I was wondering if anyone could provide me with references on any online material (pdf, links, etc.) of Latin Grammar which can contain exercises based on so-called "inverse analysis" and "minimal pairs". Typically, the former consist in stating the grammatical conditions that the example(s) to be discovered by the student should obey (e.g.,cf. "give an example of a non-deponent verb with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct object and not able to take ablative agent"), whereas the latter consist in comparing two (or more) constructions that involve a (more or less) minimal grammatical modification but an often subtle difference in meaning (e.g., cf. the verbal passive Hoc a me deliberatum est vs. the adjectival passive Hoc mihi deliberatum est). Ideally, as in textbooks of other languages, the exercises should be sequenced according to the background/level of students (e.g., the two examples given above belong to a proficiency level, esp. the first one based on a question raised by Draconis (see link above)).

This type of grammatical exercises are currently regarded by experts on pedagogical {grammar/linguistics} as more creative (among other advantages, these are claimed to make the inquisitive nature of students burst) than the typical more passive exercises where the student limits herself/himself to identifying/labeling the grammatical construction at issue (e.g., this is an Ablative Absolute, this is a dominant participle or ab urbe condita construction, this is a double dative construction, etc.). Of course, this traditional typology of exercises is also useful for acquiring a taxonomic grammar but has been said to provide a wrong view of what grammar really is as a scientific object. In fact, many people confound "to provide a grammatical analysis" with "to give the name of the phenomenon". As emphasized by different experts on grammatical analysis, to analyze a grammatical construction cannot consist in providing a label. In short, one should not confound "grammatical analysis" with "grammatical taxonomy". It is indeed important to classify objects (in this case: grammatical objects) but it is more important (and indeed more creative) for students to develop their inquisitive nature, as is done in other scientific areas of their curriculum (e.g., maths, chemistry, physics, etc.). NB: the debate between "taxonomic grammar" and "scientific grammar" is at least as old as the one we can find in the Renaissance period where there were two tendencies in writing grammars of Classical Latin. E.g., cf. (I) the "taxonomic"/"normative" one by the Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla (Elegantiae Linguae Latinae, 1444) or the Spanish Antonio de Nebrija (Introductiones latinae, 1481), centered on normative usage and style with (II) the "scientific"/"rational" one by the Italian humanist Scaliger (De Causis Linguae Latinae, 1540) or the Spanish one El Brocense (Minerva, 1587), centered on searching for the "causes" of grammar.

I'm only familiar with work on the modern scientific perspective of teaching grammar in other languages (e.g., cf. the Spanish work by my colleague Prof. Ángel J. Gallego: https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/rla/v54n2/art_04.pdf and a twitter account of his association "GrOC" devoted to this new scientific perspective of teaching grammar: https://twitter.com/paresminimos?lang=ca ) but I do not know anything about whether similar work {has been/is being} carried out in Latin grammar.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.