INTRODUCTION.

the language of signs, first of all, supplies the deficiency, and completes the phrase. Infants generally begin to speak at two years of age, that is to say, they begin to utter phrases. I knew a little girl, two years old, who had at command an infinite number of phrases, and whose conversation was truly interesting.

sense.

The fact, that infants are instructed in language by detached phrases, and not otherwise, every discerning mother will be ready to acknowledge; for, if they were not taught in such a manner until they retained the vast catalogue of the names of things, they would either remain speechless, or perhaps mutter an unintelligible jargon like the confusion of tongues at the building of Babel. The reason of teaching a language by phrases and not by single words, is very obvious: the name of a thing for instance, merely recals an object to the mind; but it can neither express an action performed on it, nor convey an idea relative to it. A word, therefore, that expresses no thought or action, has no force by itself, and only serves as a link in the chain that makes up a phrase or complete Even supposing that an infant might learn a number of solitary words, yet, being unacquainted with the sense of the phrase by which the mother interrogates it, it will, naturally through fear, utter something; it then follows, that an infant may as well utter the words horse or house, as or or elephant; though the latter terms might be more applicable to the subject, and more pertinent in reply to the question. Thus, even if possessed of a long list of unmeaning sounds, or mere names of things, without any idea of their relative uses and qualities, the infantile palace of memory might truly be said to be furnished with useless lumber. What would it avail with respect to the acquisition of language, to know the names of all the animals of the creation, the necessary articles of life, &c. without connexion? Not a straw!-Were the mental storehouse stocked in such a manner, what would be the result? Ridicule! more laughable than the offspring of the fabled mountain !

In short, there is no need of argument to prove that language is only a collection of phrases or sentences, by the help of which a nation expresses its thoughts on the objects of its wants or pleasures. The speediest mode of acquiring those phrases is necessarily the speediest mode of acquiring language: and what mode can be readier than that by which Nature teaches infants their mother-tongue?

But, it is replied, by teaching a language through its phrases, you teach it by ROTE, and, of course, the learner cannot comprehend it. I admit that I do teach by KOTE; but, before my System of teaching by rote is condemned, let me first inquire into the meaning of the term “BY ROTE."

Many are not aware of what dangerous consequences to society the

false acceptation of a word may prove. LOCKE on the abuse of words, HELVETIUS on the same subject, and CONDILLAC, especially in his Traite des Systèmes, will convince the doubtful, that apparently trifling deviations from the real meaning of words have given rise to the greatest errors, and to those false systems of philosophy, which for centuries past have involved the human mind in darkness, and still lead astray their shortsighted votaries. MONTAIGNE, who in his infancy had learned the dead languages by the simple and unerring method we here inculcate, when treating on the same subject, observes, with his usual nervous simplicity, "Grammar is one of the greatest sources of human misery. Our law suits spring from the misinterpretation of laws; and wars, in general, from an inability clearly to express conventions and treaties between princes. What quarrels, and what important consequences to the world, have arisen from the doubtful meaning of the monosyllable hoc !"*

In proof of these opinions, may be adduced the errors which have grown out of the false acceptation of the word ROTE. Learning by rote, has been supposed to be a wrong and vicious manner of speaking; but if, by rote, with LOCKE, we understand, (and it is truly its proper sense, whe! applied to language,) the learning of a language without the assistance grammar, merely by associating with those who speak it well, such a sup position is both unjust and unfounded.

The vices of expression falsely charged on ROTE, are such as, j'ai quelques, for j'en ai, I have some; je suis froid, for j'ai froid, I am cold. But, such mistakes result from the old system of rules, and not from rote. Till rules can be prescribed for idioms, language cannot be taught by

rules.

Such modes of expression are never used by Frenchmen; and yet all Frenchmen learn their language BY ROTE. By whom, then, are they used? By those only who follow the precepts of their masters, in writing themes or exercises in a language of which they have no just idea. These exercises produced the solecisms above stated, and which the method of tuition BY ROTE could never have introduced; for, j'ai quelques, je suis froid, are sentences foreign to the usage and phraseology of the French, language, and such as no Frenchman, however uneducated, could have uttered. They are literally rendered from English into French, by rule, and are barbarous. Such is the result of a prejudice, founded upon the mistaken acceptation of the phrase, BY ROTE,

"La plupart des occasions des troubles du monde sont grammairiens. Nos procès ne naissent que du débat de l'interprétation des loix; et la pluspart des guerres, de cette im puissance de n'avoir sceu clairement exprimer les conventions et traictez d'accord des princes. Combien de querelles et combien importantes a produit au monde le doute du sens de cette syllabe hoc.”—Montaigne.

h

It remains for me to produce my authorities, in support of the present answer to the objections now under consideration.

LOCKE, that great lawgiver in matters concerning education, remarks, “Languages are only to be learned BY ROTE; and a man who does not speak English or Latin perfectly BY ROTE, so that, having thought of the thing he would speak of, his tongue, of course, without thought of rules of grammar, falls into the proper expression and IDIOM of that language, -does not speak it well, nor is he master of it. And I would fain have any one name to me that tongue that any one can learn, or speak as he should do, by the rules of grammar. Languages were not made by rules or art, but by accident, and the COMMON USE OF THE PEOPLE, and he that will speak them well has no other rule but that; nor any thing to trust to but his memory, and the habit of speaking after the fashion of those that are allowed to speak properly, which, in other words, is only to speak BY ROTE. There is nothing more evident, than that the languages learned BY ROTÉ serve well enough for the common affairs of life, and ordinary commerce ; nay, persons of quality, of the softer sex, and such of them as have spent their time in well-bred company, show us that this plain, natural way, without the least study or knowledge of grammar, can carry them to a great degree of elegance and politeness in their language; and that there are Jadies, who, without knowing what tenses and participles are, speak as cor rectly (they may take it for an ill compliment, if I say as any country schoolmaster), as most gentlemen who have been bred up in the ordinary methods of grammar schools, &c.*

D'ALEMBERT, in his posthumous works, printed at Paris in 1799, makes this observation: "Would you acquire a language speedily, and are you possessed of memory, GET A DICTIONARY BY HEART, IF YOU CAN, and read a great deal."

Mr. THOMAS JEFFERSON, late President of the United States, a gentleman highly and justly celebrated for genius and philosophical knowledge, has, in a letter to the author concerning this work, observed, “The proposition to teach a language by phrases, is new as a method, although, besides infants learning their native tongue, we have seen persons learn a foreign language that way; and I have observed they are less apt to run into barbarisms (as, je suis froid, 'I am cold,' &c.) than those who learn single

⚫ Un enfant de six ans qui a de l'intelligence a dejà appris par la seule voie d'imitation et sans aucune étude, plus de grammaire qu' aucune méthode ne pourra lui en apprendre en six ans. Les femmes les plus spirituelles, et qui parlent mieux lear langue, ne l'ont apprise que de l'habitude d'entendre bien parler. Il y a eu de grands écrivains qui n'ont jamais lu une grammaire Française: je pourrais citer Montesquieu et Buffon qui se vantaient, pour ainsi dire, de leur ignorance à cet égard. Mais je ne veux pas en conclure qu'on ne doit pas enseigner a notre jeunesse les principes de la langue qu'elle doit parler ; je crois seulement qu'il faut reduire cette etude à ce qu'elle a de nécessaire, et ce necessaire se renferme dans un court espace.

Je prendrai la liberté de dire aux maîtres: soignez votre langage en parlant à vos élèves ;

words, and put them together themselves. I have observed, that, to understand modern Latin, you must understand the native language of the writer; and, to find the meaning of a vhrase, re-translate it into his language," &c.

After these arguments and authorities, I trust the reader will no longer hesitate to acknowledge, that the present IS THE ONLY MODE of acquiring a corrcet acquaintance with language, IN CONSEQUENCE of teaching it by phrases, NOTWITHSTANDING that is, in short, only teaching it by rote.— Having dismissed this point, the

THIRD OBJECTION

now presents itself, viz. That the utter disuse of such books of Exercises as those of Perrin, Chambaud, Hamel, &c. prevents the acquirement of the art of writing French with grammatical accuracy; and that the usual practice of translation from French authors into English, is not sufficiently attended to.

My objection to the writing of exercises, as the best guide to the writing of a language, will be admitted by all reflecting minds, when the following points have been thoroughly considered.

The art of writing is nothing more than the art of speaking brought to a certain degree of perfection. This definition, as just as it is forcible, points out to us the true mode of learning to write a language, which is to learn to speak it first with accuracy. Now, the method we have developed teaches us to speak it with the greatest possible accuracy; every particular relating to language being attended to, in the manner best calculated to make a lasting impression on the memory of the learner, while speaking and writing correctly are interwoven together by the most powerful process. See pages xlix, &c. Now, do beginners, into whose hands exercise-books are put, speak French with accuracy? Assuredly not! To suppose it, involves a contradiction. Such books, therefore, are useless to beginners. Some, however, might observe,—“ Well then, let those books be put into the hands of those who have finished your course of French." I reply, that, if they have gone through it in a proper manner, they have no occasion to be tormented with rules, many of which are unintelligible; for they are thoroughly acquainted with a much larger collection than is contained in any book of that kind; and they have, moreover, acquired the valuable habit of applying them well, either

relevez avec sagesse les fautes qu'ils feront en parlant devant vous; ne leur faites lire que les ouvrages des bons écrivains, en leur en faisant remarquer les beautés et les défauts de diction; alors non-seulement ils apprendront sans s'en douter à bien parler leur langue, mais encore il de leur sera pas possible de la parler mal. Duclos observe ingénieusement qu'un homme élevé dans le grand monde, qui se serait fait un langage incorrect et trivial, aurait le mérite d'un Avant dans les langues étrangères.-Esprit des Journaux. Novembre, 1508.

in speaking or writing, without ever thinking about them. I refer those who may still be disposed to argue against a system founded on the process by which every vernacular language is acquired, to the article ÉTUDES, in the new French Encyclopédie, in which well-substantiated facts are adduced in support of this doctrine.

With respect to not making more use of translation, this system provides a cogent reason. By learning the vocabularies, &c. in the manner we have proposed, we learn the three things which constitute the knowledge of a language,—to speak, read, and write, it. Application to books suited to the taste of a pupil will divide his attention, (which should be wholly devoted to committing to memory the practical part,) and, from the trouble of learning the phrases, especially in the beginning, will create a distaste for them. Merely to read polite writers, is a very circuitous, ineffective, and faulty, method of learning a language, unless supported by such auxiliaries as we recommend: I would not, certainly exclude reading altogether, and for that reason, I have annexed to this work a compendium entitled "LE LECTEUR FRANÇAIS;" but, to adopt French writers, excepting so far as they are made to concur with the present plan, is indefensible; for, supposing the learner already acquainted with pronunciation, the same word must occur in books a great many times before it can be retained in the mind for the ready purposes of conversation. The reason of this is obvious; the words expressing the ideas of the writer are not presented phrase by phrase, in an analytical manner, as they are in the practical part of the present work, but Occur en masse. Hence it happens, that, by being directed to many words at once, the attention is so lightly fixed on each of them, that the mind cannot remember any particular one, unless it has been presented many times. I do not mean to say that the words would not be recognized, should they occur to the eye again; but they certainly would not recur without such a stimulus; as, after having seen a face once, we may remember, when it meets the eye a second time, that we have seen it before, but nothing farther; and, unless it returns to the eye, it never returns to the recollection. Even admitting that words, by following this method of instruction, may be easily engraven on the memory for the ready purposes of conversation and writing, I maintain, from the conviction of experience, that such a mode, the basis of the old school, and its chief dependance, in order to acquire a language, ought to be rejected; for it is utterly impossible that it should ever assist the learner to speak or to write French correctly. On the contrary, it must uecessarily supply him with modes of expression foreign to, and even at war with, the genius of the French language:-that such consequences follow, has been clearly proved in the preceding pages.

In corroboration of these truths, I will mention a circumstance which came within my own personal observation. A short time after the pub