We have then come to the following result with respect to translation as a means of interpreting a foreign language to the pupils (p. 56 a): it is not the only and the best means; it ought to be used sparingly; and at all events it is not necessary to translate whole connected pieces, but merely a word or, at the very most, a sentence now and then. But this investigation has already thrown some light upon our next point, namely, translation as a means of testing whether the pupils understand the foreign language (p. 56 b).

Here, too, observation may take the place of translation. The pupil who obeys the teacher’s command, montre-moi la fenÊtre, by pointing at the window shows that he understands the word just as well as the one who in answer to the question: what is the meaning of fenÊtre? answers, window. Likewise the one who can point to the right thing when the teacher shows him a picture and says; oÙ est le chapeau du garÇon? oÙ sont ses souliers? vois-tu le toit de la maison? etc., or the one who carries out a command like prends la craie, lÈve-toi, assieds-toi, donne-moi ton livre, prends le livre de Jean et donne-le À Henri—especially when he at the same time says: voilÀ la fenÊtre, voilÀ le chapeau du garÇon, voilÀ la craie, je me lÈve, etc., with a correct application of the words desired. Nor can there be any doubt that a boy has understood a French question when he can give a sensible answer in the same language, or that he has understood a narrative which has been told or read to him when he can retell it (in English, or still better in French).

The teacher is no doubt most tempted to let the pupils translate when he wants to make sure that they know the new selection which has been assigned to them for home-study. But even in this case, if the teacher has only gone through the lesson on assigning it (as indicated above) in a detailed and lively way, and with continual appeal to the pupils, so that the whole does not become a mere monologue by the teacher, the translation test is not as necessary as it would have been if the lesson had either not been gone through at all or if the teacher had merely translated it rapidly. He will often find it sufficient to ask a question now and then about some single point in the selection, especially if the selection is used for such exercises as will be described below, which directly and indirectly show whether the pupils have understood it all or not.

But still, let us assume that the teacher insists on having the selection translated—and of course this may always be a good thing once in a while by way of a change, most so perhaps when the teacher has not been quite able to digest and absorb the new methods. Then the best thing for him to do is to require the translation immediately, before the pupil has read the piece aloud. This is the most reliable test as to whether the lesson really has been learned in time, for the pupil has not the chance while he is reading aloud to speculate about how it is to be translated, and, on the other hand, when he comes to read it in the foreign language, he is not disturbed by irrelevant thoughts in his native language. Besides, the teacher must understand that this translation is not the most important event of the hour; it ought therefore to occupy as little time as possible. The pupil must be required to deliver his translation quickly, and it is not necessary to criticise the English expressions with pedantic exactitude. As soon as it is clear that the pupil understands perfectly, it is better for the teacher himself to give the correct English expression in passing, than to waste time in letting him find it out for himself.

A little turn of expression, a word-formation, or an order of words which is not quite English can very well be allowed to pass unnoticed; it is just when there is no attention paid to these things that they are less apt to be injurious to the pupil’s English than when the translation is treated as if it were the only thing. In case of any unusually awkward expression, the teacher can indulge in a hearty laugh together with the pupils and say: “Well, that is not the very best English you are giving us, but the meaning is clear enough, and all that we are concerned with here is if you understand the French, and that you do. Of course we know that you would never seriously say or write anything like that in your mother-tongue.” No more attention than this, it seems to me, ought to be paid to the English in these oral translations—the less we occupy ourselves with our native language during the French or German lessons, the less will it become contaminated; good English is not to be learned in those lessons, and poor English the teacher must give both himself and his pupils as little occasion as possible to use.

It is a different matter when advanced pupils can get both pleasure and benefit out of occasional exercises in translation. Then these must be chosen so that there are considerable deviations between the foreign language and English, which of course does not mean that the selected specimen of the foreign language itself need be difficult to understand. When the pupils are not daily occupied with translation, but move freely in the foreign language, it would just be great sport for them for a change to have a contest as to who could find the best and most exact English equivalents for foreign expressions. Thus there is no little difference between this kind of exercise and those now prevalent sight translations whose chief object seems to be to test the vocabulary of the pupils. The translation exercise that I have in mind should be conducted on about these lines: the selection should be read aloud to the class; if it contains any unfamiliar words, they should be explained in the manner described above, or, if they are translated instead, there should be given (as in a dictionary) perhaps five or six English equivalents to choose between; thereupon the pupils (in class under supervision) write their translations, which the teacher afterwards reads aloud and compares, so that the pupils themselves may judge as to whose translation has come nearest to the original and as to whether that rendering is to be preferred where every little element in the original has been taken into account but where the English has thus become a little bit long drawn out, or that rendering which in pith and euphony can stand comparison with the original, but where every detail has not been strictly included, etc. In short, the exercise is not to test the pupils’ knowledge in the foreign language, but to give them some idea of the difficulties which the art of translation has to contend with; and for the same reason the pupils might also be asked sometimes to try their skill in a metrical translation of a piece of poetry, but perhaps only in such a way that all participation in the contest is quite voluntary. Such selections might be chosen where we have good poetical translations in our literature, which could then be compared with the efforts of the pupils.[15]

Some few exercises in artistic translation, which the teacher carefully goes through with them, will help to give the more advanced pupils a vivid perception of some of the most delicate shades of variation in the languages as means of expression for human thought—but as the daily bread of language instruction that kind of exercise is not to be recommended, especially not for beginners.

In the daily teaching of languages it is in a number of cases quite superfluous to let the pupils translate. If the reading selections are as easy as is desirable, there will be some sentences in each lesson where neither the vocabulary nor the construction presents the slightest difficulty. In other sentences, the difficulty is simply due to a new word, but if the teacher just devotes a few minutes right away to hearing the new words, it is not necessary to have those sentences translated either. There are, as we know, many sentences which can be understood without any difficulty at all, but which are still difficult to translate; if the pupil knows the meaning of schwÖren, he will readily understand “er hat hoch und teuer geschworen,” but it will not be so easy for him to find the best way of rendering the adverbs, and it is really purposeless to waste time over them. (See also above, p. 50).

Then finally there remains one or another really complicated sentence, which can be separated out from the rest and translated by the pupils—if the teacher in order to save time does not prefer to translate the whole of it himself. To test the pupil’s comprehension of single words by letting him explain them in the language is not very practical except to a limited extent; it might only be useful in dealing with clever advanced pupils where it would not necessarily degenerate into a mere committing of definitions to memory. It is therefore more properly in place in university instruction than in schools.

If any one now says that this method of procedure by which translation as a test of the pupils’ comprehension of what they have read is limited to the least possible, and in many lessons even the very last remnant of it is done away with, is far less satisfactory than the old-fashioned translating over and over again of the whole lesson, and that the teacher thus has no means of knowing what the pupils understand and what not, I answer that, in the first place, the pupils’ comprehension of a piece which they have even translated several times in the old way is often poor enough; the most incredible thoughtlessness can thrive under the shelter of rehearsed translations. In the second place (and this is more important) the new method, when applied in the right way, offers such an abundant variety of means by which to sound the pupils and test how deeply they are penetrating into both the language and contents of their reading, that the teacher can easily feel sure of all essentials. This will be made perfectly plain in the following description of the manner in which the lessons ought to be conducted.

The selection must be read aloud. This had best be done—at all events as a rule—by the teacher first; of course he read it yesterday when he went through it for the first time, but he did it more slowly, interrupting himself with explanations, etc., for it was new for the pupils, and it was necessary for them to comprehend the meaning. But now the teacher may read it quickly, fluently, with the proper “expression,” in short, in a lively and natural manner. Then the pupil (the pupils) reads the same. At the beginner-stage, the teacher must read each sentence by itself and then get the pupils to repeat it while they have the teacher’s pronunciation fresh in mind. Later on the teacher may take larger sections, which may be parceled out to the pupils in not too small portions. And one cannot be too particular with the way in which this reading is done; such stuttering, with pauses between words belonging closely together, and neglect of natural and necessary pauses, which used to be the rule, ought never to be tolerated, not even as an exception. Even the first beginners ought to be required to read each sentence connectedly with natural expression; the teacher will not regret any trouble taken on this account, even if it involves ever so much repetition. The more attention that is paid to this in the first few months, the easier will it be later to require the pupils to read well—that is, intelligibly and intelligently. This reading aloud, besides being an exercise in pronunciation, also has its other advantages for teaching purposes. Milton, already, said that it is easy to hear only from the way in which a piece is read, if the reader understands it or not. A really good reader can in the most delicate manner lay bare his appreciation, and vice vers it is not difficult for a teacher quick of hearing to detect, through a pupil’s uncertainty, false emphasis, etc., what he has not understood (or learned) in the piece he is reading—and then he can pounce on him and get him to disclose the gap in his knowledge. When this is filled up, of course he must read the piece again better than the first time. The reading (or reciting) of dialogues, with the parts assigned to various members of the class, is always amusing, and can easily be used as a means of encouraging natural emphasis and expression.

Reading in unison ought not to be neglected; it has the advantage of occupying the whole class at once, so that the pupils get more practice in producing the foreign sounds than when each one reads separately. Of course the teacher cannot exercise so sharp a control as when he hears one at a time, but yet he has by no means lost his control; by practice, he can learn to detect single mistakes through the whole chorus, and can even be tolerably certain as to where they come from, and then he can get the suspected pupil (or pupils) to read the difficult part alone. A help of a similar nature in language-instruction is singing. When a teacher knows how to get his pupils to learn to sing some of the verses in the reader, such class-singing will be found to be both beneficial and enlivening; the words are more easily remembered and the pronunciation is improved. Singing in a foreign language as a factor in teaching was already a number of years ago used by Paul Passy; it plays an important part in the well-known “Palmgrenske samskola” in Stockholm and in several German schools, and has now of late years also been put into practice by some Danish teachers in a very enjoyable manner; on several occasions, the pupils have even given up a part of their recess in order to sing foreign songs, when the teachers in adjoining classes have looked askance at the singing during the lesson-hours.

The oftener a piece is recited by a pupil, the more firmly are the single words and especially the word-combinations rooted in his memory; indeed it has even been attempted to base a whole system of instruction on this experience, as for instance in v. Pfeil’s highly interesting pamphlet: “Wie lernt man eine sprache am leichtesten und besten?” (Breslau, 1884), and in several other works by the same author, especially his “Eins, BeitrÄge zur erziehung im hause” (3rd ed. Leipzig, 1879), which is also valuable for other pedagogical suggestions. His method of procedure is simple: no grammar; no translation from the mother-tongue; only one language at a time, which then is pursued at full speed (as a rule, six or more hours a week) in the following manner. From the very beginning, an author is taken up; the same piece (a couple of lines to begin with) is first read aloud by the teacher, then by the pupil (if necessary, several times), is thereupon translated word by word by the teacher (“to the complete neglect of German sentence-construction; I would not tolerate having turns of expression rendered into good German”) and afterwards in the same way by the pupil, is then read aloud by the pupil twice more in the course of the same lesson and once again in the beginning of the next; finally every Monday, the pupil reads aloud all that has been gone through in the preceding week, and, not stopping at that, whole books or large sections of books may be read through connectedly after they have in this manner been studied in instalments. Translation is omitted as soon as there is no danger of miscomprehension, and can soon be quite dispensed with in dealing with easy sentences, which then are only read through the stated number of times. During this repeated recitation of the foreign sentences—at least four times after the pupil has understood their meaning—the mother-tongue steps into the background of its own accord, as it were, and the idioms of the foreign language take firm hold upon the memory. So far v. Pfeil, who, as he himself asserts—and why should we not believe the man?—has had good results in the course of a short time, both in taking and giving instruction according to this method, which, to be sure, he has only employed in private instruction, never having tried it in a class. The impulse to make independent use of the language-material thus learned makes its appearance very early. Thus v. Pfeil tells about a pupil thirty-two years old, who was brought up in a country school and who had never before learned any foreign language, but who after ten lessons wrote him an Italian letter filling four octavo pages, which, if not quite correct, was still quite intelligible.

But the method is terribly spiritless and mechanical, perhaps you will say. Oh, yes—but is it really more spiritless to read something aloud many times in which there is some meaning—and some meaning which you understand—than to translate something just as many times in which there is no meaning at all, to say nothing of all the other inane things which our old methods bring in their train, such as grammatical rigmaroles, etc. However, it is by no means my intention to give the v. Pfeil method an unqualified recommendation, at all events not for school purposes; it is too monotonous, and a more varied method of instruction may surely have the same or greater advantages. Already, in the preceding suggestions, it will have been noticed that there were several deviations from v. Pfeil’s method of procedure; here I shall merely call attention to some things which we can learn from it: first, that we must as soon as possible dispense with translation where it is decidedly superfluous; and secondly, that our most important object, namely, that the foreign turns of expression shall make such an impression upon our pupils that they themselves can use them on occasion, cannot be attained without much repetition.

During the first lessons, it is of so much importance for the pupils to catch and reproduce the sounds that the repetitions which are necessary for practice in pronunciation also serve to impress the sentences on their memory; the teacher must only make sure that the pupils know the meaning of each sentence before they begin to practise pronouncing it, and that they do not forget it, so that the words become merely meaningless sounds. Such a selection as the one introducing my French primer (La chÈvre)[16] lends itself well to this purpose; it occasions many repetitions of the same sentences, still without becoming tiresome, and the rhythm encourages natural, fluent and non-stuttering recitation.

Later on, of course, there is no necessity for so much repetition merely for the sake of the pronunciation. Then one might require the texts to be committed to memory; but this involves the danger that they might be learned and remembered as lifeless series of words without any regard for their meaning, especially if the teacher makes a routine of it. But it might be quite useful every half-year, for instance, or perhaps a little oftener, for the pupils to be assigned each a piece to commit to memory; they may themselves choose one of the pieces which have been read, and then they must be expected to recite it with a very good pronunciation and correct expression; no parrot-performance! But otherwise the main point is for the pupils to be occupied with the text repeatedly in such a way that they do not lose sight of the meaning, so that they may thus become so familiar with it that at last they know it almost or entirely by heart without having been directly required to commit it to memory. And this can at the same time be done in such a way that the pupils are led to say a number of things without following them in the printed text, so that imperceptibly they are being prepared to be able to say something in the language quite of their own accord.

The teacher can divide the day’s lesson into sentences, which he pronounces and the pupils repeat after him. They have all closed their books, and when the teacher says a sentence, no one knows who is to repeat it. By this manner of teaching, which is also practicable in connection with the exercises which I shall suggest later, the teacher makes sure that a pupil’s attention cannot wander in the confidence that it is some one else’s turn; it is every one’s turn all the time. Thus the teacher says, for instance: Les abeilles ressemblent aux mouches; Pierre, rÉpÈte.—Peter: L. a. r. a. m.—Teacher: Jean, rÉpÈte Ça encore.—John: L. a. r. a. m.—Teacher: Mais elles ont un aiguillon; rÉpÈte, Charles.—Charles: m. e. o. u. ai.—Teacher: Et elles piquent trÈs fort quand elles sont en colÈre; rÉpÈte tout Ça, Adolphe, etc. Or, by way of a change, the teacher can let the first one who repeats the sentence mention one of his comrades, who is to repeat it again.

Let me remark in passing that I have always given my pupils French names immediately in one of the first lessons; they are written on the blackboard (in phonetical transcription of course, see below), and are very quickly learned; as a rule, they are simply translations of their first names, occasionally of a nickname, etc. It amuses the pupils, and the teacher has the advantage of being able to use their names in the middle of a French sentence without marring the run of the language.

Other similar methods: pupil A reads aloud; after every sentence, either the teacher or he himself appoints someone to repeat.—Or: the teacher reads a sentence aloud, then says: traduis, Jules; and after Julius’ translation: rÉpÈte Ça en franÇais, Paul. This is better than to let the same pupil first translate and then say it in French, for thus neither one has to make a sudden change from one basis of articulation to another.—Or: when a piece has been read aloud as a whole, the teacher may render it into English, a sentence at a time, and get the pupils to express the same thought in French. This is, of course, the most difficult of these methods and ought to be employed with caution, for the pupils may easily be tempted to translate from English (that is, to construct their French after the English) instead of reproducing the French which has been given, so that we thus risk all the dangers which are commonly associated with the old-fashioned method of translation from the native to the foreign language (cf. below). Therefore it were best that this kind of exercise merely be used occasionally, and only when the selection employed is otherwise so familiar to the pupils that they almost have it by heart in its French form. A variation of all these exercises is, instead of a single pupil, to let the whole class repeat the sentence in unison.

If the pupils should begin to lag, it indicates that the class is not yet sufficiently familiar with the text, and then the best thing to do is to say: Well, now you read the piece through three times in chorus and then we shall begin from the beginning in the same way as before with repetition without the book. It does not take long before the teacher can to advantage enter upon little deviations from what the pupils know from the book; thus he secures himself against thoughtless pattering out of what has been committed to memory at home—which of course the attentive teacher easily can detect through the manner in which the pupil reads. But too great deviations are scarcely advisable; they easily lead to confusion and to the danger of wandering too far from the matter in hand, which is of course to make the pupils thoroughly familiar with the text. As examples of permissible changes of the sentences which have just been employed, I shall mention: Une abeille ressemble À une mouche (L’abeille ressemble À la mouche) mais elle a un aiguillon " et elle pique trÈs fort quand elle est en colÈre—or: Les abeilles ressemblent beaucoup aux mouches, " mais elles ont un petit aiguillon, et elles piquent fort.... Or one may interpolate: les mouches ressemblent aux abeilles, " mais elles n’ont pas d’aiguillon, " et elles ne piquent pas comme les abeilles. It is best not to enter upon greater deviations, because then it will too frequently be necessary to let a pupil translate the sentence constructed by the teacher, since otherwise it is not certain whether the whole class has understood it or not[17]. The most important thing in these exercises, as also in the exercises with questions (see below), is not to let the pupil get beyond his depth so that he will become frightened and lose confidence, for then he will never learn to swim.

We have hitherto assumed that the pupils repeat what has been said orally; if the repetition is written, we have dictation—an exercise which must not be neglected and which can be conducted in different ways, partly parallel with those just mentioned. The teacher can either say a sentence or one of the boys can read it aloud; once may be enough, but the teacher may also say it twice, or else say it himself first and then let one of the pupils repeat it before it is written down; it may be a sentence taken from the reader (first stage), a sentence taken from the reader but slightly changed (second stage), or an entirely new piece (only for advanced students);[18] the dictation may be written on the blackboard or in copy-books (on slates); one pupil may be occupied in the first way while the rest of the class is occupied in the second way; sometimes the class itself may correct the mistakes; if there is blackboard space enough, several pupils can be writing the same or different things at the same time. The dictation may be required to be written with phonetical transcription (see below) or orthographically, or one pupil may write in one way, another in the other way, the two being afterwards compared.

Finally, dictation may be used in connection with several of the exercises which I shall suggest later. A question is dictated, and the pupils are required to write both the question and the answer; a sentence is dictated in the first person, which is then to be inflected in all persons, etc. The advantages of dictation are, that it trains the pupils in rapid and sharp comprehension of spoken words, that it gives the teacher an effective means of testing what each pupil has comprehended, and that the pupils generally remember pretty well what they have once written down. But the disadvantage of dictation, as of all written class work, is that it consumes more time than oral exercises. Dictation with “catches” is of course beneath the dignity of a modern language teacher.