CHAPTER XVI

Chapter 163,414 wordsPublic domain

‘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:

A ich, _I_

B kann, _can_ muss, _must_ soll, _am to_ werde, _shall_ könnte, _could_ musste, _had to_ sollte, _ought to_ würde, _should_

C 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_

D 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_

E nicht, _not_

F 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).

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,