CHAPTER XII

CONCRETENESS

Such expressions as _for instance_, _for example_, or _here is a case in point_ are fairly common in our speech. Whenever we hear somebody explaining something we may be certain that one of these expressions will occur not once but many times. When we ourselves set out to explain anything we may be quite sure that in a very few moments we shall use one of the expressions in question, and indeed our certainty is justified in almost every case. The reason for using such phrases is quite clear; every time we do so it is because we feel instinctively that we have just made a statement which is not sufficiently explicit; we are more or less aware that we have expressed something in terms rather too abstract, and we wish to reduce our statement to more concrete terms; we feel the necessity for _concreteness_. There is a similar reason for using such expressions as _in other terms_, _in other words_, or _that is to say_. We feel in these cases that an explanation just given is wanting in lucidity, and we add a supplementary explanation in order to make our point more concrete.

The substance of the principle of concreteness is contained in the maxim, “Example is better than precept”; we intuitively know this to be true, and our own experience confirms our judgment; we remember on how many occasions a few typical examples have been of greater help to our understanding than the best-worded definitions or the most detailed descriptions. Psychologists confirm us in our impression and assure us that it is correct; indeed, one of the fundamental principles of the psychology of study is that we must work from the concrete to the abstract.

Let us take a concrete example to serve as an illustration. One of the things we have to teach the French student of English is that anterior duration is expressed in English by the use of the perfect tenses (if possible in their progressive form) and not by the use of the ordinary non-perfect tenses as in French, and that _depuis_ or its equivalent is not merely _since_. The whole point can be expressed more or less abstractly by the following formula:

_French_ _English_

Non-perfect tense + _depuis_ } + measure of duration } _or_ } { Corresponding perfect _Il y_ + (non-perfect tense of } = { (progressive) tense + (_for_) _avoir_) + measure of duration } { + measure of duration. + _que_ + non-perfect tense }

Non-perfect tense + _depuis_ } { Corresponding perfect + term signifying initial } = { (progressive) tense + moment of duration } { _since_ + term signifying { initial moment of duration.

Now this is a very concise formula and probably covers the whole of the ground. But it is expressed in such abstract terms that we cannot expect the average student to grasp it, still less to apply it in his speech. We can concretize it by furnishing one or two typical examples. We can say: “Look at the clock, it’s just half-past twelve--we started this lesson at twelve, didn’t we? Well, it means that we have been working since twelve o’clock; we have been working for half an hour. How long have we been working? For half an hour. Since when have we been working? Since twelve o’clock. Repeat that after me. Repeat it again. Now just note that we say _We have been working_, not _We work_ or _We are working_. Now, then, how do you say _Nous travaillons depuis midi_? And _Nous travaillons depuis une demi-heure_? Note that _nous sommes_ sometimes becomes _we have been_.”

That would be a fairly concrete (but not ideally concrete) way of teaching the point in question. The average student would grasp the point, and the conscientious student would probably observe it and incorporate it into his usage.

But the principle of concreteness goes beyond this; it does not merely state that examples of every rule should be given, it specifies various degrees and various kinds of concreteness. An example in itself is more concrete than a rule, but one example may be more concrete than another; let us therefore choose the more concrete examples, that is to say, those which will create the strongest semantic associations. Concreteness will be the chief determining factor in the choice of the early vocabularies; it will tend to make us give a preference to words and compounds lending themselves to ‘direct’ work. It will not, however, be the sole factor, for if we decided to make an exclusive use of such words it would be at the expense of the principle of proportion.

Here is another example of what is implied by concreteness. It often occurs that a student will learn how to construct a sentence--indeed, he may even memorize it--and yet fail to realize that it is a real living sentence, an integral part of his linguistic repertory ready for immediate use. He may have learnt the construction _Would you mind ----ing_ and be able to translate it backwards and forwards and invariably to quote it in his list of compounds requiring the use of the _ing_-form, and yet, instead of using it in actual practice, may replace it by _Would you be so kind as to_ or some such stilted equivalent. In such cases we may be sure that the principle of concreteness has not been sufficiently observed.

The ‘direct methodists’ of the more extreme type interpret concreteness in a curious way, and identify it with the non-translation principle and with the principle of the exclusion of the mother-tongue as a vehicular language. They tend to think that by keeping English out of the French lesson, the teacher causes French to be acquired concretely. In certain cases this is true, but there are probably far more contrary cases.

In the example relating to the expression of anterior duration the concreteness consists very largely in pointing out the difference of usage in the two languages. In order to make the construction _Would you mind_ perfectly concrete to a Frenchman, we must insist on its semantic equivalence to his _Est-ce que ça ne vous ferait rien de_. One of the things we must do to concretize the difference between _I did so_, _So I did_, and _So did I_, is to furnish the student with his respective native equivalents.

There are four ways and four ways only of furnishing a student with the meaning of given foreign units:

(1) _By immediate association_, as when we point to the object or a picture of the object designated by a noun or pronoun, when we perform the action designated by a verb, when we point to a real example of the quality designated by an adjective, or when we demonstrate in similar ways that which is designated by a preposition of place or certain categories of adverbs.

(2) _By translation_, as when we give the nearest native equivalent or equivalents of the foreign unit.

(3) _By definition_, as when we give a synonym or paraphrase of the word or word-group or a description of that which is designated by it.

(4) _By context_, as when we embody the unit in sentences which will make its meaning clear (_e.g._ January is the _first_ month of the year; London is the _capital_ of England).

These four methods or modes of ‘semanticizing’ a unit are here given in order of what are generally their relative degrees of concreteness. There may, however, be some cases in which translation will be more concrete than immediate association. Translation is not in itself necessarily ‘indirect’ (or ‘inconcrete,’ as we should prefer to express it); it may be relatively indirect when compared with good examples of immediate association, but it is undoubtedly more ‘direct’ than a cumbrous or vague definition, or an obscure context.

The following precepts may serve as concrete examples of the way we can carry the principles of concreteness into practice:

(1) Let the example precede or even replace the rule. A well-chosen example or set of examples may so completely embody the rule that the rule itself will be superfluous.

(2) Give _many_ examples to each important rule. We have noted that the suggested treatment of the problem of anterior duration was not an ideal one. In order to make it ideal we should have taken a second example (e.g. _How long have you been learning English?_) and still more examples (e.g. _How long have you been in this room?--been living in England?--been living at your present address? Have you been sitting here since twelve o’clock or since a quarter past twelve? How long has France been a republic?_). Too often the teacher imagines that one example constitutes a complete exposition of a given point: whereas in reality it is by finding (consciously or unconsciously) the common element in many examples that we come to grasp the usage exemplified.

(3) When teaching or alluding to the peculiarities connected with nouns, choose as examples the nouns which are the names of various objects actually in the room, and in each case point to or handle the object in question. Handling pencils, pens, and books while talking about them very much facilitates the grasping of principles of declension.

(4) When teaching or alluding to the peculiarities connected with verbal forms, choose as examples verbs such as _take_, _put_, _see_, _go_, _come_, _sit_, _stand_, etc.--that is to say, verbs that can be ‘acted.’ Present, past, and future tenses are much more easily distinguished and retained if the teacher illustrates them by actions. (_In a moment I shall take the book_--_Je prendrai le livre. J’ouvrirai le livre_--_J’ouvre le livre_--_J’ai ouvert le livre._) If a Frenchman cannot grasp the difference between _to go in_ and _to come in_, it is because the explanations given to him are lacking in concreteness.

(5) When teaching or alluding to the peculiarities connected with adjectives, choose as examples such words as _black_, _white_, _large_, _small_, _round_, _square_, etc., and avoid the traditional _good_, _bad_, _beautiful_, _idle_, _diligent_, etc.

(6) When teaching or alluding to the peculiarities and semantic values of prepositions choose as far as possible prepositions such as _in_, _on_, _under_, _over_, _in front of_, _behind_, _beside_, etc. Useful work in this connexion can be done with a match and a matchbox (_in the box_, _on the box_, _under the box_, etc., etc.).

(7) Choose as many real examples as possible, examples suggested by present and actual conditions. Do not teach the mechanism of direct and indirect objects by allusions to imaginary farmers giving imaginary oats to imaginary horses, but give books, pencils, and pens to the students and make them give them to you, and then talk to them about what you are doing. Do not illustrate the active and passive voices by reference to men beating boys and boys being beaten, but speak about writing words and words being written or about speaking English and English being spoken.

(8) In as many cases as possible cause the student to make active use of any form he has just learnt. When you have taught him to say _I don’t understand_ give him an opportunity of using the sentence. If you teach him to say _It’s time to stop_ see that he duly makes use of the expression at the end of the lesson.

(9) Encourage gestures, even in the case of English students. In the earlier stages they should shake their heads when uttering a negative sentence, raise their eyebrows when using an interrogative form, and use other appropriate gestures for such words as _here_, _there_, _me_, _that_, _these_, etc.

In short, observe the principle of concreteness by using examples, many examples, cumulative examples, real examples, and examples embodying the personal interest.