Language 

Teaching
http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA

Additional services for Language Teaching:

Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Teaching literature in a foreign language
Marie Gilroy and Brian Parkinson

Language Teaching / Volume 29 / Issue 04 / October 1996, pp 213 ­ 225
DOI: 10.1017/S026144480000851X, Published online: 23 December 2008

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S026144480000851X

How to cite this article:
Marie Gilroy and Brian Parkinson (1996). Teaching literature in a foreign language. Language Teaching, 29, pp 
213­225 doi:10.1017/S026144480000851X

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA, IP address: 132.203.235.189 on 30 Apr 2013
State of the art article
Teaching literature in a foreign language
Marie Gilroy and Brian Parkinson Institute for Applied Language Studies, University
of Edinburgh

away, and has always been a large part of EFL for

1. Introduction
many learners: in South Asia, for example, the
English textbook is sometimes only a collection of
This article reviews and seeks to 'situate' ideas on the literary texts. And within the grammar-translation
teaching of literature within Foreign Language method of teaching language, the role of literature
Teaching (FLT), as found in recent methodology was, and for some still is, unquestioned: regarded as
and stylistics books (and a few articles) for teachers the highest form of expression of the target
and in textbooks for direct learner use. We focus on language, literature was/is an essential subject of
English as a Foreign Language (EFL), though most study for the language learner.
ideas are usable, and actually found, in other But, as Maley points out, literature had lost favour
languages too. 'Recent' is a flexible term - we with those who write about teaching: in the
concentrate on the last ten years, but go back much structural/functional syllabus, there was often no
earlier for a few key textbooks, and also in tracing room for literature, which was regarded as elitist,
the sources of ideas. 'Foreign Language' also covers remote, deviant and not authentic. This view has
a wide area, from clearly EFL situations where been challenged in recent years, and now, in the
literature is used to help low-level learners improve 'communicative' era, literature is back in favour.
their English, to contexts where the learners are The reason for its return seems to us to be the
(supposed to be) very advanced and the teaching is convergence of ideas from two main sources: first,
barely distinguishable from that in English-Ll literary criticism, including the debate on the nature
literature classes; and we also include a few books of literary language and reader response theory;
not written for EFL, perhaps not even for teaching, second, communicative language teaching. In the
but crucial in our view to enlightened EFL practice. following sections we try to trace these ideas, review
(For economic, sociolinguistic and demographic some key books and offer tentative conclusions.
reasons, a high percentage of English Literature
study is now in EFL settings, and this can influence 2. What is literature and why have
even apparently non-EFL books and articles.)
'Literature is back, but wearing different clothes', attitudes towards it changed?
wrote Maley (1989: 59). Of course it never went Leavis wrote of literature study as the 'supremely
civilising pursuit' and was influential in elevating it
Marie Gilroy is a Teaching Fellow at IALS, to an academic discipline; his view that 'it trains, in
University of Edinburgh, where she is Head of the a way no other discipline can, intelligence and
General English Section. As well as general and sensibility together, cultivating sensitiveness and
advanced courses, she teaches on a number of courses precision of response and a delicate integrity of
involving literature in EFL, including teachers' courses intelligence' (1943:34-35), is still held by many
and the MSc in Applied Linguistics. Her research English teachers and some textbook writers, but has
interests include irony, narratology, the use of literature been attacked very effectively by Widdowson
in the language classroom and classroom observation. (1975:73-74), who points out that almost any
Her PhD in Russian literature was published as academic subject can develop these general
Lermontov's Ironic Vision in 1989. intellectual qualities, and we must seek more specific
justifications for the study of literature. Leavis'
Brian Parkinson is a lecturer at IALS, University of establishment of an elite literary 'canon' with its
Edinburgh. He teaches general language courses implicit moral and value judgements also deeply
(English and German), text study and translation and influenced views on what should be regarded as
language through literature, plus MSc course units on literature, but is now likewise seriously challenged.
classroom-based research, testing and the teaching of As a reaction against the ideas of Leavisite
literature. His books (with R. Mitchell and others) Practical Criticism and of New Criticism, which
include Mastery Learning in Foreign Language viewed literature as a form of human undentanding
Teaching (1981) and The Foreign Language based on qualities such as harmony, balance,
Classroom (1981). Since 1993 he has been editor of integrity and ambiguity, Structuralism and
Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics. Formalism, influenced by Saussurean linguistics,
sought to establish a more scientific, dispassionate
Lang. Teach. 29, 213-225. Copyright © 1997 Cambridge University Press 213
State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
theory of literature. The Russian and Czech wrote this about 'wit') is still remarkably popular
Formalists, for example, considered literature, among teachers and writers - we found it in literally
especially poetry, as a special use of language, and dozens of books. In similar vein, one of the reasons
poetic language was denned according to how it for using literature given by Collie and Slater (1987)
differed or deviated from standard language, the — that because literary language is concise, it is
purpose being to make the reader perceive anew aesthetically satisfying, and therefore memorable -
(Mukarovsky, 1964; Shklovsky, 1917). This notion echoes a traditional reason for teaching literature,
of literary language being somehow deviant may that is as a model of good writing, as rhetoric.
have discouraged some language teachers from Traditionally in Europe, and even now in some parts
introducing literature into the classroom, though of the world, large chunks of classical writing
one of the present writers (Parkinson, 1990, 1993) were/are learned by heart, and the speech and
has suggested ways of turning the apparent problem writing of educated people was/is laced with direct
to advantage. quotations from older authors and with imitation of
The distinction between standard and poetic their styles. However, both Collie and Slater (1987)
language, however, has been challenged by many and Carter and Long (1991) warn of the danger in
writers in the field of linguistics and language encouraging memorising without understanding and
teaching. Eagleton (1983), Brumfit and Carter of using demotivating mechanistic language activities
(1986) and Rodger (in Brumfit, 1983) argue that it in place of a genuine engagement with the work.
is not possible to isolate features which are exclusive In an attempt to 'demystify' literature, McRae
to literary language and point out that, for example, (1991:2-3), differentiates between 'referential'
rhythm and phonological patterning can be found in language which communicates on the informative
children's nursery rhymes, whilst advertisements level only, and 'representational' language which
exploit puns, allusion and so on. Instead many engages the imagination of the reader. He defines a
writers now use the Russian and Czech Formalist literary text as any imaginative material that
concept of 'literariness' (Brumfit & Carter, 1986), stimulates a response in the reader, including songs,
and both Carter and Nash (1990) and Carter and cartoons, idioms and proverbs.
Long (1991) propose a 'cline' or gradation along Lazar (1993) addresses the concern that some
which texts can be arranged according to how they teachers may feel about exposing learners to
exemplify more or less marked uses of language. 'deviant' language: in her view, focusing on deviant
However, Carter and Long (1991:108) acknowledge uses of language can help learners to become aware
problems with this: because there may be a tendency of specific stylistic effects and also to consider how
to equate literariness with sonorousness, Pinter (for these effects are achieved by departing from the
example) may not receive such a high rating as norm, and literature is a valuable way of
Shakespeare because of his 'realistic' rather than supplementing the restricted input of the classroom
poetic use of language. They add that he would and of expanding language awareness and fostering
probably rate very highly 'for other qualities' (their acquisition.
italics), but do not clarify what these 'other' qualities For a while, in many situations, literature was
might be. For them the creative use of language is considered either too difficult or too remote from
important in determining literary merit, but the the learners' experience for regular use, but here too
nature of that creativity is not made clear, and there there are now powerful counter-arguments.
may also be some ambiguity or tension between Kramsch (1993) argues that, since language is social
classification (is it literature?) and evaluation (is it practice, culture is the very core of language
good literature?). teaching and, since literature and culture are
In Eagleton's view (1983:9) there is no 'essence' inseparable, it follows that literature too offers
of literature whatsoever. A piece of writing may be culturally authentic texts. Collie and Slater (1987)
read non-pragmatically if that is what reading a text acknowledge the value of literature as a source of
as literature means, just as any writing may be read cultural enrichment, but Lazar (1993) points out the
'poetically'. Similarly, one crucial determinant of a danger that teaching literature may be identified
text's literariness according to Carter and Nash with the imposition of particular imperialistic views.
(1990) lies in whether the reader chooses to read it To overcome this, she suggests encouraging students
in a literary way, as a literary text, a view which to treat any description critically, as it is very likely
acknowledges the role of the reader in literary to be a partial one; our response to the cultural
discourse. Indeed the history of literary theory could aspect should be a critical one so that 'underlying
be seen as a series of shifts: from writer to text, from ideological assumptions in the texts are not merely
text to reader, from text to context. accepted and reinforced, but are questioned,
evaluated and, if necessary, subverted' (1993:17).
Despite attempts to show that literary language is
She notes that this is the hallmark of many recent
not unique, the view that literature gives voice to
examples of Marxist, feminist and deconstructionist
'what oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed' (a
critical theory.
misused quotation from Pope (1711/1878:14), who
214
 State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
The Leavisite view of literature as expressing the
most significant sentiments and views of a culture
would not be shared by Said (1978, 1983), who
shows that British English literature, which has
dominated the literature curricula in many former
colonies, gives a biased view of their people as lazy,
uncultured and uncivilised, and its view of history
and reality may leave the reader feeling marginalised.
The rapid growth in writing from post-colonial
countries has challenged the exclusive, monocentric
canon and offered a different ideological perspective.
This applies not only to the post-colonial situation
but to any minority culture within a dominant one:
in the words of Langston Hughes, 'I, too, sing
America'. Increasingly we talk about 'literatures in
English' rather than 'English Literature'.
Many writers point out the important role the use
of literature has in educating the whole person. Not
only does it bring out 'different areas of world
knowledge and human life within a set of covers'
(Sell 1995a: 16), it also involves learners in a personal
way, giving them the opportunity to express
themselves, stimulating the imagination, developing
critical abilities and increasing emotional awareness.
The genuine feel of literary texts, according to Duff
and Maley (1990), acts as a powerful motivator and
touches on themes to which learners can bring a
personal response from their own experience.
3. Ideas from communicative language
teaching
Literature teaching in the language classroom has
also been strongly influenced by communicative
language teaching. This term is used very widely,
often very vaguely, and we will not attempt a full
explanation here. Littlewood (1981) provides the
best introduction, complemented by Brumfit and
Johnson (1979), whilst Ellis (1985) provides a theory
of learning which can be used to anchor the
approach. There is no consensus on the defining
features of a communicative classroom, but a
possible list includes:
• co-operative learning (pair work, group work,
problem solving);
• learner-centredness (learner choices in topics and
activities, room for learners to express their own
meanings, attention to affective and human
factors);
• real communication (information and opinion
gaps, topics of intrinsic interest, authenticity of
text and task);
• a functional, meaning-centred view of language;
• tolerance of error, emphasis on fluency more
than formal accuracy, development of strategies,
e.g. message adjustment, back-channelling,
negotiation of meaning.
This list is not in itself an argument for literature is an active agent in the creation of meaning.
teaching within FLT, and indeed the logic of
communicative approaches implies that in some
situations something quite different should be
taught. But some of the principles are either
identical with, or lead in obvious ways to, the
arguments for and ideas within literature teaching in
FLT. For example, Duff and Maley (1990:3) point
out the authenticity of literary texts which 'offer
genuine samples of a very wide range of styles,
registers and text-types at many levels of difficulty'.
Ezra Pound's dictum that 'Literature is news that
STAYS news' (1951:29) highlights the staying power
of the literary text as a rich source of authentic
material which does not become stale. Duff and
Maley (1990) and Lazar (1993) also point out that,
since literary texts are open to multiple
interpretation, they provide ready-made opinion
gaps leading to genuine interaction.
The focus on strategies is important: older
approaches typically sought (through artificial texts)
to maximise, isolate and tailor-make grammar and
vocabulary input; literary texts may seem to impede
this through difficult, irrelevant and/or confusing
content, but solving these difficulties (first in reading
literature, then in talking/writing about it) can lead
to strategy development and hence communicative
competence.
As many writers demonstrate, literary texts are not
only useful in the development of reading skills, they
can be used for oral or written work and encourage
learners to become more creative and adventurous as
they begin to appreciate the richness and variety of
the language they are trying to master.
The focus on the learner with attention to
affective and human factors has led to an interest in
more personal approaches: here ideas from CLT and
humanistic schools of language teaching seem to
converge with recent developments in reader
response theory.
4. Reader response theory
When Barthes (1968:142-148) announced the
'death of the author' and 'the birth of the reader', he
voiced what many thought and felt about Formalist
and Structuralist methods of literary criticism - that
they neglected the reader. According to Cook
(1994), one of the reasons why attempts to found a
'scientific' literary structuralism have not produced
impressive results is because they ignored other
elements of literary communication, mainly the
context, the writer and the reader.
Reader response theory, concerned as it is with
the reader's contribution to a text, challenges text-
oriented theories, claiming that a text has no real
existence until it is read. By completing meaning,
thus actualising or realising it, the reader does not
take a passive role, as was traditionally thought, but
215
State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
Reader response theory has produced two
opposing tendencies. At one extreme, Iser (1974),
Eco (1979) and Riffaterre (1979) say that literary
meaning resides in the text and does not exist
independently of the reader's relation to it; the text
directs the reader in the process of interpretation. At
the other, Fish (1972) originally claimed that it is the
reader alone who makes meaning, but, being
accused of advocating total anarchy in
interpretation, he revised his idea, introducing the
notion of 'interpretive communities' (Fish, 1980a),
who produce meanings rather than the text or the
reader. Although it is not exactly clear what
constitutes an interpretive community, it seems to be
a group who share certain linguistic and cultural
information as well as a set of interpretive strategies
which govern their response. The idea of a set of
conventions by which readers make sense of texts is
behind Culler's (1975) notion of literary
competence. Just as we need linguistic competence
to make sense of linguistic utterances, skilled readers
must possess literary competence to interpret texts.
Later Culler (1981) accepted that different groups of
readers with different sets of rules will produce
different sorts of interpretation. This concept of a
community determining interpretation also seems to
inform Fowler's (1981:81) sociolinguistic definition
of literature as 'an open set of texts, of great formal
diversity, recognised by a culture as possessing
certain institutional values and performing certain
functions'.
Of more pedagogical interest and influence,
perhaps, is Fish's (1980b) analysis and description of
the reading process, which has informed approaches
to teaching reading skills: predicting what is to
happen, storing information that may help explain
later events, continually reassessing what has gone
before, while at the same time trying to make sense
of it all. Similarly, Iser (1978) argues that the act of
reading is a dynamic process whereby the reader
continually adjusts his or her viewpoint while
processing new information. This changing
viewpoint is also influenced by the reader's world
view, a stock of experience which each reader brings
to the text and which will colour his or her response
to the text. This varying viewpoint produces
contradictions and uncertainties, 'gaps of
indeterminacy', which the reader must resolve and
fill to actualise meaning in the text. Completion of
meaning using 'triggers' in the text is exploited in
many teaching materials in the form of cloze,
completion and inferencing activities. However,
while Van Peer (1988) puts forward a case for using
cloze techniques as an instrument for teaching
literature, Mackay (1992a) argues that it is
inappropriate and unfair to ask learners to complete
the blanks in a poem. Other important writers in the
reader response tradition include Prince (1973), with
his concept of the narratee, and Jauss (1982), who
216
gives a historical dimension to reader-oriented
criticism and is associated with the 'Reception
Theory' dominating English Literature teaching in
some German universities.
Ever more attention, not only in reader response
criticism but in the wider field of linguistics, is now
being paid to the Russian critic Mikhail Bakhtin.
Although he was writing in the 1920s and 30s, his
work did not come to the attention of the West until
the 1960s. He rejects the Saussurean view of
language, being more concerned with language or
discourse as a social phenomenon, and never
separates his analyses from particular historical
periods. In his view 'meaning does not reside in the
word or in the soul of the speaker or in the soul of
the listener' but in 'the effect of interaction between
speaker and listener' (1929a:102). His emphasis on
the centrality of dialogue, the dialectics of utterance,
as opposed to language as a closed system, has
influenced recent work in discourse analysis, e.g.
Benveniste (1971), Fowler (1981), Carter and
Simpson (1989), Cook (1994). Applying his concept
of 'heteroglossia' - his term for the complex
stratification of language into genre, register,
sociolect, and dialect — to literature, Bakhtin claims
(1929b) that there are a multiplicity of voices, not
just the one harmonious, unifying voice of the
narrator/writer in novels. The idea of uncertainty of
voice in the narrative anticipates a major concern of
psychoanalytic and post-structuralist criticism, that
individual identity is problematic and character
elusive. (For further discussion of how Bakhtin's
theory places structuralist and deconstructionist
views of the language of literature into a
sociolinguistic framework, see White, 1984).
Within foreign language teaching, the influence
of Bakhtin can be seen in Kramsch (1993), who
argues for a dialogic pedagogy in language teaching.
In advocating the use of literary texts, she refers to
Bakhtin's distinction between single-voiced and
double-voiced discourse, with the literary text as the
epitome of the latter. In her view, literary and non-
literary discourse differ in degree, but not in kind,
with the newspaper article, the essay and the short
story on a continuum from single-voiced to double-
voiced discourse. Pulverness (1996:26) also sees the
importance of Bakhtin's work and uses his idea that
'all fictional writing manifests the quality of dramatic
discourse' to analyse voices in prose fiction.
5. Current debates in literature
teaching
The increasing trend towards the cultivation of a
personal response in literature teaching has produced
a vigorous debate about the place for stylistic or
linguistic criticism on the one hand and evaluation
or imaginative interpretation on the other.
According to Fowler (1966), there is no necessary
 State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
link between the two, a view shared by Gower Hirvela, what he and other researchers (Ali, 1994;
(1986:127), who is against 'sterile' stylisticians who Commander, 1994; Davis, 1989; Ibsen, 1990) have
'charge in, white coats on, and perform a linguistic engaged in is creating reader-text transaction rather
analysis'. In his view, stylistic analysis gets in the way than reader response. It would seem that more
of reading, an opinion not shared by Alderson and research needs to be carried out into the nature of
Short (1988), who say that it is intuitively reader response in FL learning and on how teaching
unsatisfactory to claim that a text can mean anything methods affect this. A lot more research of this kind
to any reader, and argue the case for stylistic analysis seems to have been done in LI teaching (Benton et
as an aid to interpretation. More studies of the type al., 1988; Benton and Fox, 1985; Griffiths, 1987;
carried out by Short and Van Peer (1988) into the Lee, 1987; Protherough, 1986, 1989; Protherough,
reading process would be welcome to illuminate the Atkinson and Fawcett, 1989), and although it is not
relationship between stylistic analysis and reader within the scope of this article to analyse the findings
response. of these studies, we mention them as a possible
'Individual', 'creative', 'active', 'imaginative' are source of inspiration for research into literature in
words which regularly appear in connection with FL.
the personal response approach, but there seems to One of the main reasons given for using literature
be disagreement about what this approach actually is to encourage students' creativity, but how is this to
means. Lott (1988) is against the personal approach be achieved? Do we expect them to express
as found in many published EFL materials themselves through the language of literary criticism
(Boardman & McRae, 1984; Carter & Long, 1987; or in creative writing, which Sinclair (1982) says his
Gower & Pearson, 1986; Maley & Moulding, 1985), students found more engaging than learning to be
as it may make 'talking about literature seem more literary critics? Some of the published materials
important than being shown how to read, speak and address this concern and encourage learners to write
enjoy it', preferring the approach of his own book their own poems or prose descriptions rather than
(Lott, 1986) which, although it may be narrower in critical essays.
range than the rest, centres on the meaning of each One of the trends since the 1960s in literature
text and the intention of its writer. teaching in FLT has been away from exclusivity, not
However, Hirvela (1996) disagrees that focus on only in the choice of literary texts, but in the level
authorial intention should be the aim. He argues of students being given access to literature. Rodger's
that, although it might appear that the personal (1969) argument that only advanced students can
response approach derives from reader response appreciate deviance and other literary devices has
criticism, this is not the case. He differentiates come to seem less convincing, with the appearance
between personal response, with its emphasis on the of books for lower level students such as McRae
learner responding to authorial intention and (1992) and Bassnett and Grundy (1993) and research
meaning, and reader response, with its focus on the papers such as those in Sell (1995b).
reader's rather than the author's text. In his view, the Many published EFL materials try to include a
personal response approach does not allow the variety of approaches - language, content, culture
reader to tell a 'story of reading', an idea he borrows and personal response - to deal with a wide variety
from Culler (1981), that is to say how the reader of texts in developing language skills and literary
recreated the text while reading, but asks the reader appreciation, and we now look at some of the more
to react to authorial intention in the text. However, recent materials including resource books for
it could be argued that the questions he uses to teachers, workbooks for students and other works
illustrate the personal approach are not truly which may be of interest.
representative of the kind of tasks used to elicit a
personal approach in many published materials. 6. Books for teachers
Although he sees reader response as the way
forward, in his view it has so far failed to make Widdowson (1975, 1992) provides the most lucid
impact on ELT. and rigorous theoretical foundation for modern
In describing his attempts to develop literary approaches. For reasons of space, we concentrate on
competence in ESL students, Elliott (1990:191-192) the later book, which deals mainly with poetry, but
believes the essential factor is to create conditions is relevant to other genres. 'Poetry is always perverse
under which students can develop genuine responses and its relevance lies somewhere in its perversity'
to literary texts. Dissatisfied both with the (12): it does not simply report experience, but
'transmission of literary knowledge' approach and represents it, as do paintings, music, etc. The effect
the 'linguistic analysis' approach, neither of which is 'to restore individuality by allowing for the
helps students to define their response, he used expression of alternative values' (8). The teacher has
improvisation and role play based on Lord of the Flies the difficult job of encouraging a similarly individual
to guide them towards discovery of meaning and to and creative reaction from the learner/reader, whilst
help them articulate their response. According to at the same time discouraging vague and woolly
217
State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
response. Widdowson's solution is to encourage suggests asking students to write their own ending to
make them reconsider the meaning of the whole
'precision of reference (...) in support of a particular
interpretation (but) ... emphatically not precision ofstory. Other suggestions for exploiting literary texts
interpretation itself (xii). There is no one correct include varying the genre, the audience, the
answer, but this does not mean that anything goes. referential world of the story and the point of view,
Moreover, learners should not merely analyse texts, the last of which is rather similar to the idea of
but should use them as a starting point for creative changing frame in Greenwood (1988), which
activities as 'the experience of poetry, and its requires learners to read in different roles. Taking
educational relevance, depend on the reader Bakhtin's idea of polyglossia, Kramsch asks learners
assuming an author role' (xi). This may entail, for to identify the different voices in a text and
example, writing alternative poems and looking at encourages them to add their voices to those in the
differences between original and imitation. text. In the section on teaching poetry she uses
Widdowson is one main source of the wide range of German and French examples to discuss how
activities found in modern textbooks, but allies thesedifferent translations of the same poem can reflect
to a precision of purpose not always found in his different interpretations.
disciples. In a similar way, Carter and Long (1991) use
Carter and Long (1991) is a good all-round simplified texts as a basis for comparison to show
introduction to using literature in the language what is special about the original text. In their view,
classroom. The key questions of why, what, how literature cannot be taught from simplified texts, but
and who to teach are raised. They discuss the the wide variety of activities and practical
difference between 'literature for study' and suggestions for use with class readers, e.g. in
'literature as a resource', and examine language- Greenwood (1988), could be fruitfully applied to
based approaches as well as teacher-centred and 'authentic' literary texts.
student-centred classes, with suggestions for The aim in Duff and Maley (1990) is not to teach
classroom procedure relevant to each. There is an students how to study literature from a critical or
interesting section on how literary theory has stylistic viewpoint, but to promote language learning
contributed to the study of literature in language by encouraging them to share their experiences,
teaching. More general issues such as the literature perceptions and opinions. The fact that a literary text
curriculum, text selection and testing are also is open to multiple interpretations means ready-
discussed. This is both a practical and theoretical made opinion gaps which generate interaction
handbook for the teacher. between reader and text and among readers
themselves. The book, divided into four sections, is
Relevant to teacher educators as well as teachers is
Lazar (1993), which explores ways of using literature 'open' in the sense that the activities are not all text-
for language improvement. Each chapter takes the bound, allowing teachers to choose their own texts
teacher through a series of tasks and activities to and adapt and develop the approaches given. The
develop and inform approaches to novels, short appendix lists ten procedures for developing
stories, poetry and plays, with useful checklists for language practice, providing a useful tool-kit for
exploiting them. She discusses a wide range of topics teachers to generate their own material. On the
such as literary competence, cross-cultural issues, question of text selection, the authors talk about
materials design and self-access. texts being challenging rather than difficult,
More concise but also useful for teachers and difficulty being a subjective and relative matter, and
trainers is Hill (1986), a step-by-step guide through suggest grading tasks for different levels. However,
the various stages of work with a literary text, like many resource books using literature, this one
including a work programme for the ubiquitous lacks an index of texts, which would have enhanced
Lord of the Flies. its usefulness.
The tasks and activities in one of the earlier Similarly, Maley and Duff (1989) is, the authors
resource books of the recent revival, Collie and explain, not about poetry or the teaching of poetry,
Slater (1987), reflect the change from a but uses poetry as a resource for language practice.
structural/functional approach to CLT. Alongside In their view, since poetry offers access to a third
substitution tables, structural drills and a huge type of spoken language - reactional as opposed to
number of worksheets, there are activities designed interactional and transactional (cf. Brown & Yule
to involve learners imaginatively, e.g. guided 1983) - it makes learners react personally to other
fantasies and role plays. However, in Kramsch's people's ways of seeing.
(1993) view, some of the tasks tend only to exploit In the list of starting points for their book,
referential meaning and may encourage learners Bassnett and Grundy (1993:1-9) mention the need
towards an incorrect interpretation, such as the role for a methodology change in the teaching of
play designed for Lord of the Flies which encourages 'foreign' literature to bring it more into line with the
students to find a clear-cut moral in a text with an learner-centred, collaborative approach of the
ambiguous ending. As an alternative, Kramsch communicative method. They recognise the

218
 State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
importance of the role of the reader and criticise the
reverential attitude to literature, suggesting instead
that the reader approach a text not in a 'spirit of
humility' but in a 'spirit of discovery'. They also
argue for the inclusion of creative writing rather
than critical essays. The book is written in 'recipe
format' and offers over 100 ideas using a range of
texts for all levels, including beginners. As well as
typical EFL exercises - completing, substituting,
dozing, contrasting, visualising, associating - there
are unusual activities such as gossiping about
characters 'in a colloquial way' and asking naive
questions, not 'How many children had Lady
Macbeth?', but 'Why don't the witches in Macbeth
shave off their beards?'. Such exercises raise the
question of what kind of linguistic production can
be expected from learners, since to answer them a
certain level of linguistic and literary competence
would be required. Those who sympathise with
Gower's fear of dissecting stylisticians should try
Activity 1.17: towards the end of a class, simply read
the students a poem and send them away,
contemplating.
7. Books for use with students
For a while, many of the books for use with students
tended to follow the more traditional pattern of a
large chunk of reading - extracts or complete short
stories - followed by comprehension questions and
grammar exercises (e.g. Pierce and Cochrane, 1979;
Taylor, 1968, 1981; Walker, 1983). Books intended
for exam candidates tend to follow this traditional
pattern, although some try to include more
personalised activities, e.g. Rossner (1988) which,
although aimed at Cambridge First Certificate
candidates, tries not to be exclusively exam-oriented
by encouraging learners to relate their own
experiences and opinions to those in the stories.
Newbrook (1989) is specifically designed for
Cambridge Proficiency candidates, with extracts
from novels followed by comprehension and
appreciation questions, summary writing and a
composition relating to CPE Paper 2, e.g. 'Describe
your best friend'. Role plays prompted by the text
are given in each unit, e.g. Student A, a guest at the
Hotel du Lac, finds everything boring, while
Student B, recovering from an operation, is
enthusiastic about everything there.
As Carter and Long (1991) note, a considerable
number of books have appeared in recent years in
which texts are presented under headings such as
Love, Society, Environment (Adkins & Shackleton;
Boardman & McRae, 1984; Gower & Pearson,
1986; Tomlinson, 1987, revised 1994). This is as
much a reaction against programmes based on the
works of a period, a single writer or group of writers
as following the trend in language-teaching materials
for a topic syllabus designed to recycle vocabulary
and encourage group discussion. However, Carter
and Long (1991) point out the potential dangers of
using a catch-all term to encompass disparate works
and of bending texts to fit into a broad category.
Rather, learners should be prompted to discover
themes for themselves. In defending the theme-
based approach, McRae (1991) is aware of the
objections: that it can be reductive - choosing one
passage or extract can diminish the whole; that it
may misrepresent the work from which it is taken -
the theme under discussion may not have been the
major concern of the author in writing the text; that
it may run the risk of texts seeming to resemble one
another too much. But for him the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages. A theme-based
approach is enormously flexible, as the juxtaposition
of the most diverse texts can produce surprisingly
interesting contrasts and comparisons. This can be
seen in McRae (1992), which brings together a wide
range of representational materials: jokes, songs,
poems, extracts from plays, novels, journalism.
Other reasons for adopting a theme-based approach
- to encourage learner autonomy and increase
linguistic and communicative competence through
classroom interaction — are given in McRae and
Pantaleoni (1990). Here quotations and graffiti are
used to prompt discussion around a topic, and
writing activities include composing poems or verse.
But many of the exercises accompanying the text
seem to be thinly disguised comprehension questions,
becoming 'interactive' when discussed in pairs.
The reason for the thematic choice of texts in
Clarke (1989) is their potential relevance to the
experience of learners. Learners from intermediate
level upwards are introduced to a simple form of
stylistics, in which sound words, rhyme schemes and
mood are analysed, and also given personal-
response-type tasks. After reading Larkin's poem
Toads, they are asked which animal they would
choose to compare with 'work' and why.
Carter and Long (1987) adopt an integrated
approach, focusing on the writer's use of language to
help learners appreciate style effects and techniques.
The first seven units include a variety of 'language
based' activities, while the last three units introduce
more detailed stylistic analysis and the language of
literary criticism.
In Bowler and Parminter (1992, 1993), the
emphasis is on developing reading skills and
expanding vocabulary (activities include gap-filling,
sentence completion, often unrelated to the text,
and rewriting a story as a film script). Each unit
includes exercises on 'Points of Style', in which
attention is drawn to the use of literary features such
as repetition and figurative language and their effect
on the reader. Designed to complement the
Headway course books, these books can be used on
their own.
219
State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
A wide range of authors from different countries texts, not merely describing how, say, dialect or
is included in the selection of texts in Collie and lexical fields are used, but how literary analysis can
Slater (1993). Their choice of short, non-abridged concentrate on a few chosen linguistic areas to
stories also reflects a move away from extracts to obtain real insights.
complete texts. Each unit is self-contained, with Montgomery et al. (1992) leans more to literary
optional creative development activities such as theory. Each unit presents an overview of a concept
painting a mind picture, making a puppet version of such as point of view, intertextuality, language and
the story and creating a poster. Literary features such society, language and gender, with techniques of
as alliteration, symbolism and simile are also analysis and interpretation necessary for critical
introduced. reading of narrative texts and film versions. At the
Also genre-based are the books in Martin and end of each unit there are tasks designed to put into
Hill's series (1992a, 1992b, 1995, 1996). Although practice the ideas and concepts.
they describe the underlying approach to these Also useful for advanced students as an
introductions to poetry, short stories, plays and introduction to contemporary literary theory is
novels as a double one — literary and linguistic — the Hackman and Marshall (1990). It deals with critical
approach in fact varies with genre: thematic for perspectives such as the role of the reader and
poetry and plays, genre-based for short stories, women's writing, and provides activities for group
structuralist for novels. and pair work.
Creative writing is a minor feature of several In the same area, but more thorough, are Selden
books already mentioned, but only a few books (1985), which surveys over twenty theories under
make it their main focus. Of these Maley and six headings - Russian Formalist, Marxist,
Moulding (1985) is the best-known: focusing firmly Structuralist, Post-structuralist, Reader-oriented,
on language practice and suitable for most levels, it Feminist - and the companion volume Selden
provides a wide range of activities which begin with (1989), which provides specimen criticisms using
learners reading or listening to recognised poems each of these theories and then sample texts, with
and end with them composing their own. guidance questions, for student practice.
Pope (1995), although seemingly very different - Davies Roberts (1986) is one of many books
far more advanced, more intellectual, more native- which help students to write criticism of poetry, and
speaker-oriented - can be seen as doing the same covers the usual areas of form and content, culture,
thing at another level. Pope claims that 'the best way vocabulary, sound etc. It is particularly interesting on
to understand a text is to change it', and users are sound, and offers a radical alternative to traditional
invited to change texts in almost every conceivable ideas of metre, replacing trochees, anapaests etc.
way - register, audience, purpose, style etc. - to de- with 'duplets' and 'triplets'. It is full of concrete
centre and re-centre, to produce parallel, opposed examples and very 'user-friendly' for a wide range of
and alternative texts, to bring background into students.
foreground, to go through a 'stylistic workout'. Durant and Fabb (1990) is highly distinctive in
Both these works certainly avoid the trap of form: it has 111 'activities' in boxes throughout
excessive reverence for an authorised text; some may the text, and readers are directed to leave the
wonder, though, if they go too far in the opposite text at given points, do the activities (mostly
direction. lasting 30 to 60 minutes), then rejoin the text.
Other useful works include Carter and McRae The activities are very wide-ranging and include
(1996), a guide to the development of literature in formal analysis ('rhymes in a sonnet'), personal
Britain and Ireland written to a key word syllabus of response ('stating your pleasure'), metacritical
3,000 words; Gower (1990); and Collie and Porter- activities ('deconstructing' a critical article), language
Ladousse (1991). learning strategies ('words you don't recognise'),
empirical research ('an experiment in reading') and,
perhaps most important, defining and meeting one's
8. Textbooks centred on linguistic own needs ('expected and actual content of a course
and/or literary theory. in English Literature'; 'Why do you read ?'). The
These are not aimed exclusively at the EFL market, emphasis on task means, for some topics, less factual
but all are suitable for EFL teachers and advanced information than in comparable books, but for other
learners. Traugott and Pratt (1980) is probably the topics the input is unusually detailed, e.g. five
most ambitious and wide-ranging student textbook. definitions of alliteration. The underlying
Its domain is the whole of linguistics, and it gives philosophy is radically democratic: all definitions,
basic information about every area, from phonology literary types, critical theories are seen as socially
and syntax to dialect and sociolinguistics, making it contingent and having no absolute truth, and readers
a worthwhile introductory survey even for those can form not just their own opinions but their own
without special literary interests. But it does far frameworks for opinion.
more: for each area it gives illustrations from literary Carter and Nash (1990) is, in a sense, not about
220
 State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
literature at all. It sees literary English as just one of AKYEL, A. (1995). Stylistic analysis of poetry: a perspective from
a range of types, and each chapter moves, generally an initial training course in TEFL. TESL Canada Journal, 13,
1,63-73.
speaking, from non-literary to literary uses: for ALDERSON, J. C. & SHORT, M. (1988). Reading literature. In
example, a literary text about Malaysia is examined M. Short (ed.), Reading, analysing and teaching literature,
only after, and in the light of, three other texts on 72-119.
the same subject, from an advertisement, an itinerary ALI, S. (1994). The reader response approach: an alternative for
and a gazetteer. The book seeks to show how style teaching literature in a second language. Journal of Reading,
reflects the dominant ideology. Though the book 37, 288-96.
APPEL, J. (1990). A survey of recent publications on the teaching
may not be suitable for direct student use, it provides of literature. ELT Journal, 44, 1, 66-74.
a practical syllabus outline and a challenge to BAKHTIN, M. M. (as 'Volosinov') (1929a/1973). Marxism and the
teachers to integrate the study of literature with that philosophy of language, trans. L. Matejka & R. Titunik.
of newspapers, advertising etc. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
BAKHTIN, M. M. (1929b/1963/1973). Problems of Dostoevsky's
poetics, trans. C. Emerson. Minneapolis: University of
9. Conclusion Minnesota Press.
BAKHTIN, M. M. (1940/65/1968). Rabelais and his world, trans.
In 1988, Lott saw the way forward for literature in H. Iswolsky. Cambridge Mass and London: MIT Press.
Foreign Language Teaching in terms of structural BAKHTIN, M. M. (1940/1988). From the pre-history of
approaches, computer-assisted language learning and novelistic discourse, trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist. In
Lodge (1988), 124-56 .
the potential of pragmatics. As we have seen, BAKHTIN, M. M. (1981). Tlie dialogic imagination: four essays, ed.
although there is vigorous debate between the M. Holquist, trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin:
stylisticians/structuralists on the one hand and those University Press of Texas.
who favour a more personal-response approach on BAKHTIN, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays, trans.
the other, many recent EFL materials use a variety of V.W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press.
BARTHES, R. (1968/1977). The death of the author. In Image-
approaches incorporating language development, music-text, trans.S. Heath. Oxford: Fontana, 142-48.
elementary stylistics and what may be loosely termed BARTHES, R. (1971/1974). S/Z, trans. R. Miller. New York:
'personal response'. Literary texts are appearing Hill & Wang.
more in general coursebooks, and the view that BARTHES, R. (1982). Barthes: Selected writings, intro. S. Sontag.
literature should be integrated into the language Oxford: Fontana/Collins.
BASSNETT, S. & GRUNDY, P. (1993). Language through literature:
teaching curriculum, and not segregated from it, is creative language teaching through literature. London:
receiving wider support. Comparisons between Pilgrims/Longman.
literary, journalistic and other text-types, a la BEAUGRANDE, R. DE & DRESSLER, W. (1981). Introduction to text
Widdowson or Carter and Long, are now part of linguistics. London: Longman.
BENTON, M. & Fox, G. (1985). Teaching literature: nine to
many teachers' everyday repertoire. Ideas from fourteen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
academic areas mentioned above, and others such as BENTON, M. et al. (1988). Young readers responding to poems.
narratology (e.g. Rimmon-Kenan, 1983) and London: Routledge.
pragmatics (e.g. Sell, 1991; Van Peer, 1988) are also BENVENISTE, E. (1971). Problems in general linguistics. Miami:
trickling down to the world of the teachers' University of Miami Press.
BlERWlSCH, M. (1970). Poetics and linguistics. In Freeman (ed.),
conference and the textbook, whilst older theories Linguistics and literary style, 96—118.
and practices survive in a million classrooms. The BIN SAID TALIB, I. (1992). Why not teach non-native English
extreme diversity of FLT situations in terms of literature? ELT Journal, 46, 1, 51-5.
resources, external pressures, student wants and BlRCH, D . (1989). Language, literature and critical practice. London:
needs, and teacher expertise precludes any grand Routledge & Kegan Paul.
consensus on the place and form of literature BOARDMAN, R. & MCRAE, J. (1984). Reading between the lines.
teaching, which will remain for many a hit-or-miss Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BOUMAN, L. (1985). Who's afraid of reading? Parts 1 and 2.
activity, though a general improvement in materials Modern English Teacher, 12, 3, 3-10; 12, 4, 10-13.
and teacher education may raise the chances of BOWLER, B. & PARMINTER, S. (1992). Making headway:
rewarding and successful learning. literature: advanced. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BOWLER, B. & PARMINTER, S. (1993). Making headway:
literature: upper intermediate. Oxford: Oxford University
References Press.
BROWN, G. & YULE, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge:
N. B. This list is not restricted to items discussed in the article, Cambridge University Press.
but also includes other (mostly recent) publications which we BROWN, S. (1992). Focus on European fairy tales. London:
judge likely to be of interest. Macmillan.
ADEYANJU , T. K. (1978). Teaching literature and human values BRUMFIT, C. J. (1979). Readers for foreign learners of English.
in ESL. ELTJournal, 32, 2, 133-7. Information Guide 7. British Council.
ADKINS, A. & SHACKLETON, M. (eds.) (1980). Recollections. BRUMFIT, C. J. (1985). Language and literature teaching: from
London: Edward Arnold. practice to principle. Oxford: Pergamon.
AKYEL, A. & YALCIN, E. (1990). Literature in the EFL BRUMFIT, C. J. (ed.) (1983). Teaching literature overseas: language
classroom: a study of goal-achievement incongruence. ELT based approaches. ELT documents 115. Oxford:
Journal, 44, 3, 174-80. Pergamon/British Council.

221
State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
BRUMFIT, C. J. (ed.) (1991). Assessment in literature teaching. C O R D E R , S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford:
Basingstoke: Macmillan. Oxford University Press.
BRUMFIT, C. J. & B E N T O N , M. (eds.) (1993). Teaching literature: CULLER, J. (1975). Structuralist poetics. London: Roudedge &
a world perspective. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Kegan Paul.
BRUMFIT, C. J. & CARTER, R . A. (eds.) (1986). Literature and CULLER, J. (1981). The pursuit of signs: semiotics, literature,
language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. deconstruction. London: Roudedge & Kegan Paul.
BRUMFIT, C. J. & J O H N S O N , K. (1979). The communicative CUMMINGS, M. & SIMMONS, R . (1983). Tlie language of literature.
approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University London: Pergamon.
Press. DAVIES R O B E R T S , P. (1986). How poetry works. London:
BUCKLEY, P. (1985). Put your own interpretation on it. Practical Penguin.
English Teaching, 5, 3, 35-6. DAVIS, J. N . (1989). The act of reading in the foreign language:
CAMPBELL, N . (1987). Adapted literary texts and the EFL pedagogical implications of Iser's reader-response theory.
reading programme. ELTJournal, 4 1 , 2, 132-5. Modern Language Journal, 7 3 , 420-8.
CARTER, R . (ed.) (1982). Language and literature: an introductory D'HAEN, T. (ed.) (1986). Linguistics and the study of literature.
reader in stylistics. London: Allen & Unwin. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
CARTER, R . (1986). Linguistic models, language and literariness. DILLON, G. (1978). Language processing and the reading of literature.
In Brumfit & Carter (eds.), Literature and language teaching, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
110-32. DUFF, A. & MALEY, A. (1990). Literatum. Oxford: Oxford
CARTER, R . (1988). Is there a literary language? In Steele and University Press.
Threadgold (eds.), Language topics: essays in honour of Michael D U R A N T , A. & FABB, N . (1990). Literary studies in action.
Halliday, 431-50. London: Roudedge & Kegan Paul.
CARTER, R . (1989). Directions in the teaching and study of EAGLETON, T. (1983). Literary theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
English stylistics. In Short (ed.), Reading, analysing and teaching E c o , U. (1979). The role of the reader. Bloomington: Indiana
literature, 10-22. University Press.
CARTER, R . & B U R T O N , D . (eds.) (1982). Literary text and ELLIOTT, R . (1990). Encouraging reader-response to literature
language study. London: Edward Arnold. in ESL situations. ELT Journal 44, 3, 191-98.
CARTER, R & LONG, M . N . (1987). The web of words: exploring ELLIS, R . (1985). Understanding second language acquisition.
literature through language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Press. EPIFANI, M. (1982). Practising the 4 skills through literature.
CARTER, R . & LONG, M . N . (1990). Testing literature in EFL Practical English Teaching 2, 4, 15-16.
classes: tradition and innovation. ELT Journal, 44, 3, 215-21. EPSTEIN, E. L. (1978). Language and style. London: Methuen.
CARTER, R . & LONG, M . N . (1991). Teaching literature. London: FABB, N . , A T T R I D G E , D., D U R A N T , A. & M C C A B E , C. (eds.)
Longman. (1987). Tlie linguistics of writing. Manchester: Manchester
CARTER, R . & M C R A E , J. (1996). Penguin guide to English University Press.
literature. London: Penguin. FISH, S. (1972). Self-consuming artefacts: the experience of seventeenth
CARTER, R . & NASH, W. (1990). Seeing through language: a guide century literature. Berkeley: University of California.
to styles of English writing. Oxford: Blackwell. FISH, S. (1980a). Interpreting the Variorum. In S. Fish, Is there a
CARTER, R . & SIMPSON, P. (eds.) (1989). Language, discourse and text in this class? the authority of interpretive communities,
literature. London: Unwin Hyman. 164-73.
C A R T E R , R., W A L K E R , R . & B R U M F I T , C. (eds.) (1989). FISH, S. (1980b). Literature in the reader: affective stylistics. In
Literature and the language learner: methodological approaches. ELT S. Fish, Is there a text in this class? the authority of interpretive
Docs 130. MEP/Macmillan. communities, 21-67.
CHAPMAN, R . (1975). Linguistics and literature: an introduction to FISH, S. (1980C). IS there a text in this class? the authority of
literary stylistics. London: Edward Arnold. interpretive communities. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
CHATMAN, S. (ed.) (1971). Literary style: a symposium. Oxford: FOUCAULT, M. (1969/1988). What is an author? trans. Harari, J.
Oxford University Press. V. In D . Lodge (ed.), Modern criticism and theory: a reader,
CHATMAN, S. (ed.) (1973). Approaches to poetics. N e w York: 196-210.
Columbia University Press. FOUCAULT, M . (1972). Tlie archaeology of knowledge, trans.
CHATMAN, S. & LEVIN, S. (eds.) (1967). Essays on the language of Sheridan Smith, A. M . London: Tavistock.
literature. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin. FOWLER, R . (1966). Essays on style and language. London:
C H I N G , M . K. L., HALEY, M . C . & LUNSFORD, R . F. (eds.) Roudedge & Kegan Paul.
(1980). Linguistic perspectives on literature. London: Routledge FOWLER, R . (1971). The languages of literature. London:
& Kegan Paul. Roudedge & Kegan Paul.
CLARKE, D . F. (1989). Talk about literature. London: Edward FOWLER, R . (ed.) (1975). Style and structure in literature: essays in
Arnold. the new stylistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
CLUYSENAAR, A. (1976). Introduction to literary stylistics. London: FOWLER, R . (1977). Linguistics and the novel. London: Methuen.
Batsford. FOWLER, R . (1981). Literature as social discourse. London:
COLLIE, J. (1992). R o m e o and Juliet: working with video in the Batsford Academic.
classroom. Modern English Teacher, 1, 1, 18-23. FOWLER, R . (1986). Linguistic criticism. Oxford: Oxford
COLLIE, J. & PORTER-LADOUSSE, G. (1991). Paths into poetry. University Press.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. FRASER, H . & O'Donnell, W. R . (eds.) (1969). Applied linguistics
COLLIE, J. & SLATER, S. (1987). Literature in the language and the teaching of English. London: Longman.
classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. FREEMAN, D . C. (ed.) (1970). Linguistics and literary style.
COLLIE, J. & SLATER, S. (1993). Short stories for creative language Massachusetts: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. FREEMAN, D. C . (ed.) (1981). Essays in modern stylistics. London:
COMMANDER, M . (1994). Enhancing interpretation through Methuen.
reader responses: exploratory talk and writing. Paper GENETTE, G. (1981/1982). Figures of literary discourse, trans.
presented at TESOL, Baltimore. Sheridan, A. N e w York: Columbia University Press.
C O O K , G. (1994). Discourse and Literature: the interplay of form and GERBER, U . (1990). Literary role play. ELT Journal, 4 4 , 3,
mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 199-203.

222
 State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
GLOVERSMITH, F. (ed.) (1984). The theory of reading. Sussex: The Suleiman & I. Crosman (eds.), The reader in the text: essays on
Harvester Press. audience and interpretation, 106-19.
GOHRBRANDT, D. (1982). Reading a novel in class. Practical JAKOBSON, R. (1960). Closing statement: linguistics and poetics.
English Teaching, 3, 1, 24-6. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 350-77.
GOWER, R. (1986). Can stylistic analysis help the EFL learner to JAMESON, F. (1972). The prison house of language. Princeton:
read literature? ELTJournal, 40, 2, 125-30. Princeton UP.
GOWER, R. (1990). Past into present. London: Longman. JAUSS, H. R. (1982). Toward an aesthetic of reception, trans. T.
GOWER, R. & PEARSON, M. (1986). Reading literature. London: Bahti. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Longman. JEFFERSON, A. & ROBEY, D. (eds.) (1984). Modern literary theory:
GREENWOOD, J. (1988). Class readers. Oxford: Oxford a comparative introduction. Brighton: Basil Blackwell.
University Press. JONES, R. T. (1986). Studying poetry. London: Edward Arnold.
GREENWOOD, J. (1989). The problems of purity. In R. A.Carter KERRIDGE, H. (1992). Lifting literature off the pages. Modern
et a/.. Literature and the learner: methodological approaches, ELT English Teacher, 1, 4, 43-4.
Documents 130. KNIGHT, M. (ed.) 1988. Keep in touch: modern literary texts for
GREIMAS, A-J. (1966/1983). Structural semantics, trans. D discussion and language practice. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice
McDonnell. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Hall International (U.K.) (1st pub. 1985, Pergamon Press).
Press. KRAMSCH, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching.
GRIFFITHS, P. (1987). Literary theory and English teaching. Milton Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keynes: Open University Press. LAKOFF, G & JOHNSTON, P. (1980). Metaphors we live by.
HACKMAN, S. & MARSHALL, B. (1990). Re-reading literature: new Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
critical approaches to the study of English. London: Hodder & LAVERY, C. (1987). From picture into poem. Practical English
Stoughton. Teaching, 8, 2, 16-7.
HARRISON, B. (ed.) (1990). Culture and the language classroom. LAZAR, G. (1989). Using poetry with the EFL/ESL learner.
ELT Documents 132. Modern English Publications/British Modern English Teacher 16, 3/4, 3-9.
Council. LAZAR, G. (1990). Using novels in the language learning
HEDGE, T. (1985). Using readers in language teaching. London: classroom. ELTJournal 44, 3, 204-14.
MacmiUan. LAZAR, G. (1993). Literature and language teaching. Cambridge:
HENDERICKXE, L. (1981). Bringing a poem to life. Practical Cambridge University Press.
English Teaching, 2, 4, 23-5. LAZAR, G. (1994). Using literature at lower levels. ELTJournal,
HESS, N. (1988). Teaching poetry in a communicative way. 48,2, 115-25.
Practical English Teaching, 9, 2, 21-2. LEAVIS, F. R. (1943). Education and the university. London: Chatto
HESS, N. (1989). Picture within a poem. Practical English & Windus.
Teaching, 9, 4, 20-22. LEE, V. J. (ed.) (1987). English literature in schools. Milton Keynes:
HILL, D. A. (ed.) (1993a). Changing contexts in ELT. Milan: Open University Press.
British Council. LEECH, G. N. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London:
HILL, D. A. (1993b). Planning literature lessons. Practical English Longman.
Teaching, 14, 1, 52-7. LEECH, G. N. & SHORT, M. H. (1981). Style in fiction: a linguistic
HILL, D. A. (1993c). Using short stories. Practical English introduction to English fictional prose. London: Longman.
Teaching, 14, 2, 54-5. LEMON, L. T. & REIS, M. J. (1965). Russian formalist criticism: four
HILL, D. A. (1994). Room for drama. Practical English Teaching, essays. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska.
14, 3, 46-50. LiTTLEWOOD, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching.
HILL, D. A. (ed.) (1996). Papers on teaching literature from the Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
British Council Conferences in Bologna 1994 and Milan 1995. LODGE, D. (1966). The language offiction. London: Routledge.
Milan: British Council. LODGE, D. (1977). Tlie modes of modem writing: metaphor,
HILL, D. A. & HOLDEN, J. (eds.) (1990). Effective teaching and metonymy and the typology of modern literature. London: Edward
learning. Oxford: Modern English Publications. Arnold.
HILL, J. (1986). Literature in language teaching. London: LODGE, D. (1981). Working with structuralism. Boston: Routledge
MacmiUan. & Kegan Paul.
HlRVELA, A. (1990). ESP and literature. English for Specific LODGE, D. (1987). After Bakhtin. In N. Fabb et al., The linguistics
Purposes, 9, 3, 237-52. of writing; 89-103.
HIRVELA, A. (1996). Reader-response and ELT. ELT Journal, LODGE, D. (ed.) (1988). Modern criticism and theory: a reader.
50, 2, 127-34. London: Longman.
HOLDEN, S. (ed.) (1988). Literature and language. Italy: MEP/ LODGE, D. (1990). Twentieth century literary criticism. London:
British Council. Longman.
HOLUB, R. (1984). Reception theory. Methuen: London. LODGE, D. (1992). The aH offiction. London: Martin Seeker &
IBSEN, E. B. (1990). The double role of fiction in foreign Warburg.
language learning: towards a creative methodology. English LOTT, B. (1986). A coursebook in English language and literature.
Teaching Forum, 28, 3, 2-9. London: Edward Arnold.
ISENBERG, N. (1990). Literary competence: the EFL reader and LOTT, B. (1988). State of the art: language and literature.
the role of the teacher. ELTJournal, 44, 3, 181-90. Language Teaching, 2 1 , 1, 1-13.
ISER, W. (1971). Indeterminacy and the reader's response in LYONS, J. (1981). Language, meaning and context. London:
prose fiction. In J. Hillis Miller, Aspects of narrative, 1—45. Fontana.
ISER, W. (1972). The reading process: a phenomenological MACKAY, R. (1987). Poems. Selected and introduced by R.
approach. In Neu> Literary History 3, reprinted in D. Lodge Mackay. Oxford: Modern English Publications.
(cd.) (1988), Modern criticism and theory: a reader, 211-28. MACKAY, R. (1992a). Lexicide and goblin-spotting in the
ISER, W. (1974). Tlie implied reader. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins language/literature classroom. ELTJournal, 46, 2, 199-208.
University Press. MACKAY, R. (1992b). Focus on Shakespeare's life and times.
ISER, W. (1978). Tlie act of reading: a theory of aesthetic response. London: Macmillan.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. MALEY, A. (1989). A comeback for literature? Practical English
ISER, W. (1980). Interaction between text and reader. In S. R. Teaching, 10, 1, 59.

223
State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
MALEY, A. (1994). Short and sweet, Vols. 1 & 2. London: NEWBROOK, N . (1989). Extracts: English fiction for advanced
Penguin. students. London: Nelson.
MALEY, A. (1995). Twelve short stories. London: Penguin. NEWTON, K. (1990). Interpreting the text. London: Harvester
MALEY, A. & Duff, A. (1989). The inward ear. Cambridge: Wheatsheaf.
Cambridge University Press. OUSBY, E. (ed.) (1988). Cambridge guide to literature in English.
MALEY, A, & Moulding, S. (1985). Poem into poem. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge University Press. PAGANO, N. (1994). A poetic history. Practical English Teaching,
MANNHEIM, C. (1992). Review of Modern short stories and 14, 3, 58-9.
Modern Poetry by A. Martin & R . Hill. Modern English Teacher, PAGE, N. (ed.) (1984). The language of literature. London:
1, 3, 7576. Macmillan.
MARKWARDT, A. H . (1981). The place of literature in the teaching PARKINSON, B. (1990). The teaching of poetry: dealing with
of ELT as a second or foreign language. Hawaii: East-West deviance. In D. A. Hill & J. Holden (eds.), Effective teaching
Centre. and learning, 115-19.
MARTIN, A. & HILL, R. (eds.) (1992a). Introductions to modernPARKINSON, B. (1993). Missed metaphors. In D. A. Hill (ed.),
English literature: modern poetry. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Changing contexts in ELT, 107-12.
Hall. PERVAN-PLAVEC, M. (1990). Reading for study and pleasure.
MARTIN, A. & HILL, R. (eds.) (1992b). Introductions to modern Zagreb: Skilska Kniga.
English literature: modern short stories. Hemel Hempstead: PlCKETT, D . (ed.) (1982). Literature in foreign language teaching.
Prentice Hall. British Council Seminar Proceedings.
MARTIN, A. & HILL, R. (eds.) (1995). Introductions to modern
PIERCE, T. & COCHRANE, E. (eds.) (1979). Twentieth century
English literature: modern plays. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice English short stories. London: Unwin Hyman.
Hall.
POPE, A. (1711/1878). Essay on criticism (Aldine edition).
MARTIN, A. & HILL, R. (eds.). (1996). Introductions to modern
London: Bell.
English literature: modern novels. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice
POPE, R. (1995). Textual intervention. London: Routledge.
Hall.
POUND, E. (1951). ABC of reading. London: Faber and
MARTIN, R. (1985). Teaching literature - in a student centred
Faber.
way. Practical English Teaching, 6, 2, 27-8.
PRINCE, G. (1973/1980). Introduction to the study of the
MARTIN, R. (1986). A short cut to comprehension. Practical
narratee. In J. P. Tompkins, Reader response criticism. French
English Teaching, 6, 4, 18-19.
original in Poetiaue, 14 (1973), 177-96.
MATEJKA, L. & POMORSKA, K. (eds.) (1978). Readings in Russian
PROPP, V. (1928/1968). The morphology of the folk tale, trans. L.
poetics: formalist and structuralist views. Cambridge
Scott. Austin: University of Texas.
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
PROTHEROUGH, R. (1986) Teaching literature for examinations.
MckAY, S. & PETTIT, D. (1982). At the door. New York: Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Prentice Hall. PROTHEROUGH, R. (1989J. Students of English. London:
M C R A E , J. (1985). Using drama in the language classroom. Oxford:
Routledge.
Pergamon ELT. PROTHEROUGH, R., ATKINSON, J. and FAWCETT, J. (1989). The
MCRAE, J. (1991). Literature with a small T. MEP Monographs. effective teaching of English. Harlow: Longman.
London: Macmillan. PULVERNESS, A. (1996). Outside looking in: teaching literature
MCRAE, J. (1992). Wordsplay. London: Macmillan. as dialogue. In D.A.Hill (ed.), Papers on teaching literature from
MCRAE, J. & PANTALEONI, L. (1985). Words on the page. the British Council Conferences in Bologna 1994 and Milan 1995,
Firenze/Oxford: La Nuova Italia/Oxford University Press. 25-32.
MCRAE, J. & PANTALEONI, L. (1990). Chapter and verse: an QUIRK, R. & WIDDOWSON, H. (eds.) (1985). English in the
interactive approach to literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. world: teaching and learning the language and literature.
MILLER, J. HILLIS. (1971). Aspects of narrative. New York: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/British Council.
Columbia University Press. RAMSARAN, S. (1983). Poetry in the language classroom. ELT
MILLER, J. R. (1989). Using literature in group discussion. Journal, 37, 1, 36-^3.
Practical English Teaching, 9, 4, 2 3 - 4 . RlFFATERRE, M. (1979/1983). Text production, trans. T. Lyons.
MiTCHENER, D. (1992). An introduction to Shakespeare's New York: Columbia University Press.
Romeo and Juliet. Modern English Teacher, 1, 4, 45-9. R I M M O N - K E N A N , S. (1983). Narrative fiction: contemporary poetics.
MONTGOMERY, M., DURANT, A., FABB, N., FURNISS, T. & London: Methuen.
MILLS, S. (1992). Ways of reading: advanced reading skills for RODGER, A. (1969). Linguistics and the teaching of literature.
students of English literature. London: Routledge. In H. Fraser & W. R. O'Donnell (eds.), Applied linguistics and
MOODY, H. L. B. (1968). Literary appreciation. London: the teaching of English, 88-98.
Longman. ROSENBLATT, L. M. (1978). Tlie reader, the text, the poem.
MOODY, H. L. B. (1983). Approaches to the study of literature: Carbondale, 111: Southern Illinois University Press.
a practitioner's view. In CJ.Brumfit (ed.), Teaching literatureRoss, N. J. (1991). Literature and film. ELT Journal, 45, 2,
overseas: language based approaches. ELT documents 115, 17-36. 147-55.
MORGAN, J. & RINVOLUCRI, M. (1983). Once upon a time: usingROSSNER, R . (1988). The whole story: short stories for pleasure and
stories in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge language improvement. London: Longman.
University Press. SAGE, H. (1987). Incorporating literature in ESL instruction. N e w
MORSON, G. S. (1986). Bakhtin: essays and dialogues on his work. York: Prentice-Hall.
Chicago: University of Chicago. SAID, E. (1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge.
MUKAROVSKY, J. (1964/1970). Standard language and poeticSAID, E. (1983). The world, the text and the critic. Cambridge,
language, trans. P.L. Garvin. P.L. In D.C.Freeman (ed.), Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Linguistics and literary style, 40-56. SCHOLES, R . (1985). Textual power: theory and teaching of English.
MURDOCH, G. S. (1992). The neglected text: a fresh look at Yale: Yale University Press.
teaching literature. English Teaching Forum, 30, 1, 2-5; and 15.SEBEOK, T. A. (ed.) (1960). Style in language. Cambridge, Mass.:
NASH, W. (1986). The possibilities of paraphrase. In C. J. MIT Press.
Brumfit & R . A. Carter (eds.), Literature and language teaching, SELDEN, R . (1985). A reader's guide to contemporary literary theory
70-88. (1st ed.). NewYork/London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

224
 State of the art: Teaching literature in a foreign language
SELDEN, R. (1989). Practising theory and reading literature. N e w TOMALIN, B. (1983a). Teaching literature as problem solving 1.
York/London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Practical English Teaching, 3, 3, 46-7.
SELDEN, R. & WlDDOWSON, P. (1993). A reader's guide to TOMALIN, B. (1983b). Teaching literature as problem solving 2.
contemporary literary theory (3rd ed.). N e w York/London: Practical English Teaching, 3, 4, 21-2.
Harvester Wheatsheaf. TOMALIN, B. (1983C). Teaching literature as problem solving 3.
SELL, R. D. (ed.) (1991). Literary pragmatics. London/New York: Practical English Teaching, 4, 1, 39-40.
Roudedge. TOMLINSON, B. (1986). Using poetry with mixed ability
SELL, R. D. (1995a). Why is literature central? in R . D . language classes. ELTJournal 40, 1, 33—41.
Sell, Literature throughout foreign language education: the TOMLINSON, B. (1987). Openings. London: Filmscan/Lingual
implications of pragmatics. Review of English language teaching, House.
4-20. TOMPKINS, J. P. (1980). Reader response criticism. Baltimore and
SELL, K. D. (1995b). Literature throughout foreign language London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
education: the implications ofpragmatics. Review of English language TOMSCHA, T. (1987). 10 ways to use your favourite poem.
teaching, 5,1. Modern English Publications in association with Practical English Teaching, 7, 4, 15-17.
The British Council. London: Phoenix ELT. TRAUGOTT, E. C. & PRATT, M. L. (1980). Linguistics for students
SHACKLETON, M. (ed.) (1985). Double act. London: Edward of literature. N e w York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Arnold. TRIBBLE, C. & JONES, G. (1990). Concordances in the classroom.
SHACKLETON, M. (1992). Using literary texts in the EFL class. London: Longman.
Modern English Teacher, 1, 4, 51-5. VALDES, J. M. (ed.) (1986). Culture bound. Cambridge:
SHKLOVSKY, V. (1917/65). Art as technique, trans. L.T.Lemon, & Cambridge University Press.
M.J.Reis (1965). Lincoln: University of Nebraska. VAN PEER, W. (1988). H o w to do things with texts: towards a
SHORT, M. H. (ed.) (1988). Reading, analysing and teaching pragmatic foundation for the teaching of texts. In M.H.Short
literature. London: Longman. (ed.), Reading, analysing and teaching literature, 267-97.
SHORT, M. & VAN PEER, W. (1988). Accident! Stylisticians VERDONK, P. & W E B E R , J. J. (1995). Twentieth-century fiction:
evaluate: aims and methods of stylistic analysis. In Short (ed.), from text to context. London: Roudedge.
Reading, analysing and teaching literature, 22-7'. VlGO SANGES, M. (1984). From key words to key themes in
SINCLAIR, J. M C H . (1982). The integration of language and teaching literature. Practical English Teaching, 5, 1, 23-5.
literature in the English curriculum. In R. Carter and D. WALKER, R. (1983). Language for literature. London: Collins.
Burton (eds.), Literary text and language study, 9-27. WELLEK, R. & W A R R E N , A. (1942). Theory of literature. N e w
SMITH, J. (1985). Stylistics and the pedagogic implications of dialogue York and London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
in drama and text books. Unpublished dissertation, MA in WELLER, L. (1982). Poetry needn't be painful. Practical English
Language and Literature in Education (TESOL), London Teaching, 2, 3, 20.
University Institute of Education. WESSELS, C. (1987). Drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
STEELE, R. & THREADGOLD, T. (eds.) (1988). Language W H I T E , A. (1984). Bakhtin, sociolinguistics and deconstruction.
topics: essays in honour of Michael Halliday. Amsterdam: In F. Glovesmith (ed.), The theory of reading, 123—46.
Benjamins. WlDDOWSON, H. G. (1975). Stylistics and the teaching of literature.
STEPHENS, C. & B R U M F I T , C. (1991). Literature teaching London: Longman.
methodology for second and foreign language learners: a bibliography.WlDDOWSON, H. G. (1983). Talking shop: literature and ELT.
London: The British Council. ELTJournal 37, 1,30-5.
SULEIMAN, S. R. & CROSSMAN, I. (eds.). (1980). The reader in the WlDDOWSON, H. G. (1985). Explorations in Applied Linguistics 2.
text, essays on audience and interpretation. Princeton: Princeton Oxford: Oxford University Press.
University Press. WlDDOWSON, H. G. (1987). O n the interpretation of poetry. In
SWARTRIDGE, C. (1978). British fiction: a student's A-Z. London: N . Fabb et al., The linguistics of writing, 241-52.
Macinillan. WlDDOWSON, H. G. (1992). Practical stylistics: an approach to
TAYLOR, P. J. W. (ed.) (1968). Modern short stories for students of poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. WILEY, G. & D U N K , M. (1986). Integrated English. Cambridge:
TAYLOR, P. J. W. (ed.) (1981). More modern short stories for Cambridge University Press.
students of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. WYNNE-DAVIES, M. (1989). Bloomsburyguide to English literature.
T H O R N D Y K E , P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in London: Bloomsbury.
comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive YORKE, F. (1986). Interpretive tasks applied to short stories.
Psychology 9, 77-110. ELT Journal, 40, 4, 313-21.

225