CHAPTER XVI_The Principles of Language-Study

‘MEMORIZED MATTER’ AND ‘CONSTRUCTED MATTER’

Until we know more about speech-psychology and the ultimate processes

of language-study, it is doubtful whether we can embody in the form of

a concrete principle the subject treated in this chapter. The writer

would prefer, at this stage of our knowledge, simply to submit the

following considerations in the hope that future research will throw

further light on the subject and render it possible to co-ordinate it

with those branches of linguistic pedagogy which are more familiar to

us. Indeed, when we have ascertained experimentally the exact nature of

what we shall call ‘memorized’ and ‘constructed’ speech-material, it

is conceivable that the whole subject will become so clarified that it

will be possible to reduce to one main principle all or most of what

has been said in the foregoing chapters.

Now, whenever we open our lips to speak, or whenever we set pen to

paper, it is with the object of producing one or more _units of

speech_. These units may be short and simple, such as: _Yes_, _No_,

_Here_, or they may be word-groups, such as: _Very well_, _I don’t

know_, _Yes, if I can_, or they may be complete and even complicated

sentences containing one or more subordinate clauses. But whatever the

unit may be, long or short, simple or complex, one thing is clear:

_each unit has either been memorized by the user integrally as it

stands or else is composed by the user from smaller and previously

memorized units_. This is a fundamental fact about speech which stands

out clearly and unmistakably; it is not a fanciful supposition or an

idle conjecture, it is an axiomatic truth.

Now let us term ‘memorized matter’ everything that we have memorized

integrally, and ‘constructed matter’ everything that we have not

so memorized, but which we compose or build up as we go on. Can we

distinguish the two things? In most cases we can. Monosyllabic words

have generally (although not necessarily) been memorized as they

stand; we say and understand the word _cat_, because once upon a time

we had the occasion to hear the word in question and the opportunity

to connect it with its meaning and to retain it. The word _cat_ is

included in our memorized matter. Probably most words of two or even

more syllables have been acquired as memorized matter. Great numbers of

compound words have also been acquired in the same way. A considerable

number of word-groups and sentences are included in our memorized

matter. Such sentences as _I don’t know_, _Just come here_, _Pick it

up_, _I don’t want it_, are most probably memorized with most speakers.

Now consider a unit of speech such as: _I saw Henry Siddings between

six and half-past at the corner of Rithington Lane_. Is it the sort of

unit which we should use as a result of having memorized it integrally?

An actor or reciter may indeed have occasion to do so, but apart from

those whose duty or hobby it is to memorize ‘lines’ it is an extremely

unlikely specimen of memorized matter. The writer has just composed it,

and does not even know whether there exists such a surname as Siddings

or a place called Rithington Lane; there are millions of chances to one

that it is an entirely original sentence. Most of the things we utter

or write come into the category of constructed matter; their component

parts have been memorized integrally and so constitute memorized

matter; but the complete units are _constructed_, they are the result

of rapid and probably unconscious acts of synthesis.

This is no place for statistics, even if data were available; it

must be left to investigators to ascertain the relative amount of

memorized and constructed matter used by the young child in his first

months or years of speech. Inquiries of this sort should afford some

valuable and surprising evidence; the writer has had occasion to note

that a French-speaking child of about ten was even unconscious of the

composition of units such as _pomme de terre_ or _quatre-vingts_, just

as the average adult English person is unconscious of the composition

of _fortnight_ or _nevertheless_.[6] What will certainly complicate

such research work is the paradoxical fact that constructed matter

may become memorized by dint of frequent repetition. A further

complication is added by the fact that the two types of matter may also

be considered from the point of view, not of the speaker, but of the

auditor.

[6] See _The Scientific Study and Teaching of Languages_, pp. 103-119.

One of the questions that concerns us at present is to ascertain what

should be the right proportions of memorized and constructed matter in

the initial stages of learning a foreign language.

Too large a proportion of memorized matter will render study

unnecessarily tedious, for memorizing work, even under the best of

conditions, is less interesting than the piecing together of known

units. Too large a proportion of constructed matter, on the other hand,

will certainly result in an artificial sort of speech or a pidgin form,

with all its evil consequences. At the present day, as in the past,

the tendency in language-study is to pay far too much attention to

constructing and not nearly enough to memorizing.

What concerns us still more is to ascertain definitely by experiment

what is the exact nature of those processes by which constructed matter

is derived from memorized matter. We must find out what really does

happen in the case of young children in the first stages of their

speech-experience, and by what mental processes those persons called

born linguists attain their results.

There would appear to be three distinct manners of producing

constructed matter; these may be termed respectively:

(_a_) Grammatical construction.

(_b_) Ergonic construction.

(_c_) Conversion.

(_a_) GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION

This process consists in memorizing ‘dictionary words’ (the infinitives

of verbs, the nominative singular of nouns, the masculine nominative

singular of adjectives, etc.) and of forming sentences from them (with

or without the intervention of translation) by means of applying the

various rules of accidence, syntax, derivation, and composition.

The following is a typical example of the process. An English student

wishes to form as constructed matter the German sentence: _Ich habe

mit grösstem Vergnügen seinen freundlichen Vorschlag angenommen_,

from the previously memorized units _ich_, _haben_, _mit_, _gross_,

_Vergnügen_, _sein_, _freundlich_, _Vorschlag_, _annehmen_. Besides

having to determine (in accordance with rules of word-order) the

relative position of the nine primary units, he has to perform the

twelve following operations:

(1) Choose the appropriate form of the pronoun of the first person

singular.

(2) Choose the appropriate tense of the verb _annehmen_.

(3) Derive the present tense first person singular form of _haben_.

(4) Determine the case governed by the preposition _mit_.

(5) Derive the superlative form of the adjective _gross_.

(6) Determine the gender of the noun _Vergnügen_.

(7) Derive the masculine dative singular form of the superlative

adjective _grösst_--when not preceded by a determinative.

(8) Determine the gender of the noun _Vorschlag_.

(9) Determine the function of the same in this particular sentence.

(10) Determine the form of the possessive adjective of the third

person masculine singular when modifying a masculine accusative

singular noun.

(11) Determine the form of the adjective _freundlich_ when preceded

by a possessive adjective and when modifying a masculine accusative

noun.

(12) Derive the past participle _angenommen_ from the infinitive.

It will be noticed that most of these operations require, in addition

to a perfect memory of the grammatical rules (including numbers of

word-lists), a fine power of logical discrimination. Needless to say,

no speaker of German actually does perform any of these operations

(except perhaps on very special and rare occasions), and we dismiss

as a patent absurdity the supposition that the young native child

constructs his matter in any such way.

(_b_) ERGONIC CONSTRUCTION

In this process we work from an entirely different sort of memorized

matter; instead of being merely ‘dictionary words’ it consists of (_a_)

more or less complete sentences, and (_b_) units of speech which we may

term ‘ergons,’ _i.e._ ‘working units’ derived and inflected in advance

by the teacher (or the author of the course), each ergon being thus

quite ready for use.

The following is a typical example of the process:

A fairly simple sentence is memorized; let us say, _Ich kann meinen

Stock heute nicht nehmen_, “I can’t take my stick to-day.” Appropriate

groups of ergons are also memorized, such as:

ich, _I_

kann, _can_

muss, _must_

soll, _am to_

werde, _shall_

könnte, _could_

musste, _had to_

sollte, _ought to_

würde, _should_

meinen Stock, _my stick_

meinen Bleistift, _my pencil_

Ihren Regenschirm, _your umbrella_

den Stuhl, _the chair_

denselben, _the same_

ihn, _him_, _it_

sie, _her_, _it_

es, _it_

heute, _to-day_

morgen, _to-morrow_

heute morgen, _this morning_

morgen früh, _to-morrow morning_

um zwei Uhr, _at two o’clock_

nächsten Monat, _next month_

nächste Woche, _next week_

nächstes Jahr, _next year_

nicht, _not_

nehmen, _take_

sehen, _see_

bringen, _bring_, _take_

tragen, _carry_, _take_

suchen, _look for_

finden, _find_

bekommen, _get_

The student will then form (as constructed matter) as many of the

16,128 resultant sentences[7] as is considered necessary for this

particular vocabulary. This will be done by means of drills and

habit-forming exercises based on the following substitution table:

[7] See _100 English Substitution Tables_, by the author of the

present book (Heffer, Cambridge). Also the series of “Auto-Translators”

(International Students’ Bureau, 56 Russell Square, W.C. 1).

+---+------+-----------------+--------------+-----+--------+

| A | B | C | D | E | F |

+---+------+-----------------+--------------+-----+--------+

+---+------+-----------------+--------------+-----+--------+

The essential difference between grammatical and ergonic construction

lies in the sort of memorized matter used in either case. In

grammatical construction the memorized matter consists exclusively of

what we have called ‘dictionary words’ (a large proportion of which

require modifying in some form or other before being available for use

in a sentence), whereas in ergonic construction two sorts of memorized

matter are required: a more or less complete sentence and a number of

ergons (units of language inflected or composed in advance for the

student, instead of by the student).

(_c_) CONVERSION

This process consists in memorizing a number of sentences all composed

in a more or less uniform way.

When these sentences have been memorized, the student is taught by a

series of appropriate drills and habit-forming exercises to convert

each sentence into another form.

The following is a typical example of the process. The student

memorizes the ten following sentences:

(1) _He goes to the station._

(2) _He comes here._

(3) _He takes it._

(4) _He waits for it._

(5) _He stays there._

(6) _He writes a letter._

(7) _He reads a book._

(8) _He speaks French._

(9) _He gets up._

(10) _He’s here._[8]

[8] The inclusion of an exceptional form (‘He isn’t here’) in a

conversion table is a useful feature in these exercises.

He then listens to the teacher, who says:

_He goes to the station_ _He doesn’t go to the station._

_He comes here_ _He doesn’t come here._

etc. etc.

and after one or more repetitions performs the conversion himself in

the same way, with or without prompting by the teacher or the book.

The teacher will then change the sentences in some other manner, for

instance:

_He goes to the station_ _Does he go to the station?_

_He comes here_ _Does he come here?_

etc. etc.

The student listens, and subsequently performs the same series. On

other occasions each of the ten sentences may be converted into forms

such as:

_He’ll go to the station_, etc.

_He wants to go to the station_, etc.

_He’s going to the station_, etc.

_He didn’t go to the station_, etc.

_He went to the station_, etc.

_He’s gone to the station_, etc.

_It’s impossible for him to go to the station_, etc.

_He always goes to the station_, etc.

In the case of conversion the difference between memorized and

constructed matter is not so marked as in the two synthetic operations,

nor is the yield of constructed matter so great. Indeed, in extreme

cases, the form into which the original sentence is to be converted

will have to be learnt integrally, and so becomes in itself memorized

matter. On the other hand, some forms of this type of work are

practically identical with exercises based on ergonic construction,

and for these two reasons it has been held that conversion is not a

distinct process for forming constructed matter, but merely a modified

form of ergonic work. Whether this view is justified or not is a matter

more of academic than of practical interest to the language-teacher.

These then appear to be the only three processes known by which

memorized matter can be developed and expanded into original

composition. What we have called grammatical construction is the

classical and almost universal method. What we have called ergonic

construction is embodied more or less unsystematically in a number

of language-courses and the more enlightened books of instruction.

Conversion is also practised, but still in a sporadic and desultory

fashion.

Now, some thirty years ago the reform movement started. In several

different countries bands of zealous pioneers took up arms against

the then prevailing system and sought to put an end to it. The reform

prospered. The reformers have carried all before them, and the daring

innovators of twenty or thirty years ago now enjoy the prestige that

their efforts have earned for them.

What was the nature of this reform? What abuses has it swept away? And

for what innovations have we to thank it? It would appear, on analysis,

to have had a threefold object:

(_a_) To promote the rational and systematic study of pronunciation

by means of phonetic theory and transcription.

(_b_) To promote the idea that a language is used primarily as a

means of communicating thoughts.

(_c_) To promote the idea that foreign languages should be learned by

methods approximating to those by which we learn our native tongue.

The first two objects have certainly been attained; phonetics is the

order of the day, and both teachers and students have to use phonetic

symbols whether they like it or not; moreover, the new generation does

recognize that the deciphering and analysis of ancient texts is not the

primary use of language.

The third object has not been so successfully pursued; indeed, we are

still very far from learning the foreign tongue by the same processes

as those by which we learnt our own. The chief reason for this

failure was a bad diagnosis of the chief evils of the system hitherto

employed. Many of the reformers and most of their disciples imagined

‘translation’ to be the root of the evil, and so translation in every

shape or form was banned; there must be no bilingualism at all, and so

the mother-tongue must be excluded from the course, the lessons must be

conducted entirely in the foreign language.

But translation and the use of the mother-tongue, as it turns out,

are perfectly harmless and in many cases positively beneficial; the

evil lay in the exaggerated attention which had always been paid to

grammatical construction; that was the dragon that the St Georges

might well have slain had not the red herring of ‘translation’

unfortunately been drawn across the track. As it was, the red herring

was duly run down and annihilated, and the dragon still lives!

The misunderstanding was natural enough; logicians would quote it as an

example of the fallacy of the False Cause. The process of grammatical

construction was carried out by means of a vicious form of translation

exercise, and the result was utterly bad. Two important reforms might

have been effected: in the first place, the vicious form of translation

might have been replaced by a beneficial form; and secondly, new and

more worthy uses of translation might have been found. But the act

of translation itself (nay, the mere use of the mother-tongue) was

made the scapegoat and so paid the penalty. It is now time for a

second band of reformers to attack and to destroy the original cause

of unsuccessful language-study, viz. grammatical construction, or at

any rate to limit it to special cases and to appropriate occasions.

It is time, too, to rehabilitate in some measure the character of

the comparatively innocent process of translation, and to remove the

stigma attached to those who still use the mother-tongue as a vehicular

language, and by so doing proceed naturally enough from the known to

the unknown.

These are no reactionary suggestions; they are made in the spirit of

the nine essential principles treated in the previous chapters, and

are not in contradiction to the urgent plea set forth in these pages

for the recognition and fostering of our ‘spontaneous’ capacities

for language-study. We can afford to ignore no necessary tool in our

efforts to teach well and to produce perfect results, and translation

is often a necessary tool, especially during the process of deriving

constructed from memorized matter.

We suggest for the moment no tenth principle based on these

considerations; we submit the problem and we more than hint at a

solution. It is now time for experimental work on ‘ergonic’ lines, and

the data to be obtained thereby will enable us to form our conclusions

and to embody them among the principles of language-study.

INDEX

Accidence, a branch of linguistics, 24, 126

Accuracy, principle of, 21, 22, Chapter IX

Action-drill, effect of, 96

Active or passive work?, 166

Aim of the student, 15, 16

Archaic speech, 54, 127

Articulation exercises, object of, 20, 121

-- -- at what stage to introduce, 28, 151

-- -- description of, 89, 90

-- -- as a means of ensuring accuracy, 108

Articulation, mental or ‘inner,’ 53, 93

Attention, conscious and unconscious, 165

Audition, opportunities for, 118, 119

Automatism, necessity for, 20, 21

-- nature of, 98, 99

-- acquired by repetition, 101

Bantu languages, 38, 150

Bewilderment, elimination of, 27, 140, 141

Children, and language, 37

-- bilingual, 40, 41

-- Belgian refugee, 41

-- use spontaneous capacities, 43, 82

-- successful acquirers of foreign languages, 44

-- studial methods unknown to, 48

-- not averse to forming new habits, 86

-- linguistic environment of, 111

-- early phonetic work, 151

-- unconscious of elements in compound words, 172

Chinese characters, in Japanese writing, 53

-- -- habit of writing, with brush, 85

Chinook jargon, 107

Chorus-work, 23, 120, 121

Classical speech, studial process necessary in order to learn, 48, 54

Colloquial speech, as standard, 22

-- -- as used by average speaker, 36, 47

-- -- compared with vulgar speech, 39

-- -- and studial work, 49, 54

-- -- and inaccuracy, 106, 107, 108

-- -- grammar of, 141

-- -- used in passages, 145

Competition as factor of interest, 27, 144

Complete method, 164

Concreteness, principle of, 25, 26, Chapter XII

“Constructed matter,” 30, 31, Chapter XVI

Context as method of teaching meanings, 26, 133

Conversion, a studial form of work, 14, 49, 50

-- method for producing constructed matter, 30, 31

-- drills as aid to accuracy, 110, 121

-- process described, 177, 178, 179

Corrective courses require studial capacities, 15

-- -- require explanations, 21, 143

-- -- when necessary, 55

-- -- nature of, 56

Course, length of, 16, 64, 65

Course-designing, 18, 75

Cramming, 28, 139, 160

Cummings, Dr T. F., quoted, 156

Deaf-mutes, 93

Definition as method of teaching meanings, 26, 133

_Depuis_, English equivalent of, 130, 131, 133, 134

Dialect, 39, 40

‘Dictionary-words,’ compared with ‘working words’ or ergons, 30,

159, 173, 175

Direct method, 31, 179, 180, 181

---- ---- abuse of, 124

---- ---- and concreteness, 131, 132

Drill-work, to ensure automatism, 21

---- compared with free work, 24, 25, 121, 128, 165, 166, 167

---- various types of, 96

---- necessity for, 136

---- not necessarily uninteresting, 137, 146

Ear-training, necessity for, 17, 70, 108, 157

---- as initial preparation, 20, 28, 64

---- description of, 88, 89

---- as a means of reception, 118

---- arguments for and against, 151

Eclecticism, 29, 161, 162, 164

Egger, Victor, quoted, 93

Elementary stage, supreme importance of the, 16, 17, 18, Chapter V

Ergonics, 127, 182

Ergonic construction, compared with grammatical construction, 30, 173

---- description of, 175, 176, 177

Ergons, 159, 160

Etymology, a branch of linguistics, 24, 126

---- of the studial order, 50

---- abuse of, 51

Etymons, 159

Examinations, 62, 63

Exercises, articulation, 20, 28, 89, 90, 108, 121, 151, 157

Exercises, conversion, 14, 30, 31, 49, 50, 110, 121, 177, 178, 179

---- fluency, 90, 121

---- question and answer, 96, 121

Explanations, abuse of, 102

---- as means of eliminating bewilderment, 142, 143

---- sometimes helpful, 168

---- in foreign language, 169

Extensive reading, compared with intensive reading, 165, 166, 167

Eye-work contrasted with ear-work:

Ears before eyes, 23, 53, 117

Abuse of eye-work, 42, 49, 70

Successful results from ear-work, 44

Eye-work of the studial order, 49

Opposing views on subject, 150

Facility, fallacy of, 116

False gradation, 116, 117

Fluency, exercises, 90, 121

---- accuracy in, 108

---- immediate or gradual?, 156, 157, 158

Game-like exercises, 27, 144, 145

German prepositions and cases, 100

---- substitution table, 177

Gestures, 96, 135

Gift for language-study, 14, 33, 36, 43, 44, 94

Gradation, principle of, 22, 23, 24, Chapter X

‘Grammatical construction’ compared with ‘ergonic construction,’ 30,

173, 174, 179, 181

Habit-forming and habit-adapting, principle of, 20, 21, 43, 80,

Chapter VIII

---- process, 17, 19, 20, 21, 136

---- and interest, 26

---- in initial stage, 69

---- as initial preparation, 85, 86, 93

Habits, utilization of existing, 19, 21, 85, 86, 104, 105

Habits, bad, positive and negative, 72

---- ---- forming of, 84

---- ---- how to prevent, 121

---- ---- cause of, 122

Heuristic method, 139

Idiomatic forms, 159

Immediate association, 26, 132, 133, 134, 135

---- comprehension, 20, 94, 95, 96

---- and prolonged memory, 23, 119, 120

Imperative drill, 96

Inaccuracy, two types of, 22

Inconsistencies, seeming, 163

‘Incorrect’ or ‘ungrammatical’ English, 39

Incubation, periods of, 65

Initial preparation, principle of, 19, 20, Chapter VII

Intensive and extensive reading, 165, 166, 167

Interest, principle of, 26, 27, 28, Chapter XIII

---- fallacy in connexion with, 137, 138, 139

Intonation, when to introduce, 28, 153, 154, 157

---- accuracy in, 108

---- and proportion, 123

---- English system of, 37

Inventions, evolution in, 75, 76

Irregularities, shall we include or exclude? 27, 155, 158

Isolating habit, 17, 71

Japanese writing, 53

Jespersen, Professor, 78

Language of ceremony, 15

---- of savage peoples, 37

Latent capacities for language-study, 46, 47, 82

Linguistics, five chief branches of, 24, 80, 126

‘Memorized matter,’ 30, 31, Chapter XVI

Memorizing key-sentences, 64

---- word-groups, 71, 157

---- on a large scale, 91, 92

Memorizing contrasted with theory-learning, 100, 165, 166, 167

---- and fear of tedium, 101

Mental reading and writing, 50, 87, 91

Method of discovery, 139

Methods of the future, 76, 77

Mimicry, 20, 90, 91

Morse code, 169

Multiple line of approach, principle of, 29, 30, Chapter XV

Mystery words and sentences, 142

Nonsense words, 88 _n._

Oral repetition, 119

Order of progression, ancient and modern, 159, 160

Orthography, a branch of linguistics, 24, 126

---- not a product of nature, 52

---- accuracy in, 109, 112

---- and proportion, 124

Phonetics, a branch of linguistics, 24, 126

---- progress made by science of, 77

---- English and French systems compared, 103

---- data furnished by, 112

Phonetic dictation, 88

Phonetic transcription, more ‘natural’ than traditional spelling, 52

---- ---- exclusive use of, 109

---- ---- and proportion, 124

---- ---- the acme of simplicity, 141

---- ---- arguments for and against, 152, 153, 157

---- ---- and the reform movement, 180

Pidgin-speech, a form of inaccuracy, 22, 42, 55, 56, 110, 111

---- as an aim, 62

---- better than none, 72

---- definition and examples of, 107

---- and constructed matter, 173

_Plateaux_, 144

Principles of language-teaching, 18, 19, Chapter VI

Progress, a factor of interest, 27, 143, 144

Programme of study, depends on aim of student, 15, 16, 65, 66

Proportion, principle of, 24, 25, Chapter XI

Psychologists and language-study, 78, 109

Question-and-answer exercises, 96, 121

Rate of progress, 23, 65, 73, 80, 113, 114

Rational order of progression, principle of, 28, 29, Chapter XIV

Reading should be preceded by oral work, 119

Reception before production, 23, 118

Reform movement, 179, 180, 181

Repetition, and automatism, 21, 101

---- and interest, 21, 101

---- definition of, 101

Rules and exceptions, lists of, 115

Saussure, de, 78

Semantics, a branch of linguistics, 24, 25

---- bad habits in connexion with, 71

---- future of, 77

---- inaccuracy in, 110

---- data afforded by, 112

---- and gradation, 115, 116

---- and proportion, 127

Shortened forms, 156

Shorthand, and orthography, 49, 52, 149

---- not learnt by method of discovery, 139

---- text-books not written in shorthand, 169

Special or patent method in language-study, 164

Spelling, reformed, 52

---- difficulties of, 54

Spontaneous capacities for acquiring speech, 13, 14, Chapter I

Student and his aim, 15, 16, Chapter IV

Studial capacities for acquiring speech, 14, Chapter II

---- ---- why we must use, 14, 15, Chapter III

Substitution process, 165

---- table, 176 _n._, 177

Sweet, Dr, 78

Syntax, a branch of linguistics, 24, 126

---- and gradation, 115

Teacher and student, 27, 145

Theory and practice, 19, 82, 83, 168

'Tonetics,’ 37

Translation, as method of teaching meanings, 26, 132

---- abuse of, 17, 71, 180

---- a form of conversion, 49

---- a studial process, 50

---- the art of, 63

---- or no translation? 165, 166, 167

---- and the reform movement, 180, 181

Trial and error, method of, 19, 83, 84, 111

Unconscious assimilation, 87, 95, 168

Units of speech, 116, 170

Unphonetic writing, 53

Unwritten English grammar, 38, 39

Variety, necessity for, 27, 147

Vicious tendencies, we must react against, 56, 107, 124

---- ---- relative immunity from, 57, 58

---- ---- various types of, 70, 71, 72, 102, 122

Vocabulary, nucleus of, 114

---- selection of, 127

Word-order, inaccuracy in, 109

Word or sentence first? 154, 155

Written or spoken language first? 149, 150

* * * * *

Transcriber's Note

The alternating left-aligned and indented paragraphs following the

heading "_Written or spoken first?_" were printed in parallel columns.

The following apparent errors have been corrected:

p. 123 "variou saspects" changed to "various aspects"

p. 155 "‘secondary matter’ (i.e" changed to "‘secondary matter’ (i.e."