[B-Greek] Re: Criteria for evaluating NT Greek Intro Grammars
W. Fulton
WarrenFulton at telering.at
Fri Feb 20 06:16:54 EST 2004
At 11:07 PM -0600 2/18/04, Joseph Weaks wrote:
>I know this comes up alot, the which-is-the-best-intro-grammar
>question, but I wonder if it is worth folks offering not simply which
>grammars are good, but which criteria make for a good grammar. For
>instance, Carl is most helpful by citing difficulties with Machen or
>Mounce. He did not say what makes Funk's so good.
Dr. Conrad replied:
> I applaud this very sensible suggestion for a more objective basis for
> choosing a textbook for Beginning Greek.
What makes a list of evaluation criteria difficult at this point in the
discussion
is that we have not yet defined what it is that we want to evaluate. Joseph
talks about "a grammar," yet his sample list of criteria is heavy on learner
features like memory aids and teaching methods. In his answer, Carl talks
about "a textbook," but the books he refers to mostly call themselves
"grammars" (Mounce, Adam, and Funk). Machen's introduction bears the
broad title _New Testament Greek_ but David Paul Fahrenthold, who has
used it, calls it "a good beginning Greek grammar."
When we want to learn a language (let's back away from Koine Greek for the
moment), do we reach for a grammar or an introductory textbook that includes
grammar, syntax, vocabulary, functional usage, idiomatic usage, discourse
features, pronunciation, etc, all laid out in a learner-friendly sequence?
When a
French or Spanish teacher is faced with a class of novices, which of them
who
has had even the most rudimentary kind of teacher training would plan their
lessons around a grammar book? So why in Greek studies is the basic lesson
plan virtually equated with a descriptive compendium of structures?
The answer, in a word, is "tradition." In fact, I don't think that all the
books that
call themselves grammars limit themselves to grammar, but the fact that they
think of themselves as grammars and everybody calls them grammars is
symptomatic of the overall hesitation in the Greek camp to embrace advances
in language course design made over the last half century.
The Mounce "grammar" is supported by a workbook, a CD, a reader, as well as
a morphology guide and flashcards. These are precisely the auxiliary tools
any
learner would need, but as general learning aids they should back up a
general
learning program and not a grammar. From user comments here on b-greek, I
gather that Mounce does indeed incorporate an array of pedagogical
techniques into his presentation of grammar, so perhaps we should
distinguish
between a pure "reference grammar" and a "classroom grammar."
I would call Summers a "summary of basic grammar." It makes no real pretence
to follow any kind of teaching program other than unloading the content into
chapters and tacking on exercises. The other book that was mentioned
yesterday is the little teach-yourself guide by Hudson also called _New
Testament Greek_. It sets out to be a textbook for beginners and walks them
fairly steadily through 3 lessons before succumbing to the age-old fallacy
of
introducing more forms than the student needs or can handle at any given
stage. For Hudson this means going for the whole formal declension paradigm
instead of selecting the forms the student needs to know in lesson 4. In a
learner's guide as opposed to a grammar, the first and second declension
paradigms should come after the students have dealt with the cases and
declensions one at a time, as a summary and not as a launch platform.
So, getting back to Joseph's proposal to set up evaluation criteria, what
exactly
are we talking about?
- a traditional reference grammar like Wallace or Smyth
- a classroom grammar where the language is explained systematically, but
primarily from a structural viewpoint
- a general textbook based on a language teaching program
All of these book types have their place, but we can't expect them to do the
same jobs equally well.
Warren Fulton
Inlingua Vienna
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list