The Teaching of English Grammar, by Oliver Farrar Emerson (page two)
Again, English grammar should not be filled up with a mixture of logical and grammatical distinctions. If used at all, logical distinctions should not be emphasized at the expense of those which are strictly grammatical. For example, number and case are grammatical distinctions in nouns and pronouns, as are number and person in verbs. But common and proper, abstract and concrete, are logical terms, having no important relation to grammar.
Even gender, as applied to nouns, is more of a logical than grammatical distinction in English. Similarly, descriptive and definitive as applied to adjectives relate principally to thought, and as ordinarily used have but slight relation to grammar itself.
Even grammatical distinctions are not clearly made. Let me illustrate from the use of the term case in English grammar. It is not now my intention to refer to the great diversity in the number of so-called cases in the various text-books, although these emphasize the confusion of thought in regard to the subject. Let me now point out another source of confusion. The term case in most pronouns refers primarily to form; but in nouns it refers to both form and function, while in some pronouns, as the indefinites, it refers exclusively to function. In particular, the term “objective case,” itself a most unfortunate one as far as syntax is concerned, refers to form in the case of the personal pronouns, but exclusively to function in the case of nouns and other pronouns.
Besides, even in the case of pronouns, the term “objective” case confuses two important syntactical functions, those of the dative and accusative.
Such confusion in the use of terms, due to lack of clear conception of the nature of language, terribly hampers the teaching of English grammar, and throws teacher and pupil back upon mere dogmatic statement. There is nothing left but the dry and deadening processes of memorizing rules and definitions, and the unreasoning application of set formulae.
Further, owing to misconceptions of language, our text-books of English grammar show an entire neglect of some fundamental distinctions. In an inflected language, syntactical relations are made evident by inflectional endings. How are syntactical relations shown in an analytical language like English? Manifestly, first, by certain relational words, as prepositions and auxiliary verbs, and, second, by the order of words. Now I know of no grammar of English which begins to do justice to the syntactical importance of prepositions. Certainly there is none which attempts to treat word order in any adequate manner. Yet these are fundamental facts of English syntax, more important than all the logical distinctions with which our text-books are filled.
One other point is of first importance. The teaching of English grammar should take account of the fundamental principles of linguistic development. The teacher should know and emphasize the fact that grammar is the description of a more or less unstable and changing medium of expression; that language is not hedged about by any divinity, but is merely a human institution, subject to human infirmity and human caprice; that what is grammatically correct in one age may not be in the next; that changes in language proceed along certain lines and under certain influences, a full understanding of which could not fail to make the study of grammatical relations more interesting and more effective. I emphasize this, because even the newer text-books produced on this side of the Atlantic show slight traces of the enormous advances made during recent years in the science of language. The text-books of English grammar used in German schools are far more systematic and careful treatments of the subject than most of those used in England or America.
The History of the Language
So far some of the relations of English grammar to the nature of language have been emphasized. In the next place, the subject should be taught with respect to the historical development of the language. I am making no attempt to outline a graded course of instruction. Of course, only the most elementary descriptive grammar can be taught in the lower schools. But historical relations of English should certainly have a place in the high school. Above all, teachers of English of every grade should be qualified to introduce the most scholarly instruction possible at every suitable time.
No doubt this will be theoretically accepted by all. Practically, however, so far as I have been able to learn, historical English grammar is not taught in the schools. One fact incidentally confirms me in this opinion. Some years ago, a prominent teacher of English in one of our best secondary schools urged an historical acquaintance with the language in a paper which has been somewhat widely circulated. Unfortunately, most of the books recommended as helpful to the teacher were, even at that time, antiquated. While sympathizing heartily with the purpose of the paper, it served then as now to confirm my belief that the best teachers of English in the secondary schools have not adequately appreciated the importance of historical English grammar as essential to an explanation of present usage.
In the first place, the teaching of historical English grammar would show a reason for what is now simply asserted. Present usage depends on past usage. It is neither set up by schoolmasters nor is it inherently best. It is a development under various influences. Now I am sure that much of the dryness of the subject would disappear if some attempt were made to explain how things came to be. Some attempts have indeed been made, but they have usually been from a psychological, rather than an historical standpoint. An example of the latter may be found in the elaborate explanations of the use of shall and will in modern English. Not one of these psychological explanations begins with the facts of usage in the past, and then tries to show what processes of the folk-mind have been involved in the various changes that have taken place.
Continued on page three
Even gender, as applied to nouns, is more of a logical than grammatical distinction in English. Similarly, descriptive and definitive as applied to adjectives relate principally to thought, and as ordinarily used have but slight relation to grammar itself.
Even grammatical distinctions are not clearly made. Let me illustrate from the use of the term case in English grammar. It is not now my intention to refer to the great diversity in the number of so-called cases in the various text-books, although these emphasize the confusion of thought in regard to the subject. Let me now point out another source of confusion. The term case in most pronouns refers primarily to form; but in nouns it refers to both form and function, while in some pronouns, as the indefinites, it refers exclusively to function. In particular, the term “objective case,” itself a most unfortunate one as far as syntax is concerned, refers to form in the case of the personal pronouns, but exclusively to function in the case of nouns and other pronouns.
Besides, even in the case of pronouns, the term “objective” case confuses two important syntactical functions, those of the dative and accusative.
Such confusion in the use of terms, due to lack of clear conception of the nature of language, terribly hampers the teaching of English grammar, and throws teacher and pupil back upon mere dogmatic statement. There is nothing left but the dry and deadening processes of memorizing rules and definitions, and the unreasoning application of set formulae.
Further, owing to misconceptions of language, our text-books of English grammar show an entire neglect of some fundamental distinctions. In an inflected language, syntactical relations are made evident by inflectional endings. How are syntactical relations shown in an analytical language like English? Manifestly, first, by certain relational words, as prepositions and auxiliary verbs, and, second, by the order of words. Now I know of no grammar of English which begins to do justice to the syntactical importance of prepositions. Certainly there is none which attempts to treat word order in any adequate manner. Yet these are fundamental facts of English syntax, more important than all the logical distinctions with which our text-books are filled.
One other point is of first importance. The teaching of English grammar should take account of the fundamental principles of linguistic development. The teacher should know and emphasize the fact that grammar is the description of a more or less unstable and changing medium of expression; that language is not hedged about by any divinity, but is merely a human institution, subject to human infirmity and human caprice; that what is grammatically correct in one age may not be in the next; that changes in language proceed along certain lines and under certain influences, a full understanding of which could not fail to make the study of grammatical relations more interesting and more effective. I emphasize this, because even the newer text-books produced on this side of the Atlantic show slight traces of the enormous advances made during recent years in the science of language. The text-books of English grammar used in German schools are far more systematic and careful treatments of the subject than most of those used in England or America.
The History of the Language
So far some of the relations of English grammar to the nature of language have been emphasized. In the next place, the subject should be taught with respect to the historical development of the language. I am making no attempt to outline a graded course of instruction. Of course, only the most elementary descriptive grammar can be taught in the lower schools. But historical relations of English should certainly have a place in the high school. Above all, teachers of English of every grade should be qualified to introduce the most scholarly instruction possible at every suitable time.
No doubt this will be theoretically accepted by all. Practically, however, so far as I have been able to learn, historical English grammar is not taught in the schools. One fact incidentally confirms me in this opinion. Some years ago, a prominent teacher of English in one of our best secondary schools urged an historical acquaintance with the language in a paper which has been somewhat widely circulated. Unfortunately, most of the books recommended as helpful to the teacher were, even at that time, antiquated. While sympathizing heartily with the purpose of the paper, it served then as now to confirm my belief that the best teachers of English in the secondary schools have not adequately appreciated the importance of historical English grammar as essential to an explanation of present usage.
In the first place, the teaching of historical English grammar would show a reason for what is now simply asserted. Present usage depends on past usage. It is neither set up by schoolmasters nor is it inherently best. It is a development under various influences. Now I am sure that much of the dryness of the subject would disappear if some attempt were made to explain how things came to be. Some attempts have indeed been made, but they have usually been from a psychological, rather than an historical standpoint. An example of the latter may be found in the elaborate explanations of the use of shall and will in modern English. Not one of these psychological explanations begins with the facts of usage in the past, and then tries to show what processes of the folk-mind have been involved in the various changes that have taken place.
Continued on page three
Source...