|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LANGUAGE departments, particularly foreign language departments, find their energies in texts. The text is the primary body of analysis for literary research. Texts are key signifiers for cultural studies. For language learning, texts provide input for language acquisition and serve as data for cultural comparison and critical reflection.
It is important, then, to ask, What qualifies as text? In theory and in practice, the question has been answered differently over the years. Webster’s offers ten definitions of text: four specify its relation to the written word; six may refer to either written or spoken texts (e.g., any theme or topic, words of a song or the like, scripture). In literary, cultural, and language studies today, texts range from poetic forms to personal expression, from informational prose to pedestrian signs and symbols. Indeed, the pluralization of the text as object culminated with the emergence of cultural studies in the 1990s (Mowitt 1218).
Text, however, is more than an object. All texts are culturally marked and open to interpretation in terms of their denotations, connotations, and effects on their readers or hearers. Text, then, is potential transmission of meaning, whether that meaning is literal or interpreted. As John Mowitt points out, text becomes a paradigm of study (1217). The selection and use of texts relate to the epistemology of our departments, to our ways of knowing: Who can be a knower? What can we know? Where do we look for insight? How do we come to know? How do we impart knowledge to others?
Answers to these questions mold the dynamics of language departments, particularly the ways that different departmental players relate to texts and use them to construct knowledge. Recognition of the need to integrate the language, linguistics, literary, and cultural study subfields of language departments is not new. Indeed, it appears in many of the writings of Heidi Byrnes, in whose honor this article appears, and is implied in the national Standards for Foreign Language Teaching. Claire Kramsch and Olivier Kramsch pointed to the long history of tension among these disciplines, bemoaning its result in the near disappearance of literature from the language curriculum following World War II. The intellectual interests of these subfields of language departments seemed rarely to intersect, despite the belief of Roman Jakobson, and others, that the “professional disjunction between language and literary studies is not only capricious but counterproductive” (Swaffar 159). Could it be that, after five decades of schism in many language departments—particularly between literary and language studies--we now rely on multiple perspectives about text that bring the subfields of our departments closer together and make their interaction potentially more fruitful than during our separate histories in the eras of audiolingualism and even communicative language teaching?
Consider the voices of a typical foreign language and literature department. Each uses texts. What stories do they tell? Where might these stories intersect or enlighten each other? Contemporary literary theory resists guiding readers or criticizing individual interpretations. For example, in terms of pedagogy, reader-response theory suggests that students cannot be taught in the conventional way, whereby the professor imparts meaning to students (Bernhardt 196). Rather, students must find their own meaning through their interaction with the text.
Like the process of literary analysis, the scope of literary studies is also opening. For an increasing number of scholars, the borders of literary studies are permeable, opening into other areas of the humanities and also the social sciences; for example, literary studies today shares interests with anthropology, history, mythology and religion, psychology, and philosophy (especially aesthetics), as well as with postmodern disciplines such as ethnic studies, film studies, and gender studies. Studies of intertextuality are gaining prominence. According to Haruo Shirane:
Literary studies asks not only how texts are related to other texts, in an intertextual, diachronic genealogy, but also how texts are related to other cultural phenomena, in an intracultural, synchronic perspective where maps, architecture, food, film, sexual behavior, and other aspects of culture and society are regarded as part of a larger, continuous process. (513–14)
If the border is blurred between humanistic inquiry and investigation in the social sciences, where does the uniqueness of literary studies lie? It is its focus on language—on coming to know through the power of words, their combinations, their arrangement, and their silences—that characterizes literature within cultural studies (see Shirane 513). To refer again to Jakobson, the literary is the poetics of expression that intersects with other ways of transmitting meaning. We have not only the intertextuality of the 1980s—looking at, for example, film, art, and popular culture—but also intertextuality in ways of knowing, objects of study, and approaches. And if we add the notion that individual readers make texts in a personal fashion, we come to a dialogic across disciplines that is highly personal. For the nonnative reader, the issue of language competency becomes entangled with meaning making. How does a student learn a foreign language and interpret a text in that language at the same time? The answer may reside in the interaction of contemporary literary studies and cultural studies with socially based theories of second language acquisition (SLA), in particular in their expanding notions of text.
It is important to remember that Jakobson, who explained the uniqueness of literature, is a linguist. As we recognize the dissolution of borders between culture and literature, we must also remember the natural interface between literature and linguistics and note how, as a branch of linguistics, SLA has permeable borders as well. Byrnes (“Cultural Turn”) singled out one branch of linguistics that speaks directly to the language learning enterprise of language departments: systemic-functional linguistics. Based on work by M. A. K. Halliday, a functional approach to language emphasizes a symbiotic relation between human activity and language, where one exists only through the other. The key concepts of systemic-functional linguistics are context of situation, register, text, and text structure. Halliday explained, “The grammatical system as a whole represents the semantic code of a language” and “the context of culture determines the nature of the code” (Halliday xxxii; qtd. in Byrnes, “Cultural Turn” 121). In this view, language constructs reality rather than represents it; texts become shapers of meaning rather than reflectors of it. Kramsch goes further to suggest that language becomes “itself a metaphor for reality” (“Language” 11). The functional aspect of language approaches the poetics of literature, which evokes reflection and interpretation. Language teaching, in a functional linguistic frame or a literary one, puts priority on the learner as a participant user or creator. In using grammar or in reading literature, the learner makes choices and creates relations. Genre is an extension of the functionalist approach. Byrnes quotes James Martin to explain that “genres are how things get done, when language is used to accomplish them. They range from literary to far from literary forms: poems, narratives, expositions, lectures, seminars, recipes, manuals, appointment making, service encounters, news broadcasts and so on” (Martin 250; qtd. in Byrnes, “Cultural Turn” 121). Learners’ interlanguage—or developmental stages—“is now seen not only as a psycho- and sociolinguistic phenomenon but also as a composite of multiple emotional memories, sensibilities, and potential identification” (Kramsch, “Language” 11). Byrnes and Kramsch both conclude that language is a social semiotic whose treatment of language, knowledge, and culture supports the central concerns of literary cultural studies (Byrnes, “Cultural Turn” 122) because in this construct “style, genre, and textuality all play a role in defining the mediating process of the acquisition of another semiotic code” (Kramsch, “Language” 11).
It is not difficult to advocate the relation among language, literature, culture and schools of linguistics, especially those that are socially based. What is perhaps less evident is how shared concerns are rapidly developing between scholars in SLA and scholars in literary and cultural studies. This relatively new player on the department scene—the SLA specialist, who is often charged with the language program—may have many voices.
SLA is a young discipline. Although one can attribute its beginning to diary studies in the 1930s,1 SLA began to claim disciplinary space in language departments in the 1970s and 1980s.2 At that time, SLA was based in psycholinguistics. Following Chomskian theory, it attempted to uncover innate universals of language learning. With a continued view to structuralist principles, it considered digressions from the norm as deviance. Focusing on learners’ successful and especially failed attempts in their new languages, it often relied on a Cartesian, positivist approach to scientific inquiry, with numerical data and reliance on statistical tests, which situated it in the social sciences. In terms of the subfields in our language departments, this affiliation made SLA quite different. Witness how the SLA member of language departments often goes through tenure review in the social science division and the SLA preference for the American Psychological Association publication style. SLA and humanistic literary studies, even in the framework of cultural studies, might seem, on the surface at least, to have little in common.
This view of how languages are learned fits well with a late audiolingual or early communicative view of teaching, which stressed formulistic, generative, spoken language. Literary and cultural studies offered little to language acquisition in this paradigm, as witnessed by the reduction in literary and cultural texts from language textbooks in the 1960s–1980s.3 They were useful, of course, for teaching about culture or as preparation for advanced courses, but interacting with literary and cultural texts was not considered critical to the language learning process.
More recently, SLA has taken a striking sociocultural turn, which is resulting in a massive opening of its field, by enlarging its ontological and empirical parameters. It is these new paradigms especially that invite SLA to engage with literary and cultural studies, to become part of the blurred borders between scholars in the different disciplines housed in a language department. Looking to the Russian theorist Lev Vygotsky, many SLA researchers consider that second-language development proceeds from the community of learners, from the learner in relation to his or her acquisitional context, into the mind of the individual. This notion reverses the psycholinguistic belief that language originates in the mind and acts only secondarily on the community. Language is created out of social context and shapes its future social situation in a continuous, iterative process; only late in development, when abstraction begins, does language gradually become “loosened from its moorings in social life” (Atkinson 533). Gwendolyn Barnes-Karol claims that accepting the Vygotskian notion “must inform not only why we ask students to read literature but also how” (15). If text originates as a social act, it becomes the stimulus and map of language acquisition. Through text, students create their understanding not only of the nature of the text but also of the nature of language itself. Studying a text, especially in a community of learners, becomes the study of how language is learned as well as interpreted.
In a seminal 1997 article, Alan Firth and Johannes Wagner compelled the profession to integrate social and contextual dimensions with cognitive ones to construct a new paradigm for SLA, through which researchers would prioritize how nonnative learners participate as language users in social interactions. Social and discursive approaches to the nature of the mind would no longer be “beyond the purview of SLA” (287). Foregrounding the discursive, as well as the social, invites study of genre and how texts, both oral and written, are used for different linguistic purposes. For literature, a focus on the discursive relates to how style conveys meaning in a text or how different genres (e.g., film vs. fiction) convey the same story in dramatically different ways and to different effects (Berg and Martin-Berg). Learners’ attempts at language become texts of study in their own right, as evidence of meaning that is created or, in Vygotskian terms, coconstructed among community members.
What types of research methods are used in these new perspectives on SLA? Typically, they are discourse-based, qualitative methods, such as transcripts of interactions, think-aloud protocols, or analyses of conversations. Lindsay Prior evokes Foucault to point out:
Discourse not only restricts, limits and arranges what can and cannot be said about the phenomena within its domain; it also empowers (and disempowers) certain agents to speak on this or that question of fact. In many respects one might say that discourse empowers certain agents to create representations, and thereby to authoritatively pronounce on the shape and form of the world. (70–71)
In qualitative inquiry, Prior explains, “the task of the researcher is to disentangle the rules of association by means of which the representation is structured, the genealogy of the various elements contained in the text” (70). This disentanglement of discourse can apply to the study of both a literary text and a human interaction. For example, literature and language acquisition would exist in symbiosis in a literature class where the dialogue of studying a text becomes the data for studying language acquisition--not only acquisition of linguistic forms but also learners’ attempts to create meaning through language, from one another, and from the text. The joint point of study in such a class is the interpretation of the text: how it is understood, in the mind and through language. The evidence of knowing (the student’s interpretation) becomes the way of knowing (the making of meaning through language).
More recently, Karen Ann Watson-Gegeo suggested a language socialization paradigm for SLA, and Dwight Atkinson called for a sociocognitive one. They share the tenet that language acquisition is based in social interaction, and they rely in large part on case studies and ethnographic modes of inquiry. Watson-Gegeo and Sarah Nielson explain that, in a language socialization paradigm, “linguistic and cultural knowledge are constructed through each other” (165). “Context refers to the whole set of relationships in which a phenomenon is situated” (Watson-Gegeo, “Thick Explanation” 51), “incorporating macro-levels of institutional, social, political, and cultural aspects, and micro-levels involving the immediate context of situation” (Watson-Gegeo, “Mind”). In the sociocognitive paradigm, Atkinson explains that “neither language acquisition nor language use—nor even cognized linguistic knowledge—can be properly understood without taking into account their fundamental integration into a socially-mediated world.” A sociocognitive approach to SLA, therefore, “promotes and reinforces many connections to other realms of inquiry and practice, such as: culture, schooling, power, politics, and ideology, discourse, social ecology, and embodied action-taking” (534, 538).
These two nascent paradigms are strikingly different from the previously favored Chomskian language-in-the-mind perspective. Viewing language as a holistic phenomenon, they are both rooted in social context, with a cultural frame and an eye to issues of power and politics, which move them toward critical applied linguistics and pedagogies (Pennycook; Cummins). What is surprisingly missing is explicit consideration of literary studies. Of course, through cultural studies, literature could well be assumed as part of “cultural aspects” or “discourse,” or even “social ecology and embodied action-taking,” but the lack of its explicit mention should be rectified when bringing such new paradigms of SLA to bear in foreign language departments.
Socially based paradigms of SLA offer important possibilities for collaboration among colleagues. Case studies and ethnographies tell individual and group stories. They capture social scenes, which are created by interaction with texts, in their broadest definition, and they provide, in themselves, texts for analysis. Case studies and ethnographies are poignant examples of the humanistic enterprise. Atkinson believes that because qualitative research respects the “profound wholeness and situatedness of social scenes and individuals-in-the-world,” it is “less likely to reproduce the theory-practice divide.” The move in SLA to holistic inquiry could facilitate repair of the literature-language schism that has divided our departments.
Looking to the domain of literacy, both Kramsch (“Language”) and Richard Kern (Literacy and “Reconciling”) suggest a natural collaboration between SLA and literary-cultural studies and between both bodies of research and teaching. According to Kern:
Literacy is about ways of creating and interpreting meaning through texts—which is more than the ability to inscribe and decode written language. Because interpretation lies at the heart of both communicative competence and literary studies, literacy may well offer the common ground necessary for the reconciliation of language and literature teaching. (“Reconciling” 21)
The relation between literary and language studies is evident. To promote language learning through literacy and to foster collaboration among various subfields of language departments, Kern therefore advocates multiple stories for language departments: developing literacy “through multiple experiences, in multiple contexts, with multiple text genres (both oral and written) for multiple purposes . . . to encourage students to take an active, critical stance to the discourse conventions we teach them” (“Redefining” 67). Even our discourses must be multiple in terms of the speech acts and social acts or “Discourses,” as James Gee describes, and in terms of the texts we use as the basis for our disciplinary evidence.
Our profession already has compelling examples of success stories in a literacy framework. Kramsch (“Language”) described a development program for teaching assistants at Berkeley in which graduate students apply the frameworks of SLA and literary theories together to analyze texts in German and prepare the texts for instruction in fourth-semester language courses. Byrnes (“Reconsidering”) reported the collaboration of German faculty members and teaching assistants at Georgetown in a massive curricular reform that framed the entire undergraduate curriculum in the study of language, literature, and culture through texts. As these initiatives show, multiple literacies can be realizable goals for foreign language departments. They promise to prepare a new generation of faculty members who draw fruitfully from interdisciplinary scholarship across literary studies, cultural studies, and language acquisition.
As the Georgetown initiative suggests, one route to integrating cultural and literary perspectives into language courses is to structure language courses around content themes. For example, in these postcolonial times, identity is a major theme in literary and cultural studies and in language acquisition. In ethnic literary studies, it often depicts the journey from menace to model minority (e.g, Asian American literature ) or from marginal to integrated member of society (e.g., Beur literature in France). Focus is often on the self, as perceiver of reality, and on the perception of reality revealed by the eyes of that other.
In the Beur bildungsroman, Azouz Begag’s Le gone du Chaâba, for example, the protagonist, Azouz, born in Lyon, France, of Algerian immigrant parents, struggles to move from the closed spaces of his shanty town—where French and Arabic are uncomfortably mixed with Lyon youth slang—into the regimented expectations of the French school system, with its social as well as educational criteria for success. Analysis of Azouz’s use of language reveals his shifting allegiance. The novel is written with two voices: the child Azouz who experiences life and the would-be adult Azouz who interprets, with some detachment, what is happening to him. Azouz reads his life like a text. Metaphors of acting and theater drive the novel as Azouz journeys through adolescence and experiments with different identities (Magnan; Reeck). To understand this novel is a literary act. In contemporary terms, readers can no more impose an identity on Azouz than they can impose a single interpretation on his text. The mundane reality of Azouz’s life and the intellectual questions underlying it meet in the fiction of the novel.
Identity is also a prominent area of research for SLA. For example, Karen Lybeck interviewed Americans living in Norway to find out how their interactions with Norwegians and allegiance with Norwegian society influenced their acquisition of a Norwegian accent. Julie Belz and Andreas Müller-Hartmann studied the personal and national ideologies of an American and a German professor to uncover what facilitated or hindered successful telecollaborations between their students. In a new journal, Language, Identity, and Education, Belz explained how the study of identity is basic to work in SLA, how it draws from work in psychology (Kroger), and how the different traditions in SLA align themselves with different perspectives on identity. Whereas an SLA concerned with acquisitional sequences and developmental issues focuses on the intrapsychic processes of maturing learners as they filter experiences to make meaning of their worlds, a socioculturally based SLA considers how cultural affordances and constraints mediate identity through language and action. It is in the narrative approach to identity, according to Belz, that language “appears to have much in common with postmodern epistemologies of literary analysis, in particular, feminist criticism . . . , where language and identity are understood to have an intimate and mutually constitutive relation” (16). In the narrative approach, language is considered a resource for constructing identity and for justifying and maintaining it. Belz further recalled that Kramsch (“Social Discursive”) suggested three related concepts conflated under the term identity in SLA scholarship: identity, role, and voice (18). As shown by Azouz’s identity search in Le gone du Chaâba, with its shifting voice that parallels his evolving social roles, these concepts resonate within literary and cultural studies as well.
SLA today draws from scholarship in many disciplines. Its basic questions (e.g., What constitutes a native speaker? What is fluency?) are becoming increasingly elusive. Indeed, it is problematic and simplistic to refer to someone as a native speaker when identity is multiple and socially mutable. Are these questions not related to those asked in literary and cultural studies as well? With regard to identity literature, cultural study, or language learning, we might ask, What conveys allegiance? What constitutes it? What are the signs and symbols of nonallegiance? What are their consequences? How are these consequences revealed, especially when allegiances change? What provides evidence of that journey? How are others—interlocutors, readers—involved in creating or dissolving allegiance? How are they, in turn, affected by the shifting allegiances of others? Is reality stable or mutable? What is known and who is allowed to know it? How does knowing occur?
For SLA—like many orientations in literary and cultural studies with a postcolonial, poststructuralist view—identity is an ongoing construction. Once we recognize identity as a fluid phenomenon, how can we expect a single research methodology to capture it, or even a single discipline? We need to diversify our sources of knowledge and use a hybridity of methods in our research programs. Research in SLA should draw from literary study, and literary study from SLA, for both, after all, find their uniqueness in words; and it is words, or their images, that are the essence of texts.
There have been many calls over the past decade (Schofer, “Literature”; Kramsch, “Language”; Marks; Byrnes and Kord) for a greater synergy between research and pedagogy in literary and language studies. As Kramsch points out, diversifying our sources of knowledge by bringing together scholars in the humanities and the social sciences requires “multicultural academic openness” and “a change in educational vision” (“Language” 13–14). The field of SLA, as it is evolving toward a more socially based paradigm, has the potential to facilitate these interdisciplinary border crossings in our language departments. As we rediscover text in our language, literature, and culture teaching, we must listen to and learn from the multiple perspectives that exist in our departments. The multiple views on texts—the stories of our department’s various disciplines—must each inform the holistic enterprise of foreign language study and teaching.
1The beginning of systematic study of second language acquisition is often attributed to Werner Leopold’s four-volume diary study of the acquisition of English and German by his daughter, Hildegard, growing up in Milwaukee in the 1930s.
2Four events in the 1970s are considered central to forming the modern discipline of SLA: (1) proposals by British and American scholars that the linguistic production of language learners (interlanguage) should be studied as a language in its own right rather than a defective version of the target language; (2) Evelyn Hatch’s 1978 publication of a collection of research studies in which learners’ interlanguage was studied using the tools of contemporary linguistics; (3) the founding of the journal Studies in Second Language Acquisition in 1978; (4) the first Second Language Research Forum, held at UCLA in 1977. First located mainly in English or linguistic departments, SLA made its primary entry into foreign language departments in the 1980s, when there were frequent job postings for scholars to direct language programs. Early on, these positions requested “applied linguists” or “language specialists,” later, researchers in “SLA.” See Kramsch for an overview (“New Field”).
3For a historical review of the decline of literature in language teaching, see Kramsch and Kramsch or Schofer (Text).
Atkinson, Dwight. “Toward a Sociocognitive Approach to Second Language Acquisition.” Modern Language Journal 86 (2002): 525–45.
Barnes-Karol, Gwendolyn. “Literature across the Curriculum: One View of Spanish from an Undergraduate Liberal Arts Perspective.” ADFL Bulletin 33.3 (2002): 13–19. [Show Article]
Begag, Azouz. Le gone du Chaâba. Paris: Seuil, 1986.
Belz, Julie A. “Second Language Play as a Representation of the Multicompetent Self in Foreign Language Study.” Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 1.1 (2002): 13–39.
Belz, Julie A., and Andreas Müller-Hartmann. “Teachers as Intercultural Learners: Negotiating German-American Telecollaboration along the Institutional Fault Line.” Modern Language Journal 87 (2003): 71–89.
Berg, William, and Laurey K. Martin-Berg. “A Stylistic Approach to Foreign Language Acquisition and Literary Analysis.” Scott and Tucker 172–91.
Bernhardt, Elizabeth. “Research into the Teaching of Literature in a Second Language: What It Says and How to Communicate It to Graduate Students.” Scott and Tucker 195–210.
Byrnes, Heidi. “The Cultural Turn in Foreign Language Departments: Challenge and Opportunity.” Profession 2002. New York: MLA, 2002. 114–29.
———. “Reconsidering Graduate Students’ Education as Teachers: It Takes a Department!” Modern Language Journal 85 (2001): 512–30.
Byrnes, Heidi, and Susanne Kord. “Developing Literacy and Literary Competence: Challenges for Foreign Language Departments.” Scott and Tucker 35–73.
Chomsky, Noam. Cartesian Linguistics. New York: Harper, 1965.
Cummins, Jim. Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2000.
Firth, Alan, and Johannes Wagner. “On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research.” Modern Language Journal 81 (1997): 285–300.
Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith. London: Tavistock, 1972.
Gee, James. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: Falmer, 1990.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold, 1985.
Hatch, Evelyn Marcussen, comp. Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings. Rowly: Newbury, 1978.
Jakobson, Roman. Essais de linguistique générale. Paris: Minuit, 1963.
Kern, Richard G. Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.
———. “Reconciling the Language-Literature Split through Literacy.” ADFL Bulletin 33.3 (2002): 20–24. [Show Article]
———. “Redefining the Boundaries of Foreign Language Literacy.” Redefining the Boundaries of Language Study. Ed. Claire Kramsch. Boston: Heinle, 1995. 61–98.
Kramsch, Claire. “Language and Culture: A Social Semiotic Perspective.” ADFL Bulletin 33.2 (2002): 8–15. [Show Article]
———. “A New Field of Research: SLA-Applied Linguistics.” PMLA 115 (2000): 1978–80.
———. “Social Discursive Constructions of Self in L2 Learning.” Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Ed. James P. Lantolf. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. 134–53.
Kramsch, Claire, and Olivier Kramsch. “The Avatars of Literature in Language Study.” Modern Language Journal 84 (2000): 553–73.
Kroger, Jane. Identity Development. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2000.
Leopold, Werner F. Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist’s Record. New York: AMS, 1970. Northwestern Humanities Ser. Vols. 6, 11, 18, 19.
Lybeck, Karen. “Cultural Identification and Second Language Pronunciation of Americans in Norway.” Modern Language Journal 86 (2002): 179–91.
Magnan, Sally Sieloff. “Young Beur Heroes: Helping Students Understand Tensions of Multi-cultural France.” French Review, forthcoming.
Marks, Elaine. “Reflections and Recommendations.” PMLA 115 (2000): 1254–56.
Martin, James R. “Process and Text: Two Aspects of Human Semiosis.” Systemic Perspectives on Discourse. Ed. James D. Benson and William S. Greaves. Norwood: Ablex, 1985. 243–74.
Mowitt, John. “What Is a Text Today?” PMLA 117 (2002): 1217–21.
Pennycook, Alastair. Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2001.
Prior, Lindsay. “Following in Foucault’s Footsteps: Text and Context in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Research: Theory, Method, and Practice. Ed. David Silverman. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1997. 63–79.
Reeck, Laura K. “The Beur Bildungsroman: Learning Curves and Discursive Turns.” Diss. New York U, 2002.
Schofer, Peter. “Literature and Communicative Competence: A Springboard for the Development of Critical Thinking and Aesthetic Appreciation or Literature in the Land of Language.” Foreign Language Annals 23 (1990): 325–34.
———. Text as Culture: Teaching through Literature and Language. Boston: Heinle, 2002.
Scott, Virginia M., and Holly Tucker, eds. SLA and the Literature Classroom: Fostering Dialogues. Boston: Heinle, 2001.
Shirane, Haruo. “Terrorism, Culture, and Literature.” PMLA 117 (2002): 513–14.
Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the Twenty-First Century. Lawrence: Allen, 1996.
Swaffar, Janet. “The Case for Foreign Languages as a Discipline.” Profession 1999. New York: MLA, 1999. 155–67.
“Text.” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary. 1992.
Vygotsky, Lev S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1978.
———. Thought and Language. Trans. Alex Kozulin. Cambridge: MIT P, 1986.
Watson-Gegeo, Karen Ann. “Mind, Language, and Epistemology: Toward a Language Socialization Paradigm for SLA.” Modern Language Journal, forthcoming.
———. “Thick Explanation in the Ethnographic Study of Child Socialization and Development: A Longitudinal Study of the Problem of Schooling for Kwara`ae (Solomon Islands) Children.” Interpretive Approaches to Children’s Socialization. Ed. William A. Corsaro and Peggy J. Miller. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992. 51–66.
Watson-Gegeo, Karen Ann, and Sarah Nielsen. “Language Socialization in SLA.” Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Ed. Catherine Doughty and Michael H. Long. Malden: Blackwell, 2003. 155–77.
© 2003 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
