CONCRETENESS
Such expressions as _for instance_, _for example_, or _here is a case
in point_ are fairly common in our speech. Whenever we hear somebody
explaining something we may be certain that one of these expressions
will occur not once but many times. When we ourselves set out to
explain anything we may be quite sure that in a very few moments we
shall use one of the expressions in question, and indeed our certainty
is justified in almost every case. The reason for using such phrases is
quite clear; every time we do so it is because we feel instinctively
that we have just made a statement which is not sufficiently explicit;
we are more or less aware that we have expressed something in terms
rather too abstract, and we wish to reduce our statement to more
concrete terms; we feel the necessity for _concreteness_. There is
a similar reason for using such expressions as _in other terms_,
_in other words_, or _that is to say_. We feel in these cases that
an explanation just given is wanting in lucidity, and we add a
supplementary explanation in order to make our point more concrete.
The substance of the principle of concreteness is contained in the
maxim, “Example is better than precept”; we intuitively know this to be
true, and our own experience confirms our judgment; we remember on how
many occasions a few typical examples have been of greater help to our
understanding than the best-worded definitions or the most detailed
descriptions. Psychologists confirm us in our impression and assure
us that it is correct; indeed, one of the fundamental principles of
the psychology of study is that we must work from the concrete to the
abstract.
Let us take a concrete example to serve as an illustration. One of the
things we have to teach the French student of English is that anterior
duration is expressed in English by the use of the perfect tenses (if
possible in their progressive form) and not by the use of the ordinary
non-perfect tenses as in French, and that _depuis_ or its equivalent
is not merely _since_. The whole point can be expressed more or less
abstractly by the following formula:
_French_ _English_
Non-perfect tense + _depuis_ }
+ measure of duration }
_or_ } { Corresponding perfect
_Il y_ + (non-perfect tense of } = { (progressive) tense + (_for_)
_avoir_) + measure of duration } { + measure of duration.
+ _que_ + non-perfect tense }
Non-perfect tense + _depuis_ } { Corresponding perfect
+ term signifying initial } = { (progressive) tense +
moment of duration } { _since_ + term signifying
{ initial moment of duration.
Now this is a very concise formula and probably covers the whole of
the ground. But it is expressed in such abstract terms that we cannot
expect the average student to grasp it, still less to apply it in his
speech. We can concretize it by furnishing one or two typical examples.
We can say: “Look at the clock, it’s just half-past twelve--we started
this lesson at twelve, didn’t we? Well, it means that we have been
working since twelve o’clock; we have been working for half an hour.
How long have we been working? For half an hour. Since when have we
been working? Since twelve o’clock. Repeat that after me. Repeat it
again. Now just note that we say _We have been working_, not _We work_
or _We are working_. Now, then, how do you say _Nous travaillons depuis
midi_? And _Nous travaillons depuis une demi-heure_? Note that _nous
sommes_ sometimes becomes _we have been_.”
That would be a fairly concrete (but not ideally concrete) way of
teaching the point in question. The average student would grasp the
point, and the conscientious student would probably observe it and
incorporate it into his usage.
But the principle of concreteness goes beyond this; it does not merely
state that examples of every rule should be given, it specifies various
degrees and various kinds of concreteness. An example in itself is
more concrete than a rule, but one example may be more concrete than
another; let us therefore choose the more concrete examples, that is
to say, those which will create the strongest semantic associations.
Concreteness will be the chief determining factor in the choice of
the early vocabularies; it will tend to make us give a preference to
words and compounds lending themselves to ‘direct’ work. It will not,
however, be the sole factor, for if we decided to make an exclusive use
of such words it would be at the expense of the principle of proportion.
Here is another example of what is implied by concreteness. It often
occurs that a student will learn how to construct a sentence--indeed,
he may even memorize it--and yet fail to realize that it is a real
living sentence, an integral part of his linguistic repertory ready
for immediate use. He may have learnt the construction _Would you
mind ----ing_ and be able to translate it backwards and forwards and
invariably to quote it in his list of compounds requiring the use
of the _ing_-form, and yet, instead of using it in actual practice,
may replace it by _Would you be so kind as to_ or some such stilted
equivalent. In such cases we may be sure that the principle of
concreteness has not been sufficiently observed.
The ‘direct methodists’ of the more extreme type interpret concreteness
in a curious way, and identify it with the non-translation principle
and with the principle of the exclusion of the mother-tongue as a
vehicular language. They tend to think that by keeping English out of
the French lesson, the teacher causes French to be acquired concretely.
In certain cases this is true, but there are probably far more contrary
cases.
In the example relating to the expression of anterior duration the
concreteness consists very largely in pointing out the difference of
usage in the two languages. In order to make the construction _Would
you mind_ perfectly concrete to a Frenchman, we must insist on its
semantic equivalence to his _Est-ce que ça ne vous ferait rien de_. One
of the things we must do to concretize the difference between _I did
so_, _So I did_, and _So did I_, is to furnish the student with his
respective native equivalents.
There are four ways and four ways only of furnishing a student with the
meaning of given foreign units:
(1) _By immediate association_, as when we point to the object or a
picture of the object designated by a noun or pronoun, when we perform
the action designated by a verb, when we point to a real example of the
quality designated by an adjective, or when we demonstrate in similar
ways that which is designated by a preposition of place or certain
categories of adverbs.
(2) _By translation_, as when we give the nearest native equivalent or
equivalents of the foreign unit.
(3) _By definition_, as when we give a synonym or paraphrase of the
word or word-group or a description of that which is designated by it.
(4) _By context_, as when we embody the unit in sentences which will
make its meaning clear (_e.g._ January is the _first_ month of the
year; London is the _capital_ of England).
These four methods or modes of ‘semanticizing’ a unit are here given
in order of what are generally their relative degrees of concreteness.
There may, however, be some cases in which translation will be more
concrete than immediate association. Translation is not in itself
necessarily ‘indirect’ (or ‘inconcrete,’ as we should prefer to express
it); it may be relatively indirect when compared with good examples
of immediate association, but it is undoubtedly more ‘direct’ than a
cumbrous or vague definition, or an obscure context.
The following precepts may serve as concrete examples of the way we can
carry the principles of concreteness into practice:
(1) Let the example precede or even replace the rule. A well-chosen
example or set of examples may so completely embody the rule that the
rule itself will be superfluous.
(2) Give _many_ examples to each important rule. We have noted that
the suggested treatment of the problem of anterior duration was not
an ideal one. In order to make it ideal we should have taken a second
example (e.g. _How long have you been learning English?_) and still
more examples (e.g. _How long have you been in this room?--been living
in England?--been living at your present address? Have you been sitting
here since twelve o’clock or since a quarter past twelve? How long has
France been a republic?_). Too often the teacher imagines that one
example constitutes a complete exposition of a given point: whereas
in reality it is by finding (consciously or unconsciously) the common
element in many examples that we come to grasp the usage exemplified.
(3) When teaching or alluding to the peculiarities connected with
nouns, choose as examples the nouns which are the names of various
objects actually in the room, and in each case point to or handle the
object in question. Handling pencils, pens, and books while talking
about them very much facilitates the grasping of principles of
declension.
(4) When teaching or alluding to the peculiarities connected with
verbal forms, choose as examples verbs such as _take_, _put_, _see_,
_go_, _come_, _sit_, _stand_, etc.--that is to say, verbs that can
be ‘acted.’ Present, past, and future tenses are much more easily
distinguished and retained if the teacher illustrates them by actions.
(_In a moment I shall take the book_--_Je prendrai le livre. J’ouvrirai
le livre_--_J’ouvre le livre_--_J’ai ouvert le livre._) If a Frenchman
cannot grasp the difference between _to go in_ and _to come in_, it is
because the explanations given to him are lacking in concreteness.
(5) When teaching or alluding to the peculiarities connected with
adjectives, choose as examples such words as _black_, _white_, _large_,
_small_, _round_, _square_, etc., and avoid the traditional _good_,
_bad_, _beautiful_, _idle_, _diligent_, etc.
(6) When teaching or alluding to the peculiarities and semantic values
of prepositions choose as far as possible prepositions such as _in_,
_on_, _under_, _over_, _in front of_, _behind_, _beside_, etc. Useful
work in this connexion can be done with a match and a matchbox (_in the
box_, _on the box_, _under the box_, etc., etc.).
(7) Choose as many real examples as possible, examples suggested by
present and actual conditions. Do not teach the mechanism of direct and
indirect objects by allusions to imaginary farmers giving imaginary
oats to imaginary horses, but give books, pencils, and pens to the
students and make them give them to you, and then talk to them about
what you are doing. Do not illustrate the active and passive voices by
reference to men beating boys and boys being beaten, but speak about
writing words and words being written or about speaking English and
English being spoken.
(8) In as many cases as possible cause the student to make active use
of any form he has just learnt. When you have taught him to say _I
don’t understand_ give him an opportunity of using the sentence. If you
teach him to say _It’s time to stop_ see that he duly makes use of the
expression at the end of the lesson.
(9) Encourage gestures, even in the case of English students. In the
earlier stages they should shake their heads when uttering a negative
sentence, raise their eyebrows when using an interrogative form, and
use other appropriate gestures for such words as _here_, _there_, _me_,
_that_, _these_, etc.
In short, observe the principle of concreteness by using examples, many
examples, cumulative examples, real examples, and examples embodying
the personal interest.