The curriculum for the teaching of literature, at Yale and elsewhere, has undergone very little change over the last two or three decades. The main organization of the program remains the same: a sharp distinction, without overlap, into national literatures and, within each national literature, a tripartite division into (1) introductory survey courses (English 25 and 29, French 41, Literature I, etc.), (2) a sequence of period courses diachronically ordered, and (3) more advanced courses reflecting the particular interests of available instructors. The underlying conception is genetic, seeing literature as a succession of periods and movements that can be articulated as an historical narrative. With regard to individual works, the conception is essentially paraphrastic and thematic, the assumption being that literature can be reduced to a set of statements which, taken together, lead to a better understanding of human existence. Literary studies then become, on the one hand, a branch of the history of culture and, on the other hand, a branch of existential and anthropological philosophy in its individual as well as its more collective aspects.

While remaining highly useful and entirely legitimate, this program does not sufficiently reflect the concerns of literary studies as they have developed, here and abroad, over the last fifty years. The emphasis has increasingly moved toward literature as a language about language, or a metalinguistic discipline best understood as a response to the specific complexities and resources of language.