Literary Texts in the Classroom: A Discourse

Literary Texts in the Classroom: A DiscourseAuthor(s): Claire KramschSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Winter, 1985), pp. 356-366Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/328406 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 18:42

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 78.24.220.173 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:42:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/stable/328406?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Literary Texts in the Classroom: A Discourse CLAIRE KRAMSCH

COMMUNICATIVE APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE

teaching and the current focus on oral profi- ciency are calling for a reassessment of the use of literary texts in the language classroom. In Germany, where they were temporarily eclipsed by informational texts of practical relevance, literary works are now making a welcome comeback within a communication-oriented methodology. In this country, literary readings have always been considered part of a human-

*istic education and have never really disap- peared from the foreign language curriculum. They are still widely used in language classes, especially at the intermediate and advanced levels, and the discussion of literary texts is often part of the same syllabus as communication-oriented exercises for the development of oral skills. The two activities are, however, methodologically at odds with one another. For while communication exercises activate two- way "expression, interpretation and exchange of meanings," and stress the process of "inter- personal negotiation" and understanding, literary texts continue to be taught as finished products, to be unilaterally decoded, analyzed, and explained, or they are used to illustrate grammatical rules and enrich the reader's vocabulary.2 Thus the integration of communicative goals and general educational objectives remains a major problem.3

This essay is an attempt to bring to bear several strands of recent research in reading comprehension, discourse analysis, and literary theory on the way in which the teaching of

literary texts can be integrated into a general approach to the teaching of language as social discourse. The methodology developed here

suggests a new approach to the integration of

language and literature in the foreign language curriculum and to the role of literature in lan-

guage classes. Although a few practical pointers will be given in the course of this paper, its goal is to provide less a series of teaching techniques than a change of orientation and a redefinition of teacher-learner roles in the discussion of

literary texts.

LANGUAGE VS. LITERATURE

Intermediate learners often perceive an unfair gap between the literary selections of the second year and the readings they were offered at the elementary level, where the meaning of the text seemed coextensive with the diction-

ary translation of its constituent parts. Their

first-year readings have not prepared them to read between the lines into a literary and cultural framework that lies beyond simple re- course to the dictionary or to lexical glosses. Authentic literary writings require other strate-

gies in addition to the word recognition and recall techniques which students were asked to

apply to the fabricated texts of their first-year book. In addition, the skills needed to take part in a discussion do not seem to be continuous with the skills learned from the grammar and

vocabulary drills. Teachers, anxious to create a climate of com-

munication in their classrooms, deplore the continued fragmentation of second-year lessons into a series of related but poorly integrated activities: structural exercises, conversational activities, and literary texts. Attention to the

printed word throws each student back into the isolation of individual learning.4 Discussions of

literary works tend to break up the group interaction fostered by oral communication activities, for such analyses are dependent on individual abilities and background. As Walter Ong remarks: "Readers do not form a collec- tivity, acting here and now on one another and on the speaker as members of an audience do."5

The Modern Language Journal, 69, iv (1985) 0026-7902/85/0004/356 $1.50/0 ?1985 The Modern Language Journal



Literary Texts in the Classroom 357

Some progress in bridging the perceived gap between learning to use the forms of the language for communication and learning to read literary texts for esthetic pleasure has been made. For example, Schulz suggests methods for anticipating levels of readability and reduc- ing students' frustration;6 di Pietro advocates using the story line to create a scenario for communicative interaction among students;7 Reader's Theater makes students experience different narrative points of view by having them cut up the text into scripts which they then role- read in front of the class;8 Birckbichler and Muyskens offer techniques to engage students personally in the interpretation and evaluation of texts.9 None of these suggestions, however, helps the learner overcome the greatest difficulty, namely that of interpreting and understanding the symbolic nature of a literary text and its cultural, social, and historical dimen- sions. 10

READING COMPREHENSION AND DISCOURSE THEORY

Current research in reading comprehension, artificial intelligence, and discourse analysis is consistent with present literary theory in that it points to the interactional processes at work in reading and understanding literary texts. In- formation-processing or schema theories of reading stress the fact that readers make sense out of a text by constructing schemata or uni- verses of discourse based on their knowledge of the world and the totality of their experience.11 In Carrell's words: "According to schema theory, readers activate an appropriate schema against which they try to give a text a consistent interpretation. To the extent that they are successful, we may say that they have comprehended the text."12 Readers fit the elements of the text into their existing schema and readjust this schema to unfolding new information. Each new element provided by the text is assessed as to its ability to contribute to the reader's emerging schema.

These observations are consonant with theories of artificial intelligence that describe how knowledge structures are acquired and stored in memory in the form of frames, scripts, or knowledge packets. 13 Goldstein and Papert in particular articulate a "model of comprehension in which the process is not one of literally understanding the text, but one in which the text triggers rich, highly structured knowledge

packets that supplement the literal content, provide explanations for the remainder of the story, and place the story in a context of related knowledge. Understanding is seen as essen- tially a process of evoking and then debugging existing knowledge packets" (my emphasis, p. 96).

This view of reading as an active construction process parallels present views of discourse as being not merely "the passage of thought from one sentence to another according to a certain order,"14 but "the use of sentences in combination for the performance of social actions."15 Reading is the joint construction of a social reality between the reader and the text. Just as, in spoken discourse, "each participant develops his own scheme which he adjusts according to what his interlocutor says," the reader of a text does not simply react to the message or intention of the text, but his responses are "readjustments to his own communicative intents." It is true that the author anticipates a reader's responses by writing them into the discourse, but the reader "plays his own game as he reads."16

This subtle interplay of intentionalities has been stressed by literary theory. Paul Ricoeur, for example, differentiates between explaining a text and understanding it.17 "Explanation is more directed toward the analytic structure of the text, understanding is more directed toward the intentional unity of discourse" (p. 74). The teacher can explain and teach the rhetorical structure, the form and content of the text, but an understanding of the values, intentions, and beliefs embedded in the text can only be achieved through open discussion and negotiation of meanings. According to Ricoeur, interpretation is a dialectic dynamic process by which the reader surpasses both explanation and understanding and "appropriates" the text for himself.

Foreign language learners, as non-intended readers, have the difficult task of understanding intentions and beliefs that are not neces- sarily part of their representation of the world. 18 Given the fact that the authors "cast . readers into a made-up role and call on them to play the role assigned," foreign language readers have to find out which role the author wants them to assume and be taught how to assume it. 19 But at the same time they must be shown how to preserve their freedom to flout the writer's intentions and make their own



358 Claire Kramsch

meaning out of the text. Such is the privilege of the foreign culture reader.20

INTERTEXTUALITY AND GROUP READING

One aspect often overlooked in pedagogic re- flections on the teaching of literary texts is that reading in classrooms occurs within a group situation. The teacher is traditionally faced with the difficult task of integrating the training in reading skills, centered on the individual student, into a communicative classroom, which is markedly group-centered. Moreover, because of his/her familiarity with the author, the text, the period, the genre, the teacher is perceived by students as having a normative authority in matters of literary interpretation. This perception is a further obstacle to a group- centered communicative approach. Besides, the academic study of literature has often accustomed teachers to deal with literary texts in a normative manner. The respect for the text as a work of art to be appreciated in accordance with an established esthetic canon and put back into the historic and cultural conditions of its creation, discourages the reconstruction of the text necessary for its appropriation by the readers.

In what Breen and Candlin call a "process- oriented" classroom, it is as important to sensitize the students to the process of literary creation as it is to initiate them in the construction of interactive spoken discourse.21 As students struggle to establish paths of communication between one another in spoken discourse, they realize the choices made by the interlocutors at every moment. In a similar manner, recon- structing the process by which the author has created the text and reflecting on their own schema building can sensitize them to the options that were rejected, and the elements that were left unsaid. They are better able to appreciate and evaluate the choices that were made.

In 1984 I described how to sensitize students to the negotiation of meanings in spoken discourse.22 Now I should like to turn to the negotiation of the meaning of a literary text in a group situation. Here the challenge is two-fold. On the one hand, a dialogue must be constructed between the text and its readers. It is precisely this dialogue which Northrop Frye has in mind when he writes: "The reader is a whole

of which the text is a part; the text is a whole of which the reader is a part - these contradic- tory movements keep passing into one another and back again. The Logos at the center, which is inside the reader and not hidden behind the text, continually changes place with the Logos at the circumference that encloses both."23 On the other hand, a reception must be created among the readers. This multiple intertextuality may be represented schematically (see Figure 1).

TEACHING THE LITERARY NARRATIVE

The following will suggest an interactional methodology for discussion of literary narrative in the third or fourth semester of college instruction. It proposes to justify theoretically and to systematize within a discourse framework several pedagogical devices used intuitively by successful teachers. I have chosen the short narrative, because one of its important aspects is that it recounts characters' plans. Understand- ing narrative, like understanding spoken interaction, requires taking into account what Bruce and Newman call "interacting plans."24 One character's plans and goals interact with or often counteract another's. Moreover, each character is acting in a reality that includes perceptions of another individual's intentions and this person's anticipations of one's own actions. According to Bruce and Newman: "The beliefs and intentions of one character are embedded in the beliefs and intentions of the other." We can add that, in a classroom discussion, the beliefs and intentions of all characters are em-

FIGURE 1

student

student student

student -4 text - student

student student student student

student




bedded in the beliefs and intentions of each student as well as those of the author.

The example used here is the Grimms' literary version of the tale of Hiinsel and Gretel transcribed in 1812 by Wilhelm Grimm with annotations in Jakob's hand.25 The transition from the oral tale to the literary genre is a good introduction to literary forms at the intermediate level. Also, the story illustrates clearly the interacting plans of various characters as they conflict with one another. The parents attempt to deceive the children into thinking that they are going on a wood-fetching expedition when in fact they plan to abandon them. HMinsel re- sponds to his conception of his parents' actions by making them believe he is cooperating when in fact he is not. Deception and differing beliefs, a frequent motivating force, allow for multiple interpretations by the class. As for the level of difficulty, fairy-tales, unlike modern short stories, cast foreign language readers into a role that is known to them despite some cultural differences. It is therefore easier for them to de- velop the appropriate schemata than, say, for them to do so when reading Brecht's Kalender- geschichten, where the alienation effect or dis- tance intended between the text and its reader may require American students to assume a role to which they are not accustomed.

The following methodological suggestions, although arranged sequentially below, are not meant to be implemented in a strict linear order; it is neither possible nor even desirable to apply all the steps suggested here to one given narrative. The discussion of the story in class usually takes one class period, with se- lected instructional techniques. Pre-reading activities will have been conducted both in class and at home as a preparation for class discussion. In this multidimensional framework, my methodology will follow the Breen and Candlin model of three aptitudes in the construction of discourse: expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meanings.26

EXPRESSING AND INTERPRETING MEANINGS

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

accompaniment to the individual reading assignment at home.

Building a Common Background Knowledge: Defining Topic, Genre, Period, Intended Reader. Before assigning the reading for homework, five or ten minutes should be taken to give the students some understanding of what the story is about, what the nature of the text is, and when it was written. In this case, students need to be weaned from their Walt Disney representation of Hiinsel and Gretel and be given the general cultural and historical background to the Grimms' fairy-tale.

Collecting Necessary Vocabulary. Students should not expect or be expected to understand every word of a literary text on first reading. A pre- liminary activity by the group can recreate the conditions under which the individual reader selects lexical items to build appropriate schemata. Students are given two minutes to re- read silently the first paragraph of the story. Then the teacher asks: "Which words do we need to tell the story?" "Which words can you remember from the story?" "Underline the words or clusters of words you understood, ignore the others." The point is to gather (time limit: four minutes) the resources of the group by brainstorming as many suggestions as possible from the students. The teacher or a fellow student acts as a recorder and merely writes on the board in their correct form the lexical items provided by the students. These may be, in this case: der Holzhacker; arm; ein groj3er Wald;fiihren; seine Frau; kein Brot mehr; zwei Kinder. The teacher may add items, e.g., erniihren, that the students might not have understood, but that they might want to use later.

Assembling the Facts. It is important to reas- sure the students of what they know and to show them how to make educated guesses about the rest. The group is therefore asked to infer the meaning of the paragraph from the vocabulary on the board. ("Let us link up these islands of understanding. How could we tell the beginning of the story with these words?") The result might look as shown in Figure 2. The gloss might be: Der Holzhacker und seine Frau waren sehr arm. Weil es kein Brot mehr gab, konnten sie ihre zwei Kinder nicht mehr erniihren. Dafiihrten sie sie in einen grojfen Wald; or Es war einmal ein armer Holzhacker und seine Frau. Eines Tages hatten sie kein Brot mehr. Sie konnten ihre zwei Kinder nicht mehr emrniihren. Siefiihrten sie also in den groflen Wald.



360 Claire Kramsch

FIGURE 2

der Holzhacker arm ein groer Wald

fiUhren seine Frau kein zwei Kinder Brot mehr

ernahren

These students' texts are written on the board and are given as much attention as the literary text itself. This procedure integrates students into the interpretive process and provides parallel texts to be used later for comparative purposes. It is therefore advisable not to be selective at this point but to write down all input from the student.

Brainstorming Conceptual Associations. Carrell has shown how important it is to take as a point of departure the perceptions and assumptions of the student reader.27 Discussion of a literary text will fail to meet the interest and the comprehension needs of the students if it is totally irrelevant to what they have in mind. Brain- storming associations as a group activity rela- tivizes the perspective of the individual student and opens up alternatives generated by the other students.

For example, the teacher might state: "Here are three concepts that are important for understanding the story. What do you think of when you hear each of these words?" Sample responses might be:

Miirchen: eine Geschichte, die nicht wahr ist man braucht sie nicht zu glauben fir Kinder auch fiir Erwachsene Wunder

im Wald: spazieren gehen, wandern Berge Vermont Camping, Bach, fischen Gefahren?

zu Hause:....

These responses are contrasted with those of the teacher (if s/he is a native speaker) or with those of native speakers, in order to verbalize the difference between the perceptions of a for-

eign language reader and those of the native reader intended by the author.28 The associations generated above may lead, for example, into a short reflection on the different truth value attributed to fairy tales and on the con- notations of the word "Wald" for German speakers. Such a cross-cultural comparison is essential if the discussion is not to remain on the purely subjective level of the students' experience.

Predicting Topic Development. Students should be encouraged not only to make and test hypotheses about their reading but to compare them with those of the other readers. A discourse-oriented methodology can activate this process in small groups. For example: "What do the following elements of the story lead us to expect? Briiderchen und Schwesterchen (the original title)"; "there was no more bread"; "take them into the deep forest." This elicitation of the students' emerging schemata wards off gross misunderstandings and offers a contrastive context within which the rest of the story will be read. It can also serve to illustrate how a literary text purposely meets or deceives the expectations of the reader.

Schema Building. In order to help students build their own schemata, the teacher must avoid the traditional situation where students preparing a reading assignment are given lists of vocabulary, with occasional grammatical glosses or cultural footnotes, but no advance clues as to the tone of the text (ironical, satiri- cal, programmatic, metaphorical, descriptive), its intended effect on the reader, its thematic highlights, its stylistic features --all crucial aspects which are then expected to emerge from a class discussion led by the teacher.

Such a traditional approach only confirms the students' belief that their major block to understanding is a lack of vocabulary and grammar and solidifies their dependence on the teacher. Since we know that understanding a literary text is a "top-down" as well as a "bottom-up" process, why do we insist on giving the readers only lexical and grammatical clues?29 As one student expressed it poignantly: "I understood the text when I read it last night at home, but I can't answer any of your questions."

The following alternative approach will aid in directing students' reading and will channel the way they build schemata to make sense of




the words on the page. It is useless to ask them to identify key words, for example, when they do not know the main thrust of the text. There- fore, the clue-gathering activities suggested below, designed for individual or small group work, consistently include an interpretive direc- tion as well as a limited and well-defined task, illustrated with a sample question and answer pair if need be.30

Discovering Key Words Indicative of a Given Mean- ing. Example: "Find two expressions used by the stepmother that contain a reproach against the children." Possible answers: ihr b6sen Kinder; steht auf, ihr Faulenzer; da habt ihr etwas fir den Mittag, aber efit's ncht vorher auf, weiter kriegt ihr nichts; Narr (to Hiinsel).

Discovering Parallels and Contrasts in Meaning. Example: "The two homes: the father's house - the gingerbread house. Find two simi- larities and differences." Possible answers: both houses have a mother figure and the prospect of death is present in both, but there is starva- tion in one, overabundance in the other; one is at the edge of the woods, the other is in the woods; a father lives in the first house but not in the second.

Finding Illustrations of a Given Motif. Example

1: "There is a white thread running throughout the story. Can you find it? Give four examples." Possible answers: the white pebbles, the white cat on the roof, the white dove that leads the children to the gingerbread house, the white duck that leads them back home. Ex- ample 2: "How do we recognize that this is a fairy tale? Give three examples, e.g., it begins with Es war einmal."

Discovering Regularities in Content, Sound or Form. Example: "Find three or four elements which repeat themselves in a contrastive manner, for instance Kieselsteine at the beginning, Edelsteine at the end." Possible answers: to eat/to be eaten; to kill/to be killed, Hiinsel leads the way in the beginning/Gretel leads the way in the end. These factual elements can now be discussed and interpreted by the group.

NEGOTIATING MEANINGS

Whereas in the preceding activities, background and schema building could be done either in small groups or individually, the reflection that follows should be conducted ex- clusively as a whole group activity in class. Be- cause the activity is in part culture-specific and

explores not only the values and beliefs expressed in the text but also those of the students, it touches a potentially explosive area. Given the privilege of the readers to interpret the text in a way that is meaningful to them, differences in values should not be corrected but only pointed out and discussed.31

Exploring Worlds of Discourse. Negotiating the meaning of a literary text means exploring the possible worlds of discourse in which the narrative is inserted. The goal is to use the multiple perspective and life experiences of the readers to reach an understanding of the multi- faceted world of the narrative.

Brainstorming Intentions and Beliefs. There can be no classroom dialogue on the level of stylistic, lexical, or grammatical facts, only on the level of the students' construction of them for an interpretation of the text. Since values and beliefs cannot be made explicit by direct ques- tioning, the teacher's responsibility is to find a discourse context within which the readers' schemata can be discussed in a non-threaten- ing manner. This discussion can be initiated, for example, by brainstorming responses to an open-ended question, chosen for its multiplicity of possible answers, generally of the what or why type. Here, for example, anticipating two potential interpretations of the Hainsel and Gretel tale, one moralistic, one archetypal, the teacher might ask: "Why does the woman want to lead the children into the forest?"

The purpose of the brainstorming is to work for quantity. Students should be allowed (time limit: four minutes) to say whatever comes to mind. The teacher should not select, comment, or judge in any way but merely record the students' suggestions on the blackboard. Factual inaccuracies are recorded together with the other responses; they will be dealt with later. Linguistic errors are repaired without comment by the teacher, who just writes down the correct form of the utterance.

Responses to these questions might be: 1) the children were bad; 2) there is no more money; 3) she is a bad mother; 4) she wants to get rid of her children; 5) so that they have enough to eat; 6) she wants to deceive them; 7) she has to deceive them; 8) her husband wants her to do it; 9) the children will die, if they stay at home; 10) she hopes that they will find some- thing to eat in the woods; 11) another house; 12) the children should take care of themselves.



362 Claire Kramsch

Such a reception dialogue, constructed co- operatively by the group, forms a parallel text for later discussion in class. It recreates the topi- cal development of a group conversation: topics are first introduced by several conversational partners (1-3); they are then expanded (4 and 6 interpret 3); previous topics are returned to (6 goes back to the topic introduced in 3); sub- topics are redirected (7); an interlocutor com- pletes another's sentence (5), offers interpretation (8) or correction (9 corrects 8). Different interlocutors collaborate on topic construction (10, 11, 12 collaborate on topics 7 and 9). Stu- dents' utterances piggyback on each other as in natural symmetric conversation.

Putting the Data in Order. After ascertaining that there are no errors of fact ("Can you see any factual errors? - Possibly item 8? Let us go back to the text.. ."), the class attempts to order the data listed on the board ("Are two reasons similar or in contrast with one another?"). Two possible orderings can emerge: 1) items 1, 9, and 12 lay emphasis on the children, the others focus on the mother and her husband. The superordinate question here is who is responsible for leading the children into the woods; 2) items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 characterize a bad mother, wanting to punish helpless children. Items 10-12 point to a wise mother, anxious to make the children independent in the face of adversity. Items 2 and 9 are factual observations. The focus here is on the mother's intentions.

While both orderings represent valid interpretations, the second one might be able to explain more events than the first in the course of the story. In my experience, undergraduate students have quite moralistic views on fairy tales and it is a challenge to offer them archetypal schemata of interpretation. The comparison of the original tale with the Grimms' version can help clarify the two different frames of reference (see below).

The following three activities are well-known techniques for the clarification of values likely to facilitate both interpretation of the text and student-student dialogue.32

Ranking and Voting. Students are usually eager to discover how their peers understand the text. Asking them to rank the items on the board provides the opportunity to take a personal stand, justify it, and compare it with that of the others. For example: "Rank the motives listed

above according to priority"; or "What would you have done if you had been the mother?"

Exploring Alternatives and Consequences. Prob- ing for students' inferences is one of the methodological recommendations of researchers in reading comprehension.33 With literary texts that reflect both cultural and esthetic values, such a probing helps uncover the author's choices. Example: "What are Hiinsel's alternatives at the beginning of the story?" These choices are in fact often dictated by the genre itself; for example, in the fairy tale the hero has to go in search of what he is missing.

Interpretive Role-Playing. To clarify points on which there has been some disagreement (the role of the father in the story - item 8), simul- taneous role-plays can provide another parallel text for constrastive interpretation. Groups of three students (two partners and one observer) role-play the controversial situation within a time limit of one minute. Example: "Dialogue between husband and wife on the evening of the first day where there is no more bread"; "Dialogue between Gretel at the beginning of the story and her alter ego at the end." The situation should not be explained in greater detail and the role-play should be improvised. The observer's duty is to report to the class how the two actors have interpreted the situation (e.g., how much they feel the husband was responsible for the decision of leading the children into the woods). The context of this role- play provides yet another perspective on the Grimm text.

Exploring Discourse Forms. Besides considering various worlds of discourse, students should explore the various forms of discourse available within the genre itself, and the different genres possible.

Structural Parallels. Students are given the following schematic representation of the typical fairy tale sequence: initial equilibrium --rup- ture - search by the hero - temporary reestab- lishment of the equilibrium - appearance of the villain or character who counteracts the plans of the hero. 34 They are then asked to complete it (see Figure 3). Figure 4 shows an alternate form of Figure 3.

Within an archetypal interpretation of the tale, students can be encouraged to search for structural parallels:35 the mother figure as the driving force behind the narrative; the three aspects of home (the parents' home, the ginger-




FIGURE 3

Wiederherstellung Gliick: genug zu essen des Gliicks:

genug zu essen

Hungersnot die Hexe .. .?

Suche der Helden]

FIGURE 4

l~.r

bread house, and the father's house at the end); the three fires (the empty fire at the beginning, the deceiving fire in the woods, the life-threat- ening fire at the witch's house); the three deceptions of the children by the "mother," the three deceptions of the "mother" by the children. The abrupt reference to the woman at the end; "The woman in the meantime had died," can initiate a great deal of reflection and can be discussed in the light of the overall structure of the story.

Intratextual Variations. Rewriting the tale, individually or in groups, is part of the reconstruction process necessary for appropriation of the text by the readers. Different formats are possible:

- Providing a frame: how does the story go on? Gretel and her husband one day find themselves incapable of feeding their two children. Imagine the story; or, imagine the life of the woodcutter and his family before the story began.

- Changing the time scale: start telling the story of Hiinsel and Gretel when they go to the woods for the second time. Recount the begin-

ning in retrospect; or, imagine the life of the woodcutter's family between the two periods of hunger.

- Changing point of view: imagine a dialogue between the woodcutter and his wife on the evening of the first day; or, imagine an entry in Hansel's diary, when he was still at home; or, write a letter from Gretel to her father during her captivity in the witch's house; or, Gretel explains to her father at the end how she got the precious stones; or, find another title for the fairy tale.

The very reconstruction of the text by the students makes apparent to them better than any analysis by a teacher some of its stylistic features. For example, as they are asked to re- write the story from a different perspective, they suddenly realize the necessity of changing tone and register as well. The husband would be unlikely to say to his wife: Hor mal, wir haben nichts mehr zu beifien und zu brechen, an expression clearly within the register of Grimms' omniscient narrator. The opposite will occur with texts told from the character's point of view. Students recounting Kafka's Verwandlung, for example, from an omniscient perspective, would be ill-advised to copy the text and write Gregors Vater verfolgte ihn in sein Zimmer, since the verb "verfolgen" only makes sense from Gregor Samsa's point of view.

Intertextual Variations. Just as parallel texts constructed by the students help enrich the dialogue between the text and its many readers, so too can a comparison of the text with related texts on the same topic serve to illustrate the cultural and esthetic choices made by the author. An appropriate comparison can be made here with the tale's original (1812) version, entitled Briiderchen und Schwesterchen. 36 This transcription of the oral narrative is much shorter than the Grimm version. The Grimms elaborated on motives, reasons, and feelings, and added in particular the final episode of the white duck that carries the children across the lake to their father's house. Furthermore, the Grimm text distinguishes itself from the original by its religious and moralistic overtones, which clearly reflect the Biedermeier values of the times.

At this point, the teacher may provide more detailed cultural and historical information, e.g., on Romanticsm and Biedermeierzeit, to supplement the students' interpretation.37



364 Claire Kramsch CONCLUSION

This paper represents a continuing plea for engaging students in the negotiations of meaning in spoken and written discourse. The strategies they learn from oral communication can be put to use for the interpretation, discussion, and personal understanding of literary texts within the group interaction of the classroom.

The methodology outlined above gives a few practical suggestions for achieving this goal. For example, the enforcement of a strict time limit for many of the activities reduces anxiety and keeps discussion in focus. The presence of peer observers in role-play provides valuable debriefing possibilities. The non-normative role of the teacher in the discussion of esthetic, cultural, and social values is crucial for a successful discussion of literary works. However, beyond these specific techniques which are in part well-known, the main thrust of this paper is a plea for a change in orientation in classroom discourse. A group reception dialogue requires more natural forms of discourse in the classroom than the traditional instructional ones. In view of the professional tendency of language teachers to "overdidacticize social interactions in the classroom," the only valid approach to teaching literary texts is to be ready to discover every one anew with every new group of students and to be surprised by their insights.38 A discourse perspective on the teaching of literary texts calls therefore for a change in the nature of student-teacher relationship in the classroom.39

This approach is not only consistent with reading comprehension research and literary theory, it also restores classroom students to their full creative role as a community of auton- omous and responsible readers. "The most valuable information is in our students' perceptions and not our own," remarks Carrell.40 The seriousness with which students' perceptions are taken reduces the threat of the expectations placed on them as non-native readers and pro- tects their self-esteem. Taking learners' perceptions into account does not mean that the students should not learn about the text's cultural and historical frame of reference, but only through the prism of parallel texts and their own constructs can they grasp the unique nature of the literary work they are reading.

Finally, the discourse between a literary text and its readers and among readers of the same text can serve as the link between communicative language teaching and the teaching of literature. Whether it be everyday spoken discourse or literary discourse, the communicative, poetic, and phatic functions of language join together in the teaching of language as a social event. Readers understand a literary text as they understand themselves and each other responding to and rewriting the text. The pleasure they derive from it is both individual and communal. A discourse perspective can help build the social reality of the student group and at the same time sensitize each student to the esthetic, game-like quality of all language interaction.41

NOTES

1The communicative texts published recently by Langen- scheidt contain many more literary texts than the earlier ones, e.g., Peter F. Hajny & Horst Wirbelauer, Lesekurs

fiir Anfdnger. Eine Einfiihrug in die Texterschliessung (Muinchen: Langenscheidt, 1983) and Christoph Edelhoff et al., Deutsch Aktiv 3. Materialien fiir die Mittelstufe, Teil I (Mfinchen: Langenscheidt, 1984). The Goethe Institute has recently been organizing numerous workshops and seminars on the

teaching of literature in language classes, from which the

following publications are available: Bernd Kast, Literatur im Unterricht. Methodischdidaktische Vorschliige fiir den Lehrer (Miinchen: Goethe Institut, 1984); New Yorker Werkstattge- spriich 1984 -Literatur im kommunikativen Fremdesprachenunter- richt, ed. Manfred Heid (Miinchen: Kemmler und Hoch, forthcoming). The topic is now attracting doctoral

dissertations in Germany, e.g., Ingrid Mummert, Schiiler migen Dichtung - auch in der Fremdsprache (Frankfurt: Lang, 1984). A recent survey of the use of literary texts in this

country is given in Judith Muyskens, "Teaching Second

Language Literatures: Past, Present and Future," Modern

Language Journal, 67 (1983), pp. 413-23. 2Michael Breen & Christopher N. Candlin, "The Essen-

tials of a Communicative Curriculum in Language Teaching," Applied Linguistics, 1 (1980), pp. 90-91.

3See the Sanders-Kramsch exchange of views in Unter- richtspraxis, 16 (1983), pp. 313-18.

4Ralph M. Hester, "From Reading to the Reading of Literature," Modern Language Journal, 56 (1972), p. 284.

5Walter J. Ong, Interfaces of the Word-Studies in the Evo- lution of Consciousness and Culture (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1977), p. 58.

6Renate A. Schulz, "Literature and Readability: Bridg- ing the Gap in Foreign Language Reading," Modern Lan-

guage Journal, 65 (1981), pp. 43-53.




7Robert J. di Pietro, "Discourse and Real-Life Roles in the ESL Classroom," TESOL Quarterly, 15 (1981), pp. 27-33, and "Interaction with Literary Texts in Foreign Lan-

guage Instruction," New Yorker Werkstattgespriich 1984 -Litera- tur im Kommunikativen FSU, ed. Manfred Heid (Miinchen: Kemmler & Hoch, forthcoming).

8Institute for Readers' Theater, PO Box 17193, San

Diego, CA 92117. 9Diane Birckbichler & Judith Muyskens, "A Personalized

Approach to the Teaching of Literature at the Elementary and Intermediate Levels of Instruction," Foreign Language Annals, 13 (1980), pp. 23-27.

1oGerald Prince, "Literary Theory and the Undergradu- ate Curriculum," Profession 84 (New York: MLA, 1984), p. 37.

11See Elizabeth Bernhardt, "Toward an Information Pro-

cessing Perspective in Foreign Language Reading," Modern

Language Journal, 68 (1984), pp. 322-31; Janet K. Swaffar, "Reading in the Foreign Language Classroom: Focus on

Process," Unterrichtspraxis, 17 (1984), pp. 176-94, and

"Reading Authentic Texts in a Foreign Language: A Cog- nitive Model," Modern Language Journal, 69 (1985), pp. 15-34. For a general overview of schema theory in read-

ing comprehension, see Marilyn J. Adams & Allan Collins, "A Schema-Theoretic View of Reading," New Directions in Discourse Processing, ed. Roy O. Freedle (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1979), pp. 1-22; Janet Binkley, "Schema Theory and the Reduction of Concept Density for Foreign Lan-

guage Readers," Lesen in der Fremdsprache. Beitriige eines

Werkstattgespriichs des Goethe Instituts New York und des ACTFL, ed. Helm von Faber & Manfred Heid (Miinchen: Kemmler & Hoch, 1981), pp. 41-54; Patricia L. Carrell, "Schema

Theory and ESL Reading: Classroom Implications and

Applications," Modern Language Journal, 68 (1984), pp. 332-43; Tuinman Jaap, "The Schema Schemers,"Journal of Reading, 23 (1980), pp. 414-19; Walter Kintsch & Edith Greene, "The Role of Culture-Specific Schemata in the

Comprehension and Recall of Stories," Discourse Processes, 1 (1978), pp. 323-36; David E. Rumelhart, "Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition," Theoretical Issues in Read-

ing Comprehension, ed. R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980), pp. 33-58.

12Carrell (note 11 above), p. 333. 13See Marvin Minsky, "A Framework for the Represen-

tation of Knowledge," The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. Patrick Winston (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975); Roger C. Schank & R. Abelson, Scripts, Plans, Goals and Under-

standing (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977); Ira Goldstein &

Seymour Papert, "Artificial Intelligence, Language and the

Study of Knowledge," Cognitive Science, 1 (1977), pp. 84-123. 14Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, cited in Marie Jeanne

Borel's "L'explication dans l'argumentation - Approche semiologique," Langue FranGaise, 50 (1981), p. 22.

15Henry G. Widdowson, Explorations in Applied Linguis- tics (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979), p. 93.

16Widdowson (see note 17 above), p. 147. 17Paul Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the

Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian Univ. Press, 1976). See also Norman H. Holland, The Dynamics of Literary Response (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968); Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Re-

sponse (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1978); Hans Robert Jaugt, "Paradigmawechsel in der Literaturwissen-

schaft," Methoden der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft, ed. Victor

Zmegac (Frankfurt: Athendium, 1971). 18The same is true, of course, though to a lesser extent,

of native readers interpreting older texts in their own lan-

guage. 19See Ong (note 5 above). 20Dietrich Krusche, "Die Chance des fremdkulturellen

Lesers," New Yorker Werkstattgespriich 1984. Literarische Texte im kommunikativen Fremdsprachenunterricht, ed. Manfred Heid

(Miinchen: Kemmler & Hoch, forthcoming). 21Breen and Candlin (note 2 above). 22Claire J. Kramsch, "Interactions langagieres en travail

de groupe," Le Franfais dans le Monde (Feb.-March 1984), pp. 52-59.

23Northrop Frye, "Literary and Linguistic Scholarship in a Post-literate World," PMLA, 99 (1984), pp. 990-95.

24Bertram C. Bruce & Dennis Newman, "Interacting Plans," Cognitive Science, 2 (1978), pp. 195-233.

25Grimms Miirchen, ed. Willy Schumann (Boston: Suhr-

kamp/Insel, 1982), and Mdrchen der Bruder Grimm. UVfassung nach der Originalhandschrift der Abtei Olenberg im Elsafi, ed.

Joseph Lefftz (Heidelberg: Winter, 1927), pp. 40-49. 26See Breen & Candlin (note 2 above). See also Claire

J. Kramsch, Interaction et discours dans la classe de langue (Paris: Hatier-Credif, 1984).

27See Carrell (note 11 above), p. 341. 28For a discussion of cross-cultural differences in associa-

tions, see Claire J. Kramsch, "Culture and Constructs:

Communicating Attitudes and Values in the Foreign Lan-

guage Classroom," Foreign Language Annals, 16 (1983), pp. 437-48.

29For a discussion of top-down and bottom-up processes, see Gillian Brown & George Yule, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983), p. 234.

30For more detail on group work, see Claire J. Kramsch, "Interactive Discourse in Small and Large Groups," Inter- active Language Teaching, ed. Wilga A. Rivers (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, forthcoming).

31Jenny Thomas, "Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure," Applied Linguistics, 4 (1983), pp. 91-112.

32Sidney B. Simon, Leland Howe, & Howard Kirschen- baum, Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies (New York: Hart, 1972).

33Carrell (note 11 above). 34Vladimir Propp, The Morphology of the Folktale (Austin:

Univ. of Texas Press, 1968). 35Rudolf Geiger, Mit Miirchen im Gespriich. Erfahrungen an

sechzehn Miirchen der Bruder Grimm (Stuttgart: Urachhaus, 1972), pp. 69-91.

36See note 25 above.

37The Restoration Period in Germany (1815-1848) is often referred to as the Biedermeierzeit and is seen as a time that stressed the bourgeois values of family, piety, and civil obedience.

38Hans-Jiirgen Krumm, "Nur die Kuh gibt mehr Milch, wenn Musik erklingt," Zielsprache Deutsch, Heft 4 (1983), p. 5.

39Claire J. Kramsch, "Classroom Interaction and Dis- course Options," Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7



366 Claire Kramsch

(1985); Hans-Jiirgen Krumm, "Die Veriinderung der Lehrer-Lerner Interaktion durch Ernstnehmen der Kurs- teilnehmer im Fremdsprachenunterricht," New Yorker Werk-

stattgespriich 1982 (Miinchen: Kemmler & Hoch, 1983).

40Carrell (see note 11 above). 411 am grateful to my colleagues Catherine Chvany, Edith

Waldstein, and Robert DiDonato for their valuable editorial comments on this paper.

Information about The Modern LanguageJournal

1. Major Focus: devoted primarily to methods, pedagogical research, and topics of professional interest to all lan-

guage teachers; publishes pedagogical articles, reports, teaching tips, news, book reviews, current advertise-

ments, and occasional articles on the scene in Wash-

ington, DC, as they relate specifically to foreign lan-

guage researchers, teachers, and students. 2. Frequency of Publication: four times per year; each issue is

approximately 150 pages. 3. Language of Publication: English. 4. Format ofManuscripts for Submission: typewritten, double-

spaced throughout (including notes, tables, figures, quotes); leave a 2" left margin and 1 Y" margins on all other sides.

5. Suggested Length ofArticles: twenty pages or shorter pre- ferred (excluding notes and tables); longer ones ac-

ceptable, depending on merit; shorter ones quite welcome.

6. Required Style: MLA Style Sheet (second edition). 7. Number of Manuscript Copies Required: original and two

clear photocopies. Only the original will be returned. 8. Evaluation ofManuscripts: evaluation is done by at least

two specialist readers. 9. Multiple Submission: manuscripts submitted simul-

taneously for publication elsewhere cannot be considered.

10. Copyright: The Modern Language Journal. 11. Ownership: The Modern Language Journal is owned by the

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations (NFMLTA) and published by it at the

University of Wisconsin Press. The MLJ has no legal relationship to the Modern Language Association of America (MLA).

12. Time between Acceptance and Publication: usually no longer than one year; often within six months.

13. Average Time between Submission and Decision: normally sixty days; longer for manuscripts received during summer and/or vacation periods.

14. Number of Articles Published per Year: 30-40.

15. Number of Book Reviews Published per Year: 150-200. 16. Circulation: approximately 7,000. 17. Average Rate of Acceptance: approximately 15-18% of

manuscripts submitted are accepted. 18. Payment: authors of articles receive two complimentary

copies of the issue in which their work is published; authors of book reviews receive one complimentary copy of the issue containing their work.

19. Offprints: available at cost, but must be ordered at the time authors receive galley proofs.

20. Special Requirements: a) include a brief (fifty words), double-spaced biographical statement that includes the

highest degree of the author(s) and the name of the in- stitution granting it; b) include a self-addressed enve-

lope and $4.00 in loose postage to be used in the evaluation process, on correspondence, for returning the

manuscript, or forwarding galley proofs; and c) iden-

tification: because the MLJ adheres to a "blind

refereeing" policy (meaning that field readers do not know whose manuscript they are evaluating), authors must devote some special attention to the preparation of a manuscript. a) Place a cover sheet on the manuscript that includes

the following information: title of manuscript, sepa- rate short title (see b below) for identification, name, address, and both the office and home telephone numbers of the author.

b) From the title of the manuscript, select one or two key words to function as identification markers; type those words at the top right of each page of the

manuscript followed by the appropriate page number. Be sure that all pages of the manuscript contain that ID marker and a page number.

c) When you cite the author's previous publications, reference must be made to them in the third person: not "as I said in my 1977 article," but, "as John Q. Public said in his 1977 article." Upon acceptance of the manuscript, the editorial staff will convert the third person citations to the first person.



Documents

Literary Texts in the Classroom: A Discourse