Computer Aided Language Learning - Principal Parts

[jtauber]

I would be happy to collaborate and share data though, as maybe there would be some synergy in working with Jonathan and James on this issue.

If nothing else, we can compare data and evoke discussions around any discrepancies.

[Jonathan Robie]

Interesting. I may not have explored far enough, but it looks like verbs are classified for voice only as active or passive: ἀποκρίνομαι, for instance, and the participles ἀποκριθείς are both listed as passives. Maybe I'm misreading it, but if that's the case, I like it; it seems to me to match Dionysius' identification of verb forms as ἐνεργητική and παθητική, μεσότης being used for verbs that have forms in both morphological patterns.

This may deserve a thread of its own, I think this is a little inconsistent right now, and it's different in the Nestle 1904 vs. the SBLGNT in our database. Or perhaps a phone call first ...

[TimNelson]

While we're on learning processes, I'd like to comment a little on my own learning process, particularly in regard to principal parts.

I first learned Greek under Wenham's textbook. The point at which I gave up learning principal parts was the chapter on the Aorist. Wenham basically said "by the way, here are 22 verbs you already know; now you have to learn the aorists and futures for them". Based on this, I came to the conclusion that the first lesson in Greek verbs should be the principal parts; the first person singular indicatives of the six different principal parts, and their meanings. After that, cover the four sets of endings with an appropriate example tense. The other thing which I thought Wenham did wrong (and I still may've failed to properly memorise) is that he covered both sets of passive endings in one chapter.

Anyway, hope this helps

[Stephen Hughes]

Is there a data set with the text that (rather than just indicating what each element of the morphology is) can actually indicate what role each element of the morphology plays in the sentence. I mean is more inductive, leading to an understanding of the sentence, rather than the individual words. I think that would be more along the lines of understandings in context that has been mentioned.

Here are a few examples of what I mean, using the first few phrase of Hebrews 10.

1 Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν,

For the first phrase <<Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν>> hovering or clicking over the Σκιὰ "shadow" would draw attention to the τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν "(which was cast in our direction / for us to see by / from the light behind) the future good things (as we approach them / as the time (sun) draws nearer)". If parallel-construction passages could be displayed for σκιά to show its use with the genitive, then maybe Mark 4:32 ὥστε δύνασθαι ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνοῦν. "under the shadow which it casts / out of the sun" or Acts 5:15 ἵνα ἐρχομένου Πέτρου κἂν ἡ σκιὰ ἐπισκιάσῃ τινὶ αὐτῶν. "... even the shadow of Peter might ... as he walked by".

1 Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν,

Next hovering over the -ν could highlight the ἔχ- part of ἔχων. If it were possible to provide parallel passages "have as one of its component (= not additional to itself) parts of the whole", then perhaps Matthew 11:15, 13:9, 13:44 Ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω. and/or Matthew 12:10 ἄνθρωπος ἦν τὴν χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν· and/or Matthew 13:21 οὐκ ἔχει δὲ ῥίζαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, but perhaps not so far as Matthew 14:35 καὶ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας· which describes a condition of the whole, not a component part of the whole, even though mentioning a condition also brings attention to the one detail of the whole.

1 Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν,

Then hovering over the -ων should draw attention to the ὁ νόμος or at least to the ὁ -ος part of it.

1 Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν,

I know it would be helpful to be able to hover over the the second and to see the first, but I'm not sure if it would be logical or entirely beneficial, because the text moves in a basic left-to-right direction.

[Jonathan Robie]

Stephen - this kind of shifting highlight as you hover can certainly be done, and I think we are moving toward a reading environment that would be more interactive than what I have done so far. This is all in my spare time, though, so I am not making any promises about when. As a first step, I'm exploring possibilities using static pages that do not change. Making it more interactive, generating cloze exercises and Anki flashcards, a user-accessible query interface etc. are all very possible.

[jtauber]

To first approximation, we might be able to get fairly close to what Stephen is asking for combining my current morphological work with the GBI trees to basically link the morphophonology to the morphosyntax to the syntactic relationships.

[Jonathan Robie]

To first approximation, we might be able to get fairly close to what Stephen is asking for combining my current morphological work with the GBI trees to basically link the morphophonology to the morphosyntax to the syntactic relationships.

Yes.

And it's also straightforward to hover over a verb and show the subject and objects of the verb. I just haven't done that kind of thing yet ...

[Emma Ehrhardt]

Any thoughts on the best way to leverage the corpus to help people learn verb morphology?

I agree that we must move beyond "parse this word" flashcards. It seems that learning new things within a known context gives more 'hooks' for building mental connections.

...I could definitely create a query that would generate a list of examples of verbs, grouped by verb, then grouped by each principal part of the verb. One relatively easy solution would be to generate a catalog of examples people could print out and play with.

For instance, if you have a list of examples like this, it's fairly easy to change the examples, e.g. change who is saying what to whom, change the tense, etc., using examples drawn from real text. You can do that as a worksheet exercise, writing Greek, or it could be automated using cloze or whatever...

Jonathan, I'm curious what you're trying to target right now with your current proposal. Do you see this as a program one would work through systematically, or a resource to visit when one is struggling with a particular verb and wanting to see how else it is used?

Also, it may be useful to draw some sort of distinction between making data available for people to explore ('free play' as it were), vs. having a more structured presentation that guides the learner through a sequence (e.g. a series of worksheets covering common verbs that students would work through).

'Free play' is great when you're following the 'read, read, read' exhortation. But my intuition is that for many intermediate students, intentional structure can more readily assure them they're not leaving incidental 'gaps' in their knowledge of the language, and give them confidence that they're more ready to encounter texts 'in the wild'.

Developing the 'free play' data is an important step, but alas the structured resources require a whole additional set of work.

[Jonathan Robie]

Any thoughts on the best way to leverage the corpus to help people learn verb morphology?

I agree that we must move beyond "parse this word" flashcards. It seems that learning new things within a known context gives more 'hooks' for building mental connections.

Exactly.

Jonathan, I'm curious what you're trying to target right now with your current proposal. Do you see this as a program one would work through systematically, or a resource to visit when one is struggling with a particular verb and wanting to see how else it is used?

This year, Micheal and I are trying (1) to create exercises that will give people enough practice, of the right kind, to be able to internalize the Greek verbs they will encounter in the Greek New Testament, and (2) to demonstrate "best practices" for computer aided language learning based on what Micheal knows about language learning from ESL and TOEFL.

Also, it may be useful to draw some sort of distinction between making data available for people to explore ('free play' as it were), vs. having a more structured presentation that guides the learner through a sequence (e.g. a series of worksheets covering common verbs that students would work through).

'Free play' is great when you're following the 'read, read, read' exhortation. But my intuition is that for many intermediate students, intentional structure can more readily assure them they're not leaving incidental 'gaps' in their knowledge of the language, and give them confidence that they're more ready to encounter texts 'in the wild'.

You need both. We are learning as we go, but my current thinking is to have something along the lines of Funk's outline of the verb as our guide, and creating a set of exercises that either students or teachers can choose from. So students learning from Micheal's online course can be steered to specific exercises per lesson, or we can point to them from here, or we could have a page tying it to the lessons in Funk, or Wallace, or ....

Which is why we are trying to do this in a modular way. Teaching one verb, verb group, tense, or pattern can be largely independent of the sequence in which the others are presented.

Developing the 'free play' data is an important step, but alas the structured resources require a whole additional set of work.

But I think more people have already done structured resources. For someone who does not live close to Randall Buth or Paul Nitz or Louis Sorenson, getting adequate free play is really difficult.

[Paul-Nitz]

This year, Micheal and I are trying (1) to create exercises that will give people enough practice, of the right kind, to be able to internalize the Greek verbs they will encounter in the Greek New Testament, and (2) to demonstrate "best practices" for computer aided language learning based on what Micheal knows about language learning from ESL and TOEFL.

I could well be confused about your aims. But for what it's worth...

I think you need to decide whether this is a communicative type tool or an analytic one.
I can see great value to having components of a verb color coded. But that is a decidedly analytic way of learning verbs. Our language processors do away with the need for analysis because they are such absorbent sponges and because they intuitively recognize patterns. But giving loads of comprehensible input is necessary for us to apprehend the patterns. Drills, such as I think you are aiming at, could provide some of that comprehensible input and forced output.

I'd suggest that you choose which purpose your drills master to serve, to aid in easy analysis or to provide comprehensible input. If input, then colors are a distraction to how you set up the drill and a distraction to the learner. If analysis, then aiming at artificial replication of genuine communication is a distraction.