Upload
khangminh22
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Running Head: CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 1
Changing the Mos Maiōrum:
Applied Linguistics and Latin Pedagogy
_______________
A Thesis
Presented to
The Honors Tutorial College
Ohio University
________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for Graduation
from the Honors Tutorial College
with the degree of
Bachelor of Arts in Classics
_________________________
Kelly A. Bilz
April 2018
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 2
This Thesis has been approved by
The Honors Tutorial College and the Department of Classics and World Religions
_______________________
Dr. Neil Bernstein
Associate Professor, Classics
Thesis Advisor
______________________
Dr. Dawn Bikowski
Director of ELIP
Thesis Advisor
______________________
Dr. Ruth Palmer
Director of Studies, Classics
____________________
Dr. Cary Frith
Interim Dean, Honors Tutorial College
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 3
Table of Contents
Introduction.....................................................................................................................4
Relevant Linguistic Theory and Literature Review.......................................................15
Research Questions, Methodology, and Significance....................................................32
Results & Discussion.....................................................................................................36
Structure of Reading Materials......................................................................................52
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................62
References............................................................................................................. ........73
Appendix..................................................................................................................... ..75
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 4
Introduction
“[Eugene] liked that Latin was dead. He liked that only smart kids took it. He liked his
idiosyncratic Latin teachers, Dr. Fletcher, who played ‘Shoo-Fly Pie’ on his guitar to teach them
dactylic hexameter, and Miss McNally, who described their grammar book as ‘gruel-colored.’”1
So Jeffrey Eugenides writes in his short story, Bronze, which illustrates both the best
parts of Latin education (the “idiosyncratic Latin teachers”) and the worst (“only the smart kids
took it”). Even though this story is set in 1978, thirty-one years before I first set foot in a Latin
classroom as a freshman in high school, I found I could completely relate to Eugene's thoughts
and impressions about my own Latin learning. This illustrates the extent to which Latin
education has remained the same, drawing from tradition and preserving the same ultimately
harmful attitudes about Latin.
For instance, Eugenides continues: “Gruel was like ‘gray’ and ‘cruel.’ Which was like
Latin grammar! Most kids couldn’t take it. They flailed.” In my eight years of studying Latin, I
have watched students struggle with the language class’s demands: memorizing case endings,
differentiating between nuanced grammatical constructions, learning new vocabulary, and
translating extensively. While some students, like Eugenides’ character Eugene, a few of my
classmates, and to some extent, myself, can endure or even thrive in this environment, many
more do “flail.” They leave their Latin experience confused, perhaps even resentful, and with
very little Latin ability.
Without a focus on methodology, the disadvantages of the Latin pedagogy--“Most kids
couldn’t take it”--will never be addressed. Most of the dialogue in the field of Latin education
today focuses on questions of why, rather than how, Latin is taught. In trying to change the
1 Eugenides, J. (2018, February 5). Bronze. New Yorker. Retrieved from
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/bronze
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 5
reputation of classics, as well as keep it viable as a discipline in an era where it has been
devalued, scholars have emphasized Latin’s continued relevance. Though this justification is
important, there must be equal focus on the methodology of Latin teaching. The field of applied
linguistics deals with these questions of how to effectively teach language, especially modern
languages, but there has been very little discourse on its application to the classical languages. In
fact, there is a great disparity between the amount of literature published on Latin and Greek
teaching and the literature on teaching modern languages.
In order to evaluate the potential benefits of applying linguistic principles to Latin
pedagogy, we must first understand the traditional methods of teaching Latin. In this section, I
also address other components of Latin’s pedagogical tradition, namely identity and access.
Next, I will discuss the unique circumstances of teaching a language which prevails only in its
literary form, as well as the types of students Latin attracts. Since the structure of reading
materials are particularly important in teaching Latin, I also describe the role of commentaries on
ancient texts in the Latin classroom. After contextualizing the issues of Latin pedagogy, I will
list my research questions and methodology, and then I will explain the essential applied
linguistics theories which are most important to this argument. The materials and arguments of
the educators cited here illustrate some tension between long-established tradition and modern
attitudes, but most importantly, they reflect the field’s dedication to teaching Latin, and teaching
it well.
Traditional Education
Because Latin education has had such a long and unique history, once being the language
of an empire, then of a church, then of a class of intellectuals, Latin teachers have access to a
long and abundant pedagogical tradition. This tradition involves the use of the Grammar
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 6
Translation method (hereafter abbreviated as G-T). In this method, grammatical structures of the
language, called forms, are explicitly taught first. After one or two years of memorizing forms,
endings, and rules, the students begin translating classical texts into their native languages. The
texts read have changed over time, but the most common ones are Caesar’s De Bello Gallico,
Cicero, Catullus, Ovid, and Vergil’s Aeneid.2 Two of these texts, Caesar’s De Bello Gallico and
Vergil’s Aeneid, are covered on the AP Latin exam,3 so they are particularly significant in the
field. Many students struggle to learn with this method—as Jeffrey Eugenides phrased it, they
“flail”—and many language educators have moved away from G-T, which will be described in
the Literature Review, in favor of new principles, such as communication and linguistic input. At
first glance, the G-T method might seem outdated, but harmless for Latin education: students are
reading early, so even if their grasp of the language is not as strong from memorizing rules as it
would be from other methods, couldn’t they develop their skills through reading and extended
exposure to the language? Wouldn’t this practice, after some time, compensate for any
discrepancies?
This process of reading through Latin texts, however, is not a holistic approach to
reading. As I will show in the Literature Review, literacy involves a variety of skills, but G-T
targets only one of these: the ability to decode into the student’s first language (L1). In a G-T
classroom, students carefully analyze every word, which often means that once they reach the
end of the sentence, they cannot comprehend the meaning. All these students have is a collection
of words, no context, no meaning, no ideas. The act of translation itself, a common homework
exercise and test item, necessitates word-by-word reading. The end result may be what is called
2 See Bennet & Bristol (1911) 111-130; Krisch (1928) 186-197; and Toda
todallycomprehensiblelatin.blogspot.com. 3 For the AP Latin syllabus, see: https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-latin/course/ap-latin-reading-
list?course=ap-latin
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 7
“translationese,” a term applied to overly-literal, incomprehensible translations, which reveals
that the student still does not understand the sentence. Translation is also a highly specialized
skill, requiring advanced degrees, as Brown points out.4 In applied linguistics, one of the goals of
teaching reading is to avoid having students read word by word, so that they can develop the
ability to read quickly and thus can remember the start of the sentence once they reach the end.
This tradition is not strictly pedagogical; there are other components of the field of Latin
pedagogy, including identity and accessibility. Here, I address these aspects in an American
context from the past century until now. The pursuit of classics, for many years, was only
allowed for a certain demographic: aristocratic white men. Though women were allowed to study
classics, it nonetheless remained a male-dominated field. A classical education was often a
means of exclusion, which has somewhat continued today by Latin programs continuing
primarily at private schools, Catholic schools in particular. The Roman Catholic Church once
used Latin to reinforce power structures in the Middle Ages, keeping holy texts in the Bible
inaccessible to all but a few highly-educated elite, and today, the Church’s influence on Latin
education can still be observed from my own experiences and those of others. For instance,
Krisch highlighted the importance of Latin in developing discipline and even virtue in young
men,5 an attitude that can still be found today, ninety years later, including at the Catholic high
school I attended. Additionally, nearly all Latin is taught in a classroom, aside from some
autodidacts and enthusiasts, which itself demonstrates a degree of privilege, especially in
comparison to language pedagogy in refugee camps, for instance.
Unfortunately, one also cannot ignore the role classics has played in constructing the
identities of white supremacist groups, evidenced by the use of the Roman legion flag at the
4 Brown (2004) 182 5 Kirsch (1928) 167
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 8
Charlottesville protest in August 2017 and preceded by Mussolini’s use of Roman iconography
during the fascist period in Italy. The misuse of classics in this way underscores the importance
of acknowledging the gatekeeping role the field once had. The significance of this issue merits a
much larger discussion, but it is beyond the scope of this project. Nevertheless, the associations
made with classics impacts the pedagogy, so it is important to recognize them here.
Challenges of Latin Education
The traditional methods behind Latin education have not significantly changed in part
because the language itself has been stagnant, though most would say “dead,” for quite a long
time. The primary goal behind language education, generally, is the ability to interact with native
speakers, and as such, they are incredibly important in teaching the language. One of the most
daunting obstacles, then, for Latin educators, is the lack of these individuals, who are a crucial
resource. Native speakers can confirm the accuracy of the language, explain idioms or slang
(which Latin also has), and offer an inside perspective on the culture. This lack also means a
limited amount of linguistic input. With Latin, we only have what has been written and recorded,
which eliminates conversation, and of what has been transmitted, even then only a portion has
survived. Libraries might have burned, manuscripts might have decomposed, or texts might have
simply been lost. Also, the quality of this written input is a factor: some portions of manuscripts
are missing, or even illegible, and there are often differences among manuscripts. Therefore,
Latin teachers and students must deal with a limited amount of input, unlike other living
languages, where more authentic language production happens worldwide.
Latin educators, then, must work with the resources available for maximum authenticity.
Most commonly, works from the Classical era are used because of their extensive influence
today, reflected in part by the AP Latin syllabus. The materials in this age were written by
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 9
typically upper-class individuals, and for Latin, all of them were written by men (with the
possible but uncertain exception of six poems attributed to a woman named Sulpicia). Later
materials are, in fact, written by women, but these works are much more obscure. Therefore,
“authentic” here is already limited to a small portion of speakers. The range of literature,
however, does cover a wide variety of genres--letters, poetry, novels, epics--and topics--love,
war, politics, philosophy. The main issue with Latin’s limited input is not monotony; it is the
lack of differentiation for different levels. There is basic-level Latin available, but certain texts
have proven more culturally relevant, e.g. Caesar, whom students would recognize from history
classes or pop culture, and moreover, are required for the AP exam.
Similarly to their modern language counterparts, Latin educators must provide, in
addition to reading and grammar skills, extensive background information since language is also
about the people who use it. As globalization has made some aspects of different cultures more
accessible to modern language students, Greco-Roman influence on Western culture (and others
through the influence of imperialism) is often more familiar to students. Nonetheless, cross-
cultural discussions in Latin classrooms take place across thousands of years. For instance,
students must learn about the organization of the Roman army to read Caesar; about Roman law
and justice to read Cicero; about ancient constructs of gender and sexuality to read Catullus and
Ovid. Similarly, Vergil’s Aeneid often merits a discussion of the emperor Augustus and his rise
to power. This is often regarded as an additional benefit to classical language pedagogy: many
disciplines for the price of one, e.g. history and anthropology, in addition to linguistics. On top of
this, Roman literature is full of mythological references that must be explained. Such extensive
contextualization takes time, yet it is necessary for students’ understanding, with both ancient
and modern languages.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 10
Types of Learners & Students’ Goals
Language education is often structured around what the students hope to do with their
developing language abilities: for learners of English, they may intend to enter the workplace, be
admitted to an English-speaking university, or interact with English speakers during a vacation
or tourist trip. Many native English speakers, however, see modern languages as an education
requirement mandated by their high school or college, and they do not have serious aspirations to
use the language. Therefore, some of those students choose to take Latin or Greek to avoid any
communication. Even in my own Latin tutoring, more than once I have had students tell me they
took Latin to fulfill their language requirement without actually speaking a language, a sort of
“cheat code” to avoid interaction.
This lack of interest in Latin as a language does not always stem from “laziness,” since
the message of much of the marketing for classics (and the humanities in general) is that Latin
can increase critical thinking and analytic skills. One scholar, in fact, suggested this should be
the primary goal of Latin education.6 The G-T method does encourage close analysis, since it has
students break down words into their separate components: gender, case, number, mood, voice,
and more. Modern linguistic methods promote fluency and meaning over form, which does not
exclude critical thinking by any means, but it does not encourage this level of attention to detail.
After all, in a real-world context, second-language speakers do not have time to devote this much
effort to each individual part of a word. Since Latin has been taught using G-T for such a long
time, it is not wrong for students to expect, perhaps even desire, to learn Latin this way.
6 Carpenter (2000) 3
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 11
Eugenides’ interview with the New Yorker about his story Bronze shows that G-T has its
own benefits and supporters.7 In this interview, Eugenides discusses his experience with
traditional Latin education:
“I’ve said this before, but studying Latin was a huge influence on me as a writer.
Learning a language with declensions and cases makes you aware of sentence
structure and grammar in an almost palpable way. In addition, having to translate
a literary text like the Metamorphoses or the Aeneid line by line taught me what
close reading was, and how much complexity a poet could engineer in a work. My
Latin teachers were excellent, too, and paid attention to the minutest details of
rhetoric, composition, and metre.”
Eugenides attributes his greater knowledge of grammar, his close analytic skills, and familiarity
with literary devices to his Latin education and educators. Considering this, some educators
might wonder why anyone would forego G-T and lose all these added abilities. However, some
might point out that these are skills that apply to the learner’s first language: while Latin gave
Eugenides a distinct edge in his writing, he could arguably have learned close reading or the
‘minutest details of rhetoric’ from an English literature or creative writing course. What he could
not have learned from a literature or writing course, however, was Latin: how to appreciate the
poetic style of the Aeneid or Metamorphoses, how to “hear” the quality of the text naturally.
Though G-T can develop non-linguistic skills, it is still used to teach a language; therefore, it is
important to evaluate its potential to truly teach Latin abilities.
Just as students take Latin for different reasons, they approach Latin education
differently. I base my categorization on almost a decade of experience in Latin classrooms, both
at the high school and college level. Since my focus is on educators, not students, this is only a
brief analysis to contextualize my larger argument. First, there are motivated and unmotivated
students, which applies to any language class. In high school, there are limited language courses
available, and more and more frequently, Latin is not one of them. In college, there are more
7 Leyshon, C. (2018, January 29). Jeffrey Eugenides on a story forty years in the making. New Yorker. Retrieved
from https://www.newyorker.com/books/this-week-in-fiction/fiction-this-week-jeffrey-eugenides-2018-02-05
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 12
available--Ohio University offers not only Spanish and French but Hindi and Swahili--yet many
students are only interested in languages as far as it fulfills their general education requirements.
In neither of these contexts do students have much “choice.” Note above that some students see
Latin as a way to fulfill their language requirement without the added work of interaction.
However, there are also students who are particularly motivated, even if their interests lay
outside classics. For many, especially introverts or less socially-inclined individuals, the lack of
interaction is an advantage. These students may be interested in language not to speak with other
people but to learn more about another culture. Avoiding interaction is not necessarily a tactic for
avoiding more work. In fact, given the legacy ancient Roman society had on the modern western
world, some students take Latin for its relevance to other fields--philosophy, history,
archaeology, and literature, to name a few. For some of these students, speaking Latin may seem
like a waste of time detracting from other discussions, whether cultural, historical,
archaeological, literary, or philosophical in nature. These class discussions in English may be
more interesting than those in the earlier levels of, say, the Spanish classroom, and attract more
of the student populace than the language itself. Modern language classrooms typically hold
class discussions in the target language, so naturally students must be fairly proficient to discuss
philosophy or history, unlike Latin students who participate in their native language. How should
we accommodate these types of learners, while still satisfying those interested in linguistics? Of
course, there is no right answer, just as there is no uniform correct teaching style, either. The aim
of this project is to analyze ongoing change and present guiding principles by which applied
linguistic methods may be utilized in the Latin classroom.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 13
Role of Commentaries
In 2012, it was announced that Caesar’s De Bello Gallico would be added alongside
Vergil’s Aeneid to the AP Latin syllabus,8 and immediately Latin teachers everywhere scrambled
to find an appropriate commentary—any commentary—for the new material. Since Vergil had
been the only author on the AP Latin syllabus previously, there were very few commentaries for
Caesar. Many of the ones that were available were not designed for students, or were radically
outdated, or worse, excluded the material required for the AP exam. This meant that teachers had
to piece together materials from other commentaries. My own high school Latin teacher had to
take selections from three different textbooks to cover the AP material. At the state and national
conventions for the Junior Classical League that year, students and teachers alike joked and
complained about the sudden scramble to find suitable commentaries on Caesar. Fortunately, a
commentary was published in March of 2012, specifically to serve this purpose. The problem
was solved—at least until the AP Latin syllabus was revised again.
Commentaries are crucial for Latin education because after the beginning level,
commentaries often are the textbooks, the materials, and the coursework, in its entirety. A
commentary, in this context, refers to a compilation of notes on vocabulary, grammar, history,
and interpretation to help students and scholars read through an ancient text. Kraus & Stray
(2016) define the purpose of the commentary thus: “to create a relationship both with the source-
text and with the reader: to explain a passage, and to do so in a way that will be useful,
intelligible, and helpful to a user.”9 Because authentic Latin is based entirely on texts,
commentaries, as educators’ primary reading materials, are crucial pedagogical tools. The
commentary is often printed on the facing page of the Latin text, on the latter half of a page, or in
8 AP Latin Course Home Page. (2017). Retrieved April 04, 2017, from
http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/courses/teachers_corner/2260.html 9 Kraus & Stray (2016) 11
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 14
an appendix in the back of a book. Below is an example of the second type taken from a
commentary on Apuleius’ “Cupid and Psyche” by Nimis, et al. (2015):10
The Latin text makes up the top third of the page, vocabulary makes up the second, and
grammatical notes constitute the last third. In the initial anecdote about Caesar and the AP
syllabus, students were essentially losing two-thirds of this material by losing the commentary.
Student commentaries guide students toward an understanding of the text, both linguistically and
culturally. Scholarly commentaries, on the other hand, are directed at professionals who are able
to handle more complex and problematic issues of the text. For example, a student commentary
10 Nimis, Hayes, & Krumpak (2015) 3
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 15
may simply define a word, whereas a scholarly commentary would discuss the different senses
of it—how Quintilian used it, versus how Cicero used it, versus how Horace used it, and so on—
so that the scholar could form their own opinion. This is not always the case, but this example
illustrates that scholarly commentaries go into deeper depth on issues of interpretation and text
than student commentaries typically do. Student commentaries guide students to an accurate but
simplified understanding of the text, so one of the main tasks for the commentator is determining
what is at the appropriate level of difficulty for Latin students.
Commentaries have long held a crucial position in studying ancient texts, whether Greco-
Roman or biblical. Modern languages, therefore, typically do not have any commentaries for
their prominent texts (although older forms of the languages do, e.g. Beowulf or The Song of
Roland, and even modern classics, such as the works of James Joyce). Such commentaries today
are also written in the audience’s native language, regardless of the language of the text.
Therefore, the field of applied linguistics has not considered commentaries as a pedagogical tool.
This raises the question of whether commentaries have pedagogical purposes or if they are better
as interpretive tools. I will return to the issue of commentaries later in comparison with reading
materials for teaching English to re-evaluate commentaries’ purpose in the Latin classroom.
Clearly, they are an important component of the tradition of Latin pedagogy, and thus they merit
a discussion.
Relevant Linguistic Theory and Literature Review
Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
The study of the process of learning a language beside one’s native tongue(s) is called
Second Language Acquisition, or SLA. While the field of SLA is very complex, for the purposes
of this project I only aim to establish a general list of guiding principles, or “best practices,” as
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 16
supported by the field. These practices are based on the theories of three scholars: Stephen
Krashen, Lev Vygotsky, and Michael Long. Similarly, there are “best practices” for reading,
which is the primary goal of Latin pedagogy as outlined under “Challenges of Latin Education.”
This linguistic research, which focuses on reading processes and reading in a second language,
falls under Second Language Literacy (SLL). Both SLA and SLL have implications for language
education which are also relevant to Latin teachers. These implications make up the “best
practices” referred to earlier and described below.
The first best practice for modern language teaching is for students to develop their
language proficiency in multiple areas and in an integrated approach that focuses on
communication (e.g., reading with writing or listening, or grammar with speaking).11 This was
the flaw behind G-T: students, though familiar with grammatical rules, found themselves unable
to communicate verbally. Regarding Latin, or any non-spoken language, many would not
consider it necessary, or even plausible, to address all four skills. At the very least, Latin includes
a great deal of reading practice and often, in the initial stages of learning, some writing. The role
other language skills, particularly speaking and listening, should have in the Latin classroom is
addressed later in this paper.
Next, a language course should include as much input of the target language as possible.
This practice is based primarily on Krashen’s input hypothesis also called “Comprehension
Hypothesis.”12 The most important conclusion from Krashen’s hypothesis, which he popularized
but did not introduce, is that exposure to the target language is necessary to learn that language.
According to this hypothesis, an awareness of grammar rules is important, but “[it] is, however,
11 Brown (2015) 8; this practice, however, underlies all the SLA research I refer to here. 12 Krashen (2004) 1; Krashen's views, though influential, have been widely debated. See Swain (1993) for a
discussion of the Comprehensible Output Hypothesis, which assigns more importance to students’ own production
of the language than Krashen’s input hypothesis.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 17
no longer the star player but has only a supporting role.”13 L2 input should also be compelling
and authentic for effective language learning. Krashen suggests using “narrow” input, which he
defines as using materials with a certain focus, e.g. a specific author or genre, before expanding
outward.14 Latin pedagogy largely reflects this pattern, more so in college curricula where there
is greater flexibility and no AP test to prepare for. Student output is less crucial than input, and
“participation is voluntary,” an idea which reflects many of the students’ perceptions described
above.15 Again, applying this guideline to Latin is difficult, especially since most teachers
currently use the students’ L1, or native language, in the classroom to teach grammatical rules
and patterns. Krashen points out that some usage of L1 is beneficial in providing background
information and context, which he argues causes the L2 input to be more comprehensible.16 The
next principle further complicates the issue of input in the Latin classroom.
Input is crucial, but interaction between learners is an equally significant part of SLA.
Interaction is a key part of psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach. Vygotsky
extended the idea that “the most important forms of human cognitive activity develop through
interaction within social and material environments”17 to language learning. In the sociocultural
approach, mediation--which includes interaction--is essential to any cognitive activity, including
language. Mediation can take place in several ways: between the learner and other people, the
learner and their environment, and the learner and themself. In the language classroom,
mediation between people can refer to feedback, correction, or other guidance, and mediation
between the learner and their environment can include class PowerPoints as well as online
13 Krashen (2004) 3 14 Krashen (2004) 8 15 Krashen (2004) 6 16 Krashen (2004) 7 17 Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner (2015) 207
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 18
translations.18 With regard to literacy, Mikulecky recommends talking about reading in the
classroom in addition to traditional reading tasks, which incorporates a form of mediation.19
Additionally, Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner point out that language acquisition occurs through not
only “interaction with others, but also the artifacts that others have produced, including written
texts.”20 Vygotsky also theorizes the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), or the distance
between a learner’s linguistic performance and potential for performance, as shown through
mediation with other, more-advanced learners.21 Therefore, in language classes, group work is
highly encouraged, since the combination of the learners’ different strengths and weaknesses
prove beneficial to their development. Also, unlike Krashen’s comprehension hypothesis, ZPD is
measurable, and thus a more useful tool for language education.22 Krashen’s hypothesis
emphasized the importance of input, but Vygotsky’s approach demonstrated the additional
importance of interaction. As part of sociocultural theory, Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner mention
the “limits of the effects of instruction in SLA,”23 meaning that students develop some language
skills through interaction and mediation, not their classroom instruction. Because of this, as well
as its focus on group work, the sociocultural theory is part of student-centered pedagogy, rather
than teacher-centered.
However, with all this focus on interaction and input, Michael Long discussed the role of
explicit instruction, called focus on form, in the classroom. Focus on form (note form is singular
and has no -s) means that teachers draw some explicit attention to grammatical forms and rules,
inasmuch as it necessary to linguistic development, as well as building and understanding
18 Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner (2015) 209 19 Mikulecky (2011) 16 20 Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner (2015) 15 21 Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner (2015) 212 22 Ibid. 213-214 23Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner (2015) 16
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 19
meaning. However, “the overriding focus remains on communication.”24 This means that the
grammatical form is taught along with its meaning and importance in social contexts (semantic
and pragmatic information). The goal of this approach is for students to be able to connect
meaning to the form, rather than learning the form for its own sake.25 Ellis & Shintani make the
distinction that focus on form is “essential for acquisition but not for performance.”26 Explicit
grammar teaching, then, is necessary, but learners have limited attention capacity. This means
that comprehending meaning is the learners’ first priority; they can devote attention to form only
if they do not have to devote all effort to deciphering meaning.27 If grammar rules are introduced
without context, they do not link to meaning. For students, this means they act as test-taking
skills over communication skills. In other words, students may memorize forms for a test simply
because they must, but they may not retain that knowledge for future use. Latin educators’ use of
explicit grammar instruction, overall, however, does not necessarily conflict with current SLA
findings in this regard. Long’s focus on form approach also suggests that there is a place for
Latin pedagogy to be more informed by interaction-based SLA pedagogies.
Second Language Literacy (SLL)
The linguistic concepts described above are also relevant to Second Language Literacy,
reading skills for another language. A reading course for a second language (or L2) would
require input, i.e. texts in the target language; further, as students practiced reading in the second
language, they would interact with their teacher, their fellow students, and the text itself. Since
grammar is important in constructing meaning, some focus would be directed toward form as
well. However, reading is a separate language ability with its own set of skills. First, I will
24 Ellis & Shintani (2014) 144 25 Ibid. 145 26 Ibid. 148 27 Ibid. 147
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 20
briefly define reading as a linguistic process, and then I will list a selection of important reading
skills (by no means an exhaustive list--if such a list exists) to guide the rest of the discussion.
Reading is described by Mikulecky as a “complex conscious and unconscious mental
process in which the reader uses a variety of strategies to reconstruct meaning that the author is
assumed to have intended, based on data from the text and from the reader’s prior knowledge.”28
Teaching reading skills involves training students’ unconscious and unconscious processes, as
well as explicit instruction of specific strategies. Mikulecky describes reading as complex, but
Grabe illustrates just how complex it is by summarizing the each step of the process: “a reader
must recognize the word form on the page very rapidly, activate links between the graphic form
and phonological information, activate appropriate semantic and syntactic resources, recognize
morphological affixation in more complex word forms, and access her or his mental lexicon.”29
Clearly, reading involves many cognitive abilities, so we will only scratch the surface here.
First, reading in another language is a different process from the reader’s native language.
Some students must learn new written symbols, but all students must also learn the phonetic
sounds those symbols represent. Phonological processing, according to Grabe, “plays a major
role” and “appears to be a universal aspect of reading.”30 Phonology, then, is very important to
reading. Other skills important for reading in an L2 include: decoding, fluency, vocabulary
building, comprehension, use of reading strategies, and metalinguistic knowledge.
Decoding. Decoding is the process of constructing meaning from a variety of cues,
including phonetic, semantic, and visual cues.31 This process is analogous to a child looking at
28 Mikulecky (2011) 5 29 Grabe (2009) 23 30 Grabe (2009) 1, 24 31 Tankersley (2003)
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 21
letter shapes and sounding out a word to understand it, and it occurs in both the student’s L1 and
L2.
Fluency. As the learner continues practicing reading in the L2, they will be able to
recognize and decode words automatically without using the “translation link.”32 This
automaticity is also called fluency, and it also relates to reading rate. Fluency is crucial to
building not only reading rate, but comprehension, as automaticity is required for “parallel
processing,” being able complete all the processes outlined above by Grabe simultaneously, and
“by extension, fluent reading ability.”33 Fluent readers do not read word-by-word, and so they
are able to process lengthier sentences and paragraphs more quickly and store data in their
working memory.
Vocabulary Building. Vocabulary building, is important for obvious reasons: students
cannot read quickly when they must use their dictionaries for every other word. Grabe points out
that drawing attention to cognates between the L1 and L2 helps students,34 which is good news
for Latin students, as English and Latin are both Indo-European languages and share many
similarities in word structure.
Comprehension. This is a multi-faceted concept: on the one hand, there is the
comprehension of words and sentences, and on the other, of topics and main ideas from longer
passages. Reading comprehension refers to processing basic meaning as well as applying prior
knowledge (or schemata) to construct meaning, including skills such as analysis and
interpretation. (These skills are crucial to Latin education, as I will discuss later.) Both are
important for understanding meaning, and in fact they interact with each other,35 but as learners
32 Grabe (2009) 132 33 Ibid. 28 34 Ibid. 131 35 Ibid. 89
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 22
become more proficient, they become better able to deal with such processes as interpretation.
Top-down processing becomes more important as learners progress. In addition, students must
be familiar with the L2’s patterns of organization (a cultural as well as linguistic construct) to
build comprehension. This is particularly important because these patterns are not universal,
which can be potentially confusing for students.36
Reading Strategies. Students employ different strategies when they read a text.
Developing these strategies in students is important to develop literacy and ensure continued
success in reading. I include a list of ten such evidence-based strategies from Grabe to provide
examples of these strategies, many of which are relevant to reading in one’s L1 as well:
● Activating prior knowledge
● Answering questions and Elaborative Interrogations
● Constructing mental images
● Forming questions
● Making associations (mnemonic support)
● Monitoring
● Previewing
● Summarization
● Text-structure awareness and story grammars
● Using graphic organizers37
When reading in an L2, learners can employ a number of these strategies to gain comprehension.
Metalinguistic knowledge. Finally, metalinguistic knowledge is also beneficial to
developing reading skills. This refers to an awareness of “how language systems work and can
be used to help carry out language tasks.”38 Similarly, Krashen argues that students benefit from
knowing about the process of language acquisition.39 It also includes knowledge of grammatical
terms. For example, as in focus on form, described above, students benefit from being made
36 Grabe (2009)139 37 Ibid. 218 38 Ibid. 128, 132 39 Krashen (2004) 8
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 23
aware of linguistic forms and rules, when that attention to grammar is helpful and works in the
context.
Krashen, in “Applying the Comprehension Hypothesis,” constructs a curriculum for
developing reading skills with his comprehension hypothesis. Krashen’s “program” includes six
levels for teaching reading, only five of which are relevant to be discussed here. In the first level,
students would first begin using more active activities, such as games and sports, to engage
students so that they do not realize they are learning another language. The reading materials
should be, above all, compelling and at the appropriate level, e.g. graded readers.40 The second
level would also be simple, but it would include authentic materials, possibly “comics, graphic
novels, and easy sections of the newspapers,” which students could discuss the cultural influence
of in small groups. At the third level, students would read bestsellers and other popular
literature.41 After this stage, students would progress to “contemporary serious literature,” using
the narrow approach described above. Krashen notes that this level does not have to take place in
a single year, but it can be repeated often by choosing a different theme, e.g. a specific author or
genre.42 This is, in fact, how classical language courses are typically structured in college. For
instance, I have taken courses on particular authors, such as Livy and Suetonius, and genres,
including New Comedy and elegy (love poems). This level is often repeated at the advanced
level. High schools face pressure to prepare students for the AP exam, but this is also structured
similarly, focusing on one author at a time.
The next level of Krashen’s program has students read “the classics” of the target
language, which he defines broadly as “literature written in different eras.”43 Krashen points out
40 Krashen (2004) 9-10 41 Krashen (2004) 10 42 Krashen (2004) 11 43 Krashen (2004) 11
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 24
that students might have difficulty adjusting to an older form of the target language; however, as
Owens points out, Latin is largely consistent over time.44 In my own experience, I have read
authors from the first century BCE (Cicero, for instance) and from the second century CE
(Apuleius) with equal ease; only Plautus, from the third century BCE, gave me trouble, and this
was because of his more common style, using colloquialisms and vulgarities. Krashen also
allows for other readings in English to give background and contextual information, which he
argues increases comprehensibility.45 This is also a convention of Latin education, both in
establishing context for the work and in interpreting its meaning. Given the nature of Latin and
the texts we have, this level arguably defines all of classical education, since we read texts from
a variety of time periods, albeit in a very consistent language. However, we more or less expect
Latin students to perform at Krashen’s level five almost immediately, which illustrates the
intensity of G-T.
Linguistic Methods: Putting Research into Practice
I have already mentioned that Latin, as well as Attic Greek, are generally taught using the
G-T method. I have described how this method typically works, although I cannot account for
every classroom: grammatical rules are introduced immediately, and students apply those rules
in reading texts in the target language. One benefit of G-T is that students are able to begin
reading texts right away, so in a high school context, students can maximize their two to four
years of study. However, G-T is not supported by any of the linguistics research cited above, and
despite its early use of authentic L2 materials, there is even evidence against the effectiveness of
G-T from the perspectives of other scholars. From the beginning of the twentieth century, Bennet
& Bristol (1911) and Kirsch (1928) claim rather anxiously that students are not performing at the
44 Owens (2016) 509 45 Krashen (2004) 11
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 25
desired level. Even in more recent decades, Fomin (2005) expresses the same concerns, showing
that little if any progress has occurred in the eighty or ninety years since. Since Bennet & Bristol
and Kirsch, however, linguists and educators have proposed other methods.
A more recent method has been the Rassias method, named after its creator John Rassias,
an educator at Dartmouth. This method, at present, has had less influence on other discussions of
incorporating SLA methods in Latin education; however, it has been mentioned in the Latin
teaching literature cited here. For instance, Coffee (2012) points out that at Dartmouth, Rassias’s
method was applied to classical as well as modern languages.46 Even outside of Rassias’s
institution, there is interest in his method. SALVI, or the North American Institute for Living
Latin Studies, focused on the Rassias method in one of their pedagogical retreats in 2016.47 This
is another option Latin educators have adopted, but despite this attention, it still remains less
widely-used in comparison to methods and theories that have been prevalent longer.
Another method has also attracted the attention of many Latin educators: Teaching
Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS). This method is based on the Total
Physical Response (TPR), in which students responded through actions to demonstrate their
comprehension of the target language (e.g. “Close the door”).48 Roof and Kreutter, who used
TPRS in a middle school Spanish classroom, list four phases of TPRS: Gesture, Personalized
Questions and Answers (PQA), Story, and Dramatize. In the first stage, the teacher shows
students three or four forms or vocabulary words targeted in the lesson, and the teacher makes
this input comprehensible either with a translation in the L1 or through gestures.49 To avoid
translation, Krashen suggests using images, which Roof & Kreutter point out benefits students
46 Coffee ( 2012) 259 47 The event can be found on the SALVI website: http://latin.org/wordpress/event/pedagogy-rusticatio-2016-
teaching-latin-with-the-rassias-method/ 48 Roof & Kreutter (2010) 2 49 Roof & Kreutter (2010) 3
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 26
who are visual learners and helps teachers rely less on the text to narrate the lesson’s story.50 The
teacher then tells the story to the students, asking the personalized questions and answers (PQA)
referred to earlier. Krashen refers to this process as “circling.”51 The teacher repeats the story,
incorporating information from the students, and the students eventually act out the story while
the teacher reads it a final time.52 TPRS also includes “pop-up grammar,” which Krashen
describes as “a brief explanation of a grammatical rule or vocabulary item that generally takes
only a few seconds.”53 Though engaging, TPRS can also lead students to be disruptive, as Roof
& Kreutter point out; however, they illustrate certain techniques, or “modifications,” to alleviate
these problems: have clear guidelines, using visual stimuli, and encouraging choral responses.54
TPRS has been used in these articles for EFL classrooms as well as Spanish classes. The method
has also gained traction in Latin teaching, including the lessons of the teachers cited here.
Finally, a method that Brown (2015) gives much greater attention to in his textbook for
aspiring EFL/ESL teachers, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is currently encouraged
for modern language education. As evidenced by the name, the method approaches language
teaching with a focus on communication, so many classroom activities incorporate input and
interaction, as Krashen and Vygotsky advocated. All four skills, though, are integrated. Though
this method is put forth by Brown as the most current and best supported, its application to Latin
would be, at the very least, complicated, given that it assumes a communicative goal for the
course. However, clearly from this short list of methods, Latin educators--along with all other
language teachers--have a wide variety of methods and techniques available to them. With an
awareness and understanding of these different linguistic concepts, we can better understand the
50 Krashen (2015) 8; Roof & Kreutter (2010) 7 51 Krashen (2015) 6 52 Roof & Kreutter (2010) 3 53 Krashen (2015) 1 54 Roof & Kreutter (2010) 1
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 27
current practices of different Latin teachers and suggest guiding principles for the future of the
field.
Latin Pedagogical Scholarship
Many classical scholars and current Latin teachers have written in response to the
linguistic theories above. Some have reviewed the very objectives of Latin pedagogy, while
others have taken a critical look at applying the theories above to the classroom. I also cite from
two scholars who address the issue of active Latin, which has long been a hotly-contested topic
in the field but has special relevance regarding Krashen’s input hypothesis and Vygotsky’s
sociocultural approach.
Starting from a more traditional standpoint, I reference Carpenter (2000), who re-
evaluates the goals of Latin education. Unsurprisingly, the report he cites prioritizes reading
comprehension over other subsidiary goals; however, he takes the unconventional stance,
challenging the role of reading ability in favor of analytical skills. His argument reflects an
unpopular but not insignificant standpoint in the field in response to declines in enrollment and
overall interest in Latin. Fomin (2005), less traditional than Carpenter, describes the different
ways of teaching Latin throughout history, as far back as Erasmus (who supported the use of
active Latin), to dismantle the myth of a uniform, unchanging “tradition.” This concept of a static
tradition of using G-T, he argues, helped to prohibit widespread, substantial change in the field.
Fomin both documents the history of Latin pedagogical methods and contextualizes the
discussions continuing today.
I cite not only the arguments and evidence from the following three teachers but also
their classroom materials, which they graciously include in their publication. Patrick (2015), a
high school teacher in Georgia, describes his success with using Krashen’s input hypothesis in
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 28
the classroom. He describes the method for non-specialists, as few Latin teachers have such a
background in linguistics, argues for its many benefits, and provides an example of one of his
lessons, thus inspired by Krashen’s theory. Carlon (2013), a university professor, urges her
colleagues to consider SLA research to preserve Latin’s somewhat precarious position in
education. She also explains the theories, as Patrick does, and she discusses how to apply these
principles to the classroom through a series of guiding principles, as I hope to do at the
conclusion of this paper. Carlon also includes example materials in an appendix for future
lessons and activities. Lindzey, a middle school teacher, represents another perspective in an
essay provided on her website. Without referring to SLA research, she encourages similar
changes--teaching grammatical points in context, drawing more attention to the verbal
components of Latin, and encouraging greater fluency. Lindzey also includes a description of a
typical lesson in her classroom as well as the materials she uses. These articles represent many
educators’ motivations and goals in implementing SLA, and the authors’ respective class
materials illustrate how educators typically adapt and adopt these theories.
Finally, I cite two scholars who write in support of active Latin, the modern production--
written and spoken--of Latin, which has generally been a less traditional stance in the field.
Coffee (2012), a college professor, describes the history of active Latin from when it was once
standard to its current state, adopted by enthusiastic supporters and ignored by many others. He
addresses the use of active Latin and the institutions that support it, such as the University of
Kentucky. Owens (2016), also a supporter of Latin, strongly cautions the field against mistakes
and well-meaning inaccuracies in attempts to create Latin words for modern phenomena (the
word “to Google,” for instance.) He points out that educators using active Latin must be wary of
making errors and raises important questions of what guides our use of oral Latin in the modern
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 29
age. Each of these educators’ perspective is valuable in understanding the common aspirations
and issues of the field.
Brief Modern History of Active Latin
In Active Latin: Quo Tendimus?, Coffee gives a brief history of active Latin which
contextualizes these participants’ responses. At the start of Latin education, it was still a living
language; as Latin’s vernacular use began to fall out of favor, active Latin “persisted in full form
through the late Renaissance, and had an afterlife in Catholic seminaries until the mid-twentieth
century.”55 Coffee also describes a “post-war movement” of active Latin by ALF, the Academia
Latinitati Fovendae (“the academy for fostering Latinity”). In the late twentieth century, the
textbook Lingua Latina by Hans Ørberg was created rather recently and remains a staple for
many Latin educators using the so-called “natural approach” of introducing grammar and
vocabulary in context.56 These post-war efforts, Coffee says, “could be seen as an early response
to the decline of popularity of Latin in these decades” and stem from “general skepticism toward
the authority of tradition” from substantial contemporary change in Europe.57 This indicates that
active Latin has, since the past century, had a connotation of challenging traditional methods as
well as attempting to regain Latin’s former prestige. However, many Latin educators at the time
and now view active Latin usage as a reaction to “a perceived need to keep pace with the
instruction methods of modern foreign languages.”58 Naturally, traditional Latin teachers were
displeased at the idea that Latin needed to change, let alone adapt to modern foreign language
pedagogy, which once was subordinate to Latin education.
55 Coffee (2012) 256 56 Coffee (2012) 257 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 259
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 30
What, then, was the purpose of active Latin, if not to conform in some part with modern
language teaching? Many of its supporters have had to explain and justify their reasons for
adopting active Latin and modern linguistic methods. Coffee notes that most argue “we can
better teach students to read Latin and understand the cultures of Latinity by having them engage
in a combination of speaking, listening, and writing as well as reading”; however, there is little
quantifiable evidence for these arguments.59 Coffee also cites Willis, another scholar, for his five
reasons for active Latin. First, some students learn best with oral/aural methods; second, it
diversifies classroom activities while continuing to focus on the language, instead of conducting
class in English.60 Active Latin, according to Willis, can lower students’ affective filter, or in
other words, “put students in a positive mood receptive to learning”61 Willis also refers to
students’ expectations of a language class, i.e. one that includes speaking and other skills as well
as reading. I have personally tutored too many students who have directly told me they took
Latin to avoid speaking to believe this claim, although it is certainly possible some students
expect oral practice from a language class. Finally, Willis supports the use of active teaching
techniques, namely drills.62 These reasons fall largely into two categories: student engagement
and effective teaching, both of which are reflected in the interviews and literature as well.
Owens, even though apprehensive about the accuracy of contemporary educators’ active
Latin, believes there are advantages to using it. First, Owens argues that Latin production “helps
the student to internalize its elements because the act of formulation makes certain demands on a
speaker.”63 Further, Owens lists other skills to be gained from active Latin: “In my experience,
readers who speak Latin not only read texts faster but can more readily identify figures of
59 Coffee (2012) 256 60 Coffee (2012) 259 61 Coffee (2012) 259-260 62 Coffee (2012) 260 63 Owens (2016) 511
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 31
speech, intertextual references, and shifts in linguistic register.”64 As Coffee pointed out, there is
no quantifiable evidence to back such claims, as Owens’ experience is subjective and anecdotal.
However, the participants here also noted their students’ success in Latin using active methods.
None of them, however, noted increased familiarity with figures of speech, references between
texts, or changes in the author’s tone. These would be beneficial skills, though, and it is worth
consideration from future scholars.
One obstacle to using active Latin, even if all educators suddenly supported it, is
teachers’ actual speaking abilities. While teachers and scholars might have tremendous reading
skills and insight into these ancient texts, if they were taught using G-T, they might find
themselves unable to communicate orally in Latin. “The real problem,” Owens writes, “is that
most Latinists do not know Latin as well as we should (and I include myself in this statement).”65
This is a frustrating realization for many, myself included, although it stems not from a lack of
Latin knowledge but a lack of practice. Owens describes the risks which speaking poses to
students if teachers are unscrupulous in their choice of vocabulary or simply inaccurate in their
discourse. Ensuring that teachers use the proper words requires looking at how the ancient
authors used it, which then means looking up the word in question in the Oxford Latin
Dictionary, finding its citations, and understanding its context from those works. Moreover,
Owens vehemently opposes new Latin words, specifically based one three categories: “(1) those
based on faulty, misunderstood, or mixed roots; (2) those borrowed from other languages
(besides Greek); and (3) those involving verbs.”66 Although Owens points out these “barbarisms
at the gate,” as he calls them in the title of his article, he still supports the use of active Latin in
the classroom, as it is only with practice that educators can improve and students learn.
64 Owens (2016) 512 65 Owens (2016) 519 66 Owens (2016) 516
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 32
Active Latin, then, is in fact part of Latin’s pedagogical tradition, though its role in
education has fluctuated with time. Owens (2016) points out the risks of inaccuracy, and Coffee
(2012) describes its history and reasons for its current diminished state. This history and in part,
this controversy, reveal the preconceptions and attitudes that have informed Latin educators
since the twentieth century. Since the modern linguistic approaches above each demand input of
the target language, both written and spoken, active Latin usage is central to the topic of my
thesis: how Latin teachers are changing the mos maiorum. To approach this topic, I asked the
specific research questions listed below.
Research Questions
1. In what ways have Latin educators applied or modified the modern linguistic theories
mentioned above in their own classrooms?
2. In what ways can these modern linguistic teaching theories benefit Latin educators, given
the differences in goals and contexts?
3. What principles can guide Latin educators in making pedagogical choices in the future?
Methodology
These research questions span the fields of classics and linguistics, and therefore they
must be approached from both these perspectives. In the Literature Review, I have summarized a
list of “best practices,” which provide the framework for analyzing the approaches, methods, and
materials below. These best practices form the framework for analyzing the results I have
gathered to answer the research questions above.
Because teachers are the ones immersed in the field, they know, before anyone else, what
methods work best for their individual contexts. Therefore, in order to provide a more complete
discussion of Latin education, I have interviewed five individuals over the course of a year. The
participants in this project were contacted through my professors’ colleagues, the Ohio Classical
Conference, and Biduum Latinum Virginianum, a weekend retreat that focuses on spoken Latin
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 33
sponsored by SALVI, which I was able to attend thanks to PURF funding.67 The participants
contacted through Biduum are more inclined toward active Latin approaches, which is beneficial
to understanding how the theories above are applied. The participants will be referred to
anonymously here, identified by number and singular “they.” The only personal information that
is required for this discussion is the level of Latin they teach and at what institution, i.e. middle
school through university, and public or private.
More background about the participants will be provided in the results section, but the
necessary information about participants is listed below:
- P1: Participant 1 (P1) is a public college professor who has taught all levels of Latin to
both undergraduate and graduate classes in the past.
- P2: Participant 2 (P2) is a private high school teacher for all levels.
- P3: Participant 3 (P3) is a private high school teacher for all levels.
- P4: Participant 4 (P4) is a private high school teacher for upper-level students.
- P5: Participant 5 (P5) has taught at both middle schools and high schools.
The interviews were conducted over the phone, via email, and in person. During the
interview, I used the interview questions below:
1. At what level do you teach Latin?
2. What is the state of Latin education today at your level? How could it be
improved?
3. Do you use active Latin in your classroom? How?
a. How do you encourage your students to use it?
4. How do you use active Latin to teach reading proficiency?
5. What changes would you make to Latin curricula?
6. How do you adapt modern language teaching methods for classical languages in
your classroom?
7. How can we quantitatively measure the success of active Latin/modern teaching
methods?
In addition to these interviews, I have also looked at the scholarship from Latin
educators, specifically Patrick, Carlon, and Lindzey, cited under “Latin Pedagogical
Scholarship,” about the application of modern linguistic methods. Though not interviewed like
67 SALVI is a Latin acronym meaning North American Institute for Living Latin Studies
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 34
the participants above, these individuals--pseudo-participants in this study--have shared their
lesson plans in their articles or on their blogs, which allow us to understand their priorities and
techniques as well. I also use other Latin educators’ materials as brief examples, specifically
Keith Toda’s blog and a novella by Rachel Ash and Miriam Patrick. These scholars are not
“pseudo-participants,” however, because they have not presented their materials as analytically
or for scholarly review, as Carlon (2013), Patrick (2015), and Lindzey have.
Finally, I look specifically at reading materials. I compare Latin reading materials, from
grammar textbooks to commentaries, to materials designed for students learning English as a
Foreign Language or as a Second Language (EFL/ESL). Then, I relate these materials’ structures
to the theories and best practices of the Literature Review. In this section, I recognize that
teachers decide to use specific reading materials, so I only present the variety of options before
proposing, in the conclusion, some guiding principles for making these choices.
Significance:
One of the most detrimental outcomes of the Grammar-Translation method is that
students treat Latin as a code to be deciphered, rather than a language that once lived and was
used to govern the world. One of the reasons for this project is to change this attitude so that
students recognize and appreciate Latin as a viable means of communication between peoples of
the past and present. Commentaries which encourage students to read Latin as a language are the
first step to accomplish that goal, since commentaries are not only a fundamental part of the
curriculum but also among the first materials students encounter. Patrick (2015) writes about his
experience taking over the Latin program and using modern teaching methods. The results
include a sixty-two percent retention rate (up from .2 percent) and Latin moving “from 4th of 4
languages in my school to 2nd of 4 languages.” This demonstrates that while Latin educators
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 35
might have some traditions to lose, they have the world to gain. And what traditions are they
losing? One that caused students to chant, “Latin is a language, dead as it can be; first it killed
the Romans, and now it’s killing me.” One way to improve these materials—perhaps
substantially—is the use of methods supported by SLA and SLL research. This thesis will
illustrate ways in which Latin educators can improve, or even replace, their educational
materials, and perhaps how we shape the education of classical languages in general. Improved
and refined classroom materials, supported by contemporary linguistics research, means that
students will achieve reading proficiency more quickly and efficiently. Then, students will be
able to apply their Latin skills to whatever field—medicine, law, the humanities, the Church,
history—more quickly.
Latin is important, to put it briefly, because many people in the past decided it was, and
in the time since, Latin phrases have filled our language and our culture. In the field of science,
Latin is used for more technical terminology, such as the naming of species or the elements.
Most medical terms are derived from Latin and Greek roots, so some pre-medical students take
Latin to understand the relevant vocabulary more easily. Law also borrows many phrases of
Latin, such as habeas corpus, stare decisis, affidavit, pro bono, and so on. Many history
students, particularly those interested in the ancient world, take Latin because it gives them
access to an astounding number of primary sources, from inscriptions to novels to receipts to
poems to archives. Those preparing to enter the church study Greek and Latin to read the Bible
from its (more or less) original texts or later scholarship. Other students, of course, such as
myself, learn Latin to study the humanities, but there are clearly many other applications and
benefits of learning Latin. This is another reason to teach the language more efficiently.
This thesis is an intersection of applied linguistics, which focuses on oral languages, and the
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 36
teaching of classical languages. This intersection is relatively obscure, although there is literature
for it, which I use here.
The interest is there, but little impact has been made. One reason for this may be that,
since classics is built off of such a long tradition, scholars have either not felt the need to look
outside the discipline or felt uncomfortable ignoring this tradition. Conversely, scholars might
have focused on other aspects of Latin pedagogy, such as grammar and vocabulary. Even later
scholars, including Culley (1979), Dickey (2016), and Archibald et al. (2015) focus especially on
grammar education, the first component of Latin pedagogy. Another important consideration is
how Latin teachers are trained. Many prospective teachers pursue an undergraduate degree in
Classics and a Master’s in Education, and most learn how to teach Latin from their own high
school teachers or college professors. Therefore, these individuals do not learn the specific
implications of language teaching. I only encountered SLA because I was pursuing the TEFL
certificate; otherwise, I never would have heard of Stephen Krashen or Communicative
Language Teaching. It is my hope that this thesis encourages interest in applying linguistic
methods to Latin teaching.
Results & Discussion
The ideas shared by the participants and scholars cited here, though varied, reflect several
key themes. In this section, I will discuss each of these themes, referring to specific responses
from the participants alongside materials from the Latin pedagogical scholars. Then, I will
provide illustrative examples of EFL/ESL texts and Latin texts. I will analyze how these
different texts demonstrate the themes above and how they relate to the relevant linguistic theory
from the Literature Review. These themes not only indicate the priorities and concerns of Latin
educators, but they reveal potential directions for Latin pedagogy going forward. Among these
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 37
themes are active Latin usage, active Latin’s benefits, its challenges, and its relationship with
reading proficiency.
As I have described in the Methodology, I interviewed five participants. Participant 1
(P1) is a college professor who has taught all levels of Latin to both undergraduate and graduate
classes in the past. They teach in a public college. Participants 2, 3, and 4 (P2, P3, and P4) teach
at private high schools. These high school educators face a unique set of pressures not found at
other levels. Primarily, they are expected to prepare students for the AP Latin exam, which
requires a brisk pace through all the necessary material. Additionally, P2 and P3 discussed
another challenge: high school students’ behavior. P2 mentioned maintaining order in the
classroom, even sharing that their preferred method for doing so was the “silent stare.” P3
referred to their students’ attention spans in class, not necessarily as an obstacle but as a
necessary consideration. Within the high school level, there is a variety of different contexts. For
instance, P2 teaches at an all-boy Jesuit high school, but P3 and P4’s schools are coed and not
specifically associated with the Jesuit religious order. P2 and P3 both teach all levels at their
respective schools, but P4 only teaches upper-level students. Participant 5 (P5) has taught at a
variety of institutions at both the middle school and high school levels. They noted the difference
in “pedagogical freedom” at the middle school level, where the AP Latin exam was not a
priority. These participants’ respective contexts offer different perspectives which inform their
choices.
In the sample of Latin pedagogical scholarship I include, all institutional levels are
addressed: Patrick is a high school teacher, Carlon is a university professor, and Lindzey is a
middle school teacher. Their lesson plans, approaches, and materials are similarly analyzed and
organized by themes. The other materials from Toda, Ash, and Patrick also demonstrate the
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 38
extent to which certain trends have arisen in the field. These educators and the pseudo-
participants also share similar themes to the five interview participants, as the discussion will
show.
Active Latin Usage
The first and perhaps most significant theme is the use of active Latin. One of the most
controversial questions in the field is how much oral Latin should be used, if at all. There is a
wide spectrum of attitudes toward active Latin, but the educators interviewed here almost all
made an effort to incorporate more Latin production in the classroom. P1, for instance, called
active Latin the “bright spot” of the field, due to the dedication and enthusiasm of its supporters.
P4 mentioned several such individuals who were notable in the field for supporting active Latin
and who worked at the intersection of SLA theory and Latin pedagogy. Both P1 and P4 used
active Latin for a substantial period of their respective classes: P1 spoke Latin for a third of their
classes, and P4 spoke Latin approximately 75% of the time for their upper level classes.
Similarly, P5 would have students speak only in Latin during the last four or five weeks of their
eighth grade Latin class. These individuals used and encouraged spoken Latin in their classroom
a considerable amount, but even on the more traditional side of the spectrum, there was still
interest in using it. P3, at the secondary level, said they would like to incorporate more Latin
production in their classroom, but other skills took priority over it. P3 added active Latin
activities to their syllabus so that students with other strengths could still succeed.
P2, unlike the rest of the participants did not use active Latin at all, nor did they specify
any activities that encourage active Latin usage. Instead, P2 used G-T, but their own style of
teaching drew from using humor based on their own previous teachers, as well as from their
family. P2’s perspective, which incorporates some levity into an otherwise intense method,
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 39
shows that educators who do not use active Latin share similar concerns, such as student
engagement. Additionally, P2 stressed that teachers must help students by finding various ways
of explaining things. It also demonstrates that teachers can find ways to reduce G-T’s intensity,
at least in terms of the classroom’s atmosphere. This correlates with the larger theme of a shift to
considering student engagement and interest. Familiarity with G-T and even positive experiences
with the method are other reasons educators might be hesitant to adopt modern linguistic
methods. Nonetheless, the perspectives shared here may indicate a general shift among educators
toward a more favorable attitude toward active Latin.
In the literature about Latin pedagogy, Lindzey, Patrick, and Carlon address active Latin.
Lindzey, a middle school teacher, though she does not include a lesson plan, describes her
techniques for engaging a younger class of students. Her method is summed up by the acronym
“SANDALS,” which stands for Spectate Audite Nunc Dicite Agite Legite Scribite (look, hear;
now speak, do, read, write). Lindzey also underscores the importance of phonology,
demonstrated also by the imperatives audite and dicite above. Patrick does not give a precise
figure, as P1 and P4 do, of his Latin usage in the classroom, but since he adopts Krashen’s
Comprehension Hypothesis and the TPRS method, spoken Latin must play a major role. Carlon
has students producing Latin in its written form on worksheets, which is another form of active
Latin.
Each of these educators used different techniques to introduce these different levels of
active Latin, one of which was asking questions in Latin during classroom discussion. While
describing their usual class structure, P1 described the type of Latin questions they might ask
their intermediate students: questions about the text they were reading and other information
about the author, for example Quis est? (“Who is this?”). For graduate students, they would also
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 40
use basic phrases to discuss the text and its context in greater detail: “Who is the author? What
did they write? [e.g., Vergil wrote the Aeneid as well as the Georgics] Where did they live?” and
so on. Additionally, Patrick, in a lesson plan about Seneca in a larger unit about ludi (“games”),
had students discuss the reading--an adapted version of a letter by Seneca--entirely in Latin.68 P3,
as an example of using active Latin to appeal to students with different strengths, had students
read an article about Roman culture (in English) and answer questions about it in Latin.
Traditionally, these discussions would take place in English; however, when they are conducted
in Latin, students are exposed to a greater amount of input, which Krashen argues leads to
linguistic development. In the first two examples, students are discussing a Latin reading, so they
have the traditional written input, while P3 uses an English text. With Latin discussion, however,
students are exposed to oral input as well, through listening to their peers and speaking to answer
the questions. The students and teacher are also interacting in the target language, which
correlates with Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach.
P1 also introduced active Latin in other ways. For instance, they used some basic drills
where students verbally filled in the blank with the direct object form of a noun, e.g. they would
say, Video… (“I see”), and students would respond militem (“the soldier”), puellam (“the girl”),
etc. This combined spoken use of the language with a targeted grammar point. Lindzey also
mentioned using drills for vocabulary words and group writing tasks.69 Language drills typically
focus on forms, rather than meaning, such as P1’s exercise to have students form the accusative
case. However, it is still linguistic input, and there is an interactive element. P5 would also use
drills while introducing new vocabulary, modifying an example sentence to put words in
different grammatical forms. These are the only educators who mentioned using this technique,
68 Patrick (2015) 117-118 69 Lindzey 6-7
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 41
and they only do so briefly; therefore, it remains less popular than other ways of introducing
more Latin to the classroom.
Some educators cited here chose activities that were unrelated to reading or other
traditional activities. This is because approaches which are not only focused grammar offer
different language learning opportunities and experiences. The participants here, for instance,
elected to have students complete other kinds of tasks and even play games. P4 had students
interact with each other in Latin through information gap tasks where students worked together
to complete a student’s schedule in Latin and using a picture to elicit written and spoken output.
P4 said that if they had had the resources, they also would have liked to use other authentic
materials and even real-world contexts, e.g. cooking in a kitchen to learn food vocabulary, to
appeal to students and encourage learning through experience. For this participant, reading
proficiency was not the only goal, although they had students read Latin novellas at the
appropriate level of difficulty and also write small booklets about mythology. This participant’s
activities are heavily based on students’ interactions with each other and with other objects,
thereby mediating the language, a key part of Vygotsky’s theory.
Another type of learning experience educators used was teaching active Latin with
games. P5 had students participate in the most unique activities of the participants. They
encouraged students to form Latin sentences aloud in the drilling tasks, mentioned above, and
even in narrating episodes of the Pink Panther in Latin. During the final weeks of their eighth
grade class, the one in which only Latin was allowed in the classroom, students would play board
games, go on walks, and do a variety of other fun, language-based tasks. These activities are a
tremendous shift from traditional methods in that they do not focus solely and primarily on
ancient culture, nor are they centered on grammatical concepts. This reflects Krashen’s approach
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 42
in particular since he postulates that language can be acquired with little focus on grammar.
Similarly, Patrick, although he includes more traditional components (i.e. reading Seneca’s
letter) in his lesson plan, has students use Latin in playing games rather than grammatical
exercises. Patrick explained the rules of a Roman game, Trigon, and had students play it for as
long as they conversed only in Latin. After this, the students then wrote in Latin about their
experience, comparing it in particular with a quote from Quintilian, another writer, about Roman
virtues, which was another broader theme of the Latin course.70 Patrick, then, not only blended
content with culture, but also with other tasks, including physical activity. P5 and Patrick employ
unconventional techniques but still prioritize oral Latin production.
Carlon’s worksheets here represent a more traditional side of the spectrum of active Latin
usage in that the materials she provided focus on written, not oral, production. These two
worksheets allowed students to practice certain grammar points in context. The first targets not
only the formation but also the meaning of the present tense. On this worksheet, students work in
pairs to fill out a chart with actions that they personally did, or their partner, or their teacher,
yesterday (heri) and today (nunc). Since the exercise requires personal input, the subject matter
is more compelling, and the pairwork follows Vygotsky's theories of interaction. In the second
part of the worksheet, students produce the perfect tense of new verbs in a new chart, which
focuses explicitly on grammatical rules.71 The other worksheet targets a specific grammar point,
the dative case, but Carlon contextualizes it in a sort of “mystery story” about a Roman family
that has lost an item. The teacher reads the sentences that make up story aloud multiple times
while students listen. The students then mark the dative case with an arrow, not translating the
sentence, and trace who is giving the lost item to whom throughout the story. The brief exercise
70 Patrick (2015) 117-118 71 Carlon (2013) 120
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 43
is followed with a short comprehension question in Latin, which elicits the “answer” to the
mystery, i.e. who has the lost item.72 Though Carlon’s materials do focus on target grammar
points, they are contextualized, and when students complete the exercises, they are not focused
entirely on translation. Written production is another important aspect of active Latin methods.
Carlon and Patrick both explain Krashen’s comprehension hypothesis and its potential benefits in
the Latin classroom, but Patrick specifically discusses using the TPRS method. He provides a
lesson plan directed toward a Latin 1 class with four target words: puella, puer, ambulare, videre
(girl, boy, walk, see). In the lesson, these words are written on board next to their English
meanings. The teacher begins to narrate a story, but in order to allow students to participate, the
teacher has them reply with choral responses and choose certain aspects of the story. In one of
these choral responses, “They all respond with a chorus of oohs and ahs, as if the teacher has just
revealed the mysteries of the universe.” The students then choose the name of the girl (puella) in
the story as well as her destination.73 Patrick created a version of a Greco-Roman myth in a
modern-day setting, in this case a specific landmark in Georgia. Therefore, students are most
likely familiar with the story (not to mention the setting), or they gain more cultural knowledge.
Students act out and demonstrate the story in a retelling of it, and they also answer questions
about it, all in Latin, as part of TPRS’s PQA.74 As mentioned in the Literature Review, Krashen
supports the TPRS method. This method reinforces Latin input, which is made comprehensible
with the translations written on the board.
Other Latin educators also prefer the TPRS method, like Keith Toda. Toda, like Lindzey,
published his own teaching methods via his blog, cleverly titled “Todally Comprehensible
Latin.” He lists two methods, TPRS and TPR, both described above, which shows the prestige
72 Carlon (2013) 121 73 Patrick (2015) 112-114 74 Patrick (2015) 114
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 44
these methods have in the field. He has lists of TPRS stories that target certain words and also
relate to pop culture, such as stories about the Kardashians or Star Wars. On his blog, Toda has
also compiled a wealth of activities and materials for teachers to use: active Latin games,
teaching techniques, worksheets, etc. Toda and Patrick’s materials demonstrate how this sub-
discipline of Latin pedagogy values Krashen’s approach and the TPRS method in using active
Latin.
Despite branching off from the traditional method, G-T, none of the participants here
expressed the wish to eradicate it. P4 pointed out that there was value in both G-T and more
active methods and that every classroom was different. However, it was important for educators
to know all the possible pedagogical choices, G-T or TPRS or Rassias, to choose from.
Moreover, Participants 1 and 5 both discussed the possibility of having G-T and active Latin
classrooms exist side by side. P5 said that at the high school level, most educators are focused
on preparing students to enter college Latin courses with a particular skill set from G-T, i.e. the
ability to “dissect Latin,” as opposed to understanding and appreciating the language through a
more active method. “Dissecting Latin,” however, still had a place in P5’s ideal pedagogy as a
post-introductory field of study. P1 noted that some students prefer the traditional method of
Latin education, so there would ideally be two sections for beginner Latin to give students a
choice between the active and the traditional. However, P1 continued, the number of students
enrolled would have to justify having these two sections. Still, it is noteworthy that the sample of
participants here believed these two viewpoints, which seem in direct conflict with each other,
could in fact complement each other.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 45
Benefits of Active Latin: Motivation, Student Engagement, & Enrollment
Motivation and Student Engagement.
Many of the participants discussed why they believe active Latin is beneficial to students’
learning. The general consensus among the participants was that when students could speak the
language, they became more invested in it. This idea reflects Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach.
When students can interact with each other in the language, they are able to further develop,
according to the ZPD. The active Latin activities here largely prioritize meaning over
decontextualized grammatical rules, which aligns with Long’s focus on form. The following
perspectives show how these educators used active Latin particularly to engage students and
increase their motivation to learning the language.
First, the participants argued that students’ own language production would make them
more motivated and engaged. P1 said that their goal for their undergraduate Latin classes was to
give the sense that Latin was a real language and increase students’ enthusiasm. P5 said that
ideally, students would learn Latin vocabulary that related to their personal lives, including
words for modern things. For example, students would learn telephonum (telephone) before
bellum (war). Students would still learn the “traditional” vocabulary but not during the initial
stages. In this ideal curriculum, P5 argues learning words students could use in their everyday
lives encourages more interest in Latin in their future studies. P3 similarly tried to relate Latin to
students’ personal lives by having them translate popular songs into Latin. Students also made
music videos for these songs, which they would then share via social media. P3 pointed out that
this, in their belief also makes the material more meaningful and relevant for students, which
increases their investment. Though P2 did not use active Latin, they still expressed concern about
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 46
this topic, though more specifically about students’ comfort levels. As described above, however,
P2 used other means of increasing students’ comfort, not active Latin.
Similar to P3’s approach, Lindzey’s SANDALS method illustrates the commonly-held
belief that Latin classes which appeal to many different skills, e.g. writing, speaking, listening,
can be more engaging, especially for younger students. Patrick has similar concerns. He asserts
that, having used the TPRS method he described with all levels, from middle school to
university: “They work with every student, all the time.”75 He also points out that students teach
how they are taught, so it is crucial to use the best possible methods for the future of the field.
Enrollment.
The educators here were also concerned with how active Latin--and by extension, student
motivation and engagement--could increase enrollment. P1 described the state of Latin education
as a “mixed bag,” because amidst stories of renewed interest in classics, due to classically-
influenced book series such as Harry Potter or Percy Jackson, there were still declines in
enrollment. When asked how to measure the success of active Latin teaching methods, P1
considered the best quantitative measure to be the number of students retained in active Latin
courses as opposed to traditional G-T courses. P5 also suggests we could look at the retention
rate of Latin students and any potential increases in enrollment to quantifiably measure active
Latin’s benefits. Test scores were another possibility, according to P5, but as P1 also noted,
many tests are structured around traditional skills, which P5 called “dissecting Latin,” not
understanding the language. Patrick has already measured enrollment and retention rates since he
started teaching Latin actively, which I cited under Significance. To briefly reiterate, retention
jumped to 62%, and Latin rose to being the second out of four languages taught at his school.76
75 Patrick (2015) 115 76 Patrick (2015) 116
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 47
Patrick’s evidence comes from only one context, but the numbers are very promising. For P2, in
an all-boys Jesuit high school, perhaps there is no need to worry about enrollment, which could
explain why P2 does not use active Latin: it is unnecessary to attract students.
These teachers’ concerns about student engagement largely motivate their preference for
active Latin. Student engagement makes for a much more manageable classroom, and more
motivated students generally leads to greater student success. However, this marks a shift from a
more instructor-focused approach to a student-focused approach. Again, this trend reflects
Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach, which places more attention on students. This might relate to
other external factors, e.g. generational differences between older and younger teachers, as well
as an interest in linguistic theory, which P4 and P5 have both pursued.
Challenges of Active Latin
Active Latin has historic precedent and avid support from the educators cited here, but
the participants also made note of the difficulties that accompany a communicative approach to
Latin. P1 mentioned that while such use of active Latin was fun, it could be hard on the teacher,
and there were few textbooks for it. Moreover, there were very few active Latin textbooks after
the beginner level which were also geared toward content, i.e. reading upper-level texts. This put
a greater strain on teachers to make their own materials, which any educator can affirm is time-
consuming and not always successful. P4, to explain their high percentage of Latin usage in the
classroom, clarified that both they and their fellow teacher had developed good speaking
abilities. However, P4 pointed out, many other teachers do not, in part due to G-T. This resonates
with Owens’s (2016) point, which I cited earlier, that he and “most Latinists do not know Latin
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 48
as well as we should.”77 Therefore, many Latin educators may not feel comfortable with their
own speaking abilities, which would hinder them from using active methods.
P4 was also independently interested in the science of teaching. They were able to list by
name several notable individuals who also work at the intersection of SLA theory and Latin
pedagogy. However, P4 made it clear that their own interest and research regarding SLA was
separate from their academic training, and they pointed out that most Latin teachers do not have
a background in linguistics or sometimes even education, but only in Latin. These educators are
not to blame, especially, according to P4, because they learned from their own teachers, who
were taught using G-T. P4 mentioned immersive Latin programs in Massachusetts and the
University of Kentucky, but only two programs cannot break the cycle.
The other participants, especially P3, who were more traditional in their approach, tried
to incorporate elements of both G-T and active methods. The primary obstacle for these teachers
to use more active Latin is time. Often, Latin educators try to use both methods entirely and
simultaneously to have the best of both methods. Some universities offer different classes
devoted to conversational Latin, such as at the University of Kentucky and Marshall University.
At the high school level, however, teachers must prepare students for the AP exam and college
courses, both of which have expectations that stem from G-T classrooms. Therefore, in addition
to the intense quantity of reading in traditional classes in preparation for the AP exam, high
school teachers who want to use active Latin are incorporating what could qualify as a separate
course at university level. Active teaching methods, then, must prove to be able to maintain the
same pace as traditional classrooms on their own with regard to AP Latin exam preparation
before teachers can adopt them on a widespread scale. The overall lack of Latin oral production
77 Patrick (2015) 115
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 49
in classrooms is not due to a lack of interest, but rather, to time constraints and institutional
pressures.
Reading Proficiency
When asked how active Latin can benefit reading proficiency, the widely-held goal of
Latin pedagogy, some participants did not target this skill specifically. For P4’s classroom,
reading proficiency was not the only goal, in fact. Nonetheless, they had students read Latin
novellas at the appropriate level of difficulty, and they also had students write small booklets
about mythology. These two tasks--one of which still involves active Latin production--still
familiarize students with Latin’s conventional written form. P5 believed that reading abilities
would follow naturally from the oral mastery of Latin students gained from class activities. They
pointed out that others in the field most likely had ways to use active methods to target reading
proficiency specifically, though they did not use these strategies. Regarding Latin’s traditional
reading curriculum, P5 did not believe that beginning students with Caesar was appropriate, nor
was rushing them into Vergil; instead, students should begin with easier materials to develop
reading strategies, which would prepare them to read these more difficult texts.
This is similar to Patrick’s approach. Before he had students read Seneca’s letter, he
modified the original text to create two passages that were “embedded (simplified).” After
reading these, Patrick had students then read the original, combining contrived (that is, his own
Latin) and authentic input. He used the same technique of using a series of “embedded” passages
for AP required reading as well, simplifying Vergil and working up to the original, authentic
text. Patrick argues that comprehensible input also prepares students for the AP exam, even with
the pace he uses, which begins teaching only four vocabulary words in one lesson, as seen above,
and has students read a letter three times. Moreover, Patrick says the AP Latin syllabus “is
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 50
largely a philological exercise rather than language acquisition.” The AP Latin Exam targets a
specific kind of Latinity, i.e. reading and identifying different grammatical constructions, so it
tests grammar as well as one aspect of actual language ability. Patrick, then, maintains that TPRS
and active Latin is effective toward attaining even the traditional approach’s goals, i.e. the ability
to read Vergil.
As early as the middle school level, Lindzey has her own techniques to teach reading
skills. She uses “reading cards,” which compels and encourages students to read sentence left to
right instead of “hunting the verb.” This is a common strategy in which students look at the verb
first, which tells them other grammatical information, and reverse-engineers the sentence.
Reading cards also asks students to predict what comes next.78 Lindzey also has students develop
other reading skills: “We practice prereading techniques such as looking at illustrations,
discussing the title, reading/repeating the glossed vocabulary, and making educated guesses
about the content of the story.”79 Lindzey thus focuses on building fluent reading, rather than
encouraging the typical word-by-word approach. Moreover, Lindzey begins to build other
reading skills from the start, i.e. prereading and predicting, which few G-T instructors explicitly
focus on. Though some participants did not focus particularly on reading proficiency, the
literature on Latin pedagogy suggests active, modern linguistic ways of developing students’
reading ability.
Results, In Summary
The interviews shared several themes regarding active Latin which signify the field’s
primary concerns alongside its greatest priorities. These form the basis of the “guiding
principles” I will propose for Latin educators who are making pedagogical choices about active
78 Lindzey 4 79 Lindzey 6
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 51
Latin. In the following chart, I give a percentage of the five participants who explicitly spoke
about a specific theme, followed by the number of participants. Since P2 did not use active Latin
in their classroom, their views are not included in the chart; however, all percentages are
calculated out of all five participants. The percentage quickly illustrates the relative significance
of each theme to this sample while the number clarifies the exact quantity of participants (in a
sample of five, any percentage seems large). Then, in the next column, labelled “Consensus,” I
list the participants’ generally-shared idea about that theme.
Table 1. Use of Active Latin by Participants (n=5)
Themes % Addressed Topic Consensus
Active Latin Usage 80% (n=4) P1, P4, and P5 used it already 33%-
100% of the time; P3 interested in it
but did not have time
Active Latin as a Vehicle
toward Engagement
80% (n=4) P1, P3, P4, and P5 believed students
were more engaged with material
when they could produce the
language
Active Latin as Recruitment
and Retention Tool
40% (n=2) P1 and P5 participants believed
active Latin could attract students
Active Latin to Develop
Reading Proficiency
80% (n=4) P1, P3, P4, and P5 addressed this
theme, but for P4 and P5, this was
not the main goal
Active Latin and Institutional
Pressures
60% (n=3) P3, P4, and P5 mentioned AP Latin
exam syllabus as a time constraint
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 52
Structure of Reading Materials
In this section, I analyze and compare EFL/ESL and Latin reading materials themselves,
not educators’ perceptions of them. First, from the EFL/ESL materials, I describe the tasks used
in conjunction with reading passages. Then, I compare both traditional and modern Latin reading
materials to these EFL/ESL passages. Next, I consider some alternative Latin materials which
are more authentic; however, since these materials are less common, I do not examine their
structure as closely as their pedagogical value. Finally, I discuss Latin commentaries regarding
their format, role, and directions for future.
EFL/ESL Reading Materials: Format and Tasks
While this thesis deals with Latin educators’ interpretations and applications of modern
linguistic SLA theories and methods, most of the modern linguistic scholars cited here are
directed toward teaching modern languages, in many cases EFL/ESL (English as a Foreign
Language or Second Language). Because of this, and because English is one of the most widely
taught languages in the world, there are innumerable materials available for EFL teachers. These
materials are often created by professionals with linguistic and/or pedagogical backgrounds, so
the materials’ respective structures reflect the linguistic theory or disciplinary approach the
editors used. Therefore, as a comparison with the structure of Latin reading materials, I have
included two examples of reading materials designed for students learning English as a Foreign
Language: National Geographic Reading Explorer and 21st Century Reading. Although different
from a Latin context, these types of reading materials can inform Latin reading materials, and
other dead languages like Biblical Hebrew or Sanskrit, in certain ways, e.g. the application of the
“best practices” outlined earlier. Each of these reading materials can be found in the appendix. In
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 53
the paragraph below, however, I outline the important components both materials have,
especially those which are not found in Latin materials.
These two textbooks have pre-reading tasks before the passages. In National Geographic
Reading Explorer (NGRE), students answer a series of True/False questions based on an
infographic map. In 21st Century Reading, students predict the content of the passage based on
the title and apply their previous knowledge. There is also a discussion question before reading
with a partner (cf. Vygotsky). This passage also includes infographics, and different paragraphs
are numbered. Similarly, the NGRE reading passage is a larger font size, and the lines are
numbered by five. After the passages, there are a variety of tasks: comprehension, understanding
the main idea, vocabulary, making comparison, using context to form meaning, and scanning for
specific information. These tasks, which have students focus on the main ideas, can take the form
of multiple-choice quizzes, fill-in-the-blank exercises, or graphic organizers. In none of these
tasks are students asked to translate into their native language, and if fact, they practice a variety
of skills other than translation. Furthermore, the NGRE passage is about soccer, something
students would be familiar with and activates their schemata. The 21st Century Reading reading
passage correlates with a TEDTalk, a lecture from a specialist on a variety of topics, so students
have the option for phonological input as well. These tasks help students develop the reading
strategies cited by Mikulecky in the Literature Review, namely: activating prior knowledge,
answering questions, previewing, and using graphic organizers. The tasks and activities focus on
a variety of skills, follow a consistent, clear sequence (moving from prereading activities to post-
reading comprehension questions) that prioritizes helping students focus on the meaning of a
text, and rarely use the students’ L1.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 54
Latin Reading Materials: Graded Readers and Grammars
In this section, I look at first-year reading materials: Ash & Patrick’s Pluto: Fabula
Amoris and Wheelock’s Latin. The former takes an active approach, and the latter is a traditional
Latin grammar textbook. Ash & Patrick’s Pluto is written in contrived Latin (i.e. Latin not
written by a native Latin speaker). Many educators, especially those who support traditional
methods, oppose active Latin because it relies on contrived Latin materials. One benefit of G-T,
though intense, is that it reads exclusively ancient texts, authentic Latin from native speakers.
However, the goal of active reading materials is to prepare students for this authentic Latin input
by providing initial vocabulary and grammar knowledge in context. In this analysis, I compare
these two materials from two different approaches with the EFL/ESL passages and tasks from
above.
First, Ash & Patrick’s Pluto is a graded reader which seeks to align more closely with
modern linguistic principles than traditional reading materials. Unlike the two EFL/ESL
textbooks, it does not include its own tasks; however, it shares a similar format for the passage.
The text is clear, there are illustrations, and a few vocabulary words are glossed in footnotes. The
subject is based on a popular myth, that of Pluto and Proserpina (in Greek, Hades and
Persephone), which activates students’ prior knowledge about the Greco-Roman world.
However, like Toda’s TPRS stories, which relate to popular culture and also activate students’
schemata, Ash & Patrick’s graded reader lacks authenticity, since it is entirely contrived Latin.
Though more engaging for students, some educators, perhaps like Owens, would prefer authentic
materials for their reduced chances of error. However, this assumes that other first-year materials
are more authentic in terms of content, which I suggest is untrue in the next paragraph.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 55
Graded readers like Pluto are meant to be an alternative for “grammars,” the common
title given to traditional textbooks for G-T classrooms. The Latin textbook most commonly used
at the college level, including at Ohio University, is Wheelock’s Latin. Wheelock, as it is often
called, presents grammar points in sequence through forty chapters, beginning with the first two
verb conjugations. Students read the grammar rules and look at charts, and then they complete
the exercitationes (exercises) at the end of the chapter. These exercitationes are also contrived,
but they are followed by sententiae antiquae (ancient sentences), which are authentic sentences
from Roman authors. As a tutor, though, I have seen that students and teachers most often use
the contrived exercises, which reinforce the grammar point, before the ancient sentences. In a
companion book, Wheelock also uses contrived Latin in a collection of stories for students to
read, e.g. a story about the Judgement of Paris, another mythological subject as in Ash & Patrick.
These passages are constructed similarly to commentaries, which I discuss in greater detail later.
Therefore, even traditional, more authentically-oriented materials use contrived Latin. The size
of this textbook, too, even without its companion, and similar grammars, is quite impressive.
Bennet & Bristol at their time said grammars had grown to 450 pages, but Wheelock, because it
also includes exercises, exceeds that level, having 608 pages total.80 These types of books are
typically used for the first two years of instruction, as at Ohio University, which may explain
their length.
Grammars, more than any other pedagogical tool listed here, use the focus on forms (with
an -s) approach, presenting decontextualized grammar. Graded readers in Latin, such as Pluto:
Fabula Amoris by Ash & Patrick, are able to present grammar and vocabulary in context.
Moreover, the passage itself is structured similarly to the EFL/ESL passages. Ideally, a graded
reader used for classtime purposes would also include tasks, but Ash & Patrick may have elected
80 Bennet & Bristol (1911) 144; Wheelock’s page numbers are taken from Amazon.com’s product details.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 56
to let teachers create their own tasks. Wheelock has only one task: translating twenty or so
sentences per chapter from contrived or authentic Latin into English. The traditional and modern
materials here suggest that contrived Latin is useful for engaging students with familiar stories
and targeting certain grammar points in context. As evidenced by Wheelock, the field has a long
history of using contrived Latin, even by traditional educators. Therefore, the use of contrived
Latin in active materials should not be an obstacles for all educators.
Alternate & Authentic Latin Reading Materials
Though contrived Latin is a viable option, there are completely authentic materials
available at the beginner level, for those educators who prioritize authentic input above any
contrived Latin (even stories or exercises). Some educators are concerned with the possibility of
error that comes from using this much contrived Latin, such as Owens, who urges using
authentic materials as much as possible. English & Irby published A Little Latin Reader in 2011
which uses only unadapted, authentic language to demonstrate grammar points. It utilizes graffiti
found at Pompeii, for instance, in addition to lines from Ovid’s poems, to show subject and
objects in sentences. However, these sentences are all decontextualized, which reduces their
authenticity and could threaten Krashen’s concept of “compelling” reading materials. In a
review, Pollio suggests A Little Latin Reader could be used “as a supplement to a core text at
both the introductory and intermediate levels.”81 This textbook is one of many available to Latin
teachers, who are aware of these options and are not bound to follow the textbook structure
anyway. They might bring in other material, modify the activities, or have students approach the
textbook’s tasks in different ways, but as seen above, each textbook has a different approach.
81 Pollio, D. (2012). Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2012.09.11. Retrieved from
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2012/2012-09-11.html
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 57
There are also reading materials from the ancient world, as many scholars have pointed
out. These include stories, conversational dialogues (colloquia), etc., all geared toward learners
and all written by native speakers (or in the case of the Renaissance, a time when Latin was
widely used for other discourses, even if not as a native language). The only issue would be that
many pedagogical tools from this era used education as a means of teaching morality as well,82
and the subject matter may prove to be unbearable in its wholesomeness. This affects even
modern language reading texts, enough so that Krashen points out reading materials “need not
provide cultural information or ‘make you a better person.’”83 These semi-authentic textbooks
and exercises could feasibly be used in the classroom, although ancient educators also used a sort
of G-T method, in which students would translate their grammar textbooks.84 These materials are
not necessarily better than today’s, but they are a viable option to authentic and even
communicatively-focused input. Dickey (2016) describes more of these materials and their usage
in Learning Latin the Ancient Way.
Student Commentaries: Advanced Latin Reading Materials
Most of the materials listed above are targeted toward beginner level, but after Latin
students progress to the advanced levels, they begin to read authentic works with student
commentaries. As described in the introduction, commentaries have a unique background and
even purpose, which is distinct from EFL/ESL materials. Commentaries comprise a broad genre,
including scholarly and pedagogical commentaries. However, regarding all Latin texts with
commentaries, we should not assume the scholar or student is actually using the commentary,
nor should we assume every scholar uses commentaries in the same way. Some teachers, for
instance, may teach to the commentary, but others may take a more independent approach.
82 Dickey (2016) 14 83 Krashen (2004) 10 84 Dickey (2016) 5
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 58
Finally, not every Latin reader uses commentaries as a reading resource; some may use
commentaries for textual criticism, interpretation, or even for studying how classical texts were
received over time. In this context, I look at commentaries as a pedagogical tool that largely
influences how students read, keeping in mind that students could use commentaries in a variety
of ways.
The role of commentaries in education has been attested to even in antiquity, e.g. in later
notes on Homeric manuscripts.85 Most points out that ancient commentaries are geared toward
linguistic pedagogy and even equate the author to a kind of teacher.86 Of course, ancient
commentators and readers saw literature and poetry as a type of moral education, as well as a
linguistic one--a concept that has not entirely faded away, even by the early twentieth century.
As early as the Renaissance, commentaries became a tool for the classroom and in fact were
constructed from educational materials in language classrooms. Commentaries were often notes
taken by students during lectures, which professors then published for widespread use.87 Before
discussing the role of commentaries as a pedagogical tool, I will establish what criteria Latin
educators look for in a commentary.
In addition to participant interviews, I have also collected teachers’ reactions to
Dickinson College Commentaries (http://dcc.dickinson.edu/). These reactions, sent via email to
the project director, Christopher Francese, illustrate what Latin educators look for and favor from
reading materials and commentaries. Dickinson College Commentaries (DCC) are different from
the print commentaries I discuss here in that, given their online platform, they offer a variety of
other resources for students. Educators are very appreciative, first and foremost, because the
website has material required for the AP Latin test, selections from both Caesar and Vergil, for
85 Most (1991) 173, 176, 178 86 Most (1991) 176 87 Kraus & Stray (2016) 120
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 59
free, and since the commentaries are written by scholars, they are also of high quality. Many
teachers mention the site’s core vocabulary lists, including one specifically for Vergil’s
vocabulary. DCC also includes audio recordings of the materials being read, images, maps, and
in the case of Vergil, even Renaissance music arrangements. These help provide context for the
material and may also increase students’ interest. One email also came from a self-taught
individual, so DCC has been used outside a formal classroom as well. Commentaries, then, can
be used by a variety of audiences, though I only seriously consider student commentaries here.
Educators look at the content, in particular its inclusion of AP exam material, the additional
resources, and its vocabulary list. In the subsequent section, I discuss whether this preferred
format correlates with the tasks and passages of the EFL/ESL materials.
Format and Tasks of Student Commentaries
In comparison with the English reading passages above, the most jarring difference is the
presentation of the text itself. In this case the EFL/ESL passages above are generally more
reader-friendly than most commentaries. Classical commentaries use small print and generally
lack any illustration (or infographic). Mikulecky points out that reading materials must be
structured clearly, not only in terms of ideas and cohesive devices, but also in terms of font
size,88 and by extension spacing, paragraph length, etc. The EFL/ESL passages cited here include
vocabulary-based tasks and exercises, but they only gloss 2-3 words per page in footnotes. In
contrast, Latin vocabulary in student commentaries is typically glossed, from ten to fifteen words
at a time, and then memorized by rote, rather than given in context. In these ways, student
commentaries could greatly benefit from EFL materials. There is no reason the text itself should
be intimidating to students just because of its formatting, since the prospect of reading in another
language is generally formidable enough. When one compares the example commentary on
88 Mikulecky (2011) 55
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 60
Apuleius in the introduction with the EFL/ESL passages in the Appendix, it is clear that one of
them is designed to be more approachable to students.
Student commentaries also do not involve tasks targeting other skills, such as main idea
comprehension, scanning for detail, predicting, vocabulary, etc. Commentaries do not provide
any tasks, but they are often presented as aids to translation. However, translation tasks do not
encompass each of these different skills, which would be useful with regard to ancient texts.
Even if Latin students do not need to skim Livy for the same reasons they would skim a history
textbook, they would still benefit from the ability to skim, for certain vocabulary, characters, and
other specific information. The EFL/ESL passages also involve pre-reading tasks, which none of
the teachers above except Lindzey specifically included in their classroom techniques. The
educators discussed here also did not mention addressing these specific reading skills in their
materials or classes; however, this does not mean the skills are not included in their syllabus,
only that they were not listed in their blog posts and articles. Conversely, scholarly
commentaries, which assume their readers are advanced enough to use such skills on their own,
would not need to include these tasks. To include these materials would likely be condescending
for many scholars, so I reiterate that my focus is on pedagogical reading, not scholarly reading.
Upon first glance, then, it is obvious that commentaries do not resemble EFL/ESL
reading materials. There are no pre-reading or post-reading tasks which target skills other than
translation; additionally, they include a great deal of the students’ L1, overly-complex grammar
notes, and extensive vocabulary. Some, like Patrick and Roof & Kreutter, glossed a couple of
vocabulary words (usually four) in their lesson to make the material more comprehensible, which
would be in line with Krashen’s Comprehension Hypothesis. However, having extensive
vocabulary reduces comprehensible input. When I translate and must look up every other word
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 61
in the commentary or dictionary, I must agree that the material is not comprehensible to me. A
comparison between the commentary examples and EFL/ESL materials demonstrates the degree
to which they differ significantly. What place, then, should commentaries hold in the field of
pedagogy?
The Role and Future of Student Commentaries
Commentaries have been a hallmark of the field since antiquity, and its pedagogical
purposes are not necessarily related to language acquisition. Rather, commentaries provide
historical context and aid interpretation. The best format for commentaries, then, might place this
non-linguistic material, i.e. historical and cultural content, in the back, so as not to distract
students from reading the target language. Kraus & Stray also support this structure, saying,
“Most classical scholars would probably agree that the ‘proper’ place for a commentary is both
logically and visually separate from its source-text, and that its narrative (insofar as it has one) is
keyed to the agenda set by that text.”89 The “scientific” grammar notes might have a place in
classrooms that continue to use G-T, but they do not adhere to the principles of prioritizing
meaning and contextualizing grammar.
The future of commentaries is also changing, as shown by the Dickinson College
Commentaries, which are entirely digital. In this interface, students can choose to listen to the
text being read, view vocabulary, look at grammar notes, and in some cases search through
artworks based on the text at hand. Digital commentaries promise many options for both
traditional and communicative teachers teaching reading proficiency after the beginner level.
89 Kraus & Stray (2016) 2
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 62
Conclusion
SLA and Latin
Going forward, both traditional and communicative educators should remember that
Latin is a language, and it should be regarded as such. Though many have cited the other
additional benefits of taking Latin, such as Carpenter and his prioritization of analytical skills,
Latin remains a language to be read. In the lengthy history of Latin education, the prevailing
method has been G-T, or Grammar-Translation, which is based on the memorization of
grammatical rules and translating authentic texts into English. This method is generally
considered to have minimal effectiveness in the field of linguistics, but it largely persists in the
Latin classroom.
Many Latin educators, such as the participants and individuals cited here, have worked to
change this tradition. People who are changing within the field of Latin pedagogy have largely
chosen to adopt the views of Krashen, in particular his Comprehension Hypothesis, also called
the Input Hypothesis. As shown in the Literature Review, however, this is not the only theory
available, and in fact, Krashen’s theories are not so widely accepted even in linguistics where
they originated. Nonetheless, such people in the field, as the interview participants, have adopted
this view, and the participants cited here used the TPRS method, although the Rassias method
was mentioned several times. The educators each had their own creative techniques and unique
activities to engage students, but their responses are similar in several significant ways.
First, their teaching philosophies tended to be oriented around students and their
relationship with the material, unlike G-T. Some discussed the content’s relevance to students’
lives, and others used games to make using the language more appealing. The educators were
concerned about enrollment and retention rates, as any educators of a non-spoken language
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 63
would be, and they argued that using modern methods appealed to and retained more students.
They expressed hesitancy regarding Latin language assessments, which largely assume students
come from G-T classrooms, but they were also confident in their students’ increased mastery of
the language. While many continued to focus on reading proficiency, some believed students’
reading ability would naturally grow from their overall proficiency.
Second, the general view throughout the interviews and literature was that Latin
pedagogy is like a cycle. If teachers use G-T, their students will use G-T in their own future
classrooms. Moreover, even if teachers wanted to use active Latin in their classrooms, they
would not have the requisite practice or ability to do so, unless somebody broke this cycle. This
perspective gave added urgency to the question of how we should teach Latin. Even so, the
participants did not disparage G-T, and some even expressed hope that modern methods’
popularity could rise and that they could co-exist with traditional methods.
Furthermore, this reflects that Latin is also different from other languages and has its own
unique considerations. As mentioned briefly above, Latin (and classical education in general)
had and continues to have a great deal of prestige, privilege, and power. Knowledge of the
language belonged to the conquerors, the colonizers, the wealthy, the ruling classes. Even today,
Latin continues to be taught primarily in private schools to elite (and typically white) students.
G-T in many ways bloomed under this approach; Latin was a measuring stick for privilege, so it
must be difficult to learn. Even now, when colonialist and imperialist power structures are at
least partially deconstructed, students have come to expect this level of discipline, intensity, and
prestige from the Latin classroom. Moreover, students and parents now expect this discipline,
and the expectation not to speak has paradoxically become the language’s greatest appeal for
many students.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 64
While considering Latin’s unique context and the benefits G-T brings, albeit not as a
language teaching method but a way to teach analytical skills and attract shy students, there is
doubtlessly some value in adopting modern SLA/SLL methods in the Latin classroom. Each
classroom and each educator, however, is unique, and no method would equally suit all these
different contexts. Therefore, in place of proposing a universal pattern of Latin pedagogy, I
instead list a set of guiding principles for the future of the field, and for educators to consider if
they so wish.
Guiding Principles
So far, I have introduced new methods and showed how other teachers have applied them
already. The following guiding principles are considerations and criteria for evaluating these
methods as they apply to Latin pedagogy, but they are by no means a definitive perspective or
argument. Also, all the principles listed below require not only added time but also a shift in
approach (on a personal and institutional level) for Latin educators, so this may not be an
endeavor they wish to undertake. Therefore, I only argue that these questions are worth
considering, by teachers and principals, by professors and department heads, by educators and
administrators alike.
1. Consider proficiency level and age.
This principle encourages educators to consider all pedagogical options along the
proficiency continuum. For instance, the interviews showed that active Latin tended to be
more prominent at the beginner levels and even the earlier grade levels (i.e. middle
school). Teachers should consider their own students’ proficiency levels in various areas,
e.g. listening and speaking, reading and writing, etc. Students who come from a G-T
background in high school, for instance, may have excellent reading ability but are
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 65
unable to produce the language; students from a more active background may struggle
with the technical military vocabulary of Caesar’s De Bello Gallico. Students in the same
class often have very different proficiency levels. According to Vygotsky’s sociocultural
approach, it is often beneficial to pair more advanced with less advanced students.
Educators must also consider how they want to build their students’ proficiency using
any method, traditional or active, as well as in what areas.
2. Articulate clear learning goals.
The field--or the individual educator--must determine whether the goal of learning
Latin is solely comprehension, or comprehension as well as production. While the former
seems the most practical and efficient use of time for a non-communicative language, we
cannot discount the true mastery and even intuitive knowledge of language that can be
gained only through a combination of production and comprehension practice. Further,
the educator must decide whether reading proficiency is a primary goal, or if it has equal
standing with other linguistic abilities. For example, P4 and P5’s goals were overall
language mastery (speaking, reading, writing, listening), but P2 and P3’s goals were AP
Latin exam preparation.
Educators must also consider other measurements of students’ success, namely
standardized tests. The individuals cited here, in their interviews, articles, and blogs, have
spoken about the pressure to prepare students for the AP Latin exam. I have mentioned
other assessments, such as the National Latin Exam (NLE). These assessments will
always have an important role in determining what material is taught in addition to how it
is taught; it is up to educators, however, to make their pedagogical decisions regarding
this test.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 66
3. Get to know students and their learning styles.
So far, I have only referenced different types of Latin students in passing. Many
students chose Latin because their interest in the language lay beyond communicative
ability or to avoid any circumstances in which they would have to speak. However, when
discussing the use of active Latin, most participants described active methods as a way to
appeal to other learners. Especially with recent cuts to funding for education and the
humanities specifically, as well as declines in enrollment which have continued since the
1960s (according to Coffee), attracting students is central to the field’s survival.
The field must consider two different paths for the future or find a way to
reconcile both approaches. In this first path/approach, the field of Latin pedagogy would
preserve its unique position, using G-T and traditional methods without any speaking
practice. This would continue to draw people who are interested in the language if only to
read, analyze, and interact with past cultures and ideas. The field now is almost
stereotypically full of introverts, and for many, this situation has been more than
sufficient. The second path would appeal to those who want to approach Latin as a
language, not only to read but to use. These students could use Latin to speak with other
students and enthusiasts, or even to understand Latin in movies (e.g. Passion of Christ,
Life of Brian), songs (especially in religious settings), and books. From Schubert’s Ave
Maria to the admittedly flawed Latin of nolite te bastardes carborundorum in the
Handmaid’s Tale, there are plenty of opportunities to use Latin as something other than a
party trick. This latter approach would also resemble students’ own previous language
classes or even their peers’ classes, and many of its advocates suggest it would rejuvenate
the field as a whole.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 67
The results showed that the participants preferred having both options available:
having one traditional Latin class as well as an active one. However, this poses not only
logistical challenges but economic ones as well. Students often would not know which
“type” they necessarily fall into, for instance, and their preferences might change from
classroom to classroom.
4. Acknowledge Latin’s legacy of prestige and consider inclusivity.
In the introduction, I have briefly addressed how classics, because of its role in
Western culture, is associated with colonialism, imperialism, and even fascism. Educators
should acknowledge Latin’s troubled past, which composed beautiful lyric poetry and
recorded philosophy, but which powerful groups have used to oppress others. This
history extends to Roman society itself, as well as in the Middle Ages, when the Roman
Catholic Church used Latin to prevent widespread access to texts. This, along with other
factors, cemented Latin very early as a tool of power, as reflected by its later history,
which I described in the Introduction. It is difficult to know how exactly to confront these
controversial topics, not only in twentieth-century atrocities but even in the ancient
context itself. I love to read Catullus, but he was a misogynist; I enjoy Roman comedy,
but its plots are based on slavery. Some blogs, such as Eidolon, discuss how to teach
these problematic texts in the modern day. Once educators address these conflicts, they
can better understand how Latin can still be exclusive today. Then, they can make the
conscious effort to make their classroom more inclusive and welcoming to these
previously-excluded populations.
There are, of course, more innocent reasons for being drawn to Latin. Once again,
introverts can find solace in a literary-based language class, but that cannot be the only
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 68
factor. Otherwise, why has ancient Greek, Latin’s counterpart, where much of Latin
literature in fact comes from, not achieved this level of popularity? Ancient Greek is very
rarely taught in high schools, let alone in middle schools. First, there is the fact that the
Roman Empire simply won over the Greeks; therefore, Latin, as the language of the
powerful, prevailed. Latin is also more common in our everyday lives than Greek: we
discuss quid pro quo arrangements, we do things pro bono, we have Latin on our money
(e pluribus unum), and we have movies and TV shows set in Rome (Spartacus, Rome).
This cultural influence may attract students, along with the very fact that it is unique
among other languages. In the fields of medicine and law, Latin terminology is especially
prevalent, so Latin may have an instrumental purpose for such students. Educators can
also consider these motivations while they create their learning goals.
In addition, there are many opportunities for educators to challenge Latin’s elitist
reputation and history. Though educators must face institutional pressures, such as the AP
Latin syllabus, and students’ expectations, there are plenty of Latin materials which
contribute to a greater atmosphere of inclusivity. For instance, there are anthologies of
women’s Latin writing from later periods in the empire, e.g. the Byzantine and Medieval
eras, and many texts address LGBT issues. The AP syllabus focuses on the Classical era,
which is most famous but in which male voices dominate the literature, and on texts
which have historical significance, e.g. Caesar’s conquests and Augustus’s rule. These
choices are valid, but going forward, educators can consider adding other texts which
reflect more inclusivity. Thus, students may be more engaged, interacting not only with
words that are more relevant to their personal lives (telephonum before bellum, as P5
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 69
said) but topics that bear greater significance in their lives. Increased inclusivity can lead
to increased engagement, and perhaps to increased interest in classics as a whole.
Future research
My research yielded guiding principles for the future of Latin pedagogy, but there are
many questions which remain unanswered. For instance, while there is plenty of anecdotal
evidence about the benefits of using SLA theories in the Latin classroom, there has not been
much quantifiable data. To fill this need for numerical information, scholars could conduct
longitudinal studies to evaluate if there are tangible benefits to using active methods over G-T or
if one approach yields better learning gains. Another possibility for future research is to learn the
students’ perspective regarding these questions. A study could interview students at different
stages, e.g. considering enrolling in Latin, registered for a course but not yet taking it, and
currently learning in the classroom, about their perceptions and expectations. This would help
clarify the guiding principle of student type mentioned above.
Another possibility for future research is a sort of meta-analysis of more materials. I have
referenced a number of articles about using linguistic methods in the Latin classroom, but I have
barely scratched the surface of the materials available to Latin educators. A further study may
survey as much of the available literature on this topic--either restricted to scholarly journals or
even including blog posts--as possible and compare the different techniques described therein.
Many of the authors of these articles included appendices of their own classroom materials, so
such an analysis would include a comprehensive and most importantly pragmatic discussion.
This sample would ideally include an equal balance of active and traditional teachers. This
project focused on how teachers are already using active Latin, but a future study could examine
Latin pedagogy from both perspectives.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 70
Additionally, an underlying theme of the reading materials in particular is the assumption
that a classical education is equivalent to a moral education. This assumption originated in
antiquity, both in Dickey’s ancient colloquia and Most’s Homeric commentaries, and has
survived as a common attitude today. A future study would evaluate the degree to which
educators hold this belief, that Latin can be useful on a moral level, and analyze how it affects
their respective teaching styles. P2 comes from a Jesuit context, which is much more susceptible
to hold such a belief, and they were the only participant who did not use any active Latin. This
suggests a correlation between this attitude and traditional education, perhaps because educators
with a moralist approach see active Latin “tarnishing” the moral education that comes from the
ethics of Caesar, Cicero, and other great statesmen. (Including an analysis of gender roles in this
belief might also be fruitful.) The findings of such a study could also aid in applying the fourth
guiding principle I have proposed, i.e. inclusivity, and contribute to the field of Latin pedagogy.
Wider Applications
The guiding principles I have proposed are also relevant to many other languages besides
classical ones. There are many other languages that are taught without a communicative focus,
and of these, few have the same level of prestige and privilege of Latin and Greek. Each spoken
language today, including Romance languages, has a predecessor: Old French, Old Gaelic, Old
English, and so on. Each of these are taught primarily to read literature or historical documents.
In fact, according to this syllabus from an Introduction to Old English course at MIT, the
structure is very similar to traditional Latin education: students learn about grammar points (e.g.
noun declensions, verbs, etc.) in the first unit and immediately begin reading culturally
significant texts, here starting with Ælfric’s Preface to Genesis.90 One should also note that the
90 This syllabus can be found at the following link: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/literature/21l-705-major-authors-
old-english-and-beowulf-spring-2014/readings/
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 71
first two class periods are devoted in part to pronunciation, so the language’s phonology plays a
significant role in the teaching of another “dead” language. This syllabus is directed toward
native English speakers, so their familiarity with the language makes it much less difficult than,
say, a Biblical Hebrew course at the same university. Nevertheless, this other “dead” language
uses G-T, as well as my Biblical Hebrew independent study at Ohio University. Therefore, in
trying to improve pedagogy and reading ability through SLA/SLL research, these guiding
principles can also be reasonably applied to Old English, Biblical Hebrew, and other such
languages.
Old English (and other similar “Old” languages) and Latin are similar in that they exist
largely only in academic settings and circles, with a few autodidacts and hobbyists. However,
there are other languages which are studied outside academic contexts for non-academic reasons.
Biblical Hebrew, for instance, is studied not only by biblical scholars and historians but also by
thousands of Jewish individuals who practice their faith and perhaps are studying to be rabbis.
For Biblical Hebrew, as well as for Latin and Greek for Christians, these texts--and by extension,
this language pedagogy--have religious importance. In these religious contexts, spoken use of the
language is important, in reading from the original text or using that language in their music.
Hebrew still exists in its modern form, in part thanks to earlier efforts to revive the language.
Latin was used extensively by the Catholic Church in its services until Vatican II, but there are
still “high masses” today where Latin is used. Ancient Greek is the language of the New
Testament, so both classical language in fact have relevance for Christian communities.
Therefore, Language pedagogy that uses modern methods for non-spoken languages can help
those learning for religious and spiritual purposes as well.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 72
These guiding principles may also be used for future purposes. A commonly-cited
statistic is that a language dies every fourteen days. If someone--most likely a linguistics scholar-
-wishes to study one of these newly-dead languages, if they exist in a written form, there must be
a way to teach and learn them. Any Latin scholar should recognize the importance of studying
non-communicative languages. We must continue to teach so-called “dead” languages both to
preserve knowledge of these culture, to protect the heritage of its former speakers, and to provide
for future historical research of these communities. These guiding principles offer a possible way
for the continued study of all kinds of dead and dying languages with writing systems. Obscurity
does not indicate irrelevance; there is great potential in teaching these non-spoken languages.
However, we as classical scholars cannot stop simply at the justification of Latin pedagogy; we
must go beyond, asking how we teach Latin and how we can teach better. Thanks to continued
research in applied linguistics, there are multitudinous opportunities for the field to expand. Latin
education prepares the next generation of scholars, so it is crucial that we continue to analyze
and critique our teaching methodologies.
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 73
References
Archibald, E. P., Brockliss, W., & Gnoza, J. (Eds.). (2015). Learning Latin and Greek from
antiquity to the present. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bennet, C. E., & Bristol, G. P. (1911). The teaching of Latin & Greek. New York:
Longmans, Green, and Co.
Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy (4th Ed.). New York: Pearson/Longman.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2004). Principles of language assessment: Principles and
classroom practices (1st Ed.). New York: Pearson/Longman.
Carlon, J. M. (2013). The implications of SLA research for Latin pedagogy: Modernizing Latin
instruction and securing its place in curricula. Teaching Classical Languages, 4(2),
106-122. Retrieved from http://tcl.camws.org/sites/default/files/Carlon_0.pdf
Carpenter, D. P. (2000). Reassessing the goal of Latin pedagogy. The Classical Journal, 95(4),
391-395.
Coffee, N. (2012). Active Latin: Quo tendimus? Classical World, 105(2), 255-269. doi:
10.1353/clw.2012.0007
Culley, G. R. (1979). Two-pronged error analysis from computer-based instruction in Latin.
Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED193940
Dickey, E. (2016). Learning Latin the ancient way: Latin textbooks from the ancient world. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language
acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge
Fomin, A. (2005). The power of tradition: Methods for teaching Latin in the context of history of
educational thought. American Education History Journal, 32(2), 202-207.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Kirsch, F. M. (Ed.). (1928). The classics: Their history and present status in education: A
symposium of essays. New York: Bruce Publishing Company.
Krashen, S. (2004). Applying the comprehension hypothesis: Some suggestions. International
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching (1), 21-29. Retrieved from
http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/2004_applying_the_comprehension_hypothesis_kras
hen.pdf
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 74
--. (2015). TPRS: Contributions, problems, new frontiers, and issues. Retrieved from
http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/2015_krashen_tprs-
_contributions,_problems,_new_frontiers,_and_issues.pdf
Kraus, C. S., & Stray, C. (2016). Classical commentaries: Explorations in a scholarly genre.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J., Thorne, S.L., & Poehner, M. (2015). Sociocultural Theory and Language
Development. In B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language
Acquisition, 207-226. New York: Routledge.
Lindzey, G. (n.d.) Principles of learning in the middle school Latin classroom. Retrieved from
https://ginnylindzey.weebly.com/
Mikulecky, B. S. (2011). A short course in teaching reading: Practical techniques for building
reading power. (2nd Ed.) New York: Pearson-Longman.
Most, G. W. (1999). Commentaries—Kommentare. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Nimis, S., Hayes, E., & Krumpak, K. (2015). Apuleius’ Cupid and Psyche: An intermediate
Latin reader. Faenum Publishing, Ltd.
Owens, P. M. (2016). Barbarisms at the gate: An analysis of some perils of active Latin
pedagogy. Classical World 109(4), 507-523.
Patrick, R. (2015). Making sense of comprehensible input in the Latin classroom. Teaching
Classical Languages, 6(1), 108-136. Retrieved from
http://tcl.camws.org/sites/default/files/TCL%20Spring%202015%20Patrick_0.pdf
Roof, L. M., & Kreutter, C. A. (2010). An interactive storytelling puzzle: Building a positive
environment in a second language classroom. Networks 12(1), 1-10.
Tankersley, K. (2003). Phonics and Decoding. In Threads of Reading. Retrieved from:
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/103316/chapters/Phonics-and-Decoding.aspx
CHANGING THE MOS MAIORUM 75
Appendix: EFL/ESL Reading Materials
A. National Geographic Reading Explorer