tion. This power it is which, over and above the fact of genius, gave Shakspere and Burns and Lincoln their command of language. A third cause for ineffectiveness in language teaching has been the mistaken belief that knowledge of an art might be gained thru study of its science, or grammar. This now exploded theory gave rise to such definitions in the older textbooks as this: "Grammar is the science of language and the art of speech." Modern enlightenment has differentiated art from science, and we now know that whereas art implies skill in doing, science implies knowledge of rules and principles; that every art has always preceded and always must precede its corresponding grammar or science; that every art is learned solely by doing; that the man versed in science may possess no skill in art, and that the skillful artist may know little or nothing of the scientific principles underlying his own work; that the greatest masters of English speech previous to the last one hundred years never so much as suspected the existence of a grammar" of their own tongue. 66 The present confusion and disagreement with regard to language work arises from the fact that we are in the transition period from the time when language was taught as science to that better time when it shall be taught as art. At present the two methods are usually so hopelessly confused that neither plan nor aim is clear to teacher or to taught. Where lies the shortest and easiest path to the goal? Let no one prophesy unless he can prove by results good reason for the faith that is in him. One thing is obvious: the healthy boy almost invariably loathes formal grammar, and this single item in the school curriculum has driven thousands of boys as well as some girls away from school forever. Ask a boy-any boy-what he is studying at school and he will give the list, usually naming at the last with a breath of disdain and a sidelong glance for sympathy, "'n language-don't like that!" This is all wrong; for with a clear perception of the object in view, boys would not dislike grammar, presented at an age when they have sufficient maturity of mind to comprehend its abstractions. Their present universal dislike is due to the fact that no aim is apparent and no comprehensive outlook obtained. The naturally logical mind revolts from the heterogeny now included under the misnomer "language." And when the teaching of technical grammar is combined with that of literature, each inevitably spoils the other and neither can accomplish its end. The lessons in "Everyday English" have been made upon the assumption that training in oral speech should precede training in written speech; that language as art must precede the acquirement of language as science; that a broad and well-possessed vocabulary is the most important element in English study, because this and this alone will lead to a noble diction, and diction, as Professor James Morgan Hart of Cornell says, is the English language. There is no human being but can achieve reasonable ability in the use of his own speech; and, practically, none are born whom literature in some one of its many phases may not charm and benefit. Language and literature is the one subject which every healthy child might and should chiefly enjoy; and the highest province of every teacher should be to provide wholesome and suitable mind food for each of the diverse tastes which she may gratify but also strengthen and elevate. Drink the child will at some fountain of mental refreshment; and if he be but led gently to the streams of living water, he will gladly abandon the muddy pool. When all is said, the fact remains that our graded school system is scarcely over half a century old, and this period is but as a moment in the long growth and development needed for the perfection of a great national institution. The graded school system is still an infant in arms. Ere long, let us hope, it may learn to walk, and let us not condemn too harshly that which is still in its babyhood. To many eminent scholars of America who have unhesitatingly put the stamp of their approval upon my humble but earnest attempt to interpret their teachings into simpler form, so that the child may run that readeth it, I have no adequate words wherewith to voice my thanks. Whatever of real merit lies in my undertaking is to be found in the fact that my teachings are not my own but theirs. I have but translated and interpreted, as was given me to do, and of the fruits of their larger labors I have freely taken toll. Nor have I greater hope than that I may lead many children to find inspiration where I have found it, in their work for the cause of language and literature. These have the gratitude of posterity, and need not to be named here. To the scores of men and women prominent as successful educators and known for pedagogical skill, who have said my work Godspeed, I would also fain return thanks. It would be indeed a pleasure to name here, if I might, one by one, these stranger-friends whose encouragement has added to an already congenial task that unspeakable joy derived from appreciation and prophecy of fruition. Not least among the many messages of good-will and good cheer are held the words from certain villages where principals have written of this newer method of English study: "It has made us better teachers." Very grateful am I also to the general and to the educational press which have heartily endorsed and re-endorsed a revolutionary system which is in evident harmony with practical methods of training known to editor and to publisher. Of these friends I earnestly petition continued help and good-will. By name, I wish thus publicly to thank the following friends and helpers, to whose aid my work has been especially indebted : Doctor Richard Burton, poet and essayist, formerly Professor of the English language and literature in the University of Minnesota, now literary editor of The Lothrop Company, Boston, whose wise teachings and progressive ideas have broadened and developed my own theories as regards language and its teaching; Miss Jean Gowdy, principal of the Washington School, Minneapolis, to whom I was sent as "our best authority upon language work," and who, a stranger to myself, voluntarily undertook and carried out successfully the practical testing in the schoolroom of the lessons of " Everyday English," Books One and Two; Miss Chestine Gowdy, head of the department of grammar and language in the State Normal School, Normal, Illinois, who first convinced me of the greater advantages in a concentrated course of technical grammar wholly divorced from language study as such: this, because of interest gained through boldly attacking and conquering the subject at the proper time, instead of skirmishing around its outposts for years, and becoming discouraged thru continual unsuccessful sallies. Minneapolis, Minnesota, JEAN SHERWOOD RANKIN. |