Last week on B-Greek there was an important discussion regarding approaches to mastering Greek. On the one hand, you what came to be known as the “old school” traditional approach of reading widely and consulting the classic grammars on questions. The other option was “linguistics,” whatever that meant, and was largely understood as opposite or against the traditional approach. Here is the last bit of the thread from Dr. Don Wilkins before my rant:
I’m not arguing that linguistics has no value for ancient Greek, so I’m not surprised at the benefit you received from Prof. Schmidt’s use of Chomsky. My original suggestion was just that the article originally cited could be viewed as an affirmation of the proposition that expertise gained by personally reading the larger corpus of Greek cannot be duplicated by other means, including linguistics as a specialty or profession (without reading the corpus). But there should be mutual respect for the expertise on both sides. It seems to me that scholars widely-read in ancient Greek are much more ready to accommodate the linguists than the reverse, but that may be just my own bias speaking. In any case I’ve said enough; time to go back to lurking.
Don Wilkins
Here is my reply, not so much to Don’s point, but to the premise that traditional understandings of grammar and linguistics are at odds with each other. If you wanted to hear my manifesto, this would probably be pretty close, so I re-post it here for those who have not yet subscribed to B-Greek.
In my view, the primary benefits potentially provided by linguistics are (hopefully) a sound theoretical framework for thinking about language, and some expectation of how this type of language tends to operate. I have found Levinsohn’s cross-linguistic model helpful in both regards. Linguistics will not solve world hunger or the current budget crisis, but it should steer me clear of making wild assertions.
In contrast, I would say that the traditional method places the burden on the teacher or reader to develop the framework, and on the reader to note the patterns in order to understand how the language operates. If you read too small a corpus, your understanding of patterns will likely be skewed. Those who have read for years probably have made corrections and updates along the way, sharpening their understanding.
Regarding linguists, there are some pretty kooky ideas that have been pitched under the banner of linguistics. Not everything linguistic is right. I am blogging through some of these issues at the moment.
At then end of the day, all of us are studying the same language. I have a benchmark for the linguistic description I do. The description I provide should resonate with the person like Carl who has internalized the language. I freely admit that I am still in process in this regard, lots more reading (WIDE reading) to do. It may take one or the other of us tweaking something, but if we are describing the same thing we should arrive at similar results. This also entails bridging the terminology gap, ensuring we are not talking past one another with goobledy gook. Some of Carl’s terms are just as incomprehensible to me as mine are to him, it is a two way street demanding mutual respect.
Let’s go back to my opening contrast between linguists and traditional grammar. My rally cry is not “Every one a linguist!” Having said that, I think providing a more simple, cross-linguistically informed framework to Greek students when they are still wet behind the ears would go a long way toward setting them up for success in their (hopefully lifelong pursuit of) reading Greek. If it is done right, it should even improve their reading and writing of English!
There is currently a pretty big divide between the two at the moment, one that will not quickly abate. We really are after the same thing: a better understanding of what the writers intended to communicate. My research goal is to see the two brought more closely together, which will be an advantage for both. A good cross-linguistic understanding of language should not only add insight to one’s native language, but also to the acquiring and integration of a second or third. On the other hand, the linguists would benefit from the widely-read “old schoolers” when they tell them a theory is half baked. If we really are looking at the same thing, such a reaction should be taken as an indication that more work and thought is needed. Those who are widely read have internalized all that data, and can recognize a bad description when they see one EVEN IF they cannot articulate what the better alternative should be. Thus each has an important role in advancing our understanding of Greek, IMO.
I realize this is pretty idealistic, but it is my vision and goal nonetheless.
In my view, the primary benefits potentially provided by linguistics are (hopefully) a sound theoretical framework for thinking about language, and some expectation of how this type of language tends to operate. I have found Levinsohn's cross-linguistic model helpful in both regards. Linguistics will not solve world hunger or the current budget crisis, but it should steer me clear of making wild assertions. In contrast, I would say that the traditional method places the burden on the teacher or reader to develop the framework, and on the reader to note the patterns in order to understand how the language operates. If you read too small a corpus, your understanding of patterns will likely be skewed. Those who have read for years probably have made corrections and updates along the way, sharpening their understanding. Regarding linguists, there are some pretty kooky ideas that have been pitched under the banner of linguistics. Not everything linguistic is right. I am blogging through some of these issues at the moment. At then end of the day, all of us are studying the same language. I have a benchmark for the linguistic description I do. The description I provide should resonate with the person like Carl who has internalized the language. I freely admit that I am still in process in this regard, lots more reading (WIDE reading) to do. It may take one or the other of us tweaking something, but if we are describing the same thing we should arrive at similar results. This also entails bridging the terminology gap, ensuring we are not talking past one another with goobledy gook. Some of Carl's terms are just as incomprehensible to me as mine are to him, it is a two way street demanding mutual respect. Let's go back to my opening contrast between linguists and traditional grammar. My rally cry is not "Every one a linguist!" Having said that, I think providing a more simple, cross-linguistically informed framework to Greek students when they are still wet behind the ears would go a long way toward setting them up for success in their (hopefully lifelong pursuit of) reading Greek. If it is done right, it should even improve their reading and writing of English! There is currently a pretty big divide between the two at the moment, one that will not quickly abate. We really are after the same thing: a better understanding of what the writers intended to communicate. My research goal is to see the two brought more closely together, which will be an advantage for both. A good cross-linguistic understanding of language should not only add insight to one's native language, but also to the acquiring and integration of a second or third. On the other hand, the linguists would benefit from the widely-read "old schoolers" when they tell them a theory is half baked. If we really are looking at the same thing, such a reaction should be taken as an indication that more work and thought is needed. Those who are widely read have internalized all that data, and can recognize a bad description when they see one EVEN IF they cannot articulate what the better alternative should be. Thus each has an important role in advancing our understanding of Greek, IMO. I realize this is pretty idealistic, but it is my vision and goal nonetheless. In my view, the primary benefits potentially provided by linguistics are (hopefully) a sound theoretical framework for thinking about language, and some expectation of how this type of language tends to operate. I have found Levinsohn's cross-linguistic model helpful in both regards. Linguistics will not solve world hunger or the current budget crisis, but it should steer me clear of making wild assertions. In contrast, I would say that the traditional method places the burden on the teacher or reader to develop the framework, and on the reader to note the patterns in order to understand how the language operates. If you read too small a corpus, your understanding of patterns will likely be skewed. Those who have read for years probably have made corrections and updates along the way, sharpening their understanding. Regarding linguists, there are some pretty kooky ideas that have been pitched under the banner of linguistics. Not everything linguistic is right. I am blogging through some of these issues at the moment. At then end of the day, all of us are studying the same language. I have a benchmark for the linguistic description I do. The description I provide should resonate with the person like Carl who has internalized the language. I freely admit that I am still in process in this regard, lots more reading (WIDE reading) to do. It may take one or the other of us tweaking something, but if we are describing the same thing we should arrive at similar results. This also entails bridging the terminology gap, ensuring we are not talking past one another with goobledy gook. Some of Carl's terms are just as incomprehensible to me as mine are to him, it is a two way street demanding mutual respect. Let's go back to my opening contrast between linguists and traditional grammar. My rally cry is not "Every one a linguist!" Having said that, I think providing a more simple, cross-linguistically informed framework to Greek students when they are still wet behind the ears would go a long way toward setting them up for success in their (hopefully lifelong pursuit of) reading Greek. If it is done right, it should even improve their reading and writing of English! There is currently a pretty big divide between the two at the moment, one that will not quickly abate. We really are after the same thing: a better understanding of what the writers intended to communicate. My research goal is to see the two brought more closely together, which will be an advantage for both. A good cross-linguistic understanding of language should not only add insight to one's native language, but also to the acquiring and integration of a second or third. On the other hand, the linguists would benefit from the widely-read "old schoolers" when they tell them a theory is half baked. If we really are looking at the same thing, such a reaction should be taken as an indication that more work and thought is needed. Those who are widely read have internalized all that data, and can recognize a bad description when they see one EVEN IF they cannot articulate what the better alternative should be. Thus each has an important role in advancing our understanding of Greek, IMO. I realize this is pretty idealistic, but it is my vision and goal nonetheless.
Well, of course the discussion on B-Greek is not finished (some topics such as this recur, in any case); more has been said. As I see it, one problem is an arrogant self-sufficient attitude among many — perhaps most — who hold to traditional Greek grammar: they cannot believe and have yet to see evidence that linguistics can illuminate questions for which they seek their answers in traditional NT grammars; on the other side, there is a common (I won’t say prevalent — I just don’t know) dismissal of the dead grammarians as still speaking to each other in a dead language that fails to communicate to living analysts of language (in academic philosophy there’s a comparable contempt for the giants of centuries preceding Wittgenstein and Comte), coupled with an apparent gleeful determination to talk in any of a number of dialects of a newly-minted Orwellian Newspeak that the “living dead” grammarians across the gulf can’t translate. It may be that there are unreconstructed and unreconstructable churlish rednecks on both sides of this academic chasm, but what is undeniably called for is a serious and meaningful endeavor by “right-thinking” practitioners of both methodological persuasions to construct a more intelligible metalanguage that will permit the older and rustier terminological framework of the dead grammarians to be cross-pollinated by the fresher and wet-behind-the-ears terminological scaffolding of the linguists. I rather doubt that it’s a one-sided deficiency we’re talking about. People have to earnestly want to communicate with each other and make anything useful they have learned intelligible to people who don’t ordinarily speak the particular dialect in which the fresh insight is couched. It is that effort at communication across the chasm that I particularly applaud in Steve’s Discourse Grammar: it is exceedingly rare. I do believe, however, that those who discern genuinely helpful and illuminating perspectives on how language functions in what the “foreigners” are saying will make it easier for still others to engage in real dialogue.
Carl, this issue is indeed a two-way street, one littered with wrecks of head-on collisions by those who insist it is actually one-way. I think that we are nearing a corner in the discussion, but I expect it will take the better part of a generation to begin to see a change take hold. The change will probably not come from the majority of older scholars who have already driven a stake in their plot of lentils, but from the young Turks who see the pointlessness of the continued bickering. Your comments about the aspect wars souring the discussion are insightful. Trying to prove a theory by showing how inept the others are will win few over. It polarizes the discussion, probably ending it.
Another point I have been noticing is the care (or lack of it) that scholars take in reading the work of others. The idea of “peer review” is oft upheld as what sets us apart from the common folk. Yet for all of this posturing, I continue to see instances where a peer should have caught an issue if there was a critical reading. As interest in linguistics grows, there are theses coming out from schools that are ill-equipped to supervise such research. The advisers lack the requisite background. Since it is new and innovative, it gets published, granting it an authority status that younger scholars are seemingly afraid to question. If it’s published and peer-reviewed, it must be correct, right? I ran into this in my dissertation studies: a volume came out as I was midway through the writing process. It was a confused mess of ideas, and therefore difficult to summarize because it failed to adequately engage the literature. It took the shopping cart approach, adding things that were helpful, ignoring the rest. When I asked Christo about it, he told me to just ignore it. Since the author had not engaged the literature, there was little point in trying to engage his argument. Its flaws went clear to the bone. Unfortunately, that was not the last such work I have seen. The OT folks patrol the field quite well in linguistics, the peer-review process strikes me as much stronger there than in NT Greek. Classical studies also seems quite well policed, there is some fine work going on in information structure and pragmatics.
As always, thanks for the dialogue and the comment.
“Those who are widely read have internalized all that data, and can recognize a bad description when they see one EVEN IF they cannot articulate what the better alternative should be.”
I think this is important to remember. People who internalize a language will, to varying degrees, have an instinctual understanding of its process. The inability to consciously articulate the reasons why should not be held against traditionalists, even though I can understand how frustrating it must feel to hear “you’re wrong. I can’t quite put my finger on why.” However, when you learn language by immersion with only the help of normal non-linguists, you have to hear that sort of response often anyway. Humility and, as you said, mutual respect, are key here.
That said, which approach should be used for first-year Greek classes? It’s very difficult to teach a class of students who do not know what an adjective is. So, at least for the first year (in which students cannot read a wide range of texts anyway) a linguistic approach may be more suitable.
Lest I be seen as arguing for one side or the other overall, I am simply pointing out my concern from the perspective of the first-year tutor.
Gary, although there are limited resources at the moment for doing so, I think there can be a middle ground, seeking to leverage the strengths of both. I think linguistics can provide a useful framework for thinking about language, beginning with English in my context. I am working on outlining a book that would provide just such an introduction. Regarding the problem of wide reading early, James Tauber has described a “new kind of graded reader” that would be great. But changes like I am describing are going to require more work on the part of the tutor, not only in researching them but in implementing them in the classroom.