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.

MLA

I also appreciated the interdisciplinary approaches suggested by the authors of this article. I agree that we can't lose sight of our goal to provide our students with a certain level of communicative competence. We've already talked about making our lower-level French courses more relevant to students' interests, since many of them will not continue in the major, but we haven't really talked about upper-level courses in the major (or minor).

Often, literature is the focus of undergraduate French programs. Such was certainly the case for mine. Our department does offer courses in linguistics, culture, film, etc., but I don't know to what extent they're interdisciplinary. If I had the time, it would be interesting to sort through the course requirements for other departments to see if any of these courses count. The linguistics minor (part of the English department) at MnSU counted a couple of my French courses, for example, along with courses from other languages.

The article advises language instructors to reach out to other departments to make new connections: "Work with colleagues in the social sciences and in policy-oriented departments to strengthen language requirements in the design of their majors and graduate programs and encourage these colleagues to recognize the limits monolingualism imposes on research" (8). This sounds great, and I'm sure that most departments can see the theoretical benefits of this, but I have to wonder if many departments would simply shrug this off as too logistically difficult to be worth their time. The International Business program at MnSU, for example, actually dropped its language requirement because they already had too many other credit requirements. Asking other departments to add language requirements could in some cases be asking them to cut course requirements, which could affect their course availability, enrollment, funding, etc. I can't imagine that faculty members are jumping at opportunities to redesign their entire program requirements.

Yet, it seems a bit ridiculous that an International Business program doesn't have a language requirement. So, we can't just worry about marketing French to students, but also to other departments. If we want to take the interdisciplinary approach, I think we have to have something to offer other departments. This could mean making the requirements of French programs more interdisciplinary, or it could also mean something as simple as offering ourselves as guest lecturers for other departments' courses. Obviously, this requires some time commitment, but if we're going to ask other departments to incorporate language more, we need to put in some effort as well.

MLA: reactions

The suggestions made by the MLA’s ad hoc committee are great in my opinion. As before, I have some highlights to share.

I was very impressed by the remarks on modifying the hierarchical structure that exists in most language departments; I really do believe that divisions only hinder the progress of the department as a whole. As far as the traditional model for language majors, “a two- or three-year language sequence feed[ing] into a set of core courses primarily focused on canonical literature,” goes I also agree that it “represents a narrow model” (2). Moreover, it doesn’t prepare students very well. One day they’re in a basic language course reading a 1-page story and the next they’re in a survey course reading Le rouge et le noir: total disconnect! (This is why I particularly appreciate the fact that our F250 students read a novella.)

The most appealing aspect of the text, though, was the focus on interdisciplinarity. Beginning by stating the utility of interdisciplinary courses for students who recently studied abroad (5), the committee goes on to address the other benefits of such courses:

Interdisciplinary collaborative courses could fulfill both the needs of the students and the goals of the institution’s program. Interdisciplinary courses are typically taught in English, but a credit-bearing discussion module taught in the target language can be added with the support of programs such as foreign languages across the curriculum (5).

Even more appealing are the proposed courses themselves, “Crusades in the Middle Ages; the Silk Road; literature and opera; the sonnet across four national literatures; turn-of-the-century Vienna, Paris, and London; literature and science; and interconnections between Germany and the United States” (5-6). I personally would love to teach “literature and opera” or “turn-of-the-century Vienna, Paris, and London.” Although the promised linguistic/literature courses are conspicuously absent given that

[l]inguists enrich the foreign language major through their ability to offer courses in second language acquisition, applied linguistics, dialectology, sociolinguistics, history of the language, and discourse analysis. In addition to learning the history and underlying structure of a particular language, students should be offered the opportunity to take general courses in such areas as language and cognition, language and power, bilingualism, language and identity, language and gender, language and myth, language and artificial intelligence, and language and the imagination (7).

Most importantly, though, and the committee says as much, “[t]hese courses [the more specifically linguistic ones as well as the others] appeal broadly to students who major in languages as well as to those who do not” (7).

To me, that is the central issue of this discussion. Persuading many more students to become language majors is a bit of an unrealistic goal in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean that all students, in every discipline, shouldn’t be encouraged to do something with language. I think that the kinds of courses proposed here, while they may not fit the bill for FL purists, are every bit as valid and as useful for students.

MLA – primarily thoughts

I have impression that the article proposes teaching solutions that are already known in our department. It looks like that all suggestions and problems presented in the article are already updated. On p. 3 it is said that that the language major should be structured to produced a specific outcome: educated speakers who have deep translingual and cultural competence. In addition on p. 4 “An integrative approach with multiple paths to the major” the authors states the language study should be situated in cultural, historical and geographic and cross-cultural frames with the context of humanistic learning. In my opinion our teaching is based on these elements. Then the authors mention many goals that students need to achieve during their education. The main question that we can ask whether the students are able to achieve enough proficiency in the language. The answer is not so obvious.

I am very surprised by the fact that only 6.1 % college graduates continue their foreign language interests to attain a doctoral degree. I am also a little bit astonished that 50 % of existing PhD programs require reading knowledge of two additional languages. I am simply pride that FRIT follows reforms and proposes the newest methods and curriculum. My main question is whether all departments at IUB keep this high standards?

Siskin Response

While I do admit that the intentions in the Siskin article are good, I am not sure that I completely agree with what he says or how he gathered his data. First, while much can be learned from questioning undergraduate students such as Siskin did, we must take into consideration the fact that these students are at the end of their sequence of language classes (39). Over the course of three or four semesters can we not assume that several strong biases will have been drawn for their respective language. In particular, I do not find that the responses to societal perceptions are surprising. On page 58, Siskin discusses many instances of stereotyping, which I have even seen in second semester French classes. The stereotypes of the French that were put forth by the students of Spanish seem to be those of Americans in general. I do not feel that we can make a judgment between the two languages based on these stereotypes. In F150 we devoted a large portion of an entire lesson to breaking down some of these stereotypes. Even after extended study of the language, some of these stereotypes could still be present in the L2 learner of French.

A second thing is that Siskin takes into account the fact that students find the language. While I do feel that this perceived difficulty could influence the choice of enrollment, however unless these students have taken classes in both French and Spanish, how valid can these difficulty assessments be?

This brings me to the point that I believe this experiment could be more effective if it questioned high school age students or even college freshman who had not been exposed to a language class and who had to choose between several different language options. This seems relevant since the article focuses on the falling enrollments in French classes.

Something that I feel could be helpful in curbing the falling enrollments would be to talk to students before they actually enroll in language classes. Many students do not actually think about the language they sign up for, or if they do they may make their decisions based on what their friends or doing or what they have heard about the languages and this could be ill-informed. Enrollment could be helped if we made students aware of the usefulness of French and its far reach in the world.

Response to Siskin: Fear of French, Fear of Otherness?

Since I responded to other people's posts before writing my own, I feel like I am going to repeat a lot of what I am about to say - ironically, reading other posts on the same article first helped me gather my thoughts better concerning the questions we have to ask ourselves after reading this article.



I discussed primarily the influence of socio-political perceptions (especially negative) of the French as a people, and how that perception, which is at its root purely social, spills over into the category of the linguistic. For me, it truly is a curious phenomenon - that the appeal of a language can be determined in large part to the appeal of the people that speak the language to begin with. I found particular evidence of this idea on page 52, in which Siskin et al. poses the question:



"Do many Americans decide against studying a language based on some half-hidden fears of otherness [...]?"



Also, on page 58, it is written that both learners of Spanish and French (though certainly not all) characterize French (the language) in the following way: French for some is "found ... to be unappealing, associating it with such words as arrogance arrogant, elite, elitism, [etc. ...]. Our quantitative data also revealed that over a third of Spanish students and approximately a quarter of French students perceived French-speaking people as rude."



Coincidence? I think not ;) In my opinion, the two are inherently and inextricably linked.



So, along with all the other factors that must be taken into account, and which this article mentions in great detail (even though it is a small sample size of subjects) I think that as citizens of the most powerful country in the world, our media (newspapers, news, radio, etc.) and our never-ending (and inevitable) political involvement in all parts of the world has a tendency to highly influence what we think of other countries, people, and their respective languages.



How do we address this problem of appeal, then, with all of this in mind? This is where cultural education comes into play (especially making cross-cultural comparisons and promoting cross-cultural awareness), and becomes just as important as the actual learning of the language alone. If we as teachers of French could get students to perceive the French differently, perhaps the learning of the language wouldn't appear to be as daunting, and the language itself perceived less negatively. If we want to attack these negative perceptions of the French language, we need to "creuser au fond" with the students the France that they don't know or are simply unaware of. Even if the French culture for some students is not fully understood, awareness is still a major step forward... and you certainly need awareness before you can fully digest and understand a foreign culture. Either way, it's progress... and in the end, it all simply comes down to perceptions, which, more often than not, are not reflective of reality.

Siskin Response - Mike

First of all, I'm a little hesitant about the data and how much of a conclusion we can reliably draw from it. As the authors themselves note, this is a small sampling of students from one university who are forced to take a language. The real facts could differ significantly.

Granted, Spanish is popular as ever, but I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to blame decreasing French enrollment on the (admittedly) very useful status of Spanish in American universities. It amounts to nothing more than perpetuating a (let's say) "urinating" contest between the two. I think you get the gist.

The authors point out on page 36 that French was one of only four languages to experience a decline in enrollment during a certain period of time. They then launch right away into the "classic explanation," that is, Spanish. I think the authors are missing a crucial point: all but 4 languages experienced an increase in enrollment. There's nothing in the data to suggest that any certain language (e.g. Spanish) directly caused the decline in French enrollment.

I think the fact is that besides Spanish, a large variety of foreign languages are just now being offered on the undergraduate (and even high school) level. Back in the day when students were given fewer options, we would have imagine a dichotomy between French and Spanish. These days, however, we have to compete with "niche languages," too. If Spanish is considered marketable, what about Kazakh? Bambara? (I'm looking at you, Betters.) Knowing these languages makes people marketable in very specific areas--and often booming ones, at that. Knowing Spanish, however, might give you an edge up on some of the competition, but not much anymore, not to mention the areas aren't as specialized.

So I imagine competition on two sides--Spanish, on one side, for being the most obvious/practical candidate; and smaller, less commonly taught languages on the other. As a whole, they make for a pretty fierce competition. So how to attract the students, especially the ones who feel they're forced to study a language against their will?

I agree first of all with Valdman's suggestion of offering more specialized classes like Business French. That, however, isn't enough, and I strongly disagree (as does everyone else here, it seems) with trying to present French as the "aesthetic transformational cultural beautiful intellectual better faster stronger" choice. That's a step backward, and I think other people have laid the groundwork as to why.

I think we need to present French as a kind of hybrid of our competition: show it to be useful but also in its own "niche markets" of sorts, i.e. you can do more than just travel, order sandwiches, and shop with French. Advertising Francophone countries/areas would be crucial to this strategy. We can present our strengths (e.g. French's place in international affairs, etc.) without vaunting them.

We don't need to be advertising ourselves as the language of beauty--we won't scare away "our clientele" that come to expect that from us, as the authors insist would happen. It's not as if these hopeless romantics will stop thinking French is the language of love just because we stop perpetuating that image. Rather, we need to stress its utility in its own domains: advertise to literature students, design students, journalism students, international affairs students. Let them know that they might actually get a leg up in job markets that either a) have a long-standing relationship with French or b) are arguably less saturated with French-speaking applicants than they are with Spanish-speaking applicants.

Most importantly, we need to stop seeing Spanish as "the enemy." (Or really stop seeing "enemies" in general, but that's another matter.) It's not the case anymore. It's popular, but I don't think it's as actively draining our sources of students as we would be led to believe. Rather than focus on outside forces (because they're not going to change), we should focus on how we present ourselves. And the way the authors would have us advertise ourselves is not the best option.

Siskin

Where to begin? I think we can all appreciate the pertinence of this article and have had firsthand experience with the ongoing and ever increasing competition for language students. It is admittedly hard for most American students, especially those in the southwest, to see the utility in learning any foreign language that is not Spanish. Generally speaking, this is tied to the instrumental role of language and we have all heard people say that they would like to learn a second language in order to make themselves better job prospects. In the southwestern United States, everyone from a gas station attendant to a doctor or lawyer can benefit from having basic language skills in Spanish, if only spoken. The ever increasing Hispanic population in this country allows American students free access to a wealth of resources, from store signs and billboards to television advertisements and opportunities to converse with native speakers. In terms of direct proximity to a second language, there can be sustainable argument that French is equally as important as Spanish. We like to cite the instances of francophone communities in Canada and the Antilles, but in terms of physical data, this pales in comparison to the size of hispanophone communities even within our country. I think the authors of this article are cognizant of this fact and insist upon moving away from an argumentation based on equal utility and pertinence to a case based on the intrinsic merits of French study. That being said, I must confess that my study of French began at that instrumental phase. As a political science student studying West African relations, I needed to have at least a basic ability to read, speak and understand French, both written and oral. I saw language study as little more than a means to making myself a more attractive candidate for jobs in the international arena. Yet in studying French, I discovered a new world and area of study and have chosen to follow that path. So perhaps we shouldn’t be too hasty in discounting arguments of utility and instrumentality.

I appreciate the solutions proposed in the article, but I do fear the regression to the mythical cultural creations of the past. While some students certainly and inevitably see French as a means of attaining sophistication and a more world knowledge, à la Sabrina, we should not shy away from dispelling certain myths and misnomers that have infiltrated the American popular imagination. In attracting students to the study of French, we should not rely on slogans like “Paris is for lovers” and other antiquated misconceptions. I think that by introducing these images and stereotypes, we can certainly use the student’s prior knowledge as a gateway to the incredible richness and diversity that is French civilization and culture.

Just as one must be wary of using inaccurate social constructs in order to show the allure of French, we must also strive to give students an accurate understanding of how and where French may be used in other arenas. By admitting that French is not necessarily an overwhelmingly useful language in terms of America’s proximity to true Francophone nations, we can broaden the horizons of many students and show the applicability of the language in a global setting. This would require an admission on our part that the traditional “Francophone world” is rapidly changing and evolving into a much more complex geopolitical and geocultural system, thus necessitating a more enlightened understanding of how and why second language skills are important and beneficial. This would require a rethinking of the “purist” approach to language that is always of concern, especially in French.

Siskin

I feel that it's (mostly) generally taken for granted that Spanish is the more useful and easier language. Since, the latter, as Siskin mentions, is found by Spanish students not to be true, it probably stems from the relatively phonetic nature of Spanish orthography. Beginning students of Spanish will likely find Spanish easier to pronounce than beginning students of French. As far as utility, as Siskin and others have mentioned, it cannot be denied that within the U.S., Spanish is incredibly useful, to the point that it really is a second language rather than a foreign language.

For us, then, since we would all like to have a job eventually, which requires consistent enrollment, our solution shouldn't necessarily be to change the unfavorable associations automatically made with French in an artificial way, but rather to look at them realistically and decide on what the best way would be to guide students who are deciding which language to study.

I don't think the best solution is to undermine the situation concerning the utility of French. For many students, Spanish will legitimately be the best option for them. For instance, those who will be living in areas with large Hispanic populations will certainly benefit most from Spanish. I feel, though, that it is just assumed that Spanish will always be more useful, and it has thus become the default. When I was deciding which language to take, my parents (and I suspect that many students' decisions are guided by their parents) thought I was crazy for not taking Spanish. My interests at that point, however, were aligned with music and the idea I might want to travel to Europe someday. I feel that whenever a student has no clear goal in life (and how many high schoolers or freshmen in college do?), a case can be made that French can be more useful if the student has any ambition to do anything related to Canada or Europe. The utility of Spanish should never be undermined, but it simply shouldn't be taken for granted or overgeneralized.

And of course, utility doesn't have to be the deciding factor. Again, unless these students already have a clear plan, or live in an area that would make it more useful, Spanish can't really be said to be the best choice by default. Also, we don't have to make this a struggle between Spanish and French. Students should be encouraged to take both. Not at the same time, of course, but if we really want to help our students, we should encourage them to be multilingual. In many cases, I think it must be feasible for non-majors to get their language requirement in one language and take at least another sequence of the other. Also, students struggling to decide which language to take should be made aware that they can always switch if they don't like French.

Siskin's Transformation

The declining enrollments in French can be partially explained by the ever-increasing utility of Spanish in our country; the sheer volume of immigrants and citizens who speak Spanish makes it a very useful – in some places, necessary – language to know. But another part of the enrollment picture is student attitudes and goals in learning a second language. Is utility their main focus (see Siskin’s Table 2)? Are they searching for a transformative tool for better understanding of themselves and the world at large? Do they have integrative goals, of being able to communicate with friends and family? These are widely differing motivations that will be unique for each student.

What might we as French language instructors do, then, to combat this declining enrollment? As suggested by Siskin, we can start by capitalizing on our strengths, emphasizing the transformative and aesthetic functions of French, without completely abandoning the utility function. (I, for one, owe my three years of employment immediately preceding grad school to my ability to speak French. Not Spanish. French! So the utility function exists, but minimally.) Siskin recognizes that overall we will never be able to challenge the utility of Spanish in this country, so let’s provide students who are searching for something beside utility an opportunity for exploration. I really like Siskin’s discussion of “second” language versus “foreign” language, as I think it characterizes the situation nicely. So why not emphasize the foreignness of French, and how it enables world travel and cultural exploration. And let’s not just talk about France! By opening students’ eyes to the rest of the Francophone world, we will likely attract and retain students who might not be interested in hexagonal French literature, culture and cuisine. Another idea for increasing the reach of French has already been discussed in a previous online forum: offer interdisciplinary courses that address French and business, French and history, French and security issues, French and the environment...courses like these that focus both on the French language and on broader issues that appeal to more students are likely to increase enrollments in “French” courses.

One specific issue that Siskin mentions is the strategy of tolerating more error in order to make French seem less difficult to learn (p. 56-7). To this I say “No!” While we as instructors should have a realistic understanding of the strengths and limitations of L2 learners, our job is to teach the language as it is...students should be made aware of the target, even if they fail to reach it. I’m not saying that we should be mean, merciless language tyrants meting out the prescriptivism of the Academy, but as Siskin points out, native French speakers will hold learners to a fairly high standard and so should we.

Siskin- the decline of French

There are many factors that decide why students prefer to study Spanish than French. As Siskin has noticed in his article there are many reasons that contribute largely to the decline of French language in the American school including universities and colleges such as immigration, geography et food. (p. 50). He also underlines the usefulness of French. Many students considered French as one of the most usulness language. I found very interesting blog (http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t7099-0.htmin) where students share their opinion in this matter. One of them declares: “Well, I think that the languages of the future are Chinese, English and Spanish. There are several points to support that: 1. More spoken languages: Chinese, Spanish, English2. Most important languages economically: English, Spanish, Japanese, and Chinese 3. Languages of the future English, Spanish, Chinese and Arabic 4. Internet users by language: English, Chinese and Spanish.” The other one adds “The languages of the XXI century are English, Chinese and Spanish. Perhaps, Arabic and others too.” Does it mean that French is becoming an old fashion language? One can agree with this opinion if he takes into consideration the global economy and the economical role of some countries such as China However, Sinkin have also noticed that the “not all students perceive of French as useless” (p. 55). The chart (p. 46) shows that French is perceived as one of prestigious and beautiful languages. So, the main question is why French is still underestimated? I would argue that students perceive French as an inaccessible, too difficult and diplomatic /official language. It is inaccessible for “poor students” as French Haut Couture or gourmet cuisine for average people. We have to remember that French were used in the foreign relations – diplomatic field that have been reserved only for few and carefully chosen people. Therefore, if we follow this reasoning we could argue that the decline of French has psychological background. Students simply underestimate their linguistic capacities and they do not believe in themselves due to the reserved, snobbish field. Sinksin also states that geography and immigration are the next factors that contribute to the decline of French. I agree with this opinion. Students since their childhood have been exposed to Spanish. They have Hispanic friends, and even they receive Spanish phone messages /ads, most instructions are in Spanish. Hence, it seems that it is a very natural process. French is not still visible as Spanish is.

How to change this negative perception? In my opinion it is necessary to teach French as any other language and to combine various cultural elements to this teaching. We have to show the other side of France and its culture, from the perspective of an average student. It would be essential to combine students’ cultural interest with the French culture i. e. if they are interested in rap combine the French rap into the culture module etc. We have to attempt to apply a kind of understanding and kind of cultural progress and diversity into our teaching. French is not only the Haute Couture and restaurants from belle époque such as Maxim’s.

Siskin -rethinking French?

That article even if starting from good intentions kind of upsets me.
First: 'Le Francais est mort, vive le Francais' I know it's a classic one but seriously if you want to make french more attractive don't make it a remnant of monarchy or show 'supremacy' as your first point. Who wants to study a language that sound so 'archaic'.
Second: mort French enrollment has not drop under the 1960 number so don't be alarmist. Pressure is not the best place to thinking from.
I agree looking at the numbers that French is less popular, and it is good to think about ways to boost it, however, I'm not sure that the way presented in the article is that pertinent.
So it says that it is going to rethink French, well not that much... in fact the French they are talking about is still and always the same: Parisian French. They sure make some note that to re-boost the language we have to integrate other Francophone parts but still as satellites of that 'chosen' version of French. And the choice of that French is reflected in the aspects they see as symbolic of French: aesthetic and transformative. Enlightenment through French! (why did I bother to learn another language?) On that I like Erin post, it really reminds us of 'old-colonial discourses'.
I think that to start to look at a way to 'save' French teaching from that point of view is not the best because the categories used are in fact reducing students to use on stereotypes to express what they think of a language. It is clear in the questions (14) give three words that you associate with the language.
Also, to want to save French by emphasizing what is already its attractive points / negative points ( depends who is looking at it) don't sound that challenging ... if fact it sounds has changing nothing at all.

Siskin: preliminary thoughts

Based on the article, the main reasons for the decline in French enrollments seem to be 1) the greater perceived utility of Spanish for the job market given the proximity of Spanish-speaking countries and increasing influence of Hispanic culture in the United States and 2) the greater perceived ease of study associated with Spanish as compared with French, traditionally perceived as more difficult. Apparently, in order to attract students back to French, we need to make it appealing again. According to Siskin et al., the best way to do this is to appeal to age-old stereotypes that play into students’ romanticized perceptions of the French language and culture.

As I began to read the article, I was fascinated by the study that had been conducted and found the measures devised by the authors intriguing (37); however, as the results were offered, I became increasingly discouraged. While simultaneously promoting some kind of anti-elitist vision of French that will, presumably counteract the negative associations Americans students have with French as compared with the cultural funhouse that is, ostensibly, Spanish, the authors themselves perpetuate the very same elitist tropes. I’ll share two of my personal favorites: “[i]t is unclear … whether taco may be considered a fun or tasty food, or a les refined fast food,” and, more disturbing yet, “it is not certain whether students associate siesta with a healthy attitude toward life or with laziness” (on the same page no less!) (50). Talk about “nostalgic colonialism” (59)!

As the text progresses, this pattern continues; later we are told that we “should take care not to abandon our traditional clientele who is seeking an aesthetic or transformative experience” (56). So what we have to do as teachers of French is that simple? We just need to somehow sell students on the aesthetic and transformative superiority of French? Frankly, I find this strategy offensive.

I will be the first to admit that it was these very same stereotypes that first interested me in learning French; I, too, believed that studying French literature was some sort of higher calling. However, this is quite simply untrue. I could attain the same “aesthetic” enlightenment studying Spanish or Japanese, or German, or Italian, or Russian… If we really hope to combat the decline of French in our schools, we might begin by being honest with ourselves about French. Encouraging a student who expresses an interest in French art to study French is much different than encouraging one who expresses an interest in art generally to do the same because of the perception that French is an appropriate match for art studies. While I would never discourage a student from French because of its perceived lack of utility for the job market, I also would not employ the complementary strategy, that is to say using stereotypes to bolster enrollment. —EEE

The future of the profession: Where do we go from here?

For this last topic, please use my opening question for each article as a springboard for your discussion. Each person should post an initial contentful response to the opening question for each article, then comment at least four more times on others' posts (2 comments for each article). The articles can be found on our OnCourse site under "Resources".

To keep threads organized, please give your posts a transparent title that includes the words "Siskin" or "MLA" so we know which article is being discussed.

1. Le francais est mort: vive le francais! (Siskin at al.)

Language departments at all levels of instruction (elementary, secondary, and university) are facing declining enrollments in French. Many departments are looking to hire people to revitalize their programs. Based on your understanding of the Siskin article, what might explain the declining enrollments in French, and what might we do as a profession to combat this trend? (Please cite specific information and provide concrete ideas).