Teaching Second‐Language Literatures: Past, Present and Future

Abstract

Providing and discussing definition of literature, with all of its intricacies and potential pitfalls, is not the purpose of this essay. I therefore accept for working purposes, the limited definition of literature provided by the Northeast Conference: literary work is a work of imagination, infused with dominant esthetic intent.1 My review of criticism is limited to the teaching of foreign literature read in the target languages and thus excludes teaching English/ American literature as well as teaching foreign literature read in English. Teaching literature, especially foreign one, is complex enterprise. As in any learning situation, numerous variables exist; to cite but few: 1) the teacher's knowledge; 2) students' level of literary sophistication; and 3) their range of linguistic fluency. Goals for the study of literature therefore depend on the level of the learner. While beginning and intermediate students may read literary works for language practice, reading comprehension, and possible esthetic appreciation, the goals for advanced undergraduates might include development of knowledge of world literature, practice in reading and discussing creative work, and the introduction of literary concepts, genres, and terminologies -e.g., recognition of figures of speech, levels of meaning, and other stylistic features.2 Aims for literary study at the graduate level, obviously, are different still. The lack of common goals makes the transition, especially from high school to college, difficult for students. Herr discusses the disparity between the role of literary study at the university level and its function in the high schools.3 She suggests that literary texts be introduced at beginning levels in order to prepare students to approach literature effectively in college. Not all foreign language educators agree, however. Esler and Bolinger, for exampl , strongly urge that students be well prepared linguistically before entering into the intricacies of literature. Esler suggests the use of readers to help students develop their grammatical skills without emphasis on literary analysis. Only after the students possess sophisticated reading skills should they be introduced to literature.4 This debate on the separation between language and literary study is not new. Castafieda, for one, firmly believes that language can and indeed should be taught through literature.5 The publication Teaching Language Through Literature focuses on the literary text as language teaching device. This area is the only one which has its own pedagogical journal. It would seem, however, that many foreign language educators agree with Esler and Bolinger: very little mention of methods of teaching literature is made in teacher preparation materials. Perusal of methods texts for language t achers reveals only moderate concern with presenting works of literature to beginning and intermediate students. Chastain merely encourages teachers to search for literary texts which are manageable linguistically for students.6 Allen and Valette briefly discuss the aims of teaching literature and methods for approaching poetry, drama, and fiction in general chapter on reading.7 In the second edition of Teaching Foreign Language Skills, Rivers has added to the chapters on reading and culture discussion of teaching literature, and includes in several sections of her book references to teaching literature.8 The Modern Language Journal, 67, iv (1983) 0026-7902/83/0004/413 $1.50/0 ? 1983 The Modern Language Journal