Ancient Greek Vocabulary Acquisition and Education

1. Ἔν ἀρχῇ ἤν ὁ λόγος... Ancient Greekvocabularyacquisitionandeducation Jeroen Vis, the Netherlands

2. Introduction Importance of vocabulary in foreignlanguageacquisition is stressed in many studies. Huge body of literatureon late foreignvocabularyacquisition. Sparsesystematic research on Ancient Greek.

3. Outline of presentation Several topics related to AncientGreekvocabularyacquisition. Learning approach: activitybased vs. paired-associate. Definingdifficultwords. Role of the Greekalphabet.

4. Aims of presentation Tostimulatethediscussion on Ancient Greek (and Latin) (vocabulary) acquisitionandeducation. Toadd (experimental) linguistic research tothisdiscussion. Toprovidelinguistic tools fordesigningdidacticmaterial.

5. Theoretical background • Knowledge of vocabulary is important in secondlanguageacquisition • Speakers should have acces to about 95% of a text (Nation 1990) • For this, 5000-10000 vocabulary items are needed • How canthis status best beachieved? • Are thereinnatedifficultwords? • Is theGreekalphabetproblematic?

6. Background: AncientGreek • There is sparseempirical research with respect to Ancient Greekvocabularyacquisition • Textbooksonly provide bilingual word lists, vocabularyactivities are marginal • Can we incorporatecurrent research in Modern Languages? • Which point of view? • AncientGreekexhibitssomepeculiarities • Additionalexperimental data are needed

7. Characteristics of teaching AG • Peculiarities of AncientGreek: • No spoken language > input is onlywritten • Traditional method of teaching • Different alphabet • Unfamiliarconcepts • Input limited to classroom • Classroom setting, including • School age • Beginners • Diversity of items • Students’ learningpreference

8. Learning approaches • Twomain approaches concerning the most effective way of acquiringforeignvocabulary (Modern Languages) • A) paired-associate (Mondria 2003, de Groot 2010): the concept is already in the brain, itonlyneeds to acquire a new ‘label’. Otheractivities are merelydistracting and time-consuming. • B) Activity based (Hulstijn & Laufer 2001 amongothers): more involvement leads tobetteracquisition. • Both approaches are supportedbyexperimental data.

9. Experimental data • 3 test conditions: multiple choiceactivity, pairedassociate, multiple choice + pairedassociate • immediate post-test anddelayed post-test

11. For short term acquisition, thepairedassociate approach seems best. • For longer term acquisition, theactivitybased approach seemspromising • >> Learning by means of PA, deep processing by means of activitybasedlearning

12. Definingdifficultwords • 3 parameters, partlybased on Groot (2006 & 2010) : General idea: more activity in the brainmakes a word more difficult to learn A. Phoneticform • Focus on clusters [pt], [kt], [ps], [ks] B. Meaning • abstract vs. concrete meaning C. Grammaticalcategory • Notincluded in Groot, substantive – verb – adjective, possiblyrelatedto #B

13. Experimental data • All parameters andcombination of parameters tested in a learningtask • No significant results • Conclusion: difficulty of wordscan’tbedefined in terms of these parameters a priori • Teacher base theirestimation on frequency of the word

15. Role of thealphabet Different alphabet Difficultiesforlanguageacquisitionaccording to someteachers Greekalphabet vs. transcription Beginners vs. advancedlearners No significant results

16. Conclusions • Pairedassociate is anefficientlearning approach • Vocabularyactivitiescontributetodeep processing • Difficultwordscan’tbedefined a priori • Teachers have a different idea of difficultwordsthanpupils • The alphabetplays no role in learningvocabulary

17. Thankyou See for more details and downloads: www.ionika.nl