teaching hebrew as a second language: the state of the art

Teaching Hebrew as a Second Language: The State of the ArtAuthor(s): Moshe NahirSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 63, No. 8 (Dec., 1979), pp. 423-429Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/326028 .

Accessed: 12/05/2014 10:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 109.246.238.186 on Mon, 12 May 2014 10:30:39 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/stable/326028?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


TEACHING HEBREW AS A SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING HEBREW AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

change in pronunciation, grammar, and

vocabulary. Sounds change over the centuries and grammatical paradigms are altered. New words appear, old words change their meanings or disappear altogether. Words are borrowed by one language from another. Similar things are observed with respect to gestures. Many of the

gestures have changed their forms and/or their

meanings over the centuries. Gestures which were primarily apotropaic assume meanings of

mockery and contempt. Just as Latin broke up into various dialects which eventually became

separate languages through geographic variation, just so the same gestures appear in slightly altered form in France, Italy, and Spain.

Sociological variation is also apparent in non- verbal communications. Just as there are different keys, levels, registers or styles of language, similar differences are apparent in gestures, too. Most gestures are restricted to intimate or casual levels rather than more formal ones. In kinesics certain postures are used in consultative interaction, and others in intimate or casual relation-

ships. In proxemics the various distances for personal interaction are closely linked to the levels of the relationships. Moreover, non-verbal signals in general may have multiple meanings just as linguistic homonyms do. In both cases we de-

pend on the context to resolve the ambiguity and determine which meaning is appropriate.

Teaching Hebrew as

change in pronunciation, grammar, and

vocabulary. Sounds change over the centuries and grammatical paradigms are altered. New words appear, old words change their meanings or disappear altogether. Words are borrowed by one language from another. Similar things are observed with respect to gestures. Many of the

gestures have changed their forms and/or their

meanings over the centuries. Gestures which were primarily apotropaic assume meanings of

mockery and contempt. Just as Latin broke up into various dialects which eventually became

separate languages through geographic variation, just so the same gestures appear in slightly altered form in France, Italy, and Spain.

Sociological variation is also apparent in non- verbal communications. Just as there are different keys, levels, registers or styles of language, similar differences are apparent in gestures, too. Most gestures are restricted to intimate or casual levels rather than more formal ones. In kinesics certain postures are used in consultative interaction, and others in intimate or casual relation-

ships. In proxemics the various distances for personal interaction are closely linked to the levels of the relationships. Moreover, non-verbal signals in general may have multiple meanings just as linguistic homonyms do. In both cases we de-

pend on the context to resolve the ambiguity and determine which meaning is appropriate.

Teaching Hebrew as

Not only does non-verbal communication share various characteristics with language, but the two are complementary constituents of the whole process of interaction. Culture is a network of verbal and non-verbal communication

processes and, according to Birdwhistell, "probably no more than 30 to 35 percent of the social

meaning of a conversation or an interaction is carried by the words."40 If our objective is to teach communication in a foreign language, we cannot restrict ourselves to the verbal system alone, but we must also pay attention to the non- verbal systems of the foreign culture, too.

Knowledge of non-verbal signals can be used in the foreign language classroom to help the students reach a fuller stage of communication in the target language. In presenting dialogues and in guiding conversation the teacher can

bring out the gestures, the body movements, the

paralanguage and the proximities which are appropriate to the situation in the foreign culture. It may be too much to expect that our students will be able to function just as native speakers do, but at least we can sensitize them to the fact that interaction may differ in the foreign culture so that, when they are abroad, they will make their own observations and try to modify their own behavior accordingly. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

40Birdwhistell, Ray L., op. cit., p. 158.

a Second Language:

Not only does non-verbal communication share various characteristics with language, but the two are complementary constituents of the whole process of interaction. Culture is a network of verbal and non-verbal communication

processes and, according to Birdwhistell, "probably no more than 30 to 35 percent of the social

meaning of a conversation or an interaction is carried by the words."40 If our objective is to teach communication in a foreign language, we cannot restrict ourselves to the verbal system alone, but we must also pay attention to the non- verbal systems of the foreign culture, too.

Knowledge of non-verbal signals can be used in the foreign language classroom to help the students reach a fuller stage of communication in the target language. In presenting dialogues and in guiding conversation the teacher can

bring out the gestures, the body movements, the

paralanguage and the proximities which are appropriate to the situation in the foreign culture. It may be too much to expect that our students will be able to function just as native speakers do, but at least we can sensitize them to the fact that interaction may differ in the foreign culture so that, when they are abroad, they will make their own observations and try to modify their own behavior accordingly. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

40Birdwhistell, Ray L., op. cit., p. 158.

a Second Language: The State of the Art* The State of the Art*

MOSHE NAHIR, University of Manitoba MOSHE NAHIR, University of Manitoba

Introduction

T HREE CONSECUTIVE though somewhat

overlapping trends in the field of second

language instruction since World War II may be

MOSHE NAHIR (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh) is Asso- ciate Professor of Hebrew and Linguistics at the University of Manitoba. His publications include a Hebrew textbook and articles in The InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Lan-

guage, Language Problems and Language Planning, The Canadian Modern Language Review, and Hebrew A bstracts.

Introduction

T HREE CONSECUTIVE though somewhat

overlapping trends in the field of second

language instruction since World War II may be

MOSHE NAHIR (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh) is Asso- ciate Professor of Hebrew and Linguistics at the University of Manitoba. His publications include a Hebrew textbook and articles in The InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Lan-

guage, Language Problems and Language Planning, The Canadian Modern Language Review, and Hebrew A bstracts.

roughly delineated, although a close observation

may reveal in the literature the beginnings of new, future movements. These trends - the post- World War II audiolingualism, the mentalisti-

cally oriented cognitivism, and the most recent

compromise labeled as eclecticism-have been reflected in the way Hebrew has been taught in North American Hebrew schools and universi-

roughly delineated, although a close observation

may reveal in the literature the beginnings of new, future movements. These trends - the post- World War II audiolingualism, the mentalisti-

cally oriented cognitivism, and the most recent

compromise labeled as eclecticism-have been reflected in the way Hebrew has been taught in North American Hebrew schools and universi-

*I wish to thank my wife, Tsipora Haya Nahir, for her in- valuable critical comments.

*I wish to thank my wife, Tsipora Haya Nahir, for her in- valuable critical comments.

423 423



THE MODERN LANGUAGE JOURNAL

ties. The reflection of these trends, however, has been slow and partial, with the field of Hebrew ever trailing one stage behind the theoretical and

methodological mainstream. This paper will ob- serve the degree and manner in which developments in the field generally have been adopted in the area of Hebrew instruction during the

periods in which these three trends have been

prevalent. The current state of the art in par- ticular will be examined, followed by a discus- sion regarding the major issues facing this growing, if as yet immature, field.

The Teaching of Hebrew and Modern Trends

Hebrew has been taught in North America ever since Jewish immigration to this continent

began, first in evening, afternoon and/or Sun-

day Hebrew Schools and then in Jewish, or Hebrew day schools as well. Until the 'fifties however, the Hebrew language was usually taught merely as a part of Jewish education and culture. It was particularly needed for the Bar- Mitzvah ceremony in whichJewish boys (later, in

many cases, girls as well) reaching "adulthood" at the age of thirteen (twelve in the case of girls) were to read aloud passages from the Bible. Further, prayer and practically all other re-

ligious services involved the ability to read and recite Hebrew. In the more religious schools an extensive training in Hebrew was offered to prepare the students for the study of religious texts. Hebrew was variously taught, then, as a tool in the observance of Judaism.

The status of, and attitude towards Hebrew have greatly changed since the 'fifties, however, following the revival of Hebrew as a vernacular in Palestine at the turn of the century and the es- tablishment of Israel in 1948. While the above

goals have remained practically unchanged, Modern Hebrew has since been viewed as a living language and has rapidly become an inde-

pendent subject in its own right with all four lan-

guage skills equally stressed, if not always suc-

cessfully. At the university level, only a few courses in

Hebrew language had been offered prior to the 'sixties, and of these, most were in Classical (Bib- lical) Hebrew. Since the early 'sixties, however, a

growing number of North American universities and colleges have been offering Modern Hebrew,

often as a major area of study stressing, as in most Hebrew schools, the communicative aspect of the language. Classical Hebrew is presently limited to seminaries and a handful of universities.

Due to the scope of this study, and since teach-

ing materials and methodologies have been quite similar at both the Hebrew school and the uni-

versity levels, no attempt will usually be made here to approach the two levels individually al-

though admittedly each has had to contend with certain unique problems.

a) Pre-audiolingualism in the Teaching of Hebrew

While in the field of second language instruction generally in post-World War II North America three stages have been delineated, only the first two may be observed as having occurred in the field of Hebrew, each of them appearing one step (or period) behind the general field.

During the first period of "pure," strictly habit- formation oriented, audiolingualism (cf. Fries, 1945; Brooks, 1964; Lado, 1964), no audiolin-

gual Hebrew materials or teaching methodology existed; perhaps the most commonly used text was H. Blumberg and M. H.Lewittes's Modern Hebrew (ivrit chaya) (1946, reprinted 1956, 1963) which employed the then obsolete "grammar-translation" methodology. Furthermore, despite its authors' claim to the contrary (in the title as well as in the introduction), this text em-

ployed numerous grammatical, phonological and lexical forms extracted out of old Hebrew texts, not to be found in modern written or

spoken Hebrew.l

b) Audiolingualism Introduced

The "pure" audiolingual approach reached the Hebrew schools (it never really reached the

university level) in the second post-World War II

period in the field of second language instruction

generally, as delineated above, with the appear-

'E.g., in grammar, /eyn ata ha'is/ vs. the modern /ata lo ha'is/ "you are not the person .... ," p. 128; in phonology, /vatov/ vs. /vetov/ "and good," p. 152; in lexicon, /kol is/ vs. /kol exad/ "everybody," p. 39. In fact, even the cultural content may all too often be difficult for the modern student to relate to, as, for example, a song ("zum gali," p. 22) that was popular in the early decades of this century yet has been

virtually unknown since the early 'forties.

424



TEACHING HEBREW AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

ance of texts by Genser and Grand (1963) and Yalon (1968), just as the field of second language teaching as a whole was witnessing a "depurifica- tion" of audiolingualism and the emergence of the cognitive approach which, following new theories in psychology and linguistics, and in contrast with the audiolingual approach, stresses

"meaningfulness" and rules in language learn-

ing2 (cf. Diller, 1971, 1975; Lester, 1972; Chas- tain, 1976). Interestingly, despite a wide initial

popularity and the almost total market exclu-

sivity which these "pure" audiolingual texts en-

joyed, they soon lost favor with students and teachers alike. Both texts disappeared almost

completely within a few years following publica- tion.3 Though lacking professional training and

sophistication, as was the case for nearly all Hebrew teachers (few had more than a few days' preparation in the form of workshops in the use of the texts and accompanying tapes), they per- ceived almost immediately that by abandoning pre-World War II methods (which were based on the "grammar-translation" and the "di- rect" - "ivrit beivrit," "Hebrew in Hebrew" - approaches), they were merely replacing one or another unsatisfactory method with still another which was no more satisfactory; their students still "did not know the language."

During the 'sixties the number and size of Hebrew schools grew at an unprecedented rate, as did the number of universities offering Modern Hebrew, often as part of the rapid growth in Jewish Studies programs. While many Hebrew schools adopted and utilized the above- mentioned "pure" audiolingual texts and accom-

panying materials (records, tapes, etc.) aimed at

younger students--others, notably the more re-

ligious schools, persisted in teaching pre-modern Hebrew using pre-modern methodologies-instructors at the university level were forced to teach without a minimally acceptable supply of texts or other materials, and without the training and/or guidance that would have enabled them to prepare their own teaching materials. Most instructors at the university level were Israeli students at the respective universities whose only "qualification" to teach was their native fluency in spoken Hebrew. Others were graduates of Hebrew schools who had succeeded in acquiring some measure of communicative ability in the language. Very few Hebrew teacher training programs existed, and modern approaches to

second language instruction were virtually unknown.4 As a result, certain texts were imported from Israel, most of which failed to meet either

professional criteria or the intellectual and cultural needs of North American students (e.g., Ben-Shefer and Rosen, 1963; Blum and Ashoori, 1969). The lack of acceptable texts was such that some university instructors as well as disillu- sioned Hebrew school teachers resorted to using reprinted editions of the above mentioned Blum-

berg and Lewittes' text, and a few others, written in, or using a methodology and language of decades earlier.

One such text was Birnbaum's Fluent Hebrew

(1966). Another text representative of that situation was Mansoor's which was written in the early 'fifties, using a hybrid of Modern and Biblical Hebrew lexicon and grammar and a poor version of the grammar-translation method. Inci-

dentally, its recent republication (1976), beauti-

fully adorned and publicized with much fanfare

by a national Jewish publishing house (it had

previously been printed, with a multitude of errors by the University of Wisconsin Extension

Press), emphasized the truly grave state of the art, since, in addition to using long-obsolete methodology and language, it subjects the students to an endless, boring memorization of rules, conjugations and declensions, and often

2Gefen has succinctly put the underlying factor which brought about the new approach: Using the audiolingual approach, students all too often would "complete the course without a mistake and still not know the language, [suffer- ing] from the same faults as the traditionalists; knowing the patterns [where the traditionalists know the paradigms] but not knowing the language" (1967, p. 192).

3A number of other audiolingual texts were published during this period which have not been discussed here since, in their overzealous attempt to adopt modern linguistic theory, they constitute, in effect, linguistic descriptions rather than pedagogic texts, and were used in few, if any, institutions (e.g., Rosen, 1962; Reif and Levinson, 1965). The Habet Ushma program ("Hebrew by the Audio-Visual Method"), which is certainly the most ambitious, and perhaps best of its kind, in Hebrew, was also developed in the mid-'sixties, by Cais and Enoch. However, for various reasons, mostly of a logistic nature, it failed to gain the popularity it deserved. (Its Hebrew-school-oriented version was developed more recently, byJ. Cais.)

4So unaware and uninformed were Hebrew teachers and administrators of developments in the field, that many sec- tions from the major audiolingual methodology texts (e.g., Lado, 1964) were incorporated unnoticed into Yalon's Teacher's Guide almost verbatim.

425




irrelevant vocabulary, much of which they might never find use for, even if it is successfully learned. This learning is frequently done, inci-

dentally, through almost nonsense sentences

forcibly constructed to make use of language fea- tures being studied.5

That the material can be mastered in this manner at all is quite doubtful, since practically all the "learning" activity consists of translating sentences and declining forms with not a single communicative practice. H. Anderson, in his "On the Meaning of Creativity," had a similar idea in mind regarding certain English texts, which he saw as being concerned with merely "the sorting, classifying and cataloguing of attics full of useless, unlovely, and undiscarded psychic antiques" (1965, p. 55).

c) The Current State of the Art: Modzfied Audiolingualism

The field of second language instruction wit-

nessed, in the early 'seventies, the development of a third post-World War II approach known as the "eclectic approach" which comprises a syn- thesis of what, to its proponents, seem to be the most valid, effective, and workable in the methods derived from the two earlier approaches (cf. Rivers, 1975, 1978; Jakobovits and Gordon, 1974; Nahir, 1979).6

For the field of Hebrew, however, the early 'seventies signaled the beginning of the second

period, that of "depurified" or "modified"

audiolingualism which, in the field generally, had existed, in its second period, side by side with the then new cognitive approach (cf. Allen, 1965; Croft, 1972; Breckenridge, 1973). This second Hebrew period began with the publica- tion of several textbooks by a number of univer-

sity presses (e.g., Hayon, 1970; Ben-Horin and

Cole, 1975; Amir-Coffin, 1977), following the

large increase in enrollment in Hebrew courses which had begun in the mid-'sixties. Although these texts have had a limited distribution and are for use at the university level only-Hebrew school students and teachers are still awaiting appropriate materials to meet their needs--their

appearance represents a fortunate development, since it partially fills a dangerous vacuum created by the absence of an adequate basic tool which was missing in the teaching process.

Even these new, linguistically and method-

ologically modern texts, however, are still lack-

ing in their approximation of valuable developments in the field. It seems to this writer that there is still some room for change in their authors' theoretical and methodological approach to second language instruction, in addition, of course, to specific objections which one

may have as regards other aspects of these texts. Almost all practice, for example, consists of mechanical manipulation of language forms.

Hayon's ten-unit text includes an average of one brief communicative exercise (ten personal questions) per unit. All other exercises are manipula- tions, including those in the last units where one would expect the learner to make independent communicative and meaningful use of knowl-

edge gained. Ben-Horin and Cole's much more

interesting text, in which manipulatory practice is more varied and challenging, is, however, no more communicative. The last sixteen-page "review" unit, for example (strangely introducing several new word-lists), includes nothing but

manipulatory exercises. Students using Amir Coffin's text will be equally unprepared for self-

expression. Her last thirty-four page chapter includes only two partly non-mechanical exercises

(eighteen questions relating to two short texts), despite the claim, in the introduction, that the text emphasizes "both audio-lingual intensive drills [and] the cognitive approach to language learning" (p. vii). Neither Hayon's nor Ben- Horin and Cole's introductions present their authors' theoretical approach to language learn-

ing or teaching. These texts then, and others of smaller, local

circulation (e.g., Uveeler and Bronznick, 1972; Korin and Korin, 1975) expect of the student little, or in some of the texts, no creative

thought, little or no opportunity, guidance, or

encouragement to use Hebrew meaningfully

5For example, students are to translate into Hebrew sen-

tences such as "The white horse is under the small tree"

(p. 68); "He gave an apple to the horse which stood in the

field" (p. 128); "If you sell my books, I will write my name on

those books" (p. 191); "Ten children rode on her beautiful

horse in the evening" (p. 216). Part II of Mansoor's text in-

cludes translation exercises such as "His slaves are returning to his castle with a crying infant in their hands," "All the fish

are being taken from the river. They will be painted white

and we will send them to the judge's daughter" (p. 56). 6Based on the eclectic approach, a Practical Guide to the

Teaching of Hebrew is currently in preparation (W. Rivers

and M. Nahir).

426



TEACHING HEBREW AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

through communicative intercourse. To para- phrase Gefen's quote, stated earlier: Today's student of Hebrew will perhaps be at an advantage over earlier students in both the grammar-translation and the "pure" audiolingual eras. He will know both the paradigm and the pattern; still, he will not "know" the language; and that (using D. Eskey's analogy, 1976, p. 167) means that the modern student of Hebrew will have a knowl-

edge of the language in much the same way as

"knowing" about anatomy relates to making love - the really interesting parts get left out.

d) The Current State of the Art and Teacher

Training If the tradition in the field of Hebrew has

been, as we have seen, to remain one step behind, it has eventually made up for lost ground, and one hopes that this will occur again, soon. Many of the difficulties involved in the deficien- cies of adequate teaching materials could, given the current state of the art, be overcome by ap- propriately trained professional and conscien- tious teachers and administrators, at least super- ficially aware of developments in the field of second language learning. With some pleasant ex- ceptions however, the situation in this regard has been highly unsatisfactory, probably the most serious problem faced by the field. That many a Hebrew instructor, at all levels, is neither academically adequate, professionally committed, nor minimally trained to teach Hebrew as a second language, is common knowledge, which em- barrassingly confirms the applicability of what one Time reader recently wrote to the Editor, succinctly decrying the quality of American education: "Alas for the [Hebrew] student, the re- cipient of cumulative ignorance!"7 Indeed, most Hebrew school teachers continue to be found in either of the following (at the university level instructors belong mostly in the first category): (1) Israelis temporarily or permanently in North America, including students, with no back- ground or training relevant to the field. Many will recognize the humorous reference to "the Israeli truck-driver who now teaches Hebrew here." (2) Graduates of North American Hebrew schools who have some knowledge of the language, often to be found teaching in transition to other more "prestigious" occupations. (3) Graduates of Rabbinic institutions, who by vir- tue of their ordination and because their train-

ing usually includes the study of Hebrew (often Rabbinic Hebrew only) are presumed by many, including administrators, to be qualified as edu- cators and as language teachers, frequently even as consultants and directors of Hebrew study programs. (4) Israeli professional teachers, tem-

porarily imported on two or three year contracts, who, although almost all have been trained in, and have taught subjects other than Hebrew (usually Bible, Hebrew literature, Jewish history, etc. - this writer knows several mathematics and

chemistry teachers), are presumed to be professional teachers of Hebrew as a second language as well. The elite of this group are supposed to be those who have taught Hebrew in Israel, which betrays, of course, a gross ignorance of the dis- tinction between first and second language acquisition and teaching. Furthermore, the de- pendence on importation of teaching staff in the field is self-defeating, as it lessens, if falsely, the awareness of a need for adequate teacher-training programs thus perpetuating further teacher

importation with all the well-known problems involved, such as adjustments to North Ameri- can students' mentality and needs as well as to different educational structure, attitudes, approach, etc.

Further indication of the state of the art is the total absence of professional literature in the field. No textbook or reader in the theory or

methodology of teaching Hebrew as a second

language is known to this writer to have been published in North America in recent decades.8 The lack of professional literature and guidance does not only reflect the current situation; it also serves as a significant obstacle to future improve- ment in the quality of teaching.

This situation will change only when educational administrators become at least somewhat acquainted with the subject-matter of this aspect of their work, namely the learning and teaching of language, perhaps through the creation of a network of in-service workshops for Hebrew School administrators. Hopefully they will then realize that the ability to speak Hebrew (by their teachers) relates to teaching it as looking after one's bank account relates to being an economist.

7Time, 12 December, 1977. 8An anthology on Hebrew and Its Teaching by this writer,

is currently in press.

427




Conclusion

Having attained a student body of reasonable size and with some measure of academic status on many North American campuses, it seems that the field of Hebrew language teaching might now turn to a period of consolidation and entrenchment. To discuss the ways to accom- plish this would require more scope than this study allows. However, several questions, which I believe should preoccupy at least the leaders in the field, do present themselves for examination. They include the question of how teaching materials, texts, etc., may be further modernized and improved; how commitment and professionalism (indeed, appropriate basic training) of teachers may be enhanced; how recent innovations and results of research in the field of second language acquisition may be adopted and/or utilized; what level and what "register" of Hebrew ought to be taught; how student motivation may be maintained and increased; what proportion, if any, of Israeli and/or Jewish and/or North American culture should be taught as part of the curriculum and at which level.

James Lantolf, in his "Aspects of Change in Foreign Language Study," has raised this question of North American culture in second language education. He states that "unless we some- how relate the foreign culture lesson to the life space of our students, they cannot be expected to generate a great deal of lasting interest" (1977, p. 250). The staggering difference between first and second year Hebrew enrollments at North American universities is well-known. The vital role played by Jewish parenthood in the very sur- vival of the Hebrew schools (which depend on at- tendance by their all-too-often reluctant off- spring), has also been documented. Efforts at en- hancing student motivation ought to be exerted, therefore, following exploratory study on ways to achieve it. These and other related questions, then, constitute the issues which must be dealt with by members of the profession if Hebrew classes and programs at North American schools and universities are to become academically acceptable and to continue to grow in numbers, population and quality.

Reports from various foreign language programs in North American schools and universities indicate the existence of problems rather similar to the ones described here. This obviously can be of little comfort to those involved in the

teaching of Hebrew. At the risk of some unavoid- able over-simplification, our overview shows that Hebrew instructional material preparation has been overly slow in taking advantage of valuable

developments in the field generally. Evidently the gravity of this has been linked to, indeed fed

by, an indifferent neglect in the quality and

training of those charged with teaching. The

questions presented above serve to reflect our view that these two problem areas are indeed in-

separable and thus should be treated concur-

rently; success or failure in one is bound to effect the same results in the other.

REFERENCES

Allen, Harold B. Teaching English as a Second Language. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Amir-Coffin, Edna. Lessons in Modern Hebrew Level I. Ann

Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1977.

Anderson, Harold H. "On the Meaning of Creativity," in

H. H. Anderson, ed., Creativity in Childhood and Ado-

lescence: A Diversity of Approaches. Palo Alto: Science

and Behavior Books, 1965.

Ben-Horin, G., Peter Cole, et al. Israeli-Hebrew for Speakers

of English. Urbana, Illinois: Hagalil, 1975.

Ben-Shefer, J. and A. Rosen. Elef Milim. Jerusalem: Achiasaf, 1962.

Birnbaum, Philip. Fluent Hebrew. New York: Hebrew Pub-

lishing Company, 1966.

Blum, S. and N. Ashoori. Sifron Lastudent. Jerusalem: The

Hebrew University Press, 1970.

Blumberg, H. and M. Lewittes. Modern Hebrew. New York:

Hebrew Publishing Company, 1946 (reprinted 1956,

1963).

Breckenridge, Robert G. Access to English as a Second Lan-

guage. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

Brooks, Nelson. Language and Language Learning: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964.

Cais, Judith and Paul Enoch. Habet Ushma ("Hebrew by the

Audio-Visual Method"). Philadelphia: The Center for

Curriculum Development, 1966.

Chastain, Kenneth. Developing Second-Language Skills:

Theory to Practice. Chicago: Rand McNally College Pub-

lishing Company, 1976 (Second Edition). Croft, K., ed. Readings on English as a Second Language.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers, 1972.

Diller, K. C. Generative Grammar, Structural Linguistics, and Language Teaching. Rowley, Massachusetts: New-

bury House, 1971.

Diller, K. C. "Some New Trends for Applied Linguistics and

Foreign Language Teaching in the United States."

TESOL Quarterly, 9, 1975, 65-73.

Eskey, David E. "A Revolutionary New Idea; The Student

and Teacher as Human Beings." A Review of L. A.

Jakobovits and B. Gordon, The Context of Foreign Lan-

428



A MEASURE OF LISTENING COMPREHENSION A MEASURE OF LISTENING COMPREHENSION

guage Teaching, in Language Learning, 26, 1, 1976, 163-176.

Fries, Charles G. Teaching and Learning English as a For-

eign Language. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of

Michigan Press. Gefen, R. "'Sentence Patterns' in the Light of Language

Theories and Classroom Needs." International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 1967, 185-192.

Genser, M. and S. Grand. Hebrew: The Audio-Lingual Way. New York: KTAV, 1963.

Hayon, Y. Modern Hebrew. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State

University, 1970. Jakobovits, L. A. and B. Gordon. The Context of Foreign

Language Teaching. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House, 1974.

Korin, U. and D. Korin. Passport to the Hebrew Language. Beechwood, Ohio: D. and N. Korin, 1975.

Lado, Robert. Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Lantolf, James. "Aspects of Change in Foreign Language Study." The Modern Language Journal, 61, 1977, 242-251.

Lester, Mark. Readings in Applied Transformational Gram- mar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972 (Sec- ond Edition).

Mansoor, Menahem. Contemporary Hebrew. New York: Behrman House, 1976.

guage Teaching, in Language Learning, 26, 1, 1976, 163-176.

Fries, Charles G. Teaching and Learning English as a For-

eign Language. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of

Michigan Press. Gefen, R. "'Sentence Patterns' in the Light of Language

Theories and Classroom Needs." International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 1967, 185-192.

Genser, M. and S. Grand. Hebrew: The Audio-Lingual Way. New York: KTAV, 1963.

Hayon, Y. Modern Hebrew. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State

University, 1970. Jakobovits, L. A. and B. Gordon. The Context of Foreign

Language Teaching. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House, 1974.

Korin, U. and D. Korin. Passport to the Hebrew Language. Beechwood, Ohio: D. and N. Korin, 1975.

Lado, Robert. Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Lantolf, James. "Aspects of Change in Foreign Language Study." The Modern Language Journal, 61, 1977, 242-251.

Lester, Mark. Readings in Applied Transformational Gram- mar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972 (Sec- ond Edition).

Mansoor, Menahem. Contemporary Hebrew. New York: Behrman House, 1976.

Nahir, Moshe. "A Practical Progression in the Teaching of a Second Language." The Canadian Modern Language Re- view, 35, 4, 1979.

Nahir, Moshe. Hebrew and Its Teaching: An Anthology. Washington, D.C.: The University Press of America, in

press. Prator, Clifford H. "Development of a Manipulation-Com-

munication Scale," in K. Croft, ed., Readings on English as a Second Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Winthrop Publishers, 1972, 402-408. Reif, J. A. and H. Levinson. Hebrew: Basic Course. Wash-

ington, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute, 1965. Rivers, Wilga M. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of

French as a Second Language. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1975.

Rivers, Wilga M. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of Eng- lish as a Second or Foreign Language. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Rivers, Wilga M. and Moshe Nahir. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of Hebrew as a Second Language. In preparation.

Rosen, Haiim. A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Uveeler, L. and N. M. Bronznick. Ha-Yesod: Fundamentals of Hebrew. New York: Phillipp Feldheim, 1972.

Yalon, R. B'yad Halashon. St. Paul, Minnesota: EMC Cor- poration, 1968.

Nahir, Moshe. "A Practical Progression in the Teaching of a Second Language." The Canadian Modern Language Re- view, 35, 4, 1979.

Nahir, Moshe. Hebrew and Its Teaching: An Anthology. Washington, D.C.: The University Press of America, in

press. Prator, Clifford H. "Development of a Manipulation-Com-

munication Scale," in K. Croft, ed., Readings on English as a Second Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Winthrop Publishers, 1972, 402-408. Reif, J. A. and H. Levinson. Hebrew: Basic Course. Wash-

ington, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute, 1965. Rivers, Wilga M. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of

French as a Second Language. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1975.

Rivers, Wilga M. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of Eng- lish as a Second or Foreign Language. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Rivers, Wilga M. and Moshe Nahir. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of Hebrew as a Second Language. In preparation.

Rosen, Haiim. A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Uveeler, L. and N. M. Bronznick. Ha-Yesod: Fundamentals of Hebrew. New York: Phillipp Feldheim, 1972.

Yalon, R. B'yad Halashon. St. Paul, Minnesota: EMC Cor- poration, 1968.

An Indirect Measure

of Listening Comprehension

HAROLD S. MADSEN, Brigham Young University

An Indirect Measure

of Listening Comprehension

HAROLD S. MADSEN, Brigham Young University

THE NEED TO EVALUATE the aural

competence of a large number of EFL

(English as a Foreign Language) students in areas where appropriate equipment and facilities are not available have prompted investiga- tion into the feasibility of alternate modality listening tests.' Interest in indirect measurement of language skill is of course not new. A familiar indirect measure of language skill is prognosis in the form of language aptitude batteries (Carroll and Sapon 1959; Pimsleur 1966); another is as-

HAROLD S. MADSEN, Professor of English as a Second Lan-

guage at Brigham Young University, is former Visiting Pro- fessor and Advisor to the Ministry of Education in Egypt and

Ethiopia. Publications include Adaptation in Language Teaching and articles on testing and methodology.

THE NEED TO EVALUATE the aural

competence of a large number of EFL

(English as a Foreign Language) students in areas where appropriate equipment and facilities are not available have prompted investiga- tion into the feasibility of alternate modality listening tests.' Interest in indirect measurement of language skill is of course not new. A familiar indirect measure of language skill is prognosis in the form of language aptitude batteries (Carroll and Sapon 1959; Pimsleur 1966); another is as-

HAROLD S. MADSEN, Professor of English as a Second Lan-

guage at Brigham Young University, is former Visiting Pro- fessor and Advisor to the Ministry of Education in Egypt and

Ethiopia. Publications include Adaptation in Language Teaching and articles on testing and methodology.

sessment of writing skill through objective questions, as on the TOEFL. But indirect evaluation of oral skills has met with little success (Upshur 1975:59). Despite the ingenious efforts of many, the United States Foreign Service Institute, to mention only one example, stands by its costly interview procedure as "the most valid measure-

'In Egypt, for example, two million secondary-school students are required to study English and to become proficient in oral skills as well as in reading and writing. All students are evaluated annually in nationally sponsored exams, but no

satisfactory method has yet been identified to assess their

listening or speaking ability. And even if appropriate instru- ments were available, there are insufficient facilities, equipment, and personnel nationwide for large-scale conventional aural testing.

sessment of writing skill through objective questions, as on the TOEFL. But indirect evaluation of oral skills has met with little success (Upshur 1975:59). Despite the ingenious efforts of many, the United States Foreign Service Institute, to mention only one example, stands by its costly interview procedure as "the most valid measure-

'In Egypt, for example, two million secondary-school students are required to study English and to become proficient in oral skills as well as in reading and writing. All students are evaluated annually in nationally sponsored exams, but no

satisfactory method has yet been identified to assess their

listening or speaking ability. And even if appropriate instru- ments were available, there are insufficient facilities, equipment, and personnel nationwide for large-scale conventional aural testing.

429 429



teaching hebrew as a second language: the state of the art

Documents