Adapted from:
THE INTRODUCTION TO BIBLICAL HEBREW
THE PRACTICAL WAY
by
RAHEL HALABE
B.A. Arabic Language and Literature – The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1974
High School Teaching Diploma – The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1974
Translation of Scientific Writings Diploma – The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1981
A MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY EDUCATION
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
April 2005
Rahel Halabe
ABSTRACT
Ancient languages, including Biblical Hebrew, are usually introduced in academic settings in a very scholarly way. Grammatical systems are presented separately, meticulously, in full detail, utilizing specialized linguistic terminology, and mostly out of context. It seems, though, that students do not necessarily end the introductory course ready to access a straight forward biblical text independently and with the ability to derive some aesthetic, intellectual and maybe even spiritual pleasure from it. The Introduction to Biblical Hebrew the Practical Way is an attempt to provide students with better tools for this level. It balances between what should be the two major demands of an introductory language program, those of reflecting the most frequent, lexically and grammatically, and of sequencing the basic material pedagogically. The program shows how research and practices from related fields: second language research and practices, Functional Grammar, Pedagogical Grammar, general learning theories, translation and others, can enhance the teaching of ancient ancient languages. Curricula informed and inspired by these fields can provide students with more efficient, effective, less intimidating, and much more meaningful learning experiences with better chances of attainment.
TABLE OF CONTENT
2.1. Review of Four Textbooks and One Program
2.1.3. (Kittel, Hoffer & Wright, 1989)
2.1.4. (Simon, Resnikoff, Motzkin, 1992)
2.5. The Mediated Learning Experience Theory
CHAPTER III Program Description
3.2 Creating a Mediated Learning Experience
3.3 Functional Grammar, Pedagogical Grammar & the Teaching of Biblical Hebrew
3.4. Sequencing of the Grammar Taught
3.6 Imparting Culture through Language
3.7 Reading the Biblical Text with Comprehension
3.8 The ‘Tool Box’, Parsing Charts & Homework
5.1. List of Grammatical Subjects Studied
5. 5. Possession Suffix Paradigms
5. 6. A Simplistic Model for the Interpretation of yiqtol & qatal
5. 7. Qal Paradigm of the Regular Verb + Qal Paradigms of other root groups
5. 8. Nif’al Paradigm of the Regular Verb
5. 9. Pi’el Paradigm of the Regular Verb
5. 10. Hif’il Paradigm of the Regular Verb
5. 11. Hitpa’el Paradigm of the Regular Verb
5. 12. Comprehensive Chart of Common verbs in the Qal
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Unlike the teaching of modern languages using an array of methods and practices, ancient languages, including Biblical Hebrew (BH), are usually introduced in academic settings in a very scholarly way. Grammatical systems are presented separately, meticulously, in full detail, utilizing specialized linguistic terminology, and mostly out of context, leaving the literary and exegetical treatment of the text content for more advanced levels. It seems, though, that students do not necessarily end the introductory course ready to access a straight forward biblical text independently and with the ability to derive some aesthetic, intellectual and maybe even spiritual pleasure from it. The objective of learning BH is not to be able to speak it, nor write in it, or even to acquire the skills necessary to assign vowels to a classical text. The main objective is reading with comprehension, albeit with the help of a lexicon & other aids, hopefully together with some appreciation of the text in its original form.
Considering the limited time frame (100-150 hours) usually allotted to an introductory course, the Introduction to Biblical Hebrew the Practical Way (IBHPW) described here, is a curriculum that attempts to concentrate students’ and teacher’s time and energy toward this goal, leaving more deliberation and scholarly details to later, more advanced turns of the learning spiral.
For the total beginners, who are not always versed even in the grammar of their own first language (L1), the BH introductory course is often a very difficult first encounter. The common academic course seems to be geared toward scholarly and linguistically oriented students. Moreover, the texts demonstrating the grammar taught are either heavily adapted biblical passages or at best authentic verses chosen for their grammatical value only in order to demonstrate what is taught. Such a course might allow those linguistically inclined students to achieve a high level of competence in many technically intricate topics such as vowel reduction, all the possible vocalizations of the definite article, the subgroup of the Segholates, or the many possible translations of the elusive BH verb. At the same time the course might leave other students with less than satisfactory skills and with low chances of retaining the information imparted beyond the final exam. Furthermore, as it emphasizes memorization and analytical skills, it overlooks opportunities to demonstrate the spirit of the text, and provide the students with a meaningful experience beyond the grammatical.
Couldn’t the introductory objectives be achieved in a more efficient and more effective way? Wouldn’t the learning, and indeed the teaching, of the introduction be much easier, if we concentrated on the most useful material for the identification of the different elements of a passage and its interpretation as a whole? Can’t we postpone much of the minute grammatical details and their linguistic terminology to a later stage, when students progress to higher levels and have to analyze the more poetic, complex and ambiguous passages? Moreover, should we concentrate on vocabulary and grammar only, or rather, allow, already in the earliest stages, for some cultural, literary, theological and even spiritual insights, derived from an authentic original text? Couldn’t some glimpses of what the students expect from these texts, so important to them, find its way through the thick wall of necessary grammar and make the introductory course a more meaningful experience?
This paper describes an alternative, more pragmatic approach, which proved its potential in achieving all the above. Students are presented with the ‘big picture’ of Hebrew and its ‘behaviour’ and provided with the essential tools that would allow them to read with comprehension very early on much of a straight forward biblical text. The approach will be demonstrated through the program that has been tried, developed and taught at the Vancouver School of Theology since 1997. Even though parts of the program continue to be adjusted and improved, its general methodology and practices have been securely established. It has been well received and appreciated by students as well as by colleagues. Despite its seemingly more superficial character, this is a rigorous program, that provides its students with good skills and allows them to start appreciating much of the Hebrew biblical text in its original after a relatively short time.
The IBHPW provides the students with the skills and tools to identify the most frequent vocabulary, word formations and their inflection, the characteristic syntax and other basic features of the language. Good familiarity with all of the above is fostered in order to enable them to read and interpret fairly accurately most of the prose text, as well as a good portion of the poetic texts of the Hebrew Bible. The course presents the students with a large picture of the language and a good idea of its ‘behaviour’, and at the same time provides those who do wish to continue to more advance study a very solid basis upon which they can build further, more scholarly study.
But linguistic skills are not the only objective of this course. The program aims at allowing the students an access to meaningful texts right from the beginning. Many students are familiar in various degrees with the Bible, its stories and main characters through its English translations, and through its many manifestations in Western culture, languages, and literature. They really appreciate encountering even the shortest passage they know about, in its original Hebrew form. This is made possible already in the very early stages due to the use of frequency as one of the major organizers used in the program. Familiarity with the frequent allows for reading with comprehension of a considerable part of any text, and adds a significant and very rewarding facet to their skill building endeavour.
The very early encounter with the actual text is always done with reference to context, and with its translations from various sources provided. This serves another objective of the course – shaking students’ confidence in any one translation of the Hebrew Bible they might be depending upon. Due to reasons such as our cultural and historical and even grammatical (time/tense perception) distance from BH, and the unavailability of native informants, the original text might lend itself sometimes to various valid interpretations. Furthermore, in ambiguous cases, translators might choose their interpretation based on their personal opinions, philosophies and religious beliefs. By learning the grammar and examining the text and its various (mostly, but not necessarily, valid) translations, the emergence of critical reading of translations is fostered.
Despite these clear objectives, experimenting with the selection and prioritizing of what has to be taught in the introductory level, has required much thought and many versions. It has required the consideration of different sequencing, and timing of program components, the proportional emphasis and level of every grammatical system presented, and the choice of texts demonstrating the grammar taught. All of the above, together with serious consideration of students’ reactions and responses, and with my ongoing reassessment of the material, resulted in the development of what I consider, a solid program. Students’ achievements and their satisfaction, as well as my own ease with the delivery of the complex material, are probably the best evidence for the success of the program.
The description of the IBHPW offered here is, therefore, an attempt to suggest a more efficient and effective way of teaching the basics of BH and developing
students’ skills for reading a straightforward biblical text with comprehension and appreciation. At the same time, it suggests enlarging the scope of the introductory course from lexical and grammatical only, to a course infused with more meaningful experience by demonstrating what is learned through the authentic texts. These carefully chosen texts touching on formative stories and their protagonists, themes, ideas, literary style and more, can be relevant to the students who are looking forward to their actual biblical studies.
The paper will start with a literature review, followed by a description and an analysis of the suggested curriculum. The methodologies applied in this program will be demonstrated through their applications in exerpts from the actual material. The paper will not include feedback from students by way of questionaires, nor will it use actual exams or other material produced by them. Finally, some recommendation for further research and development will be made for the improvement of this program and others.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Finding literature that discusses teaching methodology for Biblical Hebrew (or, in fact, any other ancient language) is not very easy. The teaching of modern languages in recent decades has been drawing much from the fields of functional grammar and pedagogical grammar. There have been waves of experimentation and many practical and theoretical debates, all demonstrating clear changes and development. The teaching of ancient languages, on the other hand, especially in academia, has not enjoyed such deliberations and seems to a large extent, to be following the traditional ways of language instruction.
What are the reasons for the conservative methods and practices in the teaching of Biblical Hebrew? Indeed the appeal of the biblical texts has always been there, stemming from attraction to one’s tradition, theology and spirituality, interest in literature, religious studies, ancient Middle Eastern studies, etc. Still, the relative number of students interested in learning BH, as in learning other ancient languages, is limited. Also, ancient languages are taught by scholars, experts in their fields, who are usually concerned with research and with the body of knowledge they want to impart to the next generation of scholars, and much less with the pedagogy that would enhance both their teaching and their students’ learning.
Literature review for this paper, therefore, cannot be limited to articles dealing specifically with the teaching methodologies of BH. It will start, therefore, with a sample of four BH textbooks which have been widely used in universities in North America, as well as a description of a BH program for elementary school children. The review will continue looking at three articles proposing new approaches in the teaching of ancient languages. Review of literature discussing functional grammar as well as pedagogical grammar will follow in the attempt to find out if some of their contribution to the teaching of modern languages would be relevant to the teaching of ancient languages, and BH in particular. Finally, a general learning theory, which has been a great inspiration for the development of the IBHPW, will be described and will lead to the description of the curriculum itself.
2.1. Review of Four Textbooks and One Program
This sample of four BH textbooks and one program will be reviewed and compared in order to learn about major difficulties found in the teaching of the introductory course, and to evaluate the different ways taken to solve them.
2.1.1. The Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Lambdin, 1973) is a comprehensive grammar textbook. It presents a very detailed picture of BH grammar, without exceeding a defined lexical body of about 900 most frequent words and verb roots. Concentrating students’ attention on this relatively small number is not unreasonable, as these words (occurring in the Bible more than 25 time each) account for more than 80% of the total word count of the Bible (Haramati, 1983. p. 121). This essential vocabulary could have allowed for a good choice of authentic verses to demonstrate the grammar taught, and hence to introduce the student to the real biblical text very early on. Unfortunately, the author chose to avoid this opportunity (requiring heavy use of the concordance), and instead, to offer only artificial BH sentences, and even when presenting biblical passages, to greatly simplify them.
Generally speaking this textbook is well structured. Conveniently, it introduces the Noun Sentence right in the first chapter. Although much less frequent than the verbal sentence, the noun sentence, for its simplicity, is a good vehicle for the delivery of most of the basics (nouns, adjectives, prepositions, construct chains, numbers and many others). But the author does not continue to take advantage of this efficient medium, as he rushes to start teaching the verb with all its complexities before completing the introduction of all the basics, not conditioned by the verb. The teaching of the verb, therefore, is interrupted by the teaching of more and more of the basics. This is unfortunate, as the Hebrew verb system, with its complex morphology and peculiar perception of time, so foreign to the student, whose first language is Indo-European, deserves an uninterrupted discussion. Also, with all the basics learned earlier, there could have been more opportunities to demonstrate the verb in fuller, more authentic excerpts.
The presentation of the verb itself is well organized for the most part. It starts with the first of the 7 stems (Qal), introducing gradually the conjugations of all the forms (tenses) through the strong roots, then moving on to the less simple root classes. Pedagogically, this is, therefore, a wise planning of the material as, indeed, much of the grammar learned through the Qal transfers well into the study of the remaining six verb stems. Laying a solid basis for the verb through a thorough study of the Qal first facilitates the understanding of identical (ie. affixes, tense interpretations) and similar (ie. behaviour of the various root classes) phenomena in the other stems, and thus, the completion of the verb system.
However, solid sequencing is not evident in teaching the Hebrew verb forms (tenses, aspects & moods) and their interpretations. For example, the wayiqtol and the qatal are the two most common ways to indicate the past. Considering that most of the verbs in the biblical text refer to the past, one would expect the introduction of both forms relatively early. While the qatal is indeed the first form to be taught right away with the introduction of the verb, it’s not less important (and may be more frequent) companion wayiqtol waits for 15 more chapters, before it is presented, with a few more, much less common, if not rare, tense/moods/aspects interpretations in between. Thus, frequency which was considered seriously when choosing the vocabulary used in this textbook, was unfortunately ignored altogether when introducing the array of interpretations of the verb forms. Finding the right balance between what might seem logically to be a gradual and easier teaching/learning sequence, on one hand, and what is very frequent (but not necessarily easy to learn) is certainly a challenge with which language instructors and authors of textbooks keep struggling.
2.1.2. Biblical Hebrew, an Introductory Grammar (Kelley, 1992) uses about 1300 frequent words and verb roots as its basic vocabulary. As the author is careful to use only authentic material drawn from the actual biblical text, without any modification, this textbook allows for a good inventory of verses demonstrating what is taught. Due to this consistency, the student is introduced and becomes accustomed to the original biblical style without it becoming distorted by simplification and adaptation. A variety of exercises, all based on actual biblical phrases and verses are offered, always with their translations and exact references. This is certainly an advantage for the students who can experience, at any level, a real contact with the biblical text and the rewarding feeling of being able to interpret it. The role of the translation offered here, as in other textbooks (Lambdin 1973; Kittel, Hoffer, Wright, 1989), is important as it provides the students with a schema (Hadley, 2001, chapter 4) to the Hebrew text. Such schema is usually helpful in providing a general idea about the content of the text. Together with a serious analysis of Hebrew terms, and the help of a lexicon and grammar, these translations can facilitate comprehension. In many cases, the striking difference between the solid conclusions reached by the student through careful analysis, and the translation offered (literary but not necessarily literal) is an important lesson by itself.
Almost all of the basics, not conditioned by the verb, are taught in this textbook before the introduction of the verb. The Noun Sentence is introduced early, and allows the demonstration of all that is taught before the verbal sentence in actual authentic verse.
However, there seems to be a problem with the organization of the chapters dealing with the verb. The author chose to treat every verb form separately, starting with the suffix form qatal in the Qal with all its possible meanings (in terms of tense, aspect and mood). He continues by presenting very briefly that same suffix form in all of the remaining 6 stems. Throughout, the suffix form is demonstrated by verbs of the strong roots only. The prefix form yiqtol follows the same pattern, as well as the remaining forms: the imperative, the infinitives and the participle (and again all through the strong roots only). The introduction of the other root classes (gezarot) is postponed until after the completion of all the verb forms in all 7 verb stems.
Pedagogically this kind of cross section is problematic, as it strings together in much too fast a pace, too many grammatical concepts foreign to the students (ie. one verb form which can be interpreted into different tenses, or one root which translates into different English verbs when appearing in different stems). As discussed in 2.1.1 there is also a serious problem with the delay of the teaching of wayiqtol this time, due to the comprehensive teaching of the qatal and its application to all the verb stems, before proceeding to the next forms. Moreover, while preferring to teach all the verb forms and all the stems through the strong roots first, students’ encounter with some of the 50(!!) most frequent verbs (of theQal stem), which happen to be of the weak roots, is postponed to the last third of the textbook. Postponing important verbs such as ידע, בוא, עשה, היה, הלך, לקח, נתן (give, take, go, be, do, come, know…) naturally limits the choice of verses offered throughout the textbook. This is certainly an unfortunate weakness of a textbook which has other significant strengths. The author has put much work into searching the concordance for the appropriate authentic biblical passages to demonstrate what is taught and drilled. His choice though would have been much larger earlier on, if he sequenced the grammatical subjects imparted with more consideration to both frequency and learnability.
2.1.3. Biblical Hebrew, a Text and Workbook (Kittel, Hoffer & Wright, 1989) is certainly an innovative textbook. As indicated by its subtitle, it is designed as a workbook emphasizing inductive learning. The student is expected to apply the newly acquired analytic skills right from the beginning, and when reading biblical verses, to parse their verbs and then interpret them. This might sound too technical, but the authors mention in their introduction, that they see as their main objectives the transmitting of “an appreciation for the structure and beauty of the Hebrew text,” while “alerting the students to the fact that we are reading this text in a time and culture far removed from its origins, and that we are working with a language which is built quite differently from English.” These intentions are commendable, especially in a textbook which uses only authentic texts to demonstrate all that is taught. Unfortunately, it seems that the strong emphasis on the technical and the inductive overshadows the possibility of attaining these goals. The instruction in every chapter, which is based on one specific verse, does not expand readily from the particular to the general, and does not usually present the whole ‘picture’ with a paradigm following the encounter of the various grammatical items. Moreover, particular grammatical items of various systems are introduced one after the other, before each complete system is explained and understood on its own and with relation to the others.
The authors consider frequency very seriously, and organize the textbook material accordingly, as they continue to explain in their introduction: “…we take an uncommon approach by teaching (in descending order of frequency) the most common constructions, the most common verbs, the most common grammar and syntax.” The vocabulary used consists of the most frequent 400 words and roots (a useful list in descending order of frequency is provided as an appendix).
While in the previous two textbooks reviewed, frequency of forms and vocabulary was not taken into consideration in sequencing what is taught, this textbook carries frequency too far the other way. Frequency is indeed of utmost importance while sequencing the grammar to be imparted, but here it is taken to a great extreme, unbalanced with other considerations. The pedagogical issue of learnability seems to have been completely ignored. Questions such as, how foreign a system is to the learner, how it relates to other systems taught, and what the optimal timing and extent are for its teaching, could not have been weighed seriously enough. For example, while introducing the most frequent verbs שמע, וילך, וידבר, ויאמר (he said, he spoke, he went, he heard) as the main (but not only!) lexical and grammatical items dealt with in the first 4 chapters, all of the following grammatical items are introduced: 2 stems (Qal & Pi’el), 2 verb forms (yiqtol & qatal), strong roots as well as the irregular root ה.ל.ך with its first letter not apparent, VavConversive, and of course more grammar and vocabulary not relating to the verb. Pedagogically this seems to be an unreasonable concentration of new developmental (see 2.4 below), still unrelated information, especially as there is no attempt made to go beyond every item and make sense of it within the wider paradigm and system. This approach might work for students who have had previous non-academic exposure to Hebrew (ie. modern Hebrew speakers, Jewish upbringing), and who through such a method can understand the grammar beyond the body of language already familiar to them. However, for students who are using this textbook to facilitate their first encounter with BH, this is undoubtedly a very confusing and intimidating way to study the language. Toning down the extreme frequency approach combined with other pedagogical considerations, could have resulted in a better language learning program and could provide for a better chance for the attainment of its objectives.
2.1.4. The First Hebrew Primer (Simon, Resnikoff, Motzkin, 1992) is a user friendly popular textbook not meant for academia, but in fact used in some universities for the introductory level. It uses a controlled list of the approximately 350 most common words and roots. The authors do not assume that the readers are competent in the grammar of their own first language, English. They are careful to explain every grammatical term (subject, definite article, adjective, etc.). In order to describe Hebrew grammatical phenomena existent or nonexistent in English, simple descriptive terms are used, instead of the accepted linguistic ones (‘word pair’ instead of ‘construct chain,’ ‘clipped form’ instead of ‘apocopated form,’ etc.). These sensible terms serve as scaffolding for the introductory stage, leading to more scholarly stages to follow after completion of the Primer. At the end of the book, readers are provided with a comparative list of the Primer friendly terms against the scholarly terms, as well as with a suggested bibliography for further study.
Bright verb paradigm charts of the various forms, stems, and root classes are provided with large fonts and distinguishable hollow fonts for prefixes and suffixes. These kinds of organizers, uncommon in academic textbooks, are in fact very helpful aids for the beginner, as they help them visualize patterns very clearly. Other very helpful aids are comprehensive inflection charts of common nouns, and common prepositions, as well as common verbs in the 7 stems.
Unfortunately, these very effective organizers and aids are not matched with a well designed program. The spread of one paradigm through several chapters (qatal in Qal), the delay of the introduction to the most common past tense form (wayiqtol, discussed in 2.1.1), and the interruption in the teaching of the verb with many other grammatical items are obvious weaknesses.
The structure of the Primer seems to lean too much towards ascending difficulty rather than to descending frequency, thus delaying the access to the actual biblical text. This approach forces the authors to demonstrate what is taught through artificial sentences rather than actual verses. Therefore, they cannot avoid producing forced or convoluted prose in both form and content. This happens even in the guided reading of Ruth which, even though it approaches the authentic prose towards the last chapters, produces a strange hybrid of ‘biblical’ style. The above is in contradiction with the declared aim which is to help the student “discover and delight in the clear, strong rhythms of original Hebrew – a joy unattainable through reading even the best of translations” (Simon et al., 1992, p. i).
2.1.5 L’shon Hatorah, prefix-suffix workbooks (Widner, Y. 1992). Last, but not least, I would like to acknowledge the contribution to the initial planning of this program made by Rabbi Yehuda Widner through the presentation of his L’Shon Hatorah method in one of the Mini CAJE conferences. Rabbi Widner teaches the first elementary grades in a Jewish Religious school in the U.S. To enhance his students’ comprehension of the biblical text (Genesis), he fosters in various creative ways their familiarity with the most frequent vocabulary in every chapter learned. At the same time he teaches his young students very early on, how to analyze a complex word, identify its prefixes and suffixes, recognize its main lexical component and translate the whole. The prefixes and suffixes taught include the very common pronominal suffixes (possession, direct object, verb subject), and very common prefixes (definite article, בכלמ , prepositions, Vav Conjunctive, Vav Conversive, verb subject, etc.) This seemingly demanding approach is very innovative for young children, but Rabbi Widner reported excellent results even with average students. It is, in fact, an unusual approach for the teaching of adults as well. In spite of their high frequency, the pronominal suffixes, for example, are not introduced in the first chapters of any basic textbooks. Delaying their introduction, therefore, is a major obstacle in accessing even the simplest biblical text, whereas their early introduction allows the use of a much larger variety of verses, while demonstrating any other grammatical item or system. Therefore, frequency should be weighed seriously with the other important considerations (such as difficulty, learnability, teachability) competing for priority in the planning of every lesson in the curriculum. Indeed, the first sentences with which my class is addressed, right at the beginning of the first lesson, already contains the possession suffix followed immediately by its paradigm.
2.2. Review of Three Articles
All of the four textbooks and one program reviewed above have their strengths, but unfortunately, also their weaknesses. Their authors struggled with the same problem: finding the optimal proportions in the combination of, at times, contradictory considerations, such as frequency and learnability. What is most common, is not necessarily simple, and not all that is simple is common enough to be introduced at a very early stage. The problem is even more complex because, in order to find the optimal solution, it requires the integration of various systems, developmental or variational (see 2.4 below, [Nunan, 1994]), some interdependent, each with different levels of difficulty and different rates of frequency.
The IBHPW which will be described in this paper seeks to achieve such a balancing act. It draws from the best methods and practices such as those reviewed above, tries to avoid their shortcomings, and attempts to contribute its share to the emerging debate concerning the teaching of ancient languages in general and BH in particular.
The three additional articles reviewed below demonstrate this emergence of new trends, debate and instructors’ attempts to break out of traditional frameworks.
2.2.1. Enhancing the Learning and Retention of Biblical Languages for Adult Students (Morse, 2004) examines the potential application of developments in cognitive psychology and neuroscience to the teaching of biblical languages (and Greek in particular). The author, who tried to use the newest technology with no significant improvement in her students’ achievements, turned to study what enhances learning in adults. Understanding that knowledge is stored in the brain in patterns of connections, and that the emotional state of students affects learning, led her to experiment with new approaches, methods and practices. In her teaching she considers “that adults learn best through repetitive pattern-making associations from familiar to more challenging information in which they are active participants as problem solvers in a social setting” (Morse, 2004). She attempts to construct her course around themes relevant to her seminary students. Also, Morse puts a great emphasis on the affective aspects of learning, the relaxed atmosphere in the classroom, the social interaction, learning with partners, consideration of different learning types, students’ awareness of learning processes and metacognition, students’ taking responsibility for their learning, etc. The author wrote her article as an invitation for more thoughts on and suggestions for the teaching of biblical languages in theological and religious studies settings. Her recommendations for a student-centered approach and for an emphasis on fostering an emotionally safe environment for learning is very important. Often, students approach ancient languages intimidated by their perceived ‘terrible’ difficulty, and with low confidence in their ability to overcome it. Contradicting these fears seems to be the instructor’s first task, followed by the need to maintain an environment which enhances learning. As opposed to students of modern languages (studied today mostly for communication), students of ancient languages are provided with much less stimuli (the written text only, albeit read aloud). To compensate for that, emphasizing the learning of patterns is therefore a solid recommendation for the development of ancient language literacy in adults.
There is a problem, though, concerning the suggestion of constructing courses around themes. Doing so will complicate even further the already complex task discussed above (2.2) of finding the optimal design and organization for an ancient language program. Reading meaningful verses should certainly be an essential part of the process of learning. It would add much needed flavor to the lexical and the grammatical. However, wider relevant topics should be left for later, more advanced stages.
2.2.2. Can Communicative Methods Enhance Ancient Language Acquisition? (Overland, P., 2004) deals with more practical applications of methods and practices taken from the teaching of modern languages. It suggests the integration of communicative competence, immersion, music, total physical response (TPR), computer assisted learning and more, into the teaching of BH. The author describes his experimentation with new methods learned from a modern Hebrew Ulpan (Modern Hebrew intensive immersion courses in Israel) in order to enhance his teaching of a course using the First Hebrew Primer reviewed above ([Simon et al., 1992] see 2.1.4.) He suggests adding to the introductory course conversations, games, a ventriloquist doll, props, visual aids, role playing and more, all in BHHH. He reports that his students’ achievements through this communicative oriented program are much higher compared to previous years, and not surprisingly, so is their satisfaction. He admits though, that more objective assessment tools will be needed to evaluate the outcome of his method compared to that of the traditional ones.
The communicative approach taken by the author is inspiring. It is creative, rich and seems to make a difference in encouraging learning. It can be adopted in order to enhance any good textbook or program, but might not be suitable for all situations, especially where time is a factor, and for all types of instructors and students (the less outgoing). It is certainly worth trying and experimenting with.
2.2.3. The Sanskrit Language: An Introductory Grammar and Reader by Walter Harding Maurer (Salmon, R., 2000) is a book review of a Sanskrit textbook. It has some interesting insights relevant to this paper. According to it, the reviewed textbook does indeed answer the needs of the students of today, who are not knowledgeable enough in the grammar of their own first language. The author of the textbook “is scrupulously careful to take nothing for granted and to explain every point in terms that will be maximally accessible to the linguistically naive student” (Salmon, 2000).
Still it seems that he is bound by “traditional Western pedagogy derived from classical studies based on the Greek and Latin model” (ibid.). This is indeed a major problem concerning the teaching of biblical Hebrew too, and especially grave when teaching the Hebrew verb. Terms like ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’, imported from languages far from the Semitic, are applied to the interpretation of the biblical verb and the very different perception of time (tense, aspects and mood). Instead of teaching a foreign language on its own terms, there has been a tendency to use twisted terminology and biased explanations to fit Indo-European terms. In many cases this tendency has of course the potential to confuse rather than clarify (see 2.4 below, [Halliday, 1993] ).
However, in spite of possible difficulties, the reviewer does value the innovation of this textbook in sequencing the presentation of grammatical topics based on their (subjective) degree of importance and on their frequency of occurrence.
Ultimately the textbook is praised for its author’s enthusiasm and its attempt to impart this spirit together with the material taught. Indeed, in teaching biblical Hebrew, as with any other subject, author’s or instructor’s enthusiasm for what they wish to impart is invaluable. It inspires them to be creative and find better teaching methods and practices and to stimulate their students’ curiosity and interest in the new, ancient language and culture they study.
2.3. Functional Grammar
The teaching of foreign languages poses complex problems concerning choice, mix, level, timing, etc. Research related to the teaching of modern languages has been informed by and has drawn insights from the study of a developing field of linguistics — Functional Grammar. The teaching of ancient languages and BH, in particular, can surely benefit from it as well. Halliday’s introduction to his book An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1993) will be reviewed, and the implications of Functional Grammar for the teaching of BH will be discussed.
What should go into a grammar book? Halliday suggests that this depends on the task the grammar is supposed to facilitate, but continues to say, “There is usually a trade-off of breadth against depth: we need both highly specialized machines that will do just one job perfectly, and less specialized machines that will do a broad range of jobs effectively…” (Halliday, 1993, p. xxx).
Indeed, one of the problems with introductory courses of BH is their difficulty they have presenting a program whose clear objectives are compatible with realistic expectations from the students. Determining the appropriate balance of breadth and depth is one of the major steps. How much and in how many details do we impart the information in order to facilitate students’ access to a straight forward biblical text by the completion of the introductory course, and what should we avoid and delay to later, more advanced and scholarly stages, when they will be expected to cope with more complex and demanding texts.
As opposed to the traditional linguistic approach, Functional Grammar does not deal with the forms first and only later with the meaning. It regards language as a system of meaning expressed through forms. The grammatical analysis of a text is done, therefore, while relating the text to its context of situation and culture. A text can be highly complex, including actions, ideas and emotions. “There is no way of turning it into an algorithm…. An automatic parser can handle a great deal of grammar; but there are always indeterminacies, alternative interpretations, places where one has to balance one factor against the other” (Halliday, p. xvi). On the other hand, no analysis can be done without grammar. As meaning and form are interwoven, “grammar needs to be functional and semantic in its orientation, with the grammatical categories explained as the realization of semantic patterns” (ibid.).
This is certainly an important lesson to remember while teaching, for example, the BH tenses. The many possible interpretations of the verb forms are still studied and debated; yet, in most cases it is the meaning and context that provides the reader with the best indication to a point or to a period of time, rather than the long and confusing list of options offered by grammars. Therefore, one should encourage the students to use the context and their common sense while reading a straightforward text, together with a minimal list of the most common interpretations of a verb form. If the text they are reading is a narrative one (or even a simple poetic one), they will most likely interpret it correctly. Later on, after reading an adequate amount of texts which are not too difficult, and advancing to more challenging ones, more sophisticated grammar books might be needed to help with their interpretation.
The author goes on to warn against the tendency of modern linguistics to impose categories found in English on the grammar of languages very different from it, making them look like “imperfect copies of English” (Halliday, p. xxxi). He suggests that while studying another language, one should ask: “How would I have interpreted the grammar of this language if English had never existed (Halliday, xxxv)?”
Indeed, failing to describe BH categories on their own terms in favour of translation into Indo-European terms is a serious problem in the study and teaching of BH. Considering again the teaching of the Hebrew verb forms, most textbooks of the introductory level provide the students with a long list of possible interpretations to conform with the many particular tenses, aspects & moods of western languages. Opening the students to a different perception of time evident in the biblical text, with its much less defined tenses, is not an easy task. Students should not be expected to provide exact translation, but to try to understand the Biblical text on its own terms. Thus, they will hopefully find a wider and easier access to the ancient texts and their culture.
2.4. Pedagogical Grammar
Pedagogical Grammar draws knowledge and insights from various related fields such as linguistics, Functional Grammar, and general learning theories, in order to improve the teaching and learning of languages (mostly second languages). Research in Pedagogical Grammar is an attempt to learn from what is known about the nature of languages and the way they are acquired, in order to apply it to methodologies and practices. The research is concerned with the teaching of modern languages and much of it with fostering the communicative proficiency. Still, the teaching of ancient languages, and BH in particular, would no doubt benefit from the questions asked, the hypotheses examined and the methods suggested in these studies. Some issues dealt with in Pedagogical Grammar research will be reviewed below and their possible implications for the teaching of BH will be discussed.
How does the acquisition of a second language (L2) differ from that of the first
language (L1)? Parameters common to any particular L1 are easily acquired by children. They are built directly on the innate knowledge of the principles of the Universal Grammar as described by Noam Chomsky. Determining what these principles are might not have any application to the teaching of L2, as they are probably very abstract, and can be taken for granted. It is clear that adult learners of L2 struggle when they face new ‘strange’ parameters and have to overcome their familiarity with their L1 parameters, which they take for granted as the only way to express things (Cook, 1994).
Adult native English speakers, for example, find it difficult to accept a sentence without a verb (the Hebrew Noun sentence) or the need to conjugate a verb assigning a specific form for every person. Adults have, therefore, to accept that the known and familiar in L1 is only one of many other possible ways to communicate, before taking in these new ‘strange’ parameters of L2. They acquire their L2 indirectly, through or in spite of their L1. Very young children, on the other hand, don’t seem to have the same difficulty. The younger they are, the less hindered their acquisition of an additional language seems to be. Are they acquiring the parameters of both languages, building them side by side on the UG? Until when is this double acquisition possible? Is there any direct access to UG still available for the adult? Can Universal Grammar facilitate the acquisition of L2 in adults directly, side by side with L1 and not on top of it? (Cook, 1994)
Several learning hypotheses have been proposed. Nunan (1994) examines three of them:
1. The Contrastive hypothesis proposes that learner’s L1 will have significant influence on the acquisition of L2, depending on positive or negative transfer possible in
cases of similarity or difference (existence or non-existence) of grammatical items.
This of course has important implications for the introduction of L2 grammar. The ‘similar’ can be taken for granted, while the ‘foreign’ would need more attention, planning and time. Would it also have its implications on the sequencing of the grammatical items? Probably.
2. The Multidimensional/bidimensional model hypothesis proposes that “syntactic and morphological items in a given language can be classified according to whether they are developmental or variational” (Nunan, 1994). The developmental items occur in a learner’s productive repertoire in a set sequence, whereas variational items can be learned at any time.
Would this be true for the passive repertoire as well? Can we identify such a dichotomy while teaching BH, and divide BH grammatical systems sharply into developmental (which requires the learners to absorb them in stages) and variational (independent of other systems)? Maybe not. It might be more helpful to determine the nature of the various grammatical systems on a continuum, between the more developmental to the least developmental – the variational. The Hebrew possessive suffix, for example, should not be considered too developmental, even though dependent on such notions as person, gender and number inflection. The possessive suffix is much more independent (variable), of course, than various items of the verb system, which depend on more layers of grammar that have to be learned earlier. IBHPW teaches as many of the frequent, more variational items as possible earlier on. As the grammar is demonstrated by the actual biblical text, the richer the repertoire of the variational items, the easier it is to find full and meaningful verses demonstrating the largest developmental system – the verb.
3. The teachability hypothesis proposes that it is futile to introduce learners to items which are developmentally beyond their current stage of development, and that it is impossible to ‘override’ the developmental order through instruction. The learner should be developmentally ‘ready’ for any new item. The timing of teaching certain items is important.
Again the above relates mostly to the productive skills but seem to be true for the passive ones as well. With regard to IBHPW, while experimenting with the sequencing, and taking into consideration the lack of research available, I have relied much on intuition and students’ feedback to determine the order in which the various grammatical systems should be taught.
Still, one should not confuse, of course, the productive with the receptive knowledge. There are still unanswered questions relating to the gestation period of acquisition. Students are capable of understanding structures much sooner than they are capable of using them. Indeed, evidence suggests that making structures, which are beyond learner’s current processing capacity, salient to them, can facilitate the rate of acquisition of the productive skills (Nunan, 1994).
While teaching ancient languages, there is no attempt whatsoever to achieve any productive proficiency. Even scholars of BH themselves would not necessarily be able to conduct a fluent conversation in BH if they were dropped by a time machine into the streets of Jerusalem of 2500 years ago. The teaching and learning of an ancient language, in which there are no expectations for productive use, are therefore, very different from the teaching of a modern language for communication. Learners are expected to achieve in a relative short time (100 – 200 class hours) the ability to handle sophisticated textual content (narrative and others) which is grammatically straightforward, albeit with the help of a lexicon and other aids. This, of course, would have been impossible for a learner of a modern language who would not be expected to approach such texts before having taken several hundred more classroom hours. (Modern language learners spend 800-1440 classroom hours in a language course depending on L1/L2 transfer [Odlin 1994].)
How explicitly should the grammar be taught? From what is known about language and language-learning processes we cannot expect, nor should we strive to achieve, accurate grammatical understanding or accurate rules, as they are “neither realistic nor desirable in learning/teaching situations beyond the low-level area” (Westney, 1994). Higher level learners of L2, similar to users of L1, can internalize much higher level grammar through massive exposure. Could we try to simulate, to the extent possible (and the available access to Universal Grammar), the acquisition and knowledge of L1 in which, as Westney puts it “any language user ‘knows’ that language is like this” (ibid.)? He continues saying that “an adequate model of language for both the learner and the teacher must allow for structure to be relatively obscure and only indirectly accessible to consciousness.” Indeed, users of L1 acquire their knowledge of the language through massive exposure and not through rules. Wouldn’t a massive exposure from a certain level and up (through and after the intensive introductory course) be the most efficient way for the adult learner to internalize much of the rules of L2 without necessarily learning all of them formally? Wouldn’t a massive intake of straight forward biblical text following the introductory course be more effective in absorbing the way BH ‘is,’ than going through innumerable rules during the introductory course in order to cover indigestibly long lists of every possible case (verb tense/aspect/mood interpretations, for example)? Westney’s suggestion not to insist on accurate rules seems plausible. In IBHPW, for example, students are offered a simplified model (approximation) of the possible interpretations of the verb form, allowing them to use much context and intuition to help them interpret the verses. Covering more and more texts would eventually allow them a ‘semi’ unconscious grasp of many passages and facilitate legitimate, educated guesses without necessarily consulting the long and confusing lists of rules offered by traditional BH grammar textbooks.
The need for large amounts of exposure, not possible in the classroom, puts much of the responsibility on the shoulders of the students. Much learning, drilling, reading, has to be done independently outside the classroom and beyond the introductory level. “Since instruction is so often incomplete, students will have to become independent analysts of the target language if they are to deal with all the problems that their instructors lack time to cover in much detail” (Odlin, 1994). In order to foster this independence, continues Odlin, teachers have to provide guidance that “will ideally include not only observations about what constitutes a grammatical system in the target language, but also advice about how to explore the system independently.”
Therefore, successful learning strategies for learners include : willingness to take risks, tolerance for ambiguity/vagueness, attention to linguistic form, and readiness for inferences and guesses (Westney 1994).
What kind of rules should pedagogical grammar offer the learner? What should be their characteristics? Rules, it is suggested, should be descriptive with predictive power, relevant to the learners’ needs, and taking into account L1/L2 contrasts. They should be true, concrete, simple, clear, nontechnical, parsimonious, cumulative, and in a rule of thumb form (Westney, 1994).
Rules can be presented in various forms such as formal rules, schemata, formulas, paradigms, conditions, constraints. They should be simple and compatible with the current level, but at the same time accurate enough and capable of gradual integration into broader patterns. As opposed to rules of grammar which are abstract generalizations and linguistically sound, the suggested ‘rules of thumb’ are usable informal formulations, limited in validity and scope to the current level of the students. Oversimplified rules, though, pose challenges as they might appear in later stages as inadequate, if not false (ibid.). Pedagogical rules which impart only ‘partial truth,’ should nevertheless be formulated in such a way, that would not lead students to false inferences or over-generalization (Bloom-Kulka, 1979). Students’ attention should certainly be drawn to the simplified nature of the pedagogical rules presented. They should expect them to be developed and fine tuned as they progress to more advanced levels. This awareness might keep them wary of over-generalization.
The practical implications of research to the field of pedagogical grammar are many. PG can help language teachers, curriculum designers and material writers deal with the problems of selection and sequencing of grammatical content, and its integration with the semantics, and with the problems of the selection of appropriate pedagogy to implement the curriculum chosen. In short, it can help us answer the questions: what to teach, when, and in what way (Nunan, 1994).
A meticulously laid scholarly grammar (be it traditional or functional) will organize a body of language already largely known to the reader, and make sense of it. A Pedagogical Grammar, on the other hand, contains grammatical systems presented to be learned and drilled by the learners in order to develop their competency and proficiency. The first tries to present “the whole truth,” while the second attempts to attain its goal by revealing only part of it, and even this, gradually, while weighing all of the distance from L1, the relations among the various grammatical systems and items, frequency, level, course objectives, course length, etc. (Bloom-Kulka, 1979).
Research in Pedagogical Grammar cannot be a purely academic endeavor. It is intended to inform pedagogy needs, and at the same time draw from the process of negotiation happening in the classroom. This negotiation involves the teacher’s overall educational ideology, the learners’ expectations and preferences and various other local constraints. Research offered should be evaluated by the teachers against the realities of their classroom. Teachers themselves have a major role to play in collecting and analyzing data in their particular classroom context as well as experimenting with suggested innovations (Nunan, 1994).
2.5. Mediated Learning Experience theory
Reuven Feuerstein’s Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) theory (Feuerstein, Miller, Hoffman, Rand, Mintzker, & Hensen, 1981) emerged from his search for a remedy for cultural deprivation in youth and from his work with children with Down’s Syndrome. Nevertheless his theory adds significantly to general learning theories. MLE is relevant to the teaching and learning of any subject, by any student, at any age. Unlike learning theories (eg., Piagetian) concerned with learning happening through direct exposure to stimuli, and similar to Vygotsky’s theory of mind (Poehner & Lantolf, 2004), MLE theory deals with another kind — learning how to learn (or in Feuerstein’s & al.’s term, with cognitive modifiability).
MLE happens when a mediator stands between the stimuli (or the material taught) and the learners. The information is not received by the learners through direct exposure, rather, the mediator modifies the information in ways of selection, filtering, sequencing, timing, scaffolding, etc. In this interactive experience, the learners absorb not only the information submitted, but also the meaning attributed to it. Thus a cognitive structure is built, which eventually helps them in future learning. This kind of learning helps the learners transcend the particular subject learned at one time, recognize patterns and understand how the parts relate to the whole. The development of the cognitive structure enables the learners to draw logical inferences and eventually use them in the future to organize, interpret and understand other stimuli. This kind of learning experience can be observed in any traditional transmission of culture, such as from parent to child or from generation to generation.
I heard Prof. Feurstein’s inspiring talk here in Vancouver (1990) where his Instrumental Enrichment method has been used to improve the academic achievements of First Nations students. Even without a thorough study, MLE has opened my eyes and enabled me to look differently at teaching in general and at the teaching of Hebrew, both modern and ancient, in particular. It has resonated well with my style of teaching and has dramatically changed my planning of courses, creation of material and practices in the classroom. IBHPW attempts to mediate between the student and BH and create a mediated learning experience (see below 3.2). It not only imparts the facts and skills, but strives also to help students build the cognitive structure that will allow them to keep on learning independently after the course is over.
CHAPTER III
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
3.1 General Description
Because of time constraints IBHPW has been implemented through an intensive course consisting of only 100 hours (four weeks). The students are required to start the course having already been familiarized with the Hebrew letters and vowels and be able to read, albeit slowly and hesitantly. Fine tuning of the reading is done throughout the course. The material required for the course consists of 24 handouts (for sample see Appendix) of various lengths (total of about 200 pages). For the time being, each handout contains mostly carefully chosen and sequenced biblical verses (except for the first few handouts which do contain artificial sentences as well) demonstrating the grammar taught. Explanations are delivered during the class. For now explanations are included in the written material only sparsely, but are added gradually with every revision. Various organizers are provided throughout the course (charts etc.), and are compiled to create the ‘tool box’ (see Appendix for some of its content) which is indispensable for the ongoing analysis and interpretation of the texts treated. To this end the comprehensive noun, preposition and verb charts of the First Hebrew Primer (Simon et al., 1992) are heavily used, too, but not before enhancing them with more details, color coding, etc. The material is always taught in context, and through the texts in the handouts. No exercises have been developed yet, except for the option of analyzing the verses offered in the handouts. This is done through parsing and interpreting them with the help of empty parsing charts for the verb, noun, preposition and direct object (see Appendix), which systematically guide the student to the vocabulary studied in the lexicon. For homework and drilling, the students are referred in each handout to the suitable exercises in the First Hebrew Primer and/or to the Biblical Hebrew Introductory Grammar (Kelley, 1992), with preference to the second text. With the little explanations available in the handouts, the students are referred in each handout to the parallel chapters in the First Hebrew Primer in order to reinforce what is learned in class and review (there is an optional reference to the more academic textbook by Kelley [1992] as well). Students taking the course are expected to dedicate at least 3 hours daily for homework. Last, but not least, there is a conscious attempt to foster a relaxed and friendly atmosphere enhanced, especially in the first third of the course, by incorporating elementary conversations, presentation of relevant art and photography and, if time permits (more of course in the summer course), the singing of a variety of biblical verses.
3.2. Creating a Mediated Learning Experience
The intention of planning IBHPW program has been to create a mediated learning experience for the students through the selection and prioritization of the lexical and grammatical components perceived to be essential. This is done through the timing in which every component is presented, considering its relationship to other components, through the use of various learning aids, and through the ongoing zooming in and out, from the detailed to the general and viseversa, on the ‘map’ presented in front of the class. Every grammatical system presented is taught not only for its own sake, but also in order to foster and reinforce the understanding of larger concepts and systems, and eventually to develop the cognitive structure on the different scales. This cognitive structure in turn facilitates more learning as the students progress and acquire new knowledge and skills. As they learn more and more on the different scales, students gradually gain better access to larger and more versatile biblical texts. They apply all of their ‘tools,’ conceptual or actual (lexicon, charts, etc.), and then analyze, use common sense, understand and interpret.
A good example demonstrating the creation of a mediated learning experience is the way that the declined Possession Pronominal Suffix (added to a noun and indicating: my, your, etc.) and the Noun Sentence (a sentence without a verb!) are taught right through the first Hebrew sentence the students hear in the first class, when I introduce myself orally and in writing simultaneously: שמי רחל [= My name (is) Rahel]
These two particular grammatical systems, in spite of their having no parallel in the English grammar, and paradoxically, because of it, proved to be a good opening for the course, when students are still fresh and unburdened with details. Introducing both together at this initial stage serves as an opportunity to start building the cognitive structure needed for their further learning, by raising their awareness of the different nature of languages. These differences do not seem to be obvious to all students. Even after a past encounter with a required foreign language (in high school?), they still expect all languages to ‘behave’ the same way as their L1, English. They expect the familiar syntactic order, parallel prepositions following parallel verbs, similar tense categories etc.; an expectation which would be a major barrier for their learning. Together with this first encounter with these two ‘peculiar’ examples of the H grammar, the students are referred also to the non academic article, “Babel’s Children” (Economist.com 2005) describing western linguists’ bias towards non Indo-European languages. Thus, they learn an important lesson, that they should not take what they know about their L1 (or any other Indo-European language for that matter) as true for another, and that their encounter with BH too, will require an openness to very different characteristics, an openness that will facilitate their adoption of the new material accumulating from now on.
The introduction to the Possessive Suffix adds another the development of the cognitive structure needed for the learning of BH, albeit on a somewhat lower scale. Students’ attention is drawn to an important general feature of Hebrew, that of being a ‘compact’ language. What would seem to be one word, could be complex, and might have to be translated into a several English words. They are told that throughout the course, they will be presented with other prefixes and suffixes, and will have to learn to identify them. That said, the Possessive Suffix is taught of course, for its own sake as well, and it was chosen before other systems for its very frequent occurrence. Teaching the Possession Suffix before other systems ensures that it will be found in numerous authentic examples not only for its own demonstration, but for the demonstration of any other system taught from now on. Thus, familiarity with the most frequently occurring elements which are introduced early on is reinforced further with every recurring encounter while learning the subsequent systems.
The use of authentic material is most important in the development of students’ reading proficiency (Hadley, 2001, chapter 5). It is even more so for the teaching of ancient Hebrew, which leads the students to the reading of the actual biblical text, the only target text. The earlier the students can access even the shortest verses, which will eventually extend to longer verses and passages, the more attuned they will be to its features, style and spirit.
The introduction to the Noun Sentence in this early stage is done, as mentioned above, because of its ‘peculiarity’ to the English speaking student – a sentence without a verb! However, this is not the main reason. Indeed, the occurrence of the Noun Sentence is not as frequent as the Possession suffix, and much less frequent than the verbal sentence, which is the major player in the biblical text. Still, for reasons of mediation between the material and the learner, it is intentionally taught earlier on. The Noun Sentence is simple (relative to the much more frequent but so much more complex verbal sentence), and can serve as a convenient vehicle for the introduction in context of most of the very frequent ‘basics’ such as nouns, adjectives, definite article, prepositions and much more.
Last but not least, starting the first lesson with these two grammatical systems, helps take care of the affective aspect of the program (Morse, 2004) and the social interaction essential to learning according to Vygotsky’s theory of mind (Poehner & Lantolf, 2004). A small dosage of the communicative methods (Overland, 2004) is used through very basic conversations to practice the paradigm:
Her name is Hannah שמה חנה.
What is his name מה שמו?
What is her name מה שמה?
This kind of practice is used in a limited amount only in the first part of the course (preceding the Verb) and with simple, isolated grammatical items embedded in noun sentences. Albeit a sparse sprinkling of Hebrew ‘talk’, it serves to create a warm and unthreatening atmosphere, so important for language acquisition. Even without trying to achieve real conversation in biblical Hebrew, which is in no way an objective, it might be worthwhile experimenting further in this line, and finding out, whether more of the communicative approach would better facilitate the acquisition of the competence and passive skills expected in such a course.
The appearance of the Possession Suffix in context, in the first sentence heard and seen on the board, leads soon after to the presentation of the larger grammatical framework, the declension of singular persons leading later, in its turn, to the complete paradigm (Figure 1):
Throughout the process, the paradigm is drilled (in conversation) as well as applied to the interpretation of a good number of short biblical verses.
Similarly, the teaching of any other component of the program is carefully planned not only for its own sake, but also for its role in the development of the more comprehensive cognitive structure. The program teaches the students how to study the material, absorb, and fit more and more new pieces into the bigger puzzle, growing in complexity. It prepares them to identify general patterns, and to use them to interpret specific cases. Thus, by transcending the experience and the needs of the immediate here and now, through mediated learning, the students understand how the parts are related to the whole, and learn to draw logical inferences (Feuerstein et al., 1981).
The mediation between the material and the learner is achieved also by using various visual organizers (Hadley, 2001, chapter 4), aids such as form and color are used to help the students identify major patterns more easily, and to apply them in their interpretation of any text. Examples of these visual organizers are: hollow or large fonts (much larger than presented here), the bolding and highlighting of the elements taught, as in the Possession Suffix (שְמי, שמךָ); the division of a complex verse into its different clauses, appearing each on a different line; and the color coding in charts (different color paper for the different verb stems paradigm, or the highlighting in various colors of the different root groups in a comprehensive conjugation chart ). Also, photographs of biblical scenery and artifacts, as well as art (usually those of Gustav Dore [1991]) are presented extensively in the ‘basics’ (pre verbal sentence) part of the course. They help depict frequent vocabulary, demonstrate basic grammatical items, and contextualize short verses drawn from familiar biblical stories with their protagonists now carrying their original Hebrew names.
Thus, IBHPW program has been developed and sequenced, through weighing various considerations, such as frequency, efficiency, building of the cognitive structure needed to facilitate the learning, and contribution to the emotional comfort level of the students , all to create a mediated learning experience and facilitate students’ intake of a challenging course.
3.3. Functional Grammar, Pedagogical Grammar & the Teaching of Biblical Hebrew
In sections 2.3 & 2.4 of this paper, issues derived from Functional Grammar and Pedagogical Grammar, relevant to the teaching of BH were reviewed, and their general implications to it were discussed. As mentioned, much of their research deals with the teaching of modern languages, and their communicative aspects in particular. Still, the instructor of an ancient language, as well as the curriculum developer can draw much insight as well as many helpful practical applications.
The curriculum described in this paper is indeed an attempt to facilitate the learning of BH. It offers the students a functional, efficient and effective program that will enable them to easily understand the new concepts taught, clearly identify the various grammatical systems and vocabulary, and interpret the biblical text as adequately as possible. Therefore, meticulously complete and accurate rules are avoided, and only the limited necessary ones compatible with the current level are offered. All along, though, students’ attention is drawn to the ‘rule of thumb’ nature of much of the grammar presented to them, in order to prevent over-generalization and to allow for future fine tuning and specialization. The teaching of one of the biblical verb forms effectively demonstrates the important contributions of Functional Grammar and Pedagogical Grammar to the teaching of BH.
Taken out of context, the biblical tense system might seem confusing. The same form, yiqtol for example, can be understood in various tenses, aspects & moods: future, past, repeated and habitual present, repeated and habitual future, subjunctive, imperative, jussive and cohortative, and more. This confusing array of possibilities does vary in frequency. Textbooks, following the traditional linguistic approach, list all the possibilities, not prioritized by frequency, including combinations with other forms to cover the whole range. This is done either while introducing the form, or spread out through a few chapters, not necessarily consecutive (Lambdin, 1971; Kittel et al., 1989). For the students, the initial difficulty of understanding a different perception of time, very different from that of Indo-European languages (and even from Modern Hebrew), increases when they feel the need to consult the long, spread list of possibilities of the yiqtol (and then of course, of the qatal).
Teaching the yiqtol through the IBHPW is different. Applying the pedagogical grammar approach, what is most frequent and perceived as ‘learnable’ for the current stage, is taught, while presenting the students with the general problematics of the verb system – the ‘fluidity’ of the biblical tense. First, several examples of the yiqtol (bolded) in verses are presented, together with their translations to demonstrate the range of possibilities, i.e.:
The students are of course bewildered when they see the same form, yiqtol, translated in the various verses into the present, the past, the future and the ‘command’. They are reassured that their level of confusion will soon be reduced considerably. They are taught how to identify the most frequent occurrence of the yiqtol (the one prefixed by Vav Past) vayiqtol, and interpret it as in the Past. Using a graphic ‘time line’ helps visualize the point of time expressed by the verb without necessarily committing to any specific English tense for translation as in the following example:
The Past is assigned as an X at the before-now area (now being the time in which the text was uttered) (Figure 2),
Where is it on the time line?
The use of this time line as an organizer is an attempt to assist students to envision at what point in time or at what stretch of time, an action took place, without necessarily expecting them to translate it to a formal English tense. By avoiding prescribed English tense equivalent, they are encouraged to be more open to the BH perception of time on its own terms. This is followed by numerous examples of this most frequent manifestation of the yiqtol, and probably the most usual way in which the past is depicted in the biblical text.
Students’ attention is drawn then, back to the rest of the examples that were initially presented, (yiqtol not prefixed by Vav Past) with their not-so-infrequent possible interpretations pointing to the now and beyond now on the time line with examples such as:
The students are given permission, and in fact are encouraged, to consider the context of verses (usually inferred from the reference or described in English by the instructor) and to use their common sense in order to place the verbs on the time line and interpret them. They are encouraged to actively create the meaning in a process that is certainly not a passive one (Hadley, 2001, chapter 5). Thus, if the story tells us about the patriarchs, it must relate to the past. If God is instructing the children of Israel about their expected behavior, He must be giving commands, whereas an idyllic scene quoted from the prophets might be a prophecy describing the days to come. To summarize and provide an efficient tool, the students are presented with A Simplistic Model for the Interpretation of yiqtol * they can keep consulting it with its different sizes of fonts indicating the different frequencies
This way of teaching the yiqtol (and similarly the qatal) might seem at first glance too simplistic for an academic setting. Still, if we consider that the most frequent interpretation of the form and its usually abundant contextual cues, the yiqtol can be understood correctly in much of the biblical prose, and in fact even in a good portion of the biblical poetry. To avoid over-generalization though (Blum-Kulka, 1979), students’ attention is drawn to the fact that the model provided is a useful simplistic model and in no way a complete description of the system. Indeed, there are difficult passages that could use a more in-depth look, and more scholarly linguistic knowledge and analyses – ‘highly specialized machines’ (Halliday, 1993, p. xxx). Such passages though, should be left for later turns of the learning spiral, and not interfere with the introduction of the ‘bigger picture’ and the achievable early access to much of the biblical text throughout the introductory course and right after. Applying what is learned from functional grammar and pedagogical grammar can help in developing and applying better programs for the teaching of BH, thus, helping the students develop their competency in an efficient way, without burdening them with information superfluous to the introductory stage.
3.4. Sequencing of Grammar Taught
Good sequencing of the grammar taught is another important factor required by pedagogical grammar and one which helps build up a fairly large inventory of level appropriate authentic input. Considerations such as frequency, learnability, teachability, and the dependence of one grammatical system on the other are seriously weighed in order to decide about the right timing and order for the instruction of the various grammatical systems.
The timing chosen for the introduction of the verb demonstrates the importance of good sequencing. Although the verb is a major player in the biblical text, and indeed many grammars do introduce it at a very early stage (Kittel et al., 1989; Lambdin, 1971), in IBHPW its introduction is postponed. As already mentioned, the noun sentence, for its relative simplicity, has been chosen as a convenient framework for the introduction of all of the ‘basic’ grammatical components of the program. The verbal sentence follows only after all the grammatical systems not conditioned by the verb, are taught. See Table of Contents Volume I, Lessons 1-23:
All these grammar is presented together with much of the most frequent vocabulary. By the time the verb, with all of its complexities (conjugations, elusive biblical ‘tenses’, various stems and root groups, etc.) is introduced, the students have already been exposed to a great amount of authentic text, reinforcing the familiarity with the accumulating grammatical ‘basics’ through their appearance and reappearance in the ever growing inventory of texts offered and studied. These ‘basics’, with which the earlier stage of the course deals, will keep appearing, eventually, in the verbal sentence as well, but, familiar by then, they will allow the demonstration of the verb itself in the context of much more interesting and meaningful passages.
Thus, careful sequencing not only helps mediate between the material and the learner in an effective and efficient way, it also allows gradually for a greater choice of authentic passages to demonstrate the material learned. This way, as skills are developed and proficiency improved, important passages, thematically or theologically, well known to the students from their familiarity with the Hebrew Bible in translation, can be presented step by step throughout the program. For example, while teaching the particular conjugation of the פ”נ verbs in the yiqtol form, this small part of a famous verse from Psalms is introduced:
A later chapter, dealing with the particular conjugation of the hollow verbs in the yiqtol form, allows us to add yet another part of the verse:
Finally, while teaching the Participle form, the whole verse can be read and appreciated:
Through all these stages, frequent vocabulary (mountains, heaven, earth, eyes, lift, make/do), as well as prepositions, construct chains, possession suffixes and noun sentences, which are not conditioned by the verb, and would have been studied before the verb, appear and reappear, and are reinforced.
For the students this provides for very meaningful and rewarding progress and a sense of accomplishment. They not only learn (and review) the language in context, but are also reassured that the keys they have obtained can in fact, already in this introductory stage, open the doors for them to the biblical text, so important to them culturally, theologically and spiritually.
3.5. Frequent Vocabulary
As already discussed, frequency of both the grammatical and the lexical components is one of the major considerations in sequencing what is taught in the IBHPW. The earlier the ‘more frequent’ is learned the more opportunities there are for the students to encounter it again and again, familiarize themselves well with them, and thus, save themselves later on the time and the burden of unnecessary search in the lexicon.
The target corpus of biblical Hebrew is of course first and foremost the Hebrew Bible itself, which contains all together close to 305,000 words only (Even-Shoshan, 1990). The biblical Hebrew lexicon contains less than 9,000 entries (Brown, 1979), many of which belonging to a much smaller number of roots. Frequent words account for a surprisingly large portion of the total word count. For example, 1,172 most frequent words that keep occurring in the Bible, from thousands of times each to more than 25 times each, account for about 80% of the total word count. Even the small number of 200 most frequent words account for an amazing 60% of the total words count (Haramati, 1983). Therefore, fostering students’ familiarity with as many words of the frequent vocabulary as possible, would allow them to understand much of most biblical texts, and this cannot be emphasized enough. It should be integrated in every possible way into the material offered while teaching the grammar, drilled (in context) through various verses and exercises in class and at home, or, if students find it helpful, even memorized with the help of the different BH flash cards kits available.
Developing a curriculum, which takes lexical frequency seriously into consideration, is of course a very demanding endeavor. As BH grammatical systems lists organized in descending order of frequency are unavailable, curriculum developers have to rely on their intuition or their general impressions deriving from the concordance to determine their preferable sequence of teaching. The integration of frequent vocabulary into the curriculum is, however, much easier, as, together with the concordance, various vocabulary lists are available and can be consulted. These lists are organized in two general ways: descending frequency lists with the number of occurrences of every word mentioned, and alphabetical lists with the ordinal number of every word on the frequency list mentioned. Other than the integration of frequent vocabulary into the curriculum, drawing students’ attention to the frequency makes its importance salient to them, and may encourage them to put extra effort into familiarizing themselves with it in order to enhance their progress.
But the ‘lexically frequent’ might be more difficult grammatically, and pose a challenge while creating a curriculum. As we have already seen, while reviewing two of the four textbooks (2.1.3 & 2.1.2), if frequency consideration is given first priority (Kittle et al., 1989) the program runs the risk of being overwhelmingly difficult by concentrating too many developmental systems (Qal, yiqtol, conversive ו, pi’el, פּ”י and more) too close together without allowing adequate time for digestion. If, on the other hand, gradual progress from the simple to the more complex is the major consideration (Kelley, 1992), there is a danger of leaving, for example, roots which are not simple, to the very late chapters of the program. Examples of such roots are היה & עשׂה (make/do, be) appearing in the Bible 2573 and 3514 times respectively. Finding the optimal balance is indeed a challenge. The sequence for the teaching of the verb in IBHPW, (found now in Table of Contents Volume I, Lessons 24-30, effectively demonstrates the way this challenge is met.
Right after both the yiqtol and the qatal forms of the verb in the Qal, and through the simple roots, are taught, their application to the not-so-simple root groups (the various gezarot) are taught. The students learn that, because of their special characteristics, different root groups, divert from the model paradigms of the regular roots.
While teaching these new root groups there is the opportunity to introduce some of the most frequent verbs in the Bible that happen not to be of the simple roots (the ones with guttural letters are not given special attention). Examples of them are integrated with the regular roots). Students are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these very frequent verbs and learn how to recognize some of them in cases where only 2 letters are letters (out of the 3 letters root.) The many verses including these verbs, that are analyzed and drilled offer abundant opportunities for the students to familiarize themselves with. See Table of Contents Volume I, Lessons 31-44.
After completing the treatment of the yiqtol and the qatal in the Qal, which has included, as shown, the introduction of some of the most frequent verbs, be it of the regular roots or not, we continue to the rest of the verb forms (infinitives, imperative, participle) still, only in the Qal stem. As much as possible, the verb forms taught are demonstrated through frequent verbs already familiar from the previous chapters. See Table of Contents Volume II, Lessons 1-10
Only after all the above is completed do we proceed to the introduction of the remaining stems, applying much of what has been learned through the Qal, which is transferable, to the other stems. See Table of Contents Volume II, Lessons 11-23. Indeed, much of the morphology, difficult concepts and many of those that by now are familiar verb roots, reappear through the rest of the stems. The move to the new stems is, therefore, gradual and hopefully not too overwhelming. New morphology, concepts and vocabulary are learned but old ones, reappear as manifested now through the new stems.
This ongoing attempt to balance the ‘frequent vocabulary’ with the ‘frequent grammatical systems’ (developmental or variational) is indeed a challenging, but worthwhile practice. Reaching a good balance proves itself helpful not only for the students but also for the teacher. By integrating as many frequently used words as possible earlier on with the well sequenced frequent grammatical systems, it is easier as the course proceeds to find more and more interesting (meaningful), natural (authentic), and comprehensible input needed for good language acquisition (Krashen, 1982).
Students would still be required to put much effort into identifying frequent words in their conjugated, declined, prefixed, constructed forms, etc., but increasing familiarity will free them eventually to deal later with the less frequent which they will encounter during and beyond the introductory level.
3.6. Imparting Culture through Language
Conflicting schemata might cause difficulties for the students when learning a target culture through its language (Hadley, 2001 chapter 8; Siegal, 1996). While learning BH, students might approach the ancient text through Western eyes and a twenty first century perspective. Some of their preconceived notions of vocabulary derived from fauna, flora, various objects, and of central terms are determined and formed, to a large extent, through whatever is lost, added, interpreted and culturally transformed in translation. The time and space gap in cultures between today’s Western reader and the biblical text does not always allow for a clear one word translation in L1 corresponding to one word in BH, and a perfect overlap with its original range of meanings. Students’ awareness is therefore raised throughout the course and their attention is drawn to various examples like:
midbar – This word is sometimes translated as ‘desert,’ but ‘midbar’ as in the Judean desert can grow low weeds in the spring, good enough for the sheep to graze on. Other times the word is translated as ‘wilderness,’ but is certainly far from the lush wilderness found in Canada.
tamei/tahor – This pair is often translated to ‘clean / unclean’, but has nothing to do with cleanliness. It refers to the pure/unpure, ritually fit/unfit, the not-contaminated/contaminated by death, etc.
nesher – is usually translated to the positively viewed ‘eagle’ whereas its zoological identification is more likely the vulture. When students hear this, their reaction is, of course, of disbelief. In their culture the scavenging vulture is regarded negatively. Showing them photographs of ancient Middle Eastern art depicting the vulture as a symbol of royalty, protection, and caring for its young, helps them look at this majestic bird differently and on biblical cultural terms.
Verses read through the course to demonstrate the grammar taught, can also offer an opportunity to draw students’ attention, even if briefly, to another cultural difference, the stylistic conventions of BH, that are not always apparent in translations. Rhetorical devices, such as repetition, alliteration and word play, are highlighted, as well as the important role of key (leading) words or roots appearing and reappearing through passages and stories, possibly to encourage the listener/reader to make thematic connections between their diverse parts (Fox, E. 1995, pp. ix-xx). Verses taken from the story of Joseph to teach the hif’il & the hitpa’el stems can demonstrate this very well:
The verses contain the leading root נ.כ.ר. in its very different forms and even contradicting meanings, but in some translations much of it is of course lost.
Studying the full range of meaning and effect of loaded biblical vocabulary and stylistic conventions in their cultural context, so distant from today’s reader, cannot be done seriously in an introductory course. Through examples such as the above, students’ consciousness is raised. They learn that much of what makes the biblical text they encounter cannot be translated simply without considering the culture behind it, and therefore should be handled with utmost scrutiny.
3.7 Reading of the Biblical Hebrew Text with Comprehension
As mentioned above, students are encouraged to consider context and use their common sense when trying to comprehend the verb forms, whole verses and longer passages. The students at the Vancouver School of Theology usually have a good familiarity with the Hebrew Bible through translation, and the topics dealt with in the biblical texts are not only of academic interest for them, but of spiritual importance. It is obvious that their schemata about various biblical themes and stories are a significant support when they try to read and comprehend (Hadley, 2001, chapter 4). Knowing at least its general meaning through the translation, (not necessarily literal but always offered together with the original verse), and drawing cues from details they remember of a familiar biblical story, students are certainly capable of making sense of a level appropriate BH verse presented to them. At the same time schemata and assumed cues may contradict with the actual original text. Students are therefore directed to use the above with caution. They are expected to apply
the Hebrew vocabulary and the grammar they know to the morphological and syntactical patterns they identify in the text in front of them, integrate all the information and compare again with their preconceived schema about the text. By combining the ‘text driven’ bottom-up strategy with the ‘reader driven’ top-down strategy (Hadley, 2001, chapters 4&5), students can usually comprehend the material in front of them. In fact, cases in which they discover the discrepancy between what they have known and understood through translation, and what they find now in the original text, are most rewarding. Students themselves acknowledge that some such cases are theologically very meaningful to them, and therefore motivate them to keep on developing their skills in what they already perceive as a worthwhile endeavor.
3.8 The ‘Tool Box,’ Parsing Charts & Homework
Integral to the program is the indispensable ‘tool box’ that starts filling up right from the beginning of the course. See the Tool Box Table of Contents. These Tools, or organizers, are enhanced by ways of color coding, the use of different fonts for prefixes and suffixes, etc. They are designed for the students to consult continuously while working in class, at home, and during their exam. Gradually, several ‘tools’ might become superfluous, while others will still be helpful after students complete the course and proceed to work independently on further reading. The ‘tool box’ serves as an easy reference and safe scaffolding while the students build their familiarity with vocabulary and grammar rules, and develop their analytical skills. As a massive ongoing consultation with its content is expected, students are advised to keep the ‘tool box’ unbound and readily available, and if possible, to laminate its pages. The emphasis on this very practical aspect is not to be dismissed. Extensive use of these aids supports the students in their learning and fosters their independence and confidence.
Also, three empty parsing charts are in constant use. They are designed to help the students find their way, step by step, from the complex word found in the text to the recognition of its core element, followed by the reconstruction of the meaning of the original word in context. These parsing charts are used to analyze verbs, nouns (see Appendix), prepositions and direct object pronouns.
No matter how innovative an ancient language teaching program is, it cannot save the students from many hours of regular homework and much drilling to familiarize themselves with frequent vocabulary, develop their competence and reinforce their skills. These drills do not have to include memorization and certainly not translations from their L1 to the language studied, an exercise which has no practical value. Rather, drilling should be done through various treatments of authentic passages carefully chosen to contain as much common vocabulary, and as many important grammatical systems as possible, (see Kelley, 1992 for many good examples). The more exposure students have to the actual
text, in our case, the biblical text, the sooner they will internalize its lexical and grammatical ‘basics’ and absorb its style and spirit. It is important to let the students deal with large amounts of straightforward, level-appropriate material through the course, and for some time after the completion of the course, before moving on to more challenging passages, to be read mostly for their content.
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION
Only a few aspects of IBHPW were described in this paper, to demonstrate a possible new look at the teaching of ancient languages and BH in particular, and the potential rich resources found in related fields. Many features of this curriculum were determined by my previous experience as a Modern Hebrew instructor and as a translator. Coming from this background and not from the linguistically oriented academia, I have sought shorter and more practical ways to impart the basic information and skills, and bring students closer to a meaningful reading of a biblical text through and right after their introductory course. Despite a very restricting number of hours (100) most students studying in this programme acquire good understanding of the material and attain good competence as well as the expected proficiency. Moreover, they seem to appreciate not only the results they reach by the end of the course, but the whole learning process, and the insights they gain through their first encounter with the original text, so important to them. They finish this first introductory turn of the learning spiral, ready to apply what they have learned to further, level-appropriate independent reading. They are ready to embark on more thorough and intensive study in additionally deeper turns of that same learning spiral.
I believe that this curriculum has shown the feasibility of attaining a good working balance between what should be the two major demands of an introductory language program, those of reflecting the most frequent, lexically and grammatically, and of sequencing the basic material pedagogically. I believe also that the programme
demonstrates well how research and practices from related fields such as the teaching of modern languages, Functional Grammar, Pedagogical Grammar, second language research and practices, general learning theories and others, can enhance the teaching of ancient languages. The much needed research inspired by these fields but related more specifically to ancient languages and BH in particular, will no doubt provide us with interesting results of relevant implications on curriculum development and teaching.
Would all questions asked in pedagogical grammar find the same answers for
ancient languages as have been found for modern languages? most probably not. The
objectives of the two are very different. The main objective of teaching a modern language in the last decades seems to be communication (i.e., emphasizing speaking over reading), while the objective of teaching an ancient language is only the ‘passive’ proficiency (reading with comprehension). Also, the target texts (oral or written) that learners of a modern language are expected to cope with are of immeasurable number, still growing, and of many genres, whereas students learning BH, for example, would have the unchanging corpus of mostly the Hebrew Bible, a defined target text consisting of less than 305, 000 words, to deal with. Moreover, considering the expectation to acquire proficiency in both the passive and the active skills (with emphasis on the active), learning a modern language is a long process, that has to allow time not only for the learning of the developmental grammatical systems, but also for a gestation period that will result with the emergence of the productive skills (Nunan, 1994). The introduction to BH studied in academic settings, on the other hand, is in many cases just a step away from the very demanding serious study of some of the very difficult chapters of the Bible (i.e., Deuteronomy, Amos, Job) and from various aspects not limited to the linguistic: theological, historical, literary, etc.
The objectives, time framework and corpora are different, then, for modern
languages and ancient languages, and so would be the learning processes, and should be the teaching strategies. It would be worthwhile, therefore, repeating some of the questions asked in Pedagogical Grammar research about the learning and teaching of a second language acquisition, this time, focusing on an ancient language. When this ancient language is Hebrew, such questions could be:
- What is the optimal sequencing considering frequency and difficulty?
- Should BH grammatical systems be categorized dichotomically as developmental or
variational, or maybe listed on a continuum? The answer may contribute to the question of sequencing the various grammatical systems in a programme.
- Are there gestation periods for internalizing the various grammatical systems when only’passive’ skills are expected? The answer would help in setting realistic goals to an introductory course and choosing the texts for the following levels.
- How much exposure to level-appropriate texts should be expected before moving on to challenging ones?
- Would Westney’s (1994) proposal that accurate grammatical understanding in second language, beyond the low-level area, is “neither realistic nor desirable,” be relevant to BH as well? If so, can we expect that much of the high level grammar can be internalized unconsciously just through exposure to texts? What amount of reading of authentic texts would be needed for that end, following the introductory course?
Modern languages curriculum developers and teachers can draw from much research and varied resources related to many aspects of the language and its pedagogy. They can find numerous books and articles about processes of second language acquisition as well as about the lexical, grammatical, pragmatic, gender, cultural and other facets of its teaching and learning. BH curriculum developers, and instructors wishing to enhance the textbook based programmes that they are using, with additional material, have had until lately limited resources. They have been able to draw only from the Hebrew Bible itself, academic grammar books, grammar textbooks, Bible concordances and biblical vocabulary frequency lists. There are attempts today to experiment with new ways of teaching BH, mostly to younger students or in non-academic settings. Such attempts are hardly noticeable in academic textbooks for BH. Similarly, serious research dealing with the pedagogy of ancient languages, and BH in particular, is nowhere to be found.
There are many directions which research and resource development can take in order to enhance the teaching and learning of BH. Considering the limited corpus of the BH, it is already feasible in our technological era to create more efficient tools. A ‘grammatical concordance’ data base and a gradated list of morphological and syntactic items (such as the one prepared for Modern Hebrew by Ron Kuzar (see references), for example, can help create better much sounder curricula. Existing data bases for the Hebrew Bible very efficiently serve as lexical concordances and lexicons. Advanced ones already show all the occurrences, (as well as the relative frequencies) of the different grammatical systems and items. Based on such reliable information, it is be possible to find out the relative importance of grammatical systems, inferred today mostly from experience and by intuition, and prioritize them. A ‘grammatical concordance’ would, therefore, contribute to better sequencing of grammatical systems in the introductory course. Also, such a resource would be invaluable when searching for authentic examples to demonstrate what is taught, as it would help find the cross-occurrences between two or more grammatical systems as well as the cross-occurrences a grammatical system and certain word or root.
If developed even further, a multipurpose biblical data-base might be able to act as biblical thesaurus or even offer a choice of verses and passages with the above mentioned cross occurrences around themes: gender, government, judgement, flora and fauna, food, and so on and so forth. For the reinforcement of reading (deciphering), pronunciation and internalization of biblical style and spirit, such a data base could store information about verses to which music has been composed. Singing biblical verses can contribute not only to the learning process but also to the class atmosphere, an important factor in any language acquisition. This kind of multipurpose data-base would be able to combine several requirements such as grammar, lexicon and themes, etc. and make tailoring a program to a variety of frameworks, levels and interests possible.
Ancient languages and Biblical Hebrew in particular, even though not as popular as modern foreign languages, have not lost their appeal for a good number of students. Drawing from other fields and using technology have the potential to help us improve our teaching and provide our students with more efficient, effective, less intimidating and much more meaningful learning experiences with better chances of attainment.
APPENDICES
REFERENCES
Babel’s children | The Economist – Science & Technology (2004, January 8).
בלום-קולקה, ש. (1979). כמה הערות על הדרישות מדקדוק פדגוגי. ‘מנחה לקודש’. המועצה להנחלת הלשון
[Blum-Kulka, S. (1979). Few comments on the demands from pedagogical grammar. Minha leqodesh. The council for the teaching of Hebrew]
Brown, F. (1979). The new Brown – Driver – Briggs – Gesenius Hebrew and English lexicon. Peabody, Massachusetts. Hendrickson Publishers.
Buth, Randall. 1995. Functional Grammar, Hebrew and Aramaic: An Integrated, Textlinguistic Approach to Syntax. In Bodine, W. R. (Ed.) Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature (pp. 77-102). Atlanta, Georgia: Semeia Studies, Scholars Press.
Cook, V. (1994). Universal grammar and the learning and teaching of second languages. In Odlin, T. (Ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar (pp. 1-22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dore, G. (1991). The Bible in pictures. Tel Aviv: Sinai Publishing
Even-Shoshan, A. (1990). A new concordance of the Old Testament. Jerusalem. Kiryat Sefer Publishing House.
Feuerstein, R., Miller, R., Hoffman, M., Rand, Y., Mintzker, Y. & Jensen, M. R. (1981). Cognitive Modifiability in Adolescence: Cognitive Structure and the effects of Intervention. The journal of special education. Vol. 15/No. 2.
Fox, E. (1995). The five books of Moses. New York, Schocken Books.
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context. Boston, MA. Heinle & Heinle.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). An introduction to functional grammar.London: Edward Arnold.
הרמתי, ש. (1983). הבנת הנקרא בסידור ובמקרא. ירושלים. המחלקה לחינוך ולתרבות תורניים בגולה של ההסתדרות הציונית העולמית.
[Haramati, S. (1983). Reading the Bible and the prayer book with comprehension. Jerusalem. The Department for Religious Education in the Diaspora. The World Jewish Agency.]
Kelley, P. H. (1992). Biblical Hebrew, an introductory grammar. Grand Rapids, Michigan. William B. Erdmans Publishing Company.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Pergamon Press.
Kittel, B. P., Hoffer, V., Wright, R. A. (1989). Biblical Hebrew. New Haven and London. Yale University Press
כוזר, ר. (1991). רשימת פריטי מורפולוגיה ותחביר. ירושלים. אקדמון.
Kuzar, R. (1991). List of morphological and syntactic items. Jerusalem. Academon.
Lambdin, T. O. (1973). Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. London. Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd.
Mitchel, L. A. (1984) A student’s vocabulary for Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Grand Rapids. Zondervan.
Nunan, D. (1994). Linguistic theory and pedagogic proctice. In Odlin, T. (Ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar (pp. 1-22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Poehner, M. & Lantolf, J. (2004?)Synamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. In Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 1, Issue 1. pp. 49-72.
Morse, M. (2004). Enhancing the learning and retention of Biblical languages for adult students. Teaching Theology and Religion. Vol. 7 no. 1, pp. 45-50.
Odlin, T. (1994). Introduction. In Odlin, T. (Ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar (pp. 1-22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Overland, P., (2004). Can communicative methods enhance ancient language acquisition? Teaching Theology and Religion. vol. 7. no. 1. pp. 51-57.
Salmon, R., (2000). The Sanskrit language: an introductory grammar and reader by Walter Harding Maurer. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 120, issue 3. pp. 494-495.
Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western Woman learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17, 356-382.
Simon, E., Resnikoff, I. Motzkin, L. (1992). The first Hebrew primer. Oakland, California. EKS Publishing Co.
Westney, P. (1994). Rules and pedagogical grammar. In Odlin, T. (Ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar (pp. 1-22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widner, Y. (1992). L’Shon Hatorah: prefix-suffix workbooks [Draft]
(Currently published by L’Shon Hatorah Publication: www.lshonhatorah.org/)