1820 1906 Indiana University Bloomington CALENDAR Spring term begins Tuesday, April 3, 1906. Spring term ends Friday, June 15, 1906. Commencement Day, Wednesday, June 20, 1906. Summer term begins Thursday, June 21, 1906. Registration and Enrollment, Thursday, June 21, 1906. First half-term begins Friday, June 22, 1906. Second half-term begins Wednesday, August 1, 1906. Summer term ends Friday, September 7, 1906. Biological Station, first half-term begins Saturday, June 23, 1906. Second half-term begins Thursday, July 26, 1906. Biological Station closes Friday, August 24, 1906. Send for Catalogue or Spring and Summer Announcement William L. Bryan President VOL. VI. JUNE, 1906. NUMBER 10. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR, WITH SOME CONCLUSIONS. FRANKLIN S. HOYT, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF INDIANAPOLIS SCHOOLS. One of the misconceptions that have arisen in connection with the discussion of the teaching of grammar is that the use of English has always been dependent upon a knowledge of the body of facts which are included under the term grammar. As a matter of fact no English grammar was available for use until near the close of the Elizabethan age, when Ben Jonson published his little grammar for the use of those foreigners who wished to learn the language. The language had attained its greatest vigor and beauty before the "science of speaking and writing correctly" was formulated. In writing his grammar for use in translation Ben Jonson followed a precedent set by the Greeks and Romans. The earliest work on grammar were glossaries to assist the Greeks in reading the writings of their historie ancestors, especially the Homeric poems. These investigations into the archaic forms of the language, reinforced by the rhetorical study of the language by the Sophists, naturally led to a study of the structure of the vernacular and eventually a complete Greek grammar was evolved which was the parent of all subsequent grammars for the European languages. When the Romans, who had also developed their language to its highest point of excellence before they had a grammar, began to learn the Greek language, the Greek grammar was translated into Latin and was commonly used by the students of Greek. Through the study of the Greek grammar, Roman scholars became interested in the structure of their own tongue, and a Latin grammar was soon prepared which naturally followed the Greek grammar very closely. Many of our grammatical terms are thus Latin translations of old Greek terms which have lost much of their original signifi cance. The dominance of Latin in the world of scholarship, throughout the Middle Ages, resulted in a wide and intimate acquaintance with the Latin grammar. In the meantime, however, the vernacular of the different countries of Europe had been evolving with little or no conscious attention to form. When the Reformation directed attention to the necessity of educating the youth in the native tongue, and literature began to appear in this much more accessible garb, the scholars, steeped in Latin lore, began to seek points of agreement in the structure of the vernacular and the Latin. As might be expected, those languages that had grown out of the Latin, or had been predominantly influenced by it, it, were found, in the main, to accord with it in construction and the forms and generalizations of the Latin grammar, with only the necessary modifications, were adopted for these different languages. The English language, though far less amenable to the attempt to make it agree with the rules of Latin concord because of the variety of component linguistic elements. and the subsequent gradual loss of the inflections, was finally made to fall in line with the continental languages, in spite of the fact that the grammar of the Latin-an almost purely inflectional language was at the same time both inadequate and unnecessarily cumbersome when applied to the English tongue. In the course of time, many of the un n cessary and inappropriate distinctions foisted upon the subject through the influence of the Latin grammars-for instance, the gender of nouns, the agreement of the adjective with its noun, the superfluous dative and ablative caseshave been done away with. The process of simplification would doubtless have been carried further and accomplished sooner, had not the disciplinary conception of the study, handed down by the old scholastics, tended to retain the subject in its entirety, as a "training in logical thinking." Latin grammar had been regarded as the all-important study, not only as a means of acquiring the Latin language, but also because of its disciplinary value; this desirable result from its study-a trained mind-was naturally inferred to follow also from the study of English grammar. The more minute and intricate its system of analysis and classification, it was thought, the better training would the mind receive. So, until a more rational idea of the purpose and results of the study of grammar prevailed, authors and teachers were loath to dispense with any part of their grammatical inheritance. When they did attempt to modernize the subject, it was upon a metaphysically logical basis, which was supposed to enhance its disciplinary value. Unfortunately, this movement resulted in both the introduction of unsound logic into grammar, and an increased mystification of the subject, which did much to create a widespread prejudice against it. The hold upon the schools which the disciplinary notion of the study made possible was greatly reinforced by the misconception-also inherited from the Latin-which is expressed by the following definition, originating, it is thought, with Quintilian and restated and emphasized by Melanchthon: "Grammar is the science of speaking and writing the language with correctness and propriety." Imbued with this idea, teachers confined the language training almost exclusively to the study of grammar; it was begun early in the school life in the study of English grammar and continued until Latin and Greek grammar were mastered, provided a "liberal education" was pursued. As a mastery of the Latin and Greek was impossible without a thorough knowledge of their respective grammars, likewise, it was reasoned, skill in the use of English can be secured only through a familiarity with English grammar. Gradually, however, it became evident that Melanchthon's definition did not accord with the facts-that grammar was neither a science, nor did it enable those most conversant with its definitions and rules to speak and write correctly; and the definition was abandoned for the modern one, that it is a "systematic description of the essential principles of a language." This changed conception of grammar has tended to shift the emphasis from grammar to direct practice in composition as the correct basis for language training in the elementary schools, and has opened up the controversy as to the real value of formal grammar as an elementary school study. It has also resulted in the production of better textbooks and the introduction of more rational methods in teaching the subject, so that the pedagogical evils attending the learning of grammar have at least been mitigated in recent years. Grammar now is studied in elementary schools from two to six years, either as a distinct subject, or in connection with the language work. In recent years, the plan adopted by most of the progressive school systems is to teach incidentally the simple rules of grammatical usage in connection with the language work during the first five or six years of the elementary course, studying the subject formally, with a text-book during the last year or two of the grammar school course. It is probable that as we become more critical of the subject-matter of our public school curricula we shall postpone the formal isolated study of grammar till pupils are sufficiently mature and have had the extended experience with the language necessary to make profitable the reflective study of the language from a purely structural point of view. What is needed in elementary schools today is a careful selection of such grammatical classifications and principles as are of real value in the use of the language and a thorough mastery of these through their frequent application in the various forms of English work, particularly interpretative reading and oral and written composition. Let us rid our English courses of study of all the intricacies and perplexities of refined adult analysis which medieval scholasticism has fastened upon the subject of English grammar under the guise of "mental discipline," so that we may give adequate attention to the grammatical facts and principles that naturally evolve from the training in the use of English and are essential to a correct and skillful use of the language. It is surprising what a small amount of technical grammar remains as a result of such a sifting, and it is equally surprising what a feeble grasp on these fundamental principles of grammatical construction most pupils have after years of "discipline" in the study of grammar taught with little. or no regard to its bearing upon the expression of thought. The trend of the present time is already in the direction of less formal grammar and a better assimilation and wider application of the essential principles of language construction. Our better teachers, for instance, now realize that the analysis of sentences is of value only in so far as the pupil is thereby enabled to get at the author's thought more successfully, or determine more accurately the correctness of his own speech. If it can not be used for these purposes, let us devote the precious hours of school to more valuable forms of training in English, or, better, look to our teaching to see why we are failing in this respect. It is time that we shook ourselves free from traditional misconceptions concerning the teaching of English grammar and made earnest inquiry into the result of the many hours now devoted to laborious instruction in the subject. SOME REQUISITES IN THE EDUCATION OF A TEACHER. This paper does not attempt to discuss the preparation of the teacher in the subjects that he will teach, in subjects that are supplementary to them, nor is it a discussion of moral training as a prerequisite of his high calling. But mention is made of those subjects only, a knowledge of which he must have for his own guidance that he may be able to do his work intelligently. If we take the true meaning of the term "Education" to be the process by which an individual by his own experiences, by those of his ancestors and where possible by those of his fellows, is better fitted to his environment, then we must include in our list of educable beings all that have life. All organisms receive an education by environment. This they must observe or they will be destroyed. The tiny amoeba exists by observing conditions and suiting itself to them. If a colony of plants or animals inhabit for several generations a locality different from that of the parent family, the individuals of the new colony will acquire new characteristics by adapting themselves to their environment. Thus they will form a new species. The origin of species by adaptation is an oft demonstrated truth. In both the plant. and the animal kingdom new species are developed simply by varying the environment for successive generations, the change being brought about by an educative process. The student of education must have a knowledge of the principles of Biology that he may know what is natural education and its resultant effects. Taking up the second phase of the definition "To fit him to his environment," we realize that to do this there must be a study of the environment. Local conditions and requirements should have much to do in shaping the educational course. A particular course of study employing certain methods and satisfying the conditions of a rural locality would not by any means be advisable in an urban community. Not that the range of the school curriculum should be narrow, nor the process seek to develop men and women suited for one vocation only, but if the schools are to accomplish the greatest good the teacher must work from what the pupil knows. He must interpret in familiar terms knowledge that is unknown. The teacher will have to deal with the conditions growing out of the factory problem, the saloon problem, the church problem and the race problem as they affect the social life of the community. Not only must he deal with the direct effects of these various disturbing elements, of which one or more is usually present, but with the hereditary effects thereof also. Then should not the teacher be a student of sociology? Should not he have a knowledge of this subject before attempting to fit one better to his environment? When a child is placed in the care of a teacher, that teacher is responsible not only for the mental but moral growth of that child. He is also greatly responsible for its physical welfare. Is it not too true that there are children whose health has been much impaired by the conditions of the schoolroom? Such conditions would not exist if all teachers had a knowledge of hygiene. It is an oft asserted fact that the mind grows from ignorance to knowledge, from weakness to power along certain well defined lines that are revealed by a study of the mind. This study reveals also how it is that these results, so much desired, may be brought about. To some extent this is true. Then it is necessary that a teacher who would do his work with greatest efficiency should first acquire a knowledge of Psychology. It would not be wise, nor possible for all teachers to acquire a knowledge of the intricacies and nice distinctions of the science, but a knowledge of its principles should be acquired. Finally, for broadening the horizon, for gaining the ability to profit by all past experience and experiments, and for acquiring that inspiration which comes from a knowledge of a long line of professional ancestry there should be a study of the history of Education. If the teacher is to have that knowledge by which he can best aid the individual to secure the education that will best fit him to his environment, he must know the principles of Biology. He will realize then that in its true meaning education of the school must be guided by, and supplant the methods of nature that have been, and are used, by all living organisms. By these methods the race has been developed, and the individual was educated long before there was a thought of formal schools. He must know Sociology that he may appreciate social conditions and requirements. He must know Hygiene that the health of his pupils may be improved rather than be impaired. Lastly he must know Psychology and the history of Education that he may know how best to apply his efforts so that the child will gain real ability. Then he will acquire the true natural method and be able to fit the individual to live the best life in his environment. OUR AIMS IN TEACHING ENGLISH. "If life could be expressed by a sentence, there would be no need of the story," says Henry van Dyke in his preface to "The Other Wise Man." And if our problems in the teaching of English could be solved by any one presentation of the subject, they would no longer exist. As a matter of fact, however, the subject, notwithstanding its frequent discussion both in our educational meetings and in our professional magazines, seems as fresh and persistent as the blunders of the "refreshment" class as one youngster aptly called it. Not that the constant discussions have been without effect. On the contrary, they have helped us much, and will help us still more: We have never been so alive to the situation as now, when we are critically examining our own work, comparing it with that of |