Friday
September 5, 2008
Advertisement
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Jan. 2, 2007
Dramatic Plan for Language Programs
A panel of some of the top professors of foreign languages has concluded that the programs that train undergraduate majors and new Ph.D.’s are seriously off course, with so much emphasis on literature that broader understanding of cultures and nations has been lost.
Related stories
- A Defining Election, April 25
- First-Year Writing Gets a New Look, Nov. 19
- Broader Vision for Languages, May 24, 2007
- Bringing Back the English Major, May 23, 2007
- Rethinking Tenure — and Much More, Dec. 8, 2006
The panel, organized by the Modern Language Association, wants to jettison the traditional model in which language instruction is followed primarily by literary study. In its place, the panel would like to see departments merge study of language and literature while adding more study of history, culture, economics, and society — in some respects turning language programs into area studies programs. The changes might be most dramatic in graduate programs, in part because the panel’s members believe that the professors who teach undergraduates need a much broader conception of their field.
The implications of this call for change are, several panel members said, “revolutionary” and potentially quite controversial. For example, the measures being called for directly challenge the tradition in which first and second-year language instruction is left in many departments to lecturers, who frequently play little role in setting curricular policy. The panel wants to see tenure-track professors more involved in all parts of undergraduate education and — in a challenge to the hierarchy of many departments — wants departments to include lecturers who are off the tenure track in planning the changes and carrying them out.
The overhaul could also prompt a rethinking of the way foreign language departments relate to the U.S. government. The last year has seen federal agencies take new interest in foreign language education — a shift that is welcomed by language professors but that also raises concerns for many who question whether military and intelligence officials really understand language education or have the right motives.
Professors involved with planning this overhaul said that they were doing so for educational reasons — and that part of their role is to promote federal policy that embraces educationally valid language programs. But some of the professors involved said that the effort would produce graduates who were far more valuable to the government (and business for that matter), as well as for education.
The MLA panel’s report has been completed, but it is still being reviewed by association leaders and has not been released. But some of the professors involved in the effort provided a briefing on their work last week at the association’s annual meeting, in Philadelphia. Formal steps to push the agenda could come as early as the spring.
Ending the ‘Literature-Centered’ Ph.D.
In graduate language education, “the teaching of literature has become an end in itself,” in a “triumph of historically dehydrated theory,” said Michael Geisler, a panel member who is dean of the language schools and study abroad and a professor of German at Middlebury College.
“Why do we insist on specializing” in literature, Geisler asked, when there are so many “urgent tasks” for language Ph.D.’s? He portrayed the ideal mission of these programs as providing new professors (or other professionals) with a deep understanding of culture and current societies that goes far beyond the literary tradition. “Narrative isn’t an end in itself,” he said.
For an association where members have historically been more focused on the meaning of Cervantes or Pirandello than that of the Euro or a united Germany, these are potentially fighting words. And Geisler stressed that the changes needed couldn’t be accomplished with a smattering of film or media studies. In fact he said he was not impressed with the “audiovisual creep” already seen in some programs. Rather he said that the “nice and cuddly” study of literature had to be revised based on “a re-evaluation of the entire content.”
Specifically, he said that the Ph.D. students who will be future professors (and through retraining, some current professors) need to understand both the “linguistic and metalinguistic” stories of their departments’ countries and regions. Every graduate program should include a course in applied linguistics, he said, focusing on the latest advances in understanding of cognition, identity, bilingualism, and other topics.
Proficiency needs to be demonstrated, he said, not only in language, literature and art, but in the mass media, society, history, economics, social welfare, religion, government and other aspects of society. A true “transcultural understanding” of a place is needed that can’t be achieved with a literary-dominated program, he said.
Geisler stressed that the panel was not against the study of literature, but against a “literature-centered model.” He said that the panel wants literature to be seen as “one of many forms of narrative to help us understand a given culture.”
Adding Relevance to the Major
At the undergraduate level, literature may still play a central role, but for majors as well, the program needs more breadth and relevance, said Haun Saussy, a panel member who is professor of comparative literature at Yale University. Without change, he said, the language major could become “a quaint artifact.”
Beyond adding more content beyond literature and language, Saussy said that the structure of most programs needs to change. Rather than starting with a focus on language basics and then moving to literature, a blended program will be sought. “We need high quality content from the beginning, and language to the end,” Saussy said.
This will require what he termed “a revolution” that will likely upset some senior faculty members, he said. Currently, most departments delegate instruction for the first few years of language study to lecturers, typically people who are off the tenure track and who in many cases lack Ph.D.’s. Recruitment of lecturers isn’t always taken seriously, and those hired are rarely included in curricular planning or development, Saussy said. Their job is viewed as “to drill students” on vocabulary and grammar.
“We’re going to need a good bit of retooling and supplementary hiring,” he said.
But he stressed that the panel wasn’t calling for the lecturers to be replaced. Rather, he said, it was time to “break down the hierarchy” and fully involve the lecturers in course planning and not to limit their roles.
At the same time, he said that to meet the needs the panel identified, he expected departments — especially those with both undergraduate and graduate programs — to broaden their hiring. For example, he said that a Chinese department at a major university (which he declined to name except to say that it is not his own) is currently negotiating to recruit an expert in Chinese law — who currently works at a law school — into its department.
How Close to Washington?
A subtext to the MLA reconsideration of how language programs should be run is a desire to benefit from the increased government interest in foreign cultures and languages. Language professors have complained for years that, although their work has the potential to help government, business, and society, they have not been turned to for advice.
Mary Louise Pratt, chair of the MLA panel and a professor of Spanish at New York University, said that a “perennial question” for scholars has been “how to secure public investment” in the contradictory environment of the United States. The United States is “a multilingual country” that views itself as the top world power and yet has had a “monolingualist ideology.”
In the last year, Pratt said, the Bush administration has started to reach out to academics on these issues, and she noted the summit meeting of college presidents organized by the Departments of State and Education. “We are in the room now,” Pratt said, noting that Rosemary Feal, the MLA’s executive director, was among those at the invitation-only event.
In discussions with those concerned about international education, Pratt said, she has heard “tremendous frustration about how literary study monopolizes the curriculum.” And while Pratt said that frustration was legitimate, she stressed that the association wanted to oppose “the securitization of language study.” For example, she said that political demands for training people in various languages tend to be short term, based on whatever part of the world has become a hot spot. But “language learning always a long-term process,” she said, adding that it was important to push an “intellectually driven agenda.”
Yale’s Saussy said that language professors may need to rethink some of their assumptions. He noted that the magazine of the American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages — many of whose members are in secondary schools — features ads from the Central Intelligence Agency seeking instructors. Saussy imagined the uproar that would follow if the PMLA, the MLA’s flagship journal, ran a similar ad.
Saussy said that an environment where the federal government is suddenly interested in foreign languages and (if the committee’s recommendations are adopted) departments are making their programs more relevant, professors may feel like they face “Faustian bargains” if they work with the government.
In such situations, he said, academics should not make their decisions based solely on their views of the Bush administration, since future administrations may “require less nose-holding” to work with. He also noted the positive contributions scholars could make to policy by training a generation of experts who might know much more about different parts of the world than do those who have run U.S. foreign policy in recent years.
Federal support for foreign languages might be viewed “as a rose to be plucked,” Saussy said — even if there are thorns of which to be wary.
Prospects for Change
In discussing their ideas, panel members noted that there are programs that are already making the kinds of changes that they want. Among those cited were the “multiple literacies” program being used at Georgetown University’s German program. In the program, content has been broadened, and professors have tried to eliminating the language/content dichotomy. NYU’s Latin American studies program was also praised by several.
But while those and some other programs exist, panel members stressed that they thought their criticisms applied to the vast majority of programs today. Pratt, the panel chair, said she realized that many of the ideas being proposed were controversial, and she said that she wasn’t sure what the MLA would decided to do with them.
Feal, the MLA executive director, said that the group’s Executive Council had already reviewed the report once, “with great interest and enthusiasm.” While leaders of the group have “great respect for what traditional scholars have done,” and have no intention of denigrating literary study, Feal said that it may be time for language departments “to evolve.”
“Everybody in society benefits,” she said, when foreign language programs receive more support and produce graduates at all levels with more skills. “But yes, we are talking about shaking things up in languages.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
useful suggestions
As an English professor currently chairing a Foreign Languages Department, I find the suggestions of the panel very reasonable and helpful. English departments are also moving toward a cultural studies model, which I take this to be, and inching away from the sole focus on literature (narrowly defined) at the upper division. Students come to language programs with a wide variety of needs and vocational goals (as they do English programs). The panel’s proposals will help them meet those goals, while also allowing those who wish to focus on literature the opportunity to do so. To my mind, these are suggestions that are student-centered and pragmatic, while also being academically rigorous and far-sighted. Good work!
Donald E. HallWest Virginia University
Donald E. Hall, at 9:20 am EST on January 2, 2007
good ideas, possibly problematic for lecturers
There are some good thoughts proposed by the panel, in particular with regard to the language/culture divide. As a former student of German and French and a current student of Swedish, I continue to find that the best language instruction immediately introduces questions of cultural practice. I also agree that tenure folks need to be more involved with language teaching. As to breaking down the hierarchy, though, this may be more complex to achieve. At my university, lecturers are strictly regulated in terms of what levels they may teach, and having more profs do lower division might result in a further weakening of our lecturers’ seniority and security.
Stephanie Hammer, professor, comparative literature at UC Riverside, at 12:20 pm EST on January 2, 2007
Good
The exclusive focus on literature is what discouraged me from pursuing a Ph.D. in Spanis and to pursue a different field instead. Had I been able to select a Ph.D. program that included broad, multidicsiplinary approach to Spanish America, I would have continued my language studies at the advanced level. I believe the MLA is on the right track.
David Ayers, Assistant Professor, at 2:55 pm EST on January 2, 2007
Those of us who teach at comprehensive universities have seen this sea change coming for a while. Many FL programs that stress “multiple literacies” exist at regional universities where students, faculty—and state legislators—have called for more “relevant” programs. Three years ago the FL faculty at Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw, GA) revised the language curriculum along the very lines suggested in this article. Beginning and intermediate courses follow ACTFL guidelines to assure that “high quality content” (cultural, literary, linguistic) is “blended” (Professor Saussy’s words), into all courses. We’re happy to share our experiences (successes and hurdles yet to clear) in this area: www.kennesaw.edu/foreignlanguage/majors.html.Bill Griffin, professor of French and Chair of the Department of Foreign Languages
I find this fascinating. I hold a PhD in German with my concentration in 18th century satire, yet in order to finance my passion for teaching language, I work as a publishers representative, selling ad space in American magazines to German-speaking clients. This not only takes advantage of my vast acquired cultural knowledge, but also keeps me abreast of political, social and economic matters in my countries of interest, which in turn informs my language instruction work.
Let’s be honest: there is no point in recruiting B.A. or M.A. majors in languages in the vague hope that they might get a job teaching literature someday, but there is enormous need for linguistically and culturally fluent job candidates, even if most American employers don’t know it. If we can see our way clear to providing true educations to our majors, they can still choose literature as a path if they wish (and I for one would do it again in a heartbeat) or they can use their education to contribute to society in other ways, without feeling, however unjustly so, that they wasted x years on their major.
Jeannie, Adjunct Faculty, at 4:36 pm EST on January 2, 2007
While I strongly agree with the goals of the report, I doubt that the MLA has enough influence over its senior membership to achieve them. I remember Clark Kerr’s grimly truthful comparison — “Changing a curriculum is like moving a graveyard.” Based on my experiences in a decade of working on both sides of the divide, things are not so different within the interested government organizations. But find a way to take control of language teaching away from the senior literature faculty and the rest would be easy.
, at 4:36 pm EST on January 2, 2007
ESL professionals have been doing this from the beginning, yet those of us who teach English as a second language continue to play second fiddle to traditional foreign language professionals. Perhaps they have finally been enlightened by 20th century SLA theory.
Brian Ary, Director at IELP, at 5:25 pm EST on January 2, 2007
I received my Ph.D. in Spanish literature after a very traditional “Language to literature” sequence (in Medieval Lit., no less). I wouldn’t give up this education for anything else. At the same time, I was also aware of what ACTFL was doing in the field of oral and written testing, which tended to emphasize less esoterica and more “real-life” experience. In my teaching, I have used both of my “backgrounds", but my classes are mostly ACTFL-based. Very few of my students will be great students of literature (although the more advanced will be exposed to a great deal of it), but most of them, and all of my majors, will need to survive in Spanish. With some imagination, it is possible to offer a wide variety of texts and readings and still keep the lessons “real life". In one of my classes, we study precolumbian and colonial texts, while basically learning forms, structures and vocabulary that will help on an everyday basis. I’ve dropped out of the MLA schema, not because it’s wrong per se, but because it’s elitist, and tends to look at only one way of studying language.
, at 10:45 pm EST on January 2, 2007
I do believe that it is important to expand curricular offerings to include more culture courses and courses such as economics, law, international relations, etc. However, I was disappointed to see how little the article discussed the extent to which literary studies has moved towards a cultural studies model, which effectively combines cultural, historical, and sociological knowledge with the study of literature. I felt the article (and perhaps the panel?) took as its point of departure a very “traditional” model of how literary studies has been taught, without seriously taking into account what many literary scholars are doing in their classrooms today, where students get a sense of how literature is a product of specific cultural, social, and political movements and practices. Literature courses often serve as a venue through which students gain keen insights into very specific cultural, social, and political practices, and many of our courses are not simply about the study of “narrative” in a void, which moreover would not do justice to literary texts. At the same time, what is “culture” but a network of “narratives” (and narratives about various “practices"), thus the very study of “narrative” gives us ways of approaching culture and society. And what is a work of literature, but a cultural artifact, a political engagement, a social practice? I particularly object to the comments of Professor Michael Geisler, who provides a caricature rather than an accurate characterization of literary studies in their present state. “Nice and cuddly” is not only a completely inaccurate statement about the literature classroom, it is also insulting and suggests that literature is not a rigorous field of study. Changes can only effectively be made when our respective fields are represented accurately and given the respect they deserve.
Anne E. Duggan, Wayne State University
, at 11:05 am EST on January 3, 2007
While the panel’s recommendations may sound as an excellent idea to people outside foreign lit. departments, there are three issues that are not being taken into consideration. The first one is that this discussion is happening in the context of an attempt by English and Complit program (under labels such as global studies or “world literature) to take over the study of ALL literary production and displace foreign languages departments from it. The teaching and research of literature in foreign language departments has allowed many scholars an independence not allowed by English. Also, anyone that knows anything about foreign literatures knows that scholars in English and Complit programs take a long time to catch up with non-English literary productions and the issues studied by French or Spanish scholars have nothing to do with the anglocentric perspective advocated by CompLit. Thus, the panel’s argument basically implies that literature scholars in foreign language departments must give up their intellectual independence, forcing them to become part of other academic areas, namely comparative literature or area studies, that do not share (and most of the times are not even open to) their intellectual projects. This also has to do with a utilitarian notion of the foreign language department, usually regarded as a language teaching program with no intellectual value at various levels of university administrations. In other words, what the panel proposes would lead to confirm this view, since it would imply that the For Lang department would become a sort of service-only program, while the very valuable scholarship produced in it, mostly on literary and cultural studies, would eventually be phased out. This makes sense to a teaching institution such as Middlebury, but is scandalous in the context of a research university, since it gives administrators an excuse to keep pushing foreign literatures out of the curriculum. Finally, it must also be said that while the panel is right in pointing out the fact that language instruction should also be taught by tenure track professors, they also forget that in departments with a graduate program, language instruction provides the necessary funding for the formation of future literary scholars, in the form of TAships, and that the elimination of this model would seriously undermine the future of foreign literary scholarship. Also, while I share the criticism of the use of lecturers to cover first level language classes, the panel forgets that, in many cases, the use of lecturers comes from the fact that departments are usually understaffed, thus providing labor in places where administrators are reluctant to open more tenure or TA lines. the lecturer issue, thus, is not a problem of departments but of administrations unwilling to consider foreign language and literature departments spaces worthy of investment and growth. The panel’s proposal, I believe, would make this situation more dramatic, because in many research institutions professors engaged in first level language classes simply do not meet tenure requirements.
..., Another attempt at colonizing other literatures, at 12:01 pm EST on January 3, 2007
Yes!!!
This would be a great move for the MLA committee to review. Language teaching provides the opportunity to teach more than literature and grammar; it provides the opportunity to teach history, Culture, and current events (this is a very short list of themes) of any target language. Which in turn creates more real situations and activities that may be presented into the course lecture. The instructor may raise the pedogagical bar level by installing linguistic themes associated with the surrounding countries history, Culture and current events as well. Presenting to the students a more complete approach on how a language and country came to be. This approach may be used for all levels of language teaching, it does not have to be centric to the upper divisions or graduate courses, it may be used successfully in the introductory courses as well. The Spanish languages (all four official languages and dialects) were created by Latin, Greek, Arabic, and more languages, so why not present this to the students. Bravo MLA!
Beto, Spanish Lecturer II at Universtiy of Texas San Antonio, at 7:25 pm EST on January 5, 2007
Ironies
Somewhat suprising that such a report would cause any uproar, since (a) the profession has alraeady been moving in precisely this direction for years now, and (b) the study of literature has always been and remains among the very best means for studying culture and nation anyway.
E. Holland, at 5:20 pm EST on January 8, 2007
Dramatic Plan for Language Programs
I am glad that finally our profession seems ready for a change i have been promoting for the last thirty years. I have submitted panel proposals to discuss this issue, only to be rejected for its controversial nature. One of the biggest problems we must face is our misunderstanding of what “culture” should actually mean in a foreign language class. We must see beyond the surface, and study the connection between language and meaning in different cultures. VHB
dr. Virgil H. Blanco, Chairperson/Professor, at 9:10 pm EST on January 8, 2007
As a long-time professor of language and literature (German and Scandinavian) I find much merit in this proposal. As current director of an International Programs Office, however, I am mystified that the proposal does not incorporate study abroad as one of its academic pillars. Students (undergraduates and graduates alike) learn much more about the culture, in all its ramifications, by immersing themselves in that culture for extended periods than they can by years of studying it piecemeal and episodically from afar. In my experience one can truly be culturally literate only by living in that culture.
Frank Hugus, Associate Provost at University of Massachusetts Amherst, at 3:00 pm EST on January 9, 2007
If you allow a non American person to intrude in this discussion, I would like to say that I have been a foreign language teacher and foreign language teacher trainer in Argentina for over 25 years. Lately, in the last 10 years, I conducted a Spanish as a Foreign Language department where international studens came (still come) mostly from the US. My question has always been, why people in the US cannot teach a foreign language the same as English is taught as a foreign language. The use of books where instructions are in English for exercises in Spanish is dramatic, poor student, beeing compelled to use simultaneously both languages!!! The only language to be used in the classroom should be the language under instruction. I agree to professor Geisler claim for courses on applied linguistics to be included in lecturers instruction. As to the use of literature in language teaching, it should be graded according to the level of language already managed by the class and very much to the point in connection with the area, the time, the needs of the society using the language under instruction. Literature in the classroom should be a mirror of social, political and economic changes in such culture. A word also about the teaching of grammar: grammar is the back bone of the lesson, but as our own, it should never be seen. Grammar structures are to be internalized from the understanding of a communicative situation and drilled in order to reach a certain degree of automatism and only then the teacher should systematize the subject-matter by introducing grammar. I suggest you start by changing the teaching of Spanish (at least) in high school level, instructors at this level some times don{ t even speak the language they are supposed to teach. from Argentina, Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero, Buenos Aires. Diana Schiro, professor of foreing languages
Diana Schiro, International Programs Director at www.untref.edu.ar, at 3:20 pm EST on January 9, 2007
Using Language and Literature
I direct the University of Wisconsin- Madison Professional French Masters Program and am fascinated by this turn of events. This article was sent to me by a former student, who, following her master’s in our program, took a special programs coordinator job in an international studies office in a small public university in the Western U.S., where she also teaches courses in French. In her email, she wrote, “I wholeheartedly agree with what the article proposes, and feel strongly that the PFMP did a great job of including those forgotten or e’er-neglected subjects that are so important in developing a solid, well-rounded understanding of foreign languages and literature.” Where I work, it is generally understood that language and literature are about shaping better people for the world. French at Wisconsin has always seemed to me less like an ivory tower than a vibrant workshop, and it would appear that all this MLA debate lacks now are the kinds of testimonies we see in this thread and that I hear from Wisconsin PFMP alumni every week of the year.
Ritt Deitz, Executive Director, PFMP at University of Wisconsin-Madison, at 4:55 pm EST on January 9, 2007
How Dramatic Is This, Really?
I’d like to offer a couple of comments which may be a little off the main flow, here. I’m an anthropologist, I speak four languages other than English, and I learned none of them in school. I’ve worked for years with language programs in various universities, and most of them, quite frankly, are hopeless at actually teaching people to speak. They’re fairly good at producing tenure-track language/lit professors, but that’s not really what the country needs. A big part of the problem, it seems to me, is how we think about language in the first place. It’s really — and I beg pardon in advance from the establishment — nothing but a symbol system, not much different from COBOL, say, or Morse code, or statistics. Like those symbol systems, it’s fundamentally important to getting anything else done within the domain of endeavor, but it’s not really an academic discipline, it’s a relatively simple skill. And we have a variety of examples, most of them outside the university, of ways to teach people to speak another language quickly and effectively. So in my humble opinion, the solution isn’t to connect language learning within the academy to a host of other topics, thereby enmeshing it in the politics of, say, area studies. The solution is to see language learning for what it is — a skill set like learning to drive, fly, or run SPSS. And once you have the skill, you can do anything you darned well like with it, which might — or might not — include becoming a tenured professor.
Riall Nolan, Dean of International Programs at Purdue University, at 11:01 am EST on January 10, 2007
This is clearly not a new topic and in fact has already been acted upon for already 10 to 15 years in many institutions, especially up-and-coming insitutions. Let’s face it: we are not in a “literary” country. In the US of A,language is first and foremost a means of communication, not an art form. And secondly, we are now at the beginning of a new era, the audio-visual era; the printed word is now fading after about 500 years of quasi-monopoly on the higher education realm. Demographically, the world is now aware of, and in need of greater awareness of, others (individuals, societies, cultures, civilizations, etc.), i.e., social studies (history, culture, etc.. and yes, some literature but not the core orsole focus any more.(A “DRAMATIC PLAN"????? ABSOLUTELY NOT, it would seem to be just some catching up, especially if you are, or were, in the ivory tower...
PJ Lapaire, Professor of French, at 6:00 am EST on January 13, 2007
I have always felt that a degree in Latin American Studies was needed to teach Spanish. I have struggled as a teacher to provide my students with adequate knowledge of Spanish/Hispanic culture and history. This is sad considering I have a BA in Spanish and have taken numerous Spanish graduate courses. I would welcome a change to a more well rounded language program.
Melissa Newman, Spanish Teacher, at 6:00 am EST on January 13, 2007
Thank you Anne E. Duggan
Although I commend the MLA for its attempts at prompting revision, especially Mary Louise Pratt’s important interrogations as represented by the article, and believe that rigorous self-critique is fundamental to any process, academic or otherwise, I couldn’t agree more with the comments of Anne E. Duggan from Wayne State University. I daresay that, except in a very few cases, undergraduate as well as graduate literature courses have never entailed such a reductive approach as Professor Michael Geiser suggests, and that in fact, individuals from language and literaure programs are among the pioneers in interdisciplinary studies even though literary study is not always recognized as such. As we are all aware, bureaucratic insitutions like the MLA inevitably (and appropriately) serve to institutionalize change, not spark it.
Christina Buckley, Associate Professor of Spanish at Furman University, at 1:15 pm EST on January 23, 2007
Study Abroad?
I agree with Frank Hugus’s comments concerning the importance of study abroad; however, I would like to see language departments move away from these “factory” study abroad programs that host 100-500 students a semester (A certain well-known program in Seville as the most egregious example). Our university has dumped programs with more than 30 students in order to develop a more intimate cross-cultural experience. Students are required to have a service learning project, while at the same time expanding language/cultural offerings back home in order to prepare the student for his/her time abroad.
Andrew Wiseman, Director of International Programs, at 5:36 am EST on January 27, 2007
French Teachers Who Can’t Speak French
I began a private educational foundation that for over ten years has sent gifted and motivated high school and university students, from Southern California, to both Concordia Language Villages and to the Alliance Francaise in Lyon.
I am not nor have I ever been a French teacher, but have a degree in the language and worked in intepretation/translation through law school. I speak French about as well as I speak Swedish, which is conversationally about as well as I speak English. Foreign language acquisition was expected of us when growing up. It wasn’t anything exceptional, and through French I came to discover a world outside of the States. French and France itself was the greatest educational gift in my life, and through our study grants, we have been saying “Thanks” to France for many years, and plan to continue.
What drives me crazy are so-called French Teachers at the high school level(and occasionally at college) who could not talk their way out of a wet paper bag—in French—if their lives depended upon it.
So often, I dare not to attempt to speak French with them, for fear they will be embarassed, unable to understand or reply.
Perhaps this is limited to rural America, I don’t know, but if you ask the question, “Why can’t Johnny speak French?” It’s because some idiot in the School District hired his teacher.
As school districts see little value in sending language teachers abroad, to enhance linguistic/cultural competence, we began doing this as an experiment.
We sent one highly motivated teacher who had never been to France, yet was good pedagogically. Her French was passable, but only that. She had never dreamt in French and thinking in the language was not evident.
Following one month of intensive study at the Alliance Francaise in Lyon, she returned as I had hoped — a different person, a literal moulin a paroles (chatterbox) happily chattering away in excellent French. Her students profit to this day. When I spoke to her—for the first time only in French following her return—I was moved, and for a trial lawyer, that says something.
There must be language amateurs, like us, who know what mastery of a foreign language does for high school kids and college students, and who have the money to send better students on these life-changing trips.
Should I be able to provide some guidance on how to go about enlisting financial help from your local communities, feel free to call.
Dennis Beaver, Esq. (661) 323.79.11 Office. Cell — (661) 203.28.05 Bakersfield, California
Dennis Beaver, Attorney at The Dennis and Anne Beaver Foundation, at 7:45 pm EST on February 3, 2007
Dramatic Changes in MLA
The changes proposed by the MLA are so long overdue that many institutions have simply already blazed the trail, althought the larger institutions may be the last to fall as their tenured professors tend to stay put and rest comfortabley on their belief that literature is the highest form of use of the language in question. What is missing from the debate is the fundamental notion that the goal of languge study is for many to pass the Ph.D. reading exams and therefore to answer the questions about literary analysis that pop up on those exams. As a linguistics major (UCLA 81), I was required to study a wide variety of foreign languges for the purpose of being able to competently discuss language structure and analysis and at every turn I was driven to study 13th century poetry at the higher levels of languge study and never was I ever introduced to useful modern formating conventions such as business language, casual language, or even the language of journalism so that I would be comfortable reading a daily newspaper. I eventually started a languge services business and my business partner was a multi-lingual Finn who was astounded at how diffciult Americans make learning a foreign language. She explained to me how foeign languge instruction works in her country and I was overwhelmed with envy. She could actually conduct business is Swedish, Finnish, English, German, and French!!! What a concept. Her degree was in English language, but not English literature (although she was quiet well read by choice). At the very least we need to offer a choice to those who would like to use the living language in business or even in travel. Most people were so turned off with studying the old version of the foreign langauge of their choice that they quit as soon as possible. I currently run a community based non credit language program that is able to bypass all the literary requirements and help people who want to learn to speak a foreign language for practical purposes to acheieve their goals. I welcome the discussion that will come from the MLA taking a position on these issues. It is about time!
Loredana Carson, Coordinator of Foreign Language Community Education at Conejo Valley Adult Education, at 4:01 pm EST on February 14, 2007
Literature in context
I am delighted to see the MLA moving in the direction of teaching literature with a variety of contexts. I for one, have always seen the literary text as the skeleton to be brought to life by the critical understanding of its cultural, historical, political, psychological context. Such critical analysis animates of the text thus bringing it to life.Bravo MLA for catching up with the real way to teach literature.
Gloria Bautista, Professor at West Point Academy, at 9:05 am EST on February 15, 2007
The relationship between language and thought
The “Dramatic Plan” seems to suggest two things. First, that, as a field, we need to think about the relationship between thought and language at ALL levels of instruction. Second, we need to consider the kinds of thoughts that should be part of foreign language classrooms, particularly in academic contexts.
These are questions that have dictated my work for the last four years and I can say from my own experience that these are challenging questions. At Bennington, we have worked to integrate compelling concepts at all levels of instruction, while also facilating language development. It has been hard but worthwhile. Two immediate challenges seem worth sharing. First, having students understand why their language classes feel different than what they have experienced in the past. I think a certain amount of educating students has to happen. Second, as faculty, we need to work to figure out how to balance language, content, and concepts.
Carol Meyer, Bennington College, at 12:16 pm EST on February 15, 2007
language studies
Russia’s compelling history and culture fascinated me first for many years beginning in middle school. Those stories motivated me as an adult to pursue an independent study of the Russian language. Twenty five years later that history and culture continue to motivate and give meaning to my study of the Russian language. A language is a living breathing thing as is the culture and stories of its native peoples. Elementary and Middle School Language Immersion Programs have known this for years and already practice the merging of history and culture with langugae aquisition. It is about time that Higher Education Schools get with it.
Michael Engel, Elementary School Teacher at Minneapolis Public Schools, at 10:36 am EST on February 20, 2007
Literature-hating professors?
OK ... they don’t *hate* literature. But with his pronouncement that “narrative isn’t an end in itself,” Prof. Michael Geisler expresses a certain contempt for fiction that is not uncommon among those whose job it is (or used to be) to interpret and teach that fiction. Where does the contempt come from? In many cases, it comes from the frustration of not being able to create literature oneself. In other cases, it stems from envy of scholars in other departments who seem more scientific, more politically relevant, or more prestigious. Hence the attempt to turn literary studies into history, area studies, anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, economics ... anything but the study of literature per se. The assumption, of course, is that literature professors are professionally qualified to make pronouncements on history, politics, and so on — a dubious proposition.
Of course, all those areas are legitimate fields of study, and of course, interdisciplinary perspectives are often illuminating and appropriate. But one would hope that members of the MLA, of all things, would at least entertain the possibility that literature *is* “an end in itself” — that is, a phenomenon that needs to be understood on its own terms, not reduced to other, supposedly more fundamental structures. Instead, the panel seems committed to a reductive, not to say destructive conception of literature, and committed to imposing it on language departments everywhere, if possible. Fortunately, academic freedom still exists ... for now.
R., Professor at Midwestern mid-sized university, at 11:16 pm EST on February 23, 2007
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Dramatic Plan for Language Programs
or search for jobs directly.
Registered Veterinary Tech Spc
University of Georgia
Job Summary Facilitate the pre-medication, induction and monitoring of emergency/after hours surgical cases, ... see job
Instructor/Nurse Practitioner/PA
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver
Posting Description: This position is at the Instructor level within the BMT-HemeMalig Program Manages the ... see job
Lecturer: Spanish
James Madison University
Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job
Assistant Professor — Health Management and Policy
Portland State University
Division of Public Administration, Mark O. Hatfield School of Government The Division of Public Administration in the Mark O. ... see job
Research Coordinator
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Assistant Director, International Admissions (112056)
Northeastern University
Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job
Program Director, Accelerator — Vanderbilt Summer Business Institute
Vanderbilt University
Program Director, Accelerator – Vanderbilt Summer Business Institute Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt ... see job
FT 9/11 Mo Faculty — 2025P
Saint Louis University
Saint Louis University is a Jesuit Catholic University. Through teaching, research, health care and community service, Saint ... see job
Professor or Associate Professor of Writing Studies
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Comparative Religion: Asian Religious Traditions
American University in Cairo
About The American University in Cairo: Founded in 1919, AUC’s campus is currently located in Cairo, Egypt, but will be ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed
Paradox of Languages and Literatures
Prof. Michael Geisler’s pronouncement that “narrative isn’t an end in itself,” proposes language teaching to the extreme and providing the grounds for language as a service department rather than a discipline in itself. I do concur that there are Ph.D. programs that are critical and analytical theory driven, yet perhaps he is attempting to serve two masters: the survival of his German program and the current US government. How can one teach culture and real language situations if you do not use narrative, poetry, essay and theatre? I wonder what would’ve happened to the world if King Alfonso X, the Wise, would not have given us the Spanish Grammar and consolidated language through its literature. What would’ve been of Argentina without Sarmiento and Borges? Can you imagine a Mexico without Sábato and Fuentes? Where would we teach this culture? Whose culture? What would’ve been of our western tradition if Aristotle did not have Sophocles? A Spain without Unamuno & Cervantes? Britain without Chaucer & Shakespeare? Can you imagine a world where only (pop) culture and “authentic” language is taught? What would be the topic of conversation? Soccer? Anna Nicole Smith? Oil prices rising? The latest IPod music release? My current freshmen are proficient in Spanish grammar, songs, and speak efficiently. Yet, no nothing of the authors mentioned above and how through their narrative, essays, plays, and poems taught us about their culture indirectly and directly. Maybe what Mr. Geisler is addressing is aimed more at the so-called elitist critical thinking machine that the MLA organization fosters. Yet, can you imagine a world without such critics as Voltaire, Diderot, Sarmiento, Sábato, Cervantes, Spivak, Kristeva, Foucault, Blanchard, Morrison, West, and others who taught us further meanings of literature beyond the I loved the book and it was great, but it had too many pages alla Oprah? The language teaching includes everything mentioned above, let’s not further dumb-down our educational system, and not reinvent the wheel, just reinforce its many threads.
Nelson Lopez, at 9:37 am EST on November 8, 2007