[B-Greek] Nouns first, later Verbs
WarrenFulton at telering.at
WarrenFulton at telering.at
Tue Jan 20 09:30:22 EST 2004
This thread has been unraveling a bit into three strands, all of them
of key importance in evaluating the effectiveness of a language
teaching program. The strands are sequencing, scope, and selection.
Mitch Larramore wrote:
> Mounce states in his Basic Greek Grammar that it is
> best to study the Noun system first, and to withhold
> discussion of the Verb until much later. He says that
> this makes it easier to learn Greek.
Rodney J. Decker then explained the Mounce approach:
> Even though the student doesn\'t formally learn verbal forms until
> after the nouns, they see plenty of them early--all translated, and
> many with explanatory notes, etc., so that the student can \"read\"
> normal sentences. By the time they get to verbs, they already have
> a fairly good \"feel\" for how verbs work.
These posts call attention to the problem of sequencing content in
language courses. Most language courses today, instead of marshaling
content around broad chapter banners like \"nouns\" and \"verbs\" or
even \"a-declension nouns\" and \"present indicative verbs,\" tend to use
the sentence itself as a showcase to roll out new forms as they are
needed. All core sentence constituents are assembled early on and
developed in increments radiating outward from simple to complex and
from concrete to abstract. Peripheral constituents are added
gradually. This is called \"concentric\" sequencing as opposed to
the \"linear\" plan of such classics as Whites _First Greek Book_.
Concentric programming solves the problem of how to practice the
language almost right away in complete sentences without overwhelming
the student with all kinds of unknown forms that then have to be
translated or explained.
Kathleen Borsari commented:
> I don\'t think it matters than much what order you teach things in.
Designers of language courses and experienced language teachers would
not agree with this view. It is easier to follow a carefully
inclined, cleared path up the mountain than to hack your way through
thickets and pull yourself up vertical cliffs.
hO MH POIWN DIKAIOSUNHN OUK ESTIN EK TOU QEOU
hO POIWN DIKAIOSUNHN EK TOU QEOU ESTIN
hO POIWN DIKAIOSUNHN DIKAIOS ESTIN
hO DIKAIOS DIKAIOSUNHN POIEI
hO DIKAIOS ERGA KALA POIEI
DIKAIOS OUK ESTIN
DIKAIOS ESTIN
The cries for help from students in haphazardly sequenced courses or
courses that start halfway up the mountain can be heard often on this
list.
Terry Cook said:
> Greek week #1: I learn the alphabet and then week #2- I\'m thrown
> into the fire!! Wierd endings, 20 words to memorize which look
> nothing like English, and the following week..... more of the same.
> Whew!! I suggest a slower pace [...]
Terrys frustration stems not so much from class pace as from the
more fundamental problem of scope. Scope refers to dosage, i.e. the
concentration of new target items within a lesson and their density
throughout a course. Kathleen echoed this frustration:
> Most of the books are written by college professors, though, and
> their goal is to teach all the basics of Greek in 1 year, which is
> an impossible goal for \"normal\" students.
When the scope of a course is dictated by such externals and not by
the absorption rate of \"normal\" students, we get overloaded circuits,
breakdowns, and dropouts.
Of course, as Dr. Decker pointed out:
> Those studying on their own can set their own pace, and those of
> you home schooling, can do something similar, esp. if you\'re
> introducing classical languages in the lower grades and have, say,
> 6-8 years over which to develop proficiency.
Setting ones own pace can be difficult, however, when lesson
contents are too tightly bunched and fail to provide for adequate
reinforcement. On the other hand, if one has a smooth progression of
material with easy, organic movement from one point to the next, one
can move along leisurely, speedily, as one likes.
It is certainly self-defeating to try to cover all the basic grammar,
or all the key lexical inventories for reading the NT--or both--in
the first 100 classroom hours. Once the course designer accepts this
limitation of scope, it becomes a matter of content selection. Which
are the truly need-to-know concepts?
With Greek courses aimed at reading competence there is an obvious
temptation to select and sequence content as dictated by the
authentic target texts themselves. Here is your somewhat stripped-
down text for lesson one and here are forty footnotes to help you
figure it out. While selection of content for beginners cannot stray
very far from the Biblical target language, it does need to be guided
by such criteria as frequency, simplicity, usefulness, etc. Students
need to get a firm grasp of basic forms, structures, and
articulations before they can appreciate how Biblical writers are
applying them in nuanced arguments.
In the final analysis, contents should be presented (selected,
sequenced, and quantified) according to the ongoing learners needs
and the learning process itself, not imposed by any external ordering
scheme or traditional notions of what absolutely belongs in the first-
year book. I bring this up because there is a parallel thread
investigating whether current koine grammars reflect 21st-century
linguistics. The same investigation could well be carried out with
textbooks as measured by advances in language teaching.
Warren Fulton
Vienna, Austria
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list