Rehumanizing the Language Curriculum

Overcoming Anachronisms

For decades, scholars have been confronting and contesting the polemic language-literature divide, grappling with how to manage the richly multifaceted nature of the field of foreign, second, and heritage language and literary studies, and to reconcile what at times seem like divergent academic identities serving competing interests.¹ Throughout this time, a number of researchers and practitioners from across the globe have made significant contributions to successfully integrating target language (TL) literary studies with linguistics, language pedagogy, intercultural development, and other innovative educational initiatives and priorities.

In 1985, Widdowson expressed with his characteristic lucidity concerns about the language-literature divide. Noting that language teaching and literature teaching “have been traditionally seen as belonging to two different pedagogic domains” he laments that in instructional settings these two domains “may occasionally co-occur, but they do not compound” (p. 180). In his essay he aims “to deplore this separation and to propose a reconciliation for the future” (p. 180). ←1 | 2→He expresses clear disagreement and dissatisfaction with efforts to “purge” literature from the language curriculum and offers an equally unambiguous admonition to literary scholars who base their approach to TL literature teaching on the false premise that their students already possess “an independent ability to read literature for themselves” (p. 180, 186). His proposal for reconciliation consists of his renowned stylistic approach to teaching literature that stimulates interactive student engagement with both language and literature, and that supports both language learning and literary learning (Widdowson 1975, 1985, 1992). Widdowson makes a strong argument demonstrating that the domains of language teaching and literature teaching are complementary, and that “the strength of the case for exclusion [of literature in language education] is undermined by the principles of communicative language teaching” (Widdowson, 1985, p. 181).

Since the moment of Widdowson’s call for reconciliation, many scholars from across the globe have contributed additional perspectives to advocate in different ways for the integration of literature education and language pedagogy.² In response to imperfect vertical articulation of curricula, scholars and practitioners have argued for expanding the presence of literature and of literary learning across different levels of the TL curriculum to provide smooth and coherent support for a variety of TL educational goals.³ To address calls for improved learning in literature classrooms, educators have developed interactive and student-centered teaching methods and innovative course designs.⁴ In response to calls to document the validity of literature in TL education, researchers have conducted data-based and empirical investigations in defense of TL literary education.⁵

The primary aim of this volume is to contribute to this ongoing work of resisting anachronistic fragmentation within language, cultural, and literary education with new knowledge and perspectives from scholars working at this exciting crossroads, counteracting illogical and unproductive divisions. At a time when research value is measured too often almost exclusively by the presence or absence of quantitative data points—regardless of the actual significance or impact of those data—this book inclusively brings together different types of scholarship without privileging any one mode of inquiry, analysis, or knowledge creation over another: essays, theoretical research, testimonies, data-based investigations. The chapters ahead exploit different tools to examine multiple aspects of the opportunities associated with literature as a powerful force for rehumanizing and invigorating TL education in the 21^st century.

This collection foregrounds the multilayered value of teaching and learning TL literature: each chapter aligns TL literary education with competencies that reside at the core of broader educational and societal priorities and aspirations. Contributors connect literature education to a wide array of goals, including not only literacy, communicative competence, and critical reading and thinking, but also social engagement, global citizenship, intercultural sensitivity, and symbolic ←2 | 3→competence. As a cohesive whole, this volume demonstrates viable avenues for reconciling the historic differences between language pedagogues and literature educators.

The paradigm shift towards functional communication skills in language education that occurred during the second half of the 20^th century has been celebrated in a variety of terms: a refreshing and egalitarian renunciation of an elitist past, an overdue and rational turn toward more realistic and meaningful communication, the adoption of new and more relevant priorities.⁶ Key concepts in remarks like these, that aim to commend the noteworthy achievements of communicative language teaching, have also been invoked to question the utility of literary studies in the TL curriculum. Skeptics and detractors view literature as a luxury for the elite, as a form of communication that is less authentic and less meaningful than the spontaneous speech one might hear at the corner butcher shop or in TikTok videos, as a cultural product of low relevance and interest to contemporary students. While viral amateur videos, transactional exchanges, and casual social repartee may respond to the most immediately discernible notions of utility, authenticity, and relevance to some young people, that does not mean that beautiful, powerful, complex, or challenging literary texts are not also uniquely useful and authentic, socio-culturally genuine, and thoroughly relevant to those same people. The easy accessibility of tweets, Youtube shorts, and viral memes is appealing because it gratifies instantly. The ultimate appeal of learning how to unravel the complexities and elucidate the ambiguities of a skillfully crafted literary text, while perhaps not immediately dazzling on the surface, when taught effectively through supportive and empowering methods is certainly far more impactful.

Education is not about leisurely indulgence or the expeditious retrieval of prizes: it is about exerting sustained effort in pursuit of valuable, enduring, and satisfying rewards, many of which are difficult or impossible to quantify. In an age in which educational accountability is too frequently and myopically reduced to countability, all language educators at all levels must resist the temptation to race toward lowest common denominators.