THE PRACTICAL WAY

by

RAHEL HALABE

B.A. Arabic Language and Literature - The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1974

High School Teaching Diploma - The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1974

Translation of Scientific Writings Diploma - The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1981

A MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY EDUCATION

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

April 2005

CHAPTER II Literature Review 

2.1. Review of Four Textbooks and One Program 

2.1.1. (Lambdin, 1973)

2.1.2. (Kelley, 1992) 

2.1.3. (Kittel, Hoffer & Wright, 1989)

2.1.4. (Simon, Resnikoff, Motzkin, 1992) 

2.1.5. (Widner, 1992)

2.2. Review of Three Articles 

2.2.3. (Salmon, R., 2000)

2.3. Functional Grammar 

2.4. Pedagogical Grammar 

2.5. The Mediated Learning Experience Theory

CHAPTER III Program Description 

3.1 General Description 

3.2 Creating a Mediated Learning Experience 

3.3 Functional Grammar, Pedagogical Grammar & the Teaching of Biblical Hebrew 

3.4. Sequencing of the Grammar Taught 

3.5 Frequent Vocabulary

3.6 Imparting Culture through Language 

3.7 Reading the Biblical Text with Comprehension 

3.8 The 'Tool Box', Parsing Charts & Homework  

CHAPTER IV Conclusion 

APPENDICES

5.1. List of Grammatical Subjects Studied 

5.2. A Sample Handout 

5.3. Noun Parsing Chart 

5.4. Verb Parsing Chart  

5. 5. Possession Suffix Paradigms 

5. 6. A Simplistic Model for the Interpretation of yiqtol & qatal 

5. 7. Qal Paradigm of the Regular Verb + Qal Paradigms of other root groups  

5. 8. Nif'al Paradigm of the Regular Verb  

5. 9. Pi'el Paradigm of the Regular Verb  

5. 10. Hif'il Paradigm of the Regular Verb  

5. 11. Hitpa'el Paradigm of the Regular Verb  

5. 12. Comprehensive Chart of Common verbs in the Qal  

REFERENCES  

Unlike the teaching of modern languages using an array of methods and practices, ancient languages, including Biblical Hebrew (BH), are usually introduced in academic settings in a very scholarly way. Grammatical systems are presented separately, meticulously, in full detail, utilizing specialized linguistic terminology, and mostly out of context, leaving the literary and exegetical treatment of the text content for more advanced levels. It seems, though, that students do not necessarily end the introductory course ready to access a straight forward biblical text independently and with the ability to derive some aesthetic, intellectual and maybe even spiritual pleasure from it. The objective of learning BH is not to be able to speak it, nor write in it, or even to acquire the skills necessary to assign vowels to a classical text. The main objective is reading with comprehension, albeit with the help of a lexicon & other aids, hopefully together with some appreciation of the text in its original form.

For the total beginners, who are not always versed even in the grammar of their own first language (L1), the BH introductory course is often a very difficult first encounter. The common academic course seems to be geared toward scholarly and linguistically oriented students. Moreover, the texts demonstrating the grammar taught are either heavily adapted biblical passages or at best authentic verses chosen for their grammatical value only in order to demonstrate what is taught. Such a course might allow those linguistically inclined students to achieve a high level of competence in many technically intricate topics such as vowel reduction, all the possible vocalizations of the definite article, the subgroup of the Segholates, or the many possible translations of the elusive BH verb. At the same time the course might leave other students with less than satisfactory skills and with low chances of retaining the information imparted beyond the final exam. Furthermore, as it emphasizes memorization and analytical skills, it overlooks opportunities to demonstrate the spirit of the text, and provide the students with a meaningful experience beyond the grammatical.

Couldn't the introductory objectives be achieved in a more efficient and more effective way? Wouldn't the learning, and indeed the teaching, of the introduction be much easier, if we concentrated on the most useful material for the identification of the different elements of a passage and its interpretation as a whole? Can't we postpone much of the minute grammatical details and their linguistic terminology to a later stage, when students progress to higher levels and have to analyze the more poetic, complex and ambiguous passages? Moreover, should we concentrate on vocabulary and grammar only, or rather, allow, already in the earliest stages, for some cultural, literary, theological and even spiritual insights, derived from an authentic original text? Couldn't some glimpses of what the students expect from these texts, so important to them, find its way through the thick wall of necessary grammar and make the introductory course a more meaningful experience?

This paper describes an alternative, more pragmatic approach, which proved its potential in achieving all the above. Students are presented with the 'big picture' of Hebrew and its 'behaviour' and provided with the essential tools that would allow them to read with comprehension very early on much of a straight forward biblical text. The approach will be demonstrated through the program that has been tried, developed and taught at the Vancouver School of Theology since 1997. Even though parts of the program continue to be adjusted and improved, its general methodology and practices have been securely established. It has been well received and appreciated by students as well as by colleagues. Despite its seemingly more superficial character, this is a rigorous program, that provides its students with good skills and allows them to start appreciating much of the Hebrew biblical text in its original after a relatively short time.

The IBHPW provides the students with the skills and tools to identify the most frequent vocabulary, word formations and their inflection, the characteristic syntax and other basic features of the language. Good familiarity with all of the above is fostered in order to enable them to read and interpret fairly accurately most of the prose text, as well as a good portion of the poetic texts of the Hebrew Bible. The course presents the students with a large picture of the language and a good idea of its 'behaviour', and at the same time provides those who do wish to continue to more advance study a very solid basis upon which they can build further, more scholarly study.

But linguistic skills are not the only objective of this course. The program aims at allowing the students an access to meaningful texts right from the beginning. Many students are familiar in various degrees with the Bible, its stories and main characters through its English translations, and through its many manifestations in Western culture, languages, and literature. They really appreciate encountering even the shortest passage they know about, in its original Hebrew form. This is made possible already in the very early stages due to the use of frequency as one of the major organizers used in the program. Familiarity with the frequent allows for reading with comprehension of a considerable part of any text, and adds a significant and very rewarding facet to their skill building endeavour.

The very early encounter with the actual text is always done with reference to context, and with its translations from various sources provided. This serves another objective of the course - shaking students' confidence in any one translation of the Hebrew Bible they might be depending upon. Due to reasons such as our cultural and historical and even grammatical (time/tense perception) distance from BH, and the unavailability of native informants, the original text might lend itself sometimes to various valid interpretations. Furthermore, in ambiguous cases, translators might choose their interpretation based on their personal opinions, philosophies and religious beliefs. By learning the grammar and examining the text and its various (mostly, but not necessarily, valid) translations, the emergence of critical reading of translations is fostered.

Despite these clear objectives, experimenting with the selection and prioritizing of what has to be taught in the introductory level, has required much thought and many versions. It has required the consideration of different sequencing, and timing of program components, the proportional emphasis and level of every grammatical system presented, and the choice of texts demonstrating the grammar taught. All of the above, together with serious consideration of students' reactions and responses, and with my ongoing reassessment of the material, resulted in the development of what I consider, a solid program. Students' achievements and their satisfaction, as well as my own ease with the delivery of the complex material, are probably the best evidence for the success of the program.

The description of the IBHPW offered here is, therefore, an attempt to suggest a more efficient and effective way of teaching the basics of BH and developing

students' skills for reading a straightforward biblical text with comprehension and appreciation. At the same time, it suggests enlarging the scope of the introductory course from lexical and grammatical only, to a course infused with more meaningful experience by demonstrating what is learned through the authentic texts. These carefully chosen texts touching on formative stories and their protagonists, themes, ideas, literary style and more, can be relevant to the students who are looking forward to their actual biblical studies.

The paper will start with a literature review, followed by a description and an analysis of the suggested curriculum. The methodologies applied in this program will be demonstrated through their applications in exerpts from the actual material. The paper will not include feedback from students by way of questionaires, nor will it use actual exams or other material produced by them. Finally, some recommendation for further research and development will be made for the improvement of this program and others.

Finding literature that discusses teaching methodology for Biblical Hebrew (or, in fact, any other ancient language) is not very easy. The teaching of modern languages in recent decades has been drawing much from the fields of functional grammar and pedagogical grammar. There have been waves of experimentation and many practical and theoretical debates, all demonstrating clear changes and development. The teaching of ancient languages, on the other hand, especially in academia, has not enjoyed such deliberations and seems to a large extent, to be following the traditional ways of language instruction.

What are the reasons for the conservative methods and practices in the teaching of Biblical Hebrew? Indeed the appeal of the biblical texts has always been there, stemming from attraction to one's tradition, theology and spirituality, interest in literature, religious studies, ancient Middle Eastern studies, etc. Still, the relative number of students interested in learning BH, as in learning other ancient languages, is limited. Also, ancient languages are taught by scholars, experts in their fields, who are usually concerned with research and with the body of knowledge they want to impart to the next generation of scholars, and much less with the pedagogy that would enhance both their teaching and their students' learning.

Literature review for this paper, therefore, cannot be limited to articles dealing specifically with the teaching methodologies of BH. It will start, therefore, with a sample of four BH textbooks which have been widely used in universities in North America, as well as a description of a BH program for elementary school children. The review will continue looking at three articles proposing new approaches in the teaching of ancient languages. Review of literature discussing functional grammar as well as pedagogical grammar will follow in the attempt to find out if some of their contribution to the teaching of modern languages would be relevant to the teaching of ancient languages, and BH in particular. Finally, a general learning theory, which has been a great inspiration for the development of the IBHPW, will be described and will lead to the description of the curriculum itself.

This sample of four BH textbooks and one program will be reviewed and compared in order to learn about major difficulties found in the teaching of the introductory course, and to evaluate the different ways taken to solve them.

2.1.1. The Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Lambdin, 1973) is a comprehensive grammar textbook. It presents a very detailed picture of BH grammar, without exceeding a defined lexical body of about 900 most frequent words and verb roots. Concentrating students' attention on this relatively small number is not unreasonable, as these words (occurring in the Bible more than 25 time each) account for more than 80% of the total word count of the Bible (Haramati, 1983. p. 121). This essential vocabulary could have allowed for a good choice of authentic verses to demonstrate the grammar taught, and hence to introduce the student to the real biblical text very early on. Unfortunately, the author chose to avoid this opportunity (requiring heavy use of the concordance), and instead, to offer only artificial BH sentences, and even when presenting biblical passages, to greatly simplify them.

Generally speaking this textbook is well structured. Conveniently, it introduces the Noun Sentence right in the first chapter. Although much less frequent than the verbal sentence, the noun sentence, for its simplicity, is a good vehicle for the delivery of most of the basics (nouns, adjectives, prepositions, construct chains, numbers and many others). But the author does not continue to take advantage of this efficient medium, as he rushes to start teaching the verb with all its complexities before completing the introduction of all the basics, not conditioned by the verb. The teaching of the verb, therefore, is interrupted by the teaching of more and more of the basics. This is unfortunate, as the Hebrew verb system, with its complex morphology and peculiar perception of time, so foreign to the student, whose first language is Indo-European, deserves an uninterrupted discussion. Also, with all the basics learned earlier, there could have been more opportunities to demonstrate the verb in fuller, more authentic excerpts.

The presentation of the verb itself is well organized for the most part. It starts with the first of the 7 stems (Qal), introducing gradually the conjugations of all the forms (tenses) through the strong roots, then moving on to the less simple root classes. Pedagogically, this is, therefore, a wise planning of the material as, indeed, much of the grammar learned through the Qal transfers well into the study of the remaining six verb stems. Laying a solid basis for the verb through a thorough study of the Qal first facilitates the understanding of identical (ie. affixes, tense interpretations) and similar (ie. behaviour of the various root classes) phenomena in the other stems, and thus, the completion of the verb system.

However, solid sequencing is not evident in teaching the Hebrew verb forms (tenses, aspects & moods) and their interpretations. For example, the wayiqtol and the qatal  are the two most common ways to indicate the past. Considering that most of the verbs in the biblical text refer to the past, one would expect the introduction of both forms relatively early. While the qatal is indeed the first form to be taught right away with the introduction of the verb, it's not less important (and may be more frequent) companion wayiqtol waits for 15 more chapters, before it is presented, with a few more, much less common, if not rare, tense/moods/aspects interpretations in between. Thus, frequency which was considered seriously when choosing the vocabulary used in this textbook, was unfortunately ignored altogether when introducing the array of interpretations of the verb forms. Finding the right balance between what might seem logically to be a gradual and easier teaching/learning sequence, on one hand, and what is very frequent (but not necessarily easy to learn) is certainly a challenge with which language instructors and authors of textbooks keep struggling.

2.1.2. Biblical Hebrew, an Introductory Grammar (Kelley, 1992) uses about 1300 frequent words and verb roots as its basic vocabulary. As the author is careful to use only authentic material drawn from the actual biblical text, without any modification, this textbook allows for a good inventory of verses demonstrating what is taught. Due to this consistency, the student is introduced and becomes accustomed to the original biblical style without it becoming distorted by simplification and adaptation. A variety of exercises, all based on actual biblical phrases and verses are offered, always with their translations and exact references. This is certainly an advantage for the students who can experience, at any level, a real contact with the biblical text and the rewarding feeling of being able to interpret it. The role of the translation offered here, as in other textbooks (Lambdin 1973; Kittel, Hoffer, Wright, 1989), is important as it provides the students with a schema (Hadley, 2001, chapter 4) to the Hebrew text. Such schema is usually helpful in providing a general idea about the content of the text. Together with a serious analysis of Hebrew terms, and the help of a lexicon and grammar, these translations can facilitate comprehension. In many cases, the striking difference between the solid conclusions reached by the student through careful analysis, and the translation offered (literary but not necessarily literal) is an important lesson by itself.

Almost all of the basics, not conditioned by the verb, are taught in this textbook before the introduction of the verb. The Noun Sentence is introduced early, and allows the demonstration of all that is taught before the verbal sentence in actual authentic verse.

2.1.3. Biblical Hebrew, a Text and Workbook (Kittel, Hoffer & Wright, 1989) is certainly an innovative textbook. As indicated by its subtitle, it is designed as a workbook emphasizing inductive learning. The student is expected to apply the newly acquired analytic skills right from the beginning, and when reading biblical verses, to parse their verbs and then interpret them. This might sound too technical, but the authors mention in their introduction, that they see as their main objectives the transmitting of "an appreciation for the structure and beauty of the Hebrew text," while "alerting the students to the fact that we are reading this text in a time and culture far removed from its origins, and that we are working with a language which is built quite differently from English." These intentions are commendable, especially in a textbook which uses only authentic texts to demonstrate all that is taught. Unfortunately, it seems that the strong emphasis on the technical and the inductive overshadows the possibility of attaining these goals. The instruction in every chapter, which is based on one specific verse, does not expand readily from the particular to the general, and does not usually present the whole 'picture' with a paradigm following the encounter of the various grammatical items. Moreover, particular grammatical items of various systems are introduced one after the other, before each complete system is explained and understood on its own and with relation to the others.

The authors consider frequency very seriously, and organize the textbook material accordingly, as they continue to explain in their introduction: "...we take an uncommon approach by teaching (in descending order of frequency) the most common constructions, the most common verbs, the most common grammar and syntax." The vocabulary used consists of the most frequent 400 words and roots (a useful list in descending order of frequency is provided as an appendix).

2.1.4. The First Hebrew Primer (Simon, Resnikoff, Motzkin, 1992) is a user friendly popular textbook not meant for academia, but in fact used in some universities for the introductory level. It uses a controlled list of the approximately 350 most common words and roots. The authors do not assume that the readers are competent in the grammar of their own first language, English. They are careful to explain every grammatical term (subject, definite article, adjective, etc.). In order to describe Hebrew grammatical phenomena existent or nonexistent in English, simple descriptive terms are used, instead of the accepted linguistic ones ('word pair' instead of 'construct chain,' 'clipped form' instead of 'apocopated form,' etc.). These sensible terms serve as scaffolding for the introductory stage, leading to more scholarly stages to follow after completion of the Primer. At the end of the book, readers are provided with a comparative list of the Primer friendly terms against the scholarly terms, as well as with a suggested bibliography for further study.

Bright verb paradigm charts of the various forms, stems, and root classes are provided with large fonts and distinguishable hollow fonts for prefixes and suffixes. These kinds of organizers, uncommon in academic textbooks, are in fact very helpful aids for the beginner, as they help them visualize patterns very clearly. Other very helpful aids are comprehensive inflection charts of common nouns, and common prepositions, as well as common verbs in the 7 stems.

The structure of the Primer seems to lean too much towards ascending difficulty rather than to descending frequency, thus delaying the access to the actual biblical text. This approach forces the authors to demonstrate what is taught through artificial sentences rather than actual verses. Therefore, they cannot avoid producing forced or convoluted prose in both form and content. This happens even in the guided reading of Ruth which, even though it approaches the authentic prose towards the last chapters, produces a strange hybrid of 'biblical' style. The above is in contradiction with the declared aim which is to help the student "discover and delight in the clear, strong rhythms of original Hebrew - a joy unattainable through reading even the best of translations" (Simon et al., 1992, p. i).

2.1.5 L'shon Hatorah, prefix-suffix workbooks (Widner, Y. 1992). Last, but not least, I would like to acknowledge the contribution to the initial planning of this program made by Rabbi Yehuda Widner through the presentation of his L'Shon Hatorah method in one of the Mini CAJE conferences. Rabbi Widner teaches the first elementary grades in a Jewish Religious school in the U.S. To enhance his students' comprehension of the biblical text (Genesis), he fosters in various creative ways their familiarity with the most frequent vocabulary in every chapter learned. At the same time he teaches his young students very early on, how to analyze a complex word, identify its prefixes and suffixes, recognize its main lexical component and translate the whole. The prefixes and suffixes taught include the very common pronominal suffixes (possession, direct object, verb subject), and very common prefixes (definite article, , prepositions, Vav Conjunctive, Vav Conversive, verb subject, etc.) This seemingly demanding approach is very innovative for young children, but Rabbi Widner reported excellent results even with average students. It is, in fact, an unusual approach for the teaching of adults as well. In spite of their high frequency, the pronominal suffixes, for example, are not introduced in the first chapters of any basic textbooks. Delaying their introduction, therefore, is a major obstacle in accessing even the simplest biblical text, whereas their early introduction allows the use of a much larger variety of verses, while demonstrating any other grammatical item or system. Therefore, frequency should be weighed seriously with the other important considerations (such as difficulty, learnability, teachability) competing for priority in the planning of every lesson in the curriculum. Indeed, the first sentences with which my class is addressed, right at the beginning of the first lesson, already contains the possession suffix followed immediately by its paradigm.

2.2.1. Enhancing the Learning and Retention of Biblical Languages for Adult Students (Morse, 2004) examines the potential application of developments in cognitive psychology and neuroscience to the teaching of biblical languages (and Greek in particular). The author, who tried to use the newest technology with no significant improvement in her students' achievements, turned to study what enhances learning in adults. Understanding that knowledge is stored in the brain in patterns of connections, and that the emotional state of students affects learning, led her to experiment with new approaches, methods and practices. In her teaching she considers "that adults learn best through repetitive pattern-making associations from familiar to more challenging information in which they are active participants as problem solvers in a social setting" (Morse, 2004). She attempts to construct her course around themes relevant to her seminary students. Also, Morse puts a great emphasis on the affective aspects of learning, the relaxed atmosphere in the classroom, the social interaction, learning with partners, consideration of different learning types, students' awareness of learning processes and metacognition, students' taking responsibility for their learning, etc. The author wrote her article as an invitation for more thoughts on and suggestions for the teaching of biblical languages in theological and religious studies settings. Her recommendations for a student-centered approach and for an emphasis on fostering an emotionally safe environment for learning is very important. Often, students approach ancient languages intimidated by their perceived 'terrible' difficulty, and with low confidence in their ability to overcome it. Contradicting these fears seems to be the instructor's first task, followed by the need to maintain an environment which enhances learning. As opposed to students of modern languages (studied today mostly for communication), students of ancient languages are provided with much less stimuli (the written text only, albeit read aloud). To compensate for that, emphasizing the learning of patterns is therefore a solid recommendation for the development of ancient language literacy in adults.

There is a problem, though, concerning the suggestion of constructing courses around themes. Doing so will complicate even further the already complex task discussed above (2.2) of finding the optimal design and organization for an ancient language program. Reading meaningful verses should certainly be an essential part of the process of learning. It would add much needed flavor to the lexical and the grammatical. However, wider relevant topics should be left for later, more advanced stages.

2.2.2. Can Communicative Methods Enhance Ancient Language Acquisition? (Overland, P., 2004) deals with more practical applications of methods and practices taken from the teaching of modern languages. It suggests the integration of communicative competence, immersion, music, total physical response (TPR), computer assisted learning and more, into the teaching of BH. The author describes his experimentation with new methods learned from a modern Hebrew Ulpan (Modern Hebrew intensive immersion courses in Israel) in order to enhance his teaching of a course using the First Hebrew Primer reviewed above ([Simon et al., 1992] see 2.1.4.) He suggests adding to the introductory course conversations, games, a ventriloquist doll, props, visual aids, role playing and more, all in BHHH. He reports that his students' achievements through this communicative oriented program are much higher compared to previous years, and not surprisingly, so is their satisfaction. He admits though, that more objective assessment tools will be needed to evaluate the outcome of his method compared to that of the traditional ones.

The communicative approach taken by the author is inspiring. It is creative, rich and seems to make a difference in encouraging learning. It can be adopted in order to enhance any good textbook or program, but might not be suitable for all situations, especially where time is a factor, and for all types of instructors and students (the less outgoing). It is certainly worth trying and experimenting with.

2.2.3. The Sanskrit Language: An Introductory Grammar and Reader by Walter Harding Maurer (Salmon, R., 2000) is a book review of a Sanskrit textbook. It has some interesting insights relevant to this paper. According to it, the reviewed textbook does indeed answer the needs of the students of today, who are not knowledgeable enough in the grammar of their own first language. The author of the textbook "is scrupulously careful to take nothing for granted and to explain every point in terms that will be maximally accessible to the linguistically naive student" (Salmon, 2000).

Still it seems that he is bound by "traditional Western pedagogy derived from classical studies based on the Greek and Latin model" (ibid.). This is indeed a major problem concerning the teaching of biblical Hebrew too, and especially grave when teaching the Hebrew verb. Terms like 'perfect' and 'imperfect', imported from languages far from the Semitic, are applied to the interpretation of the biblical verb and the very different perception of time (tense, aspects and mood). Instead of teaching a foreign language on its own terms, there has been a tendency to use twisted terminology and biased explanations to fit Indo-European terms. In many cases this tendency has of course the potential to confuse rather than clarify (see 2.4 below, [Halliday, 1993] ).

However, in spite of possible difficulties, the reviewer does value the innovation of this textbook in sequencing the presentation of grammatical topics based on their (subjective) degree of importance and on their frequency of occurrence.

Ultimately the textbook is praised for its author's enthusiasm and its attempt to impart this spirit together with the material taught. Indeed, in teaching biblical Hebrew, as with any other subject, author's or instructor's enthusiasm for what they wish to impart is invaluable. It inspires them to be creative and find better teaching methods and practices and to stimulate their students' curiosity and interest in the new, ancient language and culture they study.

The teaching of foreign languages poses complex problems concerning choice, mix, level, timing, etc. Research related to the teaching of modern languages has been informed by and has drawn insights from the study of a developing field of linguistics -- Functional Grammar. The teaching of ancient languages and BH, in particular, can surely benefit from it as well. Halliday's introduction to his book An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1993) will be reviewed, and the implications of Functional Grammar for the teaching of BH will be discussed.

Indeed, one of the problems with introductory courses of BH is their difficulty they have presenting a program whose clear objectives are compatible with realistic expectations from the students. Determining the appropriate balance of breadth and depth is one of the major steps. How much and in how many details do we impart the information in order to facilitate students' access to a straight forward biblical text by the completion of the introductory course, and what should we avoid and delay to later, more advanced and scholarly stages, when they will be expected to cope with more complex and demanding texts.

As opposed to the traditional linguistic approach, Functional Grammar does not deal with the forms first and only later with the meaning. It regards language as a system of meaning expressed through forms. The grammatical analysis of a text is done, therefore, while relating the text to its context of situation and culture. A text can be highly complex, including actions, ideas and emotions. "There is no way of turning it into an algorithm.... An automatic parser can handle a great deal of grammar; but there are always indeterminacies, alternative interpretations, places where one has to balance one factor against the other" (Halliday, p. xvi). On the other hand, no analysis can be done without grammar. As meaning and form are interwoven, "grammar needs to be functional and semantic in its orientation, with the grammatical categories explained as the realization of semantic patterns" (ibid.).

This is certainly an important lesson to remember while teaching, for example, the BH tenses. The many possible interpretations of the verb forms are still studied and debated; yet, in most cases it is the meaning and context that provides the reader with the best indication to a point or to a period of time, rather than the long and confusing list of options offered by grammars. Therefore, one should encourage the students to use the context and their common sense while reading a straightforward text, together with a minimal list of the most common interpretations of a verb form. If the text they are reading is a narrative one (or even a simple poetic one), they will most likely interpret it correctly. Later on, after reading an adequate amount of texts which are not too difficult, and advancing to more challenging ones, more sophisticated grammar books might be needed to help with their interpretation.

The author goes on to warn against the tendency of modern linguistics to impose categories found in English on the grammar of languages very different from it, making them look like "imperfect copies of English" (Halliday, p. xxxi). He suggests that while studying another language, one should ask: "How would I have interpreted the grammar of this language if English had never existed (Halliday, xxxv)?"

Indeed, failing to describe BH categories on their own terms in favour of translation into Indo-European terms is a serious problem in the study and teaching of BH. Considering again the teaching of the Hebrew verb forms, most textbooks of the introductory level provide the students with a long list of possible interpretations to conform with the many particular tenses, aspects & moods of western languages. Opening the students to a different perception of time evident in the biblical text, with its much less defined tenses, is not an easy task. Students should not be expected to provide exact translation, but to try to understand the Biblical text on its own terms. Thus, they will hopefully find a wider and easier access to the ancient texts and their culture.

Pedagogical Grammar draws knowledge and insights from various related fields such as linguistics, Functional Grammar, and general learning theories, in order to improve the teaching and learning of languages (mostly second languages). Research in Pedagogical Grammar is an attempt to learn from what is known about the nature of languages and the way they are acquired, in order to apply it to methodologies and practices. The research is concerned with the teaching of modern languages and much of it with fostering the communicative proficiency. Still, the teaching of ancient languages, and BH in particular, would no doubt benefit from the questions asked, the hypotheses examined and the methods suggested in these studies. Some issues dealt with in Pedagogical Grammar research will be reviewed below and their possible implications for the teaching of BH will be discussed.

How does the acquisition of a second language (L2) differ from that of the first

language (L1)? Parameters common to any particular L1 are easily acquired by children. They are built directly on the innate knowledge of the principles of the Universal Grammar as described by Noam Chomsky. Determining what these principles are might not have any application to the teaching of L2, as they are probably very abstract, and can be taken for granted. It is clear that adult learners of L2 struggle when they face new 'strange' parameters and have to overcome their familiarity with their L1 parameters, which they take for granted as the only way to express things (Cook, 1994).

Adult native English speakers, for example, find it difficult to accept a sentence without a verb (the Hebrew Noun sentence) or the need to conjugate a verb assigning a specific form for every person. Adults have, therefore, to accept that the known and familiar in L1 is only one of many other possible ways to communicate, before taking in these new 'strange' parameters of L2. They acquire their L2 indirectly, through or in spite of their L1. Very young children, on the other hand, don't seem to have the same difficulty. The younger they are, the less hindered their acquisition of an additional language seems to be. Are they acquiring the parameters of both languages, building them side by side on the UG? Until when is this double acquisition possible? Is there any direct access to UG still available for the adult? Can Universal Grammar facilitate the acquisition of L2 in adults directly, side by side with L1 and not on top of it? (Cook, 1994)

Several learning hypotheses have been proposed. Nunan (1994) examines three of them:

1. The Contrastive hypothesis proposes that learner's L1 will have significant influence on the acquisition of L2, depending on positive or negative transfer possible in

cases of similarity or difference (existence or non-existence) of grammatical items.

This of course has important implications for the introduction of L2 grammar. The 'similar' can be taken for granted, while the 'foreign' would need more attention, planning and time. Would it also have its implications on the sequencing of the grammatical items? Probably.

2. The Multidimensional/bidimensional model hypothesis proposes that "syntactic and morphological items in a given language can be classified according to whether they are developmental or variational" (Nunan, 1994). The developmental items occur in a learner's productive repertoire in a set sequence, whereas variational items can be learned at any time.

3. The teachability hypothesis proposes that it is futile to introduce learners to items which are developmentally beyond their current stage of development, and that it is impossible to 'override' the developmental order through instruction. The learner should be developmentally 'ready' for any new item. The timing of teaching certain items is important.

Again the above relates mostly to the productive skills but seem to be true for the passive ones as well. With regard to IBHPW, while experimenting with the sequencing, and taking into consideration the lack of research available, I have relied much on intuition and students' feedback to determine the order in which the various grammatical systems should be taught.

Still, one should not confuse, of course, the productive with the receptive knowledge. There are still unanswered questions relating to the gestation period of acquisition. Students are capable of understanding structures much sooner than they are capable of using them. Indeed, evidence suggests that making structures, which are beyond learner's current processing capacity, salient to them, can facilitate the rate of acquisition of the productive skills (Nunan, 1994).

While teaching ancient languages, there is no attempt whatsoever to achieve any productive proficiency. Even scholars of BH themselves would not necessarily be able to conduct a fluent conversation in BH if they were dropped by a time machine into the streets of Jerusalem of 2500 years ago. The teaching and learning of an ancient language, in which there are no expectations for productive use, are therefore, very different from the teaching of a modern language for communication. Learners are expected to achieve in a relative short time (100 - 200 class hours) the ability to handle sophisticated textual content (narrative and others) which is grammatically straightforward, albeit with the help of a lexicon and other aids. This, of course, would have been impossible for a learner of a modern language who would not be expected to approach such texts before having taken several hundred more classroom hours. (Modern language learners spend 800-1440 classroom hours in a language course depending on L1/L2 transfer [Odlin 1994].)

How explicitly should the grammar be taught? From what is known about language and language-learning processes we cannot expect, nor should we strive to achieve, accurate grammatical understanding or accurate rules, as they are "neither realistic nor desirable in learning/teaching situations beyond the low-level area" (Westney, 1994). Higher level learners of L2, similar to users of L1, can internalize much higher level grammar through massive exposure. Could we try to simulate, to the extent possible (and the available access to Universal Grammar), the acquisition and knowledge of L1 in which, as Westney puts it "any language user 'knows' that language is like this" (ibid.)? He continues saying that "an adequate model of language for both the learner and the teacher must allow for structure to be relatively obscure and only indirectly accessible to consciousness." Indeed, users of L1 acquire their knowledge of the language through massive exposure and not through rules. Wouldn't a massive exposure from a certain level and up (through and after the intensive introductory course) be the most efficient way for the adult learner to internalize much of the rules of L2 without necessarily learning all of them formally? Wouldn't a massive intake of straight forward biblical text following the introductory course be more effective in absorbing the way BH 'is,' than going through innumerable rules during the introductory course in order to cover indigestibly long lists of every possible case (verb tense/aspect/mood interpretations, for example)? Westney's suggestion not to insist on accurate rules seems plausible. In IBHPW, for example, students are offered a simplified model (approximation) of the possible interpretations of the verb form, allowing them to use much context and intuition to help them interpret the verses. Covering more and more texts would eventually allow them a 'semi' unconscious grasp of many passages and facilitate legitimate, educated guesses without necessarily consulting the long and confusing lists of rules offered by traditional BH grammar textbooks.

The need for large amounts of exposure, not possible in the classroom, puts much of the responsibility on the shoulders of the students. Much learning, drilling, reading, has to be done independently outside the classroom and beyond the introductory level. "Since instruction is so often incomplete, students will have to become independent analysts of the target language if they are to deal with all the problems that their instructors lack time to cover in much detail" (Odlin, 1994). In order to foster this independence, continues Odlin, teachers have to provide guidance that "will ideally include not only observations about what constitutes a grammatical system in the target language, but also advice about how to explore the system independently."

Therefore, successful learning strategies for learners include : willingness to take risks, tolerance for ambiguity/vagueness, attention to linguistic form, and readiness for inferences and guesses (Westney 1994).

What kind of rules should pedagogical grammar offer the learner? What should be their characteristics? Rules, it is suggested, should be descriptive with predictive power, relevant to the learners' needs, and taking into account L1/L2 contrasts. They should be true, concrete, simple, clear, nontechnical, parsimonious, cumulative, and in a rule of thumb form (Westney, 1994).

Rules can be presented in various forms such as formal rules, schemata, formulas, paradigms, conditions, constraints. They should be simple and compatible with the current level, but at the same time accurate enough and capable of gradual integration into broader patterns. As opposed to rules of grammar which are abstract generalizations and linguistically sound, the suggested 'rules of thumb' are usable informal formulations, limited in validity and scope to the current level of the students. Oversimplified rules, though, pose challenges as they might appear in later stages as inadequate, if not false (ibid.). Pedagogical rules which impart only 'partial truth,' should nevertheless be formulated in such a way, that would not lead students to false inferences or over-generalization (Bloom-Kulka, 1979). Students' attention should certainly be drawn to the simplified nature of the pedagogical rules presented. They should expect them to be developed and fine tuned as they progress to more advanced levels. This awareness might keep them wary of over-generalization.

The practical implications of research to the field of pedagogical grammar are many. PG can help language teachers, curriculum designers and material writers deal with the problems of selection and sequencing of grammatical content, and its integration with the semantics, and with the problems of the selection of appropriate pedagogy to implement the curriculum chosen. In short, it can help us answer the questions: what to teach, when, and in what way (Nunan, 1994).

A meticulously laid scholarly grammar (be it traditional or functional) will organize a body of language already largely known to the reader, and make sense of it. A Pedagogical Grammar, on the other hand, contains grammatical systems presented to be learned and drilled by the learners in order to develop their competency and proficiency. The first tries to present "the whole truth," while the second attempts to attain its goal by revealing only part of it, and even this, gradually, while weighing all of the distance from L1, the relations among the various grammatical systems and items, frequency, level, course objectives, course length, etc. (Bloom-Kulka, 1979).

Research in Pedagogical Grammar cannot be a purely academic endeavor. It is intended to inform pedagogy needs, and at the same time draw from the process of negotiation happening in the classroom. This negotiation involves the teacher's overall educational ideology, the learners' expectations and preferences and various other local constraints. Research offered should be evaluated by the teachers against the realities of their classroom. Teachers themselves have a major role to play in collecting and analyzing data in their particular classroom context as well as experimenting with suggested innovations (Nunan, 1994).

Because of time constraints IBHPW has been implemented through an intensive course consisting of only 100 hours (four weeks). The students are required to start the course having already been familiarized with the Hebrew letters and vowels and be able to read, albeit slowly and hesitantly. Fine tuning of the reading is done throughout the course. The material required for the course consists of 24 handouts (for sample see Appendix) of various lengths (total of about 200 pages). For the time being, each handout contains mostly carefully chosen and sequenced biblical verses (except for the first few handouts which do contain artificial sentences as well) demonstrating the grammar taught. Explanations are delivered during the class. For now explanations are included in the written material only sparsely, but are added gradually with every revision. Various organizers are provided throughout the course (charts etc.), and are compiled to create the 'tool box' (see Appendix for some of its content) which is indispensable for the ongoing analysis and interpretation of the texts treated. To this end the comprehensive noun, preposition and verb charts of the First Hebrew Primer (Simon et al., 1992) are heavily used, too, but not before enhancing them with more details, color coding, etc. The material is always taught in context, and through the texts in the handouts. No exercises have been developed yet, except for the option of analyzing the verses offered in the handouts. This is done through parsing and interpreting them with the help of empty parsing charts for the verb, noun, preposition and direct object (see Appendix), which systematically guide the student to the vocabulary studied in the lexicon. For homework and drilling, the students are referred in each handout to the suitable exercises in the First Hebrew Primer and/or to the Biblical Hebrew Introductory Grammar (Kelley, 1992), with preference to the second text. With the little explanations available in the handouts, the students are referred in each handout to the parallel chapters in the First Hebrew Primer in order to reinforce what is learned in class and review (there is an optional reference to the more academic textbook by Kelley [1992] as well). Students taking the course are expected to dedicate at least 3 hours daily for homework. Last, but not least, there is a conscious attempt to foster a relaxed and friendly atmosphere enhanced, especially in the first third of the course, by incorporating elementary conversations, presentation of relevant art and photography and, if time permits (more of course in the summer course), the singing of a variety of biblical verses.

The intention of planning IBHPW program has been to create a mediated learning experience for the students through the selection and prioritization of the lexical and grammatical components perceived to be essential. This is done through the timing in which every component is presented, considering its relationship to other components, through the use of various learning aids, and through the ongoing zooming in and out, from the detailed to the general and viseversa, on the 'map' presented in front of the class. Every grammatical system presented is taught not only for its own sake, but also in order to foster and reinforce the understanding of larger concepts and systems, and eventually to develop the cognitive structure on the different scales. This cognitive structure in turn facilitates more learning as the students progress and acquire new knowledge and skills. As they learn more and more on the different scales, students gradually gain better access to larger and more versatile biblical texts. They apply all of their 'tools,' conceptual or actual (lexicon, charts, etc.), and then analyze, use common sense, understand and interpret.

A good example demonstrating the creation of a mediated learning experience is the way that the declined Possession Pronominal Suffix (added to a noun and indicating: my, your, etc.) and the Noun Sentence (a sentence without a verb!) are taught right through the first Hebrew sentence the students hear in the first class, when I introduce myself orally and in writing simultaneously:

These two particular grammatical systems, in spite of their having no parallel in the English grammar, and paradoxically, because of it, proved to be a good opening for the course, when students are still fresh and unburdened with details. Introducing both together at this initial stage serves as an opportunity to start building the cognitive structure needed for their further learning, by raising their awareness of the different nature of languages. These differences do not seem to be obvious to all students. Even after a past encounter with a required foreign language (in high school?), they still expect all languages to 'behave' the same way as their L1, English. They expect the familiar syntactic order, parallel prepositions following parallel verbs, similar tense categories etc.; an expectation which would be a major barrier for their learning. Together with this first encounter with these two 'peculiar' examples of the H grammar, the students are referred also to the non academic article, "Babel's Children" (Economist.com 2005) describing western linguists' bias towards non Indo-European languages. Thus, they learn an important lesson, that they should not take what they know about their L1 (or any other Indo-European language for that matter) as true for another, and that their encounter with BH too, will require an openness to very different characteristics, an openness that will facilitate their adoption of the new material accumulating from now on.

The introduction to the Possessive Suffix adds another the development of the cognitive structure needed for the learning of BH, albeit on a somewhat lower scale. Students' attention is drawn to an important general feature of Hebrew, that of being a 'compact' language. What would seem to be one word, could be complex, and might have to be translated into a several English words. They are told that throughout the course, they will be presented with other prefixes and suffixes, and will have to learn to identify them. That said, the Possessive Suffix is taught of course, for its own sake as well, and it was chosen before other systems for its very frequent occurrence. Teaching the Possession Suffix before other systems ensures that it will be found in numerous authentic examples not only for its own demonstration, but for the demonstration of any other system taught from now on. Thus, familiarity with the most frequently occurring elements which are introduced early on is reinforced further with every recurring encounter while learning the subsequent systems.

The use of authentic material is most important in the development of students' reading proficiency (Hadley, 2001, chapter 5). It is even more so for the teaching of ancient Hebrew, which leads the students to the reading of the actual biblical text, the only target text. The earlier the students can access even the shortest verses, which will eventually extend to longer verses and passages, the more attuned they will be to its features, style and spirit.

The introduction to the Noun Sentence in this early stage is done, as mentioned above, because of its 'peculiarity' to the English speaking student - a sentence without a verb! However, this is not the main reason. Indeed, the occurrence of the Noun Sentence is not as frequent as the Possession suffix, and much less frequent than the verbal sentence, which is the major player in the biblical text. Still, for reasons of mediation between the material and the learner, it is intentionally taught earlier on. The Noun Sentence is simple (relative to the much more frequent but so much more complex verbal sentence), and can serve as a convenient vehicle for the introduction in context of most of the very frequent 'basics' such as nouns, adjectives, definite article, prepositions and much more.

Last but not least, starting the first lesson with these two grammatical systems, helps take care of the affective aspect of the program (Morse, 2004) and the social interaction essential to learning according to Vygotsky's theory of mind (Poehner & Lantolf, 2004). A small dosage of the communicative methods (Overland, 2004) is used through very basic conversations to practice the paradigm:

(My name is Devora. What is your name? What is his name? Her name is Hanna. etc).

This kind of practice is used in a limited amount only in the first part of the course (preceding the Verb) and with simple, isolated grammatical items embedded in noun sentences. Albeit a sparse sprinkling of Hebrew 'talk', it serves to create a warm and unthreatening atmosphere, so important for language acquisition. Even without trying to achieve real conversation in biblical Hebrew, which is in no way an objective, it might be worthwhile experimenting further in this line, and finding out, whether more of the communicative approach would better facilitate the acquisition of the competence and passive skills expected in such a course.

The appearance of the Possession Suffix in context, in the first sentence heard and seen on the board, leads soon after to the presentation of the larger grammatical framework, the declension of singular persons leading later, in its turn, to the complete paradigm (Figure 1):

Throughout the process, the paradigm is drilled (in conversation) as well as applied to the interpretation of a good number of short biblical verses.

Similarly, the teaching of any other component of the program is carefully planned not only for its own sake, but also for its role in the development of the more comprehensive cognitive structure. The program teaches the students how to study the material, absorb, and fit more and more new pieces into the bigger puzzle, growing in complexity. It prepares them to identify general patterns, and to use them to interpret specific cases. Thus, by transcending the experience and the needs of the immediate here and now, through mediated learning, the students understand how the parts are related to the whole, and learn to draw logical inferences (Feuerstein et al., 1981).

The mediation between the material and the learner is achieved also by using various visual organizers (Hadley, 2001, chapter 4), aids such as form and color are used to help the students identify major patterns more easily, and to apply them in their interpretation of any text. Examples of these visual organizers are: hollow or large fonts (much larger than presented here), the bolding and highlighting of the elements taught, as in the Possession Suffix

 the division of a complex verse into its different clauses, appearing each on a different line; and the color coding in charts (different color paper for the different verb stems paradigm, or the highlighting in various colors of the different root groups in a comprehensive conjugation chart ). Also, photographs of biblical scenery and artifacts, as well as art (usually those of Gustav Dore [1991]) are presented extensively in the 'basics' (pre verbal sentence) part of the course. They help depict frequent vocabulary, demonstrate basic grammatical items, and contextualize short verses drawn from familiar biblical stories with their protagonists now carrying their original Hebrew names.

Thus, IBHPW program has been developed and sequenced, through weighing various considerations, such as frequency, efficiency, building of the cognitive structure needed to facilitate the learning, and contribution to the emotional comfort level of the students , all to create a mediated learning experience and facilitate students' intake of a challenging course.

As already discussed, frequency of both the grammatical and the lexical components is one of the major considerations in sequencing what is taught in the IBHPW. The earlier the 'more frequent' is learned the more opportunities there are for the students to encounter it again and again, familiarize themselves well with them, and thus, save themselves later on the time and the burden of unnecessary search in the lexicon.

The target corpus of biblical Hebrew is of course first and foremost the Hebrew Bible itself, which contains all together close to 305,000 words only (Even-Shoshan, 1990). The biblical Hebrew lexicon contains less than 9,000 entries (Brown, 1979), many of which belonging to a much smaller number of roots. Frequent words account for a surprisingly large portion of the total word count. For example, 1,172 most frequent words that keep occurring in the Bible, from thousands of times each to more than 25 times each, account for about 80% of the total word count. Even the small number of 200 most frequent words account for an amazing 60% of the total words count (Haramati, 1983). Therefore, fostering students' familiarity with as many words of the frequent vocabulary as possible, would allow them to understand much of most biblical texts, and this cannot be emphasized enough. It should be integrated in every possible way into the material offered while teaching the grammar, drilled (in context) through various verses and exercises in class and at home, or, if students find it helpful, even memorized with the help of the different BH flash cards kits available.

Developing a curriculum, which takes lexical frequency seriously into consideration, is of course a very demanding endeavor. As BH grammatical systems lists organized in descending order of frequency are unavailable, curriculum developers have to rely on their intuition or their general impressions deriving from the concordance to determine their preferable sequence of teaching. The integration of frequent vocabulary into the curriculum is, however, much easier, as, together with the concordance, various vocabulary lists are available and can be consulted. These lists are organized in two general ways: descending frequency lists with the number of occurrences of every word mentioned, and alphabetical lists with the ordinal number of every word on the frequency list mentioned. Other than the integration of frequent vocabulary into the curriculum, drawing students' attention to the frequency makes its importance salient to them, and may encourage them to put extra effort into familiarizing themselves with it in order to enhance their progress.

Right after both the yiqtol and the qatal forms of the verb in the Qal, and through the simple ro