Via Facilis

Epiphanies, wakenings, and other revelatory experiences are good grist for the mental mill. But there is other grist to be ground. The topic today: Grammar and Latin.

In workshops I've given at NYSAIS (New York State Association of Independent Schools), in sessions I've taken part in at CAAS (Classical Association of the Atlantic States) and CAES (Classical Association of the Empire State), the discussion invariably moves to the most basic problem that students have in learning Latin:

Students today, at least in the United States, have no idea how their own language works. English and its grammar are a mystery to them.

How did this happen? And what can and should we do about it?

The notion that grammar is boring, and is therefore an impediment to the learning of English, made its insidious way into the minds of those who teach English and subjects of a similar ilk. Teachers of ancient and modern languages were not immune to this seductive yet foundationally debilitating assessment. They could, the thinking went, spend more time on "what really matters."

The unstated belief: grammar does not facilitate students' learning; it obstructs it.

In addition, students of modern languages are (and rightly so) held accountable for their speaking as well as their reading and writing. The difficulty with such an approach is that the emphasis tends to become the speaking of the language.

That is fine and good for people who have an excellent ear and who can speak a language very well. Yet jettisoned, or at least shunted to one side, is the understanding of what they are saying and how they are saying it. The understanding is implicitly there, else intelligible conversations wouldn't (and couldn't) occur. But the deliberate, active comprehension, the scientific approach to language, seems to fall by the wayside when speaking comes into the fore.

Meanwhile, a shift in the focus of Latin from the close reading of the language to the studying of its culture and history aided and abetted this trend to underestimate the value of a strong understanding of grammar. Classical Studies, its culture, its history, could be learned apart from the language.

Yet the fallacy of this thinking is the tacit premise that culture and history, on the one hand, and language, on the other, are mutually exclusive. Ironically, all this cultural and historical information comes from a close reading of Latin texts.

The linguistic manner in which the information is framed is also cultural. In other words, culture and history cannot be spliced away from the language which supplied the venue for, and the meaning of, their existence. The three are inseparable, symbiotic, linked.

Students nowadays have an excellent knowledge base of Roman culture and history. Yet they cannot read effectively. Their understanding of their own language, English, is virtually nil.

How could they possible hope to learn another language when they have such little active understanding of their own? This is the question that Latinists ask the most. Yet the "grammar problem" gets in the way.

There are so many other things that Latinists could be teaching. Why waste it on grammar? English grammar, to boot?

Answer: without it, students will not be able to read those Latin texts which provide all the cultural and historical information in the first place. They will have to rely on somebody else's translation.

The problem: every translation is an interpretation. Students will have no way to analyze this interpretation if they cannot read the text upon which it is based. To read effectively, students must understand language. To understand language, students must learn grammar. Grammar is the science of language. It gives students a framework to understand how the constuent parts of language fit together to engender meaning. It is essential to the learning of Latin.

That is the conclusion that colleagues of mine always come up with. Their complaints all have their origin in students' lack of understanding of grammar. This is why I say: Grammar Is Good. English grammar. Latin grammar. Greek grammar. Any language grammar.

It is grammar that allows students the ability to broaden and deepen their understanding of classical civilization, of classical history, of classical culture.

How? Students who know grammar are critical readers and thinkers. That is the key.

It's nice that students know history and culture. As Latinists/Hellenists/Classicists, it is incumbent upon us to create an environment wherein our students read critically, think critically, write critically.

The key: a deep awareness of language and all that comes with it.

My good friend and colleague Annette Kramer, one of the wisest and most intelligent people I am privileged to know, has taken me to task regarding my grammatical responsibilities:

"Many teachers of all age-groups believe English grammar and logic should have been taught by someone else. This is anecdotal evidence rather than scientific -- my pool of data is restricted to 50 subjects.

These teachers of classes from first grade through the last year of graduate school all agree that it's not his or her job. The system is not designed for instructors of different age levels to collaborate. I didn't interview kindergarten teachers -- but I'm guessing they would say that learning good English comes from the home.
And now a Latin teacher is passing the buck as well."

I would like to direct the attention of my learned and honorable friend to a place farther down in the same offending Grammar? No Waste! entry:

"This is why I say: Grammar Is Good. English grammar. Latin grammar. Greek grammar. Any language grammar. It is grammar that allows students the ability to broaden and deepen their understanding of classical civilization, of classical history, of classical culture. How? Students who know grammar are critical readers and thinkers. That is the key."

I was commenting on how it came to pass that English grammar went by the wayside. There are many teachers of English who of course do more than pay lip service to the learning of grammar in English. I don't just comment (or la-ment) on the fact that students don't know grammar; I address the problem in my book. Pointing fingers (both the act and the digits themselves) helps not a whit. Grammar is everyone's responsibility. In the mastery of a foreign language, and in the true understanding of one's own, grammar is essential.

"'Done what you've looked,' angrily shouted one of the salesman. He meant to say 'Look what you've done,' but the words had gotten so hopelessly mixed up that no one could make any sense at all. 'Do going to what we are!'"
- The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster

So begins a chapter from Norton Juster's fabulous book about a boy with nothing to do and his travels in the Lands Beyond.

The greatest difficulty that confronts the English speaker in the learning of Latin is the manner in which the two languages establish meaning. In the English sentence (as Juster's words demonstrate so poignantly), word order plays the crucial role, with endings of words filling in any informational gaps.

In the drama of the Latin sentence, meanwhile, word ending is the protagonist, with word order playing a secondary, nuanced role. Yes, the verb in Latin prose tends to come at the end of a sentence. But very frequently you will find the verb in first position (we're talking sentence structure here, not ballet).

Ask your typical speaker of English the question:
"How does the English sentence convey meaning?"

A shoulder shrug and "I don't know" will be the response.

Direct said speaker to a book store with words of the following sort:

"And up hurry Phantom the Tollbooth Juster buy Norton by."

They point the get might.

Could it be?
No way. But it is!
My god, look who finally bothered to show up!
It's Dr. G!
drg in the written word, if not the flesh.
The one, the only, the infamous!
And where have you been lately?

Well, let me begin by stating the obvious:
A long time between posts.
Three months.
A lot has happened.

In that time, I have taught at Chapin, a private school for girls in New York City.
Teaching lets me tap into my own reserves of imagination and creativity.
And to replenish those resources.
I never want to be one of those folks who go around talking about teaching, then have to sheepishly admit that that teaching is a distant memory.

They are great girls at Chapin.
They know when they're working hard;
they don't kid themselves when they're hardly working.
They candidly, refreshingly take responsibility when that's the case.
Chapin girls are willing, able, and keen on going deeper, broader, and forward into the material.
When these girls have a teacher who sparks that interest, the spark ignites, unleashing a conflagration which is their passion to learn.

They restored my faith in those privileged to be at a private school in the heart of the City.

I thank them for that from the depths of my heart, from the underpinnings of my soul.

How prosaic!
I didn't know that souls even had underpinnings.
But surely you jest.
No, I don't.
Surely then you're overstating the case.
No, I'm not.

And stop calling me Shirley.

Meanwhile, I've been to the UK twice.
I've seen what our programs - cagse's programs - do over there.
I've met with the head teachers of the schools wherein our programs are ensconsced, and the teachers in charge of literacy, English, etc.
And I've met with the real powers that be:
the kids themselves.

They're not just doing well.
They're doing good.

Don't adjust your screen.
That is not a grammatical error.
"good" here is the substantive form of the adjective.
The adjective raised to the status of Noun.
And yeah, that's a fragment.
Anybody want to edit it?
No?
Good.

So why the UK? Why London?
We have a number of schools there using my text Via Facilis: Mastering Latin and Understanding Language.

Caveat Lector! (Let the Reader Beware!)
Read the whole title of that text, not just the first four words.
Understanding Language is the key.

But the students taking these classes must be older, right?

No.

The students are 9 and 10 years old.

They are from every cultural background imaginable.

No need to mention "diversity" across the Pond.
It would be redundant.

I had the privilege of teaching one of the classes.
What enthusiasm! What desire to learn! What eagerness of spirit!

Every type of kid imaginable was in that class. The eager beaver who wants to be not simply noticed, but heard.
The inspector type.
A veritable successor to Maggie Thatcher.
A future head of MI5.

They love learning Latin.
But it's not just that.

These 9 and 10 year olds love understanding language.

Even those who don't speak or know English well are enthralled with the class.
It is an eye-opening experience to have these young people look me in the eye and tell me clearly that a verb is constructed of three pieces:

base
thematic vowel
personal ending

That if you change the ending, you change who's speaking, who's the actor of the verb.
That the base tells you the basic meaning.
That the thematic vowel tells you the class of verb you have in front of you.

Their confidence in their understanding is palpable.

These students see Latin and how cagse teaches it for what it truely is: a powerful tool that will get them wherever they need to go, and allow them to thrive wherever they happen to find themselves.

This is not simply writing postcards to people long dead.
That's a quaint exercise.
It's also a gimmick.
Kids recognize such cheap gimmickry for what it is.
And an approach employing such "methodology" is ultimately condescending.

Condescension is Poison.

It is the one thing teachers cannot exhibit or harbor in any remote way when teaching kids - not if they entertain any shred of hope that their students will learn effectively.

cagse doesn't do that.
our belief is that students can learn the complicated and complex - provided that it is dealt with head on.

cagse specializes in making the complex and complicated accessible.
We have no patience for dumbing down concepts.
We simplify in the mathematical sense.

We of cagse ACCESSIFY.

We know it's working.
Remarked the head of one of our participant schools,
"We've already seen a positive impact on literacy."
This at a school where whole months are dedicated to the familiarization of the students to each of their constituent languages.
There have been forty of these "get to know your chum's language months" so far.

And the program is only seven weeks old.
That's one class per week.

The effect is that powerful.

drg

Last week - directly below this post, actually - I commented on the sentiments expressed by the authors of The National Curriculum regarding modern languages.

This is That Post, Part II, Paragraph II of Modern Languages:

"Learning languages gives pupils opportunities to develop their listening, speaking, reading and writing skills and to express themselves with increasing confidence, independence and creativity. They explore the similarities and differences between other languages and English and learn how language can be manipulated and applied in different ways. The development of communication skills, together with understanding of the structure of language, lay the foundations for future study of other languages and support the development of literacy skills in a pupil's own language.

I'm a Latinist/Classicist/linguist.
I agree with the sentiments of this paragraph wholeheartedly.
The question is how to effectively achieve its purposes.

Here is my response:
Learn Latin.

"But Latin isn't a modern language."
"True."
"It's also dead."
"Also true."
"So?"
"So, word one: Frisp."
"Frisp? Never heard of it."'
"French
Romanian
Italian
Spanish
Portuguese

Which are all recognized languages of the European Union.

We also refer to them as Romance Languages."
"So?"
"So the structural basis of these languages is Latin.
Learn Latin, and you exponentially increase your capability of learning a Romance Language."

"Okay, but what about the other EU languages? Latin can't help with those, can it?"
"Actually, it can."
"How?"
"Many of the languages of the EU are inflected."
"Infected?"
"No, 'inflected'. A language that is inflected establishes meaning by changing the forms of its words, particularly nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs. The form of the words shows their function in a sentence."
"And?"
"And Latin is also inflected.
Learn Latin, and you exponentially increase your capability of learning a non-Romance language."

"But it's still not spoken, right?"
"Right."
"So how does that address the "listening, speaking, reading, and writing" part of the paragraph?"

"In terms of listening and speaking, it doesn't."
"But isn't that a problem?"
"Actually, it's a solution in conundrum's clothing."
"You'd better explain."
"Sure. When students learn a foreign language, it often happens that their proficiencies - speaking and listening - mask their deficiencies - reading and writing."
"So they can't read or write."
"And how would you rate the literacy of someone who can't read or write?"
"Low?"
"There is a technical term for it. A person who cannot read or write his own language is 'illiterate'."
"So much for national literacy."
"You said it."
"But how does Latin help deal with this problem?"
"Which problem?"
"The literacy problem."
"With which language?"
"Better start with foreign languages."
"Fair enough. You have to ask why students find reading and writing difficult in the first instance."
"Okay, consider it asked."
"They find reading and writing difficult because they have done very little of those exercises with their own language. To really read and to really write, you have to more than inherently know a language; you have to understand it. You have to understand how words relate, how they fit together to make sentences, ideas, concepts, etc. You have to have done time, so to speak, working with the nuts and bolts of language - its grammar, its syntax, its vocabulary. To write it out long-hand, type it, chant it, play with it. Become friends with it. Writing is the tactile recording of literacy. Reading allows you to see how others go through that experience. Literacy is, in effect, the expertise with which you deliberately handle your own language. So if you are going to master another language, you will have to spend some serious time with your own."

"But why Latin then?"
"Because when students learn Latin, they cannot hide behind a good ear and convincing accent. They must focus on the other two aspects: reading and writing. Latin forces them to account for everything. That, in turn, forces them to account for everything in English. Which reenforces what they are doing with language in Latin. It becomes a benevolent cycle, feeding on itself."

"So, you're saying that Latin is good because it addresses reading and writing almost exclusively?"
"Basically, yes."
"So it makes students hyper-aware of their choice of words, and why they are saying what they are saying?"
"Yes. It turns a potentially passive exercise into an active one. It requires that they develop critical tools of linguistic discernment."

"And the student who takes Latin will be ready to study a modern language in all aspects?"
"Yes. They will be happy to be speaking a foreign language, but it will not be so completely different in terms of vocabulary or structure. They will have already been there. They will be jazzed up about going forward in their study of language."

"And this same student will have done a tremendous amount with the building blocks of English, too? All that grammar and vocabulary?"
"Yes."

"But doesn't that take care of two major concerns of the government?"
"What do you mean?"
"Well, there's the national literacy recommendations, and there's the modern language entitlement, too."

"Right."

"Wouldn't a serious study of Latin help students, particularly at Key Stage 2, make significant strides in both these areas?"

"Let me get this straight. You're saying that you think that the study of Latin at...?"
"Key Stage 2."
"What's that mean in American English?"
"Ages 7 to 11."
"Oh, right. Okay, so you're saying that you think that the study of Latin at Key Stage 2 will facilitate both a growing mastery of English and set the stage for the thorough learning of Modern Languages? As required by the UK government?"

"Yes."

"I couldn't have said it any better. Thank you."

"You're welcome."

drg

"So where've you been? And what's wrong with your face?"
"Sporting, isn't it? Only the best education consultants are wearing it."
"No, but seriously. Where have you been?
"In hospital. Getting my left nostril's septum undeviated."
"That would explain the chic gauze moustache. For a second I thought you were the physical manifestation of Drama, strand four."
"I appreciate your imagination. But no. Just got my nose fixed."
"If only fixing the UK curriculum were so easy."
"It's not broken. It's just a matter of understanding how the pieces work together, and which are the central strands. And then how to make those strands powerful."
"Right. I've been thinking about that since you were away, brief though it was."
"Wait. Wasn't this the long Easter week-end?"
"Yes."
"I thought all thinking was generally suspended until after it ended."
"Well, I was bored."
"To tears, apparently. So what did you come up with?"
"To be honest, I think I got myself even more muddled than I was before."
"Well, let's see if we can't remedy that. What does 'Word Recognition' entail? Is it simply a matter of recognizing a word as what it stands for?"
"Could you explain that more?"
"Sure. What does 'cow' mean to you?"
"It's an animal we get drinking milk from."
"Anything else?"
"Beef, too."
"No, I mean, is that all 'cow' means to you?"
"Well, they wear bells, sometimes."
"Okay, wait. Let me rephrase. At its most basic level, what is 'cow'?"
"A mammal?"
"Hold on. This isn't working. Let's take a different approach."
"Please."

"How about this:

'cow, picture, ship, chair, book, grass, foot.'

What do you make of that?'

"They're a bunch of nouns."
"That it?"
"Yes. Just random nouns."
"Nothing else?"
"Well, there are seven of them."

"Fine. Now what about these?
'cows, picture, ships, chair, books, grass, foot.' "

"The same seven random nouns again."
"Random, huh?"
"Oh yes, they seem so to me. But they're the same."
"No changes?"
"Let's see. Actually, now three of them are plural."

"Right. So what about this?
'cows grass.' "

"Still nouns - from that same set. But now only two."
"Do they still seem random?"
"Well...what do you mean?"
"I mean, Do those two nouns placed right next to each other like that have any meaning for you?"
"They seem to."
"Meaning what?"
"Cows and grass seem to go together. But not as you have them, 'Cows grass.'
"What would you do so that they could go together?"
"You'd have to add another word."
"Okay, how about 'cows hills grass.' "
"No, that doesn't help."
"Why not? You said to add another word. 'hills' is another word."
"Yes. But it's the same sort as 'cows' and 'hills'.
"How so?"
"It's another thing."
"So?"
"So you still have to figure out how the first two, 'cows' and 'grass', fit together. If you add only another noun, you've have three things to explain, not just two."

"So what word would you add?"
"Well, first I'd have to ask myself about what 'cows' and 'grass' have to do with one another."
"And what's the answer?"
"Several, actually."
"Do tell."
"Let's see. Cows stand on grass. And they eat it. Yes. That's easiest. I'd add 'eat'."
"Okay, 'cows grass eat'. Right?"
"No. That doesn't look right."
"How about, 'eat cows grass'?"
"That just doesn't make any sense."
"So what would?"
" 'Cows eat grass.' "

"So 'cows' and 'grass' are 'things', and 'eat' isn't?"
"Right."
"What is the technical term for 'things'?
"Uhhh, I think it starts with an 'n'..."
"and ends with an 'n', too."
"I'm not sure..."
"And has '-ou-' in the middle."
"A NOUN!"
"Exactly. So 'cows' and 'grass' are nouns, and 'eat' isn't, right?"
"Right."
"But if 'eat' isn't a noun, what is it?"
"It's the action word."
"What is the action word called? Does it have a specific name?"
"This one I remember. You don't have to spell this one out for me. It's called a verb."
"Excellent."
"You're too kind."
"I'll take your word for it. Now, let's consider your creation:
'Cows eat grass.' "

"Okay."
"Is this a complete thought?"
"What do you mean?"
"Does 'Cows eat grass' convey a complete thought or idea?"
"Does it?"
"What would happen if I put the word 'If' right before 'cows'? Then you'd have 'If cows eat grass'. Does that sound complete?"
"Well, if you added something like, 'then they get fat' it would."
"But by itself?"
"No."
"How about if there's no 'If'? Just plain old 'Cows eat grass'?"
"Yes. That's a complete thought."
"What do we call that? Technically?"
"Hmmmm."
"I'll give you a hint. When a person is convicted of a crime, the judge in the case pronounces....?"
"Sentence! Right, it's a sentence. A sentence is a complete thought. Of course."
"Tremendous. Now, in that sentence, 'Cows eat grass', how is 'Cows' functioning?
"They're doing the eating."
"They're performing the action of the verb?"
"Yes."
"And when a noun is performing the action of a verb, it is functioning in a particular way. It is acting...?"
"on impulse?"
"Inventive, but no. Think technically, again."
"I'm lost."
"Okay. Someone gives a talk on a particular what?"
"Field? Area?"
"Close. Maybe a little narrower?"
"Expertise?"
"No. How about this? All UK nationals are the Queen's..."
"Subjects! Oh, right. Subject."
"Right. The Subject is the noun that does the action of the verb."
"And the verb is the action word that the Subject is doing."
"Also right. So in the sentence 'Cows eat grass'..."
" 'Cows' is the Subject."
"And 'eat'..."
"is what the 'Cows', the Subject, are doing, and is, therefore, the verb!"
"Excellent. Only one word left to account for. How is 'grass' acting in our favorite sentence, 'Cows eat grass'?"
"It's what the Cows eat."
"It's receiving the action of the verb?"
"Yes, I suppose it is."
"What term do we give nouns when, like 'grass', they receive the action of the verb?"
"It's on the tip of my tongue...."
"Okay. Hint: 'Not the Subject of my attention but the...."
"Object!"
"Yes. But because it is directly receiving the action of the verb, we can go one step further and call it the ___________ object."
"Direct! The direct object!"
"Precisely. So, to review:
1. Nouns are things (or persons or places)
2. Nouns can act as subjects, i.e., doers of the action of the verb
3. Nouns can act as Direct Objects (i.e., direct receivers of the
action of the verb)
4. Verbs are action words, i.e., words that denote action performed
by Nouns acting as subjects on nouns acting as direct objects.

Make sense?"

"Yes. But how do we know when a noun is acting as a subject or a direct object?"

"Excellent question. And psychic, too. You have anticipated our next lesson: The Primacy of Word Order. So see you tomorrow."

"Brilliant."