« PředchozíPokračovat »
little analogy between different languages. Absolute proficiency here in the Suxon would be of litile service to one in the mastery of these departments of the Greck or the llebrew. There is no prind; l', philosophy or system uoderlying and con mon to 11 langilige in these particulars. Tence here of necessity there can be no such thing as an “universul grammar.”
There may be, anil indeed are rısembla':ces here in linguages which are themselves neurly related, as between the Latin and the Greek, but there is nc universal principle which underlies lunguuge as such.
Now what has been said of Orthography and Etymology, applies in the main to Prosody, which like the two former, is in character, rather verbal and mechanical, than logical.
Passing now these two departments of grammar, there remains the Syntax. Here, now, language is presented to us under an entirely new aspect. We are now to contemplate it, no longer, in mere disintegrated symbolic forms, but as an organic structure. We are asked now to study not the materials, as such, but as they appear in the completed sentence. Here, therefore, we pass at once, from mere dry memorizing, into a field capable of furnishing the richest philosophical investigation
Now it is in this very department of grammar, which should be by far the most interesting and entertaining, that the teacher usually finds, especially in the case of English Grammar, all his difficulty and discouragement. Everybody is dissatisfied with his text book and with his success, or rather his want of success, in teaching English Grammar. I appeal to everybody if the trouble is not entirely in the department of Syntax. Who finds any difficulty in teaching spelling or orthography? Who finds any difficulty, either in their text books or elsewhere in the matter of teaching the formation of cases, numbers, persons, moods and tenses? Nothing, certainly, can be more simple and easy than this; and from this fact all this work should be done when the pupil is quite ycung.
In all this, as we have said, the memory is chiefly called into exercise. Etymology, as well as Orthography, it should be remembered, has to do almost wholly with verbal forms, that is, for instance, case forms, not case relations, mood forms and tense forms, not mood and tense relations. (See Part I. Chap. V.) Hence childhood, the golden harvest day of memory, is the fitting time for the appropriation of these facts.
It is manifest then that the endless discussions among teachers about the difficulties of teaching English Grammar well and successfully, as well as all their fault fi: ding with the defects and demerits of text bocks, must and does, have reference to the department of Syntax.
Now what is the difficulty ? Manifestly the subject itself is not at fault. Nothing certainly can be more interesting than the study of the Syntax of language, the mechanism of human speech!
Considered as a science, it is full of beautiful philosophy, and certainly vies, in interest with the more popular natural sciences; considered as an art, especially in the higber forms of practical logic and oratory, it is second to no other; considered as a fine art, in its more ästhetic forms of fiction and poetry, it ranks with sculpture and painting; while regarded simply as a mechanicul contrirance for the communication of thought, that view of it which Grammar chiefly regards, it occupies the position before us of a most wonderful piece of inventirn, the product not of one genius, nor of many geniuses, but of the combired wisdom of the human race!
Hence indeed, in this study we have everything to entertain and please. As a science it adli esses our reason, as an art our skill and ingenuity, as a fine art, our emotional nature, as a piece of verbal mechanism, our curiosity.
Why, then, is it not a subject of exciting and enthusiastic study? Why is it so universally a dull, drowsy, mechanical piece of routine merely iu the school room ?
The difficulty is manifest. Our text-books and our teaching, are not only wrong in m thod, but, to a great extent, blind and confused in conception and statement. This assertion, we are aware zill be called presumption, nevertheless it is true. We say our text-books are wrong in method. They concern themselves from beginning to end, and here in syntax elsewhere, substantially, with a discussion of individual words, ignoring the larger organic elements of discourse, the phrases and the clauses, (See T 61) whereas the latter ought not only to be thoroughly investigated, with refer. ence to their varius verbal forms, offices and relations in a proposition, but this work should be done first, in the department of Syntax. The true method in all science is, first the leading facts then the details. We say our text books are blind and confused in conception
Two cases by way of illustration will suffice. What do our grammarians mean by case ? Is it a verbal-form, a logicul relation, or both, or neither? (See T 332 )
What do our grammarians mead by the subject of a proposition? Is it the verbul form or the thing or the thought indicated the:eby? (S. TT 233, 234, 235, 236.)
Thus, constantly, what properly belongs to Syntax and Logical Analysis is confounded with the discussions of Etymology.
Thus we say our grammars constantly confound in their definitions, statements and discussions generally, the rerbal-form and the thought, i. e., the grammar and the logic. Hence there is nothing clear and definite, and hence nothing to interest. What pleisure is there in traveling in a new and strange country in a thick fog? Pupils are interested in any form of truth, when they can see distinctly the point of inquiry; otherwise not.
In the following pages, we have, we believe, presented the Syntax of grammar according to the true method, and have moreover, we think kept the boundaries of Grammar and of Logic so distinct, that the pupil, comprehending clearly and defiuitely the exact point of inquiry, will be able to master it at once, and that with no small pleasure and profit.
But, again, the Analytical methựd of pursuing the Syntax of the English Language furnishes a most beautiful and philosophical method of pursuing the Syntax of any Language.
Here are underlying principles, or formulas of verbal combination, common to all languages. That is to say, there are certain organic elements, consisting sometimes of a single word, sometimes of several words logically combined, which, in their regular organic fo:m, enter into the structure of every sentence. (Part 1, Chaps. II and III, and Part III, Chap. II.) These grammatical elements, though not, of course, exactly identical, are yet substantially the same, io form and character, in every language.
Hence the thorough mastery of these organic elements, not only furnishes the best possit le basis for studying the syntax of the English language, in all its minor details and minutiæ, but prepares the student, as nothing else can prepare him, for the successful mastery of the syntax of any tongue : for as we have said, these larger grammaticul elements are substautially the same in Latin, in Greek, in French, and in German, and consequently once learned in the English, they need only to be pointed out to be mastered at once in these languages. But these grammatical elements mastered, the details of syotax, the mere grammatical concord of words becomes an easy task. Here thes, and here only, we have the principles of universal syntax.
But still again, underlying all verbal exp. ession is the thought itself. This is the vital power, the soul of language. This likewise is capable of analysis.
Now in this loyical analysis of the THOUGIT, we have the true basis and the only true basis for the successful prosecution of linguistic study. This will be obvious from a few considerations.
The structure of the human mind is everywhere and in all ages the same. Hence the methods of thinking, or the laws of thought are among all nations and in all time, the same. (See Int. 15.)
It is manifest then that we have at once, in this fact, a common basis upon which all language, whether ancient or modern, whether dead or living, may be said to rest. Thus when we have learned the elements of thought which characterize one language, we have learned the elements of thought which characterize all languages. (See lat. 15, note.)
It is obviously, then of the highest importance to the student of language, to make himself acquainted with this logical basis, which is common to every tongue, that he may see clearly, and understand precisely, what he has to do in the mastery of a new language.
We certainly can never labor successfully unless we labor intelligibly, and we can never labor intelligibly unless we know precisely what we wish to accomplish.
Now language is a contrivance for the expression of thought. But all thoughts are certainly not expressed in the sume manner. In all languages, specific forms of thought have specific fornis of expression. The mastery of a language then, demands that we know that peculiar verbal expression which has been appropriated to any particular form of conception.
Now, manifestly, if we have not learned to distinguish clearly one class of conceptions or logical elements from another, we are constantly working in the dark. We, certainly, cannot select the proper form of verbal expression, unless we know precisely what we wish to express.
Hence the immense advantage of a thorough mastery of the elements of thought, or logical analysis, before the student commences the study of the syntax of a foreign language. Having accomplished this, (and the task is not long, see Part II,) his work becomes easy and successful, because clear and definite in its aims. Perceiving at once the precise character of the thought before him, he simply asks how the Latin, the Greek, the French, or the German expresses it, and the work is readily and accurately, because philosophically accomplished. What then is the proper method of studying language ? Let the orthography and the etymology be memorized eurly. At the same time, as far as possible, correct every case of false syntax among the pupils that occurs in the school room or elsewhere in the hearing of the teacher. Not philosophically and with the application of grammatical rules, but simply as one would correct a mistake in spelling or in etymology.
When now the student is old enough to master “ Proportion," and the “Square,” and the “Cube Root " in Arithmetic, let him commence “Grammatical Analysis,” and let him continue until he has mastered both Grammatical and Logical Analysis, and through them, all the details of Syntax.
Those who propose to pursue the Latin and the Grerk should master the etymology of these languages as early as possible, and should then pursue the syntax on the analytical plan, precisely as they have done in English (See Part III.)
This plan I have endeavored to dovelop in the following pages ; and after an experience of eight years thus, I fully believe that the syntax of the English, the Latin, and the Greek, all three can be taught better and in a shorter time, by this method, than the syntax of either one of these languages can be taught by the old method. Indeed, I helieve every one will admit on examination that this is the only true and philosophical plan.
The author would recommend that in Part II, the student should not be required to analyze the exercises given in full, according to the models. This would require too much time and would become tedious. It will be enough to give the logical name merely of the leading elements of thought.
A few mistakes and typographical errors have crept in which will be corrected in the next edition.
A Greek Analysis, on the same plan, is in process of preparation.
H. R. GREENE.
OREAD INSTITUTE, Worcester, Mass., September, 1870.