Professional Documents
Culture Documents
M2 DLE TLT Lesson 1 Literary Texts in The English As A Foreign Language Classroom
M2 DLE TLT Lesson 1 Literary Texts in The English As A Foreign Language Classroom
Introduction
Do literary texts have a place in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom?
This is the main question this lesson aims to answer. In order to do so, we need to examine the
place of literature through the different periods of language teaching. The use of literary texts
in language teaching has experienced three main periods which go in parallel with the
development of foreign language teaching methods and approaches – the Traditional Approach
exemplified by the Grammar/translation method, Structuralism and Modern approaches.
1. Historical Overview
The use of literature in Teaching English as a Foreign Language has undergone ups and
downs with the development of language teaching approaches and methods. During the
application of the Grammar Translation Method, literary texts were ‘a king’s road to the foreign
language’. Later on, Structuralism came to deprive literature from its prestigious place.
However, starting from the 1980’s, many voices have risen, here and there, to call on for a
return to using literature in the foreign language classroom.
The issue of teaching English Literature in a non- native context dates back from
the early years of this century when literature was considered of high prestige, in
language study and access to literary works was assumed part of the purpose of
language learning. (Widdowson, 1984)
There are many reasons for this concern. Firstly, literary texts were believed to be the
best means to illustrate grammatical rules. Miliani (2003, p.21) explained: ‘Literary prose was
used for understanding how the language works and for exercises of translation from and within
the target language’. Secondly, traditional grammarians considered literary texts as good
models for the learners of the target language to improve their writing: ‘literary texts were the
very staple of foreign language teaching, since they represented models of good writing as well
as illustrating grammatical rules.’ (Duff & Maley, 1993, p. 3), and to remedy their grammatical
weaknesses: ‘if the students were exposed to the best uses of the English language, it would in
some sense rub off on their own performance in the language.’ (Short & Cadlin, 1989, p. 91)
Although the Grammar Translation Method meets with our approvals, in the sense that
it regards literature as an important linguistic resource for language learning, there is a lot to
say about the inappropriate teaching principles applied in this method.
The difficulty and inaccessibility of many literary texts to non-native English speaking
students and, the lack of a consistent and suitable methodology for the teaching of
literature brought about rather the opposite effect.’ (Zafeiriadou, 2003, p. 1).
Thus, it can be concluded that the inappropriateness of this method in dealing with
literature as a language teaching material was the main reason for the decline of literary prestige
in later periods.
1.2. The Absence of Literature in Structuralism and English for Specific Purposes
As a consequence to the negative impact of the traditional approach on teaching and
learning, the days when literature was written with a capital ‘L’ were gone with the application
of relatively new English Language Teaching (ELT) approaches during the period (1960s-
1980s) including the structural approach and English for Specific Purposes.
1.2.1. Structuralism
The structural approach, which is based on the gradual and linear accumulation of the
linguistic items, came to exclude authentic literary texts from the EFL classroom and syllabi.
This total rejection of literature can be explained by the unsuitability of literary texts with the
principles of this approach since literary texts present language as a whole, and not as separate
fragments and structures. In addition, literature, and poetry in particular, has a way of exploiting
resources in a language which have not been codified as correct usage. It is, therefore,
misleading as a model. Thus, structuralism succeeded in constructing a well-organised world
of language structures, but obviously failed in involving the learners truly with language as it
is used in its natural context— which is variously illustrated in literature.
It would seem that, for many learners, the usual type of texts and tasks found in text
books is just not Sufficiently interesting, relevant or motivating.’ whereas ‘the use of
authentic literary texts gives learners experience in real reading in L1. (p. 1)
Therefore, the constant exposure to literary texts from the earlier stages of language learning
will increase learners’ self-confidence to use the target language even outside the classroom:
‘This increased exposure to language stimulates acquisition and expands awareness’ (Byrne,
2003, p. 1). Another reason why literature is motivating for learners is the fact that they are
already familiar with literary texts in their mother tongue, which will help them use their
previous knowledge to cope with the one they meet in texts in the foreign language: ‘Students
are already accustomed to working with original texts in their own languages. Using original
texts in the second language allows them to apply many of their first-language skills in the
acquisition of the foreign language.’ (Dunning, 1989, p. 8). Thus, the newness is in the language
itself, and not in literature as content. Fascinated by the new, students are likely to be engaged
in reading in the foreign language and studying it.
Conclusion
We come to conclude here that literature should not be a ‘raison d’être’ to language
teaching as it used to be during the application of the Grammar-Translation method, nor should
it be an alien creature in the language classroom world. Due to their linguistic, motivational,
social and cultural benefits for foreign language learners, literary texts should, thus, return to
the language classroom as an important tool to develop language skills, mainly reading.