,

has

sustained our com-

mitment o

humanistic

study

even

when it ex-

ists,

s is so often he

case,

on a

bleaklyunrecep-

tive

landscape.

However,

our dedication

and

commitment ave not

yet

been

complemented

with

a

systematic

ationalethatwould allow

us,

not

only

to

defend

ourselves

against

those

who

harbor the

suspicion

that the humanitiesare

archaic and

soft,

but to understand

more

fully

he

advantages

that our

perspective

ffers

and to use those

advantages

to

accomplish

our

goals

more

completely.

Some

empirically

minded,

data-based re-

searchers

truly

nderstand he

benefits f

ntu-

itive

thought

and

recognize

that one cannot

have

quality

science without ntuition

nd

sys-

tem

in

a

complementary elationship.22

n

the

humanities,

here s no less need for

uch

a bal-

ance; nothingis likelyto contribute more to

research into

language learning

today

than

a

deeper,

more

systematic

nderstanding

fhow

literature and culture can contribute to

the

learning

of

FL. There is

every

reason to

believe

that such an examination of our

intuitions

will

confirm

many

of

them,

strengthen

ome,

and

eliminate a

few

o

be sure.

However,

n

the

end,

this

process

will

provide

us with both a

vastly

more effective nd

satisfying

et

of tools for

do-

ing

the work that

we have chosen and a

great

measure

of

the self-assurance nd the

respect

from other colleagues that any professional

wants and needs. To

paraphrase Henning

(1993),

articulating

the

premises

upon

which

foreign

language

and

literature

teaching

and

research are conducted is

a task that

only

for-

eign

language

and

literature eachers and re-

searchers an

accomplish.

They

face,

t s

true,

profoundly

difficult

nvironment

n

which to

operate.

However,

by

taking

the initiative nd

establishing

he

foundations or

solid and suc-

cessful

educational

edifice,

they

not

only

shed

an

unnecessary

defensiveness,

ut

may

actually

achieve an uncommonconsistencynd reliabil-

ity

n

an

educational

environment

raught

with

transformation

nd

change.

NOTES

1

Special

hanks or

heir

elp

n

the

preparation

f

this

rticle

o

to Richard

Kern,

homas

Miller,

nd

Anthony

lark.

The author

would

also like

to ac-

knowledge

he

Groupe

HEC

Faculty

esearch ro-

gram or hefinancialssistancetprovided oward

conducting

ibliographical

ork

elated

o the

opics

discussed erein.

2

The

discussion f

iterature'sole n

theFL class-

room

s

not new ne.

Some

of

he

verriding

hemes



10/12

172

TheModern

anguage

ournal

1

(1997)

of

the

discussion

appear

in

Povey

(1972),

Seelye

(1976),

Marckwardt

1978),

Widdowson

(1982, 1990),

and

Kramsch

(1993).

3

Moreover,

he ssues discussed

herein are

affected

by

a

variety

f other

factors,

uch

as administrative

structures nd prerogatives,proficiency tandards,

intercultural

erspectives

n

literacy

nd the role

of

the

text,

and

power

relationships

in

multilingual

contexts-each

of

which deserves

an extended dis-

cussion

of

its

own not

possible

in an

article-length

treatment.

he contrasts

hat

exist between the

two

camps

that are

examined

here

have been

chosen be-

cause

theyhighlight

n

ambiguity

n

the

perspective

of one

camp.

Resolution

of that

ambiguity

ould,

I

believe,

greatly improve

the

efforts

of

language

teachers

and

learners.

Having

taken

that

step,

it

would

still

remain

necessary

to

study

the

points

of

intersection

etween

the use

of iterature

nd culture

in language learning nd themanyrelated ssuesthat

concern

language

teaching professionals.

4 For

a

program

rationale that

ncludes

career

ob-

jectives

but

emphasizes

a number

of ntermediate

ac-

tors

n

the

ogic

of ts

design,

see Shanahan

(1993,

pp.

23-24).

5

The tension

between

qualitative

nd

quantitative

perspectives

s,

in

many

respects,

reflection

of the

contrast

between

the

two

modes

of

thought

dis-

cussed

in

Bruner

(1986).

6

I

am

aware that

the

problems

that

exist

in

the

translation

of literature

are formidable

and even

greaterfor ny generalization

one

might

make about

the

cultural

resonances

that

translated

iterature

may

produce.

Steiner

1992)

has addressed

many

of

these

problems,

s

has Barnstone

1993).

However,

do

not

believe

the

fact

hat

was

reading

a translation

imin-

ishes the

validity

f

the

experience.

If

this

translation

was able

to act

as a

potent

cultural

carrier

despite

the

attendant

problems

of lexical

correspondences

between

anguages,

stylistic

trategies,

one,

and

pac-

ing,

it

supports

the

idea

that there

s

great

residual

power

n the

way

iterature

ncodes

culture's

ffective

features.

7 The

possibility

hat the

formation

f a

hologram

directly arallels theway n whichmemory s stored

and

recalled

has been

extensively xplored

by

neuro-

psychologist

Karl

Pribram

(1971).

Anthropologist

Francis

L. K. Hsu

(1983)

offers

n

interesting

nter-

pretation

of the

differences

between

Chinese

and

Western

fiction,

ncluding

Dream

f

Red

Mansions,

ut

does

not

discuss

language per

se.

8

A

term

formulated

y Dulay

and

Burt

(1977).

9 Another

exception

to be

mentioned

s discussion

of

learner

motivation,

which

may

be

instrumen-

tal

(emanate

from

occupational

needs)

or

integra-

tive

(reflect

desire to

enter nto

the culture

of

the

target language

group),

or

both; see,

for

example,

Schumann (1975) or Brown (1987). This has been a

fruitful

rea

of

research; however,

t focuses

on affec-

tive

contingencies

of the learner

and his or

her

spe-

cific

situation,

not

on how

language

itself

may

be

affect-laden.

10

Obviously,

here are

limitsto the

gravitational

pull

metaphor,

and it

begins

to break down

here:

Literature s much

more than

an instrumentmanu-

factured

for

data

read-out.

It

might

be better

com-

pared

to

Superman's

nemesis,

kryptonite : piece

of theplanet towardswhich we are moving, harged

withfeatures f that

planet's

magneticfield-except,

of

course,

with the

power

to enhance

our

ability

o

adjust,

rather han to diminish

t.

11

See,

for

xample,

Widdowson

1990),

Valez

(1986),

Nostrand

1988),

and

Brogger

(1992).

12

See,

for

example,

Cassirer

(1946),

Sapir

(1921),

and Malinowski

1927).

See

also Shanahan

(1995)

and

Ochs

(1986).

13

The

notion

that

morphology

ould

contain

affec-

tive

elements

may

violate the

current

notion that

there

s no

inherent

relationship

between

individual

words

and what

they

name,

but

I

must

confess

that

have neverbeen entirely atisfiedwiththe descrip-

tion

of the

relationship

between

words and

what

they

represent

s

arbitrary-at

least

in

any

absolute

way.

Onomatopoeia

may only

account

for a minuscule

number

of

words

in

any language,

but

it is hard

to

imagine

the

emergence

of

language

or

even

proto-

language

(see

Bickerton,

990)

without

ome

form f

the human

experience

of the

thing

having

been

projected

into its

naming.

Pinker

1994)

implies

this

in

his discussion

of

phonetic

symbolism p.

167),

and

it seems

implicit

n what Cassirer

(1946)

says

about

the

origins

of

anguage.

Of

course,

f

anguage

did,

in

its

emerging phases,

have

some

logic

based

on the

relationship

between

perceiver

and

perceived,

that

logic

may

have

long

ago

been buried

under

ages

of

symbolic

transformation,

ome

of

that

quite

genu-

inely

arbitrary.

However,

to

cite

a

parallel

case,

though

the

anatomy

of

primitive

protozoans

may

have

only

the

most distant

of

relationships

to

our

own,

no

respectable

anatomist

could

go

about

his

or

her

daily

work

without

cknowledging

he

biological

links that exist

between

us

and them.

think here

s

room

for the

same

kind

of

acknowledgement

n

our

own attitudes

towards

anguage,

both

in

its earliest

forms

nd

in

the

form

we

know

today.

14

Rosenblatt's 1995) long-lived tudy

f the

mpor-

tance

of the

reader

in

the

teaching

of literature

e-

mains

a benchmark

in

reader-response

criticism;

chapter

8,

Emotion

and

Reason,

is

especially

ppli-

cable to

the

question

of how

learners

must

cross

boundaries

that

take

them

beyond

the

confines

of

their

wn

cultural

onstructs.

or other

discussions

of

reader-response

heory,

ee

Iser

(1978),

Fish

(1980),

and Scholes's

(1985)

critique

of

Fish.

15

am

thinking

here,

for

example,

of the

work

of

Cassirer

1946),

Langer

(1957),

and Burke

(1957),

and

also of

parallel

work

done

in

other

disciplines

by

an-

thropologists,

ociologists,

nd

psychologists.

or

the

latter, ee Part4 ofParsons, Shils,Naegele, and Pitts

(1961).

16

Hoijer (1988)

views

Sapir-Whorf

uite positively;

Pinker

(1994)

almost

dismisses

Whorf

out

of

hand;

Montgomery

1986)

tries

o take

a balanced

approach.



11/12

Daniel

Shanahan 173

17

For

example,

British

English

and American

English

differ

ufficiently

o

that one would almost

never

try

o use a

literary

ext rom

ne to

amplify

he

learning

of

the

other,

xcept

perhaps

by way

of

con-

trast.Yet at

the same

time,

one would almost

certainly

expect to findsimilaritiesbetween them that reveal

common differences

from,

say,

the cultures

where

French

s

spoken.

At

an even

deeper

level of

compara-

tive

analysis,

t would be

interesting

o see

how

Cana-

dian

francophone

iterature,

y

virtue

f

ts

proximity

to

anglophone

North American

cultures,

might

re-

veal tendencies that

one would not find

n

continen-

tal French iterature.

18

See Purves

(1988),

Kramsch

(1993,

chap.

2),

and

Brogger

1992).

Hassan and Perret

1994)

and Martin

(1989)

represent examples

of

comparative

analyses

that

have a base

in

systemic rammar.

Bruner

(1986)

provides

an

interesting

omparative

analysis

of

two

texts, one scientific and the other literary,using

Todorov's

(1978)

transformations

as a means of

drawing

out

differences

etween

the scientific

rgu-

ment and the

literary

arrative. t would be interest-

ing

to

see whether

or

not

such

an

analysis

might

be

done of

literary

exts

across

languages

to tease out

characteristic ultural

differences.

19

For an

attempt

to answer some of

these

ques-

tions,

see Shanahan

(1987).

It is worth

remarking

n

this

context hat

most

teachers

of literature eal with

relatively

dvanced

students,

nd thatthe

ion's share

of SLA and ESL research focuses on earlier

phases

of

the

language learning

experience;

this

has,

in

my

x-

perience, contributed ignificantlyo thedifficulties

experienced

when the two

camps

try

to talk

to

one

another.

20

See Kramsch

1993),

especially

chapter

5. Merrill

(1985)

cites several studies

of how

narrative sche-

mata are

culture-specific,

namely

Carell

(1983),

Johnson

(1981),

and

Steffensen nd

Joag-dev

1984).

Kramsch

(1993)

cites

further

esearch

on the

same

topic (p.

124).

21

My

own

experience

is that these kinds of mate-

rials,

and others ike

them,

have

great

usefulness,

s-

pecially

with

young

learners.

However,

I

fear

that

some texts

verplay

his

ard,

trivializing

he

earning

of

anguage

in their

ttempts

omake it real-world.

Moreover,

he

homogenization

of

popular

culture

n

the

contemporary

lobal

environment

may

render t

increasingly

ifficult

o

make

cross-culturaldistinc-

tions between

popular

cultural formsfrom

different

societies. See

Barber

(1995).

22

As Bateson

(1988)

says,

rigor

and

imagination

[are]

the two

great

contraries of

mental

process,

ei-

ther of which s

by

tself

ethal

(p.

237).

REFERENCES

Barber,

B.

(1995).

fihad

vs.

McWorld. ew York:

Times

Books.

Barnstone,

W.

(1993).

The

poetics

f

translation:

istory,

theory

nd

practice.

ew

Haven,

CT:

Yale

Univer-

sity

Press.

Bateson,

G.

(1988).

Mind and

nature:

necessary

nity.

New York: Bantam.

Bickerton,

D.

(1990).

Language

and

species.

hicago:

UniversityfChicago Press.

Brogger,

F.

(1992).

Culture,

anguage,

ext:

ulture

tudies

within he

tudy fEnglish

s a

foreign

anguage.

Oslo,

Norway:

Scandinavian

University

ress.

Brown,

H.

D.

(1987).

Principles

f anguage earning

nd

teaching

2nd ed.).

Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ:

Pren-

tice Hall.

Bruner,

J.

(1986).

Actual

minds,

ossible

worlds.

am-

bridge,

MA: Harvard

University

ress.

Burke,

K.

(1957).

The

philosophy

f iteraryorm.

New

York:

Vintage.

Carrell,

P.

L.

(1983).

Background knowledge

n

sec-

ond

language comprehension.Language

earn-

ing

nd Communication

,

25-33.

Cassirer,

E.

(1946).

Language

and

myth.

S.

Langer,

Trans.).

New York: Dover.

Dulay,

H.,

&

Burt,

M.

(1977).

Remarkson

creativity

n

language acquisition.

In

M.

Burt,

H.

Dulay,

&

M. Finnochiaro

(Eds.),

Viewpoints

n

English

s

a

Second

anguage

pp.

95-126).

New

York:

Regents.

Fish,

S.

(1980).

Is

there text n

this

lass?

Cambridge,

MA: Harvard

University

ress.

Hasan,

R.,

&

Perrett,

G.

(1994).

Learning

to

function

with the other

tongue:

A

systemic

functional

perspective

on

second

language teaching.

In

Terence Odlin (Ed.), Perspectivesnpedagogical

grammar

pp.

179-226).

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

ress.

Henning,

S.

D.

(1993).

Integration

f

anguage,

litera-

ture and

culture: Goals

and

curricular

design.

ADFL

Bulletin, 4,

22-29.

Hoijer,

H.

(1988).

The

Sapir-Whorf ypothesis.

n

L.

Samovar &

R.

Porter

Eds.),

Intercultural

ommu-

nication:

A

reader

5th

ed.,

pp.

225-232).

Bel-

mont,

CA: Wadsworth.

Hsu,

E

L.

K.

(1983).

Mirrors f life.

In

E

Hsu

(Ed.),

Rugged

ndividualism econsidered

pp.

176-196).

Knoxville,

TN:

University

f

Tennessee

Press.

Iser,W. (1978). The ctof eading.altimore,MD: Johns

Hopkins

University

ress.

Kaplan,

R.

(1966).

Cultural

thought

patterns

n

inter-

cultural

education.

Language earning

16,

1-20.

Kaplan,

R.

(1985).

Cultural

thought

patterns

revis-

ited.

In

U. Connor

& R.

B.

Kaplan

(Eds.),

Writ-

ing

cross

anguages: nalysis f

L2

text

pp.

9-22).

Reading,

MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Kramsch,

C.

(1993).

Context

nd

culture

n

anguage

each-

ing.

Oxford:

Oxford

University

ress.

Johnson,

P.

(1981).

Effects n

reading

comprehension

of

building

background knowledge.

TESOL

Quarterly,

6,

503-516.

Langer, S. (1957). Philosophyn a newkey 3rd ed.).

Cambridge,

MA:

Harvard

University

ress.

Levi-Strauss,

C.

(1967).

Structural

nthropology.C.

Jacobson

&

B.

Schoepf,

Trans.).

Garden

City,

NY:

Anchor.



12/12

174 The Modern

Language Journal

81

(1997)

Locke,

J.

L.

(1995).

Development

of the

capacity

for

spoken

language.

In

P. Fletcher& B. MacWhin-

ney

(Eds.),

Thehandbook

or

poken

anguage

pp.

279-302).

London: Blackwell.

Malinowski,

B.

(1927).

The

problem

of

meaning

in

primitive anguages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A.

Richards

Eds.),

The

meaningf

meaning:

study

f

the

nfluence

f

anguage

pon hought

nd

of

he ci-

ence

of symbolism

2nd

ed.,

pp.

296-336).

New

York:

Harcourt,

Brace.

Marckwardt,

.

(1978).

The

lace

of

iterature

n the

each-

ing

of nglish

s a second

anguage.

onolulu,

HI:

University

f Hawaii

Press.

Martin,

J.

(1989).

Factual

writing:

xploring

nd

challeng-

ing

ocial

eality.

xford,

Oxford

University

ress.

Merrill,

A.

(1985).

Language

charged

with mean-

ing : Incorporating

languge and literature

Documents