A Word on Formal Grammar

LEON MONES, PH. D., INSTRUCTOR, CENTRAL HIGH
SCHOOL, NEWARK, N. J.

E have become so accustomed of late to argu-
ments against the teaching of formal grammar,

W that an argument in its favor must ring like

either grumpy reaction or hysteric reform. Well, grumpy some of us are, and hysteric too. We have seen the "No formal grammar" army march on to victory and leave chaos behind it. The chaos they admit. In fact they glory in it. The text-books, for instance, that they turn out for "First Year in English Composition" are as delightfully and deliberately chaotic as "Alice In Wonderland." These books are scrap-books of grammar-games, and pictures, and rhymes, and themes, and sermonettes, and essays, and lists of rules. The most prized of these books are those that contain the most fantastic and un-heard-of suggestions for teaching English with "interest." The formula that underlies the genesis of these books is unquestionably that of permutations and combinations.

Yes, some of us are, by now, furious.

We have met high-school graduates empty of any knowledge of grammar. And when we commented, we were met with a soothing: "Yes, but they know English."

Yes, but they can know chemistry without the law of valences; music without knowing the structure of the scales; physics without knowing Boyle's law. Anybody can pick up a purely empirical, imitative, consciousless smattering of anything merely by being exposed to it. But for a conscious, critical, confident knowledge of any art (and English however you define it is an art) a knowledge of the science basic to the art is necessary.

"Very well," they reply, "teach grammar for use." And

when pressed for an explanation, they reply: "Don't teach grammar as grammar. Teach it only when you wish to correct some error."

Nonsense. Suppose you hear a boy say "between you and I." in order to make him see his error you must at least explain: 1. That "between" is a preposition.

2. That prepositions take objects.

3. That such objects are in the objective case.

In other words, for a boy to understand the logic of "between you and me;" concepts such as "preposition ", "take an object", "case", etc., are necessary. To attempt to develop these concepts at the moment of explanation is absurd. They must be developed by a connected course in grammar taught openly as a science. Try to teach a pupil lacking a grammar consciousness why the following sentence is wrong: "Coming into the park, the lawns and trees were beautiful." Quite a task. And once it is done, he will say, "After having explained it, it is easy." But teach it to a pupil who knows "participle" and "modify" and "pronoun.' An easy step in deductive teaching!

The teaching of formal grammar is a genuine economy. It will eliminate heartbreaking and vain attempts to teach to high school seniors what formal grammar previously taught would have made easy and pleasant.

Psychologically the teaching of formal grammar is more than justified. It makes for logical and judicious knowledge of language, and for courage and originality in its use. Its content furthermore provides for each grade psychological test material relevant and cognate to school work, and not grotesquely foreign to it.

Educationally, a knowledge of formal grammar is the surest guaranty of intelligible reading. The pupil who has been trained in the analysis of sentences, who can dissect a sentence into clauses and pick out their relationships, can hardly be guilty of uncomprehending lip reading.

As he reads, he will instinctively seek the logical relationship of thought to thought just as the trained musician hearing a symphony will seek the relationship of theme to theme.

There is a civic value to the teaching of formal grammar. Formal grammar well taught is a sure way of eradicating foreignisms of idiom from the speech of immigrant pupils. Moreover, remember that each country has its own characteristic mode of thought; the quick, buoyant mode of the American is not the slow, ponderous method of the German. The grammar of a language is the mental chain of thought that produced that language. The grammar of a country is the logic of that country's method of expression. English grammar is not "superimposed." It is the mentation of the English language. Its study must, therefore, bring a pupil into relation with English thought and English logic.

We to whom the teaching of English grammar is a creed know that all this is but a mild statement of its necessity and importance.

Let us be sensible and return to it.

Atmosphere

In the red, red berries' glow,
In the white of mistletoe,

In the green of hanging wreaths.
The Christmas spirit breathes.
This magic whirl of atmosphere,-

Unquenchable, sincere,-

Sweeps off the threshold of the morn

And brings the dear ones near.

Come draw your chairs beside my hearth,

Let's sing a merry lay,

And revel in glad memories,

For it is Christmas Day.

MINNIE E. HAYS.

Canajoharie, N. Y.

First Aid in Americanization

I. W. HOWERTH, GREELEY, COLORADO.

ANYHANDRINIM♣ F we Americans are successfully to Americanize "the strangers within our gates" (and ourselves) the first requisite is a clear understanding and relative evaluation of the principles underlying our form of government. Many a "hundred per cent. American" would be embarrassed if called upon to state precisely the difference between a democracy and other "ocracies", or to show definitely wherein our form of government is superior to other forms.

The ability to do so, however, should be the common possession of all adult Americans. It should at least be required as the foundation equipment of all who are entrusted with, or who gratuitously take upon themselves, the task of Americanizing the foreigner.

"It wad fra monie a blunder free us

And foolish notion."

Such a requirement would not involve so much knowledge of political science as might at first be supposed. For there are, in reality, only two kinds of government, self-government and government by external authority; and, so, there are only two sets of governmental principles discoverable in all the various forms of government. They are the principles of domination and self-determination, of external control and freedom, of authority imposed and authority delegated, of government by the one or the few and government by the people. It is only necessary to compare these two sets of principles to arrive at a reasoned conclusion with respect to the relative merits of democracy.

From the psychological viewpoint the external form and mode of government is sometimes presented as the natural outgrowth of the social situation, the organized and institu

tionalized manifestations of fundamental traits in human nature. Modern psychology finds in the native constitution of man an instinct of self-assertion and an instinct of self-abasement. In some men the first mentioned instinct is so strong that it expresses itself in the will to dominate, that is, to govern. If necessary to achieve their ends, such men organize. Hence we have a so-called "natural governing class." On the other hand, those in whom the instincts of self-abasement, subjection or submission predominates are said to be by nature a "subject class". Government of the many by the few thus pretends to find psychological justification, and claims to be a part of the fixed order of nature. But, aside from the fact that man has a habit of disturbing the fixed order of nature, the foregoing is not a full account of the situation. For, in the first place, the two instincts involved often reverse their relative strength, even in the same person. "It is worthy of observation," said Seneca, long ago, "that the most imperious masters over their own servants, are at the same time, the most abject slaves to the servants of other masters." We had ample evidence of this "native disposition" in days of slavery, in the cringing of the overseer in the presence of his master, and yet lording it over his "gang." An equally pertinent illustration might be drawn from the political or industrial life of today. So, then, a dominating spirit is not so much a mark of special fitness to govern as it is a natural product of the exercise of power and authority, and perhaps of surplus energy. It is present in all classes, and will manifest itself in and under all forms of government. democracy.

It is the omnipresent and perpetual foe of

In the second place, the easy separation of mankind into men fitted to govern, and men preordained to be governed,men booted and spurred to ride, others to be ridden,-does not sufficiently take into account the "predisposition" in all men to manifest pain and resentment when their native proclivities are thwarted or balked, and so naturally to crave free