Ieienoa?noai ia?aciaaiey ?anioaeeee Aaea?onue
O/?aaeaeaiea ia?aciaaiey
«Aiiaeueneee ainoaea?noaaiiue oieaa?neoao
ei. O. Nei?eiu»
Oeeieiae/aneee oaeoeueoao
THE HISTORY OF GRAMMATICAL STUDY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Eo?niaay ?aaioa
Eniieieoaeue:
Nooaeaioea a?oiiu E-53
Eiaaeaaa O.A.
Aiiaeue 2006
Niaea?aeaiea
Introduction
1 English language
2 History of grammatical study
Conclusion
Literature
Introduction
“Grammatica quid est? ars recte scribendi recteque loquendi; poetarum
enarrationem continens; omnium Scientiarum fons uberrimus. * * * Nostra
atas parum perita rerum veterum, nimis brevi gyro grammaticum sepsit; at
apud antiques olim tantum auctoritatis hic ordo habuit, ut censores
essent et judices scriptorum omnium soli grammatici; quos ob id etiam
Criticos vocabant.”–DESPAUTER. _Praf. ad Synt_, fol. 1.
Such is the peculiar power of language, that there is scarcely any
subject so trifling, that it may not thereby be plausibly magnified into
something great; nor are there many things which cannot be ingeniously
disparaged till they shall seem contemptible. Cicero goes further:
“Nihil est tam incredibile quod non dicendo fiat probabile;”–“There is
nothing so incredible that it may not by the power of language be made
probable.” The study of grammar has been often overrated, and still
oftener injuriously decried. I shall neither join with those who would
lessen in the public esteem that general system of doctrines, which from
time immemorial has been taught as grammar; nor attempt, either by
magnifying its practical results, or by decking it out with my own
imaginings, to invest it with any artificial or extraneous importance.
I shall not follow the footsteps of Neef, who avers that, “Grammar and
incongruity are identical things,” and who, under pretence of reaching
the same end by better means, scornfully rejects as nonsense every thing
that others have taught under that name; because I am convinced, that,
of all methods of teaching, none goes farther than his, to prove the
reproachful assertion true. Nor shall I imitate the declamation of
_Cardell_; who, at the commencement of his Essay, recommends the general
study of language on earth, from the consideration that, “The faculty of
speech is the medium of social bliss for superior intelligences in an
eternal world;” [51] and who, when he has exhausted censure in
condemning the practical instruction of others, thus lavishes praise, in
both his grammars, upon that formless, void, and incomprehensible theory
of his own: “This application of words,” says he, “in their endless use,
by one plain rule, to all things which nouns can name, instead of being
the fit subject of blind cavil, _is the most sublime theme presented to
the intellect on earth. It is the practical intercourse of the soul at
once with its God, and with all parts of his works!_”–_Cardell’s
Gram._, 12mo, p. 87; _Gram._, 18mo, p. 49.
Here, indeed, a wide prospect opens before us; but he who traces
science, and teaches what is practically useful, must check imagination,
and be content with sober truth.
“For apt the mind or fancy is to rove Uncheck’d, and of her roving is no
end.”–MILTON.
Restricted within its proper limits, and viewed in its true light, the
practical science of grammar has an intrinsic dignity and merit
sufficient to throw back upon any man who dares openly assail it, the
lasting stigma of folly and self-conceit. It is true, the judgements of
men are fallible, and many opinions are liable to be reversed by better
knowledge: but what has been long established by the unanimous
concurrence of the learned, it can hardly be the part of a wise
instructor now to dispute. The literary reformer who, with the last
named gentleman, imagines “that the persons to whom the civilized world
have looked up to for instruction in language were all wrong alike in
the main points,” [52] intends no middle course of reformation, and must
needs be a man either of great merit, or of little modesty.
1. English language
The English language may now be regarded as the common inheritance of
about fifty millions of people; who are at least as highly distinguished
for virtue, intelligence, and enterprise, as any other equal portion of
the earth’s population. All these are more or less interested in the
purity, permanency, and right use of that language; inasmuch as it is to
be, not only the medium of mental intercourse with others for them and
their children, but the vehicle of all they value, in the reversion of
ancestral honour, or in the transmission of their own. It is even
impertinent, to tell a man of any respectability, that the study of this
his native language is an object of great importance and interest: if he
does not, from these most obvious considerations, feel it to be so, the
suggestion will be less likely to convince him, than to give offence, as
conveying an implicit censure.
Every person who has any ambition to appear respectable among people of
education, whether in conversation, in correspondence, in public
speaking, or in print, must be aware of the absolute necessity of a
competent knowledge of the language in which he attempts to express his
thoughts. Many a ludicrous anecdote is told, of persons venturing to use
words of which they did not know the proper application; many a
ridiculous blunder has been published to the lasting disgrace of the
writer; and so intimately does every man’s reputation for sense depend
upon his skill in the use of language, that it is scarcely possible to
acquire the one without the other. Who can tell how much of his own good
or ill success, how much of the favour or disregard with which he
himself has been treated, may have depended upon that skill or
deficiency in grammar, of which, as often as he has either spoken or
written, he must have afforded a certain and constant evidence.[53]
I have before said, that to excel in grammar, is but to know better than
others wherein grammatical excellence consists; and, as this excellence,
whether in the thing itself, or in him that attains to it, is merely
comparative, there seems to be no fixed point of perfection beyond which
such learning may not be carried. In speaking or writing to different
persons, and on different subjects, it is necessary to vary one’s style
with great nicety of address; and in nothing does true genius more
conspicuously appear, than in the facility with which it adopts the most
appropriate expressions, leaving the critic no fault to expose, no word
to amend. Such facility of course supposes an intimate knowledge of all
words in common use, and also of the principles on which they are to be
combined.
With a language which we are daily in the practice of hearing, speaking,
reading, and writing, we may certainly acquire no inconsiderable
acquaintance, without the formal study of its rules. All the true
principles of grammar were presumed to be known to the learned, before
they were written for the aid of learners; nor have they acquired any
independent authority, by being recorded in a book, and denominated
grammar. The teaching of them, however, has tended in no small degree to
settle and establish the construction of the language, to improve the
style of our English writers, and to enable us to ascertain with more
clearness the true standard of grammatical purity. He who learns only by
rote, may speak the words or phrases which he has thus acquired; and he
who has the genius to discern intuitively what is regular and proper,
may have further aid from the analogies which he thus discovers; but he
who would add to such acquisitions the satisfaction of knowing what is
right, must make the principles of language his study.
To produce an able and elegant writer, may require something more than a
knowledge of grammar rules; yet it is argument enough in favour of those
rules, that without a knowledge of them no elegant and able writer is
produced. Who that considers the infinite number of phrases which words
in their various combinations may form, and the utter impossibility that
they should ever be recognized individually for the purposes of
instruction and criticism, but must see the absolute necessity of
dividing words into classes, and of showing, by general rules of
formation and construction, the laws to which custom commonly subjects
them, or from which she allows them in particular instances to deviate?
Grammar, or the art of writing and speaking, must continue to be learned
by some persons; because it is of indispensable use to society. And the
only question is, whether children and youth shall acquire it by a
regular process of study and method of instruction, or be left to glean
it solely from their own occasional observation of the manner in which
other people speak and write.
The practical solution of this question belongs chiefly to parents and
guardians. The opinions of teachers, to whose discretion the decision
will sometimes be left, must have a certain degree of influence upon the
public mind; and the popular notions of the age, in respect to the
relative value of different studies, will doubtless bias many to the
adoption or the rejection of this. A consideration of the point seems to
be appropriate here, and I cannot forbear to commend the study to the
favour of my readers; leaving every one, of course, to choose how much
he will be influenced by my advice, example, or arguments. If past
experience and the history of education be taken for guides, the study
of English grammar will not be neglected; and the method of its
inculcation will become an object of particular inquiry and solicitude.
The English language ought to be learned at school or in colleges, as
other languages usually are; by the study of its grammar, accompanied
with regular exercises of parsing, correcting, pointing, and scanning;
and by the perusal of some of its mostaccurate writers, accompanied with
stated exercises in composition and elocution. In books of criticism,
our language is already more abundant than any other. Some of the best
of these the student should peruse, assoon as he can understand and
relish them. Such a course, pursued with regularity and diligence, will
be foundthe most direct way of acquiring an English style at once pure,
correct, and elegant.
If any intelligent man will represent English grammar otherwise than as
one of the most useful branches of study, he may well be suspected of
having formed his conceptions of the science, not from what it really is
in itself, but from some of those miserable treatises which only
caricature the subject, and of which it is rather an advantage to be
ignorant. But who is so destitute of good sense as to deny, that a
graceful and easy conversation in the private circle, a fluent and
agreeable delivery in public speaking, a ready and natural utterance in
reading, a pure and elegant style in composition, are accomplishments of
a very high order? And yet of all these, the proper study of English
grammar is the true foundation. This would never be denied or doubted,
if young people did not find, under some other name, better models and
more efficient instruction, than what was practised on them for grammar
in the school-room. No disciple of an able grammarian can ever speak ill
of grammar, unless he belong to that class of knaves who vilify what
they despair to reach.
By taking proper advantage of the ductility of childhood, intelligent
parents and judicious teachers may exercise over the studies, opinions,
and habits of youth a strong and salutary control; and it will seldom be
found in experience, that those who have been early taught to consider
grammatical learning as worthy and manly, will change their opinion in
after life. But the study of grammar is not so enticing that it may be
disparaged in the hearing of the young, without injury. What would be
the natural effect of the following sentence, which I quote from a late
well-written religious homily? “The pedagogue and his dunce may exercise
their wits correctly enough, in the way of grammatical analysis, on some
splendid argument, or burst of eloquence, or thrilling descant, or
poetic rapture, to the strain and soul of which not a fibre in their
nature would yield a vibration.”–_New-York Observer_, Vol. ix, p. 73.
Would not the bright boy who heard this from the lips of his reverend
minister, be apt the next day to grow weary of the parsing lesson
required by his schoolmaster? And yet what truth is there in the
passage? One can no more judge of the fitness of language, without
regard to the meaning conveyed by it, than of the fitness of a suit of
clothes, without knowing for whom they were intended. The grand clew to
the proper application of all syntactical rules, is _the sense_; and as
any composition is faulty which does not rightly deliver the author’s
meaning, so every solution of a word or sentence is necessarily
erroneous, in which that meaning is not carefully noticed and literally
preserved. To parse rightly and fully, is nothing else than to
understand rightly and explain fully; and whatsoever is well expressed,
it is a shame either to misunderstand or to misinterpret.
This study, when properly conducted and liberally pursued, has an
obvious tendency to dignify the whole character. How can he be a man of
refined literary taste, who cannot speak and write his native language
grammatically? And who will deny that every degree of improvement in
literary taste tends to brighten and embellish the whole intellectual
nature? The several powers of the mind are not so many distinct and
separable agents, which are usually brought into exercise one by one;
and even if they were, there might be found, in a judicious prosecution
of this study, a healthful employment for them all. The imagination,
indeed, has nothing to do with the elements of grammar; but in the
exercise of composition, young fancy may spread her wings as soon as
they are fledged; and for this exercise the previous course of
discipline will have furnished both language and taste, as well as
sentiment.
2. History of grammatical study
The regular grammatical study of our language is a thing of recent
origin. Fifty or sixty years ago, such an exercise was scarcely
attempted in any of the schools, either in this country or in
England.[54] Of this fact we have abundant evidence both from books, and
from the testimony of our venerable fathers yet living. How often have
these presented this as an apology for their own deficiencies, and
endeavoured to excite us to greater diligence, by contrasting our
opportunities with theirs! Is there not truth, is there not power, in
the appeal? And are we not bound to avail ourselves of the privileges
which they have provided, to build upon the foundations which their
wisdom has laid, and to carry forward the work of improvement?
Institutions can do nothing for us, unless the love of learning preside
over and prevail in them. The discipline of our schools can never
approach perfection, till those who conduct, and those who frequent
them, are strongly actuated by that disposition of mind, which
generously aspires to all attainable excellence.
To rouse this laudable spirit in the minds of our youth, and to satisfy
its demands whenever it appears, ought to be the leading objects with
those to whom is committed the important business of instruction. A dull
teacher, wasting time in a school-room with a parcel of stupid or
indolent boys, knows nothing of the satisfaction either of doing his own
duty, or of exciting others to the performance of theirs. He settles
down in a regular routine of humdrum exercises, dreading as an
inconvenience even such change as proficiency in his pupils must bring
on; and is well content to do little good for little money, in a
profession which he honours with his services merely to escape
starvation. He has, however, one merit: he pleases his patrons, and is
perhaps the only man that can; for they must needs be of that class to
whom moral restraint is tyranny, disobedience to teachers, as often
right as wrong; and who, dreading the expense, even of a school-book,
always judge those things to be cheapest, which cost the least and last
the longest. What such a man, or such a neighbourhood, may think of
English grammar, I shall not stop to ask.
To the following opinion from a writer of great merit, I am inclined to
afford room here, because it deserves refutation, and, I am persuaded,
is not so well founded as the generality of the doctrines with which it
is presented to the public. “Since human knowledge is so much more
extensive than the opportunity of individuals for acquiring it, it
becomes of the greatest importance so to economize the opportunity as to
make it subservient to the acquisition of as large and as valuable a
portion as we can. It is not enough to show that a given branch of
education is useful: you must show that it is the most useful that can
be selected. Remembering this, I think it would be expedient to dispense
with the formal study of English grammar,– a proposition which I doubt
not many a teacher will hear with wonder and disapprobation. We learn
the grammar in order that we may learn English; and we learn English
whether we study grammars or not. Especially we shall acquire a
competent knowledge of our own language, if other departments of our
education were improved.”
“A boy learns more English grammar by joining in an hour’s conversation
with educated people, than in poring for an hour over Murray or Horne
Tooke. If he is accustomed to such society and to the perusal of
well-written books, he will learn English grammar, though he never sees
a word about syntax; and if he is not accustomed to such society and
such reading, the ‘grammar books’ at a boarding-school will not teach
it. Men learn their own language by habit, and not by rules: and this is
just what we might expect; for the grammar of a language is itself
formed from the prevalent habits of speech and writing. A compiler of
grammar first observes these habits, and then makes his rules: but if a
person is himself familiar with the habits, why study the rules? I say
nothing of grammar as a general science; because, although the
philosophy of language be a valuable branch of human knowledge, it were
idle to expect that school-boys should understand it. The objection is,
to the system of attempting to teach children formally that which they
will learn practically without teaching.”–JONATHAN DYMOND: Essays on
Morality, p. 195.
This opinion, proceeding from a man who has written upon human affairs
with so much ability and practical good sense, is perhaps entitled to as
much respect as any that has ever been urged against the study in
question. And so far as the objection bears upon those defective methods
of instruction which experience has shown to be inefficient, or of
little use, I am in no wise concerned to remove it. The reader of this
treatise will find their faults not only admitted, but to a great extent
purposely exposed; while an attempt is here made, as well as in my
earlier grammars, to introduce a method which it is hoped will better
reach the end proposed. But it may easily be perceived that this
author’s proposition to dispense with the formal study of English
grammar is founded upon an untenable assumption. Whatever may be the
advantages of those purer habits of speech, which the young naturally
acquire from conversation with educated people, it is not true, that,
without instruction directed to this end, they will of themselves become
so well educated as to speak and write grammatically. Their language may
indeed be comparatively accurate and genteel, because it is learned of
those who have paid some attention to the study; but, as they cannot
always be preserved from hearing vulgar and improper phraseology, or
from seeing it in books, they cannot otherwise be guarded from
improprieties of diction, than by a knowledge of the rules of grammar.
One might easily back this position by the citation of some scores of
faulty sentences from the pen of this very able writer himself.
I imagine there can be no mistake in the opinion, that in exact
proportion as the rules of grammar are unknown or neglected in any
country, will corruptions and improprieties of language be there
multiplied. The “general science” of grammar, or “the philosophy of
language,” the author seems to exempt, and in some sort to commend; and
at the same time his proposition of exclusion is applied not merely to
the school-grammars, but a fortiori to this science, under the notion
that it is unintelligible to school-boys. But why should any principle
of grammar be the less intelligible on account of the extent of its
application? Will a boy pretend that he cannot understand a rule of
English grammar, because he is told that it holds good in all languages?
Ancient etymologies, and other facts in literary history, must be taken
by the young upon the credit of him who states them; but the doctrines
of general grammar are to the learner the easiest and the most important
principles of the science. And I know of nothing in the true philosophy
of language, which, by proper definitions and examples, may not be made
as intelligible to a boy, as are the principles of most other sciences.
The difficulty of instructing youth in any thing that pertains to
language, lies not so much in the fact that its philosophy is above
their comprehension, as in our own ignorance of certain parts of so vast
an inquiry;–in the great multiplicity of verbal signs; the frequent
contrariety of practice; the inadequacy of memory; the inveteracy of ill
habits; and the little interest that is felt when we speak merely of
words.
The grammatical study of our language was early and strongly recommended
by Locke,[55] and other writers on education, whose character gave
additional weight to an opinion which they enforced by the clearest
arguments. But either for want of a good grammar, or for lack of
teachers skilled in the subject and sensible of its importance, the
general neglect so long complained of as a grievous imperfection in our
methods of education, has been but recently and partially obviated. “The
attainment of a correct and elegant style,” says Dr. Blair, “is an
object which demands application and labour. If any imagine they can
catch it merely by the ear, or acquire it by the slight perusal of some
of our good authors, they will find themselves much disappointed. The
many errors, even in point of grammar, the many offences against purity
of language, which are committed by writers who are far from being
contemptible, demonstrate, that a careful study of the language is
previously requisite, in all who aim at writing it properly.”–_Blair’s
Rhetoric_, Lect. ix, p. 91.
“To think justly, to write well, to speak agreeably, are the three great
ends of academic instruction. The Universities will excuse me, if I
observe, that both are, in one respect or other, defective in these
three capital points of education. While in Cambridge the general
application is turned altogether on speculative knowledge, with little
regard to polite letters, taste, or style; in Oxford the whole attention
is directed towards classical correctness, without any sound foundation
laid in severe reasoning and philosophy. In Cambridge and in Oxford, the
art of speaking agreeably is so far from being taught, that it is hardly
talked or thought of. These defects naturally produce dry unaffecting
compositions in the one; superficial taste and puerile elegance in the
other; ungracious or affected speech in both.”–DR. BROWN, 1757:
Estimate, Vol. ii, p. 44.
“A grammatical study of our own language makes no part of the ordinary
method of instruction, which we pass through in our childhood; and it is
very seldom we apply ourselves to it afterward. Yet the want of it will
not be effectually supplied by any other advantages whatsoever. Much
practice in the polite world, and a general acquaintance with the best
authors, are good helps; but alone [they] will hardly be sufficient: We
have writers, who have enjoyed these advantages in their full extent,
and yet cannot be recommended as models of an accurate style. Much less
then will, what is commonly called learning, serve the purpose; that is,
a critical knowledge of ancient languages, and much reading of ancient
authors: The greatest critic and most able grammarian of the last age,
when he came to apply his learning and criticism to an English author,
was frequently at a loss in matters of ordinary use and common
construction in his own vernacular idiom.”–DR. LOWTH, 1763: _Pref. to
Gram._, p. vi.
“To the pupils of our public schools the acquisition of their own
language, whenever it is undertaken, is an easy task. For he who is
acquainted with several grammars already, finds no difficulty in adding
one more to the number. And this, no doubt, is one of the reasons why
English engages so small a proportion of their time and attention. It is
not frequently read, and is still less frequently written. Its supposed
facility, however, or some other cause, seems to have drawn upon it such
a degree of neglect as certainly cannot be praised. The students in
those schools are often distinguished by their compositions in the
learned languages, before they can speak or write their own with
correctness, elegance, or fluency. A classical scholar too often has his
English style to form, when he should communicate his acquisitions to
the world. In some instances it is never formed with success; and the
defects of his expression either deter him from appearing before the
public at all, or at least counteract in a great degree the influence of
his work, and bring ridicule upon the author. Surely these evils might
easily be prevented or diminished.”–DR. BARROW: Essays on Education,
London, 1804; Philad., 1825, p. 87.
“It is also said that those who know Latin and Greek generally express
themselves with more clearness than those who do not receive a liberal
education. It is indeed natural that those who cultivate their mental
powers, write with more clearness than the uncultivated individual. The
mental cultivation, however, may take place in the mother tongue as well
as in Latin or Greek. Yet the spirit of the ancient languages, further
is declared to be superior to that of the modern. I allow this to be the
case; but I do not find that the English style is improved by learning
Greek. It is known that literal translations are miserably bad, and yet
young scholars are taught to translate, word for word, faithful to their
dictionaries. Hence those who do not make a peculiar study of their own
language, will not improve in it by learning, in this manner, Greek and
Latin. Is it not a pity to hear, what I have been told by the managers
of one of the first institutions of Ireland, that it was easier to find
ten teachers for Latin and Greek, than one for the English language,
though they proposed double the salary to the latter? Who can assure us
that the Greek orators acquired their superiority by their acquaintance
with foreign languages; or, is it not obvious, on the other hand, that
they learned ideas and expressed them in their mother tongue?”–DR.
SPURZHEIM: Treatise on Education, 1832, p. 107.
“Dictionaries were compiled, which comprised all the words, together
with their several definitions, or the sense each one expresses and
conveys to the mind. These words were analyzed and classed according to
their essence, attributes, and functions. Grammar was made a rudiment
leading to the principles of all thoughts, and teaching by simple
examples, the general classification of words and their subdivisions in
expressing the various conceptions of the mind. Grammar is then the key
to the perfect understanding of languages; without which we are left to
wander all our lives in an intricate labyrinth, without being able to
trace back again any part of our way.”–_Chazotte’s Essay on the
Teaching of Languages_, p. 45. Again: “Had it not been for his
dictionary and his grammar, which taught him the essence of all
languages, and the natural subdivision of their component parts, he
might have spent a life as long as Methuselah’s, in learning words,
without being able to attain to a degree of perfection in any of the
languages.”–_Ib._, p. 50. “Indeed, it is not easy to say, to what
degree, and in how many different ways, both memory and judgement may be
improved by an intimate acquaintance with grammar; which is therefore,
with good reason, made the first and fundamental part of literary
education. The greatest orators, the most elegant scholars, and the most
accomplished men of business, that have appeared in the world, of whom I
need only mention Casar and Cicero, were not only studious of grammar,
but most learned grammarians.”–DR. BEATTIE: Moral Science, Vol. i, p.
107.
Here, as in many other parts of my work, I have chosen to be liberal of
quotations; not to show my reading, or to save the labour of
composition, but to give the reader the satisfaction of some other
authority than my own. In commending the study of English grammar, I do
not mean to discountenance that degree of attention which in this
country is paid to other languages; but merely to use my feeble
influence to carry forward a work of improvement, which, in my opinion,
has been wisely begun, but not sufficiently sustained. In consequence of
this improvement, the study of grammar, which was once prosecuted
chiefly through the medium of the dead languages, and was regarded as
the proper business of those only who were to be instructed in Latin and
Greek, is now thought to be an appropriate exercise for children in
elementary schools. And the sentiment is now generally admitted, that
even those who are afterwards to learn other languages, may best acquire
a knowledge of the common principles of speech from the grammar of their
vernacular tongue. This opinion appears to be confirmed by that
experience which is at once the most satisfactory proof of what is
feasible, and the only proper test of what is useful.
It must, however, be confessed, that an acquaintance with ancient and
foreign literature is absolutely necessary for him who would become a
thorough philologist or an accomplished scholar; and that the Latin
language, the source of several of the modern tongues of Europe, being
remarkably regular in its inflections and systematic in its
construction, is in itself the most complete exemplar of the structure
of speech, and the best foundation for the study of grammar in general.
But, as the general principles of grammar are common to all languages,
and as the only successful method of learning them, is, to commit to
memory the definitions and rules which embrace them, it is reasonable to
suppose that the language most intelligible to the learner, is the most
suitable for the commencement of his grammatical studies. A competent
knowledge of English grammar is also in itself a valuable attainment,
which is within the easy reach of many young persons whose situation in
life debars them from the pursuit of general literature.
The attention which has lately been given to the culture of the English
language, by some who, in the character of critics or lexicographers,
have laboured purposely to improve it, and by many others who, in
various branches of knowledge, have tastefully adorned it with the works
of their genius, has in a great measure redeemed it from that contempt
in which it was formerly held in the halls of learning. But, as I have
before suggested, it does not yet appear to be sufficiently attended to
in the course of what is called a liberal education. Compared with,
other languages, the English exhibits both excellences and defects; but
its flexibility, or power of accommodation to the tastes of different
writers, is great; and when it is used with that mastership which
belongs to learning and genius, it must be acknowledged there are few,
if any, to which it ought on the whole to be considered inferior. But
above all, it is _our own_; and, whatever we may know or think of other
tongues, it can never be either patriotic or wise, for the learned men
of the United States or of England to pride themselves chiefly upon
them.
Conclusion
Our language is worthy to be assiduously studied by all who reside where
it is spoken, and who have the means and the opportunity to become
critically acquainted with it. To every such student it is vastly more
important to be able to speak and write well in English, than to be
distinguished for proficiency in the learned languages and yet ignorant
of his own. It is certain that many from whom better things might be
expected, are found miserably deficient in this respect. And their
neglect of so desirable an accomplishment is the more remarkable and the
more censurable on account of the facility with which those who are
acquainted with the ancient languages may attain to excellence in their
English style. “Whatever the advantages or defects of the English
language be, as it is our own language, it deserves a high degree of our
study and attention. * * * Whatever knowledge may be acquired by the
study of other languages, it can never be communicated with advantage,
unless by such as can write and speak their own language well.”–DR.
BLAIR: Rhetoric, Lect. ix,p. 91.
I am not of opinion that it is expedient to press this study to much
extent, if at all, on those whom poverty or incapacity may have destined
to situations in which they will never hear or think of it afterwards.
The course of nature cannot be controlled; and fortune does not permit
us to prescribe the same course of discipline for all. To speak the
language which they have learned without study, and to read and write
for the most common purposes of life, may be education enough for those
who can be raised no higher. But it must be the desire of every
benevolent and intelligent man, to see the advantages of literary, as
well as of moral culture, extended as far as possible among the people.
And it is manifest, that in proportion as the precepts of the divine
Redeemer are obeyed by the nations that profess his name, will all
distinctions arising merely from the inequality of fortune be lessened
or done away, and better opportunities be offered for the children of
indigence to adorn themselves with the treasures of knowledge.
We may not be able to effect all that is desirable; but, favoured as our
country is, with great facilities for carrying forward the work of
improvement, in every thing which can contribute to national glory and
prosperity, I would, in conclusion of this topic, submit–that a
critical knowledge of our common language is a subject worthy of the
particular attention of all who have the genius and the opportunity to
attain it;–that on the purity and propriety with which American authors
write this language, the reputation of our national literature greatly
depends;–that in the preservation of it from all changes which
ignorance may admit or affectation invent, we ought to unite as having
one common interest;–that a fixed and settled orthography is of great
importance, as a means of preserving the etymology, history, and
identity of words;–that a grammar freed from errors and defects, and
embracing a complete code of definitions and illustrations, rules and
exercises, is of primary importance to every student and a great aid to
teachers;–that as the vices of speech as well as of manners are
contagious, it becomes those who have the care of youth, to be masters
of the language in its purity and elegance, and to avoid as much as
possible every thing that is reprehensible either in thought or
expression.
Literature
1. Brill, E. and Mooney, R. J. (1997), ‘An overview of empirical natural
language processing’, in AI Magazine, 18 (4): 13-24.
2. Chomsky, N. (1957), Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
3. Curme, G. O. (1955), English Grammar. New York: Barnes and Noble.
4. Dowty, D. R., Karttunen, L. and Zwicky, A. M. (eds) (1985), Natural
Language Parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Garside, R. (1986), ‘The CLAWS word-tagging system’, in R. Garside,
6. G. Leech and G. Sampson (eds) The Computational Analysis of English.
Harlow: Longman.
7. Gazdar, G. and Mellish, C. (1989), Natural Language Processing in
POP-11. Reading, UK: Addison-Wesley.
8. Georgiev, H. (1976), ‘Automatic recognition of verbal and nominal
word groups in Bulgarian texts’, in t.a. information, Revue
International du traitement automatique du langage, 2, 17-24.
9. Georgiev, H. (1991), ‘English Algorithmic Grammar’, in Applied
Computer Translation, Vol. 1, No. 3, 29-48.
10. Georgiev, H. (1993a), ‘Syntparse, software program for parsing of
English texts’, demonstration at the Joint Inter-Agency Meeting on
Computer-assisted Terminology and Translation, The United Nations,
Geneva.
11. Georgiev, H. (1993b), ‘Syntcheck, a computer software program for
orthographical and grammatical spell-checking of English texts’,
demonstration at the Joint Inter-Agency Meeting on Computer-assisted
Terminology and Translation, The United Nations, Geneva.
12. Georgiev, H. (1994—2001), Softhesaurus, English Electronic Lexicon,
produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland;
platform: DOS/ Windows.
13. Georgiev, H. (1996-2001a), Syntcheck, a computer software program
for orthographical and grammatical spell-checking of German texts,
produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland;
platform: DOS/Windows.
14. Georgiev, H. (1996-200lb), Syntparse, software program for parsing
of German texts, produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel,
Switzerland; platform: DOS/Windows.
15. Georgiev, H. (1997—2001a), Syntcheck, a computer software program
for orthographical and grammatical spell-checking of French texts,
produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel, Switzerland;
platform: DOS/Windows.
16. Georgiev, H. (1997-2001b), Syntparse, software program for parsing
of French texts, produced and marketed by LANGSOFT, Sprachlernmittel,
Switzerland; platform: DOS/Windows.
Нашли опечатку? Выделите и нажмите CTRL+Enter
