Parkinson, B. and Thomas, H.R. (2000).

Teaching Literature
in a Second Language. Edinburgh Textbooks in Applied
Linguistics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; viii + 205
pages; ISBN 0-748-61259-9

Reviewed by Peter Falvey1

It is always interesting to review a co-authored book as, in addition to

all other aspects that are normally covered in a review, it allows us to
examine how closely the authors‟ views conflate in terms of the topic and
its treatment. Sometimes, it becomes evident that one person has written
certain sections of the book and another has written the other sections. In
this book, particularly in the opening sections, we see how the two authors
explain, at length, how they have tried to merge their different backgrounds
and perspectives in relation to the topic. This, unfortunately, results in so
many initial caveats and hedges that there is a real danger that the reader
may give up before encountering the worthwhile parts of the book,
particularly the later Chapters 4-7.

In their introduction, the authors explain that Parkinson occupies the

language use end of the poles of language teaching and literature teaching
whilst Reid Thomas‟ approach is situated closer to the „literature as an
object of study‟ end of the continuum. They point out that their different
approaches caused them anxiety initially but then assert that their
differences eventually emerged as a strength in their collaboration. After
negotiating the first, flawed, chapter, I believe that they have almost
achieved their goals and that the collaboration has been strengthened by the
tensions and resolutions created from two distinct approaches.

Unfortunately, having surmounted the authors‟ laboured explanations

in their attempt to define their respective positions, further frustration is
encountered by the amount of hedging that has to be worked through.
Consider the following on page 3 when they discuss the place of language
in the learning and teaching of literature:

1
Peter Farlvey is an Honorary Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, and consultant to
CAUT at the University of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 6,1 (2001); pp. 71–77

P. Falvey
| 72

In a book about Applied Linguistics, albeit in a wide sense, such

areas (they list 14 areas - reviewer’s note) can only be mentioned
in passing, but they are always present in the background. We have
striven to remember, as should our readers, that much of what we
regard as normal is socially contingent, might not apply
everywhere today, and may be rare or unknown in a few decades’
time as a result of technological, political or cultural changes (p.3)

It‟s good to see such a straightforward, unequivocal approach in a textbook

for use with teachers!

Before discussing the rest of the book, a few grouses about a number of
sloppy procedures. Although this is a textbook, not a monograph based on
research, the number of unproven assertions throughout the book must force
the critical reader to question what often appears to be the basis of the
authors‟ assertions: a series of anecdotes! Consider:

On a different note, there is anecdotal evidence that many African

and Indian children, for example, find Shakespeare more
accessible than many British children do (p.11).

There has as yet been no overall evaluation……… so it is not

possible to do more than comment anecdotally on the results of
which we have heard, mostly in the form of letters from ‘our’
teachers (p.16).

Further sloppiness occurs on page 6 when a word is omitted viz: „It starts
with interpretation of a text which he sees (as – omitted) a very individual
activity‟ and on page 45 where we encounter the word „developpment‟.

The sloppiness continues: bibliographical citations are omitted from the

references e.g. Hirvela 1995 (p.4) and exophoric references occur which
might be problematic for the wider audience that the authors seek for their
textbook e.g. the Bloomsbury group (p.21)

Now that we‟ve established what is irritating in the book, it is time to

consider its strengths – and, once the reader manages to get through the first
part of Chapter 1, they are numerous. The last few pages of Chapter 1 are
valuable. The section on the use of literature in language teaching is clear
Review: Teaching Literature in a Second Language | 73

and convincing. The reasons for the use of literature are then followed by a
discussion of the problems associated with using literature in the language
classroom – again clearly explained. These are followed by a description of
two case studies which the authors use to demonstrate the usefulness of
using literature in a second language. In addition, in a welcome final
section, the term „canon‟ in the context of literature and literature teaching
is clearly explained.

Chapter 2 continues where Chapter 1 left off. The title is What can
teachers and learners do with literature? There is a clear explanation of the
varying activities „involving literature which occur in the language
classroom‟ (p.26). One point, worthy of note in the current context of
language benchmarks and the assessment of L2 teachers of English in Hong
Kong, is the authors‟ assertion that reading aloud „is a specialist skill – most
people do it badly even in their own language‟ (p.27). Information on the
development of language benchmarks and the professional assessment of
teachers of English in Hong Kong can be found in Coniam & Falvey (1997)
and Falvey & Coniam (1999), where, inter alia, the reasons for the
assessment of teachers reading aloud are described. I am sympathetic to
Parkinson and Thomas‟ argument that the use of reading aloud with
students in either the language or literature classroom is flawed (except in
the teaching of drama, described in Chapter 7).

Chapter 2 also discusses the use of extensive reading schemes, short

texts and simplified readers. The pros and cons of simplified readers are
presented on pages 30-31. The authors declare that they prefer authentic but
accessible texts (although they do not rule out the use of simplified texts). In
this context they make their only reference to the distinction between „high‟
literature and other texts. They state:

In our own classes, we have tended to encourage students to find

texts which interest them – not generally simplified but not ‘high’
literature either.

It is a pity, in the Asian context, that this topic is not considered further. The
reviewer and his colleague (Falvey and Kennedy, 1996; Kennedy and
Falvey, 1998, 1999) have dwelt at length on the value of what they call
“literature with a small „l‟.” Small „l‟ literature is defined as authentic texts
which raise students‟ interest and do not daunt those with limited language
proficiency – be they teacher created, student created or professionally
P. Falvey
| 74
created. Examples may be drawn from children‟s nursery rhymes, effective
and interesting short stories which would not usually appear in a collection
of short stories and stories written for young people (Parkinson and Thomas
refer to them as the „forty or fifty „cheap‟ detective stories or romances
[which] can do wonders for some language learners‟). Parkinson and
Thomas admit that most of the classroom audience to whom they refer have
high language proficiency. This would exclude all but a few students in the
Hong Kong secondary school system and in many Asian countries e.g.
Singapore and Malaysia. The major criterion for Falvey and Kennedy is the
opportunity for students to be exposed to a wide variety of texts and the
opportunity for them to engage with the experiential dimension of language
learning and development.

Chapter 3 is entitled The language of literature and ways of teaching it,

although much of the chapter does not deal with this topic. Instead, it begins
by discussing varieties of language and introduces Chapters 4-7, which
contain the meatiest chapters, together with excellent examples to illustrate
their points. In addition, Chapter 3 introduces the first of a number of
assignments although this practice gives rise to one more grouse. The
authors state that the answers to the assignments can be found in Appendix
2. This is correct. However, they also present, in Appendix 1, a series of
questions and tasks to which suggested answers can also be found in
Appendix 2. Once again, this procedure is sloppy, confusing and ill-
explained. They then proceed to explain how different varieties of English
can be encountered in literature – thus supporting the many applied linguists
who bemoan the lack of text types in language textbooks.

One of the approaches discussed is linguistic analysis. In Chapter 2

(p.33) the authors make it clear that their use of this technique will
constitute the bulk of their discussions in the following four chapters. They
provide justification for their choice of approach and the chapters that
follow are where the strength of the book lies.

Chapters 4-7, as stated previously, are the chapters which, I believe,

will be of most benefit to the teacher of language who wants to work with
literature in a second language classroom. These chapters contain clear
explanations of technical terms and focus always on the application of
literature in the second language classroom. Chapter 4 deals with the
teaching of poetry, a genre which the authors, correctly, assert poses most
problems for speakers of English as a second language. Chapter 4 contains
Review: Teaching Literature in a Second Language | 75

good examples of techniques and some excellent examples of poems that

encourage the response of students. It is encouraging to see the authors
willingness to avoid an emphasis on too much technical teaching of poetic
terms and poetic style.

Chapter 5 discusses the teaching of short stories and, encouragingly,

separates the teaching of the short story from the teaching of the novel
(which is the topic of Chapter 6). This is to be applauded for far too often,
methodology tutors of one year postgraduate pre-service teachers of English
feel that their courses have insufficient time in which to treat the novel
adequately. This problem is compounded when in-service teachers of
English are being trained as many have no first degree in English Literature
and/or language. Instead of dealing with the use of the novel in the language
classroom, tutors focus on the teaching of the short story, a different genre
from the novel. This is a particularly useful chapter for the authors show
how, in contrast to a random selection of texts they would:

attempt … to consider how a teacher might set about designing a

course of short stories in a coherent and penciled way so as to
provide a framework within which students’ skills in reading,
comprehending and analyzing texts could develop progressively
alongside the development of language skills (p. 80).

Chapter 6 builds on the strengths of the previous chapter and, at last,

presents relatively recent research in a Turkish context which indicates that
students feel that they benefit more from working on novels than other
genres. They state unequivocally that they will deal with three novels and
that it is less than useful to attempt to talk about the teaching of the novel
from a general perspective although they then confound the reader by
asserting that:

…… obviously much of what is suggested in the following pages as

appropriate for a particular text could be generalized to others
(p.107).

Having created a framework for the teaching of short stories in Chapter 5,

the authors now cite Isenberg (1990:18) who created a framework for the
teaching of poetry with five distinct phases: transformation, reduction,
classification, storage and retrieval (p.108-9). The authors assert that
Isenberg‟s framework can also be used in the teaching of the novel. They
P. Falvey
| 76
are correct. In fact, although the framework was designed for other
purposes, their attempt to use these functional phases for the novel work
satisfactorily.

Chapter 7 deals with the use of drama in the language classroom. In it

the authors attempt to:

present a variety of linguistically oriented ways of reading

dramatic texts with language learners, which aim to lead beyond
the language on the page to a developing understanding and
enjoyment of them as texts designed for performance (p.139).

The explanations that they provide are detailed and useful for the teacher of
literature.

Chapters 8 and 9 discuss two areas that teachers of literature in the

language classroom might wish to avoid but which they certainly ought to
be aware of. They are Assessment and evaluation in literature lessons and
courses (chapter 8) and Research and development (chapter 9). Both topics
are treated competently (e.g. Chapter 8 ends with a very useful section on
the practicalities of assessment and a set of sample tests or test items and
Chapter 9 deals, rather cursorily in five pages, with methods of research and
concludes with a short section on syllabus development and evaluation.

Overall, in spite of the irritations I document from earlier sections of

the book, I believe the book is of value and will be a useful companion for
those who wish to introduce literature into the second language classroom
(albeit with high proficiency students) .

References

Coniam, D. and Falvey, P. (1999). Setting Standards for Teachers of

English in Hong Kong - the Teachers‟ Perspective. Curriculum Forum,
8(2):1-27.
Falvey, P. and Coniam, D. (1997). Introducing English Language
Benchmarks for Hong Kong Teachers: a Preliminary Overview.
Curriculum Forum, 6(2):16-35.
Review: Teaching Literature in a Second Language | 77

Falvey, P and Kennedy P. (eds.). (1997). Learning Language Through

Literature: A Sourcebook for Teachers of English in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong.
Isenberg, N. (1990). Literary competence: the EFL reader and the role of
the teacher. English Language Teaching Journal, 44(3).
Kennedy P. and Falvey, P (eds.). (1998). Learning Language Through
Literature in Primary Schools: A Sourcebook for Teachers of English.
Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong.
Kennedy P. and Falvey P. (eds.). (1999). Learning Language Through
Literature in Primary Schools: A Sourcebook for Teachers of English.
Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong.