General Linguistics and the Teaching of Dead Hamito-Semitic Languages 9004058060, 9789004058064

Citation preview

GENERAL LINGUISTICS AND THE TEACHING OF DEAD HAMITO-SEMITIC LANGUAGES

STUDIES IN SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS EDITED BY

G. F. PIJPER Emeritus Professor in Arabic Language and Literature in the University of Amsterdam

IX J. H. HOSPERS (ED.)

GENERAL LINGUISTICS AND THE TEACHING OF DEAD HAMITO-SEMITIC LANGUAGES

LEIDEN E. J. BRILL 1978

GENERAL LINGUISTICS AND THE TEACHING OF DEAD HAMITO-SEMITIC LANGUAGES Proceedings of the Symposium held in Groningen, 7th-8th November, 1975 on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Semitic Studies and Near Eastern Archaeology of the State University at Groningen

EDITED BY

J. H. HOSPERS

LEIDEN

E. J. BRILL 1978

ISBN 90 04 05806 0 Copyright 1978 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN BELGIUM

Dedicated to the Memory of Prof. Dr. F. M. Th. de Liagre Bohl (f 16-11-1976) and Prof. Dr. K. K. Riemschneider (t 5-6-1976)

CONTENTS Preface............................................................................... Program of the Symposium.......................................... Participants in the Symposium.................................... List of Abbreviations.......................................................

ix xi xm xiv

Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of the Dead Languages J. H. Hospers

1

Der Unterricht des Akkadischen fur Studenten der vorderasiatischen Archaologie................................................................................ 23 K. K. Riemschneider The Teaching of Classical Hebrew : Options and Priorities . J. F. A. Sawyer

37

Didaktische Probleme des akademischen Unterrichts im klassischen Arabisch...................................................................................... 51 S. Wild Experiments in Applying Language Laboratory Techniques to Teaching Classical Hebrew.................................................................... 68 A. D. Crown History of Civilization andthe Teaching of Dead Languages H. J. W. Drijvers

86

The Role of Diachronies in the Teaching of Old Testament Hebrew.........................................................................................................93 J. H. Hospers

Epilogue................................................................................................108

PREFACE On November 6th-8th, 1975, a symposium was held at the Univer­ sity of Groningen (Netherlands) on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Institute of Semitic Studies and Archaeology of the Near East of that University. The theme was “Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of Dead Hamito-Semitic Languages” and in this book are presented the proceedings of that symposium—the first international symposium of its kind—consisting of the four papers delivered, together with the taped formal discussions held at the end of each session. In addition three other papers—not read at the symposium— are inserted in this volume, two written by staff members of the Institute, Prof. Dr. H. J. W. Drijvers and Prof. Dr. J. H. Hospers, and one by Dr. A. D. Crown (University of Sydney). The symposium was organized by the staff of the above-mentioned Institute of Semitic Studies together with the Staff of the Institute for Egyptology of the State University at Groningen. Both Institutes not only shared the same interests in the theme of the symposium but also are housed in the same building, where they live together in great cordiality. The symposium was held in the Main Building of the State Univer­ sity at Groningen, where the papers were presented in the order in which they are printed in this volume. The relations between Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of “dead” languages (in any case : languages which are no longer spoken by anybody as mother tongue and known to us only through written records) were considered by the organizing committee to be a most appropriate theme for the symposium, for reasons expounded in the first paper. A vast literature has grown up on Applied or General Linguistics and the teaching of foreign languages, but all this literature is mainly concerned with modem “living” languages as is evident from a recent bibliography like that of F. J. Hausmann, Linguistik und Fremdsprachenunterricht 1964-1975, Tubingen, 1975. And even in the case of less commonly taught languages not normally available in the school programme, it is mostly the modern colloquial forms of those languages that one has in mind (cf. e.g.: G. E. Perren (ed.), Less commonly taught languages: resources and problems, London 1975).

X

PREFACE

One of the lecturers at the symposium is no longer among the living : on 5-6-1976 Prof. Dr. K. K. Riemschneider died in an accident at the age of 42 years. We all feel deeply the great loss for Assyriology caused by the untimely death of a splendid scholar who during the days of the symposium also proved to be a very amiable person. And on 16-11-1976 Prof. Dr. F. M. Th. de Liagre Bohl died, who founded our Institute in 1925. Though one cannot speak here of an “untimely death”—Prof. De Liagre Bohl lived to the age of 94 years (cf. the “In memoriam” by Prof. Dr. W. H. Ph. Romer in BiOr 33, 3/4, 1976)—we regret that he will not see these proceedings of a symposium which he could not attend but in which he still showed a lively interest. It is to the memory of both assyriologists that we dedicate this book. Finally I would like to thank all who helped to make the symposium a success including not only the authorities of the State University at Groningen, all the members of the staffs of both Institutes and the chairmen during the sessions but also all the participants. And as editor of this volume I especially wish to thank my colleague Mr. G. J. H. van Gelder for his invaluable help in the editing of the “discussions” and his wife Mrs. S. van Gelder-Ottway for the translation into English of some parts of this book and the correction of other parts that were already written in English. Groningen, Summer 1977

J.

H. Hospers

PROGRAM OF THE SYMPOSIUM Thursday, 6th November 1975 In the evening reception of the participants at the Institute of Semitic Studies and Archaeology of the Near East of the State University at Groningen. Friday, 7th November 1975 10.00 h. 10.30 h. ll.OOh.

Opening. Coffee-pause. Paper by J. H. Hospers: “Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of Dead Languages”. 11.45 h. Discussion. 12.30 h. Lunch. 14.30 h. Paper by K. K. Riemschneider: “Der Unterricht des Akka­ dischen fur Studenten der Vorderasiatischen Archaologie”. 15.15 h. Discussion. 16.00 h. Tea-pause. 17.00 h. Reception by the Rector Magnificus. 20.00 h. Paper by J. F. A. Sawyer: “The Teaching of Classical Hebrew : Options and Priorities”. 20.45 h. Coffee-pause. 21.00 h. Discussion. Saturday, 8th November 1975 9.30 h.

Paper by S. Wild : “Didaktische Probleme des akademischen Arabisch-Unterrichts”. 10.15 h. Coffee-pause. 10.45 h. Discussion. 11.30 h. Conclusions and closing.

PARTICIPANTS IN THE SYMPOSIUM K. Aartun, Stavanger W. J. van Bekkum, Groningen M. Boertien, Nibbixwoud F. Boonstra, Haren G. Borg, Nijmegen A. G. Bosma, Groningen M. van der Brand, Groningen K. J. Cathcart, Dublin W. T. Claassen, Stellenbosch A. D. Crown\ Sydney E. J. van Donzel, Leiden A. J. Drewes, Noordwijk H. J. W. Drijvers+, Groningen J. van Dijk, Groningen N. van Dijk-Drukker, Groningen T. Ellemers-Etzioni, Groningen P. van Espen, Destelbergen A. J. van Essen, Eelde G. J. H. van Gelder, Haren C. H. J. de Geus, Groningen G. Haayer, Groningen A. J. Harpman, Hattem A. van der Heide, Amersfoort J. H. Hospers*+, Groningen Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, Amster­ dam M. H. Inklaar-de Haan, Groningen B. S. J. Isserlin, Leeds G. Jansen, Leeuwarden J. J. G. Jansen, Groningen N. S. H. Jansma, Den Haag B. Jongeling, Groningen K. Jongeling, Garmerwolde G. J. Jongeling-Vos, Garmerwolde P. Katz, Weil am Rhein C. A. Keller, Le Mont-sur-Lausanne C. Klijn, Groningen

C. J. Labuschagne, Haren E. Lipinski, Brussel E. Lubberink, Groningen C. A. Meehan, Amsterdam J. P. Menting, Haren E. C. M. de Moor, Nijmegen J. C. de Moor, ’t Harde M. J. Mulder, Badhoevedorp W. Noordtzij, Groningen C. Nijland, Leiden J. R. T. M. Peters, Nijmegen D. Pinto, Groningen G. F. Pijper, Amsterdam G. J. Reinink, Ten Boer K. K. Riemschneider*, Chicago J. C. J. Sanders, Heemstede J. F. A. SawyeC, Newcastle upon Tyne H. J. Schilder, Kampen J. W. Spoel, Groningen M. Tanret, Gent P. Tuinhout-Keuning, Slochteren N. A. van Uchelen, Aerdenhout H. L. J. Vanstiphout, Groningen K. R. Veenhof, Heemstede H. te Velde, Paterswolde P. A. Verburg, Groningen C. H. M. Versteegh, Arnhem M. J. Versteegh, Overschild D. Vetter, Meinzerzhagen J. M. Vos-Boersma, Groningen W. G. E. Watson, Munster J. W. Wesselius, Leiden S. Wild*, Amsterdam A. S. van der Woude, Groningen M. J. Wijntjes, Den Haag A. Zaborski, Krakow.

The sign * after a name indicates that the person in question read a paper during the Symposium, the sign + that he offered a paper for this book.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BiOr. BJRL BSOAS FO JA JBL JNES JTS OLZ Or TESOL ThZ TPS VT ZAW

Bibliotheca Orientalis. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Folia Orientalia. Journal Asiatique Journal of Biblical Literature. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Journal of Theological Studies. Orientalistische Literatur Zeitung. Orientalia. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Theologische Zeitschrift. Transactions of the Philological Society. Vetus Testamentum Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.

APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND THE TEACHING OF DEAD LANGUAGES J. H. HOSPERS Groningen

When we, being the staff of the Institute of Semitics and Archaeology of the Near East, decided to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of this Institute by organizing a scientific symposium, we had to search for a fitting theme. This theme should be connected with as many as possible of the fields catered for in the teaching and research activ­ ities of our Institute. Furthermore, it should have some relevance for the Institute of Egyptology as well, because this Institute, albeit as an independent unit, has shared rooms with the Institute of Semitics since 1965, and is otherwise closely connected to us. A short retlection upon the common aspects of the several tasks which we fulfill here as Egyptologists, Akkadists, Arabists, Hebraists, Aramaists, Syriasts etc...., made it clear very soon, that one important common aspect lies in the fact that all of us to a greater or lesser extent are teaching so-called “dead” languages. Or perhaps not really all of us, because it gives me great pleasure that these days, as distinct from the situation in 1925, when de Liagre Bohl founded the Insti­ tute and for long years afterwards, we have given some importance to the teaching of modern forms of Arabic and Hebrew. But these modern, spoken forms are after all themselves based upon the earlier “classical” form, or, in the case of Arabic upon the forms that are functioning as written language forms. This observation tallied beautifully with the fact that there has grown a considerable amount of learned argument, these recent years, over the teaching of one of the “dead” languages, in case classical Hebrew. One of us has taken part in this discussion with some articles. Thus we arrived at the theme “Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of the Dead Hamito-Semitic Languages” for this symposium. We are glad therefore to see here an international gathering of scientists who not only have to deal with these problems in their work, but even more, who are interested in the scientific consequences thereof. And it gives us a very special pleasure to note that amongst those present are some of those who have in recent years originated or

2

J. H. HOSPERS

furthered the discussion, alluded to earlier, about the optimal teaching methods of Classical Hebrew. However, as the theme of the Symposium makes clear, we did not want to restrict the discussion to Classical Hebrew. Bearing in mind the structure of our own Institute as well, we have also in­ cluded other ancient Semitic languages, in case Akkadian and Classical Arabic, in order to enable us to exchange ideas and learn from one another against this somewhat expanded background. We know full well that even so, we have only made a small selection. Ugaritic, Phoenician, Old Aramaic and Syriac are not represented by formal papers. Egyptian as well will have to do with a small mention in the title, where we see //am/to-Semitic languages. It will readily be seen, however, that this is mostly due to the short period of time available. But we trust that in the discussions there will be ample opportunity for experiences with and propositions concerning the teaching methods of these languages. Moreover, it seems to us that the three languages that are formally represented are exemplary for the other ones, because the problems will be mutatis mutandis the same. To give an illustration—it may well be that a teacher of Akkadian will encounter the same problems as a teacher of Egyptian: both have a restricted corpus of written texts in a nonalphabetic script. After these introductory remarks, I may be allowed to start with my own contribution, which consists in some remarks on: “Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of Dead Languages”. A great merit of C.-A. Keller has been that he, almost a quarter of a century after J. Fuck’s exhaustive treatment,1 twenty years after O. Grether,12 and nine and three years after J. Barr’s remarks in other connections,3 has brought the problems connected with the optimal teaching of Classical Hebrew to the fore again.4 Quite rightly, he insisted upon taking into account the developments in

1 J. Fiick, “Gedanken zur Methodik des hebraischen Unterrichts”, J. Fuck, Fest­ schrift Otto Eissfeldt zum 60. Geburtstage dargebracht, Halle/Saale, 1947, 125-140. 2 O. Grether, “Erwagungen zum hebraischen Sprachunterricht”, W. Baumgartner, O. Eissfeldt, K. Elliger, L. Rost (eds), Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet von Kollegen und Freunden, Tubingen, 1950, 192-207. 3 J. Barr, “The Position of Hebrew Language in Theological Education”, The Inter­ national Review of Missions 50, 1961, 435-444. Id., “The Ancient Semitic LanguagesThe Conflict between Philology and Linguistics”, TPS 1968, 37-55. 4 C.-A. Keller, “Probleme des hebraischen Sprachunterrichts”, VT 20,3, 1970, 278286.

THE TEACHING OF THE DEAD LANGUAGES

3

Applied Linguistics, exactly like D. Vetter and J. Walther5 and P. Katz6 after him. This was very pleasing, because it meant that those authors were no longer content with the traditional “translationgrammar” method, and that they could no longer approve of teaching as “merely a succession of improvizations”, as D. A. Wilkins put it.7 Even so, as early as 1950, O. Grether wrote: “Ferner sind die in den letzten Jahrzehnten gemachten methodischen Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete des fremdsprachlichen Unterrichts fur die Unterweisung im Hebraischen noch sehr wenig ausgewertet”.8 However, the conclusions which most of the specialists quoted just now have drawn, and which were based upon their views about Applied Linguistics on the one hand and their application to Classical Hebrew on the other, have been attacked independently by A. Zaborski and myself.9 In our contributions, we pointed out: a) that the new methods used by the authors just mentioned have all been devised for the teaching of modem spoken languages, and therefore are not necessarily applicable to dead languages. b) that one cannot circumvent the problem by inverting it, and teach Classical Hebrew as if it were a spoken language, c) that the most recent views concerning language teaching no longer hold with one single universal and sacrosanct language teaching method, and that also different objectives need different methods, d) that it has become very clear that the role of explicit grammatical rules and translations into the mother tongue are being revalued in modem language teaching, and that therefore their role in

5 D. Vetter & J. Walther, “Sprachtheorie und Sprachvermittlung. Erwagungen zur Situation des hebraischen Sprachstudiums”, ZAW 83, 1971, 73-96. Id., Hebrdisch Funktional. Beschreibung operationelen Verfahrens, Stuttgart, 1973. 6 P. Katz, “Hebraische Grundkenntnisse fiir jeden Theologen — warum, wozu und wie”? ZA W 84, 1972, 220-242. 7 D. A. Wilkins, Linguistics in Language Teaching, London, 1972, p. 175. 8 O. Grether, op. cit., p. 193. 9 J. H. Hospers, “Some Observations about the Teaching of Old Testament Hebrew”, M. A. Beek, A. A. Kampman, C. Nijland, J. Rijckmans (eds), Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae F.M.Th. de Liagre Bohl dedicatae. Leiden, 1973, 188-198. A. Zaborski, “Teaching the Language of the Bible”, FO 14, 1972-1973, 65-76. J. H. Hospers, “The Teaching of Old Testament Hebrew and Applied Linguistics”, M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss, Ph.H.J. Houwink ten Cate, N.A. van Uchelen (eds). Travels in the World of the Old Testament. Studies presented to Professor M. A. Beek on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Assen/Amsterdam, 1974, 94-101.

4

J. H. HOSPERS

teaching Classical Hebrew must be given more prominence than the authors mentioned above thought was justified. Furthermore, we have both tried to expand the field of the argu­ ment by stressing that apart from students in theology, Hebrew, and other ancient Semitic languages, are being taught to students of Semitics as well. In my latest article, I have myself criticized the meanwhile aban­ doned equalization of first and second language acquisition, which still seemed to be present in the thinking of most of these authors. Many things connected with language acquisition are still a mystery, but one thing is certain : that the acquisition of the mother tongue is absolutely unique and irrepeatable. Even when we use here a con­ cept like LAD—Language Acquisition Device—, i.e. a tacit knowledge of linguistic universals, it is highly questionable whether it would be possible for the teaching of a second language ever to create an environment as favourable for the functioning of LAD as the one present when the mother tongue is acquired. Therefore, it does not seem necessary to imitate as far as possible this first language acquisition process, although teaching in another way can and should make use of what has happened before. And that which has happened is something very real indeed, because acquiring a second language is quite different from “acquiring language again”.10 On the one hand it is quite possible for the acquisition of the first (mother tongue) language to have an impeding effect upon the acquisi­ tion of a second language, but on the other hand the teacher does not have to teach Language as such. This happened before. He only teaches a new manifestation of Language, an expression of Language in one particular language, as Reichling put it. Nor does the pupil need this second language in order to regulate his behaviour or his mental functions, or to organize his perceptions In short, it is appreciated now that an adult simply cannot learn a second language in exactly the same way as a child acquired its first one. These and other considerations caused me to state in my latest article: “I cannot rid myself of the thought that the said authors, in their desire to replace the traditional and indeed, unsatisfactory didactic method by a better one, resort to methods that are wholely

10 S. Pit Corder, Introducing Applied Linguistics, Harmondsworth, 1973, p. 115.

THE TEACHING OF THE DEAD LANGUAGES

5

or partly abandoned again in the most recent views on Applied Linguistics”.11 I would like to expand this statement somewhat, but first I have to define my use of the term “Applied Linguistics”. In using this term, I refer to Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching only. Linguistics can be applied to a great number of things, including translation procedures, orthographic normalizations and the vast field of different speech impediments. But, in the phrase of W. Hiillen, this is always an “Instrumentalisierung linguistischer Erkentnisse”11 12 in other words, a prescriptive application of descriptive General Lin­ guistics to language teaching. Even S. Pit Corder stated that “The Applied Linguist is a consumer or user, not a producer, of theories”.13 This last aspect is also seen in the title of a nice little book on Applied Linguistics: H.-H. Baumann’s “Linguistik fur den Verbraucher”.14 This aspect is essential to the rest of my argumentation, because there are still many controversies connected with the relationship between General Linguistics and Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching—as an illustration of which I am making an arbitrary choice of recent statements. B. Malmberg has pointed out that, just as in the 19th Century historical-comparative Linguistics determined foreign language teaching, resulting in the translation-grammar method, also in the present century modern General Linguistics still determines theories about mother tongue acquisition as well as foreign language acquisition and its methodology.15 This explains why e.g. somebody like H. E. Palmer embarked upon linguistic research with as his avowed objective the improvement of foreign language teaching. It is well known to what extent Structuralism and Behaviorism have influenced language teaching in our times. In this country, G. Extra pointed out that different theories about language and language acquisition have led to different theories about foreign language teaching. He rightly stresses the difference between implications for the theory of language and for the theory of learning.16 According

11 J. H. Hospers, Op. cit. (1974), p. 100. 12 W. Hiillen, Linguistik und Englischunterricht, Heidelberg, 1971. 13 S. Pit Corder, op. cit., p. 10. 14 H.-H. Baumann, Linguistik jur den Verbraucher, Materialien zur anwendbaren Sprachwissenschaft, Miinchen, 1974. 15 B. Malmberg, Sprdkinldrning. En orientering och ett debattinldgg, Stockholm, 1971. 16 G. Extra, Taalverwerving en vreemdetalenonderwijs. Theoretische achtergronden van het onderwijs in moderne vreemde talen, Groningen, 1973. Compare also P. Inkey &

6

J. H. HOSPERS

to some views, TGG will have important implications for foreign language teaching. But Chomsky himself repeatedly warned against quick conclusions in that field, although he spoke out quite strongly on linguistic grounds against behaviorist methods in the famous “Skinner Review”.17 On the other hand, we find authors who do not see the need for such a close relation between General Linguistics and Applied Lin­ guistics in Language Teaching. D. A. Wilkins states that changes in General Linguistics do not have to bring about corresponding changes in Applied Linguistics, and therefore he shuns the term Applied Linguistics in order to make it clear that linguistics is not necessarily involved18. W. F. Mackey even thinks that General Linguistics would overstep its bounds in prescribing any learning method as being best.19 As for myself I believe that there always has to be a relation like the one I defined earlier with General Linguistics—as has always been the case in the past, so that one can agree with K. C. Diller: “Decisions on language teaching methodology have not been primarily the result of practical and disinterested experimentation; they have been decisions based instead on differing theories of language”.20 But of course we have to wait for what the future will bring us. As to the “differing Theories of language” which till now have always influenced the different schools of thought within Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, it seems to me that the distinction made by Chomsky between Empiricism and Rationalism is still very illuminating. He himself and some others have worked this out in some publications.21 G. Szepe (eds.), Modern Linguistics and Language Teaching. International Conference Budapest 197 f The Hague-Paris, 1975. 17 N. Chomsky, Review of B. F. Skinner. Verbal Behavior, New York, 1957 in Language 35/1, 1959, 26-28. Skinner postulated a “tabula rasa”, “empty organism” or “black box”. 18 D. A. Wilkins, op. cit., p. 217. 19 W. F. Mackey, “Applied Linguistics: its meaning and use”, English Language Teaching, vol. 20, 1966, 197-206. 20 K. C. Diller, Generative Grammar, Structural Linguistics, and Language Teaching, Rowley, Mass., 1971, p. 8. 21 N. Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass., 1965, 46-48. The book of K. C. Diller (cf. note 20) is almost entirely based on this major language acquisition controversy. Compare also E. Glyn Lewis, “Linguistics and Second Language Pedagogy”, Th. A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 12,3: “Linguistics and Adjacent Arts and Sciences”, The Hague, 1974, 2131-2184.

THE TEACHING OF THE DEAD LANGUAGES

7

Therefore I can be short—and indeed so I should were it only because of the limited amount of time. The empiricist school views language as a complex of habits, to be acquired as such as a first language, and to be learned as such as a second language—i.e. through “habit formation”. This presupposes imitative methods, either “mim­ icry and memorization” (“mim-mem”) or “pattern drills” or both— conditioning in short. Structuralism has found this an agreeable environment, rooted as it was in descriptive linguistics, whose sup­ porters have indeed adhered to the empiricist theory of language learning ever since the end of the 19th century. In Applied Linguistics this structure drill by imitation was also linked to Behaviorism in the fifties, especially in the USA under Bloomfield’s influence. Then came the Stimulus-and-Response model and the Reinforcement con­ cept of the Audio-lingual methods. Behaviorism therefore, which is only a school of thought in Psychology, and neither the best one nor the most up to date at that, cannot claim to present a theory of learning a language, but only applies some general principles of learn­ ing to language. These principles themselves were based upon observa­ tions of animals, for animal reactions to stimuli were supposed to be conclusive for human behaviour as well. B. F. Skinner22 has pushed these principles to their logical if absurd conclusion, so that we finally find ourselves in the illustrious company of the pedal-pushing rat in his Skinnerbox, or that of Pavlov’s famous dog. But let us return to the human world, in order to take a look at Rationalism, of which the history is at least as long as that of Empiricism, since Descartes, Leibniz and Kant may already be called rationalists. Rationalism then views language as a typically human and inherited communications system. Indeed, the double articulation principle, i.e. the construction from two different organizational types, which is basic to this system already points in this direction. Here Language development is not determined by external factors such as stimuli triggering off definite responses, which themselves can be reinforced. To the contrary, it is here mainly the creative faculty of the young child which determines the acquisition of the first language. Chomsky calls this the innate faculty of the child to learn a language— any language—(Innatism), and to Lenneberg this is a “Language 22 B. F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior, New York, 1957 and also: Beyond Freedom and Dignity, London, 1972 and : About Behaviorism, New York, 1974.

8

J. H. HOSPERS

Acquisition Device” (LAD). D. A. Wilkins likes to use the term “mentalism”, because, contrary to a purely descriptive linguistic view­ point, it is being posited here that Language is a thing of the mind. Language acquisition processes are therfore normal maturation proces­ ses. The rationalist principles have occasioned several teaching methods in Applied Linguistics, among which we find not only the earlier “grammar translation” method, but also some “direct” methods. Although stressing the deep chasm between Empiricism and Rational­ ism, Chomsky himself does not propose a language learning theory of his own, even if denying very strongly that environment has anything to do with language acquisition. This is of course to be ascribed to this Rationalism, as is his view that Language is a “rule-governed system”, not a form of behaviour. But this TGG is a descriptive theory of language, analysing in the first place the speaker’s “competence”; language teaching on the other hand has to deal with the speaker’s “performance” one way or another. However, he would approve of classifying theoretical linguistics as a branch of cognitive psychology, and if I am not mistaken this is precisely the direction in which the quest for a satisfying language learning theory within Applied Lin­ guistics is more and more being undertaken these days. In this way one usually refers to a “cognitive code-learning theory” which itself is based upon Gestalt Psychology as well as upon TGG. After all, man is born with a faculty for thought, and therefore with a faculty for the learning of a very specialized cognitive code, peculiar to mankind : I mean Language, the tool which enables man to think. The psychologist, D. I. Slobin relates this therefore to a child’s cognitive faculty to solve very complicated problems, and not to an innate faculty based upon linguistic principles. This is clearly a correc­ tion which psychologists would want to make in connection with TGG concepts like “innatism” or LAD. Generalizing and simplifying one sees how Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching now seems to prefer a sort of “Insight Method” as against “Direct Method”.23 This learning theory sets more by the pupil’s understanding of the structure of the second language than by his ease in using that structure. Many do now agree that a cognitive structuralization of the material—not least by means of grammatical explanations—favours the process of learning.24 As recently as 1973, G. Extra could write 23 Cf. A. Elleg&rd/E. Lindell, Direkt eller Insikt, Lund, 1970. 24 Cf. G. Wienold, Die Erlernbarkeit der Sprachen. Eine einfuhrende Darstellung des Zweitsprachenerwerbs, Miinchen, 1973 pp. 99-100; A. Elleg&rd/E. Lindell, op. cit., p. 15;

THE TEACHING OF THE DEAD LANGUAGES

9

with much justice that the Western World was only starting to do research into cognitive aspects of learning a language, and that e.g. Russia was heading the field.25 But, at least in this country, the recent work of C. F. van Parreren, J. A. M. Carpay and R. Eikeboom,26 shows that much more is being done now, as I shall show further on. From the above it follows that the faith in the audio-lingual method, based upon Structuralism and Behaviorism, is no longer as complete as it was in the sixties. L. Selinker has even mentioned a stagnation in Applied Linguistics,27 and there are those that find it so difficult to make a choice that they would propose an eclectic method, like L. A. Jakobovits.28 Others again do not see that a choice is necessary; with B. Malmberg they find no incompatibility between “direct” and “insight” method,29 or again with D. A. Wilkins they think that a teacher need not choose “since foreign language learning can be considered a matter of both nature and nurture”.30 Still, he prefers the mentalist approach when stating that this at least means to explain human behaviour. What is more, he recognizes that this ap­ proach is rapidly gaining ground. And finally he juxtaposes “Mental­ ism and Behaviorism”,31 having pointed out, quoting Chomsky, that the Behaviorists’ use of „analogy” in describing the way a child construes a sentence already implies that a child may well be gifted with a mechanism which produces analogy. This is probably what Th. H. Mueller, “The Effectiveness of two Learning Models: The Audio-Lingual Habit Theory and the Cognitive Code-Learning Theory”, P. Pimsleur & T. Quinn (eds), The Psychology of Second Language Learning, Cambridge, 1971, 113-122, p. 121. 25 G. Extra, op. cit., p. 79 points to C. F. van Parreren and J. A. M. Carpay, Sovjet-psychologen aan het woord, Groningen, 1972. 26 C. F. van Parreren and J. A. M. Carpay, op. cit. C. F. van Parreren, Lernprozess und Lernerfolg, Eine Darstellung der Lernpsychologie auf experimenteller Basis, Braun­ schweig, 1972. J. A. M. Carpay, Onderwijs-leerpsychologie en leergangontwikkeling in het moderne vreemde-talen onderwijs, Groningen, 1975 and: “De studie der vreemdetaalverwerving: leerpsychologisch”, B. T. Tervoort (red.), Wetenschap & Taal, Muiderberg, 1977, 119-133. R. Eikeboom, Didaktiek en vreemde-taalverwerving, Amsterdam, 1974. 27 L. Selinker. “The Psychologically relevant data of second-language learning”, P. Pimsleur & T. Quinn (eds), The Psychology of Second Language Learning, Cambridge, 1971, 35-43, p. 35. 28 L. A. Jakobovits, Foreign Language Learning: A Psycholinguistic Analysis of the Issues, Rowley, Mass, 1970; L. A. Jakobovits and B. Gordon, The Context of Foreign Language Teaching, Rowley, Mass, 1974. 29 B. Malmberg, op. cit., p. 179. 30 D. A. Wilkins, op. cit., p. 176. 31 D. A. Wilkins, op. cit., 176.

10

J. H. HOSPERS

J. B. Carroll means where he terms the distinction between “habit” and “rule-governed behaviour” a false dichotomy.32 As for myself, I would maintain that a choice between Empiricism and Rationalism will have to be made. Here one can observe in recent times a clear turn towards Rationalism. The great and rather naive expectations that the audio-lingual method once evoked, have had to make way for confidence in the results of psychology, as would appear from the growth of the “cognitive Code Learning Theory”. The audio-lingual method has failed primarily in not pre­ paring the student to the use of language for communication. And those last years more importance has been given to communicative aspects and social contexts of language and its expression. S. Pit Corder too has pointed out the importance of communicative compe­ tence, where in situational aspects are of utmost consequence for the speaker, in foreign language teaching. Indeed, sometimes one can perceive in modem language teaching a more social approach to language, which is more related to the communication functions of language in different social situations. At the same time it must be clear that in this field one cannot— and should not!—expect too much from TGG, if only because the communication aspect of language has so far been left out of account. TGG “competence” is not meant to be social or communicative; only competence is described, not “performance”. TGG does not pretend to give a “speaker—hearer” model, but takes as its departure an abstract, ideal native speaker. The ambiguous sentences, stressed so much in TGG analysis, get their ambiguity precisely from the context-free analysis.33 But language is essentially a structure made for cooperation with extra-linguistic factors, and not solely a selfcontained system of rules.34 Therefore, it is not fair to expect TGG as such to give us the didactic methods we need for foreign language teaching. 32 J. B. Carroll, “Current Issues in Psycholinguistics and Second-Languae Learning”, TESOL 5, 1971, 101-114, p. 102. 33 B. L. Derwing, Transformational Grammar as a Theory of Language Acquisition. A Study in the Empirical, Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of Contemporary Linguistic Theory, Cambridge, 1973. 34 E. M. Uhlenbeck, Transformational-Generative Grammar and the Teaching of Foreign Languages: A Critical Appraisal-Discussion, A. J. van Essen/J. P. Menting (eds), The Context of Foreign Language Learning, Assen, 1975, 152-158. Compare also E. M. Uhlen­ beck, Critical Comments on Transformational-Generative Grammar 1962-1972, Den Haag, 1973.

THE TEACHING OF THE DEAD LANGUAGES

11

As regards modern language teaching, I feel that more may be expected of the cognitive code Learning Theory, particularly as it has been elaborated by Russian psychologists like Ansubel, Belyayev, Gal’perin and Gochlemer.35 The last mentioned, when dealing with complicated grammatical structures does not trust in rules and para­ digms, but in outlines and primarily in instructions in the form of action algorithms. What does all this mean for the didactics of the “dead” HamitoSemitic Languages? In the first place, I think, it means this: Vetter and Walther, in their article36 as well as in their book,37 base their viewpoints on learning theories belonging to present-day modem language teaching, and they ask: “Sollten die Erfahrungen die uns die Methodik des neusprachlichen Unterrichts vorlegt, fur die Vermittlung des Hebrai­ schen so ohne Bedeutung sein”...38 And this question is put with much justice. But I hope that my contribution has shown, that in the “Methodik des neusprachlichen Unterrichts” recent years have wrought some changes, even if Vetter and Walther’s emphasis upon language as ^vepysia as against spyov have shown steps in the right direction. But even in the acquiring of a living second language it is stressed these days that insight in the structure of the language system is at the very least as important as frequent structural drills. Moreover, one can point to the pluriformity of learning methods, while one cannot be sure any longer that everybody ought to acquire a new language in the same way. Because we have to do with “dead” languages, these problems are much more pressing for us, because—as E. A. Nida has phrased it recently in an excellent article—our students are “more concerned with decoding than with encoding”.39 It seems to me, that for the 35 Cf. C. F. van Parreren & J. A. M. Carpay, op. cit. D. Ausubel, Educational Psychology: a cognitive view. New York, 1968. B. V. Belyayev, The Psychology of Teaching Foreign Languages, Oxford, 1963; P. J. GaTperin, “Stages in the Development of Mental Acts”, M. Cole, I. Maltzman (eds), A Handbook of Contemporary Soviet Psychology, New York, 1969; M. M. Gochlerner, G. V. Ejger, “Die Etappenweise Herausbildung linguistischer Handlungen und Begriffe als Psychologischen Grundlage fiir das Erlernen einer Fremdsprache”, Deutsch als Fremdsprache 9, 1972, 175-180. 36 D. Vetter & J. Walther, op. cit., (1971), p. 75. 37 Idem, op. cit. (1973), p. 10. 38 Idem, op. cit. (1971), p. 88. 39 E. A. Nida, “Implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship”, JBL 91, 1972, 73-89, p. 87.

12

J. H. HOSPERS

teaching of “dead” languages the present-day cognitive approach will help us appreciably further than the purely direct method, which wanted to do without mother tongue or paradigms. And because we have before us languages that are represented only graphically, one has to read oneself in into them. This fits in well with R. Eikeboom’s view, that certainly for “dead” languages, but also for living languages a long receptive period is of utmost importance.40 But dead languages also necessitate a great effort to penetrate into the cultural background of the “Target Language”. What should the particular methodology for “dead” language teach­ ing, which Zaborski would like to see,41 look like? Not much has been done in this field, nor in the field of other “dead” languages e.g. Classical Languages.42 Zaborski himself proposes a somewhat traditional “Reading (i.e. understanding) and translating” method, which ties in nicely with J. B. Carrolls’s characterization of cognitive code learning “as a modified, up-to-date grammar-translation method”.43 But then it should be indeed “modified" and “up-to-date"! For one thing should be clear: that we must never return to traditional grammar-translation method, with its grammatical rule for its own sake, and wherein language is reduced to “The role of examples, i.e., of an illustration of grammatical rules given in an aprioric way... only an addition to grammar”, as Zaborski puts it,44 45 for grammatical rules are not an end in themselves. All who have written on the problems concerning teaching Classical Hebrew, from Flick till the present writer, agree most heartily with this, as they do with Vetter and Walther’s observation, that the object should never be the isolation of particular phenomena and their plotting in a paradigm, but quite the reverse, i.e., “Beobachtung ihrer Funktion im Textzusammenhang”.4 5 40 R. Eikeboom, op. cit., p. 17-18. 41 A. Zaborski, op. cit., p. 76. 42 Cf. G. Calboli, La Linguistica moderna e il latino. / casi, Bologna, 1972; Th. Decaigny, “Les moyens audio-visuels dans les cours de langues anciennes”, Otia 13, 1965, 1-8; R. Eikeboom, Rationales Lateinlernen, Gottingen, 1970; M. de Greve & F. van Passel, Linguistik und Fremdsprachen-unterricht, Miinchen, 1971, pp. 123-124; R. Nickel, Altsprachlicher Unterricht, Darmstadt, 1973; R. Pfister, “Thesen zur Linguistik und Sprachunterricht”, Gymnasium 77, 1970, 405-407; H.-J. Fischer, Der altsprachliche Unterricht in der DDR, Paderbom, 1974. 43 A. Zaborski, op. cit., p. 76. J. Carroll, “The Contributions of Psychological Theory and Educational Research to the Teaching of Foreign Languages”, A. Valdman (ed.), Trends in Language Teaching, New York, 1966, 93-106, p. 102. 44 A. Zaborski, op. cit., p. 72. 45 D. Vetter & J. Walther, op. cit. (1973), p. 12.

THE TEACHING OF THE DEAD LANGUAGES

13

This means that we must take the text as our point of departure! “Grammar must be learned from texts’’ as Zaborski has it.46 We can all agree with that, as we can with his remark that we should start with “clauses, sentences, and short texts, and not vice versa’’.47 Of course these sentences should be culled from the corpus, in unchanged form, as Flick already said;48 This too has found a large amount of agreement, and K. K. Riemschneider in his Akkadian Textbook has used this method with much justice.49 A further point of agreement will be that syntax must be central in the exercises, because it belongs with the exercises about real sentences taken from the extant texts, and not with drills confined to the grammatical system, as it used to be. Students must try to build their own grammar from these sentences, as Zaborski puts it,50 but apart from that, some place should still be found for a priori grammatical theory.51 Already J. Flick recommended to start these exercises with uncom­ plicated two-membered nominal sentences, because in doing so one particular characteristic of Hebrew syntax—but of course with general applicability for the other Semitic Languages!—is exemplified. IndoEuropean Languages indeed do not have such nominal sentences, where no verbal phrase is realised.52 Also Vetter and Walther point out this feature,53 and this brings us to a very important principle in modern Applied Linguistics: I refer to Contrastive Linguistics resulting in a Contrastive Grammar which tries methodically to de­ crease interference from the mother tongue. “Dead’’ language teaching must reckon with the fact that no independent second language system is being constructed, but that, receptively as well, there is always a tendency to apply first language rules to the second language. But we have to do with languages belonging to completely different groups. Therefore, the contrastive Analysis principle will have to be applied as much as possible.54 46 A. Zaborski, op. cit., p. 72. 47 Idem, op. cit., p. 72. 48 J. Flick, op. cit., p. 134. 49 K. K. Riemschneider, Lehrbuch des Akkadischen, Leipzig, 1969. 50 A. Zaborski, op. cit., p. 72. 51 Idem, op. cit., p. 73. 52 J. Flick, op. cit., p. 135. 53 D. Vetter & J. Walther, op. cit. (1973), p. 32. 54 Cf. R. Dirven, A redifinition of contrastive linguistics. Trier, 1974. G. Nickel (ed.), Papers in Contrastive Linguistics, Cambridge, 1971; J. H. Hammer, A Bibliography of Contrastive Linguistics, Londen, 1965; H. Raabe (ed.). Trends in kontrastiver Linguistik

14

J. H. HOSPERS

A point where opinions differ, is the introduction of the foreign graphical system in the teaching method. In this respect opinions are still strongly influenced by the Saussurian descriptive point of view of the primacy of spoken language over written language. “Language” was defined as “spoken language”, and the study of the script was held to be extra-linguistical, except for some degree of phonological information. Linguistics was only about spoken language, and was restricted even further to “spoken prose”,5 s which is meant to be represented graphically. It would follow that only spoken language must be taught, and this “parole-based approach to teaching”55 56 was founded upon the Behaviorist-structuralist slogan: “Language is speech, not writing”, eventhough usually “langue” instead of “parole” was being taught. Obviously we are unable to teach the once spoken, but now “dead” Hamito-Semitic languages as if they were spoken Akkadian, Egyptian, Hebrew etc. But more must be said about this. It is a matter of fact that generally in the history of language, as again in the case of every individual—excepting some pathological cases— spoken language predominates. But in recent times the BehavioristStructuralist view of script as a secondary and on the whole inadequate kind of pseudotranscription of language has come under attack. Lin­ guists as H. J. Uldall, W. Haas an J. Vachek have, in their own separate ways, pointed out the mutually complementary features of spoken and written language, being fundamentally equal vehicles for giving physical existence to language.57 From very early on, both language forms have been coexistent on the same level, complementing and even influencing each other, depending on the given situation which made one or the other preeminent. In this way, ink is just as important as the air which spoken language articulation sets in motion, as Uldall writes.58 One can safely say that these days the linguistic value of graphical symbols is being revalued. In connection with learning processes, this MI, Tubingen, 1974-1976. W. Nemser, “Problems and Prospects in Contrastive Linguis­ tics”, P. Inkey & G. Szepe (eds). Modern Linguistics and Language Teaching. Interna­ tional Conference Budapest... 1971, The Hague-Paris, 1975, 99-113. 55 D. Abercrombie, Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics3, London, 1971, p. 6. 56 D. A. Wilkins, op. cit., p. 35. 57 H. J. Uldall, “Speech and Writing”, Acta Linguistica 4, 1944, 11-16; W. Haas, Phono-Graphic Translation, Manchester, 1970. J. Vachek, “Some Remarks on Writing and Phonemic Transcription”, Acta Linguistica 5, 1945-1949, 86-93; “The present State of Research in Written Language”, FL 6, 1973, 47-61; Written Language. General Problems and Problems of English, The Hague-Paris, 1973. 58 H. J. Uldall, op. cit., p. 12.

THE TEACHING OF THE DEAD LANGUAGES

15

implies to my mind that always, but particularly in the teaching of “dead” languages, the script must be brought into the teaching from the start. This is certainly so for Semitic languages that are written in an alphabetic graphical system which is still our own! For practical reasons one can defend that in the case of Egyptian or Akkadian, both using a non-alphabetic graphical code, a first phase of transposi­ tion of this code into an alphabetic system formally corresponding to our own is to be preferred. But this cannot be used as an argument against the early introduction of script in teaching. E. Reiner prefers the term “written language” to that of “dead language” since pro­ blems arise not so much from the fact that the language is dead, i.e. has no more living speakers, but from the fact that it is known to us only through written records.59 On the whole, there is a communis opinio that diachronic informa­ tion ought not to be given. Here I beg to differ. I am of the opinion that this information is often necessary. But since I have defended my views on this subject in a separate contribution to the Acts of this Symposium, I will let this matter rest.60 Finally, I maintain that a “meaningful practice of the grammatical constructions of the language in an orderly way”61 certainly entails that a longish receptive phase should be part of the due process of learning. In this phase the students should read many easy texts in order to get acquainted with the language. Recently the importance of this usage — even when the objective is not restricted to receptive language forms — has been rightly stressed in this country a.o. by R. Eikeboom.62 To my mind, these are the principles upon which the teaching of dead Hamito-Semitic Languages should be based. I assume that there are others, but perhaps our cooperative efforts during this Symposium will show them up. But we must always bear in mind what P. Christophersen has said: “Teaching human beings is not like filling bott­ les”63 — whichever method we prefer. Therefore, S. Pit Corder has 59 E. Reiner, A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian, The Hague, 1966, p. 20. Cf. also G. Gragg, Linguistics, Method and Extinct Languages: “The case of Sumerian”, Orien­ tals 42, 1973, 78-96. 60 J. H. Hospers, “The Role of Diachronies in the Teaching of Old Testament Hebrew”, J. H. Hospers (ed.). Teaching the Dead Hamito-Semitic Languages and General Linguistics, Leiden, 1978, 93-107. 61 K. C. Diller, op. cit., p. 86. 62 R. Eikeboom, op. cit. (1974), p. 17. 63 P. Christophersen, Second-Language Learning. Myth and Reality, Harmondsworth, 1973, p. 11.

16

J. H. HOSPERS

with much justice entitled the Introduction to his book “Introducing Applied Linguistics” : “Language Teaching : Art and Science”.64 DISCUSSION AFTER THE PAPER OF J. H. HOSPERS (CHAIRMAN : H. J. W. DRIJVERS) Crown : Are there any texts in the Tenak which you would ignore for the purpose of teaching beginners on the ground that they might be confusing for diachronic reasons, perhaps texts which are later in time and show different manifestations? There are schools of thought which suggest you might e.g. leave Chronicles out of teaching beginners altogether. Hospers : Personally I prefer to give diachronic information from the very start of my teaching in order to enable the students to get acquainted with the whole complex of Biblical Hebrew in all its manifestations. van der Heide i In the teaching of written languages there is a time-honoured institution of learning many texts, preferably all the relevant texts by heart. In my opinion there is much in favour to be said of this institution but I suppose that applied linguistics con­ demns this practice. Probably there is more light to be shed upon this way of teaching and perhaps some of it may be saved. Hospers : I think it is to be recommended that students learn at least some texts by heart. I have said in my paper that one has to read oneself in into the dead language and I have also spoken about the value of a long receptive period. Also in my teaching I have tried on some occasions to make the students learn some short texts by heart: a few of the shorter suras of the Qur’an or some short passages of the Old Testament. But due to lack of time it did not always succeed too well. Menting : An important thing for students of dead languages is of course the comprehension of texts. Do you have in your teaching methods for the measuring of comprehension other than translation and resuming texts, e.g. multiple-choice procedures, and if so, does this present any particular problems? Hospers : We don’t have any experience with methods like multiple choice. 64 S. Pit Corder, op. cit., p. 119.

THE TEACHING OF THE DEAD LANGUAGES

17

de Moor : In Kampen we had some experience with it and I must say we are not very enthusiastic about it, but it would take too much time to deal with this in more detail. But I would like to ask a question myself: as you said in your lecture, the text has to be the point of departure and as a consequence the sentence and syntax have to be central. The student has to try to build up his own grammar from those sentences. I do agree with that but, as you know, there is a completely developed Latin course which uses this method written by Dr. de Man. Do you think that his method could be adopted for the teaching of Semitic and Hamitic languages? De Man’s Latin course is a three-year course. In Holland, however, one of the problems is that we are not always allowed to use that amount of time. Theo­ logical students in Holland have to learn Hebrew within one academic year and I do think that this new method requires much more time than that. Hospers : There is a book similar to that of De Man, viz. Eikeboom’s “Rationales Lateinlernen”, (Gottingen, 1972), which I mentioned in my paper. To my mind one needs at least two years and a half or three years for a similar course in Classical Hebrew or any of the dead Hamito-Semitic languages. Keller : Ich bin weitgehend einverstanden mit Ihren Ausfuhrungen. Ich habe vor zehn Jahren den erwahnten Artikel geschrieben und ich wiirde den heute nicht mehr so schreiben wie damals. Ich bin jetzt einverstanden mit der Betonung der aktiven bewuBten intellektuellen Aneignung der Sprache. Ich bin aber vielleicht doch etwas anderer Meinung in Hinblick auf einen Punkt der mir wichtig scheint, namlich die Aneignung von Automatismen, daB aber der Lernende eben doch gewisse Automatismen unbewuBt sich aneignen muB und das tut er indem er eben repetiert, z.B. auswendig lernt, wie man sagte, oder auch indem er gewisse wichtige und grundlegende Formen lernt und repetiert und sie so wirklich intus bekommt. Z.B. verlange ich immer von den Studenten daB sie bei den Verben die beiden wichtigen Formen einfach lernen, daB sie nicht nur qwn sagen, aber qdm, ydqum. Ich habe damit gute Erfahrungen gemacht. Und ich mochte nun fragen ob nicht doch das UnbewuBte eine gewisse Rolle spielt trotz aller Wichtigkeit der bewuBten Aneignung der Sprache. Und es gibt noch einen anderen Punkt der mir wichtig scheint: Ich habe in meinem damaligen Artikel auch betont daB die Sprachen neu beschrieben werden miiBen und vor allem das Hebraische. Ich bin noch immer vollig derselben Meinung in diesem Punkte. Wir

18

J. H. HOSPERS

brauchen eine ganz neue Beschreibung der hebraischen Sprache. Ich bin sehr unbefriedigt von manchen kurzlichen AuBerungen iiber das Thema und mochte also fragen ob Sie nicht auch da eine Notwendigkeit sehen die Sprache neu zu beschreiben und sie viel einfacher zu beschreiben als die mittelalterliche Grammatik die noch immer gilt es getan hat? Hospers : DaB ich auch einverstanden bin mit der wichtigen Rolle die die Aneignung von Automatismen spielt stellt sich heraus aus demjenigen das ich gesagt habe iiber das auswendig lernen von gewissen Texten. Ich bin auch der Meinung daB es sehr niitzlich ist um Qdm, ydqum zu lernen. Beim klassischen Arabisch gilt m.E. dasselbe fur die gebrochene Pluralia, z.B. ragul, rigdl. Ich bin auch vollig damit einverstanden daB es eine ganz andere Beschreibung der klassischen hebraischen Sprache geben sollte. Drijvers : Was bedeutet hier “neu” und “ganz anders”? Keller : Das kann ich nicht so in einigen Satzen sagen. Aber z.B. das Prinzip der Triliteralitat muB aufgegeben werden und dann auch die Bezeichnungen der verschiedenen Verbformen wo man die akkadische Methode einfiihren sollte : S, N, D usw. Wild : Two questions: 1) Do you put any hope in the method of language statistics? It seems evident to me that one should teach frequent forms and constructions before one teaches rare forms and constructions. I do not know if anything has been done for classical Hebrew in this respect and I wonder if you think that research in this direction is necessary or desirable. 2) How soon should the student know that what we are supposed to teach we do not really know ourselves? How soon should you tell the students that there are scientific problems, e.g. the difference between Hebrew perfect and imperfect? This may be impossible to answer. Hospers: As far as language statistics is concerned, to my know­ ledge, nothing has been done in this field relating directly to teaching dead Hamito-Semitic languages. Concerning your second question I believe that one should confront the students with the existence of problems from the very beginning when coming across them. The teacher should try to show to the students how these problems could be partly solved on the basis of a contextual approach. Sawyer : A few points, first on the question of frequency. Without any sophisticated statistics one point is very clear and that is that the prefixes and suffixes are more frequent in any piece of Hebrew than items of vocabulary and that they should be taught at a very

THE TEACHING OF THE DEAD LANGUAGES

19

early stage just as items of vocabulary. Secondly concerning new grammars using new techniques particularly beginning with the sen­ tence as the basic unit and emphasizing syntax, there is one Arabic one, of course, by Ziadeh and Winder and I would also like to mention my own grammar which comes out in February which is based on exactly the principles which you were speaking about. Finally do you think that the Language Laboratory is of any value in teach­ ing dead languages? Hospers : To start with your last question I only wanted to say that one should not overestimate the value of the Language Laboratory. What do you mean in your first remark by prefixes and suffixes? Sawyer : Verbal suffixes as in 'amar-tU 'amar-ta etc. I would recom­ mend that there should be an index of such suffixes alongside the vocabulary and students should be taught to recognize them as items which have an independent meaning. This does not apply to all pre­ fixes and suffixes but to a large number of them. Zaborski : It has been said that new methods demand more time, but those methods have been developed in order to accelerate the teaching. However, our practical needs demand more time indepen­ dently of the method. On the question of the Language Laboratory: this should not be discussed as just a technical device. What is impor­ tant is the method by which we use it. I agree with you that in teaching dead languages we are less concerned with the Language Laboratory than teachers of living languages. I would also like to comment upon Erica Reiner’s term “written languages” which, in my opinion, is a very ambiguous term and is not a very good substitute for the term “dead languages”. Modern written Arabic can be called dead only to some extent. Modern literary Arabic is acquired only as a second language, it is true, but it is not a dead language, nor are written Dutch, English or French, which are only stylistic varieties of the living languages. It is with these modern literary languages that one should start teaching Hebrew and Arabic. Isserlin : It seems to me that we ought to take into account that both Hebrew and Arabic are not only dead languages but to some extent live languages, on the classical Arabic side, of course, if you like: pseudo-live. We have to take into account, secondly, the ques­ tion : what is our aim in teaching? Have we only got in our class people who want to use the Old Testament or, shall we say, ancient Arabic, prose or poetry and nothing else? Or have we possibly a mixture of people who want to do classical, possibly mediaeval and

20

J. H. HOSPERS

also modern Hebrew and Arabic? I would say if that is the case as e.g. we find in Leeds where we have to teach students for Arts courses who take Arabic or Hebrew as a language together with theologians because there is not enough teaching power to run these things separa­ tely, that then we may have to follow a middle course which will, perhaps, not give the absolute optimum but which seems to give the best possible to a number of students. Now in such a case a number of considerations arise, about, e.g. the restriction to the most common vocabulary, which Prof. Wild mentioned. There we have to be careful: e.g., there are some statistics for Biblical Hebrew concerning the frequency of occurrence of nouns, verbs and adjectives; and some very odd things arise: e.g., in the case of opposites like “big” and “small”. “Big” (in Hebrew: gdddl) occurs far more often than “small”. Yet, obviously, you cannot teach a student only one of them. So one has to use common sense together with statistical guides as to what is probably the most fre­ quent vocabulary. Then we have another consideration: do students learn more easily through comprehension of texts, or through speak­ ing? Now both again may have to be used in the same class and both a speaking approach and a comprehension approach, may be found useful because students’ aptitudes vary. You have to use eclectically almost all approaches together. Some things may best be learned by heart, such as short “tags”, and I remember e.g. that a person like the great autodidact Schliemann learned endless stretches of texts by heart in order to learn languages of the most varied kinds and found this useful. To a smaller degree, just giving short “tags” of classical Hebrew or Arabic may be helpful at least to some students, though perhaps not to others. When teaching them to speak at least very simple sentences from the beginning of a type which might be both classical and modern you have to be highly selective: you have in fact almost to “cheat” to select what will be usable in both. Yet this approach again may be useful to some students: using by preference short sentences rather than unconnected words. We have to keep in mind also that e.g. the ancient grammatical terms are things which we cannot keep from our students. We cannot bring up students who know all about Chomsky but never have seen Wright or GeseniusKautzsch. Yet we have to “get this in” within a very limited time. Lastly—and here I pronounce a horrible heresy!—we must not forget that at least in the case of Biblical Hebrew we are faced with a very odd situation in that we have a number of books written we

THE TEACHING OF THE DEAD LANGUAGES

21

know not where, by whom or when—unless we are fundamentalists. We have the text, we have traditional ideas as to who they were written by—e.g., by Moses—and we have hypotheses that they might be, e.g., sixth-century, seventh-century or eighth-century; but let us not assume that we have the same certainty as a latinist or a student of Greek, who has thousands of inscriptions which show him exactly what Attic Greek or Alexandrian Greek or Spanish Latin or Italian Latin of such and such a century was like. We lack that control entirely. So we teach, as has been said, what we do not know and our students ought to know that very early on. Vetter : Ich meine wir konnen iiber verschiedene Sprachlehrmethoden nur dann sprechen wenn wir die jeweiligen Lernzielen genannt haben. Denn nur dann haben wir Kriterien zur Beurteilung einer Methode. Sogenannte lebende Sprachen haben ein anderes Ziel, weil sie die Verstandigung dienen, als die als tot bezeichneten Sprachen. Und da mochte ich wiederum unterscheiden : habe ich als Lernziel die sog. “Langue” dann wiirde ich mich einverstanden erklaren daB diese Beziehung im Subjekt — Objekt Schema die Beziehung des betrachtenden zu einem zu sezierenden, analysierenden, also toten Gegenstand ist. Habe ich aber als Ziel die “Parole”, wie es mein Anliegen ist in meinen genannten Veroffentlichungen, dann habe ich es nicht mit einer toten Sprache zu tun. Wer verstehen will befindet sich gerade nicht in der Beziehung zum Gegenstand, sondern kann nur dann verstehen wenn er sich als Angeredeten mit begreifen kann. Nur in diesem Zusammenhang meinte ich daB wir beobachten soil ten was im modernen Sprachlehrverfahren der jetzt lebenden Sprachen gemeint ist. Lipinski : For the so-called Biblical Hebrew we have different tradi­ tions in reading and pronouncing. One of these forms became stan­ dardized thanks to the existence of the State of Israel. And now in the best case this way of reading and pronouncing Biblical Hebrew reflects a late stage of the language while the texts themselves are about one thousand years older. How do we in our teaching face such a problem which is similar to that of certain targums which are written in Palestinian Jewish Aramaic and vocalized in Babylonian Jewish Aramaic? Hospers : I completely agree with the words of Messrs. Zaborski, Isserlin and Vetter. As to your remarks, Mr. Lipinski, this is a problem indeed, but I think we should adopt the modern Israeli pronunciation for lack of a practical alternative.

22

J. H. HOSPERS

Vanstiphout : I quite agree with the opinion that we should not expect too much from T.G.G. in our daily practice. Being a cuneiformist — and maybe I am speaking out of turn since my main interest is in Sumerian which is not a Semito-Hamitic language — I have some difficulties: in the case of a language like Sumerian a very theoretical first phase could be more fruitful than the program sketched for mainly Hebrew and Arabic, where you can start very easily with reading yourself in into many easy texts. Now over a period of, let us say: seven or eight years of studying Sumerian I have found that there are no easy Sumerian texts. What should I do? Hospers : I am sorry I cannot help you, not being a Sumerologist myself.

DER UNTERRICHT DES AKKADISCHEN FOR STUDENTEN DER VORDERASIATISCHEN ARCHAOLOGIE KASPAR K. RIEMSCHNEIDER Chicago

DaB ein klassischer Archaologe griechische und romische Schriftsteller im Original lesen kann, wird allgemein als selbstverstandlich vorausgesetzt. Von einem Historiker der Kunst und Kultur des islamischen Orients wird die Kenntnis des Arabischen, des Persischen und des Turkischen erwartet. Ein Archaologe, der in Agypten ausgraben wollte, ohne selbst Hieroglyphen lesen zu konnen, ist ebenso unvorstellbar wie ein Gelehrter, der sich mit den historischen Statten des alten Israels beschaftigt, ohne des Hebraischen machtig zu sein. In Mesopotamien dagegen arbeiten viele Archaologen, fur die die Kenntnis der wichtigsten Sprache des Alten Orients, des Akkadischen, nicht in derselben Weise selbstverstandlich ist. Es darf sogar als Regel gelten — eine Regel, die durch seltene Ausnahmen bestatigt wird — daB der vorderasiatische Archaologe, selbst wenn er sich wahrend seines Studiums mit Keilschriftsprachen beschaftigt hat, spater kaum in der Lage ist, einen akkadischen Text zu verstehen.1 Wir sind — um dies gleich deutlich zu sagen — weit davon entfernt, dem vorderasiatischen Archaologen einen Vorwurf aus seinen geringen Akkadischkenntnissen machen zu wollen; wir unterstellen ihm auch kein Desinteresse an der Sprache. Das Akkadische ist weder wie das Arabische eine lebende Sprache noch ist es wie das Griechische oder Lateinische durch eine ungebrochene Tradition uberliefert. DaB der ProzeB der Wiedergewinnung des Akkadischen nicht beendet ist und nie als abgeschlossen wird gelten konnen, stellt nicht nur jeden Lemenden vor besondere Probleme, vor allem solche lexikalischer Art, es bedeutet auch, daB mit dem Akkadischen auf die Dauer nur wirklich vertraut bleiben kann, wer sich die Muhe nimmt, durch

1 Wer dies fur sich nachpnifen mochte, mag versuchen, ob er eine beliebige Umschriftseite in W. G. Lamberts Babylonian Wisdom Literature ohne Zuhilfenahme der Obersetzung versteht. Oder er kann seine Kenntnisse am sprachlich problemlosen Beschworungsritual STT 231 iiberprufen, von dem Erica Reiner, in JNES 26 (1967) 186-188, eine Umschrift aber keine Obersetzung gegeben hat.

24

K. K. RIEMSCHNEIDER

Lekture der wichtigsten Veroffentlichungen an den Fortschritten der assyriologischen Wissenschaft teilzunehmen. Dies allein erklart aber nicht, warum das Studium des Akkadischen vom Archaologen meist nur mit Zuruckhaltung betrieben wird. Es kommt als entscheidendes Moment hinzu, daB Akkadisch bei Nichtassyriologen als auBerst schwer zu erlernende Sprache gilt. Dies wirft die Frage auf, ob wir Assyriologen es verstanden haben, den Unterricht des Akkadischen fur den Archaologen interessant zu machen und ihn soweit zu erleichtern, wie dies mit den Mitteln moderner Didaktik mdglich ist. Dariiber werden die Meinungen gewiB geteilt sein. Es sei dem Vortragenden gestattet, hier darzulegen, wie seiner Ansicht nach den Archaologen das Akkadische nahergebracht werden konnte. Es gibt keinen Consensus dariiber, wie Akkadisch am besten unterrichtet werden sollte. Es gibt auch kaum eine Diskussion.2 Nur iiber vergleichsweise weniger wichtige Fragen ist bisher gestritten worden, so etwa dariiber, ob der Unterricht mit der Grammatik des Altbabylonischen zu beginnen habe, wie es heute wohl allgemein in Deutsch­ land iiblich ist, oder vielmehr mit der Lekture jungbabylonischer Texte, wie es nach wie vor in den Vereinigten Staaten geschieht. Kein Interesse hat bisher die Frage gefunden, wie der Unterricht des Akkadischen fiir Archaologen aussehen soli, welchem Ziel er dienen und welcher Art die Fahigkeiten sein sollten, die sie sich erwerben sollten und die in der Priifung zu testen waren. Wenn hier hauptsachlich von Archao­ logen die Rede ist, so deshalb, weil das Institut, dessen Jubilaum uns die Moglichkeit gibt, die Methodik des Unterrichtes des Akkadischen zu diskutieren, “Institut fiir Semitistik und Archaologie des Vorderen Orients” heiBt. Wir konnten natiirlich ebensogut von alien den Stu­ denten sprechen, bei denen ein Interesse am Akkadischen vorausgesetzt werden darf: Theologen, Semitisten, Agyptologen, Rechts- und Wirtschaftshistoriker. Sie alle, deren Interesse weniger der Assyriologie als Wissenschaft, sondern mehr dem Akkadischen als Sprache gelten, sind, wenn sie Akkadisch lernen wollen, fast uberall dazu gezwungen, ein quantitativ reduziertes Assyriologiestudium zu betreiben. Ein Unter2 S. jedoch W. von Soden, “Aufgabe und Methode des akkadischen Sprachunterrichtes”, OLZ 1942, 345-353; dort Sp. 345: “Am Anfang des Unterrichtes steht seit jeher mit Recht die Erlemung der Keilschrift; denn die Einfuhrung in das Akkadische lediglich auf Grund von Umschrifttexten muB auch fur Nichtassyriologen eine durch besondere Umstande bedingte Ausnahme bleiben”; die gegenteilige Ansicht haben wir zuerst im Vonvort zum Lehrbuch des Akkadischen, Leipzig 1969 (2. Auflage 1973), ausgedriickt.

DER UNTERRICHT DES AKKADISCHEN

25

richt, der die Interessen von Nichtassyriologen geniigend beriicksichtigt, sich also qualitativ von den Kursen fiir Studenten unterscheidet, die Assyriologie als Hauptfach gewahlt haben, wird kaum erteilt. Von einem Assyriologen wird erwartet, daB er Texte in Keilschrift lesen und verstehen kann. Die mit fortschreitendem Verstandnis eines Textes zu leistende Bestimmung beschadigter und schwer lesbarer Zeichen, die epigraphische Arbeit also, macht einen wichtigen Teil der Tatigkeit des Assyriologen aus. Die Vertrautheit mit den zeitlich und ortlich recht verschiedenen Keilschriftdukten und die Fahigkeit, auch schlecht erhaltene Texte rekonstuieren zu konnen, sind fiir ihn eine conditio sine qua non. Der Unterricht des Akkadischen besteht daher weitgehend aus der Lekture von Texten in Keilschrift. Im Interesse der Studenten der Assyriologie ist dies natiirlich richtig und notwendig. Aber es ist unserer Meinung nach abwegig, von einem Archaologen dasselbe Interesse fiir epigraphische Fragen zu erwarten. Fiir ihn kommt es doch vor allem darauf an, das Verstandnis eines bereits erschlossenen Textes nachvollziehen zu konnen. Natiirlich bedeutet das nicht, daB der Archaologe auf das Studium der Keilschrift verzichten konnte oder sollte. Das Problem liegt vielmehr darin, zu welchem Zeitpunkt mit der Lekture von Keilschrifttexten begonnen wird. Um deutlich zu machen, warum diese Frage so wichtig ist, muB das Verhaltnis von Schrift und Sprache im Akkadischen hier in der gebotenen Kurze dargestellt werden. Ein Keilschrifttext lasst sich nicht mit einem Text in griechischer, arabischer oder hebraischer Schrift vergleichen. Fiir den Lernenden ist es ein gewaltiger Unterschied, ob er einen Text in Buchstabenschrift oder einen Keilschrifttext lesen soil. Die Wortwurzeln eines hebrai­ schen Textes treten deutlich hervor. Der Lesende kann, wenn er die Bedeutung der Wortwurzeln kennt, den Inhalt des Satzes ungefahr erraten, auch wenn er zunachst nicht jede grammatische Form genau versteht. Ein Keilschrifttext dagegen besteht meist uberwiegend aus Silbenzeichen, die das Lautbild, wenigstens bei einer semitischen Sprache, eher verhiillen als deutlich machen. Anders als bei anderen Keilschriftsprachen hat der Lernende beim Akkadischen nur in ganz beschranktem MaBe die Moglichkeit, bestimmte Zeichenfolgen mit bestimmten Wortern zu verbinden und sich einzupragen, da je nach der “Vokalisierung” der Konsonanten ganz verschiedene Zeichen geschrieben worden sind. Dies allein wurde fiir den Lernenden viel­ leicht kein uniiberwindliches Problem darstellen. Aber die Silben­ zeichen haben zu einem groBen Teile mehrere Lesungen, von denen

26

K. K. RIEMSCHNEIDER

es jeweils die einzig richtige auszuwahlen gilt. Die genaue Bestimmung der Wurzelkonsonanten wird ferner dadurch erschwert, daB in der Keilschrift die VerschluBlautgruppen am Silbenende uberhaupt nicht, b und p auch am Silbenanfang nicht in alien Fallen durch verschiedene Zeichen unterschieden werden konnen. Ehe der Student also bis zum Erkennen der bei einem hebraischen oder arabischen Text von vorn herein gegebenen Wortwurzeln vordringen kann, muss er die verschie­ denen Lesungsmoglichkeiten durchprobieren. Beriicksichtigt man nun noch, daB viele Silbenzeichen auch als Logogramme, als Schriftsymbole fur ganze Worter, gebraucht werden konnen, und ferner, daB vielfach nicht einmal die Wortgrenzen erkennbar sind, so hat man einen Begriff von den Schwierigkeiten, mit denen der Anfanger zu kampfen hat. Denn eine Entscheidung dariiber, welches die richtigen Lesungen sind, ist ja nur vom Verstandnis des Textes her mdglich. Dies aber setzt die sichere Beherrschung nicht nur der Grammatik, sondern auch des gesamten im jeweiligen Text zu erwartenden Wortschatzes voraus. Verfiigt ein Student iiber diese Kenntnisse noch nicht, so gilt fiir die Lekture eines Keilschrifttextes in noch starkerem MaBe das, was Campensis 1528 in einem Briefe an Daniel Bomberg iiber unpunktierte hebraische Texte gesagt hat: “ego legere sine punctis non legere puto sed divinare”.3 Studenten, von denen zu friih, d.h. bevor sie eine wirkliche Vertrautheit mit der Sprache gewonnen haben konnen, die Lektiire von Texten in Keilschrift verlangt wird, kommen iiber das “divinare” nicht hinaus. Ihnen wird nichts weniger zugemutet, als daB sie Akkadisch schon konnen, bevor sie es gelemt haben. Man kann sich eigentlich nicht daruber wundern, wenn solche Studenten vom Unterricht enttauscht sind, wenn sie das Akkadische fiir schwer erlernbar halten und zu der Annahme neigen, daB sie die auf das “divinare” verschwendete Zeit mit dem Studium von etwas anderem sinnvoller ausfiillen konnen. Mit der Lektiire von Texten in Keilschrift sollte daher erst dann begonnen werden, wenn zu erwarten ist, daB die Studenten nicht nur mit der Bestimmung von Formen keine Schwierigkeiten mehr haben, sondern auch einen groBen Teil des Wortschatzes wirklich beherrschen. Das ist aber nach einem Studium von einem Semester, das iiblicherweise dem Studium der Grammatik gewidmet ist, noch nicht zu ver3 Wir ubemehmen dieses Zitat dankbar von J. H. Hospers, Symbolae Bohl, Leiden 1973, 191.

DER UNTERRICHT DES AKKADISCHEN

27

langen. Der Unterrichtende sollte daher mit seinen Studenten Texte in Umschrift lesen. Manchem Assyriologen mag diese didaktisch begriindete Forderung abwegig erscheinen. Aber beim Unterricht anderer Keilschriftsprachen ist die Lekture von transkribierten Texten seit langem iiblich, zum Beispiel beim Hethitischen. Den Studenten macht erfahrungsgemaB die Entzifferung eines hethitischen Keilschrift­ textes weit weniger Muhe als die eines akkadischen, weil die Poly­ phonic der Zeichen hier eine geringere Rolle spielt. Und dennoch hat sich die Lekture von Texten in Umschrift im Unterricht des Hethitischen als praktikabel erwiesen. Seit drei Jahrzehnten werden fur den Unterricht des Hethitischen wohl uberall Johannes Friedrich’s “Lesestiicke in Transkription mit Erlauterungen und Worterverzeichnissen”4 benutzt. Die Lekture transliterierter Texte macht das Erlernen der Keilschrift nicht uberflussig; das gilt fur das Hethitische in gleicher Weise wie fur das Akkadische. Sie kann und sollte aber dazu genutzt werden, die Sprachkenntnisse des Lernenden zu entwickeln und zu befestigen. Wir bestreiten natiirlich keineswegs, daB das Lesen von Texten in Umschrift auch Nachteile hat. Sie treten z.B. dann deutlich hervor, wenn verschiedene Auffassungen einer Textstelle besprochen und verglichen werden sollen, die von einer unterschiedlichen Interpretation des graphischen Befundes ausgehen. Eine Umschrift kann nie die Objektivitat einer sorgfaltigen Kopie beanspruchen. Sie ist stets Inter­ pretation und als solche nur bedingt zuverlassig. Aber die Assyriologie ist seit bald acht Jahrzehnten eine etablierte Wissenschaft.5 Es ware wirklich sehr schlecht um sie bestellt, wenn wir heute noch nicht in der Lage sein sollten, die Umschrift eines seit langem bekannten, zuverlassig edierten und mehrfach bearbeiteten Textes ahnlich der Teubner- oder Oxfordausgabe eines klassischen Schriftstellers fur Studien- und Unterrichtszwecke empfehlen zu konnen. Fiir die Lekture in Umschrift eignen sich auch nicht alle Textgruppen in gleicher Weise. Es hatte wahrscheinlich wenig Sinn, etwa altassyrische Urkunden und Briefe in Umschrift lesen zu wollen, da bei der Interpretation dieser Texte die Besonderheiten des altassyrischen Syllabars berucksichtigt werden miissen, die natiirlich am Keil­ schrifttext selbst viel besser deutlich gemacht werden konnen. Texte, 4 Hethitisches Elementarbuch //, Heidelberg 1946, 2. Aufl. 1967. 5 Der erste Lehrstuhl fiir Assyriologie wurde im Jahre 1900 in Leipzig mit der Berufung von H. Zimmem als ordentlicher Professor geschaffen, s. J. Oelsner, “Heinrich Zimmern (1862-1931)“, in : Bedeutende Gelehrte in Leipzig, Band I, Leipzig 1965, 117ff.

28

K. K. RIEMSCHNEIDER

in denen sumerisch geschriebene Formeln (altbabylonische Urkunden) oder sehr viele Logogramme (jungbabylonische Omentexte) verwendet worden sind, kommen gleichfalls nur ausnahmsweise in Betracht. Aber jungbabylonische literarische Texte, die Epen und Mythen also, sowie Hymnen, Beschworungen und natiirlich Gebete, sowie ein Teil der Konigsinschriften, konnten und sollten unserer Meinung nach durchaus in Umschrift gelesen werden. Bei der Lekture transliterierter Texte und dem dadurch bedingten Verzicht auf die Diskussion epigraphischer Fragen, kann man die Aufmerksamkeit der Studenten viel starker auf die Sprache und den Inhalt der Texte lenken. Hierbei ergibt sich zugleich der Vorteil, daB bei der Lekture wesentlich schneller vorwartsgegangen werden kann. Dies ist wichtig, weil der Student, und insbesondere der Archaologe, natiirlich auch eine moglichst umfangreiche Textkenntnis erhalten soil. Denn wenn der Unterrichtende sich fragt, ob er mit den Studenten, die er betreut hat, und die zu ihm zur Priifung kommen, wirklich alle fiir sie wichtigen Texte gelesen hat, so wird er haufig feststellen mussen, daB vor allem auf dem Gebiete der jungbabylonischen Literatur manches religions- und kulturgeschichtlich Interessante, das gerade fiir den Archaologen von Bedeutung ware, nicht die ihm gebiihrende Beriicksichtigung gefunden hat. DaB der Student solche Texte von sich aus liest, kann man natiirlich nur dann erwarten, wenn man ihn nicht nur wieder und wieder auf ihre Wichtigkeit hingewiesen, sondern ihn auch in die Lektiire entsprechend eingefiihrt und die Moglichkeiten zu ihrem Studium bereitgestellt hat. Die Lekture von literarischen Texten in Umschrift stoBt allerdings bisher auf eine Schwierigkeit. Es gibt kein fiir den Unterricht geeignetes Buch, das eine wirklich ausreichende Auswahl an umschriebenen Texten enthielte. Bearbeitungen von Keilschrifttexten im Unter­ richt zu benutzen, hat natiirlich wenig Sinn, da diese neben der Umschrift auch die Obersetzung enthalten, die sich der Student mit Hilfe der Lexika selbst erarbeiten sollte. Dies stellt den Unterrichtenden vor die unbequeme Notwendigkeit, die Umschriften selbst anzufertigen. Es ware natiirlich viel einfacher, wenn ein Buch benutzt werden konnte, das alle geeigneten Texte in Umschrift enthalt. Es sei gestattet, hier darzulegen, wie ein solches Hilfsmittel fur den Unterricht unserer Meinung nach aussehen konnte. Der bereits erwahnte zweite Teil von Johannes Friedrich’s Hethitischem Elementarbuch, “Lesestiicke in Transkription mit Erlauterun­ gen und Worterverzeichnissen”, kann fiir ein Akkadisches Lesebuch

DER UNTERRICHT DES AKKADISCHEN

29

als Vorbild empfohlen werden. Es miiBte nur, der Bedeutung der akkadischen Literatur angemessen, wesentlich umfangreicher sein und moglichst alle geeigneten Texte enthalten : die einigermaBen vollstandig iiberlieferten Teile der Epen und Mythen, Hymnen, Beschworungen, Gebete und natiirlich auch historische Texte. Es sollte nicht nur im Unterricht benutzt werden konnen, es sollte den Studenten auch zur selbstandigen Lekture anregen. Die Texte waren in Transliteration (in syllabischer Umschrift) zu geben, wobei fur die Wiedergabe der Logogramme nicht unbedingt eine einheitliche, sondern eine didaktische Methode erwogen werden sollte: grundsatzlich sollten Wortzeichen als Sumerogramme mit Beifugung der akkadischen Lesung transkribiert werden, doch konnte fortschreitend auf die Beigabe der Lesung von haufiger vorkommenden Logogrammen verzichtet werden. Ein kurz gehaltener Kommentar zu einzelnen Stellen konnte dem Lesenden iiber manche Schwierigkeiten hinweghelfen. Das Lesebuch sollte jedoch kein Glossar enthalten, damit der Lernende sich an die Benutzung der Worterbucher gewohnt. Der Unterrichtende konnte einen Teil der Texte im Kursus behandeln. Danach sollten die Stu­ denten in der Lage sein, die iibrigen Texte selbstandig durchzuarbeiten. Leider wird die Verwirklichung des hier skizzierten Planes einer akkadischen Chrestomathie wohl fiir lange Zeit ein Wunschtraum bleiben. Man sollte aber bis zu seiner Verwirklichung nicht zogern, fiir die Lektiire von Texten in Umschrift bereits vorhandene Hilfs­ mittel auszunutzen.6 Erst nachdem den Studenten das Verstandnis umschriebener Texte keine allzu groBen Schwierigkeiten mehr bereitet, sollte man sie die wichtigsten Zeichen lernen lassen und gleichzeitig mit der Lektiire von Keilschrifttexten beginnen.7 Man sollte freilich auch hier sorgfaltig 6 Hier sind R. Borger’s Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestiicke zu nennen, deren II. Heft eine Anzahl von Texten in Umschrift enthalt. DaB R. Borger diese Umschriften, der Anlage seines Buches entsprechend, als Hilfsmittel fiir die Lekture der im III. Heft enthaltenen Keilschrifttexte vorgesehen hat, braucht nicht daran zu hindern, sie in dem hier vorgeschlagenen Sinne zu benutzen. 7 In der Diskussion, die sich dem Vortrag anschloss, wurde der folgende Einwand erhoben. Das Auswendiglemen der Keilschriftzeichen stelle fiir den Studenten eine erhebliche Belastung dar und miisse deshalb auf einen moglichst langen Zeitraum verteilt werden. Daher sei es notwendig, schon von Beginn des Unterrichtes an, neben der Grammatik auch die wichtigsten Keilschriftzeichen zu iiben. Dies deckt sich nicht mit unseren Erfahrungen. GewiB stellt das Lernen der Zeichen eine Gedachtnisarbeit dar; wir haben aber kaum je feststellen konnen, daB sie den Studenten besondere Schwierigkeiten bereitet hatte. Dies gilt jedenfalls fiir die weniger komplizierten Schriftformen, die assyrische Normalschrift oder die altbabylonische Kursive; es gilt nicht fiir die Monumentalschrift z.B. des Kodex Hammurabi. Um keinen falschen Eindruck

30

K. K. RIEMSCHNEIDER

iiberlegen, welche Art von Keilschrifttexten fur Archaologen besonders wichtig ist. Die Entscheidung wird davon abhangen, worin man das Ziel des Akkadisch-Unterrichtes fur Archaologen sieht. Auch daruber wird es natiirlich verschiedene Meinungen geben. Unserer Ansicht nach sollte das Hauptinteresse des Archaologen, der Akkadisch lernt, der Sprache gelten. Das Studium der Keilschrift wird den Archaologen nur selten soweit bringen konnen, daB er wirklich in der Lage ist, jeden beliebigen Keilschrifttext zu interpretieren. Er wird hierfur immer auf die Hilfe des Philologen angewiesen sein. Auch der klassische Archaologe wird die Entzifferung einer beschadigten oder stark verwitterten Grabinschrift lieber dem Epigraphiker iiberlassen. Der islamische Archaologe wird Miinzen aus omajjadischer und abbasidischer Zeit gewiB voneinander unterscheiden konnen, die genaue Datierung und die historische Auswertung wird er jedoch dem Schriftkundigen, in diesem Falle dem Numismatiker, iiberlassen. Und den­ noch ist fiir den klassischen oder den islamischen Archaologen die Kenntnis des Griechischen und Lateinischen oder des Arabischen von unschatzbarer Bedeutung. Sie dient ihm ja nicht nur dazu, Pausanias, Vitruv oder die arabischen Historiker und Geographen im Original lesen zu konnen; eine gute Obersetzung wiirde hier wahrscheinlich denselben Dienst leisten. Sondern die Kenntnis der Sprachen ist eine Notwendigkeit, weil sie das Verstandnis fur Form- und Gestaltungsprinzipien scharft, die in der Kunst ahnlich wie in der Literatur wirksam sind, und zugleich den direkten Zugang zu den meisten schriftlich niedergelegten Zeugnissen der Kultur ermoglicht. So ist es beispielsweise fiir einen Archaologen, der sich mit Tempelgrundrissen oder Beterfiguren beschaftigt, wichtig, einen Begriff von altorientalischer Frommigkeit zu erhalten. Der aber kann nur aus einem intimen Verstandnis religioser Texte, etwa eines Gebetes, hervorgehen. Hier kann keine noch so sorgfaltig kommentierte Obersetzung die Ver­ trautheit mit der Sprache des Originales wirklich ersetzen. Es ist also unserer Meinung nach fur den Archaologen vor allem von der Schwierigkeit der Lekture von Keilschrifttexten entstehen zu lassen, ist es vielleicht nicht uberflussig, noch einmal zu betonen, daB der Student, sobald er in der Lage ist, die Zeichen eines Textes richtig zu identifizieren, das eigentliche Problem, die Bestimmung der richtigen Lesung im Kontext, noch vor sich hat. Das Lernen von Zeichen unabhangig von der Lekture halten wir nicht fiir zweckmaBig. Zur Motivation des Studenten, die Keilschrift zu lernen, tragt in nicht zu unterschatzendem MaBe das Vergniigen bei, daB er mit Zeichen einen Sinn verbinden kann, die den meisten seiner Mitmenschen verschlossen bleiben. Das ist natiirlich ein naives Vergniigen, aber es ware padagogisch unklug, es nicht ausnutzen zu wollen.

DER UNTERRICHT DES AKKADISCHEN

31

wichtig, daB ihm das Akkadische als Sprache zuganglich ist, d.h. daB er Texte in Umschrift verstehen kann. Daneben muB natiirlich auch die Lekture von Keilschrifttexten im Unterricht Beriicksichtigung fmden. Sie sollte vor allem praktischen Zwecken dienen. Er sollte fahig sein, einen Keilschrifttext, der ihm bei Ausgrabungen oder im Kunsthandel begegnet, ungefahr datieren und seine Bedeutung ermessen konnen. Fiir ihn ist also eine Tontafel- und Inschriftenkunde wichtig. Hierzu gehort neben einer ausfiihrlichen Information uber die Entwicklung der Keilschrift und der Keilschriftzeichen auch die Behandlung der Unterschiede der Tafeln nach auBeren Kriterien: For­ mat, Art der Beschriftung, Duktus, Tonqualitat, Einteilung in Kolumnen. Die Lekture moglichst verschiedenartiger Texte, die am besten am Original, an Abgiissen oder bei leicht lesbaren Tafeln an Fotografien erfolgt, sollte den charakteristischen Formeln einzelner Textgruppen, wie etwa dem Briefformular, den verschiedenen Urkundentypen, den stets wiederkehrenden Ausdriicken einer Bauinschrift, sowie den Datenformeln, den Siegeln und ihren Aufschriften, den Kolophonen und anderen Schreibervermerken die groBte Aufmerksamkeit schenken. Die Vorstellungen vom Unterricht des Akkadischen fiir Archaolo­ gen, die wir hier entwickelt haben, weichen von der gegenwartig iiblichen Praxis ab. Wir mochten sie als Anregung zu einer bisher nicht stattfindenden Diskussion verstanden wissen. Wenn heute noch viele Archaologen das Akkadische fur teils unerreichbar, teils uber­ flussig halten, so sollte es die Aufgabe des Assyriologen sein, den Zugang zum Akkadischen fiir alle Interessierten so weit wie irgendmoglich zu erleichtern. Dies ist nicht zuletzt auch fur die Assyriologie selbst wichtig, wenn sie nicht in die Gefahr geraten will, als esoterische Wissenschaft zu gelten.

DISCUSSION AFTER THE PAPER OF K. K. RIEMSCHNEIDER (CHAIRMAN : H. L. J. VANSTIPHOUT)

: Ich bin kein Akkadist und habe nur als Studierender der semitischen Sprachen es immer sehr bedauert daB als ich Student war eine groBere Anzahl von Texten im Akkadischen nicht greifbar war — in Umschrift, meine ich — denn ein normaler Semitist ist etwa in der Lage eines normalen Archaologen daB er neunundzwanzig Buchstaben des Ugaritischen gerne noch lernt, aber die Tausende von Zeichen der akkadischen Keilschrift, da streicht der normale Wild

32

K. K. RIEMSCHNEIDER

Semitist. Meine Frage ist diese: Was fiir Semitisten zutrifft, namlich daB sie nicht gleich die fremde Schrift zu lernen brauchen ist mir weniger klar fiir die Archaologen. Denn der Archaologe ist—jeden­ falls idealiter — der Mann der grabt und der Mann der ausgrabt wird, wie Sie selber gesagt haben, die Einzelinterpretation, die Feininterpretation eines Textes immer den Philologen iiberlassen. Dagegen kann es fur den Archaologen sehr wichtig sein daB er einen Text sieht und da sagt: “ja es muB eine neu-babylonische Rechtsurkunde sein, das sehe ich an den oder den Indizien, denn damit kann ich vielleicht fiir meine Schichtenabfolge etwas sagen”. Ist es wirklich so daB der Archaologe akkadischen Schrift lesen konnen muB um sich z.B. mit akkadischer Frommigkeit naher befassen zu konnen? Ist es nicht da auch genau so effizient wenn man — vorausgesetzt daB es diese Obersetzung gibt — gute kommentierte Ubersetzungen liest? Riemschneider : Ich glaube nicht daB wir darin verschiedener Ansicht sind. Veenhof : In my experience students should start learning the cunei­ form signs as soon as possible for the very reason that learning them is such a difficult task. Concerning the archaeologists I do not think that their interest in Akkadian is primarily linguistic. They want to understand the original documents. The solution you offer is effective only for an ideal archaeologist, it seems to me. The excavating archaeologist may not find the time and energy required. I think one could maintain your program for an archaeologist who is more of an art-historian, a cultural anthropologist or the like. Riemschneider : We should not teach the signs just by themselves without applying them in reading texts. I do not think it so difficult for a student who already knows Akkadian to learn the cuneiform signs which, for that matter, are not as numerous as Prof. Wild suggested. For Old-Babylonian one needs only ca. 150 basic signs and for so-called Standard Babylonian texts a basic knowledge of ca. 450 signs is sufficient. Concerning your second question, I do not like to think of an archaeologist as a mere technician. He should also have an under­ standing of the culture and the literary heritage of the people concerned. Drijvers : In your lecture you stressed the correlation between language and material culture and you stressed the point that a certain knowledge of the language is necessary to understand the culture you are dealing with Archaeology in itself is not a substantial

DER UNTERRICHT DES AKKADISCHEN

33

science, but only a method to get a certain grip on the culture we are dealing with and that means that archaeologists are art historians or historians of architecture, religion, etc. and from that viewpoint I can imagine that certain archaeologists are very successful in their field without having knowledge of Akkadian. But this is a minor point. You stressed the correlation between a certain knowledge of the language and the knowledge of the material culture. That is my conclusion from your lecture. Now, this morning some remarks have been made about the aims of our teaching. In my opinion, most of our pupils are interested in culture, certain religions traditions and other subjects and not especially in language as a linguistic phenom­ enon. And if we can only understand material culture through a certain knowledge of the language then it is the same the other way round. Language and culture are correlated and then I wonder if it is not necessary for most of our language teaching to combine it with courses in history or culture to get a clearer picture of the language as an expression of a certain cultural system. Riemschneider : I agree with you. Personally I can only say that I am not so much interested in linguistics as in understanding the texts in general and through the texts the culture behind them. Drijvers : I would like to give an instance: in Palmyrene epigraphy there are a lot of terms for parts of buildings. It is completely impossible to get any idea of the real meaning of these linguistic expressions without recourse to the buildings and the archaeological remains of the buildings in the field. Vanstiphout : In recent years large parts of your program have been used in Cambridge for purely practical reasons, introducing first-year students to the structure of the language and at the same time to the script. That method implies after an introductory period devoted to the grammatical structure on a very small scale taking Borger’s “Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestiicke” and reading half of it in transliteration and half of it in cuneiform. Then I still have a question: one of the salient points in the discussion has been the correlation between the knowledge of the culture and the interpretation of the texts. Now what about the integration of Sumerian in the study of Akkadian? Riemschneider : I think it is very important that every student of Akkadian knows at least some Sumerian phrases so that he could e.g. understand MU. NA. DU3 (he has built) at the end of an inscription and identify the text as a building inscription. You were

34

K. K. RIEMSCHNEIDER

pointing out earlier that there are no easy Sumerian texts, but I think there are. When the student has grasped some general informa­ tion about Sumerian grammar and sentence structure some of the building inscriptions e.g. do not pose any problems. Every student of Akkadian should be able at least to distinguish an Akkadian document from a Sumerian one and to establish to which type it belongs. Te Velde : As an egyptologist I think your method of teaching Akkadian or any dead language in a non-alphabetical script in trans­ literation is not applicable to Old Egyptian because the hieroglyphs are an essential source of information for Old Egyptian. Therefore the hieroglyphs should be taught from the beginning. Riemschneider : I could agree with you here. Speaking about Old Egyptian, this morning we discussed the value of learning texts by heart, like the beginning of the Hammurabi Code or of the Atrahasis Epic. But I imagine it is impossible to learn an Old-Egyptian text by heart. Zaborski : I should like to emphasize that in my view Prof. Riemschneider’s sound remarks can be applied to teaching Old Egyptian at least to linguists. At the same time I agree that for an understanding of Old Egyptian culture we have to study the hieroglyphs. Teaching Old Egyptian to linguists has not been done as far as I know, but it should be done because in my opinion Hamito-semitic Comparative linguistics has a considerable future — and in that case we must teach Old Egyptian in transliteration. I dare say there exists something like a “splendid isolation” of Egyptology and I am afraid that this is to some extent caused by the iron curtain of the Old-Egyptian script. I think that Egyptology itself would largely profit from a destruction of this iron curtain. Te Velde : For the purpose of linguists I would see some possibili­ ties for studying Old Egyptian in transliteration. Even so in many cases there is a very close interdependence of the writing system and the meaning, especially in the case of the determinatives. Keller : Ich frage mich ob Sie die Alternative: Keilschrift oder Umschrift nicht zu scharf gestellt haben. Ich frage mich namlich ob es nicht einen Mittelweg gibt, daB man die Studenten aufTordert den Text auswendig zu lernen und dann durch das Ohr sofort die Struktur der Sprache zu erfassen und danach mit Hilfe einer Transkription sofort anzuwenden auf die Keilschrift um eben gleich zu sehen wie die Akkader dieses Tongebilde geschrieben haben.

DER UNTERRICHT DES AKKADISCHEN

35

Riemschneider : Es ist m.E. aber doch zumutbar daB man verlangt Keilschrifttexte zu lesen von denen keinerlei Umschriften existieren. Lipinski : I just want to stress that we must use the transcription of the egyptologists very cautiously if we intend to use them in linguistics, because when we see the correspondences between the transcriptions of the egyptologists on one side and the old Semitic transcriptions of Egyption words or Old Egyptian transcriptions of Semitic words on the other, then a lot of problems arise. Hospers : The same can be said as regards the Akkadian script. We should bear in mind what Erica Reiner has said about the morphonemic character of Akkadian script as well. Van der Heide : Up to now we have not discussed anything beyond the question of using or not using a transliteration. I had expected a sequel to Prof. Hospers’ lecture applied to the teaching of Akkadian. Am I right in assuming that linguistic studies of Akkadian have not been developed enough in order that they could be applied to teach­ ing this language? How should we teach Akkadian? Riemschneider : I only wanted to speak, as the title of my lecture indicates, about one particular aspect, viz. the teaching of Akkadian to archaeologists. Drijvers : It is not without reason that the problem of teaching a dead Semitic language starts with the problem of teaching Hebrew, because teaching Hebrew in our Western culture is mainly a problem of teaching a language to pupils not interested in it. Wild : In the course of this century there have been three important contributions of general linguistics to the different specialized linguis­ tics that we are talking about: Phonology (Trubetzkoy), Structuralism and T.G.G. Now how far, would you say, have all of these or one of these approaches been fruitful as far as the teaching of the languages is concerned? Has e.g. Erica Reiner’s grammar been helpful in teaching? Riemschneider : No, Erica Reiner’s book does not pretend to be helpful in teaching. Transformational grammar has as far as I know not yet been applied to Akkadian. On the other hand there is at least one — I think quite important — linguistic study of Akkadian in I. M. DiakonofPs “Semito-Hamitic Languages’’ (Moscow, 1965), and then there is another book that also deals with all the Semitic languages: G. Levi della Vida (ed.), Linguistica Semitica: Presente e Futuro (Roma, 1961).

36

K. K. RIEMSCHNEIDER

Zaborski : There has been an application of an early transformatical generative model to Akkadian by Erica Reiner herself in an Appendix of her grammar. Her book follows the classical distributional principles. Isserlin : We would, probably, all agree with the aims which have been proposed for the learning of both transcribed Akkadian and cuneiform writing. My observation is only intended as a caveat to the practicability of combining what would for most archaeologists be a really useful degree of linguistic knowledge with what is now anyhow increasingly being put on the shoulders of the poor archae­ ologists. The archaeological literature is growing immensely. New approaches and new techniques require the archaeologists’ attention, and all this amounts already more than a full-time occupation. This is not to say that at least a basic linguistic study is not a highly desirable thing. Riemschneider : I agree with you on that point. My aim was only to give archaeologists who also study Akkadian a more useful knowledge of the language.

THE TEACHING OF CLASSICAL HEBREW Options and Priorities JOHN F. A. SAWYER Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

It will probably always be true to say that for the majority of our students the study of Classical Hebrew is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Some no doubt will hope to go on to become semitists, specializing in the Hebrew language or another branch of “Semitistiek”. But most will be primarily concerned with the content, of the Hebrew Bible, whether as theologians or archaeologists or ancient historians, rather than its form, and in deciding what are options and what are priorities in a beginners’ Hebrew course the question which seems to me to be the fundamental one is this: what will a student of the Hebrew Bible, with a dictionary and a translation beside him, require to be able to understand, accurately and sensitively, the meaning of the text? By far the most difficult part of Hebrew is obviously its phonology.1 Not only is the massoretic script hard to learn, but the sounds it represents are controlled by a set of phonological rules, many of them complicated, arbitrary and clad in quaint terminology (like Beghadhkephath, Dagesh forte implicitum and Pathah furtivum).*2 Yet up to now Hebrew teaching grammars, almost without exception, are ar­ ranged in such a way as to give particular emphasis to phonology, often beginning with several chapters devoted entirely to phonological rules. The fact that Hebrew morphology is relatively simple to learn is often lost among the complexities of phonological variation. This is clearly one of the chief reasons for the difficulty that students of the Bible so often find in learning Hebrew.3 But, and this is more serious, it is also the reason why many students never acquire a real love for Cf. C.-A. Keller, “Probleme des hebraischen Sprachunterrichts”, VT 20 (1970), pp. 279f.; T. O. Lambdin, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, London 1973, iii-iv. 2 Cf. J. Barr, “The ancient Semitic languages. The conflict between philology and linguistics”, TPS 1968, pp. 39f. 3 Barr, op. cit., p. 52; J. H. Hospers, “Some observations about the teaching of Old Testament Hebrew”, Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae F. H. Th. de Liagre Bohl dedicatae, edd. M. A. Beek, A. A. Kampman, C. Nijland and J. Ryckmans, Leiden 1973, p. 189.

38

J. F. A. SAWYER

the language or a sensitivity to its subtler overtones and associations. I would suggest that, if timetables permit, detailed phonology might be taught independently in the language laboratory.4 Another error in emphasis, still fairly widespread in Hebrew lan­ guage teaching, is the traditional preoccupation with comparative philology and historical linguistics.5 To have studied one other Semitic language, be it Ugaritic or Arabic or Syriac, is traditionally considered to be an advantage, to know more than one other Semitic language gains a hebraist in some quarters the reputation of godlike omni­ science; and references to the Akkadian verbal system, Arabic phono­ logy and the like are still an integral part of many a Hebrew languageteacher’s method. The historical phonology of segholate nouns or Lamedh He verbs is of course interesting and the teacher has to be prepared to answer students’ questions on such matters if asked, but this is exactly the kind of superfluous material that confuses and irritates many students, even if a few budding linguists in the class delight in it. More important, however, is the long term effect of this “comparative philology game” introduced as it is to students at so early a stage in their Hebrew studies. Since the publication of James Barr’s two famous anthologies of diachronic error,6 I need not elabo­ rate on this now. But it is perhaps worth suggesting that, if there had been less amateurish polyglottism at the elementary stages of Hebrew language teaching, there might have been fewer elementary semantic mistakes in so many of our commentaries and translations. Comparative philology, meticulous orthography, sophisticated pho­ nology and quaint terminology are all deeply rooted in our textbooks. But I believe we have now moved into a new era, characterized by new discoveries which vastly increase our knowledge of the West Semitic languages of the first and second millenium B.C., new insights from general linguistics,7 and new attitudes in Old Testament research not

4 Cf. Keller, op. cit., pp. 284-5, although he pleads for the priority of such oral practice in the initial stages. See Hospers, op. cit., pp. 193-4 for doubts about Keller’s ideas. 5 Cf. Barr, op. cit., pp. 49f. For a different view, see Hospers, op. cit., pp. 192f. 6 J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford 1961; Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Oxford 1968. 7 Cf. D. Wetter & J. Walther, “Sprachtheorie und Sprachvermittlung. Erwagungen zur Situation des hebraischen Sprachstudiums”, IF 83 (1971), pp. 73-96; J. H. Hospers, “Some observations about Semitics and General Linguistics”, Vt Videam (Festschrift P. A. Verburg), Lisse 1975, pp. 162-9.

THE TEACHING OF CLASSICAL HEBREW

39

least a fresh interest in the final form of the text.8 I should therefore like to suggest a new set of priorities, and to relegate the old ones to appendices, the language laboratory, or the more advanced stages of Hebrew language teaching. (1) Word-formation The question of what exactly constitutes a word in Hebrew is not as a rule dealt with at all in the grammar-books.9 orrrDD’i looks very like a Hebrew word of seven letters, although of course no normal Hebrew lexicon or vocabulary will list it. Our first task is to teach students how to identify the component parts of such a word, and I believe that the concept of the “citation-form” should be the key to this procedure.10 11 The citation-form of a term, that is to say, the form cited in a dictionary, is an arbitrary, context-free form (like the 3ms suffix conjugation form of a verb) for examination or analysis under laboratory conditions, as opposed to the various forms in which it appears in different phonetic and grammatical environments.11 In the word DiPMJM, for example, three citationforms are readily identifiable, each with a corresponding English citation-form: i “and”, ja “from” and ira “a house”. The fact that such items are frequently (in some cases usually) spelt differently in any given context (1 becomes 1 before labials, becomes a before gutturals, iva becomes na with the plural suffixes) is a basic principle of Hebrew word-formation that I do not find enunciated in the traditional grammars. The detailed rules governing sound changes of this kind, from a citation-form to the form in a given context, can be studied slowly over a long period. There is no need to give beginners a complete account of the seven possible spellings of ] “and” or the five spellings of p “from” or the three ways in which n “the” can be spelt. It is the principle that is important. This is a method of describing the data synchronically, in terms of variations from a norm, sound changes from a context-free form to forms that actually appear 8 Cf. J. F. A. Sawyer, “The ‘original meaning of the text’ and other legitimate subjects for semantic description”, Questions disputees d’Ancien Testament, ed. C. Brekelmans, Bibl. Ephem. Theol, Lovan. 23 (1974), pp. 63-70. 9 C. Rabin, rPmpD np'DIOO pnnn(Is Biblical Semantics possible?), Bet Miqra, Jerusalem 1962, p. 23. 10 J. F. A. Sawyer, A Modern Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, Stocksfield, London & Boston, 1976, pp. 12-15. 11 Cf. the abstract concept of the “lexeme”: J. Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge 1968, p. 197.

40

J. F. A. SAWYER

in the text, 1>p> », and is from a theoretical point of view just as acceptable as the traditional historical method, which involves theories of sound change from Proto-Hebrew (or ProtoSemitic) to classical Hebrew or evidence and analogies from other languages. On the other hand, it has enormous practical advantages for beginners whose attention will then be focussed, from the start, on Hebrew and how it works. The same applies to the majority of prefixes and suffixes. Here again there is a citation-form and phonological variation from that norm. The situation in an agglutinating language like Turkish is analogous: DrVTiaD actually contains four elements corresponding ex­ actly to the four elements of evlerinden. Yet few Hebrew grammars or lexica list even the commonest prefixes and suffixes, as is the custom in Turkish grammars, apart from the more obvious lexical items like 3'S'1? and v Suffix pronouns and verbal affixes are naturally more frequent in any given Hebrew text than most items of vocabulary, and a vocabulary of these items would be of great value for beginners. Citation-forms like i “him, his”, ?| “you, your” and so on can be listed just like items of vocabulary, and variations from the norm noted as they arise in reading the texts. This would also serve to highlight a basic fact of Hebrew word-formation. Before leaving this subject, I should like to digress briefly to say something about translation. There has been a tendency these days, reinforced no doubt by new educational theory and the failure of computer-translation projects, to assume that translation is so inade­ quate a means of defining meaning that, if possible, language teaching should be done in the target language, without recourse to translation at all, the so-called direct method.12 It is certainly true that the trans­ lation of a word out of context can be misleading. But statements like i means “and” or “but”, means “from”, are perfectly valid semantic statements, based on meaning-relations between two corres­ ponding, context-free forms. Naturally the meaning varies widely from one context to another, but then that variation from a norm can be 12 The following recommend the direct method, in various forms, for teaching Biblical Hebrew: Keller, op. cit.; D. Vetter & Walther, op. cit.; P. Katz, “Hebraische Grundkenntnisse fur jeden Theologen — warum, wozu und wie”? ZAW 84 (1972), pp. 220-42. Against it, see Hospers, “The teaching of the Old Testament Hebrew and Applied Linguistics”, Travels in the World of the Old Testament (Studies presented to Prof. M. A. Beek), edd. M. S. H. G. Heerma van Voss, Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate & N. A. van Uchelen, Assen 1974, pp. 97f.; A. Zaborski, “Teaching the language of the Bible”, FO 14 (1972-73), pp. 65-76.

THE TEACHING OF CLASSICAL HEBREW

41

noted and discussed simply and clearly as it arises. Meanwhile there is much truth in the words quoted by that great nineteenth century language teacher, Henry Sweet: “It is not until one can translate a word that one has complete mastery over it”.13 14 (2) Syntax A glance at the Table of Contents at the beginning of almost any of the standard grammar books shows that there is virtually universal agreement that students should not be introduced even to the most elementary syntactic theory until after they have mastered the phono­ logy and morphology of isolated words. Sentence structure is left over till Part III in Gesenius-Kautzsch; elsewhere it is stored up for a separate volume or omitted altogether. There is usually some discus­ sion of the verb-system and perhaps of the verbless sentence, but not much more. Impersonal constructions, so frequent in Biblical Hebrew, are seldom mentioned, while clause types, negation, passive construc­ tions, and so on only appear incidentally in chapters on the LamedhHe verbs, or the like. I want to recommend that the order be reversed completely: chapters entitled Questions, Modal and non-Modal sen­ tences, passive constructions, impersonal constructions, subordination in complex sentences, and so on should incorporate examples and exercises containing the various verb-types systematically, but inciden­ tally.15 A further criticism of existing grammars is that, although the Hebrew text is divided into phrases and clauses by a system of stress marks, most grammars ignore these entirely and a valuable aid to sentence analysis is wasted. The Athnah is used sporadically in Davidson’s grammar, but the Zaqeph Qaton and Segholta, which are equally significant, only appear in a two-page appendix which readers are unlikely to devote much attention to.16 Other grammars make passing references to the Athnah, but do not use it in their examples and exercises. This is no doubt partly due to the fact that 13 H. Sweet, The Practical Study of Languages, London 1889, p. 200 (quoting J. Storm); cf. Zaborski, op. cit., pp. 75-6. 14 Cf. the criticisms of existing grammars by Zaborski, op. cit., pp. 72-3; Hospers, op. cit., pp. 96, lOlf. 15 Cf. Sawyer, A Modern Introduction, passim. 16 Cf. J. Weingreen, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, 2nd ed., Oxford 1959. It is significant that other signs printed in Weingreen’s grammar are aids to pronunciation, not sentence structure (Silluq, Metheg and the conventional modern stress mark).

42

J. F. A. SAWYER

in some grammars the stage is never reached at which sentences are long enough to make sentence analysis or clause division a subject for separate treatment.17 But if the aim of the course is to enable students to read the massoretic text, then the basic rudiments of the massoretic punctuation system, including at least the Athnah, Zaqeph Qaton and Segholta, (although not necessarily under those names)18 would seem to be important. This mention of massoretic tradition prompts another short digres­ sion, this time on the question of which variety of the language one should select for beginners’ Hebrew. There is plenty of evidence that, however successful the massoretes were in preserving ancient tradition, their text, as we know it above all from the Codex Leningradensis, does not represent in every detail the Hebrew of ancient Israel; and students at an advanced level should certainly be introduced to the Siloam Inscription, and the ostraka from Samaria and Lachish. It is obviously right that they should be taught how to compare and con­ trast the various periods in the history of Hebrew: for example, the eighth century B.C. spelling y (without the semi-vowel) is interesting evidence for the pronunciation of the two words pp “summer” and fp “end” in the variety of Hebrew spoken by Amos. (cf. 8:1-3). But all Old Testament research starts from Codex Leningradensis, and a synchronic approach to this closed corpus (the envy of linguists in other fields!) is again the only acceptable method, both from a scientific and an educational point of view. My own experience sug­ gests that variation within the corpus as between different styles and registers (archaic, late, poetic, legal, Deuteronomistic and the like) can be satisfactorily dealt with in the context of a unifed grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Suggestions that examples and excercises should be selected exclusively from one variety (e.g. from prose to the exclusion of poetry) seem to me to overestimate the extent of the variation in massoretic tradition. Another neglected area of Hebrew grammar is word-order. Apart from noting that an adjective comes after the noun it qualifies, a verb normally comes at the beginning of its clause and the adverb Tito comes after its adjective, word-order is rarely if ever discussed in the grammar books. One reason for this omission is that in a grammar crammed with phonological minutiae, basic principles tend to be over­ 17 E.g. R. K. Harrison, Biblical Hebrew (Teach Yourself Books), London 1955. 18 They may be called “Major pause-marker”, “Minor pause-marker”, or the like: cf. Sawyer, A Modern Introduction, pp. 6, 10, et passim.

THE TEACHING OF CLASSICAL HEBREW

43

looked, as I have already suggested. Another factor in this is that many teachers of Hebrew construct artificial sentences for students to practise on. Such creations a T5J n» “what a city”! and )2i “the king has a son”19 are simply unacceptable and a disgrace to our profession, but word-order is an area where the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable is not so sharp, and errors tend to be more subtle. One might say that word-order distinguishes the master of a language from a learner, and without going so far as to imply that the authors of some of our Hebrew grammar books are not masters of the language, I think it is true to say that the only way to be sure that examples and exercises are real acceptable Biblical Hebrew is to stick to the text.20 One notorious grammar book included as exercises thirty clauses of the type ate lain “the word is good”, although this type is extremely rare in the Hebrew Bible: the normal order in such a clause is Predicate-Subject (laTH ate) as a search for actual examples instantly reveals.21 The main reason for the neglect of word-order, however, is that the principles involved have not been sufficiently investigated. Hebrew morphology has long been the subject of close investigation, and most word forms not attested in the Biblical corpus can be confidently predicted. But this is very much less true of the grammar of clauses, sentences and longer units. The word order in circumstantial clauses beginning with i for example, is briefly touched on in GeseniusKautzsch,22 but glossed over by R. J. Williams23 and omitted entirely from most grammars, although it is obviously a significant feature of Hebrew style. Word-order in verbless clauses had not been system­ atically and exhaustively investigated before Frances Andersen’s JBL Monograph, published in 1970,24 and the role of word-order to express emphasis did not receive systematic treatment until the thesis of Takamitsu Muraoka, published in 1969.25 The fruits of these two pioneering studies, in particular their practical implications for Hebrew language-teaching, remain to be fully exploited. In the meantime I suggest that the principles governing word-order that have already T T -

19 Harrison, op. cit., pp. 204, 65. 20 Cf. Hospers, “Some observations”, pp. 197f.; Zaborski, op. cit., p. 72. 21 F. I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, JBL Monograph Series 14 (1970), p. 17, referring to the grammar of P. Auvray. 22 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, Halle 1909, paras. 141e, 165a. 23 Hebrew Syntax, An Outline, Toronto 1967, p. 84. 24 See note 21. 25 Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew, Oxford 1969.

44

J. F. A. SAWYER

been defined, should be elevated to at least the same level of priority as orthography and comparative philology. (3) Vocabulary Most modern grammars introduce vocabulary according to some system of control based on relative frequency. But apart from this elementary lexical concept, the application of semantic theory to the teaching of Hebrew must be said to be still in its infancy. Rosen’s Textbook of Israeli Hebrew, for instance, has a short section in the Foreword on vocabulary and semantic range;26 27 several grammars contain sections on Idiom, such as Alster and Mossel Hadachlil,21 Isserlin’s Hebrew Workbook arranges vocabulary in semantic fields (the family, agriculture, speech, food and drink, etc.), and gives brief “Semantic notes” on words like T' ttfoa' tfio.28 But these are excep­ tions. Most grammars, including T. O. Lambdin’s relatively recent one,29 give much more space to phonological oppositions such as that between TSJn and Jton, or 'TMIW and ,’n*na, than to semantic opposi­ tions such as that between DIN and Erw nw and snzftn, or the like. I want to end with three basic semantic concepts which have obvious practical implications for Hebrew language teaching, as well as for the more advanced stages of translation, exegesis and lexicography. (a) Context. We began with the concept of the citation-form, that is to say the context-free form of a word, and its role in describing a language in the laboratory. But the importance of a term’s context can hardly be overestimated, and I cannot see any reason for hiding from students the fact that, out of context, many forms simply cannot be defined at all. Nowhere does this problem arise more acutely than in the Biblical Hebrew verb system. Out of context, Prefix Conjuga­ tion forms and Suffix Conjugation forms cannot be translated unless by some arbitrary and misleading convention, and the same applies to many items of vocabulary. By using citation-forms and a little contextual information, some idea of a word’s semantic range can be indicated in the laboratory; but it is only in the field, in a real 26 H. B. Rosen, A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew with an Introduction to the Classical Language, Chicago 1962, pp. ix-x. 27 G. Alster & B. M. Mossel, Hadachlil. Leerboek van het Israelisch Hebreeuws, Assen 1969. 28 B. S. J. Isserlin, Hebrew Work-book for Beginners, Leeds University 1971. 29 See note 1.

THE TEACHING OF CLASSICAL HEBREW

45

context, that it has a meaning which can be precisely understood and defined. 1 have written at length elsewhere on the need to identify and define the context of Biblical Hebrew before semantic analysis can begin.30 By context is meant both a term’s immediate linguistic envi­ ronment, and the wider situational context in which it was written or uttered, its “universe of discourse”. Within the former, various levels can be distinguished. For example, the meaning of prefix-con­ jugation forms is limited by the occurrence of the adverb TK in the same immediate linguistic environment: ^ rntfb 'Vfr TK “then Moses and the Israelites sang*', and has a peculiar meaning in the fossilized expression D'nVx dVs “the image of God” which it does not normally have in Hebrew.31 Examples of the wider literary con­ text of a term might include the special soteriological meaning of in Deutero-Isaiah, and the distinctive associations of terms likenfcTD' T??- and min in the Wisdom literature. One clear practical implica­ tion of all this is that the smallest unit with which the student should be encouraged to work is the sentence, and sentences which belong to real contexts in the Hebrew Bible, to which reference can be made.32 T •

(b) Arrangement of vocabulary. Alphabetically arranged vocabularies and lexica (whether according to roots or according to citation-forms), are obviously essential parts of a student’s equipment, but other methods of arranging and studying vocabulary do not seem to have been fully explored in the context of teaching Hebrew. In Dr. Isserlin’s Workbook, already referred to, words occurring frequently in the same context (religion, warfare, government, etc.), or related in some other way (e.g. ptf1?' ‘rip) are grouped together in twenty “semantic fields”,33 a method which appeals to students’ imagination and lexical curiosity. There are two disadvantages, however in this method of arranging vocabulary : in the first place, it tends to introduce relatively rare words too early in the course p1?!! “window” along with n4?^ “door”; mN “farmer” along with mfe “field”). Secondly, it is just not possible to find suitable examples and exercises from the text 30 J. F. A. Sawyer, Semantics in Biblical Research, London 1972, pp. 4-27. 31 J. Barr, “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis — A Study in Terminology”, BJRL 51 (1968), pp. 20ff.; J. F. A. Sawyer, “The meaning ofDVt^N D^BSin Genesis I-Xr, JTS 25 (1974), p. 420. ' ” vv ! 32 See above, p. 41 sqq. 33 On the theory, cf. S. Oehmann, “Theories of the ‘Linguistic Field’”, Word 9 (1953), pp. 123-234; Sawyer, Semantics, pp. 28-48; Rabin, op. cit., pp. 2Iff.

46

J. F. A. SAWYER

which contain a sufficiently large range of terms from a particular semantic field, and artificial practice texts are difficult to avoid. It would be helpful to include a “minithesaurus” at the end of the book, in addition to the alphabetical vocabulary; or, probably the best solu­ tion would be to encourage the students to compile their own semantic fields as they progress. (c) Semantic word-types. Word types are already widely employed in the teaching of Hebrew, e.g. phonological types like “Pe Waw” verbs and segholate nouns, or morphological types like Piel stem verbs (e.g. tfpaoaT rns) and nouns of the masdar type (e.g. trhpD' rmW' 0ij?»). Types based on both phonological and morphologi­ cal characteristics would include Hiphil stem verbs with assimilated Nun (e.g. HSH'D'SH'‘rsn* Tan). Grouping vocabulary in this way is obviously helpful. But for students at a more advanced level, semantic word-types34 can provide an interesting and rewarding subject for investigation too. The distinction between general and particular terms, for example, as between one language and another, is a good way to structure vocabulary: thus the general term “to open” in English corresponds to a set of several particular terms in Hebrew including npJD (of eyes) and HSD (of the mouth) as well as nnD ; while Hebrew TDK for introducing oratio recta would correspond to a variety of particular terms in English, including “he said, he replied, he asked, he thought, he exclaimed” and so on. Word-pairs in which one term is transparent and the other opaque35 are also a good subject for vocabulary excercises : e.g. iva v. ptfD' ma v. noa v. f»Kri. T T

“ T

- T

Finally, although it will have been obvious throughout this paper that I do not believe too much historical linguistics, however fascina­ ting, is a good thing for students of elementary Hebrew, there is no doubt that the phenomena of homonymy and lexical borrowing can be usefully exploited in the teaching of vocabulary and word-forma­ tion. Homonyms, both actual (like TUtf “to sing” beside Hitt “to answer”), and supposed (like VT “to know” and S7T “to make sub­ missive”) cannot be investigated without some historical or comparaTT

TT

34 Cf. S. Ullmann, Language and Style, Oxford 1964, pp. 63-96; Sawyer, Semantics, pp. 48-59. 35 Ullmann, op. cit., pp. 40-49; Sawyer, op. cit., pp. 49f.; Barr, op. cit., pp. 17f.

THE TEACHING OF CLASSICAL HEBREW

47

tive information, but are important for biblical exegesis and transla­ tion, and in practice the necessary information required is normally accessible in the standard dictionaries.36 The same applies to loan words: the structural distinction between DlpD and ^ ‘wn and tflpD (or and the like, as well as the cultural issues involved, can be both informative and interesting.37 Instances of caique or semantic borrowing, in particular Hebrew words with Aramaic meanings like “to rescue” (Hebrew “to tear away”) and nu “to decree’ (Hebrew “to cut”), might also provide appetizing semantic nourishment for our advanced students. DISCUSSION AFTER THE PAPER OF J. F. A. SAWYER (CHAIRMAN : J. H. HOSPERS) Crown : Phonology in your grammar is relegated to an appendix. How do you ensure the accuracy of the representation of the Massoretic notation by the students in the excercises? Sawyer : The aim is to enable students to read accurately and sensitively what is there in the text. I am against encouraging them to produce their own Masoretic Hebrew at an early stage or at all. Zaborski : For me it is not so much phonology that is difficult in Biblical Hebrew, but morphonology. Isserlin : As for my “Workbook”, the aim is to give an introduction to the fundamentals which are found both in most types of Biblical Hebrew and in post-Biblical Hebrew. Therefore the aim, being slightly different, requires slightly different solutions. The success of a method can be measured by its usefulness in different environments and for groups of students with different backgrounds. I wonder for what length of study-time your grammar is intended? One year seems to me to be on the short side. And then, in the discussion the question of ’dz ydsir Mdse (Ex. 15:1) has been raised. We would all translate this as: “Then Moses sang” etc. But at least one contemporary Jewish translation considered to be “authoritative” translates it as a future, regarding it as a prophecy.38 So even such a basic point cannot be regarded as settled 36 On homonymy in Biblical Hebrew in general, see Barr, Comparative Philology, pp. 125-55; Sawyer, Semantics, pp. 51-3. 37 Sawyer, op. cit., pp. 55f. (and other references in the Index); C. Rabin, JITIT O^D (Loan-words), Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. 4 (Jerusalem 1962), cols. 1070-80 (biblio­ graphy). 38 A. Cohen (ed.), The Soncino Chumash, The five books of Moses with Haphtarot9, London, 1970, p. 415.

48

J. F. A. SAWYER

entirely by common consensus — which a cynic might say proves that the Bible is almost an “impossible” book to deal with. Sawyer : This last problem is a clear example of the basic differences between Biblical and post-Biblical Hebrew. Therefore, if one treats them together, as you did in your “Workbook”, one should follow a clearly contrastive method. In later Hebrew 'dz ydsir no longer functioned as a past tense. Another example are the participles. The function of the participle in Biblical Hebrew is very different from that in modern Hebrew and it is very difficult to get all that in one chapter. I have tried to solve the question of the optimal applicability of my grammar by leaving the teacher or the learner optimal scope to fill in his own interests, methods and terminology. My grammar is intended for a one-year course. Of the twenty chapters the first half covers virtually all the morphology and I have found it most practical to teach it in an intensive course of two or three weeks. Then one could do one chapter a week for the next ten weeks and read texts at the same time. But I have also tried to introduce into it certain features which intend to make the book useful as a work of reference for longer periods — at least for non-specialists — by giving an index, a vocabulary etc. Hospers : One should not be too reluctant to give diachronic in­ formation. New ideas, especially from the T.G.G. side have shown us that in the end the synchronic and diachronic approaches are not as incompatible as has been assumed in the past. Both approaches deal with the language as a rule-governed system. At the same time it is justified in practice, as it can be very clarifying for the students in enabling then to connect what would otherwise appear to be a jungle of unconnected facts. But, of course, one should not overtax students with older and older forms of the language. Sawyer : In many cases those diachronic rules are very complex and can be confusing for students, especially for theologians, so one should not introduce them at a very early stage. Crown : In my teaching I have been experimenting with the Lan­ guage Laboratory and I found it very useful, especially for clarifying phonology. Isserlin : Particularly at the beginning it is vital to engender the students’ confidence, whatever the means used; and new techniques may be helpful in avoiding the “classical” approaches which have often proved disheartening to students. This confidence, of course,

THE TEACHING OF CLASSICAL HEBREW

49

cannot be maintained throughout. There comes a point when the student is really, fairly and squarely, faced with the difficult features of the language, but the longer this can be kept away the better. I hope no one has taken my words in a literal sense when I called the Bible an “impossible” book. What I meant to say, of course, is that it is an extremely difficult book to interpret. This brings me to the point that we ought, at least among ourselves and to some extent with our more advanced students, to devote some attention to the fact that very different translations have been offered: the Targums, LXX, mediaeval interpretations by Church Fathers and the Rabbis. This is a very necessary widening of the picture. We should also introduce students to what the text has been thought to mean and why, throughout the two thousand years and more in which it has been the object of very intensive commentation. Mulder : What do you think about the reading of unvocalized texts thereby trying to avoid the intricacies of Tiberiensian and other Masoretic schools of vocalization? Sawyer : We have a closed corpus of Hebrew in the Codex Lenin­ gradensis which is difficult enough on its own to master. In this respect I am glad to note that in recent years the history of the way the Bible has been interpreted over the centuries has become firmly established in Old Testament studies. That being so, it is even more desirable to select one level out of all these levels of interpretation to start with, viz. the Codex Leningradensis. Claassen : What is your opinion on using for didactic reasons sen­ tences that do not occur as such, e.g. in the Language Laboratory? Sawyer : If one intends to teach not only morphology, but also syntax in the Language Laboratory by means of substitution drills or exercises in active-passive transformation, then artificial sentences are indeed indispensable. Of course, my grammar is not meant to be used in combination with the Language Laboratory. Keller : We have been speaking about the so-called participle in Biblical Hebrew which has functions different from e.g. the English participle. We could conclude from this that the Hebrew “participle” is not a participle and that we ought to use a different terminology. The same applies for the socalled pi1 el which should be called D-stem and for the “adjective”. I should like to propose that a committee be set up to create an appropriate terminology for Hebrew and Semitic grammar in general.

50

J. F. A. SAWYER

: In using the term “D-stem” my grammar will satisfy. I tried to cut out, however, alien difficult terminology and some of the discussion is of a contrastive nature. Under the heading of the parti­ ciple, for example, I explain that the participle is not equivalent to English forms in -ing but to English forms in -er, e.g. sdmer “keeper” rather than “keeping”. Crown : What is your opinion on using some of the native terms like “binyari\ “fmikut", “gizrd” etc.? Sawyer : I have tried them in my teaching during one year, but found they tend to put up a barrier between the Semitists and other linguists. Sawyer

DIDAKTISCHE PROBLEME DES AKADEMISCHEN UNTERRICHTS IM KLASSISCHEN ARABISCH* S. WILD Amsterdam

Das Arabische teilt mit einigen anderen Sprachen den Ruf, eine “schwere” Sprache zu sein. Es ware reizvoll, diesen Ruf des Arabischen in der einheimischen arabischen Literatur und in der europaischen arabistischen Literatur zu verfolgen. Bekanntlich ist fur den orthodoxen Muslim die unuberholbare hochste Norm des Arabischen die Sprache des Korans; dieser ist fur den orthodoxen Muslim im ganz wortlichen Sinn “Wort Gottes”. Kein Ereignis hat auf die Geschichte der arabischen Sprache einen groBeren EinfluB gehabt als diese Anschauung der weitaus iiberwiegenden Anzahl der Araber, namlich der orthodoxen Muslims, von ihrer eigenen Sprache. So finden wir schon sehr friih im arabischen Schrifttum Aussagen wie die, daB das Arabi­ sche eine Sprache sei, die eigentlich nur ein Prophet wirklich zu beherrschen imstande sei.1 Die “Geheimnisse der arabischen Sprache” (asrdr al-'arabiya) sind ebenfalls schon friih ein Stereotyp in Titeln und Einleitungen arabischer grammatischer und lexikographischer Werke12 und werden von Arabern und Arabisten mit einem gewissen Stolz zitiert. In den Werken europaischer Arabisten findet man daneben zur Charakterisierung des Arabischen Attribute wie “tuckisch”, “fallenreich”. Solche Termini geben zum Teil einer gewissen personlichen Irritation Ausdruck, zeigen aber uberwiegend eher den Stolz des Fachmanns auf sein eigenes Fachgebiet. Denn welcher Experte horte nicht gern, daB sein eigenes Fachgebiet besonders schwierig sei? Je schwieriger das Fachgebiet, desto groBer muB Intelligenz und FleiB dessen sein, der es gemeistert hat. Der diisteren Ausmalung solcher Schwierigkeiten liegt also auch ein sehr menschlicher Zug der Eitelkeit zugrunde, dem in der 1 So aS-Saffi, (gest. 204/820), ar-Risala (ed. Ahmad M. Sakir) Kairo 1358/1940, S. 42, 8. 2 Vgl. etwa das Kitab sirr an-nahw von az-Zaggag (gest. ca. 310/922), die Asrdr al-arabiya wa-hafd*ifuhd von at-fg 'alibi (gest. 429/1038) Oder die Asrdr al-luga al-'arabiya von Ibn al-Anbari (gest. 577/1181).

52

S. WILD

ein oder anderen Form sicher nicht nur Arabisten zum Opfer gefallen sind. Priift man die Aussage, Arabisch sei eine schwere Sprache, naher, so wird auch der linguistisch oder philologisch Ungeschulte wenig Miihe haben, sie als unvollstandig und angreifbar zu erweisen. “Schwer” ist eine Aussage, die nur als Relationsaussage Sinn hat. Ist Arabisch schwieriger als manche, viele, alle anderen Sprachen? Die allgemeine Linguistik hat einigermaBen befriedigend nachgewiesen, daB Kinder aller Sprachen — soweit sie diesbeziiglich beobachtet wurden — etwa zur selben Zeit ihre Muttersprache meistern. In einem gewissen Sinn muB man also sagen konnen, daB alle Sprachen gleich schwer sind. Die Aussage, Arabisch sei eine schwere Sprache, hat ferner nur dann einen Sinn, wenn dazugesagt wird, fur wen diese Schwierigkeit besteht. Ist ein Sprecher einer anderen semitischen Sprache nicht in einer besseren Situation als jemand der eine indoeuropaische Muttersprache spricht? Und man konnte einige Zeit fortfahren, diesen Satz in dieser Form als eine geradezu mythologische, in jedem Fall vorwissenschaftliche Aussage zu entlarven. Der Satz “Arabisch ist eine schwere Sprache” — und im Folgenden sei unter “Arabisch” nur das Klassisch-Arabische verstanden — hat aber dann einen ganz einfachen und nicht wegzudeutelnden Sinn, wenn man ihn als Beschreibung eines padagogisch-didaktischen Problems auffaBt, wie es beim Unterricht im Arabischen an der heutigen Universitat jedem aufifallt, der lernen muB, noch mehr demjenigen, der lehren muB. Ich lege dabei folgende Normalsituation zugrunde: der Student ist erwachsen, spricht als Muttersprache eine indoeuropaische Sprache und hat daneben Kenntnisse in zumindest noch einer weiteren indoeuropaischen Sprache. Das Ziel des Sprachunterrichts ist rein passiv. Erreicht werden soil nur das Verstandnis von Texten, nicht die Fahigkeit zu sprechen oder zu schreiben. Diese passive Kenntnis soli aber im Lauf von einigen wenigen Jahren — in Europa selten mehr als drei bis vier Jahren — den Studenten in die Lage versetzen, selbstandige wissenschaftliche Forschung auf arabistischem Fachgebiet zu treiben. Der akademische Lehrer des Arabischen ist — um es mit dem bekannten Scherzwort zu sagen — dem Studenten stets mindestens um eine Lektion voraus. Die normale akademische Praxis bringt es mit sich, daB er sehr haufig schon dann lehren muB, wenn er sich zwar griindlich in ein Spezialgebiet und eine Spezialliteratur eingearbeitet hat, aber weit entfernt von jedem auch nur annaherndem Oberblick iiber alles ist, was durch das Medium des Klassischen Arabischen ausgedruckt wird.

DIDAKTISCHE PROBLEME IM KLASSISCHEN ARABISCH

53

Die Normalsituation ist ferner oft durch mangelnden Lehrerfolg gekennzeichnet. Der gleiche Student erreicht bei gleicher Intelligenz und Anstrengung im Arabischen weniger als etwa beim Studium des Spanischen oder Russischen. Dieses Faktum schlagt dann leicht in Entmutigung und Frustration um. Der Prozentsatz von im ersten Semester Klassisch Arabisch wieder “Abfallenden” ist notorisch hoch. Man hat nicht selten aus dieser Not eine Tugend gemacht und erklart, daB ohnehin viel zu wenig Stellen und Moglichkeiten fur junge Arabi­ sten und Leute mit Arabisch-Kenntnissen vorhanden seien und daher der Filter-Effekt der langen Frustration nur zu begriiBen sei. Es ware aber verfehlt, wenn man aufgrund einer solchen Situation nicht versuchte, bessere padagogische Moglichkeiten des Arabisch-Unterrichts zu finden. Die Widerstande, die bei der Unterrichtung im Klassischen Arabisch zu iiberwinden sind, will ich im Folgenden unter drei Hauptprobleme bringen : 1. Spezifische Probleme der Arabisch-Vermittlung im Rahmen der allgemeinen Problematik des Schriftsprachen-Unterrichts. 2. Padagogisch fuhlbare Mangel im Forschungsstand. 3. Die Tatsache, daB moderne sprachwissenschaftliche Methoden bisher fur den Arabisch-Unterricht wenig abgeworfen haben. 1. Klassisch-Arabisch, so wie es hier verstanden ist, ist zunachst ausschlieBlich Schriftsprache, tote, iiberlieferte Sprache. Es handelt sich um ein groBes, grundsatzlich abgeschlossenes, wenn auch noch keineswegs zur Ganze zugangliches Corpus. Uber dieses Corpus gibt es eine Aussprachetradition, aber es gibt niemanden, der die Sprache dieses Corpus als Muttersprache spricht. Eine groBe Schwierigkeit liegt in dem Verhaltnis von Klassischen Arabisch zur modernen Schriftsprache. Es ist klar, daB die moderne arabische Schriftsprache morphologisch weitestgehend mit dem Klassischen Arabisch identisch ist. Die Unterschiede in Syntax, Semantik und Stilistik sind aber trotz der standigen “Riickkoppelung” des modernen Arabisch an seinen klassischen Vorganger so groB, daB die meisten Lehrbiicher mit Recht einen deutlichen Trennungsstrich ziehen und zumindest padagogischdidaktisch das Lehrobjekt klassische Sprache vom Lehrobjekt moderne Schriftsprache scheiden.3 Die erwahnte Riickkoppelung ist wohl uber3 Die meisten Lehrbiicher erheben nicht mehr den Anspruch “Arabisch” zu vermitteln, sondem grenzen dieses Arabisch naher ein. Eine willkiirliche Auswahl aus englischsprachigen Lehrbiichern zeigt das: David Cowan, An Introduction to Modern

54

S. WILD

all vorhanden, aber von Autor zu Autor und von Textgattung zu Textgattung verschieden stark. Eine dieser Ruckkoppelungen liegt darin, daB es uber die Aussprache der klassischen Texte eine detaillierte und ausserordentlich lebendige Tradition gibt. Es ist weder notwendig noch wiinschenswert, dem Schuler diese Tradition vorzuenthalten. D.h. es ist unmoglich, Klassisches Arabisch etwa so auszusprechen, wie Agyptologen altagyptische Hieroglyphentexte auszusprechen pflegen. Hier liegt also ein gewisser Widerspruch zum Prinzip rein graphischer Tradition. Die klassisch-arabische Schriftsprache — und diesen Zug durfte sie mit den meisten entwickelten Schriftsprachen teilen — ist ferner nicht einfach und ausschlieBlich ein Reflex von Gesprochenem, mehr oder weniger gelungene Wiedergabe von Gesprochenem. Es gibt vielmehr in ihr Texte, ja vielleicht ganze Literaturen, die kaum oder nie gesprochenes Wort waren, sondem ihr eigenes Leben als geschrieben hatten. Ja, es gibt Falle in denen das gesprochene Wort nur dazu diente, die schriftliche Oberlieferung weiter zu fuhren. Dabei ist also das urspriingliche Verhaltnis, gemaB dem Schrift fixierte Rede ist, gewissermaBen auf den Kopf gestellt: das Ausgesprochene ist Reflex des Geschriebenen geworden. Aus dieser Wichtigkeit der Schrift erklart sich mit, warum die Unvollkommenheit des arabischen Schriftsystems so weitreichende Folgen hat. Unvollkommenheit ist nun wieder ein relativer Begriff und ich messe diese Unvollkommenheit nicht am Klassischen Chinesisch, oder an der akkadischen Keilschrift, wo das Problem der Schrift noch mehr im Vordergrund steht, sondern an europaischen Schrift­ sprachen : dem Griechischen, dem Russischen, dem Englischen etc. Die Unvollkommenheit der arabischen Schrift liegt bekanntlich darin, daB sie in ihrer normalen Form, d.h. so wie sie im Durchschnitt der vorliegenden Texte gebraucht wird, nur die konsonantischen und die langvokaligen Phoneme zum Ausdruck bringt. Die kurzen Vokalphoneme werden nicht geschrieben; daruber hinaus wird bei den Literary Arabic, Cambridge 1970: Daud Atiyeh Abdo, A Course in Modern Standard Arabic, 2 Bde., Beirut 1962-69; The MECAS Grammar of Modern Literary Arabic. Compiled by the Middle East Center of Arab Studies, Shemlan Lebanon, Beirut 1965; Farhat J. Ziadeh — R. Bayly Winder — An Introduction to Modern Arabic', Farhat J. Ziadeh, A Reader in Modern Literary Arabic, Princeton 1964. Andere Werke halten zwar im Titel den Anspruch, “Arabisch” zu lehren, aufrecht, sagen aber in den ersten Satzen der Einleitung, daB es um modernes Arabisch geht: R. Meynet, Y. Aoun, J. Dichy, J. Hardane, Du Golfe a I’Ocean. Methode structuro-globale, audio-visuelle d’Arabe, Paris. A. F. L. Beeston, Written Arabic. An approach to the Basic Structures. Cambridge 1968. usf.

DIDAKTISCHE PROBLEME IM KLASSISCHEN ARABISCH

55

konsonantischen Phonemen Vokallosigkeit und die morphologisch wichtige Verdoppelung nicht ausgedruckt. Bei einigen wenigen be­ sonders wichtigen Texten hat man die Zeichen fur kurze Vokale, Konsonantenverdoppelung und anderes durch besondere supra- und sublineare Grapheme dem Text beigegeben. Aber bei der erdriickenden Mehrheit der Texte der klassisch-arabischen Tradition fehlt diese sog. Vokalisierung ganz oder teilweise. Jede Vokalisierung ist natiirlich bereits Interpretation. Die hieraus entstehende riesenhafte Fiille von Homographen, d.h. gleich geschriebenen, aber verschieden ausgesprochenen Buchstabenkomplexen hat keine Parallele in indoeuropaischen Literaturen. Es ist wahr, daB das besondere Funktionsverhaltnis Konsonant-Vokal im Arabischen, die Tatsache, daB sehr viele Worter aus Ausformungen einer zwei, drei- oder vierkonsonantigen “Wurzel” auffaBbar sind, das Verstandnis der “unvokalisierten” Schriftbilder erleichert. Dennoch bleibt festzuhalten daB der unvokalisierte Text nie mehr “leistet”, als der vokalisierte — von den ganz wenigen Fallen abgesehen, in denen Wort — bzw. Schriftspiele intendiert sind. Dieses Manko der arabischen Schrift muB besonders deshalb ausdriicklich als solches bezeichnet werden, weil nicht immer mangelnde Eindeutigkeit, mangelnde Cbereinstimmung zwischen Gesprochenem und Geschriebenem funktionslos ist. Wenn im Englischen etwa der gleiche phonematische Komplex/mit/ als meet, meat und (to) mete (out) geschrieben werden kann, so leistet hier die graphische Variation etwas, sie trennt semantisch verschiedene Homophone; wenn im Franzosischen je chante und tu chantes verschieden geschrieben, aber gleich ausgesprochen werden, so markiert hier die Orthographic eine grammatische Eigenschaft. Die Vieldeutigkeit des arabischen Schriftbildes leistet jedoch linguistisch nichts.4 Ein arabisches geschriebenes Wort ist isoliert fast nie eindeutig zu lesen, es gibt fast immer mindestens zwei funktionell oder semantisch verschiedene Moglich­ keiten, in Einzelfallen sogar ein Dutzend und mehr Moglichkeiten. Die padagogische Schwierigkeit, dieses Problem zu iiberwinden, ist 4 Seine Leistung liegt vielmehr auf sprachpolitischer Ebene. Die verkiirzte Information eines arabischen Schriftbildes entspricht namlich haufig, dem “gemein-arabischen” Rest eines Worts, der nach Abzug dialektgefarbter Aussprachen iibrig bleibt: klass. sariba “er hat getrunken” konnte von einem Marokkaner angelehnt an seine Dialektform von einem Syrer foreb, von einem Iraker serab gesprochen werden. Auch eine ganz oder teilweise dialektisch ausgesprochene Verbalform muB eben richtig geschrieben werden. Das Informationsdefizit wirkt also, weil das Schriftbild gegen teil­ weise oder ganzliche Dialektinterferenz unempfindlich ist, kommunikationserleichtemd und vereinheitlichend.

56

S. WILD

nicht zu unterschatzen. Es gibt m.E. keine Technik, auBer der, moglichst viele Texte mit Grammatik und Worterbuch so prazis wie moglich zu lesen. Was namlich ermoglicht, unvokalisiertes Arabisch trotz der unvollkommenen Schrift einigermaBen fliiBig und korrekt zu lesen, ist das Vorsortieren gewisser haufiger graphischer Formen, das Zuordnen haufiger — an sich mehrdeutiger — Grapheme zu bestimmten eindeutigen morphologischen Formen, das Ausscheiden, bzw. erst in zweiter Linie In-Betracht-Ziehen von bestimmten moglichen aber selteneren Formen, und ein Vorverstandnis des Zusammenhangs. All dies sind Voraussetzungen, die der Anfanger naturgemaB nicht mitbringen kann. Eine padagogische Hilfe konnte hierbei eine explizite Formulierung der Summe der Vorentscheidungen, Zuordnungen und Vorsortierungen sein, die der geiibtere Arabisch-Leser unbewuBt vomimmt. So ist eine der wichtigsten Vorentscheidungen bei der Lektiire eines normalen arabischen Verbalsatzes mit der Wortstellung Verb-Subjekt die Entscheidung fur die Aktiv- oder Passivform des Verbs, die in der Mehr­ heit der Falle gleich geschrieben werden. Die Tatsache, daB Passiva weniger haufig als Aktiva sind, daB der Schuler also gut tut, zunachst ein Aktiv zu vermuten, bis der Zusammenhang ein Passiv fordert, ware eine statistische Angabe, die den Lemenden entlasten wiirde. Hier wiirde eine Schrift- und Sprachstatistik, die derartige fur den Arabisch-Anfanger relevanten Unterscheidungen verzeichnen wurde, viel Gutes stiften. Eine derartige, allerdings iiber die Interpretation des Schriftbildes hinausgehende statistische Aussage, die dem Schiiler unnotiges Nachschlagen erspart, die aber — soweit mir bekannt ist — nirgendwo schriftlich fixiert ist, betrifft z.B. die Interpretation von Verbalformen der Form intak2ak3a. Diese konnen theoretisch sowohl VII. Stamme einer Wurzel primae Td\ als auch VIII. Stamme einer Wurzel primae Nun sein. Der Hinweis, dass VII. Stamme von Wurzeln primae Ta nicht existieren, wiirde dem Lernenden den Gebrauch des Lexikons wesentlich erleichtern.5 Der in gewisser Hinsicht revolutionarste Schrift, Schriftarabisch — in diesem Fall sogar modernes Schriftarabisch — als pure graphische Tradition aufzufassen, findet sich in A. F. C. Beestons Written Arabic. Beeston iibergeht praktisch die Flexion des Nomens im Singular, den sog. Vrab. “In existing grammars of all types, this (d.h. der Frab) 5 Ich selbst verdanke diesen Hinweis meinem Lehrer, Herrn Prof. Dr. Anton Spitaler und meinem ersten Semester Arabisch bei ihm.

DIDAKTISCHE PROBLEME IM KLASSISCHEN ARABISCH

57

has been normally presented as a fundamental feature of the language, described in the very earliest chapters. It is much to be doubted whether this is in fact the case. Many Arabic speakers are able to comprehend the language as usually written and yet would have difficulty in giving the i'rab throughout; evidently therefore their comprehension of the text is achieved without much reliance on the i'rdb...” Beeston erlautert weiter, der Crab sei wahrscheinlich “a linguistic phenomenon of which the application depends of a previous comprehension of the text and not the other way around”.6 Ich glaube, daB dieser Weg aber fur den normalen akademischen Unterricht im Klassischen Arabisch nicht gangbar ist. Die bereits erwahnte Aussprachetradition fur das Arabische, die m.E. mitgelehrt und mitgelernt werden muB, verhindert, daB Arabisch in so skelettartigen Zustand gelehrt wird wie es etwa fur die Sprache der altaramaischen Inschriften geschehen kann und muB. Sonst konnte man auch die Imperfektvokale im Aktiv des I. Stamms, die Assimilation des arabischen Artikels in den bekannten Fallen und dergleichen mehr iibergehen. Man kommt dann zu einem gerade noch distinktiven an das Schriftbild des Arabischen angelehnten Code, der aber unsere Information iiber das Arabische unnotig pauperisiert. Konsequent konnte man qabila “annehmen” und qabbala “kiissen” im Perfekt und Imperfekt als J-i a und J-J b unterscheiden — dem unvollkommenen Schriftbild zuliebe. So sehr Beestons Ansatz also auf ein padagogisches Desiderat hinweist, namlich das, dem Studenten beim Bewaltigen der Unmasse von Homographen zu helfen, so wenig glaube ich, daB sein Vorschlag, nur noch das Schriftbild ernstzunehmen, dem Studenten weiterhilft. Im Gegenteil: vielleicht muBte dem Studenten noch ausdrucklicher gemacht werden, daB der unvokalisierte arabische Text

6 Beeston (1968) 2. Beeston schlagt diesen Weg hauptsachlich im Interesse von Soziologen, Historikern, Okonomen vor, die Texte ihrer eigenen Disziplin auf Arabisch verstehen lernen wollen. Er hat also eine reduzierte Kenntnis des Arabischen im Auge. Interessant ist es jedoch, damit die Feststellung R. Hartmanns (1974) zu vergleichen : “Da es bei der Erstellung der Tiefenstruktur keine Schwierigkeiten bereitete, die Kasus auszuklammern, kann angenommen werden, daB diese im Arabischen redundant sind und aus der Satzliedfunktion eines jeden Syntagmas abgelesen werden konnen. Daraus konnen wir von einer fur die arabistische Sprachforschung unerwarteten Seite eine Bestatigung fur die Annahme liefern, daB der ITab (Arabisierung mittels Kasusendungen) ein bewuBt am Leben erhaltenes Mittel ist, welches die Hochsprache von der Umgangssprache (Dialekte) abgrenzen soil. Das Ergebnis der Redundanz der Kasusendungen lag insofern nahe, als diese in der Schrift nicht realisiert werden, ein geschriebener arabischer Satz also auch ohne sie zu verstehen ist” (S. 25If.).

58

S. WILD

phonematisch sprachlich wichtige Information unterschlagt. Es scheint mir, daB hier schriftliche pattern-drills, z.B. Kontrastierungen haufiger schwacher Verbalformen einen ProzeB bewuBt machen und abkiirzen konnten, der anderenfalls unbewuBt und langwierig verlauft. Ein solcher pattern-drill konnte z.B. darin bestehen, eine Form wie juj in vollvokalisierten Zusammenhangen unvokalisiert zu lassen, und den Studenten die Moglichkeit zu geben, die richtige zu wahlen: ya'id, yu 'id, ya 'idu, yu 'ad, yu 'idda etc. 2. Die zweite grundlegende padagogische Schwierigkeit des Klassi­ schen Arabisch liegt in dem hochst ungleichmaBigen und in vieler Beziehung unzureichenden Forschungsstand, der hier an der Schwierig­ keit, ein Wort in einem arabischen Lexikon nachzuschlagen, erlautert werden soil. Es sei angenommen, daB der Student die morphologische Form des Worts eindeutig hat feststellen konnen. Der auBerordentlich haufige Fall, daB aufgrund der unvollkommenen Schrift bei dem nachzuschlagenden Wort zunachst unbekannt ist, ob es I., II, oder IV. Stamm ist (so etwa in alien Imperfektformen) soil also gerade nicht vorliegen. Der Student wird dieses Wort nur dann zuverlaBig nach­ schlagen konnen, wenn das Wort im Worterbuch der Klassischen Arabi­ schen Sprache erscheint. Dieses Worterbuch umfaBt bis heute den Buchstaben Kdf ganz und weniger als die Halfte von Lam. In alien anderen Fallen ist es Gliickssache, ein Wort, eine Konstruktion, eine idiomatische Ausdrucksweise oder dgl. in einem der vielen lexikalischen Hilfsmittel zwischen Belot und Dozy aufzufinden. So gilt global gesehen heute noch, was August Fischer vor mehr als vierzig Jahren uber die “Vertrautheit mit dem arabischen Worterbuch” schrieb: “Diese Vertrautheit kann man sich aber auf arabischem Gebiete... nur dadurch aneignen, daB man immer wieder Texte der verschiedensten Stilarten studiert und sich mit nie ermudender Geduld alle neuen Worter, Ausdrucksweisen und Konstruktionen, denen man begegnet, in seine Handworterbiicher eintragt oder auf Zetteln notiert”.7 Das “Worterbuch” mit dem man vertraut sein soli, ist also nicht etwa ein Buch, sondem eine Metapher fur den arabischen Wortschatz und das Worterbuch im normalen Verstand muB sich jeder Arabist eben selbst herstellen. Diese Situation ist heute noch die gleiche. Das Nachschlagen einer Vokabel, das in anderen Sprachen zu den vom Studenten flink erlernbaren Elementarkenntnissen gehort, gerat 7 A. Fischer, Beitrdge zum Verstandnis religidser muslimischer Texte. I. (= Abhh. d. Sachs. Ak. d. Wissensch. Phil.-Hist. Kl. XLII, 4). Leipzig 1933, S. 7.

DIDAKTISCHE PROBLEME IM KLASSISCHEN ARABISCH

59

zu einem Problem, zu dessen Losung etwa bei Benutzung der nationalarabischen Lexika bereits eine gute Portion Arabisch-Kenntnisse ge­ hort. Es wird vollends zum Glucksspiel, wenn zum rechten Verstandnis eines Wortes, eines Satzes, eines Verses man eben den und jenen anderen Vers, den und jenen Kommentar, den und jenen Schriftsteller nicht nur gelesen, sondem auch exzerpiert haben muB. Hier ist in gewisser Hinsicht das Ende aller padagogischen Bemiihungen gekommen, wissenschaftliche und padagogische Probleme der Arabistik fallen hier nahtlos zusammen. Die Schwierigkeit, ein unbekanntes Wort nachzuschlagen, ist umso groBer, als dem unzureichenden Stand der lexikalischen Hilfsmittel ein besonders umfangreiches und differenziertes Vokabular gegeniiber steht. Vom Arabisten — und das gilt mutatis mutandis von den meisten Vertretern orientalischer Sprachen an europaischen Universitaten — wird daruber hinaus erwartet, daB er Studenten in die Inter­ pretation arabischer Texte verschiedenster Sparten und Genres einfiihrt: juristische, poetische, historische etc., vorislamische hochmittelalterliche und fruhneuzeitliche. Was hier Studenten, wie Dozenten besonders schmerzlich fehlt, sind Wortstatistiken, die einen Hinweis darauf geben konnten, welche Vokabeln “lemenswert” sind, und welche nicht. Wahrend es fur das moderne Schriftarabisch einige solche Wortlisten gibt, fehlen sie fur das Klassische vollstandig. Eine gute Hilfe waren Spezialchrestomathien. Einen beachtenswerten Schritt tut Beeston in seiner Arabic Historical Phraseology — aber ebenfalls wie­ der bezogen auf modernes Schriftarabisch : “Arabic has a fundamental vocabulary of somewhere around a thousand words which will be essential for all users of the language; but above that level one begins to enter a sphere where the choice of requisite vocabulary is governed by the discipline in which the student is interested: many words which will be useless for the historian an economist will be useless for the historian and vice versa”. Ahnliches gilt fur das Klassi­ sche Arabisch. Auch hier geht es darum, was Generationen von Arabisten immer wieder aus neue durch trial and error gelernt haben, namlich poetische Vokabeln von prosaischen, alt-beduinische Standardterminologie von lexikographischen Raritaten zu unterscheiden, explizit zu machen, damit nicht jeder Arabisch-Student immer wieder bei dem gleichen Nullpunkt beginnen muB. Anders als mit der Lexikographie steht es mit der arabischen Gram­ matik. Mit W. Fischer’s in der Reihe Porta Linguarum Orientalium erschienenen Grammatik des Klassischen Arabisch haben wir eine Ein-

60

S. WILD

fuhrung, die einen wesentlichen Schritt uber C. Brockelmann’s Arabi­ sche Grammatik hinaus bedeutet. W. Fischers Grammatik kann und will eine systematische Darstellung der Klassisch-Arabischen Syntax nicht vorwegnehmen und ersetzen. “Lexikon und Grammatik sind noch weit von dem Stand entfernt, daB die Sprache als voll erschlossen gelten konnte” sagt W. Fischer selbst.8 Mit wie ungeeigneten Hilfsmitteln der Student, ebenso wie der Fortgeschrittene selbst auf dem Gebiet des modernen Schriftarabisch zu arbeiten gezwungen ist, dokumentiert etwa die Chrestomathy of Modern Literary Arabic von Ariel Bloch, eine geschickte und gut kommentierte Auswahl von kurzen Geschichten aus der modernen arabischen Literatur. Zu alien Passagen des Texts hat Bloch in Fussnoten Hinweise auf syntaktisch bemerkenswerte Erscheinungen gegeben, die der Student in der grammatischen Literatur selbst nachschlagen und kontrollieren soil. Dieses padagogi­ sche Verfahren besteht zu Recht — aber die syntaktische Literatur, auf die Bloch verweist und verweisen muB, ist der zweite Band von A Grammar of the Arabic Language von W. Wright — ein Uraltwerk der Arabistik des 19. Jahrhunderts, das die voile Problematik der Kategorien der arabischen Nationalgrammatik mit sich schleppt und H. ReckendorFs Arabische Syntax — beides Werke, die ausschlieBlich zum Verstandnis alter klassischer arabischer Poesie und Prosa beitragen wollen. Dieses Sprachstadium weist wie bereits gesagt wesentliche Verbindungen zur Syntax der heutigen arabischen Schriftsprache auf, aber kann keinesfalls als syntaktisch mit dem heutigen Schrift­ arabisch identisch gelten. 3. Moderne sprachwissenschaftliche Methoden haben bisher wenig padagogisch Brauchbares fur den Unterricht im Klassischen Arabisch abgeworfen. Es ist bereits haufiger festgestellt worden, daB zwischen den Vertre­ tern der sog. klassischen semitischen Sprachen und Theoretikern modemer sprachwissenschaftlichen Techniken und Methoden ein kommunikatives Problem zu bestehen scheint.9 Nicht minder haufig ist beobachtet worden, daB diejenigen Methoden, die im modernen sprachwissenschaftlichen Unterricht bei europaischen Fremdsprachen gute Erfolge haben, zum Unterricht in den klassischen semitischen Schriftsprachen kaum oder gar nicht brauchbar sind. Die meisten Beobachtungen auf dem Gebiet der Sprachpadagogik sind an Stu8 W. Fischer (1972) S. VII. 9 Vgl. etwa J. H. Hospers, Some Observations about Semitics and General Linguistics. Aus: W. Abraham (ed.), Ut Videam. Festbundel P. A. Verburg, Lisse 1975, S. 161-69.

DIDAKTISCHE PROBLEME IM KLASSISCHEN ARABISCH

61

denten, die Englisch als Zweitsprache gelernt haben, gemacht worden. In vielen allgemeinen Darstellungen des Zweitsprachenerwerbs oder des modernen Sprachunterrichts wird dem Problem, wie eine reine 5c//n//sprache am besten zu dozieren ist, geringe oder iiberhaupt keine Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt.10 11 Es ist vielleicht nicht uberfliissig, einen Blick zuriick in die Geschichte der Semitistik zu werfen, und sich vor Augen zu halten, welchen Erkenntnisfortschritt neue sprachwissen­ schaftliche Methoden fur die Betrachtung semitischer Sprachen bedeuten konnen. N. S. Trubetzkoy’s Grundziige der Phonologic, iiberhaupt die phonologische Betrachtungsweise haben die Semitistik, namentlich die Beschreibung und Analyse lebender Dialekte auf eine ganz neue Stufe gestellt. Man vergleiche z.B. was noch G. Bergstrasser in einer „vorphonologischen” Studie iiber das Problem der kurzen Vokale i und u des Damaszenisch-Arabischen schrieb, wie er sich abmuhte, Regeln fur die scheinbar regellose Verteilung zu finden, wie er zu komplizierten, immer wieder durchbrochenen Regeln kam, nur um in den Nachtragen festzustellen: “am einfachsten und praktischsten ware es gewesen, auf eine Scheidung iiberhaupt zu verzichten’’.11 Bei seiner Argumentation kommt Bergstrasser immer wieder nah, fur den heutigen Leser qualend nah, an phonologische Formulierungen. Vergleicht man damit die Darstellung von H. Grotzfeld in Laut- und Formenlehre des Damaszenisch-Arabischen,12 so wird deutlich, welche Darstellungsschwierigkeiten und damit auch welche padagogische Schwierigkeiten durch die Einfiihrung von Begriffen wie “Phonem”, “Archiphonem” etc. mit einem Mai entfallen. Ich bin nicht sicher, kann auch dariiber nicht urteilen, ob ahnliche Erleichterungen auf padagogischem Gebiet von der generativ-transformationellen Grammatik zu erwarten sind. Die bisher fur das Arabische vorgelegten Untersuchungen beschaftigen sich jedenfalls ausschlieBlich mit dem modernen Schriftarabisch.13 Chomsky betont, “daB die Kenntnis einer Sprache die implizite Fahigkeit involviert, 10 Aus der Vielzahl der Literatur habe ich Lado (1967) und Wienold (1973) herausgegriffen. 11 Bergstrasser (1924) 7fT. und 109. 12 Grotzfeld (1964) 12f. 13 Nach Hartmann (1974) lagen bis zum Erscheinungsdatum ihrer Arbeit folgend groBere generativ-transformationelle Arbeiten zum Klassisch-Arabischen bzw. Schriftarabischen vor: M. C. G. Killean, The Deep Structure of the Noun Phrase in Modern Written Arabic. Phil.-Diss. Univ. of Michigan, 1966, Ungedruckt, und : N. K. Lenkowicz, A Transformational Approach to the Syntax of Arabic Participles. Phil. Diss. Univ. of Michigan. 1967. Ungedruckt.

62

S. WILD

unbegrenzt vide Satze zu verstehen”.14 Dabei ist selbstverstandlich zunachst von gesprochener Sprache die Rede, ebenso wie in Chomsky’s Definition: “Die Grammatik einer Sprache versteht sich als Beschreibung der immanenten Sprachkompetenz des idealen Sprecher-H6rers”.15 Eine generative Grammatik einer nicht mehr gesprochenen, sondem nur schriftlich iiberlieferten Sprache wie das Klassische Arabisch muBte demnach die Beschreibung der immanenten Schreibkompetenz des idealen Schreiber-Lesers vermitteln. Die linguistische Intuition, die dem Muttersprachler einer gesprochenen Sprache einsichtig gemacht werden kann, weil er diese Intuition jedenfalls dem Modell gemaB und idealiter hie et nunc besitzt, kann aber dem Schreiber-Leser nicht mehr einsichtig gemacht werden, weil es ihn selbst eben nicht mehr gibt. Es ist nicht ausgeschloBen, daB es methodisch fruchtbare naherungsweise Losungen dieses Problems gibt, sie sind mir aber nicht bekannt geworden. Eine Pionierarbeit auf diesem Gebiet sind Regina Hartmann’s Untersuchungen zur Syntax der arabischen Schriftsprache. Auch hier wurde prinzipiell das moderne Schriftarabisch zugrunde gelegt. Dankenswerterweise hat die Verfasserin in den Schlufibemerkungen ihrer Arbeit auch die jenigen Ergebnisse angefuhrt die “vor allem fur den Aufbau der (nicht generativen) arabischen Grammatik fruchtbar gemacht werden konnen’’.16 Ich will hier als Beispiel aus ihren auBerordentlich interessanten Resultaten nur das erste anfuhren: “Die Zweiteilung aller arabischen Satze in Nominal- und Verbalsatze ist grundsatzlicher Natur, wobei der Nominalsatz die zeitlose, der Verbalsatz hingegen die zeitbeziigliche Aussageform ist’’.17 Ich weiB nicht, ob diese zutreffende Aussage bereits in einer nicht-generativen Grammatik des Arabi­ schen in dieser Klarheit zu lesen ist. Dieser Satz ist aber m.E. gerade nicht Ergebnis des transformationell-generativen Ansatzes, son­ dem entspringt einer — sit venia verbo — “pragenerativen’’ Einsicht. Dies wird schon dadurch deutlich, daB in anderen transformationellgenerativen Arbeiten uber die arabische Schriftsprache von temporalen Kategorien praktisch iiberhaupt nicht die Rede ist.18 Bis jetzt scheint also eine gewisse Skepsis angebracht, ob die Methodik der transformationell-generativen Grammatik die Didaktik 14 15 16 17 18

Chomsky (1965) 13. Ibid. 15. Hartmann (1974) 249. Ibid. 250. Ibid. 32 und 26121.

DIDAKTISCHE PROBLEME IM KLASSISCHEN ARABISCH

63

des Klassischen Arabisch — so wie es heute gelehrt werden muB — entlasten kann. Dies hangt naturlich zusammen mit der Tatsache, daB beim Arabisch-Unterricht im heutigen akademischen Unterricht die Einfuhrung in die Fertigkeit, Texte zu verstehen, und der Versuch, Einsicht in linguistische Strukturen zu vermitteln, nicht getrennt wird, wahrscheinlich auch nicht getrennt werden kann. Ich habe mich bei der gedrangten und impressionistischen Darstellung gewisser Probleme des Arabisch-Unterrichts auf im engeren Sinn sprachliche beschrankt. Damit ist in keiner Weise bestritten, daB ein Sprachunterricht in einer Sprache, wie dem Klassischen Arabisch nicht denkbar oder jedenfalls nicht durchfuhrbar ist, wenn er nicht gleichzeitig eine zumindest rudimentare Einfuhrung in die die Sprache tragende Kultur enthalt. Philologie und Realienkunde und -kenntnis sind hier auf weite Strecken das gleiche, und eines ist ohne das andere nicht moglich. Auch hier liegt, wie bereits ofter bemerkt worden ist, ein weiterer entscheidender Unterschied zwischen den Problemen, die etwa die Didaktik des Englischen an Niederlander fordert und den hier abzuhandelnden Schwierigkeiten. AbschlieBend sei auf ein weiteres didaktisches Problem hingewiesen, das sich an den meisten Institutionen, an denen Arabisch in Europa gelehrt wird, stellt. Ware es nicht angebracht, den Weg, den ein arabischer Muttersprachler geht, wenn er die Hochsprache lemt, nachzugehen und also erst einen der arabischen Dialekte zu erlernen und erst im AnschluB daran die Hochsprache? Diese Frage ist praktisch und theoretisch meist negativ beantwortet worden. Fast iiberall wird mit der Schriftsprache begonnen und von da aus der Weg zu einem oder mehreren Dialekten gegangen. Krahl-Reuschel formulieren: “Wenn man die Beherrschung sowohl der Hochsprache als auch eines arabi­ schen Dialekts oder mehrerer Dialekte anstrebt, so besteht weitgehend Obereinstimmung darin, daB mit der Erlemung der Hochsprache begonnen werden muB, da sich bei Beherrschung der Hochsprache jeder einzelne arabische Dialekt ohne allzugroBe Schwierigkeiten in relativ kurzer Zeit im Lande selbst erlernen laBt. Der umgekehrte Weg ist fur Nichtaraber nur schwer zu beschreiten”.19 Wahrend der Dialekt mit relativer Einmiitigkeit als Einstieg in “das Arabische” abgelehnt wird, gibt es, soweit ich sehe, kaum Oberlegungen daruber, ob man dem Anfanger Arabisch als Sprache von 19 Krahl-Reuschel (1974) 10; vgl. auch Mansoor bei Harrell (1959) 90 und Meynet (1975) passim.

64

S. WILD

Koran und den Makamen des Hariri oder als Sprache von al-Ahram und Nagib Mahfuz prasentieren soil.20 Es ist jedoch deutlich feststellbar, daB die weitaus uberwiegende Anzahl der in neuerer Zeit erschienenen Lehrbiicher fur einen Beginn mit dem modernen Hocharabisch optiert — vgl. etwa die unter Anmerkung 3 genannten Xitel. Fur dieses Arabisch konnen selbstverstandlich auch die Mittel des Sprachlaboratoriums in Anspruch genommen werden. Die unangemessene Stilhohe, die gerade einfache Dialoge iiber Alltagsthemen immer dann zeigen miiBen, wenn sie nicht im Dialekt oder mindestens stark dialektisiert sind, wird dann bewuBt in Kauf genommen. Mindestens in Europa hat sich also innerhalb weniger Jahrzehnte die einst unangefochtene Stellung des Klassischen Arabisch als primares Lem- und Lehrobjekt deutlich gewandelt. Das Studium des Arabischen wird immer mehr mit dem Neuhoch-Arabischen beginnen. DISCUSSION AFTER THE PAPER OF S. WILD (CHAIRMAN : J. J. G. JANSEN)

Jongeling sr. i Ich glaube daB es notig ist damit anzufangen daB wir auch theoretisch unterscheiden zwischen die theoretische Kenntnis einer Sprache und den praktischen Unterricht. Wild : In der Praxis laBt sich jedoch dieser Unterschied nicht immer durchfuhren, da es Studenten gibt die nicht nur die arabischen Texte lesen wollen, aber auch etwas iiber das Arabische als Sprache wissen wollen. Zaborski : For theoretical, practical and didactical reasons an Arabist must know the contemporary literary Arabic very well and in teaching one should start with this, for which you have a good tool in the handbooks of A. Yacoub and E. MacCarus (Ann Arbor, 1963-1966). Wild : It is debatable whether we should start with modern literary Arabic in all cases. But methodologically, classical and modern literary 20 Vgl. aber Krahl-Reuschel 10 : “Sie (d.h. die moderne arabische Hochsprache S.W.) ist somit die Sprache, die den Zugang zur arabischen Literatur verschafft. Das gilt mit Einschrankungen auch fur die gewaltige arabische Literatur des Mittelalters, die im sogenannten klassischen Arabisch geschrieben wurde, als dessen Fortsetzung das moder­ ne Arabisch zu gelten hat. Klassisches und modemes Arabisch sind, bei einer iiberpriifbaren Sprachentwicklung von etwa 1200 Jahren, einander recht ahnlich..., sodaB es keine allzu groBe Miihe macht, ausgehend von einer fundierten Kenntnis des modernen Arabisch, sich die Regularitaten auch des klassischen Arabisch anzueignen. Es spricht also eine Reihe von Griinden dafiir, bei der Ausbildung mit der modernen Hochsprache zu beginnen. Fur den Hochschulunterricht, an dessen Ende eine naturlich von der Ausbildungsintensitat abhangige Beherrschung des Arabischen in Wort und Schrift stehen muB, ist eine andere Entscheidung gar nicht denkbar”.

DIDAKTISCHE PROBLEME IM KLASSISCHEN ARABISCH

65

Arabic ought to be kept well apart in any case. You should not pretend to teach “Arabic” as a whole: classical, modern literary Arabic and the spoken dialects together. So if we decide to give a course in classical Arabic it is still unclear pedagogically what we have to do. Vetter : Auch Ihr Ausgangsort ist die Performanz. Deshalb frage ich mich warum Sie nach einer abstrakten Hilfe fur den Anfanger suchen, ihm z.B. theoretisch sagen: von bestimmten Verben werden bestimmte Stamme nicht gebildet. Zugleich sagten Sie fur den Kenner der arabischen Texte wiirden solche Aussortierungsverfahren automatisch abspulen. Diese Selbstverstandlichkeit ist aber nicht das Ergebnis eines intellektuellen Vorganges, sondern eben das Ergebnis eines langen Anwendungsprozesses. Deshalb frage ich Sie noch einmal ob Sie wirklich eine theoretische Hilfe hier fur fruchtbar halten oder ob es nicht besser ware die negative Erfahrung, daB in bestimmten Wurzeln bestimmte Stamme nicht auftauchen als Chance fur die positive Frucht anzusehen. Wild : Die Performanz ist hier eben ein moglich rasches Verstandnis des Textes. Und ferner bin ich der Meinung daB es doch besser ware die Studenten nicht zehnmal eine Wurzel nachschlagen zu lassen bevor er entdeckt daB es eine bestimmte Wurzel nicht gibt. Ich glaube daB Ihre Methode gewissermassen nutzlicher ist fur Studenten die nicht ganz und gar interessiert sind in der Sprache, sondern nur einige Kenntnis der Texte bekommen wollen. Ein fur die Sprache motivierter Student wird sich schneller einen Regel aneignen. Jansen : You were rather severe in your criticism of Beeston’s approach of leaving out the inflectional endings (i'rab) at least in the beginning. You said in that case you might as well neglect the vowels of the imperfect prefixes ya- or yu- or the assimilation of the lam of the article to certain consonants. I would like to make a distinction, as the Crab can be discarded reading a text, but one cannot leave out the imperfect vowel or the assimilation of the lam^oi the article. Wild : I agree with you here but I only wanted to point out that Beeston’s book — as he states himself — is not meant for those who want to specialize in Arabic. Anyhow for classical Arabic this method of leaving out the Crab should not be applied. Keller : Classical Arabic is in many respects an artificial language, especially as regards the Crab and the nunation and I do not think it is necessary to confront the student with all these complicated rules right from the beginning.

66

S. WILD

Wild : Whether classical Arabic is artificial or not is irrelevant. If you want to learn it you have to learn it with all its artificialities. Te Velde : Do you think that the fact one has better tools for modern literary Arabic than for classical Arabic could be ascribed to the latter being a dead language? Wild : I prefer to avoid the term “dead” language. I think it is better to speak of “written” and “non-written” languages or languages that are still in use or not in use any more and languages which are spoken by nobody as mother tongue. Modern literary Arabic is still being written, so you can test its correctness in a particular point by asking the people who write it. In this modern literary Arabic is a living written language. For classical Arabic we only have a corpus and anything that is not in this corpus cannot, strictly speaking, be called classical Arabic. Zaborski : As far as regards descriptions of the language, classical Arabic is in an even better position than modern literary Arabic. Riemschneider : Es ist fur den Unterricht des Arabischen wie des Hebraischen ein groBer Vorteil daB diese beide — wenn auch in einer ganz anderen Form — noch gesprochen werden. Es ist manchmal schwer fur die Studenten sich vorzustellen daB das Akkadische eine wirklich gesprochene Sprache gewesen ist. Ich aber glaube daB es doch ungemein wichtig ist die Studenten diesen Eindruck zu vermitteln und dazu sollte man moglichst viele Beispiele taglichen Sprachgutes sammeln. Hospers : How would you describe the difference between modem literary Arabic and modern Standard Arabic (Beeston’s M.S.A.)? Wild : By modern Standard Arabic I mean the language spoken between educated speakers from different Arabic countries. Van Donzel : Coming back to your remarks on lexicography I would strongly recommend the publication of a lexicographical index in every text edition. Wild : I completely agree with you. Abgekiirzt zitierte Literatur Beeston (1968): A. F. L. Beeston, Written Arabic. An approach to the basic structures. Cambridge 1968. Belot: J. H. Belot, Vocabulaire arabe-frangais a Vusage des etudiants, Beirut 1929. Bergstrasser (1924): G. Bergstrasser, Zum arabischen Dialekt von Damaskus. I. PhonetikProsatexte. (Beitrage zur semitischen Philologie und Linguistik, Heft 1). Hannover 1924. Bloch (1974): A. Bloch, A Chrestomathy of Modern Arabic Literature. (= Porta Linguarum Orientalium. Neue Serie XIV). Wiesbaden 1974.

DIDAKTISCHE PROBLEME IM KLASSISCHEN ARABISCH

67

Brockelmann (1953): C. Brockelmann, Arabische Grammatik. Paradi&men, Literatur, Vbungsstiicke und Glossar. (= Porta Linguarum Orientalium. IV). Leipzig 1953. Chomsky (1965): Noam Chomsky, Aspekte der Syntax-Theorie. (= Theorie 2) Frankfurt am Main 1965. Dozy: R. Dozy, Supplement aux dictionnaires arabes. 2 Bde. Leiden-Paris 1927. Fischer (1972): W. Fischer, Grammatik des Klassischen Arabisch. (= Porta Linguarum Orientalium. Neue Serie XI). Wiesbaden 1972. Grotzfeld (1964): H. Grotzfeld, Laut- und Formenlehre des Damaszenisch-Arabischen. (= Abhh. f. d. Kunde d. Morgenlandes XXXV, 3). Wiesbaden 1964. Harrell (1959): Richard S. Harrell (ed.), Report of the Tenth Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. (= Monograph Series on Languages and Lin­ guistics 12/1959). Washington D.C. Panel II “The Teaching of Arabic” enthalt: J. M. Cowan, The Arabic Program of the Arabian American Oil Company (71-74), C. A. Ferguson, Myths about Arabic (75-82), M. Mansoor, Arabic: What and when to teach! (83-96), K. T. Said, The Arabic Language Course Middle East Slavic Language Division US Army Language School Presidio of Montery, California (97100). Hartmann (1974): R. Hartmann, Untersuchungen zur Syntax der arabischen Schrift­ sprache. Eine generativ-transformationelle Darstellung. Wiesbaden 1974. Krahl-Reuschel (1974): G. Krahl — W. Reuschel, Lehrbuch des modernen Arabisch. Teil I. Leipzig 1974. Lado (1967): R. Lado, Moderner Sprachunterricht. Eine Einfuhrung auf wissenschaftlicher Grundlage. Miinchen 1967. Meynet (1975): Roland Meynet, Vers une nouvelle pedagogic de Tarabe. Travaux et Jours (Beirut) 56/7 (Juillet-Dec. 1975) 33-41f. Reckendorf (1921): H. Reckendorf, Arabische Syntax. Heidelberg 1921. Trubetzkoy (1958): N. S. Trubetzkoy, Grundziige der Phonologic. Gottingen 1958. WKAS: M. Ullmann (u.a.), Worterbuch der Klassischen Arabischen Sprache. Bd. 1 : Kaf. Wiesbaden 1970. Bd. 2: Urn 1972ff. Wienold (1973) : G. Wienold, Die Erlernbarkeit der Sprachen. Eine einfuhrende Darstellung des Zweitsprachenerwerbs. Miinchen 1973.

EXPERIMENTS IN APPLYING LANGUAGE LABORATORY TECHNIQUES TO TEACHING CLASSICAL HEBREW A. D. CROWN Sydney

In the summer of 1975 (January) the author conducted a “summer school” in Classical Hebrew in the language laboratories of the University of Sydney. As a result of experiments in teaching method in that school, first year teaching of beginners in Classical Hebrew has been restructured from a textbook oriented course to a laboratory oriented course. This paper is a description of the methods and apparatus used in the summer school and their impact on first year teaching. Though this description is essentially a study of the mechani­ cal processes involved in teaching the language, those processes reflect an implicit philosophy of what, in the author’s opinion, is important and unimportant in teaching Classical Hebrew. Some few observations are made, en passant about the philosophical bases of particular methods.1 The author is well aware of the discussions that are taking place on the values of applying current linguistic theory to teaching a classical language. This experiment, in some measure, is a practical expression of those discussions. Before describing the experiments in teaching, some explanatory comments about Hebrew in the University of Sydney, are appropriate, since they are pertinent to the purpose of the school, the type of students who attended and the teaching methods adopted. 1. Background The University of Sydney has a department of Semitic Studies in which Hebrew is one of the principal languages taught. The depart­ 1 For recent studies on the problems involved in teaching Classical Hebrew, cf., James Barr, “The Ancient Semitic Languages — The Conflict Between Philology and Linguistics”, Transactions of the Philological Society 1968, pp. 37-55 and J. H. Hospers, “Some Observations About the Teaching of Old Testament Hebrew, “in Symbolae Bihlicae et Mesopotamicae, Francisco Mario Theodore De Liagre Bohl, Dedicatae (Brill, Leiden) 1973, pp. 185-198.

EXPERIMENTS IN APPLYING LANGUAGE LABORATORY TECHNIQUES

69

ment is like many parallel departments in western universities in never having any great number of students, always maintaining a small, but steady, annual intake.2 Students enrolling in Hebrew can be regarded as falling into one of the following four groups. First, theologians requiring Hebrew for textual study of the Bible. There was a time when this was the predominant group in the department, learning Hebrew as a com­ pulsory element of their Bachelor of Divinity Degree. This group is now the smallest in the department, since Hebrew is no longer deemed to be essential for Old Testament study. Moreover, the theological colleges, which are peripheral to the University structure, teach some Hebrew themselves. Second, are students knowing no Hebrew, who wish to learn Hebrew as an aid to specialized courses in Archaeology, Medieval and Ancient History, or even to assist with special literary studies in English, German, et.al.3 Third, are those students with no prior knowledge of the language, who come to study Hebrew for its intrinsic interest. Fourth are those students with a working knowledge of Hebrew, whether from school studies in a Jewish school, or from a period spent in an ulpan or machon in Israel. This group would seem to offer the largest potential intake of students, yet the opposite proves true. Though there is a two-stream first-year intake to provide for discrepant background standards between beginners (Hebrew I) and those students with a basic knowledge (Hebrew IM) (M = Matricula­ tion), Hebrew I is always numerically stronger than Hebrew IM.4 For some time the writer has been concerned about this discrepant enrolment between Hebrew I and Hebrew IM. Moreover, enquiries by interested, but non-committed students, over the years, left the impression that there were numbers of students who would have liked to study Hebrew, but who were frightened by its script and by the 2 The enrolment in 1975 in first year Hebrew is eighteen. 3 During recent years the department has helped students of courses on the Jew in American literature, Jewish mysticism in the novels of Patrick White and Franz Kafka’s Hebrew allusions. 4 The same situation pertains at Melbourne University’s Dept, of Middle Eastern Studies. Two explanations seem feasible. In Melbourne, where there are substantial numbers of school leavers with Hebrew knowledge, a survey showed that they had a surfeit of Hebrew by the time they enrolled in their University courses. The same factor may apply in Sydney. On the other hand, there is a voluntary ulpan on the Sydney Campus, which offers a course in Modern, spoken Hebrew. This ulpan is well patronized. Moreover, the department, in lieu of providing formal teaching in Modern Hebrew, has made provision in the language laboratory library for self-tuition in spoken Hebrew. This facility is also well patronized.

70

A. D. CROWN

imagined difficulties of its grammar. It was of these two problems that the idea of a summer school was bom. Thus, the summer school had two initial objectives. Firstly, to ‘sell’ the department and its courses to students with some basic Hebrew knowledge, and, second, to provide a sample*course in classical Hebrew for beginners.5 In the planning stage, therefore, two different courses were envisaged, an advanced course that would sample areas that were covered in different years of study in the department, and an introductory course. Whilst the idea was germinating, and enrolments in the summer school were sought, consideration was given to making use of the University’s language laboratories for the introductory course. Experi­ ence, over the years has shown that most drop-outs came from students who could not come to terms with the mechanical reading processes of the language; where reading did not become a rote exercise in the early part of the course, the struggle with the script dominated attitudes to grammar and the text. It was considered that the language laboratory offered the facilities for reducing reading to a mechanical, rote process so that students who mastered the reading skill would be tempted to enrol in the department. Special emphasis was also laid on reading as a reflection of the author’s belief that the core of a full course in the elements of Hebrew should be directly related to reading the Old Testament text for comprehension in a general way, as much as for precise translation. Ease and fluency of reading is, of course, fundamental to rapid comprehension. Although some teachers develop their courses on a transliteration basis, moving from a grammatical study in transliteration to text reading, a dual skill is involved here which seems to complicate the beginning stages of learning.6 There was no response to invitations to enrol in the advanced course, and, in the event this proved to be a somewhat fortunate circumstances, for enrolments in the introductory course made maximal demands on time and resources.7 5 In recent years a decline in the number of language students in New South Wales’ schools, has affected the intake of students in the Universities’ language departments. The Interim Report of the Comittee on Foreign Languages of the Australian Academy of Humanities, indicates (pp. 14, 15 and table 12) that the decline is a long term trend — some 44% over a nine year period. This decline has had no noticeable impact on the small numbers enrolling in Hebrew. 6 Cf. C. Keller, “Probleme des Hebraischen Sprachunterrichts’’, Fe/wj Testamentum, 20 no. 3, 1970, pp. 278-286 at p. 278. 7 I am grateful to Mr. Brian Taylor, the Deputy Director of the language laboratories, for his cheerful cooperation. I must also express my appreciation for the help given by

EXPERIMENTS IN APPLYING LANGUAGE LABORATORY TECHNIQUES

71

2. Programme The summer school was planned to run for thirty hours, in ten, three-hour evening sessions. Initially it was proposed to timetable each three-hour session into a teaching session, an intermediate session and a revision session. The intermediate session was to be a recorded series on the history of Hebrew, and was intended to allow relaxation by diversification of activity, and to prevent retroactive inhibition after an hour’s intensive work, hindering revision, (reinforcement). However, because there were thirty-six enrolments and the labora­ tory capacity is twenty-four per room, two labs had to be used simultaneously, and the scheduled programme was staggered. To understand the modification to the programme a note about the laboratories is essential. There are six language laboratories and one ‘Audio-visual room’ in the complex. One of the laboratories is equipped as an individual listening room for private study. The others are each equipped with a four source Tandberg console, with linked Kodak carousel projectors, overhead projectors and record players, and twenty-four, dual-channel students’ recorders. Material used can either be preduplicated for students working at their individual pace, or it can be sent ‘down the line’ from a master tape on the console to be recorded at the student positions. Student responses can be recorded simultaneously and their responses can be monitored at any time during the presentation or playback.8 The audio-visual room, which has double the seating capacity of the laboratories, has no student recording facilities, though they can receive prerecorded mate­ rial individually in cord-free headphones from a room-lapping circuit. It has all the other facilities of the other laboratories, including scope for movie projection. It was essential to use the small capacity laboratories when student responses needed to be monitored, or during revision sessions. Thus, whilst one group of eighteen students followed the programme out­ lined, the other group began the evening with the intermediate session Mr. Jim Taylor, and Mr. Peter Brodie, the technicians of the laboratory who gave every possible assistance above and beyond what might be regarded as a normal responsibility. Their cooperation, interest and control of the technical aspects of the summer school, made it possible to concentrate entirely on the teaching process. Their help was especially important in view of the capacity registration in the course. Mr. Jim Taylor gave up two evenings of his leave to see that all technical aspects worked smoothly. 8 At the time of the summer school, all the positions were partitioned and sound­ proofed. This partitioning has now been stripped to allow supplementary face-to-face teaching.

72

A. D. CROWN

and followed this with the teaching and revision sessions, with but a brief break between. This allowed the same instructor to present the exposition to each group in turn, since there was only one set of visual materials.9 Neither group appeared to be disadvantaged or more advanced by the programme modification. Both groups began to read on the fifth day10 11 and from then on were able to unite for the exposition session in the audio-visual room and work in separate groups during the revision period.11 3. Method Prime emphasis was laid on teaching reading with the development of simultaneous skills in writing. The alphabet was taught sequentially. 9 There was also only one official instructor. I must express my gratitude to a post­ graduate student and colleague, Father Paul Stenhouse, and to the Hillel Director, Mr. Zev Dar, who gave their time willingly, to man the second laboratory for two hours on each evening. 10 Current first-year students, using largely the same materials but emended as described below, began to read in the fourteenth hour of instruction and read slowly but accurately, a text modified from the siddur. 11 As noted above, after each teaching session was concluded, students in the first group moved into another room, where they engaged in a different activity. The first day’s activity was the screening of a film on the development of the Hebrew Script. Students were given a questionnaire to read before the film was shown, so that they could observe certain salient points. The same film was shown on the last evening, and it was apparent that it had considerably more meaning for them at the second sitting. The second day’s activity was the beginning of a projected series where students would listen to a version of Chaim Rabin, A Short History of the Hebrew Language, recorded for the course. Again questionnaires were drawn up, to guide them through the material. However, it proved to be too dense for them after the preceding hourlong session with strange material. After another attempt on the third night, the activity was abandoned, and a series of light travel films/slides was substituted. This proved to be far more satisfactory. In a follow up analysis, most students supported the use of films as a necessary relaxation. Nevertheless, it was on the question of the intensity of the course that students found most to criticize in a follow up analysis. One student offered the following alternative time sequence : 6.00 6.20 6.25 6.45 6.50 700 7.30 7.30 7.45

begin two letters of the aleph-bet 5 minutes break two more lettersof aleph-bet 5 minutes break quick revision r. f,lm quick revision additional points followed by a revision session to 9.00 p.m. with breaks at students wish.

The revised series, with shorter teaching sessions and library revision materials, is closer to the alternative pattern.

EXPERIMENTS IN APPLYING LANGUAGE LABORATORY TECHNIQUES

73

Though some teachers, concerned that similarity in the shape of such letters as resh and dalet, kaph and bet, gimel and nun, can cause confusion, vary the order in which they present the letters, it was felt that there are distinct advantages in teaching the aleph-bet sequentially. Since every reading exercise could be arranged and con­ trolled to minimize problems of similarity, there was no special advantage to be gained by teaching the letters out of sequence. A master tape of each reading exercise was recorded, and each tape was pulsed to synchronise with slides.12 One voice only was used, though in the revised series,13 three voices are used to advantage. The use of three voices helps alleviate boredom, and allows students to hear the range of intonation and slight variations in stress pattern which occur in everyday usage. Three voices proved especially valuable in demonstrating that the contemporary (Israeli-Sephardi) pronuncia­ tion of Hebrew has no common phonemic realization. The contem­ porary pronunciation of Hebrew was selected as a ‘natural’ course of events since the use of a reconstructed old pronunciation preserves too much that is hypothetical.14 It also reduces mutual intelligibility (and respect) between native Hebrew speakers and non-native Hebrew scholars. In any event, since some 80% of modern Hebrew vocabulary is drawn from the Classical language the use of the contemporary pronunciation facilitates transfer from a classical orientation to a modern orientation, for those students who wish to speak the language. No scripts of the teaching sessions were given to students, so that attention could be focussed on the screen and tape, and there would be no temptation to read the script. This does not imply that any attempt was made to transform the method into a parallel to that used in teaching spoken contemporary languages. Classical Hebrew is now only a written language, and mastery of classical Hebrew demands a mastery of and fluency with the script. Nevertheless, as with any language, the oral stage is primary and the method described helps to emphasise the oral role of language even when graphic forms are taught. In fact, in the revised series where a cassette copy of each teaching session is prepared for the use of students who miss a lesson, 12 The system in vogue in the laboratory, is for a master to remain always as the source tape, and copies are made for library and teaching use. The master is never used for teaching in case of accidental erasure. 13 References to the ‘revised series’ are to revisions made to the summer school material for first-year teaching. To the time of writing, the reading material and all material relating to nouns and pronouns has been revised. 14 J. H. Hospers, op. cit., p. 191 and Barr, op. cit.y p. 52.

74

A. D. CROWN

a script is made available. The script is also given to the class for reference, after the initial voice-screen exposition and it has proved useful in helping to anchor points transiently caught. Since time permits less intensive work in the revised series, the use of a script for immediate reinforcement is possible. The teaching session in the summer school was sixty minutes. In the revised series, it is never longer than thirty-five minutes, with twenty-five minutes to peruse the script, revise and ask questions. Each teaching session consisted of an exposition showing the graph to be learned, its phonemic equivalent and its written representation. A series of numbered strokes showed the order of writing the graph, and an alphabet chart was constructed and given out to serve as a permanent reference. During the exposition, at this stage, students were requested to refer to the various stylizations shown on the chart, before choosing a graphic equivalent to suit them. Then each word or letter to be read was projected, and pronounced, and students repeated the word in a repetition pause that was defined by pulses. [The second pulse served also to disguise the electronic noise of the automatic slide change]. The slides were made from Letraset.15 The standardization given by Letraset was an important factor in speeding the reading process, since students did not have to face the problems of the idiosyncracies of hand written forms. The Letraset face was of the Frank-Ruhl type, i.e., with serifs. This meant that the words projected were in the same face as the majority of printed Hebrew Bibles, an obvious advantage when it came to using the printed page. However, it did restrict the length of the word that could be projected to no more than five letters. Revision exercises were preduplicated, and a text, using basically the same words as presented in the exposition, was made available. At first, it was proposed to present the texts for revision in the same type face as the exposition slides, but it proved easier to use a stylized sans-serif face, also available in Letraset. Students complained at first, that the transfer from the serif face to the sans-serif face was difficult and slowed their reading. However, one clear gain, which outweighted 15 The slides were made on tracing paper for maximum rapid transfer, and they were then fed on to quarto transparency sheets in a 3M ‘Secretary’ machine. The trans­ parency sheets were cut up for mounting as slides in Loersch, ‘Quickpoint’ plastic mounts. The students read some seven hundred and twenty individual words in the first five days. Fortunately, Father Paul Stenhouse, a friend and post-graduate student in the department, was able to devote some time to helping with the preparation of the slides, thus reducing the burden substantially.

EXPERIMENTS IN APPLYING LANGUAGE LABORATORY TECHNIQUES

75

the difficulty, was that it gave a neat and manageable model for writing and the group wrote in a somewhat uniform but clear and neat script with some facility. To try and minimize transfer difficulties, additional reading practice was given by increasing the number of slides in the exposition session from eighty to one hundred and sixty (two carousels) and inserting words in the sans-serif face in the slide series. In the revised series where it was impossible to use more than one carousel per session,16 a series of additional practice exercises was added to the reading revision sessions. Each practice session was a prerecorded tape of a single sheet of text in a serif face. Of necessity, the first session was of unconnected words. Thereafter, connected paragraphs were composed,17 and presented on tape and text. As noted the exposition was from a master tape sent ‘down the line’ to the student positions, and was pulsed to synchronize with slides. At first, it was difficult to avoid using spurious words for reading practice. There is a limit to the number of genuine Hebrew words that can be fabricated from the first four letters of the aleph-bet. Once the letter he, was learned, the addition of feminine forms and the article made it possible to reduce, and then eliminate, spurious words. The primary vowels were taught first and their role as primary vowels was noted, since at each stage of the reading process, care was taken to build in to the material, fundamental grammatical know­ ledge. Special care had to be taken in preparing the exercises not only to give adequate practice in the new letter and to reinforce the preceding one, but to minimize problems of graphic similarity resulting from sequential presentation of the aleph-bet. Each new letter was shown with its name beneath it, then, the following slide showed, in numbered, hand-drawn stages, how the graph was constructed. Sometimes, e.g. with mem, alternative methods of drawing the graph were shown. Each student was given a copy of a standard writing

16 The shorter exposition period precluded using two carousels. In any case the reading materials were adapted to serve as the basis for a ‘Caramate’ series, using pulsed cassette and carousel, for individual, self-tuition. Two carousels per cassette would be unsuitable for the Caramate. 17 Each exercise was able to employ more letters of the aleph-bet. With half the alphabet it is possible to write a simple connected piece of prose. For the final session, a repetitive piece, Bdrukh Se’amar was copied from the siddur, photoduplicated and read. All vocal shevaim were marked by a supra-linear line. The passage was chosen for its repetitive qualities, so that some speed could be achieved.

76

A. D. CROWN

guide for children: a time interval, following the second slide, allowed consultation with the guide before attempting to write the letter. Each new letter was first read in its simplest phonemic forms as a combination of the graph and single vowels. Then monosyllables were read, after which longer word structures were presented. The new graph was shown in the initial, medial and final position in each case so that such positional allophonic variation as occurs, other than as a result of dagesh, could be demonstrated by example without especially directing attention thereto. Attention was drawn to the allophonic variations of he and het, since students found it easier to articulate het in the final position than in the initial position, and consciousness of this fact helped smooth articulation difficulties. Before the purpose of dagesh was explained, letters were normally shown with dagesh in accordance with Massoretic usage, so that students became accustomed to seeing initial dagesh lene in the lfgad kepat letters. Wherever a newly-presented letter had a graphic similarity to an antecedent graph, care was taken to mark and draw the nature of the similarities and differences. Then the exercise was structured as described, except that ample practice was given in reading similar graphs as phonemic units and in morphemic juxtaposition. At the beginning of the course it was uncertain as to how many letters could be taught in any session. It was soon found that more than five letters, including final forms and forms with allophones resulting from dagesh, produced retroactive inhibition. Five was the limit that could reasonably be digested in one session. The revision session followed a somewhat different pattern. There was one page of text and exercises for each new letter learned. Although the same words as presented in the exposition were included in the revision texts, these texts were made more extensive. This was not only to provide additional reading practice, but to make it possible to include a number of derived exercises. Generally the revision sessions followed this format. The reader(s) first read the whole passage, i.e. all the individual words, leaving an interval between words sufficient for the student to repeat the word on replay without stopping the tape. [The less the concentration needed on the modus operandum the greater the concentration on the object of study]. Then the text, or a part thereof, was written as a direct copying exercise to give practice in writing the new letters. Following this, an instruction was given to transcribe the text as a dictation exercise, to give facility in spelling, and to encourage the transfer of visual

EXPERIMENTS IN APPLYING LANGUAGE LABORATORY TECHNIQUES

77

to aural recognition and vice-versa. An additional exercise related to the identification and marking of open and closed syllables. This exercise was deemed to be especially valuable in helping students to move to a syllable by syllable appraisal of the word before pronounc­ ing it, rather than the letter by letter habit of many beginners. It also helped the identification of dagesh lene. The exercise proved to be so useful that, in the revised series, it was incorporated into the revision exercises from the second session on. One weakness of this scheme, is that it allowed the students minimal free reading practice — that is, reading practice in which they didn’t hear each word pronounced for them. A partial corrective was to ensure that students were meticulous about recording their own responses on the second track, but this remains imitative practice. In the revised series, an additional exercise asked the student to read the whole exercise on his own, without reference to the recorded voices of the readers. It was in relation to the revision texts that the greatest diversions could be seen between the original and revised series. In the original course, too much time had to be given to such points as the article, the conjunction, and the inseparable preposition. This had the effect of making the course appear to be unduly oriented towards gram­ matical punctiliousness, whereas that was in fact the antithesis of what was intended. The ethos of the course was towards compre­ hension and the reduction of the grammar to being a tool of com­ prehension. Fortunately, the author was able to learn his lesson and discover how these essential elements could be taught and yet confined to a place in the process of learning to read. In the revised series, the smaller points of grammar of this ilk were built into the revision exercises, and, as it has proved, they have been assimilated with considerable facility. One of the benefits of adding additional words to the revision text was that they could be chosen carefully to demon­ strate some point relating to the use of the article, preposition, or conjunction. On each revision tape a point of grammar was described. The same point was presented in the revision text and a question asked for its application in practice. Likewise, more attention was given to the use of sheva in the reading exercises in the revised series than was possible in the summer school. In the summer school supplementary reading exercises had to be included, showing (a) words of one open syllable beginning with vocal sheva (b) words of three closed syllables (silent sheva only) and

78

A. D. CROWN

(c) words with two shevaim in proximity. In the revised series these supplementary exercises were unnecessary as they had been subsumed into practices on syllabification. Both in the original and the revised series, reading practice con­ tinued after mastery of the alphabet. In the revised series a clockwork reading rate controller is used atop a projection transparency to give controlled reading rates and to build up speed reading skills. As noted above, students in the summer school began to read on the fifth day, after which attention was given to building up vocabu­ lary18 and grammatical knowledge. Each word of the vocabulary taught was presented on a slide, the meaning of the word being given at first by synchronized tape. Drill in vocabulary was given at frequent intervals through the remaining evenings of the course, by using the carousel without tape accompaniment. It was this aspect of the course that showed up another weakness that was corrected in the revised series. In view of the short time available, vocabulary building should have begun from the beginning of the course even if words had to be given in English transliteration. Comprehension of the text relies on a large passive vocabulary and an active, but smaller, vocabulary. Grammar teaching, at its best, should be drawn from the text, and, in any event, points of grammar are best demonstrated when the underlying vocabulary is known, so that students do not have to consider both the meaning of the word, and the form arising therefrom, at the same time. In the revised series words which were chosen for their future place in textual comprehension and in grammar teaching were added to the revision reading exercises for rote learning. They were written in the first exercises in transliteration and in sub­ sequent exercises in Hebrew characters. Since they were spoken on the accompanying tapes, the transliteration was no handicap. This advance practice gave a basic fifty words as a point of departure for practice.19 18 The vocabulary taught was based on Moshe Greenberg’s Introduction to Hebrew which has a carefully coordinated vocabulary drawn from the Joseph stories. Moreover, Greenberg develops his material from the nominal sentence, which is a sound starting point for teaching the structures of Hebrew. In the revised series, which lays the grammatical basis for three years of textual study, and for which a text book is placed in students’ hands, Weingreen’s A Practical Grammar of Classical Hebrew was the source of the vocabulary. 19 In a progress analysis during the summer school, it was suggested that new words could be introduced in a brief sentence which described their usage. Whilst this technique is ideal for intermediate or advanced students, it is not possible with beginners. An alternative suggestion was that to avoid the Hebrew-English transfer a stylized picture

EXPERIMENTS IN APPLYING LANGUAGE LABORATORY TECHNIQUES

79

In the revised series, each period begins with vocabulary drill and a pulsed cassette with carousel is available for private study. The use of this system has a number of specific values. It can serve as a control of the minimum number and type of words learned during a given course of study, so that there is some indication of the standard to be expected from students. This is only a minimum indication, since students add to their vocabulary by additional reading and prose translation. Since the speed of movement between slides and the dura­ tion of exposure of each slide can be controlled, the exercise can be used for complementing rapid reading practice. The exercise can also be used for testing the number of words learned in a particular period. If the students set their own recorders going during a vocabulary practice and pronounce the words and give their meaning, an assess­ ment can be made of individual recognition time and accuracy. It is noteable that when vocabulary practice has included words met with in A/V sessions alone and in written exercises alone, there is a more rapid recognition of words learned by the A/V method. It was clear that in so brief a course as the summer school there would be serious limitations in what could be achieved in teaching details of grammar. Since the logic of Hebrew is such that ‘irregulari­ ties’ in verb or noun patterns tend to follow regular, predictable patterns, once the fundamental structures are understood, attention was focussed on the fundamental structures — what were described by the students as the ‘log tables’ of Hebrew, from which most forms could be computed.20 Even though more time has been available in the revised series, the same fundamental procedures have been found to be useful. The first stage of grammar instruction was a description of the noun and the simple nominal sentence.21 This was done in face to face teaching. However, the structure of the noun in all its forms (masculine, feminine, singular and plural) was taught by the use of overlays and transparencies. A duplicated sheet carried, in columnar form, the affixes of the singular and plural nouns, with an indication could be superimposed on the Hebrew word when it was projected. This would not be difficult technically — a Letraset transparency could be run through the machine a second time with a carefully placed pencil sketch — but the labour involved in drawing was not then justified at that time, in view of the limited number of concrete terms that could be treated. Nevertheless it is proposed to experiment with this technique in a third revision of the material to see if it facilitates recognition and memory. 20 Cf. Hospers, op. cit.y p. 192. 21 Ibid., p. 197.

80

A. D. CROWN

of their gender and person.22 At the bottom of the sheet were a number of nouns which had both masculine and feminine equivalents (rn1?*' mD' ^D) with the feminine suffix struck through and a tav (n) substitute alongside. The sheet was copied as a transparency, the words were cut out and used as mobiles to show how the affixes attached. Internal vowel changes were troublesome and in the summer school students were requested to set aside that problem in favour of cognition of the structural outline. In the revised series face to face teaching and additional overlays were used to explain the princi­ pals of stress long vowels and their reduction, and/or the patterns of segholate vowel changes. In the follow up questionnaire and analysis, all thirty-six students unanimously described the use of transparencies as the most important single method of teaching used in the course. The transparency proved its worth when the binyanim of the verb were taught. An attempt at an oral/aural exposition of the binyanim met with little success, whereas a transparency demonstrates the con­ cept in a short time. It proved especially helpful to teach that ‘the names of the themes23 are descriptive’, though this precludes the use of the term qal in favour of pa'al. Even teaching which is primarily based at achieving comprehension of the text must still be grammatically accurate and needs must include careful instruction in the forms of the verb and the noun. Once the noun was understood the verb was taught. At all stages of instruction in grammar which involved the learning of paradigms preduplicated tapes were used for reinforcement and revision. After the exposition of the declension of the noun by transparency, imme­ diate reinforcement was provided by the preduplicated tapes. In the revised series, library copies of these preduplicated tapes were made available, as were accompanying scripts. In the revised series where 22 One problem which had not been envisaged was that some students did not com­ prehend simple grammatical terms such as ‘third person masculine plural’, for in the current vogue for teaching English in schools, grammar does not play a part. Stick figures were substituted for indications of number, person, and gender. In the revised series the symbols O* were substituted for the stick figures. 23 In the summer school the word themes was used for binyanim and the usual ‘con­ struct’ for semichut. In the revised series the Hebrew terms were used to advantage. Once the student is shown that the name is descriptive of function the Hebrew is more meaningful than the English. The English names promote conceptual difficulties. Cf. Barr, op. cit., pp. 39-43 for some comments on this subject. It is quite clear that the indiginous terms are far more useful for conceptual reasons, than terms derived from the study of other languages.

EXPERIMENTS IN APPLYING LANGUAGE LABORATORY TECHNIQUES

81

more revision and reinforcement time was available, a full selection of noun types was recorded on the library tapes. The technique of mobile verb roots and columnar affixes on trans­ parency and duplicated individual copy was also used to teach the verb forms. The exposition was again reinforced by preduplicated practice-tapes. In both the original and revised series the verb has been taught in conjunction with the nominative pronouns. This was done to show the relationship between affix and pronoun. To em­ phasise this relationship the verb was taught in the order lst-3rd person singular and plural rather than in the traditional 3rd-1st order of most text books. Although the pronominal sense of the verbal affixes was explained, students were asked to repeat the pronoun with the verb, in the initial learning stages to emphasise the rhythm of the paradigms. The exposition of the verb in the Perfect and Imperfect was so easily assimilated from the transparency and mobile verb roots, that the Perfect in all binyanim was taught in one evening of the summer school and the Imperfect in all binyanim on the following evening. On the final evening of the summer school,24 after the usual drill in vocabulary, some time was given to discussing Hebrew narrative style and considering the use of the vav ‘consecutive’. Treatment of the vav ‘consecutive Imperfect’ was as a wzv conjunctive with a preserved yaqtul form and an analogous, derived form in the Perfect. This scheme was readily accepted.25 Following this exposition the Bible was opened at Genesis 40 and students read the chapter verse by verse and as much meaning as was possible for the group was extracted from the text. Words which were beyond their experience and forms which had not yet been discussed were translated for the class. A surprising amount of the meaning was recovered by and from the group and it was obvious that substantial progress had been made in ten days.26 Experimentation with the application of language laboratory techni­ ques to Classical Hebrew teaching and learning is continuing, and these experiments will be described on a subsequent occasion. In summary, it is suggested that the language laboratory has the 24 A social gathering was held on the following evening, where responses to a ques­ tionnaire about the course were discussed. 25 For a discussion of the dangers of diachronic explanations cf. Hospers, and Barr, loc. cit. 26 One member of the group described the experience as being on the verge of comprehension — “we almost, but not quite, made it”.

82

A. D. CROWN

following advantage over the method of ‘textbook’ instruction for teaching a classical language. 1.

2.

3.

4.

Prepared visual aids so simplify some concepts that they are speedily understood and assimilated. The ease with which concepts are grasped has its own intrinsic dangers. In the revised series it has been necessary repeatedly to add extra practice exercises for reinforcement, otherwise there is insufficient practice in concepts between exposition sessions. Preduplicated tapes allow the details of grammar to be learned at individual rates. Repetition, an essential feature of learning, is ‘naturalized’ into this system. Where more than one voice is used in preparing tapes, students become acquainted with marginal allophones and the range of stress and intonation patterns in normal pronunciation. In the laboratory situation, learning combines the features of individual rates of progress with the maximum control over what is learned. Where library tape facilities are provided, the reinforce­ ment process can be carried on outside formal class time. Reading, writing and grammar can be taught as complementary simultaneous skills.

The following sample pages (82-85) may be illustrative as language lab texts used by the author in his method. Revision Session 4

YAD EXERCISE TEN

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Listen to the reading of the exercise. On the pulse, stop the tape, and copy the exercise. Rewind the tape and repeat each word with the readers. Stop the tape and read the exercise from the text. Rewind the tape and transcribe the last six words of the exercise as dictation, being careful to note the long and short vowels. \

-nx 'riK "n • T

* T

•“

■’aoin ma - T

t-

"n 'n --

t?

Kir

T

• -

•

V

t

“

w v —

* T

T

-

t T

w

vax

'iw

■aon - :

6. In Exercise 5 we learned that the Definite Article, “the” is the letter n prefixed to a word. (Technical name, HE HAYEDT AH) n is pointed with the short a -patah- = n.

83

EXPERIMENTS IN APPLYING LANGUAGE LABORATORY TECHNIQUES

The letter following the n article, (HE HAYEDTAH) is doubled by piercing with a strong dagesh unless it be one of the five letters which cannot be doubled or excessively lengthened.27 (These are the velar affricates, sometimes called gutturals, JJ n n N. The mnemonic for these letters which cannot be pierced by dagesh is EHEHER). Thus we find T TH;

a ~* jan. In the exercise which follows add to each word the article, the relevant vowel and the following strong dagesh. ail aio ni to n r ina a V

VV

T

T

’■

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO EXERCISE TEN When the article, il, preceeds the velar affricates/gutturals, its phonology, hence its vowel pointing, is affected. A summary of the variations achieved is to be found below. Before 1 57 R the article is pointed H T

Before Before Before

H H the article is pointed H H the article is pointed H r unstressed H 57 the article is pointed H T

T

Before stressed H 57 the article is pointed H T

T

T

The same information is presented in an alternative form below. The body of the chart shows which vowel H would carry when any of the vowels in the top line is joined to any letter in the first column.

563692

27 For further information see the supplementary note to Ex. 10.

84

Revision Session 4

A. D. CROWN

KAF : KHAF : FINAL KHAF EXERCISE ELEVEN

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Listen to the reading of the exercise. On the pulse, stop the tape and copy the exercise from the text. Rewind the tape and repeat each word with the readers. Stop the tape and read each word from the text. Reminder: In the teaching session you learned that there are two forms of SHEVA which are both represented by the same graph = :. Vocal sheva is called SHEVA NAe = moving sheva. It is not a full vowel, hence, though it may begin a syllable, it may not count with its bearing consonant as a syllable in its own right. A syllable which begins with vocal sheva must include one other vowel. Thus, “lias is a monosyllable, even though the SHEVA NA* is audible. Silent sheva is called SHEVA NAH = resting sheva. It has no sound, serving to close a syllable where a consonant would otherwise be without a vowel. 6. In the exercise break up each word into its syllables. Mark them o(pen) and c(losed). N.B. If a Begadkepat letter follows a sheva and is without dagesh then that sheva is vocal. D 3 D 3 ID 13 IS 'D 'D D S D S ......

'3 133 •qa Tirm •qi

•

“

T

T

“

ns H3 ?pnR •’HR ?pSR *’SR TJS1D *73 ?pliM ni33 Ttas

nns^ zsTb-oi ’jnas^ axisi sprsi ?pTT tv 7. Vocabulary building ’OHEL a tent; BEHEMAH domesticated animal; or iR; a nation ia; DAM blood; HEREBH a sword; MI who?; HINEH lo, behold; YAM the sea; 'OLAM eternity, for ever. 8. Translation exercise i) ’Ohel gadol ii) Ha’ohel gadol iii) Ha’ohel qatan iv) Sham behemah v) Mi melekh vi) Mi hamelekh vii) Hineh hamelekh viii) Hineh hamelekh gadol.28 28 Note this word carefully. If you listen to the tape you will hear that the word has two syllables. It is MILRA'—final syllable stress pattern. Both syllables are closed. The first syllable is closed and unstressed. A closed, unstressed syllable must have a short vowel, therefore the "J" (qames) in this syllable is not the long a to which we are accustomed but is the short 0 known as QAMES HATUPH. You will meet this vowel frequently in the word KOL- = all. (Note the MAQQEF which allows the stress to migrate to the following word).

EXPERIMENTS IN APPLYING LANGUAGE LABORATORY TECHNIQUES

85

Revision Session 4 READING PRACTICE SESSION TWO

1. Listen to the readers and repeat each word after each voice. 2. Note carefully where each word is stressed. The stressed syllable is marked with this symbol v. 3. Read the supplementary notes to this practice session.

ins ana* ’Pisi fia n nns a’S'" thsk •jns’29 ns ns'D’ni nssm naios aonis’i inS’ai vrlr niaa nun wai anS"r aa^ aTs’ a?SK i^Sa: -- • - . — • rvr* r: t

t

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE The quiescent letters The lettersTinR, EHEVI, elide or quiesce and are not heard, when * They are final in the word * Yad, carrying a sheva, \ is prefixed by an inseparable preposition or conjunction. * Aleph, bearing hatef seghol,N, is prefixed by an inseparable preposition or conjunction. Examples •

_________

t:

D’nVn'? .

~

man' mini t

:

t

•

W

29 When any long vowel other than qames preceeds a velar afTricate/guttural, an involuntary sound is heard under the guttural in pronunciation. This is formalised by the insertion of an anaptyotic vowel known as FURTIVE PATAH. It does not count as an independent vowel in syllable division. 30 The letters ‘hilR, mnemonic EHEVI, may lose their identity and elide with the preceding consonant under certain circumstances. These letters are known as the quiescent letters because of this property. One of those circumstances, found here, is when *• bearing vocal sheva is prefixed by the conjunction, V For full details see the supplement overleaf.

HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION AND THE TEACHING OF DEAD LANGUAGES H. J. W. DRIJVERS Groningen

A feature shared by the contributions to the Symposium on “Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of the Dead Hamito-Semitic Languages” is that they all take as a starting-point for the teaching of the languages concerned the linguistic structures of these languages and the problems associated therewith. Accordingly, a correlation is made between linguistics and didactics, which is expressed by the adjective ‘applied’. Although the various speakers have widely different relations to and expectations from linguistics, in their contributions they all bear witness to the development of linguistics since F. de Saussure, who made the autonomous immanent structures of language the object of scientific research and essential teaching material. Even K. K. Riemschneider’s contribution deals in fact with a strictly linguistic problem, namely the relation between the (script) signs and what is expressed by them, which is a variant of the Saussurian signifiant and signifie. Indeed in all contributions some marginal attention is devoted to the communicative function of language and its mode of function in a social context (Hospers, p. 1 sqq.), the importance of ‘some historical information’ (Sawyer, p. 37 sqq.) is stressed and it is emphasized that ‘eine zumindest rudimentare Einfuhrung in die die Sprache tragende Kultur’ (Wild, p. 51 sqq.) is necessary. But these ideas are not elaborated further, nor is this necessary, as long as one keeps within the limits of the immanence of language structure, as constituted by the Saussu­ rian distinction between longue and parole. If the title of this contribution introduces the concepts of ‘history’ and ‘civilization’, this is not intended as a more detailed elaboration of the above-cited marginal comments, which are determined by the distinction introduced by Saussure between two definitions of the linguistic sign : the one being the distinction of signifiant and signifie within the structured language system, the other being the relation between the linguistic sign and the object or concept thereby designated in reality.

HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION AND THE TEACHING OF DEAD LANGUAGES

87

These two definitions, which for the sake of brevity can be referred to as longue and parole, imply a division between language and culture, and between language and history. This division is carried through ad extremum in the structuralism of Levi-Strauss et ai, where histor­ ical, social and linguistic phenomena are only of importance inasmuch as they demonstrate the perpetually unchanging structure of the human mind and its systematizing activities. Saussure’s concept of structure in linguistic research then becomes a universal basic principle, a ‘code universal’ (Levi-Strauss), that exists outside speaking and actions of individuals and groups.1 With the introduction of ‘history’ and ‘civilization’ therefore the aim is not to give a further elaboration of the concept of structure in a historical and social dimension, so that historical phenomena and social structures, because they both belong to semiology in a Saussurian sense, can clarify the structure of a language to be learnt and taught. The aim is rather to break through the immanence of the language structure with these concepts, by laying full emphasis on the function of the language. The whole object of language is to say something about something, by means of which a relation is established between speaker, listener and that which is being spoken about. In this process of speaking language is applied to reality and thereby breaks through the closed structure of the linguistic signs: in the process of speaking the transcendence of language is expressed, and one passes from the field of semiology, where generally the signs mean something, to the field of semantics, where the spoken linguistic signs have something to say, and denote specific things. In this process of speaking a choice is made between the various meanings intrinsic to the sign system that is language, new combinations are made, and time and time again the closedness of the language system is broken through. This occurs first at the level of the sentence, where the phonological, lexical and syntactical articulation of the language is fused into a synthesis which fulfils the primary function of language: someone says something to someone else about something, with which sense and meaning are connected. Here we have coming together as a unity what Saussure has divided into longue and parole.1 2 Written language is in fact a composition of sentences congealed into script signs, which were once uttered or could have been uttered. 1 Cf. Levi-Strauss, Anthropologie structurale, Paris 1958, p. 71; cf. G. Schwiwy, Der franzosische Strukturalismus, Hamburg 1969, 45fT. 2 Cf. P. Ricceur, “La structure, le mot, revenement”, Esprit, Mei 1967, 805fT.

88

H. J. W. DRIJVERS

These too transfer sense and meaning from the writer(s) to the reader, via a double-layered symbolic system — certain script symbols, when in a specific composition, form a new symbol that means something in itself. In the case of ‘dead’ languages the main difference with respect to the spoken language is that there is no possibility of linguistic checking, because there is no longer anyone alive who could utter the written sentence and give a closer meaning through intonation and mimicry. It is precisely the lack of knowledge of the situation and other adventitious circumstances of the spoken language that makes certain sentences, that we know only in written form, polyinterpretable : a direct piece of evidence for the sentence as a meaning­ ful unit in language. The central function of the spoken and written sentence as expression of language, that transfers meaning, implies that the reality surrounding us and our own inner reality become restructured in a meaningful way through spoken sentences: the chaotic reality becomes human culture. This connection between function and (meaningful) structure, that is implied in the relation between language and reality — language structures reality and makes the community a partner of this meaning­ ful structure — is at the same time the motive force for the process of historical change. The freedom of spoken language in contrast to the closedness of the linguistic system implies the possibility for change, and thereby history.3 It is precisely through the lack of possibility of a linguistic feedback that culture and history acquire a function and meaning in the teaching of dead languages that extends further than meeting the interests of students, but which is fundamen­ tal for teaching, inasfar as this is aimed at the understanding of texts which represent another culture from another period in time. Let it be said here explicitly that culture and history do not function as a sort of ‘background’ which can give the texts more relief, but that without them the sense often escapes us. It is true to say that the association of culture and history, or history of civilization on the one hand, and the interpretation of written texts on the other, poses a hermeneutic problem that must be brought expressly under discussion in teaching. For texts as such are our main source of knowledge of human culture and history, because they describe and give an indication of ideas and happenings, and thus enable us to visualize cultural structures. Besides the texts we have Cf. L. Sebag, Marxismus und Strukturalismus, Frankfurt 1967, 170fT.

HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION AND THE TEACHING OF DEAD LANGUAGES

89

the material remains of a culture, which can sometimes be interpreted by archaeology in such a way that a historical process or cultural complex begins to emerge, though as isolated artefacts they sometimes cannot be placed within a structure. Yet for the interpretation of the material remains of a culture, texts are usually indispensable : a statue of a Greek deity can only be understood in full detail when one is confronted with the texts or myths concerning the god together with this iconography, and the same applies mutatis mutandis for almost all archaeological remains, that without texts would be almost impos­ sible to interpret. If emphasis is thus usually laid on the importance of the written texts, which provide us with the introduction to a culture, it is nevertheless not true to say that the function of material remains of a culture is always secondary and can only be characterized as background. The meaning of the various termini technici in the Palmyrene dedications of porticos in temples can only be understood if one has an idea of Palmyrene architecture.4 The same applies to the account of the building of the temple by Solomon, as described in I Kings. Archaeology and art history will have to provide us with information concerning the characteristic features of garments and the fashion in which they were worn, and concerning the construction and furnishing of houses and palaces. Religious texts require some knowledge of temple construction, statues of deities and processional customs, to name only a few details, and such knowledge is acquired from the results of excavations and the interpretation of statues and reliefs. Texts and material remains of a culture bear a dialectical relationship to each other, where knowledge of that culture is concerned. Both are complementary with respect to each other, i.e. the information which they provide only partly overlaps. The texts can give an indica­ tion of certain objects or representations by bringing them into associa­ tion verbally with things which qualitate qua do not permit representa­ tion. The description of the ark of Yahweh in Exodus 25 finds a necessary complement in the statement of its meaning, which distin­ guishes the ark from an ‘ordinary’ ceremonial chest, in which e.g. valuable objects are transported. On the other hand material remains are complementary with respect to texts because certain objects lend

4 Cf. e.g. the discussions concerning the meaning of mtlt\ sfyt’ and ttlyl’, see C. Dunant, Le sanctuaire de Baalshamin d Palmyre III, Les Inscriptions, Rome 1971, Mss.

90

H. J. W DRIJVERS

themselves ‘only’ to representation and not to verbal description. Examples of this can be found especially in religious iconography.5 If the teaching of a dead language is thus geared towards acquainting the student with another culture and promoting his understanding of it, then the instruction given as to what is known about that culture from non-written sources forms a vital part of the teaching concerned right from the start, if the student is to understand the sense of the sentences. The relation between written texts and a historical process is even more complicated than that between the description of e.g. a house and a house in reality. History as a written account of events is not so realistically faithful a reconstruction of ‘wie es wirklich gewesen ist’, but always an interpretation of a number of events, which by their description are brought into association with one another and which together contribute an element of causality to what happened in the past. An absolute cause in the historical sense cannot be given for what has happened, unless one recourses to a religious teleology or some other metaphysically oriented ideology. The historian can only structure the persistent penetration of all sectors of reality, if necessary with the aid of the concept-pair cause and effect; his task is that of systematization and selection. We are never concerned with ‘history’ but always with the ‘idea of history’.6 The interpretation of unordered events is an ideal cultural index, because it expresses the value system of the culture concerned. A confrontation of the historical account with what is known about the historical event from another source — say, archaeological evidence for the devastation of cities and the invasion of other peoples — can draw attention to an important aspect of the history of civilization. The most characteristic example of this is provided by the view of Israel and the assessment of events concerning Israel, as presented by the Old Testament, and what is known from archaeological and other written sources about the history of the Hebrew people. The confrontation of these different sources is necessary for a correct understanding of a large part of the Old Testament in its limited sense and meaning. 5 Cf. A. C. Moore, Iconography of Religions. An Introduction, London 1976. 6 Cf. H. J. W. Drijvers, “Theory Formation in Science of Religion and the Study of the History of Religions”, in: Th. P. van Baaren — H. J. W. Drijvers (eds), “Religion, Culture and Methodology”, Religion and Reason 8, The Hague-Paris 1973, 57ff., where additional literature is cited.

HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION AND THE TEACHING OF DEAD LANGUAGES

91

Another illustrative example of the confrontation of different sources is the research of J. Henninger, Uber Lebensraum und Lebensformen der Friihsemiten. In his lexical investigation of terms relating to agri­ culture and the rearing of small livestock and camels, as occurring in the various Semitic languages, combined with archaeological evidence and modern views of cultural anthropology he gives a definitive explanation of the earliest occurrence of the Semites and their ways of life.7 The above gives only several examples of feedback from literary tradition to other forms of scientific discipline, in which the feedback via the viva vox is not available for understanding more closely the meaning and situation of a spoken or written sentence. Other examples could be found ad libitum. Not only does the understanding of texts require external informa­ tion, but also developments within language itself require historical and other information in order to be understood. J. H. Hospers, in his plea for diachronic explanation in the teaching of classical Hebrew, has restricted himself to phonology and morphology. At the level of lexicology, especially where the borrowing of words is con­ cerned, historical information is necessary in order to assess pheno­ mena in the correct perspective. Reference can be made here to the occurrence of Aramaic words in New-Assyrian and New- and LateBabylonian texts, that cannot be understood without some historical insight into the role and the appearance of the Aramaeans in Syria and Mesopotamia.8 The same applies for the occurrence of Akkadian and Persian words in the vocabulary of Official Aramaic, that is connected with the function of Aramaic in the New-Assyrian, the New-Babylonian and the Achaemenid empires. Reference can be made mutatis mutandis to Greek and Latin words in later Aramaic and in Syriac, a phenomenon which also requires a cultural-historical explanation.9 As soon as one looks for the meaning and sense of a written text, one goes beyond the limits of linguistics and comes into the wide field of the function of language, where its real application takes 7 J. Henninger, Uber Lebensraum und Lebensformen der Friihsemiten, Koln 1968. 8 W. von Soden, “Aramaische Worter in neuassyrischen und neu- und spat-babylonischen Texten I”, Or. 35, 1966, 1-20; II, Or. 37, 1968, 261-271. 9 Cf. e.g. H. H. Schaeder, Iranische Beitrdge /, Halle 1930; E. Benveniste, “Elements perses en arameen d’Egypte”, JA 242, 1954, 297-310; A. Schall, Studien uber griechische Fremdworter im Syrischen, Darmstadt 1960; S. Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnworter in Talmud, Midrash und Targum, 2 Vols, Berlin 1898-1899.

92

H. J. W. DRIJVERS

place in the communication and concealment of ideas and events. However useful applied linguistics can be for the teaching of dead languages, one is concerned in such teaching with the reading and therefore the understanding of written texts. This is impossible without making use of knowledge of the historical and cultural context in which the texts were ‘applied’. Right from the start the teaching thereof ought to be a substantial part of every teaching programme in dead languages to demonstrate to the student the function of language. And is insight into the function of language in a human community not the final aim of applied linguistics?10 10 In fact “Applied Linguistics” implies more than merely everything concerning teaching and learning of one’s native tongue or a foreign language. This identification has often been made — especially in the British tradition — although it is warned against in general introductions such as those of R. Wardhaugh & H. Douglas Brown (eds): A survey of Applied Linguistics (Ann Arbor, 1976, pp. 1-7) and D. Crystal: What is Linguistics (London, 1975, p. 59ff). S. Pit Corder does so too in his well-known work : Introducing Applied Linguistics (Harmondsworth, 1973, pp. 10-11) and he describes his book as “a book about applied linguistics in language teaching” (p. 11). Yet even today the term “Applied Linguistics” is rather vague. In any case it should be regarded as implying more than merely “language teaching and learning” and also more than just “application of linguistic methodology, techniques of analysis and research findings to some non-linguistic fields” as proposed by S. Pit Corder {op. cit. p. 59). “Applied Linguistics” covers for example also problems concerning translation and everything connected with the representation of language in writing, and in such cases of course there is no question of “wow-linguistic fields”, cf. Th. Ebneter: Angewandte Linguistik I & 2, Fine Einjuhrung, Miinchen, 1976 (especially Vol. 1 “Grundlagen”, pp. 9-11) and J. H. Hospers: “Einiges zur Ugaritischen Schrift”, in : Vbersetzung und Deutung, Studien zu dem Alien Testament und seiner Umwelt A. R. Hulst gewidmet von Freunden und Kollegen, Nijkerk 1977, 85-90 (p. 85).

THE ROLE OF DIACHRONICS IN THE TEACHING OF OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW J. H. HOSPERS Groningen

In recent years the teaching of Old Testament Hebrew has been much discussed.1 Often it has been proposed that this teaching should refrain from all diachronic information or explanation. In an article which I wrote in 1972 and which appeared in 197312, I already offered some criticisms on this conception. I would like now to explore this problem a little further. C.-A. Keller has recently recommended “die Anwendung einfacher Prinzipien synchronischer Sprachbeschreibung (unter bewusster Hintanstellung diachronischer Erklarungen”).3 Further down, he even men­ tions “der im Anfangerunterricht gebotenen synchronischen Betrachtung”.4 And finally he proposes, as a possible way of explaining the 1 Barr, “The Ancient Semitic Languages — The Conflict between Philology and Lin­ guistics”, TPS 1968, 36-55; especially pp. 52-54; C.-A. Keller, “Problemes des Hebraischen Sprachunterrichts”, VT 20, 1970, 278-286; D. Vetter and J. Walther, “Sprachtheorie und Sprachvermittlung. Erwagungen zur Situation des Hebraischen Sprachstudiums”, ZAW 83, 1971, 73-96; P. Katz, “Hebraische Grundkenntnisse fur jeden Theologen — warum, wozu und wie”?, ZAW 84, 1972, 220-242; D. Vetter and J. Walther, Hebrdisch Funktional. Beschreibung operationelen Verfahrens, Stuttgart, 1973; J. H. Hos­ pers, “Some Observations about the Teaching of Old Testament Hebrew”, M. A. Beek, A. A. Kampman, C. Nijland, J. Rijckmans, Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae F. M. Th. de Liagre Bohl Dedicatae, Leiden, 1973, 188-198; A. Zaborski, “Teaching the Language of the Bible”, F.O. 14, 1972, 65-76; J. H. Hospers, “The Teaching of Old Testament Hebrew and Applied Linguistics”, M. S. H. G. Heerma van Voss, Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, N. A. van Uchelen, Travels in the World of the Old Testament. Studies presented to Professor M. A. Beek on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Assen/Amsterdam, 1974, 94-101. Before this some few other articles had been devoted to this matter, viz. J. Fuck, “Gedanken zur Methodik des Hebraischen Unterrichts”, J. Fuck, Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt zum 60. Geburtstage dargebracht, Halle/Saale, 1947, 125-140; O. Grether, “Erwagungen zum hebraischen Sprachunterricht”, W. Baum­ gartner, O. Eissfeldt, K. Elliger, L. Rost, Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet von Kollegen und Freunden, Tubingen, 1950, 192-207; J. Barr, “The Position of Hebrew Language in Theological Education”, The International Review of Missions 50, 1961, 435-444. 2 J. H. Hospers, op. cit. (1973), pp. 192-193. 3 C.-A. Keller, op. cit., p. 281. 4 C.-A. Keller, op. cit., p. 283.

94

J. H. HOSPERS

verba primae w/y, to regard those verbs “konsequent synchronisch”, as biconsonantals.5 Also D. Vetter and J. Walther oppose diachronies, because this method is deemed to hail from a kind of linguistic positivism which regards language only as “ergon”, not as “energeia”.6 In a later publication, however, this position is somewhat mitigated. Now they posit that the traditional teaching grammars of classical Hebrew, in the wake of Latin or Greek handbooks, still took full account of the existing interest in diachronic methods. On the other hand, the modern objective of teaching Classical Hebrew, mostly to students of Theology, who normally have had no training in the Classical languages, ought to look for a new method. All the same they do not want to decry as such “den Wert einer historisch-vergleichenden Darstellung... fur den, der die Wissenschaft einer Einzelsprache betreibt”.7 Both these authors, in their 1971 article, had already pointed to the earlier contribution by J. Fuck. This writer had indeed also attacked positivist linguistic historicism, in claiming that “selbst die warmsten Verfechter der sprachgeschichtlichen Methode nicht behaupten konnen, daB sie zum Erlernen der Sprache unumganglich notwendig sind”.8 P. Katz does not explicitly condemn diachronic explanations in the teaching of Classical Hebrew, but the tenor of his article makes it plain that he is not in favour. He is striving for a “sprachentwicklungspsychologische Methode” — viz. much as a child learning its own mother tongue9 — and children happen to be, in the words of P. Kiparsky “the synchronic linguist par excellence”.10 11 The most explicit attacks on the use of diachronies in teaching Classical Hebrew have come from the pen of J. Barr. In his 1968 article — which article is of the utmost importance for every Semitist, due to the extremely healthy methodological principles the author defends — he deplores the still existing tendency “to confuse it (i.e. basic description of any Semitic language of a given period) with information about how it had been at another time”.11 And speaking

5 C.-A. Keller, op. cit., p. 284. 6 D. Vetter and J. Walther. op. cit., p. 76. 7 D. Vetter and J. Walther, op. cit. (1973), p. 8. 8 J. Fiick, op. cit., p. 129. 9 P. Katz, op. cit., p. 226. 10 P. Kiparsky, “Historical Linguistics”, J. Lyons, New Horizons in Linguistics, Harmondsworth. 1970, pp. 302-315, p. 310. 11 J. Barr, op. cit. (1968), p. 44.

THE ROLE OF DIACHRONICS

95

about the teaching of Classical Hebrew proper, he warns that “at the teaching stage the temptation to provide diachronic information and explanation should be resisted’’.12 He also adduces some arguments explaining this “temptation’’. I have already remarked upon these views in an earlier article,13 and further down I will return to them. When examining some recent teaching material for Classical Hebrew, we meet in general with the same trend towards the greatest possible elimination of diachronies. But even so, the three methods mentioned below apparently cannot afford to do without diachronies completely. B. S. J. Isserlin, in his “Hebrew Workbook for Beginners’’14 — which is certainly a laudable method, aiming at active mastery of the spoken word, but also referring to the existent grammars — gives a number of diachronic explanations, albeit sporadically and concisely. There is, for instance, his reference to the “original stem forms: malk, sifr, boqr/buqr’’15 as an explanation of the suffix forms of segolates. Also the 6 in hif il forms of the verba primae y (“which was originally w’’) is explained diachronically from -aw-.16 There are no other diachronic explanations given, not even where, by the same token, they would be obviously expected, as in the forms of the so-called verba tertiae-h. T. O. Lambdin is his “Introduction to Biblical Hebrew’’17 also makes a sparing use of diachronic explanation. In treating the Segolates, he too mentions an “original one — syllable stem in the singular when a suffix is added’’.18 Also, he states that almost all verba primae-y had originally been primae-w, explaining the evolution of the perfect nifal from ♦nawlad > nolad.19 But here also there are several in­ stances where a diachronic explanation could very well have been given — and, in earlier times, usually was given. However, the author seems to have made a conscious choice for synchronism in these cases. This is behind his formulation of the perfect of the so-called verba tertiae — h: “The stem itself is variable (banah, banat-, bani, bani, ban-)’’.20 Also, referring to the form of the passive perfect participle qal (banuy), he only remarks: “note... the final yodh in roots III12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

J. Barr, op. cit. (1968), p. 52. J. H. Hospers, op. cit. (1973), p. 192-193. B. S. J. Isserlin, A. Hebrew Work-Book for Beginners, Leeds, 1971. B. S. J. Isserlin, op. cit., p. 81. B. S. J. Isserlin, op. cit., p. 126. Th. O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, London, 1973. Th. O. Lambdin, op. cit., p. 109. Th. O. Lambdin, op. cit., p. 183 and p. 222. Th. O. Lambdin, op. cit., p. 51.

96

J. H. HOSPERS

He”.21 Furthermore, the construct forms of bayit and mawet, are explained simply by remarking that ayi—and awe—►&, which is a purely synchronic statement, and completely unjustified from the dia­ chronic point of view.22 The suffix forms of nouns with the feminine suffix -a are explained just as synchronically: “Feminine nouns in-ah have -at before the light suffixes and -at before the heavy suffixes”.23 Thus we can conclude that this method, apart from its many excellent aspects which I pointed out earlier,24 is practically solely built upon the synchronic-descriptive method. W. Schneider in his “Grammatik des Biblischen Hebraisch”25 states in the foreword: “Wer eine Wortform oder eine syntaktische Fiigung in einem Text verstehen will, fragt nicht nach den Regelmassigkeiten der sprachhistorischen Lautentwicklung... Sprachgeschichtliche Erorterungen sind weitgehend vermieden bzw. in die FuBnoten verwiesen”.26 But here also we meet with a number of diachronic explana­ tions in the text e.g. the explanation “*galaja-*galaa-gala”27 and the remarks upon vowel-reduction.28 Also the mention of the original form ’atti of feminine personal pronoun 2nd person sg.29 or the con­ sonant of suffix forms of the plural masc. in the 3rd person sg., pointing to an original susew30 — and indeed, we find these observa­ tions in the notes. Of course, here also the basic forms of the Segolates are given in the text,31 so that the suffix forms of the nomina-tertiae — h are explained by an “auftauchen” of the original yod.32 It seems rather inconsistent not to treat suffix forms of the prepositions *el, *ad and 'al in the same diachronic manner, the more so, since, having noted that these are “Prapositionen mit scheinbaren Pluralformen”, it has been deemed sufficient to remark that these prepositions have “vor Sufifixen, Formen wie Nomina die im Plural stehen”, even though 21 Th. O. Lambdin, op. cit., pp. 157, 158. 22 Th. O. Lambdin, op. cit., p. 73. 23 Th. O. Lambdin, op. cit., p. 87. 24 J. H. Hospers, op. cit. (1974), p. 101 (note 31). 25 W. Schneider, Grammatik des Biblischen Hebrdisch. Vollig neue Bearbeitung der Hebraischen Grammatik fur den akademischen Unterricht von Oskar Grether. Bin Lehrbuch, Miinchen, 1974. 26 W. Schneider, op. cit., p. V. 27 W. Schneider, op. cit., p. 11. 28 W. Schneider, op. cit., p. 13. 29 W. Schneider, op. cit., p. 43. 30 W. Schneider, op. cit., p. 66. 31 W. Schneider, op. cit., p. 68. 32 W. Schneider, op. cit., p. 73.

THE ROLE OF DIACHRONICS

97

there is a slight reference to a possible root IH-y.33 The Imperative katob is historically explained as evolved from k(u)tub,34 just as nun paragogicum35 and the vocalism of the nifal and hifil preformatives.36 I do not insist. Let it suffice to note that this method — and not only the footnotes! — abounds in diachronic explanations.37 In my mind, Schneider’s Grammar is a perfect example of the fact that, even though one wants to work purely with the synchronic method, practice often makes it impossible to do without diachronies. As an illustration of the situation of diachronies in recent grammars of other Semitic languages, let me quote firstly the excellent “Lehrbuch des Akkadischen” by K. K. Riemschneider.38 This method does not shun diachronies at all. In this way, mu is explained from *ma’u, and rube from *ruba*i (p. 39). Also we find qassu from *qat + su (p. 41) and paragraph 4.4. treats the “Veranderung von i zu e” (p. 45), while §4.5 is about the “Veranderung von a zu e” (p. 46). In §4.6 (p. 46) the forms of the verbs akalum and erebum are explained diachronically. Also in the treatment of verbal forms generally, one regularly meets with diachronic explanations. In the foreword to another excellent recent work, W. Fischer’s “Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch”,39 we read: “Die neuere 33 W. Schneider, op. cit., p. 52. 34 W. Schneider, op. cit., p. 91. 35 W. Schneider, op. cit., p. 93. 36 W. Schneider, op. cit., p. 100 and p. 103. 37 Compare further W. Schneider, op. cit., pp. 104, note 2 (function of h in the infinitive nifal), 107, (note 5) this same function in the perfect and the infinitive etc. hitpa'el), 109, note 1 (the I in the hifil as an analogous formation), 116 (nun energicum as the rest of an obsolete modus energicus), 123 (the development of such forms as ydkal), 126 (infinitives ge§et < *ga§t), 130 (infmitivus §ebet < *Sib + t), 132, note 3 (about 5 in the hifil perfective preformative), 135 (about tertiae — y and tertiae — w verbs) and 148 (about originally bi-consonantal verbs). 38 K. K. Riemschneider, Lehrbuch des Akkadischen, Leipzig, 1969. L. A. Lipin, too, in the most recent Akkadian grammar {The Akkadian Language, Moscow, 1973) did not refrain from giving diachronic information either. The same is the case with two newly appeared grammars of Biblical Hebrew, viz. J. Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Wiesbaden, 1976 and J. P. Lettinga, Grammatica van het Bijbels Hebreeuws8, Leiden, 1976. Both grammars give designedly diachronic information wherever needed. Another new method, however, that of J. F. A. Sawyer, A Modern Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, Stocksfield, 1976 — in most respects the best introduction for beginning students we now have — excludes all diachronic information from the main part of the grammar and confines it to a special Appendix. On this point I cannot agree with the author as may follow from the rest of this article. The method of H. E. Finley & C. D. Isbell, Biblical Hebrew. A Beginner’s Manual, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975, neither gives much diachronic information. 39 W. Fischer, Grammatik des klassischen Arabisch, Wiesbaden, 1972.

98

J. H. HOSPERS

Linguistik fordert mit Recht fur grammatische Darstellung strenge Deskription unter Ausserachtlassung sprachhistorischer Spekulationen. Sie hat das unzureichende der bisherigen grammatikalischen Systematik deutlich dargetan”.40 This is immediately followed by : “Eine Gramma­ tik, die als Lehr- und Nachschlagewerk zumeist Nichtlinguisten dienen soil, darf nicht zum Experimentierfeld methodologischer und terminologischer Neuerungen gemacht werden... Ein Bruch mit der Tradition wurde vermieden”.41 Thus we still find a number of diachronic explanations, as e.g. mizanum from *miwzanum (root w-z-n) (p. 20). The nouns in -a are synchronically dubbed indeclinables, but the diachronic explanation is referred to nonetheless. The same approach is used for the nouns in -I (pp. 83-84). As a general rule we find diachronic explanations in those places where the author thought them to be useful for the treatment of the grammatical material. It is clear that he does not want to eliminate diachronies in such a strict way as can be found in E. Harder’s and A. Schimmel’s “Arabische Sprachlehre”.42 But this work I have already commented upon earlier.43 Summing up, one can say that currently the main tendency is towards purely synchronic method, but that, for practical reasons, some writers of teaching grammars will deviate from this goal. This fear for diachronies is not ununderstandable within the frame­ work of the evolution of General Linguistics since F. de Saussure. The 19th century, that golden era of historical linguistics, was almost exclusively interested in the ever changing character of language. H. Paul put it simply: “Sprachwissenschaft ist gleich Sprachgeschichte” 44 The 20th century became the era of descriptive linguistics on a synchronic base. In order to describe a language, historical know­ ledge of that language was not only useless- it was even harmful. It was thought that the describer ideally should know nothing about the earlier history of the language under study, in order not to be prejudiced. Furthermore, if the previous history was really necessary, very few languages indeed could be described. But even in the presence of material from the previous periods of a language, it was still better, as a rule, not to use them, thus obviating the ever present danger of actually describing the older stage instead of the current situation. 40 41 42 43 44

W. Fischer, op. cit., p. V. W. Fischer, op. cit., pp. V-VI. E. Harder-A. Schimmel, Arabische Sprachlehre, Heidelberg, 1968. J. H. Hospers, op. cit. (1973), p. 193. H. Paul, Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte5, Halle a.S., 1920, p. 21.

THE ROLE OF DIACHRONICS

99

One would be in constant danger of projecting the older situation upon the actual one. E. M. Uhlenbeck summarizes these 20th century views on non-historical method thus : “For a reflection upon the basic principles of language structure, it is not necessary to reflect upon the problems of language change, however important the universal fact of language change is in itself’.45 And this has recently been illustrated by R. Kieffer with a nice Saussurian (F. de Saussure, Cours de linguistique generale3, Lausanne/Paris, 1969, pp. 125sqq) image: “Zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt wahrend des Schachspiels ist es gleichgiiltig zu wissen, welchen Weg jede einzelne Spielfigur gegangen ist. Ahnlich braucht man im synchronischen Studium der Sprache nicht zu wissen, woher jedes Wortzeichen gekommen ist. Das einzige Objekt der synchronischen Linguistik sind die Verhaltnisse innerhalb des Sprachsysterns als Ganzen’’.46 This 20th Century Criticism of the almost exclusive emphasis which the previous century put on diachronic linguistics and mainly on sound changes, has been healthy. The positivist standpoint could no longer be held, and so far the criticism of J. Fiick and D. Vetter and J. Walther — for which see above — is justified, as is their rejection of 19th century atomism in linguistics. Indeed, the historical linguistics of the “Junggrammatiker” had then not yet been able to view the structure of a language in its totality. Even linguistic change had not been described by the “Junggrammatiker” as a change of the whole system. True, they had discovered the regularity, even “Ausnahmlosigkeit”, of sound changes; also the methodological importance of this principle of regularity in sound laws had been amply proven — but the question as to the reason for the regularity of sound changes went unanswered, and was not even asked. Indeed, the neogrammarians were not pri­ marily interested in these tendencies, but in the better understanding of ancient texts! They were philologists rather than linguists. Therefore they studied the evolution of sounds, but not what Sapir called the “drift’’ deciding the evolution of language. In no neogrammarian publication, therefore, was the historical grammar of a language preceded by a description of that language as a coherent whole. F. de Saussure and the structuralists and phenologists coming after him have changed all that. It became clear that historical lin­ 45 E. M. Uhlenbeck, Taalwetenschap. Een eerste inleiding*. Den Haag, 1965, p. 9. 46 R. KiefTer, “Die Bedeutung der modernen Linguistik fur die Auslegung biblischen Texte”, ThZ 30, 1974, 223-233, p. 224. Compare also D. A. Wilkins, Linguistics in Language Teaching2, London, 1973, pp. 24-28.

100

J. H. HOSPERS

guistics, when it studies the difTerences between two or more stages in language, should be based upon the comparison between two or more sets of descriptive data, because only a method which takes account of the linguistic structure, both before and after the change has taken place, can be said to yield trustworthy results. In other words, dia­ chronic linguistics must always study the changing of one coherent system into a second coherent system. Since it is ever a matter of change or even replacement of grammatical systems, taking into account analogies and anomalies as well, one must always start with a descrip­ tion of two or more systems. Only in this way it becomes possible to do justice to the fact that linguistic change is not just about separate units, but primarily about the relations between these units. For the phonologists, this became the method of phoneme oppositions. One can state then, that diachronies always presupposes and is based upon synchronies. In the present century, and no doubt because of an understandable reaction against the hegemony of historical linguistics in the previous century, the field has for a long time been taken up almost exclusively by synchronic description, and the diachronic de­ scriptive aspect has often been neglected. In recent times, there has been a new evolution. Linguistics are now again of the opinion that linguistic description, which, as I already pointed out, must be based upon synchronic methods, can only be adequate and complete when taking into account the ever changing structure of language. Further­ more, it is now seen that diachronic linguistics can bring a fuller understanding of the nature of language itself, since through dia­ chronic studies one is able to sift out those aspects in a language that are essential, i.e. unchangeable. Furthermore, the interest in diachronies is even more heightened by the realization that linguistic change is not simply a function of abstract time, but is conditioned by social and geographic data. Comparative as well as historical linguistics are once again legimate parts of General Linguistics, as one can easily gauge from the ever increasing number of handbooks and other publications in these fields.47 Linguistic description has to be pan­ 47 E.g. books and articles as: W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (eds). Directions for Historical Linguistics. A Symposium, Austin & London, 1968 (these are the Proceedings of a Symposium held in 1966 at the University of Texas, and in their “prefatory note” the editors state: “by the middle of the sixties the two editors of this collection had for some time been discussing the inadequate attention to historical linguistics and the need to restore historical studies to their position of leadership among the primary linguistic disciplines”); Y. Malkiel, Essays on Linguistic Themes, Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1968 (passim); W. P. Lehmann, “Saussure’s Dichotomy between Descriptive and Histor­

THE ROLE OF DIACHRONICS

101

chronic as H. Pelz (Linguistik fur Anfanger, Hamburg, 1975, p. 61) rightly says. In my opinion, the teaching of Classical Hebrew can and should profit from these new attitudes bearing on the relation between his­ torical linguistics and synchronic description. Language is not an unchangeable static, but a dynamic entity — and this aspect must be

ical Linguistics", W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (eds), Directions for Historical Linguistics. A Symposium, Austin & London, 1968, 5-20 (For this special problem of Diachronies versus Synchronies compare now also : A. Sommerfelt, Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Language. Selected Articles2, ’s-Gravenhage, 1971 and S. Kanngiesser, “Ansatze zu einer Theorie von Synchronic und Diachronic’’, Linguistics 101, 1973, 5-71); P. Kiparsky, “Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change”, E. Bach & R. Harms (eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York, 1968, 171-202; R. D. King, Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1969; N. E. Collinge, “Collectanea Linguistica”, Essays in General and Genetic Linguistics, The Hague-Paris, 1970 (This author speaks in his introduction about “a long divorce this century” between historical lin­ guistics and general linguistics”... “though overtures of rapprochement have been more frequent recently”); P. Kiparsky, “Historical Linguistics”, W. O. Dingwall (ed.), A Survey of Linguistics Science, College Park Md., 1971, 576-649; R. P. Stockwell & R. K. S. Mac­ aulay (eds). Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, Bloomington, 1972; K. R. Jankowsky, The Neogrammarians, The Hague, 1972; A. R. Keiler, A Reader in Historical and Comparative Linguistics, New York, 1972; L. R. Palmer, Descriptive and Comparative Linguistics. A Critical Introduction, London, 1972; A. Arlotto, Introduction to Historical Linguistics, Boston, 1972; R. Anttila, An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics, New York, 1972; W. P. Lehmann, Historical Linguistics. An Introduction2, New York, 1973; H. M. Hoenigswald, Studies in Formal Historical Linguistics, Dordrecht, 1973; Th. A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 11 : “Diachronic, Areal and Typological Linguistics”, The Hague, 1973; J. M. Anderson & Ch. Jones (eds), Historical Linguistics. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh, 2-7 September 1973, Amsterdam & New York, 1974; W. Noth, “Perspektiven der diachronen Linguistik”, Lingua 33, 1974, 199-233; G. Dinser (ed.), Zur Theorie der Sprachverdnderung, Rronberg Ts., 1974; Y. Malkiel, “Etymology and Modern Linguistics”, Lingua 36, 1975, 101-120; D. Cherubim (ed.), Sprachwandel. Reader zur diachronischen Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin-New York, 1975; A. Martinet, Evolution des longues et reconstruction, Paris, 1975; D. L. Goyvaerts, Present-Day Historical and Comparative Linguistics, Gent, 1975; J. van Bakel, Historische Taalwetenschap en Empiric, Utrecht, 1976; D. A. Dinnsen, “On the Explanation of Rule Change”, Glossa 10, 1976, 175-199 (this author writes among other things: “within the framework of generative theory, there has been considerable interest in extending the model to account for problems of diachrony” (p. 175)); W. M. Christie jr (ed.). Current Progress in Historical Linguistics. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Tucson, Arizona, 12-16 January 1976, Amsterdam-New York, 1976; G. Koefoed, “Change is Change in Competence”, G. Koefoed & A. Evers (red.), Lijnen van taaltheoretisch onderzoek, een bundel oorspronkelijke artikelen aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. H. Schultink, Groningen, 1976, 381-408; R. Ambrosini, Introduzione alia linguistica storica, Pisa, 1976; Th. Bynon, Historical Linguistics. Cambridge, 1977; N. Boretzky, Einfuhrung in die historische Linguistik, Reinbek, 1977.

102

J. H. HOSPERS

studied by diachronic or evolutionary linguistic methods. Now, this diachrony has two aspects, viz., a prospective one, following the course of time, and a retrospective one, looking back from now, and which is of course of the greatest importance in the study of dead languages. With much justice it has been observed by H. G. Schogt, that even purely synchronic linguistics often has to treat questions of diachronic nature, because synchronic linguistics does not study language in its evolution, but the relations between those elements that at any given moment make up the language. Therefore, it is really only one stage in the history of a language, mostly that of the language speakers in a given period. Schogt goes on to say that in the case where two informants deviate from each other in one or the other sound or morpheme, one must conclude that one of them is innovating. And in this way, an element of diachrony is brought into the synchronic description.48 Language does change continually, and it changes on every level (phonetically, phonologically, grammatically (i.e. morpho­ logically and syntactically), lexically and semantically), albeit not every­ where, with the same speed or strength. Particularly on the phono­ logical level, probably due to the built-in redundancy of language structure, one can observe that the changes are continuous, but very gradual, so that they are not always easily detected and never so outspoken that communication between two succeeding generations is obstructed at all. Language seems to be most susceptible to change on the semantic level, but I will leave out this subject since we must certainly not overtax our pupils with diachronic semantics in Biblical Hebrew. As J. Barr has often declared, this would certainly make for a very undesirable confusion. But, when I still want to advocate diachronic explanations in teaching Classical Hebrew, I am particularly interested in the phonological and morphological levels. In Classical Hebrew, as everywhere, most parts of the sound system have undergone change over the centuries, and notwithstanding the equalizing influence of the Massoretes, we can still detect many of these in the O. T. Hebrew, especially in the orthography. But also morphology bears witness here, as we can see in the Verbal system. Classical Hebrew is but a stage in a continually changing process. With justice, J. P. Lettinga has recently pointed out that one should use a grammar emphasizing the historical evolu­ 48 H. G. Schogt, “La dynamique du language", A. Martinet (ed.), Le Langage, Paris, 1968, 775-813.

THE ROLE OF DIACHRONICS

103

tion.49 K. Beyer intended just this with his “Althebraische Gram­ matik”,50 but, in my mind he went too far in this direction.51 Of course, we must, in our teaching, start with a description of Hebrew as the Massoretes have handed it down to us. But, from its origins, historical linguistics has aimed not only at the description of language change, but at the explanation there of. And this explanation-aspect brings us to a point where we touch didactics. When teaching a language, all means capable of explaining ought to be used, including diachronic linguistics, which by itself already aims at explanation. Language description has to be primarily synchronic, but when teaching one cannot stop here. And when one tries to explain a language already described, i.e. when one passes from descriptive to explanatory synchronic linguistics, it is in my mind necessary to have at one’s disposal hard data from earlier stages of that language. In all this, we must stay aware of the fact that the teaching method used in a school grammar is not the same as a scientific descriptive grammar. I think that J. Barr has somewhat overlooked this, when in his 1968 article52 he turned his wrath upon “diachronic information and ex­ planations”.53 To my mind he fails here to observe the distinction between language description and language teaching. “Teaching gram­ mars”, just like teaching itself, should not be too narrowly squeezed into strict synchronic-descriptive methods, because in doing so, one looses too many ways of explaining a given situation. In my view teaching grammars should be historical and prescriptive on a syn­ chronic foundation. Pre-19th century grammars were usually purely descriptive, because they could not be anything else. The famous Port-Royal Grammar only wanted to describe the French of the time of Louis XIV. 19th Century Linguistics was primarily diachronic and Barr certainly is right in objecting to “the prestige attached to historical and comparative study as the real form of Linguistic knowledge”.54 But when, in the same article, he writes about “the Conflict between Philology and Linguistics” he sees philology primarily as historical and comparative linguistics, in other words as “comparative philology” 49 logie, 50 51 32 53 34

J. P. Lettinga, Talen en “wereld" van het Oude Testament. Orientatie in de TheoDeventer, 1974, 42-62, p. 51. K. Beyer, Althebraische Grammatik, Gottingen, 1969. Compare my recension of this work in BiOr 29, 1972, 218-219. J. Barr, op. cit. (1968). J. Barr, op. cit. (1968), p. 52. J. Barr, op. cit. (1968), p. 52.

104

J. H. HOSPERS

or “comparative grammar”. “Linguistics” would be opposite to these, but already Zaborski pointed out that this opposition can no longer be regarded as real: “Barr’s characteristic pertains to oldfashioned philology and to... already rather old fashioned linguistics as well. It is influenced by the conflict between early structural (i.e. Bloomfieldian) distributional or taxonomic linguistics and Neo-grammarian historical-comparative school”.55 Related to this problem is yet another aspect. There is still a further objection to the fear of diachronies in teaching or teaching grammars — apart from the explanatory character of diachronies in teaching, where all means should be used, and therefore such a prescriptive teaching is in its place. Zaborski too alludes to it in the article quoted : “There is no conflict among synchronic and diachronic linguistic now and we witness since a few years a revival of diachronic studies in new frames of e.g. transformational — generative gram­ mar”.56 Indeed, T.G.G. has emphasised that language is a “rule governed system”. Therefore, language change is rule change, and this is the explanation of the regularity of sound changes, discovered, but not explained in the previous century. Now it has become clear that sound changes are simply the adding of new and generally valid phonological rules to the grammar, i.e. to the phonological component of T.G.G., and that they are not purely “phonetic processes”. They are “ordered rules” added at the beginning or the end of the body of existing rules. In the same way rules can disappear. Every sound change corresponds to a possible phonological rule in the grammar, which explains how certain types of changes or conditioning also appear in the rules of a synchronic grammar. As an illustration we have in Hebrew the rule: /n/ / #-C -► CC (= assimilation of nun to a following consonant: yinpol > yippol etc.). Among others, P. Kiparsky has pointed this out clearly,57 and he 55 A. Zaborski, op. cit., p. 66. 56 A. Zaborski, op. cit., p. 66. With regard to the difTerence between a teaching grammar and a scientific descriptive grammar compare now also J. F. Matter, “Grammaire pedagogique et grammaire theorique”, J. F. Matter (red.), Toegepaste Taalweten­ schap in Artikelen 1. Handelingen van de studiedag anela — bvtl (abla) op 6 november 1976 in Tilburg, Amsterdam, 1976, 23-36. 57 P. Kiparsky, Historical Linguistics-, J. Lyons (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, Harmondsworth, 1970, 302-315. Compare also R. Hetzron, “The Shape of a Rule and Diachrony”, BSOAS 35, 1972, 451-475.

THE ROLE OF DIACHRONICS

105

states that this has consequences for second-language learning. He makes a fully justified distinction between this and the first language acquisition by the child, as I did myself in two articles mentioned before. Children’s language too is characterized by rule innovations, but the child uses a kind of “innate blueprint” when acquiring its mother tongue, without any wareness of its history. The adult however, when acquiring a second language, can use explicit rules and exer­ cises, as I pointed out earlier. But then he ought not to be deprived from the rules governing sound changes. Therefore, I do not think that one should be too afraid of diachronic information when teaching Classical Hebrew, since the nature of diachronies in the light of modern linguistics, as well as the objectives of our teaching advocate it. One could go further, and include in­ formation of a comparative linguistic brand. There is indeed much to say for regarding historical linguistics as a special case of compara­ tive linguistics, viz. in sofar as one compares language forms that have followed each other in temporally consecutive stages within one and the same language spoken by a continuous language community. Furthermore, related languages are always divergent continuations of a given earlier language, a proto-language. The comparative method can often throw light on the history of these separate languages, particularly in the field of Semitic languages. Of course, we must be disciplined, and not overtax the pupils needlessly. And it is also a matter of course that in teaching or in a teaching grammar one must not trace back every grammatical form to its furthest origin (even where possible at all!), as one is bound to do when one tries to find, with the comparative method, the oldest forms of the separate languages in order to reconstruct the common proto-language. This would cer­ tainly overtax the pupils by always pointing to the previous stages. Still, I think one has to relate one’s teaching to forms taken from an earlier stage whenever this can enhance the pupil’s understanding, or obviate the need for memorizing a number of loose and strange data.58 Perhaps I may be permitted to make this clear with some examples. In my own teaching, I am wont to give following diachronic explana­ tions :

58 Compare with regard to this matter concerning Ancient Egyptian also W. Schenkel, “Diskussionsbeitrage”, Gottinger Miszellen, “Beitrage zur agyptologischen Diskussion”, Heft 6, Gottingen 1973, 129-133. Schenkel refers to S. Kanngieser, Aspekte der synchronen und diachronen Linguistik, Tubingen, 1972 (“koexistierenden Grammatik”).

106

J. H. HOSPERS

Verbal suffix forms with a “nun energicum” are always explained as evolved from an earlier energic mode, since disappeared — and reference is made, comparatively, to Arabic and Akkadian. Only in this way the pupil may get some insight into the reason for apparently “double” forms like yiqtolka and yiqtal^kka (< *yiqtalenka < modus energicus *yaqtulanka). Forms with “nun paragogicum” are always explained as remains from older stages or archaisms: yiqtalun < *yaqtuluna where, once again, Classical Arabic is used as a comparison. The verbs primae w/y are always explained by way of the change initial w > initial y. When pointing out the monophthongisation of original diphthongs in the preformatives of e.g. hifeIl, it is also pointed out that hiTil came from haffl. When treating the primae nun, the process of assimilation is duly discussed. The tertiae he verbs are always explained as being originally tertiae w/y verbs, because in this way forms like 'asita (< **asiyta < **asayta) and ‘asuy become clear from the known model forms of qatal. The five primae ’alef verbs (’amar etc.) are always presented dia­ chronically, e.g. yo(,)mar < *ya(’)mor (dissimilation < ,|,ya(,)mur(u)). Here, as elsewhere, the origin of yiqtol from < *yaqtulu is treated, as is the quietening of ’alef by using other forms, such as tertiae ’alef verbs. It goes without saying that that most Hebrew of rules, the change a > 6, is also incorporated here. As for the nouns, of course the Segolates cry out for diachronic treatment. But the same is true for the suffix forms of prepositions as eal, 'el and min. In the first two cases, one can point to an original third radical yod, that is sometimes conserved. In a form as mimm^nnu, the reason for the homonymy can only be explained through diachronies (mimm^n + hu; mimm^n + nu). There are also certain matters concerning katib and qare, particu­ larly where the katib reflects an older language stage, no longer understood by the Massoretes. One could say that in general the dead languages have kept in their script many witnesses from older stages of the language, mostly when a certain orthography, for one reason or another, had come to be regarded as fixed for all times. Also the M.T. knows of many examples of such unadapted ortho­ graphies, as the frequently occurring katlb TiK, vocalized in qare as 'm. iAlso the 3rd pers. fern. sg. perf. of tertiae he verbs appears in several places without the mater lectionis he (II Kings 9: 37), but

THE ROLE OF DIACHRONICS

107

the he is added in the qare. In Lev. 25: 21 such a form (ws'asat) is even kept without corrective qare (only the Sam. has here wa’asata). These and many other similar examples can only be explained when one is allowed to give the necessary diachronic information. I will confine myself to these examples. There are many more. Over more than thirty years of teaching classical Hebrew I have never been afraid to give extensive diachronic information wherever I thought it useful. My pupils, when asked for their opinion, have always declared that they found this method clarifying and useful, because they did not have to memorize as many loose data. Perhaps this method has made them regard language not so much as a jumble of unconnected phenomena, but as a “rule governed system”.

EPILOGUE J. H. HOSPERS Groningen

One thing brought together all the participants in the symposium notwithstanding the different opinions sometimes held by them in the discussions. This was the sincere wish to improve the teaching of the “dead” Hamito-Semitic languages, as teaching is, next to research, the task of most of the participants in their respective Universities. As to the conclusions: there were of course some different opinions as is clear from the text of the “Discussions” on the foregoing pages. But these differences concern only minor points. I think that I am able to offer the following general conclusions : Firstly it is erroneous both in principle and in practice to isolate the older and literary stadia of—especially — Hebrew and Arabic from their modem spoken forms. Most Semitistic Institutes are now teaching these modern forms. And then, one has to discern between theoretical, descriptive grammars and didactic grammars1 as was made clear in the paper of Mr. Sawyer and in the ensuing discussion on the options and priorities with regard to the teaching of Classical Hebrew. With justice Mr. Sawyer stressed the importance of teaching the basic principles of the sentence already in the initial stages. Furthermore all participants agreed on the fact that also the objec­ tives are very important, as Mr. Riemschneider showed in his paper with regard to the teaching of Akkadian. Different methods must be applied for different goals and sometimes compilations of suitably selected texts in transliteration or transcription are sufficient in the teaching of languages with a non-alphabetical script. But Classical Arabic, too, has its own problems, as Mr. Wild made clear. Here a lack of expedients is still extant, and, moreover, languages that are no longer spoken are imperfectly known even by teachers. The symposium has made a reconnoitring expedition and one might say that it has already offered some important outlooks.

1 Cf. now also : J. F. Matter, grammaire pedagogique et grammaire theorique, J. F. Matter (ed.), Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen 1, Amsterdam, 1976, 23-36.

EPILOGUE

109

But the real work has yet to be done, namely the development of a special methodology with regard to the teaching of “dead” HamitoSemitic languages in our lessons as well as in our teaching grammars. And this methodology has to vary from language to language and from purpose to purpose. Fortunately we already have at our disposal some fairly good teaching methods, but the papers and the discussions have shown that these methods still might be improved by laying emphasis, even more than is done at present, on syntax.