Via Facilis

"You don't think that hearing and listening are the same?"
"Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not."
"When aren't they?"
"You can hear someone speak, yes? Does that mean you have to be listening to him precisely?"
"No, sometimes it's just sound."
"Right. If you hear a word spoken, but are not listening, that's all it is. A sound. But if you are listening, you hear words as words, as segments of thought."
"I see. Alright, you have a point. But which strand should be central, then, if not listening?"
"A good question. Any thoughts?"
"Here we go again, Socrates. Alright, how about Creating and Shaping Texts?"
"What does that require kids to know before they get to that level?"
"Hmmm. They need to know how to write."
"And what does that mean?"
"What do you mean what does that mean?"
"What do you think of as writing?"
"Oh, well, let's see. They have to know the alphabet."
"And?"
"And how to form the letters of the alphabet."
"And?"
"And how those letters fit together."
"And?"
"And how those letters sound separately and together. But..."
"But what?"
"But which comes first?"
"Which what?"
"Learning how to read and say the letters, and then the words, or how to write the letters?"
"All three."
"All three what?"
"Reading is a type of understanding. Writing is a type of understanding. Listening is a type of understanding."
"But can't you read without understanding what you're reading? Or write letters even if you don't know what they are? Or listen without... no, we already discussed that last one."
"True. You can read, write, even speak letters without immediately, or ever, understanding them."
"Isn't that four then?"
"How so?"
"Well, Understanding seems to be the common thread there."
"Good point. It is indeed. It's probably the key."
"Is that the center strand then?"
"Well, if you look at the strands, there is no Understanding by itself."
"What's the closest thing then?"
"How about Engaging with and Responding to Texts?"
"That's higher level based on listening, reading, writing."
"I agree."
"That goes for all the others, too: Drama, Understanding and Interpreting Texts, Engaging with and Responding to Texts, Text Structure and Organization, and Presentation."
"You've left out three."
"Right. There's Sentence Structure and Punctuation, but that's still higher level, if not on the same plain."
"Two to go."
"Word Recognition and Word Structure and Spelling, Strands 5 and 6. Those can't be the centerpiece strands, can they?"
"Why not?"
"Well, because they're so basic."
"Exactly."
"Ahhhh."

"So let's see if I have this straight. There are twelve strands in the UK's National Literacy Curriculum:
1. Speaking
2. Listening and Understanding
3. Discussion and Interaction
4. Drama
5. Word Recognition
6. Word Structure and Spelling
7. Understanding and Interpreting Texts
8. Engaging with and Responding to Texts
9. Creating and Shaping Texts
10. Text Structure and Organization
11. Sentence Structure and Punctuation
12. Presentation"

"That's correct."
"And of these twelve, strands 1 and 2 get the students "booted up", so to speak, and #3 is one application of #s 1 and 2. Yes?"
"I'd say so."
"Alright. #4, meanwhile, is a variation of #3, yeah?"
"In some cases, not just a variation, but a deepening and fleshing out of expression, as well."
"Strands 7 and 8 address reading and comprehension of various types of writings."
"Yes."
"Strand 9 goes from the purely mental activity of reading to the physical activity of writing - not copying other texts, but writing one's own material."

"Indeed."

"Strands 10, 11, and 12 flesh out the writing aspect: the general organization of the text, the specific structure of the sentences that make up the paragraphs and how they are annotated, and finally, the polished presentation. Yes?"

"Yes."

"And you believe that the centerpiece, the sine qua non, of these strands are #s 5 and 6?"

"Yes. Word Recognition and Word Structure and Spelling are the nexus. Every one of the twelve strands draws power from these two."

"How do you mean?"
"Alright, take strands #1 and 2, Speaking and Listening and Understanding."
"Okay."
"Without word recognition, can these strands hold?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because Speaking, Listening, Understanding all have to do with the spoken word. And if you don't recognize that what is said is a word, it doesn't matter if you hear it or not, because you won't understand it."

"Then what about Word Structure and Spelling? How does that fit in?"

"Well, there are many words that sound the same but mean different things."
"Such as?"
"How about 'there', 'they're', 'their'? If you don't know that those are three different words, there's going to be a problem. Spelling really helps you nail down those differences."
"So would you call Word Structure and Spelling a refinement of Word Recognition?"
"I would do."
"As would I. Let's talk more about this tomorrow."
"But...."
"Don't worry. I won't leave you stranded."

"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."

"Good evening."
"To you, as well. Did we shave?"
"What? Oh, you mean the gauze. Or lack of it. Well, no, but my nose has healed considerably. Nice to breathe again through that left nostril. Haven't used it for forty-two years."
"That must be a strange sensation."
"It's quite liberating, actually."
"I'll bet."
"You'd win, so I'm not laying odds. Anyway, when we last were having our discussion, you asked a critical question."
"I did?"
"That wasn't it."
"Oh, right. I remember now."
"Will you reask it?"
"Surely. I asked, 'How do we know when a noun is acting as a subject or a direct object?' "
"Have you thought about it since then?"
"No, that wasn't the question I asked. I remember clearly."
"No, I mean, have you thought about an answer to your question which you just right now brought our attention back to."
"Oh. Well, yes."
"And you have an answer?"
"I said I thought about an answer. I didn't say I had one."
"Shall we conjure up that sentence which gave rise to your question?"
"Good idea."
"Our sentence was, 'Cows eat...'"
"'grass'!"
"Right. Did we decide anything about the function of 'Cows' in the sentence?"
"Yes, that it was a noun acting as the subject, i.e., the doer of the action."
"Right. Did we decide anything else?"
"We determined that 'eat' was the verb, i.e., the action that the subject, 'Cows', was performing."
"Okay. And?"
"And that 'grass' was the direct object of the verb 'eat' because it was what the 'cow', the subject, was eating."

"Let me ask you if you would agree to the following as a summing up of what we discussed last time:
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.

Anything else?"
"No, that's about it."
"Okay. So your question then was, in a nutshell: How To Decide?"
"How to decide what?"
"Well, if a noun can act either as a subject of a verb, or a direct object of a verb, how do you know when you see a noun how it's acting?"
"I need some help here."
"Okay, let's bring back our sentence."
"Let's."
" 'Cows eat grass.' "
"So much is clear."
"How many nouns?"
"Two."
"Subject?"
" 'Cows'."
"Direct Object?"
" 'grass'."
"Verb?"
" 'eat' ."
"Where is the subject placed?"
"At the beginning of the sentence?"
"Yes, but let's be even more specific."
"Okay. Directly in front of the verb."
"Correct. How about the direct object?"
"That's directly after the verb."
"Correct. Do you know the answer to your question yet?"
"Sort of...."
"Take our sentence again."
" 'Cows eat grass.' "
"Switch 'Cows' and 'grass'."
" 'Grass eats Cows.' "
"Do those two sentences mean the same thing?"
"Don't they?"

"Look at them closely:
'Cows eat grass'
'Grass eats Cows'
Are they the same?"

"Well, no."
"What did I change?"
"The placement of 'grass' and 'cows'."
"What happened?"
" 'grass' became the subject; 'cows' became the direct object."
"What happened to the placement of the verb?"
"Nothing. It stayed the same."
"So what are we saying about where words appear in a sentence?"
"That it means a lot."
"It actually means everything. Where a word falls in a sentence determines its function in the sentence, and therefore, the force of that sentence."
"Could you summarize?"
"Absolutely. Word order tells you word function. An English sentence is completely dependent upon its word order to establish meaning."
"Are you sure?"
"Let me rephrase. 'Cows grass eat.' "
"What does that mean?"
"Exactly."

Let's revisit that post of April 7.

'Cows grass eat.'

The meaning of this sentence couldn't be less clear.
The import of that meaninglessness couldn't be more obvious.

In English, very simply,
Word Order Rules.

Let's take a look at the blog entry I wrote over a year ago.
It bears directly upon word order and the critical role it plays in English syntax.

"A New Word Order?

"'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.'"

"This is all very enlightening about English word order, but so what?"
"What do you mean?"
"I mean, what's the point?"
"Point?"
"Weren't you going to tie this in to Latin?"
"Yes."
"Well, we’re waiting."
"Based on our conversation, can you make a guess?"
"About Latin, you mean?"
"Yes."
"Let's see. I would guess that it can help students with word order."
"And?"
"And that's all."
"But what is the import of word order in English?"
"Meaning?"
"Exactly. Without it, there isn’t any.”
“No, I meant, ‘What do you mean?’”
“I mean, Without word order, there isn't any meaning."
"But how does Latin figure into this?"
"Well, that’s the question. But it isn't just Latin. It’s a specific type of Latin."
"Which is...?"
"CAGSE's Latin."
"Aren't all Latin programs the same?"
"No. Our program is linguistic/language-acquisition-oriented.”
“Isn’t that a little narrow?”

“So it may seem. But our experience is that the power to communicate is critical for all students. The person who has control of language – not just vocabulary, but the manner in which that vocabulary is accessed and applied - is a force to be reckoned with. As such, the question becomes, What is the best vehicle for the acquisition of these skills? These communication skills? These literacy skills? The answer is, unequivocally, a linguistic approach to Latin.”

“How so?”

“Because we focus on the structure of words and their relationship to, and with, one another. With our program, students learn to take account of every component of every word. Each component of a word plays a role in establishing the word’s meaning. In turn, every word plays a role in a sentence. We show how elements fit together to form words, how those words fit together – how they relate to one another - to make sentences."

"Okay, but still, what’s the point?"

"The point is that it is CAGSE’s approach to Latin which particularly helps students develop an exacting awareness of, and facility for, English and how it establishes meaning."

"How?”

“By making the passive learning of language into an exercise of active awareness where every linguistic component is accounted for; by providing students with a scientific lexicon, a vocabulary, which enables them to become active understanders and practioners of language, not mere consumers.”

“'By making the passive learning of language into an exercise of active awareness where every linguistic component is accounted for; by providing students with a scientific lexicon, a vocabulary, which enables them to become active understanders and practioners of language, not mere consumers.'”

That was the last comment from the post immediately previous to this. Let's rejoin our two conversants.

"But how does Latin do this?"
"Not just any Latin program; cagse's."
"Okay. How does cagse's Latin do this?"
"Well, you agree aboutt he power of word order in English?"
"You mean, that it establishes meaning, and that without it, there isn't any?"
"Yes."
"In that case, yes."
"But what does that imply?"
"What does what imply?"
"The power of word order in English?"
"Oh, that. I guess that each word plays a function in the sentence?"
"And so?"
"And so particularly functioning words have a particular place in that word order?"
"Yes."
"Okay, but let's get concrete here."
"Fine. Back to our friend, 'Cows eat grass.'"
"I've missed it so."
"The waiting is over. What is the function of 'cows'?"
"It's a noun acting as the subject."
"And 'grass'?"
"A noun, the direct object of 'eats'."
"And nouns and verbs are what in terms of grammar?"
"Hmm. A hint, please."
"Parts of Screech."
"Surely you mean 'Speech'?"
"Right you are. Parts of Speech."

"So are you saying that parts of speech have their own specific places in word order?"

"Yes. And so are you."

"Just to be clear, what are those parts of speech, anyway? Their official titles?"

"Good question. They are:

nouns
pronouns
verbs
adjectives
adverbs
conjunctions
prepositions
interjections

"Thanks. And each of these has its place in a sentence?"
"Yes. Back to 'Cows eat grass.' What can we say about it?"
"That we're bored of it already?"
"That, too, but don't hurt its feelings."
"Apologies."
"No worries. Sentences don't actually feel anything. If we talk about 'Cows eat grass' in terms of parts of speech, what is the word order?"
"Noun-verb-noun."
"The first noun acts as...?"
"Subject."
"And the last?"
"As object."
"Be more specific?"
"Oh. As direct object."
"So, 'noun-verb-noun' in terms of word function would then be..."
"Subject-verb-direct object."
"You've got it."

"But again, why cagse's Latin?"

"Because everything we do in Latin we do in English first; because we believe kids can and will approach and master grammar with excitement and interest if it is compellingly introduced."

"Why don't you just do English then?"

"Because we're not interested in English alone. We're interested in language and how language establishes meaning. English and Latin, when studied in relation to one another, afford students a close encounter with the inner workings of the mechanics of meaning."

"But why cagse?"

"Because cagse's Latin goes one step further."
"I'm waiting."

"Right. We require our students to engage in a careful, painstaking, in-depth accounting of those linguistic mechanics."

"In English?"
"Yes."
"And in Latin?"
"Yes."
"Both English and Latin?"
"Yes."
"That is different."

"Yes."

Who is Dr. Richard Gilder III?
Why did he found CAGSE?

If you want to know, read on.
If you don't, plug in a new destination and keep on surfin'.

I am on what is currently a twenty-four year journey to deepen my understanding, knowledge, and flexibility of thinking in several meaningful areas. These areas include, but are not limited to, an on-going investigation into the power and eloquence, the brashness and boldness, the mechanics and intricacies, the beauty and the absurdity, the good sense and the nonsense, of the essence of Latin, Greek, English, language in general, lacrosse, learning, teaching, coaching, advising, and guiding students and teachers on the beginning, middle, or end of the road upon which they find themselves at a particular moment in time.

CAGSE is the expression, the physical manifestation, of that quest.

I have taught and coached students of every age level from 4th grade through graduate school. I know where they began, where they are, where they're going. I understand their motivations, their hopes, their fears, their disappointments (sometimes borne of bitter unexpected failure, sometimes accepted with lukewarm acknowledgement), their successes (garnered with anything from a modest shrug to a wild whoop of exultation). When it comes to students, I have seen the means, the extremes, and everything in between. I am a student of the mind inchoate belonging to that age group undergoing the angst and grind of growing up. Students sense this intuitively. They know when they come to me that I will tell them what they need to hear. Each student is different. One needs compassion, another compulsion, a third someone who will simply lend an ear. One student would do well to stop kidding himself, another to give herself a break. And there's always the student who is desperately seeking the answer to the lonliest of all questions, "Is there anybody out there?" I encourage students, and teachers, to undertake more and greater challenges, to opt for the more difficult path, or the one less obvious. Yet whether in the classroom, in my office, or on the athletic field, I'm ultimately in the business of putting myself out of business. There will come a time when students walk out of my classroom, out of school, and on to the next phase of their lives. I prepare students not against that day, but for it.

As a colleague, I'm open and frank; I speak my mind; I don't break if you speak yours. I work extremely hard, am self-motivated, but not self-absorbed.

If you want to work for me, I expect nothing less from you.

I have a clear vision about the whos, whats, whens, whys, wheres of Latin and language, of lacrosse, of teaching, of coaching, of mentoring. I am direct. I've written two Latin text books, used in the UK in CAGSE's state schools in the London area. And I attend conferences such as that held by the Classical Association of Atlantic States, by the American Classical League, and by JACT.

drg

I had a correspondence a while ago from a representative of childs services in one of our schools.
He wanted this one school to meet its budget without using discretionary funds.
That's fine and good.
But it fails to help this school much.
The kids at this school suffer because of this.
Did he out and out reject our program?
No.
Did he say the cost of our program was extravagant?
Actually, he said it was reasonable.
He did say that he had to cut funding for other teachers. To identify and eliminate redundancies.
But we are talking about kids here.
And what they need. And he is acting as if the education system is some sort of company. Which it is isn't.

He also said he was somewhat hesitant about the fact that our people do not have "the proper credentials."
I'm not sure what those credentials are.
A teaching degree?
Many people have such degrees, and have no idea how to teach.
We expect more from our teachers, not less.
We are not satisfied with what they might be able to do or what the state expects them to do.
The head teacher of this one school did not have a problem with our teacher. She raved about how good he was. OFSTED visited and was similarly impressed. I don't like it when people, despite their apparatus approving of what we do, reject us out of hand.
They're thrilled we are doing we are doing, but are even more thrilled to not pay for it.

Well, fortunately, not everyone is so myopic.
Literacy is not a matter of redundancies.
It is a matter of excellent education, and tapping into the students and, more critically, getting them to tap into themselves.

We will be turning to companies in the business community to do the right thing. To take the long view, not the short. Because they are longsighted, not short sighted. They have to be.

Ultimately, the problem highlighted by the assistant head of child services' refusal to give this one particular school money for a superior program is one of Efficiency triumphing over Effectiveness.
He failed to see that efficiency is good only insofar as it is creates the environment wherein Effectiveness can flourish.

This is not what is happening in this particular borough.

There, it is Penny Wise and Pound Foolish.

drg

I was going to continue responding to that New York Times article on the resurgence of Latin from last week. Then an old student of mine read the blog post right before this one. His/her assessment (all tongue in cheek/sarcastic) was so right on, so funny, so much better than anything I could say - this is a student, you see, someone in the system, as opposed to yours truly, who writes, shall we say, against the system - that I reproduce it here verbatim.

And no, none of this is mine.

Except the quotation marks, the bold, and one bracketed pointer.

The rest is hers/his.

And here it is:

"Ha. In a Latin LANGUAGE class, culture and history are the only things that matter, not to mention the spells in Harry Potter. Who are these people actually teaching Latin grammar and vocabulary? Someone should give them a good talking to....

And to use that lovely metaphor of yours [see the post just before this one], window dressing is okay, but without the window of language to put it on, it is oh so much more enticing."