ページの画像
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER II.

OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF GRAMMATICAL DIAGRAMS

ANSWERED.

Not strange that objections are urged-They must be directly met-1st Objection. The Diagrams new and strange-The fact objected to indicative of progress—2nd Objection. They are complicated and difficult-The apparent complexity due to a false mode of judging-The real, due to the nature of language itself—3d Objection. They are imperfect―The same chargeable against all graphic illustration-The alleged defect grows out of the nature of language, and no defect at all-4th Objection. They are unnecessary—The same holds with equal force every where else--The abstract discipline proposed unnatural and unnecessary—It is impracticable in the case of the young-The better tendency of education is toward objective or graphic methods.

REFERENCE has already been made to the fact that those who venture to employ the system of diagrams just unfolded, as a convenient, if not necessary, means of exhibiting in a more distinct and practical form, the facts evolved in the analysis of sentences, are often called to meet with a virulent opposition on the part of those unfamiliar with them, and wedded to the older methods of pursuing the study of grammar.

Not strange that objections should be urged.

Now, while it is by no means granted, that this hostility has any just foundation, the fact of its existence is not

altogether strange. Whoever, with no notions of grammatical science save those derived from the old-style authors, and from the methods of teaching current in our lower and less progressive schools, has, for the first time, opened Prof. Clark's Grammars or Analysis, has found his gaze confronted by a series of symbols, or diagrams altogether new and strange to his unsophisticated fancy, perhaps, as uncouth and startling as a troop of ghostly maskers unexpectedly descried in the hitherto unoccupied desolation of a familiar attic. To such a person, prepossessed, as he will be, with the idea that grammar is altogether an abstract study, and that there can be nothing in its principles or treatment, beyond what is contained in his favorite "sere and yellow leaf" authors, nothing can be more natural than a spontaneous feeling of hostility to the new method, and an instant search for objections to the use of its diagrams.

Objections must be decisively met.

Now, to a candid mind,—one disposed to undertake a careful and progressive study of the diagrams, -a direct presentation of the facts concerning their nature, adaptation and utility, would be sufficient. But so numerous are these objectors, so strong are their prejudices, so unprepared are they for a proper reception and appreciation of the simple and direct truth, and, what is worse, so often are they only intent upon disparaging the system, and throwing obstacles in the way of those employing it, that it becomes necessary to attack and overthrow them upon their own ground. They must be conquered before they can be convinced, if they can even be convinced at all.

1st Objection.-The Diagrams new and strange.

One of the first objections entertained, although not always formally urged, by these persons, is the fact that the systematic use of diagrams in grammar is, to them, a new, strange and, perhaps, unprecedented device.

THE FACT OBJECTED TO IS REALLY INDICATIVE OF PROGRESS.

But is this not quite as likely indicative of antiquated learning and stereotyped thought in the objector, as of real inconsistency and inutility in the diagram system itself? To the man, for, perhaps, a quarter of a century, accustomed to wander in the wilderness of Murray's English Reader, Daboll's Arithmetic, Morse's old Geography, and Blake's or Comstock's Philosophy, how much equally strange and startling would appear in the new lands of promise opened suddenly upon his view, in the works of Mandeville, Davies, Guyot, and Loomis ! The truth is, amidst the thousand improvements which the progress of the age has introduced into science, this very newness and strangeness is presumptive proof in favor of the thing condemned. They are among the first indications of original investigation, profounder analysis and, hence, of real advancement.

2nd Objection.-They are complicated and difficult. A more common objection, however, is that the diagrams are complicated and difficult to be comprehended. The objector sees neither simplicity nor sense in them.

THIS APPARENT COMPLEXITY IS DUE TO A FALSE MODE OF JUDGING.

But, how does he approach them,-through a detailed examination and progressive study? Or does he pounce

upon them en masse, and pronounce judgment upon them impromptu? Taken in this latter way, (and this is the prevailing method of those who urge this objection to the diagrams,) almost any of the systems of illustration employed in modern science, would appear equally reprehensible. To one previously unacquainted with them, how similarly complicated and incomprehensible must appear the symbolic expressions in algebra, the diagrams in geometry, the maps in physical geography, or the wonderful system of nomenclature so prevalent in modern chemistry? And yet, nothing is plainer to the true scientist, than that any or all these, taken from their proper starting point, and pursued according to a progressive method, will eventually unfold themselves to the learner, as eminently simple, clear, and satisfactory. The truth is, complexity and obscurity in science are altogether relative to the position and temper of the observer, and not at all due to the intrinsic nature of the thing observed. So far, then, from touching the real merit of the diagrams, the objection rather recoils upon both the common sense and candor of the objector himself.

THE REAL COMPLEXITY IS DUE TO THE NATURE OF

LANGUAGE ITSELF.

There is, however, another consideration bearing upon this point. The objector charges that the diagrams are complicated and difficult of comprehension. But what are they intended to represent? Not merely, the restricted etymological forms and syntactical relations of single words to each other, in which he has been accustomed to sum up the whole of grammar. They represent rather the logical distinctions and relations of ideas and propositions to each other in the thoughts, either simple, com

pound, or complex, which the mind is ever evoking from its inner life and activity, and which it is constantly evolving in words, phrases, sentences, and complete periods. Now, by just so much as these products of our mental activity, in both their ideal substance and oral forms, must, to meet the infinitely varying wants and phases of life and thought, differ in their nature, number, combinations, and extension,-by just so much must the diagrams, as graphic illustrations of these facts in the science of language, be themselves, in their complete scheme, diversified and complicated. One of two conclusions, then, becomes inevitable. If the objection be valid, it holds just as good against language itself, as against the diagrams; if it be invalid, it passes harmlessly over the diagrams, and falls with crushing force upon the objector himself as altogether wanting in a just knowledge of the language.

3d Objection.-They are imperfect.

Another objection, (and one usually urged as unanswerable,) is, that the diagrams are imperfect-they do not truly represent all the facts of the existing relations.

THE SAME MAY BE CHARGED AGAINST EVERY METHOD OF

ILLUSTRATION.

But, do any of the methods of graphic illustration in science do any better? Geographic symbols are accepted as both legitimate and necessary; but how exact is their representation of the various facts of the objects themselves? Your symbol for a river or a mountain,-how near does it come to perfection? Who, that never has seen those objects, would recognize them in their sym

« 前へ次へ »