J. Lelis - Basic Latvian

Presented to the AABS Conference, June 29, 1996
Dzidra Rodins, Ph. D.
De Paul University English Language Academy
Lewis 1706
25 E. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
work: (312)362-8647; fax: (312)362-8301; e-mail: drodins@depaul.edu

0. In 1984, Dr. Joseph Lelis published the textbook Basic Latvian. The materials contained in it were the culmination of twelve years of evolution in the Latvian Language Program at Western Michigan University. At this point, nearly a quarter century after the inception of Basic Latvian, it is worth reevaluating how its approach to language teaching holds up in light of the intervening developments in second language acquisition theory. This task is too vast for the allotted presentation time at this session. However, I will address the more modest goal of supplying personal anecdotal evidence accumulated over this period in (a) working with Dr. Lelis as his assistant in developing these materials and (b) working with 130 students to date using the materials.

Developed in and for an intensive seven week summer course populated by students for whom it might be the only chance to study Latvian, the materials presented here aim at a maximal efficiency of teaching as much grammar as possible within that time period. (Emphasis mine, Dz. R.)

This is a crucial concept. The operative assumption was that all of the students learning Latvian would, upon leaving the program, return to a context where they had close contact with a native speaker informant such as a spouse, parent, grandparent, or other interested and committed adult. From such an informant they could acquire vocabulary and idioms over time. Similarly, students could hone their pronunciation in a Latvian-speaking environment.

A further unwritten assumption guided the selection process for materials to form Basic Latvian. The client population consisted of young adults of Latvian descent who had not been brought up speaking Latvian and were now seeking to reconnect to the Latvian part of their families, or of non-Latvian spouses who were trying to fit into the Latvian part of their families. Their immediate need, as frequently expressed by the students themselves, was to get beyond the first stage of conversational phrases like "Hello" and "Goodbye" and up to a more creative competence of being able to form simple expressions appropriate to a given family context. This was emphatically not going to contain the bucolic references to 19th century rural contexts of traditional Latvian literature, nor the animals, orphans and devils that inhabit the world of Latvian children’s literature. (Much to my delight, although not necessarily that of my students, there is one Lelis’ trademark fractured fairy tale.)

However, given that our students were unsophisticated learners (as opposed to linguists with field methods training), they would be assumed to have two fundamental problems working with ‘layman’ informants or teachers. First of all, whereas the informants can point out that an expression is incorrect and can perhaps guess at and supply a corrected version, they generally cannot explain why the student’s effort has failed nor supply the rule or generalization that explains the corrected version. Secondly, the native informant will not generally be able to sequence the material so as to choose grammatically simpler expressions before more complex ones and this inability will confuse the student. Both of these assumptions have been called into question by researchers who reject a skills based approach to language study in favor of, e.g. the Natural Approach (Krashen and Terrell, 1983) or the Whole Language Approach (Newman, 1985).

2. The underlying assumptions are reflected in the contents and organization of Basic Latvian. To inform the student was primary, to drill or practice the information--regrettably, secondary. It wasn’t that Lelis didn’t recognize that students would do better if they could also have drills, but there just wasn’t the time. Typically, in the early years of his class, he would lecture for 3 hours and I would lead the drill or discussion section for an hour or an hour and a half.

2.1 Chapter 1 of Basic Latvian is devoted almost entirely to phonology. (In his course Lelis would devote the first day or two to a detailed discussion of phonology.) The chapter includes rules of spelling and pronunciation, lists of minimal pairs for short versus long vowels, lists of examples for doubled consonants and the palatal consonants, vowel and consonant charts, comments on the pitch of long syllables and on sentence stress. The purpose of the detailed analysis was to lay the groundwork for future discussion of phonological processes such as voice assimilation, palatalization, and vowel height alternation of the broad /-Ê-/ narrow /-e-/.

As an afterthought, the chapter also includes five short dialogs, translated but syntactically unanalyzed, which contain a set of conversational politeness phrases such as "Please, Thank you, Excuse me," etc. These were intended as review for students who already knew such phrases from a family context and as ‘equalizers’ for the rest. The dialogs and list were often sent out as preliminary material to students who had preregistered with a suggestion that they be learned before the course started.

2.2 Chapters two through five constitute the remainder of the textbook and each include two or three subunits, depending on the complexity of the material. The overriding organizational principle rests on two innovations Lelis introduced: using the 3rd common person present, past and future forms as the principle parts of the verb, and using nominative and dative (singular if possible) as principle parts of the noun.

The motivation for altering the verb principle parts from the traditional infinitive, 1st person present and past forms was initially morphophonemic: 1st conjugation verbs whose roots end in / -s, -z. -t, -d / neutralize that contrast before the infinitive / -t / to an / -st / pronunciation. It is easier and linguistically more sound to take the future form which shows the root consonant and teach the neutralization rule than to reconstruct, i.e. de-neutralize, the root consonant by reference to other forms. In addition, the change in principle parts took notice of the fact that Latvian has no morphological distinction between singular and plural forms of the third person in any tense. Thus, by learning vocabulary in this form, students would immediately have access to a vast variety of possible expressions: in fact, the entire universe save 1st and 2nd persons! The second chapter introduces the notion of principle parts and the present tense irregular conjugation of "to be"; the remaining chapters deal with the present, past and future tense conjugations respectively. Active and reflexive verbs are covered in subunits of each chapter.

The motivation for including dative as a principle part for nouns is that of all forms, it is the only one unambiguously showing both stem vowel group and gender of the word in question. Thus, the nominative forms of zvans "bell", suns "dog" and zivs "fish" all look alike, but their datives zvanam, sunim, zivij show them to be Masc-a, Masc-i, and Fem-i stem words respectively. (Yes, the stem vowel groups are not named for their historical origin, but for the vowel they exhibit synchronically.)The consequence of learning nouns in this way is also syntactic. It immediately makes available not just Descriptive Constructions of the form

Such constructions are pervasive in Latvian, and quite difficult for English speaking learners to acquire, so Basic Latvian gives them maximum fore grounding.

The subsequent chapters take up locative, accusative, and genitive respectively. The traditional instrumental is covered together with accusative-taking prepositions; vocative, being simple and limited in application, is covered in chapter two. The overall order also has the syntactic consequence of delaying standard accusative object sentences until relatively late in the course. A mitigating circumstance is that the first three chapters are relatively short and simple, so the fourth chapter is reached proportionally quickly.

2.3 All the sub-units of chapters two to five share the same organization: a detailed grammar explanation, a reading selection, an basic vocabulary list, and a thematically arranged supplemental vocabulary list. The primary purpose of the readings is to illustrate the new grammar points, but each is also thematically unified, e.g. "Classroom routine", "Morning ablutions", "A walk through the house", "Summer vacation". The basic vocabulary, some 850 words, is solidly functional and grounded in late 20th century reality. Even rūķītis, ‘the elf’ of the fairy tale, acts in ordinary ways and mainly serves to allow everything to appear with diminutive suffixes. Supplements are intended for students to be able to personalize their vocabulary. Lists include "Relatives", "Body parts", "Professions", "Foods", "Place names", and others. Each sub-unit has several pages of accompanying comprehension and production exercises, mostly translating in both directions.

3. I have gone to some length to explicate, to the best of my ability, the assumptions and motivations underlying the original formulation of Basic Latvian. What I have described of classroom procedures most closely resembles the grammar translation method of instruction. Some confusion has arisen over the years because Basic Latvian has been called a "Structural" program, even by Lelis himself. In Education circles, this term suggests a concomitant acceptance of Behaviorist principles of language learning and an Audio/Lingual methodology. This was never the case. "Structural" in this context referred specifically to structural linguistic analysis with its emphasis on elegance and simplicity of synchronic description of a language as opposed to the traditional emphasis on the diachronic origin of the forms in question. In fact, the approach of Basic Latvian to language learning is quite compatible with a cognitive view of learning in which meaningful learning is said to take place to the extent that new knowledge is systematically subsumed or related to the learner’s existing cognitive structure, aided by advanced organizers, resulting in rule-governed behavior (Ausubel, 1968, Novak, 1970, cited in Omaggio, 1986).

3.1 Students were certainly doing meaningful learning. The rub was in what was being learned. It is a fundamental educational axiom that students will learn what is taught, or, to update the jargon, will acquire what they are enabled to acquire. If the classroom content, presented in whatever manner, is grammar, then grammar is what they will come out with. If the students’ goal is to speak, and speaking does not take place in class, they will not reach that goal (with some exceptionally gifted and motivated exceptions). Therefore, the classroom and homework priorities had to be reversed. Instead of three hours of grammar to one of language practice each day, have a maximum of one hour of grammar, the rest––practice.

Some would argue that even this is too much emphasis on grammar. Krashen (1983), who claims that second language use is emergent behavior "after a sufficient amount of competence has been acquired through input (p. 20)" claims that "Language learning [i.e. grammar, Dz. R.] may only be useful as an editor, which we will call a Monitor. We use acquisition when we initiate sentences in second languages, and bring in learning only as a kind of afterthought to make alterations and corrections. (p. 18)" I would argue that English speaking students generally have a great deal of difficulty dealing with the notion of grammatical case at all, with the concomitant variation in words order, with specialized constructions like the dative-subject sentences mentioned above. Without a preliminary discussion of form and function conducted in their first language, the instructor would be unnecessarily raising their frustration level.

3.2 Another major revision that needed to take place was the change from a teacher-centered class to a learner-centered class. Stevick (1976) writes so eloquently about the difference between Defensive Learning and Receptive Learning that I will quote him at length.

"Defensive" learning sees the foreign language as a vast set of sounds and words and rules and patterns that are to be transferred from the teacher or the textbook into (or onto!) the mind of the student. In this view, the teacher ...[is] seen as hurling darts at the student. If a dart strikes an unprotected area (that is, if the learner makes a mistake in speaking or understanding), the experience is painful. What the learner tries to do, therefore, is to see to it that there are as few chinks as possible in his armor. Learning thus becomes a means of adapting to academic requirements...but like a suit of armor it is a burden, to be worn as little as possible and cast off entirely (i.e. forgotten)at the first safe opportunity. (p. 110)

I wonder how many in this room have such suits of armor lying around from their classroom learning days. Stevick goes on to develop an extended agrarian metaphor for receptive learning, which I will summarize. Language teaching is like bringing in a crop; several factors will affect the yield:

• The seed: How good are the materials, including the linguistic analysis on which they are based?
• The machinery: What methods and teaching aids will best nurture and not damage the beginning stages of language development?
• The soil: What native endowments do the students bring, and how can they be enhanced?
• The weather: What’s going on beyond our control, such as illness or family strife?
• The boulders and weeds: What defenses of withdrawal or aggression are preventing learning from taking place?

One aspect of this emphasis on receptive learning is that it has made me more aware, and has encouraged me to make my students more aware of their different channels of input and learning. Some have a strong audio awareness and can easily mimic and retain an expression they’ve heard; others cannot. Some can use their visual memory to store material they’ve read, others are more kinetically oriented and need to speak or write the items out. The same applies to grammar. For some students, written rules seem confusing or irrelevant; others become highly frustrated if they cannot see the overall ‘scheme’ of the material. Classroom procedures should include all these channels, and students should be reassured to go with the one(s) that best suit their style. The grammar explanations can be an aid, but not a requirement. Students can be directed to charts that they can highlight or recopy, or to specific rules that they don’t seem to be ‘getting’. Although any one of several of the newer teaching methods do ultimately work (even including the Silent Way!), I feel strongly that a language class should be an eclectic mix, where a preconceived method does not override the strengths and needs of the students.

4. What then, is the use of Basic Latvian in a student-centered, speaking oriented but nevertheless intensive language class? Let me outline the typical 3 hour session. I usually begin with a short, sung traditional folk song, selected to be as grammatically simple and relevant as possible. This is not because I am fully convinced, with the Suggestopedists, that music activates the right hemisphere of the brain and that this is a good thing for language acquisition, but it might, and besides, it's fun. Like Jazz Chants, folk songs can first be chanted to get a feel for the intrinsic rhythms of the language, and if singing out loud makes people feel a little bit shy and nervous, speaking out in class will be by contrast, less traumatic.

Next comes what I consider to be the focal point of every lesson: a pairs or small groups communicative activity based on the previous day’s lecture, reading, and homework to find out real information from one’s classmates, e.g. names and professions or interests of family members. When I monitor this activity by joining a group, I try to check for content alone, not correcting grammar or pronunciation, but I do give the correct version, as a parent might, in positive reinforcement of content. If the student says, "Daina is two brother." I would respond with "Oh, two brothers. I understand. Daina has two brothers." The goal here is to make oneself understood by any means possible, and not to have to wear that suit of armor.

The second hour is devoted to grammar. Students bring up questions about homework and are encouraged to cooperate in finding the answers. I work hard not to shoot darts by jumping in too soon with my answer. I present the new material and try to leave some time for student generated questions: "I was wondering how X works?"

The third hour is again student practice of a more structured sort. It starts with a listening dictation or a TPR activity. There are pattern drills with the new vocabulary and structure. I segment the first chapter of Basic Latvian to last the entire course and have students make up tongue twisters for the various sounds. They memorize a dialog per week because having some stock phrases seems to help them get going in the first hour, which often includes role-plays.

Homework includes a reading assignment, pronunciation work with a tape recording of the reading selection, and the aforementioned translation drills. Students keep a journal in which they respond to the readings in written form. They describe their family, their house, their daily routine, modeling their writing on that particular reading. The journal, like the first hour practice, is kept solely for communicative value. I respond to the content, but do not correct errors unless the student adamantly insists that I do. In such cases, the corrections must be in the student’s handwriting, and not in red to avoid the written equivalent of a bloody page.

5. In conclusion, I find Lelis’ Basic Latvian to be very easily adaptable to a variety of interactive, student-centered activities. Although he would probably not agree with my adaptation of it, I strongly agree with Krashen’s Input Hypothesis: In it he says (p. 32) "that we acquire language by understanding input that is a little beyond our current level of competence, ... [and] that listening comprehension and reading are of primary importance in the language program." Although Krashen specifically rejects a grammatically organized syllabus, I find that for Latvian, adding one grammatical case at a time allows the student to make that step in acquisition more readily than a whole language immersion approach would.

Ausubel, David (1968) Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Krashen, S. D. and Terrell, T.D. (1983) The Natural Approach. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.

Lelis, Joseph (1984) Basic Latvian. Washington, D.C.: American Latvian Association.

Newman, J.M. (Ed.) (1985) Whole Language: Theory and Use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

Novak, J. D. (1970) "Relevant Research in Audio-Tutorial Methods." School Science and Mathematics 70:778.

Omaggio, Alice C. (1986) Teaching Language In Context. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Stevick, Earl W. (1976) Memory, Meaning and Method. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.