18, no. 3 (April 1987): 25-27 To the Editor Search

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

No Works Cited

THE undergraduate French major at the University of California at Davis was recently restructured from a dualtrack program, with emphasis on language or literature, to a single major combining both disciplines. Since the decision to revise the French major, worthwhile as it may prove to have been, did not unanimously reflect faculty views on what constitutes a sound foreign language program, pro and con opinions are presented throughout this discussion. Having been personally involved in all the deliberations leading to the revision and having previously been undergraduate adviser in French for a substantial number of years, I can view the matter from the perspective of both faculty members and students.

The former French major, on the two-plan system, was instituted during the 1975–76 academic year. Since it superseded a combined language and literature curriculum, in essence a full circle has been traveled with the implementation of the current major. The two-track system was something of an experiment, a departure from the traditional concept of a consolidated language major. Its replacement by a combined plan might suggest that it was an experiment that failed, although rising enrollment figures in the major during the last four or five years would tend to refute such an argument.

When originally conceived, the two-option plan was designed to appeal to two distinct categories of students, without those two tracks necessarily being mutually exclusive. Indeed, the lower-division preparatory subject matter was virtually identical for both tracks, and a student electing to “specialize” in one option was at the same time required to take a certain number of advanced courses in the other. It was felt that the students who chose the literature track (Plan A) were those who intended to continue with graduate study in the field. In fact, all students who indicated that they might consider working toward an MA or higher degree were strongly urged to choose the literature option in their undergraduate major. Those who so chose generally had an interest, or a specialization, in other literary areas (English, comparative literature, etc.), and most were students of higher academic achievement than their peers in the program.

Plan B, the language track, was designed for undergraduates whose ambitions did not encompass graduate study but who sought a more practical application or outlet for their French major. These students envisaged careers in business or in teaching, translating, or interpreting. Significantly, the overwhelming majority of students who elected to combine their specialization in French with another field of study (i.e., double majors) chose areas such as international relations, political science, or economics. While they still had to take courses in literature, their interests, goals, and focus lay in a different direction. It would be inappropriate to say that their purpose in studying French was less noble, meaningful, or deserving of departmental concern. In fact, the language majors merited prime consideration for they outnumbered literature majors by nearly six to one. The department clearly had two categories of students to whom it needed to cater, and the dual-track major seemed a workable and satisfactory way to meet the needs of each.

The decision to revise the French major was not motivated by student disenchantment with the curriculum, nor was it spawned by low course enrollment—unless one cared to make a case for the lower enrollment in literature than in language classes. If anything, the program was showing every sign of healthy growth, the number of declared French majors having practically doubled in five years. The real reason for the decision, as I perceive it, was faculty dissatisfaction with the curriculum, on philosophical or ideological rather than practical grounds. There was a growing concern that, despite the existence of two plans, the major was slowly assuming a “vocational” character, that students so emphasized the “skills” aspect of their training that they tended to ignore the intellectual side. It was felt that a sound program of study should balance these facets, yet students opted for the language track in disproportionate numbers, taking all or most of their elective courses in language, despite the best advising efforts of the department. The two-track program seemed to be fostering an ever-widening rift in their minds between literature and language. Literature courses were difficult, language courses relatively easier, and the latter, moreover, were seen by students as more “relevant” to career goals. It was difficult to make them understand that efficient language training by necessity requires exposure to linguistic models and that literature provides the best of such models. What better way to show students the range of expression of the French language than by having them read Racine, Balzac, Proust, Sartre, and such, to say nothing of the insight into the French mentality and the cultural background that such reading provides? A return to a unified program, one in which practical language and intellectual content were in balance, would raise the major from the vocational depths into which it supposedly had fallen and be in the best interests of our undergraduates.

The preparatory subject matter for the major was generally deemed adequate, and only one minor modification was made, the addition of an elementary course in linguistics. Such a course represented sound language training preparation and provided the necessary background for an understanding of the theoretical concepts and terminology associated with upper-division linguistics requirements. Since the course would be offered outside the department by the linguistics program, preliminary inquiries had to be made to determine how enrollment in that course would be affected by a sudden influx of French majors.

The principal changes in the French program occurred at the upper level. A new course in French composition was devised and made a prerequisite to all other upper-division courses. Its purpose, to quote from the course proposal, was “to teach upper-division students to write clear expository French with correct syntax, clear organization, and with a degree of sophistication in the use of French vocabulary.” Students would learn about paragraph construction, the preparation of outlines, the use of concrete versus abstract vocabulary, formal and informal expression, syntactic variations to convey nuances in meaning, the use of critical terminology, and other writing techniques, all of which might benefit the undergraduate as much in French as in English composition. An English-to-French translation course was retained as a requirement, though its title was changed from Translation and Composition to Translation, the compositional component having been shifted to the new composition course.

Faculty dissatisfaction with the concept of a language major, allied perhaps with a concern over declining enrollment in literature classes, is reflected in the relatively high proportion of upper-division literature requirements under the new plan. Of eight specified requirements for the major, five are in literature (three specific courses and two electives). Previously, a language major needed only two literary courses out of a choice of three—introduction to French poetry, French drama, and French prose. All are now requirements, and they are also prerequisites for advanced literature courses. It was felt that these introductory courses represent sound and needed preparation for the more intensive courses on individual authors or literary periods. In addition, two electives in literature are required, to be chosen in consultation with the undergraduate adviser.

The three upper-division courses needed to complete the French major were left as open electives. Students may select whatever courses appeal to them, regardless of discipline, with the approval of their advisers. Hence, a student may opt for a class in seventeenth-century theater if graduate study is envisaged, or a class in business French if a more “practical” objective is sought.

The minor program in French underwent a revision similar to that of the major, changing from a dual-track plan to a unified one, as shown in the chart in the appendix.

What is the outlook for this revised program? It is still too early for any meaningful feedback. Eventually, enrollment figures will provide the answer. But it may be said now that the revision reflects an earnest desire to upgrade the curriculum, to impart greater intellectual substance to a program whose focus was perceived as having become too unilateral. The move away from dual-track specialization and toward a more synthetic course of study is in keeping with the best liberal arts tradition. The intent is not to produce “technicians” concerned primarily about the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of the language but, rather, to train humanists, if the term is applicable here, with a broader background in French as a field of study. Exposure to literature enriches students' understanding and appreciation of the French language, making them aware of the cultural heritage of which that language is a part and developing in them a feeling for artistic values and creativity. While still honing their linguistic skills, students come into contact with the themes and concerns of some of Western civilization's great writers and thinkers.

Sound as the revision of the French program may be, however, we might ask, from a philosophical or pedagogical standpoint, to what extent it is in touch with reality—the reality of student interests and program growth. A significant number of our French majors show little inclination toward, or aptitude for, the study of literature. Many are clearly interested in the practical aspects of their major, in the acquisition and development of skills that can be applied to future real-life situations, perhaps in conjunction with another field of study. Are we doing these students a disservice by limiting their options in that domain, perhaps stifling their motivation, simply because we, as faculty members, have decided that a certain prescribed course of study is best for them? Should we not, instead, be responsive to student demand and broaden the scope of our language offerings, instituting new or more courses in diplomatic translation, in technical and commercial French, in advanced composition, and so on, while at the same time retaining a well-rounded program for students interested in literature? To put it differently, is a combined major featuring a little of everything and not much of anything to be preferred to in-depth preparation in one area?

On the practical side, consideration must also be given to program growth. There is always an element of risk, I feel, in tampering with a program of study that is making healthy progress, particularly so when the changes are as far-reaching as ours. Had there been widespread student dissatisfaction with the major, the decision to revise might have been a less hazardous undertaking. It is conceivable that enrollment in the major may suffer a decline as a result of the change, with all the ensuing consequences. That is something, however, that only time will tell.

The author is Associate Professor of French in the Department of French and Italian at the University of California, Davis.

Plan A: Literature

Fr. 101—Introd. to French Poetry
Fr. 102—Introd. to French Drama
Fr. 103—Introd. to French Prose
Fr. 135—Advanced Composition
One course chosen from each of four of the following literary periods:
    Medieval period
    Sixteenth century
    Seventeenth century
    Eighteenth century
    Nineteenth century
    Twentieth century
Two upper-division electives in language or literature
One upper-division course in a national literature other than French, or in comparative literature

Plan B: Language

Two courses chosen from Fr. 101, 102, 103
Fr. 104—Translation and Composition
Fr. 110—Stylistics and Creative Composition
Fr. 135—Advanced Composition
Fr. 160—Structure of the French Language
Fr. 161—Modern French Syntax
Four courses chosen from:
    Fr. 106—French in Business and the Professions
    Fr. 107—Contemporary France
    Fr. 138—Advanced Literary Translation
    Fr. 159—French Phonetics
    Fr. 162—History of the French Language

Plan A: Literature

Two courses chosen from:
    Fr. 101—Introd. to French Poetry
    Fr. 102—Introd. to French Drama
    Fr. 103—Introd. to French Prose
Four upper-division courses in French literature from at least three of the following periods:
    Middle Ages
    Sixteenth century
    Seventeenth century
    Eighteenth century
    Nineteenth century
    Twentieth century

Plan B: Language

Fr. 104—Translation and Composition
Fr. 107—Contemporary France
Fr. 110—Stylistics and Creative Composition

or

Fr. 138—Advanced Literary Translation
Fr. 135—Advanced Composition

Two upper-division courses in French literature or language, or in French culture offered outside the department

© 1987 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.

ADFL Bulletin 18, no. 3 (April 1987): 25-27

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

No Works Cited