Literary Texts in the Classroom: A Discourse Author(s): Claire Kramsch Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol.

69, No. 4 (Winter, 1985), pp. 356-366 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/328406 . Accessed: 02/12/2013 23:11
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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Textsin the Classroom: Literary A Discourse

CLAIRE KRAMSCH in the foreign language language and literature curriculumand to the role of literaturein language classes. Althougha fewpracticalpointers will be given in the course of thispaper, its goal is to provideless a seriesof teachingtechniques than a change of orientationand a redefinition of teacher-learner roles in the discussion of literarytexts.
LANGUAGE VS. LITERATURE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE

teaching and the current focus on oral proficiency are calling fora reassessmentof the use of literarytexts in the language classroom. In eclipsed Germany,wheretheywere temporarily by informationaltexts of practical relevance, literary works are now making a welcome comeback within a communication-oriented readings literary methodology. In thiscountry, have always been considered part of a human*isticeducation and have never really disappeared fromthe foreignlanguage curriculum. They are stillwidely used in language classes, especially at the intermediate and advanced levels, and the discussion of literary texts is oftenpart of the same syllabus as communication-orientedexercises forthe development of oral skills. The two activities are, however, at odds withone another. For methodologically while communication exercises activate twoand exchange way "expression, interpretation of meanings," and stressthe process of "interliterand understanding, personal negotiation" ary texts continue to be taught as finished decoded, analyzed, products,to be unilaterally and explained, or they are used to illustrate grammatical rules and enrich the reader's of communivocabulary.2Thus the integration cative goals and general educational objectives remains a major problem.3 This essay is an attemptto bringto bear several strandsof recentresearchin reading comprehension, discourse analysis, and literary theory on the way in which the teaching of literarytexts can be integratedinto a general approach to the teaching of language as social discourse. The methodology developed here suggests a new approach to the integrationof

?1985 The ModernLanguageJournal

0026-7902/85/0004/356 $1.50/0

The ModernLanguageJournal,69, iv (1985)

Intermediate learners often perceive an selectionsof the unfairgap betweenthe literary second year and the readings theywere offered at the elementarylevel, where the meaning of the text seemed coextensive with the dictionary translationof its constituentparts. Their readings have not prepared them to first-year read between the lines into a literaryand cultural frameworkthat lies beyond simple recourse to the dictionary or to lexical glosses. Authenticliterary writings require otherstrateand regies in addition to the word recognition call techniques which students were asked to apply to the fabricatedtexts of theirfirst-year book. In addition, the skillsneeded to take part in a discussion do not seem to be continuous with the skillslearned fromthe grammar and vocabulary drills. Teachers, anxious to create a climateofcommunication in their classrooms, deplore the of second-yearlessons continuedfragmentation acbut related of a series into poorlyintegrated acconversational tivities:structural exercises, tivities, and literary texts. Attention to the printedword throwseach studentback into the isolationof individuallearning.4Discussions of literaryworks tend to break up the group interaction fosteredby oral communication activities, for such analyses are dependent on individual abilitiesand background. As Walter Ong remarks: "Readers do not forma collecactinghere and now on one anotherand tivity, on the speakeras membersofan audience do."5

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Textsin theClassroom Literary Some progressin bridgingthe perceived gap between learning to use the formsof the language forcommunication and learning to read literary texts for esthetic pleasure has been made. For example, Schulz suggests methods foranticipatinglevels of readabilityand reducdi Pietro advocates ing students' frustration;6 line to create a scenarioforcomusing the story municative interaction among students;7 makes studentsexperience difReader'sTheater narrativepoints of view by having them ferent whichtheythenrolecut up the textinto scripts read in frontof the class;8 Birckbichler and techniques to engage students Muyskens offer and evaluation personallyin the interpretation of texts.9None of these suggestions,however, helps the learner overcome the greatest diffiand underculty, namely that of interpreting of a nature the symbolic literarytext standing and its cultural, social, and historical dimensions. 10
READING COMPREHENSION AND DISCOURSE THEORY

357 packetsthatsupplementtheliteralcontent,provide explanations for the remainder of the story, and place the storyin a context of reis seenas essenlated knowledge. Understanding a and then ofevoking debugging existing tially process packets" knowledge (my emphasis, p. 96). This view of reading as an active construction process parallels presentviews ofdiscourse as being not merely "the passage of thought from one sentence to another according to a certain order,"14 but "the use of sentences in combination forthe performanceof social actions."15Reading is thejoint constructionof a social realitybetween the reader and the text. Just as, in spoken discourse, "each participant develops his own scheme which he adjusts according to what his interlocutorsays," the reader of a text does not simply react to the message or intention of the text, but his responses are "readjustments to his own communicative intents."It is true that the author them anticipatesa reader'sresponsesby writing intothe discourse,but the reader"playshis own game as he reads."16 has This subtle interplayof intentionalities been stressedby literary Paul Ricoeur, theory. forexample, differentiates between explaining a text and understandingit.17 "Explanation is more directed toward the analytic structureof the text,understanding is more directedtoward the intentionalunityofdiscourse" (p. 74). The teacher can explain and teach the rhetorical the formand contentof the text,but structure, an understanding ofthe values, intentions, and beliefs embedded in the text can only be achieved throughopen discussion and negotiation of meanings. According to Ricoeur, interpretation is a dialectic dynamic process by which the reader surpasses both explanation and understandingand "appropriates"the text for himself. Foreign language learners, as non-intended task of understandreaders, have the difficult ing intentionsand beliefs that are not necesoftheworld.18 sarilypart oftheirrepresentation Given the fact that the authors "cast . readers into a made-up role and call on them to play the role assigned," foreign language readers have to findout which role the author wants them to assume and be taught how to assume it.19But at the same time theymust be shown how to preserve their freedom to flout the writer's intentions and make their own

Current researchin reading comprehension, artificialintelligence,and discourse analysis is consistentwith present literarytheoryin that it points to the interactionalprocesses at work in reading and understanding texts.Inliterary or schema of theories formation-processing reading stressthe factthat readers make sense out of a textby constructingschemata or universes of discourse based on their knowledge of the world and the totalityof their experience.11 In Carrell's words: "According to schema theory,readers activate an appropriate schema against which they tryto give a text a consistent interpretation.To the extent that theyare successful,we may say that theyhave Readers fitthe elecomprehended the text."12 mentsof the textinto theirexistingschema and readjust thisschema to unfoldingnew information. Each new element provided by the text is assessed as to its ability to contributeto the reader's emerging schema. These observations are consonant with theories of artificialintelligencethat describe how knowledge structures are acquired and storedin memoryin the formofframes,scripts, or knowledge packets. 13 Goldstein and Papert in particulararticulatea "model of comprehension in which the process is not one of literally understanding the text, but one in which the texttriggers rich, highlystructured knowledge

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

358 meaning out of the text. Such is the privilege of the foreignculture reader.20
INTERTEXTUALITY AND GROUP READING

ClaireKramsch of which the text is a part; the text is a whole of which the reader is a part- these contradictorymovementskeep passing into one another and back again. The Logos at the center,which is inside the reader and not hidden behind the text,continuallychanges place with the Logos that encloses both."23On at the circumference the other hand, a reception must be created among the readers. This multiple intertextualitymay be representedschematically(see Figure 1).
TEACHING

One aspect oftenoverlookedin pedagogic reflections on the teachingof literary textsis that reading in classrooms occurs within a group situation.The teacheris traditionally facedwith the difficult task of integratingthe trainingin reading skills, centered on the individual student, into a communicative classroom, which is markedly group-centered. Moreover, bewiththe author,the cause of his/her familiarity text, the period, the genre, the teacher is perceived by students as having a normative authorityin mattersof literaryinterpretation. This perceptionis a further obstacle to a groupcenteredcommunicative approach. Besides, the academic study of literaturehas often accustomed teachers to deal with literarytexts in a normativemanner. The respectforthe textas a work of art to be appreciated in accordance withan establishedestheticcanon and put back into the historicand cultural conditions of its of the creation, discourages the reconstruction text necessary for its appropriation by the readers. In what Breen and Candlin call a "processoriented"classroom, it is as importantto sencreasitizethe studentsto the processofliterary tion as it is to initiatethem in the construction of interactivespoken discourse.21As students struggleto establish paths of communication between one anotherin spoken discourse, they realize the choices made by the interlocutors at everymoment. In a similar manner, reconstructingthe process by which the author has created the text and reflectingon their own schema building can sensitize them to the options that were rejected, and the elements that were leftunsaid. They are better able to appreciate and evaluate the choices that were made. In 1984 I described how to sensitizestudents to the negotiation of meanings in spoken discourse.22Now I should like to turnto the negotiation of the meaning of a literarytext in a group situation.Here the challengeis two-fold. On the one hand, a dialogue must be constructedbetween the text and its readers. It is thisdialogue whichNorthropFryehas precisely in mind when he writes:"The reader is a whole

THE

LITERARY

NARRATIVE

The followingwill suggest an interactional fordiscussionofliterary narrative methodology in the third or fourthsemester of college inand It proposestojustify struction. theoretically to systematize within a discourse framework several pedagogical devices used intuitively by successful teachers.I have chosen the shortnarrative, because one of its importantaspects is that it recountscharacters'plans. Understanding narrative,like understandingspoken interaction, requirestakingintoaccount what Bruce and Newman call "interactingplans."24 One character's plans and goals interact with or often counteract another's. Moreover, each characteris actingin a realitythatincludesperceptions of another individual's intentionsand thisperson'santicipationsofone's own actions. According to Bruce and Newman: "The beliefs and intentionsof one character are embedded in the beliefs and intentionsof the other." We can add that,in a classroomdiscussion,the beliefs and intentionsof all characters are emFIGURE 1 student

student student -4 text

student student

student
student student

student

student

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Textsin theClassroom Literary ofeach stubedded in the beliefsand intentions dent as well as those of the author. The example used here is the Grimms' literary version of the tale of Hiinsel and Gretel transcribed in 1812 by Wilhelm Grimm with annotations in Jakob's hand.25 The transition fromthe oral tale to the literary genre is a good to literary formsat the intermediintroduction ate level. Also, the storyillustratesclearly the interactingplans of various characters as they conflict withone another. The parentsattempt to deceive the children into thinkingthat they are going on a wood-fetching expedition when in facttheyplan to abandon them. HMinsel responds to his conception ofhis parents' actions by making thembelieve he is cooperatingwhen in fact he is not. Deception and differing beliefs,a frequent force,allow formulmotivating tipleinterpretations by the class. As forthelevel of difficulty, fairy-tales,unlike modern short cast stories, foreign language readersinto a role thatis known to themdespite some culturaldifferences. It is therefore easier for them to develop the appropriate schemata than, say, for them to do so when reading Brecht'sKalenderwhere the alienation effector disgeschichten, tance intended between the textand its reader may require American students to assume a role to which they are not accustomed. The followingmethodological suggestions, although arranged sequentially below, are not meant to be implemented in a strict linear order; it is neitherpossible nor even desirable to apply all the steps suggested here to one given narrative. The discussion of the storyin class usually takes one class period, with selected instructional techniques. Pre-readingactivitieswill have been conducted both in class and at home as a preparation forclass discussion. In this multidimensionalframework, my methodologywill followthe Breen and Candlin model of threeaptitudes in the constructionof discourse: expression,interpretation, and negotiation of meanings.26
EXPRESSING AND INTERPRETING MEANINGS

359 accompaniment to the individual reading assignment at home. Knowledge: Building a CommonBackground Reader. DefiningTopic, Genre,Period, Intended Beforeassigningthereadingforhomework,five or ten minutes should be taken to give the students some understandingof what the storyis about, what the nature of the textis, and when it was written. In this case, students need to be weaned fromtheirWalt Disney representation of Hiinsel and Gretel and be giventhe general cultural and historical background to the Grimms' fairy-tale. Studentsshould Collecting Necessary Vocabulary. not expect or be expected to understand every word of a literarytexton first reading. A preliminaryactivityby the group can recreatethe conditions under which the individual reader selectslexical items to build appropriate schemata. Students are given two minutes to reread silentlythe firstparagraph of the story. Then the teacher asks: "Which words do we need to tell the story?""Which words can you remember from the story?" "Underline the words or clusters of words you understood, ignore the others."The point is to gather(time limit: fourminutes) the resources of the group by brainstormingas many suggestionsas possible fromthe students.The teacheror a fellow studentacts as a recorderand merelywriteson the board in theircorrectformthe lexical items providedby the students.These may be, in this case: derHolzhacker; arm;eingroj3er Wald;fiihren; seine Frau; kein Brot mehr;zwei Kinder. The teacher may add items, e.g., erniihren, that the studentsmight not have understood, but that they might want to use later. theFacts. It is importantto reasAssembling sure the students of what they know and to show them how to make educated guesses about the rest. The group is therefore asked to inferthe meaning of the paragraph fromthe vocabulary on the board. ("Let us linkup these islands ofunderstanding.How could we tellthe beginningof the storywiththese words?") The result might look as shown in Figure 2. The und seineFrau gloss might be: Der Holzhacker waren sehr arm. Weiles keinBrotmehr gab, konnten sie ihre zwei Kindernicht mehr erniihren. Dafiihrten Wald; or Es war einmalein sie sie in einen grojfen armer Holzhacker undseine Frau. Eines Tageshatten sie kein Brotmehr. Sie konnten zweiKinder ihre nicht mehr siealso inden Wald. Siefiihrten emrniihren. groflen

The activitiesmentioned here are meant to build a common universe of discourse between the reader and the text, both on the explicit lexical and syntacticlevels and on the implicit referential level. They can be done partiallyin class as a pre-reading activity,partially as an

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

360
FIGURE 2

Claire Kramsch eign language reader and those of the native reader intended by the author.28The associations generated above may lead, forexample, into a short reflectionon the different truth value attributedto fairytales and on the connotations of the word "Wald" for German speakers. Such a cross-culturalcomparison is essential if the discussion is not to remain on the purely subjective level of the students'experience. Students should TopicDevelopment. Predicting be encouraged not only to make and test hypothesesabout theirreading but to compare them with those of the other readers. A discourse-orientedmethodologycan activate this process in small groups. For example: "What do the followingelements of the storylead us to expect? Briiderchen und Schwesterchen (the was no more bread"; "take "there originaltitle)"; them into the deep forest."This elicitation of the students' emergingschematawards off gross a contrastive and offers conmisunderstandings text withinwhich the rest of the storywill be how a literary read. It can also serveto illustrate text purposely meets or deceives the expectations of the reader. SchemaBuilding. In order to help students build their own schemata, the teacher must avoid the traditionalsituation where students preparing a reading assignmentare given lists of vocabulary, with occasional grammatical glosses or cultural footnotes,but no advance clues as to the tone of the text(ironical, satirical, programmatic,metaphorical,descriptive), on the reader, its thematic its intended effect highlights, its stylistic features --all crucial aspects whichare thenexpectedto emergefrom a class discussion led by the teacher. Such a traditional approach only confirms the students' belief that their major block to understanding is a lack of vocabulary and theirdependence on the grammarand solidifies teacher. Since we know that understanding a literary text is a "top-down" as well as a "bottom-up" process,whydo we insiston giving the readers only lexical and grammatical clues?29As one studentexpressedit poignantly: "I understood the textwhen I read it last night at home, but I can't answer any of your questions." The followingalternativeapproach will aid in directingstudents'reading and will channel the way theybuild schemata to make sense of

der Holzhacker

arm

ein groer Wald kein zwei Kinder

fiUhren

seine Frau

mehr Brot
ernahren

These students' on the board textsare written and are given as much attentionas the literary text itself.This procedure integratesstudents into the interpretive process and provides parallel texts to be used later forcomparative purposes. It is thereforeadvisable not to be selectiveat thispointbut to writedown all input from the student. Associations. Carrell Brainstorming Conceptual has shownhow important it is to take as a point of departure the perceptions and assumptions of the studentreader.27Discussion of a literary textwill fail to meet the interestand the comprehension needs of the studentsif it is totally irrelevant to what they have in mind. Brainas a group activityrelaassociations storming tivizesthe perspectiveof the individual student and opens up alternatives generated by the other students. For example, the teacher mightstate: "Here forunderare threeconceptsthatare important standingthe story.What do you thinkofwhen you hear each of these words?" Sample responses might be: ist dienicht wahr eineGeschichte, Miirchen: manbraucht sie nicht zu glauben fir Kinder auch fiirErwachsene Wunder wandern im Wald:spazieren gehen, Berge Vermont Bach, fischen Camping, Gefahren? zu Hause:.... These responses are contrasted with those of the teacher (if s/heis a native speaker) or with those of native speakers, in order to verbalize between the perceptionsof a forthe difference

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Textsin theClassroom Literary the words on the page. It is useless to ask them to identify key words, forexample, when they of the text.Theredo not know the main thrust fore, the clue-gathering activities suggested below, designed forindividual or small group include an interpretive direcwork,consistently tion as well as a limited and well-definedtask, illustratedwith a sample question and answer pair if need be.30 Indicative MeanDiscovering Key Words ofa Given "Find two used ing. Example: expressions by the stepmother thatcontain a reproach against the children."Possible answers: ihrb6sen Kinder; steht auf, ihrFaulenzer;da habt ihretwas fir den nchtvorher ihr Mittag, aberefit's auf, weiter kriegt nichts;Narr (to Hiinsel). Parallelsand Contrasts in Meaning. Discovering "The two homes: the father's Example: house - the gingerbreadhouse. Find two similaritiesand differences." Possible answers: both houses have a mother figureand the prospect of death is present in both, but there is starvation in one, overabundance in the other; one is at the edge of the woods, the other is in the house but not woods; a fatherlives in the first in the second. Illustrations Finding ofa Given Motif.Example 1: "There is a white thread running throughout the story. Can you find it? Give four examples." Possible answers: the white pebbles, the white cat on the roof, the white dove that leads the childrento the gingerbreadhouse, the white duck that leads them back home. Example 2: "How do we recognize that this is a fairytale? Give threeexamples, e.g., it begins with Es war einmal." in Content, Sound or Discovering Regularities Form. Example: "Find three or four elements which repeat themselves in a contrastive at the beginmanner, for instance Kieselsteine at the end." Possible answers: to ning, Edelsteine eat/tobe eaten; to kill/to be killed,Hiinsel leads the way in the beginning/Gretel leads the way in the end. These factual elements can now be discussed and interpretedby the group.
NEGOTIATING MEANINGS

361 explores not only the values and beliefs expressed in the text but also those of the students, it touches a potentiallyexplosive area. Given the privilege of the readers to interpret the text in a way that is meaningfulto them, differences in values should not be corrected but only pointed out and discussed.31 Worlds ofDiscourse.Negotiatingthe Exploring meaning of a literarytextmeans exploringthe possible worlds of discourse in which the narrative is inserted. The goal is to use the multiple perspective and life experiences of the ofthe multireaders to reach an understanding faceted world of the narrative. There can Intentions and Beliefs. Brainstorming be no classroom dialogue on the level of stylistic,lexical, or grammaticalfacts,only on the level of the students'constructionof them for an interpretation of the text. Since values and beliefscannot be made explicitby directquesis to finda tioning, the teacher's responsibility discourse context within which the readers' schemata can be discussed in a non-threatening manner. This discussion can be initiated, forexample, by brainstorming responses to an for its multiplicity chosen open-ended question, or why ofthe what of possible answers,generally type. Here, for example, anticipating two potential interpretationsof the Hainsel and Gretel tale, one moralistic,one archetypal,the teacher mightask: "Why does the woman want to lead the children into the forest?" The purpose of the brainstorming is to work forquantity. Students should be allowed (time limit: four minutes) to say whatever comes to mind. The teachershould not select,comment, or judge in any way but merelyrecord the students' suggestions on the blackboard. Factual inaccuracies are recorded together with the other responses; they will be dealt with later. Linguisticerrorsare repairedwithoutcomment by the teacher, who just writesdown the correct form of the utterance. Responses to thesequestionsmightbe: 1) the childrenwere bad; 2) thereis no more money; 3) she is a bad mother; 4) she wants to get rid of her children; 5) so that theyhave enough to eat; 6) she wants to deceive them; 7) she has to deceive them; 8) her husband wants her to do it; 9) the children will die, if they stay at home; 10) she hopes that theywill find something to eat in the woods; 11) another house; 12) the childrenshould take care of themselves.

Whereas in the preceding activities, background and schema building could be done either in small groups or individually, the reflection that followsshould be conducted exclusivelyas a whole group activityin class. Because the activityis in part culture-specific and

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

362 Such a reception dialogue, constructedcooperativelyby the group, formsa parallel text forlaterdiscussionin class. It recreatesthetopical developmentof a group conversation:topics are firstintroduced by several conversational partners(1-3); theyare then expanded (4 and 6 interpret3); previous topics are returnedto (6 goes back to the topic introducedin 3); subcomtopics are redirected(7); an interlocutor pletes another'ssentence(5), offers interpretation (8) or correction(9 corrects8). Different interlocutors collaborate on topic construction 12 collaborate on topics 7 and 9). Stu(10, 11, dents'utterancespiggybackon each otheras in natural symmetricconversation. theData in Order.Afterascertaining Putting that there are no errorsof fact ("Can you see - Possibly item 8? Let us go any factualerrors? back to the text.. ."), the class attempts to orderthe data listedon theboard ("Are two reasons similaror in contrastwithone another?"). Two possible orderings can emerge: 1) items 1, 9, and 12 lay emphasis on the children,the others focus on the mother and her husband. The superordinate question here is who is responsible for leading the children into the woods; 2) items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 characterize a bad mother,wanting to punish helpless children. Items 10-12 point to a wise mother, anxious to make the children independent in the face of adversity.Items 2 and 9 are factual observations.The focushere is on the mother's intentions. While both orderingsrepresentvalid interpretations,the second one mightbe able to explain more events than the firstin the course of the story.In my experience, undergraduate students have quite moralistic views on fairy them archetales and it is a challenge to offer The comparitypalschemata of interpretation. son of the original tale with the Grimms' verframes sion can help clarifythe two different of reference(see below). The following threeactivitiesare well-known techniques forthe clarificationof values likely to facilitateboth interpretation of the textand student-studentdialogue.32 and Voting. Studentsare usually eager Ranking to discoverhow theirpeers understandthe text. Asking them to rank the items on the board provides the opportunityto take a personal stand,justifyit, and compare it withthatof the others. For example: "Rank the motives listed

ClaireKramsch above according to priority";or "What would you have done ifyou had been the mother?" Alternatives and Consequences. ProbExploring ing forstudents'inferencesis one of the methodological recommendationsof researchersin reading comprehension.33With literarytexts that reflectboth cultural and estheticvalues, such a probing helps uncover the author's choices. Example: "What are Hiinsel's alternatives at the beginning of the story?" These choices are in fact oftendictated by the genre tale the hero has itself;forexample, in the fairy to go in search of what he is missing. To clarifypoints on Interpretive Role-Playing. which therehas been some disagreement (the - item 8), simulrole of the fatherin the story taneous role-playscan provide anotherparallel text forconstrastiveinterpretation. Groups of threestudents(two partnersand one observer) role-play the controversial situation within a time limit of oneminute. Example: "Dialogue between husband and wife on the evening of the firstday where there is no more bread"; "Dialogue between Gretel at the beginning of the story and her alter ego at the end." The situation should not be explained in greater detail and the role-playshould be improvised. The observer'sdutyis to reportto the class how the two actors have interpretedthe situation (e.g., how much theyfeelthe husband was responsible for the decision of leading the children into the woods). The contextof thisroleplay provides yet another perspective on the Grimm text. Discourse Forms.Besides considering Exploring various worlds of discourse, students should explore the various formsofdiscourse available withinthe genre itself, and the different genres possible. Structural Parallels.Students are given the following schematic representationof the typical fairytale sequence: initial equilibrium--rupture- search by the hero - temporaryreestablishmentoftheequilibrium- appearance ofthe villain or character who counteractsthe plans of the hero.34They are then asked to complete it (see Figure 3). Figure 4 shows an alternate form of Figure 3. Within an archetypal interpretation of the tale, studentscan be encouraged to search for structuralparallels:35the motherfigureas the driving force behind the narrative; the three aspects ofhome (the parents'home, the ginger-

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Textsin theClassroom Literary

FIGURE 3

363 ning in retrospect;or, imagine the life of the woodcutter'sfamilybetween the two periods of hunger. - Changing point of view: imagine a dialogue between the woodcutter and his wife on the evening of the firstday; or, imagine an entry in Hansel's diary, when he was still at home; or, write a letter from Gretel to her father in the witch'shouse; duringher captivity or, Gretel explains to her fatherat the end how she gotthe precious stones;or, findanothertitle for the fairytale. The very reconstructionof the text by the students makes apparent to them better than any analysis by a teacher some of its stylistic features.For example, as theyare asked to rewrite the story from a different perspective, theysuddenlyrealize the necessityof changing tone and registeras well. The husband would be unlikelyto say to his wife:Hor mal,wirhaben zu beifien undzu brechen, an expresnichts mehr sion clearlywithinthe registerof Grimms' omniscientnarrator.The opposite will occur with texts told from the character's point of view. Students recounting Kafka's Verwandlung, for example, from an omniscient perspective, would be ill-advised to copy the text and write since the Vater ihninseinZimmer, Gregors verfolgte verb "verfolgen" makes sense from only Gregor Samsa's point of view. Intertextual Variations. Just as parallel texts constructed by the studentshelp enrichthe dialogue between the text and its many readers, so too can a comparison of the textwithrelated texts on the same topic serve to illustratethe cultural and esthetic choices made by the author. An appropriate comparison can be made here with the tale's original (1812) ver36This Briiderchen undSchwesterchen. sion, entitled transcription of the oral narrative is much shorterthan the Grimm version. The Grimms elaborated on motives, reasons, and feelings, and added in particularthe finalepisode of the white duck that carries the childrenacross the lake to their father'shouse. Furthermore,the Grimm textdistinguishesitselffromthe original by its religious and moralistic overtones, which clearlyreflect theBiedermeier values ofthe times. At this point, the teacher may provide more detailed cultural and historical information, to supe.g., on Romanticsm and Biedermeierzeit, plement the students' interpretation.37

Gliick: genug zu essen

Wiederherstellung des Gliicks: genug zu essen

Hungersnot die Hexe

SuchederHelden]

.. .?

FIGURE 4

l~.r
bread house, and the father's house at the end); the threefires(the emptyfireat the beginning, the deceiving firein the woods, the life-threatening fireat the witch's house); the three deceptions of the children by the "mother,"the three deceptions of the "mother"by the children. The abrupt referenceto the woman at the end; "The woman in the meantime had and died," can initiatea greatdeal of reflection can be discussed in the lightofthe overall structure of the story. Intratextual Variations. Rewritingthe tale, indior in vidually groups, is part of the reconstruction process necessary forappropriation of the text by the readers. Different formats are possible: - Providing a frame: how does the storygo on? Gretel and her husband one day findthemselves incapable of feedingtheirtwo children. Imagine the story; or, imagine the life of the woodcutter and his family before the story began. - Changing the time scale: starttellingthe storyof Hiinsel and Gretel when theygo to the woods forthe second time. Recount the begin-

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

364
CONCLUSION

ClaireKramsch This approach is not only consistent with reading comprehension research and literary theory, it also restores classroom students to theirfullcreativerole as a community ofautonomous and responsible readers. "The most valuable information is in our students' perceptions and not our own," remarksCarrell.40The seriousnesswithwhichstudents' are perceptions taken reduces the threat of the expectations placed on them as non-nativereaders and protectstheirself-esteem. Taking learners'perceptions into account does not mean that the students should not learn about the text'scultural and historical frame of reference, but only through the prism of parallel texts and their own constructs can they grasp the unique nature of the literarywork they are reading. text Finally, the discourse between a literary and itsreaders and among readers ofthe same textcan serve as the link between communicative language teaching and the teaching of literature. Whether it be everyday spoken discourse or literarydiscourse, the communicative, poetic, and phatic functionsof language join togetherin the teaching of language as a social event. Readers understanda literary text as theyunderstand themselvesand each other responding to and rewriting the text. The pleasure theyderive fromit is both individual and communal. A discourse perspective can ofthe studentgroup help build the social reality and at the same time sensitize each studentto the esthetic,game-like quality of all language
interaction.41

This paper representsa continuingplea for engaging studentsin the negotiationsofmeandiscourse.The strateing in spokenand written gies they learn fromoral communication can be put to use forthe interpretation, discussion, and personal understanding of literary texts withinthe group interactionof the classroom. The methodologyoutlinedabove gives a few practical suggestions for achieving this goal. For example, the enforcement of a stricttime limitformany of the activitiesreduces anxiety and keeps discussion in focus. The presence of peer observers in role-play provides valuable The non-normative role debriefing possibilities. of the teacher in the discussion of esthetic,cultural, and social values is crucial fora successful discussion of literary works. However, beyond these specifictechniques which are in part well-known,the main thrustof thispaper is a plea for a change in orientation in classroom discourse. A group receptiondialogue requires more natural formsof discourse in the classroom than the traditional instructional ones. In view of the professionaltendency of language teachersto "overdidacticizesocial interactionsin the classroom," the only valid approach to teaching literarytextsis to be ready to discover every one anew with every new group of studentsand to be surprisedby their on the teachinsights.38 A discourseperspective fora change ing ofliterarytextscalls therefore in the nature of student-teacher in relationship the classroom.39

dissertations in Germany, e.g., Ingrid Mummert, Schiiler - auch in derFremdsprache migenDichtung (Frankfurt: Lang, 1984). A recent survey of the use of literarytexts in this country is given in Judith Muyskens, "Teaching Second by LangenLanguage Literatures: Past, Present and Future," Modern 1The communicativetextspublished recently scheidt contain many more literarytexts than the earlier Language Journal, 67 (1983), pp. 413-23. 2Michael Breen & Christopher N. Candlin, "The Essenones, e.g., Peter F. Hajny & Horst Wirbelauer, Lesekurs Eine Einfiihrug in die Texterschliessung tials of a Communicative Curriculum in Language (Muinchen: fiirAnfdnger. et al., Deutsch Langenscheidt, 1983) and Christoph Edelhoff Teaching," AppliedLinguistics,1 (1980), pp. 90-91. Aktiv 3. Materialien Teil I (Mfinchen: 3See the Sanders-Kramsch exchange of views in Unterfiir die Mittelstufe, 16 (1983), pp. 313-18. Langenscheidt, 1984). The Goethe Institute has recently richtspraxis, been organizing numerous workshops and seminars on the 4Ralph M. Hester, "From Reading to the Reading of Literature," ModernLanguageJournal, 56 (1972), p. 284. teaching of literature in language classes, fromwhich the 5WalterJ. Ong, Interfaces followingpublications are available: Bernd Kast, Literatur oftheWord-Studies in theEvoim Unterricht. lution and Culture Methodischdidaktische ofConsciousness Vorschliige (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, fiir den Lehrer (Miinchen: Goethe Institut, 1984); New Yorker Werkstattge- 1977), p. 58. 1984 -Literaturimkommunikativen spriich Fremdesprachenunter- 6Renate A. Schulz, "Literature and Readability: Bridged. Manfred Heid (Miinchen: Kemmler und Hoch, richt, ing the Gap in Foreign Language Reading," ModernLanforthcoming). The topic is now attracting doctoral guageJournal,65 (1981), pp. 43-53.
NOTES

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Textsin theClassroom Literary

7RobertJ. di Pietro, "Discourse and Real-Life Roles in 15 (1981), pp. the ESL Classroom," TESOL Quarterly, with LiteraryTexts in Foreign Lan27-33, and "Interaction New Yorker 1984 -Literaguage Instruction," Werkstattgespriich turimKommunikativen FSU, ed. Manfred Heid (Miinchen: Kemmler & Hoch, forthcoming). 8Institute for Readers' Theater, PO Box 17193, San Diego, CA 92117. 9Diane Birckbichler & JudithMuyskens, "A Personalized Approach to the Teaching of Literature at the Elementary and Intermediate Levels of Instruction," ForeignLanguage Annals, 13 (1980), pp. 23-27. 1oGeraldPrince, "LiteraryTheory and the Undergradu84 (New York: MLA, 1984), ate Curriculum," Profession p. 37. 11See Elizabeth Bernhardt,"Toward an InformationProcessing Perspective in Foreign Language Reading," Modern Language Journal,68 (1984), pp. 322-31; Janet K. Swaffar, "Reading in the Foreign Language Classroom: Focus on 17 (1984), pp. 176-94, and Process," Unterrichtspraxis, "Reading Authentic Texts in a Foreign Language: A Cognitive Model," Modern LanguageJournal, 69 (1985), pp. 15-34. For a general overview of schema theory in reading comprehension, see Marilyn J. Adams & Allan Collins, "A Schema-Theoretic View of Reading," New Directions in DiscourseProcessing, ed. Roy O. Freedle (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1979), pp. 1-22; Janet Binkley, "Schema Theory and the Reduction of Concept Density for Foreign Laneines guage Readers," Lesen in der Fremdsprache. Beitriige des Goethe New York unddesACTFL, Instituts Werkstattgespriichs ed. Helm von Faber & Manfred Heid (Miinchen:Kemmler & Hoch, 1981), pp. 41-54; Patricia L. Carrell, "Schema Theory and ESL Reading: Classroom Implications and Applications," Modern Language Journal, 68 (1984), pp. 332-43; Tuinman Jaap, "The Schema Schemers,"Journal ofReading,23 (1980), pp. 414-19; Walter Kintsch & Edith Greene, "The Role of Culture-Specific Schemata in the Comprehension and Recall of Stories," DiscourseProcesses, 1 (1978), pp. 323-36; David E. Rumelhart, "Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition," Theoretical Issuesin Readed. R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. ing Comprehension, Brewer (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980), pp. 33-58. 12Carrell (note 11 above), p. 333. 13See Marvin Minsky, "A Framework forthe Representation of Knowledge," The Psychology Vision,ed. of Computer Patrick Winston (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975); Roger C. Schank & R. Abelson, Scripts,Plans, Goals and Understanding (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977); Ira Goldstein & Seymour Papert, "Artificial Intelligence, Language and the 1 (1977), pp. 84-123. Science, Study of Knowledge," Cognitive 14GottfriedWilhelm Leibniz, cited in Marie Jeanne Borel's "L'explication dans l'argumentation- Approche

365
sponse (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1978); Hans Robert Jaugt,"Paradigmawechsel in der Literaturwissenderdeutschen ed. Victor schaft,"Methoden Literaturwissenschaft, Zmegac (Frankfurt: Athendium, 1971). 18The same is true, of course, though to a lesser extent, of native readers interpretingolder texts in their own language. 19See Ong (note 5 above). 20Dietrich Krusche, "Die Chance des fremdkulturellen Texte 1984. Literarische Lesers," New Yorker Werkstattgespriich imkommunikativen ed. Manfred Heid Fremdsprachenunterricht, (Miinchen: Kemmler & Hoch, forthcoming). 21Breen and Candlin (note 2 above). 22ClaireJ. Kramsch, "Interactionslangagieres en travail de groupe," Le Franfaisdans le Monde (Feb.-March 1984), pp. 52-59. 23NorthropFrye, "Literary and Linguistic Scholarship in a Post-literateWorld," PMLA, 99 (1984), pp. 990-95. 24Bertram C. Bruce & Dennis Newman, "Interacting Plans," Cognitive Science,2 (1978), pp. 195-233. 25Grimms ed. Willy Schumann (Boston: SuhrMiirchen, derBruder Grimm.UVfassung kamp/Insel, 1982), and Mdrchen im Elsafi, ed. nach der Originalhandschrift derAbtei Olenberg Joseph Lefftz (Heidelberg: Winter, 1927), pp. 40-49. 26See Breen & Candlin (note 2 above). See also Claire etdiscours dansla classe de langue J. Kramsch, Interaction (Paris: Hatier-Credif, 1984). 27See Carrell (note 11 above), p. 341. 28Fora discussion of cross-cultural differences in associations, see Claire J. Kramsch, "Culture and Constructs: Communicating Attitudesand Values in the Foreign Language Classroom," Foreign LanguageAnnals, 16 (1983), pp. 437-48. 29Fora discussion of top-down and bottom-upprocesses, see Gillian Brown & George Yule, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983), p. 234. 30Formore detail on group work, see Claire J. Kramsch, "Interactive Discourse in Small and Large Groups," Interactive ed. Wilga A. Rivers (Cambridge: Language Teaching, Cambridge Univ. Press, forthcoming). 31JennyThomas, "Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure," Applied Linguistics,4 (1983), pp. 91-112. 32SidneyB. Simon, Leland Howe, & Howard KirschenA Handbookof PracticalStrategies baum, ValuesClarification: (New York: Hart, 1972). 33Carrell (note 11 above). Folktale 34Vladimir Propp, TheMorphology ofthe (Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1968). im Gespriich. an 35RudolfGeiger, Mit Miirchen Erfahrungen sechzehn Miirchen derBruderGrimm (Stuttgart: Urachhaus, 1972), pp. 69-91. 36See note 25 above. 37The Restoration Period in Germany (1815-1848) is oftenreferredto as the Biedermeierzeit and is seen as a time that stressedthe bourgeois values of family,piety,and civil obedience. Krumm, "Nur die Kuh gibt mehr Milch, 38Hans-Jiirgen wenn Musik erklingt,"Zielsprache Deutsch,Heft 4 (1983), p. 5. 39Claire J. Kramsch, "Classroom Interaction and Discourse Options," Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition,7

50 (1981), p. 22. semiologique," Langue FranGaise, in AppliedLinguis15HenryG. Widdowson, Explorations tics (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979), p. 93. 16Widdowson (see note 17 above), p. 147. 17Paul Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory:Discourse and the Surplus ofMeaning(Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian Univ. Press, 1976). See also Norman H. Holland, The Dynamics ofLiterary Response (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968); ReWolfgang Iser, The Act ofReading: A Theory ofAesthetic

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

366
(1985); Hans-Jiirgen Krumm, "Die Veriinderung der Lehrer-Lerner Interaktion durch Ernstnehmen der Kursteilnehmerim Fremdsprachenunterricht," New Yorker Werk1982 (Miinchen: Kemmler & Hoch, 1983). stattgespriich

Claire Kramsch
40Carrell (see note 11 above). 411 am grateful to my colleagues Catherine Chvany, Edith Waldstein, and Robert DiDonato fortheirvaluable editorial comments on this paper.

Informationabout The Modern LanguageJournal

1. Major Focus: devoted primarilyto methods, pedagogical research, and topics of professional interestto all language teachers; publishes pedagogical articles,reports, teaching tips, news, book reviews, current advertisements, and occasional articles on the scene in Washington, DC, as they relate specificallyto foreignlanguage researchers, teachers, and students. fourtimes per year; each issue is 2. Frequency ofPublication: approximately 150 pages. 3. Language of Publication:English. double4. Format typewritten, forSubmission: ofManuscripts spaced throughout (including notes, tables, figures, quotes); leave a 2" left margin and 1 Y" margins on all other sides. twentypages or shorterpreSuggested Length ofArticles: ferred (excluding notes and tables); longer ones acceptable, depending on merit; shorterones quite welcome. RequiredStyle:MLA StyleSheet(second edition). Number ofManuscript CopiesRequired:original and two clear photocopies. Only the original will be returned. evaluation is done by at least EvaluationofManuscripts: two specialist readers. Multiple Submission: manuscripts submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere cannot be con15. Numberof Book ReviewsPublished per Year: 150-200. 16. Circulation: approximately 7,000. 17. AverageRate of Acceptance: approximately 15-18% of manuscripts submitted are accepted. 18. Payment: receive two complimentary authors of articles copies of the issue in which their work is published; reviews receive one complimentarycopy authors of book of the issue containing their work. available at cost, but must be ordered at the 19. Offprints: time authors receive galley proofs. 20. Special Requirements: a) include a brief (fiftywords), double-spaced biographical statementthat includes the highestdegree of the author(s) and the name of the institutiongranting it; b) include a self-addressedenvelope and $4.00 in loosepostage to be used in the evaluation process, on correspondence, for returning the manuscript, or forwardinggalley proofs; and c) identification: because the MLJ adheres to a "blind refereeing"policy (meaning that field readers do not know whose manuscript they are evaluating), authors must devote some special attentionto the preparationof a manuscript. a) Place a cover sheet on the manuscript that includes the followinginformation:titleof manuscript, separate shorttitle(see b below) foridentification, name, address, and both the office and home telephone numbers of the author. of the manuscript,selectone or two key title b) From the words to function as identificationmarkers; type those words at the top right of each page of the manuscript followed by the appropriate page number. Be sure thatall pages of the manuscriptcontain that ID marker and a page number. c) When you cite the author's previous publications, referencemust be made to them in the third person: not"as I said in my 1977 article," but,"as John Q. Public said in his 1977 article." Upon acceptance of the manuscript, the editorial staffwill convert the third person citations to the firstperson.

5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

sidered. The ModernLanguageJournal. 10. Copyright: TheModernLanguage 11. Ownership: Journalis owned by the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations (NFMLTA) and published by it at the University of Wisconsin Press. The MLJ has no legal relationship to the Modern Language Association of America (MLA). and Publication: 12. Timebetween usually no longer Acceptance than one year; often within six months. and Decision: normally Submission 13. AverageTime between sixty days; longer for manuscripts received during summer and/or vacation periods. Published 14. NumberofArticles per Year: 30-40.

This content downloaded from 202.92.130.56 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:11:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions