testing proficiency

[Conor Quinn]

Dia dhaoibh aríst, a chairde!

When it comes to pedagogical progression and the assessment thereof, what
seems most helpful is figuring out how to not put structural patterns
("grammar") and functional communicative capacity ("being able to actually
talk") in artificial opposition, and instead, reframe them as very much the
same thing.

Morphosyntax is (almost) always meaningful, and that meaning is always
functional.  There is always some real-world, conversational situation
where that morphosyntactically-driven meaning matters in a very practical
way.  It's just up to us to find it.

That's why in my AC talk, I mentioned a seven-point approach (see below)
for introducing Algonquian (well, at least E. Algonquian, but it should be
reasonably comparable) patterns via purely functional, situational-usage
expressions...ones that happen to illustrate all the core grammatical
contrasts.

The linguist-y approach tends to give the whole paradigm (a terrifying
chart) for any pattern; this is overwhelming and unnecessary.  From a
functional-situational perspective, just being able to use a new pattern to
talk about me (1s) and you (2s) is enough to have a real (if limited)
conversation, and get used to unfamiliar ways to do that---e.g. by affixal
elements rather than separate words---without having to learn every
possible instance of that unfamiliar pattern at the same time.  That can
come later, when the foundations laid by the basic me-and-you system are
solid.

The point, then, is to be radically minimalist in what is introduced at any
one point; and have that material be carefully selected neither for its
real-world utility nor for its grammatical primacy, but utterly and
absolutely for how it realizes both.

An assessment program could follow a progression like this pretty easily, I
think, since we would expect learners to be able to demonstrate real-world
functionality from it just as much as control of key linguistic forms.

What do you all think?

Slán,
bhur gcara


- Seven-point approach

Learners focus on the expressions in brackets, with the variations in
braces, and the technical rationales in parentheses.  All are very useful,
everyday-functional expressions, that realize and saliently (and simply!)
contrast key components of the grammar.  (Note that they also form a
progression of patterns that constantly refer back to and reinforce
previous ones.)

1    [that is {my, your}...]

    (possessor marking, with demonstrative identificational construction)

2    [{I am, you are} named ...]

    (IdpIdc use of possessor marking (simplest minimum))


3    [that is what {I am, you are} named]

    (Cj + demonstrative deictic constructions of the above)


4    [give ME, give HER]

    (ditransitive commands (Imperatives))


5    [you give ME it, I give YOU it]

    (Idp statement versions of the above)


6    [that is what you gave ME, etc.]

    (Cj + demonstrative deictic constructions of the above)


7    [that (established) is what I am named]
    [that (new topic) is what I am named]

    (topic continuity (backreference) and change particles)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/algonquiana/attachments/20131113/3ede415f/attachment.htm>