Confidence in the Grammar
Posted: January 22nd, 2015, 12:57 pm
Recently in, explaining an idiosyncrasy of Greek grammar to a student, I realized that I have gone through a marked development in my own acquisition of Greek grammar rules (norms? guidelines? probabilities?). Or rather, I can see clearly my own process of developing confidence in the grammar.
I began by believing pretty much ALL of the (probably necessary) lies of first year grammar texts. However, as I got into the Greek text itself, though I held out valiantly, I eventually abandoned pretty much ALL of the rules. Vocabulary and the text itself was what I trusted – well and memory too!
Somewhere along the way, however, I realize that I have actually come to trust the basic structure and framework – yes and the “rules” – of Greek grammar, even while accommodating the exceptions. (Please don’t tell me there’s another stage!
)
I’m certain this whole experience is what every English speaking child must go through when he/she learns how to create a past tense with “ed”, and then gets corrected for “bited” or “becomed” or “drawed”.
I wonder if it is just at this juncture that most adult learners abandon their pursuit of a language like Greek or Hebrew. What children seem to accommodate here quite nicely, I suspect, is most disconcerting to adults, even young adults. Depending on personal character type, is it just here that most dropouts judge the language to be hopelessly difficult, or the grammars to be hopelessly bad, or perhaps themselves to be hopeless Greek/Hebrew students?
Have there been studies done on the effect of this rite of passage in causing Greek and Hebrew students to throw in the towel? I’m sure the phenomenon itself is well documented, but has the effect on development of confidence been considered and addressed? I suspect that the approach of Funk is better than most in anticipating this development, but I would be interested in hearing the experience of seasoned instructors in guiding students through this stage before they give up the fight.
One last question – and it really is not meant to be a leading one – is communicative teaching the missing piece? That is, is the effect greatly magnified because the entire experience has been analytical, and in the 'final analysis' (pun intended) language turns out to be quite unlike geometry?
I began by believing pretty much ALL of the (probably necessary) lies of first year grammar texts. However, as I got into the Greek text itself, though I held out valiantly, I eventually abandoned pretty much ALL of the rules. Vocabulary and the text itself was what I trusted – well and memory too!
Somewhere along the way, however, I realize that I have actually come to trust the basic structure and framework – yes and the “rules” – of Greek grammar, even while accommodating the exceptions. (Please don’t tell me there’s another stage!

I’m certain this whole experience is what every English speaking child must go through when he/she learns how to create a past tense with “ed”, and then gets corrected for “bited” or “becomed” or “drawed”.
I wonder if it is just at this juncture that most adult learners abandon their pursuit of a language like Greek or Hebrew. What children seem to accommodate here quite nicely, I suspect, is most disconcerting to adults, even young adults. Depending on personal character type, is it just here that most dropouts judge the language to be hopelessly difficult, or the grammars to be hopelessly bad, or perhaps themselves to be hopeless Greek/Hebrew students?
Have there been studies done on the effect of this rite of passage in causing Greek and Hebrew students to throw in the towel? I’m sure the phenomenon itself is well documented, but has the effect on development of confidence been considered and addressed? I suspect that the approach of Funk is better than most in anticipating this development, but I would be interested in hearing the experience of seasoned instructors in guiding students through this stage before they give up the fight.
One last question – and it really is not meant to be a leading one – is communicative teaching the missing piece? That is, is the effect greatly magnified because the entire experience has been analytical, and in the 'final analysis' (pun intended) language turns out to be quite unlike geometry?