I've been a student of several, even many, languages, in my life. And lately, as many of you know, I've given a lot of thought to how languages are learnt and taught, and why, and how they should be taught and learnt. In this entry I'm going to reflect on my own experiences as a language-learner.


Japanese
My first main experience with language was High School. In grades 7-8 we covered 5 languages in turn: French, Spanish, German, Italian, and Japanese. Looking back, I guess we had quite a range of languages on offer! In Grade 9 I chose Japanese as an elective, and studied it right through to Yr 12.

To be honest, I don't remember a lot about Japanese, and I don't remember a lot of Japanese either. I barely have an idea of how the grammar of Japanese works, I can remember a handful of characters, and a couple of phrases, but that's it. However, at the time I was quite a good japanese student. Our teachers were quite good, and our course was not a bad one. We learnt to speak Japanese, to read it, to write it, and to hear it. I can't remember any specific methodologies though. However, as my main initial experience with a modern language, it's important to recall.

Spanish

My initial experiences with Spanish, post-high school, were that I once enrolled in a distance-ed. course through TAFE. I did alright at the start, but didn't have the time or discipline to continue it. I learnt some rudiments of the language.

In 2002 I went to Central America. Before I went, particularly in Seattle, I did some crash-learning. I pushed my way through a Teach Yourself book as much as I could, had a phrasebook, etc.. I focused on understanding phrases I'd need to get me around, and my brain naturally figured out grammar. That's been one of my strengths as a learner - a desire and ability to figure out how things work in a language.

I didn't get very far on my own, but while in Guatemala I spent 3 weeks studying Spanish, 5 hours a day. Everything was in Spanish, so it was a lot of immersion. I was taught grammar though, but in Spanish! I never knew what the Subjunctive was, I learnt about the Subjuntivo.

I learnt Spanish well. I could hold conversations, I started reading Entrevista con El Vampiro (with a dictionary handy), and I worked hard at it. The combination of an understanding of Grammar, with constant use, brought me quickly to a level of fluency that I've never achieved in any other language.

My Spanish has largely faded from neglect - I've had few opportunities to use it since. But I can still recall and sometimes *think* idiomatic phrases. A sign that Spanish got into my brain a far way.

Scottish Gaelic

I've made many aborted attempts to learn Gaelic. Mainly using TY Gaelic, and more recently a CD: TeachMe! Gaelic.

These are fairly good resources. Lack of conversation practice in the TY material hamstrung me a bit, and lack of good grammar explanations made it hard for me to get past a certain point in the book.

Mandarin

I did six months of Mandarin in 2005. It was by distance ed. through a university, with a 4-day intensive as well. As a very different language to the ones I usually work in, it was quite a challenge. Learning characters required a lot of work, but I have a good ability and a good methodology for rote learning. Learning a language with variable pitch was also a challenge, but the tapes with the course, and the intensive, helped a lot. I needed more conversational practice, especially more listening practice.

I had to give up Mandarin because of the intense workload I was attempting at the time.

Now I come to the ancient languages, where I have a particular interest...

Hebrew

I've done 2 1/2 years of Hebrew now, and it's been painful. It's the most grammar-heavy study I've ever done. I can use my Hebrew poorly. Firstly, we're not talking modern Hebrew here, we're talking exclusively Classical (Biblical) Hebrew. The textbook we used was a huge step up from the previous generation of textbooks. But both the textbook and the teaching method were entirely grammar-based and vocabulary-memorisation.

I do well at that style of learning, because I love to understand grammar and morphology, and I have good systems in place to memorise large masses of vocabulary. Even so, the whole method is guilty of creating an arcane-science. We didn't learn Hebrew as a language, we learnt it as a code to be understood. While the lecturers are well aware that it is a language, the method of learning still leaves 99% working with a code to be deciphered and understood.

Greek

I started Greek quite some time before college. I got through a 6 month course with Mounce, then my skills rusted, then I came to Seminary and studied hard. Greek was taught much like Hebrew, though better. I like to say we were taught very well by a very bad method. Although, I admit, there was at least more of a reading focus.

My problems with the way Greek is taught are more systematic than with Hebrew though. Because Greek Exegesis is so high a priority, 2nd Year greek here becomes entirely a cipher-game, as students are taught to analyse and classify every use of every word in a verse, and pin it down to one of 21432 uses of the genitive. The problem? No one used greek like that. While there may well be 21432 uses, the authors of greek texts simply used the genitive, because that was the right form to express their idea. They didn't choose between the genitive of Type-X and the genitive of Type-Y, they simply chose the genitive.

What this seminary creates, as so many schools of greek do, is code-breakers, analysts of greek language. not people who can read and understand greek as a language.

Latin

I've left Latin to last because I've studied it the most.

I initially began Latin self-guided. I first tried TY Latin, which was too grammar-intensive, not well designed. I then came back to Latin with Wheelock's Latin, and got a good 15 chapters into that book.

I realised that personally I would need a course to force me to work hard. So in 2003 I enrolled in UNE to study Latin.
We went through a very intense grammar-based course in the first year, and started working on a text from the second half of the first year. After 3 1/2 years of this kind of Latin, I can confidently say that Latin is, in some ways, my worst language. Translating is painful, I struggle to read real latin with any fluency, and I have no great confidence in my latin.

All this is starting to change though. I realised that I had a huge problem and started to change it. Here's what I've been doing/done:

1. I started composition work. I've done a bit of North and Hillard's Latin Prose Composition. Writing in the language has made an impact.
2. I read regularly from the Vulgate. I take my Vulgate Bible to Chapel and follow the readings in Latin.
3. I picked up Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata, in my opinion the best Latin course on the market. I've been working systematically through that material, entirely orally. I also listen to the audio recordings regularly, both of the material I'm working, and other chapters, and even as 'background' noise.
4. I try hard to 'think' latin when I can. Sometimes I'll try and translate church-songs on the fly, even just words of phrases. Other times I just try and think up what the latin for an expression or word might be.

I now actually think that maybe my latin ability, spoken included, has surpasses my diminishing spanish skills.

Beliefs

1. It's my belief that any language needs to be taught/learnt/used as a full language. That means reading/writing/speaking/listening. It is possible to learn one of those skills alone, but you are left with a permanently deficient ability in that language. At the very least, reading should be complemented by writing.

2. Vocabulary learnt by means of glosses and lists will always be inadequate, and need revision. Vocabulary is best taught and understood through exposure to words in their target language, in context, and repeated in context and through exposure.

This is a significant problem for NT Greek, and even more so for Classical Hebrew. In the former, I believe it means that a good Greek scholar will need a knowledge of Classical Greek, because only that will give them the breadth and depth for a thorough knowledge of Greek as a language. The paucity of extra-biblical material in Hebrew means that the OT alone is the major textual basis for Hebrew knowledge. While scholarly work in related Semitic languages can illuminate Hebrew as a language, it doesn't help us as Hebrew learners/users.

3. Until we have an expectation that students of Greek and Hebrew will be able to pick up their main text and read it at sight and understand it without translating, then Greek and Hebrew will continue to be arcane sciences concerned with deciphering ancient texts.

4. No one expects a student of a modern language after 3-4 years of university level study in their language:
- to translate literature and then discuss it in their native tongue
- to be unable to even begin to use their target language

But we are readily satisfied with such an outcome in ancient languages. What I am advocating is that Latin/Greek/Hebrew are all taught as languages. Only then will we educate people who actually know Greek and Hebrew.

While this may seem like a lot more work, I believe in the long run it is less work. The intial stages are harder, but the payoff increases with time, the student finds the language comes easier and easier, and the long-term use of the language will be greatly increased. Instead of seminary students who neglect greek post-college, we are much more likely to see seminary graduates who know greek and use their greek.

5. Ultimately I am advocating a living language approach to dead languages. I know that there are some strong arguments against teaching students how to order a cafe latte in Classical Greek, but the absurdity of that sort of teaching is, in my mind, preferable if it means students come to the ancient texts with a working fluency in the language.

From what I can pick up of the Latin teaching scene, there are a few luminaries working towards that goal. In Classical Greek, maybe less than 5 in the world with such ambitions in progress. In Koine? Probably zero. In Hebrew? Likewise.

I think the solution for Koine is to teach Classical Greek with a NT focus. There is enough Greek in the world to teach Greek as a living language, and a course like LLPSI could be designed for Greek, I'm sure.

Hebrew is a different problem. I don't think the corpus of Classical Hebrew will sustain a living language approach. Yet, I'm not convinced that teaching modern Hebrew will solve the problem. Modern Hebrew is a related, but still distinct, language, even if it is CH remodelled/simplified. Perhaps MH taught with an eye to CH?

All this seems to increase the workload of students. But if they are pushed to proficiency, then their ability in the target texts of the NT and OT will be massively augmented.

For Myself

Here's how I intend to carry on as a language student...

1. I'm committed to vocabulary acquisition. Although I think lists are problematic, they are not bad tools. I'm working on mastering a very large vocabulary, sorted by frequency, for the NT and OT corpora.

2. I'm committed to developing a living language fluency in Latin. I'm trying with whatever tools I can to speak/write/read/hear Latin. If the opportunities arise, I'd love to speak latin with people. Tools like Skype bring that possibility closer. I'd love to teach latin as a living language.

3. I'm committed to developing at least a read/write fluency in Classical Greek. I read CG out-loud, because I think that helps cement a language in many ways. I'm going to work through Athenaze, what looks like the best reading-based approach to CG on the market (I've looked at Reading Greek (there's a new version coming out soon), and found it personally a very difficult course to use).

4. I'm committed to Hebrew. I don't really know how or where I'll take it, but I will. I want to read more Hebrew, come to grips with the grammar, read out loud, learn more vocab. If the opportunity arises, I'll pursue some modern Hebrew. Anything to increase my Hebrew skills.

5. I'm open to developing new materials and adopting new approaches. Language pedagogy is not a closed issue. There are always advances in understanding, different methods work differently for different people. I'm prepared to try new things, adapt new things, and if I ever have the time, I'll be pushing to develop new materials. I'd love to see some LLPSI-type materials developed for Classical Greek and Hebrew.

conclusion

well, I've said a lot, and maybe not very well or clearly, but it's time to be quiet now. Love to hear your comments.

Tags: language
quod nunc audio: Ceasefire - Shift to Simple