For more than a century, literature has been an important component of foreign language (FL) programs in U.S. institutions of higher education and a valuable tool for understanding language, culture, and history (see Paran [Reference Paran2008] for a discussion of the value of literature and research arguing for and against its use in FL learning). During the early part of the 20th century, literature was the primary object of study and the ultimate goal of FL study, in part because of the nearly exclusive focus on reading and writing. As a result, literature held a place of prestige in the academic community and served as a source of moral and ideational inspiration and content. Yet, with the advent of audiolingualism in the postwar years, the onset of communicative language teaching in the 1970s, and the increased focus on oral competence that resulted, the role of literature in FL study began to shift. Instead of solely serving as the end goal of FL study, literature had also become a way to provide an authentic look into target language cultures and a means of learning the language itself (Kramsch & Kramsch, Reference Kramsch and Kramsch2000).

According to Nance (Reference Nance2010), the end of literature's unquestioned place of prestige at the end of the 20th century was due in part to the fact that literature instruction and curriculum structure continued to follow the same model that had been in place for decades: adherence to the literary canon and a text-centric, transmission model of literary interpretation. In contrast, multiple developments in language instruction took place over the years to respond to new findings in second language (L2) acquisition research. Today, informed by empirical and classroom practice research on language-literature instruction and literary scholarship extending well beyond the canon, the profession is rethinking the role of literature in FL programs. In particular, a recent report of the Modern Language Association (MLA) Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages (hereinafter, MLA Report, 2007), “Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed World,” which recommended creating articulated, coherent language-literature curricula, and related scholarship questioning the usefulness of communicative language teaching (CLT) as an approach to language development, have fueled discussions about reconfigured FL curricula and the role of literature in developing learners’ ability to engage in multimodal language use and textual thinking. As such, in the 21st century, this reconfigured view has allowed literature to reclaim its primacy at all levels of FL instruction. Indeed, as Swaffar and Arens claimed,

The purpose of this review is to assess whether recent empirical and classroom practice scholarship in language-literature instruction, defined as the deliberate integration of language development and literary study at all levels of the curriculum, reflects shifts in thinking regarding the role of literature in FL curricula. This review is restricted to FL instruction in U.S. institutions of higher education not only to reflect the content of current debates in the applied linguistics literature but also to avoid overlap with other recent review articles on language-literature instruction. These articles have focused on pedagogical research in English as a second language and English as a foreign language (ESL/EFL) contexts (Carter, Reference Carter2007); empirical reports and their pedagogical implications in ESL and FL contexts (Paran, Reference Paran2008); research developments across the history of one journal (Kramsch & Kramsch, Reference Kramsch and Kramsch2000); language-literature instruction with a specific focus on poetry (Melin, Reference Melin2010); and teaching reading, with literature as only a peripheral consideration (Bernhardt, Reference Bernhardt2005; Grabe, Reference Grabe2004). The research on language-literature instruction in ESL/EFL contexts, which reports on studies in the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe, and Asia, is considerable and touches on numerous issues such as English for academic purposes (e.g., Minkoff, Reference Minkoff and Paran2006; Viswamohan & Torche, Reference Viswamohan, Torche and Beaven2007), links between reading literature and writing (e.g., Hirvela, Reference Hirvela, Belcher and Hirvela2001, Reference Hirvela2005), and literary stylistics (e.g., Watson & Zyngier, Reference Watson and Zyngier2007).

THE LANGUAGE-LITERATURE DIVIDE

Starting in the mid-1980s and continuing through the 1990s, scholars in applied linguistics produced a large body of research on what is now known as the language-literature divide in university FL programs (e.g., Barnett, Reference Barnett1991; Bernhardt, Reference Bernhardt1995; Henning, Reference Henning1993; Hoffman & James, Reference Hoffman and James1986; Kramsch, Reference Kramsch1985; Muyskens, Reference Muyskens1983; Schultz, Reference Schultz, Haggstrom, Morgan and Wieczorek1995). This divide is characterized by fixed lines of demarcation between language study in lower-level courses and literary study in upper-level courses, the assumption being that once students have completed lower-level language courses, they are ready to carry out the advanced-level tasks expected in literature courses. However, as Byrnes and Maxim (Reference Byrnes and Maxim2004) demonstrated, this assumption has not been realized. In fact, lack of attention to literary texts in lower-level courses and to language development in upper-level courses has made advanced work in literature inaccessible to many undergraduate students (Bernhardt, Reference Bernhardt1995; Schultz, Reference Schultz, Haggstrom, Morgan and Wieczorek1995).Footnote ¹

The sources of the language-literature divide are numerous. In 1967, the MLA created the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), signaling a long-standing professional and symbolic rift between language and literature—and those who teach each subject—in FL departments (Donato & Brooks, Reference Donato and Brooks2004). This rift corresponded with a growing sense of decreased responsibility on the part of literature faculty toward language development (James, Reference James and Terry2000) and the resultant administrative and personnel divisions that persist today (e.g., language courses staffed by graduate student or adjunct instructors, and few tenured or tenure-track faculty teaching introductory courses). In addition, different pedagogical goals grew out of this rift in each camp: functional, interactive language use on the one hand, and literary-cultural interpretation on the other. The view of literary analysis as the ultimate goal of language instruction compounded the problem and reinforced a number of assumptions: Literature should not be taught before students attain a high level of language proficiency; language is merely a tool for analyzing and appreciating literature; and students in literature classes deepen language knowledge passively by reading and listening to lectures (Barnett, Reference Barnett1991; Hall, Reference Hall2005; Muyskens, Reference Muyskens1983). Kramsch (Reference Kramsch1985) summed up the problem as follows: Communicative and literary goals in FL departments are at odds with one another; the former encourages two-way communication and negotiation, and the latter treats literary texts “as finished products, to be unilaterally decoded, analyzed, and explained or . . . to illustrate grammatical rules and enrich the reader's vocabulary” (p. 356).

CALLS FOR CHANGE

Starting in the late 1990s, discussions about the language-literature divide began to shift toward a focus on larger curricular issues such as program redesign to promote development of advanced-level FL abilities through the study of texts, literary and otherwise (e.g., Byrnes, Reference Byrnes and Byrnes1998; Byrnes & Maxim, Reference Byrnes and Maxim2004; Paesani, Reference Paesani and Stivale2004; Scott & Tucker, Reference Scott and Tucker2002; Swaffar & Arens, Reference Swaffar and Arens2005). This shift was punctuated by the MLA Report (2007), and the stream of responses to its recommendations (e.g., Geisler, Reference Geisler2008; Maxim, Reference Maxim2009; Pfeiffer, Reference Pfeiffer2008; Pireddu, Reference Pireddu2008; Porter, Reference Porter2009; Walther, Reference Walther2009; Wellmon, Reference Wellmon2008). The report recommended “replacing the two-tiered language-literature structure with a broader and more coherent curriculum in which language, culture, and literature are taught as a continuous whole” (MLA Report, p. 3). Further, the report proposed that this reform be accomplished through development of students' “translingual and transcultural competence,” or “the ability to operate between languages” (pp. 3–4), and increased emphasis on cultural narratives present in FL texts such as poetry, prose, film, and journalism. Within this proposed structure, literature, therefore, is one of many text types that comprise FL study.Footnote ²

The call for curricular reform in the MLA Report and elsewhere has been coupled with a general questioning over the past decade of CLT as a viable method for language instruction and of communicative competence as adequate preparation for advanced-level work in a FL (e.g., Byrnes, Reference Byrnes2006; Byrnes & Maxim, Reference Byrnes and Maxim2004; Schultz, Reference Schultz and Scott2009). CLT has come to be associated primarily with interactive, transactional, oral language use that encourages student recall of information rather than analysis and critical evaluation of that information (Schultz, Reference Schultz and Scott2009; Swaffar, Reference Swaffar2006). However, this practice does not articulate well with the kind of language use that FL departments consider desirable to carry out their intellectual and academic missions. Indeed, as Byrnes (Reference Byrnes2006) argued, because of its propensity to separate language from literary-cultural content, a focus on CLT “may unintentionally sustain the long-standing bifurcation of FL programs into language courses and content courses with all the attendant negative consequences” (p. 244).

Following Swaffar's (Reference Swaffar2006) recommendation that FL programs redefine communicative competence as the ability to read, write, listen, speak, and reflect critically and intelligently about a culture's multiple facets, recent research has argued in favor of situating texts at the center of the curriculum and developing multimodal language abilities, such that reading, writing, listening, and speaking are viewed as complementary rather than separate skills (e.g., Byrnes, Crane, Maxim, & Sprang, Reference Byrnes, Crane, Maxim and Sprang2006; Kern, Reference Kern2008; Kern & Schultz, Reference Kern and Schultz2005; Maxim, Reference Maxim, Katz and Watzinger-Tharp2008, Reference Maxim2009). Moreover, the text-centric transmission model of literary instruction, in which texts are seen as having a fixed interpretation, is slowly being replaced by approaches that encourage interpretative interaction with texts representing the literary canon and beyond and that highlight “the sociological, cultural, and historical dimensions of the literary” (Kern & Schultz, Reference Kern and Schultz2005, p. 383). These changes in curricular and pedagogical thinking are major advances in discussions about the language-literature divide and move the profession closer to a merging of the two sides. To determine whether these changes have been reflected to date in the research, I turn now to a critical summary of scholarship presenting empirical and classroom practice perspectives on the use of literature in language courses followed by a critical summary of the role of language in literature courses.Footnote ³ It should be noted from the outset that very little of the existing scholarship on language-literature pedagogy is empirical in nature; most published articles provide examples of pedagogical and curricular best practices and policy statements.

LITERATURE IN LANGUAGE COURSES

The traditional structure of language courses includes an orientation toward the development of communicative competence, a preference for oral versus written language use, explicit focus on language forms, reliance on language-oriented textbooks, and little systematic linking of form and meaning through the study of FL texts. However, as the research reviewed thus far suggests, the nature of collegiate language instruction is changing, and literature is seen as an important element in this change. Numerous scholars have argued over the past decade for the integration of literature from the very start of language study (e.g., Kern, Reference Kern2008; Paesani, Reference Paesani and Stivale2004, Reference Paesani2005; Walther, Reference Walther2007). For instance, Walther (Reference Walther2007) suggested that literature be given a greater role in introductory-level courses to show how language works in context and to draw students' attention to connections between language and communicative intent. Likewise, Scott and Huntington (Reference Scott and Huntington2007, Reference Scott and Huntington2008) argued that studying literature in introductory language courses can help students gain insight into FL cultures, understand differing cultural perspectives, develop critical thinking skills, and interpret textual content. Their empirical research investigated the role of literature within the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (ACTFL, 2006).Footnote ⁴ Their first study (Scott & Huntington, Reference Scott and Huntington2007), which focused on the interpretive mode of communication, investigated students' interpretive processes when reading a Francophone poem in teacher-moderated versus student-centered small group discussions. Results showed that students were able to engage in interpretive communication and access the content of literature in teacher-moderated discussions. Their second study (Scott & Huntington, Reference Scott and Huntington2008), which focused on the cultures standard, compared students' understanding of and attitudes about Francophone culture after reading a fact sheet versus a Francophone poem. Results showed that the group who read the poem had more personal reactions to culture and were more likely to engage in discussions about cultural content. Both studies underscored the importance of incorporating literary texts in introductory FL courses.

Maxim (Reference Maxim2006b) and Stewart and Santiago (Reference Stewart and Santiago2006) provided further empirical support for the integration of multimodal language use with textual thinking, literary analysis, and development of academic literacy. Maxim's study on the use of extensive reading in a first-semester German course showed that reading a novel as part of the curriculum did not interfere with students' linguistic development. Indeed, students who spent half of class time reading a novel and half of class time doing communicative development activities scored at least as well on departmental exams testing grammar and vocabulary as those students who only completed communicative development activities. Stewart and Santiago integrated a novel into intermediate-level language courses through an instructional unit shaped by the Standards. Their case study included two groups of students, one consisting of first language (L1) English learners of Spanish and one consisting of L1 Spanish learners of English who read a novel (in their respective L2) about a bicultural Puerto Rican American's search for identity in the United States. Stewart and Santiago found that the study of the literary text encouraged a complex level of cultural understanding and sensitivity and had a lasting and profound effect on both student groups.

In spite of such empirical support for more fully integrating multimodal language development with textual thinking and literary analysis, some attempts at integrating literature into the language classroom are instrumental in nature, wherein literature is viewed only as a tool for developing language proficiency. In such approaches, little attention is paid to the social, historical, and cultural content of literary texts or to the development of students' analytical and critical thinking skills. In their study of 16 course syllabi from first- and second-semester Spanish language courses and instructor questionnaire responses, Alvstad and Castro (Reference Alvstad and Castro2009) found that literature was indeed used instrumentally. In the syllabi examined—which included assignments, schedules, course descriptions, and objectives—the concepts of literature and culture were simplified or not clearly defined. Furthermore, the objectives for literature reflected the course objectives as a whole, such as development of grammatical and lexical knowledge and improved written and oral language skills. Two examples of instrumental uses of literature are evident in scholarship on classroom best practices as well. Paesani (Reference Paesani2005) proposed a model of grammar instruction that uses literary texts as comprehensible input in introductory language courses. Although some of the activities in the sample lesson plan asked students to think about the content, themes, and role of narrative voice in a French poem, literature was used primarily as an inductive presentation of grammatical forms and as a model for student writing. Davidheiser (Reference Davidheiser2007), who used fairy tales in introductory German courses to teach European culture and social practices, also presented an instructional sequence focused on students' language development. Through the reading of shortened and linguistically modified tales, Davidheiser suggested that learners engage in retelling activities for oral and written language development, sentence creation activities for grammar development, and true/false or yes/no question answering for listening development. Davidheiser also outlined an approach to fairy tales in advanced literature courses that, he claimed, integrates language development. However, the brief description of the approach does not make clear that language development is explicitly addressed.

Apart from these isolated examples, the majority of scholarship on literature in language instruction fully integrates textual thinking and literary analysis with multimodal language development across instructional levels. This work can be grouped into to two major pedagogical emphases: process-oriented and literacy-based.

LANGUAGE IN LITERATURE COURSES

The traditional structure of literature courses includes an orientation toward the exclusive focus on literary analysis and the study of literary movements, themes, and genres, with little if any systematic or substantive focus on language development. Yet, as many researchers have pointed out (e.g., Allen, Reference Allen and Scott2009a; Byrnes & Maxim, Reference Byrnes and Maxim2004; Maxim, Reference Maxim, Katz and Watzinger-Tharp2008; Steinhart, Reference Steinhart2006), it is unrealistic to expect that content be the sole focus of literature courses, given that students are still working toward advanced language abilities. According to Maxim (Reference Maxim, Katz and Watzinger-Tharp2008), attending to linguistic development only in language courses and failing to focus on language forms in literature courses “does not fully take into account the (con)textual nature of language use that permeates all levels of language use and that inherently requires grammar to be inextricably linked to meaning, and function to form” (p. 173). Indeed, because language is inherently meaning based, it must be studied in contextualized, discourse-length texts. Literature courses, therefore, seem an ideal venue for continued language development.

Empirical research on the nature of classroom discourse in literature courses underscores the need for continued attention to students' language development. Donato and Brooks (Reference Donato and Brooks2004) studied classroom discourse in a fourth-year Spanish literature course to see whether literary discussions played a role in development of advanced language functions. They found that teacher talk dominated classroom discussions and that students did not have opportunities for elaborated responses. Donato and Brooks concluded that literature instructors should become aware of types of advanced-level speaking functions and provide opportunities for students to use them in a variety of discussion activities. Mantero (Reference Mantero2006), in response to the findings in Donato and Brooks (Reference Donato and Brooks2004) and Mantero (Reference Mantero2002), proposed a theoretical model of instruction that provides opportunities for extended discourse and language learning in literature-based classrooms. Mantero's (Reference Mantero2006) applied literacy in L2 education (ALL2E) model allows students to actively construct textual meaning through interactions with other students. As such, “an understanding and command of grammar emerges through dialogic interaction about and with the text” (p. 108).

Studies by Zyzik and Polio (Reference Zyzik and Polio2008) and Polio and Zyzik (Reference Polio and Zyzik2009) further support the need to develop students' speaking abilities and provide linguistic support in FL literature courses. Both examined form-focused classroom discourse in three fourth-year Spanish literature courses. Zyzik and Polio (Reference Zyzik and Polio2008) investigated the types and frequency of incidental focus on form (e.g., techniques that draw students' attention to language forms as problems arise) in classroom discourse and literature instructors’ perceptions of its use. Polio and Zyzik (Reference Polio and Zyzik2009) investigated teacher and student perceptions of explicit focus on language development in literature classes. Similar to Donato and Brooks (Reference Donato and Brooks2004), both studies found that teacher talk dominated classroom discussion and that students were not provided with adequate opportunities for negotiation or extended discourse. Zyzik and Polio (Reference Zyzik and Polio2008) and Polio and Zyzik (Reference Polio and Zyzik2009) concluded that pedagogical attention to advanced speaking functions with explicit linguistic support is necessary in literature courses and suggested several strategies for achieving this, including reading journals, vocabulary notebooks, weekly language-focused break-out sessions, and hybrid courses with online language support and development activities.

Given the empirical support for attention to language development in literature courses, it is important to see whether this need is addressed in scholarship on classroom practice. Overall, this scholarship reflects not only a focus on language development merged with literary study (as called for in the MLA Report [2007] and elsewhere) but also on interpretative interaction with texts. The majority of articles surveyed reflect literacy-based approaches to language in literature courses, however, a handful of articles share characteristics of process-oriented instruction. It is this latter group of articles to which I now turn.