Articulating the Relationship between Language, Literature, and Culture: Toward a New

Agenda for Foreign Language Teaching and Research

Author(s): Daniel Shanahan
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 81, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 164-174
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations
Stable 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 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 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Articulating the Relationship
Between
Language,
Literature,
and Culture: Toward a New
Agenda for Foreign Language
Teaching
and Research
DANIEL SHANAHAN
Department of English
Groupe
HEC
78351
Jouy-en-Josas
France
Email:
shanahan@gwsmtp.hec.fr
Today, university
teachers of
foreign language (FL)
in the U.S. face a
pedagogical
environ-
ment in which two
camps
have
developed,
one
basing
its
emphasis
on communicative
competence,
the other on the
importance
of
exposure
to culture
and,
especially,
literature.
The reliance of the former on data from
empirical
studies often conflicts with the
feelings
of the latter that
nonquantitative,
intuitional
aspects
of
language learning
are essential to
language acquisition.
However,
much research into the role of culture and literature in
language learning
remains to be done so that these
feelings may
be articulated and
applied
systematically
to the
development
of
materials,
syllabi,
and curricula. Areas in which such
articulation
might
take
place
include:
(a)
the extent to which
language
itself is laden with
affect that
may
be
catalyzed
as an inducement to
learning; (b)
the extent to which the
affective element is embedded in the nature of
symbolic expression-and
thus
metaphor,
myth,
and
literature; (c)
the
specific ways
in which
language
and literature
may
encode
culture and have an affective
impact
on learners in the classroom. Research
already
exists
that lends itself to a close examination of these areas.
By taking advantage
of that
research,
FL
teaching
in the U.S. could establish the
importance
of literature and culture in the
language
classroom in
ways
that would
solidify
its role in an environment
fraught
with
transformation and
change.
IN AN EXCEPTIONALLY THOUGHTFUL AR-
ticle
published
in the
ADFL Bulletin
in the Win-
ter of
1993,
Henning attempted
to confront
what
may
be one of the most
pervasive
and
yet
perennially
unresolved dilemmas faced
by
uni-
versity
teachers of
foreign language (FL)
in the
U.S.
today.'
The
complexity
of this dilemma is
revealed
by
the
difficulty
one has in
stating
it in
a
satisfactory way.
Formulated
by
a
management
professor,
it
might go something
like "How can
FL
departments justify offering
literature
courses when our students can'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 contribute to
language learning
when communicative com-
petence
must
clearly
be our
goal?" Expressed by
a member of a FL
department
whose
degree
work was in
literary
studies,
one
might
hear
any-
thing
from
"Why
can't these
people
see that
literature is as central to
language learning
as
management vocabulary
and cloze tests?" to
"Should I
go
on
beating my
head
against
this
The Modern
Language Journal,
81,
ii
(1997)
0026-7902/97/164-174 $1.50/0
?1997
The Modern
Language Journal
This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Daniel Shanahan 165
wall or take
my
brother's offer to
join
his real
estate
firm?"'2
All these
questions
are,
of
course,
over-
simplified
characterizations of the more ex-
treme
positions
in the debate that we are
trying
to
describe.3 However,
I doubt that
anyone
fa-
miliar with the debate would fail to
recognize
the tendencies and biases that each characteri-
zation
represents.
Moreover,
it is
revealing
that
all the
questions
asked in these characteriza-
tions
(except, perhaps,
for the
last)
are rhetori-
cal,
for it is
quite
clear that the debate has at
least the undercurrent of adversarial
perspec-
tives,
well staked-out
territory,
and,
as is often
the case in
cross-disciplinary disputes,
conflict-
ing premises.
Those
premises
will be discussed
later in this article.
Professor
Henning
(1993)
tried to address
the
problem
as an administrator situated in a
language
and literature
department,
who is
sympathetic
to 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,
that culture must be woven into
the curriculum and that literature is one fea-
ture
among many
in the cultural domain that
provides
what one
might
call "added value" be-
yond
the level of
language acquisition. "Through
literature,"
she
says,
"students can
develop
a
full
range
of
linguistic
and
cognitive
skills,
cul-
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 in
Henning's (1993)
ar-
ticle are
important
ones,
and
they highlight
as-
pects
of the dilemma that are all too often
ig-
nored
by
both sides: the need for a
clearly
identifiable set of functional
goals,
for
instance,
and the need to
recognize
the added value that
the
study
of
literature-any literature--brings
with it.
However,
if there is a weak
point
to Hen-
ning's
article,
it is its failure to confront an
underlying-and
I
suspect largely unexamined--
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 the curriculum. For while 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
recast the
premise
that has forced those teach-
ers onto the defensive: the
prevalent
attitude in
the U. S. that FL
learning
is
fundamentally
an
exercise with utilitarian
(i.e., career) goals
and
that those
goals
should be the
predominating
factor in the
development
of the
language
cur-
riculum,
especially
with
regard
to methods and
materials.4
Although
it is
rarely
stated so
baldly
as
this,
no one in or close to the
profession
is
likely
to
disagree
that the environment sur-
rounding
the
teaching
of FL is
heavy
with such
reductively
utilitarian
logic. Henning's
article
cites several illustrations of that
logic
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
are often at the fore-
front of demands 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,
or cul-
ture)
that
may
allow
language
teachers to be-
come more assertive about their
importance.
This last
example, especially,
underlines the
shortcomings--let
us
say
the
incompleteness-
of
any
functional-structural solution to the di-
lemma faced
by
teachers of
language
and litera-
ture
today. Although
it
may
be
heartening
to
see that the climate of
opinion
seems to be
changing
in the favor of
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
that increased interest in
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
does make it an im-
portant
tool in curriculum
development.
The
danger
of
taking
too much comfort from the
favorably changing
environment is that it
may
distract us from a
question
that is far more cen-
tral to our own
profession
and to its
premises:
What is it that convinces us that literature
has,
in and of
itself,
something deeply significant
to
contribute to the
process
of
language learning,
whatever the ultimate
goals
of the learner
may
be,
and how do we articulate that
"something"
in a
way
that establishes us on firm
ground
in
the
contemporary professional
environment?
Clearly,
the
problem
of the
contemporary
professional
environment is 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 is based
largely
on
nonforeign
lan-
This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
166 The Modern
Language Journal
81
(1997)
guage teaching (i.e., English
as a second lan-
guage[ESL])
and
premised
on the belief that
data-based research is the most valid means of
developing
and
applying
a
language teaching
rationale. In such an
environment,
the lan-
guage
and literature teacher
may
understanda-
bly
feel like an alien from another
planet
be-
cause
(a)
he or she believes
intuitively
in the
value of literature and
(b)
data-based rationales
seem
completely inapplicable
to that intuition.
With
respect
to the second of these
points,
we
must,
I
think,
temper any hopes
of an
easy
rec-
onciliation of
views,
at least in the short term:
Data-based research on literature's
impact just
does not seem to work
(though
this
might
even-
tually change
if we establish firm
ground upon
which it could be
conducted),
and the
premises
of the two
camps--data-based
and
literature--
are not
likely
to find
many
overt
points
of
agree-
ment without a further articulation of
premises
on the
part
of the
latter.5
This
brings
me to the
first
point
of
my argument: Although
the litera-
ture
camp
(one
should
say, perhaps,
literature-
culture
camp
because the
two,
when taken to
mean "the
'informingspirit'
of a whole
way
of life"
(Williams, 1982,
p.
11),
are often
closely
linked
in
pedagogical practice) may
not
yet
be able to
offer
convincing
data-based research for the im-
portance
of literature in the
learning
of a
FL,
I
believe that it can do a
better,
more
comprehen-
sive,
and more
systematic job
of
explaining
the
underpinnings
of the intuitive conviction that
literature does have an
important impact
on de-
veloping
communicative
competence
in the lan-
guage
learner.
Furthermore,
we 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 on
language
learners is the fact that the intuitive
nature of our belief in the value of literature for
the
language
learner
(which
itself
springs
in no
small
part
from the fact that much of litera-
ture's
impact
takes
place
at a subliminal
level)
sometimes
spills
over into our notions of how
that
impact
can be articulated. That is to
say,
in
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 convic-
tion of literature's contribution to
language
learning
in terms that are, or seem to them to
be, counterintuitive. However, one must avoid
confusing
the issues here: The fact that intu-
itions about the
impact
of literature do not
seem at first
glance
reconcilable with the more
empirically
based
premises
of data-based re-
search does not mean that one cannot
develop
a
rationale for those intuitive
beliefs,
even a
highly
detailed and
systematic
one. As students
of
literature,
we believe in the value of
analyzing
intuitive forms of
knowledge;
we should not hesi-
tate to use those same
analytical
skills to
deepen
our
understanding
of so central an
aspect
of
our
own world view as literature's
impact
on the
language
learner.
How do we
begin?
Where do we uncover a
rationale in the endless volumes that have been
written on the nature of literature
and,
if
possi-
ble,
match it with what we have learned in the
relatively
recent
past
about the nature of lan-
guage learning?
I think we can build on two
things: (a)
our own
personal
encounters with
literature and
(b)
a
gap
of
significant propor-
tions in current second
language acquisition
(SLA)
research with
respect
to the role of af-
fect. Let me address the first of these
by
re-
counting
a
personal experience
that,
although
it does not
specifically
reflect the
language
learning setting,
illustrates all the same an im-
portant aspect
of the nature of
literary
encoun-
ters
and,
especially,
some of the cultural fea-
tures
they embody.
Shortly
after
finishing graduate
school,
I had
the
opportunity
to conduct a
travel-study
tour
of the
People's Republic
of China. At the
time,
I
was involved in
studying ideological
back-
grounds
to
literature,
especially
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 submerged
in the
East-West/North-South
encounter that a
trip
to
China
represented;
the
impact
of the cultural
experience
far
outweighed any ideological
in-
sights
I
might
have had.
Moreover,
a month af-
ter
my
return,
I
accepted
a
year-long Fulbright
fellowship
on the Dalmatian coast of
Yugoslavia,
and
very quickly, my
2 weeks in China became a
distant,
dream-like
memory.
Five
years
later,
while
preparing
for a course on literature across
cultures,
I
picked up
an
English
translation of
Dream
of
Red
Mansions,
the classic
18th-century
Chinese novel, and
began
to read the first
chap-
ter.
Suddenly,
after
only
a few
paragraphs,
I
found
myself
awash in the sensations of
my trip
5
years
before: Here, after so
long,
was China,
the
mysterious, definitively
non-Western
entity
that I had
experienced
so
intensely
but with
which I had lost touch. It was like
tasting
This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Daniel Shanahan 167
Proust's madeleinewith an almost
hallucinogenic
intensity.
Yet almost
immediately,
I was
brought
up
short
by
the
logical inconsistency
of these
sensations. I had visited
20th-century, post-
Mao,
Marxist
China;
how could an
18th-century
novel about aristocratic China
trigger
the flavor
of that
experience
so
intensely?
There could be
only
one
answer,
of course: the
power
of
literary
language
and the
complex coding
of culture
that is embedded into it. 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 I have little to
say
that will refute
such
objections,
at least on their own terms.
However,
anyone
who has
enjoyed
literature will
understand that
(a)
literature is a
powerful
ve-
hicle for all kinds of evocative
material, (b)
that
material is released in a moment of catharsis
when the reader is
exposed
to
it,
and
(c)
much
literature carries with it
strong
undercurrents
of the time and
place
in which it was
written--
undercurrents that have
just
as much emotional
impact
when
they
are released as do such fea-
tures of
literary production
as
character,
struc-
ture,
pacing,
and the like. No one who has
genu-
inely exposed
himself or herself to a work
by
Dickens can claim to be a
stranger
to the world
of
19th-century
Britain;
no one who has read
Dante can visit
contemporary Italy
without a
sense of
deja
vu.
These are
aspects
of the
study
of literature that we take for
granted.
However,
because
they
involve
experience
that is
heavily
laden with
emotion--"affect"
in
psychological
parlance-and
because that
may
make them
suspect
when scrutinized in a formalistic re-
search
setting,
we often fail to see them for what
they
are: "data" -albeit of a different kind than
the word
normally implies-that
is,
clear evi-
dence that there is a feature of the
literary expe-
rience that
goes beyond
aesthetics,
at least in its
more
narrowly
defined sense. Most
language
teachers who have been trained in literature
feel that this "data" reflects the fact that litera-
ture
represents
a means of
powerfully energiz-
ing
the
learning
of
language.
Let us shift for 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
teachers of
language
to do their
jobs
well. However, when one
surveys
the land-
scape
of
language pedagogy through
examina-
tion of such features as textbooks
designed
for
teacher
training programs
in
language study,
one is struck
by
a
glaring gap
in research about
the extent to which the affective side of the lan-
guage learning experience 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 extent on the
positive
emotional
aspects
of the
learning process,
but
they
are not
infrequently relegated
to the mar-
gins
of SLA
theory:
A
glance
at the index of
almost
any contemporary
text for teacher train-
ing
under "affect" or "emotion" reveals entries
such as "affective filter"8 or "emotional blocks
to
learning."
In other
words,
there is a
strong
tendency
to see the affective side of
language
learning primarily
as an
obstacle,9
and one
finds almost no discussion of how
language
it-
self
may
be laden with affect that can be turned
to the learner's
advantage.
Yet the affective element of
language clearly
has a
profound ability
to
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 combine music and mean-
ing,
sound and
sense,
to draw us into
language
and
may
be
every
bit as
strong
in their
impact
as
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
virtue of the fact that
they
are
human,
contain affective
elements,
whether
they
are un-
dertaken in our native
language
or in another
tongue.
However,
current SLA
theory, particularly
theory
that
springs
from data-based
research,
rarely engages
the
question
of how the
positive
features of
linguistic
affect
may
be
brought
to
bear on
language learning.
There is, to be sure,
no fault in the fact:
Applied linguistics, by
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
in the
American environment. Whatever the vehicle,
the
squeaky
wheels tend to attract more atten-
This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168 The Modern
Language Journal
81
(1997)
tion than those that
spin effortlessly,
and thus it
is
only
natural that the learner's resistances
leap
to the forefront of the researcher's field of
vision.
Practical obstacles to
language learning,
how-
ever,
represent only
half the
story
of the affec-
tive
aspects
of the
learning process,
as research
into first
language acquisition
is
beginning
to
show
(e.g.,
Ochs, 1986; Locke, 1995).
We need to
know much more about how to invoke the affec-
tive domain as an inducement to
learning, espe-
cially
with
respect
to the
ways
in which the affec-
tive
loading
inherent in
language
can be turned
to the learner's
advantage.
There is a need for a
close and
systematic
look at this side of lan-
guage learning
and for the
development
of a
model that would
help
us better understand
how it works.
Moreover,
I would
argue
that such
research,
when combined with a
systematic
ar-
ticulation of some of the intuitive beliefs of lan-
guage
teachers whose
background
is in litera-
ture and
culture,
could form the basis of a new
agenda
for
examining
the
relationship
between
language learning,
literature,
and culture. The
premises upon
which such an initiative would
be based are
quite simple:
1. There is a clear
gap
in current SLA
theory
and research about the affective features of lan-
guage
itself and the
ways
in which those fea-
tures
might
become an inducement to
language
learning.
2. Literature is one of the forms of
language
that most
calculatingly plays upon
affect as an
inducement to communication.
3. The cultural features of literature
repre-
sent a
powerful merging
of
language,
affect,
and intercultural encounters and often
provide
the
exposure
to
living language
that a FL stu-
dent lacks.
We
have,
in reverse
order,
discussed the first
two of these
items;
let's look at the third for a
moment. In Context and Culture in
Language
Teach-
ing,
Kramsch
(1993)
has
masterfully
laid out
some of the
questions surrounding
the
ways
in
which one deals with the cultural and
literary
interface in the
teaching
of FL.
Among
her
most valuable constructs is the notion of "third
places"-a
kind of neutral
ground
that the
learner must discover for him or herself in
order to arbitrate between the familiar world of
the native
tongue
and the new world of the FL
(chap. 8).
This notion of "third
places"
illus-
trates a
pivot upon
which the
relationship
of
affect and culture turn.
Imagine,
for a moment,
that
languages
and the cultures with which
they
are associated are
planets,
each with a
gravita-
tional
pull.
A learner is a kind of
space
traveler
attempting
to move from Planet A-his or her
own native
language
and culture-to Planet
B-a second or
foreign language
and culture.
The
gravitational pull
of the home
planet,
A,
is
one of the
many
affective resistances that make
"liftoff" and
"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
embarks,
and that influence will
draw the traveler towards Planet B from the
outset,
with
increasing
force as the final desti-
nation is neared. In the case of
many
FL
learners,
Kramsch's "third
places" might
be
seen as
reflecting
the
period during
the
jour-
ney
when the
gravitational pull
of Planet B be-
gins
to become
dominant,
but at which
point
the learner
begins
to become conscious of the
differing
features of Planet B's
gravity.
At 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,
at the same
time,
the new and
perhaps very
distinct features of Planet B's
grav-
itational
pull begin
to become
apparent,
and
the traveler must
begin
to
negotiate
the differ-
ences between A and B in a whole
variety
of
ways:
Planet B's relative mass
may
be smaller
than that of Planet
A,
its
density may
be
greater,
its
magnetic poles may
be
reversed,
and it
may
or
may
not rotate on an axis. All of these factors
may
influence the nature of Planet B's
gravita-
tional
pull,
and those who
attempt
to inhabit its
surface must learn to
adjust
to these influences.
Language
teachers who believe
intuitively
in
the
power
of literature to influence
language
learning
have tended to do so on the basis of
their own travels across
languages
and
cultures,
many
of which
may
have been undertaken be-
cause of
necessity,
natural
gifts,
a
barnstorming
style,
or coincidence of
personal history.
We
have made our
voyages
and discovered in the
process-as
I did in
my experience
with Dream
of
Red Mansions--that literature is an instrument
that
gives
us
powerful readings
about the na-
ture of the
gravitational field(s)
that we have
encountered or will encounter.10
However,
if we
are to make
the
most of
the
personal discovery
that literature is one form of
very
valuable in-
strumentation on these
voyages,
we need to
know much more about the
physics
of cultural
and
linguistic gravitational pull
and the
way
in
which literature
helps
us to "read" it. Further-
more, we
especially
need to know much more
about the
way
in which the
gravitational pull
of
This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Daniel Shanahan 169
our students' destinations can be used to make
their
voyage
easier and more
productive.
Work done
by
Kramsch
(1993)
and others"
has
greatly
enhanced our
appreciation
of how
certain
parts
of the
voyage may
be facilitated
by
increased awareness of the features of the desti-
nation culture and their relation to
language
learning, allowing
us to focus on such elements
of intercultural encounters as
resistance,
the
need for tolerance of
ambiguity,
and a
compara-
tive
approach
to values and mores.
However,
we
lack an
interpretive
framework that will allow us
to
map
out
systematically
such
questions
as
what the affective nature of
language
is,
how
language
allows literature to
capitalize
on the
affective,
how literature
impacts
the
language
learner,
how that
impact
carries cultural
coding
along
with affective
impact,
and so on. In other
words,
we need an initiative that will allow us to
learn much more about
affect,
language,
litera-
ture,
and culture and to use the
findings gained
therein to enhance the
language learning expe-
rience.
Specialists
in a
variety
of related fields will be
more
qualified
than I to
identify
which
specific
areas of current research in
first, second,
and
foreign language acquisition,
discourse anal-
ysis, literary theory
and
criticism,
cross-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,
I think we must be aware
of what
Langer (1957)
calls "the obstacle of too
much
knowledge,"
that
is,
the
inability
to assemble
an overview
by
virtue of "the so-called 'find-
ings'
of
specialists
in other
fields,
'findings'
that
were not made with reference to our search-
ings,
and often leave the
things
that would be
most
important
for
us,
unfound"
(p. 218).
How-
ever,
if the ultimate
goal
is
kept
in mind-the
need to
develop
a
systematic
rationale for the
intuitive faith that
many
of us
place
in the value
of literature in the
language learning experi-
ence-it should be
possible
to distill the infor-
mation that we need from the
myriad
sources at
our
disposal
and to construct that ratidnale.
There are several areas that seem to
require
close examination.
First,
there is much work to
be
done,
even at the
epistemological level,
about the
relationship
between affect and lan-
guage.
Because of
language's unique
role as a
vehicle for
higher cognitive functions, which
also makes it the ideal medium
through
which
to view some of those functions, discussion of
language
tends to focus on the
cognitive.
As we
have seen, this is no less true of the discussion
of
language learning.
However, it is
quite
clear
that
language
has roots
deep
in the affective
dimension of the human
experience,12
and the
nature of that
relationship
is critical to our un-
derstanding
of the
process
of
language
learn-
ing, especially
with
respect
to the role of litera-
ture and culture and to the
way
in which
they
can contribute to what we
might
call the "affec-
tive
magnet,"
that is, the
power
to turn affect
into an inducement rather than an obstacle to
learning.
Some of the work
currently being
done in first
language acquisition
will
help
even
out the balance of our interest in the
cognitive
and affective sides of
language.
However, much
remains to be done to illuminate the extent to
which the
very
nature of
language
itself is inher-
ently
laden with
affect,
even at such basic levels
as
morphology
and the
origins
of
language.13
Moreover,
any
discussion of the affective na-
ture of the interaction between the
language
learner and the literature of the
target language
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
bring
with
them,
and new worlds
may require interpretive
tools
that not
only
measure
things differently,
but
also measure
things
heretofore unmeasurable.
If
language
teachers are 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 if he or she is to understand
the new environment
fully. Any attempt
to un-
derstand
systematically
the role of affect in the
language learning process
will have to include a
detailed examination of the learner's character
and culture and all the variables
implied
therein.14
Second,
if we are to
probe deeply
into the
nature of literature's
impact
on the
language
learner,
we also need to
develop
a model that
takes us from
language through myth, symbol-
ism,
and
metaphor
to the
literary
work itself.
That is to
say,
we need to
revivify
a branch of
theoretical discourse that contributed much to
our
understanding
of these elements of human
expression
in the
early
and
middle
part
of this
century,1'5
but that seems to have borne little
subsequent
fruit in the rise of structuralist and
postmodernist
schools of
literary
criticism.
There is much to be
gleaned
from the
analytical
methods that deal with the
question
of
symbolic
expression,
such as the Freudian and
Jungian
schools, the work of
anthropologists
such as Sa-
This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170 The Modern
Language Journal
81
(1997)
pir
and
Malinowski,
and even the structuralist
anthropologists
such as Levi-Strauss.
However,
we need a unified model
that,
without
disput-
ing
the
interpretation
of one school or
another,
posits symbolic expression
as a
fundamentally
human characteristic and traces its
develop-
ment from the
emergence
of
language through
the birth of
myths, symbols,
and
metaphor
to
the
literary
work. There is an obvious intersec-
tion here between the
analysis
of the role of
affect in
language
and the
development
of such
a model: Much of what
myths, symbols,
and
metaphors
do is rooted in the affective dimen-
sion of the human
experience. By developing
a
unified model of how
symbolic expression
moves from
language
to literature-and
adding
the
assumption
that,
in some
way, phylogeny
re-
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 is
put
to work in the creation
of other forms of
symbolic expression,
such as
the
literary
text.
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 in lan-
guage
and artistic
expression,
but the added
dimension of
learning
a
FL,
which turns stu-
dents into
voyagers
across intercultural
space.
A
working
model of the
relationship
between lan-
guage
and culture that can be
applied
to the
language learning experience
is
absolutely
es-
sential to
any systematic
articulation of the
ways
in which literature
may
contribute to that
expe-
rience. The
relationship
between culture and
language
is a
topic
with a curious and somewhat
controversial
history
in the
20th-century,
due in
no small
part
to the fact that it is often associ-
ated with the
Sapir-Whorf analysis,
which has
itself
swung
in and out of favor since it
began
to
emerge
on the
linguistic
scene over a half cen-
tury ago.16
The notion that
language
is instru-
mental in both
creating
and
expressing
a cul-
ture's
"informing spirit"
(Williams, 1982,
p.
15)
is as old as Herder and
Vico,
but a debate that
hovers between cultural determinism and cul-
tural relativism has sometimes made it difficult
to focus on
developing
a model of how lan-
guage may
reflect culture and vice versa. How-
ever, such a model will be essential to
any sys-
tematic examination of the
ways
in which
literature
may
contribute to
language learning,
and its
development
will
require
us to
identify
more
rigorously
the
specific
discourse strate-
gies,
from
grammatical
nuances to rhetorical
and
metaphorical devices, that characterize cul-
tures where the
target language
is
spoken,
as
well as those that
may distinguish
one
target
language
culture or subculture from
another.17
Recent
works8
in discourse
analysis
and
sys-
temic
grammar suggests
that the
conceptualiza-
tions that one needs to
develop
such a
working
model have
begun
to
appear.
Some of this work
follows
upon Kaplan's (1966)
seminal "Cultural
Thought
Patterns in Intercultural
Education,"
taking
the notion that "the rhetorical structure
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 a social context and that such features as
register repertoires
"are not identical across
[language]
communities"
(Hasan
&
Perrett,
1994,
p.
182):
This
approach
then sets out to
analyze
the
variety
of
ways
in which the cultural
context
may
influence,
not
merely
the values
and
perceptions
that one tries to
express,
but
the
ways
in which
they
are
expressed,
even at
the level of
grammar
and
syntax.
It remains to be seen whether or not the de-
velopment
of such a
working
model-or mod-
els,
because we are
dealing
here with an almost
infinite number of
languages,
cultures,
and
subcultures--would
then allow us to
develop
a
template whereby
one could use a culture's lin-
guistic practices
to
identify
its salient charac-
teristics.
Anyone
who
might squirm
at the no-
tion that this
approach
runs the risk of cultural
determinism should remember Kramsch's
(1993) remark,
"Because of the
multiplicity
of
meanings
inherent in
any
stretch of
speech ...
any
established 'culture' is
alternately adopted
and
contested,
adapted
and
ironicized,
by
the
emergence
of new
meanings" (p.
67). By
devel-
oping
a
profile
of the discourse
strategies
char-
acteristic of a culture's use of its
language,
we
should then be able to enter into a discussion
about which kinds of
literary
texts serve as navi-
gational
instruments for students as
they
make
their
linguistic voyages
across cultures. In the
absence of
discovering
a DNA-like feature that
allows us to
identify
cultural
coding
in litera-
ture,
a
quest perhaps
better left to the struc-
tural
anthropologists
for the foreseeable
future,
such discussions could be
expected
to afford us
a much-needed
methodological
basis
upon
which both to choose materials for students of
language
and to
help
new teachers
bring
their
own intuitions to bear on the use of literature in
their
syllabi.
Of course, the use of literature for FL stu-
dents is, a
priori,
limited to the
degree
of
profi-
This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Daniel Shanahan 171
ciency
that
they enjoy
in the
target language.
Even with a model or models of the kind I have
described
here,
one must decide such
questions
as "how
much," "when,"
and "which
literary
works" before
reaching
the final
goal
of
syllabi
that maximize the
potential
that literature has
to
offer.19 However,
all too
often,
the fact that
not all literature is accessible to
language
learners at all
proficiency
levels
provokes
a ten-
dency
to fall back on the kind of
reductively
utilitarian
logic
mentioned at the
opening
of
this article. If research into the areas described
in this article
begins
with the
premise
that
any
use of literature must be based on the extent to
which students' levels allow them access to a
literary
work,
insights
offered
by
that research
could be correlated and combined with what we
already
know about how cultural values are em-
bedded in such
literary
features as theme and
narrative20 and with
many
of the
topics
that stu-
dents of literature have discussed for centuries:
the
power
of
imagery,
the "rhetoric" of the work
of
art,
the
ways
in which the affective features of
language qua language
resonate with the affec-
tive
language
and content of
literature,
and 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,
such as
television,
popular
music,
and even commercial
advertising, might
have on the
language learning experience.21
What is the
likely
outcome of all of this? No
doubt there will be some
adjusting
of our intu-
itive
assumptions.
There remain those scholars
and teachers who like to think that literature is
nothing
less than the
epitome
of
linguistic
ex-
pression
and that we should be asked to do no
more than
expose
students to the
pinnacles
of
language
and civilization that
literature repre-
sents. As one who would be
happy
to live a life
in
deep contemplation
of
great literary
works
with
engaged
students,
I have no doubt that
such
expectations
and the attitudes
they repre-
sent must be balanced
by
realistic assessments
of how literature and communicative
compe-
tence
complement
one
another;
a
systematic
re-
view of the
premises upon
which we base our
belief in literature's value in the
language
learn-
ing
classroom
will,
no
doubt,
force us to
temper
our
grandest
dreams a bit.
Our fundamental
goal
as
language profes-
sionals is to
expand
and enrich the
lives
of our
students and the
society
in which
they
live. Our
dedication to that
goal,
both at the
personal
and
professional levels, has sustained our com-
mitment to humanistic
study
even when it ex-
ists,
as is so often the
case,
on a
bleakly unrecep-
tive
landscape.
However,
our dedication and
commitment have not
yet
been
complemented
with a
systematic
rationale that would allow
us,
not
only
to defend ourselves
against
those who
harbor the
suspicion
that the humanities are
archaic and
"soft,"
but to understand more
fully
the
advantages
that our
perspective
offers
and to use those
advantages
to
accomplish
our
goals
more
completely.
Some
empirically
minded,
"data-based" re-
searchers
truly
understand the benefits of intu-
itive
thought
and
recognize
that one cannot
have
quality
science without intuition and
sys-
tem in a
complementary relationship.22
In the
humanities,
there is no less need for such a bal-
ance;
nothing
is
likely
to contribute more to
research into
language learning today
than a
deeper,
more
systematic understanding
of how
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
some,
and
eliminate a few to be sure.
However,
in the
end,
this
process
will
provide
us with both a
vastly
more effective and
satisfying
set of tools for do-
ing
the work that we have chosen and a
great
measure of the self-assurance and 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 teachers and re-
searchers can
accomplish. They
face,
it is
true,
a
profoundly
difficult environment in which to
operate.
However,
by taking
the initiative and
establishing
the foundations for a solid and suc-
cessful educational
edifice,
they
not
only
shed
an
unnecessary
defensiveness,
but
may actually
achieve an uncommon
consistency
and reliabil-
ity
in an educational environment
fraught
with
transformation and
change.
NOTES
1
Special
thanks for their
help
in the
preparation
of
this article
go
to Richard
Kern,
Thomas
Miller,
and
Anthony
Clark. The author
would
also like to ac-
knowledge
the
Groupe
HEC
Faculty
Research Pro-
gram
for the financial assistance it
provided
toward
conducting bibliographical
work related to the
topics
discussed herein.
2 The discussion of literature's role in the FL class-
room is not a new one. Some of the
overriding
themes
This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172
The Modern
Language Journal
81
(1997)
of the discussion
appear
in
Povey (1972), Seelye
(1976),
Marckwardt
(1978),
Widdowson
(1982, 1990),
and Kramsch
(1993).
3 Moreover,
the issues discussed herein are affected
by
a
variety
of other
factors,
such as administrative
structures and
prerogatives, proficiency
standards,
intercultural
perspectives
on
literacy
and 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. The contrasts that exist between the two
camps
that are examined here have been chosen be-
cause
they highlight
an
ambiguity
in the
perspective
of one
camp.
Resolution of that
ambiguity
could,
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 between the use of literature and culture
in
language learning
and the
many
related issues that
concern
language teaching professionals.
4 For a
program
rationale that includes career ob-
jectives
but
emphasizes
a number of intermediate fac-
tors in the
logic
of its
design,
see Shanahan
(1993, pp.
23-24).
5
The tension between
qualitative
and
quantitative
perspectives
is,
in
many respects,
a 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
greater
for
any generalization
one
might
make about
the cultural resonances that translated literature
may
produce.
Steiner
(1992)
has addressed
many
of these
problems,
as has Barnstone
(1993). However,
I do not
believe the fact that I was
reading
a translation dimin-
ishes the
validity
of the
experience.
If this translation
was able to act as a
potent
cultural "carrier"
despite
the attendant
problems
of lexical
correspondences
between
languages, stylistic strategies,
tone,
and
pac-
ing,
it
supports
the idea that there is
great
residual
power
in the
way
literature encodes culture's affective
features.
7 The
possibility
that the formation of a
hologram
directly parallels
the
way
in which
memory
is stored
and recalled has been
extensively explored by
neuro-
psychologist
Karl Pribram
(1971). Anthropologist
Francis L. K. Hsu
(1983)
offers an
interesting
inter-
pretation
of the differences between Chinese and
Western fiction, including
Dream
of
Red
Mansions,
but
does not discuss
language per
se.
8
A term formulated
by Dulay
and Burt
(1977).
9 Another
exception
to be mentioned is discussion
of "learner motivation,"
which
may
be "instrumen-
tal" (emanate from
occupational needs) or
"integra-
tive" (reflect
a desire to enter into the culture of the
target language group),
or both; see, for
example,
Schumann (1975) or Brown (1987).
This has been a
fruitful area of research; however, it 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,
there are limits to the
"gravitational
pull" metaphor,
and it
begins
to break down here:
Literature is much more than an instrument manu-
factured for data read-out. It
might
be better com-
pared
to
Superman's
nemesis,
"kryptonite":
a
piece
of the
planet
towards which we are
moving, charged
with features of that
planet's magnetic field-except,
of
course,
with the
power
to enhance our
ability
to
adjust,
rather than to diminish it.
11
See,
for
example,
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
could contain affec-
tive elements
may
violate the current notion that
there is no inherent
relationship
between individual
words and what
they
name,
but I must confess that I
have never been
entirely
satisfied with the
descrip-
tion of the
relationship
between words and what
they
represent
as
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, 1990)
without some form of
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
in what Cassirer
(1946) says
about
the
origins
of
language.
Of
course,
if
language
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,
some 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
acknowledging
the
biological
links that exist between us and them. I think there is
room for the same kind of
acknowledgement
in our
own attitudes towards
language,
both in its earliest
forms and in the form we know
today.
14
Rosenblatt's
(1995) long-lived study
of the
impor-
tance of the reader in the
teaching
of literature re-
mains a benchmark in
reader-response
criticism;
chapter
8,
"Emotion and
Reason,"
is
especially appli-
cable to the
question
of how learners must cross
boundaries that take them
beyond
the confines of
their own cultural constructs. For other discussions of
reader-response theory,
see Iser
(1978),
Fish
(1980),
and Scholes's
(1985) critique
of Fish.
15
I 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, sociologists,
and
psychologists.
For the
latter, see Part 4 of Parsons, Shils, Naegele,
and Pitts
(1961).
16 Hoijer (1988) views Sapir-Whorf quite positively;
Pinker (1994) almost dismisses Whorf out of hand;
Montgomery (1986) tries to take a balanced
approach.
This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Daniel Shanahan 173
17 For
example,
British
English
and American
English
differ
sufficiently
so that one would almost
never
try
to use a
literary
text from one to
amplify
the
learning
of the
other,
except perhaps by way
of con-
trast. Yet at the same
time,
one would almost
certainly
expect
to find similarities between them that reveal
common differences
from,
say,
the cultures where
French is
spoken.
At an even
deeper
level of
compara-
tive
analysis,
it would be
interesting
to see how Cana-
dian
francophone
literature,
by
virtue of its
proximity
to
anglophone
North American
cultures,
might
re-
veal tendencies that one would not find in continen-
tal French literature.
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 grammar.
Bruner
(1986)
provides
an
interesting comparative analysis
of two
texts,
one scientific and the other
literary, using
Todorov's
(1978)
"transformations" as a means of
drawing
out differences between the scientific
argu-
ment and the
literary
narrative. It would be interest-
ing
to see whether or not such an
analysis might
be
done of
literary
texts across
languages
to tease out
characteristic cultural differences.
19 For an
attempt
to answer some of these
ques-
tions,
see Shanahan
(1987).
It is worth
remarking
in
this context that most teachers of literature deal with
relatively
advanced
students,
and that the lion's share
of SLA and ESL research focuses on earlier
phases
of
the
language learning experience;
this
has,
in
my
ex-
perience,
contributed
significantly
to the difficulties
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 and
Joag-dev (1984).
Kramsch
(1993)
cites further research on the same
topic (p. 124).
21
My
own
experience
is that these kinds of mate-
rials,
and others like
them,
have
great
usefulness,
es-
pecially
with
young
learners.
However,
I fear that
some texts
overplay
this
card,
trivializing
the
learning
of
language
in their
attempts
to make it "real-world."
Moreover,
the
homogenization
of
popular
culture in
the
contemporary global
environment
may
render it
increasingly
difficult to make cross-cultural distinc-
tions between
popular
cultural forms from 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 is
by
itself lethal"
(p. 237).
REFERENCES
Barber,
B.
(1995). fihad
vs. McWorld. New York: Times
Books.
Barnstone,
W.
(1993).
The
poetics of
translation:
History,
theory
and
practice.
New
Haven,
CT: Yale Univer-
sity
Press.
Bateson,
G.
(1988).
Mind and
nature:
A
necessary unity.
New York: Bantam.
Bickerton,
D.
(1990). Language
and
species. Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Brogger,
F.
(1992). Culture,
language,
text:
Culture studies
within the
study of English
as a
foreign language.
Oslo,
Norway:
Scandinavian
University
Press.
Brown,
H. D.
(1987).
Principles of language learning
and
teaching (2nd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Pren-
tice Hall.
Bruner,
J. (1986).
Actual
minds,
possible
worlds. Cam-
bridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
Burke,
K.
(1957).
The
philosophy of literary form.
New
York:
Vintage.
Carrell,
P. L.
(1983). Background knowledge
in sec-
ond
language comprehension. Language
Learn-
ing
and Communication
2,
25-33.
Cassirer,
E.
(1946). Language
and
myth. (S. Langer,
Trans.).
New York: Dover.
Dulay,
H.,
&
Burt,
M.
(1977).
Remarks on
creativity
in
language acquisition.
In M.
Burt,
H.
Dulay,
&
M. Finnochiaro
(Eds.), Viewpoints
on
English
as a
Second
Language (pp.
95-126).
New York:
Regents.
Fish, S. (1980).
Is there a text in this class?
Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
Hasan, R.,
&
Perrett,
G.
(1994). Learning
to function
with the other
tongue:
A
systemic
functional
perspective
on second
language teaching.
In
Terence Odlin
(Ed.), Perspectives
on
pedagogical
grammar (pp.
179-226). Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Press.
Henning,
S. D.
(1993). Integration
of
language,
litera-
ture and culture: Goals and curricular
design.
ADFL Bulletin, 24,
22-29.
Hoijer,
H.
(1988).
The
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.
In L.
Samovar & R. Porter
(Eds.),
Intercultural commu-
nication: A reader
(5th ed.,
pp.
225-232).
Bel-
mont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Hsu,
E
L. K.
(1983).
Mirrors of life. In
E
Hsu
(Ed.),
Rugged
individualism reconsidered
(pp. 176-196).
Knoxville,
TN:
University
of Tennessee Press.
Iser, W. (1978).
The act
of reading.
Baltimore,
MD:
Johns
Hopkins University
Press.
Kaplan,
R.
(1966).
Cultural
thought patterns
in inter-
cultural education.
Language Learning 16,
1-20.
Kaplan,
R.
(1985).
Cultural
thought patterns
revis-
ited. In U. Connor & R. B.
Kaplan (Eds.), Writ-
ing
across
languages: Analysis of
L2 text
(pp. 9-22).
Reading,
MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Kramsch,
C.
(1993).
Context and culture in
language
teach-
ing.
Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
Johnson,
P. (1981). Effects on
reading comprehension
of
building background knowledge.
TESOL
Quarterly, 16, 503-516.
Langer, S. (1957). Philosophy
in a new
key (3rd ed.).
Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1967). Structural
anthropology. (C.
Jacobson
&
B.
Schoepf, Trans.). Garden
City,
NY: Anchor.
This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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.),
The handbook
for spoken language (pp.
279-302).
London: Blackwell.
Malinowski,
B.
(1927).
The
problem
of
meaning
in
primitive languages.
In C. K.
Ogden
&
I.
A.
Richards
(Eds.),
The
meaning of meaning:
A
study of
the
influence of language upon thought
and
of
the sci-
ence
of symbolism (2nd ed.,
pp.
296-336).
New
York:
Harcourt,
Brace.
Marckwardt,
A.
(1978).
The
place of
literature in the teach-
ing of English
as a second
language.
Honolulu,
HI:
University
of Hawaii Press.
Martin,
J. (1989).
Factual
writing: Exploring
and
challeng-
ing
social
reality.
Oxford,
Oxford
University
Press.
Merrill,
A.
(1985). "Language charged
with mean-
ing": Incorporating
literature in the ESL cur-
riculum.
Unpublished paper.
The
Monterey
In-
stitute of International
Studies,
Monterey,
CA.
Montgomery,
M.
(1986).
An introduction to
language
and
society.
London:
Routledge.
Nostrand,
H. L.
(1988).
Culture in
language teaching:
The next
phase.
ADFL Bulletin, 20, 22-28.
Ochs,
E.
(1986).
From
feelings
to
grammar:
A Samoan
case
study.
In Schieffelin & E. Ochs
(Eds.),
Lan-
guage
socialization across cultures
(pp.
251-272).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Parsons, T., Shils, E.,
Naegele,
K.,
&
Pitts,
J. (Eds.)
(1961).
Theories
of society:
Foundations
of
modern so-
ciological theory.
New York: The Free Press.
Pinker, S. (1994).
The
language
instinct. New York:
Penguin.
Povey, J.
F.
(1972).
Literature in TESL
programs:
The
language
and the culture. In H. Allen & R.
Cambell
(Eds.), Teaching English
as a second lan-
guage (pp.
185-191).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pribram,
K.
(1971). Languages of
the brain.
Monterey,
CA: Brooks-Cole.
Purves,
A. C.
(1988). Writing
across
languages
and cultures:
Issues in contrastive rhetoric.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Rosenblatt,
L. M.
(1995).
Literature as
exploration
(5th
ed.).
New York: The Modern
Language
Asso-
ciation.
Sapir,
E.
(1921). Language.
New York:
Harcourt, Brace,
& World.
Scholes,
R.
(1985).
Textual
power: Literary theory
and the
teaching of English.
New
Haven,
NJ:
Yale Univer-
sity
Press.
Schumann, J.
H.
(1975).
Affective factors and the
problem
of
age
in second
language acquisition.
Language Learning,
25,
209-235.
Seelye,
H.
(1976). Teaching
culture:
Strategies for language
edu-
cators.
Skokie,
IL: National Textbook
Company.
Shanahan,
D.
(1987).
The affective dimension of liter-
ature in the
ESL/EFL
classroom. CDELT Occa-
sional
Papers,
8,
17-28.
Cairo,
Egypt:
Ain
Shams
University.
Shanahan,
D.
(1993). English department
reforms at
the Hautes Etudes Commerciales:
Entering
the
nineties. ADFL
Bulletin, 24,
22-28.
Shanahan,
D.
(1995).
The
emergence
of
language:
The theories of Ernst Cassirer and Merlin Don-
ald.
Agora,
1,
98-109.
Steffensen,
M.
S.,
&
Joag-dev,
C.
(1984).
Cultural
knowledge
and
reading.
In
J.
Alderson & A. Ur-
quhart
(Eds.), Reading
in a
foreign language (pp.
48-61).
London:
Longman.
Steiner,
G.
(1992). After
Babel
(2nd ed.).
London: Oxford.
Todorov,
T.
(1978). Poetique
de la
prose (choix). [
The
poetics
of prose (selections)]
Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Valez,
J.
M.
(Ed.). (1986).
Culture bound:
Bridging
the
cultural
gap
in
language teaching. Cambridge:
Cam-
bridge University
Press.
Whorf,
B. L.
(1956). Language, thought,
and
reality.
Se-
lected
writings of Benjamin
Lee
Whorf J.
Carroll,
(Ed.), Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Widdowson,
H. G.
(1982).
The use of literature. In M.
Hines & W. Rutherford
(Eds.),
On TESOL '81
(pp.
203-214). Washington,
DC: TESOL.
Widdowson,
H. G.
(1990). Aspects of language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
Williams,
R.
(1982).
The
sociology of
culture. New York:
Schocken.
Forthcoming
in The Modern
Language Journal
Alan Firth &
Johannes Wagner.
"On
Discourse, Communication,
and
(Some)
Fundamental
Concepts
in SLA
Research,"
with
response
articles
by Joan Kelly
Hall,
Gabriele
Kasper, Anthony
Liddicoat,
Michael H.
Long,
Nanda
Poulisse,
and Ben
Rampton.
Antonia Folarin Schleicher.
"Using Greetings
to Teach Cultural
Understanding"
R. C.
Gardner,
Paul F.
Tremblay,
& Anne-Marie
Masgoret.
"Towards a Full Model of Second
Language Learning:
An
Empirical Investigation"
Hidetoshi Saito & Masako Beecken. "An
Approach
to Instruction of
Pragmatic Aspects: Implications
of
Prag-
matic Transfer
by
American Learners of
Japanese"
David P. Benseler & Suzanne S. Moore.
" Doctoral
Degrees
Granted in
Foreign Languages
in the United States:
1996"
This content downloaded from 188.54.93.112 on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:36:21 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions