Ἔν ἀρχῇ ἤν ὁ λόγος... Ancient Greek vocabulary acquisition and education Jeroen Vis, the Netherlands
Introduction Importance of vocabulary in foreign language acquisition is stressed in many studies. Huge body of literature on late foreign vocabulary acquisition. Sparse systematic research on Ancient Greek.
Outline of presentation Several topics related to Ancient Greek vocabulary acquisition. 1. Learning approach: activity based vs. paired-associate. 2. Defining difficult words. 3. Role of the Greek alphabet.
Aims of presentation To stimulate the discussion on Ancient Greek (and Latin) (vocabulary) acquisition and education. To add (experimental) linguistic research to this discussion. To provide linguistic tools for designing didactic material.
Theoretical background Knowledge of vocabulary is important in second language acquisition Speakers should have acces to about 95% of a text (Nation 1990) For this, vocabulary items are needed How can this status best be achieved? Are there innate difficult words? Is the Greek alphabet problematic?
Background: Ancient Greek There is sparse empirical research with respect to Ancient Greek vocabulary acquisition Textbooks only provide bilingual word lists, vocabulary activities are marginal Can we incorporate current research in Modern Languages? – Which point of view? – Ancient Greek exhibits some peculiarities Additional experimental data are needed
Characteristics of teaching AG Peculiarities of Ancient Greek: – No spoken language > input is only written – Traditional method of teaching – Different alphabet – Unfamiliar concepts – Input limited to classroom Classroom setting, including – School age – Beginners – Diversity of items – Students’ learning preference
Learning approaches Two main approaches concerning the most effective way of acquiring foreign vocabulary (Modern Languages) A) paired-associate (Mondria 2003, de Groot 2010): the concept is already in the brain, it only needs to acquire a new ‘label’. Other activities are merely distracting and time-consuming. B) Activity based (Hulstijn & Laufer 2001 among others): more involvement leads to better acquisition. Both approaches are supported by experimental data.
Experimental data 3 test conditions: multiple choice activity, paired associate, multiple choice + paired associate immediate post-test and delayed post-test
Test condition → test ↓ paired- associate multiple choice glosses paired- associate + multiple choice glosses immediate post-test mean: 19,40 s.d. :1,73 mean: 16,11 s.d.: 3,30 mean: 17,74 s.d.: 3,00 delayed post- test mean: 14,12 s.d.: 3,89 mean: 11,69 s.d.: 3,37 mean: 11,00 s.d.: 3,74 vocabulary loss mean: 5,28 s.d.: 3,17 mean: 4,42 s.d.: 2,52 mean: 6,73 s.d.: 3,24
For short term acquisition, the paired associate approach seems best. For longer term acquisition, the activity based approach seems promising >> Learning by means of PA, deep processing by means of activity based learning
Defining difficult words 3 parameters, partly based on Groot (2006 & 2010) : General idea: more activity in the brain makes a word more difficult to learn A.Phonetic form – Focus on clusters [pt], [kt], [ps], [ks] B.Meaning – abstract vs. concrete meaning C. Grammatical category – Not included in Groot, substantive – verb – adjective, possibly related to #B
Experimental data All parameters and combination of parameters tested in a learning task No significant results Conclusion: difficulty of words can’t be defined in terms of these parameters a priori Teacher base their estimation on frequency of the word
Role of the alphabet Different alphabet Difficulties for language acquisition according to some teachers Greek alphabet vs. transcription Beginners vs. advanced learners No significant results
Conclusions Paired associate is an efficient learning approach Vocabulary activities contribute to deep processing Difficult words can’t be defined a priori Teachers have a different idea of difficult words than pupils The alphabet plays no role in learning vocabulary
Thank you See for more details and downloads: