“But our pupils must not only know their foreign languages
unconsciously and mechanically; they must not only learn how to
express themselves, but they must also know why.” When I think of the
instruction in grammar that has been usual hitherto, I am tempted to
say as if in echo, “Why?”
In a school in Copenhagen, the story goes that a certain teacher
after having asked about the gender of the French substantive _mort_
and then “Why?” got the answer, “Because it comes from Latin _mors_,
which is feminine”; he was not satisfied with that, however, but made
the correction: “No, it is because it is an exception.” When we feel
scandalized at this teacher’s stupidity, we ought conscientiously to
ask ourselves if many of the answers given to the question “Why?” in
grammar teaching are in reality much more valuable than this one; the
object in most cases is merely to classify the sentences or words under
certain given rubrics and to give their names and the respective rules
which have been committed to memory, something which can in large part
be done with very little real grammatical understanding of the language
in question.
The usual superstition that theoretical instruction in grammar is
the best way to teach pupils how to express themselves grammatically
is of a piece with the severity with which grammatical mistakes are
criticized in comparison with the mildness with which mistakes of
vocabulary, etc., are treated.
That grammatical propositions are abstractions, which are often
difficult even for experts to understand, and which must therefore be
far beyond the horizon of our pupils, we see from the way in which
most philologists, on coming across a rule which is the least bit
involved, immediately have to resort to the examples to see what the
point is; we also see it from the difficulty which grammarians often
find in expressing their rules in such a way as to be really clear.
Therefore there is even among persons who have to any extent studied
languages theoretically (and perhaps most among them) a great tendency
to avoid as much as possible the traditional, grammatical, theoretical
method when they want to take up a new language; this feeling has been
clearly expressed by the renowned Romance scholar H. Schuchardt.[28] It
is true, as has been said, that one really cannot begin to learn the
grammar of a language until one knows the language itself.
In contrast to our school-days, when in all subjects a ready-made
system was pounded into us, and it was only through the system that
we caught sight of some of the facts upon which it was built, so that
we indulged in only extremely little of anything like independent
observation or classification of observations, in contrast to all
this, another method of procedure is coming to the front in all
teaching, a method which starts out from the things which the child
itself can see in its surroundings, a method which trains the child to
observe, to classify its observations, to draw its own conclusions,
so that finally, when the time is ripe, the scientific system will
raise itself, as it were, in a natural way on the foundation of the
observations made. The golden rule is: “Never tell the children
anything that they can find out for themselves.”
Theoretical grammar ought not to be taken up too early, and when it
is taken up it is not well to do it in such a way that the pupil is
given ready-made paradigms and rules. After the manner of Spencer’s
“Inventional Geometry,” where the pupil is all the way through led to
find out the propositions and proofs for himself, we ought to get an
_Inventional Grammar_. When a selection in the reader has been read,
the pupils may be asked to go through it again (read it aloud), and
pay special attention, for instance, to the personal pronouns; every
time one occurs, it is to be written down on the blackboard; there the
forms are finally classified (by the pupils!) according to the natural
associations between them, and thus the paradigms are constructed quite
naturally; then, if desired, the pupils can copy them down in special
note-books for future reference. For instance, if the French possessive
pronoun is found in the two forms _son_ and _sa_, in the combinations
_sa main_, _son gant_, _son épée_, _son ennemi_, _sa figure_, _sa
blessure_, _son opinion_, the object of the pupils must be to discover
the principle of usage. It will not be found difficult to formulate a
rule in these cases; but, if necessary, the teacher can help the pupils
not a little by means of the emphasis with which he reads the sentences
in which the forms are found. Then the rule once formulated may be
tested on other forms to see if the same principle of usage should
happen to apply there too, etc.
Of course the teacher must decide beforehand[29] what points of grammar
a certain text is especially fitted to illustrate in this manner. Yet
it is not necessary for all the forms which it is desired to group
together to occur in the piece which is being examined; if there are
any empty spaces in the paradigms, the pupils will of their own accord
desire to get them filled out, and they will thus have an opportunity
to learn something new. It will also frequently happen that the missing
forms are already familiar to the pupils from previous reading; in
that case, if the pupils themselves do not happen to think of them,
the teacher can easily give them a clue by saying the beginning of the
sentence in which they occur.[30]
It follows as a matter of course that only the most elementary things
can be so examined in a text of one or two pages that grammatical rules
or a tolerably adequate paradigm can be formulated. In dealing with
beginners the teacher must not be too ambitious to get, for instance,
all the forms of a verb collected in that manner, at all events not all
at once; it is not necessary; one tense at a time is quite sufficient.
And of course one must not be such a slave of traditional grammatical
systems, that one necessarily must go all the way through one class
of words before beginning another, etc. There is no reason why these
bits of system should not be taken up quite unsystematically, one day
a little about pronouns, another day the present tense of verbs, a
third day the comparison of adjectives, etc., all according to what
comes natural, or what the texts give occasion for.[31] And it will not
matter if some time is allowed to pass between these exercises. One of
the abominations of the old method of instruction was that the teacher,
as a Swedish author has expressed it, considered it his duty on all
occasions to feel the grammatical pulse of the pupils.
A teacher in English can, at a rather early stage, set to work in this
way to examine and formulate the use of English _do_ as an auxiliary
verb. A rather long piece which has been read is assigned to the pupils
in parts, so that A and B get the first page, C and D the next, etc.,
and they are to find and note down all the cases which occur. Then
the cases found are gone through in the class in such a way that the
teacher first requires all those sentences to be read aloud where _do_
occurs and there is no negation. After some sentences have been read,
he may ask what they have in common; if no one answers, more sentences
may be taken until someone discovers that all the sentences are
interrogative, and then this discovery may be tested in the following
sentences. Thereupon the negative sentences which were before omitted
are gone through. Is it then necessary to have _do_ in all questions,
and in all negative sentences? Well, go through the same pages again
for next time and note down all the cases of interrogative and negative
sentences where _do_ does not occur. Then in the next lesson we shall
finally be able to formulate the rules. This takes longer than to
learn the rule in a grammar. Yes, but then we may also be certain
that it will be far better understood and remembered, to say nothing
of the pleasure it always gives to discover something oneself; it has
all of it been a little preliminary practice in scientific methods of
research and drawing of conclusions. And then--what I always return
to--the whole exercise has also been a review of a number of sentences,
and there is not much danger that the pupils will forget the words,
turns of expression and grammatical relations which they have become
intimate with in this manner.
Even if we do not attain to any results that can stand comparison
with the rules in our text-books, yet such lessons in grammatical
observation and systematization are none the less valuable. For
instance, the last three or four days’ German lesson may be gone
through with special attention given to the gender. One pupil reads
aloud; every time he comes to a substantive, he mentions one of his
class-mates (or the teacher motions to one of them), who is to give
the gender,[32] as well as the reasons for his inference (the form of
the article in _in der kirche_, the termination of the adjective in
_ein schönes mädchen_, etc.); one of the boys stands at the blackboard,
which is divided into three columns, and writes down each word in
the right column, after its gender is determined. When the form or
the context does not show the gender, the teacher asks if the word
is familiar from previous passages, and if the gender could be seen
there; otherwise the teacher will have to say what gender it is. At
last (toward the end of the lesson, or when the blackboard is full),
all the words are repeated together with the article; then, if it
seems fit, the teacher may examine one or another pupil, letting him
stand with his back to the blackboard. If there are, for instance, two
or three words ending in _ung_ or _schaft_ or some other absolutely
certain ending, the pupils may be asked to recall other words with
the same ending, and then formulate the rule for themselves. A few
hours employed in this manner will surely bear much more fruit than
if all the long rules for gender with their exceptions and exceptions
to exceptions were committed to memory; the attention is roused and
the powers of observation are sharpened, so that the pupils will also
in the future take note of the gender of new words, when there is
anything to indicate it, especially since it is necessary for them to
know the gender of the words which they need in the conversation and
transposition exercises already described in this book.
Difficult, especially syntactical, phenomena which do not occur very
frequently, cannot be treated exactly in this way, but some of them
may be taken up in an analogical manner. During the going over of a
large section of the French reader, the attention may, for instance, be
directed to the subjunctive, so that each subjunctive form is either
written down in a notebook or marked in the margin of the reader;
after one or two weeks or so, all these sentences may be collected
and arranged in large groups. During the next week, similar cases
are frequently met with, and the pupil is given an opportunity to
recall his recent observations, and perhaps supplement them by newly
discovered varieties of subjunctive clauses, etc. But it must be
continually borne in mind that much of what is found in grammars is
really of no value except to the philological specialist, and should
never be learned by schoolboys.
A systematical grammar is not superfluous except in the first stage.
Later on its examples may be used to supplement those collected in
the course of the reading; the teacher can, for instance, read them
aloud, make sure that they are understood, and use them to help the
pupils to find out the rule. Then, when the pupils have formulated the
rule as well as they can, it may be read as rendered in the grammar.
To go through the grammar from one end to the other, a section at a
time, ought not to be undertaken until most of the phenomena have been
treated in connexion with the reading; it will then be both easier and
more interesting than if taken up earlier; its chief use will then be
to fill out and confirm what has already been learned.[33]
If grammar is taught in this way, the pupils will not get that feeling
which they now so frequently have, that they are just learning a series
of arbitrarily prescribed instructions as to how they are to avoid
making mistakes and getting “poor marks” in their written exercises;
they are more apt to conceive of it as something to be compared to the
laws of nature, those general comprehensive observations of what takes
place under certain conditions; for grammar is made up of observations
of the manner in which the natives express themselves. The pupils no
longer say to themselves: “We _must_ have the subjunctive in purpose
clauses for it stands in § 235,” but “we find the subjunctive in all
purpose clauses.” The teacher’s chief task is to give the pupils
insight into the construction of the foreign language, into its
peculiarities and the chief points in which it deviates from other
languages. As a rule, text-books dwell too much on details, and often
neglect very important features, such as for instance the great freedom
allowed in English in the use of substantives as verbs and vice-versâ,
the different part played by order of words in the different languages,
the cause and effect relationship between a fixed order of words and
paucity of case-endings, etc.
The usual arrangement of grammatical material is not as shrewd as it
might be. The sharp division between accidence and syntax as we find
it in most of our text-books is, from a scientific point of view,
untenable and impracticable[34]; from a pedagogical point of view it
is unfortunate, because it separates form and function, which ought
to be learned together, just as well as a word’s exterior (its sounds
and spelling), and its meaning are learned together.[35] And within
each of these two parts of the grammar, the usual order of procedure
depends upon a meaningless order of precedence between the classes of
words, whereby the adverbs are placed about as far as possible from the
adjectives, though if there are any two classes of words which ought to
belong together, they are these two, which have comparison in common.
In the case of the verbs, those things are often grouped together
which belong together lexically but not grammatically.[36]
The translation-method is injurious here too, because it veils contours
which ought to be sharp. For instance, the pupils will not get the
proper conception of gender and its relation to expressions for sex,
if _er_ referring to _der hut_ and _sie_ referring to _die bank_,
and likewise _il_ referring to _le chapeau_, and _elle_ referring to
_la chaise_, are all translated by the English _it_, while the same
pronouns, when used about persons, are translated by _he_ and _she_.
Comparisons between the languages which the pupils know, for the
purpose of showing their differences of economy in the use of
linguistic means of expression, will only be a natural outcome of this
systematized occupation with the theory of the language, and may often
become very interesting, especially for advanced students. (Comparisons
between the reflexive pronouns in the different languages; du ihr Sie
sie--toi vous vous ils elles eux--you you you they--il y a, es giebt,
there is, etc.). The teacher may call attention to the inconsistency
of the languages; what is distinctly expressed in one case is in
another case not designated by any outward sign (haus häuser; häuschen
häuschen--house houses; sheep sheep--cheval chevaux; vers vers--yes in
reality also maison, maisons, etc.; mich mir, dich dir, sich sich; der
mann, die frau, das weib; ein guter mann, eine gute frau, ein gutes
weib; der gute mann, die gute frau, das gute weib; die männer, die
frauen, die weiber; die guten m., f., w., etc.). In French and English,
there is ample occasion to point out how differently the grammatical
relations present themselves in sound and on paper (singular and plural
alike in bon bons, beau beaux, hideux hideux, further amer amère, clair
claire, révolutionnaire révolutionnaire | church churches, judge judges
| sin sinned, fine fined | say said, lay laid, etc.). That this may
be a good way to make a beginning in comparative philology scarcely
needs further proof; many things belonging to this field of study can
be understood by our advanced pupils, and ought to belong to a good
general education. Everyone who has received a little more than the
most ordinary school education ought to understand what is meant by the
relationship and development of languages; he ought to be acquainted
with such linguistic phenomena as the loss of sounds, assimilation,
analogical formations, differentiations, etc.; he ought to have noticed
examples of these phenomena, both in his mother tongue and in the
foreign languages which he has learned, just as he ought to realize
how these processes continually influence the whole construction of
the languages, and, in the course of time, have produced such great
differences as those he sees between German and English, or between
Latin and French; a valuable point of departure would be to take up the
fate of French loan-words in English with the frequent retention of the
old French sounds (_ch_ in _chase_, _j_ in _journal_, _n_ in _cousin_
_cousine_, _s_ in _beast_, _feast_, etc.). But however interesting
and valuable these things are, it is scarcely advisable to devote too
much time to them as long as the living languages have so few hours
at their disposal. How much or how little of this sort of thing the
teacher takes up will also, to a great extent, depend upon whether the
class on the whole is ripe for it, and if the pupils show sufficient
interest and desire to ask questions; very much philology ought not to
be _forced_ upon them.
Exercises in systematization need not be limited to the field of
grammar; the lexical side of the language may also be taken up in a
similar manner, even if to a less extent. Several methods of reviewing
vocabulary have been mentioned above, but there are still more ways;
for instance the teacher may give the pupil a certain subject (the
human body, war, a railway journey) about which he is to collect all
the words and expressions which he can remember--or which occurred
in the last narrative read--and he may also arrange them in various
subdivisions. This can best be done in the form of a written exercise.
The pupils may also be set to separate a complex event or series of
actions, etc., into its single component parts. For instance, they may
describe the process of getting dressed in all its details, or the way
to school in the morning. The more detailed the pupils can make their
descriptions, the better; they thus get use for a number not only of
substantives but especially of verbs in their natural connection,
which they see before them in their “mind’s eye”--but I scarcely think
that Gouin’s ideas[37] ought to be used for more than such occasional
series.
Advanced students may also be instructed in a systematic collecting of
the most important synonyms. Each one should have a special note-book
for the purpose, where a whole page is given to each group of synonyms
which the teacher wants them to treat; on this page they write down all
those sentences where they come across the word in question. Now and
then the teacher and the class together may examine all the sentences
which have been collected and try to establish the difference between
the synonyms on the basis of the examples found. Of especial value are
of course those sentences where several synonyms occur directly after
each other (How much of _history_ we have in the _story_ of Arthur is
doubtful. What is not very thrilling as _story_ may be of profound
interest as _history_. Half a _loaf_ is better than no _bread_. A
nice little _loaf_ of brown _bread_). It will also be of interest
occasionally to draw up comparative tabular lists from different
languages as for instance--
mensch man homme
mann man homme
mann husband mari
to which remarks may be added about the use of _human being_ and
_individu_ when indication of sex is to be avoided. Furthermore--
weib woman femme
weib, frau wife femme
frau lady dame
frau Mrs. madame
dame lady dame
baum tree arbre
holz wood bois
wald wood, forest bois, forêt
Such tables will do more than long explanations to illustrate the
differences between the languages, and to show how often words are
ambiguous and vague in meaning. It is evident, however, that many of
the subtle and fanciful indications of shades of meaning found in the
dictionaries of synonyms are entirely beyond the grasp of ordinary
pupils.
Dr. Walter, in Frankfurt, has still another way of furthering his
pupils’ familiarity with the resources of the foreign language; he
dictates some of the sentences from what has been read, and lets the
pupils themselves find as many different ways as possible of expressing
the same thought. I shall reprint one of the sentences from his
book, together with the pupils’ variants (marked with letters); they
were written down in the course of 25 minutes: “ohne vorausgegangene
besprechung” (in the second year of instruction, with, so far as I
know, six hours a week); as will be seen, the variations are rather
considerable.
_The advantage of the English ships lay not in bulk, but in
construction._
a. The English were overwhelming, not by the size of the ships, but
their power lay in the construction of the ships.
b. In construction, not in bulk, lay the advantage of the English
ships.
c. The English ships were superior to the Spanish not in bulk, but in
construction.
d. The advantage of the English fleet (squadron) consisted not in
bulk, but in construction.
e. The advantage of the English was the light construction of their
ships.
f. The English had not large ships, but they were better constructed.
g. The power of the vessels of the English was not caused by the
extent, but by the construction of the ships.
h. The English men-of-war could do very much against the enemy,
because they were well constructed, and not too large.
i. The English vessels were not large, but well constructed.
k. The advantage of the English men-of-war did not consist in size,
but in construction.
l. The advantage of the English men-of-war was to be found in their
construction.
I have myself, in teaching advanced pupils, in a similar way, let
them re-write a half a page or so of a historical work. It has always
interested them, and the comparison of the results, which often
presented the most varied expressions for the same thought, was always
very instructive.
Parallel with the reading of a grammar as a supplement to, and a
summary of all the grammatical knowledge which has been gained in
the ways suggested, it might seem to be a good plan to go through
a systematical collection of the lexical material--of course not
an ordinary dictionary, since the alphabetical arrangement is about
as unsystematical as possible, but a sensibly arranged vocabulary,
something in the line of Roget’s _Thesaurus_. But it ought, at any
rate, to be much smaller, and only include words and expressions which
are actually necessary; even then, however, the unavoidable dryness
of such a book, and the absence of connection between the single
words, would make it unfit for use in teaching, even if it were not
to be employed in imparting new material, but only to recall words
which have already been learned. It would be better worth while for
pupils, who have reached a somewhat advanced stage, to go through a
little systematic collection of phrases, especially of such turns of
expression as play a great part in ordinary daily intercourse, but
which are seldom met with in literature. Franke’s _Phrases de tous les
jours_ is the best specimen I know of--but I have it from the very best
source that this little book was never intended as a text-book for
beginners.