Appropriating literature in foreign language classrooms.

Abstract

This paper suggests that second language classrooms need to account for the discourse processes involved in learning a second language as well as in the fostering of an interactive reading of literature (Liaw, 2001). Implications for classroom teaching and curriculum planning are further discussed in terms of allowing students to appropriate the literature being studied (Kramsch,1985) in relation to reading from a cognitive perspective (Beach,1993; Hynds,1992) of second language learning. This investigation proposes a new stance on literature in the foreign language classroom based on the Defamiliarization Theory (Shyklovsky,1965), and also incorporates the importance of discourse in developing language proficiency.

**********

Literature and Language Classrooms

An underlying premise of sociocultural theory is the importance of the role of the mind and cognition within situated social action (Vygostsky, 1978; Lantolf, 2000). In other words, individuals gain knowledge of how to think, act, learn and react within specific social contexts. Wertsch (1991) believes that "The basic goal of a sociocultural approach to mind is to create an account of human mental processes that recognizes the essential relationship between these processes and their cultural, historical, and institutional settings" (such as classrooms) (p.6). As noted, sociocultural theory isn't necessarily a theory of / for only the foreign language classroom. That which makes sociocultural theory so applicable to the foreign language classroom, the role of cognition and an individual's mind in learning and mediating one's world, pivots on the role of language in shaping understanding while interpreting text.

Floriani (1994) considers "text" as the written and spoken language produced in discursive event which generates as well as has meaning. This stance on text envelopes classroom talk and literature with the hopes of providing all of those involved opportunities for appropriation. Also, as Floriani pointed out: To interact, members (of a class) must actively monitor their own and others' actions and language and interpret these interactions in order to select from their repertoires possible ways of interacting that meet the local demands of the situation(s). Fillmore (1982) offers a summary of the main functions of language in a 'literature-focused' language classroom:

1. To convey the information of what is to be learned: concepts and facts, language use in context, and information about the language itself.

2. To provide opportunities for students to receive linguistic input and to generate linguistic output in order to acquire a second language. (p.43)

Attempts to make sense of literary works require that students take a particular stance (Iser, 1978). This stance, as explained further by Liaw (2001), allows the reading to come alive in the student's mind over time. Also, the incorporation of a reader-response approach to the teaching of literature assists in building motivation in the classroom setting because the literature is being brought into the classroom as a work of art instead of a lesson plan that originated in guidelines and curricula (Liaw, 2001). If we take these claims and transfer them into the foreign language classroom, it becomes necessary to add a linguistic level to the patterns of communication. Unfortunately, some foreign language teachers may be focusing on the linguistic complexity of their questions and not the cognitive skills or abilities that students may need to understand and respond to the questions in the second language (Mantero, 2002). Chou et al (1980) observed that within the past decade or so teachers' questions in a literature classroom only moved into the realm of inference relatively few times during the course of a lesson. More than 20 years later, the present perspectives suggest that after all of the attention that has been placed on reader-response in first and second language classrooms, the pattern of communication has not changed very much, if at all.

Lotman (1988) argues that literature creates meaning as well as has meaning. Building a literary theory that is specifically designed for the foreign language classroom begins with investigating approaches to literature in first language classrooms. When speaking of first language literature classrooms, Hynds (1992) offers that "although much literature and reading instruction centers on asking questions about texts, we are not sure if questioning has any more effect than other instructional strategies in getting students to think about what they read" (p.81). Hynds's comments interest us because how literature is approached in a foreign language classroom is often determined by how it is taught and treated in a 1st language classroom (Graden, 1996).

Defamiliarization Theory and The Three Fields Approach

Shyldovsky (1965) states that interaction and comprehension of literary texts hinges upon augmenting the emotional effect upon the readers. The goal here is not to use someone else's words to talk about our experience, but to be able to interact and talk with others so that we flesh-out our responses for others to understand. It is this fleshing-out of concepts and reactions that would benefit the linguistic, cognitive and literary goals of a foreign language classroom. An outcome of students approaching a reading under the defamiliarization framework may be that they begin to view themselves and their worlds differently and therefore become different people than they were before they read the text. This is expressed through classroom discussion and interaction which is crucial in a foreign language classroom if students are to develop overall linguistic proficiency (Kumaravadivelu, 1993). It is important to keep in mind that the Defamiliarization Theory was constructed from L1 (first language) responses to texts in L1 classrooms, and it is a large theoretical leap from an L1classroom to an L2 (second language) classroom. But what can be done is to combine various elements of Shyklovsky's ideas into a more realistic, contemporary outlook that takes into account the role that literature has in developing communicative competence in a foreign language classroom.

While developing communicative competence and interacting with literature in the foreign language classroom there are, basically, three fields that influence classroom discourse: the first language of the students (that has assisted students in building their social backgrounds and individual schemata), the foreign language being studied, and the text being read. This approach (which I label 'Three Fields Approach') is specific to the foreign language classroom and assists us in applying a framework to our discussions where literature can be used to co-construct meaning and build discourse and communicative competence. Here, the instructor allows for discussion that may lead to the building of linguistic proficiency because students are asked to express themselves and give opinions in the foreign language that need to be supported, clarified or compared to experiences in their first language environments (Kumaravadivelu, 1993).

Kramsch (1985) writes that instructors often present what they feel is most valuable to the students, and by doing this, "literary texts continue to be taught as finished products, to be unilaterally decoded, analyzed and explained" (p.356). Perhaps a reason for this is that the discourse pattern of the classroom may only allow for the text to be treated as finished product. Kramsch and Ricoeur (1976) share similarities in their approach to the text in a language classroom that supports the Three Fields Approach. They both see the role of the literature as producing discourse and not reproducing the text itself, or the culture it is representing. This is noted by Kramsch (1985):

   Explanation is more directed towards the analytic structure of the
   text, understanding is more directed towards the intentional unity
   of discourse. (That is to say) that the teacher can explain and
   teach the rhetorical structure, the form and content of the text,
   but an understanding of the values, intentions, and beliefs
   embedded in the text can only be achieved through open discussion
   and negotiation of meanings. According to Ricoeur (1976)
   interpretation is a dialectic dynamic process by which the reader
   surpasses both explanation and understanding and 'appropriates'
   the text for himself. (p.357)

Understanding that appropriation of the text comes by discussing the text is central to the theoretical framework proposed later in this paper. Analyzing literature, according to current thought, does not lead to appropriation of meaning through discourse as defined by Wells (1999). Discourse, according to Wells, builds on previous knowledge and dialogue between individuals where those involved have had to negotiate the meaning of a text. Therefore, 'understanding' is not only the responsibility of the students because the instructor has to become an active participant in classroom discourse.

Traditional and Appropriating Discourses

Given the Three Fields Approach, it now becomes important to provide concrete examples of the two discourses. The first, traditional discourse encompasses the concerns that were raised by Hynds (1992) and Graden (1996) as noted previously in this paper. And, appropriating discourse encompasses the values put forth by Kramsch (1985) and Ricoeur (1976) where classroom talk surpasses the initiation-responseevaluation (IRE) pattern and students offer opinions, insights, and personal reflections. The examples of traditional and appropriating discourses are two different fourth semester Spanish classes that used literature as point of departure. There were ten students present during the discussion in Example 1 and twelve students in present in the discussion during example #2. The discussions have been translated from Spanish to English. An asterisk indicates that the utterance was originally in English, and therefore not translated. The work being discussed in example #1 is "Adios, Cordera!" by Leopoldo Alas. Example #1: Traditional Discourse (T= Teacher, S= Student)

1. T: Let's begin with the story.

2. S1: What*

3. T: The people in the story.

4. S1: OK*

5. T: Well, then ... Who went on a walk with the cow, (S2)?

6. S2: Pinin and Rosa, right?

7. T: Yes, very good!

8. Now, who was the person that liked to drink a lot?

9. S3: The grandmother

10. T: Hmmm, no. Not her.

11. Who, (S4)?

12. S4: Chinta and Rosa

13. T: Very good, Anton de Chinta. But, not Rosa. She's just a little girl.

14. S4: Yes, yes.

Example #1 is typical of the interaction observed in this classroom. The teacher and students hardly ever extended beyond the initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) pattern demonstrated in lines 5-7, 8-10, and 11-13. There were no open discussions of the characters. That is, students did not offer opinions about what made characters the way they were in the story, nor were they opportunities to enter into such discussions by the teacher. Although students participate in lines 1-14, this type of interaction should not be the sole goal of a literature-based classroom. During a similar literature-based class, taught by a different instructor, the classroom discourse often extended beyond the dominant IRE pattern of interaction observed in the first example. The following example took place during a discussion of Ana Maria Matute's "El Ausente". Example #2: Appropriating Discourse (T= Teacher, S= Student, Ss= Students)

1. T: Then why did Luisa change? Was she angry?

2. S1: No, but she outgrew her life.

3. T: I don't understand. The story doesn't take place over many years.

4. Sl:But, change happens very fast. She saw how Amadeo treated her. She didn't like it.

5. S2: And, at the end she understood Amadeo.*

6. T: So, (S2). Now you like Amadeo?

7. S2: (laughs) No, he is still abad husband. But, I understand why he is so bad. Lucia was very, hmmm, very little girl-like.

8. T: And they love each other, (S3)?

9. S3: Who knows, maybe they are used to each other and their bad souls.

10. Ss: (laugh)

11. T: Bad souls? Our souls turn bad after we are married?

12. S3: No, no. We...hmm, we get used to the bad parts and we don't hide them.

13. S4: But, her feelings haven't changed. She still loves Amadeo.

14. S3: Maybe, but they are both bad people. My wife will never be like that.

15. T: You never know. Lucia changed a lot.

In example #2, the teacher allows for students to engage in discussion about the characters that may not have clear answers as demonstrated in lines 8-15. What is interesting is that the students begin to speak directly to each other without using the teacher as an 'information filter' because they feel as if their interpretation of the story is just as valuable. Although the students read the same story, they have all appropriated different aspects of it and interpreted it personally. English was used to express an interpretation (line 5), but the teacher does not use this moment to remind the student to speak 'only Spanish'. And, in the ensuing discussion (lines 6 and 7), student #2 expresses herself in Spanish. Also of interest is the response that student #3 offers in line #14: "My wife will never be like that." From this utterance, we can begin to see individual ideologies begin to form as a result of reaction to public information and interaction in society (in this case, the story in the Spanish classroom). The student is not only speaking Spanish, but thinking and offering an insight into his beliefs, and this further supports Fillmore's previously mentioned ideas.

Conclusion

If we approach literature in a foreign language classroom while we keep in mind the influences and effects of the three separate fields: the student's first language (L1), the second language being taught / studied (L2), and literature then the goal of the previously mentioned sociocultural framework (the development of knowledge and thinking) is reached, in part, due to students' use of the foreign language. These three fields are dynamic and specific to each student's reaction and responses. The authority within this understanding is neither the teacher nor the text. Here, the individual student becomes an authority in his or her own right as the text is appropriated through classroom discourse in the second language. As proposed, literary texts need to be viewed and understood through the eyes of many readers; especially in our classrooms as demonstrated in example #2. Otherwise, literary understanding becomes an exercise in translation and interpretation of what the teacher (or one individual) believes to be the 'correct answer'.

Understandably, there are certain items that have to be understood and offer little room for interpretation: characters, plot, setting, and so forth. But literary understanding begins with this information, so it should not be the ultimate goal of classroom discussion as seen in example #1. Furthermore, allowing students to interact with literature should not be saved only for those that are more proficient in the foreign language. Instruction would make use of the personal perspectives that students have in relation to the material read in order to create opportunities for appropriation and co-construction of meaning throughout classroom discourse. Also, personal perspectives are guided by the style of literature being read (poem, short story, novel, or drama, for example), but the style itself is not dissected because this doesn't allow for the appropriation of the text.

Instructors who adopt the view proposed by the Three Fields Approach will involve themselves in discussion and dialogue that they may not be able to completely control. In essence, it is a lack of 'affective control' that is being proposed in this paper and allows for a classroom discourse that is free from the a-priori constraints of grammar and translation exercises to naturally surface. Instructors, realistically, will always be responsible for guiding the topic of study in classrooms. However, once the text is chosen, then what begins to emerge is the process of learning and human development, which perhaps may be the true goal of teaching and reading of literature.

References

Beach,R. (1993). A teacher's introduction to reader-response theories. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Chou, H.V. et al (1980). Teacher questioning: A verification and an extension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 69-72.

Fillmore, L.W. (1982). Instructional language as linguistic input: Second language learning in classrooms. In L.C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom. New York, Academic Press, (283-296).

Floriani, A. (1994). Negotiating what counts: Roles and relationships, texts and contexts, content and meaning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 241-274.

Graden, E.C. (1996). How language teacher's beliefs about reading instruction are mediated by their beliefs about students. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 3,387-395.

Hynds, S. (1992). Challenging questions in the teaching of literature, in Langer, J., ed., Literature instruction: A focus on student response. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aestheticresponse. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). Maximizing learning potential in the communicative classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 76, i, 41-49.

Kramsch, C. (1985). Literary texts in the classroom: A discourse model. The Modern Language Journal, 69, 356-66.

Lantolf, J.P., ed. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (133-53). New York: Oxford University Press.

Liaw, M. (2001). Exploring literary responses in an EFL classroom. The ForeignLanguage Annals 34 (1): 35-45.

Lotman, Y.M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet Psychology, 26(3), 32-51.

Mantero, M. (2002). Bridging the gap: Discourse in text-based foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 4,437-456.

Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth: Texas University Press.

Shlosvsky, V. (1965). Art as technique. In Russian formalist criticism: Four essays; Lemon, L.T. and Reis, M.J. (eds.). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

Vygotsky, L.S (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Miguel Mantero, The University of Alabama

Dr. Mantero's research interests include cognition and SLA, as well as classroom discourse processes.