The history of grammatical study of the English language
The history of grammatical study of the English language
Министерство
образования Республики Беларусь
Учреждение
образования
«Гомельский
государственный университет
им. Ф. Скорины»
Филологический
факультет
THE
HISTORY OF GRAMMATICAL STUDY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Курсовая работа
Исполнитель:
Студентка группы К-53
Ковалева Т.Е.
Гомель 2006
Содержание
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.
|