Latin Pedagogy and Second Language Acquisition Theory

[forty-two]

Or, why do we, as classical educators, care so little about what modern foreign language research has to say?

The classical languages are generally taught very differently than modern foreign languages. Most people in classical education see this as a distinct plus: in addition to learning Latin, we also reap a variety of ancillary benefits inherent to deductive language study. Win-win, right?

But in the midst of all this brain-training grammar-translation study, do we actually learn Latin?

Reading about Latin education in the 19th century - the halcyon days of proper grammar-translation according to Cheryl Lowe of Memoria Press - one finds many noted classicists discussing how, after years of study, most students still couldn't just open a book and read a Latin sentence in Latin word order. They had to laboriously translate, word by word, to have any clue as to the meaning; even then, with each individual word correctly parsed and translated, they still often got it completely wrong. There was quite a lot of discussion about how to change Latin (and Greek) instruction to get better results, so that the majority of students attained some degree of actual reading ability in exchange for all their hard work.

I lurk on a list where the focus is applying modern language acquisition research and techniques to teaching Latin. List members cite firsthand experience with the low level of Latin skill achieved by the majority of their students under traditional g/t methods. In fact, they don't believe that learning Latin via a pure g/t approach trains the brain so much as it requires a brain with high cognitive ability in the first place. In other words, they say, learning Latin deductively doesn't make you smart - you had to *be* smart to successfully learn Latin via a grammar-translation approach in the first place. In their experience, only 5-10% of students - usually those gifted in math - can actually succeed in learning Latin by so-called traditional methods (they argue that teaching Latin almost entirely in the vernacular is actually an aberration compared to how it was taught for most of its history).

While I'm not sure if I fully agree with their assertion that grammar-translation study doesn't confer any brain-training benefits (though they seem to have cognitive science on their side with regard to it conferring - or more accurately NOT conferring - transferable skills; I'm not sure precisely where I stand on all that. Clearly, yes, critical thinking in a field requires significant domain knowledge; however, most people agree that "how to learn" skills, like note-taking, once learned, are applicable across many fields of knowledge. Which side of the line do the Latin claims fall? I'm not yet sure.), I've never seen anyone talk about a successful g/t program (one that conferred actual reading ability) that didn't involve a lot of Latin exposure and working in Latin (as opposed to the vernacular).

This observation dovetails nicely with modern language acquisition research (much of which is based on Krashen's five hypotheses). Some concepts pertinent to teaching Latin:

*The Input Hypothesis - A language is acquired through sufficient input that is one step beyond a learner's current level (input at i+1 for a learner at i); often referred to as comprehensible input, it should be self-selected and ideally be on a topic the learner finds intrinsically interesting. Thus they develop proficiency in the L2 almost incidentally while they are consciously learning about topics of interest. Krashen believes that generating output in the L2 has no effect on acquiring the language - input is all that matters - but other researchers disagree, variously considering output anywhere from helpful to necessary to acquire a language.

*The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis - There is a difference between acquiring a language and learning about the language, with formal grammar study belonging to the latter and having no effect on the former ("language appreciation"), unless the grammar instruction is in the target language and the student is genuinely interested in learning the grammar. Then the grammar instruction functions as comprehensible input. (Traditional Jesuit Latin instruction would fall under this category; they utilized the direct method - striving to avoid, as far as possible, the use of the vernacular as the means by which Latin is learned - thus giving students large amounts of exposure to Latin.)

In reading threads about learning modern languages, I find a lot of support for Krashen's ideas. There is a lot of emphasis about getting sufficient exposure to the L2 - at least an hour a day, if you want to achieve fluency. People talk approvingly about European schools that teach multiple languages by teaching other subjects (math, history, etc.) in the various target languages. Yet, when it comes to the classical languages, we're content to see maybe 15 lines of Latin a lesson?

We seem to forget that the classical languages are, in the end, still languages. Whether acquiring Latin confers greater benefits than acquiring another language, you still have to manage to acquire it. Research that is valid and applicable to learning modern languages is equally applicable to learning classical languages.

(This ended up quite long, and a little more rant-y than I planned. But I think it is an interesting and valuable topic for discussion. I'd especially love to hear about firsthand experiences that prove or disprove my above observations and analysis - I'm strictly working off of theory, here .)

[Laura Corin]

I'm fluent in French and Mandarin. I can therefore give my sons the kind of teaching in those subjects (although for Mandarin I am just the supplementary teacher) that leads to true learning of the language: they hear the language spoken in a natural environment and the lessons can be conducted, as far as possible, in the target language. They learn grammar as a tool to complement the immersion.

I'm not fluent in Latin or Greek. Even if I used a 'natural' language acquisition teaching programme, I wouldn't be able to give an immersion experience - I'm just not qualified and I (personally) don't think that a video or tape is a complete language teacher. I therefore treat classical languages as different kinds of subjects entirely and don't have any problem with that: they are linguistic puzzles more than languages to us and I do see learning benefits for my non-mathy sons as they manage to fit all the pieces together.

Best wishes

Laura

[elfgivas@yahoo.com]

random thoughts...

our oldest two, now 23 and 25, learned french in french immersion in canada. they had never done math in english until we moved to california when they were in grades 6 & 9. it worked, really well. cambridge latin worked well at the high school age.

from our reading of language theory, it makes sense to us to expose children to living languages when they still have the ability to apprehend them as first languages. for the youngest two, we're rapidly running out of time as puberty approaches, so we're saving latin until middle/high school. time will tell.... but if i'm going to spend an hour a day exposing them to language, then its easier if (a) its a living language, and (b) if i speak it already. so far, we've had 4 years of ASL, which we learned together, 3 years of spanish which we learned together, and now we're doing french, which i speak, and which is just 10 times easier because of that. next year, we'll keep the french and add german, which i also speak.... and that will be that for first language (s) apprehension.

then we'll move on to second language learning, which suits latin, ancient greek and ancient hebrew just fine ; ). and anything else they decide they'd like.....

fwiw,
ann

[Peela]

I don't know- not my area of expertise at all. But I can say, the year of latin I did age 12 helped me and somehow stuck in my brain until I started learning it with my kids. Latin is not something I aim at mastery of- its just not going to happen here, we move too slowly, we dont dedicate enough time and energy to it. However, I think there are benefits other than mastery, being able to speak or read it fluently. Even exposure to basic Latin teaches how an inflected language works, teaches vocabulary, and teaches logical thinking- stretches the brain. A year or two of Latin is not a waste- or any language. We learn Latin to learn Latin, because it is somehow inherently satisfying and beneficial.....even if we never get to read the original fluently.
Not quite on your point....and I am sure there are many, particularly LCC people who have much loftier goals than I do who can give you better conversation on the topic...but I just wanted to put in that....to me, it doesnt matter much.

[Mama Lynx]

Frankly, In my homeschool I don't know that achieving fluency in Latin is our goal. For a modern language, in which my kids may be expected to communicate with other people in the target language, the research you cited is much more relevant to me.

I cannot give my children an immersion program in Latin or Greek, but I can teach them in a g/t method, and add what small immersion/fluency that I can. Yes, this means that they won't be fluent in Latin. Yes, this means that they will (probably) toil with their translations (although at their levels, I do have kids who can pick up a Latin passage out of their books and read it fairly easily on sight, without translating first). But they will still translate. They will still have a knowledge of Latin (and Greek) that will serve them well.

The research is correct, it's just not practical for many of us. That may seem counterintuitive, but that's how it is.

[Jugglin'5]

I agree with Mamalynx.

And I would like to add, anecdotally, that using Henle Latin for a year (VERY gr-tr ) with my Latin co-op students, has dramatically improved the "mental organization" ability of many of my students. I have had many of their parents make comments to me that it seems to have improved the students' schoolwork across the board. These have tended to be the parents that were dubious about the value of Latin to begin with. Again, this is just anecdotal, and maybe it would have happened with a n immersion method. But I am not fluent in Latin myself, so that is pie in the sky.

We are planning on adding Oerberg to our class next year, but that will be to help with their reading skills, since I can't really teach it as it was intended. Some of my students seem to read just fine anyway with the Henle instruction they have had (at least things on their level).

[Nan in Mass]

It matches your research, more or less.

I learned French in school, but didn't really learn it enough to use it. The French at my school was horrible. I went to Switzerland for a few weeks in college to solidify my French, and it helped my ability to understand spoken French if the French was very, very slow and not outside my meagre vocabulary. When I got out of school, I was afraid I would forget my French. About all I could do about it stuck in New England was to read the occasional book. I started with TinTin comics and read one a year, looking up every single word I didn't know in the dictionary (several per sentence). I ignored the grammar, which by then I had mostly forgotten. To my surprise, my French improved enormously. And I could apply it to listening! 10 or 15 years after I began, I had a chance to watch some French tv, and I realized that reading as a way of learning French worked fine, and that my main problem was lack of vocabulary. So I kept reading, working my way up to about Agatha Christie novel level. There is a period of adjustment when I have to get my brain to translate what the words look like to what they sound like, but I can understand much better than when I left school. I taught my youngest French by speaking it to him (in a very limited way) and watching French videos and reading French stories. He is very ungrammatical, but he can function in French, as he recently proved by spending a month in Switzerland with a mixed group of French and English speakers. He can read French pretty well, well enough to read something like Harry Potter.

In college, I took ancient Greek. That was taught with a reading program. There was a long reading, a grammar lesson, and excersizes that translated both ways. There was enough reading that from the beginning, you didn't really have to translate (at least I didn't); you just understood most of what you were reading. I only had to translate the bits with very new grammar. We were reading simple original stuff at the end of the year. I memorized a lot of charts and vocab for the class, but I was using the vocab and charts, so I didn't have to do any reviewing. It all just stuck, once I had laboriously memorized it. This is totally unusual for me. I don't remember anything I learn unless I review it constantly. My education was a waste.

With Latin, we tried Latin Primer first. There was no reading. My children dutifully memorized the vocab and chants, and then instantly forgot it again. After most of a year, I realized that it wasn't going to work. Not at all. I hunted around for a program that had stories AND grammar, and that went better. If we could keep doing it without taking months off here and there, it would work a lot better. Or if we had better memories. If we had time, I'd add in lots of extra reading. Lots and lots of extra reading. And I KNOW that it would work just fine. None of us translates anything we don't have to - we just read it and understand it unless it does contains too much strange grammar or vocabulary.

There is a book that I like called something like How to Learn Any Language. I think it has the right idea. I don't intend to ever learn a language without lots and lots of real reading again, unless I'm living in the language.

Not a scientific study, but maybe helpful?
-Nan

[Orthodox6]

First off, Thank you ! for this thread ! I enjoy reading about linguistics again after so many years away from it.

I was bilingual in Spanish and English by the time I was graduated from high school, owing to a phenomenally gifted teacher. When I started Latin in college, it came easily, as did the two semesters of "German for reading" (a graduate school course which I took as an undergraduate). The German was taught by what, in this thread, is being referred to as "G/T" (grammar/translation) method because we had no need to speak.

Here's what piques my curiosity: Even though "modern language pedagogy" may result in "fluency" in the sense related to that, why -- (oh ! my heretical "why?" ! ) -- is that useful in the case of Latin or ancient Greek ? (Koine Greek is, of course, spoken, read, and sung in church services, so I don't include it in my question.) (To remain in parallel, I also should, then, exclude the ecclesiastic Latin used in some Catholic church services.) Should one follow this "modern language" model for learning other languages which now are studied primarily for the written texts, rather than for spoken use? (I'm thinking of Sanskrit, for example.)

[Dana in OR]

Originally Posted by Nan in Mass

It matches your research, more or


I hunted around for a program that had stories AND grammar, and that went better. If we could keep doing it without taking months off here and there, it would work a lot better. Or if we had better memories. If we had time, I'd add in lots of extra reading. Lots and lots of extra reading. And I KNOW that it would work just fine. None of us translates anything we don't have to - we just read it and understand it unless it does contains too much strange grammar or vocabulary.
-Nan

Nan, just out of curiosity, what program did you use that had stories and grammar?

Dana

[Nan in Mass]

Ecce Romani
I found the grammar easier to explain if I could point back to places in the story where it appeared, but to use this program, you have to be willing to read Latin passages with unfamiliar grammar in them BEFORE the grammar is explained. We didn't find that a problem, but I think some people might find it disconcerting.