[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Global Language Statistics

> All those interested:
> 
>         I think it important that those entering into Biblical language
> 
> studies understand some global language statistics that may aid in
> 
> helping to understand how difficult the task is of learning Biblical
> languages.
> 
>         The Department of Defense with the aid of the National Security Agency
> and Defense Language Institute has categorized modern languages on a
> scale of complexity.  The scale is rated from 1 to 5, level 5 being the
> 
> most complex, level 1 being the most basic.  Romance languages are
> 
> mostly level 1 languages.  Greek in its various dialects would likely
> 
> fall into level 2 category.  Hebrew, Russian, Vietnamese, German? would
> 
> fall into level 3 category.  Arabic and its dialects, and Korean are
> 
> level 4.  Chinese Mandarin and English are level 5.  English is
> 
> considered the toughest language in the world today to learn because of
> 
> its complexity.  Chinese Mandarin was a level 4 until just a couple
> years ago, then moved up to level 5 in close proximity to English.
> 
>         Along with the scale of complexity the Department of Defense has
> 
> produced a scale to determine proficiency levels of students in the
> 
> various languages.  The student is rated in the areas of Reading,
> 
> Listening, and Speaking.  Each area has a skill level from 0 to 5, 5
> 
> being the most advanced, 0 being the most basic.  The scale used in each
> 
> of the 3 areas is the same.  Levels 0 and 0+ would involve a knowledge
> 
> of some vocabulary and very limited knowledge of grammar.  Levels 1 and
> 
> 1+ involve a knowledge of survival skills, ability to travel and obtain
> 
> directions, food, bathroom, hotel etc.  Levels 2 and 2+ involve
> 
> abilities to communicate at basic levels in a wide variety of topics
> 
> limited to mostly conrete areas.  Levels 3 and 3+ involve the ability to
> 
> communicate in more detail with concrete areas and solid proficiency in
> 
> abstract thought.  This level is normally associated with 8th to 9th
> grade level speaker in the native language.  Students are rarely tested
> to levels 4 and 5.  These levels would include thorough understand of
> technical jargon, medical thought, legal thought, etc. and other more
> advanced skills.  Basic fluency is normally ocnsidered level 2,
> intermediate fluency at level 3.  The student must demonstrate without
> the use of any language grammar and lexical aids that he has mastered
> both the vocabulary and grammar of that level before being awarded that
> proficiency.
> 
>         The Biblical texts contain a great deal of level 3 abstract thought,
> especially the Pauline Epistles, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.  At
> the Defense Language Institute a level 3 proficiency in Hebrew is
> achieved by a samll minority of students in a period of nine months of
> study.  A level 3 proficiency in Greek is achieved by a small minority
> of students after about 6 months of study.  A larger minority of
> 
> students achieve level 2's, and a majority of students have a level 1 in
> 
> one or more areas.  For many students, in order for them to achieve
> level
> 
> 3 proficiency, they must return back to Defense Language Institute for
> 
> Intermediate language trianing.  These courses are normally the same
> 
> length as the basic courses described above.  Most of the instructors
> 
> involved are native speakers.  The weekly study habits include about 4-5
> 
> hours of theory study and 4-5 immersion/practice during weekdays, and
> 
> about 3-4 hrs study on weekends.  The level 3 proficiency student rarely
> 
> studies less than 40 hours a week in his/her target language.
> 
>         For the Bible College/Seminarian student to learn the original biblical
> languages to level 3 proficiency, while maintaining studies in other
> areas would take years.  For Greek 6 months multiplied by 5 weeks, and
> again by 40 hours, returns 1200 hours of study for the more talented
> 
> students.  By reducing the time of study to 10 hours a week, lengthens
> 
> the total period of study to 2 yrs.  For Hebrew 9 months multiplied by 5
> 
> weeks, and again by 40 hours, returns 1800 hours of study.  Reducing to
> 
> 10 hours a week lengthens the total period to 3 years.  This doesnt
> 
> account for periods of time where study is totally neglected and the
> 
> resulting period of review afterwards.  It would be wise also to add
> 
> extra time due to the fact athat most Bible Colleges/Seminaries don't
> 
> teach using native speakers.  After entering into field service the
> 
> normal military linguist is expected to place about an hour of study
> 
> daily into language maintenance to achieve or maintain level 2
> 
> proficiency.  Many do not accomplish this expected maintenance, and as
> 
> result lose proficiency already gained.
> 
>         The American Council of Education awards credit based on the level of
> proficiency achieved by the student in Speaking, Reading, and Listening
> based on the results of the Defense Language Proficiency test. A level 2
> in all 3 areas for a category 4 language earns the student about 36
> undergraduate hours, 5 lower in each area, and 7 upper.  This is likely
> under-rated, as the Naval Post Graduate School sends post-grads to the
> Defense Language Institute for language training in lieu of post-grad
> 
> thesis work.
> 
>         The bottom line is this: to achieve level 3 proficiency in Bibical
> languages requires a lot of work and dilligence on behalf of the student
> and teachers.  Level 2 proficiency is rarely achieved, simply because
> most seminaries and bible colleges teach Biblcial language
> 
> studies as a side discussion to the main courses of theology and the
> 
> students time and energy is not spent in the target language.
> 
>         In commenting about a post I made to b-Hebrew an esteemed professor
> made a statement which is very true concerning languages, that a little
> bit of knowledge is often more dangerous to the student than not knowing
> at all. As a seasoned military field linguist I spent some time training
> others in the more technical aspects of our duties.  The good linguist
> had these qualities: they knew how much they knew, they were motivated
> to learn more, they were dilligent in applying what they knew, and were
> always ready to admit to other people that they were short on
> expertise.  The ones that were bad, didn't care about their work, were
> poorly motivated, and felt they had a handle on things at all times.
> The good linguist oft didn't have high scores on proficiency tests.
> Paul warns us:
> 
>         "Dont think to highly of ourselves...."
> 
>         Learn as much as you are able, study as much as you are able, and when
> you get to that problem area, ask as much as you are able.
> May God bless each of you in your continued pursuits of languge
> training, and I wil be along side of you.
> 
> Larry A. Hartman
> Defense Language Institute Alumnus
> Department of Arabic Studies