Fluency and an Epigraphic Language

From: Matthew Brook O'Donnell (m.odonnell@roehampton.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 06 2000 - 11:02:24 EDT


The discussion is all very interesting and important I think. Randall
definitely has a point and communicates it effectively (especially in person,
after his talk at SBL last year I was a good 80% convinced!).

One niggling question is the whole notion of internalization and fluency in an
epigraphic ("dead"!?) language. Can fluency ever be reached without native
speakers?

> We want to read written texts fluently, but human beings are
> pre-wired to function with spoken language. Most everyone who has learned
> to speak a language comments on what a significant positive effect that has
> on reading. This is true for modern languages, even for old languages. we
> haven't begun to tap in on this.

I agree. No one speaks French well from the study of french literature or
newspapers alone. Language production or compentence in performance develops
through interaction with native speakers. There are no Hellenistic shop keepers
for us to buy our bread and cheese from though (du pain et fromage s.v.p!).

So I wonder whether trying to acheive internalization/fluency might be
counter productive when it comes to actually reading and interpreting texts. We
surely need certain grammatical models/understanding in order to produce new
instances of language. for instance:

> KAI Clay EGRAYEN:
> Clay PROSEQHKEN:
> Carl egrapsen:

Hmm.... why all aorists? Do none of their comments warrant a scriptural
GEGRAPTAI? Or even a present form?

Once we adopt a particular model of how we think the, say, Greek tense-forms
work and begin to use that model to create our own utterances, we will most
likely begin to interpret texts with it. After all we are now fluent--aren't we?

This is my problem with Greek textbooks (such as Wenham) that have an
English->Greek section in their exercises. Can we really grade two variant
sentences where the differences are in the case of the object or tense-form or
mood etc. What about word order? Now I think Randall's approach is a world away
from this as he is interested in having his students produce and engage in
lively discourses. But on what basis?

> Where does one want to end up? Fluent reading is greatly enhanced
> pedagogically by fluent speaking. (this is the practical payoff.) And If
> someone wants to develop fluency to the point of thinking in the language
> (and that is a pile of work, I know--from experience with many other
> languages) would someone like to know that they are rubbing shoulders with
> Luke and Paul, or would they like to end up knowing that they speak some
> distinctly different?
>

The "thinking in Greek" point has bounced around enough recently for me to say
anything more... but HOW?

Well enough said.

BYW why does the indicative in Rom. 5.1 fit the context better than the
subjunctive? Which context? Certainly a traditional theological context... but
the co-text? I'd argue that the subjunctive fits the shape of the letter rather
well actually.

-- 
Matthew Brook O'Donnell
Centre for Advanced Theological Research
Department of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Surrey Roehampton
80 Roehampton Lane
London
SW15 5SL

tel. (0181) 392 3255 ext. 4162 fax. (0181) 392 3491

m.odonnell@roehampton.ac.uk http://www.jgrchj.com

--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:39:51 EST