A RATIONAL ORDER OF PROGRESSION
One of the greatest differences between the old-fashioned manner of
teaching languages and the new manner towards which we are feeling our
way is a difference in what we call ‘order of progression.’ This term
and the principle which is involved therein cannot, at the present
stage of our knowledge, be defined in very categoric terms; its
connotation is somewhat loose, for it may be applied to the general
programme of study and also to any particular item of study. In some
ways the principle seems to have a close connexion with gradation, and
yet on the whole it appears to cover other ground, for we can imagine
entirely different orders of progression, and each may be well or badly
graded.
Under this particular heading we have to consider the order in which
the various aspects and branches of a language may be dealt with. We
may conceivably work from the written to the spoken or _vice versa_;
we may start with systematic ear-training and articulation exercises
or leave these to a later stage; we may advise or we may reject the
use of a phonetic alphabet; we may teach or we may leave intonation;
we may proceed from the word towards the sentence or we may take the
sentence as our starting-point; we may exclude irregularities during
the early stages or we may include them; we may insist on a slow and
distinct pronunciation at the outset and leave abbreviations and
shortened forms to a later stage. In all these matters, and in other
cases as well, we have to consider very seriously two alternatives; we
have to weigh the respective advantages and disadvantages, remembering
always that our object is to secure rapid but permanent progress. Each
of the pairs of alternatives enumerated above has been and still is
the subject of discussion and controversy; there is much to be said
on both sides, and an argument in favour of the one side may seem
conclusive--until we have heard the argument for the other. Let us
examine each of the points we have mentioned and place the opposing
views in parallel columns; for the sake of convenience we will in each
case place the arguments of the older school on the left-hand side and
the modern answer on the right.
_Written or spoken first?_
The most stable form of speech is written speech; it does not vary from
one person to another or from one region to another as spoken language
always does. In the written form we find the essence of a language
and its treasure-house. Spoken language is a faint and attenuated
counterpart, generally more or less debased and altered by slang,
dialect, and slovenly habits of utterance.
The only true form of speech is spoken speech; it constitutes the
living language itself. All languages were spoken long before they
were written. Orthographies are comparatively recent inventions, and
have no more claim to being the essence of language than shorthand.
The written aspect of language is artificial; the spoken aspect alone
is pursuing the normal course of evolution, and is always freeing
itself from archaic and useless encumbrances. The spoken language
is a token of life, for dead languages are those which exist but in
written form.
An unwritten language is almost a contradiction in terms, for a
language without a literature is but a barbarous jargon, primitive in
its structure, weak in vocabulary and in means of expression.
The facts are all wrong. Most, if not all, unwritten languages so
far investigated prove to be of a remarkable richness. The Bantu
group, to quote one example, has an inflexional system rivalling and
excelling those of Latin and Greek, and possesses wonderfully rich
syntactical and semantic systems.
When a child goes to school, he starts learning his language on its
written basis. He starts at the A B C.
In the meantime he has already become an expert user of the spoken
language, including the complete phonetic system unconsidered in
written speech and a most complex and beautiful system of intonation
unknown to orthographies.
Grammar only exists in written language.
If the grammar of the written language only exists in the written
language, the grammar of the spoken language only exists in the
spoken language.
It is easier to learn a written word than a spoken word, for the
written word remains before the eyes, whereas the spoken word is
intangible and evanescent.
Consequently if we learn the written word we are unable to understand
what is said to us and to express ourselves orally.
It is easy to convert eye-knowledge into ear-knowledge. Once we know
how a word is written we easily learn how to pronounce it.
The facts are all wrong again. The most difficult thing in
language-study is to convert eye-knowledge into ear-knowledge. Once
we know how a word is pronounced we can recognize and reproduce its
written form with the greatest ease.
_Shall we start with systematic ear-training and articulation
exercises?_
No. Both are of doubtful value under the best of conditions. The
majority of students manage eventually to understand and to make
themselves understood without such adventitious and fanciful aids.
Certainly. Unless the teaching rests on this foundation all the
subsequent work will be distorted and false.
The young child does not have to undergo such processes when learning
his native tongue, and yet he succeeds in hearing and in articulating
correctly.
The young child at the cradle age does little else than go through
a course of such exercises. He listens and imitates, at first
imperfectly, but later with great expertness, recognizing and
reproducing isolated sounds and complex combinations of these.
Such exercises are extremely monotonous and dull; they are likely to
kill interest and to cause the students to dislike the whole process of
language-learning.
Such exercises are always found extremely interesting, and tend to
constitute an additional attraction to the study of the language.
Few language-teachers know how to make the foreign sounds correctly,
and therefore few can give such exercises without causing the students
to acquire bad habits.
No teacher should be allowed to do language-work who is not
proficient in the sounds of the foreign language, for those who are
incapable of making the sounds cannot be good language-teachers.
It is useless to attempt to teach systematically the sounds of the
language, seeing that these vary from one region to another and from
one person to another.
Any form of normal speech will serve as a model, provided that the
speech is that of educated natives. In the absence of any model at
all, the student will speak the foreign language with the sounds of
his mother-tongue!
_Shall we admit or reject the use of phonetic transcription?_
Reject it certainly, for various reasons.
Accept it certainly for various reasons.
It is extremely difficult; those who have been learning languages for
years, even languages with strange alphabets, find phonetic symbols so
puzzling that they are forced to discontinue their efforts.
It is extremely easy; young children learn to use it readily and
accurately. Those who experience any difficulty are those who
are unable or unwilling to form new habits. A language is such a
difficult thing that we must utilize every means of making our work
easier.
It would take weeks or even months to learn the strange and unnatural
symbols.
The half a dozen strange symbols usually required in addition to
those of the ordinary alphabet can usually be learnt at sight without
any special practice. Even a strange ‘orthographic alphabet’ such as
the Russian one can be mastered in a few days.
The whole proceeding is an unnatural one, contrary to all the laws of
language.
All writing is an unnatural process in the sense that it is not
performed by instinct, but has to be learnt as an art. Of all
systems of writing, however, the phonetic system is the one most in
accordance with logic and natural law.
It is trying to the eyes.
Most phonetic alphabets are clearer than those used in German and
Russian, for instance.
It is a waste of valuable time to learn an artificial alphabet.
The learning of a perfectly natural alphabet is in itself of
educative value; it inculcates the idea of phonetic writing and
serves once for all as an essential preparation for the study of any
number of foreign languages.
It is evident that the use of a phonetic alphabet will make havoc of
the ordinary spelling to be learnt subsequently.
It has been ascertained experimentally that those who have been
taught to read and to write a language phonetically become quite
as efficient spellers as those not so trained. In many cases the
phonetically trained student becomes the better speller.
To learn phonetic writing means learning two languages instead of one.
In all cases where the traditional orthography is not in agreement
with the native pronunciation the student is necessarily forced to
learn the two things. The use of a phonetic alphabet is the only way
to perform this double work rapidly, rationally, and with the minimum
of confusion.
Phonetic texts always give slovenly and incorrect manners of
pronouncing words.
Authors of phonetic texts always strive to give an accurate rendering
of the language as really and effectively spoken by educated natives;
they rarely attempt to teach forms that have no existence in the
language as actually used in ordinary speech.
_Should we teach intonation in the early stages?_
No. It is a fancy subject of little or no importance and certainly
forms no integral part of language-study.
Yes. It is a subject of great importance and forms an integral part
of language-study. In many languages speech without the correct tones
is only half intelligible; in Chinese and other languages it is
perfectly unintelligible.
In any case it can be left to the very final stage of the programme.
If it is not taught in the very earliest stage correct intonation
will be very difficult to acquire. Language-study is a habit-forming
process, and the habit of speaking with wrong tones is a bad habit.
_Word or sentence first?_
The word is the unit of language.
Whatever the unit of language is, it is not the word.
Words are definite entities and constitute the component parts of
sentences.
Sentences may be reduced to component parts; sometimes these are
words, but quite as often they are word-groups (such as compounds and
phrases) or units less than words (such as affixes).
The word, not the sentence, is the basis of translation. Since a word
has a definite meaning and conveys a definite idea it is easy to find
the foreign equivalent.
A sentence has generally, if not always, a definite foreign
equivalent. A word is so unstable that it may entirely change its
meaning when used with other words.
It is easy to memorize words and difficult to memorize sentences.
It is as easy to memorize a six-word sentence as six words.
We speak in words.
We express our thoughts in sentences.
If we learn a few dozen words we can build up thousands of sentences
from these by the synthetic process.
If we learn a few dozen sentences we can construct thousands of
others from these by disintegration and substitution, and, what is
more, we can recognize them and use them even in rapid speech.
Words are the basis of grammar.
Sentences are the basis of syntax.
The collection of word-families is a valuable way of enriching one’s
vocabulary.
The enriching of one’s vocabulary should be left to a comparatively
late stage in the study of language, especially in the study of most
derivatives and compounds.
Words constitute the ‘primary matter’ (_i.e._ matter to be memorized
integrally without analysis or synthesis). Sentences constitute the
‘secondary matter’ (i.e. matter to be derived synthetically from
primary matter).
It is precisely because sentences are so rarely considered as
‘memorized matter’ that so few people manage to understand the
foreign language when spoken or to express themselves correctly in it.
Take care of the words and the sentences will take care of themselves.
Take care of the sentences and the words will take care of themselves.
_Should irregularities be included or excluded during the earlier
stages?_
The regular is easy, the irregular is difficult; in the interest of
gradation let us therefore exclude temporarily the irregular.
Irregular forms are generally more used and more useful than regular
ones; in the interest of gradation let us therefore include all
necessary irregularities even in the earlier stages.
Irregular forms make it difficult to formulate precise rules.
Rules with numerous exceptions are not worth formulating at all.
The normal and logical should precede the abnormal and illogical.
Then, as natural languages are full of abnormalities and bad logic,
let the student start with an artificial language!
_Immediate fluency or gradual fluency?_
It is easy to pronounce a sentence slowly and distinctly; difficult to
pronounce it rapidly and fluently.
It is just as easy to pronounce a sentence rapidly and fluently as to
pronounce it slowly; it is even easier in some cases. The converse is
only true when we are constructing our sentences synthetically, word
by word, but this is not a sound process.
It is more correct to articulate clearly and deliberately.
To articulate more clearly and deliberately than the average educated
native is a mark of inaccuracy, for, as Dr Cummings says, “fluency is
an integral part of accuracy.”
‘Shortened forms,’ such as _don’t_ or _I’m_, should never be taught.
The student, alas! will only too soon pick up these undesirable
vulgarisms. Don’t hasten the process.
All ‘shortened forms’ which are invariably used in normal speech
by educated natives (_e.g._ _don’t_, _I’m_) should be taught to
the exclusion of the longer form. The student, alas! will only too
soon acquire the habit of using pedanticisms. Let us not hasten the
process.
It is always easy, too easy, to transform clear and incisive speech
into a blurred and slovenly style of speaking.
It is almost impossible, in the case of foreign students, to convert
an over-distinct and halting speech into a smooth, harmonious style
of utterance with the proper cadence and rhythm. It is for this
reason that when a foreigner wishes to say _Sunday_, _two to two_, or
_four for four_, we so frequently understand _some day_, 2, 2, 2, or
4, 4, 4.
A vowel or even a consonant may perhaps disappear when we are speaking
very rapidly or very carelessly. When, however, we are deliberately
teaching a word, we should give the most perfect model and employ the
most sonorous forms.
The maintenance of such syllables in ordinary rapid speech is one
of the characteristics of pidgin or foreigner’s speech. It is not
yet sufficiently realized that the use of certain sounds is only
correct in slow speech or in isolated words. If ‘stayshun’ is a more
sonorous and correct rendering of s-t-a-t-i-o-n than ‘stayshn,’ then
‘stayshon’ is still better, and ‘stay-si-on’ or ‘stay-ti-on’ better
still.
_Conclusion_
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that it is
desirable, if not essential:
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that it is
desirable, if not essential:
(_a_) To learn to read and to write before learning to speak and to
understand what is said.
(_a_) To learn to speak and to understand what is said before
learning to read and to write.
(_b_) To avoid systematic ear-training and articulation exercises, at
any rate in the early stages.
(_b_) To start a language-course with systematic ear-training and
articulation exercises.
(_c_) To reject the use of phonetic transcription.
(_c_) To make a most extensive use of the phonetic transcription,
especially in the early stages.
(_d_) To leave to a very late stage or to omit altogether the study of
intonation.
(_d_) To teach intonation at a very early stage.
(_e_) To memorize words and to learn to inflect them, before memorizing
and learning how to construct sentences.
(_e_) To memorize sentences and to learn how to construct them,
before memorizing words and learning how to build either inflected
forms or derivatives.
(_f_) To avoid irregular and idiomatic forms in the earlier stages.
(_f_) To include irregular and idiomatic forms even in the earlier
stages.
(_g_) To pronounce very slowly and distinctly, leaving fluency to a
later stage.
(_g_) To teach from the outset a rapid and fluent style of
pronunciation, reserving more distinct utterance to a later stage.
All our experience leads us to endorse most emphatically all the
statements made in the right-hand column.
Numbers of those who were formerly of the opinion expressed in the
left-hand column have become and are becoming converted to the opposite
view; the contrary case is practically unknown. The modernists are
not arguing in the dark; they have their data and their evidence, and
are perfectly well acquainted with the arguments of the ancients,
whereas few of those professing the older views have ever even heard
of the modernists’ case, still less given it any reasonable amount of
consideration.
We should note that the protagonists of each of the two schools are not
invariably as sharply and as consistently divided as in the foregoing
comparison. It is only natural that we should find individuals taking
the modern view in the case of certain of the points quoted, and the
ancient view in the other cases.
An enthusiastic adherent of the phonetic theory will not necessarily
endorse the view that rapid and fluent speech should precede slow and
distinct speech. One may believe in teaching sentences before words and
yet be unconvinced as to the necessity for phonetics and all that that
implies. Some may favour the memorizing of sentences at an early stage,
but will not agree that the colloquial language should be given a more
favoured place than the classical.
The two schools, however, do appear to be fairly well defined, for in
the majority of cases it will most probably be found that those who
favour the ancient view in any one respect will generally favour the
whole of the ancient programme and regard with distrust and misgivings
the order of progression generally recommended by the modernists.
Let us sum up, and set forth in parallel columns the two most widely
differing orders of progression in order that we may fully realize that
each is the antithesis of the other.
THE ANCIENT ORDER (_based on tradition_)
THE MODERN ORDER (_based on psychology_)
_First_, learn how to convert ‘dictionary-words’ (_i.e._ etymons)
into ‘working sentence-units’ (_i.e._ ergons). This will be done by
memorizing the rules of accidence and derivation.
_First_, become proficient in recognizing and in producing foreign
sounds and tones, both isolated and in combinations.
_Secondly_, learn the general structure of sentences. This will be done
chiefly by reading and translation exercises.
_Secondly_, memorize (without analysis or synthesis) a large number
of complete sentences chosen specifically for this purpose by the
teacher or by the composer of the course.
_Thirdly_, memorize the irregular or idiomatic phenomena of the
language.
_Thirdly_, learn to build up all types of sentences (both regular
and irregular) from ‘working sentence-units’ (_i.e._ ergons) chosen
specifically for this purpose by the teacher or by the composer of
the course.
_Lastly_, (if necessary) convert the eye-knowledge’ of the
language into ‘ear-knowledge’ by means of reading aloud and by
‘conversation-lessons.’
_Lastly_, learn how to convert ‘dictionary words’ (_i.e._ etymons)
into ‘working sentence-units’ (_i.e._ ergons).
An irrational order of progression is bound to entail much ‘cramming,’
a process by which much information (valuable or valueless) is retained
for a short time (generally for examination purposes), but without
ensuring any permanent results except bad results.
A rational order of progression will not only rapidly secure useful and
desirable results, but will also encourage the formation of the right
sort of language-habits and ensure as a permanent result the capacity
for using the foreign language in the fullest sense of the term.