Irony is a motherfucker. I mean that in the most endearing way possible. I really do. I have been debating the role of literature in foreign language departments for a good month now. My argument is that literature isn't the end-all-be-all of language learning and that it is done ass-backwards.

According to Hoffman and James, most students enter literature courses with only an "Intermediate" speaking level using the ACTFL scale. They would do so after completing 4 semesters(with 3 hours of instruction per week). Literature courses at the University of Puerto Rico usually start around the 5th or 6th semester, but thankfully the amount of instruction hours students receive is quite different. First and second semester students enjoy 7 hours and a half of instruction a week, while the third semester course is 4 hours. If you add the Diction and Phonetics' course, you add 1 hour and a half, totaling 5 hours and a half. After that it's the standard '2 class sessions a week' deal. Here is a sample curriculum;

1st Semester - FRAN3031 French I
2nd Semester - FRAN3032 French II
3rd Semester - FRAN3035 French III & FRAN3060 Diction and Phonetics
4th Semester - FRAN4008 Grammar and Comp. & FRAN4016 Oral Expressions
5th Semester - Choose 3 electives out of 40+ (70% are literature oriented)


It is plausible that given the UPR's more rigorous program that students will come into the literature courses with a slightly higher level than the average student at the author's university, perhaps as much as an Advanced Low. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Intermediate level students are just barely able to create coherent sentences and link them up in paragraph length discourse. Even if students reach Advanced Low, their speech will be characterized in the following manner;

While the language of Advanced-Low speakers may be marked by substantial, albeit irregular flow, it is typically somewhat strained and tentative, with noticeable self-correction and a certain 'grammatical roughness.' The vocabulary of Advanced-Low speakers is primarily generic in nature.

Literature courses can be challenging and straining to even Superior speakers of a language, especially when faced with the task of formulating arguments and ideas. Advanced speakers cannot do this effectively, as they are usually characterized as only being able to narrate. So it stands to reason that most students are simply not prepared for most literature courses at this level. Their reading level will be insufficient and they will not be able to organize the type of class discussion that is usually found in a literature classroom. Now, I believe in literature and I do understand how valuable it is, but it is simply not being introduced to students correctly.

There is only one option available to help students transition and hopefully reach that coveted Superior rating. While I do appreciate the UPR's flexibility in allowing students to chose their final 3 electives, I believe the school should organize the literature courses into an inverse chronological order. Modern authors tend to use more simplistic writing, if only by the fact that the vernacular and culture allusions are a bit closer to home. Hemingway and Camus are just two examples of authors whose texts can be introduced to students who venture into foreign language literature for the first time. This is exactly what is attempted during elementary and high school, a gradual progression of reading level. By introducing easier to read literature first, you allow the student to build up the language in a much more pragmatic and realistic way. Sounds simple and logical right? Think again.

From 3rd to 8th grade, I attended English speaking schools, so by the time I changed to a Spanish speaking high school, my Spanish reading level was slightly below average. At that time I was under the impression that reading levels were gradually increased, but of course my Spanish professor didn't think that was necessary. Our 9th grade reading selection included "El mio cid" and "El lazarillo de torme", which meant moving in a chronological order. It meant we had to read the "cagate en tu madre" literature(it just means it was hard to read). I quickly began despising Spanish literature since I thought I was just an idiot who couldn't read. It's not the most pleasant experience to read a text where the only thing you can make out of it is "you're a moron."

Flash forward 10 years and I get the brilliant idea to read "Le Père Goriot" in French. Not so brilliant when you don't understand half of what you are reading. Sure, things got easier as the action started getting underway, but I saw quickly that I was wasting my time. If you are spending more time trying to decipher what the hell you are reading, then you aren't really reading. I find that Albert Camus and "L'Étranger" provide me with a challenging reading level that suits me just fine. My comprehension of that novel is to the point where I can chose to keep on reading without the use of a dictionary and still get almost all of it, nonetheless I can chose, almost arbitrarily, to look up any word I missed when I feel up to it. If only the novel wasn't so boring...

Coming back to my proposal, the university can make sure that literature is appropriately organized into reading levels allowing students to develop it gradually; how God intended it to be. If this is not the case, then I only see two other options; teach literature in translation or make your students gag a little bit at the very idea of having to read. Reading in translation is interesting because it teaches culture amazingly well and, dare I say, better. Putting aside the other goal(learning the language), you can quickly see that reading in your own language will allow an infinitely superior comprehension of the text. If you can get off your high horse and stop regurgitating that baseless claim that "you cannot appreciate a text in translation", you might be able to come to the conclusion that a properly translated novel should still maintain the cultural references so important to literature. Moreover, you are actually going to understand what the hell is going on in the story, which I think is important too, but I may be mistaken.

Nonetheless, I do not approve of this method, since it completely misses the other and most important goal; to learn the language. Literature should always be second to this goal since you cannot read literature without knowing the language. I swear this sounds so obvious but I get the feeling some people would rather avoid the truth. I know Hoffman and James feel the same way.

This is roughly the conclusion I have come up with after a month of discussions with various influential people. Students need to learn a language first, how to appreciate beautiful works of art second. If certain college programs can make adjustments to their curriculum so that it allows the student to progress in a much natural order, instead of that "sink or swim" attitude, maybe literature would actually be looked forward to by the average language learner. Lastly, the student's oral proficiency should never be left in the dark in favor of his literary proficiency. I fear that this trend still exists in a lot of institutions and it is definitely not the way to go. In much the same way illiterate people get criticized, shouldn't we equally criticize people who do the opposite? I think I will save that little diatribe for another post.

What exactly am I supposed to do with the first post? I think it would be fitting to explain the name of the blog; "A Linguistician's Vagrancy". I wanted the title to have something with "polyglot" and something that has to do with a "journey". However, "A Polyglot's Journey" just doesn't sounds spiffy or snazzy enough. It's just lame.

With the help of the thesaurus, I found "linguistician", which immediately clicked for me, I just liked the sound of it in my head. Polyglot, in my opinion, always sounded rough to me. However, I soon found that "linguistician" brings a bit of controversy with it. I read a little about the debate, but I do not want to partake. I'll take a little artistic license on this one since I honestly do not care if a linguist likes it or not; I do.

Next I found the word "vagrancy". Obviously this is a commonly used word, usually with a pejorative sense to it. However, it does also carry a certain mysterious traveler connotation and this is particularly what attracted me to the word. The wandering samurai has always been a favorite character of mine when growing up; a humble traveler who sees the world on his own terms. He is always quiet and reserved, but secretly possesses amazing skills that he would use for good in times of need. This word strongly reminds me of that childhood hero I always admired.

Vagrancy also alludes to my future goals and ideas about language learning. My dream is to travel to different countries and truly experience different cultures. However, learning about a new culture requires time to make friends, to learn the language, and to explore the country. A two week vacation would be shallow and unfulfilling. Do not get me wrong however, if such an opportunity comes along, I would take it in a heartbeat. Nevertheless, I would prefer to plan ahead so I can travel for prolonged periods of time in each country.

The way I plan on achieving international travel is by becoming a polyglot. In doing so, I give myself a highly desirable skill that would create various employment opportunities anywhere in the world. Until C-3PO actually becomes real, the world will need multilingual people. That's where I come in. I could then stay at different countries for one or two years at a time. Hence, the "vagrancy" concept.

Some interesting comparisons can be drawn between my foreign language learning theories and the concept of a vagrant. A vagrant is usually someone who is dirty, unwanted, and an outcast of society. When learning a foreign language at a university, you have to deal with the pretentious bullshit that is learning the standard sociolect. When I try to learn the more familiar or popular version of a language, it is usually frowned upon by uptight elitist people. I believe a person must know every register possible in order to truly claim he is a "Superior" speaker in the language. Along the way, you will make some mistakes mixing up registers, this is a fact. I know, I've done it enough times to know it's going to happen. When I do, it is usually met with some surprise and, dare I say, disgust. This idea of learning that unwanted language, that outcast sociolect, reminds me of what that wandering samurai goes through. Always judged on his appearance, never on what he can actually do...

So I finally came to "A Linguistician's Vagrancy." A rather interesting title if I may say so. Hopefully this will be the start of a good blog and it will serve as a learning experience for myself. Maybe I will pick up a reader or two along the way...