Hans Ørberg at CAAS 2004 in Philadelphia.
by John P. Piazza
Hans and his son Anders
Ørberg
Hans Ørberg with (Left to Right)
Nancy Llewellyn, Robert Patrick, John Piazza and
Andrew Gollan
Let me begin by saying that
what I have recorded here is a collection of my own reactions, thoughts, and
responses to this fascinating weekend. As a teacher who believes that Latin
should be taught more like modern languages are or ought to be taught, this was
a very exciting few days, for I was able to have contact with Ørberg himself,
as well as many of the teachers in the U.S. who are currently using his series Lingua
Latina Per Se Illustrata. This weekend helped me not only to learn more
about the method as it is actually used by teachers, but it also allowed me to
grasp even more so the complexity and challenges of teaching Latin, regardless
of one’s method. I do not pretend to represent the views and opinions of Dr.
Ørberg or any other teacher who was present, and to whom I refer. I simply want
to share some of the ideas and opinions to which I was exposed, many of which
are paraphrased and/or anecdotal.
The Panel on Ørberg’s
Method.
Dr. Ørberg started off this
panel with a brief history of his book, how it came about, and then discussed
the method in some detail. He began with a sad but funny story of Winston
Churchill’s experience with Latin as a very young boy. This was shown as an
example of what not to do. At one point, when faced with a list of all the
forms of mensa, young Churchill innocently asked his teacher why someone
would ever want to say mensa, here meaning “O Table.” The response was a
threat of severe punishment for such smart-alec talk. Clearly there is
something wrong with the way Latin has been, and is still often taught. From a
language acquisition perspective, one could say that what passes for reading in
most Latin programs is memorization of forms and the deciphering of
texts, namely the laborious process of translating every word into one’s native
language before any attempt at comprehension is attempted. This is also known
as the grammar-translation approach.
When Dr. Ørberg was a
student, the linguist Jensen had developed what is called the Nature Method,
and he was producing books which presented modern languages in a way that was
thought to be more “natural.” This means that the abstract rules of grammar,
syntax, etc., are intuited by the student after reading many examples of simple
but correct and immediately comprehensible text (cf. Krashen’s notion of
Comprehensible Input). This method is inductive, as opposed to the top-down
approach of the grammar translation method, which begins with rules and
vocabulary, and then one reads a text by deductively applying these rules.
The text of Lingua Latina
(LL) is meant to be self explanatory (hence the subtitle per se illustrata),
without the student needing ever to make use of her native language.
Comprehension is immediate through the use of comprehensible vocabulary and
context, as well as visual aids. The “rules” come after, not before the act of
reading: “By the time they learn the ‘rule’, the students already have it in
their bones.” See Seneca’s Letter 6.5, in which he contrasts learning per
exempla and per praecepta.
This is also called
“Contextual Induction” for any new words can be easily understood from the
context, be it other words or visual aids. Central to this notion of language
learning is the notion that the content must stimulate interest in the student
if it is to be learned in a lasting way. This method is in fact more efficient
as well as more rewarding. It also produces the satisfaction of immediately
understanding what one reads without having to “decipher” through recourse to
one’s native language
Dr. Ørberg pointed out that
the principles he was presenting were themselves derived from many years of
classroom experience, in true inductive fashion. The placement of words and the
introduction of new words have been very carefully planned out based on what
actually works for students. Also, the uses of words and the constructions have
all been compared to Latin literature, in order that a student who has gone
through the books will be able to make the transition to “real literature”
without much difficulty.
Christopher Brown
“Cognitive Psychology in Latin Teaching”
In his work, Brown has
brought modern theories of psychology, linguistics, and language acquisition,
to bear on the teaching and learning of Latin. He began by quoting Chomsky, who
asserted that learning is 99% motivation, and that this can overcome any bad
teaching method. Perhaps this explains why so many have been to succeed in
Latin, in spite of terrible teachers,
textbooks, and methods.
In addition, we see a modern
predecessor to Ørberg in W. H. D. Rouse, who, with R. B. Appleton, developed
what is called the Direct Method for teaching Latin in response to what he saw
as ineffective and unnatural teaching methods (their philosophy is described in
the book Latin on the Direct Method. Univ. of London Press, 1925. Read the first chapter online
here). He thought that the learning of Latin had to be as natural as
possible. This is echoed in the thought of Thomas Aquinas, who exhorted
teachers naturam imitare, that is, imitate the natural process though a
calculated gradation. But it can’t be a purely natural model, for a beginner
who is immersed in real spoken language has lots of input, but no
comprehension. This somewhat artificial method is in fact more efficient,
rather than contrary to, nature.
For a powerful example of the
effectiveness of Lingua Latina, Brown pointed out that in 1997 Italy had only
one teacher who was using LL. Currently, over 1000 teachers in Italy use the
method, thanks in large part to that one teacher, Luigi Miraglia. He hosted and
attended conferences where he was able to show just how proficient his students
were, after studying for only a few years.
One important point that
Brown mentioned is that LL does not close any doors. If teachers want to
embrace the purely inductive and intuitive modern language approach, no
problem. But if teachers want to, or need to, place more emphasis on grammar,
they can do that as well. The Ørberg e-mail list is full of comments by teachers
who use LL in all different ways.
Whereas most books force teachers into one spot on the spectrum between
Krashen’s Acquisition on the one hand, and grammar/translation on the other,
the virtue of LL is that it supports all different approaches. Whether or not
Latin will be taught inductively or deductively depends on when the teacher
wishes to introduce the rules of grammar before or after the readings.
In terms of the
“authenticity” of the Latin prose in LL, Dr. Ørberg has taken great pains to
make the simplified text emulate the actual vocabulary and usage of ancient
authors. In addition, all of the drawings are based on ancient sculpture,
relief, etc, so that the student is immersed in real Roman artifacts, be they
textual or otherwise.
Jeanne Neumann, Davidson
College
Dr. Neumann offered her
perspective on teaching LL at the college level, in an accelerated environment,
due to the time constraints of first year Latin. This pace forces the method to
be less inductive than perhaps would be ideal, but the rules are reinforced by
seeing examples in the reading. Large oral component in class. Students respond
well to this, and wonder how Latin could possibly be taught without being
spoken in the classroom.
Against the suggestion that
the text of LL is not “real,” Dr. Neumann asks: what is “real” Latin? If only
the Roman authors are real, than is Erasmus fake? However artificial it may be,
LL provides many examples of how Latin prose actually works. Only through this
kind of quantity of reading can students begin to recognize common usage. The
pace limits the amount of time spent scrutinizing the text in class, but she
develops exercises which demonstrate specific constructions. The reading will
reinforce this.
At the end of the course,
students come out with an experience of the Latin language which is more likely
to stick with them (and be positive) than more traditional approaches.
Karen Hersch, Temple
University
Dr Hersch offers the
perspective of a Junior faculty member, making the switch from Wheelock to LL
in a college classroom. She began by addressing the tendency of teachers in
this position simply to superimpose the structure of Wheelock upon LL, that is,
simply to teach and explain LL as if it were Wheelock.
The primary value of LL is
that it provides a much smoother transition from “artificial” to “real” prose.
With other books, this transition is too harsh, the gulf too wide, mainly
because they present “Latin in a vacuum,” that is, the simplified Latin is too simplified, too safe,
too much like English. Wheelock also requires a reading supplement, because
there is not enough quantity of reading, and a lack of examples of the
grammatical concepts just introduced. In this way, LL is more complete in that
it gives the necessary quantity of connected prose (as opposed to short and
disconnected sentences) full of examples.
In addition, many of the
“problems” (only from an overly politically correct perspective), raised
throughout the narrative, provide opportunities for discussing the realities of
Roman society: slavery, class, ugly women, etc.
One difficulty for Latin
teachers is that students tend to memorize rather than understand passages, in
order to do well on exams. In response: would it be so bad if students were
memorizing whole chapters from LL? At least they are putting decent Latin in
their heads. In addition, there is no English translation for them to memorize,
so they are not resorting to English.
Martha Davis, Temple
University
Dr. Davis has tried almost
all of the Latin books out there, and has found LL to be the best of them.
There are some specific difficulties in teaching LL at the college level: time
limit, emphasis on teaching paradigms, prior student experience with different
methods, and resulting resistance to LL. Even with students whose first
language is not English, the LL approach has been successful, probably because
it relies less on the students’ knowledge of English and English grammar. Dr.
Davis then discussed some strategies for eliminating as much English as
possible from the classroom: In chapter 1, expand the map to include more
cities and countries; teach students “nonne” and other interrogatives from the
start; and use the GRAMMATICA LATINA sections as a quiz.
Conclusion
I was delighted to be around
so many enthusiastic teachers who are using LL with much success at all levels
of education. In addition, Ron Pullins, the U.S. Distributor of LL (http://www.pullins.com) is truly dedicated to
helping teachers in whatever way possible to expand the use of this book in
schools. Especially in public schools, teachers face administrative and
financial obstacles, and it is good to know that they have an ally in Ron. Even
before the conference had finished, there was buzz about expanding the Ørberg
panel at next year’s CAAS—as well as at other conferences (e.g. there is a
spoken Latin panel being organized for CAMWS in Wisconsin in April). Hope to
see you there. Vale!