The most stable form of speech is written speech; it does not vary from one person to another or from one region to another as spoken language always does. In the written form we find the essence of a language and its treasure-house. Spoken language is a faint and attenuated counterpart, generally more or less debased and altered by slang, dialect, and slovenly habits of utterance.

The only true form of speech is spoken speech; it constitutes the living language itself. All languages were spoken long before they were written. Orthographies are comparatively recent inventions, and have no more claim to being the essence of language than shorthand.

The written aspect of language is artificial; the spoken aspect alone is pursuing the normal course of evolution, and is always freeing itself from archaic and useless encumbrances. The spoken language is a token of life, for dead languages are those which exist but in written form.

An unwritten language is almost a contradiction in terms, for a language without a literature is but a barbarous jargon, primitive in its structure, weak in vocabulary and in means of expression.

The facts are all wrong. Most, if not all, unwritten languages so far investigated prove to be of a remarkable richness. The Bantu group, to quote one example, has an inflexional system rivalling and excelling those of Latin and Greek, and possesses wonderfully rich syntactical and semantic systems.

When a child goes to school, he starts learning his language on its written basis. He starts at the A B C.

In the meantime he has already become an expert user of the spoken language, including the complete phonetic system unconsidered in written speech and a most complex and beautiful system of intonation unknown to orthographies.

Grammar only exists in written language.

If the grammar of the written language only exists in the written language, the grammar of the spoken language only exists in the spoken language.

It is easier to learn a written word than a spoken word, for the written word remains before the eyes, whereas the spoken word is intangible and evanescent.

Consequently if we learn the written word we are unable to understand what is said to us and to express ourselves orally.

It is easy to convert eye-knowledge into ear-knowledge. Once we know how a word is written we easily learn how to pronounce it.

The facts are all wrong again. The most difficult thing in language-study is to convert eye-knowledge into ear-knowledge. Once we know how a word is pronounced we can recognize and reproduce its written form with the greatest ease.

No. Both are of doubtful value under the best of conditions. The majority of students manage eventually to understand and to make themselves understood without such adventitious and fanciful aids.

Certainly. Unless the teaching rests on this foundation all the subsequent work will be distorted and false.

The young child does not have to undergo such processes when learning his native tongue, and yet he succeeds in hearing and in articulating correctly.

The young child at the cradle age does little else than go through a course of such exercises. He listens and imitates, at first imperfectly, but later with great expertness, recognizing and reproducing isolated sounds and complex combinations of these.

Such exercises are extremely monotonous and dull; they are likely to kill interest and to cause the students to dislike the whole process of language-learning.

Such exercises are always found extremely interesting, and tend to constitute an additional attraction to the study of the language.

Few language-teachers know how to make the foreign sounds correctly, and therefore few can give such exercises without causing the students to acquire bad habits.

No teacher should be allowed to do language-work who is not proficient in the sounds of the foreign language, for those who are incapable of making the sounds cannot be good language-teachers.

It is useless to attempt to teach systematically the sounds of the language, seeing that these vary from one region to another and from one person to another.

Any form of normal speech will serve as a model, provided that the speech is that of educated natives. In the absence of any model at all, the student will speak the foreign language with the sounds of his mother-tongue!

Reject it certainly, for various reasons.

Accept it certainly for various reasons.

It is extremely difficult; those who have been learning languages for years, even languages with strange alphabets, find phonetic symbols so puzzling that they are forced to discontinue their efforts.

It is extremely easy; young children learn to use it readily and accurately. Those who experience any difficulty are those who are unable or unwilling to form new habits. A language is such a difficult thing that we must utilize every means of making our work easier.

It would take weeks or even months to learn the strange and unnatural symbols.

The half a dozen strange symbols usually required in addition to those of the ordinary alphabet can usually be learnt at sight without any special practice. Even a strange ‘orthographic alphabet’ such as the Russian one can be mastered in a few days.

The whole proceeding is an unnatural one, contrary to all the laws of language.

All writing is an unnatural process in the sense that it is not performed by instinct, but has to be learnt as an art. Of all systems of writing, however, the phonetic system is the one most in accordance with logic and natural law.

It is trying to the eyes.

Most phonetic alphabets are clearer than those used in German and Russian, for instance.

It is a waste of valuable time to learn an artificial alphabet.

The learning of a perfectly natural alphabet is in itself of educative value; it inculcates the idea of phonetic writing and serves once for all as an essential preparation for the study of any number of foreign languages.

It is evident that the use of a phonetic alphabet will make havoc of the ordinary spelling to be learnt subsequently.

It has been ascertained experimentally that those who have been taught to read and to write a language phonetically become quite as efficient spellers as those not so trained. In many cases the phonetically trained student becomes the better speller.

To learn phonetic writing means learning two languages instead of one.

In all cases where the traditional orthography is not in agreement with the native pronunciation the student is necessarily forced to learn the two things. The use of a phonetic alphabet is the only way to perform this double work rapidly, rationally, and with the minimum of confusion.

Phonetic texts always give slovenly and incorrect manners of pronouncing words.

Authors of phonetic texts always strive to give an accurate rendering of the language as really and effectively spoken by educated natives; they rarely attempt to teach forms that have no existence in the language as actually used in ordinary speech.

No. It is a fancy subject of little or no importance and certainly forms no integral part of language-study.

Yes. It is a subject of great importance and forms an integral part of language-study. In many languages speech without the correct tones is only half intelligible; in Chinese and other languages it is perfectly unintelligible.

In any case it can be left to the very final stage of the programme.

If it is not taught in the very earliest stage correct intonation will be very difficult to acquire. Language-study is a habit-forming process, and the habit of speaking with wrong tones is a bad habit.

The word is the unit of language.

Whatever the unit of language is, it is not the word.

Words are definite entities and constitute the component parts of sentences.

Sentences may be reduced to component parts; sometimes these are words, but quite as often they are word-groups (such as compounds and phrases) or units less than words (such as affixes).

The word, not the sentence, is the basis of translation. Since a word has a definite meaning and conveys a definite idea it is easy to find the foreign equivalent.

A sentence has generally, if not always, a definite foreign equivalent. A word is so unstable that it may entirely change its meaning when used with other words.

It is easy to memorize words and difficult to memorize sentences.

It is as easy to memorize a six-word sentence as six words.

We speak in words.

We express our thoughts in sentences.

If we learn a few dozen words we can build up thousands of sentences from these by the synthetic process.

If we learn a few dozen sentences we can construct thousands of others from these by disintegration and substitution, and, what is more, we can recognize them and use them even in rapid speech.

Words are the basis of grammar.

Sentences are the basis of syntax.

The collection of word-families is a valuable way of enriching one’s vocabulary.

The enriching of one’s vocabulary should be left to a comparatively late stage in the study of language, especially in the study of most derivatives and compounds.

Words constitute the ‘primary matter’ (i.e. matter to be memorized integrally without analysis or synthesis). Sentences constitute the ‘secondary matter’ (i.e. matter to be derived synthetically from primary matter).

It is precisely because sentences are so rarely considered as ‘memorized matter’ that so few people manage to understand the foreign language when spoken or to express themselves correctly in it.

Take care of the words and the sentences will take care of themselves.

Take care of the sentences and the words will take care of themselves.

The regular is easy, the irregular is difficult; in the interest of gradation let us therefore exclude temporarily the irregular.

Irregular forms are generally more used and more useful than regular ones; in the interest of gradation let us therefore include all necessary irregularities even in the earlier stages.

Irregular forms make it difficult to formulate precise rules.

Rules with numerous exceptions are not worth formulating at all.

The normal and logical should precede the abnormal and illogical.

Then, as natural languages are full of abnormalities and bad logic, let the student start with an artificial language!

It is easy to pronounce a sentence slowly and distinctly; difficult to pronounce it rapidly and fluently.

It is just as easy to pronounce a sentence rapidly and fluently as to pronounce it slowly; it is even easier in some cases. The converse is only true when we are constructing our sentences synthetically, word by word, but this is not a sound process.

It is more correct to articulate clearly and deliberately.

To articulate more clearly and deliberately than the average educated native is a mark of inaccuracy, for, as Dr Cummings says, “fluency is an integral part of accuracy.”

‘Shortened forms,’ such as don’t or I’m, should never be taught. The student, alas! will only too soon pick up these undesirable vulgarisms. Don’t hasten the process.

All ‘shortened forms’ which are invariably used in normal speech by educated natives (e.g. don’t, I’m) should be taught to the exclusion of the longer form. The student, alas! will only too soon acquire the habit of using pedanticisms. Let us not hasten the process.

It is always easy, too easy, to transform clear and incisive speech into a blurred and slovenly style of speaking.

It is almost impossible, in the case of foreign students, to convert an over-distinct and halting speech into a smooth, harmonious style of utterance with the proper cadence and rhythm. It is for this reason that when a foreigner wishes to say Sunday, two to two, or four for four, we so frequently understand some day, 2, 2, 2, or 4, 4, 4.

A vowel or even a consonant may perhaps disappear when we are speaking very rapidly or very carelessly. When, however, we are deliberately teaching a word, we should give the most perfect model and employ the most sonorous forms.

The maintenance of such syllables in ordinary rapid speech is one of the characteristics of pidgin or foreigner’s speech. It is not yet sufficiently realized that the use of certain sounds is only correct in slow speech or in isolated words. If ‘stayshun’ is a more sonorous and correct rendering of s-t-a-t-i-o-n than ‘stayshn,’ then ‘stayshon’ is still better, and ‘stay-si-on’ or ‘stay-ti-on’ better still.

On the basis of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that it is desirable, if not essential:

On the basis of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that it is desirable, if not essential:

(a) To learn to read and to write before learning to speak and to understand what is said.

(a) To learn to speak and to understand what is said before learning to read and to write.

(b) To avoid systematic ear-training and articulation exercises, at any rate in the early stages.

(b) To start a language-course with systematic ear-training and articulation exercises.

(c) To reject the use of phonetic transcription.

(c) To make a most extensive use of the phonetic transcription, especially in the early stages.

(d) To leave to a very late stage or to omit altogether the study of intonation.

(d) To teach intonation at a very early stage.

(e) To memorize words and to learn to inflect them, before memorizing and learning how to construct sentences.

(e) To memorize sentences and to learn how to construct them, before memorizing words and learning how to build either inflected forms or derivatives.

(f) To avoid irregular and idiomatic forms in the earlier stages.

(f) To include irregular and idiomatic forms even in the earlier stages.

(g) To pronounce very slowly and distinctly, leaving fluency to a later stage.

(g) To teach from the outset a rapid and fluent style of pronunciation, reserving more distinct utterance to a later stage.

First, learn how to convert ‘dictionary-words’ (i.e. etymons) into ‘working sentence-units’ (i.e. ergons). This will be done by memorizing the rules of accidence and derivation.

First, become proficient in recognizing and in producing foreign sounds and tones, both isolated and in combinations.

Secondly, learn the general structure of sentences. This will be done chiefly by reading and translation exercises.

Secondly, memorize (without analysis or synthesis) a large number of complete sentences chosen specifically for this purpose by the teacher or by the composer of the course.

Thirdly, memorize the irregular or idiomatic phenomena of the language.

Thirdly, learn to build up all types of sentences (both regular and irregular) from ‘working sentence-units’ (i.e. ergons) chosen specifically for this purpose by the teacher or by the composer of the course.

Lastly, (if necessary) convert the eye-knowledge’ of the language into ‘ear-knowledge’ by means of reading aloud and by ‘conversation-lessons.’

Lastly, learn how to convert ‘dictionary words’ (i.e. etymons) into ‘working sentence-units’ (i.e. ergons).