Latin as she is spoke: How classicists tricked themselves (2019)
Interesting read.<p>I think there is some parallel to &quot;secondary school languages.&quot; If you compare secondary school (or k-12) language programs, you will find a vast range of outcomes. Vast. In one context, kids acquire usable language skills. In others, basically nothing.<p>I studied French for 4 years, as did all my classmates. Almost none achieved any level of proficiency. I&#x27;ve challenged several language teachers over the years with a &quot;<i>why bother</i>?&quot; If year after year kids matriculate without gaining enough proficiency to take a bus or order lunch... why not shut down the program and teach something else?<p>Usually, the answer is (understandably) defensive. Highlighting of meta&#x2F;peripheral benefits of learning a language. Noting that out-of-classroom context plays a big role. Ultimately though, IMO.... classroom language learning is hard, and we accept low levels of performance.<p>Classicists, generally, learned latin in an undergraduate classroom setting. This is, very often, a very ineffective way of learning a language. Being normal and common, this standard is deemed acceptable. We don&#x27;t really know how to fix the classroom. The Latin classroom also has less competition than other languages. High school French learners don&#x27;t become French language scholars, at least not without actually learning French. With Latin, you can get away with it.<p>So that&#x27;s basically my take. We don&#x27;t teach languages very well. Formal education settings often achieve pretty weak results. By and large, we just accept whatever results are achieved. Language programs don&#x27;t &quot;declare bankruptcy&quot; if results achieved are weak. They accept it.