four or five times a week, perhaps in classes of considerable size, remain with the teacher for three-quarters of an hour, and the rest of the time speak English. With the most skillful teachers, working with the best methods that can be devised, and concentrating their effort upon the one aim of teaching the pupil to talk, the results of such a course, unless the work of the school is supplemented by practice at home, is only an imperfect command of the language, which is of little use outside the class room. Meanwhile the concentration of effort upon this one object necessarily involves the neglect of other things that are of more importance in the end. For it must be remembered that the process of learning to speak a foreign language has no educational value except as it is connected with, and grows out of, the improvement of the mind.

In the second place it is to be remarked that while in certain European countries, by reason of their geographical position, or the character of the population, it is of very great practical importance that the rising generation learn to speak two or three languages with facility, the conditions in the United States are different. If it were possible in the secondary school to impart a good practical command of French, it is evident that all but a minute proportion of those leaving school with this accomplishment would soon lose it for lack of occasion to use it. We have, it is true, a number of communities in which the ability to speak German is highly convenient, and may even have a local market value. But nowhere in the United States is this ability indispensable. The English language is the vernacular of the country and the medium of our civilization, and we wish it to become more so, rather than less so, with the lapse of time. So far as purely practical considerations go, it is for those who come to us to learn our language, not for us to learn theirs. If we teach a foreign language in our schools it should be for the sake of its general educational value. At the same time, its potential value as a means of intercourse may very properly be kept in view. One who has received the best training that the secondary school can give may not be able to speak his modern language with facility for the practical purposes of life, but he will have been started in the right way; will have obtained a good general knowledge of the language, and will have had some practice in speaking. If then, after leaving school, he needs to be able to speak the language, he has an excellent foundation on which to build. Proficiency will come rapidly with practice.

SECTION III.-A CRITICAL REVIEW OF METHODS OF TEACHING.

THE GRAMMAR METHOD.

When the modern languages first became a regular subject for serious study in secondary schools it was natural that teachers, having no other model to imitate, should adopt the time-honored plan followed in the department of Greek and Latin. According to this method the pupil is first put through a volume of paradigms, rules, exceptions, and examples which he learns by heart. Only when he has thoroughly mastered this book is he allowed to read; and even then his reading is usually regarded as a means of illustrating and emphasizing grammatical principles, rather than as a source of inspiration or of literary education. The amount of foreign literature studied by the class is, moreover, extremely small; but it is all carefully analyzed and translated, every lesson being, in general, repeated several times. Composition is used as an instrument for increasing still more the student's familiarity with inflections and rules. The foreign language is never spoken, and pronunciation is considered unimportant.

This method has fallen into discredit; and while it is not yet entirely banished from classical instruction, it can scarcely be found, in its original purity, among the modern language courses of any civilized region. It has, however, certain undeniable advantages. In the first place it trains the mnemonic faculty; in the

reac

on against the hard, unattractive schooling of our fathers, modern pedagogica fashion has gone so far that the power of conscious acquisition and retention is hardly exercised at all; children go to college or out into life with an embryonic memory, and the teacher's task rivals the labor of the Danaïdes. Secondly, the careful study of grammatical rules and their nice application in translation and composition form one of the best possible exercises in close reasoning. It may be urged that logical processes are not natural to the child; neither are they natural to the uninstructed adult; but to be a successful student or an intelligent citizen, a boy or man must be able to arrive at rational conclusions. Hence it is one of the chief duties of education to afford practice in clear and orderly thinking. The principal value of arithmetic and algebra as secondary school studies lies in the fact that in them right and wrong reasoning are immediately and unmistakably distinguished by their results. In most subjects the white and black are not so clearly defined; between them lies a broad gray zone, the region of "not quite correct" and "not altogether bad," and it is toward this neutral belt that nearly all the pupil's efforts tend. The children "don't see why" their answer is not as good as any other, and the sloth and slovenliness native to the untrained human mind remain undisturbed. Now, grammatical analysis and synthesis, while less mechanical and more varied in their operation than elementary mathematics, are nearly or quite equal to it as a means of inculcating the habit of accurate ratiocination.

On the other hand, the grammar method is open to criticism on the ground that it neglects two of the most important objects of foreign-language study: the broadening of the mind through contact with the life, the ideas, and the forms of thought and expression of different times and countries; and the cultivation of the artistic sense by the appreciative study of literary masterpieces. A still more potent objection is the contention that pure grammar is not calculated to inspire interest in pupils of the high-school age. This objection seems to be well founded, and, if so, it is a fatal one; for modern pedagogy, if it has accomplished nothing else, has established the fact that interest is absolutely essential to the performance of the best work in any field. It appears, then, that the day of the pure grammar method is past; but while devising a system more in accordance with the principles and the possibilities of our time, let us not forget that the old-fashioned way had its good features.

THE NATURAL METHOD.

At the opposite pedagogical pole from the process just described, we find the conversational or "natural" method. This educational "naturalism" is a reaction against the inflexible systematism of earlier teachers; we should, therefore, expect it to be somewhat aggressive and somewhat formless, more given to pulling down than to building up. It is a principle, an impulse, rather than a plan; and its products depend, to a greater extent than those of any other school, on the personality of the instructor. Too often the results of a protracted and supposedly successful course of unalloyed conversation are a rapid, but unintelligible pronunciation, the fluent use of incorrect forms, and, worst of all, a most discouraging self-complacency. Some peculiarly gifted teachers have succeeded in combining alertness with a reasonable degree of accuracy, but it will probably be found, in all such cases, that the instructor has resorted to devices not strictly "natural." What is the genuine “natural method?" In its extreme form, it consists of a series of monologues by the teacher, interspersed with exchanges of question and answer between instructor and pupil-all in the foreign language; almost the only evidence of system is the arrangement, in a general way, of the easier discourses and dialogues at the beginning, and the more difficult at the end. A great deal of pantomime accompanies the talk. With the aid of this gesticulation, by

attentive listening, and by dint of much repetition the beginner comes to associate certain acts and objects with certain combinations of sound, and finally reaches the point of reproducing the foreign words or phrases. When he has arrived at this stage, the expressions already familiar are connected with new ones in such a way that the former give the clue to the latter, and the vocabulary is rapidly extended, even general and abstract ideas being ultimately brought within the student's comprehension. The mother tongue is strictly banished, not only from the pupil's lips, but, as far as possible, from his mind. Not until a considerable familiarity with the spoken idiom has been attained is the scholar permitted to see the foreign language in print; the study of grammar is reserved for a still later period. Composition consists of the written reproduction of the phrases orally acquired.

This method-if "method" is the proper term-is based on two general ideas; one true, the other false. The first is the belief that the interest so necessary to the successful prosecution of any study (and especially of language work) can most easily be aroused by the actual spoken use of the foreign tongue. The second is the theory that a boy or man can best learn a new language in the manner in which an infant first acquires its native speech. Hence comes the epithet "natural." The advocates of this view overlook, first, the fact that the child requires eight or ten years of incessant practice to gain even a tolerable command of its own tongue, and, secondly, the vast difference between the mind of the baby and that of the youth. The really natural methods of acquisition at these two stages of development are almost diametrically opposed. Let us consider, for instance, the learning of pronunciation. The newborn child, after various unsuccessful experiments, reproduces sounds correctly because it has no previous habits of speech to contend with. The boy or man, unless he is phonetically trained or exceptionally acute of hearing, does not imitate at all. He merely substitutes for the several strange vowels and consonants the English sounds which the foreign ones happen to suggest to him. That is why the pronunciation of conversational classes is generally not a whit better than that of scholars taught after the most antiquated fashion. In the attempt to inculcate the other elements of speech-inflections, syntax, and phraseology-the purely imitative process shows itself to be almost equally inadequate. We may justly urge, furthermore, against this style of teaching, that it provides little discipline for the intelligence; that it affords only the poorest kind of mnemonic training; that it favors vagueness of thought and imprecision of expression, and, finally, that it sacrifices the artistic interest of language study to a so-called "practical" one. On the other hand, it certainly does awaken enthusiasm among its disciples, and it stimulates and holds the attention.

The natural method has been vehemently attacked and just as vigorously defended. At present the violence of the conflict has abated, and we are able to judge dispassionately the results of its introduction into our educational life. Those results have been mainly good. In summer schools and other institutions that have used the imitative process exclusively most of the pupils are persons who have had or will soon get some practice in grammar and reading. For them the conversation lessons are supplementary and form a useful addition to their training. In schools and colleges that have not accepted the "naturalistic" theory the fame of the new method has obliged teachers to adopt some of its practical features, thus bringing much-needed life and variety into their instruction. It seems probable that the next generation will regard "naturalism" rather as a vivifying influence than as an independent method.'

1 For a description of the natural method see Der Leitfaden für den Unterricht in der deutschen Sprache, by G. Heness, and L. Sauveur's Introduction to the Teaching of Living Languages. The method is well exemplified, not only in the Leitfaden, but in Der Sprachlehrer unter seinen Schülern, by Heness, and in Sauveur's Causeries avec mes élèves and Petites causeries. All these works are now published by Messrs. Henry Holt & Co., of New York.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL METHOD.

Out of the conviction that modern-language study should be made attractive, and out of the desire to adapt instruction to the known workings of the human mind, has come a system that seems more deserving of serious attention than the grammar method or the "natural" style of teaching. This is the system invented by Gouin and brought into general notice by Bétis.1

The psychological method rests on the principle of the association of ideas and the habit of mental visualization." The whole current vocabulary of a language, in the form of short, idiomatic sentences, is divided up into groups, every group consisting of phrases that are intimately connected in subject. One group forms a lesson. These brief divisions are gathered together in chapters, each of which treats of one general topic, and several chapters make a “series." When a pupil has gone through all the series, with numerous reviews, he will have mastered (so we are told) the whole spoken language. Every lesson is first worked out orally and then studied by the pupil from his book. On presenting each new word to the beginner the instructor exhorts him to close his eyes and form a distinct mental picture of the thing or act represented. This image (it is affirmed) will remain indissolubly connected with the word, and the evocation of the one will always recall the other. Sometimes real objects or drawings are used, and pantomime is frequently resorted to; but in most cases reliance is placed on the child's active imagination. It is never considered a sin to put in a word or two of English, and at the outset that language is very freely employed. Although most of the talking is done by the teacher, the pupils are constantly called upon to repeat his sentences and to answer questions. After the first lessons written compositions may be prepared, made up of phrases already acquired. Grammatical instruction is begun early, concurrently with the other exercises, but the reading of consecutive texts is postponed until the bulk of the ordinary vocabuJary has been learned. Many innovations have been introduced into the presentation of grammar, but most of them are more radical in appearance than in reality. Some, however, are extremely ingenious, and will doubtless be copied by instructors who do not see fit to adopt the whole system.

The Bétis method has the following obvious advantages: It trains the memory; it fascinates the student and holds his attention more closely than any other mode of teaching now in vogue; it gives the pupil, in a reasonably short time, a ready command over a large, well-arranged, and well-digested vocabulary; it affords, through some of its conversational groups, an insight into the life of a foreign country. As for the other side, the system seems, as far as we can ascertain the facts, to lay itself open to these criticisms: It affords but little opportunity for the exercise of judgment; it entirely neglects, in the first years, the cultivation of the æsthetic sense, and assigns literary study to a stage which high-school pupils will scarcely ever reach. Moreover, its treatment of pronunciation is decidedly unsatisfactory; but this defect can probably be remedied without disturbing the rest of the scheme.

Its operation and results are described at considerable length in Die neueren Sprachen, by R. Kron in III, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (published separately under the title Die Methode Gouin, oder das Serien-System in Theorie und Praxis, Marburg, 1896), and by V. Knorr in III, 8, and V, 9. The method has been subjected to a searching criticism by Traugott in the same periodical, VI, 6. It should be said here that Bétis has considerably altered the original plan; and opinions are divided concerning the respective advantages of the two versions. The real Gouin system can be studied in the author's Art d'enseigner et d'étudier les langues, Paris, 1880 (third edition in 1897); the Bétis or "psychological" method is illustrated by a volume called The Facts of Life, New York, 1896, by Bétis and Swan. Without presuming to pass judgment on the merits of the case, we shall confine ourselves to the revised plan, since that is the one more widely known and the only one that has been tried in America. It was brought to the attention of the Englishspeaking world in 1892 and 1893 by the articles of W. T. Stead in the Review of Reviews. In the years 1895-1897 it was used in Boston, Mass, by Bétis himself, and it is now on trial in one of the public high schools of the same city.

THE PHONETIC METHOD.

Pronunciation, neglected in the three modes of instruction just mentioned, is the very foundation of a system that has of late years attracted attention in all northern Europe, and has gained a considerable footing in Germany and Scandinavia. Its advocates, while not entirely free from the intolerance and the selfconfidence so characteristic of enthusiastic reformers, are men of sound scholarship, successful experience, and good standing in the educational world. As far as can be ascertained, they have arrived at results which go far toward justifying their seemingly extravagant claims. There have been few attempts to introduce the phonetic teaching in this country; probably the most extensive trial of it has been made at the Johns Hopkins University.

The phonetic method resembles the "natural" and the "psychological" schools in that it takes the modern spoken language as a basis and at first relies mainly on oral instruction, using as far as possible the foreign language itself as a medium of communication. Unlike most "conversation" courses, however, it is very systematically constructed and its beginning is strictly scientific. It begins with a training of the ear and the vocal organs, the pupils being thoroughly drilled in the vowels and consonants of the strange tongue. These sounds are considered both as isolated phenomena and as elements of idiomatic phrases. The phrases, in turn, are combined into dialogues, descriptions, and stories. At this stage printed texts are used, but only in phonetic notation. The ordinary spelling is carefully kept from the students during the elementary period. It is said that the transition from sound symbols to standard orthography presents no serious difficulty. Objects, pictures, and maps are constantly displayed, and every effort is made to familiarize the class with the surroundings, the institutions, the habits, the character, and the mode of thought of the people whose language they are learning. The phonetic texts gradually increase in length and difficulty, and some of the latest are representative of literature. Inflections and syntax are studied inductively. Composition consists first of the oral and written reproduction of matter already heard or read, then of combinations of familiar phrases. Systematic grammar is reserved for a late stage, and translation comes last of all. It is evident that this sort of instruction requires a special preparation and a special apparatus. Although the pupils are not taught phonetics, it is essential that the teacher be something of a phonetician; and the present difficulty of obtaining adequate instruction in the science of speech-sounds has doubtless done much to hinder the rapid general adoption of Vietor's programme. Let us hope

1 The names by which it is known are the "reform," the "new," and the "phonetic" methods. It was outlined by Vietor in his famous monograph, Der Sprachunterricht musz umkehren (1882, new edition, Heilbronn, 1886), and its principal features are set forth on the cover of every number of the Maître phonétique. Both this periodical (the organ of the Association Phonétique Internationale) and Die neueren Sprachen, edited by Vietor, are devoted to the propagation of the phonetic method. The list of publications-books, pamphlets, and articles-which deal with the "reform method" is very large. A complete bibliography down to 1893 is given by H. Breymann in Die neusprachliche Reform-Litteratur von 1876-1893, eine bibliographisch-kritische Übersicht, Leipzig, 1893. Two articles by leading exponents of the method have appeared in American journals, viz, “A new method of language teaching," by W. Vietor, in the Educational Review, Vol. VI, p. 351, and Phonetics and reform method," by A. Rambeau, in Modern Language Notes, Vol. VIII, p. 161. An excellent report of observations made during a six months' tour of inspection of German schools is given by Mary Brebner in The Method of Teaching Modern Languages in Germany: New York, Macmillan, 1898, and this is now admirably supplemented by the work of Kari Breul, The Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages in our [English] Secondary Schools, New York, Macmillan, 1898. A conservative and at the same time fairly representative presentation of the aims and methods of the "reformers" is given by W. Münch in his and F. Glauning's Didaktik und Methodik des französischen und englischen Unterrichts, Sonderausgabe aus A. Baumeister's Handbuch der Erziehungs-und Unterrichtslehre für höhere Schulen. On pp. 102 sq. is to be found a select list of the more important writings on method in modern-language teaching which have appeared in recent years.