I got this important email from John Piazza in San Francisco as part of an ongoing private conversation we have been sharing over the past year about Latin instruction and CI. It totally kicks ass in that it speaks to me, with my zero knowledge of how Latin instruction differs from modern language instruction, on a very intuitive level. Of particular interest and power to me is the part below in italics (my italics). If we claim to be language teachers, then we should wrap our minds around every sentence presented by John below. In my opinion, John is saying that a listening component is essential to the reading component if authentic reading and overall acquisition of Latin is to occur. Again, this is what I take away from what John wrote. Stated in another way, I hear John saying that Latin cannot be a dead language if it is to be authentically acquired. I also hear John implying that few can say that they have full knowledge of Latin if they only have it in their visual, not sound, brain centers, and that that occurence over the centuries has created egoists who merely claim to know Latin, but don’t really, having only studied the split off part of lexical analysis that remained, without the auditory part, after the demise of Rome. If we are talking about waking sleeping languages here in terms of Sauk and Chickasaw and Euchee in Oklahoma, then we might do well to talk about exploring how to awake the sleeping beauty that is Latin, if not by re-creating Rome, then at least in the classroom, and if for no great altruistic dream of bringing the language “back to life”, than so that the kids can be happier in the classroom because they enjoy class more. John is really on to something brand new here. It is a long text but go get a cup of coffee and read it anyway. It concerns us all:
Hi Ben,
Feel free to refer Latin teachers to me who are inteterested in doing CI. As you are beginning to see, Latin teachers are up against so much more opposition than any modern language teacher, precisely because so many people (including teachers) see it as a dead language, and the pedagogical tradition is top-down coming from universities. They have also taken it upon themselves to define words like reading proficiency, competence, utility, etc as they apply to Latin. Dead or alive, if Krashen is right, there is only one way to truly learn a language. My reply to the “academics” is that reading is a form of communication, and even achieving reading proficiency (as opposed to translation and deciphering skills) requires using the language communicatively. Latin is also in need of more and varied Latinists. Only one way to bring them into the fold.
I have a webpage for Latin CI resources, so feel free to link to this from your site/blog:
http://www.johnpiazza.net/comprehensible_input
Many of the resources I have posted are not for complete beginners, but I’ll be modifying it a lot this year in light of my experiences and adding new materials for years 1-2.
As far as Latin teachers who want to make the transition to CI are concerned, the first thing they have to realize is that it’s not about Latin, not about the content. Aside from useful everyday vocabulary (which is definitely not in Latin textbooks, but freely available through online sources) there is no magic Latin TPRS book or worksheet, nor can there be. As with any language, using CI with Latin is about the method, about interacting with students in genuine ways.
So, yours and Blaine’s and Susie’s resources are what Latin teachers should consult as a starting point. Consulting Latin resources beyond those basics is a waste of time. We are on our own. There is no Anna Paupera (pobre anna), there are no easy Latin readers or novels, almost no resources for FVR. Most Latin readers and textbooks are intensive, pushing large amounts of irrelevant vocab with each chapter. Latin children’s books are academic exercises by professors who want to show off. Few Latin students with 5+ years of academic Latin under their belt could easily get through these, nor could most Romans, except those in Augustus’ circle of poets.
Many high school Latin teachers would be taking a big risk doing CI. The Latin AP is ENTIRELY grammatical analysis and translation and essay questions, IN ENGLISH. Any program that is “serious” about AP will have no tolerance for CI, or for 96% of students. This is why I’m so happy to be in middle school with no dedicated Latin feeder high school program to “prepare” students for. I have the freedom to do CI, simply to enjoy Latin with my students. Many Latin teachers do not have this luxury.
So I can offer moral support, and guidance based on my Latin CI journey, on which I am taking only first steps. I can also get people in touch with the few out there who are both open to the idea of CI and are not entirely prevented from trying to implement it. Also, the 800 or so LBP list members are pretty open to discussion of CI Latin.
One final note: ALL latin teachers are 4%ers, and many are the most analytical 1% of the 4%ers. We are anti-social, and we don’t know how to relate to normal kids. To my knowledge, no Latin teacher currently living has learned Latin in a natural way, so this is a HUGE leap of faith, with no evidence for success outside of the theoretical. In the back of our minds is the suspicion that this won’t work, and that grammar-translation is the only way, and there are hundreds of teachers out there who are rooting against us. But in my gut is the feeling that this is right, and even minimal experience using CI has shown me that I can connect with even the most non-4% of my students. I have to go with it.
As for a Latin section of your blog, I am all for it. It can at least be a place for Latin teachers to start their research, and then they can see postings by myself and others (hopefully) that will point them to the next steps, and away from the content. The most valuable aspect of this blog for me is that I am in dialogue with LANGUAGE teachers.
John