MLA - Utopia

“O brave new world that has such people in it.”

Somehow this quote seemed to me to capture the spirit of the entire article; it describes a vision of language instruction that would be (by all conventional standards) idyllic. By setting the stage as this new changed world with different requirements, the MLA committee convincingly appeals to our current need for cooperation, expansion and, above all, change. On page 2, we read “Americans need to be open to the world; we need to be able to see the world through the eyes of others if we are going to understand how to resolve the complex problems we face.” The committee claims this to no longer be a cliché, and they make a convincing case.

Perhaps the most challenging hurdle to overcome is not in implementing new systems (like courses that appeal across departments and require extensive collaboration among faculty), but in paying the “price” that would come with such a great leap towards holistic education in foreign language departments.

“This configuration defines both the curriculum and the governance structure of language departments and creates a division between the language curriculum and the literature curriculum and between tenure-track literature professors and language instructors in nontenure- track positions. At doctorate-granting institutions, cooperation or even exchange between the two groups is usually minimal or nonexistent.” (p. 2)

It is this traditional structure that must be compromised in order to move forward as the MLA suggests. Even from my own limited experience as a graduate student in a foreign language literature program, I can say with no scruples that some aspects of this traditional structure can be cold, pedantic and self-serving: qualities that do not mix well with the kind of radical cooperation suggested here. Not only does this attitude present itself in elements already present within departments, but it perpetuates itself and engenders more of the same in graduate students, giving longevity to these attitudes. Perhaps a bit more focus should have been given to this aspect, as these are the people that will fill the tenure-track positions of tomorrow.

MLA-

I think that this article made really good points, I'm totally with it when they suggest to expend the language beyond literature, even if I like literature, I remembered that when I was learning English it is when they started to introduce other elements that I was really hooked up. Plus it suddenly came clear that the language was more than 'school requirement'. In that way I think that the options talked about in this article can in fact help change the view of the language.
We were all kind of against Siskin idea of focusing French on the aesthetic appeal, so here is (I think) a go way to reintroduce the 'utility' notion for French. In the part named "goal: translingual and transcultutral competence", it is said (on p.4): this kind of foreign language education systematically teaches differences in meaning, mentality and worldview [...]. Literature, film, and other media [...] help them consider alternative ways of seeing, feeling, and understanding things. In the course of acquiring functional language abilities, students are taught critical language awareness, interpretation and translation, historical and political consciousness, social sensibility, and aesthetic perception [...] knowledge of history, geography, culture and literature [...] the ability to understand and interpret radio, television, and print media [...]."
In that structure students are clearly to be aware of the multiple use of the language they are learning, and not just in a "high brow culture" way but in all aspect of life. Plus as the article says "classroom study and study abroad should be promoted as interdependent necessities", learning a language step out of the pure academic perspective and becomes a essential component of real-life.

MLA article - Mike

I whole-heartedly agree with this article that more students will be attracted to foreign language majors/minors if these programs incorporate a broader range of subjects, as the authors call it, wider "cultural, historical, geographic, and cross-cultural frames."

During my undergraduate career, there was a period where I dropped my French major for the very reasons the authors discuss: I was tired of the almost literature-exclusive nature of the program (sorry, lit people), and general requirements were getting in the way of taking more French classes. Thankfully, I came back, but I can understand where the authors are coming from.

Quite frankly, I think the literature-heavy language major is outmoded in today's university system, which in general requires students to be well-rounded in a number of different subjects. It is also outmoded in today's globalized atmosphere. Language studies should be even more heavily concentrating on communication and real-life application of these languages: French for Business, Diplomacy, Volunteer/Mission Work, and so on. Languages are not a primarily academic endeavor anymore, and we cannot shut out the world in order to cater to our existing university structure/faculty.

The measures the MLA article proposes to change the system are all good ideas, however, I think the process of transforming (or enriching, at the very least) foreign language majors will be a long and difficult one. At many universities, faculty who are capable of teaching higher-level language courses are specialists in literature. While we may want to hire professors who could teach, for instance, history in a French department, how rare will it be to find professors who are qualified in both areas? This process would have to start at the undergraduate level, training people in both areas and continuing this on to graduate school. But how are we to do that if language programs as they are hardly allow for this? (Or at the very least, they make it difficult.)

It seems a vicious cycle, and I'm not too sure how to break it. Do others agree that this would be difficult? Any ideas on how to move forward?

Siskin: What's French Good for Anyway? (Kelly S.)

I love Ben B's market forces metaphor (cf. post on "buyers of French") description of the Siskin article; it captures the essence of the article perfectly, especially since today's students increasingly approach their education with a consumer mentality.

Nevertheless it is true that one question anybody on the job market in French has to be ready to answer these days is "What ideas do you have for revitalizing our program?" Since 9/11 and growing awareness of China as a fast-growing global player, add to the language competition Arabic and Chinese. The Siskin article helps us to better understand one (big) piece of the puzzle: the role of student motivation in language choice, as influenced by larger social/political trends and perceptions. Because the economic and administrative structure of many large educational institutions today is such that departments receive funding based on the number of students enrolled in the department's classes, the challenge is to find a way to offer courses that appeal to/attract students (note increasingly sexy and cleverly named undergraduate courses, as opposed to old titles such as "17th Century French Theater") without compromising core values of our discipline. Fundamentally, we have to find ways to show students that French IS relevant to them, even if French speakers are not thronging across our borders, but this requires thinking outside of traditional disciplinary boundaries.

As is made clear in the article, French has always been attractive to a "clientele" that is drawn to its aura of chic, sophistication, and high culture. But many students today are less willing to explore a subject for its aesthetic benefits than to choose classes based on their perceived immediate potential relevance to social and economic gain. So, should we really only "cultiver notre jardin" as suggested by Valdman? I think we have to go further, thus the rise of untraditional classes such as "French for the Business World". The trend towards incorporation of La Francophonie as a theme in elementary and intermediate French textbooks in the American market can also be seen as an attempt to render French more relevant in the North American context, with integration of Cajun and Quebecois focused modules. Interdisciplinary classes, or those with, say, an optional language-specific discussion component such as the ones offered in IU's West European Studies Program mentioned by Jennifer, offer another creative approach. Our department's F251 (Service Learning Practicum in French Teaching), a course in which students at the F250 level and beyond work to teach basic French lessons to underprivileged area elementary school children, and F477; F102; F152; F202; F252 (French Conversation Group Leadership and French Conversation group membership) are courses created with the goal of allowing students to something ELSE with French: French as a vehicle to connect with and learn about the community outside the university walls (Monroe County is one of top three poorest counties in the state of Indiana); French as a vehicle of fun, pleasure, and social connection; French as a vehicle for gaining leadership and teaching skills.

The take-home messages for me of the Siskin article are: 1) It's useful and important to know what motivates students in choosing one language over another at a given place and time; 2) Student motivation and perception has to be taken seriously in language program design, and 3) Those of us teaching French can no longer afford the luxury of thinking French will simply sell itself as it has historically done; instead, we need to be more creative in finding ways to connect study of the language with other disciplines and opportunities so students perceive its relevance.

MLA thoughts

I thoroughly enjoyed the articles approach to interdisciplinality. Many of the points harken back to the discussion we had on teaching culture. It is easy to see how these interdisciplinary courses can be applied to more than simply culture. This reminds me of one of the French professors at my undergraduate course who actually rarely taught a full-fledged French class. She was also a professor of Film, Gender Studies and Women's Studies. Her diversified interests and specializations allowed her to offer extremely interesting and thought provoking courses that weren't tailor to any specific major at the university. Within these courses there was always the possibility for readings in French for the French majors and the same could be done for students with other language specializations.

At the top of page 8 the article states that we must, "Establish language requirements (or levels of competence) for undergraduate students majoring in fields such as international studies, history, anthropology, music, art history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and linguistics..." This seemed odd to me, because I simply assumed that all of these fields would already have requirements such as these established. In talking to some of my friends who majored in Music Education at UT, I was shocked to find out that the department had done away with the foreign language requirement. In a field such as music where you run into foreign language even in a piece of music it seems absurd that there is no established requirement for a foreign language.

To contrast the example I just gave above, legislation was recently passed in Tennessee requiring all high school graduates to have at least a one year or two-semester sequence of a foreign language in order to receive a diploma. I believe that this is a step in the right direction and is inline with what the Ad Hoc Committee proposes on page 8 of the article. Are any of you aware of the foreign language requirements in other states? Are there still places where it is not required at all?

MLA Thoughts

I'd like to comment on this article's suggestion that "to attract students from other fields and students with interests beyond literary studies...departments should institute a series of complementary or linked courses that holistically incorporate content and cross-cultural reflection at every level." Along with Erin, I say a hearty "yes!" to this proposal. I, for one, never considered being a French major in my undergrad because I wasn't particularly interested in French literature (no offense all you lit majors!) and I had no idea that the magical field of linguistics even existed! Broadening the content of undergrad courses could help negate the stereotype that language = literature.

On a related note, did anyone know that these types of "credit-bearing discussion module[s] in the target language" are offered at IU? West European Studies (just downstairs on the fifth floor) frequently offers these as a 1-credit add-on to a regular 3-credit course in West European history, economics or geopolitics. I think last year they had a course with French, Italian and German discussion sections. What a great way to make language relevant! I know in the past they've also had discussion sections in German and French for a course entitled something like "Paris and Berlin in the 1920's"...which of us wouldn't love to lead that discussion!

Does anyone know of other departments and/or programs at IU that offer language discussion sections? Maybe this would be a way to start bridging those interdepartmental gaps: offer the option of French discussion sections for specific history, politics, art history and other humanities courses in which our grad students have specializations.

Siskin: declining “buyers” of French in the foreign language marketplace

Siskin and his colleagues lay out a very detailed explanation as to why students would wish to study one language over another; they use Halliday’s categorization of language function as their primary tool for classifying language options. A given language is claimed by the authors to be perceived as stronger in certain categories (instrumental, transformative, aesthetic, etc) and weaker in others. This analysis hinges on the concepts of perception and comparison, which the authors admit. As such, the analysis is socially arbitrary. For example, Spanish is considered by Americans to be very strong in the instrumental category (due to environmental factors such as a large number of Spanish speakers in the US and our nation’s proximity to Latin America); however, in a country like India (where environmental factors are quite different), Spanish may be considered very weak in the instrumental category.

The shift, therefore, in the enrollment of French courses in the US is due to changing environmental factors (which lead to a change in social perception of the language). Since this is a decline, we must assume that either French is perceived as weaker cumulatively among all categories; or that French is perceived as stronger in certain categories, but that these categories are in some way of less (and possibly diminishing) importance when compared to other categories. The primary reason for this negative change in the perception of French is the positive change in the perception of other languages (specifically Spanish and Japanese, though the authors primarily focus on the comparison of French and Spanish).

Perhaps without realizing it, the authors have set up a very straight-forward economic scenario: the students (or “buyers”) who were for years loyal to the dominant product (French) in the marketplace of language instruction, have been persuaded to switch to what they perceive as newer, more useful products (Spanish, Japanese, Mandarin, etc). The “categories” then are the selling points of a product (the authors claim French’s strongest attribute is perceived to be of an aesthetic nature while Spanish’s trump card is its utility or instrumental nature).

The authors’ data sampling mainly attempts to qualify exactly what consumer perceptions are concerning the two products; to get a bigger picture, they not only asked customers what they liked/disliked about the product they had chosen to purchase, but also asked them to evaluate the competition. The answers demonstrated that the two products/languages are perceived similarly in certain ways (both were perceived as useful when traveling) but with distinct character: the authors conclude French is perceived as more beautiful and refined, while Spanish is viewed as a strong résumé asset and more fun (indicated in the word association portion of the questionnaire which garnered responses such as “piñata” and “margarita”).

Of course, the aim of this whole affair is to offer options for revitalizing the position of our product (the French language) in the marketplace of American universities. Although the structure of the article separates these options into three “responses”, the first two don’t really offer much of anything new or useful in the way of advice and mainly consist of observational claims (Spanish and French are both useful, just in different ways; French teachers shouldn’t be “easier” on their students but should rather explain why they are making things difficult, etc). Clearly, the authors favor response 3 (inspired by Valdman/Voltaire) “Cultivons notre jardin”. I am in agreement with the authors here; the best option available is not to attempt to change the product image to make it more similar to the competing product (and risk alienating loyal customers) but to capitalize on the unique character inherent in the language. The authors conclude that the two products need not compete with one another since they excel at different categories of language function (and appeal to different consumer bases); however, despite these claims, these are still RIVAL goods. When French enrollment decreases, it is not because a large number of students have vanished into thin air; it is because they have chosen another option that they find more appealing.