Talk:Propaedeutic value of Esperanto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Constructed languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about constructed languages, aka conlangs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
If listing this article for deletion or if there is an active edit war, please post a note here. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the class scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article is supported by the Esperanto task force. | |
 |
This article is an Esperanto core topic. |
Contents |
[edit] Possible copyright violation
It appears that a large part of this article was copied from International Language (known as Esperanto) Commission, Interministerial Decree April 29/October 5 1993. I don't see a copyright notice, and it was apparently published by an Italian government ministry, so maybe it's public domain or free to use; but we need to verify that. --Jim Henry 22:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have emailed the webmaster of www.internacialingvo.org, where I found the source document, asking for information. --Jim Henry | Talk 22:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Got email on 6 March from Giorgio Pagano, the webmaster of www.internacialingvo.org, saying he would look into the copyright status of the source document. --68.158.50.57 00:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) i.e. Jim Henry | Talk (having trouble logging in on this machine, maybe cookie setup problem)
Still no further word on whether the document is free to use. --Jim Henry | Talk 18:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Another possible source
Chuck SMITH has a user subpage, User:Chuck_Smith/Pedagogical_evidence_for_Esperanto which we might can use as an additional source if we have to rewrite this article. --Jim Henry | Talk 18:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Redundant entry?
I wonder if the entries on Girls' Middle School in Bishop Auckland (GB) and Bishop's Elementary School, Auckland (New Zealand) actually refer to the same study. Granted the countries and dates are different, but it seems more than odd that two schools associated with "Bishop" and "Auckland" should attract studies on the propedeutic value of Esperanto. I expect there's been some garbling here.
[edit] Cleanup
This article is far too long. I don't want to read about the results of every individual study on the use of Esperanto in schools; I just want a summary of the facts. This article reads more like a scientific literature review than an encyclopedia article, so I am adding a cleanup tag. —Psychonaut 01:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This is just a personal opinion from me, but I'm honestly glad I got here /before/ the article was cleaned up, because a list of actual studies was exactly what I was looking for. I think there is real value in including a summary of the individual studies, especially for someone like me who was trying to use Wikipedia to drill down to some first-hand information. -Jackalgirl
[edit] Propaedeutic value of [insert other language here?]
In discussing this issue with others, the question arose whether the factors cited are propaedeutic effects of Esperanto, or propaedeutic effects of learning any other language. That is, if you have a first language, then study a second language for a year, and then study a third language, perhaps the third language always goes easier than if you had never studied the second language.
Have people done these Propaedeutic studies with languages other than Esperanto? For example, compare these two groups:
- English (native) ----> French (secondary language studied for 1 year) ----> Japanese (third language studied for 3 years)
- English (native) ----> Esperanto (secondary language studied for 1 year) ----> Japanese (third language studied for 3 years)
Has this been done?
If so, it seems like this article should cite them.
If not, it seems like this article should explore that explanation as a possibility and note that these were NON-controlled studies on the axis of which language is taught first.
Garkbit 15:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Don't know, but Esp. is one of very few languages you can learn in a year of US highschool-style coursework, so I would expect the effect to be greater. (I know a few months of Esp. helped my Japanese more than 6 years of Spanish, not that I'm suggesting we use testimonials) kwami 06:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What it is
"Propaedeutic Esperanto is the theory"? If "Propaedeutic Esperanto" is "the theory," how are we to refer to Esperanto taught for a propaedeutic purpose? Frankly, I doubt that statement is true. But I object also to the use of the word "propaedeutic," not because it's inappropriately applied, but because it's rarely used. It doesn't appear among the scores of words related to teaching in Roget's Thesaurus, and according to the Random House Unabridged dictionary, it simply means "pertaining to or of the nature of preliminary instruction," "introductory to some art or science," or "a propaedeutic subject or study." ("Propaedeutics," construed as singular, means "the preliminary body of knowledge and rules necessary for the study of some art or science." - op. cit.) So why not "elementary," "beginners'," or "introductory"? As you may surmise from my usage, "propaedeutic purpose," I'd assumed it had something to do with instruction in one subject preparatory to learning other subjects, and perhaps it has, but in that case, why is the word so rare? "Didactic" and "pedagogical" are far more familiar words. The Encyclopaedia Britannica has its Propaedia (though you wouldn't know it existed from their website), which it calls "an outline of knowledge": nothing to do with education! If a course in Esperanto is intended to get one started in learning more Esperanto, perhaps it should be called "elementary Esperanto," and studying Esperanto for the sake of preparatory familiarization with learning new languages in general could quite clearly be called "didactic Esperanto." When studying a new language in the classroom, I've observed that, at the outset, the primary goal for most students is a remedial one: to overcome a common lack of familiarity with ordinary grammar. "Propaedeutic Esperanto" sounds like a variety of Esperanto. "Propaedeutic value of Esperanto" makes perfect sense to people familiar with the word. But the topic of this article is clearly the use of learning Esperanto as an exercise in linguistics. Though I've strayed from the point I wanted to make, I hope somebody will distinguish that from "the theory," and if there is a theory, tell us what it is. Unfree (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Propaedeutic" in this context is "A subject or study which forms an introduction to an art or science". "Didactic" would not be incorrect, but would be less felicitous: It would mean simply the value of Esperanto in teaching, not specifically its value as an introduction to further study, which is the point of the article. "Pedagogic" would be somewhat better, since it has the connotation of introductory teaching, but does not suggest that it is introductory to another subject. I agree that the opening line is poorly worded. kwami (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- How does it read now? kwami (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
