The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching 9789048544479

Citation preview

The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching

Languages and Culture in History This series studies the role foreign languages have played in the creation of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Europe, both western and eastern, and at the individual, community, national or transnational level. At the heart of this series is the historical evolution of linguistic and cultural policies, internal as well as external, and their relationship with linguistic and cultural identities. The series takes an interdisciplinary approach to a variety of historical issues: the difffusion, the supply and the demand for foreign languages, the history of pedagogical practices, the historical relationship between languages in a given cultural context, the public and private use of foreign languages – in short, every way foreign languages intersect with local languages in the cultural realm.

Series Editors

Willem Frijhoff, Erasmus University Rotterdam Karène Sanchez-Summerer, Leiden University

Editorial Board Members

Gerda Hassler, University of Potsdam Douglas A. Kibbee, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Marie-Christine Kok Escalle, Utrecht University Joep Leerssen, University of Amsterdam Nicola McLelland, The University of Nottingham Despina Provata, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Konrad Schröder, University of Augsburg Valérie Spaëth, University of Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle Javier Suso López, University of Granada Pierre Swiggers, KU Leuven

The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching

Edited by Simon Coffey

Amsterdam University Press

Cover illustration: The word GRAMMAR with old typewriter keys Source: Adobe Stock Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6372 461 6 e-isbn 978 90 4854 447 9 doi 10.5117/9789463724616 nur 616 © The authors / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2021 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every efffort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher.



Table of Contents

Introduction 7 Simon Coffey

1. The emergence of grammar in the Western world

23

2. Secondary Grammar Education in the Middle Ages

43

3. Grammar is the Key

63

4. Spanish grammaticography and the teaching of Spanishin the sixteenth century

77

5. Quelle grammaire française pour les étrangers, du seizième au dix-huitième siècle?

97

Grammatical theory and language teaching in Greek Antiquity Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

Anneli Luhtala

Ælfric’s Grammar and the Teaching of Latin in Tenth-Century England Don Chapman

José J. Gómez Asencio, Carmen Quijada van den Berghe and Pierre Swiggers

Valérie Raby

6. Grammar in verse: Latin pedagogy in seventeenth-century England 113 Victoria Moul

7. Learning grammar in eighteenth-century Russia

133

8. Wanostrocht’s Practical Grammar and the grammartranslation model

155

Ekaterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vladislav Rjéoutski

Simon Coffey

9. ‘Language turned back on itself’

173

10. La grammaire dans le mouvement de la réformeen France et en Grande-Bretagne

191

11. Grammar in English schools: a century of decline and rebirth

211

12. Réflexion épistémologique en didactique du français langue étrangèresur la place de la grammaire de l’oralité?

229

Growth and structure of the English metalanguage John Walmsley

Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

Richard Hudson

Corinne Weber

Afterword 245 Nicola McLelland

Index 251 List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 10.1 Distribution du contenu proposée par Th. Cartwright (1908)197 Figure 11.1 All UK A-level entries for French, German and Spanish 224 Tables Table 1.1

An overview of the preserved papyrus texts containing a grammatical manual Tableau 10.1 Correspondance entre vocabulaire et grammaire Tableau composé par Ch. Schweitzer (1903) Tableau 12.1 Les principales tendances constitutives de la grammaire de l’oral

30 196 240

9. ‘Language turned back on itself’

173

10. La grammaire dans le mouvement de la réformeen France et en Grande-Bretagne

191

11. Grammar in English schools: a century of decline and rebirth

211

12. Réflexion épistémologique en didactique du français langue étrangèresur la place de la grammaire de l’oralité?

229

Growth and structure of the English metalanguage John Walmsley

Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

Richard Hudson

Corinne Weber

Afterword 245 Nicola McLelland

Index 251 List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 10.1 Distribution du contenu proposée par Th. Cartwright (1908)197 Figure 11.1 All UK A-level entries for French, German and Spanish 224 Tables Table 1.1

An overview of the preserved papyrus texts containing a grammatical manual Tableau 10.1 Correspondance entre vocabulaire et grammaire Tableau composé par Ch. Schweitzer (1903) Tableau 12.1 Les principales tendances constitutives de la grammaire de l’oral

30 196 240

Introduction Simon Coffey Abstract In this Introduction, Coffey sets out the scope of the volume, considering the changes in the way grammar has been defined since its origins, and summarising the valuable contributions of each of the studies presented. Keywords: Grammar; history of language learning and teaching (HoLLT); language pedagogy; Latin; vernacular languages

Few motifs in the literature on language learning and teaching elicit such contradictory and emotive responses as the term ‘grammar’, and how this should be taught in language classes (or indeed not) remains a perennial topic of debate in language pedagogy. Yet, despite the numerous reference guides and books of exercises listing grammar rules, the concept itself remains somewhat nebulous and subject to lay judgements around what constitutes grammar. In particular the concept often invokes emotional responses stemming from notions of ‘correctness’. In my role as teacher educator, each year I ask my novice teacher students to formulate a definition of ‘grammar’ and the most common response is as the ‘structure’ or ‘system’ of a language. Needless to say, this sets up a series of oppositions (i.e. what would not be deemed structural) and the idea of ‘structure’ itself gives rise to metaphorical constructions of building, centrality and fixity. With these definitional dilemmas in mind, the aim of this collection of papers is to provide a concise, historical overview of what grammar has meant at different times and in different pedagogical contexts. Given the vastness of the topic, such an undertaking cannot, of course, claim to be exhaustive, but rather, the volume offers a presentation of cases, each of which, though scholarly and well informed in its own right, will encourage the reader to investigate further the context and issues that are presented.

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_intro

8

Simon Coffey

The way ‘grammar’ is constructed as a concept is invariably relational, whether seen as a more or less prominent or ancillary element of the classical trivium, or, more recently, as a specialized form of meta-linguistic knowledge usually set in opposition to a more meaning-focused communicative language pedagogy. In this short introduction to the volume, I draw attention to some of the parameters that have structured the development of grammar in terms of geographical and linguistic scope, and by so doing will point to the conceptual and terminological boundaries in the way ‘grammar’ is defined for our purposes. In particular, I try to convey something of how the term has gained in complexity over time, before offering a consideration of the role of ‘grammar’ in broader conceptions of education including some abiding tensions such as ‘usage-’ versus ‘rule-’ based descriptions and epistemological claims to ‘universal’ versus ‘language-specific’ models of grammar and pedagogy. Clearly, the term ‘grammar’ has meant different things throughout different periods. Etymologically the word shares its origin with ‘graphic’ and ultimately derives from grámma (γράμμα) meaning ‘a written letter, something that is written’. There was, therefore, from the start, an association with ‘literacy’ or ‘being lettered’ in the very material sense of scratching out or scoring letters as signs onto wood, pottery (ostraca) or early forms of paper. While the current volume takes as its starting point the pedagogical practices of ancient Greece, formal induction into the technology of literacy practices had of course existed since before the development of the Greek alphabet, itself descendant from protosystems that can be traced to pictographic and cuneiform scripts. Given that literacy practices were passed on to elite groups it is unsurprising that the ability to read and write (to be ‘lettered’) became, as it remains, arguably, inextricably linked to the maintenance of power. By the time of classical Greece with its advanced political system and flourishing literary culture, Aristotle used the word ‘grammar’ to denote formal knowledge of language, but it was not really until the first separate treatises appeared which systematically described language through parts of speech and so forth that we can really start to talk about the art of grammar (this is discussed fully in Chapter One). The term was then integrated into the Roman model of Liberal Arts as an integral accompaniment to the other arts of the free man viz. logic and rhetoric, and would continue to occupy this canonical position through the Middle Ages and beyond. While taxonomies of ‘grammar’, referring not exclusively to the written form but to formal knowledge of language as a constituent element of a broader range of classical education, did evolve over the centuries, they

Introduc tion

9

also remained remarkably stable1, with ‘grammar’ only recently conceived as a separable focus on form. For most of Western history of language, ‘grammar’ has been synonymous with Latin (and to a lesser extent the study of other classical languages). In terms of format, early bilingual grammars, that is from Latin to the vernacular (the students’ current language), were intended to teach Latin and followed conventions established since Donatus’ ars grammatica2 , comprising definitions and descriptions of the individual parts speech followed by word lists (glossaries) and dialogues (colloquies). From the Renaissance3 vernaculars rose in prominence, as objects of study in their own right, both as mother tongues and as foreign languages, and the ideology of standardized languages took hold, linked to nation-state formation. Latinate taxonomies naturally served as the established model for the writing of the early vernacular grammars, shaping the grammatization4 of these languages (French, Spanish etc.) as they became codified. But Latin grammars had tended to follow a general orthodox which did not cater specifically to the sensibilities of different first language speakers5 and this continued in the format of vernacular grammars so that grammatical explanations of modern languages were artificially presented according to conventions established in Latin, notwithstanding the seminal developments in pedagogical practice advocated by Comenius6. The application of classical taxonomies has usually been seen as a restriction, although more recently scholars have argued that ‘to depict the Latin system as an oppressive model from under whose yoke grammarians needed to escape is to obscure the effect of the grammatization based on the Graeco-Latin tradition and the fact that it created the conditions for a cumulative growth in linguistic knowledge’.7 One consequence of the dominance of the classical model to describe language was the conception that language ‘was endowed with a universal character. Although ancient Latin was, as we call it, a grammatica 1 The relative prominence of each art in this triadic relation (the trivium of grammar, logic and rhetoric) was one of the most important debates in linguistic historiography. See Law, The history of linguistics. 2 See Raby, this volume. 3 De Clercq, Lioce & Swiggers, ‘Grammaire et enseignement du français langue étrangère entre 1500 et 1700’. 4 Auroux ‘Le processus de grammatisation et ses enjeux’. 5 Colombat, La grammaire latine en France à la Renaissance et à l’âge classique. See also Raby, this volume. 6 See Sadler, J A Comenius and the concept of universal education. 7 Raby & Andrieu ‘Norms and rules in the history of grammar: French and English handbooks in the seventeenth century’, 68. See also Walmsley, this volume.

10 

Simon Coffey

particularis, it was applied as a grammatica universalis’8 and this universal view only really began to be challenged in the eighteenth century, not least because of the increased contact with non-Indo-European languages. As our understanding and appreciation of the classical vision of language – and language education – have receded in the modern era, new epistemological paradigms have emerged to frame the relational dynamic of power in the way language is used in interaction, most notably in the recently established fields of applied and sociolinguistics. The way language is perceived as a social resource within these fields of enquiry might be traced to the ethnographic approaches developed within anthropology as much as to twentieth-century developments in psychology and linguistics. Malinowski9, for instance, finding the established grammatical taxonomy inadequate for writing a grammar of Kiriwina, argued that grammar must be seen within a broader context-specific semantic system.10 This ethnographic perspective has emphasized synchronic research rather than the historical perspective of traditional philology.11 Some have argued that, while it is productive to understand language change within the more holistic approaches afforded by recent epistemologies, there is a risk that disciplinary bias towards synchronic methods can slide too far into ‘recentism’ so that the momentum of historically ingrained beliefs that shape our current attitudes to language and education is misunderstood or underestimated.12 The focus of this volume is not on the description of language per se, but on how grammar has been codified and communicated to pedagogical ends. In terms of methodology, most of the studies that comprise the current volume follow established historiographical procedures to analyse grammar in the European tradition, and these (by virtue of necessity given the type of documentary evidence available) tend to focus on tracing the evolution of written taxonomies and didactic material. However, language historiographers are not blind to the importance of ecological approaches 8 Ruijsendal, ‘History of grammar: Description and classification’, 10. 9 Malinowski, ‘Classificatory particles’. 10 Throughout the twentieth century to the present day, socially oriented system models have increasingly seen the concept of ‘grammar’ diversify to encompass context-sensitive descriptions of usage, maybe most famously within functional linguistics models such as Michael Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics. 11 The difficulty in applying Western grammatical norms to other languages was not, of course, a dilemma new to the twentieth century, and had already been recognized by earlier scholars of non-Indo-European languages, most famously Wilhelm Humboldt. 12 For instance, the recent argument advanced to build an ‘applied linguistic historiography’, R. Smith. For a discussion of contemporary perceptions of time and the current preoccupation with ‘presentism’ see Hartog, Régimes d’historicité. Présentisme et expériences du temps.

Introduc tion

11

and most documentary analyses are, to varying degrees, situated in their broader social context of contemporary mores and material affordances and constraints. The historical study of grammar is inherently interdisciplinary and a primary intention of this collection is to cross disciplinary boundaries and to reflect the different research traditions that have been concerned with investigating grammar. Some contributors are classicists in the language historiographical tradition, while others have a modern languages teaching background and have turned to historical methods to complement synchronic research approaches more commonly associated with current notions of language education research. While the term ‘grammar’ has developed different meanings according to context, in this volume, we use the term to denote the ways in which language is explained for pedagogical purposes; in other words, how language (a language) is represented as a socially constructed set of conventions for talking about language in different pedagogical settings. The volume does not pretend to offer a solution to perennial questions pertaining to the evolution of language in human beings, how human life is organized through mental representations and how the articulation of these has emerged. However, philosophical and psychological perspectives on language naturally arise where these have implications for beliefs about the purposes and forms of language description in pedagogical contexts. For instance, the way language has been recorded through the codification of grammatical features – and consequently how we learn (about) grammar – has always been structured by broader epistemological and ideological principles, even where these are implicit rather than stated. One such principle includes the ontological distinction between, on the one hand, the belief that words represent an objective reality and, on the other hand, the belief that words represent a mentally constructed perception of reality. Padley 13, for example, characterizes this distinction in terms of language as ‘the mirror of thought’ or language as the ‘mirror of things’ in the early modern period, a development explained by broader epistemological currents such as, respectively, the empiricist, scientific model associated with Bacon and Hobbes, that aimed to categorize the physical world, and then the cognitivist, rational model associated with the philosophy of Descartes and Port-Royal. In the first instance, words point to material realities, in the latter, they point to thoughts or mental concepts.14 13 Padley, Grammatical theory in Western Europe 1500-1700. Volume 1. 14 For a more detailed exposition, see also Law, The history of linguistics.

12 

Simon Coffey

This relation between inner language and material reality has concerned philosophers since Aristotle and has been reinterpreted according to the epistemological context of the time, such as by Christian theologians in the Middle Ages and then humanist scholars of the Renaissance. The traditional categorization of speech into ‘parts’ or ‘categories’ which threads through the historical studies in this volume, has at its origin a fundamental linguistic distinction, dating at least from Plato and Aristotle, between nouns and verbs (things and actions). This seemingly common-sense separation cannot be set apart from the logical and philosophical contention that things are our primary concepts that other qualities and actions qualify. This analysis has echoed through the generations and persists in the form of pedagogical sequencing of language. Another guiding principle, this time of a didactic character, is the traditional distinction between ‘prescription’ and ‘description’ that any student of linguistics soon encounters. Yet this distinction, traditionally explained as ‘rules’ versus ‘usage’, is obviously not clear cut. Treatises on grammar, which are inevitably didactic, have always sought to resolve the tensions between presenting models based on an ideal (a ‘right’ or ‘correct’ version of what language forms should be according to a particular author’s logic) and how language is actually ‘used’. There is an inherent problem in fixing into written rules any model that claims to be based on ‘usage’ in that rules of use will inevitably be subjective, partial and ephemeral. Conversely, even the most normative models, such as those based on the pursuit of purity and logic through linguistic form (such as the Port-Royal Grammaire) provide examples of usage to support their claims.15 In either case, any ‘description’ of language has probably never been exempt from some degree of moral exhortation. This was clear in the classical period where language study was a mental discipline with a defined social and political function, then as the teaching of classical languages were appropriated for theological reasoning in the Christian era, and even through the secularization of the Renaissance which saw the liberal arts emphasized as studia humanitas (humanities). With the grammatization of the vernaculars16, and the desacralizing of taught languages, the moral 15 See Salmon’s chapter on ‘Pre-Cartesian Linguistics’ for a discussion of the notion of ‘surface’ and ‘deep’ structure. Later taken up most famously by Chomsky in support of his theory of transformational grammar, deep structure had been framed as ‘underlying propositions’ by Port-Royalists, The Study of Language in 17th-Century England, 77. 16 Auroux ‘Le processus de grammatisation et ses enjeux’.

Introduc tion

13

dimension has become more covert, but can still be recognized in judgements of prestige in relation to standard forms and idealized educated speakers. The twelve papers in this volume are arranged more or less chronologically, from classical Greece to the present day, with key developments presented around notable milestones. Of course, this does not mean to imply that the history of grammar has followed a narrowly linear progression, as the evolution of grammar is also circular, where longstanding concepts and pedagogical wisdoms are reimagined and articulated anew to suit different contexts. There is, as already mooted, a European bias in the range of languages represented, and within this range there are many omissions. Czech, German, Italian and Portuguese, for example, are not represented, although these and other European vernaculars have an important and thriving tradition of linguistic and grammatical historiography 17. Their omission in the current volume can only be explained by the limits of size as well as the limits of the personal scope and professional expertise of the editor. When vernacular European languages developed as powerful unifying symbols of nation in the modern era, they competed for prestige and visibility. It is easy to forget that the rise in the international importance of English is a recent phenomenon and that English had little value as a foreign language compared with other European languages, as testified by John Florio’s oft-cited remark from 157818 that “it [English] is a language that wyl do you good in England, but passe Dover, it is woorth nothing”. While French would enjoy the most sustained pre-eminence overall, other modern languages were also widely learnt at different times and in different regions and developed their own grammar and teaching materials. The famous questione della lingua in Italy and the emergence of the Florentine dialect as a literary standard19 provided a model for other languages to embrace new national literatures as well as, in many cases, a more cohesive cultural and political identity through a shared language. Languages were not constrained by borders, of course, and flourished in cultural and economic spaces of flow and exchange. With regard to non-Indo-European languages, it is important to note that while ‘grammar’ is often perceived as a European concept because of its origins, there is a longstanding and ever increasing body of scholarship investigating 17 See for more on German and Czech respectively Glück, Deutsch als Fremdsprache in Europa and Fidlerovà, ‘Teaching Czech in a plurilingual community’. 18 Florio, Firste Fruites … 19 See Hall, ‘The significance of the Italian “Questione della Lingua”.

14 

Simon Coffey

the historical grammatization of non-Indo-European languages. As well as the application of Latinate taxonomies to non-Indo-European languages within Europe (Basque etc.), and to languages encountered in colonial settings20, there is an increasing body of scholarship problematizing the notion of grammatization for non-Indo-European languages such as Chinese.21 In the first chapter, Swiggers and Wouters provide a thorough account of the origins of (Western) grammar in Greek antiquity where the study of grammar meant the mastery of classical Greek. In other words, the study of grammar was not to learn a foreign language per se as students were Greek speakers, but neither was its purpose to describe or analyse the spoken form used by students. Study was therefore text-based. The authors describe the progression within the classical didactic system, that the Romans would emulate, from elementary rote-learning of the alphabet and basic literacy skills known as the ‘teaching of letters’ (didaskontas grammata), through the more advanced training in grammar and the study of literary texts taught by the grammatikos, culminating in the ‘higher education, under the guidance of a professor of rhetoric or philosophy’. Manuals were written to support teaching through descriptive categories and a common metalinguistic framework emerged, although, as the authors point out, teachers modified and expanded definitions to meet the needs of students so that grammar as a discipline constantly evolved. There is now considerable debate around the authenticity of the traditionally recognized foundational text, the grammar manual known as the Tekhnê grammatikê. The Tekhnê, which survives in various fragments of papyrus records that the authors catalogue, was conventionally attributed to the Alexandrian philologist Dionysius Thrax, who lived in the third century BC, although most linguistic historiographers now believe that most of the original manuscript was produced several centuries later.22 Whether truly authentic to Dionysius or not, and the first part of the Tekhnê, which includes his ‘definition of grammar’, is mostly regarded as authentic, the manual provides a fascinating example of an early manual and provides the basic structure that would be adopted by virtually all subsequent manuals, including the iconic eight parts of speech. In Chapter Two, Luhtala provides a detailed analysis of secondary education from the late Roman period to the Middle Ages. Her analysis traces the 20 See Auroux, ‘Le processus de grammatisation’; and Zwartjes, Portuguese missionary grammars in Asia, Africa and Brazil, 1550-1800. 21 See McDonald, ‘The challenge of a “lacking” language: the historical development of Chinese grammatics’; and Pellin, ‘Aspects of the grammatization of the Chinese language’. 22 From the third or fourth century AD. (Luhtala, personal correspondence).

Introduc tion

15

shifts in pedagogy and canonical texts, especially the foundational works of Donatus and Priscian, from late antiquity to the schools that came under the aegis of the great European institutions of learning, starting with those set up by monasteries and cathedrals in the wake of the Carolingian Renaissance. Although different elements of the trivium were emphasized at different times, the elementary courses invariably began with basic grammatical manuals from which increasingly complex rules were learnt by heart alongside commentaries, before moving on to more advanced texts dealing with philosophy and rhetoric. Luhtala wonders, given the relative sophistication of the philosophical doctrine in the texts, how much secondary age boys (of thirteen or fourteen) understood the content. It would be fair to assume that scholarship of this age group consisted largely of rote learning on the understanding that this would lay the foundation for further adult education. The question of bilingual versus monolingual approaches has remained a perennial topic for debate in the teaching of grammar and Ælfric, an English monk, scholar and teacher living at the end of the tenth century, the focus of Chapman’s research presented in Chapter Three, produced what was probably the first bilingual grammar that used the students’ own language rather than the target language as the medium of instruction. Written for students of Latin in early tenth-century England, descriptions of the language and grammatical rules are given in contemporary Anglo-Saxon English, itself an indicator that by this time Latin was not used as a first language. That pupils were by this time learning Latin as a ‘foreign’ language is attested by the then innovative inclusion of full verb paradigms.23 As Chapman describes, Ælfric adopts a delightfully recognisable approach in the way he addresses the reader directly and peppers his text with humorous anecdotes. We also see how the model of language refers to the lived context of the intended students for, while the learning was always in an ecclesiastical context, Ælfric included a bilingual wordlist of vocabulary that would be meaningful to the students. Moreover, Ælfric conforms to the practice already highlighted in the previous chapter of Christianizing Latin in the way, for instance, that he replaces classical names with biblical. The authors of the following paper in Chapter Four, Gómez Asencio, Quijada and Swiggers, take us forward to the age of print and the f irst 23 It is interesting to note on this point Law’s observation that ‘the early medieval restructuring of the traditional Roman teaching grammar from a taxonomic account of language in general with reference to Latin, to a detailed account of Latin accidence designed for the foreign learner, resulted in a new genre, the foreign-language grammar, which has remained productive to the present day’, Law, ‘Effort and achievement in seventeenth-century British linguistics’ 52.

16 

Simon Coffey

printed grammar of a European vernacular: Nebrija’s Spanish grammar, Gramatica sobre la lengua castellana. Published in 1492, Gómez Asencio, Quijada and Swiggers emphasize the relevance of this date as a turning point in the rise of Castilian Spanish in the wake of the Reconquista and Columbus’ ‘discovery’ of the Americas, both events which reinforced the drive to codify Spanish, already increasingly prominent in parts of Habsburg Europe, notably the Low Countries, then called the Spanish Netherlands. Although not especially successful at the time – appearing only in one edition (in contrast to his earlier grammar for Latin) – Nebrija’s Grammatica is important historiographically for its stated aims of trying to fix and stabilize (Spanish) language for future generations. The treatise targeted different audiences: native-speakers wishing to have a systematic knowledge of Spanish grammar; those wishing to learn grammar in their native language to facilitate the study of Latin; and those wishing to learn Spanish as a foreign or second language. In Chapter Five, Raby provides a diachronic account of how grammars for French developed between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, a critical period in the development and codification of vernacular grammars. Raby problematizes the distinction between native and non-native speaker target audiences; the vast majority of the French grammars during this time span did not seem to be oriented towards specific groups of foreign learners, using French as the main or sole metalanguage and taking little account of cross-vernacular comparisons. This is explained not only by the longstanding dominance of French across Europe and beyond but also by the desire to impose its status as a legitimate, grammatized language on a par with Latin. The format of the grammars in this period remained largely stable and it was only during the eighteenth century that French grammars were produced specifically for foreigners on a model based on first language acquisition. During this period of vernacular grammatization, Latin retained its status as the scholarly lingua franca and in schools of early modern Europe was both the medium of instruction and the principal subject of study.24 It is important to remember that, certainly in terms of pedagogy of Latin, grammar did not refer exclusively to the technical linguistic elements such as agreement and declensions, but also implied study of literature and analysis of literary texts which went hand in hand with the development 24 Even during the English Reformation, although preaching was in the vernacular (English), school learning at ‘grammar schools’, a term which first appeared in the fourteenth century, continued to be conducted in Latin. See Bowen, volume 2.

Introduc tion

17

of rhetorical skills.25 In Chapter Six, Moul presents the role of grammatical verse in Latin not only for teaching Latin but also Greek and Hebrew. The creative use of verse rather than prose to teach grammar emphasizes the effectiveness of mnemonics and rhyme in language pedagogy while the content of the grammatical verses also reinforced classical references and provided a humorous and memorable way to inculcate moral teaching. The prominence of French in Imperial Russia is well known and has been the subject of an extensive body of scholarship. Yet how French and other modern languages, notably German, were actually taught, and more especially the role of grammar in language pedagogy, has received little attention. In Chapter Seven, Kislova, Kostina and Rjéoutski present an overview of the grammars available in eighteenth-century Russia. In particular the authors examine the language courses in the elite schools attached to the Academy of Sciences, the Noble Infantry Cadet Corps and the Church seminaries, demonstrating a shift throughout the century towards greater explicit focus on grammatical form for foreign language teaching, bringing foreign language pedagogy more in line with that for Latin teaching. The authors’ analysis draws on important tropes that run throughout this volume such as the relationship of native- and non-native-speaking tutors to the languages they teach, and the proficiency and ability of tutors to instruct in spontaneous oral methods in contrast to the relative ‘security’ of a graded pedagogy structured around written forms. In Chapter Eight we see an example of a successful late eighteenthcentury grammar published in London. Its author, Nicolas Wanostrocht, can be described in many respects as representative of French grammarians living in eighteenth-century England in that he was Protestant, Frenchnative-speaking, and worked as a tutor to a noble family before setting up his own academy. His so-called Practical Grammar, first published in 1780, enjoyed a century of re-editions both in England and, from 1805, the US. England had always been a primary site for the production of French grammars and the number of these being published in England, mainly in London, continued to increase exponentially as the eighteenth century progressed. A ground-breaking feature of Wanostrocht’s Grammar was the inclusion of ‘exercises’ in the same volume, and the analysis in this chapter demonstrates the pedagogical intention behind this early template of the grammar-translation manual. Although ‘grammar-translation’ became widely disparaged as a rigidly delivered school pedagogy in the nineteenth century, evidence offered suggests that grammar exercises were originally 25 See also Copeland and Sluiter, Medieval Grammar and Rhetoric.

18 

Simon Coffey

intended to form part of a more eclectic programme of learning rather than as the sole method. The analysis presented also suggests some of the wider social conditions that account for the Grammar’s relative success, such as the system of subscription publication that was a characteristic of the contemporary English book trade, and the fact that Wanostrocht was favourably connected to the nobility and to London’s intellectual circles. In Chapter Nine, Walmsley presents a longitudinal analysis of English metalanguage, that is, the terminology used to denote English grammar and the internal and external forces which helped to shape it. This analysis spans from the late Middle Ages through Lily’s iconic grammar for Latin in English to the twentieth century, allowing us not only to see how resistant to change many terms are, but also to understand how the fit between terms and their referents was often approximate and subject to particular constraints. A common theme running through most historical analyses of vernacular grammars is the awkwardness of using Latinate taxonomies for other languages; for example, how to describe the ‘article’ given that Latin does not have articles. However, as mentioned above, the traditional criticism of early vernacular grammarians and the framing of classical nomenclature as a cumbersome constraint has recently been modified and Walmsley argues that such criticism is not justified by the evidence, which shows that vernacular terms were in fact readily coined to categorize English, even if most of the terms have since been ‘weeded out to leave a broad stock of predominantly classical terms’. The Reform Movement of the late nineteenth century represents an important turning point in how foreign languages were taught in schools across Western Europe, notwithstanding the variation in take up of Reform methods across national contexts. While the broad aims of the Reform Movement are typically characterized as encouraging a shift away from grammar-translation and its focus on writing towards a renewed emphasis on oral language and ‘connected’ texts, the role of grammar in the toolkit of Reform methods has received little attention. Suso and Valdés Melguizo’s analysis in Chapter Ten provides a new and innovative analysis of the role of grammar in the Reform Movement. As their contribution demonstrates, Reformers did not seek to reject grammar teaching per se but to reinvigorate it, loosening the shackles of the traditional deductive model of learning grammatical categories according to the classical taxonomy towards more inductive and ‘intuitive’ approaches that encouraged learners to see and appropriate grammatical meanings as patterns. This development within the context of the Reform Movement and the corollary ‘direct method’ paved the way for much of the discussion of the role of grammar in the

Introduc tion

19

twentieth century, where the different pedagogical models have, by turn, reformulated older oral-based methods into differing versions of ‘direct method’, including the audio-lingual, army method and the more recent communicative approaches. In Chapter Eleven Hudson takes readers through a reflection on shifting approaches to grammar teaching in English schools over the last hundred years and the relationship between the development of metalinguistic terminology in first language English and school-taught modern languages. Taking as a starting point a number of government-commissioned reports from the early twentieth century which sought to obtain a clear picture of the state of education in English schools (the Leathes Report of 1918 being the first state report commissioned specifically to investigate the state of modern languages in English schools), Hudson traces in broad brush strokes the ever faster development of educational change over the last century. We see how the explicit teaching of grammar is subject to fashions shaped by the wider socio-educational landscape, including the decreased take-up of modern languages in England, particular examination formats and the intermittent rallying cries of disciplinary associations for greater synergy between the different forms of language education. Most of the contributions in this volume have, in the tradition of historical grammaticography, dealt with written forms of pedagogical grammar26, and it is probably true to say that the explicit teaching of grammar remains for the most part attached to standardized written forms. Weber’s contribution in the final chapter extends this emphasis on the notion of the written standard to present approaches to the teaching of grammar with reference to spoken language in use. Drawing on the case of French as a foreign language, Weber provides a historical overview of the ideology of ‘good French’ and then situates the importance of including spoken forms, even where these may be considered non-standard, in the language classroom. Spoken grammatical forms, as with the written standard, conform to patterned structures which can be schematized. Weber proposes such a schematized model according to lexical and syntactic categories, a model that is, as Weber points out, not exhaustive but illustrative. While a ‘grammar of spoken language’ is inevitably subject to greater flux than standardized forms, recent technological innovation such as corpus analysis allows us to rethink how we present communicative models of language as it is actually used. Weber argues for the importance of understanding the plurality of forms 26 Even where pedagogies might be oral such as the catechetical method. See Luhtala, this volume.

20 

Simon Coffey

in the pedagogical encounter so that teachers develop a reflexive approach not simply to teaching ‘grammar’ but ‘grammars’. Each of the papers presented in the volume presents new insights, whether drawing on completely new material or extending the analysis of more familiar documentary data in new directions. The volume will have achieved its primary aim if it serves as an opportunity for language teachers to reflect on their own and their students’ conceptions of grammar and how these shape classroom discourse and teaching methodologies. It is also hoped that the book offers a helpful overview to students and scholars who are relatively new to language historiography, while also making a valuable contribution in its own right to research in the history of language learning and teaching, a field of scholarship that appears to be in good health, as attested by the vigour of its learned societies, well attended colloquia and increasing publications. Collective endeavours such as this volume depend on the good will, wisdom and perseverance that are the cornerstone of all intellectual collaborations. I extend my heartfelt thanks to each contributor, to the series and managing editors at AUP, and especially to the many anonymous reviewers, the unsung heroes who generously gave of their time and without whose intellectual rigour this book would not have been possible.

Bibliography Auroux, Sylvain, ‘Le processus de grammatisation et ses enjeux’, in Histoire des idées linguistiques, tome 2 (Liège: Mardaga, 1992), 11-64. Bowen, James, A History of Western Education. Volume 2 (of 3) (London: Meuthen, 1981). Colombat, Bernard, La grammaire latine en France à la Renaissance et à l’âge classique. Théories et pédagogie (Grenoble: ELLUG, 1999). Copeland, Rita and Sluiter, Ineke, Medieval Grammar and Rhetoric: Language Arts and Literary Theory, AD 300 -1475 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). De Clercq, Jan, Nico, Lioce & Pierre Swiggers, ‘Grammaire et enseignement du français langue étrangère entre 1500 et 1700’, in Grammaire et enseignement du français langue étrangère entre 1500 et 1700, ed. by Jan De Clercq, Nico, Lioce & Pierre Swiggers (Leuven/Paris/Sterling, VA: Peeters, 2000), IX-XXXIV. Fidlerovà, Alena A. ‘Teaching Czech in a plurilingual community in the age of Enlightenment: The case of František Jan Tomsa’, in The History of Language Learning and Teaching. Volume 1 (of 3), ed. by Nicola McLelland, & Richard Smith (London: Legenda, 2018), 110-128.

Introduc tion

21

Florio, John, Firste Fruites: which yeelde Familiar Speech, merie Prouerbes, wittie Sentences, and Golden Sayings (London: Thomas Dawson-Thomas Woodcocke, 1578) Glück, Helmut, Deutsch als Fremdsprache in Europa vom Mittelalter bis zur Barockzeit (Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 2002). Hall, Robert, A, ‘The significance of the Italian “Questione della Lingua”’, Studies in Philology, XXXIX/1, (1942), 1-10. Hartog, François, Régimes d’historicité. Présentisme et expériences du temps (Paris: Le Seuil, 2003). Law, Vivian, ‘Effort and achievement in seventeenth-century British linguistics’, in Studies in the History of Western Linguistics, ed. by Theodora Bynon and Frank Robert Palmer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 69-95. Law, Vivian, The History of Linguistics in Europe: From Plato to 1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Malinowski, Bronislaw, ‘Classif icatory particles in the language of Kiriwina’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, 1/4 (1920), 33-78. McDonald, Edward, ‘The challenge of a “lacking” language. The historical development of Chinese grammatics’, Chinese Language and Discourse, 8/2, (2017), 244-265. Padley, George A., Grammatical Theory in Western Europe 1500-1700. Trends in Vernacular Grammar. Volume 1 (of 2) (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985). Pellin, Tommaso, ‘Introduction − Aspects of the grammatization of the Chinese language’, Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 41/1 (2019), 7-14. Raby, Valérie & Andrieu, Wilfred, ‘Norms and rules in the history of grammar: French and English handbooks in the seventeenth century’, in Standardizing English. Norms and Margins in the History of the English language, ed. by Linda Pillière, Wilfred Andrieu, Valérie Kerfelec and Diana Lewis (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018), 65-88. Ruijsendal, Els, ‘History of grammar: Description and classification’, in Grammaire et enseignement du français langue étrangère entre 1500 et 1700, ed. by Jan De Clercq, Nico, Lioce & Pierre Swiggers (Leuven/Paris/Sterling, VA: Peeters, 2000), 3-15. Sadler, John Edward, J A Comenius and the Concept of Universal Education (London & NY: Routledge, 2007 [1966]). Salmon, Vivian, The Study of Language in 17th-century England (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1979) Smith, Richard, ‘Building “applied linguistic historiography”: rationale, scope and methods’, Applied Linguistics 37/1 (2015), 71-87. Zwartjes, Otto, Portuguese Missionary Grammars in Asia, Africa and Brazil, 1550-1800 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011).

22 

Simon Coffey

About the author Simon Coffey is Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Modern Languages Education at King’s College London, where he is Programme Director of the PGCE. He applies qualitative approaches including discourse analysis and auto/biographical narrative to investigate why and how different learners engage with foreign languages. He is currently researching the history of French teaching and learning in England. His work has been published in journals including Applied Linguistics, Histoire Epistémologie Langage, Language and Intercultural Communication and the Modern Language Journal. He served as joint editor of the Language Learning Journal (2014-19) and currently convenes the AILA Research Network ECLE (Emotion and Creativity in Language Education). Email: [email protected]

1.

The emergence of grammar in the Western world Grammatical theory and language teaching in Greek Antiquity Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

Abstract The origins of Western grammar (and grammar teaching) lie in ancient Greece. Grammar took shape as a text-based discipline, taking as its object the literary language of the past. The focus was on mastering the morphological structures of classical Greek, of which the forms had to be memorized, and activated through the analysis of literary texts. The teaching of grammar involved the flexible use of manuals, offering the indispensable terminological apparatus and the descriptive categories. The parts-of-speech system remained the corner piece of Western grammar. The condensation of grammatical doctrine in manuals was supplemented with grammatical exercising, focusing on verbal and nominal morphology, and, sporadically, issues of syntax. Grammatical education was extended, through copying, memorizing and analysing of model texts, with lexical and phraseological materials. Keywords: definition of grammar; description of ancient Greek; grammar manuals; origins of grammar in the Western world; papyrological documentation; paradigms; philology; word classes (parts of speech)

The origins of grammar in the Western world In the Western world the teaching of grammar originated in Greece.1 The constitution of a discipline called ‘grammar’ was a century-long process, 1 For general accounts, see the brief survey of Forbes, ‘Greek Pioneers’, and the longer overview in Robins, Ancient and mediaeval, 1‒47; Swiggers, Histoire de la pensée linguistique, 17‒58; and

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch01

24 

Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

during which the study of language, focusing on structural levels and categories, received a more or less autonomous status, and was defined as a field of study different from rhetoric (the study of the expressive, communicative and persuasive uses of language) and from philosophy (more particularly, philosophical reflections on language as a properly human faculty).2 The traditional historiographical view claimed a more or less linear development from early philosophical reflections on language (in Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics) to the creation of grammatical technography by the Alexandrian grammarians, and leading towards a later synthesis, enriched by reflections on syntax. This view has now been replaced with the reconstruction of a dynamic development of grammar in constant interaction with rhetorical and philosophical views as well as with didactic concerns, whose practical orientation led to adaptations and refinements of portions of grammatical doctrine. In the third century BC, grammar became an institutionalized subject matter as part of the training of would-be philologists, i.e. scholars specializing in the study of literary texts of the past. The institutionalization of grammar involved various aspects: the definition of the discipline, the elaboration of a ‘technical’ metalanguage and a more or less consensual doctrine, codified in ‘grammatical manuals’, and the putting in place of a frame for grammatical instruction. The goal of this chapter is to introduce the reader to these various aspects, and to substantiate these with a few selected illustrations. The topic is extremely vast, and can only be covered here in a partial way; useful references for further study are provided in the bibliography.

From writing to the study of (written) language The Greek term for ‘grammar’, γραμματική, was preceded by the corresponding adjective, γραμματικός, referring to the (skillful) use of letters. Through metonymy the term γραμματικός was applied to persons skilled in writing. In his Cratylus, Plato speaks of those who are experts in the treatment of

Matthews, What Graeco-Roman Grammar was about. On the concept of ‘grammar’ in (Greek) Antiquity, see Swiggers and Wouters, ‘The Concept of Grammar’. 2 The complex history of ancient grammar (and its ties with philosophy and rhetoric) has been dealt with in the contributions to collective volumes such as Taylor (ed.), The History of Linguistics; Schmitter (ed.), Sprachtheorien; Swiggers and Wouters (eds.), Ancient Grammar; Montanari, Matthaios and Rengakos (eds.), Brill’s Companion. For an overview, see Swiggers and Wouters, ‘L’élaboration’.

The emergence of gr ammar in the Western world

25

letters and their division, and he sketches the gradual build-up of a field,3 for which he does not use (at that point) the technical term ‘grammar’. ΣΩ. Ἇρ᾿ οὖν καὶ ἡμᾶς οὕτω δεῖ πρῶτον μὲν τὰ φωνήεντα διελέσθαι, ἔπειτα τῶν ἑτέρων κατὰ εἴδη τά τε ἄφωνα καὶ ἄφθογγα -οὑτωσὶ γάρ που λέγουσιν οἱ δεινοὶ περὶ τούτων – καὶ τὰ αὖ φωνήεντα μὲν οὔ, οὐ μέντοι γε ἄφθογγα; καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν φωνηέντων ὅσα διάφορα εἴδη ἔχει ἀλλήλων; καὶ ἐπειδὰν ταῦτα διελώμεθα εὖ πάντα αὖ οἷς δεῖ ὀνόματα ἐπιθεῖναι, εἰ ἔστιν εἰς ἃ ἀναφέρεται πάντα ὥσπερ τὰ στοιχεῖα, ἐξ ὧν ἔστιν ἰδεῖν αὐτά τε καὶ εἰ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἔνεστιν εἴδη κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς στοιχείοις. […] Οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς τὰ στοιχεῖα ἐπὶ πράγματα ἐποίσομεν, καὶ ἓν ἐπὶ ἕν, οὗ ἂν δοκῇ δεῖν, καὶ σύμπολλα, ποιοῦντες ὃ δὴ συλλαβὰς καλοῦσιν, καὶ συλλαβὰς αὖ συντιθέντες, ἐξ ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰ ῥήματα συντίθενται. καὶ πάλιν ἐκ τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων μέγα ἤδη τι καὶ καλὸν καὶ ὅλον συστήσομεν, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ τὸ ζῷον τῇ γραφικῇ, ἐνταῦθα τὸν λόγον τῇ ὀνομαστικῇ ἢ ῥητορικῇ ἢ ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ τέχνη. Must not we, too, separate first the vowels, then in their several classes the consonants or mutes, as they are called by those who specialize in phonetics, and also the letters which are neither vowels nor mutes, as well as the various classes that exist among the vowels themselves? And when we have made all these divisions properly, we must in turn give names to the things which ought to have them, if there are any names to which they can all, like the letters, be referred, from which it is possible to see what their nature is and whether there are any classes among them, as there are among letters […]. In just this way we, too, shall apply letters to things, using one letter for one thing, when that seems to be required, or many letters together, forming syllables, as they are called, and in turn combining syllables, and by their combination forming nouns and verbs. And from nouns and verbs again we shall finally construct something great and fair and complete. Just as in our comparison we made the picture by the art of painting, so now we shall make language by the art of naming, or of rhetoric, or whatever it be (Cratylus, 424c-425a). 4

3 As an instruction in reading and writing, the origins of the teaching of ‘grammar’ reach back to the early stages of the development of a writing system. Subsequently, the teaching of grammar was extended to include higher structural levels. 4 We quote the text in the translation of Fowler, Plato: Cratylus.

26 

Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

Neither do we find a proper definition of the field in Aristotle’s Poetics (Chapters 20 and 21).5 Aristotle’s text has, however, the merit of circumscribing a common field for grammatical and poetic studies: the domain of lexis. Aristotle makes the distinction between thought-contents (διάνοια) and their formal expression, but the study of linguistic form is not yet differentiated into a grammatical-technical one and a stylistic or poetic one. In Aristotle’s writings, especially his Poetics, Categories and On Interpretation (Peri Hermeneias), we find a tentative classification of (major) word classes, such as the noun, the verb, the ‘conjunction’ (or ‘joining element’) and the ‘article’ (or ‘articular element’), and some of their defining categories (such as gender, number or tense). Significant advances were made by the Stoics, as we learn from Diogenes Laertius’ report in his Vitae Philosophorum (‘Lives of the Philosophers’, Book VII, 55‒58), although grammar was not recognized by them as a separate field of knowledge, but rather as a compartment within logic (or ‘dialectics’). Τὴν διαλεκτικὴν διαιρεῖσθαι εἴς τε τὸν περὶ τῶν σημαινομένων καὶ τῆς φωνῆς τόπον. καὶ τὸν μὲν τῶν σημαινομένων εἴς τε τὸν περὶ τῶν φαντασιῶν τόπον καὶ τῶν ἐκ τούτων ὑφισταμένων λεκτῶν ἀξιωμάτων καὶ αὐτοτελῶν καὶ κατηγορημάτων καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων ὀρθῶν καὶ ὑπτίων καὶ γενῶν καὶ εἰδῶν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ λόγων καὶ τρόπων καὶ συλλογισμῶν καὶ τῶν παρὰ τὴν φωνὴν καὶ τὰ πράγματα σοφισμάτων. Dialectic, they hold, falls under two heads: subjects of discourse and language. And the subjects fall under the following headings: phantasiai and the various products to which they give rise, propositions enunciated and their constitutive subjects and predicates, and similar terms whether in direct case or in oblique case, genera and species, arguments, moods, syllogisms and fallacies whether due to the subject matter or to the linguistic expressions (Book VII, 43).6

Starting from the late third century BC on, grammar became a scholarly discipline. This was the achievement of the Alexandrian philologists, who turned grammar into a ‘textual discipline’, i.e. the study of literary texts, and who instaured a schooling system, based on the mastery of a terminological apparatus,7 the memorization of doctrinal contents, and the exercising of 5 See the detailed analysis in Swiggers and Wouters, ‘Grammatical Theory in Aristotle’s Poetics’. 6 Our translation is based on Hicks, Diogenes Laertius, 153‒155, which we have slightly modified. 7 On classical Greek grammatical terminology, see the very useful dictionary of Bécares Botas, Diccionario de terminología; on the elaboration of Graeco-Latin grammatical terminology, see the contributions in Basset et al. (eds.), Bilinguisme et terminologie.

The emergence of gr ammar in the Western world

27

grammatical patterns and single forms.8 In the Greek didactic system there was a gradual progression from instruction by the γραμματοδιδάσκαλος or γραμματιστής, the teacher for reading and writing, to instruction by the γραμματικός, who taught (more advanced) grammar and the study of literary texts, and finally to ‘higher education’, under the guidance of a professor of rhetoric or of philosophy.

Towards a definition of ‘grammar’ The Alexandrian philologists provide us with the first definition of ‘grammar’ in Greek antiquity. It is attributed to Eratosthenes of Cyrene, head of the Alexandrian library under Ptolemy III Euergetes (246‒221 BC). This definition, which would go back to the third century BC, has been transmitted, indirectly, in the scholia to Dionysius Thrax’ grammar manual. The definition, also briefly explicated by the scholiast, runs as follows: Γραμματική ἐστιν ἕξις παντελὴς ἐν γράμμασι.9 This short definition raises numerous problems of (contextualized) interpretation,10 but it seems reasonable to admit that Eratosthenes understood γραμματική as the property (or acquired skill) of the one who is competent in dealing with writings. This capacity is said to be παντελής: a laudatory epithet, highlighting the value or importance of the property (ἕξις) in question. The grammarian is credited ‒ in an absolute11 way ‒ with a full-fledged property or skill, with respect to the object of his study, viz. writings. The following stage in the process of defining ‘grammar’ ‒ as a discipline as well as a competence and an activity ‒ is represented by the Tekhnê grammatikê of Dionysius Thrax,12 the disciple of Aristarch of Samothrace, the head of the Alexandrian philological school in the second century 8 On the grammatical achievement of the Alexandrian philological school, see Erbse, ‘Zur normativen Grammatik’; Ax, ‘Sprache als Gegenstand’. On Aristarchus’ grammatical doctrine and terminology, see the detailed study of Matthaios, Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs. For text-critical editions of the works of the Alexandrian grammarians (Dionysius Thrax, Apollonius Dyscolus, Theodosius of Alexandria, …), and later scholiasts, see the standard edition (commonly referred to as G.G., viz. the four volumes (in ten tomes) of Grammatici Graeci. 9 The definition is briefly explicated by the scholiast in the following terms: γράμματα καλῶν τὰ συγγράμματα, “by ‘letters’ he [Eratosthenes] intended ‘written texts’ / ‘writings’”. 10 For a detailed study, see Swiggers and Wouters, ‘Definitions of grammar’. 11 Matthaios, ‘Eratosthenes of Cyrene’, 78, speaks of the “intensification of the term ἕξις with the attribute παντελής”. 12 Dionysius’ Tekhnê is a very condensed grammatical handbook. For an English translation, see Kemp, ‘The Tekhnê Grammatikê’; for a Dutch and German translation of the Tekhnê, with a

28 

Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

BC. Although the authenticity of the (full) text of the Tekhnê grammatikê composed by Dionysius Thrax (second-first century BC) ‒ known to us only in a version that was compiled several centuries later 13 ‒ has been disputed,14 three important facts stand above dispute: (a) the first generations of Alexandrian scholars had already elaborated a rich and precise metalanguage for dealing with grammatical (orthographical, phonetic and morphological) phenomena;15 (b) the type of manual produced by Dionysius Thrax fits entirely within the didactic manuals for a wide range of disciplines that were produced in the last centuries BC;16 (c) also, the opening chapters of the Tekhnê ‒ which include the definition of grammar ‒ are commonly accepted as authentic and as dating to the second-first century BC. Dionysius’ definition of grammar, immediately followed by its division into parts, is worth quoting: Γραμματική ἐστιν ἐμπειρία τῶν παρὰ ποιηταῖς τε καὶ συγγραφεῦσιν ὡc ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ λεγομένων. Μέρη δὲ αὐτῆς ἐστιν ἕξ· πρῶτον ἀνάγνωσις ἐντριβὴς κατὰ προσῳδίαν, δεύτερον ἐξήγησις κατὰ τοὺς ἐνυπάρχοντας ποιητικοὺς τρόπους, τρίτον γλωσσῶν τε καὶ ἱστοριῶν πρόχειρος ἀπόδοσις, τέταρτον ἐτυμολογίας εὕρεσις, πέμπτον ἀναλογίας ἐκλογισμός, ἕκτον κρίσις ποιημάτων, ὃ δὴ κάλλιcτόν ἐστι πάντων τῶν ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ.17

substantial introduction, and a detailed terminological apparatus, see Swiggers and Wouters, De Tekhnê Grammatikê. 13 The Tekhnê has been conserved in a number of manuscripts, from the tenth to the eighteenth century. The work was translated into Armenian in the sixth century, and, partially, into Syriac in the seventh century. See the edition of the Tekhnê, with a substantial introduction on the history of the text, in Grammatici Graeci, volume 1. 14 The controversy around the authenticity of the Tekhnê was started by V. Di Benedetto in the late 1950s; for a summary of Di Benedetto’s arguments, see Di Benedetto, ‘At the Origins’; for a confrontation of opposite views, see the contributions in Law and Sluiter (eds.), Dionysius Thrax. 15 See Ax, ‘Aristarch’, and Matthaios, Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs. 16 See Fuhrmann, Das systematische Lehrbuch, commenting on Dionysius’ Tekhnê: “Dionysius Thrax […] hat sich offenbar als erste seiner Zunft an einem systematischen Lehrbuche versucht. Er hat also die seinem Abriss eigentümliche Darstellungsweise nur in Werken anderer Disziplinen vorfinden können, und zwar entweder in rhetorischen Kompendien, oder in einer bestimmten Gattung philosophischer Schriftstellerei”,145‒146. 17 Quoted after the edition in Grammatici Graeci, volume 1, t. 1, page 5 (line 2) to 6 (line 3).

The emergence of gr ammar in the Western world

29

Grammar is the empirical knowledge of the expressions commonly used among poets and prose-writers. Its parts are six [in number]: first, the skillful reading in conformity with the prosody; second, the exegesis of the occurring poetic phrases; third, the straightforward account of rare words and realia; fourth, the discovery of the etymology; fifth, the establishing of analogical patterning; and sixth, the judgement on poems, which is the finest part of all those [contained] in the art [of grammar].

Grammar as a discipline receives here its proper designation, and the same holds for its codifying descriptive format: τέχνη γραμματική. Its field is constituted by the study of literary texts, and covers a wide range: from their correct recitation, via their careful analysis, to their esthetic appreciation. In the second and first century BC, subsequently to Dionysius Thrax, a number of scholars (re)defined ‘grammar’, as we learn from Sextus Empiricus’ attack on their definitions: Ptolemy the Peripatetic, Chaeris, Demetrius Chlorus and Asclepiades of Myrlea.18

The ‘manualization’ of grammar The Tekhnê of Dionysius Thrax stands at the beginning of a ‘manualistic’ tradition, represented by a number of preserved papyrus texts.19 The table below provides an overview of the preserved papyrus texts20 containing a grammatical manual (MP3 refers to the third version of the online database Mertens-Pack, see http://promethee.philo.ulg.ac.cedopał/index.htm, and 18 For an analysis of the contents of these definitions, as well as of Sextus Empiricus’ skeptical attack, see Blank Sextus Empiricus, and Swiggers and Wouters, ‘Definitions of grammar’. 19 For editions of grammatical papyri, see the corpus critically edited and carefully analysed in Wouters, The Grammatical Papyri; for a catalogue of school texts on papyrus see Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students. For a corpus of papyrus texts related to the study of Latin, see Scappaticcio, Artes Grammaticae (and the bibliographical references there to editions of bilingual lexica). For overviews of the now available texts, and an appraisal of their historiographical importance, see Swiggers and Wouters, ‘Grammaires grecques (et latines)’; Swiggers and Wouters, ‘New Papyri’, and Swiggers, Wouters and Van Elst, ‘Greek grammatical “learning papyri”’. The abbreviations referring to papyri (with P. = papyrus; inv. = inventory; s.n. = sine numero) are the standard references used in the papyrological literature. 20 It must be noted that the majority of the papyri are fragmentary documents. In some cases they provide only a few (often damaged) inscribed lines of an originally much longer text. Especially in the group of grammatical manuals it is sometimes impossible to determine with certainty whether the (complete) original was an integral tekhnê grammatikê or rather a kind of specialized treatise on one aspect of grammatical doctrine.

30 

Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

LDAB refers to the online Leuven Database of Ancient Books, see http:// www.trismegistos.orǥ/ldab). Table 1.1 An overview of the preserved papyrus texts containing a grammatical manual

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26

Tekhnai grammatikai

cent.AD Wouters MP3 1979

LDAB

P. Yale 1.25 P. Heid. Siegmann 197 P. Brooklyn inv. 47.218.36 PSI inv. 505, fragm. a and b P. Oslo 2.13 P. Harr. 59 P. Iand. inv. 664 P.Yale 2.132 Chapter περὶ ὀνόματος P. Lit. Palau Rib.35 P. Heid. Siegmann 198 PSI 7.761 P. Iand. 5.83 (inv. 555) P. Lit. Lond.182 BKT 10.17 P. Bagnall 48 P. Amh. 2.21 P. Köln 4.177 P. Ant. 2.68 (Partial) copies of Dionysius Thrax’ Tekhnê Grammatikê PSI 1.18 P. Hal. inv. 55A Commentary on a τέχνη (of Dion. Thrax?) P. Köln 4.176 Unedited (under study) P. Oxy. inv. 106/111 (a) Chapter περὶ ὀνόματος P. Oxy. inv. 118/11 (b) (= P. Oxy. 61.4177 verso) Chapter περὶ ὀνόματος P. Oxy. inv. 25.3B58/L(d) Chapter περὶ ἀντωνυμίας P. Oxy. inv. C 106 4B5 A2 Chapter περὶ ῥήματος Uncertain P. Heid. inv. 414 (lost; partial transcript conserved)

I I I/II I/II II II II II/III

2138 2146 2144.2 2152 2148 2145 2159 2156.01

4412 4311 4285 4452 4791 4889 4692 5154 4961 5283 6101 5277 110341 5496 175280 5700 5668 5722

1 6 8 7 9 11 10

II/III III III III III/IV III/IV III/IV IV IV IV

15

2147.1 2158 2139 2659 1539 2144.01 2147.24 2142 2147.1 2140

V V

5 4

344 344.1

2412 5969

345.1

7 797

I/II (?)

2168.02

10847

II/III

2159.01

10792

2157

10628

IV

12 16 13 2

14

I (?)

III

III BC

The emergence of gr ammar in the Western world

31

As can be seen from this table, the papyrus manuals21 cover a large timespan, from the first to the fifth century AD. The texts differ (a) as to length: e.g., P. Lit. Lond. 182 [= 13 in the above list], contains 112 lines, and the Berlin papyrus BKT 10.1722 [= 14], totalizes 114 lines, whereas the P. Brooklyn inv. 47.218.36 [= 3] has 13 preserved lines of text; (b) as to ‘cognitive’ level: PSI inv. 505 [= 4], provides detailed definitions of the grammatical genders in Greek, whereas P. Ant. 2.68 [= 18], only lists a series of grammatical categories illustrated by one example. All these texts, however, serve the same function, viz. establishing and reinforcing the terminological and criterial frame for the work of the grammarian, consisting in reading, explaining, and commenting texts, as stated in the opening passage of Dionysius Thrax’ Tekhnê. An essential component of this activity was the (epi-/)merismos ‘partitioning/parsing’, the correct identification and explanation of each linguistic form in the Greek literary texts,23 for which one needed a full terminological apparatus to speak about letters/sounds, formal characteristics of words, types and subtypes of words, word class meanings and functions of words. A number of papyri offer us interesting information about this “co-housing” of the study of texts and the introduction, or putting into practice of the terminological apparatus. To give one example: P. Oslo 2.13 [= 5] contains on one side of the papyrus a chapter περὶ στοιχείου (‘about the element/letter’) that closely resembles a paragraph in Dionysius’ Tekhnê, and on the other side (= P. Oslo 2.12) a paraphrase of, and glosses on Homer’s Iliad, Book I, 15‒18. As to the aspect of language acquisition, one is struck by the definitely ‘philological’ orientation of the tekhnai. In those cases where they contain lists of morphological forms, the forms are the Homeric ones. This is very clear from P. Lit. Lond. 182, ll. 40‒64 [= 13], offering a systematic overview of Homeric possessive pronouns. From the point of view of the history of grammatical conceptions and practices, the papyrus manuals show an interesting mix of convergences and divergences24 with regard to the Tekhnê of Dionysius Thrax, and testify to an established transmission of grammatical doctrines in a school context. They also allow us to get a grasp of grammatical instruction as it took place 21 Numbers19 and 20 in the above list (PSI 1.18 and P. Hal. inv. 55A) are close copies of Dionysius’ Tekhnê. 22 Former inventory number: P. Berol. inv. 9917. 23 For a description, see Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians, 127‒148. 24 One example, among many others, can be found in the treatment of the pronoun, see Swiggers and Wouters, ‘Grammaires grecques (et latines)’, 71‒75.

32 

Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

in didactic practice. At the same time, these texts show us that grammar, as an ‘empirical’ discipline, was not a definitive product, and an object of strictly uniformized transmission, but that it was constantly adapted and transformed within changing didactic and cultural contexts.25

Manuals and the retouching of grammatical doctrine The corpus of grammatical manuals that have been conserved is an interesting source for our knowledge of the contents of grammatical doctrine in Antiquity; on the other hand, these texts provide some insight into the didactic implementation of grammar, thus affording a kind of ‘look into the classroom’.26 An interesting case in point is the fragmentarily conserved Berlin papyrus BKT 10.17 [= 14], written in a trained hand, and to be dated around 300 AD. It has a rather well preserved section on the adverb (32 lines of text), which contains a definition of the adverb, an etymological account of the term ἐπίρρημα, a statement on the number of semantic classes of adverbs, and a listing of these classes. When compared with the definition of the adverb in other grammatical manuals, such as P. Yale 1.25 [= 1), P. Heid. Siegmann 197 [= 2], P. Harr. 59 [= 6] and P. Lit. Lond. 182 [= 13], the definition we have in the Berlin papyrus shows some specific features (e.g., the mention of a possible variation of the adverb form). What is most interesting, however, is the fact that this papyrus offers us the by far largest list of semantic classes of adverbs, viz. 44 27 (the other papyrus manuals mention only some ten classes; in the Tekhnê of Dionysius Thrax 26 classes are listed). We perceive here the traces of the didactic rearrangement, expansion and adaptation of grammatical doctrine by teachers of grammar. As a matter of fact, grammarians, in their daily practice, proceeded through adoption, adaptation, and transformation, and through retouching definitions, terms, and lists of examples. This practice-based approach explains the differences in formulation, in exemplification, and in organization of the textual testimonies for the tekhnê-genre. 25 For a useful research guide to the various types of grammatical and lexicographical source texts, see Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship. 26 See Swiggers and Wouters, ‘El gramático en acción’. 27 Unfortunately, not all the terms for these 44 classes are conserved, due to material damage. For a detailed study of the classes, their designations, and the underlying principles, see Wouters and Swiggers, ‘New Papyri’.

The emergence of gr ammar in the Western world

33

A look at the contents of grammatical instruction Grammatical instruction in Greek antiquity28 was a philologically based activity, taking as its object the language of the classical Greek texts, especially the Homeric epics. In order to achieve mastery of this literary idiom, quite different from the later koinê (‘common speech’), used in the last centuries BC and first centuries AD, students received a theoretical education, providing a basic introduction to grammatical doctrine, and were drilled in grammar through the memorization of the contents of a grammatical manual, the making of grammatical exercises, and the intensive practice of reading, analysing and commenting literary texts. What did the grammatical doctrine taught to beginning students look like? For this we have to turn to the already mentioned tekhnai or grammatical manuals, of which Dionysius’s Tekhnê constitutes a prototypical example. Grammatical manuals were conceived as an introduction to textual philology, and contained, after a brief definition of the domain of grammar, an overview of the structural levels, classes and units of the (ancient) language, cast in a more or less codified metalanguage, and selectively exemplified. The structural levels dealt with are graphophonetics (graphical units are described in terms of their phonetic value), prosody, and, most importantly, morphology. By ‘morphology’ one should understand here the division into word classes (= μέρη τοῦ λόγου ‘parts of speech’) and their ‘categories’, i.e. their formal and semantic properties. By the second century BC, the system of parts of speech29 was codified into eight classes: noun, verb, participle, (definite) article, pronoun, preposition, adverb, conjunction. Word classes are defined in terms of (a) their semantic-referential content [the noun signifies a concrete substance or an abstract thing] (b) the content they express and specific formal characteristics [the verb, signifying an activity or an undergoing, lacks cases, but takes tenses, persons and numbers] (c) their place – with respect to another word class [the article is placed before or after the noun]

28 For overviews, see Latacz, ‘Die Entwicklung’; Hovdhaugen, ‘The Teaching’; Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind; Morgan, Literate Education; Wouters, ‘La grammaire grecque’. 29 On the system of parts of speech (or word classes), see Thomas, ‘Parts of Speech’, Robins, ‘Dionysius Thrax’, Lallot, ‘Origines et développement’, and Swiggers and Wouters, ‘Word classes’.

34 

Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

– with respect to other word classes [the preposition is placed before all the parts of speech] (d) their function – with respect to another word class [the pronoun is defined as a substitute of the noun; the adverb is said to be ‘used with respect to a verb or added to a verb’] – with respect to larger semantic(-syntactic) sequences [the conjunction is defined as a ‘word linking together the thought, with order, and showing the void of the expression’] In some cases the definition combines various of these criteria (e.g., the noun is also defined as exhibiting case-inflection, and the uninflected nature of the adverb is also noted). Interestingly, all the parts of speech are defined by a proper nature (ἰδιότης), except one: the participle, which ‘participates’ in the proper nature of the verbs and that of the noun. Syntactic observations show up sporadically (e.g., in the treatment of conjunctions), but syntax as a proper field of study developed only in the first centuries AD: in the second century AD the Alexandrian grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus wrote an extensive work On syntax (Περὶ συντάξεως), as well as a number of detailed analyses of separate parts of speech (such as the pronoun, the conjunction, …) in which we find interesting syntactic observations. It should also be noted that initially grammatical manuals did not contain a systematic account of inflectional paradigms (of nouns and verbs); this (didactic) lacuna was supplied only much later, when works containing a complete survey of declensional and conjugational paradigms and their formative rules (κανόνες ‘canons’) were composed, the most successful being those compiled by the fourth- or f ifth-century grammar teacher Theodosius (Εἰσαγωγικοὶ κανόνες περὶ κλίσεως ὸνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων ‘Introductory rules for the inflection of nouns ans verbs’).30

Exercising one’s grammatical knowledge The papyrological documentation from Hellenistic Egypt yields a considerable number of language-didactic exercises, ranging from letter and syllable copying to exercises (and recapitulating shortlists) on morphological

30 For editions of the works of Apollonius Dyscolus and Theodosius, see Grammatici Graeci, volumes 2 and 4, respectively.

The emergence of gr ammar in the Western world

35

paradigms (nominal and verbal). Syntactic exercises are hardly documented.31 An intriguing type of exercise was the klisis chreias, which consisted in starting from a sentence, and turning the verbs and nouns into the possible numbers (from singular to dual and plural) and cases. The exercises, some of which are preserved in the handwritten copy of a pupil, while others are ‘master copies’, reflect the gradual progression from learning to write and spell out letters and syllables to assimilating the forms of the copiously inflectional literary language of the classical authors. Limiting ourselves to the learning papyri dealing with morphological issues,32 the following types can be distinguished: (1) Papyri offering declension lists or tables The general goal of this textual type was to prepare students for the reading and analysis of classical literary texts, while at the same time illustrating the principle of analogy. This is evident from the fact that this type, illustrated, e.g., by papyri PSI inv. 479, PSI inv. 2052, or T. Blanckertz inv. s.n. contains forms of the dual which had long gone out of use, including even the very unusual feminine dual forms τά and ταῖν. While the latter phenomenon can be explained by a tendency towards over-systematization, or by the interest taken in archaic forms, the much more pervasive ‘analogia-concern’ is evident from the mention of the dual forms of proper names in PSI inv. 479. (2) Papyri offering the declension of the personal pronoun This type, represented by just one papyrus (T. Bodl.Libr.Gk.Inscr. 3019, tabl.1a), apparently was somewhat more open to the inclusion of the (then) 31 The single schoolbook illustrating syntactic information is British Musuem Add. MS 37533, tablets Α‒Δ [third century AD] (see Swiggers, Wouters and Van Elst, ‘Greek grammatical “learning papyri”’ [where this papyrus text bears nr. 35 in Table 1.1, B]). It combines a list of verbs and the case they take, with a set of (loose) notes on the use of conjunctions and on word order. Labelling it a ‘syntactic’ school text is misleading to that extent: as a matter of fact, the text also served a lexicological function. The verbs are apparently classified into meaning categories; see, e.g., ll. 15‒18 of tablet Α verso with four verbs meaning ‘to call’, or, in a juridical context, ‘to summon’ (as a witness, for an oath etc.): καλῶ τοῦτον, φωνῶ τοῦτον, ἐγκαλῶ τοῦτον, ἐπικαλοῦμαι τοῦτον, after which the teacher dictated to his pupil οὐ λέγεται ἐπικαλῶ, ‘one does not say ἐπικαλῶ’. Did the teacher mean that in daily language of his time the active form, found in the older Greek literature (e.g., in Homer, Herodotus etc.), was no longer in use? The purpose of this long list of more than 200 verbs was obviously not only to explain the Homeric language, but also to improve the linguistic competence of the youngsters who had to learn (in lines 47‒48) that the correct form is πλουτῶ (‘I am rich’), and not πλουτοῦμαι, and that εὐτυχῶ (‘I am prosperous’) does not have a passive form. 32 For a complete inventory of the documentation presently available, see Swiggers, Wouters and Van Elst, ‘Greek grammatical “learning papyri”’ (the list of morphological exercises figures there as Table 1.1, B). The inventory refers to the editiones principes of the texts and the available bibliography. For an analysis of the function of these exercises, see Basset, ‘L’enseignement’.

36 

Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

contemporary koinê forms. In this text we find the genitive forms τούτου and ἐκείνου of the third person pronoun; there are no dual forms attested here. (3) Papyri offering conjugation lists or tables Similarly as in the case of declension lists, the general function of the conjugation lists or tables was to prepare students for the correct analysis of verb forms in classical literary texts, and to train them in the ‘structural’ mastery of language patterns, as these manifest the workings of analogy. This is evident from the following characteristics: (a) The almost overall inclusion in the paradigms of the dual forms; (b) The presence of (extremely) rare forms, such as the medio-passive imperative perfect, the active optative perfect, the active imperative perfect, the medio-passive first person dual, and the active and passive conjunctive perfect (cf. P. Strasb. inv. G 364 + 16 and P. Aphrod.Lit. III 2 = P. Hamb. 2.166); (c) The presence of ‘fictitious’ or hypothetically construed forms, such as the second person sing. active imperative perfect, the medio-passive optative perfect, and the medio-passive imperative future (in papyrus MPER NS 15. 136). Since the tables are (otherwise) in classical Attic (except for the forms of the active optative aorist), they also served the goal of propagating Attic usage as the language norm. It should be noted that, differently from the declension lists, we occasionally find in the conjugation lists concessions made to contemporary oral usage (e.g., the use of periphrastic optative forms). (4) The κλίσις χρείας texts The κλίσις χρείας33 exercise, known as exercitatio chriarum in the Roman world, was initially part of the ‘preliminary exercises’ (progymnasmata) in rhetoric, but given its overtly grammatical orientation, it was often dealt with by the grammar teacher. The exercise, of which definitions are conserved (e.g., in the work of Theon of Alexandria, first century AD), as well as the modelling frame (viz. the introductory formulae for inflectional transpositions), consisted in using a sentence reporting on a ‘fact’ and reflecting a speech situation, such as ‘Diogenes, the philosopher, when asked by someone how to become famous, replied that it was by thinking least about fame’. The sentence was put to a variety of exercises, such as commenting upon it, expanding or shortening it, refuting or confirming it, and, specifically also, to a grammatical exercise, viz. inflection (klisis). The latter grammatical 33 Translated here as ‘the inflection of an anecdotal statement/of a saying’.

The emergence of gr ammar in the Western world

37

exercise served the need of training students in the mastery of (nominal and verbal) paradigmatic patterning (analogia). In this exercise the initial sentence was then submitted to a number of operations: putting all the nouns in the dual and then in the plural, and adapting the verbal forms; changing the construction by introducing sentence operators, such as ‘Of Diogenes (…) it was said …’, or ‘To Diogenes (…) it seemed convenient …’, or ‘They say that Diogenes (…)’, thus changing the case of the original subject term.34

Conclusion In ancient Greece, from the third century BC on, grammar became a separate discipline, practised by philologists and language teachers. The object studied was the traditional literary language, and not the contemporary spoken language. Even at a distance of various centuries, scholars and students who were speakers of the koinê and for whom many of the grammatical forms memorized and analysed were no longer in use were supposed to master an obsolete state and acrolectic register of the Greek language. This was also the starting point for those who had to learn Greek for practical purposes such as the writing of (semi-)official documents. Naturally, domain-specific contemporary vocabulary was acquired depending upon the particular needs of language learners. Looking towards the past grammatical study in Greek antiquity required a structured form of conceptualization and organization, next to intensive drill. On the practice-oriented dimension we are informed, fragmentarily but in a sufficiently representative way, by the school texts conserved on papyrus, and by works such as the κανόνες of Theodosius. On the conceptualization and organization of grammar (and its teaching) we are informed through the grammatical manuals (or extant parts of these), as well as through doxographical accounts,35 sketching a history of grammatical doctrine. The most important, and durable, achievement of Greek grammaticography was the establishing, by the Alexandrian grammarians, of the parts-of-speech system, which involved (a) the positing, and definition, of (eight) word classes, (b) the identification of their (formal and semantic) 34 For a description of the exercise, in the Greek and Roman world, see Wouters, ‘Between the Grammarian’. On the insertion within the progymnasmata and for editions of specimens, see Hock and O’Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, and their The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric. 35 On ancient doxographical texts tracing the history of the system, see Swiggers and Wouters, ‘Condensed grammatical knowledge’.

38 

Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

characteristics, (c) the specification of the realizations of these ‘accidents’, (d) a technical metalanguage labelling the word classes, their accidents and the realizations of the latter. This morphosyntactic nucleus of Greek grammaticography and grammar teaching was transmitted to the artes grammaticae of the Roman and Latinate world, and became the backbone of medieval, renaissance and early modern grammar writing, applied to vernacular and ‘exotic’ languages.36 Its impact is still highly visible in contemporary grammatical and linguistic theorization and description.

Bibliography Ax, Wolfram, ‘Aristarch und die Grammatik’, Glotta 60 (1982), 96-109. Ax, Wolfram, ‘Sprache als Gegenstand der alexandrinischen und pergamenischen Philologie’, in Schmitter (ed.) 1991, 275-301. Basset, Louis, Frédérique Biville, Bernard Colombat, Pierre Swiggers, and Alfons Wouters (eds.), Bilinguisme et terminologie grammaticale gréco-latine (Leuven / Paris / Dudley: Peeters, 2007). Basset, Louis, ‘L’enseignement de la déclinaison grecque dans les papyri’, in Pierre Swiggers (ed.), Language, Grammar and Erudition. From Antiquity to Modern Times. A collection of papers in honour of Alfons Wouters (Leuven / Paris / Bristol: Peeters, 2018), 31-47. Bécares Botas, Vicente, Diccionario de terminología gramatical griega (Salamanca: Ediciones Un. de Salamanca, 1985). Blank, David L., Sextus Empiricus. Against the Grammarians (Adversus mathematicos I), translated with an introduction and commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). Cribiore, Raffaela, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Cribiore, Raffaela, Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2001) Di Benedetto, Vincenzo, ‘At the Origins of Greek Grammar’, Glotta 68 (1990), 19-39. Dickey, Eleanor, Ancient Greek Scholarship: A guide to finding, reading, and understanding scholia, commentaries, lexical, and grammatical treatises, from their beginnings to the Byzantine period (Oxford / New York: Oxford UP, 2007).

36 On the persistent presence of the parts-of-speech system, see Kramer, ‘Antike Grundlagen’, and the contributions in Kazansky et al. (eds.), Ancient Grammar and its Posterior Tradition.

The emergence of gr ammar in the Western world

39

Erbse, Hartmut, ‘Zur normativen Grammatik der Alexandriner’, Glotta 58 (1980), 236-258. Forbes, P.B.R., ‘Greek Pioneers in Philology and Grammar’, The Classical Review 47 (1933), 105-122. Fowler, Harald N., Plato: Cratylus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias (London: W. Heinemann, 1926). Fuhrmann, Manfred, Das systematische Lehrbuch. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wissenschaften in der Antike (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960). Grammatici Graeci (Leipzig: Teubner, 1867‒1901). [4 volumes in 10 tomes, with text editions by G. Uhlig, A. Hilgard, R. Schneider, A. Lentz] Hicks, Robert Drew, Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers (London / Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1931). Hock, Ronald F., and Edward N. O’Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric: The Progymnasmata (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1986). Hock, Ronald F., and Edward N. O’Neil, The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric. Classroom exercises (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Hovdhaugen, Even, ‘The Teaching of Grammar’, in Schmitter (ed.) 1991, 377-391. Kazansky, Nikolaj, Vladimir Mazhuga, Igor Medvedev, Larissa Stepanova, Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters (eds.), Ancient Grammar and its Posterior Tradition (Leuven / Paris: Peeters, 2011). Kemp, Alan, ‘The Tekhnê Grammatikê of Dionysius Thrax. Translated into English’, Historiographia Linguistica 13 (1986), 343-363. [Reprinted in Taylor (ed.) 1987, 169-189] Kramer, Johannes, ‘Antike Grundlagen europäischer Grammatik: die Wortarten (partes orationis)’, in Corona coronarum. Festschrift für Hans-Otto Kröner zum 75. Geburtstag (Hildesheim: Olms, 2005), 241-257. Lallot, Jean, ‘Origines et développement de la théorie des parties du discours en Grèce’, Langages 23 (1988), 11-23. Latacz, Joachim, ‘Die Entwicklung der griechischen und lateinischen Schulgrammatik’, in Handbuch der Fachdidaktik. Alte Sprachen (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1979), 193-221. Law, Vivien and Ineke Sluiter (eds.), Dionysius Thrax and the Tekhne Grammatike (Münster: Nodus, 1995). Matthaios, Stephanos, Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpretation zur Wortartenlehre (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999). Matthaios, Stephanos, ‘Eratosthenes of Cyrene. Readings of his “Grammar” Definition’, in Matthaios, Montanari, and Rengakos (eds.) 2011, 55-85. Matthaios, Stephanos, Franco Montanari, and Antonios Rengakos (eds.), Ancient Scholarship and Grammar. Archetypes, Concepts and Contents (Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 2011).

40 

Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

Matthews, Peter H., What Graeco-Roman Grammar was about (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). Montanari, Franco, Stephanos Matthaios, and Antonios Rengakos (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship (Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2015). Morgan, Teresa, Literate Education in Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Robins, Robert H., Ancient & Mediaeval Grammatical Theory in Europe (London: G. Bell & Sons, 1951). Robins, Robert H., ‘Dionysius Thrax and the Western Grammatical Tradition’, Transactions of the Philological Society 9 (1957), 67-106. Robins, Robert H., The Byzantine Grammarians (The Hague / Berlin: Mouton, 1993). Scappaticcio, Maria Chiara, Artes Grammaticae in frammenti. I testi grammaticali latini e bilingui greco-latini su papiro (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015). Schmitter, Peter (ed.), Sprachtheorien der abendländischen Antike (Tübingen: Narr, 1991). Swiggers, Pierre, Histoire de la pensée linguistique (Paris: PUF, 1998). Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters (eds.), Ancient Grammar: Content and Context (Leuven / Paris: Peeters, 1996). Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters, De Tékhnē Grammatikē van Dionysius Thrax: De oudste spraakkunst in het Westen (Leuven / Paris: Peeters, 1998). Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters, ‘Grammaires grecques (et latines) sur papyrus’, in Mario de Nonno, Paolo de Paolis, and Louis Holtz (eds.), Manuscripts and Tradition of Grammatical Texts from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Cassino: Edizioni dell’Università degli Studi di Cassino, 2000), 59-88. Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters (eds.), Grammatical Theory and Philosophy of Language in Antiquity (Leuven / Paris / Sterling: Peeters, 2002). Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters, ‘Grammatical Theory in Aristotle’s Poetics, Chapter XX’, in Swiggers, and Wouters (eds.) 2002, 101-120. Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters, ‘The Concept of ‘Grammar’ in Antiquity’, in Gerda Hassler and Gesina Volkmann (eds.), History of Linguistics in Texts and Concepts (Münster: Nodus, 2004), 73-85. Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters, ‘L’élaboration de la grammaire comme discipline “technique”’, in: Ioannis Taifacos (ed.), The Origins of European Scholarship. The Cyprus Millennium International Conference (Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 2005), 1-12. Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters, ‘El gramático en acción: una aproximación a la labor didáctica del grammatikos, a partir de un testimonio inédito (P. Berol. inv. 9917)’, in José Antonio Fernández Delgado, F. Pordomingo, and A. Stramaglia (eds.), Escuela y literatura en Grecia antigua (Cassino: Edizioni dell’Università degli Studi di Cassino, 2007), 191-206.

The emergence of gr ammar in the Western world

41

Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters, ‘Condensed grammatical knowledge in Antiquity: Doxographical accounts of the parts-of-speech system’, in Marietta Horster and Christiane Reitz (eds.), Condensing Texts – Condensed Texts (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2010), 135-163. Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters, ‘Word classes, (mérê toû lógou), Ancient Theories of –’, in Georgios K. Giannakis (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics (Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2014), 516-521. Swiggers, Pierre and Alfons Wouters, ‘Definitions of Grammar’, in Montanari, Matthaios, and Rengakos (eds.) 2015, 515-544. Swiggers, Pierre, Alfons Wouters, and Valerie Van Elst, ‘Greek grammatical “learning papyri”: typology, function, and formats’, in Emilie Aussant and Jean-Michel Fortis (eds.), History of Linguistics 2017 (Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2020). [Forthcoming] Taylor, Daniel J. (ed.), The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period (Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1987). Thomas, Frederick William, ‘Parts of Speech’, Transactions of the Philological Society 2 (1949), 117-134. Wouters, Alfons, The Grammatical Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt. Contribution to the study of the ‘ars grammatica’ in Antiquity (Brussel: Paleis der Academiën, 1979). Wouters, Alfons, ‘La grammaire grecque dans l’école antique, d’après les papyrus’, in Actes du XXXIe Congrès International de l’A.P.L.A.E.S. (Universités Lumière-Lyon 2 et Jean Moulin-Lyon 2) (Lyon: Presses de l’Université, 1999), 51-68. Wouters, Alfons, ‘Between the Grammarian and the Rhetorician: the κλίσις χρείας’, in Bezugsfelder. Festschrift für Gerhard Petersmann zum 65. Geburtstag (Salzburg / Horn: F. Berger, 2007), 137-154. Wouters Alfons and Pierre Swiggers, ‘New Papyri and the History of Ancient Grammar: The ἐπίρρημα Chapter in P. Berol. 9917’, in Matthaios, Montanari, and Rengakos (eds.) 2011, 313-330.

About the authors Pierre Swiggers studied Romance philology, linguistics, Oriental languages, philosophy and medieval history in Leuven, Louvain-la-Neuve, Paris and subsequently in the US (Bloomington, Philadelphia, Albuquerque). He teaches general linguistics, Romance linguistics and history of linguistics at the universities of Leuven (KU Leuven) and Liège (Université de Liège). He is Senior Research Director of the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research. At KU Leuven he is director of the Centre for the Historiography of Linguistics.

42 

Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters

His research covers various f ields: the history of linguistics, and more particularly the evolution of grammatical terminology and the teaching of grammar; descriptive and comparative linguistics; the philosophy of language (meaning and reference; sign theory); and the methodology and epistemology of linguistics. Email: [email protected] Alfons Wouters studied Classical Philology in Leuven and subsequently specialized in Greek literary papyrology at University College London, with Prof. E.G. Turner. He was professor of Greek Language and Greek Literature at the university of Leuven, and its campus at Kortrijk. Since 2009 he is emeritus. He lectured as visiting professor at the University of Groningen in 1991 and at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris in 1997. His research focuses on the history of linguistics in Graeco-Roman antiquity, as well as on the Greek novel; his full bibliography can be found in his festschrift Language, Grammar, and Erudition: From Antiquity to Modern Times (Leuven / Paris / Bristol: Peeters, 2018). Together with P. Swiggers he started the Centre for the Historiography of Linguistics at KU Leuven. Email: [email protected]

2.

Secondary Grammar Education in the Middle Ages Anneli Luhtala

Abstract The study of language and literature had a fundamental role in medieval education, being a major subject at all levels of education. This chapter deals with medieval language teaching in Western Christendom, focusing on the core of grammatical treatises, consisting of a systematic description of the parts of speech and their syntax. From the Carolingian reform on, grammar instruction continued to be influenced by logic, and the role of literature diminished. Grammar teaching became increasingly analytical, and Donatus’s standard textbook could no longer meet the requirements of language pedagogy in the High and Later Middle Ages. Its study began to be accompanied by other short treatises, which represented new doctrines, e.g. syntactical theory, and new forms of teaching, such as parsing grammars and grammars in verse. Keywords: medieval Donatuses, medieval education, medieval language teaching, medieval parsing grammars, medieval verse grammars, medieval syntactical theory.

Late antique legacy The study of language and literature had a fundamental role in ancient and medieval education. In ancient times, they were the primary subjects at all levels of education. Elementary education introduced the pupils to the very basics of literacy and learning. Starting with the alphabet and syllables, pupils would gradually progress to apply their skills to easy reading texts, such as the moral maxims of the Disticha Catonis1 and Publilius Syrus (c. 85-43 1 The Disticha were falsely attributed to Marcus Porcius Cato (234-149 BC).

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch02

44 

Anneli Luhtal a

BC). At the secondary level of instruction they progressed to a meticulous analysis of the elements of their own mother tongue, outlined in a basic textbook on grammar. In addition to providing the pupils with adequate language skills, grammar education prepared them for understanding the language of literary works, especially poetry, and for that purpose, stylistic issues as well as metrical feet were discussed in more advanced textbooks on grammar, such as Donatus’s Ars maior. These two aspects of grammar instruction were encapsulated in Quintilian’s definition of grammar as ‘the art of correct speech and the exposition of authors’,2 which remained popular throughout the Middle Ages. Those who wanted to pursue higher studies beyond the secondary level, went to the rhetorician’s schools, and occupied themselves with prose composition and disputation, among other things. The legacy of late antiquity was particularly important in the content and structures of medieval schooling. Although most of the traditional Roman schools had disappeared by the seventh century, the basics of learning continued in the schools associated with ecclesiastical institutions. A knowledge of Latin and the introduction to Latin literature remained the principal subjects taught in monastic and cathedral schools. Knowledge of Latin provided the gateway to all literary culture, both secular and religious, and the most fundamental purpose of grammar instruction, that is, to teach language skills, remained the same. Latin was the lingua franca which each generation had to acquire anew in order to be able to take part in the various functions of society, educational institutions and the Church. At an elementary level, the easy reading texts included the principal prayers of the Christian church, including Pater Noster, the Credo and the Psalms, in addition to the Disticha, Avianus’s Fables and other ancient and medieval texts. At the secondary level of education, two short works by Donatus (c. 360), or one of their medieval adaptations, provided the outline for most pedagogical grammars all over Europe. This chapter deals with medieval grammar in a narrow sense, focusing on the core of grammatical treatises, consisting of a systematic description of the parts of speech, such as nouns, verbs, pronouns, and their combination into sentences. The first part will deal with the development of the traditional grammar, which was intimately associated with the study of literature, whereas the latter part focuses on the new, logically oriented approach to language study. These two approaches came into conflict in the

2

Institutio Oratoria, ed. by Butler, I, 4, 2.

Secondary Gr ammar Education in the Middle Ages

45

early thirteenth century. This conflict is known as the Battle of the Arts after the allegorical poem composed by Henri d’Andeli composed around 1230.3

Elementary education Elementary education in ancient Rome introduced pupils to the very basics of literacy and learning. In an elementary school, ludus magistri or ludus litterarius, the introduction to reading followed a logical progression so that one starts from the smallest units of speech, letters, sounds and syllables, and proceeds to discuss larger units, words and sentences. This was thought to correspond to the order of learning: the pupils first learnt the letters and syllables of the Latin language by heart and then proceeded to study Latin words, short sentences or verses and finally short continuous passages. The illustrative material used by the pupils was the alphabets (abecederaii), syllabaries and other exercises written on waxed or wooden tablet or on papyrus. 4 In late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the learning process remained very similar, as is reported by St Jerome, Remigius of Auxerre, and Peter Damian.5 In Italy, a tabula or carta was a sheet of parchment or paper which began with the alphabet and concluded with syllables; it was fixed on a wooden board covered with wax and took its name either from the parchment or carta (‘paper’) or from the tabula (‘board’).6 The first reading text was the Psalter, which was normally sung. The pupil read over and over again a Psalm written by this teacher on his tabula. As soon as the pupil had learnt the text by heart, he was examined by the teacher, after which he proceeded to learn another Psalm in a similar fashion.7 The entire elementary and secondary curriculum lasted roughly from the age of seven until the age of fourteen or so.8 Only boys generally took part in classroom education whereas the education of girls was normally confined to the home or at best to an elementary school. Elementary and secondary education were not always clearly differentiated until the Late Middle Ages. 3 See Paetow, The Battle of the Seven Arts. 4 Bonnet, Education in Ancient Rome, 166-172. 5 Black, Humanism and Education, 37. 6 Black, Ibidem, 36-37. 7 Riché, Écoles et enseignement, 349-350, Black, Humanism and Education, 40. 8 Thorndike, Elementary and Secondary Education, 401-406.

46 

Anneli Luhtal a

Grammar education The methodical nature of teaching and learning continued in the secondary education in the grammarians’ schools. The teaching instrument was then a short textbook, the most famous specimen of such a school grammar being Donatus’s Ars minor. It consisted of a systematic description of the eight parts of speech (partes orationis) and their salient formal and semantic features, which was the core of both ancient and medieval textbooks on grammar. The parts of speech were discussed in a fixed order, following either the order used by Donatus and most other late antique works (noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, participle, conjunction, preposition, and interjection), or, more often in the later Middle Ages, the one adopted by Priscian from Greek grammar (noun, verb, pronoun, participle, preposition, adverb and conjunction). Each part of speech was first defined and then its ‘accidents’ were discussed in a fixed order; the accidentia included such features as case and gender in nouns, tense and number in verbs and so on. Treating issues in a fixed order was another pedagogical device: it helped memorizing and learning by rote. Donatus’s more elementary Ars minor (c. 360) presents its doctrine in a question-and-answer form, and the use of the catechetical method became a permanent feature of medieval language pedagogy. In the Ars minor, the exposition proceeds so that the teacher asks questions and the pupil answers them.9 “What is a noun?” – “It is a part of speech with case signifying a concrete body (corpus) or an abstract thing (res) as a proper or a common noun.” – “How many properties does the noun have?” – “Six.” – “What are they?” – “Quality, comparison, gender, number, figura, and case”.10 The textbooks like the Ars minor are teacher’s manuals; the pupils did not have textbooks of their own, and a short manual, such as the Ars minor, was supposed to be learnt by heart. The manual shows us how teachers examined the pupils, and from the method of examining it is possible to infer that pupils had not only to be able to identify the various morphological and semantic categories and subcategories of their native tongue but also to be able to name and define them. Some school exercises offer us glimpses of how the traditional examining or ‘apposing’ of boys in the classroom took place. ‘Constantly during the day’, as Orme describes, ‘the master was engaged in apposing or examining pupils, calling one by one to his chair to test their knowledge of the text or their capability in composing Latin.’11 9 Pompeius makes this order of questioning explicit, Commentum, GL 5, 142-143. 10 Donatus, Ars minor, ed. by Holtz, Donat et la tradition de l’enseignement grammatical, 585, l. 6-9. 11 Orme, School exercises, 32.

Secondary Gr ammar Education in the Middle Ages

47

In two medieval textbooks, Alcuin’s Dialogus Franconis et Saconis de octo partibus orationis and Ralf of Beauvais’s commentary on Donatus, the order of the catechetical method is reversed: it is the pupils who ask the questions. Ralph of Beauvais calls this method didascalicon or doctrinale.12 Since both manuals are works to be studied after the Ars minor, it is possible that this mode of questioning represents more advanced pedagogy. From the Metalogicon of John of Salisbury we can catch further glimpses of the ways in which the teaching of grammar and the reading of poetry took place in a classroom. Rather than teach everything at one time, an ideal teacher, such as his own teacher Bernard of Chartres, would impart his instruction to the learners slowly, in a manner which suited their powers of assimilation. He would point out, in reading the authors, what was simple and according to rule, [that is, grammatical]. This means that words are well chosen, and the adjectives and verbs admirably suited to the nouns with which they are used. The teacher should condemn whatever is barbarous, incongruous, or otherwise against the rules of composition. While expounding the poets and orators, he would further explain metaphors and the use of other grammatical figures, rhetorical embellishment and sophistical quibbling, as these devices both strengthen and sharpen the minds of the boys. Each student was daily required to recite part of what he had heard on the previous day. Some would recite more, others less. The pupils ought to analyse verses into their parts of speech, and point out the nature of the metrical feet in the poems. The pupils had to compose prose and poetry every day and exercise their faculties in mutual conferences (collationes).13 At least at St. Gall14 all boys – except the youngest – had to speak Latin at all times, and lapses into the vernacular were severely punished.15 Although rarely made explicit, it is fair to assume that this was standard practice at the secondary and higher levels of instruction.

Early medieval Donatuses In the Early Middle Ages, Donatus’s Ars minor provided the outline for a large number of new elementary grammars, many of which originated in 12 Glose super Donatum, ed. by Kneepkens, 4, l. 2-5. 13 John of Salisbury, Metalogicon, Ch. 24. I have followed McGarry’s translation, with some modifications, quoted in Copeland & Sluiter, Medieval Grammar & Rhetoric, 484-510. 14 St Gall is a town in Switzerland, known also as St. Gallen. In the Middle Ages it had an important monastery and library. 15 Laistner, Thought and the Letters, 210.

48 

Anneli Luhtal a

the British Isles. This is because the more immediate need for compiling new teaching material was felt by the recently converted people in Northern Europe, who had to learn Latin as a foreign language. Several Donatus-based elementary grammars were compiled in the British Isles, including such grammars, for instance, as Ars Tatuini, Ars Ambianensis, Ars Bernensis, and Ars Bonifatii. By contrast, not a single grammatical manual is known to have been compiled in Gaul between the late sixth and mid-eigth centuries, which reflects the decay of literary culture under the latest Merovingian rulers.16 The grammarians in the British Isles maintained the overall structure of Donatus’s grammar, its order of treatment as well as def initions but supplemented Donatus’s framework with paradigms, declensions and conjugations. Non-native speakers needed a much fuller coverage of the forms of Latin than had been provided by Donatus, and the mode of the presentation of morphological patterns in the Ars minor turned out to be insuff icient. Donatus chose to base his account of the noun declension on gender, using a fairly simple descriptive method. He quotes a chosen headword and proceeds to give its full morphological paradigm, starting from the masculine magister (‘teacher’); this method is known as ‘word and paradigm’: ‘Teacher’ is a common noun of masculine gender, singular number, simple form, nominative and vocative case, which is inflected as follows: in the nominative ‘hic magister’, the genitive ‘of this master’ […].17 From the early Middle Ages on, the grammarians somewhat regularly chose to complement Donatus’s presentation of noun declension with the division into five declensions based on the genitive endings, which they could find for instance in Priscian’s minor work, Institutio de nomine et pronomine et verbo and which is even today standard practice in Latin grammars. Donatus’s account of nominal declensions is covered by five examples. The example for the feminine gender is Musa (‘muse’), for the neuter scamnum (‘bench’); sacerdos (‘priest’) represents the common gender, and the adjective felix (‘happy’) can be of any gender. As Latin has no article from which to identify the gender of the noun, Donatus makes use of the demonstrative pronoun hic, haec, and hoc as the token of gender: masculine, as in hic magister, ‘this teacher’; feminine, as in haec musa, ‘this muse’; neuter, as in hoc scamnum, ‘this bench’; this practice continued throughout the Middle 16 Laistner, Thought and Letters, 191. 17 Magister nomen appellatiuum generis masculini numeri singularis figurae simplicis casus nominatiui et uocatiui, quod declinabitur sic: nominatiuo hic magister, genetivo huius magistri […], Ars minor, ed. by Holtz, 586, l. 19-20.

Secondary Gr ammar Education in the Middle Ages

49

Ages.18 Separate collections of paradigms often accompanied Donatus’s textbooks in early medieval manuscripts. Such texts known as Declinationes nominum, pronominum or Coniugationes verborum began to proliferate from the end of the seventh century. These paradigms included ecclesiastical vocabulary and Greek names, for instance.19 The intimate association of grammar with the study of pagan literature continued to preoccupy medieval teachers throughout the Middle Ages. The conflict between Classical and Christian culture had been resolved in late Antiquity, and Augustine played a major part in justifying the use of the Liberal Arts in Christian education. Donatus had the advantage of being the teacher of St. Jerome, the translator of the Bible into Latin, which recommended Donatus’s grammar for use in medieval classrooms. Bishop Gregory the Great (c. 540-604), however, insisted that the sacred texts should not be subjected to Donatus’s rules,20 and the early medieval teachers warned against emending the text of the Vulgate, which contained frequent deviations from the standards of Classical Latin. Moreover, whenever the sacred text appeared to contain something obscure or contradictory, it was not to be understood literally, but as expressing its meaning in a figurative way or through enigmas. The Bible had semantics of its own and it was grammar that provided the basic skills to explore its multiple meanings. The literal meaning of the biblical text was also known as its ‘grammatical’ or ‘historical’ sense. The study of language and literature was crucial for a Christian, because “in the sacred pages are found embedded figures and tropes and other like form of speech”, and there is no doubt, as a mandate addressed to Baugulf, Abbot of Fulda, probably between 794 and 796 states, ‘that anyone who has been instructed in the discipline of literature will understand all the more fully the spiritual sense of what he is reading’.21 The figures and tropes – together with grammatical errors – were discussed in the final section of Donatus’s Ars maior, known as the vices and virtues of speech (vitia virtutesque orationis). After the Early Middle Ages, this part of the Ars maior began to circulate separately, known as the Barbarismus. In order to comply with Christian values, many early medieval grammarians preferred to replace Donatus’s examples with ones drawn from 18 Ibidem, 586-587. 19 For the Insular grammars, see Law, The Insular Latin Grammarians, and for Christian grammar, see Luhtala, Linguistics and theology. 20 In librum primum Regum I, prologue 49,13, ed. Verbraken. 21 Translated by Laistner, Thought and letters, 195-197.

50 

Anneli Luhtal a

the Christian world, whereas several others kept the traditional material intact. A Christian Ars maior is believed to have been widely known in the pre-Carolingian era, although no copy of it has survived. Many grammatical compilations seem to have exploited its Christian examples. One such grammar is the Ars Asporii (or Asperi) possibly dating from late sixth-century Gaul.22 In his Ars minor the author has largely replaced Donatus’s examples with Christian ones. Christian place names, such as Hierusalem, Iordanis, Sion, Michael, Petrus, Stephanus, Esais, Aaron, and Ezechiel are examples of proper nouns, and common nouns are exemplified by angelus, apostolus, martyr, propheta, sacerdos, and rex.23 Issues related to literacy and learning were at the heart of the renovation of studies that took place in the Carolingian Renaissance. In the Admonitio generalis (789), one of the famous documents associated with the reform, it is stated that monasteries and cathedral churches should set up schools to teach the Psalms, musical notation, singing, computation and grammar.24 This is because the clergy should have decent copies of the fundamental Christian texts available, as well as an adequate level of literacy in order to interpret and correct them. Although the reform was primarily concerned with basic literacy and grammar education, it also inspired higher learning that had been dormant for a couple of centuries. For this purpose, Alcuin of York25, one of the scholars invited by Charlemagne to his court school and the instigator of the reform, launched into circulation the texts of Aristotle’s ‘old logic’ and encouraged the use of dialectic, the art of reasoning, as a general tool of all intellectual inquiry, both secular and religious. He applied this new method in his own manual on grammar, the Dialogus Franconis et Saconi de octo partibus orationis. In the Carolingian reform, new ancient works on grammar became available, the most important of which was Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae. This massive treatise in eighteen books was often divided into two in the Middle Ages, the section on the parts of speech (Books 1-XVI) being known as the ‘Priscianus maior’, and the section on syntax (Books XVII and XVIII) as the ‘Priscianus minor’. It is clearly designed to be used by advanced students, but material from it immediately began to be used even in Donatus-based grammars. Among the first teachers to incorporate material from the Institutiones into his manual was Alcuin. He points out 22 Law, Insular Grammars, 40ff. 23 Asper, Ars, 39, l. 6-8. 24 Brown, Introduction: The Carolingian Renaissance, 17, 19. 25 Marenbon, Carolingian Thought, 175.

Secondary Gr ammar Education in the Middle Ages

51

that inspiration for such speculation is to be sought in Aristotelian treatises of dialectic and in Priscian’s Institutiones.26 In late Antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages, all textbooks, including grammatical manuals, were studied with a commentary. The basic textbooks were ideally short so that they could be learnt by heart, and a commentary was needed to spell out the meaning of the doctrine, presented in a concise manner. According to Hugh of St Victor (c. 1120), commentary belongs to the final phase of learning which deals with ‘the inner meaning’ or ‘deeper understanding’ of a text explained by the teacher.27 At this stage, teaching and learning would be more interactive, if this is how we are to interpret how John of Salisbury (c. 1120-1180) expounds what he termed praelectio: ‘Praelectio is the intercommunication between teacher and learner, when the teacher is expounding a literary, or any other work.’28

Philosophy of language Priscian’s principal work, the Institutiones grammaticae, was philosophically oriented and provided the platform for vivid discussions on the philosophy of language throughout the Middle Ages. Its doctrine was akin to Aristotle’s old logic, and more precisely, to the Categories, a treatise which represented the primary philosophical interests of the Carolingians. Priscian’s definitions of the noun and the verb used such terms as ‘substance’, ‘quantity’, ‘quality’, ‘relation’, ‘action’ and ‘being affected’, which are also part of the language of the Categories. The Aristotelian classification of things in terms of the ten ontological categories (substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, being-in-a-position, having, doing and being-affected) pertains to things ‘said without any combination’ (e.g. ‘man’, ‘white’, ‘runs’) as opposed to a proposition (e.g. ‘man runs’), which expresses a combination of things – the subject matter of the De interpretatione. In his treatise on grammar, Alcuin set out to assimilate the two traditions in his treatise on grammar. In these two texts, the Categories and De interpretatione, Aristotle had outlined a simple theory of meaning, in which linguistic items – the noun (nomen) and the verb (verbum) – are tacitly related to ontological categories. According to this theory, linguistic expressions (voces or signifying sounds) are related to reality (res, ‘the things’) via the concepts or thoughts in the 26 Dialogus de octo partibus orationis, ed. Migne, PL, 101, col. 854B. 27 Didascalicon, III, Ch. 4, 92. 28 Metalogicon, 2,5,4

52 

Anneli Luhtal a

human mind (conceptiones mentis). These were the essential ingredients for an interaction between grammar and dialectic which was carried forward and developed especially in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Then it tended to focus especially on the issue of universals, i.e. the nature of genera and species, such as ‘man’ and ‘animal’. In grammar, the most obvious context in which the problem of universals is relevant is the discussion on the distinction between common and proper nouns, often exemplified with words like ‘man’, ‘horse’, ‘Socrates’ and ‘Plato’. Proper nouns correspond to a single real object in a fairly straightforward manner – they single out individuals – but there is no such obvious relation to reality in the case of common nouns naming types of things, such as ‘man’ or ‘horse’. Priscian describes this distinction in terms of two ontological categories, substance and quality: a proper noun reveals a proper quality (propriam qualitatem) of a substance whereas a common noun shows its common (communem) quality.29 The new philosophical orientation of grammatical studies, promoted by Alcuin, was carried forward in several Donatus commentaries composed over the period 800-860, such as the works of Murethach (c. 840), Sedulius Scottus (c. 840) and Remigius of Auxerre (d. c. 908), and began to flourish in the cathedral schools of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It was not restricted to the commentaries on Priscian’s Institutiones; philosophical elaborations were also integrated into the works based on the Donatus minor.30 New works of Aristotelian philosophy became available in the late twelfth century, and by the early thirteenth century, pedagogical grammars were thoroughly influenced by philosophy.

The ‘Donatuses’ of the High and Later Middle Ages In the eleventh and twelfth centuries cathedrals became significant institutions of learning, and the schools of Northern France – Liège, Reims, Laôn, Paris, Orléans, Chartres – were particularly prominent, attracting students and scholars from various parts of Europe. By the mid-twelfth century, the interaction between grammar and dialectic had intensified to the extent that it was criticized by a number of teachers. According to Hugh of St Victor, ‘certain persons do not know how to give each art what belongs to it, but, while treating one, lecture on them all. In grammar they discourse 29 GL 2, 56, 29-57,7. 30 For the introduction of this new method, see V. Law, Carolingian grammarians and theoretical innovation.

Secondary Gr ammar Education in the Middle Ages

53

about the theory of syllogisms, in dialectic they inquire into inflectional cases.’31 Indeed, it was time to redefine the provinces of each discipline, and this is generally attributed to Peter Helias (c. 1140), the author of a popular Summa based on Priscian’s Institutiones. However, the criticism was not only directed to Priscian commentaries but also to pedagogical grammars. This conflict is witnessed by the famous Battle of the Arts which took place in the early thirteenth century between the traditional literary orientation in grammar teaching, which had flourished in Chartres and Orléans, and the new logic-oriented teaching, pursued especially in the Parisian schools.32 Donatus’s Ars minor was the standard elementary textbook on grammar in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. However, we know very little of the various ways in which it was used, since none of the numerous copies has been edited. It can be assumed that the medieval copies of Donatus’s Ars minor were expanded at least with morphological material, such as paradigms of nominal declension and conjugations of verbs, and especially irregular verbs. Such an Ars minor is copied into ms Vatican, Reg.lat.101, f. 77r-81 from the thirteenth or fourteenth century, and such Donatuses were also incorporated into the late medieval composite manuscripts, consisting of an Ars minor and other short treatises on grammar (see below). How are we to understand the fact the Donatuses were left almost intact when language theories were being developed at an extraordinary pace? One obvious answer to this question is that the study of Donatus was supplemented with other short treatises which incorporated new doctrines and represented novel forms of teaching. The most important of the new forms of grammatical textbooks were verse grammars. While being largely based on Priscian, they served to complement Donatus’s work where it was felt to be insufficient. Syntax, which was a major theme from the mid-twelfth century onwards, was one such topic, and most medieval pupils learnt their basics of syntax from one of the popular verse grammars, the Doctrinale (c. 1199) of Alexander Villa-Dei and Graecismus (c.1212) of Eberhard of Bethune. They were intended to be studied at an intermediate level, after the pupils had learnt the Ars minor, and before they went on to study Priscian’s Institutiones Grammaticae in the Arts Faculty.33 The fourteenth century produced yet another popular verse grammar in 31 Didascalicon, 89. 32 Haskins, Twelfth Century Renaissance, 9-10. 33 The Doctrinale has survived in over 400 manuscripts (and received more than 300 editions between 1470-1520), while the Graecismus was copied in over 200 manuscripts, but has only some twenty editions, Grondeux, ‘La Grammatica positiua dans le Bas Moyen-Age’, 600.

54 

Anneli Luhtal a

Northern Europe, the Flores grammaticae (before 1360) by Ludolf of Luco. It is completely devoted to syntax and intended as an introduction to the Priscian minor. In the later Middle Ages, syntax also began to be treated in separate short treatises, entitled Regule or Regimina. Their prose rules were supported by mnemonic verses, drawn from the popular verse grammars. In Northern Europe, the expansion of the grammar curriculum with a number of supplementary texts permitted Donatus’s authoritative textbook to remain intact. In fifteenth-century England, the standard textbook – an adaptation of the Donatus minor written in the vernacular and entitled Accedence – was accompanied by a short treatise on syntax, known as the Informacio or Parvula, together with parsing and translation exercises.34 The developments were quite different in Italy, where Priscian’s Institutiones largely replaced the Ars minor early on. For instance, while bearing Donatus’s name, Paolo Camaldolese’s textbook from the late twelfth century introduced the parts of speech as based on both Priscian and Donatus. Paolo says that his treatise is written for the use of everyone and is therefore entitled Donatus.35 However, it was not Paolo’s ‘Donatus’ that established itself as the standard textbook in Italy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but an anonymous ‘Donadello’ – a parsing grammar (see below), whose framework was based on Priscian’s Institutiones; its various versions were commonly known as Ianua. According to the incipit of the earliest version, this treatise is Incipit Donatus gramatice artis (‘a Donatus of the art of grammar’).36 From these references, we can see that ‘donatus’ was now understood as a common noun for a textbook on grammar (or for a textbook on any art). With the foundation of the universities, the Liberal Arts became the domain of the Arts Faculty, preparatory for the other faculties. Priscian’s Institutiones established itself as a textbook in the curricula of the Arts Faculties of several universities. According to the statutes of the University of Paris in the first half of the thirteenth century, students had to read ordinarie either Priscian maior or minor or both.37 The Doctrinale replaced the Priscianus minor as a textbook on syntax in the majority of the universities from the middle of the fourteenth century, and the Graecismus and the Ars minor were occasionally also upgraded to university textbooks in the statutes of medieval universities.38 34 See, for instance, Thomson, An Edition of Middle English grammatical texts. 35 Il Donatus, ed. by Sivo, 51, l. 148,13. 36 British Library, MS Harley 265, from the second half of the twelfth century. 37 Ordinary lectures were delivered in the morning hours reserved for authorized faculty teachers, extraordinary later, Rashdall, The universities of Europe, 433-434. 38 Kneepkens, The Priscianic Tradition, 249.

Secondary Gr ammar Education in the Middle Ages

55

The study of syntax Interest in the study of syntax intensified in the twelfth century, being most vividly discussed in commentaries on the Priscian minor. The essential tools of syntactical analysis employed by Priscian were transitivity, agreement and the relation of dependency. The departure for syntactical analysis was provided by two basic types of simple sentence, one intransitive, such as Socrates ambulat ‘Socrates is walking’, consisting of a verb and a noun in the nominative case, and the other transitive, such as Socrates percutit Platonem (‘Socrates hits Plato’), which additionally includes an oblique case, Platonem. They were described semantically, as expressing an action which remains in Socrates or is transferred from Socrates to Plato respectively. The subject noun and the verb moreover show agreement of their morphological features, whereas the oblique case included in a transitive sentence agrees neither with the nominative nor the verb. Concord or agreement occurs, as Priscian explains, when the constituents pertain to the same referent (persona). Finally, the relation between the verb and the oblique case is one of dependency, expressed by Priscian so that the verb, e.g. percutit, demands or requires an oblique case in order to complete its meaning.39 By the middle of the twelfth century, several Priscianic concepts had undergone developments, and a number of novel ways of presenting the syntax of basic clauses had been introduced into medieval textbooks. Under the influence of Aristotle’s logic, the logical division of subject (suppositum) and predicate (appositum) was integrated into school-grammar and the sentence involving the substantival verb esse, known as the copula, gained in importance. 40 Among the new tools of analysis was also the theory of government (regimen), and a description of the basic clause in terms of SVO order. All these new methods are applied in Ralph of Beauvais’s Donatus commentary (Glose super Donatum), the only one, to my knowledge, that has been edited from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Ralph shared the standard medieval view, according to which in a simple sentence the verb governs both the nominative before it (ante se) and the oblique case after it (post se). The nominative is the subject (de quo sermo est) and the agent, as Ralph explains, whereas the verb signifies action. 41 39 For ancient and medieval syntactical relations, see Luhtala, Pedagogical Grammars, and Syntactical Relations. 40 For the introduction of this distinction into grammar in the early Middle Ages, see Luhtala, 1993, in the twelfth century Rosier-Catach, 1994, and Luhtala, 2014. 41 Glose super Donatum, ed. Kneepkens, 11.

56 

Anneli Luhtal a

In Italian textbooks on grammar, syntax was generally incorporated into the discussion on genus verbi (‘verbal voice’). The most widely popular manual on pre-university grammar in fourteenth-century Italy was composed by a Pisan teacher Francesco da Buti. The presentation of syntax in his Regule grammaticales (c. 1355-1378) took the form of a series of regulae (‘distinct rules’) such as the one below, which is the first rule of active verbs, such as Anthonius amat Martinum. 42 Other verbs belonging to this group of verbs are listed together with vernacular translations. Notice that there are some active verbs which demand an agent in the nominative case before it (ante se) and the patient [the person undergoing action] in the accusative case after it (post se). And notice that the nominative is governed a parte ante by the force of intransition (ex vi intransitionis) and the accusative is governed a parte post by the force of transition.

Francesco has adopted the standard view that the verb governs both the noun before and after it, and, in accordance with late medieval theory, all the Aristotelian causes are applied to the syntax of nouns and verbs. He uses the standard form ‘by force’ (ex vi) throughout his description of these semantic relations. Thus, the genitive is governed, for instance, by virtue of efficient cause (ex vi causae efficientis) in cultellus fabri, ‘the knife of the smith’, material cause (ex vi causae materialis) in anulus auri, ‘a golden ring’, and final cause (ex vi causae finalis) in venio ad scholas causa studi, ‘I come to school to study’.

Parsing grammars and late medieval composite textbooks The catechetical method of examining familiar from the Ars minor was also used in popular parsing exercises, which began to be incorporated into textbooks on grammar from the Carolingian reform onwards. Using the parsing method, the teacher proceeds by asking a series of questions focused on a particular headword, referring to each part of speech in turn. The model for the parsing technique was provided by Priscian’s Partitiones duodecim versuum Aeneidos principalium (‘Analyses of the Twelve First Lines of the Aeneid’), in which Priscian grammatically analysed each word in the first line of each book of Vergil’s Aeneid, by raising a series of questions. Like 42 Regule grammaticales, ed. Martinelli, 176.

Secondary Gr ammar Education in the Middle Ages

57

the Ars minor, this technique serves to examine what a pupil has already learnt and its use therefore presupposes at least a course in elementary grammar, such as the Ars minor. In the later Middle Ages, parsing grammar developed into a grammatical subgenre of its own, and two such textbooks became especially popular, the so-called Remigius in Northern European and the Ianua in Italian schools (see above).43 The short Remigius text was frequently incorporated into composite textbooks covering the entire grammatical curriculum. Two facsimile editions of such textbooks have been published in Denmark, both containing a Remigius text. One of them, based on a book published by Gotfred af Gemen in Copenhagen in 1493, consists of three parts: Donatus, Fundamentum and Regulae (see above). The second part consists of a parsing text (Regule ex Donato et Remigio), a treatise on comparison, a text discussing irregular verbs and divisions of verbs, and two syntactical treatises; the first of them consists of basic syntactical rules (generales regule congruitatum puerorum) and the second of exercises, focusing on specimen sentences (latinitates) (congruitates communes pro pueris). The third part contains more advanced syntactical rules and exercises, involving figurative and irregular constructions. Such a composite textbook shows that a profound comprehension of the language was slowly developed as the pupils were introduced to increasingly difficult manuals during their long pre-university grammar course.

Conclusion Medieval language theories continued to be developed in interaction with dialectic and philosophy, and the novelties introduced at a more advanced level soon filtered down into pedagogical grammars. Grammar textbooks became increasingly analytical, consisting of a large number of rules, and the pupils had to learn by heart a large number of technical terms. This rigorous mental training prepared the pupils for their later studies in the Arts Faculty, where they spent some four years studying the trivium, and especially grammar and logic. In at least some colleges and grammar schools the secondary grammar education concluded with a course on elementary logic. 44 The textbook for beginners was the Summulae logicales, an abridgment of Aristotle’s old logic, attributed to Peter of Spain (c.1210-1276), later Pope John XXI. 43 For medieval parsing grammars, see Reinikka 2017, 44 Gabriel, Garlandia, 111.

58 

Anneli Luhtal a

The late medieval grammar curriculum strikes a modern reader as fairly advanced for the age of the pupils. We know that the boys completed their lectures on the Summulae when they reached their 12th or 13th year and that they entered the Arts Faculty roughly at the age of fourteen.45 A question arises: Could they understand the philosophical doctrine that they had to learn by heart in the grammars and elementary textbooks on logic? Jean Gerson (1363-1429), Chancellor of the University of Paris, recommended that Donatus’s grammatical rules and the logical rules of the Summulae be learnt by heart even if the text was not fully understood. 46 Thus, understanding was supposed to come later. ‘To know Donatus’ or ‘to have Latin’ did not necessarily mean that the pupils had understood what they had learnt. 47 Medieval education was thought of as preparation for adult life. Although childhood had become a separate topic of educational writing in the thirteenth century, the medieval textbooks on grammar did not draw a clear distinction between the ways in which to teach a child as opposed to an adult. This was one of the criticisms raised by the Italian humanists, as we can learn from the introductory letter of the elementary Latin grammar composed by Aldus Manutius, the famous publisher: ‘In my opinion, no one has yet written a grammar suitable for teaching children’. 48

Bibliography Primary sources Alcuin, Dialogus Franconis et Saxonis de octo partibus orationis, ed. by J.-P. Migne [Patrologia Latina, 101], 854-902. Aristotle, Aristotelis categoriae et liber de interpretation, ed. by L. Minio-Paluello (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949). Asper, Ars Aspori, ed. by H. Hagen (GL, 8), 39-61. Donatus, Ars minor, ed. by Louis Holtz, Donat et la tradition de l’enseignement grammatical. Étude sur l’Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IVe-IXe siècle) et édition critique (Paris: CNRS, 1981), 585-614. Francesco da Buti, Regule grammaticales. Edizione critica e commento, ed. by Chiara Martinelli. Unpublished doctoral thesis (Università di Pisa, 2007). 45 Ibidem, 111. 46 Gerson, De examinatione doctrinarum, I, 21c. 47 Lynch, Elementary and Grammar Education, 115. 48 Edited by Giovanni Orlandi in Carlo Dionisotti, Aldo Manuzio editore, 41.

Secondary Gr ammar Education in the Middle Ages

59

Gerson, Jean, De examinatione doctrinarum, ed. by Louis Ellies du Pin [Opera omnia, I] (Antwerpiae: Sumptibus Societatis, 1706), 7-27. (Repr., Hildesheim/ Zürich/New York: Georg Olms, 1987). GL = Grammatici latini, ed. Heinrich Keil. volume 8 (of 8), ed. by Hermann Hagen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1857-1880). Gregory the Great, In librum primum Regum I, ed. by P. Verbraken [Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 144] (Turnhout: Brepols, 1963). Hugh of St. Victor, The Didascalicon of Hugh of St. Victor: A Medieval Guide to the Arts. Translated by Jerome Taylor (New York, 1961). John of Salisbury, The Metalogicon of John of Salisbury: a Twelfth-Century Defence of the Verbal and Logical Arts of the Trivium, translated with an introduction and notes by Daniel D. McGarry (Berkeley: University of California, 1955). Paolo Camaldolese, Il Donatus di Paolo Camaldolese, ed. by Vito Sivo (Spoleto, 1990). Ralph of Beauvais, Glose super Donatum, ed. with a short introduction, notes and indices by C.H. Kneepkens [Artistarium, 2] (Nijmegen: Ingenium, 1982). Priscian, Prisciani Caesariensis opuscula. Institutio de nomine et pronomine et verbo. Partitiones duodecim versuum Aeneidos principalium [Sussidi eruditi, 48:2] (Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1999). Priscian. Prisciani Grammatici Caesariensis Institutionum Grammaticarum libri XVIII. Ed. by Martin Hertz [GL, 2-3]. Pompeius, Commentum Artis Donati [GL, 5], 95-312. Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria with an English translation by H.E. Butler [Loeb Classical Library] (London: Heinemann, 1920).

Secondary sources Black, Robert, Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy: Tradition and innovation in Latin schools from the twelfth to the fifteenth century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Brown, Giles, ‘Introduction: The Carolingian Renaissance’, in Rosamund McKitterick (ed.) Carolingian Culture. Emulation and innovation, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1-51. Copeland, Rita, & Ineke Sluiter, Medieval Grammar and Rhetoric. Language Arts and Literary Theory, AD 300-1475 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Dionisotti, Carlo, Aldo Manuzio Editore. Dediche, prefazioni, note ai testi. Introduzione di Carlo Dionisotti. Testo latino con traduzione e note a cura di Giovanni Orlandi (Milano: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1975). Gabriel, Astrik L., Garlandia: Studies in the history of the mediaeval university (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame/ Frankfurt am Main: Josef Knecht, 1969).

60 

Anneli Luhtal a

Grondeux, Anne, ‘La Grammatica positiva dans le Bas Moyen-Age’, in Sylvain Auroux, E.F.K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe and Kees Versteeg (eds.), History of the Language Sciences. An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present (Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 2000), 508-609. Haskins, Charles H., The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Harvard University Press, 1927). Kneepkens, Corneille Henri. ‘The Priscianic Tradition’ in Sten Ebbesen (ed.), Sprachtheorien in Spätantike und Mittelalter (Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1995), 239-264. Laistner, Max Ludwig Wolfram., Thought and Letters in Western Europe AD 500-900 (London: Methuen & co., 1931). Law, Vivien A., Insular Latin Grammarians (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1982). Law, Vivien A., Carolingian grammarians and theoretical innovation, in A. Ahlqvist et al., (eds.), Diversions of Galway: Papers on the History of Linguistics, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 1992, 27-37 (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 68). Law, Vivien A., ‘The Study of Grammar’ in Rosamund McKitterick (ed.), Carolingian Culture: Emulation and innovation (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1994), 88-110. Luhtala, Anneli, ‘Syntax and dialectic in Carolingian commentaries on Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae’ in Vivien A. Law (ed.), History of Linguistic Thought in the Early Middle Ages, [Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 71] (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1993),145-191. Luhtala, Anneli, ‘Linguistics and theology in the Early Medieval West’, in Sylvain Auroux, et al. (eds.), History of the Language Sciences. An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present (Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 2000, 510-524). Luhtala, Anneli, ‘Pedagogical Grammars before the Eighteenth Century’, in Keith Allan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 341-358. Luhtala, Anneli, ‘Syntactical Relations in Ancient and Medieval Grammatical Theory’, in Imrényi Andras & Nicolas Mazziotta (eds.), Chapters of dependency grammar: A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière. Lynch, Sarah B., Elementary and Grammar Education in Late Medieval France: Lyon, 1285-1530 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017). Marenbon, John, ‘Carolingian Thought’ in Rosamund McKitterick (ed.), Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 171-192. Orme, Nicholas, English School Exercises 1420-1530 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2013). Paetow, Louis J., The Battle of the Seven Arts (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1914).

Secondary Gr ammar Education in the Middle Ages

61

Rosier-Catach, Irène, ‘L’introduction des notions de sujet et de prédicat dans la grammaire médiévale’, Archives et documents de la SHESL, 10 (1994), 81-119. Rashdall, Hastings, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. ed. F.M. Powicke & A.B. Emden, volume 1 (of 3) (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987 [First published 1936]) Reinikka, Anna, ‘Latin Parsing Grammars from the Carolingian Age to the later Middle Ages: Trends and developments’, Historiographia linguistica 44.2/3 (2017), 255-277. Riché, Pierre, Écoles et enseignement dans le Haut Moyen Ages de la fin du ve siècle au milieu du xie siècle (Paris: Aubier Montaigne, 1979). Thomson, David, An Edition of the Middle English Grammatical Texts (New York/ London: Garland, 1984). Thorndyke, Lynn, ‘Elementary and Secondary Education in the Middle Ages’, Speculum 15 (1940), 400-408.

About the author Anneli Luhtala is University Lecturer in the Department of Languages at the University of Helsinki. Her interests include ancient and medieval language theories, especially syntactical theory and philosophy of language. She is the author of two monographs, On the Origin of Syntactical Description in Stoic Logic (2000), Grammar and Philosophy in Late Antiquity (2005), and the co-editor of the Latin grammar of Peter of Pisa (2019). She has published several articles on various aspects of medieval grammar teaching as well as studies on grammatical manuscripts. Her recent publications also focus on the grammatical works of the early humanists. Email: [email protected]

3.

Grammar is the Key Ælfric’s Grammar and the Teaching of Latin in TenthCentury England Don Chapman Abstract Ælfric, a tenth-century English monk, produced a grammar, glossary, and colloquy to help oblates learn Latin. His grammar, as the first Latin grammar written in English, reflects the emphases on both grammar and bilingual education from his own training. He adapted his grammar in several ways to help beginners learn to read Latin and prepare for advanced language study, such as using English instead of Latin as the medium of instruction, including full paradigms, organizing the discussion around declensions and conjugations, using familiar specimen terms, providing simple explanations, etymologizing the grammatical terminology, and using story-like examples. These features must have been appreciated, since Ælfric’s grammar became one of the most popular elementary grammars in eleventh-century England. Keywords: Ælfric’s Grammar, Anglo-Saxon education, bilingual education, literacy/literate culture, vernacular grammar translations

In the late tenth century, Ælfric, a monk at Cerne, portrayed a Latin classroom in one of his colloquies, or conversations, designed to help students learn Latin. The students begin by begging the teacher to teach them how ‘to speak Latin correctly (recte)’ and the teacher asks if the students wish to be beaten for the sake of learning. They respond, ‘we would rather be flogged for the sake of learning than be ignorant, but we know that you are gentle, and will not inflict blows upon us unless we force you to do so’.1 So how is the teacher in this 1 Translation from Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon World, 221. ‘Carius est nobis flagellari pro doctrina quam nescire. Sed scimus te mansuetum esse et nolle inferre plagas nobis, nisi cogaris a nobis’ (Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. G.N. Garmonsway, 18).

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch03

64 

Don Chapman

dialogue supposed to teach these students to speak Latin? What tools, besides a whip, were available? These conversations in the colloquy were obviously one tool, as they would give students practice with vocabulary and fluency. A glossary, which Ælfric also created, was another tool that would emphasize vocabulary development. Perhaps the most crucial tool in Ælfric’s eyes was the grammar that he wrote and which is the subject of this chapter. How did Ælfric’s grammar help him teach Latin? In particular, what needs in second-language instruction did he see for his grammar, and how did he adapt his grammar to respond to those needs? These are the questions this chapter will address.

Ælfric and his times Ælfric’s life Ælfric lived in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries (c. 955/7-c.1010).2 He was apparently first taught Latin by a priest of limited skill,3 but later he learned from Æthelwold (c. 904-984), a leader of the Benedictine Reform, at Winchester. Ælfric spoke frequently of Æthelwold’s skill and his school at Winchester, where language study focused on both Latin and English, particularly establishing uniform English equivalents for many Latin words.4 Around 987, Ælfric was ordained a priest and sent to the monastery at Cerne (modern Cerne Abbas, Dorset). He later became abbot of the monastery at Eynsham (c. 1005), where he spent the rest of his life. At Cerne, Ælfric wrote numerous works, mostly in English, including his two series of Catholic Homilies, a series of saints’ lives, and a partial translation of Genesis. In all these works, Ælfric was preoccupied with orthodoxy and correctness, and frequently asked future copyists to copy his work correctly. It was during this highly productive period that Ælfric also penned his grammatical triad: his Grammar, Glossary, and Colloquy.5 These grammatical works exemplify the bilingual tradition of Winchester, in that the Glossary provided English equivalents of Latin words, the Colloquy was written in Latin but later glossed in English by Ælfric’s student, Ælfric Bata, and the Grammar was written largely in English about Latin grammar, with numerous Latin terms being interspersed. 2 I have taken most details of Ælfric’s life from Hill, ‘Ælfric: His Life and Works’. 3 Ælfric, ‘Ælfric’s Preface to Genesis’, 76.13-18. 4 Gretsch, ‘Ælfric, Language and Winchester’; Gretsch, ‘Winchester vocabulary and Standard Old English”; Bullough, ‘The Educational Tradition’, 480-482. 5 Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Grammatical Triad’.

Gr ammar is the Key

65

Grammar and the bilingual tradition before Ælfric Teaching Latin had been a priority in English monasteries for centuries before Ælfric, as the monastic literary culture depended on scholars who could skillfully read and interpret both classical and Christian writings in Latin.6 Anglo-Saxon monasteries had seen several triumphs in this training, such as Bede (c. 672-735), who wrote prodigiously on a number of topics, and Alcuin (c. 735-804), who became the advisor for Charlemagne’s educational programme. From the start, grammar ‒ in both its narrow conception of accidence and its broader conception of spelling, accidence, meter, and other topics important for interpreting written works ‒ was considered essential for this training. Bede produced several such works, like De schematibus et tropis, and Alcuin produced an elementary grammar.7 These grammatical works were all written in Latin to help students gain advanced skills in the literate culture. Crucially, Bede and Alcuin, like Ælfric, were not primarily grammarians – they wrote voluminously on numerous topics – but grammar was crucial to their literate culture. While Bede, Alcuin, and other early scholars did not explicitly mention instruction in English, an early concern for bilingual literacy is seen in the early English glosses of Latin (e.g. the Vespatian Psalter and Epinal Glossary)8 and Bede was said to have been translating the Gospel of John into English at the time of his death.9 Latin learning declined seriously with the Danish invasions in the ninth century, so that Ælfric could claim in his English preface to his Grammar that ‘no English priest could compose or interpret a letter written in Latin until Archbishop Dunstan and Bishop Athelwold once again raised up learning in monastic life’.10 Ælfric is echoing the famous line from Alfred’s preface to the Pastoral Care that ‘there were very few on this side of the Humber who could understand their rituals in English, or translate a letter from Latin into English’.11 Alfred (c. 847-899) is famous for his bilingual approach to restore Latin learning. He proposed that important works 6 Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture, 272-460. 7 Ibidem, 272-333. 8 Gneuss, ‘The Study of Language’, 18-20. 9 Frantzen, ‘The Englishness of Bede’, 233; Brown, Companion to Bede, 15. 10 My translation. Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, ed. Zupitza and Gnuess. All references to this grammar will be to page numbers followed by line numbers. ‘nan englisc preost ne cuðe dihtan oððe asmeagean anne pistol on leden, oðþæt Dunstan arcebisceop and Aðelwold bisceop eft þa lare on munuclifum arærdon’ (3.13-16). 11 Translation from Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon World, 218-219. ‘swiðe feawa wæron behionan Humbre ðe hiora ðeninga cuðen understondan on Englisc, oððe furðum an ærendgewrit of Lædene on Englisc areccean’ (Alfred, ‘Preface to Pastoral Care’, 3.13-16). Michael Lapidge

66 

Don Chapman

would be translated into English and youth would first be taught to read in English. Those who were to continue in learning would then be taught Latin. Several Old English translations of authoritative Latin texts, including Bede’s Ecclesiastical History and Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy, were produced in Alfred’s court. He also commissioned original works, such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Leechbok. The proliferation of Old English texts during this period manifests the success of Alfred’s programme. In the Benedictine Reform that followed in the mid-tenth century, the teaching of Latin once more became entrenched in monastic culture. One of the principal promoters of this revival in learning was Æthelwold, Ælfric’s teacher, who had been the abbot of Abingdon and was bishop of Winchester when Ælfric was there. The bilingual tradition was given fresh impetus at Winchester, as many translations and compositions in both Latin and English were produced. It was this ‘school’ that trained Ælfric and undoubtedly prepared him to produce a grammar in the bilingual tradition.

Ælfric’s Grammar and his aims Ælfric’s Grammar Ælfric’s Grammar, titled Excerptiones de Prisciano Anglice, was adapted from a text called Excerptiones de Prisciano, which itself derived mainly from Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae though it also relied on Donatus’s Ars maior, and included passages from other works.12 Ælfric’s English adaptation of Excerptiones de Prisciano was apparently very popular, as it survives today in 15 manuscripts, a large number for a non-biblical text,13 and it apparently swept all other pedagogical grammars from the field.14 It clearly met a need,15 and we get some idea of possible needs from Ælfric’s own statements. One of Ælfric’s clearest statements about the purpose of grammar comes toward the end of his grammar: ‘Grammar is skill with letters. This skill opens and upholds the Latin language, and no man has a full understanding of Latin books unless he knows that skill. The skill is demonstrates that we can take Alfred at face value, as the learning of Latin indeed appears to have decayed in the generations before Alfred (Anglo-Latin Literature, 409-454). 12 Porter, Excerptiones, 23-26. 13 Sisam, Studies in the History of Old English Literature, 301. 14 Law, Grammar and Grammarians, 215; Porter, Excerptiones, 31. 15 Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Grammatical Triad’, 291.

Gr ammar is the Key

67

the beginning and foundation of all book-related skills’.16 Ælfric obviously wanted his students to learn all modes of Latin, since he created a colloquy to help build conversational skills. This definition nods to the importance of speaking with its word choice for ‘Latin language’ ‒ ledenspræce ‒ which could also mean ‘Latin speech.’ This definition also gives priority to letters, and throughout the Middle Ages, grammatical doctrine characterized speech as being constituted by letters.17 Speaking was to be learned through grammar as well, apparently. But Ælfric singled out the importance of grammar for reading. Grammar was important, the key, even, for reading and understanding books, and one who doesn’t know grammar, Ælfric claims, will not have a full understanding of Latin books. When Ælfric called grammar ‘the beginning and foundation of all book-related skills’, he clearly saw grammar as the introduction to language studies. Tellingly, Ælfric rendered ‘artium liberalium’ from his source as ‘book-related arts’, as if liberalis came from liber, libri (‘book’) instead of liber, libera, liberum (‘free’). Cassiodorus suggests this same etymology: In this book we must f irst speak about the art of grammar, which is clearly the origin and basis of the liberal letters. Book is named from liber, that is, from the bark cut off and removed from the tree, on which the ancients wrote their poems before the discovery [there was a full supply] of papyrus’.18

Ælfric used this word (boclic) extensively in his prose, reinforcing Ælfric’s concern for reading and understanding books. For Ælfric, books are important because they preserve the wisdom that society depends on, so learning Latin grammar is bound up with preserving and transmitting sacred knowledge, a concern he shows in all his writings, especially his homilies. Teaching and learning Latin is a moral duty, as he explains in his English preface to his Grammar: ‘He who refuses to either 16 My translation. ‘GRAMMATICA is stæfcræft. se cræft geopenað and gehylt ledenspræce, and nan man næfð ledenboca andgit befullon, buton he þone cræft cunne. se cræft is ealra boclicra cræfta ordfruma and grundweall’ (289.10-13). 17 Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture, 91-97. 18 Translation Halporn, Cassiodorus, 172-173. ‘In quo libro primum nobis dicendum est de arte grammatica, quae est videlicet origo et fundamentum liberalium litterarum. liber autem dictus est a libro, id est, arboris cortice dempto atque liberato, ubi ante inventionem cartarum antiqui carmina describebant’ (Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum, Book 2, 91.3-7). One manuscript containing Instituriones book 2 and listed in Gneuss and Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, was known in England before Ælfric: 185. Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 15. 14 (939), pt. 1, s. x1, Frane, Loire region? (prov. Canterbury StA).

68 

Don Chapman

teach or learn, if he can, diminishes his understanding from holy teachings, and he departs little by little from good’.19 Closely related to that concern for preserving knowledge is Ælfric’s concern for correctness. This emphasis on correctness comes out in the conversation from his colloquy quoted above, where the term ‘correct(ly)’ (recte/recta) is used twice: ‘loqui latialiter recte’ and ‘recta locutio’. This is no accident when it comes to grammar. An oft-repeated definition of grammar in the middle ages comes from Isidore of Seville and emphasizes correctness: “Grammar is the knowledge of speaking correctly, and the origin and foundation of the liberal arts”.20 This same definition is quoted in Ælfric’s immediate source: ‘Grammar is the discipline of letters and is the science of speaking correctly. The source and foundation of the liberal arts, its divisions number thirty’.21 When Ælfric translates this passage ‒ given in the grammatica is staefcraeft quotation above ‒ he leaves out the explicit reference to correctness, but instead amplifies the passage with his observation that one must know grammar to fully understand a book. It is safe to assume that for Ælfric, a full understanding is also a correct understanding, especially since elsewhere Ælfric was preoccupied with correctness and avoiding error or gedwyld.22 In the Old English preface to his grammar, for example, he wants to ensure that the grammar is copied correctly: ‘I plead, now in God’s name, if anyone wishes to copy this book, that he do it correctly by the pattern. […] The bad copyist does much evil if he refuses to correct errors.’23 For Ælfric, a key purpose of learning grammar is to gain full and correct understanding from books. Ælfric’s audience is also crucial to his purposes. Ælfric clearly identifies his audience as beginners24, and throughout both his Latin and English prefaces, he addresses his audience as pueri (‘boys’) and cildru (‘children’). One of the innovations of Ælfric’s grammar lies in being explicitly directed toward youth.25 19 My translation. ‘se ðe nadðor nele ne leornian ne tæcan, gif he mæg, þonne acolað his andgyt fram ðære halgan lare, and he gewit swa lytlum and lytlym fram gode’ (3.3-6). 20 My translation. ‘Grammatica est scientia recte loquendi, et origo et fundamentum liberalium litterarum’ (Isidore, Etymologiarum sive Originum Liber XX, Book 1, section 5). 21 Translation Porter, Excerptiones, 319. ‘Grammatica est disciplinalis ars ex litteris constans et est scientia recte loquendi et origo uel fundamentum artium liberalium, cuius diuisiones triginta connumerantur (Excerptiones, ed. Porter, 318). 22 Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Grammatical Triad’, 299. 23 My translation. ‘Ic bidde nu on godes naman, gyf hwa ðas boc awritan wylle, þæt he hi gerihte wel be ðære bysne; […] micel yfel deð se unwritere, gyf he nele his woh gerihtan’ (3.20-25). 24 ‘inscientibus puerulis, non senibus’ (1.12) ‘for ignorant boys, not for their elders’ (Translation Law, Grammar and Grammarians, 207.) 25 Fisher, ‘Out of the Mouth of Babes and Englishmen’, 83.

Gr ammar is the Key

69

Aware of how much learning is required to master Latin books, Ælfric offers his grammar as a beginning: ‘I do not say therefore, that this book can help greatly for learning, but it is a beginning for both languages, if it pleases anyone’.26 These beginners, of course, were second-language learners, and Ælfric recognized the challenge of learning a foreign language. He offers to his students a translation, so that they could understand the instruction in their own language: I, Ælfric, having only slight pretensions to learning, have taken the trouble to translate these excepts from Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae for you young children into your language, so that once you have studied the eight word classes of Donatus’s grammar in this book, you will be able to incorporate both languages, Latin and English, into your tender minds until you arrive at more advanced studies.27

Earlier grammars like Donatus’s Ars maior mentioned in this passage were meant for native speakers, but as the importance of Latin spread with Christianity across Western Europe, so too did the challenges of teaching Latin to speakers whose native languages were considerably more distant from Latin than the Romance languages spoken in the earlier centres of Christianity.28 In short, Ælfric’s grammar is intended for beginners learning Latin as a foreign language. In particular, the emphasis is on learning how to read Latin so they can have a full and correct understanding of books written in Latin. Ælfric’s grammar is also designed to help students prepare for more advanced language studies.

Ælfric’s adaptations to his Grammar So how did Ælfric adapt his Grammar to these purposes? What features did Ælfric incorporate to help these beginners learn to read Latin correctly?

26 My translation. ‘ne cweðe ic na for ði, þæt ðeos boc mæge micclum to lare fremian, ac heo byð swa ðeah sum angyn to ægðrum gereorde, gif heo hwam licað’ (3.16-19) 27 Translation Law, Grammar and Grammarians, 207. ‘Ego Ælfricus, ut minus sapiens, has excerptiones de Prisciano minore uel maiore uobis puerulis tenellis ad uestram linguam transferre studui, quatinus perlectis octo partibus Donati in isto libello potestis utramque linguam, uidelicet latinam et anglicam, uestrae teneritudini inserere interim, usque quo ad perfectiora perueniatis studia’ (1.1-7). 28 Law, Grammar and Grammarians, 102-103.

70 

Don Chapman

Helping English-speakers Perhaps the chief adaptation – certainly the one that Ælfric is most famous for – was presenting the Latin grammar in English. As intuitive as that move seems to us, no one had apparently done that before, and in fact, Ælfric seems a little defensive about it: ‘I know that many will reproach me for having chosen to occupy myself with such studies, i.e. translating grammar into English’.29 Ælfric defends his choice by explaining that he is writing for beginners, who will indeed need to learn Latin grammatical terminology for further studies, but that task might be easier after they have learned Latin with this grammar presented in English. Using English is Ælfric’s biggest and, apparently, most popular innovation.30 But Ælfric included some other features to help non-native speakers learn Latin. A chief feature is the use of full paradigms for the nouns and verbs. A native speaker of Latin would already know the paradigms, and indeed paradigms are not included in Donatus, whose organization Ælfric followed. Nor are they included in Aelfic’s source (Excerptiones). But because non-native speakers would need to learn all inflectional forms, Ælfric gave full paradigms. Ælfric also merged a declinationes nominum format into his discussion of nouns. This format, which had been a fairly popular structure in earlier insular grammars, organizes all the possible endings of nouns according to their declensions. It isn’t used today, but it essentially allows a person to see whether a word with a given ending, like -ter or -us or -ax, could be a third-declension noun, for example.31 Another important feature to help non-native speakers is the bilingual vocabulary. Throughout his Grammar, Ælfric used numerous Latin examples and took great care to provide English equivalents. Vocabulary seems at least as important to him as morphology and syntax,32 and this emphasis on matching English and Latin vocabulary fits well with Ælfric’s Winchester education.33 Helping beginners The main adaptation that Ælfric offered to help beginners, was a simplification of the organization and details from his immediate source. Priscian’s 29 Translation Law, Grammar and Grammarians, 207. ‘novi namque multos me reprehensuros, quod talibus studiis meum ingenium occupare uoluissem, scilicet grammaticam artem ad anglicam linguam uertendo’ (1.8-11). 30 Law, Grammar and Grammarians, 201 31 Law, ‘A French Metamorphosis of an English Grammatical Genre’, 17-19. 32 Law, Grammar and Grammarians, 203. 33 Gretsch, ‘Winchester Vocabulary and Standard Old English’.

Gr ammar is the Key

71

Institutiones Grammaticae was an advanced, detailed text that would not have been suitable for beginners. Ælfric’s immediate source, the Excerptiones de Prisciano, was a little better, since it rationalized and streamlined the sprawling Institutiones a bit, but it, too, remained unsuitable for beginners. Ælfric streamlined and reduced the Excerptiones even more to make it useful for beginning students. In Law’s estimation, Institutiones is the most advanced, and Excerptiones de Prisciano is somewhere between Institutiones and Donatus’s Ars maior, whereas Ælfric’s grammar seldom rises above the level of the Ars maior.34 Ælfric simplif ied the text mainly by pruning details and creating a much simpler organization that proceeds through five declensions and four conjugations – much like today’s beginning textbooks of Latin. Another way that he made it suitable for beginners was to use specimen examples more familiar to students’ experience. Fisher makes this point with the specimens for the verb paradigms ‒ amo, doceo, lego, and audio35 ‒ but many other examples could have been chosen, like crux/rod (‘cross’), panis/ hlaf (‘bread’), and mel/hunig (‘honey’). The overwhelming impression from reading Ælfric’s grammar is how basic, and therefore useful, the specimen vocabulary is. Some of these he extracted from his source, but others he introduced himself. Similarly, Ælfric followed a common medieval practice of Christianizing the grammar, by including biblical names, sometimes as additions and sometimes as replacements for pagan names, like Daniel, Gabriel, and Raphael for nouns ending in -el or Beda to join Silla and Seneca as masculine nouns in the first declension.36 A further characteristic that may have made the grammar more suitable for young learners is the use of story examples, similar to the situations portrayed in the colloquies. Porter gives this example: ‘Oh, our sister, give us something to drink!’37 Similar examples are used to explain pronouns and conjunctions: If you say now, ‘Who taught you?’, then I will say ‘Dunstan’. ‘Who ordained you?’ ‘He ordained me.’ Then the ‘he’ stands in place of his name and substitutes for it.38 34 Law, Grammar and Grammarians, 207. 35 Fisher, ‘Out of the Mouths of Babes’, 95. 36 See Fisher, ‘Out of the Mouths of Babes’, 91-96 for other ways he simplified the examples for young learners, such as using the active instead of passive voice for glossing when it made more sense or explaining instances of homonymy. 37 Translation Porter, Excerptiones, 33. ‘O nostra soror, da nobis bibere; eala ðu ure swuster, syle us drincan!’ (111.5-6). 38 My translation. ‘gif ðu cwest nu: hwa lærd ðe? þonne cweðe ic: Dunstan. Hwa hadode ðe? he me hadode: þonne stent se he on his naman sted and spelað hine’ (8.13-16).

72 

Don Chapman

This part of speech has no force by itself, but it joins together both nouns and verbs. If you ask, ‘Quis equitat in ciuitatem?’ (‘Who rides into the town?’), then he says ‘rex et episcopus’ (‘the king and the bishop’). The ‘et’, that is ‘and’, is a conjunction.39

These last two examples also show how Ælfric could give basic explanations for fundamental grammatical concepts, a characteristic missing from his immediate source (Excerptiones de Prisciano). Helping with reading The features that would have particularly helped students learn to read correctly are harder to pinpoint. To some degree the declinationes nominum format would have favored reading, since it would be better suited for decoding than encoding ‒ faced with an unfamiliar word, one could figure out its declension, perhaps, from the declinationes nominum portion of the grammar, since that portion lists all endings of nouns in all declensions. 40 As Michael Lapidge has shown, the Latin recorded in the middle of the ninth century contains numerous instances of incorrect gender assignment to nouns, so mastering declensions would certainly have been a need. 41 Additionally, Melinda Menzer points out some features treated under the qualitas section of nouns, like derivatives and patronymics, that could be useful for interpreting texts. 42 To a degree Ælfric helps with reading when he explains some grammatical concepts that are important for construing sentences, such as the functions of cases or the meanings of verb tenses. These tend to be short and more basic than most explanations in grammars. For example, Ælfric explains the ablative case, which did not exist as a separate case in Old English, thus: ‘Ablative is “at-moving-like”. With that case is signaled whatever moves away from something or whatever we receive from someone else or whence we go’.43 The explanation of this case 39 My translation. ‘þes dæl ne mæg naht þurh hine sylfne, ac he gefegð togædere ægðer ge naman ge word. Gif ðu befrinst: quis equitat in ciuitatem? Hwa rit into ðam port?, ðonne cweð he: rex et episcopus se cyningc and se bisceop. se et, þæt is and, &, is CONIVNCTIO’ (10.8-13). 40 As Law, ‘A French Metamorphosis’, points out, an even more manageable format was the terminationes nominum, which ordered the endings in alphabetical order, but Ælfric did not adapt this order. 41 Lapidge, Anglo-Latin Literature, 446-454. 42 Menzer, Ælfric’s Grammar: Solving the Problem of the English-language Text’, 643-644. 43 My translation. ‘ABLATIVVS ys ætbredendlic: mid ðam CASV byð geswutelod, swa hwæt swa ætbredað oðrum oððe swa hwæt swa we underfoð æt oðrum oððe hwanon we farað’ (23.6-9).

Gr ammar is the Key

73

gives the student little guidance on how to construe an ablative noun phrase while reading. Ælfric’s explanation of the past tense system is likewise basic: Preterite imperfect, that is ‘unfinished forth-gone’, as that thing is begun, but not finished: stabam (I stood). Preterite perfect is ‘forth-gone finished’: steti (I stood completely). Preterite Pluperfect is ‘forth-gone more than finished’, because it was done long ago: steteram (I stood long ago). 44

Ælfric helps a little with translation strategies for these features of grammar, but not much. His work is still a grammar, not an introductory textbook. Its basic character would presumably help students acquire the knowledge to construe Latin sentences, but like most grammars, little attention is given to how best to present the information needed for that task. Helping prepare students for advanced studies In contrast, Ælfric’s Grammar is quite well structured for teaching students grammatical vocabulary that they will need for further studies. The bilingual nature of the grammar means that Ælfric will gloss grammatical terms at least once. How Ælfric rendered those grammatical terms is instructive, since extensive grammatical terminology had not been developed yet in English. For some grammatical terms, Ælfric used his English equivalent only once and then used the Latin term exclusively afterward. For other terms, Ælfric used the English grammatical term almost exclusively after first glossing the Latin term. For other terms, Ælfric used both Latin and English in various combinations. Ælfric’s varied strategy for rendering grammatical terms can be plausibly explained by his desire to help students master Latin grammatical terminology. Where a link between a common English word and a common Latin word existed, such as nama for nomen (‘noun’), Ælfric reused the English term. Where such a connection did not exist, Ælfric apparently glossed the Latin word with terms that might have been recognized as correspondences, often in calques, like dael-nimend (literally ‘part’ – ‘taker’) for participium (‘participle’). Since any students advancing past Ælfric’s elementary instruction would eventually need to learn Latin terminology, Ælfric appears to have aimed less at creating English grammatical terms and more at helping 44 My translation. ‘PRAETERITVM INPERFECTVM þæt is unfulfremed forðgewiten, swilce þæt ðing beo ongunnen and ne beo fuldon: stabam ic stod. PRAETERITVM PERFCTVM ys forðgewiten fulfremed: steti ic stod fullice. PRAETERIVM PLVSQVAMPERFECTVM is forðgewiten mare, þonne fulfremed, forðan ðe hit wæs gefyrn gedon: steteram ic stod gefyrn’ (124.3-9).

74 

Don Chapman

students master the Latin terms through English vocabulary. These calquelike formations often took advantage of correspondences between Latin and English for the root, and in many ways they resembled the glossing and translation practices that Winchester is now known for. It appears that Ælfric was using at least the typical, if not standard, correspondences between Latin and Old English words to help students learn the grammatical vocabulary. This kind of bilingual glossing is similar to the etymological explanations he sometimes used, as when he explained that the nominative case is used for naming, and the dative case signals how something is given (22.10-18). It could well be this kind of English glossing of Latin grammatical terms is what Ælfric had in mind when he wrote in his preface that he desired for his students to incorporate both languages (utram linguam) into their minds until they reached further studies.45

Conclusion In a volume dedicated to the use of grammar for second-language learning throughout the ages, Ælfric’s grammar is a good text to include. It remains an important text for studying grammar in foreign language teaching, because it at once displays a self-conscious regard for the importance of grammar and a self-conscious awareness of the challenges of foreign-language learning, while adapting these concerns to a historical moment. Ælfric desired to help students learn Latin so that they could read works important for propagating faith. He used several strategies, including dialogues and glossaries, and one of the chief tools was his grammar. Admirably, he adapted his grammar in many ways to help beginning students whose native language was distant from Latin: he streamlined the organization, provided full paradigms, gave simple explanations, used familiar specimen terms, gave dramatic examples, and etymologized the Latin grammatical terms. Yet his largest innovation was the simple act of explaining the grammar in English. It could not have been easy, since an extensive grammatical vocabulary had not been developed for English. Perhaps that is why in his preface he uses a word like studii (‘laboured’) to describe his attempt and why others may have thought him foolish. But we have to admire him for trying to help the puerulis tenellis he addressed in his preface, and his grammar has to be seen as a gift at least as effective as the beatings he offers in his colloquy! 45 Chapman, ‘Uterque Lingua / Ægðer Gereord: Ælfric’s Grammatical Vocabulary and the Winchester Tradition’.

Gr ammar is the Key

75

Bibliography Ælfric, Ælfric’s Colloquy, ed. by G.N. Garmonsway (London, Methuen 1938). Ælfric, Ælfric’s Grammatik und Glossar, ed. by Julius Zupitza and Helmut Gneuss (Hildesheim, Weidmannsche, 2001). Ælfric, ‘Ælfric’s Preface to Genesis’, in The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, ed. by S. J. Crawford, Early English Text Society o.s. 160 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922). Alfred, King Alfred’s West-Saxon Version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care, ed. by Henry Sweet, Early English Text Society o.s. 45 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1871). Brown, George Hardin, A Companion to Bede (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2009). Bullough, D. A., ‘The Educational Tradition in England from Alfred to Ælfric: Teaching Utriusque Linguae’, in La Scuola nell’Occidente Latino dell’Alto Medioevo, (Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro, 1972), 453-494. Cassiodorus, Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones, ed. by R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937). Chapman, Don, ‘Uterque Lingua / Ægðer Gereord: Ælfric’s Grammatical Vocabulary and the Winchester Tradition’, Journal or English and Germanic Philology 109 (2010), 421-445. Crossley-Holland, Kevin, The Anglo-Saxon World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Excerptiones de Prisciano, ed. by David W. Porter (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2001). Fisher, Jay, ‘Out of the Mouth of Babes and Englishmen: The Invention of the Vernacular Grammar in Anglo-Saxon England’, in Learning Latin and Greek from Antiquity to the Present, ed. by Elizabeth P. Archibald, William Brockliss, and Jonathan Gnoza (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 83-98. Frantzen, Allen J., ‘The Englishness of Bede, from then to now’, in The Cambridge Companion to Bede, ed. by Scott DeGregorio (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Gnuess, Helmut, ‘The Study of Language in Anglo-Saxon England’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 72 (1999), 3-32. Gneuss, Helmut and Michael Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A Bibliographical Handlist of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England Up to 1100 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014). Gretsch, Mechthild, ‘Ælfric, Language and Winchester’, in A Companion to Ælfric, ed. by Hugh Magennis and Mary Swan (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 109-137. Gretsch, Mechthild, ‘Winchester Vocabulary and Standard Old English: the Vernacular in Late Anglo-Saxon England’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 83 (2001), 41-87. Halporn, James W., trans. Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning, (Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2004).

76 

Don Chapman

Hill, Joyce, ‘Ælfric: His Life and Works’, in A Companion to Ælfric, ed. by Hugh Magennis and Mary Swan (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 35-65. Hill, Joyce, ‘Ælfric’s Grammatical Triad’, in Form and Content of Instruction in Anglo-Saxon England in the Light of Contemporary Manuscript Evidence, ed. by Patrizia Lendinara, Loredana Lazzari, and Maria Amalia D’Aronco (Turnhout, Brepols, 2007), 285-307. Irvine, Martin, The Making of Textual Culture: ‘Grammatica’ and Literary Theory, 350-1100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Isidore of Seville, Etymologiarum sive Originum Liber XX, ed. by W.M. Lindsay (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911). Lapidge, Michael, Anglo-Latin Literature 600-899 (London: Hambledon Press, 1996). Law, Vivien, ‘A French Metamorphosis of an English Grammatical Genred: declinationes into terminationes’, in France and the British Isles in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, ed. By Gillian Jondorf and D.N. Dumville (Woodbridge, Boydell, 1992), 17-42. Law, Vivien, Grammar and Grammarians in the Early Middle Ages (London, Longman, 1997). Menzer, Melinda, ‘Ælfric’s Grammar: Solving the Problem of the English-language Text’ Neophilologus, 83 (1999), 637-652. Sisam, Kenneth, Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1953).

About the author Don Chapman completed a Ph.D. in Medieval Studies at the University of Toronto and is currently a professor of linguistics at Brigham Young University. He has published articles on medieval grammar, including Ælfric’s grammar, and his current interest in metalinguistic description focuses on modern usage guides. Email: [email protected]

4. Spanish grammaticography and the teaching of Spanishin the sixteenth century José J. Gómez Asencio, Carmen Quijada van den Berghe and Pierre Swiggers

Abstract The first printed grammar of a European vernacular was Nebrija’s grammar of (Castilian) Spanish (1492), published at the end of the peninsular Reconquista and coinciding with Columbus’ arrival in America. In the sixteenth century castellano, the language of the Spanish Habsburg Empire, became prominent in Europe, for political, economic and religious reasons, a position strengthened in the seventeenth century by Spain’s cultural prestige. This contribution focuses on the first hundred years of Spanish language studies in Western Europe (Flanders, Italy, England, France). It offers an overview of grammatical and language-didactic tools for teaching and learning Spanish published in the sixteenth century. The relevant source texts (and their authors) are presented and analysed, and set in their political and cultural context. Keywords: Early Modern period; grammaticography of Spanish; Habsburg empire; learner manuals; multilingualism; Spanish language; teaching of Spanish in Western Europe; types of language-didactic tools

The early history of Spanish grammaticography (i.e. grammar-writing) is of particular relevance for the history of linguistics and language teaching. During the Renaissance Spanish was one of the prominent vernacular languages in Western Europe, owing to its increasing importance in the expanding Habsburg Empire, and to its diffusion as the major ‘colonizing’

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch04

78 

José J. Gómez Asencio, Carmen Quijada van den Berghe and Pierre Swiggers

language1. As a consequence, the codification of Spanish became a major concern, and the study of the language a very useful, if not obligatory pursuit in several parts of Europe and in the New World (see Roldán Pérez on incentives for learning Spanish in the Early Modern period). Interestingly, the publication of the first printed grammar of Spanish, also the first printed grammar of a modern (European) vernacular, occurred in the same year (1492) as Columbus’ arrival on one of the isles of the Bahamas. Nebrija’s Gramatica sobre la lengua castellana was the product of a humanist scholar, thoroughly acquainted with the classical languages. Although strongly indebted to the Graeco-Latin model (as is the case for the great majority of Renaissance grammars of the vernaculars), the grammar testifies to a strong concern with affirming the vernacular’s autonomy and its political (-religious) importance. Nebrija’s Gramatica is a manifold achievement: (i) it attempts a codification and normalization of Spanish (as then spoken on the Iberian Peninsula); (ii) it offers a categorization of the language which, though indebted to the Latin parts-of-speech (partes orationis) frame, signals a number of specific features of the vernacular language; (iii) it contains, next to a grammar of Spanish for native speakers, a grammar for those who want, or are compelled, to learn the language, thus combining a descriptive with a didactic goal. Nebrija’s Spanish grammar was not very successful, when measured by criteria such as number of editions and range of diffusion, especially if one compares its fate to the author’s Latin grammar (1481), an immensely popular work. But the Gramatica […] castellana inspired grammarians interested in the study and description of Spanish, and the sixteenth century witnessed a considerable production of grammatical works on Spanish published in Western Europe. It was outside the Iberian Peninsula that Spanish grammaticography and the teaching of Spanish flourished. Four geographical areas stand out: Flanders, a prosperous region of the (Spanish) Habsburg empire; Italy, the cradle of humanism; England, which became an enemy of the Spanish crown; and France. In the German Habsburgian territory (the ‘Holy Roman empire’), no grammar of Spanish appeared before 1614, when Heinrich Doergang(k) published his Institutiones in linguam Hispanicam. However, this does not imply that there was no interest in the language and literature of the Iberian Peninsula: the Augsburg banker Johann Jakob Fugger (1516‒1575) was an assiduous collector of books and manuscripts produced in Italy, Spain and the Low Countries, and the library of Duke August II of Wolfenbüttel (1579‒1666), a great collector of scientific 1

See García Blanco, La lengua española en la época de Carlos V.

Spanish gr ammaticogr aphy and the teaching of Spanish

79

and literary works, included a considerable number of works by Spanish authors. One can therefore assume that German subjects eager to learn Spanish in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries made use of didactic tools produced in the Low Countries, France, or Italy. Because of space restrictions this chapter is limited to the history of Spanish grammaticography in its relation to the teaching/learning of Spanish, in the late fifteenth and throughout the sixteenth century. This chronological limitation allows us to cover the various European regions where Spanish was studied and where learner’s grammars of Spanish were published; at the same time, the reader will get a grasp of how various ‘national’ traditions in the study of Spanish emerged.

Research tools The long-term developments of these types and trends of hispanismos (i.e. approaches of the Spanish language and grammar) are discussed in detail in three collective volumes offering a comprehensive panorama of language-didactic and grammatical (ranging from orthography to syntax) activity, from the late fifteenth till the mid-nineteenth century (Gómez Asencio ed.); the first of these volumes covers the period dealt with here (see also Ramajo Caño and Lope Blanch). Detailed bibliographies are appended to the contributions contained in all three volumes. Many of the source texts discussed here can be consulted on a CD-ROM (Gómez Asencio comp.; a selection of some 40 grammars of Spanish published between 1492 and the second half of the nineteenth century). The CD-ROM reproduces either the original edition or a later edition of the grammars. Systematic and detailed bibliographical information (chronologically arranged according to publication date) on Spanish grammars and other linguistic works published in the sixteenth century can be found in BICRES I (Niederehe; subsequent volumes of BICRES each cover one century of grammaticographical and lexicographical activity). On the grammars of Spanish published in Italy (sixteenth to eighteenth century), see Lombardini and San Vicente; on those in France, see Lépinette; Maux-Piovano). Synoptic descriptions of Spanish grammars (sixteenth to twentieth century), can be found in Colombat (ed.). For a survey of the history of the teaching of Spanish, see Sánchez Pérez; for its place in the context of Early Modern language teaching, see the contributions in Schröder (ed.). On the link between the teaching and learning of vernacular languages, urban multilingualism, and commercial

80 

José J. Gómez Asencio, Carmen Quijada van den Berghe and Pierre Swiggers

metropoles, see the contributions and the cumulative bibliography in Béhar et al. (eds.). Bio-bibliographical information on individual grammarians can be found in Stammerjohann (ed.).

Starting in Spain: the Gramatica castellana (1492) of Antonio de Nebrija, the intertwining of grammatical description and didactic grammaticography The Andalusian humanist (Elio) Antonio de Nebrija (Lebrija) [c. 1445‒1522], who received his training in Spain and Italy, was a prolific and influential language scholar (see Escavy et al. eds.; Esparza Torres; Esparza Torres and Niederehe). Next to his important lexicographical work, Nebrija published a grammar of Latin (1481), which went through several editions, often with considerable revisions and adaptations, a grammar of Latin contrasted with the vernacular (1486), and a grammar of Spanish (1492), which enjoyed only one edition. Given that at least three editions of the Latin grammar, namely the editio princeps of 1481, and the editions of 1485 and 1495 can be regarded as distinct works, we can assign to Nebrija six grammatical texts: (1) 1481. Introductiones latinae. Salamanca. (2) 1485. Introductiones latinae. Salamanca. (3) 1486. Introduciones latinas contrapuesto el romance al latin. Salamanca. (4) 1492. Gramatica sobre la lengua castellana. Salamanca. (Henceforth: GC-1492) (5) “Libro V” of the Gramática […] castellana. (Henceforth: LibroV-1492) (6) 1495. Introductiones latinae. Recognitio. Salamanca. The grammar of Spanish (GC-1492) contains, as its “fifth book”, a grammar for non-native speakers (Libro V-1492). This fifth book, not announced at the beginning of the grammar, has its proper preface; the four preceding books, announced in the first chapter of the first book, correspond to the cuatro consideraciones2 (‘four perspectives’) from which gramatica methodica/ doctrinal (‘systematic grammar’) can be approached, i.e. the four common divisions or levels of grammatical description (orthography, including graphophonetics; prosody; morphology or word structure; syntax). The titles of the five books are: 2 Nebrija, Gramatica, fol. a.v.r.

Spanish gr ammaticogr aphy and the teaching of Spanish

81

Libro primero en que trata dela orthographia. Libro segundo en que trata dela prosodia i silaba. Libro tercero. que es dela etimologia i dicion. Libro cuarto que es la sintaxi i orden delas doze [sic] partes dela oracion. Libro quinto. Delas introduciones dela lengua castellana para los que de estraña lengua querran deprender.

What was the general aim of Nebrija and what prospective audiences were targeted by his Spanish grammar? Nebrija explicitly states his objective in the prologue of his grammar. His principal aim is a codifying one: reduzir en artificio3, (‘to ‘lay down into rules’) the language, to fix and stabilize it for future generations (de aquí adelante), especially in its written form (para que lo que … enel se escribiese pueda quedar en un tenor). The second ‘advantage’ or provecho (‘useful purpose’) is to facilitate, for native speakers of Spanish, the access to Latin language and grammar. The third aim is formulated with a view at hablantes de peregrinas lenguas (‘foreigners’): just as Spaniards can learn Latin as a second language, foreigners can learn Spanish, through the use of this grammar. As a consequence, Nebrija’s Gramatica […] castellana is targeted at a multiple readership. In the prologue of the grammar and in the prologue to book V, the author singles out a threefold audience: (a) native speakers of Spanish looking for systematic information (b) native speakers of Spanish who, through grammatical instruction in their native language, want to undertake the study of Latin (c) speakers of another language who want to ‘gain knowledge’ (venir al conocimiento) of Spanish. For the first two readerships the grammar stops with book IV; as the prologue of book V states, the los cuatro libros passados4 (‘preceding four books’) were written for (adult) native speakers of Spanish. Book V aims at a different audience, and constitutes a grammar on its own: viz. a (didactic) secondor-foreign-language grammar of Spanish. Two grammars in one, with two separate audiences, then? Things are more complicated. On the one hand, one can easily imagine that book V would constitute the most adequate tool for Spanish-speaking children and youngsters to learn the Spanish language (in its ‘codified’ and written form), especially in view of the fact that (normative) castellano was a language 3 Nebrija, Gramatica sobre la lengua castellana, fol. a.iii.v 4 Nebrija, Gramatica, fol. g.vii.r.

82 

José J. Gómez Asencio, Carmen Quijada van den Berghe and Pierre Swiggers

that had to be acquired by a large majority of Spaniards; for them, the much more accessible text of Libro V-1492 was better suited than the first four books. Of course, Spanish young children would come to the grammar contained in Libro V-1492 in a way different from that of non-Spanish users. In addition, the grammar contained in books I to IV was to serve not only as a systematic and more detailed grammar of the Spanish language, but also as an introduction to Latin language and grammar, and ‒ via the generality of descriptive statements and explanatory principles, and the systematic terminology ‒ as an exposition on grammar in general (and on ‘general grammar’). As such, books I to IV of the Gramatica […] castellana cannot be separated from Nebrija’s previously published Latin grammars. The Libro V-1492 is not announced in the general prologue, nor in the first chapter of book I. Its title, Delas introduciones dela lengua castellana para los que de estraña lengua querran deprender, echoes that of the Introductiones latinae and of the Introduciones latinas contrapuesto el romance al latin: all three are propaedeutic works, in contrast with the first four books of the Gramatica (the only grammatical work of Nebrija that bears ‘grammar’ in its title). Book V has its proper prologue, which mentions the audiences targeted at, and offers a survey of the contents. In addition, it points out the difference between the orden natural de la gramatica and the orden de la doctrina: the first one, adopted in book I to IV, is the ascending order from simple to complex elements, i.e. the structured ordering of grammar from letters/sounds to sentences. The orden de la doctrina, adopted in book V, is a didactic order, more suited for those who start learning a language (including young native speakers who already speak the language but are in want of grammatical instruction). The information contained in Libro V-1492 can be summarized as follows: Theoretical parts: Chapter I (general information on letters, syllables, words); Chapter II (nominal declension); Chapter III (definition of pronoun and article); Chapter IV (verb conjugation: general information on modes and tenses, person and number); Chapter V (general observations on verb conjugations); Practical information: letters and their pronunciation; nominal paradigms; paradigm of the relative and indefinite pronouns; paradigms of personal and demonstrative pronouns; verb paradigms and inflectional phenomena.

The Libro V-1492 can be seen as the first step into the grammatical edifice of Nebrija, leading eventually to the thorough and innovative treatment in

Spanish gr ammaticogr aphy and the teaching of Spanish

83

books I to IV. The transition supposes a switch from the orden natural, to be respected by a grammarian pursuing a systematic and “reasoned” account, to the orden de la doctrina (more suited in the context of language teaching).

Spanish grammaticography in the ‘Spanish Netherlands’: a rich and diversified harvest Not surprisingly, the Spanish language became a focus of attention in the southern Low Countries or ‘Spanish Netherlands’ (Dutch: Spaanse Nederlanden), the native region of emperor Charles V (in Spain known as Carlos primero). Charles’ ascension to the Spanish throne (1516) caused an intense traffic of political, military, and administrative personnel, as well as of merchants, students and artists. This sparked a vivid interest in the Spanish language (and literature) and catalysed its diffusion in Western Europe, aided by expert printing presses in Antwerp and Leuven. (For a bibliography of Spanish printings in the Low Countries, see Peeters-Fontainas; Peeters-Fontainas and Frédéric; on the link between Spanish and political governance in the Low Countries, see Alt). Already in 1520 the Antwerp printer Vorsterman published a short trilingual French-Spanish-Dutch dictionary ‒ in fact a thematically arranged list of words, expressions and colloquial phrases ‒, Vocabulario para aprender Franches Espannol y Flamincp [sic for Flamincq or Flamincg; parallel titles in French and Dutch], of which a second edition appeared in 1530. Between these two dates another ‘vocabulary’ had appeared, also in Antwerp, which was to enjoy, up into the nineteenth century (!), hundreds of reeditions and adaptations, in Western and Central Europe: the ‘vocabulary’ of the Antwerp schoolmaster Noël de Berlaimont [c. 1480‒1531] (see Pablo Núñez for a detailed study and bibliographical overview). First published as a bilingual French-Dutch vocabulary in 1527, Berlaimont’s work was gradually enlarged with dialogues (colloquia), model letters, and grammatical information, and also, more importantly, with other languages, thus becoming a truly ‘polyglot’ manual. Between 1527 and 1550 the work was printed (as a bilingual ‘vocabulary’) in Antwerp, but in 1551 Bartholomaeus Gravius [c. 1510‒1578] printed, in Louvain, a quadrilingual edition, adding Spanish and Latin. Two derivative editions, containing just Spanish and the newly added English, appeared in London in 1554 (The Boke of Englysshe and Spanysshe; A very profitable bok to lerne the maner of redyng, writyng, and speakyng English and Spanish). From the 1550s on Spanish was often included in the Berlaimont reeditions. Typical of the five Louvain editions (all by Gravius,

84 

José J. Gómez Asencio, Carmen Quijada van den Berghe and Pierre Swiggers

and all printed between 1551 and 1561) is the inclusion of both Spanish and Latin. In the 1560s and the 1570s, Antwerp editions of the Berlaimont started to include conjugation patterns and pronunciation rules, at a time when the very prolific schoolmaster Gabriel Meurier [c. 1513‒1598] published practical guides for the study of Spanish: 1558. Meurier, Gabriel. Coniugaisons, regles, et instructions, mout propres et necessairement requises, pour ceux qui desirent apprendre François, Italien, Espagnol & Flamen dont la plus part est mise par maniere d’Interrogations & Responses. Contains a “Breve instruction contenante la maniere de bien prononcer et lire le François, Italien, Espagnol, & Flamen”. Antwerp. 1568. Meurier, Gabriel. Coniugaciones, arte, y reglas muy proprias, y necessarias para los que quisieren deprender, Español y Frances. Antwerp. 1568. Meurier, Gabriel. Coloquios familiares muy convenientes para hablar y escribir Español y Frances. Antwerp.

Meurier’s conjugation manuals not only offer didactically well-organized verb paradigms, including everyday expressions and colloquial phrases; they also inform about noun declensions, and include lists of adverbs, prepositions and numerals, and address some specific learner’s problems (e.g., use of ser and estar; distinction between haber and tener). The 1568 edition (with Spanish title) also contains text models (for commercial correspondence). The Coloquios contain some thirty dialogues of diverse nature (social talk; bargaining; commercial and administrative activities; etc.). The dialogues are partly taken (and translated) from those in the Berlaimont editions. This was common practice: throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth century authors of didactic manuals freely copied dialogues (and pronunciation rules) from each other. Besides these practice-oriented works of Berlaimont and Meurier, aimed at a public of merchants and travellers, three grammars of Spanish appeared in the southern Low Countries, all three in the 1550s. 1555. [Anonymous] Util, y breve institution, para aprender los principios, y fundamentos de la lengua Hespañola. Institution tresbrieue & tresutile, pour aprendre les premiers fondemens, de la langue Espagnole. Institutio breuissima & utilissima, ad discenda prima rudimenta linguae Hispanicae. Louvain. 1558. Villalón, Cristóbal de. Gramatica Castellana. Arte breue y compendiosa para saber hablar y escreuir enla lengua Castellana congruya y deçentemente. Antwerp. 1559. [Anonymous] Gramatica dela Lengua Vulgar de España. Louvain.

Spanish gr ammaticogr aphy and the teaching of Spanish

85

The anonymous 1555 grammar is a trilingual text (Spanish, French, Latin), and it presupposes familiarity with Latin grammatical terminology. It contains a short section on orthography and phonetics, followed by the analysis of the nine parts of speech (article, noun, pronoun, verb, participle and the four indeclinable classes). The bulk of the text is taken up by paradigms of noun declensions (for which a case system is maintained) and, to a much greater extent, of verb paradigms. The discussion of the four indeclinable parts of speech is succinct, and essentially amounts to a listing of adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections. The eagerness to include lexical material is also evident in the added sections on comparatives and superlatives, patronyms, and borrowings from Arabic. The grammar does not deal with syntactic issues, but contains a few short religious texts (e.g., the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments). As a learner’s grammar the work has serious shortcomings: the typography and layout are rather poor, and there are errors in the labelling of the verb forms and in descriptive statements (e.g., concerning the pronominal series). By contrast, the anonymous 1559 grammar, which is monolingual, is a manual showing descriptive insight and originality, taking more distance from the Graeco-Latin model. It opens with a very informative chapter on the languages spoken on the Iberian Peninsula, and then deals in great detail with orthography and pronunciation, offering articulatory observations and contrastive remarks comparing Spanish with Latin, Greek, French, Italian and Dutch. The second part is devoted to etimología (‘morphology’), but is restricted to the analysis of four declinable parts of speech: article, noun, pronoun, verb. Here also, reference is made from time to time to Latin, Italian, French and Dutch. The analysis of the pronoun class and the description of simple and compound verb forms are accurate and didactically well presented. There is no section on syntax nor are there illustrative texts. Written for a non-native audience this grammar avoids the names ‘Spanish’ or ‘Castilian’ for the language, preferring the designation lengua vulgar de España. Cristóbal de Villalón (1510‒c. 1562) had received his education in classical languages, philosophy and theology in Alcalá, Salamanca and Valladolid. Most likely because of political and ideological reasons, related to his Jewish background, he had his grammar of Spanish published in Antwerp. His Gramatica castellana can be seen as an attempt to build Spanish grammaticography on (partly) new foundations: he attempted to create a technical metalanguage in the vernacular ‒ a goal fitting in the broader objective to enhance the prestige of the Spanish vernacular and to prevent it from corruption ‒, and in addition he advances interesting insights (partly under

86 

José J. Gómez Asencio, Carmen Quijada van den Berghe and Pierre Swiggers

the influence of the Judeo-Arabic grammar model) on the division into word classes. However, Villalón does not completely abandon the Graeco-Latin model. The overall structure of his rather succinct grammar is a composite one: next to sections on noun and verb, there are sections on syntax and on orthography. Perhaps the most consistent feature of Villalón’s grammar is the critical distance taken with regard to Nebrija’s 1492 grammar, which remains, however, his principal source.

Italy On the Italian Peninsula Spanish was not a completely ‘foreign’ language. The Aragonese possessions (Sicily, Sardinia, Naples) had introduced Castilian (and Catalan) on the soil of Italy during the later Middle Ages, and the conquests of Charles V certainly fostered the diffusion of Spanish in cities such as Genova and Milan. Also, Spanish humanists came to study in Italy, where they received a solid education in law, medicine and classical languages and literature. Culturally speaking, Spain was more indebted to Italy than the reverse, and this explains the relatively scant production of works on the Spanish language published in sixteenth-century Italy. We know of two works, the first of which had only one printed edition, while the second one, which was the product of a native Spaniard (Juan, or Giovanni, de Miranda), was more successful. 1560. Alessandri d’Urbino, Giovanni Mario. Il paragone della lingua toscana et castigliana. Napels. 1566. Miranda, Juan de. Osservationi della lingua castigliana […] divise in quatro libri: ne’ quali s’insegna con gran facilità la perfetta lingua Spagnuola. Con due tavole: l’una de’ capi essenziali, & l’altra delle cose notabili. Venice.

Three features of the grammars of Spanish published in Italy should be singled out: (1) Their contrastive slant, announced in the title of Alessandri, and prominently present throughout his work, as well as in Miranda’s. (2) The connection with previously published grammars of Spanish published in Spain or in the Low Countries. (3) In Miranda’s case, the orientation towards ‘observations’ on the language, involving a move away from the Graeco-Latin model of description in favour of a focus on phraseological and (lexico-)stylistic phenomena.

Spanish gr ammaticogr aphy and the teaching of Spanish

87

Both Alessandri’s and Miranda’s work show links with local courts in Italy. Alessandri d’Urbino [c. 1500‒after 1560], a clergyman, wrote and published his work in Naples, and dedicated it to the Duke of Montalto; Miranda [c. 1510‒after 1570], a translator of the writings of Fray Luis de Granada, dwelled at the court of Venice and moved in the circles of the higher Italian nobility and clergy. Alessandri’s work is conceived as an introduction to Spanish for speakers of Italian, but also the other way round. This explains his bidirectional approach throughout the various parts of the Paragone: pronunciation and spelling, the declinable parts of speech (nouns, pronouns, verbs, with gerunds and participles treated separately), and the indeclinable parts. Alessandri’s work shows the influence of Villalón’s grammar, but is much more practical in its presentation, with an emphasis on declension and conjugation paradigms. His work was of direct influence on Miranda’s Osservationi, in which the same typographical distinction (italics for Italian, roman lettertype for Spanish) is used. However, Miranda’s work (the title of which may have been inspired by Lodovico Dolce’s Osservationi nella volgar lingua [1550]), is intended only for speakers of Italian eager to learn Spanish. It is divided into four ‘books’: the first deals with pronunciation, the article and the nominal and pronominal parts of speech, the second with the verb and, briefly, with issues of syntax, the third with the indeclinable parts of speech, and the fourth with orthography and accentuation. In his treatment of the various word classes Miranda pays much attention to phraseology, thus acquainting his readership with Spanish ‘ways of speaking’. While indebted to Italian (Dolce; Alessandri) and Spanish (Nebrija; Villalón) grammarians, Miranda elaborated a specific type of language manual, which immediately enjoyed success (it was republished in 1567, 1568, 1569, 1583, 1584, 1585, 1594, 1595, and in 1622; only the 1583 and 1622 are revised editions, the other being reprintings). But beyond that, he was a major influence on the French grammarian and lexicographer César Oudin, and on the successful seventeenth-century Italian author of a Spanish grammar Lorenzo Franciosini [c. 1580‒c. 1650] (Gramatica spagnola e italiana, 1624, with numerous reeditions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; Introduzione alla lettura, ed intelligenza grammaticale della lingua spagnuola, 1644, with two reeditions).

The teaching and learning of Spanish in Spain’s antagonist: England The prospects for interest in Spanish were highly favourable when Henry VIII married Catherine of Aragon in 1509, but their divorce and the subsequent

88 

José J. Gómez Asencio, Carmen Quijada van den Berghe and Pierre Swiggers

break with the Roman Church (1534) brought about a climate of hostility, which in spite of Mary Tudor’s marriage with Philip II (1554), stayed vivid. Following Mary’s death and Elizabeth’s ascension to the throne, England and Spain became antagonistic powers on all levels: political, religious and commercial. It is no small wonder that among the authors of Spanish grammars published in England we find a native Spaniard converted to Protestantism (Corro) and a political spy (Percyvall), nor that the contents of the works published in England are oriented towards the rapid acquisition of (the rudiments of) Spanish. 1586. Corro, Antonio de(l). Reglas gramaticales para aprender la lengua Española y Francesa, confiriendo la una con la otra. Oxford. 1590. Corro, Antonio de(l). The Spanish Grammer with certeine rules teaching both the Spanish and French tongues. By which they that have some knowledge in the French tongue, may the easier attaine to the Spanish, and likewise they that have the Spanish, with more facilitie learne the French: and they that are acquainted with neither of them, learne either or both. London. 1591. Stepney, William. The Spanish Schoole-master. Containing seven dialogues, according to every day in the weeke, and what is necessarie everie day to be done, wherein is also most plainly shewed the true and perfect pronunciation of the Spanish tongue, toward the furtherance of all those which are desirous to learne the said tongue within this our Realme of England. Whereunto, besides seven Dialogues, are annexed most fine Proverbs and sentences, as also the Lords prayer, the Articles of our beliefe, the ten Commandements, and a Vocabularie, with other things necessarie to be knowne in the said tongue. London. 1591. Percyvall, Richard. Bibliotheca Hispanica, Containing a grammar, with a Dictionarie in Spanish, English and Latine, gathered out of divers good Authors: very profitable for the studious of the Spanish toong. […] The Dictionarie being inlarged with the Latine, by the advise and conference of Master Thomas Doyley, Doctor in Physicke. London. 1599. Minsheu, John. A Spanish Grammar, first collected and published by Richard Percivale Gent. Now augmented and increased with the declining of all the Irregular and hard verbes in that toong, with divers other especiall rules and necessarie notes for all such as shall be desirous to attaine the perfection of the Spanish tongue. […]. London.

Antonio de(l) Corro [1527‒1591] wrote his Reglas while staying, as a refugee, at the local court of Jeanne d’Albret in Gascony, a stronghold of Protestantism. Once in England, where he became pastor of a Spanish Protestant

Spanish gr ammaticogr aphy and the teaching of Spanish

89

community in London, Corro published his grammar, which upon the request of English friends he had translated into English by John Thorie. His Spanish grammer is a double grammar of Spanish and French; it is intended for a cultivated audience, as can be inferred from the use of Latin grammatical terminology and from the constant formulation of normative ‘rules’. Corro’s grammar opens with a graphophonetic part (offering rules on the articulation of sounds), a much longer morphological part (structured around the eight parts of speech, the article not being counted as a separate word class), a short section on syntax (rules of concord and government); the grammar is followed by a brief dictionary, mainly an alphabetical arrangement of the lexical ítems figuring in the text of the grammar. William Stepney’s [ fl. 1590] work, written for the ‘benef ite of countrymen’5 , is essentially a collection of dialogues (derived from the Berlaimont colloquia, with adaptations to the English context), proverbs, religious texts, thematic word lists. These materials are preceded by a short introduction on the ‘pronunciation of the Spanish letters’ and a succinct overview of conjugations; for a more detailed treatment, Stepney refers his readers to ‘a Gramer in Spanish’6 (a cryptic hint at Corro’s work). The seven dialogues ‒ one for each day of the week ‒ are tailored to the linguistic needs of (young) noblemen and merchants. The Bibliotheca of Percyvall [1550‒1620] contains a short grammar of less than forty pages, followed by a substantial Spanish-English-Latin dictionary. The typographical presentation of the grammar is limpid, and Percyvall’s tabulation of the paradigms is well-designed and clearly set off from the main text. The succinct grammar is limited to a short treatment of Spanish pronunciation (with contrastive remarks, including also French and Italian), an overview of the eight parts of speech, and a brief discussion of syntax (concord and government). Percyvall’s grammar is not a very original work, but it is neither a collection of rules (as Corro’s work) nor a purely practiceoriented work (as Stepney’s); the author provides his readers with basic theoretical notions (e.g. definitions of the word classes). The polyglot language master John Minsheu/Minshew [1560‒1627], whose scholarly reputation is rather dubious, plagiarized the grammar of Percyvall, which he expanded with examples (also often copied from other authors). He proceeded in the same plagiarizing way as a compiler of a collection of Spanish dialogues and of a Spanish dictionary, much to the dismay of fellow scholars such as Oudin. However, Minsheu left his mark on the works 5 Stepney, The Spanish Schoole-master, ‘The Epistle to the reader’, n.p. 6 Ibidem, 29.

90 

José J. Gómez Asencio, Carmen Quijada van den Berghe and Pierre Swiggers

of authors of Spanish grammars in seventeenth-century England, such as Lewis Owen (The Key of the Spanish Tongue, 1605) and John Sanford (An Entrance to the Spanish Tongue, 1611).

The grammars of Spanish published in France: the focus on comprehensive description Notwithstanding the strong glottopolitical investment in the national language, the widespread diffusion of French among noblemen and merchants in Europe, and the hostile relations between France and Spain, France did not lag behind in displaying interest in Spanish. French translations of Spanish literary texts appeared throughout the sixteenth century, but it was only at the very end of the century that the first grammatical manuals for learning Spanish were published. The antagonism between the (Spanish) Habsburgian and the French crowns runs through the century, but in the last two decades tensions were at their height, during the Eighth War of Religion (1585‒98). The political and religious divides, after the assassination of Henri III in 1589, between the Catholic League (supported by the Spanish court), moderate nationalists, and the Protestants defending the cause of Henri, the king of Navarre, were only resolved when the latter abjured Protestantism in 1593 and became king of France, under the name Henri IV; in 1598 he achieved religious peace (Edict of Nantes). Interestingly, the two grammars of Spanish that appeared in France at the end of the sixteenth century were written by authors with radically opposed political and religious convictions. 1596. [Anonymous; author: Charpentier, A.]. La parfaicte Methode pour entendre, escrire, et parler la langue Espagnole, divisée en deux parties. La premiere contient briefvement les regles de Grammaire. La seconde, les recherches des plus beaux enrichissemens de la langue qui servent a la composition et traduction. Paris. 1597. Oudin, César. Grammaire et observations de la langue espagnolle recueillies et mises en François. Paris.

An adherent ‒ up to the point of serving as a spy ‒ of the Catholic League, Charpentier [c. 1550‒1597] was arrested in 1597 and publicly executed; the promised follow-up on his grammar, viz. a manual for composing and translating in Spanish, never reached print. As its title indicates, Charpentier’s grammar presents itself as a systematic outline of the structure of Spanish.

Spanish gr ammaticogr aphy and the teaching of Spanish

91

The author, influenced by the French grammatical tradition (Meigret, Pillot, Ramus, Henri Estienne), as well as by Graeco-Latin grammaticography (partly through Nebrija’s Latin grammars), shows acquaintance with more theoretically (i.e. Villalón) and more practically oriented (i.e. Meurier and Miranda) descriptions of Spanish. He also was at home in Spanish literature, and often uses literary examples to illustrate his statements. While the general frame of his grammar is rather traditional (orthography and pronunciation; then a long morphology section, structured around nine word classes; no syntax), he has interesting remarks on Spanish phonetics, on the function of the articles, and on the use of the past tenses (one of which he labels ‘aorist’). The more learned status of the grammar explains the focus on rules and the frequent appeal to etymology. César Oudin [c. 1560‒1625], a translator and interpreter, made his career as secretary to Henri of Navarre, who became Henri IV. Equipped with a knowledge of the classical languages and of European vernaculars (Spanish, Italian and German), Oudin was a professional grammarian and lexicographer, who profited from his vast experience as a translator. His grammar of Spanish, though not as original as Charpentier’s, marks a real progress in clarity of (typographical) presentation and formulation; it strikes the balance between grammatical and lexical-stylistic description. The properly grammatical part (pronunciation; morphology: the nine parts of speech, which is interspersed with lexical lists (of nouns ordered in function of the formation of the plural; of derived nouns; of verbs, according to conjugation patterns; of adverbs), is followed by a loosely organized part with remarks on lexical and phraseological ítems. In the second edition (1604), Oudin added a section on Spanish proverbs (proverbes expliquez en François); from the third edition on (1606), the work was enriched with dialogues. Oudin also published separately collections of proverbs (1605) and of dialogues (1608), next to a French-Spanish dictionary (1607). Oudin’s grammar, which enjoyed a Latin translation (1607, used in the German-speaking part of the Habsburg empire), had numerous reeditions throughout the seventeenth century, and was the major influence on grammars of Spanish for non-natives (on the study of French in seventeenth-century France, see Morel-Fatio).

Conclusions and perspectives The development of Spanish grammaticography in the sixteenth century, following upon its foundation in 1492 on the Iberian Peninsula, testifies to the growing recognition in Western Europe of the political and economic

92 

José J. Gómez Asencio, Carmen Quijada van den Berghe and Pierre Swiggers

importance of Spanish, the principal language of a large part of the Habsburg empire and its colonial expansion. Spanish was also closely tied up with Catholicism. These were all factors accounting for the increasing interest abroad in learning Spanish. From the late sixteenth century on, and especially during the seventeenth century (the ‘Siglo de Oro’), the prestige of Spanish literature and culture greatly contributed to the diffusion of the language in Western Europe. From the preceding synthesis of (didactically oriented) Spanish grammaticography one sees that in Spain, only one grammar of Spanish was published in the period 1492‒1600; however, some of the grammars published abroad were composed by native Spaniards (e.g., the authors of the 1555 and 1559 grammars of Louvain, Villalón, Miranda and Corro). The most successful grammars were those of Miranda and Oudin. Spanish learner’s grammars published abroad were generally written in the language of the targeted audience, as shown by the Italian, English and French production (except for Corro’s first work, written during his exile in Gascony). The Spanish Netherlands constitute an exception for a variety of reasons: the presence of Spanish noblemen, soldiers, merchants and students; the ‘international’ orientation of Antwerp and Louvain as commercial and intellectual centres; the European network of major printing houses in the Low Countries. The presence of Spaniards in Flanders and Italy may also explain why the grammars published there hardly contain illustrative texts (dialogues, letters, …), although one has to be cautious: as a matter of fact, one has to bear in mind the broad European success of the multilingual Berlaimont colloquia (supplemented with lexical and grammatical information); also, Meurier’s dialogues enjoyed wide diffusion. Analytical detail was not the focus of this contribution. Because of space restrictions, no attempt has been made to study the use and adaptation of grammatical models, or to examine specific grammatical problems dealt with. Although Spanish grammaticography of the sixteenth century is a relatively well-explored field, much work remains to be done, e.g., on the socio-professional and intellectual profile of the source authors, on the material presentation of the grammars, on issues of grammatical terminology, on lines of development (influence; cases of plagiarism; criticism and rejection of views), on the presence of language-contrastive remarks, and, more generally, on the didactic implementation of the grammaticographical contents.

Spanish gr ammaticogr aphy and the teaching of Spanish

93

Bibliography Alt, Wolfgang, Sprache und Macht. Das Spanische in den Niederlanden unter Philipp II. bis zur Erorberung Antwerpens (1555‒1585) (University of Trier: PhD thesis, 2005). Béhar, Roland, Mercedes Blanco & Jochen Hafner (eds.), Villes à la croisée des langues (XVIe‒XVIIe siècles): Anvers, Hambourg, Milan, Naples et Palerme / Städte im Schnittpunkt der Sprachen (16.‒17. Jahrhundert): Antwerpen, Hamburg, Mailand, Neapel und Palermo (Geneva: Droz, 2018). Colombat, Bernard. (ed.), Corpus représentatif des grammaires et des traditions linguistiques, Volume 1 (of 2) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 1998). Escavy, Ricardo, José Miguel Hernández Terrés & Antonio Roldán Pérez (eds.), Actas del Congreso Internacional de Historiografía Lingüística. Nebrija V Centenario (Murcia: Ediciones de la Universidad de Murcia, 1994). Esparza Torres, Miguel Ángel, Las ideas lingüísticas de Antonio de Nebrija (Münster: Nodus, 1995). Esparza Torres, Miguel Ángel and Hans Josef Niederehe, Las obras completas del humanista Antonio de Nebrija desde 1481 hasta nuestros días (Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999). García Blanco, Manuel, La lengua española en la época de Carlos V (Madrid: Escelícer, 1967). Gómez Asencio, José J. (comp.), Antiguas gramáticas del castellano [CD-ROM], Clásicos Tavera, serie VIII: Lingüística y antecedentes literarios de la Península ibérica I/6, (Madrid: Fundación Histórica Tavera, 2001). Gómez Asencio, José J. (dir.), El castellano y su codificación gramatical. Volume 1 (of 3): De 1492 (A. de Nebrija) a 1611 (John Sanford) (Burgos: Fundación Instituto Castellano y Leonés de la lengua, 2006). Gómez Asencio, José J. (dir.), El castellano y su codificación gramatical. Voume. 2 (of 3): De 1614 (B. Jiménez Patón) a 1697 (F. Sobrino) (Burgos: Fundación Instituto Castellano y Leonés de la lengua, 2008). Gómez Asencio, José J. (dir.), El castellano y su codificación gramatical. Volume 3 (of 3): De 1700 a 1835, (Burgos: Fundación Instituto Castellano y Leonés de la lengua, 2011). Lépinette, Brigitte, El francés y el español en contraste y en contacto (siglos XV‒XVII), (Valencia: Universitat de Valencia, 2001). Lombardini, Hugo E. and Félix San Vicente, Gramáticas de español para italófonos (siglos XVI‒XVIII), (Münster: Nodus, 2015). Lope Blanch, Juan M, Estudios de historia lingüística hispánica, (Madrid: Arco/ Libros, 1990).

94 

José J. Gómez Asencio, Carmen Quijada van den Berghe and Pierre Swiggers

Maux-Piovano, Marie-Hélène, Les debuts de la didactique de l’espagnol en France: les premières grammaires pratiques (1596‒1660), (Lille: Atelier national de reproduction des thèses, 2000). Morel-Fatio, Alfred, Ambrosio de Salazar et l’étude de l’espagnol en France sous Louis XIII, (Paris: Picard, 1901). Niederehe, Hans-Josef, Bibliografía cronológica de la lingüística, la gramática y la lexicografía del español. Desde los comienzos hasta el año 1600, [BICRES I], (Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1994). Pablo Núñez, Luis, El arte de las palabras. Diccionarios e imprenta en el Siglo de Oro, (Mérida: Editora Regional de Extremadura, 2010). Peeters-Fontainas, Jean, Bibliographie des impressions espagnoles des Pays-Bas (Louvain: J. Peeters-Fontainas / Anvers: Musée Plantin-Morétus, 1933). Peeters-Fontainas, Jean and Anne-Marie Frédéric, Bibliographie des impressions espagnoles des Pays-Bas méridionaux, (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1965) [Supplement in: De Gulden Passer 55 (1977), 1-66]. Ramajo Caño, Antonio, Las gramáticas de la lengua castellana desde Nebrija a Correas, (Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1987). Roldán Pérez, Antonio, ‘Motivaciones para el estudio del español en las gramáticas del siglo XVI’, Revista de filología española 58 (1976), 201-229. Sánchez Pérez, Aquilino Historia de la enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera (Madrid: SGEL, 1992). Schröder, Konrad. (ed.), Fremdsprachenunterricht 1500‒1800, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992). Stammerjohann, Harro. (ed.), Lexicon grammaticorum. A Bio-Bibliographical Companion to the History of Linguistics, (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2009 [Second ed.]).

About the authors José J. Gómez Asencio studied Philosophy and Letters (artes) at the universities of Seville and Salamanca, where he received his PhD in Romance Philology in 1980. Since 1989 he has been Professor (catedrático) of Spanish language at the University of Salamanca, where he regularly teaches Spanish language, phonetics and phonology of Spanish, and history of Spanish grammar writing. He has carried out research stays in Bologna (2011), at New York University (NYU) (2012), at KU Leuven (2013), in Chile (2016), and at Potsdam University (2018); he has been invited professor at the University of Paris XIII (2003‒2004) and in Padua (2017). He received the María de Maeztu award from the University of Salamanca for research excellence, and currently is the Director of the ‘Consolidated Research Unit’ (UIC-046) Descriptive

Spanish gr ammaticogr aphy and the teaching of Spanish

95

grammar and historiography of Spanish grammar (Junta de Castilla y León); he is a corresponding member of the Real Academia Española (since 2015). Email: [email protected] Carmen Quijada Van den Berghe studied Hispanic philology at the University of Salamanca. Her research focuses on Early Modern Spanish grammaticography, the history of the teaching of Spanish, Spanish historical phonetics and the grammatization of verbal tenses in Spanish. She spent research stays in Leuven (CHL) and Paris (LHTL, Paris VII/CNRS), as well as in Oxford, Rutgers (NJ) and Tokyo. Since 2007 she teaches Spanish language, phonetics and phonology, and Spanish as a foreign language at the University of Salamanca, where she is Associate Professor. Email: [email protected] Pierre Swiggers studied Romance philology, linguistics, Oriental languages, philosophy and medieval history in Leuven, Louvain-la-Neuve, Paris and subsequently in the US (Bloomington, Philadelphia, Albuquerque). He teaches general linguistics, Romance linguistics and history of linguistics at the universities of Leuven (KU Leuven) and Liège (Université de Liège). He is Senior Research Director of the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research. At KU Leuven he is director of the Centre for the Historiography of Linguistics. His research covers various fields: the history of linguistics, and more particularly the evolution of grammatical terminology and the teaching of grammar; descriptive and comparative linguistics; the philosophy of language (meaning and reference; sign theory); and the methodology and epistemology of linguistics. Email: [email protected]

5.

Quelle grammaire française pour les étrangers, du seizième au dix-huitième siècle? Valérie Raby

Abstract French grammatical texts from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century are heterogeneous and it would be misleading to analyse them along facile oppositions such as practical vs speculative or theoretical grammars; firstvs second-language grammars. A proper understanding of the functions and unity of these texts – and, more specifically, of grammars explicitly aimed at a foreign audience – needs to take into account the long-term evolution of the grammatisation of the French language. While the general framework of French grammars remains remarkably stable along this period, their pedagogical scope, from the second half of the seventeenth century onward, becomes redefined by the split between ‘general’ grammar and ‘particular’ grammar (i.e. single-language oriented grammar). Key words: French grammar; French as a foreign language; French as a f irst language; grammatization; grammar rules; General Grammar; language learning

La grammatisation du français et son ‘public’ Si l’on peut facilement définir les grammaires du français produites entre le seizième et le dix-huitième siècle comme des grammaires qui prennent pour langue-objet de leurs analyses la langue française, il est plus délicat d’opérer un partage entre celles qui seraient destinées à l’apprentissage de la langue par les étrangers et celles qui s’adresseraient aux ‘locuteurs natifs’. Il y a à cela deux raisons au moins, d’ordres différents.

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch05

98 

Valérie R aby

Contrairement à la norme actuelle, nombre de grammaires du français destinées aux étrangers (exclusivement ou non, nous y reviendrons) ont alors pour métalangue principale, sinon unique, le français. C’est le cas par exemple de celles de Barton, Meurier, Masset, Maupas, Oudin, Chiflet, La Grue, Mauger, Vairasse d’Allais et La Touche, qui représentent la majorité des grammaires de ce type recensées dans le corpus des grammaires françaises édité en 2011 chez Classiques Garnier Numérique.1 Si l’on s’en tient à ce corpus, qui n’est certes pas exhaustif mais recense les principales grammaires du français publiées en Europe entre le quinzième siècle et la fin du dix-septième siècle, le français domine dès la fin du seizième siècle comme métalangue des grammaires destinées aux étrangers, prenant ainsi le relais du latin 2 . Rappelons en effet que le choix du français, qui peut sembler inadapté pour les élèves étrangers, répond initialement à une nécessité d’un autre ordre: ‘mettre en art’, sur le modèle latin, une langue qui est alors, selon le mot de L. Giard (65), ‘sans lieu propre de théorisation’, c’est prouver de fait qu’il s’agit bien d’une langue ‘réglée’, dont la dignité égale celle du latin. Le geste d’Estienne, qui ne fait traduire son Traicté de la grãmaire Francoise en latin que dans un second temps, est à cet égard significatif: le latin est certes une métalangue plus accessible que le français, mais seule une grammaire en français peut réaliser la promotion de cette langue comme langue de savoir. On ne peut donc, pour identif ier les grammaires pour étrangers, se satisfaire du critère de la différence entre langue-objet et métalangue. À cela s’ajoute que, bien souvent, ces textes ne renvoient que marginalement aux spécificités de la langue des apprenants, à l’occasion de certains faits de prononciation ou de morphosyntaxe.3 La prise en compte de la langue de l’élève ne se manifeste que par des comparaisons ponctuelles et souvent plurilingues. En voici deux exemples: La double ll aprés l’i, a vn son gras, que d’autres appellent liquide, d’autres mouillé. C’est le mesme son que de la double ll, en la langue Espagnole: comme llamar, llorar: et en la langue Italienne, de gli: comme, pigliate, moglie. Ainsi en François nous prononçons Gaillard, que l’Espagnol escrit 1 Corpus des Grammaires françaises de la Renaissance et Corpus des Grammaires françaises du XVIIe siècle. Pour une information sur la structure de ces ouvrages, leurs éditions, leurs visées et leurs influences, on se reportera aux notices du Corpus des textes linguistiques fondamentaux. 2 Le latin est notamment la métalangue des grammaires de Sylvius, Pillot, Cauchie, Serreius. 3 Le cas de l’Essay d’une parfaite Grammaire de la langue françoise de Chiflet, dont la première partie comporte en annexe une ‘Adjonction particulière pour les Flamands’ (156-164), reste exceptionnel.

QUELLE GRAMMAIRE FRANÇAISE POUR LES É TRANGERS?

99

gallardo, et l’Italien gagliardo: où l’on entend le mesme son de l’l qu’en gaillard. (Chiflet, 223) […] nous avons deux natures d’impersonnels, l’une de sens passif, qui est fait de cette syllabe on ou l’on, appliquee devant toute tierce personne singul. de quelque verbe que ce soit, Transitif, Reciproqué, Neutre & Passif, & convient entiérement à cette particule Allemande Mann. Les Latins les rendent par leurs tiérces passives. On dit. Dicitur. Mann. sagt. on lit. Legitur. Mann list. on aime. Amatur. Mann. liebt & ainsi, on est aimé, on sera aimé, on va, on court, &c. (Maupas, f. 124 r)

Il faut donc bien souvent, pour les ouvrages monolingues publiés en France, se contenter d’informations historiques externes, ou se fier aux titres, aux sous-titres et aux discours préfaciels, pour savoir si une grammaire est ou non destinée aux étrangers.4 Le cas des grammaires du français élaborées à l’étranger est plus simple, malgré la diversité des situations nationales ou régionales: leur continuité est généralement affichée avec d’autres outils d’apprentissage linguistique plus anciens (manuels de conversation, recueils de proverbes ou de dialogues, lexiques plurilingues, lettres-types), qu’elles intègrent souvent dans un même volume.5 La partie proprement grammaticale de ces manuels composites vise l’acquisition d’un savoir grammatical – c’est-à-dire une connaissance générale de la nature et de la définition des catégories linguistiques relevant du niveau des lettres et des sons, puis du niveau du mot –, savoir dont la valeur procédurale n’est effective que parce qu’il complète les contenus fournis par d’autres matériaux didactiques.6 C’est 4 Rares sont les intitulés indiquant explicitement une visée didactique. Pour les grammaires françaises en français, seul l’Exact et tres-facile acheminement à la langue françoise de Masset (1606) annonce clairement son propos. Comme l’indiquent Colombat & Fournier, le titre grammaire (hérité de l’ars grammatica donatienne) s’impose progressivement à partir du seizième siècle, parfois concurrencé au siècle suivant par méthode. 5 Pour des perspectives comparatives à l’échelle européenne voir Padley, et De Clerc, Lioce & Swiggers. L’historiographie de l’enseignement du français à l’étranger est désormais trop riche pour qu’on sélectionne ici des références pertinentes. On se contentera de rappeler que la recherche est en bonne partie structurée par la Société internationale pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère (shifles, 1987) et sa revue semestrielle, Documents pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde. 6 Nous nous inspirons ici de la réflexion d’Auroux & Mazière sur la relation entre la grammaire et l’hyperlangue: ‘L’hyperlangue est un système dynamique; on peut concevoir une grammaire comme la projection de ce système dans un sous-espace de représentation. Aussi déclaratif que puisse être l’élément grammatical (à la rigueur une simple liste), il a toujours valeur procédurale (prendre tel élément de la liste pour …) et peut donc être utilisé en situation de production. C’est en ce sens que la grammatisation produit de véritables outils linguistiques et pas de simples représentations des éléments langagiers.’ (8).

100 

Valérie R aby

ainsi que le Donait françois,7 qui n’a rien d’élémentaire malgré sa brièveté, fait partie d’un manuscrit associant des lettres, des manières de langage, un lexique d’adverbes latin-français, des proverbes français, des traités d’orthographe et de conjugaison.8 Pas plus que son modèle latin, le Donait françois ne permet à lui seul d’apprendre une langue, surtout pour un débutant. La deuxième raison pour laquelle le partage entre grammaire du français langue étrangère et grammaire du français langue maternelle s’applique malaisément à notre corpus, c’est que les grammaires destinées aux ‘Français’ ne concernent longtemps que la petite minorité lettrée des habitants du royaume de France.9 Et parmi ces lettrés, qui ont d’abord appris à lire et écrire le latin, la langue française n’est homogène ni à l’oral ni à l’écrit. Le constat de la variation (dans la prononciation mais aussi la morphologie verbale, l’usage des prépositions, le lexique) est récurrent sous la plume des grammairiens, puis des remarqueurs à partir de la seconde moitié du dix-septième siècle, et les ‘fautes’ des provinciaux valent bien, dans le discours grammatical, celles des étrangers. En témoigne, parmi d’autres, ce jugement d’Abel Matthieu déplorant la ‘corruption’ du langage de toutes les provinces: Quant au destroict de France à parler proprement, il est si court et si anguste qu’aujourd’huy on n’y sauroit asseoir le pied, ou le Francoys nayf y soit parlé et entendu du commun: mais il est repandu deca et dela ou sont les hommes bien apris, dont la plus part s’est retirée en la court du Roy, aux maisons des Princes et grandz seigneurs, ou es Justices souveraines et courtz de Parlement: tellement qu’on ne trouvera ville ne bourgade ou le peuple resente l’honneur de son langaige, et ou il n’y ait faulte aux motz principaulx et noms des choses ou à la prolation mectant bien souvent une letre pour autre. (Matthieu, f. 22r)

Un siècle plus tard, la sévérité de Chiflet, pourtant franc-comtois de naissance, est égale à l’égard de la langue des ‘français naturels’ maîtres de langue aux Pays-Bas:

7 Ce court traité est la première grammaire connue du français en français, rédigée vers 1409. Son public, qu’il n’est pas aisé d’identif ier, est vraisemblablement d’abord ‘la jeunesse intellectuelle (entre autres les futurs juristes) qui suivent les cours para-universitaire de français à Oxford’ (Colombat, 19), et la clientèle féminine aristocratique des couvents. 8 Colombat, ‘Introduction’, 29-30. 9 Voir Clerico (1999) pour une vue synthétique de la diversité linguistique de la France du seizième siècle.

QUELLE GRAMMAIRE FRANÇAISE POUR LES É TRANGERS?

101

En ce point, le mal des Flamands est qu’ils ont souvent de mauvais Maistres en nostre langue. Car il vient aux Pays Bas, plusieurs François naturels, qui ne sçauent que la langue corrompue du commun peuple de leurs Provinces, & font d’estranges fautes en parlant. Ils ne laissent pas pourtant de dresser des Escoles, pour debiter leurs ignorances, & changer leur mauvais langage contre du bon argent. Mesmes quelques-uns se meslent de composer des Grammaires & des Dialogues, qui font pitié à ceux qui les lisent. (Chiflet, 156-157)

Le partage pertinent, dans le ‘public’ des grammaires françaises, passe donc plutôt entre les locuteurs reconnus comme linguistiquement qualifiés – quelles que soient les populations de référence et les autorités reconnues, variables selon les époques – et ceux qui ne le sont pas, qu’ils soient ‘français naturels’ ou étrangers. Il faut donc nuancer l’affirmation d’A. Chervel selon qui l’enseignement du français à ceux qui ne le connaissent pas et celui qui s’adresse à ceux qui le parlent constituent depuis les origines deux traditions didactiques différentes, qui n’ont ‘en commun qu’une partie de leur champ didactique’.10 Or le processus de grammatisation du français est une entreprise de réduction de la variation linguistique qui vise à fabriquer, par sélection et stabilisation des formes, une langue commune qui n’est pas davantage celle de nombreux ‘Français’ qu’elle ne l’est des étrangers.11 Dans ces conditions, la partie commune aux deux traditions didactiques évoquées est, comme le reconnaît Chervel lui-même, considérable. En témoigne le grand nombre de grammaires du français s’adressant aussi bien aux natifs du Royaume qu’aux étrangers, sans distinction. Le long sous-titre de la Grammaire méthodique de Vairasse d’Allais comporte ainsi la mention ‘Ouvrage fort utile à toute sorte de gens’ et l’adresse de l’imprimeur au lecteur vante les mérites de l’ouvrage auprès de différents ‘publics’: Ceux qui n’ont pas étudié, et qui n’entendent pas la Grammaire, la pourront apprendre ici, en leur propre Langue dans une metode claire et facile, ce qui est un excellent preparatif pour faciliter les Langues étrangeres. Ceux qui ont fait leurs études y pourront voir en François, d’une maniere fort

10 Chervel, ‘Pour une histoire comparée des disciplines du français langue étrangère et du français langue maternelle’, 85. 11 Voir Auroux & Mazière sur le processus de ‘réduction’ opéré par la grammatisation des vernaculaires et, dans le prolongement de cette perspective, Riemer sur l’inadéquation des ‘ready-made categories’ description et prescription pour rendre compte du projet ‘artéfactualiste’ des grammaires de la Renaissance.

102 

Valérie R aby

exacte et reguliere, les regles d’un art qu’ils n’ont appris en Latin qu’assez confusément, et avec beaucoup de peine. […] On parle assez mal François dans la plûpart de nos Provinces, et c’est sur tout dans la prononciation que les Personnes les plus polies, qui demeurent loin de la Capitale font beaucoup de fautes. Il y a bien plus: c’est que dans Paris même on doute de plusieurs termes, soit à l’égard du sens et de la construction, soit à l’égard de la prononciation, et sur tout dans les Verbes Irreguliers, dont l’Auteur de cet ouvrage donne le traité le plus exact qui ait encore paru. […] Enfin les étrangers qui viennent de divers endroits pour apprendre une Langue, laquelle est presentement la plus estimée et la plus universelle de l’Europe, trouveront dans cette Grammaire des secours merveilleux pour leur en faire comprendre le Genie et la veritable constitution. (Vairasse d’Allais, 14-16)

La visée de cette adresse est évidemment mercantile, mais elle dit bien qu’à la fin du dix-septième siècle encore, la compétence linguistique, qu’elle concerne le savoir théorique (‘ceux […] qui n’entendent pas la Grammaire’) ou les capacités d’expression, est bien mal partagée. Plus encore, nous y reviendrons, l’apprentissage de la grammaire est présenté comme tangent à celui de la langue: apprendre la grammaire pour le premier groupe de lecteurs visé, qui est celui des peu lettrés – c’est-à-dire des marchands ou des femmes désireuses de parfaire leur éducation – serait une étape préparatoire à l’acquisition des langues étrangères aussi bien qu’une méthode du bon usage en langue maternelle. Ce qui diffère donc, ce sont les usages que l’on peut faire de la même grammaire, selon les finalités que le lecteur ou le pédagogue se donne, davantage que les grammaires elles-mêmes. Par conséquent la tâche de l’historien de la didactique des langues est de rechercher la trace des pratiques effectives d’apprentissage et d’enseignement. Nous n’indiquerons que quelques pistes dans cette direction, pour poursuivre la réflexion sur cette relative indistinction fonctionnelle des premières grammaires du français.

Grammaire et apprentissage des langues, entre principes et pratiques Pour l’ensemble de la période considérée, le format grammatical est stable, il suit la matrice héritée du latin sous ses deux modèles principaux: l’Ars Donati et, plus rarement, l’Ars Prisciani. La grammaire, régulièrement définie

QUELLE GRAMMAIRE FRANÇAISE POUR LES É TRANGERS?

103

en suivant Quintilien comme l’art de bien parler et d’écrire correctement, désigne l’ensemble des ‘parties’ de l’art grammatical, fondé depuis les premières grammaires alexandrines sur une progression qui correspond à une conception concaténatoire de la chaine linguistique: de même qu’on combine des lettres-sons en syllabes, puis en mots, puis en syntagmes, pour former un énoncé complet, de même la grammaire étudie d’abord le matériau phonétique et graphique, puis les parties du discours, puis les règles de leur assemblage (leur syntaxe). Les variations ou innovations apportées à cette architecture sont limitées et le modèle permet des expansions internes (par l’insertion de listes lexicales, de paradigmes morphologiques) ou externes (pour adjoindre des traités sur l’orthographe, la ponctuation ou le style). Rares sont, de fait, les discussions sur la nature et la définition de la grammaire. Si Maupas intitule curieusement son manuel Grammaire et syntaxe françoise, il ne commente que le premier élément du titre dans son épitre aux lecteurs, définissant la grammaire comme ‘un amas de preceptes generaux avec leurs exceptions artistement agencez’ (Av.-texte, 7). La mention syntaxe signale vraisemblablement un aménagement du plan traditionnel des grammaires: l’étude de la construction des différentes parties du discours entre elles ne sera pas séparée de celle de leur morphologie.12 Pour le reste, le modèle traditionnel est respecté précisément parce qu’il constitue un fonds commun sur lequel le pédagogue peut détacher, de manière différentielle, les traits du vernaculaire: Traitant de l’usage des parties d’oraison, ie me suis tous-jours proposé de toucher seulement ce qu’elles ont de particuliére observation, autant qu’il me seroit possible, & que ie m’en pourrois adviser, sans remplir le papier de reigles que nostre langue peut avoir communes avec la langue latine, ou autres vulgaires, ou qui autrement se peuvent suppleer par bon jugement. (Maupas, f 125 v)

Le domaine d’objets spécifique du grammairien français se trouve ainsi constitué des faits de langue non assimilables ou analogues au latin. Selon les grammairiens, cette différence linguistique est plus ou moins soulignée ou minorée, mais la plupart du temps les pédagogues se reposent sur la matrice de la grammatica, à la fois langue et grammaire-pivot, pour amener l’élève à comprendre le système du vernaculaire et à produire les formes correctes attendues.

12 Voir Fournier sur la structure du manuel de Maupas et le traitement du verbe.

104 

Valérie R aby

Bien entendu, le procédé est coûteux et sa mise en œuvre souvent fastidieuse. Je n’en donnerai qu’un exemple, emprunté à une grammaire peu théorique très diffusée en Angleterre, celle de Mauger. On y lit la chose suivante à propos de la rection des verbes ‘neutres’: Those two Neuter Verbs in Latin, faveo, I favour, studeo, I study, which govern in Latin the Dative Case, govern in French the Accusative; as for Example, Le Roy favorise les braves hommes; The King favours the gallant men. (Mauger, 286)

Pour savoir que le verbe favoriser se construit directement (autrement dit ‘avec l’accusatif’, puisqu’on considère dans ce manuel que le nom se décline par l’article), l’élève doit passer par le verbe latin faveo, dont il sait qu’il est suivi du datif, et appliquer la règle selon laquelle le français substitue ici l’accusatif au datif.13 La méthode paraît aujourd’hui particulièrement contournée mais elle témoigne de l’importance des opérations de traduction constitutives de la grammaire latine étendue et du fait que l’apprentissage d’une langue ‘par règles’, encore à la fin du dix-septième siècle, suppose la connaissance de la grammaire latine, quoi qu’en disent parfois les maîtres de langue. La grammaire, dans l’enseignement des langues, est dès le seizième siècle associée à ce qu’A. Caravolas appelle le ‘modèle régulier’.14 Ce statut de la grammaire est relativement nouveau, c’est l’effet de la grammatisation des langues modernes amorcée dès le septième siècle, et qui prend son plein essor à la Renaissance: ‘la grammaire devient simultanément une technique pédagogique d’apprentissage des langues et un moyen de les décrire’.15 Dans les faits, l’opposition entre règle et routine n’est pas radicale et la plupart des maîtres recourent à des méthodes ‘éclectiques’. Il est d’ailleurs fréquent que, dans le corps même des grammaires, l’énoncé des règles s’interrompe pour renvoyer au commerce des locuteurs natifs, qui seul permettra d’acquérir la maitrise de certaines formes.16 Mais l’idée est acquise, 13 L’opération est d’autant plus complexe que si faveo est un verbe ‘neutre’ (c’est-à-dire non transitif direct), ce n’est pas cas de favoriser. Le métalangage grammatical concerne donc au premier chef les formes latines. Voir Fournier & Raby sur les différentes manières d’extension de la grammaire latine, et Raby pour d’autres exemples de ce procédé chez Mauger. 14 Caravolas identifie trois modèles concurrents pour l’apprentissage des langues à la fin du seizième siècle: modèle ‘pratique’, modèle ‘régulier’, modèle ‘éclectique’, qui propose une voie moyenne associant les deux approches précédentes. 15 Auroux, ‘Le processus de grammatisation et ses enjeux’, 12. 16 Deux exemples parmi bien d’autres: ‘[o] Estant suivi d’une n, il donne un son qui ne peut estre bonnement declaré par escrit; on le doit apprendre par l’oüye plustost que par preceptes. Ongnon, mignon, vigne, ignorant, Allemagne, Compagnie, gangner, qu’aucuns escrivent Gaigner,

QUELLE GRAMMAIRE FRANÇAISE POUR LES É TRANGERS?

105

et relayée par de nombreuses préfaces de manuels, que la grammaire est un moyen d’apprentissage des langues. Comment, et pour quels types de savoir-faire? Une réponse globale serait simplificatrice et inutile. Nous nous contenterons de souligner que plusieurs des ouvrages du corpus sont bilingues, ou regardent la grammaire comme une aide à la traduction. La chose peut sembler banale, elle l’est moins si l’on observe que c’est le texte grammatical lui-même qui peut être proposé pour l’exercice. Ainsi Maupas justifie-t-il son choix du français comme métalangue en s’appuyant sur l’autorité des grammairiens antiques (Théodore Gaza, Chrysoloras, Varron, Quintilien, Priscien et Donat ont, dit-il, écrit dans leur langue), mais aussi en soutenant que l’interprétation – c’est-à-dire la traduction – de la grammaire par le maître, pour son élève étranger, est une méthode rapide et efficace d’apprentissage de la langue: […] i’en ay enseigné maints de diverses nations, et differens langages, bien qu’ils ne sceussent point de latin, neant-moins leur baillant leçon de ma Grammaire, et la leur interpretant dextrement, ie leur en ay fait comprendre et practiquer heureusement les reigles à leur grand advancement et satisfaction […]. (Maupas, Av.-texte, 9)

Plutôt que de proposer aux élèves des colloques ou des comédies en français, il faut les faire s’appliquer à la grammaire ‘en la lisant et relisant assez de fois, y conjoingnans aussi l’exercice pour practiquer les reigles’.17 Maupas s’inscrit de la sorte dans une longue tradition, bien attestée par ailleurs en Angleterre, de la traduction comme technique d’apprentissage.18 Mais le fait que cette opération porte sur la grammaire elle-même est particulièrement intéressant: tout se passe comme si le maître de langues reproduisait, à l’usage de son élève, le geste des auteurs des premiers ‘Donat’ en vernaculaires. Le point d’inflexion que nous voudrions souligner pour terminer ce parcours concerne la redéfinition du rôle de la grammaire opérée par la autres gagner.’ (Maupas, f. 7v-8r); ‘Voila les principales Regles de la Syntaxe des Verbes: car il est impossible de les reduire tous à des preceptes generaux; à cause qu’ils sont en trés grand nombre, & respandus en toute la Langue, au long & au large; & ne se peuuent apprendre que par l’vsage, & par la lecture des bons Autheurs.’ (Chiflet, 90). 17 Ibidem, 10. 18 Voir Kibbee. Dans le dialogue bilingue sur l’école et les écoliers qui ouvre le French Littleton de Sainliens, c’est bien la leçon de grammaire elle-même qui est proposée à l’exercice de traduction: ‘Children, turne your lessons out of French into English: and then out of English into French / Enfans, tournez voz leçons de François en Anglois: et puis d’Anglois en François’ (Holyband, 27). On peut faire l’hypothèse que les grammaires bilingues se prêtaient aux mêmes usages.

106 

Valérie R aby

grammaire générale. Son texte fondateur, la Grammaire générale et raisonnée, est conçu comme un moyen d’apprentissage des langues. L’idée n’est pas absolument nouvelle, si l’on considère le rôle de pivot joué jusque-là par la grammaire latine. Mais précisément le cadre théorique latin fait alors l’objet de critiques récurrentes, et il menace de se disloquer à force d’extensions locales parce qu’il fait rarement l’objet de considérations réflexives de la part des pédagogues. Le programme de la grammaire générale tente précisément de résoudre cette difficulté, en faisant retour sur les fondements de l’art grammatical. Sa rationalité doit être construite à partir des opérations intellectuelles universelles dont le langage est l’image, et que les diverses langues traduisent selon des procédés certes différents, mais finis et comparables. Bien que la Grammaire de Port-Royal ne revendique pas explicitement cette fonction d’introduction à l’apprentissage des langues, elle prétend exposer ‘les raisons de ce qui est commun à toutes les langues, & des principales differences qui s’y recontrent’, et l’ouvrage se trouvait fréquemment relié, en première position, avec les méthodes espagnole et italienne de Lancelot. C’est bien comme une ‘méthode des méthodes’ que cette grammaire était reçue par les contemporains, ainsi qu’en témoigne l’appréciation du grammairien Irson: Nous auons plusieurs Grammaires tres regulieres tant generales que particulieres, composées par vn Illustre inconnû; par lesquelles on sçait en general l’Analogie naturelle qu’il y a entre toutes les Langues, et par lesquelles on peut facilement apprendre la langue Greque, la Latine, l’Italienne et l’Espagnole (Irson, 305).

Au siècle suivant, la valeur didactique de la grammaire générale est clairement revendiquée par Beauzée, qui affirme avoir suivi la méthode cartésienne ‘dans la vûe de trouver une méthode d’introduction aux langues, qui pût en faciliter & en simplifier l’étude’ (1767, Préface t. 1, xxij). En effet, si la grammaire générale est la science qui expose les principes universels et immuables du langage, elle est logiquement antérieure à l’art des grammaires particulières, qui s’intéressent aux applications conventionnelles de ces mêmes principes réalisées par les diverses langues. C’est donc par là qu’il faut commencer l’étude des langues, ‘si l’on veut espérer d’y faire quelques progrès’.19 Ce partage disciplinaire fonde une distinction, peu thématisée jusque-là, entre grammaire des principes (ou ‘philosophique’) et grammaire des langues, la première étant en quelque sorte la théorie 19 Ibidem, xiij.

QUELLE GRAMMAIRE FRANÇAISE POUR LES É TRANGERS?

107

de la seconde. Mais surtout elle donne un contenu nouveau à ce que peut signifier l’apprentissage ‘régulier’ des langues: les règles de la grammaire générale ne sont évidemment pas procédurales, elles disent non pas quelles sont les formes correctes et comment les produire, mais à quoi les formes linguistiques doivent servir dans l’opération de traduction de la pensée. Au contraire, le contenu des grammaires particulières peut être procédural, si on le lit pour s’aider à produire des formes correctes. Cette répartition des rôles est vraisemblablement à l’origine d’une simplification des grammaires particulières, qui tendent à l’économie des ‘méthodes’ dont Lancelot a montré l’exemple.20 Dès lors le problème de la relation entre l’arbitraire des langues et la généralité des principes est posé et débattu. Et c’est précisément parce que les usages sont regardés comme non immédiatement réductibles à des règles générales que la réflexion des Lumières sur la didactique des langues tend, conformément à l’épistémologie empiriste, à valoriser les méthodes routinières: les langues étrangères devraient être apprises sur le modèle de la langue maternelle.21 Il reste que les manuels de langue peuvent désormais asseoir leur discours particulier sur des principes généraux, qui sont souvent présentés de manière synthétique en introduction des ouvrages. La Grammaire françoise sur un plan nouveau de Buffier, pourtant réservé à l’égard du programme de la grammaire générale, est exemplaire de ce nouveau format de manuels. L’ouvrage, destiné à l’apprentissage du français par les étrangers, est organisé en trois parties: une grammaire ‘fondamentale’, une grammaire ‘pratique’, et des ‘additions’ portant sur le style, la prononciation et l’orthographe. La justification de la première partie est la suivante: On néglige souvent d’aprendre les choses dont je traite dans la premiere Partie: mais cette connoissance ne laisse pas d’être des plus importantes; puisque l’art d’aranger les mots a une connexion essentielle, avec la maniere d’aranger les pensées. C’est par-là qu’il sert de base aux plus hautes siences, & qu’il fournit des régles où la Théologie même est quelquefois obligée d’avoir recours. D’ailleurs c’est faute de pénétrer jusqu’aux fondemens de la Grammaire, qu’au lieu de contribuer, comme elle devroit, à éclaircir les idées, elle ne contribue souvent qu’à les embarasser: on ne peut donc l’étudier solidement 20 Voir Swiggers sur l’essor des ‘méthodes’ à partir de la seconde moitié du dix-septième siècle. 21 C’est la position défendue par Pluche et de nombreux pédagogues. Voir Besse, et Auroux (1979, 213-230) sur la conception de l’arbitraire syntaxique et la didactique des Lumières.

108 

Valérie R aby

qu’on n’aprenne la fin qu’elle se propose, les moyens qu’elle emploie, l’ordre de ses parties, le vrai sens des termes qui lui sont familiers; en un mot, la nature de la Grammaire en général, qu’ignorent plusieurs mêmes de ceux qui l’enseignent. J’avoue aussi que cette premiere Partie est plus curieuse pour former l’esprit par raport à la Grammaire, que nécessaire pour en aquérir la pratique; c’est pourquoi ceux qui ne cherchent qu’à aprendre le François, peuvent passer tout d’un coup à la seconde Partie. (Buffier, Préface, 6-7)

La perspective mentaliste de la grammaire générale est clairement assumée, et la première partie reconduit, en l’aménageant, l’analyse port-royaliste de la proposition. Buffier doute pourtant de sa valeur de propédeutique pour l’apprentissage du français par les étrangers. Ce doute ne fera que croître chez les grammairiens des Lumières, soutenu par l’extension maximale qui affecte alors le domaine de la grammaire.22 La seconde partie, plus volumineuse, revisite les contenus habituels des manuels de français en traitant des parties du discours et de la syntaxe. De façon traditionnelle, ce type de connaissances est regardé comme complémentaire des méthodes routinières: ‘une Grammaire Pratique doit le plûtôt qu’il se peut, mettre l’étudiant en état d’aprendre de lui-même une langue par le commerce des personnes avec qui il la parle, ou par l’usage des livres qu’il lit, écrits en cette langue’.23 Rien de très nouveau en apparence, si ce n’est que la grammaire du français langue étrangère se voit explicitement définie comme un savoir intermédiaire entre théorie du langage et pratique de la langue. Nous avons passé sous silence les évolutions internes des premières grammaires françaises, dont l’histoire est aujourd’hui bien connue. Le traitement de l’article, des temps et des modes, du régime des verbes, de la syntaxe, comme dans les grammaires des autres langues romanes, donne lieu à des innovations remarquables et il est évident que les difficultés d’enseignement ont stimulé la réflexion de grammairiens qui, dans leur grande majorité, sont aussi des pédagogues. Sur la période considérée cependant, on peut dire qu’avant le renouvellement introduit par la grammaire générale, le format de ces contenus est remarquablement stable, et faiblement affecté 22 Les grammaires philosophiques entendent traiter l’ensemble de ce qui constitue alors la théorie du langage et des langues. Voir l’article ‘Grammaire’ de l’Encyclopédie (Beauzée 1757) et son ‘Système figuré des parties de la grammaire’. 23 Ibidem, 37.

QUELLE GRAMMAIRE FRANÇAISE POUR LES É TRANGERS?

109

par les différences de public et de visée des ouvrages: ‘réduire en règles la langue française’, c’est tout à la fois élaborer la représentation normée d’une langue nationale, l’illustrer et proposer un nouveau mode d’accès au système linguistique, qu’on pourra associer aux outils déjà disponibles pour l’apprentissage de la langue. Si la question de la langue maternelle ne semble pas retenir particulièrement l’attention des premiers pédagogues, elle devient centrale pour les grammairiens des Lumières, qui feront du processus d’acquisition de la langue maternelle le modèle de l’apprentissage des langues. Leur réflexion touche également le statut des règles grammaticales, dont la généralité est compromise par la reconnaissance d’une part d’irréductible dans l’arbitraire des langues, constitutive de leur ‘génie’. Les termes du débat entre méthode ‘régulière’ et méthode ‘pratique’ s’en voient renouvelés.

Bibliographie Références primaires Arnauld, Antoine & Lancelot, Claude, Grammaire générale et raisonnée (Paris: Pierre Le Petit, 1676 [1660]). Barton, Johan Donait françois, (ms. Codrington Library, f. 322r-327r, c. 1409). Beauzée, Nicolas, article ‘Grammaire’ de l’Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, tome 7 (Paris: Briasson, David, Le Breton et Durand, 1765), 841-847. Beauzée, Nicolas, Grammaire générale ou exposition raisonnée des éléments nécessaires du langage pour servir de fondement à l’étude de toutes les langues (Paris: J. Barbou, 1767). Buffier, Claude, Grammaire françoise sur un plan nouveau (Paris: Nicolas Le Clerc et al., 1709). Cauchie, Antoine, Grammaticae gallicae libri tres, (Strasbourg: Bernard Iobin, 1586). Chiflet, Laurent, Essay d’une parfaite Grammaire de la langue françoise Ou le Lecteur trouurera, en bel ordre, tout ce qui est de plus necessaire, de plus curieux, & de plus elegant, en la Pureté, en l’Orthographe, & en la Prononciation de cette Langue (Anvers: Jacques Van Meurs, 1659). Estienne, Robert, Traicté de la grãmaire francoise (Paris: R. Estienne, 1557). Garnier, Jean, Institutio gallicae linguae in usum iuuentutis Germanicae (Genève: Jean Crespin, 1558). Grand Corpus des grammaires françaises, des remarques et des traités sur la langue (XIVe-XVIIe siècles), Bernard

110 

Valérie R aby

Colombat, Jean-Marie Fournier & Wendy Ayres-Bennett (éds) (Paris: Classiques Garnier Numérique, 2011). Holyband Claudius [Claude de Sainliens, dit], The French Littelton (London: Thomas Vautrollier, 1581). Irson, Claude, Nouvelle methode pour apprendre facilement les principes et la pureté de la langue françoise contenant plusieurs traitez (Paris: Pierre Baudouin, 1662) La Grue, Thomas, La vraye Introduction à la Langue françoise avec Quatre Dialogues François & Flamans / Dat is rechte inleydinge tot de fransche spraeck, nevens Vier Fransche ende Duytsche gemeyne t’ Samen-spraken (Amsterdam: Samuel Imbrechts, Olivier Boynard & Jean Nyon, 1669). La Touche, Pierre de, L’art de bien parler françois, qui comprend tout ce qui regarde la grammaire, et les façons de parler douteuses (Amsterdam: Wetsteins et Smith 1730 [1696]). Masset, Jean, Exact et tres-facile acheminement à la langue françoise, par Jean Masset, mis en latin par le mesme autheur pour le soulagement des étrangers (Paris: David Douceur, 1606). Matthieu, Abel, Devis de la langue francoyse (Paris: Richard Breton, 1559). Mauger, Claude, Grammaire françoise / French Grammar [1688], V. Raby (éd.), (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2014). Maupas, Charles, Grammaire et syntaxe françoise (Orléans: Olivier Boynard & Jean Nyon, 1618). Meigret, Louis, Le tretté de la grammere françoeze (Paris: C. Wechel, 1550). Meurier, Gabriel, La Grammaire françoise, contenante plusieurs belles reigles propres & necessaires pour ceulx qui desirent apprendre ladicte langue (Anvers: C. Plantin, 1557). Oudin, Antoine, Grammaire françoise rapportée au langage du temps (Paris: A. de Sommaville, 1640). Pillot, Jean, Gallicae linguae institutio, latino sermone conscripta (Paris: Etienne Grouleau & André Wechel, 1561). Pluche, Antoine, La Mécanique des langues et l’art de les enseigner (Paris: Vve Estienne et fils, 1751). Serreius, Joannes, Grammatica Gallica nova (Strasbourg: Zezner, héritiers de Lazare, 1623). Sylvius, Jacobus Ambianus, In linguam Gallicam isagωge et Grammatica Latino-Gallica (Paris: Robert Estienne, 1531). Vairasse d’Allais, Denis, Grammaire Méthodique contenant en abrégé les Principes de cet art et les règles les plus nécessaires à la langue française (Paris: l’auteur, 1681).

QUELLE GRAMMAIRE FRANÇAISE POUR LES É TRANGERS?

111

Références secondaires Auroux, Sylvain & Mazière, Francine, ‘Introduction: Hyperlangues, modèles de grammatisation, réduction et autonomisation des langues’, Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 28- 2 (2006), 7-17. Auroux, Sylvain, La sémiotique des Encyclopédistes (Paris: Payot, 1979). Auroux, Sylvain, ‘Le processus de grammatisation et ses enjeux’, in Histoire des idées linguistiques, tome 2 (Liège: Mardaga, 1992), 11-64. Besse, Henri, ‘Éléments pour une ‘‘archéologie’’ de la méthode directe’, Documents pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde, 49 (2012), 11-30. Caravolas, Jean Antoine, ‘Apprendre à parler une langue étrangère à la Renaissance’, Historiographia Linguistica, XXII, 3 (1995), 275-306. Chervel, André, ‘Pour une histoire comparée des disciplines du français langue étrangère et du français langue maternelle’, Le Langage et l’Homme, XXXX.1 (2009), 85-98. Clerico, Geneviève, ‘Le français au XVIe siècle’, in Jacques Chaurand (éd), Nouvelle histoire de la langue française (Paris: Seuil, 1999), 145-224. Colombat, Bernard, ‘Introduction’, in Bernard Colombat (éd.), John Barton: Donait françois (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2014), 9-59. Colombat Bernard & Fournier Nathalie, ‘De grammatica gallica à grammaire française: une nouvelle dénomination pour une nouvelle discipline?’, Le français préclassique 10 (2007), 145-167. Corpus des textes linguistiques fondamentaux (ctlf). Online: http://ctlf.ens-lyon. fr – accede (consulté 10/04/2019). De Clercq, Jan, Lioce, Nico & Swiggers, Pierre (éds) Grammaire et enseignement du français, 1500-1700, Orbis Supplementa 16 (Leuven / Paris / Sterling, VA: Peeters, 2000). Fournier, Jean-Marie & Raby, Valérie, ‘Retour sur la grammatisation: l’extension de la grammaire latine et la description des langues vulgaires’, in Sylvie Archaimbault, Jean-Marie Fournier & Valérie Raby (éds), Penser l’histoire des savoirs linguistiques. Hommage à Sylvain Auroux (Lyon: ENS Éditions, 2014), 337-350. Fournier, Nathalie, ‘Approches de la syntaxe du verbe dans la Grammaire et syntaxe françoise de Charles Maupas (1618)’, Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 24-1 (2002), 33-63. Giard, Luce, ‘La mise en théorie du français au XVIe siècle’, Schifanoia 2 (1986), 63-76. Kibbee Douglas A., For to Speke French Trewely. The French langage in England, 1000-1600: its status, description and instruction (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1991). Padley, George Arthur, Grammatical theory in Western Europe 1500-1700. Trends in vernacular grammar. Volume 2 (of 2) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

112 

Valérie R aby

Raby, Valérie, ‘Traduction et didactique du français langue étrangère au xviie siècle: l’exemple de la Grammaire françoise/French Grammar de Claude Mauger (1688)’, in Émilie Aussant (dir.), La traduction dans l’histoire des idées linguistiques. Représentations et pratiques (Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner, 2015), 155-172. Riemer, Nick, ‘Prescription, description and ‘artefactualism’ in Renaissance vernacular grammar: the French case’, Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 39-2 (2017), 131-151. Swiggers, Pierre, (éd.), Grammaire et méthode au xviie siècle (Leuven: Peeters, 1984).

About the author Valérie Raby is Professor of Linguistics at Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3. She is a member of the Laboratoire d’Histoire des théories linguistiques (CNRS / Université de Paris), and the editor-in-chief of the journal Histoire Épistémologie Langage. Her research deals with the history and epistemology of French Grammar, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century. She is the author of the critical edition of Claude Mauger, Grammaire françoise / French Grammar (1688) (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2014), and of Les théories de l’énoncé dans la grammaire générale (Lyon: ENS Éditions, 2018). Email: [email protected]

6. Grammar in verse: Latin pedagogy in seventeenth-century England1 Victoria Moul

Abstract Latin was the medium as well as the main subject of all early modern education across Europe, in both Protestant and Catholic countries. This chapter examines the surprisingly widespread use of Latin verse (rather than prose) for pedagogical and memnonic purposes from the very earliest stages of education, focused on the role of Latin grammatical verse for the teaching of Latin, but discussing also the related phenomena of Latin verse grammars of Greek and Hebrew, and the reflections of this early educational experience in popular Latin poetry of the period. It argues that the use of grammatical Latin verse was both mnemonically effective and also served to establish from the earliest stages of education the moral and cultural authority and importance of Latin verse as a whole. Keywords: neo-Latin, teaching of Greek, teaching of Hebrew, verse grammar, Latin didactic poetry, early modern education, Lily

Latin was the medium as well as the main subject of upper primary and secondary education in early modern England, and as such more advanced subjects – including other ancient languages, and later law or medicine – were also taught and studied in Latin.2 One now surprising result of this 1 This chapter draws upon the findings of a large research project, ‘Neo-Latin Poetry in Early Modern English Manuscript Sources, c. 1550-1700’ (2017-2021), funded by the Leverhulme Trust. I am very grateful to the Leverhulme Trust for supporting my research. 2 Modern foreign languages were not routinely taught at schools until the eighteenth century, though even then there is some evidence that they were often taught in relation to, if not via Latin: Derby County Record Office MS 5202/10/1, for instance, contains bilingual French and Latin school exercises by Henry Shirley dating from c. 1705.

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch06

114 

Vic toria Moul

Latin-medium education, combined with the strong oral dimension of early modern pedagogy and the cultural importance of poetry, is the widespread use of Latin verse (rather than prose) in the teaching of elementary Latin, as well as of more advanced subjects, such as Ancient Greek and Hebrew. Indeed, the use of didactic verse as a significant element of educational practice at all levels is one of the more alien features of early modern culture as a whole: Latin verse was used for didactic and mnemonic purposes from basic lessons in literacy and catechetics, to the most advanced subjects of new knowledge, and including the routine versification of key facts for use by professionals as well as children. Examples in print include the Preces matutinae, prayers and school rules in simple Latin verse, printed for Lord Williams’s Grammar School in Thame in 1578; a Latin verse catechism published in Edinburgh in 1581; and even William Buckley’s 1567 Arithmetica memorativa: arithmetic in Latin verse.3 Didactic poems with significant literary pretensions include David Kinloch’s De hominis procreatione, a surprisingly explicit work on human reproduction, supposedly aimed at doctors, and Abraham Cowley’s Plantarum Libri Sex (‘Six Books of Plants’), an enormous work on the medicinal and other uses of a large range of herbs, flowers and trees. Most Latin didactic verse, though, was primarily functional rather than literary, and large quantities of this kind of poetry survive in manuscript sources, on a very diverse range of subjects, including: a summary of the contents of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Royal Society MS RB/1/3/8, late seventeenth century); Biblical history (BL Add MS 30076, 2r-3r, c. 1601-7); herbal remedies (Bodleian MS Firth c. 3, ff 7r-8v, mid-seventeenth century); Roman kings, consuls and emperors (Royal Society MS RB/1/42/11, f195r, mid-seventeenth century) and many versified legal tags. Whether educated at home or at school, boys (and the few girls who received a similar education) began learning Latin at an early age: typically at some stage of what we would think of as ‘junior school’ (aged between about 7 and 10). 4 Early modern education was intensely moralizing and religious, 3 Preces matutinae, in schola ante alia exercitia dicendae; Adamson, Catechismus Latino carmine redditus et in libros quatuor digestus; Buckley, Arithmetica memorativa. 4 Many surviving examples of school exercises are anonymous. In a few cases, though, there is evidence to suggest that it is the work of a woman or girl. British Library Sloane MS 2287, for instance, is a commonplace book mostly in English, all in a single hand, which includes several pages of Latin grammatical verse accompanied by translations (ff 102r-103v). The signature ‘Dorothy Dolman’ appears on f103v, and the date 1689 at the start of the volume. Essex Record Office, MS D/DLF106, part of the Barrett Lennard family collection, contains a collection of simple Latin epigrams, and also bears a woman’s name (Ann Loftus, who married in to the Lennard

Gr ammar in verse: L atin pedagogy in seventeenth- century Engl and

115

and almost all the Latin texts used for beginners’ language acquisition (such as Latin versions of Aesop’s fables, and the so-called ‘Cato’s Distichs’) were primarily, if not purely, works of moral instruction. Indeed, one of the frequently transcribed or translated pieces of Latin verse in manuscript collections is the poem on proper behaviour written by William Lily (c. 1468-1522) for his own pupils.5 This poem was printed for centuries in the grammar that bore his name, which was the Latin grammar prescribed by royal authority for use in schools from 1542 onwards.6 Lily’s grammar also includes several ‘grammatical poems’, on the formation of nouns and verbs: the opening of his poem on the construction of the first conjugation, which – with ample potential to provoke schoolboy amusement – begins ‘as in praesenti’, is quoted frequently in contemporary literature and must have been widely known.7

Latin verse grammars The phenomenon of Latin verse grammars therefore occurs within the context of an educational system in which simple Latin verse was read from the outset, and within a wider literary culture in which the association between Latin verse and memorization was strong. Aside perhaps from a family in 1653). The political topics of a few of the epigrams date them almost certainly to the late 1640s or early 1650s, and they were probably composed by Anne as educational exercises before her marriage. 5 ‘Carmen de moribus’; ‘Poem on morals’, included in all editions of Lily’s grammar. An English translation of this poem is found, for instance, in the Society of Friends Archive, MS Vol S 193/5, 26, a manuscript dating from the early eighteenth century. 6 Shakespeare quotes or alludes to Lily on several occasions, suggesting how widely familiar this text was by the 1590s (examples include Titus Andronicus IV.2; Henry IV Part I II.2; Merry Wives of Windsor IV.1; Much Ado About Nothing IV.1). Two works, a more elementary Latin grammar in English (Shorte Introduction) and a more advanced work in Latin (Brevissima Institutio, which contains the grammatical verse) are referred to as ‘Lily’, though both works were in practice produced by a committee commissioned by Henry VIII and include material prepared by Colet and Erasmus as well as Lily himself. The verse material included in the volume is however Lily’s and I have retained the description ‘Lily’s grammar’ for the Brevissima Institutio as that is how it is widely referred to both in early modernity and in much modern scholarship. See R. D. Smith, ‘Lily, William’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (https://doi.org/10.1093/ ref:odnb/16665) and Gwosdek, Lily’s Grammar. On Shakespeare and the grammar school, see Enterline, Shakespeare’s Schoolroom. 7 As for instance in Marston, What you Will (1601), II.2.907-908. The opening phrase of the poem, ‘-as in praesenti’, refers to the ending -as in the second person singular present tense of verbs in the first conjugation, but lends itself readily to mildly rude inter-lingual puns (ass, arse etc).

116 

Vic toria Moul

few rhyming tags such as ‘i before e except after c’, we tend to find the idea of using verse (culturally now considered ‘difficult’ and especially ‘difficult to remember’) to memorize grammatical rules peculiar, but would consider the use of grammatical tables and related visual aids (such as colour-coded endings, or exercises with visual ‘blanks’ to fill in) natural. By contrast, early modern grammars generally made less use of visual devices. Though a schoolboy might own his own grammar for reference, the emphasis in the classroom was on teaching and learning by hearing and speech.8 In such an educational context, children were speaking simple Latin, learnt by rote and by imitation, well before they had fully mastered the grammar: as every teacher of a modern language knows, some of the most basic phrases necessary for everyday courtesy are moderately advanced in terms of their grammar and syntax. The Huntingdon Library copy of the 1566 edition of John Vaus’ Latin grammar digitized by Early English Books Online, for instance, contains several pages of manuscript additions at the back, dated 1571, giving useful elementary Latin phrases and their Scots translations for classroom use by an absolute beginner: E.g. Instrue me (‘Instruct me …’); Da mihi instructionem lectionis meae precor (‘Gif me ane kennyng of my Lessons I pray yow’).9 Later authors of versified grammars, or grammars incorporating significant quantities of grammatical verse, were almost all building upon the verse component of Lily’s grammar. In most editions of Lily, the verse component appears in the second half of the volume, with prose rules for basic grammar occupying the first section, but some subsequent works make even greater use of grammatical verse. The full title of Alexander Ross’s Isagoge grammatica in gratiam illorum qui nolunt memoriam multis & longis regulis gravari, concinnata (‘A grammatical guide assembled for the benefit of those who do not wish to burden their memory with many long rules’), for instance, suggests that the memorization of verse is assumed to be more easy and pleasant than of free-standing grammatical rules. Ross’s text is largely verse, with attached prose notes (in a smaller font) listing examples and exceptions. In practice, many of the versified rules in these volumes closely resemble one another. Ross’ Isagoge grammatica introduces the rules for grammatical gender in Latin as follows: 8 This is related to the requirement for oral Latin proficiency, not only in a school setting (where it was the medium of education) but also at university, where Latin rhetorical skills were crucial to success. 9 Vaus, Rudimenta puerorum in artem grammaticam.

Gr ammar in verse: L atin pedagogy in seventeenth- century Engl and

117

Mascula sunt Divi, Venti, fluviique, virique. Nomina Divarum muliebria, sic mulierum. Insulae, item Urbes, & Regionum nomina dant haec. Arborio est nomen muliebre: ut, fagus & ulmus.10 ‘Gods, Winds, rivers and men are masculine. The names of Goddesses are womanly [i.e. feminine], as are those of women. Islands, likewise Cities, and the names of regions are also feminine. Types of tree also have feminine names: such as, beech and elm’.

James Shirley’s 1654 Grammaticae Latinae Institutiones introduces the same topic, slightly more concisely, as follows: Sunt Montes, Fluvii, Menses, & Mascula venti. Foeminei generis sunt Vrbs, Regio, Insula, & Arbor.11 ‘Masculine are mountains, rivers, months and winds. Of the feminine kind are a City, a Region, an Island, a Tree’.

Although Shirley adds more prose explanation than Ross, he still emphasises the pedagogical centrality of the grammatical verses by printing them in a larger font and set apart from the rest of the text. The verses included in both these mid-seventeenth-century manuals are recognisably based upon Lily’s lines on the same topic. Neither Shirley nor Ross are aiming at originality; their grammatical verse is essentially a paraphrase of Lily: Propria, quae maribus tribuuntur, mascula dicas. Ut sunt diuorum, Mars, Bacchus, Apollo: Virorum Ut Cato, Vergilius: Fluuiorum, vt Tibris, Orontes. Mensium, ut October. Ventorum, ut Lybs, Notus, Auster.12 ‘The proper names which are given to males, you should call ‘masculine’. As are [the names of] gods: Mars, Bacchus, Apollo: and of men Such as Cato, Vergil: of Rivers, such as Tiber, Orontes. Of months, as October. Of Winds, such as Lybs, Notus, Auster’. 10 Ross, Isagoge grammatica, sig. A3r. 11 Shirley, Grammaticae Latinae Institutiones, 2-3. 12 Lily, Brevissima Institutio, sig. Avi.v.

118 

Vic toria Moul

Indeed, Lily’s grammatical verse is routinely cited not as an example of one grammatical reference work among others, but as ‘the reference grammar’ without further qualification, as in John Brinsley’s 1612 textbook, The posing of parts, a kind of grammatical catechism.13 In this dialogue, the grammatical verses in Lily are referred to by their first few Latin words, and without further explanation or identification: Generall rules of proper Names, and first of proper Masculines Q. How can you knowe what Gender a Noune is of? A. I haue certaine rules at Propria quae maribus [i.e. the grammatical verses in Lily beginning with these words], which teach mee the Genders of Nounes. Q. How can you know by these rules? A. First, I must looke according to the order of my Acci|dence, whether it be a Substantiue or an Adjectiue: If it be a Substantiue, I haue my rule betweene Propria quae maribus, and Adiectiua vnam &c [another of the grammatical verses in Lily]. Q. If it be a Substantiue, what must you looke for next? A. Whether it be a Proper name, or a Common called an Appellatiue. Q. If it be a proper name, what must you looke for then? A. Whether it belong to the male kinde or female; that is, to the he, or she. Q. If it be a proper name belonging to the male kinde, what Gender is it? A. The Masculine. Q. Where is your rule? A. Propria quae maribus tribuuntur, &c.14

While the printed verse grammars by Ross and Shirley incorporate prose notes, explanations and further examples, a manuscript example dating from 1605 is entirely in verse.15 Like Ross and Shirley, this work begins with 13 ‘Posing’ here refers to an educational practice in which the teacher asks (‘poses’) questions for which the children are expected to have learnt set answers, a catechetical method of instruction with origins in Donatus’s Ars minor. On medieval examples of grammars of this kind, see Reinikka, ‘Latin Parsing Grammars’. 14 Brinsley, Posing of parts, 42-43. 15 Nottingham University Library, MS 117. This is the student notebook of one James Garnet, dated 1605. He may be connected to the family of Henry Garnet (or Garnett), 1555-1605, Jesuit provincial, who was executed for his role in the Gunpowder Plot. Henry Garnet was the son of Brian Garnet, master of Nottingham School from 1565, perhaps explaining how this notebook comes to be in Nottingham today. A modern note in the manuscript suggests James was a pupil at a Jesuit school, though without providing any evidence; though these lines are not identical

Gr ammar in verse: L atin pedagogy in seventeenth- century Engl and

119

grammatical gender, and like them, it is plainly indebted to the verses in Lily, although it attempts, as the other texts do not, also to offer some kind of explanation for the grammatical gender of the proper names of Latin winds, months and rivers: De Genere Masculino Quae maribus solum tribuuntur mascula sunto Mascula censentur specie depicta virili, Masculeo apposito quae gaudent mascula sunto Adiunges maribus ventos, menses, fluuiosque. ‘As for names given only to male entities, let them be masculine. Entities usually depicted with virile appearance should be thought of as masculine. Let those things which are naturally associated with men be masculine grammatically: You should connect winds, months, and rivers with men’.

The first two lines here are identical to those found in the corresponding section of Emanuel Alvarez’s De Institutione Grammatica Libri III, first published in Lisbon in 1572, which became the standard Latin grammar in Portugal until the late eighteenth century, and was widely used in Jesuit schools throughout Europe: Quae maribus solum tribuuntur mascula sunto. Mascula censentur specie depicta virili: Et quibus appositum tantum tribuisse virile Credibile est veteres, latro ceu, praesul, & hospes.16 ‘As for names given only to male entities, let them be masculine. Entities usually depicted with virile appearance should be thought of as masculine. For it is plausible that the ancients attributed masculine gender Only to those things to which it belonged, such as ‘brigand’, ‘leader’, and ‘host’’. to those found in any edition of Alvarez I have seen, the significant similarity does may suggest that a related Jesuit grammatical work could be the source. 16 Alvarez, De Institutione Grammatica Libri Tres, 152.

120 

Vic toria Moul

Versions of Lily’s grammar had been printed across Europe (sometimes attributed to Erasmus, who authored part of it, rather than to Lily), and Alvarez’s work is evidence of Lily’s influence upon the Latin grammars produced in many other early modern European countries. Though Alvarez’s work looks more modern than most contemporary Latin grammars produced in England – it is one of the first works to set out declensions as a table of case endings – it too features fragments of grammatical verse to aid memorization. Indeed, Alvarez frequently offers various different verse tags, accompanied by prose explanation, to expand on specific points. A few pages further on, we find: Pro maribus pugnant menses, fluuiique minaces ‘Months, and threatening rivers, fight like [or, in the place of] men’. Insula feminea, Vrbs, Regio, cum Naue, Poesis.17 ‘The island, the city, the region, together with the ship, and a poem – all are feminine’.

The verse lines are set in plain type, clearly distinguished from the surrounding prose explanation (in italics), and accompanied by a marginal gloss (‘Vt October, Tagus’ (‘as in October, or [the river] Tagus’), for the first; ‘Vt Cyprus, Carthago, Aegyptus, Pistris, Aeneis’ (‘as in [the island] Cyprus, [the city] Carthage, [the region] Egypt, [the ship] Pistris, [the poem] the Aeneid’) for the second). These examples, from Alvarez and from the possibly related Nottingham manuscript, go beyond the earlier versions of the same point: both are intellectually more sophisticated than the simpler versified rules, as they attempt to offer not only a mnemonic, but also some sort of an explanation for grammatical gender. In the latter extract from Alvarez, we might describe the verse as imaginatively suggestive. What does it mean to say that months or rivers go into battle ‘pro maribus’? ‘Pro’ is probably being used here in its most general sense of ‘in accordance with’, ‘comparable to’; but could also be read as ‘for the sake of’ or ‘in the place of’. The phrase obviously refers to grammatical gender, but ‘minaces’ (‘threatening’) adds to the personification. Rivers are traditionally ‘threatening’ when they are in spate, but in a famous passage of Iliad 21 the river Xanthus, furious with Achilles for choking his course with the bodies of those he has killed, rises up and fights Achilles himself. 17 Alvarez, De Institutione Grammatica Libri Tres, 158.

Gr ammar in verse: L atin pedagogy in seventeenth- century Engl and

121

Most editions of Alvarez’ work print a prose commentary explaining exceptions to each of the rules as they are introduced: in this case, the prose commentary discusses a common usage in which the name of a river appears to be neuter (rather than masculine), as it agrees with the word ‘flumen’ (‘river’, a neuter noun in Latin): Veteres Istrum, Rhenum, Metaurum; Rhodanum, Iberum, nominandi casu pro Ister, Rhenus, Metaurus, Rhodanus, Iberus dicebant, dummodo sequeretur nomen, “Flumen”, unde est illud Horatij 4. Carm. Ode 4. Testis Metaurum flumen, & Asdrubal.18 ‘The ancients had the habit of using the [adjectival] terms ‘Istrum’, ‘Rhenum’, ‘Metaurum’, ‘Rhodanum’, ‘Iberum’ in place of [the proper nouns] ‘Ister’, ‘Rhenus’, ‘Metaurus’, ‘Rhodanus’, ‘Iberus’, when followed by the noun ‘flumen’. As in Horace, Odes 4.4: [Let the] river Metaurus stand as witness [to the defeat of the Carthaginians in the Second Punic war in 207 BC], along with Hasdrubal.’

This discussion here is based on passage in the ancient grammarian Priscian (GL 2.170 Keil): the prose additions in this way introduce advanced students to the tradition of Latin grammatical scholarship. Priscian does not however cite Horace here. Alvarez’ choice of exemplary quotation echoes the personification of his own grammatical verse: the river Metaurus is invoked, alongside the defeated Hasdrubal, as witness to the total defeat of the Carthaginians. Even though Alvarez is here citing the line as an example of an exception to the rule that river names are always masculine (Metaurum here is functioning as an adjective rather than a noun, and is neuter in agreement with flumen), the content and context of the quotation reinforces the associations of the didactic line: rivers as agents in, and witnesses to, male battles. Alvarez’ work offers a much more detailed explanation of Latin grammar, and is aimed at more advanced students, than the earlier examples. It makes substantial use of prose explanations, supportive quotations, and further references but nevertheless relies upon Latin hexameters – often, as here, tags consisting of a single hexameter line – both to introduce the point, and to make it memorable. Moreover, in Alvarez, more than in the other examples, we find, as in the ‘pro maribus’ line, an awareness of the potential for these most-memorized tags to introduce students not only to the 18 Alvarez, De Institutione Grammatica Libri Tres, 158. I have made some changes to the punctuation of this passage to aid comprehension.

122 

Vic toria Moul

grammatical points they summarize, but also to the wider imaginative world of classical poetry, history and culture. Jesuit education laid a particular emphasis upon the study and composition of Latin verse, and it is perhaps not coincidental that Alvarez is also the only verse grammar to add ‘Poesis’ (‘a work of poetry’) to the standard list of grammatically feminine entities, a point not found in Lily and his direct descendants. Alvarez’ grammar, like that of Alexander Ross and indeed Lily, moves from word formation and parts of speech to the rules of conjugation and declension, and includes a treatment of quantity (essential to the composition of Latin verse), but covers more advanced syntax and the use of rhetorical figures only briefly.19 Shirley’s manual, however, covers these more advanced aspects in more detail, proceeding from basic elements of grammar to more complex rules of syntax and then to the terminology and use of rhetorical figures. In the latter portions, the versified rules are typically didactic not only technically (by for instance providing the definition of a form) but also in terms of inculcating good style. Shirley gives the following hexameter for Tautologia (‘Tautology’): Crambe bis cocta nos Tautologia fatigat. ‘Cabbage cooked twice over, Tautology disgusts us’.

The stylistic message here is plain – tautology is to be avoided. But the line is didactic in other respects too: crambe bis cocta (‘cabbage cooked twice’) is an idiomatic Latin expression for ‘overkill’ (or, indeed, ‘overcooking’). Erasmus added a substantial explanatory note to his version of the expression (Crambe bis posita mors, ‘Twice-served cabbage is death’, Adagia 1.5.38) and it is also found in Juvenal (Satires 7.150-4). A rather obscure version (‘Coleworts twice sodden’) is even attested in English (Tilley C 511). We find a similar use of Latin verse in the study of rhetorical figures – rather than purely grammatical or syntactical constructions – in a notebook now in Somerset Heritage Centre, dating from the late seventeenth century.20 In each case, a short passage of hexameter verse (three to six lines) is accompanied by prose notes on the technical terms: in the following passage, 19 In fact, Ross does not discuss rhetorical figures at all; all three include a concise treatment of syntax and prosody. This tendency to introduce the essentials of Latin scansion at an early stage testifies to the central role played by both reading and writing Latin poetry in early modern education. 20 Somerset Heritage Centre, MS DD\MT/21/2/3, John Southwood’s notebook. Lines quoted from fol. 17v.

Gr ammar in verse: L atin pedagogy in seventeenth- century Engl and

123

each of the underlined terms corresponds to a prose note giving further explanation, Greek etymology and an example: Scite Oxymoron secum pugnantia dicit. Antonomasia imponit cognomina Rebus. Voce parum mutatâ Paronomasia ludit. Fitque Polyptoton vario sententia casu. ‘Know that Oxymoron speaks words fighting with themselves. Antonomasia imposes proper names on things. Paronomasia plays with a small exchange of words. And Polyptoton occurs when an expression has examples of various cases [of the same word]’.

The association between the mastery of Latin and verse mnemonics extended in this way beyond the elementary stages of grammatical learning into the more advanced realms of literary metre, form and genre: Nicholas Grey’s Parabolae evangelicae Latinè redditae carmine paraphrastico varii generis, printed in 1650 for use at Tonbridge School, is listed in the English Short Title Catalogue as a Latin grammar, but is in fact a set of scriptural verse paraphrases and epigrams in the full array of possible Latin verse forms.21 The surviving manuscript record includes thousands of exercises of this general type, in which the drilling of Latin poetic style, metre and genre is combined with devotional, moralizing or (very frequently) scriptural themes. In other words, the elementary use of Latin verse as a mnemonic device for recalling Latin grammatical rules cannot be separated from the wider cultural importance throughout early modernity of the ability both to recognize and to produce sophisticated literary effects in Latin.

Latin verse grammars of other languages Didactic Latin verse was not, however, confined only to the teaching of Latin. Once a firm foundation in Latin had been reached, early modern grammar schools introduced f irst Greek and then – in the last year or two – often also Biblical Hebrew. As Latin was the language of instruction,

21 Grey Parabolae evangelicae Latinè redditae. ESTC R228400.

124 

Vic toria Moul

these languages were also taught in and via Latin, and this extended to the use of Latin didactic verse.22 One of the most well-known of these textbooks was Richard Busby’s Grammaticae Graeco-Latinae Metricum, often referred to simply as the ‘Westminster Grammar’: Busby was a legendary headmaster at Westminster School for 57 years between 1638 and 1695.23 This is in fact a versified introduction to what would now be called comparative grammar: Greek is introduced and described in relation to Latin, a procedure explicitly justif ied in the preface, itself in Latin verse, by reference to Roman practice: Notum id sit primum: Linguae documenta Latinae Sub Graio didicit Romana juventa magistro. Graeca elementa; & Gracea vocabula totius artis; Graecae & formae omnes; Graeca Acci-que-dentia vocum: Cuncta ferè sunt, salvo Idiomate, Graeco-Latina. ‘Let this be the first point: the Roman youth studied The documents of the Latin tongue under a Greek master. The grammatical elements were Greek; the vocabulary of every skill was Greek; All forms were Greek; all the accents and accidence of words were Greek: Practically everything, save the idioms, were Greek-Latin’.

Even the most technical points of grammar are versified. This is the summary of the formation of contracted verbs in Greek: Omne in -ao, vel -eo, vel -io finale Latinis; Omne in -άω, vel -έω, vel -όω finale ità Graecis: Ex -aïs, âs; -eïs, -ês; iïs, -îs contractio format; -ᾷς ab -άεις fit; & -εῖς ab -έεις fit; & -οῖς ab -όεις fit.

22 There is some evidence that adults acquiring a new modern language also frequently replicated their school experience and used Latin as the ‘reference’ language. BL Sloane MS 2870 contains the Latin verse of a Danishman who came to London in the early 1660s. Fols 149v-152r contain his grammatical notes on English principle parts; in these notes the reference language is not Danish, but Latin. This is especially surprising given that English and Danish are much more closely related than either are to Latin. 23 This work was very frequently revised, and Busby also produced prose grammars. The edition cited here is the 1696 London edition, Grammatica Busbeiana Auctior & Emendatior.

Gr ammar in verse: L atin pedagogy in seventeenth- century Engl and

125

Though rather hard to read on the printed page, it is possible to see how such verse may have been mnemonically effective: the hexameters are carefully constructed so that elisions, for instance, never occur at a point that would risk obscuring the grammatical rule. In these lines, the only elisions are at ‘omne-in’ (lines 1 and 2) and ‘finale-ità’ (line 2) and no Greek or Latin verb endings are elided. Similarly, the presentation of Greek contracted verbs alongside the parallel instances in Latin (which are not usually, in modern textbooks, described as contracted) helps to make sense of the patterns of conjugation in both languages.24 The opening prose section of Adam Littleton’s Pasor metricus, printed in London in 1658, similarly presents a survey of Greek grammar both in, and by reference to, Latin.25 Littleton’s work, however, unlike Busby’s, is focused in particular upon a mastery of New Testament Greek: there is no discussion of the various Greek dialects, treated at some length by Busby. Some understanding of the differences between Greek dialects is essential for confident literacy in classical Greek literature (which includes canonical works in several different dialects) but unnecessary for New Testament Greek. Similarly, Littleton’s treatment of quantity is extremely brief (a mere paragraph on page 55) and illustrated only by a handful of verse quotations included in the New Testament. Nevertheless, Littleton, too, turns to Latin verse for the purposes of memorization. The core of the Pasor Metricus, to which the survey of grammar is really only a preface, is a versified vocabulary of New Testament Greek, divided alphabetically by initial letter, and with line numbers provided, presumably for classroom reference.26 Here, for instance, are the opening lines of the section on Δ (capital ‘D’ in Greek): Δαίμων daemon erit. sed Δάκνω mordeo. Δάκρυ Lacryma. Δάκτυλος est digitus. Δαμάεινque domare. Mutuum eritque Δάνειον. faenero, credo Δανείζω. Et Δαπανᾷν sumptus impendere. sed pavimentum, Atque solum Δάπεδον sit. Δείκνυμι indico …27 24 An entertainingly scathing essay in The Edinburgh Review indicates that Westminster was still making routine use of Busby’s grammatical verse for teaching Latin and Greek as late as 1831 (Edinburgh Review 53 (March-June 1831), 64-82). 25 Littleton (1627-1694), a clergyman and philologist, was himself educated under Busby at Westminster, and became second master there from 1658. He later published an enormous Latin dictionary, Linguae Latinae liber dictionarius quadripartitus (1678), which was reissued several times. 26 The volume also includes an index of all the Greek words included in the poem (22-24) and a very concise précis of the entire New Testament in Greek (unpaginated; sigs F2r-H3v). 27 Littleton, Pasor metricus, 5.

126 

Vic toria Moul

This is simply a versified list of Greek words and their corresponding terms in Latin, such as Δάκνω and mordeo, both meaning ‘I bite’. Although it is hard to appreciate the appeal of a text of this sort in a modern context, for boys accustomed from early childhood to hearing and memorizing the Latin hexameter, fitting vocabulary to it in this way probably was a useful aide-memoire, even if the mechanically alphabetical arrangement here leads to some juxtapositions that border on absurdity. Hebrew, too, was typically taught in relation to both Latin and Greek. Most introductions to Hebrew are in prose (though often incorporating, for instance, Hebrew versions of the same ‘basic’ texts, such as the Lord’s Prayer, as in Greek or Latin). Preserved at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, however, is a manuscript copy of a Hebrew grammar in Latin verse, containing both Hebrew and Greek words within the Latin hexameter lines.28 Like many similar textbooks already discussed, the work is titled so as to emphasise its pedagogical utility: Hebraicae linguae studiosae juventuti animi alacritatem successusque a Deo prosperrimos and opens with a direct address to the students themselves (Si cupis optatam, juvenis, contingere metam; ‘If you desire, young man, to reach the longed-for turning post’ [in a chariot race]’). Like the Greek verse grammars discussed, this text is in Latin hexameters, incorporating Hebrew words and phrases, and the religious motivation for the study of Hebrew is emphasized from the outset: one of the earliest rules discusses the proper Hebrew term for Christ.

Latin ‘grammatical verse’ in literary culture As discussed above, Latin grammatical verse was intended as a mnemonic device, but also served to inculcate in children from the earliest stage of their education a feel for Latin poetic style and technique. It is not surprising that the ubiquitous use of Latin verse in basic grammatical instruction left its mark also on contemporary composition, especially of a ‘popular’ kind, as in the comedy interrogation of the grammar school boy William in Shakespeare’s Merry Wives of Windsor (IV.1). In that scene, Mistress Quickly repeatedly interprets the Latin words William gives in answer as (absurd) English ones, to comic effect. Contemporary manuscript miscellanies frequently include not only extracts from the standard examples of grammatical verse already discussed, but also humourous Latin verse referring directly to this tradition. The enormously popular Latin epigrams of John 28 Emmanuel College Cambridge, MS 49.

Gr ammar in verse: L atin pedagogy in seventeenth- century Engl and

127

Owen (1564-1622), for instance, which are widely quoted in manuscript miscellanies throughout the seventeenth and well into the eighteenth century, include several ‘grammatical’ epigrams, which rely for their effect not only upon a knowledge of Latin and Greek grammar, but specifically of the standard works of grammatical verse: Owen was himself a successful schoolmaster.29 Epigram 1.29, for instance, refers to verbal mood: Optativus Modus Infinitivo propè par modus Optativus: Optandi finem nam sibi nemo facit. ‘The Optative mood The optative mood is almost the same as the infinitive: For no-one can put an end to his desires’.

The epigram includes a kind of pun (‘infinitive’ means literally ‘without ending’), but there is no optative mood in Latin: comprehension of the poem therefore relies upon at least some knowledge of Greek grammar, and perhaps plays upon the tendency of early modern Greek textbooks to introduce Greek grammatical terms by comparison with Latin. Epigram 34 in this book, titled Grammatica Anglica (‘English grammar’), depends particularly heavily upon a familiarity with Lily: Foeminaeo generi tribuuntur … Propria quae maribus … ‘To the feminine gender belong … The proper nouns which are masculine …’

These half-lines, immediately recognisable as versions of Lily’s grammatical verse, peter out because the epigram is about English grammar, and there is no grammatical gender in English. But read together, they can be construed as ‘to the feminine group (‘to women’) belong (or ‘are assigned’) all that is proper to men’: a version of an ancient joke about the true balance of power between the sexes. 29 The bibliographical history of the publication of Owen’s epigrams is complicated because they were an almost immediate publishing sensation across Europe, and multiple editions appeared over more than a hundred years in a large number of countries. The edition cited here is the 1612 London edition of the first three books. For full discussion, see Durand (ed.), Epigrammes.

128 

Vic toria Moul

Also playing upon the question of grammatical ‘gender’ is a very widely circulated couplet, attested in a large variety of forms, which is probably of late medieval origin: Vocatiuos oculos, ablatiuos loculos habent mulieres Si datiuus fueris quamdorumque veneris genitiuus eris.30 ‘Women have vocative (‘calling’) eyes, ablative (‘taking’) purses If you should be dative (‘giving’) of love to any woman, you will become genitive (i.e. you will end up a father)’.

A popular longer poem, ostensibly a mnemonic demonstration of the declension of the first declension noun ‘puella’ (‘girl’), belongs to much the same tradition. The first half, dealing only with the declension in the singular, runs as follows: Ad Grammaticum, Puellae declinatio. Semper dulce fuit malum puella, Et vox blanditiis potens puellae, Si quis crediderit semel puellae, Lusus post, odiis habet puellam, Et maerens ait ô vale puella, In tota nihil est boni puella.31 ‘A girl is always a sweet evil, [puella, nominative] And a girl’s voice is potent with charm, [puellae, genitive] If anyone trusts a girl once, [puellae, dative] Pleasure done, he’ll afterward hold her in contempt, [puellam, accusative] And lamenting say “o farewell, girl” [puella, vocative] “There’s nothing good in a girl at all” [puellâ, ablative].’

The tendency of ‘popular’ grammatical verse of this kind to revert to themes of sex and gender demonstrates how even the most elementary didactic verse encoded and passed down moral, cultural and stylistic commonplaces alongside grammatical knowledge. It perhaps also hints at the extent to 30 Here quoted in the form in which it appears in CUL MS Add 29, fol. 20v, a notebook dating from around 1640. 31 This text transcribed from British Library Add MS 14047, f140v, though this poem is also found frequently in the period, both in print and manuscript.

Gr ammar in verse: L atin pedagogy in seventeenth- century Engl and

129

which early modern men associated the earliest stages of Latin education with the exclusion of the female, or its displacement – the ‘feminine’ for these boys becomes grammatical gender, the ‘puella’ of their grammar, or, for some, the allure and achievement of Poesis itself.32

Bibliography [Anon.], ‘Art. III. – 1. A Latin Grammar, for the Use of Westminster School. London: 1830. 2. Graecae Grammaticae Compendium, in usum Scholae Regiae Westmonasteriensis. London: 1830’, Edinburgh Review 53 (March-June 1831), 64-82. [Anon.], Preces matutinae (London: Thomas Vautrollerius, 1578) Adamson, Patrick, Catechismus Latino carmine redditus et in libros quatuor digestus (Edinburgh: Robertus Lekpreuik, 1581) Alvarez, Emmanuel, De Institutione Grammatica Libri Tres (Venice: Society of Jesus, 1585) Brinsley, John, The posing of the parts. Or, A most plaine and easie way of examining the accidence and grammar, by questions and answeres, arising directly out of the words of the rules Whereby all schollars may attaine most speedily to the perfect learning, full understanding, and right use thereof; for their happy proceeding in the Latine tongue (London: H. Lownes for Thomas Man, 1615) Buckley, William, Arithmetica memorativa, sive Brevis, et Compendiaria Arithmeticae tractatio (London: [n. p.], 1567) Busby, Richard, Grammatica Busbeiana Auctior & Emendatior, i.e. Rudimentum Grammaticae Graeco-Latinae Metricum in usum Nobilium Puerorum in Schola Regia Westmonasterii Opus Posthumum (London: Eliz. Redmayne, 1696) Cowley, Abraham, Poemata latina. In quibus continentur, sex libri plantarum. (London: Plantarum Libri Sex (London: T. Roycroft, 1668) Durand, Sylvain (ed.), John Owen: Epigrammes / Epigrammata (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2016) Enterline, Lynne, Shakespeare’s Schoolroom: Rhetoric, Discipline, Emotion (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012) Kinloch, David, De hominis procreatione, anatome, ac morbis internis (Paris, 1596) Grey, Nicholas, Parabolae evangelicae Latinè redditae carmine paraphrastico varii generis. In usum scholae Tunbrigiensis (London: J. S. for Thomas Underhill, 1650) 32 George Herbert’s mature Latin work, for instance, very strikingly describes the writing of Latin poetry, his love for his own mother (and also of Christ), and his affection for his ‘alma mater’, Cambridge, in a series of closely related images. The classic treatment of Latin learning as a ‘male puberty rite’ remains Ong, ‘Latin Language Study’.

130 

Vic toria Moul

Gwosdek, Hedwig, Lily’s Grammar of Latin in English (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) Haskell, Yasmin, Loyola’s Bees: Ideology and Industry in Jesuit Latin Didactic Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) Lily, William, Brevissima Institutio (London: Reginald Wolf, 1558) Littleton, Adam, Pasor metricus, sive Voces omnes Novi Tesamenti Primigeniae (in memoriae subsidium) Hexametris versibus comprehensae (London: Roger Daniels, 1658) Littleton, Adam, Dictionarium Latino-Barbarum (London: J. C. for Johannis Wright & Richard Chiswel, 1677) Marston, John, What you Will, ed. by M. R. Woodhead (Nottingham: Nottingham Drama Texts, 1980) Moul, Victoria, ‘Didactic poetry’, in Victoria Moul (ed.), Cambridge Guide to NeoLatin Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 180-199 Ong, Walter, ‘Latin Language Study as a Renaissance Puberty Rite’, Studies in Philology 61.2 (1959), 103-24 Owen, John, Epigrammatum Libri Tres (London: John Legat for Simon Waterson, 1612) Reinikka, Anna, ‘Latin Parsing Grammars from the Carolingian Age to the later Middle Ages: Trends and developments’, Historiographia linguistica 44.2/3 (2017), 255-277. Ross, Alexander, Isagoge grammatica in gratiam illorum qui nolunt memoriam multis & longis regulis gravari, concinnata (London: William Dugard for Jehos. Kirton, 1648) Shirley, James, Grammaticae Latinae Institutiones (London: F. L. for R. L., 1654) Smith, R.D., ‘Lily, William’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography https://doi. org/10.1093/ref:odnb/16665 (accessed 02/04/2019). Tilley, Morris Palmer, A Dictionary of the Proverbs in England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1950) Vaus, John, Rudimenta puerorum in artem grammaticam (Edinburgh: Robertus Lekpreuik, 1566)

Manuscripts British Library Additional MS 14047 Additional MS 30076 Firth MS c. 3 Sloane MS 2287 Sloane MS 2870 Cambridge University Library MS Add 29

Gr ammar in verse: L atin pedagogy in seventeenth- century Engl and

131

Durham Cathedral Library, Add MS 248 Emmanuel College, Cambridge MS 49 Essex Record Office MS D/DLF106 Nottingham University Library MS 117 Royal Society MS RB/1/3/8 Royal Society MS RB/1/42/11 Society of Friends Archive. MS Vol S 193/5 Somerset Heritage Centre, MS DD\MT/21/2/3

About the author Victoria Moul is a Reader in Early Modern Latin and English at University College London. She works on the Latin-vernacular bilingualism of early modern literary culture, with a particular focus upon the relation between Latin and English poetry. Publications include Jonson, Horace and the Classical Tradition (Cambridge, 2010), Cambridge Guide to Neo-Latin Literature (Cambridge, 2017) and many articles and chapters on Latin and English poetry in early modernity. Her next book, Latin and English poetry in early modern England, is forthcoming with Cambridge University Press. Email: [email protected]

7.

Learning grammar in eighteenthcentury Russia Ekaterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vladislav Rjéoutski*

Abstract In eighteenth-century Russia, Latin was the main language of tuition in Church seminaries and the grammatical approach played a very important role. In schools for nobility, the word ‘grammar’ was hardly used for living languages. Early grammar teaching was combined with translation, dialogue memorization, reading, etc. The shift in focus towards more grammar in French and German classes had likely begun by the middle of the century, and was related to the general proliferation of the grammatical approach. A greater emphasis was placed on analysing grammatical form. These changes mark a shift away from the syncretic language learning approach of the Age of Enlightenment towards a new age characterised by the increasing separation of the aspects of language learning and the erosion of the links between them. Keywords: grammar; foreign languages; Russia; nobility; clergy; Noble Cadet Corps; Academy of Sciences

In eighteenth-century Russia, the Land Noble Cadet Corps (founded 1731), the learning institutions of the Academy of Sciences (founded 1725) and seminaries represent three types of foreign language education. German and French were the main languages taught in the Cadet Corps (with the addition of Italian in the second half of the century, but only in a secondary capacity), but Latin received little attention in general. Unlike other European countries, Latin as a means for nobles to access knowledge was unnecessary in Russia, with modern European languages taking preference.1 Students of * This research has been supported by the foundations RFBR (Russia) and FMSH (France), project n°20-513-22001. 1 See Rjéoutski, ‘Latin in the education of nobility in Russia’.

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch07

134 

Ek aterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vl adisl av R jéoutski

the Academy’s Gymnasium (who came from a wide range of social groups, including children of the nobility, merchants, artisans, non-commissioned officers, soldiers from guard regiments and more) studied German and Latin, though French was also a major focus. Language learning in the noble and non-gentry gymnasia of Moscow University was very similar to that in the Academy’s Gymnasium. Seminary education (for children of the clergy) was centred around the idea of teaching Latin, which over time became not only a language to be studied, but also the language of instruction. German and French were also introduced there, but occupied a relatively minor role.2 The attitude towards Latin differentiated the nobility from the clergy, as well the nobility from the scholars, and the trend of teaching two modern living languages (German and French) spread from the learning institutions of the nobility and the Academy of Sciences to church schools. This reflected the acceptance of the roles of these languages in the cultural outlook of all privileged social groups. The first part of this chapter gives a short overview of how ‘grammar’ was understood in Russia prior to the eighteenth century. The second part is devoted to an analysis of the role of grammar among other aspects of language teaching in the eighteenth century, as well as the teaching methods used in the main educational institutions in Russia. The third and final part looks at the grammar books used to teach foreign and classical languages in Russia. The scope of this article is limited to Latin, French and German, as these were the main languages in the cultural and educational fields in eighteenth-century Russia.

‘Grammar’ in Russia before the eighteenth century The development of the grammatical approach to literary languages and the very status of grammars in Russia at the turn of the seventeenth century require specific comments. From the fifteenth century onwards, anonymous articles on the orthographic and orthoepic norms of the Church Slavonic language and the associated classif ication of words by parts of speech were regularly found in manuscript collections of Muscovy. By the turn of the fifteenth century, the term ‘grammar’ was primarily understood in Muscovy as the art of writing, i.e. orthography (spelling).3 Grammar properly speaking was described by treatises called ‘osmochastiye’ (in eight-parts), 2 3

For more on French and German in seminaries, see: Kislova, ‘Le français et l’allemand’. Kuz’minova, ‘Razvitie grammaticheskoi mysli Rossii XVI-XVIII vv.’, 14-20, 43-44.

Learning gr ammar in eighteenth- century Russia

135

devoted to the eight parts of speech. They described the general system of language without focusing on specific grammatical features. 4 The modern understanding of the term ‘grammar’ (description of the language system) spread in south-western Russian writings starting from late fifteenth – early sixteenth centuries. Usually they described the Church Slavonic language system according to the Latin or Greek model. This approach was linked to the tradition of the philosophical understanding of grammar rather than a linguistic one. It traced its origin to Aristotle’s position in Ramon Llull’s interpretation. The grammatical system of any language was regarded as a reflection of a universal and unified reality; therefore the Greek or Latin system of parts of speech could be used to describe any language in the world. Such an approach must have caused problems in teaching the grammar of Church Slavonic. For example, the etymology section of Smotritski’s Church Slavonic grammar presented six moods and six tenses of the verb according to the Greek model of Lascaris’s Greek grammar, invented parts of speech inexistent in Church Slavonic (e.g. analogues for the article, the gerund, etc.)5 … Thus, in the Russian Church Slavonic linguistic tradition, until the mid-eighteenth century, ‘grammar’ referred to a graphic and spelling reference book proper for learning to write and read correctly, but unsuitable for mastering the morphological system of the Church Slavonic language. Such a focus on the graphic part was due to the widespread model of education: children of all social classes mastered grammar using the ‘traditional method’, i.e. reading and memorizing the ABC book, the Book of Hours, and the Psalms. It was not necessary to understand these texts in order to participate in religious service and therefore, to understand the nuances of the meanings of grammatical forms was redundant. An ordinary Orthodox person was not supposed to create his or her own texts in the language, writing was a separate skill, associated with the Russian language and cursive writing. Thanks to this model of education common in Muscovy the ability to read church script and the knowledge of the main church texts were relatively widespread. Thus, grammar turned out to be redundant in teaching children and was needed only for narrow specialists, for example, for proofreaders of the Moscow printing house. A grammar-oriented teaching of Church Slavonic developed in the nineteenth century and followed the development of grammatical teaching of Russian

4 5

Ibidem, 48-52, 102-108. Ibidem, 25-26.

136 

Ek aterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vl adisl av R jéoutski

in schools; the ‘traditional method’ persisted in the peasant milieu until the end of the nineteenth century.6 In the eighteenth century new civil and church schools in Russia started teaching living and ancient languages according to new models coming from Western Europe. The understanding of grammar and its role in this teaching was substantially different from the prior model. However among these new schools there were substantial differences as well which we will explain in the following section.

The role of grammar in learning and methods of grammar instruction The Cadet Corps (founded 1731) and the Academy’s school (Gymnasium, 1726) differed greatly from seminaries in terms of the national makeup of their students and faculty, which in turn led to some fundamental differences in teaching methods used and students’ results. The majority of students and teachers in seminaries were Russian speakers.7 In contrast, a significant proportion of students in the Cadet Corps and the Academy’s school came from German-speaking families in the Russian Empire, with an even greater number of German-speaking teachers. Germans made up the entirety of the Latin teaching faculty at the Academy up to the middle of the eighteenth century. Many could not speak Russian, which meant that before taking classes in Latin grammar, Russian students needed to learn German.8 Between the second half of the 1730s and 1747, many students at the Academy’s school finished their education in the higher German class (they studied German grammar, German letter-writing, reading of German and Latin authors, Latin grammar). The others enrolled in Latin school (where studies ended with poetics and rhetoric). Latin was taught in German and students practised translation from Latin into German and vice versa. This practice was deemed to be harmful and was prohibited in 1747. Both the Cadet Corps and the Academy’s Gymnasium had to face the question of teaching in the students’ native language. In the Cadet Corps’ 6 Kravetskii, Pletneva, ‘Istoriia tserkovnoslavianskogo iazyka v Rossii. Konets XIX-XX v.’, 25-41; Kislova, ‘“Grammaticheskoe uchenie” i modeli tserkovnogo obrazovaniia 1720-kh gg.’, 476-480. 7 In the first half of the century, many students in seminaries were of Ukrainian descent – though their language was considered a variation of Russian: Kislova, ‘Iz istorii lingvisticheskoi kompetentsii dukhovenstva’; Okenfuss, The Rise and Fall of Latin Humanism; Kharlampovich, Malorossiiskoe vliianie. 8 Amburger, Die nichtrussischen Schüler; Rjéoutski, ‘Migrants and language learning in Russia’.

Learning gr ammar in eighteenth- century Russia

137

new charter (1766), the director Ivan Betskoi wrote of the need to teach subjects not in a foreign language, but in the ‘natural’ language of the student. The new Regulations of the Academy (1747) prescribed a transition to Russian-language instruction for all subjects, though this did not happen immediately.9 The general outline of classes in seminaries was established in the Spiritual Regulation (1721); this document remained the main guideline for church education until the beginning of the nineteenth century. The content of classes arose from the traditions of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and the principles of Ratio Studiorum. There was almost no variation to this in the eighteenth century. Elementary seminary classes were spent learning Latin and Russian spelling, followed later by grammar and ‘sintaxima’ classes (or lower and higher grammar classes) which taught the morphology and syntax of Latin, which gradually transitioned to communicating in Latin and subsequent classes on poetics, rhetoric, philosophy and theology. Instruction in these classes was given either primarily or entirely in Latin. Other languages (French, German, Greek and Hebrew) could be taught as secondary or optional subjects.10 Grammar could occupy different roles in learning depending on the institution and language. In 1739 at the Academy of Sciences language learning began with reading and writing in tandem with vocabulary memorization. In the middle of the century, younger gymnasium students (5-6 years old) started being taught orally, by direct method. Once students had learned around three hundred words and phrases, they progressed to writing letters and numbers on a blackboard.11 Only afterwards did they move on to learning grammar. In the fourth Latin class, they studied grammar (declension, conjugation, the rudiments of syntax and vocabulary memorization, 9 hours per week); Maturini Corderii Colloquiorum and Christophori Cellarii Latinitatis (6 hours); etymology and ex tempore translation (i.e. without prior preparation, 6 hours); reading and writing (4 hours).12 Students in their third year analysed simpler classical writers, studied syntax and etymology, did ex tempore German and Latin translations and continued to memorize vocabulary. Less time was devoted to language learning as students started studying other subjects.13 In 1752, the secretariat of the Academy of Sciences 9 Reglament Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk i khudozhestv, 1747, § 46. 10 See Kislova, ‘Latin as the language of the orthodox clergy’; Kislova, ‘“Latin” and “Slavonic” Education in the Primary Classes of Russian Seminaries’. 11 SPbF ARAN, f. 3, op. 1, d. 828, fol. 68r. 12 Kostin, Kostina, ‘Reglament Gimnazii’, 246. 13 Ibidem, 247.

138 

Ek aterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vl adisl av R jéoutski

criticized the fact that too much time was spent on learning the rules of grammar and prescribed a greater emphasis on grammar practice. Teachers were to set ‘tasks’ (which could be in the form of questions to test students’ knowledge), practise declension and conjugation, and show students ‘ways of composing whole speech’, as well as reading the works of writers, explaining ‘school conversations’ and providing examples for students to emulate. We can see that in the middle of the century grammar was not clearly delineated from other learning activities.14 From 1770, Latin grammar was taught after learning Russian grammar and using it as a basis. In the 1790s, the gradual inclusion of languages in the programme was rejected and (in decreasing order of importance) the French, German, Russian and Latin languages were offered, along with optional languages: Greek, English and Italian.15 Study of the grammar of all these languages was offered simultaneously in the fourth year, once students had attained reading and writing skills.16 Initially, ‘grammar’ as a separate subject did not exist at the Cadet Corps and was seldom mentioned in descriptions of the learning process. The term ‘grammar’ itself first and foremost appears in regard to Latin, only beginning to appear in reference to German and particularly French in the middle of the century. This likely reflects the gradual transition of grammar learning from Latin to living languages. Common references in 1748 mention students learning via ‘simple conversations’ (meaning ‘dialogues’ – of which there were many) or via ‘simple translations’ or (much more infrequently) ‘simple authors’.17 In the gymnasia of Moscow University (founded in 1755), an emphasis was placed on etymology and syntax, followed by a gradual transition towards translation.18 Grammar was combined with the reading and analysis of French newspapers, 19 Les aventures de Télémaque and Dialogues domestiques,20 translating Latin writers into French, and the composition of letters, speeches and conversations. In 1771, Moscow University published a concise teaching guide in four languages (Russian, French, German and Latin), in which it summarized the prescriptions for the teaching staff at its gymnasia.21 For all languages, it was advised that an emphasis be 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

SPbF ARAN, R. IV.5, d. 2-(1752), fol. 165r. Margolis, Tishkin, ‘Edinym vdokhnoveniem’, 60. SPbF ARAN, R. IV.5, d. 46, fol. 3r. RGVIA, f. 314, op. 1, d. 2178, fol. 18v, 28v, 29v, 68r, 69r, 70r, 74r, 76r, 81v. Istoriia Moskovskogo universiteta, 357-360; Reestr uchenii i uprazhnenii. Istoriia Moskovskogo universiteta, 68. Dialogues domestiques. Sposob ucheniia.

Learning gr ammar in eighteenth- century Russia

139

placed on declension and conjugation, which teachers were to ‘write on the blackboard or, should there be a small number of students, on paper, while at the same time declining and conjugating a large number of words and instructing students to do the same’. After this, it was suggested that the teacher read and translate a fragment of text by a ‘simple author’, then have the students repeat. ‘The teacher should take a translated text and analyse in it according to etymological rules the parts of speech and patterns which have previously been learned by students, instructing them to search for the necessary grammar rules.’ After thorough review and repetition, the teacher ‘instructs students to copy down the completed and corrected translation. Then, in the following class, the teacher instructs students to translate the same text without looking at the author and with no preparation back into the language it was translated from in the previous class.’22 In comparison with the early days of the Cadet Corps, the significance of grammar grew significantly, as demonstrated by the frequent use of the word ‘grammar’ in descriptions of language courses at the University’s gymnasia.23 In the second half of the century, grammar begins to appear in other learning institutions such as the Academy of Fine Arts in the 1760s and 1770s,24 often as a separate discipline25 (unlike in the first half of the century). The increasing significance of a grammar-based approach in noble education can be seen in the example of a noble school in Tver’ (not far from Moscow) founded in 1779.26 The school’s ‘General Timetable’ lists subjects such as ‘the fundamentals of French grammar’, ‘French grammar and translation’, ‘German grammar and translation’ and ‘Russian grammar’ in addition to other aspects of language learning such as ‘the alphabet’ and ‘writing’. A large amount of time was devoted to grammar instruction.27 A ‘standard’ timetable of a student (clearly of an advanced level) shows that in addition to other subjects, he spent 12 hours a week studying French grammar and translation, 8 hours studying German grammar, and 4 hours 22 Ibidem, 3. 23 Istoriia Moskovskogo universiteta, 357-360. Also note that in the announcement of public lectures at Moscow University, grammar is mentioned only once – in reference to a German course taught by Johann Gottfried Reichel. Ibidem, 354. 24 SPF ARAN, f. 3, op. 1, d. 225, fol. 11r; op. 9, d. 262, fol. 5r. 25 For example, in the Cadet Artillery and Engineering Corps. Mézin, Rjéoutski, Les Français en Russie, 193. The same can be observed in the Theatrical School at the end of the eighteenth century. Ibidem, 352. 26 RNB, Mss, f. Erm., d. 82. The school’s 130 students came almost entirely from noble Russian families in the local province. 27 Ibidem, fol. 47r.

140 

Ek aterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vl adisl av R jéoutski

studying Russian grammar.28 At 24 hours per week, languages occupied the majority of the student’s time. All remaining subjects (4 hours each for catechism, geography, arithmetic, drawing and dance) took up 20 hours of class time per week.29 For comparison, when French and German classes were being organized at Moscow Theological Academy in 1781, the ‘Frenchman Ivan Schmid’ was hired to teach each language four days a week for just one hour.30 At the Tver’ school, in French and German classes parts of speech had to be learned – but ‘with a Russian translation’. During classes, rules were illustrated by the teacher using examples, then students were instructed to find examples of them. In order to leave ‘a strong impression in the memory’, students were told to take note in their exercise books. Instructions for teaching exceptions read: ‘The teacher asks them [the students] to make examples, while interspersing among them some words which do not follow the general rules so that they themselves notice and follow the rule for the exception.’31 Students were also directed towards grammar while translating texts; once a translated text had been corrected, ‘the teacher instructs the students to deconstruct the translated text into its component parts of speech and find the applicable grammatical rules.’32 Here we can see the systematic approach to grammar as a set of rules. At the same time, grammar was studied using text examples and was an inherent part of other activities, not only linguistic (translation), but also not directly connected to language learning (such as ideological education through reading official texts). There was also the question of how grammatical knowledge was to be checked. The recommended method at the Tver’ nobles’ school was the joint marking of exercise books, whereby students were tasked with finding errors in the work of their classmates and ‘demonstrating the error using a grammatical rule’.33 The justification for this from a teaching perspective was that ‘when children discover a mistake for themselves, they more easily memorize the rules of word construction’.34 Teachers also participated in this process by checking exercise books. Were there any exercises for learning grammatical rules? Exercises in the modern sense are a relatively recent form of language learning that were 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Ibidem. Ibidem. RGB, Mss, f. 277, d. 9, fol. 62r. RNB, Mss, f. Erm., d. 82, fol. 54r-54v. Ibidem. Ibidem, fol. 54v. Ibidem, fol. 55r.

Learning gr ammar in eighteenth- century Russia

141

only fully developed in the twentieth century. However, some early forms of grammar exercises did exist in the eighteenth century. The Tver’ school prescribed: ‘the exercises that children should study most are declension and conjugation, making singular forms plural and masculine forms feminine’.35 In theological seminaries, given the range of possible scenarios, the manner in which various aspects of language were studied was generally as follows: Once students had attained a suitable level of reading and writing skills in Russian, they started learning to write in the Latin alphabet and study the basics of grammar (‘informatory’ class), studied morphology and gradually progressed to syntax (grammar or higher grammar class), then continued studying syntax and starting ‘prosody’ (‘syntaxima’ or higher grammar class). They studied the fundamentals of Latin versif ication, which served as preparation for classes in poetics and rhetoric. Students in elementary grades had Latin classes five days a week both before and after lunch, usually studying grammar before lunch on 3-4 of these days. The sixth day was devoted to their regular studies of catechism and arithmetic. As far as we can tell from detailed reports from the last quarter of the century, seminary classes differed in the volume and nature of their extra materials – which students studied in tandem with grammar – and grammatical material itself was not oriented around the beginning or the end of the academic year. September could begin with the study of ‘the third declension’,36 and after finishing morphology, the teacher was not obliged to progress to syntax, but could begin their textbook from the beginning section.37 The same topic – syntax – could be ‘explained and learned’ three times in the same academic year in the same class.38 This can be explained by the fact that students entered and moved through grades individually as and when they finished the course.39 In one grade, there were students who studied grammar once, twice or even three times. Students in provincial seminaries could end up studying in the same class despite being in different grades. Sooner or later, each student would study all of the required material – though not always in the required order. 35 Ibidem, fol. 54r. 36 RGB, Mss, f. 277, d. 12, fol. 370r. 37 RGB, Mss, f. 277, d. 14, fol. 205r. 38 RNB, Mss, f. 522, d. 209, fol. 94v. 39 Smirnov, Istoriia Moskovskoi Slaviano-greko-latinskoi akademii, 181; Agntsev, Istoriia Riazanskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 130. Lists of students of the Tver’ seminary in 1787 mention students who progressed through three grades in two years and two grades in one year (Kolosov, Istoriia Tverskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 62). Instructions to an ‘informatory’ class teacher at Novgorod Seminary in 1800 mention the same. (RNB, Mss, f. 522, d. 209, fol. 146r).

142 

Ek aterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vl adisl av R jéoutski

The main learning method in seminaries was the learning of large corpora of texts by heart. This method was applied not only to languages, but also to catechism, arithmetic, poetics, rhetoric and more. Teachers would verbally discuss grammar while adding their own examples and tasks. The studied portion of grammar was then to be learned by heart. Certain exercises (‘ekzertsitsii’, ‘zadachi’) were also used: at the end of the century, reports by teachers reveal that they gave exercises to students to do translations which were then checked and corrected in class. The teachers explained mistakes and placed special emphasis on grammatical and syntactical accuracy. Students were then instructed to learn the texts by heart. There is a dearth of information about the role of grammar in private education. It is telling that certificates issued to teachers working in families and private boarding schools in the 1750s contain extremely little reference to the word ‘grammar’. It appears that many French native speaking teachers had a poor grasp of grammar; indeed, there were cases where teachers wrote poorly in their native language, which makes it difficult to make any assumptions about their grammatical knowledge. 40 It is also difficult to know what kind of role grammar played in noble families even when the tutor was capable of teaching it. It is possible that the formal teaching of grammar seen in learning institutions for the nobility in the second half of the eighteenth century was not present in these families. The French national Laval proves a rare exception to this. While working for the Princes Trubetskoi he authored a grammar book that was used both within that family and in some boarding schools. 41 However, the progression from purely practical language learning (which, by all accounts, was widespread among families with hired tutors) towards a more formal methodology with a greater focus on grammar did extend to private education – as evidenced by some individual examples. 42

Grammar books This section deals only with the more popular grammar books. However the reasons of their popularity are not clear. We can assume that in most cases 40 SPbF ARAN, f. 3, op. 9, d. 178, fol. 11-12. 41 Laval, Explication de la Grammaire Françoise. 42 For example, the family of Mikhail Dmitriev, nephew of a famous poet, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Dmitriev, Glavy iz vospominanii moei zhizni, 40-41.

Learning gr ammar in eighteenth- century Russia

143

it can be explained by their large circulation in Europe and particularly in the parts of Europe which had close ties with Russia, i.e. German lands. The Cadet Corps and the Academy’s Gymnasium used imported grammar books from Eastern and Central Europe as well as books created and published specifically with Russian-speaking students in mind. Imported books used at the Cadet Corps include the works of Jean du Grain43 and Jean-Robert de Pepliers44 (1730-1750s),45 the latter of which was particularly popular. One of Pepliers’s books was used by the German Baron Heinrich van Huysen to teach French to Peter the Great’s son Alexei. 46 By 1756, only six copies of this book remained in the Corps library, so the decision was made to purchase twenty more.47 All evidence suggests that du Grain’s book fell out of use, whereas Pepliers’s endured; it was still extremely popular at the Corps in the late 1760s. 48 Pepliers’s book was also used at the gymnasium at the Academy of Sciences. 49 ‘New French Grammar, Composed in Questions and Answers’ was published in 1752, having been translated from Restaut’s German grammar by Vasilii Teplov.50 It was reprinted with additional material in 1762, 1777, and 1787, and its overall sales totalled 5,837 copies – a huge number for eighteenth-century Russia.51 When this book was no longer on sale, copies of the same Pepliers’s popular French grammar for Germans were bought for the Academy’s Gymnasium.52 The middle of the century saw the appearance of a slew of French grammars, likely due to the widespread use of the language among, first and foremost, the nobility. Nevertheless, these books did not enjoy the popularity of their above-mentioned counterparts.53 Restaut and Pepliers’s books are mentioned 43 RGVIA, f. 314, op. 1, d. 1960, fol. 4r. In reference to: DuGrain, Gründlichste und leichteste Anweisung (multiple editions). 44 RGVIA, f. 314, op. 1, d. 1667, fol. 6r; 2867, fol. 17r. In reference to: [Pêpliers], Grammaire Royale françoise & allemande (multiple editions). 45 RGVIA, f. 314, op. 1, d. 2442, fol. 9v. 46 Kareva, ‘Pervye izdannye v Rossii grammatiki’. 47 RGVIA, f. 314, op. 1, d. 2867, fol. 17. 48 RGVIA, f. 314, op. 1, d. 3391, fol. 1r. 49 This work can be found in «Catalogus der Bücher, die nach Anzeige des Reglament in dem Gymansio sollen gebraucht werden» 1739 г. SPbF ARAN, R.I.70, d. 5, fol. 81v-82v. 50 Teplov, Novaia frantsusskaia grammatika; Neue und vollständige Französische Grammatic. For more information, see: Kareva, Sergeev, ‘Pervaia pechatnaia grammatika’; Kareva, ‘Pervye izdannye v Rossii grammatiki’. 51 Svodnyi katalog, 216-217. 52 SPbF ARAN, f. 3, op. 9, d. 214, fol. 1r. Pepliers’s book was one of the most sought-after books at the Academy of Science’s book shop (Materialy dlia istorii, 652-653). 53 For more on French grammar books in eighteenth-century Russia, see: Rjéoutski, Vlassov, ‘L’enseignement de la grammaire française’.

144 

Ek aterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vl adisl av R jéoutski

in reference to boarding schools in 1750s St. Petersburg, as is Grammaire des Dames.54 However, teachers at these schools often admitted that they had an inadequate knowledge of grammar and only dictated passages from grammar books to their students.55 One of the most popular French grammar books of the second part of the eighteenth century was Martyn Sokolovskii’s bilingual grammar (1762, numerous editions), which was widely used at the university (in the university’s gymnasia in particular), as well as in other learning institutions such as the Moscow Theology Academy (between 1781-1794 when the Academy’s French class was closed due to revolutionary activity in France) and the Tver school for the nobility. It is an abridged version of de la Touche’s Art de bien parler François.56 One of the first bilingual grammar books for modern languages was compiled by Martin Schwanwitz at the end of the 1720s.57 It was very popular58: by 1732, the entire print run had already sold out and it had become difficult to find.59 Schwanwitz’s work – particularly its 1734 second reprint developed by Vasilii Adodurov – had a large influence on the development of the grammatical tradition in Russia.60 It was reworked by Jacob von Stäehlin in 1745 and reprinted in 1762, 1791 and 1802, becoming widely used to teach German in Russian schools.61 There were other German grammars of lesser importance.62 Latin classes at the Academy of Sciences initially used Johannis Renius’s Donatus, reportedly with a Polish translation,63 as well as а grammar book by J. Lange (1670-1744).64 However, by 1732 both the full and abridged versions of Grammaticae Marchica had begun to supplant them.65 This book was developed by a group of gymnasia rectors heavily influenced by J. Lange’s work 54 SPbF ARAN, f. 3, op. 9, d. 78, 80. There were several books entitled Grammaire des dames. 55 RGIA, f. 730, op. 1, d. 70. 56 La Touche, L’Art de bien parler François (multiple editions). 57 Schwanwitz, Die Teutsche Grammatica; Materialy dlia istorii, 404. 58 Ulianinskii, Sredi knig, 88. 59 Materialy dlia istorii, 177. 60 Keipert, ‘Der Fremdsprachenunterricht’, 74-75. 61 Koch, Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 222-226. 62 Ibidem, Chapter VI. 63 See M. Johannis Rhenii Donatus. For more, see: Kirikova, Kostina, ‘Uchebnye knigi’, 197; Archaimbault, ‘Traditsiia Donata’, 21. 64 Lange, Verbesserte und Erleichterte Lateinische Grammatica. 65 Compendium Grammaticae Latinae; Vollständigere lateinische Grammatica Marchica. For more on the quick uptake of this grammar book in studies at the Academic Gymnasium, see: Keipert, ‘Der Fremdsprachenunterricht’, 76.

Learning gr ammar in eighteenth- century Russia

145

for compulsory use in the state gymnasia of the Margraviate of Brandenburg. Sokrashchenie grammatiki latinskoi [Compendium of Latin grammar] was published in 1746; Vasilii Lebedev seemingly translated the abridged edition into Russian on his own initiative.66 The book was republished with some changes a further six times (1762, 1769, 1779, 1789, 1791, 1792) and was in demand at various kinds of educational institutions. However, Lebedev’s work did not immediately supplant Compendium grammaticae Marchica at the Academy’s Gymnasium due to the continued practice of teaching Latin in German.67 Even when the print run of Lebedev’s book was coming to an end in 1758, the Academy’s Gymnasium was still purchasing the German version.68 Italian was taught at the Academy’s Gymnasium using Veneroni’s grammar book.69 In seminaries, the types of books used (much like the methods for teaching languages) remained practically unchanged throughout the century. As in the Academy’s Gymnasium, seminary students learned various common phrases and words from dictionaries by heart. Materials in the first half of the century were often handwritten, but in 1767 the Commission of Public Schools began circulating unified printed resources for all subjects.70 The basic elements of grammar could be given as part of the very first languagelearning resources i.e. alphabet and vocabulary books. For example, Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov’s Novaia latinskaia azbuka [New Latin grammar], intended for seminaries and published in 1788, contained a comprehensive beginner-level Latin course: rules of pronunciation, ‘elementary Latin phrases and the forms of their grammatical changes’, frequently used Greek words in Latin, ‘brief polite dialogues and phrases’ and even a ‘clear and detailed Roman calendar’. Grammar books came to replace alphabet books. Up until the last quarter of the eighteenth century (and until the beginning of the nineteenth century in provincial seminaries) this meant Emannuel Alvar’s De Institutione Grammatica Libri Tres. From the middle of the century onwards, Lebedev’s Russian-language book on Latin grammar, Kratkaia grammatika latinskaia [Short Latin grammar], began to replace it.71 Its 1779 edition of 3,600 copies 66 Sokrashchenie grammatiki latinskoi. See: Keipert, ‘Vasilij Lebedev’. 67 Materialy dlia istorii, 189. 68 SPbF ARAN, f. 3, op. 1, d. 234, fol. 59v. 69 Veneroni, Herrn von Veneroni (multiple editions); SPbF ARAN, f. 3, op. 1, d. 519, fol. 38r. 70 Agntsev, Istoriia Riazanskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 133. 71 This largely depended on the preferences of whichever church elder was in charge of the seminary. Dmitriy Sechenov (1752-1757) implemented the teaching of Alvar in addition to Lebedev’s book, while Simon Lagov (1778-1804) replaced it with a book by Bantysh-Kamenskii (Ibidem, 114).

146 

Ek aterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vl adisl av R jéoutski

was funded by the Holy Synod and distributed among seminaries.72 Other grammar books were to be used as supplementary materials.73 The grammar books of this period often included elements that do not seem directly related to grammar. Pepliers’s book, in addition to explaining rules, contains lists of words organized by theme, French dialogues with German translations, reading texts, writing samples on various topics (visitations, clothing, noblemen at the tailor’s, breakfast, etc.)74 Grammar books published in Russia followed this model. The above-mentioned book by Teplov contains examples by Restaut translated into Russian, and features a section called ‘proverbes’ (approximately 50 pages on set phrases),75 followed by a vocabulary list (approximately 150 pages) in French, Russian and German and organized by theme.76 We can only guess how these set phrases and dialogues with translations were used, but they may have played a part in grammar practice. For example, syntactical structures could be studied via translation – especially given that the translations provided were of high quality, rather than word-for-word syntactical copies of the original. Some of these ‘grammar’ books bear more resemblance to collections of language-learning texts. The grammar book compiled by Moscow University teacher Henry Lavie (1767) contains ‘reading in French’ (Sunday sermons, the ten commandments, evening prayers etc.), a collection of French and Russian words organized by theme, and ‘dialogues familiers’ about school life all with Russian translations. Later grammar textbooks, at least those for French, also include analyses of morphological forms, as seen in an 1807 textbook which examines phrases in closer detail.77 The apparent goal was not practice in translation (which unquestionably helped train grammar skills), but rather a deeper formal study of grammar, including grammatical terminology that students were expected not only to understand, but use independently. It is no coincidence that these kinds of analyses started to appear more and more frequently without Russian translations, given that the goal of the exercise had changed. We can observe in the seminaries of the time not only the traditional emphasis on grammar, but also a growth in the analysis of grammatical forms. In the senior grammar teaching department of the ‘informatory’ class in 1804 there is a noted focus on learning declensions and conjugations 72 RGB, Mss, f. 277, d. 12, fol. 289r. 73 RGB, Mss, f. 522, d. 209, fol. 90v. 74 Des Pepliers 1702, 1-40; 67-73 (phrases for parts of the body); 73-80 (clothing phrases), etc. 75 Teplov, Novaia frantsusskaia grammatika, 331-380. 76 Ibidem, new pagination 1-149. 77 Grammaire françoise écrite, 98.

Learning gr ammar in eighteenth- century Russia

147

by heart, as well as some simple rules of Latin syntax.78 The analysis of grammar itself began in grammar and ‘syntaxima’ classes; students read sentences and ‘looked for the grammatical meaning by forming questions in Latin.’79

Conclusion Various factors influenced the development of modern and classical-language grammar teaching in Russia. One such factor was the nationality of the teacher; French and German native speakers could teach without referring to grammar, but rather using a communicative method (although some taught through grammar). Russian teachers of these languages, who needed to rely on authoritative sources – namely grammar books, had to use grammar. The first approach can be observed in private education intended for the nobility, where the majority of teachers were foreign native speakers. The second approach is evident in seminaries, where foreign teachers were extremely rare and were replaced by their own graduates within one or two years. In this case, grammar was the main focus in learning a foreign language. The bilingual makeup of the students and faculty of the Academy of Sciences and the Cadet Corps led to the circulation of German-language grammar books for Latin and French in Russia and their subsequent translation into Russian. Grammar played a very significant role in the teaching of Latin. On one hand, this was part of the traditions of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy and the West Slavic Jesuit colleges. On the other hand, it was not possible to study Latin without a reliance on grammar, given its nature as a dead language with no native speakers to teach using the communicative method (although this approach was sometimes adopted in private education, and teachers’ tasks in seminary Latin classes quickly transitioned into communicating with students in Latin). It is therefore unsurprising that Latin was taught in a similar way in seminaries and at the Academy of Sciences, for example (however using different grammar books, Alvar’s grammar in the first case and Russian translations of Latin grammars by Protestant authors in the second case). The word ‘grammar’ itself is first mentioned in Cadet Corps documentation predominantly in reference to Latin; initially it is almost never used 78 RNB, Mss, f. 522, d. 209, fol. 91r. 79 Ibidem, fol. 90v.

148 

Ek aterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vl adisl av R jéoutski

alongside French or German. The role of grammar among other aspects of language learning and the structure of the most popular grammar books of the first half of the century (Restaut and Pepliers’s works for French) illustrate that the approach towards learning grammar remained complex for a long time – grammar was combined with translation, dialogue memorization, reading sections of various works and so on. The shift in focus towards grammar in French and German, at least at the Cadet Corps, had likely begun by the middle of the century, and was related to the spread of the grammatical approach in general. In the latter half of the century, grammar appeared as a separate subject in many academic institutions and an increased amount of time was devoted to it. It is evident that a greater emphasis was placed on analysing grammatical form, as particularly noticeable in seminary education at the beginning of the nineteenth century, as well as in contemporary modern language textbooks. These changes mark the shift away from the syncretic language learning approach of the Age of Enlightenment towards a new age marked by the increasing separation of the aspects of language learning and the erosion of the links between them.

Bibliography Archival sources Archive SPbII RAN (Архив Санкт-Петербургского института истории Российской академии наук) Archive of Saint Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg: SPbII RAN, f. 36, op. 1, d. 792. SPbF ARAN (Санкт-Петербургский филиал Архива РАН), Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg branch: SPbF ARAN, f. 3, op. 1, d. 225, 234, 519, 828. SPbF ARAN, f. 3, op. 9, d. 178, 214, 225, 262. SPbF ARAN, R. I.70, d. 5. SPbF ARAN, R. IV.5, d. 2-(1752), 46-(1795). RGB (Российская государственная библиотека), Russian State Library, Moscow, Manuscript Department: RGB, Mss, f. 277, d. 9, 12, 14. RGVIA (Российский государственный военно-исторический архив), Russian State Archive for the History of the Armed Forces, Moscow: RGVIA, f. 314, op. 1, d. 1667, 1960, 2178, 2442, 2867, 3391.

Learning gr ammar in eighteenth- century Russia

149

RNB (Российская национальная библиотека), Russian national library, St. Petersburg: RNB, Mss, f. Erm., d. 82. RNB, Mss, f. 522, d. 209.

Latin alphabet Amburger, Erik, ‘Die nichtrussischen Schüler des Akademischen Gymnasiums in St. Petersburg 1726-1750’, in Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutsch-russischen kulturellen Beziehungen (Giessen: Im Kommissionsverlag Wilhelm Schmitz, 1961), 183-213. Archaimbault, Sylvie, ‘Traditsiia Donata i grammatiki slavianskikh iazykov’ in Revue des études slaves, 70/1: Communications de la délégation française au XIIe Congrès international des slavistes (Krakow, 27 août – 2 septembre 1998) (1998), 17-25. Cellarii Christophori, Latinitatis probatæ & exercitiæ liber memorialis naturali ordine dispositus: cum indice necessario in usum sueticæ juventutis translatus. Atque Sueciæ gymnasiorum dnis rectoribus dedicatus ([Stockholm], 1699). Compendium Grammaticae Latinae, Oder: Kurtzer Auszug aus der grösseren Lateinischen Grammatica Marchica: Zur Erlernung Der Lateinischen Sprache. Nebst einem Appendice etlicher aus den Classicis Auctoribus genommenen kurtzen Historien (Berlin: Pape, 1716). Dialogues domestiques. Gespräche von Haussachen. Domashnie razgovory. Colloqvia Domestica (Saint Petersburg: pri Akademii nauk, 1749). DuGrain Jean, Gründlichste und leichteste Anweisung zur Französischen Sprache: durch ein collegium gallicum von 100 Lectionen (Leipzig, 1738). Grammaire françoise écrite de façon à conduire en peu de tems, par des regles claires et aisées, moitié Russes et moitié Françoises, à la facilité de parler cette langue. Frantsuzskaia grammatika, Napisannaia takim obrazom, chto iasnymi i legkimi pravilami, iz‘asnennymi na russkom i frantsuzskom iazyke, v korotkoe vremia mozhet dostavit‘ sposobnost‘ govorit‘ po Frantsuzski (Moscow: A l’imprimerie libre Ponomarev, 1807). Keipert, Helmut, ‘Der Fremdsprachenunterricht in der Frühzeit des Petersburger Akademie-Gymnasiums’, in Polata Knigopisnaia: an Information Bulletin Devoted to the Study of Early Slavic Books, Texts and Literatures, 16 (1987), 68-82. Keipert, Helmut, ‘Vasilij Lebedev und sein Sokraščenie grammatiki latinskoj (S.-Peterburg 1746)’, in Res slavica. Festschrift für Hans Rothe zum 65. Geburtstag (Paderborn, München 1994), 117-133. Kislova, Ekaterina, ‘Le français et l’allemand dans l’éducation religieuse en Russie au XVIIIe siècle’, in ВИВЛIОθИКА: E-Journal of Eighteenth-Century Russian Studies, no.1 (2013), 48-74.

150 

Ek aterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vl adisl av R jéoutski

Kislova, Ekaterina, ‘Latin as the language of the orthodox clergy in eighteenthcentury Russia’, in Vladislav Rjéoutski, Willem Frijhoff (eds.), Language Choice in Enlightenment Europe (Amsterdam University Press, 2018), 191-224. Kislova, Ekaterina, ‘‘Latin’ and ‘Slavonic’ Education in the Primary Classes of Russian Seminaries in the 18th Century’, in Slověne = Словѣне: International Journal of Slavic Studies, 4/2 (2015), 72-91. Koch, Kristine, Deutsch als Fremdsprache im Russland des 18. Jahrhunderts. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Fremdsprachenlernens in Europa und zu den deutschrussischen Beziehungen, Berlin, New-York, 2002. Lange, Joachim, Verbesserte und Erleichterte Lateinische Grammatica: In welcher Durch hinlängliche Paradigmata, Richtige Grund-Regeln und nöthigen Vorrath an Vocabulis, Eine deutliche, kurtze und doch völlige Anweisung zur Lateinischen Sprache gegeben wird. Mit einer Vorrede Von der Verbesserung des Schul-Wesens (Berlin; Halle: Wäysen-Haus, 1705). [La Touche Pierre de], L’Art de bien parler François, t. 1-2 (Amsterdam, Henri Desbordes, 1696). Laval [Pierre] de, Explication de la Grammaire Françoise avec de nouvelles observations, et des exemples sensibles sur l’usage de toutes ses parties. Dediée à son Altesse le Prince George Troubetskoye par Mr. De Laval Son Precepteur. Iz’asnenie novoi frantsusskoi grammatiki s primechaniiami i primerami na vse chasti slova, pripisano ego siiatelstvu Kniaz’ Iur’iu Nikitichu Trubetskomu ot uchitelia Iego G-na: Da Lavala (St Petersburg, pri Akademii nauk, 1752). Maturini Corderii Colloquiorum Scholasticorum Libri IV. Colloquorum seu Dialogorum graec. specimen authore Henr. Stephano … ([S.l.], 1564). Mézin Anne, Vladislav Rjéoutski (eds.), Les Français en Russie au siècle des Lumières (Ferney-Voltaire, Centre International d’Étude du XVIIIe Siècle 2011). Neue und vollständige Französische Grammatic in Frag und Antwort abgefasset. Aus dem Französischen des Herrn Restaut und anderen Anmerkungen der besten Französischen Sprachlehrer zusammenge-tragen (Mainz & Frankfurt [Main]: F. Varrentrapp, 1749). Okenfuss, Max J., The risa and fall of Latin humanism in early-modern Russia: pagan authors, Ukrainians, and the resiliency of Moscovy (Leiden, New York & Cologne: Brill, 1995). Des Pêpliers Jean Robert, Grammaire Royale françoise & allemande: contenant Une Methode nouvelle & façile pour apprendre en peu de temps la langue françoise, Avec Une Nomenclature, des Dialogues nouveaux, Bouquet des Sentences, des Lettres & billets galants de ce temps = Königliche Frantzösch- und Teutsche Grammatic … / ecrite par Mr. Jean Robert des Pêpliers, Informateur de Monseig. le Duc de Bourgogne (Berlin: Völcker, 1689).

Learning gr ammar in eighteenth- century Russia

151

Des Pepliers Jean Robert, La Parfaite Grammaire Royale Françoise et Allemande. Das ist: Die Vollkomene Königliche Französische Grammatic mit neuen und nützlichen Regeln […]. Verfasst von Herrn des Pepliers, der Akademie Mitgliede [sic] (Berlin & Frankfurt [Oder]: Völcker, 1702). Rhenii M. Johannis, Donatus Latino-Germano-Polonicus, cum adjecto declinandi & conjugandi modo Polonico C. Liebruderi, operâ W. G. Brosii. [With] Sententiæ Biblicæ. Lat.-Germ.-Polon (Elbingae, 1674). Rjéoutski Vladislav, ‘Foreign languages in the Education of the Russian Nobility: The Case of the Noble Cadet Corps (1730-1760s)’, in Nicola McLelland & Richard Smith (eds.), The History of Language Learning and Teaching, Volume 1 (of 3): 16th-18th Century Europe (Oxford: Legenda books, 2018), 129-144. Rjéoutski, Vladislav, ‘Latin in the education of nobility in Russia; The history of a defeat’, in Vladislav Rjéoutski, Willem Frijhoff (eds.), Language Choice in Enlightenment Europe. Education, Sociability, and Governance (Amsterdam, 2018), 169-189. Rjéoutski, Vladislav, ‘Migrants and language learning in Russia (late 17th ‒ first part of 18th century)’, in Paedagogica Historica, 54/6 (2018), 691-703. Rjéoutski Vladislav, Sergueï Vlassov, ‘L’enseignement de la grammaire française en Russie au XVIIIe siècle: enseignants, méthodes et livres utilisés’, in Documents pour l’histoire du français langue étrangère ou seconde, 51 (2013), 105-128. [Schwanwitz, Martin], Die Teutsche Grammatica aus unterschiedenen Auctoribus zusammen getragen und der Russischen Jugend zum Besten heraus gegeben von dem Informatore der Teutschen Sprache bey dem St. Petersburgischen Gymnasio ([St Petersburg], 1730). Veneroni, Giovanni, Herrn von Veneroni Italiänisch- Frantzösisch- und Teutsche Grammatica, Oder Sprach-Meister (Frankfurt & Leipzig: Andreä, 1719). Vollständigere lateinische Grammatica Marchica: Jn welcher Zu den nöthigen Regeln nützliche Anmerckungen und gute Exempel gesetzet sind (Berlin: Pape, 1718).

Cyrillic alphabet Agntsev, D., Istoriia Riazanskoi dukhovnoi seminarii [D. Agntsev, The history of Ryazan ecclesiastical seminary] (Ryazan: Tipografijia naslednikov Z.V. Pozdiakovoi, 1889). Dmitriev, M., Glavy iz vospominanii moei zhizni [M. Dmitriev, Chapters from the Memoirs of My Life], K.G. Bolenko et al. (eds.) (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1998). Istoriia Moskovskogo universiteta (vtoraia polovina XVIII – nachalo XIX veka). Sb. dokumentov [A History of Moscow University (in the second half of the eighteenth – early nineteenth centuries) Collection of documents], D.N. Kostyshin (ed.) (Moscow: Academia, 2011).

152 

Ek aterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vl adisl av R jéoutski

Kareva, N.V., ‘Pervye izdannye v Rossii grammatiki frantsuzskogo iazyka i ikh istochniki (traktovka kategorii glagol’nogo vremeni v «Novoi frantsusskoi grammatike» V. E. Teplova i «Explication de la grammaire françoise» P. de Lavalia)’[N.V. Kareva, The first French grammar books published in Russia and their sources (a treatment of the category of verbal tense in ‘New French Grammar’ by V.E. Teplov and ‘Explication de la grammaire françoise’ by P. de Laval], in N.A. Gus’kov et al. (eds.), Petra philologica: professoru Petru Evgenievichu Bukharkinu ko dniu shestidesiatiletiia [Petra Philologica: Festschrift for Professor Petr Evgenievich Bukharkin on his 60th birthday] (St Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2015), 181-199. Kareva, N.V., Sergeev, M.L., ‘Pervaia pechatnaia grammatika frantsuzskogo iazyka (1752): k voprosu o perevodcheskikh printsipakh V.E. Teplova’ [N.V. Kareva, ‘The First French Grammar Manual in Russian (1752): on the Principles of Translation by Vassily Teplov’], in Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, seriia 9: Filologiia [St Petersburg State University Bulletin. Series 9. Philology], 1 (2016), 58-69. Kharlampovich, К.В., Malorossiiskoe vliianie na velikorusskuiu tserkovnuiu zhizn’ [K.V. Kharlampovich, The Little Russian Influence on Great Russian Church Life], I (Kazan: Izdanie Knizhnogo magazina M.A. Golubeva, 1914). Kirikova, O.A., Kostina, T.V., ‘Uchebnye knigi v gimnazii Akademii nauk 1730-kh gg.’ [O.A. Kirikova, T.V. Kostina, ‘Gymnasium Instructional Materials at the Russian Academy of Sciences’], in Detskie chteniia [Children’s reading], 1 (2018), 195-220. Kislova, E.I., ‘Iz istorii lingvisticheskoi kompetentsii dukhovenstva XVIII v.: uchitelia evropeiskikh iazykov v russkikh seminariiakh’ [Ekaterina Kislova, ‘From the History of Linguistic Competences of the Eighteenth Century Clergy: Teachers of Foreign Languages in Russian Seminaries’], in Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, seriia 9: Filologiia [Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 9. Philology], 2 (2016), 63-78. Kislova, E.I., ‘«Grammaticheskoe uchenie» i modeli tserkovnogo obrazovaniia 1720-kh gg.’ [«Grammar Teaching» and Models of Church Education in the 1720s], Quaestio Rossica 7, 2 (2012), 475-491. Kolosov, V.I., Istoriia Tverskoi dukhovnoi seminarii: ko dniu 150-letnego iubileia seminarii [V.I. Kolosov, A History of Tver Clerical Seminary: on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the seminary] (Tver: Tipografijia gubernskogo pravleniia, 1889). Kostin, A.A., Kostina, T.V., ‘‘Reglament Gimnazii pri Imperatorskoi akademii nauk v Sankt-Peterburge’ Georga Volfganga Krafta 1739 goda i ego podgotovka’ [A.A. Kostin, T.V. Kostina, ‘The Regulation of the Gymnasium of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg by Georg Wolfgang Krafft (1739)’], in ‘Reguliarnaia akademiia uchrezhdena budet …’: Obrazovatel’nye proekty v Rossii v pervoi polovine XVIII veka [‘A Regular Academy will be founded’: educational projects in Russia in the first half of the eighteenth century] (Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo, 2015), 219-263.

Learning gr ammar in eighteenth- century Russia

153

Kostina, T.V., ‘Podgotovka elit Rossiiskoi Imperii v uchebnykh zavedeniiakh Akademii nauk (1726-1805)’ [T.V. Kostina, Training Russian Imperial elites at the educational institutions of the Academy of Sciences (1726-1805)], in Aktual’noie proshloie: vzaimodeistvie i balans interesov Akademii nauk i rossiiskogo gosudarstva v XVIII – nachale XX v. Ocherki istorii [The Present Past: Interactions and the Balance of Interests of the Academy of Sciences and the Russian Government between the eighteenth – early twentieth century. Historical essays], I (St. Peterburg: Renome, 2018), 207-302. Kravetskii, A.G., Pletneva, A.A., ‘Istoriia tserkovnoslavianskogo iazyka v Rossii (Konets XIX-XX v.)’ [History of Church Slavic Language in Russia (End of nineteenth – twentieth century)], (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2001). Kuz’minova, E.A., ‘Razvitie grammaticheskoi mysli Rossii XVI-XVIII vv’ [Evolution of Grammar Theory in Russia sixteeth-eighteenth centuries], (Moscow: MAKS Press, 2012). Margolis, Iu.D., Tishkin G.A., ‘Edinym vdokhnoveniem’. Ocherki istorii universitetskogo obrazovaniia v Peterburge v kontse XVIII – pervoi polovine XIX v. [Iu.D. Margolis, G.A. Tishkin, ‘By Inspiration Alone’. Essays on the history of university education in St. Petersburg from the end of the eighteenth to the first half of the nineteenth century] (St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University, 2000). Materialy dlia istorii Imperatorskoi akademii nauk [Documents for the History of the Imperial Academy of Sciences]: 1 (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1885); 2 (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1886); 9 (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1897); 10. (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1900). Reglament Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk i khudozhestv, 1747 г. [Statutes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and Arts], in Ustavy Akademii nauk [Statutes of the Academy of Sciences] (Moscow: Nauka, 2009), 57-79. Reestr uchenii i uprazhnenii, imeiushchikh otpravliatsia v Dvorianskoi Gimnazii Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo Universiteta 1762 goda [List of Courses and Exercises to be Learned at the Noble School of Moscow University in 1762], [Moscow; Imperatorskii Moskovskii Universitet], 1762. Svodnyi katalog russkoi knigi grazhdanskoi pechati XVIII veka [A Collected Catalog of Civil Printing in Russia in the Eighteenth Century], 1725-1800, (Moscow: Kniga, 1966). Smirnov, S., Istoriia Moskovskoi Slaviano-greko-latinskoi akademii [S. Smirnov, The History of Moscow Slavic Greek Latin Academy] (Moscow: Tipografijia V. Gotie, 1855). Sokrashchenie grammatiki latinskoi, v pol’zu uchashchegosia latinskomu iazyku rossiiskogo iunoshestva perevedeno chrez Vasiliia Lebedeva, perevodchika pri Akademii nauk [A Compendium of Latin Grammar for Russian Youth Studying Latin, Translated by Vasiliy Lebedev, Translator at the Academy of Sciences] (St. Petersburg, Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1746).

154 

Ek aterina Kislova, Tatiana Kostina and Vl adisl av R jéoutski

Sposob ucheniia [Method of Teaching] ([Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografijia, 1771]). Teplov, V.E., Novaia frantsusskaia grammatika sochinennaia voprosami i otvetami. Sobrana iz sochinenii g. Resto i drugikh grammatik, a na Rossiiskoi iazyk perevedena Akademii nauk perevodchikom Vasiliiem Teplovym [New French Grammar in Questions and Answers. Compiled from the Works of Mr. Restaut and Other Grammar Guides, and Translated into Russian by Academy of Sciences Translator Vasilii Teplov] (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1752). Ulianinskii, D.V., Sredi knig i ikh druzei [Among Books and their Friends], 1 (Moscow: tipografijia A.N. Ivanov i К°, 1903).

About the authors Tatiana Kostina received her PhD in History from Kazan University in 2007. She is a research fellow at the St. Petersburg Institute of History, Russian Academy of Sciences. Her research is focused on the history of education: personnel renewal in universities in the Russian Empire in the nineteenth century, forms of training and didactic materials at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the eighteenth century. E-mail: [email protected] Ekaterina Kislova graduated from Moscow State University. Her 2007 PhD is devoted to the language of 1740s court sermons in Russia. She is currently working as an associate professor at Moscow State University (in the department of Russian language, Philological Faculty). Her recent research deals with the languages and culture of the eighteenth-century Russian clergy. Email: [email protected] Vladislav Rjéoutski graduated from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris. He defended his PhD at the St. Petersburg Institute of History in 2003. He is currently a research fellow at the Deutsches Historisches Institut Moskau. His research deals with the history of education, the social history of languages, and emigration in Russia during the eighteenth – early nineteenth century. He recently co-authored a book (with Derek Offord and Gesine Argent): The French Language in Russia: a Social, Political, Cultural and Literary History (AUP, 2018). Email: [email protected]

8. Wanostrocht’s Practical Grammar and the grammar-translation model Simon Coffey

Abstract Wanostrochts’s Practical Grammar was first published in London in 1780, then in the US from 1805.1 It was one of the most successful pedagogical grammars of its time, appearing in revised forms for almost a century. It was probably the f irst grammar to include ‘exercises’ in the same volume and represents a prototype of what would become known as the ‘grammar-translation’ manual that provided a template for most language schoolbooks throughout the nineteenth century and beyond. The analysis in this chapter considers the content of Wanostrocht’s primer as an example of late eighteenth-century language epistemology, and provides broader background detail to help better understand the context of the publication, its intended purpose, and the reasons for its enduring popularity. Keywords: academies; eighteenth century; French grammar; grammartranslation; practical grammar; publishers and booksellers; Wanostrocht.

Wanostrocht, the émigré tutor The lives of late eighteenth-century French grammarians living in England have received considerably less attention than the earlier grammarians2 and this relative dearth may be explained by the sheer number of grammars that 1 ‘In 1805 the f irst American edition of Nicolas Wanostrocht’s A Grammar of the French Language with Practical Exercises was printed in Boston. By 1821 six American printings had appeared, and reprintings were frequent until 1860’, Watts, ‘The teaching of French in the United States: A history’, 108. 2 Especially those of the Restoration period such as Claude Mauger and Guy Miège.

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch08

156 

Simon Coffey

appeared during this period,3 as well as possibly because of the way their content tended to adapt, or even plagiarize, the conventions established during the first phase of vernacular grammars. Nicolas Wanostrocht (17451812) is fairly representative in many respects of the late eighteenth-century French grammarian in England, in that he was a well-educated French native-speaker, a Protestant and a tutor to a noble family. Generally listed as being of Flemish or Belgian origin, little is known of Wanostrocht prior to his settling in England though some background information can be gleaned from biographical writing on his great nephew, also called Nicholas Wanostrocht (1804-1876) (spelt with ‘h’), who became a celebrated ‘gentleman’ (i.e. non-professional) cricketer and author of a successful illustrated book on cricket.4 Seccombe’s5 entry in the Dictionary of National Biography states that Wanostrocht the grammarian came to England ‘after some residence in France, (in) about 1780’ although Howatt’s amended entry simply states that he came to England in the 1770s. The same entry (Howatt’s) refers to him as Dr Wanostrocht as he uses the letters LL.D. after his name in some publications, although this title is not used in his French grammars. In all likelihood, it is the same ‘Nicholas Wanostrocht’ (sic) whose bill of naturalization was given royal assent in 1798, registered as ‘son of Corneille Wanostrocht, by Anne Foussier his wife, born at Crevant in the Province of Burgundy, in France’. That this record appears in a 1923 publication of The Huguenot Society of London6 (founded in 1885) indicates that Wansotrocht was a Huguenot, a fact consistent with the Academy he would later found and also typical of the French-speaking migrants who settled in England prior to the Revolution.7 The late eighteenth century saw a widespread Anglophilia in continental Europe, encouraged by the writing of Montesquieu and Voltaire, which perceived England as a nation of free-thinking and relative egalitarianism8 and this appealed especially to educated Protestants such as Wanostrocht. 3 Between ‘1694 and 1800 no fewer than 88 different grammars, dictionaries and methods etc. of the French language were published in England … and twenty-nine of these manuals were published in the last decade of the century’, Spink, ‘The teaching of French pronunciation’, 155. 4 Wanostrocht, Felix on the Bat. 5 DNB [Oxford Dictionary of National Biography] Thomas Seccombe (1899). 6 ‘Letters of denization and acts of naturalization for aliens in England and Ireland 1701-1800’. 7 In 1794, Wanostrocht updated the French translation of the Book of Common Prayer (La liturgie, ou formulaire des prières publiques. Selon l’usage de l’église anglicane) indicating his willingness to conform to Anglicanism, which was not unusual among émigré Calvinists by this time. 8 Maurer, Aufklärung und Anglophilie.

WANOSTROCHT’S PRAC TICAL GRAMMAR AND THE GR AMMAR-TR ANSL ATION MODEL

157

What we know for certain is that once in England Wanostrocht was appointed French tutor in the family of Henry Bathurst, second Earl of Bathurst (1714-1794), who had served as Lord Chancellor of Great Britain from 1771 to 1778. The Bathurst family lived at Cirencester Park, one of England’s great stately homes famous for its landscape gardens, where the first Earl, a wealthy and cosmopolitan patron of the arts, had been regularly visited by friends including Pope, Sterne and Swift. In the fashion typical of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century grammars, Wanostrocht dedicated his grammar to his noble patron: Sir, on my arrival in England, I considered it as a fortunate circumstance to be f irst introduced to the honour of being appointed your French master. I now feel myself, in having this opportunity of making my acknowledgement known to your illustrious family for the civilities I received when I was but little known in the country. From that time, it has been my ambition to render the Practical Grammar, which now solicits your patronage, in some degree, worthy of your acceptance. Conscious as I am, of its many imperfections, and that it stands in need of much indulgence, yet, if it should be found of real utility to the public, your approbation will be no small recommendation; at least it will shew the world, how ready you are to encourage even the faintest endeavours in useful learning. Your obliged and most obedient humble servant NW

That this dedication was repeated on subsequent editions of the grammar, even after Wanostrocht had left the Earl’s employment, denotes the depth of his affection and gratitude to Bathurst.

Alfred House Academy By around 17909 Wanostrocht was able to open his own school in London, the Alfred House Academy, in Peckham Road, Camberwell.10 We know a fair 9 Some sources (e.g. AB Heritage, Harskamp), following the DNB, state the founding date as 1795 but it must have been earlier as we know that writers James Smith and his poet brother Horace both attended the school, in 1790-1791 and 1791-1795 respectively (Beavan, 1899). Wanostrocht also styled himself ‘Master of the Academy, Alfred House, Camberwell’ for the first time on the frontispiece of the grammar’s fourth edition (1792). 10 Camberwell, now in South London, was then a rural village on the outskirts of London and the purpose built school was advertised in its 1795 prospectus as ‘The house is large, airy, and pleasantly situated; the spot always dry, consequently healthy, and very convenient on

158 

Simon Coffey

amount about the school from its prospectus11 and because recollections of the school feature in the biographies of former pupils who went on to achieve a certain celebrity.12 Alfred House is an example of one of the dissenting academies which flourished during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, many of which were run by Protestant émigrés. Alfred House, though not one of the most prominent, was a successful academy: it accommodated forty boys and young men so was a fair size, and would have attracted parents who wanted their sons to have a liberal education. As Lodge remarks, ‘schools run by émigrés, such as Alfred House … offered their pupils unusual opportunities to develop literary creativity, multilingual fluency, and an international perspective, at a time when more traditional schools concentrated on rote learning and heavy-handed corporal punishment’,13 and the prospectus emphasizes a positive learning environment including country walks and pastoral care. We know from the prospectus that parents paid forty guineas a year for their son to board at Alfred House, and that French was emphasized at the school, as well as English, classical languages, history, arithmetic and book-keeping, with other subjects available at extra cost. The prospectus tells us that French ‘now become so essentially necessary, is taught by Mr Wanostrocht, and made the current language of the school; and to enforce the practice of it among the young gentlemen, an hour, or more, every evening is spent in familiar conversation’.14 Wanostrocht remained at Alfred House with his wife Sara until his death in 1812, when he was buried in the nearby churchyard of St Giles, Camberwell.15 As well as his French grammar, he authored a large number of other publications for learning French which were used in his school. These account of the coaches going to and from London every hour’, Wanostrocht and Assistants, At Alfred-House Boarding School, 8. 11 A copy is kept at the British Library. 12 Most notably the biographies of Thomas Hood (Lodge) and the Smith brothers (Beavan). 13 Lodge, Thomas Hood, 30-31. 14 Wanostrocht and Assistants, 2. For an interesting and detailed discussion of the concept of familiar conversation, see Cohen, ‘The pedagogy of conversation in the home: “familiar conversation” as a pedagogical tool in eighteenth and nineteenth-century England’. 15 Wanostrocht’s nephew Vincent (1783-1824), who came to England as a child from France during the Revolution and later worked as assistant master at Alfred House, took over the running of the school upon his uncle’s death. When Vincent died at the age of forty, the school passed to his son (the famous cricketer). After the academy relocated to Blackheath in 1832, the original building at Peckham Road, now a Grade II listed building, was used by the Royal Naval College (1833-1844), then as the Camberwell House Lunatic Asylum, before being renamed East House and taken over as offices for Southwark Council in 1955.

WANOSTROCHT’S PRAC TICAL GRAMMAR AND THE GR AMMAR-TR ANSL ATION MODEL

159

included French-English vocabulary textbooks for children, and many reedited and abridged versions of canonical eighteenth-century texts in French with English annotations and glossaries for students at the bottom of the page.16 His most successful book,17 frequently reprinted in the UK and US, was Recueil choisi de traits historiques et de contes moraux: avec la signification des mots en anglois au bas de chaque page which comprised summaries and short stories that lent themselves to translation of manageable texts. Book catalogues tell us that re-editions of Wanostrocht’s publications continued to be used in schools until the latter half of the nineteenth century, enjoying a longevity difficult to imagine for textbooks produced today.18

The Practical Grammar Wanostrocht’s grammar,19 of 352 pages, comprises the following sections: Front matter Dedication Preface List of abbreviations A compendious practical French grammar, (page 1) Section I 1-5 Of the article, (1-5) Section II 5-49 Of nouns, (5-49) Section III 50-86 Of pronouns, (50-86) Section IV 86-271 Of verb and their different sorts (86-271) 16 These included Les aventures de Télémaque (Fénélon), Histoire d’Empire de Russie sous Pierre-le-Grand (Voltaire), Voyage du Jeune Anacharsis en Grèce (Barthélemy), Abrégé de l’Histoire de Gil Blas de Santillane (Le Sage), Numa Pompilius (Florian). 17 Harskamp, ‘Cricket: A very Flemish game’. 18 As pointed out by a reviewer of this chapter, reprinting of textbooks over decades was common in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Among the frequent re-editions of Wanostrocht’s grammar, his exercises were used by the poet Henry Longfellow to compile a volume of exercises when he was a young modern languages lecturer at Bowdoin College, published anonymously as French exercises: selected chiefly from Wanostrocht and adapted to L’Homond’s ‘Elements of French grammar’, By an instructor (Portland: Samuel Colman, 1830). 19 Here I cite from the fifth edition (1795). There had been some amendments since the first edition, noted on the frontispiece as ‘considerable additions and improvement’, but changes were not substantial. Most notably, ‘errors in the former publications are carefully corrected’, and, having been ‘suggested by some gentlemen, to whose judgement the author pays great deference’ (vii), the regular verb tables were integrated from the fourth edition into the main body of the book and arranged alphabetically rather than ‘brought together upon one large sheet’ (first edition).

160 

Simon Coffey

Section V 271-278 Of participles (271-278) Section VI, 278-294 Indeclinable parts of speech. “Under this head are comprehended adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections”. Of adverbs. Section VII 295-308 Of prepositions (295-308) Section VIII 308-321 Of conjunctions (308-321) Section IX 321-322 Of interjections (321-322)

The remaining pages (322-352) comprise miscellaneous sections e.g. ‘Remarks and exercises on the words de, à, and pour’ (322), and (from 342) there are some whole text passages for translation i.e. Indolence characterized, Anecdote of the Cardinal Viviers, Of England, Fraternal affection, Ingratitude punished: An eastern tale (a seven-page story). In Section 1, Wanostrocht gives the following definition: Grammar is the art of speaking and writing in any language with propriety; or it is the art of rightly expressing our thoughts by words. Grammar is of two kinds, general and particular. Universal grammar considers language in itself, explain the principles which are alike common to every tongue, and distinguishes, with precision, between those particulars which are essential and those which are only accidental. Particular grammar applied these common principles to a particular language and furnishes certain rules and observations which are, either mediately or immediately, deducible from its common principles. A grammar of the French tongue must be formed agreeably to the established usage, and those particular modes of expression to which custom has given its sanction. It has therefore for its object, in common with all other grammars, the consideration of letters, syllables, words and sentences.

Wanostrocht offers here the traditional description of grammar as an ‘art’ that follows the ancient formulation of ars bene loquendi, described by Padley20 as ‘a Renaissance commonplace’.21 Wanostrocht’s reference to ‘any language’ enshrines a universalist perspective that had gained currency since the influential Port-Royal 20 Padley, Grammatical Theory in Western Europe, Volume 1. See also Luhtala, this volume. 21 According to Downey, this changed in the early nineteenth century when, with ‘the introduction of new views and methods, grammar became known as a science, instead of an art’, ‘Trends that shaped the development of 19th Century American grammar writing’, 31.

WANOSTROCHT’S PRAC TICAL GRAMMAR AND THE GR AMMAR-TR ANSL ATION MODEL

161

Grammar,22 and which understood grammar as reflective of fundamental laws of human sense-making. Although some authors note that universalism (at least in its hard-line form) was in abeyance by the end of the eighteenth century,23 it provided an important epistemological foundation against which the grammatization of vernaculars could be legitimized, placing them on a par with the classical languages that remained so highly regarded for their imagined sanctity and purity. It should be remembered also, as Michael24 notes, that universalism was not a linguistic as much as a psychological position, holding that human language and thought were mutually constitutive and subject to universal norms. A negative consequence of the universalist perspective of grammar was that it ‘inhibited attempts to develop a grammar and mode of teaching’25 for specific languages so that vernaculars in Western Europe were taught according to a common methodology using the Latinate taxonomy. Wanostrocht mitigates the universalist claim by presenting ‘two kinds’ of grammar, so that, beyond the universal, each language has its particularities based on custom and usage. Also interesting to note in Wanostrocht’s definition of grammar is his use of the terms ‘with propriety’ and ‘rightly expressing’. This choice of phrasing, which became the norm from the middle of the eighteenth century,26 reveals a subtle shift of emphasis from the grammars of a century earlier (e.g. Boyer, Mauger, Miège) who had all referred to the art of speaking well. This semantic shift ‘reflects the recasting from the rhetorical potential of elegant language towards a more scientific view of language as an underlying system of mental operations which is more or less congruent with reality’.27 Wanostrocht’s grammar is unusual in not including any section on pronunciation at all. While the emphasis on pronunciation (which classically styled grammars often included under the category of ‘orthography’, the sounding of written letters) had diminished more generally in grammars throughout the eighteenth century, most still included some explanation of how letters were sounded. Wanostrocht states clearly in his preface: Rules for pronunciation are totally omitted. From all the attempts that have hitherto been made it does not appear, that any adequate idea of it

22 Arnaud & Lancelot, Grammaire générale et raisonnée. 23 Simone, ‘The early modern period’. 24 Michael, English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. 25 Michael, The Teaching of English from the Sixteenth Century, 319. 26 Coffey, ‘French grammars in England 1660-1820’. 27 Ibidem.

162 

Simon Coffey

can be conveyed in writing. The ear cannot be properly formed without the assistance of a good speaker.

Although the shift of focus from ‘speaking’ to ‘writing’ during the eighteenth century has been noted elsewhere,28 Wanostrocht’s omission of pronunciation should not be interpreted as undervaluing oral work per se, but rather that he intended to separate speaking and pronunciation from the business of the grammar manual. Wanostrocht also omits ‘syntax’ which he explains towards the end of the book 29 in the following way: Having, in this manner, gone through the respective parts of speech, there will be no necessity for a syntax. It will, however, be necessary to give some rules for ascertaining the proper usage of the particles de or à, and the preposition pour, before a verb in the indicative mood.

The structure of Wanostrocht’s grammar is strikingly simple, focusing on parts of speech – the ‘etymology’30 of traditional grammars – to the exclusion of the other three elements: ‘orthography’ (linking letters to sounds), syntax and prosody.31 The omission of these last two was not that unusual even in traditional treatises on grammar – Padley remarks that ‘early grammars, both vernacular and Latin, are in fact very largely morphologies’32 – and it is certainly the ‘etymology’ which increasingly becomes the central focus of pedagogical grammars. Wanostrocht lists nine parts of speech (article, noun, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection). This list follows the classical convention of the eight parts – the most Latinate taxonomy 33 – with the ninth part ‘articles’ added, as had by this time become customary for vernacular grammars. As can be seen from the list of contents above, invariable categories (‘indeclinable parts of speech’) 28 Coffey, ‘French grammars in England 1660-1820’. 29 Wanostrocht, Fifth edition, 322 30 Etymology here refers to the describing and defining parts of speech and their accidents rather than the study of the origin of words. 31 Although many grammars did not use these headings of the classical model, most still began with an introduction of the alphabet and the pronunciation of each letter. Wanostrocht does present the alphabet: ‘In the French alphabet there are twenty-five letters’ (i.e. without ‘w’) of which he lists six vowels (including ‘y’) but does not explain or model any pronunciation. 32 Padley, Grammatical Theory in Western Europe 1500-1700, Volume 2, 420. 33 As identified by Michael is in his list of English grammatical categories.

WANOSTROCHT’S PRAC TICAL GRAMMAR AND THE GR AMMAR-TR ANSL ATION MODEL

163

are only treated briefly. While lists of nine categories had become the norm for French grammars by the late eighteenth century there was still disagreement over classes, for example whether ‘adjective’ should be a primary category or subsumed under nouns34 . For Wanostrocht, ‘a noun adjective is used to express the quality of the substantive to which it belongs’.35 Wanostrocht then details the parts of speech and their formation with exceptions e.g. ‘Nouns ending in au, eau, eu, oeu, ieu or ou form their plurals by x instead of s’36 and provides examples for each category. He lists six cases as follows: There are six cases 1. Le Nominatif 2. Le Génitif 3. Le Datif 4. L’Accusatif 5. Le Vocatif 6. L’Ablatif The nominative and accusative cases have exactly the same form, and are always declined with the same article; the only difference between them arises from their different positions in the sentence37.

The description in this extract provides a good example of how the adherence to Latinate terminology could lead to unnecessary confusion. Of course, in French the noun does not decline according to case, so Wanostrocht is referring here only to changes in the article (e.g. le becoming au or de). Each part of speech is then listed (for instance, the six cases of the masculine def inite article, of the feminine def inite article and of the partitive article) with exercises provided for students to ‘practise’ each item. Wanostrocht was not the first grammarian to provide interlinear exercises to practise grammar items in sentences38 and ‘practical exercises’ 34 For a discussion of the historical categorisation of the adjective see Rosier ‘Quelques aspects de la diversité des discussions médiévales sur l’adjectif’. 35 Fifth edition, 5. 36 Ibidem, 9. 37 Ibidem, 9. 38 See McLelland. Chambaud had produced a set of exercises in a volume to accompany his Grammar of the French tongue, describing it as ‘a set of exercises upon the grammar rules, which was never attempted before’, cited by McLelland, Teaching and learning, 95.

164 

Simon Coffey

had been gaining popularity since the mid-eighteenth century, but he was probably the f irst to include the exercises within the same book. This is the first line of the first exercise in Wanostrocht’s grammar 39 to ‘practise’ articles: There is the master of the house, – Virtue is estimable. – She spoke to the king. Voilà, adv. maitre, m. maison,f. – Vertu,f. est,v. estimable, adj. – Elle, pro. parla, v. roi, m.

As shown, students are required to copy the sentences and complete the translation with the correct article. As the book progresses, each grammar point is worked on in similar fashion, with the number of elements provided decreasing to build on previously covered vocabulary, until the end of the book when whole extracts of composition are given for free translation, always from English to French. It is telling that, from its third edition in 1789, the title of Wanostrocht’s grammar changed from A practical grammar of the French language to A grammar of the French language with practical exercises. This rebranding was probably intended to emphasize the ‘practical exercises’ as a popular feature of the book and to distinguish it from other primers in an increasingly competitive market. The ‘practical grammars’ that appeared in the second half of the eighteenth century40 did not refer to practice in the way the term might be understood today in the instrumental sense of ‘practising’ for communicative purposes, where this implies putting language into practice in a (pseudo-) naturalistic context. The practical grammars proposed by Wanostrocht and others aimed to practise grammar items in sequence through translation; the pedagogical goal was not simply to achieve conversational fluency but to understand and apply grammatical structure accurately. This goal was not for the sake of pedantry but because linguistic accuracy was associated with clarity of thought and ability to reason. This conception of language as being reflective of a natural order of logic resonated with the post-Port-Royal rationalist view of language that prevailed during the Enlightenment, a view reaching back to the classical interdependence of language and logic.

39 Fifth edition, 15. 40 See McLelland for further discussion of the ‘practical grammar’, 95-98.

WANOSTROCHT’S PRAC TICAL GRAMMAR AND THE GR AMMAR-TR ANSL ATION MODEL

165

The grammar-translation model Schoolteachers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries would not have said they were using a method called ‘grammar-translation’ and the origin of the term remains somewhat obscure, though, as Kirk suggests,41 probably stems from the late nineteenth-century Reform Movement and Wilhelm Viëtor’s criticism of the ‘grammatisierend-übersetzende’ [grammaticaltranslating] pedagogy that prevailed in the Prussian Gymnasia, as well as in the elite public and middle-class grammar schools of England. Grammartranslation would later become so widely maligned from the time of the Reform Movement to the present day that it can be hard to judge fairly its sound pedagogical intentions: ‘to provide both a grammatical foundation and appropriate, targeted exercises to allow learners to practise applying the rules as they learnt them, step by step’. 42 It is important, therefore, for critics to remember that explicit grammar teaching – where this involved parsing (identifying parts of speech and their cases) and practising specific grammar points through focused gap-fills and translations – developed as a reaction against the wearisome rote-learning of extended texts, whether literary or conversational dialogues, that had characterized earlier methods. While Wanostrocht’s grammar did not contain any extended model dialogues, the sentences chosen were not as absurd as they are sometimes purported to be. Certainly, they were contrived and often sound artificially convoluted as their purpose was to practise a particular grammar point, so the text was not ‘connected’ in the sense that later Reformers would later advocate, but the sentences often dealt with topics that would have been seen as communicative in the context of Grand Tour travelling (‘Give me the upper crust’, ‘Bring me my straw hat’), polite conversation (‘Do you come from Italy?’ ‘We would certainly have come back yesterday had we time’) or, at least, to have some educational value, in the sense of being morally instructive (‘He is a man of honour’, ‘A lady of wit is a jewel’). 43 The pedagogical creed underpinning the grammar-translation approach can be traced back to at least the Port-Royal authors, who emphasized the 41 Kirk, ‘Grammar-translation: tradition or innovation’. 42 McLelland, Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages, 99. 43 The distinctly moral character of the content is most obvious in the choice of extended texts for translation at the end of the grammar. Benson cites Tarver’s exhortation, in the preface to his 1840 re-edition of de Lévizac’s grammar, that the sentences provided as examples in grammars ‘must necessarily leave moral impressions of a beneficial nature on the mind of the young learner, improve his taste, and enlighten his mind’, Tarver, Preface, I, cited by Benson, ‘The secret life of grammar translation, part 2’. 118.

166 

Simon Coffey

importance of analytical comparison between languages (in their case Latin and mother-tongue French). The notion that translation work would lead to greater proficiency in the vernacular as well as Latin was ‘at the time a novelty’.44 A reproach often levied at the grammar-translation approach is that it only partially pursued the mandate of the Port-Royal authors45 – that is, in its focus on deductive analysis – at the expense of speaking.46 However, it must be remembered that Wanostrocht did not intend his grammar to be used as a fully stand-alone course but as a primer that would be preliminary to the study of canonical texts and that, at least in the case of his pupils at Alfred House, would be complemented by conversation practice. That grammar-translation later came to be used in rigid isolation as the sole method of language teaching in English public and grammar schools is more the result of expediency as ‘an efficient model for teaching foreign languages in classes burgeoning under moves toward mass literacy, with a shortage of teachers proficient in the language’47 so that ‘part of the reason it [the grammar-translation approach] was easy to attack was the mechanical, mindless way that unskilled teachers implemented it’,48 rather than any fault with the method itself.

The success of Wanostrocht’s Grammar Looking at the social and material conditions of publication further helps us to understand the success of Wanostrocht’s work. Certainly, the timing of the publication of his grammar and other outputs was fortuitous. Rapid industrial growth and urbanization in the late eighteenth century saw an increased demand for middle-class education, both for instrumental purposes and for aspiration to accrue bourgeois cultural status. The consequent expansion of grammar schools and elite public schools created an insatiable market for school textbooks. 49 The system of ‘practical’ exercises that accompanied pedagogical grammars from the mid-eighteenth century lent itself perfectly to massified classroom contexts. 44 Padley, Volume 2, 374. 45 Cordingley, ‘“Masters”: Pedagogical sadism, foreign language primers, self-translation’. 46 ‘In the nineteenth century the Port Royalists’ belief in the efficacy of translation back and forth was narrowed to a preoccupation with grammar and translation, omitting the ideas of oral translation that had originally animated it’, Benson, ‘Port-Royal and the seventeenth-century paradigm shift in language teaching’, 533. 47 Ibidem, 526. 48 Kirk, ‘Grammar-translation’, 28. 49 See Belanger, ‘Publishers and writers in eighteenth-century England’.

WANOSTROCHT’S PRAC TICAL GRAMMAR AND THE GR AMMAR-TR ANSL ATION MODEL

167

Wanostrocht was respected and well connected in terms of publishers and booksellers. The Practical Grammar was co-published by Joseph Johnson50 and John Boosey (later by his son Thomas), both highly influential booksellers and publishers. The Boosey family, originally also from Flemish stock, specialized in foreign language books. Wanostrocht’s first edition (1780), published while he was tutor to the Bathurst family, provides a good example of a ‘subscription publication’.51 This system of financing new publications by advanced orders from subscribers was ‘a familiar phenomenon of the English book trade’52 in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Subscriptions by nobility and gentry helped to promote a publication and subscribers’ names were listed in the opening pages of the book to advertise their support. Wanostrocht’s first edition includes a long list of 152 subscribers, some who placed orders for multiple copies, and included several titled people as well as members of the Bathurst family and members of the Boosey and Johnson families. The list of subscribers indicates that, as well as a school manual, the grammar was also used by adults learning French, another growing market at the time of increased trade and industry and Wanostrocht’s was among the most popular ‘self-study books’53 for French. Citing contemporary memoirs Tomalin reports on the self-tuition of William Cobbett, Joseph Priestly and other well-known figures of the late eighteenth-century literati, who were proud to have leant French ‘without a master’ and did so successfully: ‘the demand for pedagogical materials which facilitated autodidactic learning was considerable’.54 Self-study learners, did not of course, have the benefit of practising speaking or listening, and the Scottish encyclopaedist William Smellie pointed out in his memoirs, that, although he had successfully learnt French through self-tuition, he was ‘“quite unacquainted with the pronunciation of French”’.55 To satisfy the growth in the self-study market as well as to meet the needs of other teachers of French, Wanostrocht oversaw the publication of a ‘key’ to his exercises, although this did not appear until 1810, thirty years after the first edition of the grammar. The key was actually produced by a 50 A Unitarian, Johnson was committed to publishing the work of freethinking religious dissenters as well as other radical thinkers and Joseph Priestly and Mary Wollstonecraft were close friends whose works he published. William Blake was an illustrator for Johnson. 51 Clapp, ‘The beginning of the subscription publication in the seventeenth century’, 199. 52 Ibidem. 53 Tomalin, The French language and British literature, 1756-1830. 54 Ibidem, 7. 55 Cited by Tomalin, ibidem.

168 

Simon Coffey

teacher at Alfred House,56 and would itself be re-edited several times. The key, as with the grammar, was advertised regularly in the growing number of periodicals (e.g. the Eclectic Review and the Universal Magazine) that became popular among the expanding public of educated readers.

Conclusion We cannot know exactly how French lessons unfolded at Alfred House. We can imagine, however, that there was also some emphasis on speaking French, given that Wanostrocht was a native-speaker and that his prospectus emphasized the value of speaking practice in French in the form of ‘familiar conversation’. If this might seem to be at odds with the omission of pronunciation (‘orthography’) from his grammar, it should be remembered firstly that Wanostrocht originally conceived his grammar as a pedagogical primer, rather than a complete grammar, that would prepare students for further work. Wanostrocht’s best-selling and most enduring publication was, in fact, his Recueil choisi de traits historiques et de contes moraux, and he also published a number of other successful textbooks for French that were not grammars. It would therefore seem fair to assume that French learning was not expected to be by grammar exercises alone. Rather, the grammar training would be complemented by both speaking practice and by extended literary translations. Secondly, Wanostrocht probably conceived his grammar to be used with a native-speaking ‘master’, although, as we have seen, grammars of this kind would also be used by self-learners, and to this end an accompanying ‘key’ was later published. In terms of grammatical content, Wanostricht’s grammar is fairly conservative. He lists nine parts of speech, continuing the traditional division of the Latinate eight parts with ‘articles’ added as had become the norm by then. For him, adjectives do not merit their own primary category, and he only briefly treats the ‘indeclinable’ parts of speech. At the same time, the grammar is innovative in its pedagogical practical content. While ‘syntax’ is not given its own section, word order is inductively instructed through the translation exercises. As we have seen elsewhere, an inseparable motive for how grammar was presented is the ‘pedagogical motive’57 and Wanostrocht was, first 56 Cuvellier, A Key to the Eleventh Edition of Dr Wanostrocht’s Grammar of the French Language. Cuvellier died after the third edition of the Key and later re-editions were overseen by Wanostrocht’s nephew Vincent. 57 Padley, Volume 1, 84.

WANOSTROCHT’S PRAC TICAL GRAMMAR AND THE GR AMMAR-TR ANSL ATION MODEL

169

and foremost, a teacher. While his grammar reflected his own educational background and conception of language, his primary goal in its construction was to support his pupils’ learning. Grammar-translation offers a progressive – what might be called today ‘scaffolded’ – system of building up knowledge of linguistic structures and practising these through overt comparison with English. Although grammar-translation came to be reified as a dominant pedagogy, and was often applied in lazy, overly mechanical and uninspiring instructional methods, understanding its origins and intended purpose within the wider pedagogical project of language learning helps us be more sympathetic with Wanostrocht’s aims. In this chapter I have also touched on the importance of considering the wider social and material conditions of publication and book circulation which contributes to the success of the best-sellers. These are as, if not possibly more, important than linguistic and pedagogical content in accounting for the success of publications.

Bibliography AB Heritage (Archaeological Consultants) Peckham Road Cultural Heritage Desk-Based Assessment, 2010 http://www.abheritage.co.uk/uploads/asset_file/ Peckham%20Road%201.pdf (accessed 02/05/2019) Arnaud, Antoine and Lancelot, Claude, Grammaire générale et raisonnée (Paris, Pierre Le Petit, 1660). Beavan, Arthur H., James and Horace Smith. Joint authors of “Rejected Addresses”. A Family Narrative (London, Hurst & Blackett, 1899) Belanger, Terry, ‘Publishers and writers in eighteenth-century England’, in Books and Their readers in Eighteenth-Century England, ed. by Isabel Rivers (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1982), 5-25. Benson, Malcolm, J. ‘The secret life of grammar translation, part 2’, Studies in the Humanities and Sciences, 41/1-2 (2000), 97-128. Benson, Malcolm, J. ‘Port-Royal and the seventeenth-century paradigm shift in language teaching’, History of Education, 31/6 (2002), 521-534. Clapp, Sarah L. C., ‘The beginning of the subscription publication in the seventeenth century’, Modern Philology, 29/2 (1931), 199-224. Cohen, Michèle, ‘The pedagogy of conversation in the home: “familiar conversation” as a pedagogical tool in eighteenth and nineteenth-century England’, Oxford Review of Education, 41/4 (2015), 447-463. Coffey, Simon, ‘French grammars in England 1660-1820: Changes in content and contexts paving the way to the ‘practical’ grammar-translation manual’, Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 41/2 (2020), 137-156.

170 

Simon Coffey

Cordingley, Anthony, ‘“Masters”: Pedagogical sadism, foreign language primers, self-translation’, Modern Philology, 109/4 (2012), 510-543. Cuvellier, J. A Key to the Eleventh Edition of Dr Wanostrocht’s Grammar of the French Language (London: J. Johnson and T. Boosey, 1810). DNB [Oxford Dictionary of National Biography] Thomas Seccombe (1899) Wanostrocht, Nicholas [pseud. Nicholas Felix] (1804-1876) https://doi.org/10.1093/ odnb/9780192683120.013.28667 (accessed 30/11/2018), revised by Gerald M. D. Howat (2004) https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/28667 (accessed 08/01/2019). Downey, Charlotte, ‘Trends that shaped the development of 19th Century American grammar writing’, in English Traditional Grammars, ed. By Gerhard Leitner (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1991), 27-38. Harskamp, Jaap, ‘Cricket: A very Flemish game’, Blog article, European Languages Across Borders (Cambridge Collections, 2017) https://europeancollections. wordpress.com/2017/06/02/cricket-a-very-flemish-game/ (accessed 01/12/2018). Kirk, Sonya, ‘Grammar-translation: tradition or innovation?’, in The History of Language Learning and Teaching. Volume 2 (of 3). 19th-20th Century Europe, ed. by Nicola McLelland & Richard Smith (Cambridge: Legenda, 2018), 21-33. Lodge, Sara, Thomas Hood and nineteenth-century poetry: Work, play, and politics (Manchester & NY: Palgrave, 2007). Maurer, Michael, Aufklärung und Anglophilie in Deutschland (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987). McLelland, Nicola, Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages. A History of Language Education, Assessment and Policy in Britain (London & NY: Routledge, 2017). Mercer, Matthew, ‘Dissenting academies and the education of the laity 1750-1850’, History of Education, 30:1 (2001), 35-58, Michael, Ian, English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970). Michael, Ian, The Teaching of English from the Sixteenth Century to 1870 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987). Padley, George A., Grammatical theory in Western Europe 1500-1700. Trends in vernacular grammar, volume 1 (of 2) (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985). Padley, George A., Grammatical theory in Western Europe 1500-1700. Trends in vernacular grammar, volume 2 (of 2) (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988). Rosier, Irène, ‘Quelques aspects de la diversité des discussions médiévales sur l’adjectif’, Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 14/1 (1992), 75-100. Simone, Raffaele, ‘The early modern period’, in History of linguistics, ed. by Giulio Lepschy (London: Longman, 1998), 149-236.

WANOSTROCHT’S PRAC TICAL GRAMMAR AND THE GR AMMAR-TR ANSL ATION MODEL

171

Spink, John, S., ‘The teaching of French pronunciation in England in the eighteenth century with particular reference to the diphthong oi’, Modern Language Review, 41 (1946), 154-163. Tomalin, Marcus, The French language and British literature, 1756-1830 (London & NY: Routledge, 2016). Wanostrocht, Nicholas, Felix on the Bat: Being a Scientific Inquiry into the Use of the Cricket Bat (London: Baily Brothers, 1845). Wanostrocht, Nicolas, A Practical Grammar of the French Language (London: J. Johnson and T. Boosey, 1780). Wanostrocht, Nicolas, A Practical Grammar of the French Language. Second Edition. (London: J. Johnson and T. Boosey, 1782). Wanostrocht, Nicolas, A Grammar of the French Language with Practical Exercises. Third Edition. (London: J. Johnson and T. Boosey, 1789). Wanostrocht, Nicolas, A Grammar of the French Language with Practical Exercises. Fourth Edition. (London: J. Johnson and T. Boosey, 1792). Wanostrocht, Nicolas, A Grammar of the French Language with Practical Exercises. Fifth Edition. (London: J. Johnson, T. Boosey, and Vernor & Hood, 1795). Wanostrocht, Nicolas, La liturgie, ou formulaire des prières publiques. Selon l’usage de l’église anglicane. [Translation of the Book of common prayer] (London: C. D. Piguenit and J. Boosey, 1794) Wanostrocht, Nicolas, Recueil choisi de traits historiques, contes moraux et d’extraits de voyages, avec la signification des mots en anglois au bas de chaque page, à l’usage des jeunes de l’un de de l’autre sexe, qui veulent apprendre le françois (London: J. Boosey, 1786). Wanostrocht, Nicolas and Assistants, At Alfred-House Boarding School, near the Green, Camberwell, Young Gentlemen are taught English, French, Latin, Greek, Writing, Arithmetic, Book-keeping, Geography &c. ([School Prospectus], 1795). Watts, George B. ‘The teaching of French in the United States: A history’, French Review, 37: 1 (1963), 11-165.

About the author Simon Coffey is Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Modern Languages Education at King’s College London, where he is Programme Director of the PGCE. He applies qualitative approaches including discourse analysis and auto/biographical narrative to investigate why and how different learners engage with foreign languages. He is currently researching the history of French teaching and learning in England. His work has been published in journals including Applied Linguistics, Histoire Epistémologie Langage,

172 

Simon Coffey

Language and Intercultural Communication and the Modern Language Journal. He served as joint editor of the Language Learning Journal (2014-19) and currently convenes the AILA Research Network ECLE (Emotion and Creativity in Language Education). Email: [email protected]

9. ‘Language turned back on itself’ Growth and structure of the English metalanguage1 John Walmsley Abstract Thanks to the vicissitudes of history (the Norman Conquest 1066) it is possible to trace the emergence of the English metalanguage in an unbroken tradition from its beginnings in the late fourteenth century down to the present day, under (almost) laboratory conditions. Concentrating on core areas of the grammar, this paper outlines the growth of the English metalanguage, and the internal and external forces which helped to shape it. Briefly, the terms of linguistic description were absorbed into a wider, centuries-old tradition of universal grammar in which many of the categories of general or theoretical linguistics survive today. These provide the materials on which the creators of syllabuses and writers of textbooks draw in their work. Keywords: Carl Ferdinand Becker; Chomsky; classical terms; William Lily; Lindley Murray; polysemy; terminology; traditional grammar; vernacular terms

The metalinguistic terminology of English is complex and diverse, and is intimately bound up with the question of what successive generations of grammarians have considered ʽa grammar’ to be. For the historical reasons detailed in previous chapters of this volume, the idea of what a ‘grammar’ should be has been strongly influenced by the conception of Latin grammar which fed into the English grammatical tradition. This tradition was from the beginning prescriptive and didactic, and it was concerned with 1 I would like to thank my anonymous reviewer for perceptive and constructive comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch09

174 

John Walmsley

foreign-language teaching (Latin) before it was transferred to native or first-language teaching. It is of course possible to teach a foreign language without necessarily making the language the content of the teaching i.e. without talking specifically about the language to be learned. Maximilian Delphinius Berlitz was a pioneer in systematizing such an approach with his Direct Method, and this was the goal of language Reformers of the nineteenth century. The aim of many courses today however is ʽto equip children with a greater metalinguistic awareness and increase analytic understanding of how language works’.2 Metalanguage provides a structure which allows teacher and pupil to communicate effectively about their own discourse. For illustrative purposes I shall concentrate on what I shall informally call ʽcore grammar’. The present-day conception of grammar, whether for native speaker or foreign learners, covers a number of domains. To include all of these within the scope of this chapter would make the task of dealing with their terminologies unmanageable. This is a lot to leave out, but the so-called core areas of grammar (defined below) have shown a remarkable robustness over the centuries, and offer useful lessons. My main focus will be on English metalanguage – English terms used to describe English structures – though terminological/metalinguistic considerations have played a significant role across cultural and linguistic boundaries. To clarify the discussion, I shall consider a ʽterm’ as consisting of a concept uniquely associated with a label. This will allow us to speak of a concept being associated with more than one label (synonymy), and a label being associated with more than one concept (polysemy).

Domains and syllabuses Before embarking on a description of the historical development of the English metalanguage it is worth taking a look at the domains which we might expect a description of present-day English to cover. This outline can serve both as a blueprint against which to measure any English-as-aforeign-language syllabus, to see how complete it is, but also as a point of reference to see how the conception of what ʽa grammar’ is, has changed over the centuries. At its simplest, grammar can be seen as the link between meaning and form, between semantics on the one hand and phonology-phonetics on the 2

Jones & Coffey, Modern Foreign Languages 5-11. Issues for Teachers, 72.

‘L anguage turned back on itself’

175

other. To model the encoding of a message and its transmission to a receiver or an interpreter, it is convenient to divide the process into steps and to postulate a component to cover each step. Successive models from Lyons3 to Jackendoff4 all postulate a phonological component (sound system), a syntactic component (for sentence structures), and a semantic component (meaning). Some also incorporate a morphological component – for others, this constitutes part of the lexicon, determining the structure of words. But these components do not exhaust the area. Phonological structures are mediated in the real world by phonetic realizations or by written texts, areas also having their own distinct terminology. One consequence of this is that in answer to the question, How many consonants are there in English? one might expect the answer twenty-one, twenty-four, or forty-nine-plus, depending on whether the listener is thinking in graphemic, phonological, or phonetic terms. The term ʽconsonant’ is a deceptively polysemous label. Note that none of the models mentioned allows for written expression (graphemics), nor for the description of structures endemic to written or spoken utterances (discourse analysis) nor the interpretation of structures in specific situations (pragmatics). But these components too have highly developed terminologies. For the purpose of exposition I will concentrate the discussion on the terminology of syntax, and even here further limitations are unavoidable. Between phonology and discourse analysis I shall look at five levels of syntax. The five levels comprise lexical categories; attributes and their values; phrase structure; functional categories or grammatical functions, and participant roles: – lexical categories are the classes into which words, loosely speaking, are grouped. For syllabus construction, English requires a working vocabulary of at least: adjective, adverb, article, conjunction, determiner, interjection, noun, numeral, preposition, pronoun, quantifier, and verb, with their sub-classes; – attributes are features which frequently appear as the endings on nouns or verbs, such as number or tense. In modern linguistics, each attribute is assigned a finite number of values, so that the exact meaning can be specified. Number, for instance, can have one of two values – ʽsingular’ or ʽplural’. Person one of three – ʽ1st’, ʽ2nd’, or ʽ3rd’, and so on. The attributes of present-day English will comprise (at least) number, person, tense, (verbal) aspect, and mood; 3 Lyons, Chomsky, 74-79. 4 Jackendoff, Foundations of Language, 125ff.

176 

John Walmsley

– phrase structure describes the relations between the elements or constituents inside a phrase. Standard types of phrase for English are adjective phrase, adverb phrase, determiner phrase, noun phrase, prepositional phrase, and verb phrase; – functional categories are the traditional functional parts of a sentence, such as ʽsubject’, ʽpredicate’, ʽadjunct’, etc. – participant roles denote the typical parts which entities play in situations, such as the initiator of an action, the victim etc. English therefore needs such terms as ʽagent’, ʽinstrument’, and ʽsource’. Further terms will also be needed to cover grammatical relations and processes, and also structures such as cleft and pseudo-cleft sentences, including structures exclamative, declarative, imperative and interrogative. These cover, roughly, the five levels discussed so far. A truly modern comprehensive syllabus for teachers of English, however, might also be expected to incorporate other domains not touched on by the traditional categories, but brought into focus by modern linguistics, such as nominal aspect – how an entity is presented in discourse, cp. a horde of children v. a crocodile, a line, or a bunch of schoolchildren; deixis – to cover features of language which can only be properly interpreted in relation to a context of situation;5 inalienable possession – whether something is ineluctably associated with a possessor, or only contingently;6 or Aktionsart (the meaning of a verb with respect to the nature of the activity it denotes). This blueprint shows that whereas the traditional domains are reasonably well served by the terminologies they have inherited, the newer domains are often not represented in the syllabus at all. Nor, generally speaking, is there broad consenus concerning their terminology. Foreign-language teaching is, in this respect at least, a conservative profession, each generation of text-books being fuelled more by textbooks of the preceding generation than by input from contemporary linguistics, thus creating a tradition of its own. There is often a considerable time-lag before advances in general linguistics find their way into the language-teaching classroom.

Medieval origins Since it marks the beginning of an unbroken tradition in the vernacular metalanguage, knowledge of Middle English grammatical terminology is 5 Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, 275ff.; 301. 6 Ibidem.

‘L anguage turned back on itself’

177

a useful aid to understanding today’s terminology. The medieval grammarians had available to them terms for (a) lexical categories, (b) their attributes and values, (c) functional categories, (d) participant roles, and (e) for certain grammatical relations and processes. Using a lexeme-based dependency grammar, as they did, the medieval grammarians had no use for phrase-structure. (a) Their lexical categories were: noun, pronoun, verb, participle, adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjection. These constituted the eight ʽparts-of-speech’. Medieval grammarians made use of other lexical categories, too, such as gerund, gerundive, supine, article and sign, but these were not considered to be parts-of-speech. Labels used by the earlier grammarians were not always used with the same meaning as they are today. The noun, for instance, was a superordinate term which comprised the noun substantive, the noun adjective, and (sometimes) the pronoun. Medieval grammarians also used ʽsign’ alternating with ʽtoken’ to denote a form marking e.g. mood (such as may, can) or a case (e.g. to for ʽthe dative’). Alternation between terms such as ʽsign’ and ʽtoken’, frequent in the grammatical texts, shows that the terminology was still fluid. (b) Up to eighteen attributes were assigned to the parts-of-speech, though no single part exhibited all of them. The attributes, with their values, were: – case, which had six values, as today – ʽnominative’, ʽvocative’, ʽaccusative’, ʽgenitive’, ʽdative’, and ʽablative;’ – comparison – four: ʽpositive’, ʽcomparative’, ʽsuperlative’, and ʽsupreme;’ – conjugation – four; – figure – three: ʽsimple’, i.e. a base form; ʽcompound’ – a derivative; and ʽdecompound’ – a derivative derived from an already derived form; – form – four, on the verb: ʽfrequentative’, ʽinchoative’, ʽmeditative’, and ʽperfectative;’ – gender on the noun – seven: ʽmasculine’, ʽfeminine’, ʽneuter’, ʽcommon-oftwo’, ʽcommon-of-three’, ʽduby’, and ʽepicene’. ʽDuby’ meant having more than one possible gender, such as dies (ʽday’), which could be masculine or feminine, while ʽepicene’ meant denoting either sex under a single form, such as passer (ʽsparrow’, masculine), which covered both male and female; – gender on the verb – five: ʽactive’, ʽcommon’, ʽdeponent’, ʽneuter’, and ʽpassive;’ – mood – five: ʽindicative’, ʽimperative’, ʽoptative’, ʽconjunctive’ (i.e. subjunctive), and ʽinfinitive;’

178 

John Walmsley

– number – ʽsingular’ and ʽplural’, as today; – order, specifying the distribution of the preposition in relation to the clause over which it had scope; – person – three, as today; – power, defining sub-classes of the conjunction; – quality on the noun – two: ʽproper’, ʽcommon;’ – quality on the pronoun – two: ʽcertain’ (i.e. definite), and ʽuncertain;’ – signification. On the adverb and interjection, signification effected a subdivision of the categories in semantic terms, leading to an unspecified number of sub-classes. But on the participle, signification distinguished five sub-classes corresponding to gender on the verb, in other words ʽactive’, ʽcommon’, ʽdeponent’, ʽneuter’, and ʽpassive;’ and – tense. Middle English grammar foresaw up to five tenses for the verb and participle: ʽpresent’, ʽimperfect’, ʽperfect’, ʽpluperfect’, and ʽfuture’. Significantly, the medieval grammarians did not have an attribute ʽvoice’. For them, ʽvoice’ meant ʽform’, and could be freely applied to categories other than the verb.7 ʽActive’ and ʽpassive’ were treated as genders of the verb, or genus verbi. (c) To denote functional categories, medieval grammarians used ʽnominative case (to the verb)’ and ʽaccusative case (to the verb)’, but not ʽsubject’ or ʽobject’. (d) For participant roles Middle English had a wide array of terms, if not under that name. Some grammarians made use of a restricted set of abstract terms – ʽthe be-er’, ʽthe sufferer’, depending on whether the verb was active or passive, etc. Others either exploited the morphology of the verb, to make e.g. ʽthe lacker’ etc., as required, or used circumlocutions such as, ʽthat that does the deed of the verb’ (agent)’, ʽthe thing that the deed of the verb is done for’ (beneficiary), or ʽthing as from the which somewhat is taken away [sic]’ (source). ʽAgent’ and ʽpatient’ were not used. (e) Medieval grammarians had terms for grammatical relations such as government and concord, as also for processes such as turning and resolution. ʽTurning’ denoted a linguistic transformation as, for instance – a passive verb ends in -r and may delete the letter R and turn into its active.8 ʽResolution’ 7 Thomson, An Edition of the Middle English Grammatical Texts,Text BB, 469. 8 Ibidem, Text A, 203.

‘L anguage turned back on itself’

179

meant making the meaning of a construction explicit by transforming it into some syntactically different but semantically equivalent construction. In the course of history, several of these terms have been dropped. But many have been retained, with their attributes and values, not always appropriately for English. Altogether, the medieval English grammarians had at their disposal a wide-ranging and subtle vocabulary, confirming Lyons’ observation that, ʽWhat is generally referred to as “traditional grammar” […] is much richer and more diversified than is often suggested in the cursory references made to it by many modern handbooks of linguistics’.9 Nor was this vocabulary exclusively classical (Latin-Greek). Middle English exhibits a range of terms of vernacular origin parallelling their classical counterparts: ʽname’ for noun, ʽkind’ for gender, ʽbidding mood’ for imperative, etc. In other words, synonymy already constituted a problem in Middle English. Indeed, this proliferation of terms was one of the factors fuelling the drive to uniformity in grammar-teaching which came to a head during the reign of King Henry VIII in so-called ʽLily’s grammar’.

Lily’s grammar William Lily’s grammar of Latin in English stands as a major turning-point between the Middle Ages and present-day English grammatical terminology. This grammar was in fact the work of a committee set up by King Henry VIII in the late 1530s. Disturbed by the ʽgreat encombraunce and confusion of the yong and tender wittes, by reason of the diuersity of grammar rules and techynges’, Henry ordained that the grammar which came to be known as Lily’s should be the only grammar licensed for use in teaching Latin in English schools.10 In two respects it marks the beginning of a long tradition. First, it documents an interest in uniformity or harmonization – between grammars, if not at that time between languages. Second, it had the effect of narrowing the choice of terms, and thus helped to cement the concepts used in grammatical description down to the present-day.11 Lily’s grammar uses the same parts-of-speech as the medieval grammars, but the attributes have been slimmed down from eighteen to ten. Lily retains only case, conjugation, figure and gender (on the noun). Then follow mode (six 9 Lyons, Introduction, 3. 10 Gwosdek, Lily’s Grammar, 118ff. 11 Stray, ʽPrimers, publishing and politics.’

180 

John Walmsley

moods – including ʽpotential’, and with ʽsubjunctive’ replacing ʽconjunctive’), number, person, signification, and tense. Whereas the medieval grammarians had used three kinds of signification, Lily has an attribute signification only in connection with the verb and participle. For the functional categories Lily continues to use ʽnominative case (to the verb)’ and ʽaccusative’. As participant roles he has ʽcause’, ʽdoer’, ʽinstrument’, ʽmanner’, ʽsufferer’, and ʽthing’ (for theme or patient). ʽConcord’, ʽgovernment’, ʽturning’, and ʽresolution’ are retained from the Middle English grammatical terms. It is interesting to note just how closely the categories used in present-day English reflect Lily’s categories of 1542.12

From Lily to 1900 Although Lily’s grammar was a grammar for teaching Latin, it exercised an unparalleled influence on subsequent English grammatical terminology, which was then applied to the teaching of other languages. The categories in Lily’s grammar offered a framework which helped the pupil translate easily from and into Latin. It was thus a small step from presenting English prepositions as signs which could represent Latin cases in English, to implying that English had the same set of cases as Latin, expressed through prepositions. The increasing self-confidence which went with the Elizabethan era reinforced the perception that English could, or even should, be like Latin. The express purpose of the first extant grammar of English to be written in English – Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar (1586) – was to show that English, far from being inferior to Latin in being ʽunruly’ (having few grammatical rules), was in fact: “a perfect ruled tung, conferable [comparable – J.W.] in Grammar-art, with any ruled long.”

From this point of view, the closer English could be shown to be to Latin, the greater its prestige.13 Although grammarians such as Greaves (1594) registered, by their omission, the loss of such categories from English as grammatical gender and case, it was Wallis who observed explicitly that,

12 Gwosdek, Lily’s Grammar, 184. 13 Robins, ʽWilliam Bullokar’s Bref Grammar.’

‘L anguage turned back on itself’

181

“Substantives in English do not have genders or cases.”14 While the assumption gained ground that English should be described on its own terms and not in those of some other language, and that English no longer showed any significant evidence of gender or case, teaching methods did not keep pace with these changes. It was assumed that the parsing of words – the pupil naming a part of speech and listing its attributes with their values – was equally suitable as an exercise for English. Under Lindley Murray in the eighteenth century these assumptions had significant consequences. Since English nouns had lost most of their case inflections by 150015 it was impossible for a pupil, when asked to state the case of a noun, to parse it correctly. To remedy this situation, Murray proposed an ‘objective’ case, to avoid ‘the irregularity of having our nouns sometimes placed in a situation in which they can not be said to be in any case at all’.16 In effect, Murray was (re-)defining case not as an attribute, but as a function: the pupil first had to identify the function of the noun, as subject, object etc., which then, according to this logic, had to be in the nominative (or subjective) or objective case. With this step Murray opened the way to a new set of case names for English. By the turn of the twenty-first century, various grammars of English offered twelve or more different names for a category which had been lost to the language for four centuries. In addition to the terms for ʽcase’ introduced by Murray, grammarians throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries developed a wide range of other terms for English grammar, some of them in an attempt to promote alternative concepts, others replacing classical by vernacular labels.17 A further important step was taken by Carl Ferdinand Becker in the nineteenth century, in his German grammar. By taking the sentence as his starting-point and postulating three logical ʽcombinations’ – the predicative, the attributive and the objective18 – Becker shifted the focus of attention from the lexical to the functional level, and in doing this revolutionized the teaching of grammar. His approach laid the foundations for Sentence Analysis which, in the hands of Arnold, Morell, Mason, and others, dominated the teaching of grammar in English schools until well into the twentieth century. With Becker’s analysis, too, came new terminology. What under Becker went under the name of ʽcombination’ became under Mason a ʽrelation’, 14 Nomina Substantiva, apud nos, nullum vel Generum vel Casuum discrimen fortiuntur; Wallis, Grammaticae Linguae Anglicanae, 278-279. 15 Jespersen, Studier over Engelske Kasus; Progress in Language. 16 Murray, English Grammar, 56. 17 Michael, English Grammatical Categories, 507-514. 18 Becker, A Grammar of the German Language, viii.

182 

John Walmsley

a term which survives to the present day in such theories as Arc-Pair Grammar 19 and Relational Grammar.20 Mason added an ‘adverbial relation’ to the other three, and introduced the term ʽcomplement’, while Morell talked of the ʽadjunct’. Other terms, such as ʽhead-word’, ʽexpansion’, ʽextension’, and ʽequivalent’ were also subsequently introduced. The use of the term ʽequivalent’, however, to denote functional categories such as ʽNoun-Equivalent’, or ʽAdverb-Equivalent’, accelerated the decline which grammar-teaching underwent in English schools in the twentieth century.21 In the last quarter of the century William Barnes put forward an extensive terminology using vernacular labels, including ʽlink’, ʽmark-word’, and ʽunder-markword’, one or two of which were adopted by Sweet.22

The twentieth century The increasing integration of modern foreign languages into the curriculum from the 1880s to 1930 sharpened awareness of terminological diversity and disharmony, both in language-teaching and in descriptive linguistics. In one attempt at a solution, Edward Adolf Sonnenschein published a set of grammars (the Parallel Grammar Series) for teaching both English and foreign languages in schools, the distinguishing features of which were uniformity of classification and terminology, uniformity of scope, size, and type. These grammars offered the same framework for teaching all the languages in the series. But harmonizing the terminology also led to categories being postulated for individual languages, for which there was no longer any evidence. According to this system, English was described as having six cases. In a later initiative, Sonnenschein set up a Joint Committee with the specific aim of securing a unified terminology. Similar committees were set up in the U.S.A., France, Germany and Austria.23 On an international level, the Comité international permanent des linguistes almost from its foundation adopted as one of its goals the ʽfixation et unification de la terminologie grammaticale’.24 Towards the end of the nineteenth century grammatical thinking in England had been dominated by a belief in universal (ʽgeneral’) grammar 19 Johnson and Postal Arc Pair Grammar. 20 Perlmutter, ʽRelational Grammar.’ 21 Hudson and Walmsley, ‘The English Patient’; Walmsley, ‘Pure Grammar’. 22 Barnes, English Speech-Craft. 23 Walmsley, ʽThe “entente cordiale grammaticale”.’ 24 Actes, 7ff.

‘L anguage turned back on itself’

183

and a commitment to explanatory as opposed to descriptive grammar. Both these positions were to fall out of favour. The results of historical and comparative linguistics led ever more linguists to doubt whether there was such a thing as universal grammar, while explanation – which had hitherto been either historical or psychological (ʽmentalism’) – came under attack as ʽmetaphysical syntax’.25 Saussure and Bloomfield, both of whom had adopted the mentalist position, began to move to a Structuralist position which leaned towards positivism as opposed to idealism, description as opposed to explanation. A number of these strands came together in Otto Jespersen’s work. His Modern English Grammar was written ʽon historical principles’ – unlike Sweet’s grammar, which had been ʽlogical and historical [my emphasis – J.W.]’. But Jespersen’s thinking was original and innovative. In The Philosophy of Grammar he abandoned neither notionalism nor universalism, but put them on a more secure footing by carefully distinguishing form from function and notion.26 Jespersen’s approach exposed the imperfections of a terminology which attached the same label to concepts from different categories, for example the use of ʽpast’ to denote both the notional category of time and the grammatical category of tense. The notional division of time into past, present and future had earlier been erroneously transferred to English grammar – erroneously because, unlike Latin, English has no future tense – only a ʽpast’ and an unmarked tense which can be used in connection with past, present or future time.27 The Structuralist strand found its most extreme expression in Charles Carpenter Fries’ Structure of English. Fearing that the use of traditional terminology would foster misleading assumptions, Fries postulated four major lexical classes (ʽparts of speech’), labelled 1 to 4, and fifteen ʽfunction word’ classes labelled A to O. The lack of motivation (transparency) of these terms doubtless impeded their adoption in other grammars. The effect of Chomsky’s work in the second half of the twentieth century – the ʽChomskyan Revolution’ – has led to a proliferation of terminological innovations unparalleled in the history of linguistics. Each critical examination of Chomsky’s position seemed to spawn a new theory, and with each theory came a new terminology. While terms for the lexical categories and their attributes have remained relatively stable, Chomsky labelled phrases not according to their function, as Becker and his successors had done, but 25 Hale, ʽMetaphysical syntax.’ 26 Jespersen, Philosophy of Grammar, 56. 27 Strang, Modern English Structure, 127.

184 

John Walmsley

according to their heads. In the wake of Chomsky (1965) Fillmore proposed ʽagentive’, ʽdative’, ʽfactitive’, ʽinstrumental’, ʽlocative’, and ʽobjective’ as ʽcases’.28 Some of these are now accepted at the participant role level. They are not discussed in Lyons (1968), although many of them were already available in one form or another in Middle English.

Discussion The salient feature of English grammatical terminology is its robustness. However, as one moves from the grammatical core to the periphery, the less stable, broadly speaking, the systems become. We still have essentially the same lexical categories as Lily had in his English grammar of Latin. However, Lily’s stock of terms has been augmented, and finer distinctions drawn. In addition to the traditional eight parts of speech we now have participles ʽpast’ and ʽpresent’, but no gerund. We also have infinitives (bare and toinfinitive), definite and indefinite articles, auxiliaries non-modal and modal, semi-auxiliaries, determiners and determinatives. We no longer use conjugation, declension, figure, kind, or signification as attributes. Instead, we have deixis (distal, proximal), number and person; also aspect (unmarked aspect, perfect, progressive/continuous), mood (imperative, indicative, infinitive and subjunctive), modality (deontic, dynamic, epistemic) and tense (non-past and past). Standard are at least six major types of phrase: adverb phrase, adjective phrase, determiner phrase, noun phrase, prepositional phrase, and verb phrase. As terms for functional categories we have ʽsubject’, ‘predicate’, ʽpredicator’, ʽcomplement’, ‘direct’ and ʽindirect object’, ‘head’, ‘adjunct’, ‘modifier’, ‘antecedent’, ʽappositive/ apposition’, ʽattributive’, and ʽpredicative’. And as participant roles we have (among others) ʽagent,’ ʽbenefactive,’ ʽexperiencer,’ ʽgoal,’ ʽlocative,’ ʽpatient,’ ʽrecipient,’ ʽsource,’ and ʽtheme’. The expansion in the number of new theories following the Chomskyan revolution (now upwards of sixty, from Applicational Grammar to Word Grammar, X-bar theory and Zero Syntax) has, together with the development of formal and computational linguistics, led to a corresponding increase in terms for constituents, constructions, clause-types, and processes, depending on the theory. This is the situation we have today. On the long journey towards becoming what it is, the English metalanguage has been shaped by a sort of natural selection. Over the centuries terms have been weeded out and new terms introduced as systematic coverage of 28 Fillmore, ʽThe case for case’, 24-25.

‘L anguage turned back on itself’

185

the language has been extended. Terms such as ʽobjective’ and ʽsubjective’ were introduced from the teaching context, so that pupils would not be put in a position of being unable to say what case a given noun was in. The medieval grammarians introduced many vernacular labels not directly borrowed from Latin or Greek. Some later grammarians deliberately chose labels of non-classical origin in order to free the vernacular metalanguage from what they saw as its classical shackles. In addition to pressures from teaching-methods and the tension between ʽnative’ and classical terms, new theories have also played a role. Becker’s analytical approach led to new functional terms such as ʽcomplement’, while Tesnière’s revitalization of dependency-theory ushered in a valency model with the verb as its centre and an array of arguments as its satellites, as opposed to a constituency model starting from the subject-predicate distinction. Many issues, however, remain unresolved. The overlap between technical terms and ordinary language in lexemes such as ʽsubject’, ʽcase’, ʽfunction’, or ʽgender’ remains as much of a problem as it was a century ago, as is the situation with synonyms and polysemous lexemes. There are also many areas where, while there may be broad agreement, there is still far from a consenus. Among them are the English verbal system. What does the (verbal) aspect system of English look like, and which terms should we use – ʽmarked/unmarked’, ʽperfect,’ ʽprogressive’, or ʽcontinuous’? What is the relation between Aktionsart (situation type) and aspect? How many moods are there in English, and how are they to be defined? As Aarts observed, ʽThere is a lot of confusing terminology in the domain of modality which is often the result of authors not keeping the syntax and semantics of the various verbs and verbal patterns apart’.29 Differences in theoretical approach affect the question of whether pronouns or auxiliary verbs are best handled as subclasses of the noun or verb respectively, or as separate lexical categories. And of the adverb, Lyons wrote, ʽit is doubtful whether any general theory of syntax would bring together as members of the same syntactic class all the forms that are traditionally described as “adverbs” […]’.30 The same might be said of the interjection. In this situation the foreign-language teacher in particular is frequently left to his or her own devices. A number of terms used in language-teaching today are ʽeponymous’, such such as -ing-participle, wh-word, to-infinitive respectively.31 Other labels 29 Aarts, Oxford Modern English, 354. 30 Lyons, Introduction, 326. 31 Berry, Terminology in English Language Teaching.

186 

John Walmsley

for the -ing-participle and the er- or -en-participle are ʽpresent’ and ʽpast’ respectively. The labels are insofar misleading as, unlike tense-forms, these participles are non-deictic. They convey aspectual meanings unrelated to time. The fact that the -ed-participle is also sometimes called the ʽpassive’ participle raises the question of whether the so-called ʽvoice’ attribute would not be better handled as a form of diathesis controlling aspectual interpretations such as ʽresultative’.32 As for participant roles, Miller has argued that from a grammatical point of view we need no more than five, more or less – ʽagent’, ʽpatient’, ʽplace’, ʽgoal’, ʽsource’.33 One topic of interest to language teachers, especially foreign-language teachers, is the relation between a ʽscientific’ terminology and a didactic terminology for teaching.34 Over a hundred years ago Sonnenschein drew attention to the gap between Jespersen’s ʽscheme of grammatical nomenclature’ and what Sonnenschein thought pupils could manage.35 While there is no denying the validity of Sonnenschein’s observation, there must be some disquiet at a line of argument which suggests that the terminology of any science should be altered to accommodate learners’ abilities. Instead, a didactic principle operates here, that no doctrine exists which can not be taught. It is the task of didactics to select and adapt the matter to be taught to the ages and aptitudes of the learners. But what precisely is intended by a ʽdidactic’ or ʽpedagogical’ terminology? – (1) different concepts with different labels? (2) the same concepts but with different labels, as with Barnes? Or (3) different concepts with the same labels? If (1) or (3), one might question whether modifying the concepts – re-defining ʽtense’ as a notional category would be a case in point – is really an idea worth pursuing. Other sciences – biology, mathematics, or physics, for instance – do not modify their conceptual systems to accommodate learners. Learners accept that new ideas mean new terminology. Having said that, there is anecdotal evidence that learners find motivated labels more helpful than opaque ones. In these situations, solution (2) – replacing, for instance, ʽverb’ by ʽdoing-word’ – becomes a matter of judgment on the part of the teacher. This procedure can however be dangerous if the new label conjures up incorrect assumptions, such as, that all English verbs denote an activity. The history of the English metalanguage shows that change comes slowly. New terms – and particularly new labels – take time to establish themselves. 32 Andersen, A New Look; Beedham, Passive Aspect. 33 Miller, Introduction, 119-130. 34 Berry, Terminology. 35 Sonnenschein, ʽGrammatical reform’, 363.

‘L anguage turned back on itself’

187

New technical terms would be desirable to reduce the overlap between linguistic terminology and ordinary language. Alternative labels are also required, to reduce polysemy. The difficulty lies in suggesting terms which, while offering a different label, find wide acceptance. It would be useful, for instance, to have a different label to denote a written ʽvowel’ to set against the phonological ʽvowel’ and the phonetic ʽvocoid’, or an alternative choice for the ʽpast’ tense form. When selecting a label from a pair of synonyms, it is important to use the term consistently. If one wants to preserve a distinction between an abstract category and its surface realizations, such as word: lexeme; morph: morpheme; allophone: phoneme, then it is better to use ʽlexeme’ when one means ʽlexeme’. Useful orientation with respect to contemporary metalinguistic terminology may be found in the Linguistics Association of Great Britain Education Committee’s online Glossary, or www.englicious, for instance.

Conclusion To sum up, the metalanguage of English is complex, far from uniform, far from consistent, and constantly developing. From the standpoint of the terminologist it leaves much to be desired. It has too many synonyms and too many polysemous lexemes which need to be redefined in the context of every new theory. In the course of its development the metalanguage has passed down to us traditional categories no longer relevant to contemporary English, such as case and gender, while failing to provide us with terms for categories unkown to the Greek and Latin grammarians, such as deixis or aspect. New terms have become necessary as the boundaries of description have been pushed beyond the limits of the sentence (discourse, pragmatics) and as our knowledge of more of the world’s hitherto undescribed languages has increased (inalienable possession, nominal aspect). The criticism that earlier grammarians unthinkingly applied the categories of Latin or Greek to English is, though, not substantiated by the evidence. Rather, English equivalents for Latin categories had to be found in the process of teaching English boys Latin by means of translation.36 Equally, the assertion that earlier grammarians ought to have used some other vocabulary than that inherited from Latin and Greek is not justified either. In fact, the medieval grammarians had at their disposal an array of 36 Walmsley, ʽHow the leopard got its spots: English grammatical categories, Latin terms’.

188 

John Walmsley

non-classical terms for various domains of the grammar. But these terms have, generally speaking, gradually been weeded out to leave a broad stock of predominantly classical terms. It is largely the labels which provide continuity through the English metalanguage. What tends to change is the concept to which a given label is attached. When concepts are appropriately (re-)defined for the language under investigation, the labels we have inherited from classical sources constitute a widely accepted, international, and, with the reservations expressed above, viable framework for describing the world’s languages.

Bibliography Aarts, Bas, Oxford Modern English Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Actes du Deuxième Congrès international des Linguistes (Genève, 1931) (Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve, 1933). Andersen, Paul Kent, A New Look at the Passive (Frankfurt [Main]: Lang, 1991). Arnold, Thomas Kerchever, An English Grammar for Classical Schools. Eytmology. Parts I. and II (London: J.G. & F. Rivington, 1838). Barnes, William, English Speech-Craft (London: C. Kegan Paul, 1878). Becker, Carl Ferdinand, A Grammar of the German Language (London: John Murray, 1830). Beedham, Christopher, The Passive Aspect in English, German and Russian (Tübingen: Narr, 1982). Berry, Roger, Terminology in English Language Teaching (Bern: Lang, 2010). Bullokar, William, ‘Pamphlet for Grammar’, [1586] edited volume by J. R. Turner The Works of William Bullokar, (Leeds: University of Leeds School of English, 1980). Chomsky, Noam, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965). Crystal, David, Linguistics (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971). Dinneen, Francis P., S.J., An Introduction to General Linguistics (New York etc.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967). Fillmore, Charles J., ʽThe case for case’, in Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. by Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (London and New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968), 1-88. Fries, Charles Carpenter, The Structure of English (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1952). Greaves, Paul, Grammatica Anglicana (Cambridge, 1594). Gwosdek, Hedwig, Lily’s Grammar of Latin in English. An Introduction of the Eyght Partes of Speche, and the Construction of the Same (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).

‘L anguage turned back on itself’

189

Hale, William Gardner, ʽA century of metaphysical syntax’, in Congress of Arts and Science Universal Exposition, St. Louis, 1904. History of Language, History of Literature, History of Art ed. by H.J. Rogers (Boston/New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Co. 1906), 191-202. Hudson, Richard and John Walmsley, ʽThe English Patient: English grammar and teaching in the twentieth century’, Journal of Linguistics, 41 (2005). 593-622. Jackendoff, Ray, Foundations of Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Jespersen, Otto, Studier over Engelske Kasus (Copenhagen: Kleins Forlag, 1891). Jespersen, Otto, Progress in Language, with special reference to English (London: Sonnenschein and Co., 1894). Jespersen, Otto, The Philosophy of Grammar (London: Allen & Unwin, 1924). Johnson, David E. and Paul M. Postal, Arc Pair Grammar (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980). Jones, Jane and Simon Coffey, Modern Foreign Languages 5-11. Issues for Teachers (London: Fulton, 2006). Lyons, John, Chomsky (London: Fontana, 1970). Lyons, John, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968). Mason, Charles Peter, English Grammar; including the Principles of Grammatical Analysis (London: Walton and Maberly, 1858). Michael, Ian, English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). Miller, Jim, An Introduction to English Syntax (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2002). Morell, John Daniel, The Analysis of Sentences explained and systematized, after the plan of Becker’s German Grammar. London: Theobald, [1852]). Murray, Lindley, English Grammar, adapted to the different classes of leaners (York: Wilson, Spence and Mawman, 1795. 38th. ed., 1825). Perlmutter, David M., ʽRelational Grammar’, in Syntax and Semantics 13: Current Approaches to Syntax, edd. by Edith A. Moravcsik and Jessica R. Wirth (New York: Academic Press, 1980), 195-229. Robins, Robert Henry, ʽWilliam Bullokar’s Bref Grammar for English: Text and context’, in Anglistentag 1993. Eichstätt. Proceedings., edd. by Günther Blaicher and Brigitte Glaser (Tübingen: Niemeyer 1994), 19-31. Sonnenschein, Edward Adolf, ʽGrammatical reform’, The Times, 1 June 1922, 363. Strang Barbara M.H., Modern English Structure (London: Edward Arnold, 1962). Stray, Christopher, ʽPrimers, publishing, and politics. The classical textbooks of Benjamin Hall Kennedy’, The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 90 (1996), 451-474.

190 

John Walmsley

Sweet, Henry, A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical, 2 Pts. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892-1898). Thomson, David, An Edition of the Middle English Grammatical Texts (New York/ London: Garland, 1984). Wallis, John, Grammaticae Linguae Anglicanae. Grammar of the English Language with an Introductory Grammatico-physical Treatise on Speech or on the Formation of all Speech Sounds, ed. by J.A. Kemp (London: Longman, 1972). Walmsley, John, ʽThe “entente cordiale grammaticale” 1885-1915’, in Métalangage et terminologie linguistique. Actes du colloque internationale de Grenoble (Université Stendhal – Grenoble III, 14-16 mai 1998, edd. by Bernard Colombat and Marie Savelli (Louvain/Paris/Sterling, Va.: Peeters, 2001), 499-512. Walmsley, John, ʽHow the leopard got its spots: English grammatical categories, Latin terms’, in Inside Old English: Essays in Honour of Bruce Mitchell, ed. by John Walmsley (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 248-267. Walmsley, John, ʽPure Grammar and its contexts 1921-1961’, in Contexte, ed. by Gerda Hassler (Paris: ISTE, forthcoming). www.englicious.org.

About the author John Walmsley read English, Education and General Linguistics at Oxford, Durham and Edinburgh, and taught English in France, Spain, Germany and England before being appointed Professor of Englische Sprache und Literatur und ihre Didaktik at Bielefeld University, Germany, where he currently works. His chief interests are terminology, history of linguistics, and didactics. Email: [email protected]

10. La grammaire dans le mouvement de la réformeen France et en Grande-Bretagne Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

Abstract Direct methodologists fundamentally challenged the way in which living foreign languages (LFL) were taught and/or acquired, as well as the order in which the different contents of language teaching were presented to students. By drawing on the ‘natural acquisition mode’ of a language (Laudenbach 1899: 4), they argued that different periods (or phases) could be distinguished in the direct and intuitive acquisition approach of a LFL (Bréal, Rochelle Collard, Sweet, Schweitzer …). They thus proposed to re-categorise grammatical contents, as well as placing them in a new order and presenting them in relation to the vocabulary to topic to be learnt. The methodologists also created the concept of ‘intuitive grammar’ and some of them recommended the use of an ‘inductive approach’ in teaching grammar. Keywords: direct method, intuitive grammar, inductive approach, vocabulary, phases of LFL acquisition, LFL acquisition

Les partisans de la méthode de la réforme et de la méthode directe1 (désormais MD) critiquent durement la façon traditionnelle d’enseigner la

1 Qu’est-ce donc au juste que la Méthode directe? M. L’inspecteur général des langues vivantes Firmery a répondu à cette question d’une façon extrêmement simple dans son article de la Revue politique et parlementaire (10 octobre 1902): ‘C’est, dit-il, par définition, celle d’après laquelle on enseigne une langue directement, c’est-à-dire sans l’intermédiaire de la langue maternelle’ (in Rochelle, La méthode directe dans l’enseignement des langues vivantes, 4).

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch10

192 

Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

grammaire.2 Le manifeste Der Sprachunterricht muss umkehren! de W.Viëtor (1882) tira la sonnette d’alarme en proposant de mettre au cœur de l’enseignement la langue orale et une réduction importante de la grammaire. O. Jespersen montre également les absurdités qui apparaissent dans les grammaires traditionnelles (‘the old methods’,3 ou bien ‘the old-grammar instruction’, 4 et reprend ces ‘golden words’ de H. Petersen: ‘still the old grammar-instruction lives and flourishes with its rigmaroles and rules and exceptions, that intensely stupid custom, the teaching of grammar to children’.5 On ne devrait pas tirer de ces critiques la conclusion selon laquelle les partisans de la MD renient de la grammaire, ou bien qu’ils veuillent la supprimer, reproche que leurs opposants vont lancer pour les discréditer. Les méthodologues directs s’en défendront en insistant de façon unanime sur l’importance de la grammaire. Nous citons cette aff irmation de E. Rochelle comme position emblématique du mouvement: la grammaire, que l’on prétendait bannie de notre enseignement, joue un rôle prépondérant. Elle est notre régisseur général […]. Elle fait appliquer le règlement en se montrant le moins possible.6

Les méthodologues directs soutiennent en revanche qu’il faut l’enseigner de façon différente: quant au moment où débuter cet enseignement, quant au contenu grammatical, quant à l’ordre de présentation de ce contenu, et finalement quant à la mise en œuvre en classe de procédés d’apprentissage de la grammaire. Par manque d’espace, nous examinerons surtout les positionnements théoriques des méthodologues, laissant pour une prochaine étude une analyse en détail des manuels qui pourra compléter nos propos.7 2 La MD ne s’est pas constituée grâce à un corps doctrinal homogène, préétabli aux différentes réalisations pratiques (sous forme de manuels), mais sous forme d’un mouvement qui s’est constitué à partir du manifeste de W. Viëtor (1882), et s’est maintenu le long d’une trentaine d’années (jusqu’en 1910). S’il est possible de distinguer entre le ‘mouvement de la réforme’ (1882-1901) et la ‘méthode directe’ (1901-1910), en fonction des appellations utilisées dans les différents pays (Allemagne, Suède, Danemark, Grande Bretagne, quant à la première expression; la France quant à la deuxième), ces deux expressions ne donnent pas lieu à des divergences théoriques importantes à l’intérieur de la communauté scientifique qui se constitue autour du partage de points de vue communs, si ce n’est celles propres aux différents méthodologues eux-mêmes, qu’ils appartiennent à l’un des pays ou à un autre, ou bien qu’ils aient produit leurs réflexions à une période ou bien à une autre. 3 Jespersen, How to Teach a Foreign Language, 33. 4 Ibidem, 110. 5 Ibidem, 111. 6 Rochelle, La méthode directe, 30. 7 Rappelons que les auteurs de manuels sont fréquemment des méthodologues (H. Sweet, Ch. Schweitzer, P. Passy, M.D. Berlitz, C. Krause …).

L a gr ammaire dans le mouvement de l a réforme

193

Phases de l’acquisition de la langue vivante étrangère (LVE) et ordre de présentation de la grammaire Phases de l’acquisition d’une LVE Les méthodologues directs s’appuient sur la façon où un enfant apprend sa langue maternelle (‘le mode d’acquisition naturel’),8 et bâtissent un cheminement spécifique d’acquisition/apprentissage (une vraie ‘méthode’, comme l’indique Firmery),9 valable quelle que soit la LVE en question. Mais ils se démarquent de cette ‘méthode maternelle’ (ou ‘méthode naturelle’): le mode d’acquisition maternel/naturel est perfectionné dans la MD d’une part à l’aide d’une série de procédés et de techniques de travail (qui constituent la partie méthodologique proprement dite), et rappellent d’autre part que l’acquisition naturelle de la langue maternelle est complétée à l’école par l’accès à l’écrit (lecture, écriture, grammaire, littérature …). La MD suit ainsi l’ordre ‘naturel’ d’apprentissage d’une langue vivante. Ils y distinguent une série de phases, qui réunissent le cheminement complet de l’enfant (nature + école), de manière condensée: ‘Nous croyons qu’il est possible, dans l’enseignement, de faire succéder les phases par où nous avons vu passer l’esprit de l’enfant apprenant sa langue maternelle et de les faire se succéder très rapidement sans faire, le moins du monde, violence à la nature’.10 M. Bréal cite les paroles de M. Prendergast pour souligner que la question posée habituellement: ‘Par où doit-on commencer l’étude d’une langue?’11 n’a de sens qu’à l’intérieur de la démarche grammaticale, qui ordonne l’apprentissage de la langue selon l’ordre des parties du discours, et où un commencement préétabli est fixé. Le ‘plan de la nature’, par contre, ne suit aucune démarche méthodique, et, comme dans l’image du globe terrestre, on peut commencer l’étude d’une langue n’importe où … Les phases ou périodes qui sont distinguées gardent ainsi des points en commun importants. Quelques exemples suffiront, que nous exposons sans commentaires, étant suffisamment explicites. Elles se fondent sur une logique différente aux méthodes antérieures: le contenu (l’objet) d’apprentissage, qui est défini sous forme d’objet linguistique (prononciation, 8 Laudenbach et al, La méthode directe dans l’enseignement des langues vivantes, 4. Il explique le long de 5 pages (4-9), ‘en grandes lignes’, ce mode naturel d’acquisition de la langue. 9 Firmery, ‘La réforme de l’enseignement des langues vivantes’, 69. 10 Laudenbach, La méthode directe, 18. 11 Bréal, De l’enseignement des langues vivantes, 63.

194 

Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

vocabulaire, langue littéraire), d’objet culturel et de savoir-faire langagiers correspondants (comprendre, prononcer, lire, écrire) à acquérir. M. Bréal divise l’enseignement d’une LVE en trois périodes, ‘selon l’objet qui doit dominer dans chacune d’elles. Durant la première, le professeur donnera sa principale attention à la prononciation. Pendant la seconde, il s’attachera surtout à la grammaire et au vocabulaire. La littérature formera l’occupation principale de la troisième’.12 H. Sweet propose une méthode progressive divisée en cinq phases (ou stages): ‘(1) the mechanical; (2) the grammatical; (3) the idiomatic and lexical (dealing with the vocabulary of the colloquial language); (4) the literary; (5) the archaic’.13 Ch. Schweitzer distingue de son côté deux périodes (chacune offrant une série de sous-divisions) où nous voyons la conciliation des deux principaux courants allemands de la MD: l’Anschauung (la vue des choses sensibles), qui correspond à la phase d’initiation (classes de 6e et de 5e); le Lesebuch (livre de lecture) viendrait ensuite, qui permet l’accès à la civilization et la production écrite (classes de 4e et de 3e).14 D’autres propositions sont faites également: E. Rochelle établit une division en trois périodes: parler, lire, écrire;15 F. Collard critique la division en trois périodes établie par M. Bréal (‘Il est clair que cette division a quelque chose d’artificiel’,), et distingue, quant à lui, deux grandes phases: la langue orale et la langue écrite: ‘[…] la marche indiquée par la nature est de passer de la langue parlée à la langue écrite’.16 Ces phases n’ont rien de rigide; elles sont envisagées comme ayant une durée variable, avec des activités modulées en fonction de l’âge des élèves. Des raisons d’ordre pédagogique interviennent également, dérivées des limites mêmes de la méthode maternelle: ‘[…] ce que ne saurait apprendre d’ensemble par la voie naturelle de l’usage demande à être appris par la division et la gradation des difficultés, c’est-à-dire par méthode’, comme l’indique E. Veyssier.17 Mais aussi sur des observations de bon sens: ‘Personne ne parle pour appliquer une règle de grammaire’: pourquoi alors commencer par les règles de grammaire?18 S’il est une question où tous les méthodologues directs sont d’accord c’est dans l’affirmation très nette qu’il faut changer autant l’ordre de 12 Ibidem, 25. 13 Sweet, The Practical Study of Language, 118-123. 14 Schweitzer, Méthodologie des langues vivantes, 27. 15 Ibidem, 6-7. 16 Collard, La méthode directe dans l’enseignement des langues vivantes, 8 et 9. 17 Veyssier, De la méthode pour l’enseignement scolaire des langues vivantes, 68. 18 Bréal, De l’enseignement, 51.

L a gr ammaire dans le mouvement de l a réforme

195

présentation/progression de la grammaire, que la manière de procéder dans son apprentissage. La ‘grammaire’ ou des règles de grammaire? Il serait erroné de penser que, dans l’analogie à la démarche naturelle/ maternelle, ce n’est qu’une fois que la langue a été acquise ‘intuitivement’ (par imprégnation, imitation, association …), qu’on peut procéder à enseigner les règles de grammaire, dans une deuxième phase de l’acquisition/ enseignement, lorsque l’on passe à l’écrit (lectures, exercices écrits). Au début, l’exposition explicite de la grammaire est tout d’abord réduite aux règles les plus simples, en rapport aux phrases que les élèves composent, et c’est peu à peu que les questions plus complexes sont introduites. La grammaire n’est pas complètement exclue de la première phase, mais ‘soumise’ à l’acquisition de la langue, pour utiliser une expression de M.D. Berlitz.19 Comme l’indique E. Rochelle: ‘à aucun moment, pas plus pendant nos exercices purement oraux, que pendant nos lectures, ou à l’occasion de nos devoirs écrits, nous ne l’avons perdue de vue [la grammaire]. Elle a été notre guide constant’.20 Et il distingue entre la ‘grammaire’ et l’usage d’un livre de grammaire: ‘il faudra attendre que les auteurs de grammaires aient renoncé à calquer leurs ouvrages sur les anciens manuels qui prennent pour base l’éternelle comparaison entre la langue étrangère et notre idiome maternel’.21 La grammaire est donc nécessaire, même le long de la première phase/ période d’acquisition de la LVE, mais d’une manière différente: d’une part, ce sont des règles de grammaire concrètes qui sont concernées, pas la ‘grammaire’ en tant que telle; d’autre part, il faut introduire une gradation dans la représentation mentale de l’élève de la ‘règle de grammaire’, car elle exige un effort d’abstraction important: ‘une règle de grammaire est chose très abstraite, qui veut être acquise progressivement’.22 Et, finalement, plus précisément, il est question uniquement des règles usuelles, nécessaires, celles qui sont utilisées dans les exercices oraux et écrits proposés aux élèves. Comme le disait O. Jespersen: ‘quoi de plus absurde que de faire apprendre aux élèves toute la liste des substantifs terminés en –ou […], puisque les élèves ne vont jamais utiliser ces mots-là!’.23 19 Berlitz, Premier livre pour l’enseignement du français, 6. 20 Ibidem, 34. 21 Ibidem, 35. 22 Laudenbach, La méthode directe, 13-14. 23 Ibidem, 112-114.

196 

Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

Un nouvel ordre de présentation de la grammaire Cette approche modifie complètement l’ordre de présentation canonique de la grammaire (règles de prononciation, morphologie, syntaxe). Comment établir une progression grammaticale basée sur les règles usuelles? M. Bréal soulignait l’intérêt de proposer des suites de mots-structures-phrases, choisies selon des critères précis, qui peuvent être centrés sur un problème concret de nature grammaticale, ou bien être exemplaires d’une construction idiomatique de la langue à apprendre.24 Cette idée sera développée dans les années postérieures, avec l’association de l’acquisition du vocabulaire avec l’acquisition de la grammaire.25 Nous pouvons constater ainsi que l’une des réalisations les plus remarquables des auteurs de manuels directs est une mise en rapport entre le vocabulaire et les règles de grammaire: Tableau 10.1 Correspondance entre vocabulaire et grammaire Tableau composé par Ch. Schweitzer (1903a: 17) Étude de vocabulaire

Notions de grammaire

1º. Noms des choses et des personnes

Forme nominative du substantif Article défini et indéfini Genre des substantifs Formation du pluriel

2º. Nombre des choses et des personnes 3º. Détermination du possesseur de chaque objet. Énumération des parties d’un objet 4º. Maniement des objets 5º. Action de donner, de porter, de prêter un objet à quelqu’un 6º. Qualités des objets et des personnes 7º. Comparaison des choses et des personnes entre elles 8º. Relations spatiales des objets 9º. Actions des personnes

Génitif et adjectif possessif

Accusatif Datif Verbe être Déclinaison de l’adjectif Comparatif et superlatif Prépositions avec leurs cas Conjugaison: a) impératif; b) présent de l’indicatif; c) interrogation; d) affirmation et négation

Ou encore: 24 Ibidem, 48. 25 Schweitzer, Méthodologie des langues vivantes, 16.

L a gr ammaire dans le mouvement de l a réforme

197

Figure 10.1  Distribution du contenu proposée par Th. Cartwright (1908)

Cette distribution en parallèle des contenus lexicaux et grammaticaux permet une progression nouvelle dans l’apprentissage de la grammaire. On peut constater qu’il se produit un bouleversement complet de l’ordre traditionnel où se construisait le contenu de l’enseignement, et qu’on inaugure un nouvel ordre: perception de la réalité qui l’entoure et ‘intuition des objets et des actes

198 

Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

dans le présent’; mise en rapport des objets; expression des propres jugements; évocation des actes passés et futur (Schweitzer).26 La progression se fait ainsi sous forme de cercles concentriques qui partent de l’élève lui-même et de son entourage immédiat (la salle de classe, la famille …) et qui s’éloignent progressivement (la grande ville, le pays …). Les méthodologues directs répondent ainsi à l’une des critiques que leurs opposants leur adressaient, en soulignant l’idée d’une ‘acquisition méthodique de la grammaire’,27 ou que ‘l’enseignement grammatical [est] rigoureusement méthodique et scrupuleusement gradué’.28

De la grammaire intuitive à la grammaire inductive Grammaire intuitive et réflexion sur la langue Pour les méthodologues directs, la démarche intuitive constitue la clef de voûte de la MD.29 Trois types d’intuitions sont distingués: ‘1 l’intuition directe de la réalité ou de l’image; 2 l’intuition indirecte ou l’évocation de l’image par la mimique; 3º l’explication de mots nouveaux à l’aide des mots déjà connus’.30 O. Jespersen parle de son côté de ‘direct observation or immediate perception (what the Germans call anschauung)’, ‘mediate perception’ et compréhension ou interprétation par le contexte.31 Ch. Puren a exposé les procédés de travail de classe qui vont être appliqués pour chacune d’entre elles pour avoir à y revenir.32 Nous distinguerons, pour notre part, trois démarches, reliées entre elles, qui rendent mieux compte de leur rapport à l’acquisition/enseignement de la grammaire: a) une démarche plutôt naturelle; b) une démarche plutôt mécanique et répétitive; c) une démarche plutôt interprétative, qui appellerait à l’intuition intelligente de l’apprenant. Dans un premier temps du mouvement de la Réforme, les méthodologues directs, en s’appuyant sur les propositions de leurs prédécesseurs – tels que F. Gouin, G. Heness et L. Sauveur, comme le soulignent A.P.R. Howatt 26 Schweitzer, Méthodologie des langues vivantes, passim. 27 Ibidem, 18. 28 Rochelle, La méthode directe, 30. 29 La question de l’intuition était centrale dans le renouveau pédagogique de la fin du dix-neuvième siècle en France. Voir ainsi F. Buisson (in Conférences, 325-363) et l’entrée ‘intuition et méthode intuitive’ correspondante du Dictionnaire de pédagogie (en ligne), où il retrace l’évolution de cette notion depuis Descartes, Locke, Cousin et Kant. 30 Schweitzer, ‘Communication faite à la Société des Professeurs de Langues vivantes’, 73. 31 Ibidem, 58, 60, 66-67. 32 Puren, Histoire des méthodologies, 138-159.

L a gr ammaire dans le mouvement de l a réforme

199

et R. Smith,33 quant aux deux derniers – renvoient dans leurs arguments à l’acquisition directe/intuitive de la langue (ou l’‘intuition directe’), qui permet à l’élève de posséder un ‘instinct de la langue’ et une ‘possession effective’ de la langue. La correction grammaticale serait assurée de cette façon, sans avoir à recourir à ‘une application raisonnée et réfléchie des règles théoriques’. Elle n’est donc pas le fruit de l’effort de la réflexion, mais le résultat de cet instinct pratique.34 Cela veut dire que l’élève, dès les premières leçons, cherche dans sa tête, tout seul, une régularité, et fait des hypothèses sur les particularités de la langue cible, en la comparant instinctivement avec la langue qu’il possède déjà. Mais ces représentations mentales doivent rester au stade implicite, sans que le professeur les encourage ou les rende conscientes par une explication/ explicitation quelconque. La délimitation entre réflexion, représentation mentale et conscience reste floue, étant donné qu’aucune formulation métalangagière n’est proposée. C’est ce que défendait déjà N. M. Petersen en 1870: ‘[The pupil] forms whole complete sentences without knowing which is the subject and which the object; he gradually finds out that he has to give each part of the sentence its correct endings without knowing anything about tense or case …’.35 Cette conscience floue d’une régularité, d’un fonctionnement est à l’origine des notions postérieures de grammaire mentale,36 ou bien de ‘grammaire intériorisée’,37 ou encore d’un enseignement implicite de la grammaire,38 et donc, également, d’‘une assimilation personnelle […] implicite de la règle par le réemploi d’exemples correspondants’.39 Les concepts clés qui servent à rendre compte de cette démarche sont ainsi la spontanéité, la reproduction du processus naturel d’acquisition de la langue maternelle, l’instinct de langue, l’instinct d’imitation, le sentiment langagier, qui sont opposés aux concepts de méthode réflexive, constructive (‘le travail de construction’, Passy, in Laudenbach et al.), 40 ou encore ‘méditative’. 41 33 Howatt & Smith, ‘The History of Teaching English as a Foreign Language, from a British and European Perspective’, 8. 34 Lichtenberger, ‘La méthode directe et son application […]’, 468. 35 Jespersen, How to Teach a Foreign Language, 110-111. 36 Chomsky, Réflexions sur le langage, 22. 37 Besse & Porquier, Grammaires et didactique des langues, 96. 38 Galisson & Coste, Dictionnaire de didactique des langues, 275-276. 39 Puren, Histoire des méthodologies, 132. 40 Ibidem, 33, 35 41 Ibidem, 36.

200 

Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

Une deuxième approche met en relief le processus mécanique (mechanical) et inconscient (unconscious) de la démarche intuitive. C’est du moins ce que certains interprètes de la pensée de H. Sweet mettent en relief; M. Roddis estime que pour H. Sweet, l’acquisition de LVE est principalement un processus mécanique, orienté vers une automatisation langagière. 42 Nous croyons que le contexte de l’époque explique cette interprétation de M. Roddis (où les méthodes audio-orales aux États-Unis, audiovisuelles en France ou la méthode orale ou situationnelle en Grande-Bretagne étaient en plein essor). La pensée didactique de H. Sweet est bien plus élaborée et complexe. Il faut dire tout d’abord que le côté mécanique ne constitue que la première phase (stage) de l’apprentissage d’une LVE (cf. supra), destinée à la maîtrise de la prononciation, clef de voûte du practical study chez H. Sweet. La maîtrise de la prononciation exige chez lui un solide entraînement ou travail préparatoire, où tout doit être appris par cœur, jusqu’à ce que l’élève devienne ‘familiar with the organic basis of the language’;43 chez le professeur, la mise en œuvre de cette phase exige une connaissance excellente du système phonétique de la langue anglaise (dans son cas), et un ‘choix extrêmement soigné des mots et des phrases’ proposés aux apprenants (nous traduisons). H. Sweet fondera l’apprentissage ‘pratique’ (the practical study: le terme study y est révélateur) des langues – par lequel nous apprenons à comprendre, lire, parler, lire et écrire une langue, comme il tient à rappeler au début de son ouvrage –44 sur la loi psychologique de l’association, qui permet de mieux retenir en mémoire les éléments de langage, mieux que par des répétitions; l’approche ‘mécanique’ de H. Sweet ne recherche nullement une automatisation dans les réponses langagières, comme on pourrait penser par l’association que ce terme fait surgir actuellement. Il veut que l’apprenant soit en éveil constant, garde ses facultés d’observation, s’intéresse à ce qui lui est présenté. Cette participation active de l’apprenant (learner) est renforcée par l’attention qu’on lui exige (‘memory depends also on attention, and this partly on the interest taken in the subject’),45 et celle-ci dépend directement de l’intérêt du sujet qui lui est proposé: ‘If the learner is interested in the language itself, that is enough’. 46 42 Roddis, ‘The contemporary relevance of three early works on language teaching methodology’, 336. 43 Sweet, The Practical Study of Language, 118. 44 Ibidem, 1. 45 Ibidem, 112. 46 Ibidem, 113.

L a gr ammaire dans le mouvement de l a réforme

201

Une troisième approche de la démarche intuitive met en jeu les facultés interprétatives et appelle à l’intuition intelligente de l’apprenant. Elle est défendue, outre F. Buisson, par des méthodologues directs tels que M. Bréal et Ch. Schweitzer entre autres. Pour eux, la démarche intuitive va au-delà d’une simple observation de la réalité et met en œuvre de la part de l’élève un travail d’interprétation, quant aux ‘phénomènes de connaissance pure où la passion pure ne semble avoir aucune part’, à travers l’‘étude’ de la mimique et de l’intonation, étant ainsi capable d’‘interpréter des mots abstraits’. 47 Elle implique donc une ‘tension intellectuelle’: ‘Si vous donnez à l’enfant immédiatement le sens en français, vous ne développez pas en lui cette tension intellectuelle. Ce qu’il faut exercer chez l’enfant, suivant l’expression inventée, je crois, par notre ami M. Laudenbach, c’est la divination’. 48 Cette démarche constitue selon ces méthodologues une excellente préparation pour l’appropriation des règles de grammaire. Les multiples exercices prévus pour arriver au sens ont le mérite de ‘multiplier les occasions de conversation, ou du moins de fournir au professeur de nombreuses occasions de parler aux élèves, en exigeant de ceux-ci un effort constant d’attention et de divination’ (Morel), 49 donc ils sont autant d’occasions de mettre en œuvre une ‘gymnastique intellectuelle’ (Karppe),50 c’est-à-dire qu’‘on exige des élèves plus d’attention, plus d’effort, et une gymnastique du cerveau et de l’oreille’ que dans les méthodes antérieures. M. Bréal indique également que les exercices langagiers permettent à l’esprit de l’enfant d’avancer peu à peu, de ‘passer […] de l’état de conception vague à l’état d’idée nette, et par un nouveau progrès, de l’état d’idée nette à l’état de pratique instinctive […]. Les phrases qu’il apprendra et celles qu’il créera lui-même se régleront sur ce modèle’.51 La démarche inductive en grammaire La démarche inductive en grammaire constitue un apport essentiel de la réflexion didactique des méthodologues directs et le terme inductif revient dans leurs nombreux textes. Encore faut-il savoir ce que cette expression veut dire réellement, et comment l’idée est mise à la pratique. Ch. Puren affirme de manière nette que la MD se caractérise – entre autres – par une 47 Schweitzer, ‘Communication faite à la Société’, 67-70. 48 Ibidem, 76. 49 Ibidem, 84. 50 Ibidem, 82. 51 Bréal, De l’enseignement, 46.

202 

Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

procédure inductive des règles grammaticales: ‘à l’application mécanique de la règle dans les exercices de traduction, la MD substitue la découverte de cette règle par les élèves eux-mêmes à partir d’exemples disponibles’.52 Nous estimons de notre côté que cette proposition ne faisait pas l’unanimité des méthodologues directs, et que les implications de cette démarche n’étaient pas toujours correctement perçues. Il est vrai que l’idée de la démarche inductive est prescrite par certains méthodologues; le principe nº4 de l’Association Phonétique Internationale précise ainsi: ‘Il [le maître] enseignera d’abord la grammaire inductivement, comme corollaire et généralisation des faits observés pendant la lecture; une étude plus systématique sera réservée pour la fin’.53 Et, un peu plus loin: ‘C’est en faisant sortir inductivement la grammaire des textes étudiés et appris qu’elle deviendra réellement utile et même attrayante; l’élève y verra ce qu’elle est en effet, la généralisation des lois du langage, et non un recueil de dogmes obscurs exemplifiés par des paradigmes alambiqués; et il prendra naturellement l’habitude, si nécessaire pour ses progrès ultérieurs, d’observer, de généraliser, d’abstraire’.54 La nuance est importante: ‘on fait sortir […] la grammaire des textes’; les élèves sont appelés à ‘observer, généraliser, abstraire’ et ‘verront’ par eux-mêmes que la langue est soumise à des lois et que la grammaire n’est qu’un recueil ou ‘une généralisation des lois du langage’. E. Rochelle et O. Jespersen conseillent de manière nette une méthode pleinement inductive. Jespersen défend que, même dans la phase initiale (consacrée à l’acquisition intuitive de la langue), le professeur doit favoriser l’observation de régularités dans la construction des phrases, mais il s’agit là en principe de faciliter le travail de fixation de ces mécanismes chez l’élève, et de stimuler la tendance naturelle à créer des modèles/types. Dans le modèle qu’il propose, la transition vers un modèle inductif est très fine ou graduée: il se peut que le manuel ne propose aucune démarche d’explicitation consciente de règles, mais que certains élèves (ayant reçu une formation grammaticale explicite dans leur langue maternelle) ressentent le besoin de découvrir (plus ou moins consciemment) le fonctionnement grammatical qui sous-tend le choix des phrases proposées. Dans un deuxième temps, Jespersen conseille de faire découvrir les règles aux élèves eux-mêmes, à partir d’un guidage du professeur, en dégageant les éléments grammaticaux des textes, et parle de ‘grammaire inventive’, en reprenant une expression 52 Puren, Histoire des méthodologies, 132. 53 Passy & Rambeau, ‘Coup d’œil sur nos principes’, 3. 54 Ibidem, 9-10.

L a gr ammaire dans le mouvement de l a réforme

203

utilisée par W.G. Spencer (Inventional Geometry, 1860), dont H. Sweet s’était également fait l’écho:55 Theoretical grammar ought not to be taken up too early, and when it is taken up it is not well to do it in such a way that the pupil is given ready-made paradigms and rules. After the manner of Spencer’s ‘Inventional Geometry’ where the pupil is all the way through led to find out the propositions and proofs for himself, we ought to get an Inventional Grammar.56

De même, E. Rochelle parle de ‘faire découvrir la règle aux élèves’: […] au lieu de formuler une règle a priori, et de dire aux élèves: ‘Voilà ce qu’il faut faire’, nous leur avons fait découvrir cette règle par la comparaison d’une série d’exemples appropriés, et nous n’avons formulée la règle en dernière analyse que comme la constatation d’un fait souvent noté.57

Une méthode réellement inductive est ici proposée: l’élève est associé au processus d’observation et de réflexion sur la langue; il participe à la ‘découverte’ de la règle, le long d’un processus d’observation, de formulation (hypothétique) de la règle, de confrontation à d’autres exemples (généralisation) et finalement, d’abstraction sous forme d’un énoncé précis et clair. Évidemment, il s’agit d’une découverte guidée (en termes actuels): c’est dans degré de participation de l’élève au processus que les divergences surgissent. Quant à H. Sweet (1900)58, la méthode qui lui semble adéquate, et qui peut être pratiquée de manière complémentaire à cette grammaire inventive est la ‘grammaire inductive’ (inductive grammar). Ce procédé n’est pleinement applicable qu’avec des adultes, chez qui tout le potentiel de leur intelligence est pleinement développé; chez les enfants et adolescents, il faut commencer avec quelque chose de plus individuel et concret. Outre la limitation de l’âge, il nous semble que H. Sweet introduit une seconde limitation dans la mise en œuvre de la démarche inductive: il parle de reconnaissance, plutôt que de ‘découverte’. Il limite en effet la démarche inductive à la reconnaissance des formes grammaticales (ce qu’il nomme accidence, formenlehre, en allemand), et qu’il n’étend pas cette pratique à la découverte de règles. 55 Sweet, The Practical Study of Language, 116. 56 Jespersen, How to Teach a Foreign Language, 129. 57 Rochelle, La méthode directe, 35. 58 H. Sweet mérite, certes, à lui tout seul, une considération bien plus grande que celle que nous lui accordons ici, par manque d’espace. Nous nous en excusons: notre but n’est de donner qu’une présentation globale, d’ensemble, de la diversité des positionnements sur le sujet.

204 

Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

Nous avons vu que H. Sweet consacre une phase spécifique à la grammaire qui se dédouble à son tour en deux étapes: une première étape qu’il nomme reconnaissance ou identification (pré-grammaticale), et une deuxième étape, qu’il nomme reproduction ou construction.59 Dans l’étape pré-grammaticale, ‘no grammar is taught, but only the materials on which grammar is based, that is, sentences and short texts’.60 Cependant, […] it is possible to familiarize the pupils with some of its principles almost from the beginning, that is […] as soon as they have met with three of four examples of a certain case or other inflection, the teacher calls their attention on the blackboard, and making them see what these words have in common, as far as is possible without using any technical or abstract terminology.61

En tout cas, nous ne pouvons pas parler d’une démarche inductive par le seul fait que la présentation des exemples précède celle des règles (comme dans la proposition de Bréal).62 Ce n’était pas une idée nouvelle, et cette manière de faire constituait le point central de la démarche pratico-théorique, qui connaît un grand succès au dix-neuvième siècle comme réaction à la méthode grammaire-traduction. Une fois les exemples travaillés en classe, la règle est fournie par le professeur. Il existe ici une association de la règle à des exemples (qui illustrent la règle en question, en tant que l’effet à la cause), ou même une émergence de la règle, mais on ne peut pas vraiment parler d’une démarche inductive. Cette technique associative est perfectionnée par M. Laudenbach: il propose de ‘faire tenir aux élèves ‘un cahier de grammaire’ où des regroupements, complétés au fur et à mesure de l’étude des textes, finissent par constituer ces mêmes corpus de réflexion’.63 À partir de là, l’apprenant inscrit les différentes règles à la suite des exemples, à l’aide d’un cadre fourni par le professeur. Ch. Schweitzer s’en fait l’écho dans la phase ‘Conservation de la grammaire’, propre à la seconde période de la méthode d’apprentissage de la langue: A cet effet, il [Laudenbach] leur met entre les mains des cadres destinés à être remplis à l’aide d’exemples recueillis au cours des exercices de 59 Ibidem, 15. 60 Ibidem, 117. 61 Ibidem, 117. 62 Bréal, De l’enseignement, 74. 63 Puren, Histoire des méthodologies, 147.

L a gr ammaire dans le mouvement de l a réforme

205

la classe. À mesure qu’une case se remplit, la règle correspondante se dégage et devient évidente; formulée à ce moment et inscrite à la suite des exemples, elle en est la synthèse vivante.64

En tout cas, nous sommes loin de la formulation selon laquelle ‘on fait composer la grammaire par les élèves eux-mêmes’ dans l’esprit d’une démarche inductive. Nous devons finalement distinguer entre niveau des positionnements théoriques et le niveau des réalisations pratiques rencontrées dans les manuels. M. Brebner retient, parmi les traits essentiels qui caractérisent la nouvelle méthode, que: ‘Grammar is taught inductively’,65 et que ‘No separate grammar-lessons are now given in the earlier stages. Less grammar is taught, but it is taught inductively’.66 Plus loin, comme conclusion du chapitre 2 sur Grammar and composition,67 elle indique que ‘Less grammar is taught, but taught more rationally, more attractively and more thoroughly’.68 Cependant, parmi les nombreux procédés qu’elle retient, aucun d’entre eux ne fait référence à une démarche vraiment inductive, mais plutôt à une pratique répétitive où une phrase modèle subit une série de transformations (à l’aide de questions où l’élève doit changer la personne ou le temps du verbe, les prépositions), la règle étant énoncée après que les exemples/phrases aient été travaillées.69 Nous voyons donc qu’une méthode vraiment inductive n’est point mise en œuvre, rien qu’une juxtaposition de deux phases: une phrase, ou plusieurs phrases, qui possèdent le rôle d’exemplifier une règle, sont présentées et travaillées, puis la règle qui sous-tend cette phrase est présentée aux élèves, et le travail langagier continue. Un rapide survol, de notre côté, d’une série de manuels (Alge & Rippman, Berlitz, De Valette, Krause, Camerlynck …) nous fait arriver à la même conclusion. La composition de manuels, en effet, doit faire face à des contraintes particulières, dont les exigences de la maison d’édition et la fixation du cursus dans chacun des pays.70 Mais aussi, une démarche 64 Schweitzer, ‘Communication faite à la Société’, 30. 65 Brebner, The Method of Teaching Modern Languages in Germany, 3. 66 Ibidem, 3. 67 Ibidem, 17-23. 68 Ibidem, 23. 69 Ibidem, 6. 70 Une étude serait ainsi à faire sur la manière où les instructions officielles des différents pays européens ont fait correspondre dans les différents cours les phases de l’acquisition de la LVE proposées par les divers méthodologues, ainsi que le contenu grammatical lui-même, et s’ils donnent des précisions sur la démarche inductive en grammaire.

206 

Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

inductive en grammaire rencontre des difficultés d’ordre pratique (lenteur du processus, existence chez les élèves d’une culture grammaticale en L1, non-préparation de la plupart des professeurs, etc.). Il est vrai finalement que les procédés inductifs, dans leur détail, peuvent difficilement être reproduits dans le manuel de l’élève, et que les méthodologues destinent ces conseils aux professeurs; en l’absence d’un livre du professeur, ils sont fournis dans les revues spécialisées ou les traités didactiques, à portée limitée.

Conclusion Plusieurs tendances peuvent être distinguées parmi les méthodologues directs quant à l’enseignement de la grammaire. Les uns excluent toute réflexion dans la première phase de l’apprentissage d’une LVE, et l’appréhension des règles par l’élève reste dans l’état d’ébauche, en deçà de la conscience puisqu’elles ne sont pas explicitées par des mots; l’élève acquiert ainsi une grammaire intuitive ou le ‘sentiment de la langue’. Pour d’autres, la pratique de la langue cherche à produire et à fixer en mémoire des associations mentales d’ordre langagier, en privilégiant le côté répétitif, mécanique, en accordant une large place à la mémorisation. D’autres encore admettent et ‘développe[nt] cette sûreté de coup d’œil intellectuel chez l’enfant’,71 et le poussent à une perception intelligente de la réalité langagière qui lui est présentée, allant même jusqu’à associer l’élève à une réflexion sur le fonctionnement de la langue et à la découverte (guidée) des règles (pour le dire en termes actuels). Ainsi, la réflexion déclenchée par les méthodologues directs sur l’enseignement de la grammaire dans les LVE remue les solides fondements de la grammaire. La grammaire n’est pas conçue par eux comme un tout, comme ‘un certain fonctionnement interne caractéristique d’une langue donnée’ ou comme ‘l’explicitation plus ou moins méthodique de ce fonctionnement’.72 Ce sont certaines règles de grammaire, celles dont l’élève a besoin pour comprendre et parler la langue étrangère courante, et, dans une seconde phase, pour l’écrire, qui font uniquement l’objet de l’apprentissage, et méritent l’attention des méthodologues et des professeurs. Une nouvelle sélection du contenu et une nouvelle gradation des apprentissages s’imposent donc. En outre, les concepts de grammaire intuitive (qui annonce l’expression de grammaire mentale, de grammaire interne à l’apprenant) et de démarche inductive mettent en relief un rôle complètement différent de 71 Buisson, Dictionnaire de pédagogie, 349. 72 Besse & Porquier, Grammaires et didactique des langues, 11.

L a gr ammaire dans le mouvement de l a réforme

207

la règle grammaticale (et donc, de la grammaire) psychologiquement et didactiquement parlant. La grammaire acquiert une raison d’être opposée à celle qui lui était octroyée traditionnellement. Elle n’a plus comme ambition de décrire le plus fidèlement et le plus complètement possible (de manière positiviste) la réalité langagière extérieure (dans la multiplicité de réalisations, diachroniques, diastratiques ou diaphasiques). Les règles de grammaire ne sont pas – pour les méthodologues directs – des savoirs abstraits, susceptibles de veiller à la correction d’une production langagière éventuelle (en réalité, scolairement déterminée). Elles doivent servir plutôt à ‘sanctionner un ordre de choses senti nécessaire’ par l’élève lui-même.73 Disons finalement que la réflexion entreprise sur le rôle de la grammaire va nourrir la linguistique française du vingtième siècle, par une ouverture vers une sémantisation de la grammaire, vers l’établissement de rapports à la psychologie (au sujet qui parle) et la sociologie (le sujet social): […] l’élaboration de la stylistique puis de la ‘théorie de la l’énonciation’ au début de Linguistique générale et linguistique française (1932) éclaire cette ‘sémantisation’ de la grammaire pour la distinction et la synthèse de la forme et du sens, confondus dans les modèles grammaticaux dominants sur le terrain scolaire. Il convient de relier explicitement ce souci d’ouverture et de nouvelle disposition au développement d’un thème particulièrement sensible que Bally nomme le ‘sens’ grammatical et Brunot le ‘sentiment’ grammatical et que tous deux replacent dans la vocation culturelle de l’étude des langues. L’un, Bally, pose clairement la question du rapport entre ‘penser grammaticalement’ et la ‘culture de l’esprit’; l’autre, Brunot, s’interroge en ces termes: ‘En quoi la grammaire peut-elle servir la culture’?74

Bibliographie Berlitz, M.D., Premier livre pour l’enseignement du français (Berlin: Siegfried Cronbach, [1915] 2851924). Besse, Henri & Porquier, Rémy, Grammaires et didactique des langues (Paris: Hatier, 1984). Bréal, Michel, De l’enseignement des langues vivantes. Conférences faites aux étudiants en lettres de la Sorbonne (Paris: Hachette, 1893) 73 Laudenbach, La méthode directe, 14. 74 Chiss, ‘À partir de Bally et de Brunot: la langue française, les savants et les pédagogues’, 20.

208 

Javier Suso López and Irene Valdés Melguizo

Brebner, Mary, The Method of Teaching Modern Languages in Germany (London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1898). Buisson, Ferdinand, Dictionnaire de pédagogie et d’instruction primaire ([1887]2011) http://www.inrp.fr/edition-electronique/lodel/dictionnaire-ferdinand-buisson/ (consulté 02 /02/2018). Cartwright, Th., French by the Direct Method. Adapted from the German of Rossmann and Schmidt (London: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 51908). Chiss, Jean-Louis, ‘À partir de Bally et de Brunot: la langue française, les savants et les pédagogues’, Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 17/I (1995) 19-40. Chomsky, Noam, Réflexions sur le langage (Reflections on Language, New York: Pantheon Books, 1975; Paris: Flammarion, 1981) Collard, François, La méthode directe dans l’enseignement des langues vivantes (Bruxelles: Alfred Castaigne, 31904). Conférences pédagogiques faites aux instituteurs primaires venus à Paris pour l’exposition universelle de 1878 (Paris: Hachette, 1878). Firmery, Joseph, ‘La réforme de l’enseignement des langues vivantes’, Revue politique et parlementaire (10 octobre 1902), 60-76. Galisson, Robert & Coste, Daniel, Dictionnaire de Didactique des langues (Paris: Hachette, 1974). Howatt, Anthony, P. R. & Smith, Richard, ‘The History of Teaching English as a Foreign Language, from a British and European Perspective’, Language and History, 57/1 (2014) 75-95. Jespersen, Otto, How to Teach a Foreign Language (London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. Ltd; New York: The MacMillan Co, 1904) Laudenbach, H. & Passy, P. & Delobel, G., La méthode directe dans l’enseignement des langues vivantes (Paris: A. Colin, 1899). Lichtenberger, H., ‘La méthode directe et son application […]’, Revue de l’Enseignement des Langues Vivantes, 1 (1903) 465-471. Passy, J. & Rambeau, A., ‘Coup d’œil sur nos principes’, Le Maître Phonétique, 12e année, nº1 (1897) 3-10. Puren, Christian, Histoire des méthodologies de l’enseignement des langues (Paris: Nathan, 1988) https://cvc.cervantes.es/literatura/cauce/pdf/cauce29/cauce29_18. pdf (consulté 05/03/2018). Rochelle, Ernest, La méthode directe dans l’enseignement des langues vivantes (Bordeaux: G. Delmas, 1906). Roddis, Miles F. ‘The contemporary relevance of three early works on language teaching methodology [Sweet, Jespersen, Palmer …]’, IRAL (International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching) 6/4 (1968) 333-347. Schweitzer, Charles, Méthodologie des langues vivantes. Notes prises aux Conférences faites à la Sorbonne (Paris: Armand Colin, 1903a).

L a gr ammaire dans le mouvement de l a réforme

209

Schweitzer, Charles, ‘Communication faite à la Société des Professeurs de Langues vivantes’. Bulletin mensuel – Société des professeurs de langues vivantes de l’enseignement public, 3 (Compte rendu de la réunion du 2 juillet, 1903b), 65-89. Sweet, Henry, The Practical Study of Language: A Guide for Teachers and Learners (New York: Henry Holt, [1899]1900). Veyssier, Eugène, De la méthode pour l’enseignement scolaire des langues vivantes (Paris: Belin frères, 1898). Viëtor, Wilhelm, Der Sprachunterricht muss umkehren! Ein Beitrag zur Überbürdungsfrage von Quousque Tandem (Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger, 1882).

About the authors Javier Suso López is a professor – HDR – at the University of Granada (Spain). His areas of research are: History of Linguistic Ideas, History of teaching of French as a foreign language, Linguistics, French Grammar. Email: [email protected] Irene Valdés Melguizo is a lecturer-researcher at the University of Granada (Spain). Her areas of research are: Teaching and learning of French as a foreign language for Spanish-speaking learners, Linguistics, French Grammar. Email: [email protected]

11. Grammar in English schools: a century of decline and rebirth Richard Hudson

Abstract The survey of grammar teaching in foreign language (FL) teaching starts in 1920 with some important government reports on the teaching of language, and ends in 2016 with another report on pedagogy in FL teaching. In between these points, we find two significant dates: 1951, when O-level and A-level were introduced as the official school-leaving qualification for 16-year olds; and 1988, when O-level and CSE were merged into the present GCSE exam. Grammar instruction was important in the 1920s, contested in the 1950s, almost dead in the 1980s, and reviving in the 2010s. These changes are linked to English teaching, undergraduate FL syllabuses, and the target population for FL teaching. Keywords: communicative teaching, grammar-translation, direct method, examination, school, university

Teaching grammar in the twentieth century This chapter spans the century from 1920 to 2020 and includes a great deal of profound change in the role of grammar in foreign-language (FL) teaching. In 1920, grammar teaching was already established in the teaching of both English and FL, albeit only in grammar schools. English lessons taught children a great deal about the details of English grammar, and, when taught well, children learned the very demanding intellectual activities of parsing and analysis. This activity equipped them with a great deal of grammatical terminology which, in at least some cases, could be recycled in the FL classroom; and indeed, English teachers generally accepted that one of their aims in teaching grammar was to prepare children for learning FL.

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch11

212 

Richard Hudson

By 2020, the situation is very different. For various reasons reviewed below, English teachers lost enthusiasm for teaching grammar, and grammar teaching is generally absent from the secondary English classroom. More recently, a small amount of very elementary grammar has recently started to be taught to all children in primary school, and even tested by the statutory tests of spelling, punctuation and grammar; but this is justified solely by its benefits for English writing, so the link between English grammar and FL grammar has gone. Not surprisingly, perhaps, FL teachers also reduced their direct teaching of FL grammar, so any grammatical concepts, rules or even terminology that children learn in the FL classroom are incidental to the main aim, which is communicative skill.1 Meanwhile, of course, our understanding of grammar has been transformed. In 1920, there was virtually no study of grammar in our universities (though such study had existed in the nineteenth century), so by and large teachers taught what they had themselves been taught as school children – with all that that means in terms of dogma and content. In 2020, in contrast, we have linguistics, where grammar is a lively area of research and ideas. What is still missing is a strong bridge between academic grammar and schools, but at least the universities have something better to offer than in 1920.

The 1920s In 1920, English grammar was already established as part of the curiculum for every elementary school2 (the state schools which kept children until they were 14), even though these children were never likely to study a FL. But it was also taught in the grammar schools (and the newly created secondary schools) where FL were taught. Rather astonishingly, one of the issues that concerned the British Prime Minister in the middle of the First World War was education. In 1917, Lloyd George commissioned two major reports, both of which were published, with admirable speed, in 1918: the Thomson report on science, and the Leathes report on foreign languages (FL). In 1919 his government commissioned two further major reports, both of which were published in 1921: the Crewe report on classics, and the Newbolt report on English. Even more remarkably, three of these four reports looked at language education: FL, classics and 1 McLelland, The Teaching and Learning. 2 Board of Education, 53

Gr ammar in English schools: a century of decline and rebirth

213

English. One might think that this indicated a coherent global view of the importance and interconnectedness of languages, but whatever the intention, the result was three completely separate reports. Neither of the 1921 reports even mentions the earlier Leathes report. However, all three language reports discuss the teaching of grammar, presenting a clear picture of a rather muddled world in which grammar bound all the subjects together, albeit with disagreements. One such was the question of whose responsibility it was to teach the basic grammatical terminology on which both classics and FL teachers built. As expected, whereas both the classicists and the FL teachers were convinced that grammatical analysis should start in English, the English teachers were much less sure. The Newbolt report on English includes a whole section entitled ‘The problem of grammar’, reflecting the current uncertainties about grammar teaching in English which resonate strongly with the situation a century later. Finally the whole matter was complicated by the requirements of the teachers of foreign languages. Ought the English teacher to prepare the ground for his [sic] colleagues who take Latin, French, Greek, and German?3

Another major issue concerned grammatical terminology, on which a Joint Committee on Grammatical Terminology had published a report in 1911 recommending a unified terminology for use in teaching the grammar of all languages. 4 The Leathes report on FL supported the idea enthusiastically, as did the reports on English and the classics, and there is no doubt that this issue spoke to the mood of the times. Indeed, the movement for a unified grammatical terminology took strong hold not only in England but also in France, Germany, Austria and the USA5 . But for all its apparent attractions, the project for a unified terminology petered out and teachers went on teaching with the terminology that they themselves had learned at school. How, then, was grammar taught in the FL classrooms of the 1920s? To simplify a complex picture,6 the dominant method in the second half of the nineteenth century (and invented in Prussia) was the Grammar-Translation method, whose innovation had been to support individual rules of grammar 3 Board of Education, 281 4 Joint committee on Grammatical Terminology 5 Walmsley, ‘The Sonnenschein v. Jespersen Controversy’. 6 McLelland, The Teaching and Learning, 95-105

214 

Richard Hudson

by intense practice using artificially constructed sentences. This method persisted in many schools into the 1920s. The main goal was literacy (reading and writing) in the target language rather than fluency in speaking or listening, and the medium of instruction was the first language, English. However, the Grammar-Translation method of teaching already had a strong competitor in the Direct Method, which had developed in the late nineteenth century as a method for teaching spoken language skills to those who needed them: adults and girls7. This was the precursor of the Communicative Approach that dominated the end of the twentieth century. Both approaches assume that grammar can be learned inductively, i.e. by the learner inducing the correct generalizations from examples, in contrast with the deductive learning in the Grammar-Translation method. In short, a really pure application of the Direct Method would leave no place at all for grammar teaching. However, Leathes reports a survey of schools that suggests that pure applications were rare. One sentence from Leathes is particularly telling: ‘If only six periods a week can be given to it, it is illusory to hope that children can be got to ‘think in French’.’’8 A hundred years later, the idea of six lessons per week for French is a dream for most pupils and teachers, so it’s not unreasonable to think of the 1920s as halcyon days for FL teaching. But, however contentious it may have been at the time, explicit teaching of grammar was taken for granted. For instance, at least until the 1930s, examination papers might include questions requiring explicit explanation of grammatical facts, e.g. ‘What are the rules for the use of the pronouns moi, toi, soi, lui, nous, vous, eux’ or ‘cette petite troupe fut entourée. Write this sentence in the plural’.9

Given the popularity of the rival Direct Method, it may seem strange that the Grammar-Translation method continued to be so influential. The explanation may well be as follows: The approach had two advantages: one ideological and one practical. First, it treated modern languages the same as the much more prestigious Latin – and therefore as potentially no less valuable to a liberal education and to rigorous mental training. Second, it protected the English teachers 7 McLelland, Teaching and Learning, 105-107 8 Leathes, 54 9 Mclelland, ‘The history of language learning’, 9

Gr ammar in English schools: a century of decline and rebirth

215

of modern languages in public schools – who, in the early days at least, were unlikely to have any real conf idence in speaking the language themselves – from exposing their weakness compared to a native-speaker master.10

Why were teachers so weak in using the target language? At least part of the answer lies in the universities. At that time, an Honours degree only lasted two years (though it might be preceded by an ‘Intermediate’ period of study intended to bring school leavers up to the level expected at university). Worse still, most of the time in these courses was devoted either to literature or to philology (i.e. history of the language), with literature as the preferred option for future school teachers; 11 and the university examinations followed suit by giving little credit for language skills12 . Bearing in mind that there was no compulsory year abroad, it is clear that a degree course would do little for the language skills of an undergraduate and future teacher. Indeed, the uncertainties about teaching methods can also be laid at the door of the universities: […] the failure of the Universities to take an interest in the teaching of languages or the problems facing the schools; there was for example almost no serious research in method between the wars and a similar neglect of in-service training for language teachers.13

Turning to the broader educational context, the most important fact about FL teaching is that most school children never learned any foreign language. FL teaching, unlike most other curriculum subjects other than classics, was restricted to a small academic minority who attended state-funded grammar schools, the small number of recently created state-funded secondary schools or fee-paying schools. This small world of schools that did offer FL teaching took it very seriously. Every school leaver, whether at 16 or at 18, was required to take examinations in at least one foreign language. Furthermore, FL teaching seems to have been relatively closely integrated both across the subjects and across the sectors (at least when compared with the fragmentation of the 2010s). The clearest evidence 10 McLelland, ‘The history of language learning’, 11-12 11 McLelland, Teaching and Learning, 200 12 Ibidem, 203 13 Hawkins, Modern Languages, 137

216 

Richard Hudson

is the creation in 1892 of the Modern Language Association (not to be confused with its American namesake which had been founded in 1883), whose membership by 1911 had reached 1,00014 , including both school teachers and academics, and covering both English and FL.15 In contrast, the modern Assocation for Language Learning, into which the Modern Language Association merged in 1990, is almost exclusively for school teachers of FL. To summarize, then, the 1920s was a period of contrasts. Most schools did not teach foreign languages, but those that did provided obligatory FL classes for all, with generous allocations of time and a thorough training especially in reading and writing. The dominant pedagogy was the GrammarTranslation Method, though the grammar content was conservative because of the lack of updating in degree courses. Meanwhile, however, many school teachers at least paid lip service to the goals of the Direct Method, even if they combined it with instruction in grammar.

The 1950s The significant event that separates the 1950s from earlier years was the introduction in 1951 of the General Certificate of Education (GCE) to replace the School Certificate. Both qualifications were offered at two levels, for those aged 16 and 18, but otherwise they were very different. The School Certificate, at both levels, was a single qualification which (as explained above) required at least a pass in a wide range of subjects, some Main and others Subsidiary, in contrast with the GCE, which offered a wide range of different subjects each of which constituted an independent qualification. In the terminology of restaurants, the School Certificate offered a fixed menu with some choice, while the GCE was à la carte. The motivation for this change was to avoid the apparent unfairness of candidates performing well in some subjects but failing to win a certificate because of weaknesses elsewhere. This move has since been criticized by many, and justified by few. In historical perspective, the most striking feature of the School Certificate was that it was a grouped award. To obtain School Certificate or, later, Higher School Certificate, a candidate had to pass a number of different 14 McLelland, ‘The history of language learning’, 9. 15 Anderson, Modern Language Teaching.

Gr ammar in English schools: a century of decline and rebirth

217

subjects […] rather than […] gaining separate certificates for each [subject]. In this, the Certificate was far more in the European and indeed global mainstream than the examinations which succeeded it. The schoolleaving certificates of almost every contemporary European country – for example the German Abitur, the French Baccalaureate – require the student to complete, successfully, a range of subjects. The same is true for high school graduation in the USA. Until 1950, England and Wales were firmly within this tradition.16

Whatever the intention, the result was a considerable narrowing of the curriculum for 18-year olds as the Subsidiary subjects disappeared. Returning to Eric Hawkins: The abrupt dropping of the Subsidiary papers, without consultation, caused an outcry from the schools. These papers had steadily grown in prestige. … the Subsidiary papers were clearly encouraging non-specialists not to drop their language at 16.17

The modern parallel is obvious: the one-year AS (Advanced Subsidiary) examination favoured languages, so its removal in 2015 was another nail in the coffin of FL at Advanced level. Perhaps unexpectedly, the immediate effect at the Advanced level was to encourage an extreme specialization which favoured languages. This is the world in which I went to school, a generation later than Eric Hawkins, and my experience, so far as I know, was typical of many. I attended a state-funded grammar school (in Loughborough, a small town in Leicestershire), where I fell in love with languages. In the Sixth form (i.e. the last two years of school, dedicated to the Advanced level examinations), I faced a very simple choice: science, humanities or languages, so I joined the languages group. About a dozen of us opted to study nothing but languages: French, German and Latin. This suited us fine, but the price we paid for this treat was a very narrow diet which included no maths, no science, no history, no English literature. But on the positive side, we all emerged with A-levels in at least two languages, and enthusiasm for an FL degree course. Meanwhile, of course, other major changes were affecting the national education system, though we were still lagging woefully behind our 16 Wolf, ‘Qualifications and assessment’, 212. 17 Hawkins, Drop Out, 30.

218 

Richard Hudson

international competitors. The most obvious change was a sharp increase in the number of children who left school with some kind of qualification: The number of pupils entered for the first examination [i.e. the School Certificate] in England and Wales increased from 28,800 in 1919 to 99,900 in 1950. The total number of candidates for the Higher School Certificate increased from 3,200 in 1920 to 34,400 in 1950.18

But in spite of this increase, about half of all pupils still left school without any qualification at all – according to one estimate, the figure was still 42% in 1972.19 For FL learning, these figures represent a considerable increase in the number of children learning a foreign language, with growing numbers at Advanced level: Until the middle 1960s, the numbers of sixth formers opting for modern languages had grown steadily, but about 1965 the tide turned.20

In 1965, there were 34,919 entries for French, German and Spanish combined.21 The super-specialization of the 1950s had one benefit for FL teaching: a pupil (like me) who took several languages at A-level was almost bound to go on to take a language-based BA degree, which meant they could then return to school education as a school teacher; so the supply of future FL teachers was much safer than in the 2020s. As for the teaching of grammar, the picture was much the same as for 1920. In my experience, grammar was taught explicitly, as was vocabulary, with homework for learning vocabulary or irregular verbs to be tested the next day; and translation in both directions was the main measure of progress. We built a very solid foundation in the grammar of French, German and Latin, which was all the more solid for being reinforced across languages; so having learned about auxiliary verbs in French we visited them in German. But looking back the striking feature of this education was the lack of comparison between languages: at no point can I remember any teacher comparing the grammatical rules or systems of two languages – and that in spite of the fact that two of my Latin teachers also taught me English. It 18 Bolton, 11. 19 Wrigley, The Rise and Fall of the GCSE: A Class History. 20 Hawkins, Modern Languages, 13. 21 Hawkins, A Statistical Picture, 388.

Gr ammar in English schools: a century of decline and rebirth

219

was only a decade or so later that I learned that French and English differ in the rules for inverting the verb and its subject: inversion is possible in French only for pronoun subjects and in English only for auxiliary verbs. The picture of the 1950s painted here, then, is reasonably rosy for FL teaching in general, and for grammar teaching in particular. Meanwhile, however, trouble was brewing outside the FL community. English teachers were still doubting the value of grammar teaching, and although in the 1950s grammar was still taught and tested in an optional question in the O-level English paper (taken at 16), by about 1965 it disappeared altogether, as we shall see in the next section.

The 1980s The school world of the 1980s was very different from that of the 1950s, thanks in large part to comprehensivization – the introduction of comprehensive secondary schools to replace the previous distinction between grammar schools (for the academic) and ‘secondary modern’ schools (for the rest). This change was introduced in 1965 by the Labour government, whose election manifesto promised that secondary education will be reorganized on comprehensive lines. Within the new system, grammar school education will be extended: in future no child will be denied the opportunity of benefiting from it through arbitrary selection at the age of 11.22

This bold promise implied not only that every school would be raised to the standard of a grammar school, but that it would also offer a grammar-school education: the grammar school curriculum and its pedagogy were ‘transferred wholesale, and without serious modification’ (Simon 1991:303) into the new comprehensive schools.23

One of the many consequences of this revolution was that comprehensive schools offered foreign languages under the enthusiastic banner of ‘Languages for All’. 22 Gillard, Education in England: A History, chapter 12. 23 Ibidem.

220 

Richard Hudson

The comprehensivization movement sought to extend much of the grammar school curriculum to a wider public, and language educators were confronted with a ‘democritization’ challenge, to which they rose with considerable enthusiasm. (In the 1960s, it must be noted, […] these events coincided with prolonged UK efforts to join the European Community.)24 By the late 1970s, some 85% of pupils in comprehensive schools were starting a modern language. No other subject had to make such an abrupt adjustment.25

Another consequence affected examinations: to extend the privilege of a school-leaving qualification more widely, a new examination called the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) was created in 1965, but made the position even worse. There were now two distinct exams running in parallel – GCE for the top twenty per cent of the ability range and CSE for the next twenty per cent, […]26

Moreover, this still left 60% of school leavers without a qualification. Two decades later, in 1988, yet another reform replaced both the old GCE O-level exam and the new CSE by a single new examination, the General Certificate of Education (GCSE), which is still with us in 2020, and is now taken, at least in principle, by the entire ability range; so at least we now have a ‘qualification for all’. Three other features of the 1980s, one negative, one mixed and one positive, are relevant to FL teaching, and to grammar teaching in particular. The negative feature was in English teaching. By the 1980s English was much more firmly established than it had been in 1920, and maybe because of this strength English no longer saw itself as having anything to do with FL teaching. For example, unlike the 1921 Newbolt report, the 1975 Bullock report on English teaching recommends ‘Language across the curriculum’, the idea that every teacher is a teacher of language;27 but what astonished modern linguists about the Bullock Report was the complete absence from its 600 pages of any reference to foreign languages in the curriculum or to the fact that we live in a polyglot world …. The 24 Mitchell, ‘Rationales for foreign language education’, 116. 25 Hawkins, Modern Languages, ix 26 Gillard, Education in England: A History, chapter 12. 27 Bullock, A Language for Life.

Gr ammar in English schools: a century of decline and rebirth

221

Bullock solution ‘language across the curriculum’ turned out to mean ‘half-way across the curriculum’.28 Until recently, writers on modern languages have taken for granted a curriculum in which the foreign language and the mother tongue were taught in isolation from each other, by teachers educated and trained in separate faculties, who enjoyed no dialogue across the curriculum fence and who often used different terms when discussing language with children.29

How different from the 1920s and the attempts to harmonise grammatical terminology! This estrangement of English and FL teaching meant that one possible motivation for teaching English grammar had been removed, so English teachers no longer wondered, as they had done in 1920, whether they ought to teach it for the sake of their FL colleagues. In fact, the range of possible motivations had been reduced to a single one: improving writing; but a series of research projects had shown that it was easy to teach grammar in such a way that it had no impact on the quality of writing, so most English teachers stopped teaching it altogether.30 Predictably, their FL colleagues objected, but to no avail. The mixed feature of the 1980s is the abandonment of the ‘languages sixth form’ of my days, when school leavers tended to select subjects from the same general area of study – all languages, all sciences or all humanities. By the 1980s it had become normal to combine very different subjects, so a student would study just one language, along with a range of sciences or humanities. This change was welcome in general terms, as a move away from the rigid divisions of the 1950s, but for languages it had the effect of reducing the opportunities for comparing languages, at least unconsciously if not by explicit classroom discussion; and for grammar teaching the effect was to reduce the mutual reinforcement of different languages. The positive feature of the 1980s is the rise of linguistics, the science of language. By 1980, most universities had a department of linguistics, or at least a strong presence of linguistics, including (of course) applied linguistics – the subject most directly relevant to FL teaching. The sudden growth of linguistics was encouraged by the rise of English as the world language and the need for improved ways of teaching it. Linguistics fed into 28 Hawkins, Modern Languages, 34 29 Ibidem, xi. 30 Hudson & Walmsley, ‘The English Patient: English grammar and teaching in the twentieth century’.

222 

Richard Hudson

two separate (and largely incompatible) movements: the Communicative Approach, and Language Awareness. Communicative teaching, as its name suggests, focuses on communication, where it follows linguistics in recognising the importance of things that go beyond conventional grammar, and in particular, pragmatic principles and sociolinguistic constraints. It was developed by British applied linguists in the 1970s, and was seen by many as a replacement for teaching based on explicit grammar teaching. As mentioned earlier, in many ways it was a reincarnation of the earlier Direct Method, but under very different circumstances: where FL had to be taught to all pupils, and not just to adults and the most academic pupils; and where English teachers were providing no foundations in grammar for any pupils, whether academic or not. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the Communicative Approach was welcomed with open arms as the stone that would kill two or three birds at once. And of course the result for grammar teaching was that it stopped. Explicit teaching of rules gave way to the hope that children would be able to work out the rules for themselves provided that they had enough experience of authentic and interesting material in the target language – an exceedingly optimistic approach given that the number of hours for a language in secondary school had reduced to about two and a half per week.31 We shall see in the next section that the experiment produced negative results – in short, it failed. Language Awareness, in contrast, stresses the need for ‘awareness’ – conscious and explicit knowledge – about language structure and language use; and, in reaction against the fragmentation of language education, it encourages the explicit comparison of foreign languages with the native language. Here is its manifesto as laid out by its principle architect and exponent, Eric Hawkins: The way forward, we suggest, is for teachers of English and of foreign languages to cooperate in planning, and jointly teaching, a coherent language course which would have three elements: i. study of the mother tongue (generally but not always English) ii. study of a foreign language chosen for its suitability as apprenticeship in language learning iii. a course in ‘awareness of language’ taught in collaboration by teachers of mother tongue and foreign language, and to which pupils from a variety of language backgrounds could make a positive contribution.32 31 Hawkins, Modern Languages, 4. 32 Ibidem, xi.

Gr ammar in English schools: a century of decline and rebirth

223

A central part of this language awareness would, of course, be grammatical analysis. However, in the 1980s this was just a pipe dream, though it inspired a number of brave experiments. The grim reality was that most children were expected to learn foreign languages without being taught grammar explicitly, but failed to work out the grammar for themselves.

The 2010s As we approach the 2020s, the single most important fact about FL teaching is that it is in crisis, and failing. The crisis is most clearly manifested in the falling number of entries at Advanced level. This is the most important measure of success in FL teaching because A-level is the f irst public examination where pupils choose completely freely. The choice of a 15-year old is a verdict on the quality of the teaching received to date, as well as a judgement influenced possibly by adult views of what will be useful in later life. A-level figures are also relevant because they predict applications for FL degrees which in turn predict applications to train as FL teachers. The relevant figures are summarized in [bijschrift] Figure 11.1, which shows the number of entries for the three main foreign languages (French, German and Spanish) combined. The dotted line shows a very clear trend which continues the decline reported by Hawkins in 1987 as ‘the downward spiral in language provision at both school and university levels, which set in in the mid-1960s’.33 It is very clear that the problem is long-standing, in spite of the temporary boost in the late 1980s (which is presumably due to the new GCSE exam which greatly increased the number of language entries for 16-year olds). These figures can be seen as the results of a costly experiment in how to provide ‘languages for all’. The experiment combines many challenging factors, including a very small amount of teaching time for FL. The 2.5 hours recorded in the 1980s translates into just 5% of total teaching time in lower secondary schools, which, according to an OECD report, is less than in any other OECD country34 . In contrast, science gets 12%, mathematics 13% and social studies 14%. Even if there was a chance that the Direct Method might work for many in the 1920s with six hours a week, its successor Communicative Teaching, free of direct grammar teaching, was doomed 33 Hawkins, Modern Languages, 13. 34 OECD, Education at a Glance.

224 

Richard Hudson

Figure 11.1  All UK A-level entries for French, German and Spanish

French + German + Spanish 50000 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1965

1975

1985

1995

2005

2015

to failure with less than half that amount of time. The critical factor must surely be the views of the teenage pupils who decide whether or not to continue studying a foreign language. When a group investigating the FL crisis asked pupils why they had decided to drop FL, the most common answer was that languages are ‘boring’ and ‘difficult’35 . However, this review must end on a note of hope – foreign languages are too important for despair. And there are indeed some rays of hope. One is the Bauckham Report of 2016, which marks the end of the century as the Leathes report marked its beginning.36 This report was produced by a committee chaired by Ian Bauckham for the Teaching Schools Council (a government-funded body). The remit of the committee was to report on pedagogy in FL teaching (rather than on the curriculum, which had already been f ixed in 2014 by a new National Curriculum), and for our purposes the most important outcome was support for explicit grammatical instruction: Pupils need to gain systematic knowledge of the vocabulary, grammar, and sound and spelling systems (phonics) of their new language, and how 35 Dearing & King, Languages Review. 36 Bauckham, Modern Foreign Languages Pedagogy Review.

Gr ammar in English schools: a century of decline and rebirth

225

these are used by speakers of the language. They need to reinforce this knowledge with extensive planned practice and use in order to build the skills needed for communication.37

This recommendation summarizes the standard practice of a century earlier. Moreover, the government has created a national centre (the National Centre for Excellence in Languages Pedagogy) to promote the report’s recommendations. Another reason for optimism is that grammar teaching has been reintroduced into English in the form of an obligatory test of grammatical knowledge taken by all pupils at the end of key stage 2 (i.e. at the age of 10 or 11). One of the major changes since the 1980s was the introduction of a National Curriculum in 1991, and this test of Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation is based on an appendix on grammar in the 2013 version of the National Curriculum38 which requires pupils to learn about 40 elementary grammatical terms and their meanings39. Primary teachers have worked hard to fill the gaps in their own knowledge about grammar and the test results indicate successful teaching. Consequently the Bauckham Report makes the obvious connection for FL teachers: Languages teachers should know and build on the grammar taught in the key stage 2 national curriculum for English. 40

Unfortunately, the National Curriculum for English says very little about grammar teaching in secondary schools, so the fate of the grammatical terminology in children’s memories depends on whether it is used at secondary level in either or (preferably) both of English and FL classes. A further reason to be hopeful is the good will shown by the professional associations for school teachers of both English and FL (the National Association for Teachers of English and the Association for Language Learning – NATE and ALL). In 2015, both associations agreed with the Committee for Linguistics in Education that their members would benefit from collaborating, and in particular from collaborating in the teaching of grammar. This led to a short article for teachers which was jointly published

37 Ibidem, 3 38 Anon, National Curriculum 39 The terms are listed in an article at https://clie.org.uk/fl-eng/#article. 40 Ibidem, 3

226 

Richard Hudson

by their magazines for teachers. 41 The first paragraph defines a promising future: The latest version of the National Curriculum for England creates an ideal moment for teachers with a focus on language to come together and exchange experiences and views on common issues in our programmes of study. Ideally this will result in a shared, joined-up understanding for teachers, and positive outcomes for learners and users of language, whatever that language may be.

Whether this well-meaning call to action will achieve anything remains to be seen, but at least the leaders of the teachers recognize the issue. At present there is unfortunately no sign of any such recognition in university departments of English and Modern Languages, which remain as isolated from one another as ever. And f inally I note a great deal of good will among my colleagues in linguistics and applied linguistics, who are generally aware of the crisis in FL studies and keen to help. This has led to a number of positive actions by academics, including a number of university-based centres for sharing linguistics (including grammar) with schools. One particularly quixotic, but possibly doomed, project was the creation in 2015 of a glossary of grammatical terminology recommended for use in school and approved by the Linguistics Association.42 The glossary is academically respectable, coherent and clear, but so far at least it has been politely ignored by publishers, teachers, government and teacher trainers. This is a f itting end to the century, as a reminder of the search for a unified grammatical terminology that started it.

Bibliography Anderson, J.G., Modern Language Teaching. The Official Organ of the Modern Language Association 8. (https://archive.org/details/modernlanguagete08modeuoft, 1912) (accessed 01/10/2018). Anon., The National Curriculum in England. Framework document. December 2014. (London: Department for Education, 2013).

41 Anon, Joined Up; Anon, English and Modern Foreign Languages. 42 Linguistics Association of Great Britain.

Gr ammar in English schools: a century of decline and rebirth

227

Anon., ‘Joined-up. How do we talk about grammar and texts? Teachers of English, linguistics and languages share their views and approaches’. Languages Today 22. 20-22, 2016. Anon., ‘English and Modern Foreign Languages: a collaborative approach to grammar’. Teaching English 11. 16-17, 2016. Atkins, Henry Gibson & Henry Leonard Hutton, The Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages: In School and University. (London, E. Arnold, 1920). Bauckham, Ian, Modern Foreign Languages Pedagogy Review. A Review of Modern Foreign Languages Teaching Practice in Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4. (Teaching Schools Council, 2016). Board of Education, The Teaching of English in England (The Newbolt Report). (London, His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1921). Bolton, Paul, Education: Historical Statistics (Standard Note: SN/SG/4252). (London, House of Commons Library, 2012). Bullock, Sir Alan, A Language for Life. (London, Dept for Education and Science, 1975). Dearing, Ron & Lid King, Languages Review. Consultation Report. (London, Department for Education and Skills, 2006). Gillard, Derek, Education in England: A History ( first published 1998; 2018 edition). (http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/timeline.html, 2018) (accessed 04/10/2018). Hawkins, Eric, Modern Languages in the Curriculum (Revised edition). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Hawkins, Eric, ‘A statistical picture of modern language studies’. In Eric Hawkins (ed.), 30 Years of Language Teaching, (London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching, 1996), 377-402. Hawkins, Eric, ‘Drop out from language study at age 16+: a historical perspective’. Teaching Modern Foreign Languages in Secondary Schools: A Reader., (London, Routledge, 2002), 23-43. Hudson, Richard & John Walmsley, ‘The English Patient: English grammar and teaching in the twentieth century’. Journal of Linguistics 41 (2005), 593-622. Joint committee on Grammatical Terminology. On the terminology of grammar: being the report of the Joint Committee on Grammatical Terminology. (1913 edition). (London, J. Murray, 1911) //catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011682804 (accessed 14/09/2018). Lawson, John & Harold Silver, A Social History of Education in England. (London, Methuen, 1973). Leathes, Stanley, Report of the Committee Appointed by the Prime Minister to Enquire Into the Position of Modern Languages in the Educational System of Great Britain (The Leathes Report). Proquest LLC. (https://books.google.co.uk/ books?id=csJrAQAACAAJ, 1918)

228 

Richard Hudson

Linguistics Association of Great Britain, Grammatical Terminology Recommended for Use in Schools. (2015). McLelland, Nicola, German through English Eyes. A history of language teaching and learning in Britain. 1500-2000. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2015). McLelland, Nicola, Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages. A History of Language Education, Assessment and Policy in Britain. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017). McLelland, Nicola, ‘The history of language learning and teaching in Britain’, The Language Learning Journal 46 (2018), 6-16. Mitchell, Rosamund, ‘Rationales for foreign language education’, in Srikant Sarangi & Theo van Leeuwen (eds.), Applied Linguistics & Communities of Practice. (British Association for Applied Linguistics, 18, 2003), 114-131 OECD Report, Educaiton at a Glance, 2014, dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933119530 (accessed 05/05/2019) Walmsley, John, ‘The Sonnenschein v. Jespersen Controversy’, in Udo Fries & Martin Heusser (eds.), Meaning and Beyond. Ernst Leisi zum 70. Geburtstag., (Tuebingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, 1989), 253-281. Wolf, Alison, ‘Qualifications and assessment’, in Richard Aldrich (ed.), A Century of Education, (London, Routledge, 2002), 206-228. Wrigley, Terry, The Rise and Fall of the GCSE: A Class History. (http://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-gcse-a-class-history/, 2012) (accessed 12/12/2018).

About the author Richard Hudson is Emeritus Professor of Linguistics and Fellow of the British Academy. His main research area is theoretical and descriptive linguistics, especially grammar, but he has inherited an enthusiasm for building bridges between linguistics and schools from Michael Halliday, with whom he worked for six years. Email: [email protected]

12. Réflexion épistémologique en didactique du français langue étrangèresur la place de la grammaire de l’oralité? Corinne Weber Abstract This chapter aims to highlight that learners of the French as a foreign language need to understand the characteristic patterns of oral grammar in order to be autonomous in their communication. I identify the main trends in the way spoken discourse (lexical and syntactic) is organized, which differs from the explanations of traditional morphological grammars. These orientations, in the service of teacher reflexivity, help to move away from representations based on the ideological paradigm of several centuries of history that must first be understood. The insights from oral linguistics studies and authentic resources underpin our discussion. Keywords: oral grammar, history of speaking, ideology, grammar teaching, French as a foreign language

Le rôle premier assigné à la grammaire en classe langue est de conceptualiser et d’organiser les faits de langue pour l’aide à la progression dans les apprentissages. Dans la pratique de classe, le professeur – qui a peu de temps pour consulter les grammaires dites savantes issues des travaux de recherche en linguistique – s’appuie sur le modèle métalinguistique auquel il a coutume de se référer, à savoir des grammaires morphologiques. Mais l’apprenant non natif qui apprend une langue étrangère a besoin de comprendre les contraintes spécif iques de la parole, il doit être un agent autonome et en prendre le contrôle pour réussir ses échanges.

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_ch12

230 

Corinne Weber

L’enseignement systématique de la grammaire – de plus en plus délaissé en didactique des langues – peut laisser supposer que son appropriation va de soi. Le discours parlé est pourtant ponctué de constructions syntaxiques et d’expressions usuelles, souvent informelles ( j’te l’donne (l’argent, le fric = je le lui ai donné) et dont certains indices sont repérables dans la syntaxe, dans la prononciation ou encore dans le lexique. On sait qu’à l’oral les formes produites ou entendues sont avant tout au service du sens, d’où l’appui sur les catégories notionnelles (Charaudeau).1 Si la productivité scientifique actuelle en linguistique va dans ce sens, son mode d’appréhension est d’un autre ordre; on se trouve souvent face à des univers conceptuels aux frontières cloisonnées (Deulofeu).2 En partant de l’hypothèse selon laquelle l’oral est d’abord à voir comme pratique langagière socialement située et selon une perspective socioconstructiviste (Vygotzky),3 on pose ici que tout apprenant plurilingue apprenant le français langue étrangère (FLE) a besoin d’en comprendre les mécanismes; c’est pourquoi le mouvement de pensée pour une grammaire de l’oral laisse émerger de nouvelles caractérisations, aux explications parfois différentes des grammaires morphologiques; telle est l’orientation de ce chapitre qui vise à aider les praticiens et à ajuster leurs représentations de la grammaire. Une grammaire de l’oral a été éditée à Montréal par Rigault dans les années soixante-dix 4 mais elle n’a pas été explorée ni développée et on se demande bien pourquoi? Dire quelques mots sur l’historicité de la discipline est désormais utile, la grammaire se définissant d’abord en fonction de son histoire et du rapport à celle-ci (au plan institutionnel ou à travers ses acteurs) pour comprendre comment le paradigme idéologique de plusieurs siècles d’histoire a freiné les recherches. L’éclairage des travaux de linguistique de l’oral, permet ensuite de dégager les grandes tendances d’organisation du discours parlé et au service de la réflexivité enseignante; même si la mouvance anglaise anti-grammaire de la Great Grammar Debate véhicule des représentations d’ennui ou de souffrance,5 nous verrons que le travail de l’enseignant peut contrer ces vieux principes. Des parlers authentiques comme les corpus oraux, aujourd’hui foisonnants et disponibles en ligne (données conversationnelles ou radiodiffusées) illustrent ce propos. 1 Charaudeau, Langage et discours, éléments de sémiolinguistique. 2 Deulofeu, ‘L’innovation linguistique en français contemporain: mythes tenaces et réalité complexe’. 3 Vygotsky, Thought and Language. 4 Rigault, La grammaire du français parlé. 5 Hudson & Walmsley,‘The English patient: English grammar and teaching in the 20 century’.

RÉFLEXION ÉPISTÉMOLOGIQUE EN DIDAC TIQUE DU FR ANÇAIS L ANGUE É TR ANGÈRE?

231

La bonne conduite à l’oral, une histoire française… Dans la classe de langue, la parole de l’enseignant incarne la norme prescriptive imposée. Mais toute épistémologie doit d’abord délimiter les contours des objets dont il est question et les inscrire dans leurs contextes spécifiques pour engager une réflexion à visée prospective. Dans Mille ans de langue française,6 esquissent l’évolution de notre langue depuis le latin en passant par la force des dialectes parlés dans les régions de France pour tracer l’évolution de la langue. Dès le moyen âge, le filtre à travers lequel les traits de langue sont considérés est l’écrit,7 l’oral présentant des structurations différentes dont on ne s’occupe pas. Les auteurs montrent que la palette stylistique haute des savants est un critère d’élégance et de raffinement dès le moyen âge, avec le couple latin/français qui dure pendant plusieurs siècles, allant du siècle encyclopédique (treizième siècle) à une politique de traduction cent ans plus tard. Le latin permettait de résister au temps. Le recours à des emprunts de l’anglais est manifeste dès les années 14308 et c’est ainsi que nait la première grammaire du français mais à l’étranger. Sur le territoire national, hormis les gens de la Cour, les langues régionales (alsacien, basque, breton, etc.) dominent le pays et forment d’importants clivages sociaux.9 Entre la fin du dix-septième et la fin du dix-neuvième siècle, la problématique de la diversité des usages est rarement abordée.10 La nécessité de la prise de parole (publique) a créé un torrent de discours après la Révolution française, le français se popularise au dix-neuvième siècle et s’institue pour inciter tous les français à parler la même langue. La norme de l’écrit est alors le noyau de cohésion socio-langagier, gage d’homogénéité. Le ‘bon français’ de l’école est médiateur pour enseigner. Dans les aires francophones, le modèle de l’écrit reste le fantasme dominant (parler comme un natif), tradition idéologique enracinée dans les représentations et créant des tensions socioéducatives entre oralité et écriture. 6 Rey, Duval & Siouffi, Mille ans de langue française, histoire d’une passion. Des origines au français moderne. 7 Ibidem, 136. 8 L’ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts (1539) déclare que tout acte judiciaire doit se prononcer et s’écrire en langue française. 9 Yaguello, Le grand livre de la langue française. 10 D’une région à une autre les interlocuteurs ne se comprennent pas, les groupes sociaux s’opposent et sont stigmatisés (ville/campagne; peuple/ Cour), ‘chacun renforce son identité par sa langue (parlée) et toute velléité de sortir de son cadre est réprimée’ (Rey at al, ibidem, 537). Un tournant décisif a lieu à la fin du seizième siècle quand Vaugelas qui constitue un inventaire des tournures qui existent et caractéristiques du ‘bon usage’ (la bonne façon de parler en référence aux usages de la Cour) tout en étant soucieux des éléments du français non normalisé (variété basse de la langue).

232 

Corinne Weber

Dans le sillage de ce lourd héritage académique, comment la légitimité est-elle donnée au langage oral?

Déjouer le poids de l’idéologie du bon français Arrivée en France, j’étais confrontée à un français parlé différent de celui que j’ai appris dans mon pays. C’est grâce au roman ‘Un homme, ça ne pleure pas’ de Guène Faïza11 que j’ai approché le français parlé avec les natifs. S. Etudiante (Master, Sorbonne-nouvelle, 2017)

Les écrivains et les linguistes ont su déjouer ce climat idéologique. Sans restituer tous les repères historiques, dès le début du vingtième siècle Charles Bally,12 fervent défenseur de la langue parlée (et élève de Saussure), a brisé le vernis de la référence de l’écrit des gens cultivés. Comme base d’observation empirique et d’enquête, la langue parlée est pour lui l’empreinte des affects et des émotions; elle est spontanée et le parler ‘ordinaire’ est à entendre comme l’ensemble des traits utilisés par des locuteurs de façon régulière dans des circonstances informelles de conditions de production, caractérisation que nous retiendrons ici. Jusque vers les années soixante les traits d’usage sont assimilés à de l’agrammaticalité, d’où l’inertie des travaux scientifiques, l’alliance lente entre didactique et linguistique en France et donc la faible réflexivité sur les particularités orales. Ce contexte de transgression du discours narratif est exploré par les écrivains à la même époque. Céline, Giono, Cendrars, puis Queneau autorisent les formes parlées dans le roman. Deviennent fiction mais aussi objet d’étude (Weber).13 La voie vers l’objectivation des formes ordinaires s’ouvre, présentant aujourd’hui encore un intérêt pour les étudiants non francophones:14 ‘Meussieu Pic la prit sur ses genoux et la berça en bafouillant pauvre petite, pauv’tite, poftite’, une des formes stigmatisées chez Queneau.15 Sans entrer dans ces détails, de nombreux écrivains contemporains insèrent les traits parlés dans leurs œuvres, porte ouverte vers la variation. L’apprenant peut ainsi devenir autonome et actif de son ‘système’ en français langue étrangère (FLE) orale. Quel est ce ‘système’? 11 Guène, Un homme, ça ne pleure pas. 12 Bally, Le langage et la vie. 13 Weber, ‘ Oralité, littérature et didactique: quelles convergences disciplinaires?’. 14 Meizoz dans L’âge du roman parlant, retrace l’entrée de la ‘parole vivante’ dans la société de 1919 à 1939. 15 Queneau, Chiendent.

RÉFLEXION ÉPISTÉMOLOGIQUE EN DIDAC TIQUE DU FR ANÇAIS L ANGUE É TR ANGÈRE?

233

Regard théorique sur la notion de grammaire de l’oral: un continuum linguistique et communicatif ça craint pas un peu là-bas (CFPP2000 [11-01])16

Qu’entend-t-on par grammaire de l’oral? Plusieurs années de recherches ont permis d’élargir la matrice en didactique de l’oralité, en partant de l’hypothèse forte que les pratiques sont d’abord préformées par l’univers social, singulier, diversifié et d’une grande variabilité (d’un locuteur à un autre).17 Mon positionnement est de considérer que tout sujet doit pouvoir opérer des choix en toute conscience, rapidement et de manière autonome, c’est-à-dire à prendre le contrôle lorsqu’il parle et à s’autoréguler (et s’auto-corriger). C’est ce que Duff 18 appelle l’agentivité. L’éclairage théorique repose sur les travaux de linguistique de l’oral (Blanche-Benveniste; 19 Deulofeu (Ibidem), variationnistes (Gadet),20 didactiques (Weber)21 et sur la grammaire du sens (Charaudeau, Ibidem; De Salens, Ibidem). Les corpus oraux d’interactions constituent une banque de données intéressante en termes d’outils réflexifs sur la langue d’apprentissage et la présence visuelle du langage oral (graphiquement représenté), facilitant l’action socio-cognitive. Il y a simultanéité des effets de l’oralité (la voix avec le corps (gestes, mouvements)). La grammaire de l’oral est donc à entendre comme une somme de micro-signif ications à tous les niveaux de la langue qui s’emboitent et se juxtaposent pour former du sens dans la mise en discours. C’est la somme des adaptations dans les échanges, les dimensions pragmatique et stratégique du sujet parlant étant importantes. C’est le sens qui conditionne les choix verbaux que fait le locuteur, alors les éléments s’élaborent, se transforment et se reconf igurent au fur et à mesure de sa coconstruction.22 Par exemple, les formes interrogatives constituent 16 Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien CFPP 2000, Discours sur la ville, Branca-Rosoff, Sonia, Serge Fleury, Florence Lefeuvre, & Matthew Pires, Constitution et exploitation d’un corpus de français parlé parisien. Contraintes et apports possibles de la langue au texte, (Corpus 10 ‘varia’ http://corpus.revues.org/, 2011) (consulté 08/05/2019). 17 Diltec (EA2288), Sorbonne-Nouvelle Paris 3. 18 Duff, ‘Identity, agency, and second language acquisition’, 428-444. 19 Blanche-Benveniste, Approches de la langue parlée en français. 20 Gadet, Le français ordinaire. 21 Weber, ‘La syntaxe des énoncés parlés’. 22 cf. pour plus de détails, Weber, Pour une didactique de l’oralité. Enseigner le français tel qu’il est parlé.

234 

Corinne Weber

une catégorie de cette dynamique parlée, avec ses zones instables (chute d’une voyelle), une syntaxe élémentaire (sans subordonnée) loin de la représentation de l’écrit: – (à l’écrit) – qu’est-ce que tu fais demain? – (à l’oral) – demain tu fais quoi? Avant d’envisager les principales tendances de la grammaire de l’oral, soulignons qu’il y a un contrôle cognitif en langue étrangère avec des représentations perceptives de l’input linguistique et sémantiques du contexte23 pour donner du sens par le contexte (Kail).24 Les formes grammaticales parlées doivent être modalisées pour être visibles et décomposables pédagogiquement, les effets d’intonation et mimo-gestuels complétant le sens de l’échange et élargissant le périmètre conceptuel de la grammaire (Weber).25 Elle est changeante, structurellement et variable.26 Dans toutes ces zones de turbulence de la parole, les praticiens ont souvent des difficultés à ordonner les composantes, à les planifier, à élaborer des dispositifs de correction des compétences orales, tant la dynamique apparait complexe. De plus, les schématisations linguistiques (dites savantes) ne sont pas superposables à la logique d’apprentissage. Pour le dire vite, la grammaire de l’oral mêle de façon complémentaire des outils grammaticaux déjà acquis (nombreuses ressources d’écrits), et ceux qui répondent à la logique des usages pour échanger.

La grammaire de l’oralité doit répondre aux besoins communicatifs ‘Alors? Qu’est-c’qui se pass(e)ra? Tu m’dis qu’ce n’est rien’27 23 L’acception contexte varie selon l’emploi qu’on en fait. Le plus courant inclut le cadre spatio-temporel et les enjeux sociaux. Dans la dynamique parlée, le contexte est à voir comme un système de contraintes relatif à la situation. 24 Kail & Fayol, L’acquisition du langage. Le langage en émergence. De la naissance à trois ans. 25 Weber, Corinne, ‘La syntaxe des énoncés parlés dans la Grammaire contextualisée du français en ligne (GFL)’. 26 Scientifiquement, la Grande Grammaire du français tente une description de la multiplicité des usages, allant du standard au moins standard au sein de la francophonie. cf. Abeillé & Godard, ‘La Grande Grammaire du français et la variété des données’. 27 Natalie, Pour un oui ou pour un non.

RÉFLEXION ÉPISTÉMOLOGIQUE EN DIDAC TIQUE DU FR ANÇAIS L ANGUE É TR ANGÈRE?

235

Les français disent aussi … Rien n’est plus vague et subjectif que ce refrain des manuels de langue étrangère qui ne permet en rien de caractériser les particularités parlées. C’est l’une des raisons pour lesquelles les apprenants non-natifs (même de niveau avancé) sous-emploient les variantes informelles, les contraintes de variation étant pour eux une source d’insécurité; Dewaele et Rega 28 constatent d’ailleurs auprès d’apprenants néerlandophones restés un an en France qu’ils évitent dans les conversations les mots non-standard, comparé aux conduites de locuteurs natifs. On se limitera ici aux principales tendances de leur organisation aux plans lexical et syntaxique.29

Tendances de la syntaxe parlée – Des unités de sens plus courtes, inachevées, ponctuées de mots du discours ou d’interjections. Comme les énoncés parlés sont souvent plus directs, ils font intervenir des interjections (hein, c’est ça, zut, bof …) particules qui ne sont pas là par pure fantaisie (Auchlin;30 – Lefeuvre)31. Elles ont une valeur pragmatique et sociale mobilisant des ponctuants (voilà, en fait, quoi) servant à amorcer le discours (ah au fait, eh bien …), d’adhésion au discours de l’autre pour la réussite de l’échange car à l’oral, on le sait, lorsque l’interlocuteur ne réagit pas, l’échange s’essouffle très vite. Comme dans beaucoup de langues, certains de ces marqueurs de coopération valident le discours de l’autre (ben oui, ah oui), les interjections ajoutant les réactions émotionnelles et affectives. De tels ‘petits détails’ offrent une économie de mots pour accéder directement au sens. De récents travaux en didactique visent à aider l’enseignant à comprendre puis à expliquer à l’apprenant comment et pourquoi on passe d’un langage à un autre pour accéder à une aisance d’interlocution comme le préconise le (Cadre européen

28 Dewaele & Regan, ‘The use of colloquial words in advanced French interlanguage’. 29 Même si la prononciation est adossée à la variation langagière naturelle, ces composantes (macro ou micro) interviennent simultanément; seuls les besoins de présentation permettent de les dissocier. 30 Auchlin, ‘Mais heu, pis bon, ben alors, voilà, quoi! Marqueurs de structuration de la conversation et complétude’. 31 Lefeuvre, ‘Bon et quoi à l’oral: marqueurs d’ouverture et de fermeture d’unités syntaxiques en discours’.

236 

Corinne Weber

pour les langues, niveau B2): ‘peut s’adapter aux changements de sujet, style et de ton rencontré’.32 – Une progression discontinue (tiens, je voulais dire aussi, ça me fait penser à …) La structure ‘sujet-verbe-complément’ n’est pas forcément à l’œuvre, parfois la discontinuité suffit pour comprendre le sens. Par exemple tiens, n’a pas le même statut que le verbe transitif tel que présenté dans le dictionnaire.33 Il vise à capter l’attention, à amorcer le discours et annoncer immédiatement de quoi va parler le locuteur (le noyau); encore une fois, ces formes sont donc dotées d’une valeur fonctionnelle dans la communication que l’enseignant peut souligner. – Des verbes entourés ‘d’associés’. Les verbes sont importants quand on interprète du sens. On pense notamment aux marqueurs de temps repérables par les adverbes (hier, avant, dans deux ans …) plus que par les terminaisons (temps et modes) aux prononciations identiques (en –er; é; ais, ait). Par ailleurs, les travaux en linguistique de l’oral (cf. Blanche-Benveniste, Ibidem) tendent à dire que les verbes s’entourent ‘d’associés’ à l’oral. La combinaison avec l’associé dévie le sens (V+ associé: poser un verre, poser un problème / prendre son mal en patience, prendre son chemin, prendre la tangente …). L’un est fixe (la base) qui conserve son sens habituel (comme: temps) et l’autre est changeant prendre / prendre son temps) (cf. Tutin et Grossmann).34 Le verbe dévie alors de son sens propre, l’association en transformant le sens. Des verbes comme poser, demander avec leurs transformations (cf. De Salins),35 sont faciles à traiter à l’oral parce que c’est là qu’elles interviennent. On voit bien que la grammaire de l’oral est à la croisée des questions de lexique et de syntaxe (regarder les choses en face = être lucide). L’emboitement des différents plans de la langue (lexique/syntaxe) est simultané. – Des pronoms au statut changeant. À l’oral les pronoms localisent un élément à mettre en évidence, désignent un fait, synthétisent souvent toute une proposition ou une suite de propositions dont les informations sont supposées être partagées par les interlocuteurs ou préalablement 32 Recherches fondamentales sur les contextualisations de la description du français, GRAC (laboratoire Diltec, Sorbonne nouvelle Paris 3), avec la Grammaire actuelle contextualisée du français en ligne. http://www.francparler-oif.org/grac-a1a2/sommaire/ et Enseigner la grammaire: description, discours et pratiques, Santos, Anna-Clara, & Weber, Corinne (dir.), (Ed. Le manuscrit, collection Histoires des langues et cultures étrangères). 33 tenir: avoir (un objet) avec soi en le serrant afin qu’il ne tombe pas, ne s’échappe pas, Larousse. 34 Tutin & Grossmann, ‘Collocations régulières et irrégulières: esquisse de typologie du phénomène collocatif’. 35 De Salins, Grammaire pour l’enseignement / apprentissage du FLE.

RÉFLEXION ÉPISTÉMOLOGIQUE EN DIDAC TIQUE DU FR ANÇAIS L ANGUE É TR ANGÈRE?

237

contextualisées (c’est là qu’il s’arrête), on connait le sujet (il) par le contexte d’élocution, le lieu ou le moment (là) de l’objet parfois aussi désigné par (ça = ça vous plait). On fait l’économie de toute une suite de propositions, ainsi, des pronoms personnels (le, la lui) ou démonstratifs (ça, celui-là), synthétisent un fait par un groupe nominal qu’ils représentent. Ils peuvent ainsi être traités autrement à l’oral. Une autre caractéristique grammaticale est la reprise du pronom: moi ce que je trouve pas normal c’est l’augmentation de l’essence: redondance fréquente du pronom moi/je et absence de la négation ne

– Des constructions clivées micro-syntaxiques: c’est qui /ce que. Elles séparent l’élément focalisé et la sous‐phrase (c’est justement c’que j’allais vous demander): l’information nouvelle est communiquée par l’élément focalisé et celle qui précède n’est pas importante d’être reprise. Le verbe est à mettre en lien avec son pronom, ainsi rencontre souvent des structures comme: – pronom + auxiliaire être; l’information est contenue dans c’est (c’est ça qu’il voulait pour son anniversaire) – c’est + verbe (ça surprend, ça fait technique, ça arrache …, ça l’fait)

– Des relatives accompagnées de pronoms: ce qui, à quoi, à qui, de qui, ce qui … Comme précédemment, ces combinaisons sont rapides d’accès à l’oral. Les fréquences d’emploi de qui, que, remplacent et évincent dont, auquel, lequel, duquel, car, constructions complexes à construire dans l’instantanéité de la parole. Elles sont associées à un verbe auxiliaire (ce qu’il dit, il y en a qui, c’est que …), les auxiliaires jouant alors le rôle de support. – Des formes verbo-nominales – il y a + groupe nominal: les verbes aller, savoir, avoir sont des facilitateurs du langage parlé, d’où leur fréquence d’apparition (il y a des aliments périmés dans ce sac). – Des structures langagières, juxtaposées ou antéposées facilitantes: (c’est quoi c’que tu manges?). La place d’un mot en début d’énoncé met rapidement en évidence ce dont on va parler (Delofeu, Ibidem); c’est un signal de repérage intéressant en réception orale. Dans la pratique on peut pointer les effets d’entassements de monosyllabes (c’que/ c’que tu veux) liés à la prononciation. – Des anaphores – ça – pour rappeler ce dont il est question. Du grec anaphora (– action d’en référer à) permet de rappeler des éléments déjà évoqués

238 

Corinne Weber

ou partagés et connus des locuteurs. Ça- très présent dans le langage spontané, vise à produire des ‘effets communicatifs’ ou de ‘familiarité’ (Charaudeau, Ibidem). ça est à caractère non animé (oui ça, ça n’a plus rien à voir quoi).36 L’anaphore reprend un groupe nominal du discours oral prononcé précédemment et agit alors comme un antécédent (mais c’est où ça la Bastille). ça renvoie à un élément connu qui précède ou rappelle un élément déjà évoqué dans l’échange, sous-entendu ( j’pense que ça bougera plus). Le pronom ça s’emploie aussi comme sujet (ça me plait d’aller au cinéma) ou comme un élément de renforcement (La Bastille, c’est où, ça?). Une syntaxe interrogative simplifiée. Dans les énoncés spontanés, l’interrogation se fait souvent selon le mode déclaratif (et non l’inversion de sujet; il vient demain? / le travail est terminé?); l’ajout de l’intonation montante complétant sa syntaxe. La question porte sur l’objet (travail) ou sur le temps (demain). Toute contrainte syntaxique est évincée; (quel est le montant de cette opération? (oral formel) devient: ça revient à combien? (oral informel). Le praticien expliquera que l’interrogation est avant tout à valeur fonctionnelle; par la seule intonation le locuteur évite l’inversion du sujet où les locutions (qu’est-ce que / qui est-ce qui), au bénéfice de (t’es où? ça veut dire quoi?). Ces formes sont aussi exposées à des transformations de leur prononciation (chute de /E/ qui réduit le nombre de syllabes), cet ensemble étant difficilement dissociable du choix lexical du locuteur (c’que j’pense). Le lexique, labyrinthe de la diversité à l’oral: qualifier, intensifier … L’apprenant de LE ne comprend pas toujours les choix du lexicaux des natifs qui font pourtant partie de la grammaire de l’oral: les glissements d’emploi, l’interchangeabilité du sens d’un mot (une déco tendance) ou les associations métaphoriques (vendre la peau de l’ours avant de l’avoir tué) sont destinées à qualifier, intensifier, juger …, bref, à effacer la neutralité des échanges. Des opérations mentales de saisie du sens (parfois implicites) sont nécessaires car ils peuvent servir de socle aux ressources des expressions ‘à la française’ chères aux étudiants lorsqu’ils arrivent dans nos universités. Quelles sont alors les valeurs grammaticale et pragmatique du lexique? – Le choix des mots pour produire de l’effet. En dehors du lexique standard appris dans les tâches écrites, les apprenants non francophones 36 ‘Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien CFPP deux mille, Discours sur la ville’ (Branca-Rosoff, S., Fleury S., Lefeuvre F., Mat P.) [11-04]). On y prélève neuf mille huit cent seize occurrences de ça et trente quatre occurrences de cela, sur quarante neuf heures d’enregistrement.

RÉFLEXION ÉPISTÉMOLOGIQUE EN DIDAC TIQUE DU FR ANÇAIS L ANGUE É TR ANGÈRE?

239

apprécient la maitrise des expressions typiquement françaises ou empruntées à l’anglais. À l’oral on cherche à produire des effets pour marquer sa présence ou attirer l’attention (c’est super! c’est cool! c’est génial! t’as vu ce bordel? ça craint un peu!) et ce, par le choix des mots et par des éléments paraverbaux (gestes, mimiques) et prosodiques (par l’insistance ou l’intonation) comme dans toute langue. – Un double sens et une figuration par l’image. Le sens d’un mot ou d’une expression se repère par et dans le contexte mais aussi par l’image, il peut être figuré ou avoir un double sens, être simplement implicite et de fait difficile à décoder par l’apprenant non francophone (C’est pas de la tarte! = ce n’est pas facile) / il pleut des cordes = avec intensité) / on ne sait jamais = prudence / je te vois venir = deviner un sous-entendu) / il sème la pagaille (désordre). Des tâches contrastives écrit/oral facilitent cette double compréhension au-moins en réception /compréhension. – Des variations lexicales dépendantes du contexte. Dans les mécanismes parlés, les variations lexicales apparaissent selon le facteur social de la situation, déductible des éléments puisés dans le contexte (c’est une belle affaire /suivez mon regard). Des emplois maladroits sont possibles si la situation sociale est inadaptée au choix de l’expression ( j’en ai rien à faire (familier)/ ça m’est égal (standard), la variation est donc en jeu; elle est à considérer comme l’apparition de contextes où s’offre au locuteur la possibilité de choisir entre deux ou plusieurs formes d’un même phénomène linguistique et exprimant la même valeur (Labov),37 encore faut-il savoir quand et comment faire ces choix. Tout un travail contrastif peut être proposé, allant du lexique le plus formel à des emplois périphériques. – Des mots raccourcis (par apocope) à l’oral qui ne sont pas des «’fautes’. (la fac est fermée/ le resto est complet / on prend un p’tit’dej). Comme dans beaucoup de langues, les raccourcis accélèrent l’action parlée et personne ne les considère comme fautifs. Méthodologiquement, il est intéressant de manipuler et décomposer le lexique de l’oral (par rapport à celui de l’écrit, standard et surveillé) plutôt que de reléguer à la catégorisation simpliste de ‘familier’, les emplois qu’on ne parvient pas à expliquer. N’hésitons pas à montrer que la langue évolue, qu’elle a ses effets de mode pendant une période, qu’elle est fonction des époques et des interlocuteurs (c’est le cas des sociolectes générationnels ou les parlers jeunes). De telles mises en correspondances souvent restées en marge des descriptions linguistique et didactique, faute 37 Labov, Sociolinguistique.

240 

Corinne Weber

d’éclairage théorique rigoureux, constituent pourtant un réservoir langagier intéressant à aborder; il peut même être ludique quand de nouvelles combinaisons sont explorées pour enrichir le répertoire: la grammaire de l’oral prise dans son entité n’est alors plus ennuyeuse mais dynamique. Le tableau ci-contre synthétique récapitule les principales tendances constitutives de la grammaire de l’oral, liste bien entendu non exhaustive.38 Tableau 12.1  Les principales tendances constitutives de la grammaire de l’oral

Plan lexical

Règles de l’oral

Exemple

–

–

–

– – – Construction – – – Plan syntaxique

–

– Pronoms et relatives

– – – – –

Un choix de mots pour produire de l’effet Un double sens et une figuration par l’image Des variations lexicales dépendantes du contexte Des mots raccourcis (par apocope) Des unités de sens sont plus courtes, parfois inachevées, des reprises de pronoms Une progression discontinue Des énoncés ponctuées d’interjections très directes (au fait, à forte valeur pragmatique et sociale Des verbes qui s’entourent ‘d’associés’ marqueurs de temps repérable par les adverbes Des constructions clivées micro-syntaxiques: c’est qui/que Des pronoms au statut changeant Des relatives accompagnées de pronoms Des structures langagières facilitantes, juxtaposées ou antéposées Des anaphores – ça – pour rappeler ce dont on vient de parler Des structures interrogatives simplifiées

Ça me rend dingue (Gavalda, 2001). – La nuit, les matous qui font un raffut d’enfer (Ibidem, 2001) – tu reçois les allocs pour combien d’enfants? (Gavalda, 2004) Écoute, dis, dis-moi si j’rêve … si si j’me trompe … (Sarraute) – mon frère, il travaille la nuit – Eh ben alors! – C’est ça quoi! – (voilà, hein, c’est ça, zut, bof …) – prendre le train en marche –

c’est ce qu’il me faut

– de là à me parler comme-ça – ce qui me plairait … C’est pas vrai. Ça peut pas êt(re) ça … c’est pas possible … (Sarraute) – t (u)’as l’heure?

38 Exemples extraits de: Sarraute, Nathalie, Pour un oui ou pour un non; Gavalda, Anna, Ensemble, c’est tout; Gavalda, Anna, Je voudrais que quelqu’un m’attende quelque part.

RÉFLEXION ÉPISTÉMOLOGIQUE EN DIDAC TIQUE DU FR ANÇAIS L ANGUE É TR ANGÈRE?

241

Des perspectives didactiques vivantes pour comprendre les tendances orales? Des ressources numériques authentiques au service de la réflexivité métagrammaticale Les corpus oraux en ligne,39 les discours des extraits de films ou de débats oraux sont des ressources éclairantes et vivantes dont l’adaptation par des approches plurielles engage une réflexion inter-grammaires (qu’on peut adosser à celle des textes ou de la phrase). Même si ces formes ne sont pas toujours scientifiquement attestées, ponctuellement dans une tâche, le formateur peut proposer d’annoter et de rendre visuellement accessibles ces traits d’oralité. Ce rapport à la langue polyphonique comme dit Bakhtine offre un regard croisé sur les systèmes variés en jeu, quand le discours s’élabore et dont le sens est le principal vecteur. Les effets phonostylistiques transposés dans la fiction romanesque de la littérature évoqués en début d’exposé renvoient à des préconstruits d’ordre culturel, toujours enrichissants (l’écrivain reproduit un semblant de prononciation, comme les mimésis graphiques de Queneau (i-z-aiment pas). Saisir les relations d’interdépendance entre lexique, syntaxe, prononciation et variation, les mettre en valeur par des activités de repérage des traits parlés est une façon de pointer la conception pluri-normative de la langue telle qu’elle est parlée, car à l’oral il n’y a pas une seule norme mais des normes. Ajuster, reformuler en autorisant des stratégies individuelles qui compensent les moyens linguistiques insuffisants (plus de gestes que de mots), sont acceptables lorsqu’on parle. Et si l’enseignant emploie dans la classe un langage proche du standard (pédagogiquement indispensable) rien ne doit l’empêcher de faire entrer la variation sociolinguistique, admettre que tout locuteur fait des choix lorsqu’il parle et que tout glissement qui s’en écarte n’est pas forcément fautif. Ce sont toujours des pratiques situées. On guide l’apprenant vers une conscience langagière des normes, ce dont l’apprenant non natif n’a pas conscience. Mais l’exposition à la variation ne suffit pas; c’est la compréhension des jeux et des glissements de langage qui précèdent le savoir-dire. N’oublions pas le rôle et le contrôle du contexte (un accident, une dispute) qui est une somme de composantes interprétatives et de repérages (effets 39 Cf. par exemple les corpus du français disponibles en ligne telle que: Corpus de langues parlées en interaction (CLAPI); Corpus d’Orléans, d’enquêtes sociolinguistiques (ESLO); Corpus du français parlé parisien (CFPP2000); Phonologie du français contemporain (PCF).

242 

Corinne Weber

d’intonation, gestes, etc.). Ainsi, l’image, la voix, la description et l’action langagières seront autant de potentialités à exploiter, pour devenir des outils réflexifs pour l’aide à la progression. Tout n’a pas pu être développé ici; je préconise une forme intégrée de la grammaire de l’oral, au cours d’une tâche de production lorsqu’elle présente des richesses. Rendre l’apprenant sensible aux mécanismes parlés, c’est le rendre autonome et l’amener à pouvoir évaluer lui-même les choix de son action langagière ainsi que son résultat.

Conclusion Le paradigme de la grammaire s’inscrit d’abord dans un continuum historique et linguistique autour duquel j’ai voulu montrer comment la grammaire de l’oral peut s’intégrer à la vie de la langue pour les locuteurs de langue étrangère. Si grammaire et compétences pragmatiques constituent désormais une entité indivisible, le didacticien se doit de tracer le chemin à l’enseignant pour une approche réflexive des grammaires; celle de l’oral et sans ignorer celles des textes et des phrases (à l’écrit). Ces cultures du langage (s) peuvent s’intégrer aux activités d’écoute et/ou de production car c’est au cœur de ces zones où les potentialités sont multiples. Les rendre ‘saillants’ et en faire expliciter les intuitions épilinguistiques (par des arrêts guidés, jamais trop longs) facilite leur incorporation au système en langue cible selon une vision additionnelle de la grammaire et pour le développement de la conscience grammaticale de l’apprenant.

Bibliographie Abeillé, Anne & Godard Danièle, ‘La Grande Grammaire du français et la variété des données’, Langue française, 176 (2012), 47-68. Auchlin, Antoine, ‘Mais heu, pis bon, ben alors, voilà, quoi! Marqueurs de structuration de la conversation et complétude’, Cahiers de linguistique française, 2 (1981), 141-159. Bally, Charles, Le langage et la vie, (Genève-Heidelberg: Atar-Carl Winter’s, 1913). Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, Approches de la langue parlée en français, (Paris: Ophrys, 1997). Branca-Rosoff, Sonia, Fleury, Serge, Lefeuvre, Florence, Pires, Matthew, Constitution et exploitation d’un corpus de français parlé parisien. Contraintes et apports possibles de la langue au texte, (Corpus 10 ‘varia’ http://corpus.revues.org/, 2011) (consulté 28/04/2019).

RÉFLEXION ÉPISTÉMOLOGIQUE EN DIDAC TIQUE DU FR ANÇAIS L ANGUE É TR ANGÈRE?

243

Charaudeau, Patrick, Langage et discours, éléments de sémiolinguistique (Paris: Hachette université, 1983). Queneau, Raymond, Chiendent, (Paris: Poche, 1933). De Salins, Geneviève-Dominique, Grammaire pour l’enseignement / apprentissage du FLE, (Paris: Hatier-Didier, 1996). Deulofeu, José, ‘L’innovation linguistique en français contemporain: mythes tenaces et réalité complexe’, Le français dans le monde numéro spécial ‘Oral: variabilité et apprentissages’, Numéro Spécial (2001), 18-31. Dewaele, Jean-Marc & Regan, Vera, ‘The use of colloquial words in advanced French interlanguage’, EUROSLA yearbook, 1 (2001), 51-68. Duff, Patricia A, ‘Identity, agency, and second language acquisition’, in The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Susan M Gass & Alison Mackey (London: Routledge, 2012), 428-444. Gadet, Françoise, Le français ordinaire (Paris: Armand Colin, 1989 / 1997). Gavalda, Anna, Ensemble, c’est tout, (Paris: Éditions J’ai lu, 2005 [2004]) Gavalda, Anna, Je voudrais que quelqu’un m’attende quelque part, (Paris: Éditions J’ai Lu, 2001). Hudson, Richard & Walmsley, John, ‘The English patient: English grammar and teaching in the 20 century’, Journal of Linguistics, 41, (2005), 593-622. Kail, Michelle, Fayol, Michel, (dir.), L’acquisition du langage. Le langage en émergence. De la naissance à trois ans. (Paris: Presse Universitaire de France, 2000). Labov, William, Sociolinguistique (Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, et Sociolinguistic Patterns, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania press, 1976). Lefeuvre, Florence, ‘Bon et quoi à l’oral: marqueurs d’ouverture et de fermeture d’unités syntaxiques en discours’, Linx, 64-65 (2011). Meizoz, Jérôme, L’âge du roman parlant (Genève: Droz, 2011). Rey, Alain; Duval, Frédéric; Siouffi, Gilles; Mille ans de langue française, histoire d’une passion. Des origines au français moderne, Vol 1, (Paris: Perrin, 2011/2007). Rigault, André, La grammaire du français parlé, (Paris: Hachette, 1971) Sarraute, Natalie, Pour un oui ou pour un non, (Paris: Gallimard, 1993). Tutin, Agnès; Grossmann, Francis, ‘Collocations régulières et irrégulières: esquisse de typologie du phénomène collocatif’, Revue française de linguistique appliquée 2002/1, 8 (2002), 7-25. Vygotsky, Lev, Thought and language. (Cambridge MIT Press, 1986). Weber, Corinne, ‘ Oralité, littérature et didactique: quelles convergences disciplinaires?’, Phonétique, littérature et enseignement du FLE. Théories et recherches.F. Fredet, C. Nikou (dir.) CORELA (Cognition, représentation, langage), (2019 sous presse). Weber, Corinne, ‘Interrogations épistémologiques autour de l’oralité: quel paradigme pour la didactique de la prononciation de demain?’, Enseigner la phonétique d’une langue étrangère: bilan et perspectives Volume 16-1, (2019).

244 

Corinne Weber

Weber, Corinne, ‘La syntaxe des énoncés parlés dans la Grammaire contextualisée du français en ligne (GFL): réflexion et positionnement pour une grammaire de nature adaptative’ Quelles grammaires du français pour les allophones? l’Information grammaticale, 154, 43-55 (mars 2018) Weber, Corinne, Pour une didactique de l’oralité. Enseigner le français tel qu’il est parlé, (Paris: Ed. Didier, Collection ‘Langues et didactique’, 2013). Yaguello Françoise, Le grand livre de la langue française, (Paris: Seuil, 2003).

About the author Corinne Weber is Professor of linguistics and didactics at Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3 where she is member of the research group DILTEC (Laboratoire EA 2288) and was convenor of the “Grammaire et contextualisation” group (2012-2018). Her current research focuses on French as a foreign language teaching practices, epistemology of spoken French, and oral didactics. She is the author of Pour une didactique de l’oralité: Enseigner le français tel qu’il est parlé (2013) and Langage, variation et insécurité linguistique (in press). Email: [email protected]

Afterword Nicola McLelland Abstract In this Afterword, McLelland reflects on themes emerging from the studies in this volume on the history of teaching grammar to language learners, including changing definitions, methods, and, importantly, ideologies. Keywords: Grammar; history of language learning and teaching (HoLLT); language pedagogy

The varied contributions in this History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching are a very welcome addition to the field of History of Language Learning and Teaching (HoLLT). Such an engaging collection of historical studies, ranging from a foundational text in the European tradition, the Tekhnê grammatikê (Swiggers & Wouters) to the twentieth century and beyond, can hardly fail to attain its editor’s goal of stimulating language teachers to “reflect on their own and students’ conception of grammar and how these shape classroom discourse and teaching methodologies”. Grammar is, for many teachers, in primary and secondary schools, an area of uncertainty. Such insecurities are all the worse because we often believe that grammatical rules should, like mathematical formulae, be clear and immune to challenge. It is, then, empowering to see the winding paths that the description and teaching of grammar have taken over centuries, as people’s understanding has changed of what grammar encompasses, how much it matters, and how best to teach it. For me, it was wonderfully reassuring to discover the first attempts at describing matters such as noun gender, verb and adjective endings in German – surely the most basic a b c of German grammar? – were in many ways horribly confused.1 History shows us that it is not, in fact, blindingly obvious that we should analyse language 1

McLelland, ‘Understanding German grammar takes centuries’.

Coffey, S. (ed.), The History of Grammar in Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463724616_after

246 

Nicol a McLell and

the way we do. The questions and doubts that learners and teachers have are often precisely because they perceive the fundamental truth that a given structure, presented as fact, is not a perfect fit to the language we have before us, but just a convenient shorthand that needs constant adjustments from us (such as when we talk of participles “acting as” adjectives, verbs “acting as” nouns). And yet grammar – with all its imperfections – persists as a tool to help us talk about, and talk in, a language, and to compare between languages. The papers in this volume are, in essence, a history of that tension. Several contributions in this volume help us recognize that categories and definitions are indeed fuzzy and open to change, even as we treat them as certainties. Walmsley’s chapter on the development of grammatical terms since Lily’s English grammar, famous enough to have been mentioned by Shakespeare (Moul, this volume), is a case in point. Notions such as figura and species used in Lily’s grammar (and countless others in Europe) have vanished now. Beyond the words we use, what we pay attention to in grammar has changed too, including a steady increase in attention to syntax and word order over the centuries, already beginning tentatively in medieval grammars (Luhtala). A more recent development is a focus on the grammar of the spoken language as deserving separate attention (Weber). As we reflect on the teaching of grammar in schools, Hudson’s views on the changes in grammar education in England are a useful orientation point. Other chapters show that many of the questions that we wrestle with in approaching grammar teaching today have been tackled before, but with different mindsets and priorities, an insight which can help us understand better our own assumptions. Medieval teachers, Luhtala suggests, seemingly accepted that many of their young pupils “learned” grammar only in the sense of being able to spout the text back at the teacher, on the premise that understanding might come perhaps years later. Might that “storing up treasures for later” approach ever be valid, in any kind of learning? How different is it to the distinction, often accepted, between learning and acquiring language? Why did Ælfric, in Anglo-Saxon England, decide to help learners by providing a grammar in their mother tongue (Chapman)? Why did teachers influenced by the late nineteenth-century Reform Movement emphasize using the target language, and – in some cases – prioritise grammar teaching by induction from language in context, rather than starting with the rules (Suso López and Valdés Melguizo)? For centuries, grammar was a prominent focus in teaching Latin, but less so in teaching foreign languages. When foreign language teachers began to pay more attention to grammar in the eighteenth century (Kislova et al.

Af terword

247

and Coffey), the motivations were not purely pedagogical but also to do with changing views about the status of the subject, or learners, and of the teacher, questions that we still do well to reflect on as learners and teachers today. As for how to teach – an area in which huge further advances in understanding and practice have unquestionably been made over the last century or so – this collection also offers points of recognition and of shared endeavour across the centuries. What teacher will not recognize the motivation behind the chants, verse and doggerel used by teachers in the past to help memorization of rules? There is surely a straight line of didactic dedication from the seventeenth-century teacher’s verse “Gods, Winds, rivers and men are masculine” (Moul, this volume) to today’s pupils learning grammatical patterns to the rhythm of rap chants banged out on desks. Such techniques recognize that for many pupils, grammar may need a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. Perhaps for some readers, too, the history of grammar needs a little sweetening. Who could resist, then, the discovery that the French author of a sixteenth-century Spanish grammar was a spy, later executed for his pains (Gómez Asencio, Quijada & Swiggers, whose paper also offers a neat case study of incremental improvements in teaching Spanish)? More seriously, grammar is never dry, because how we approach grammar teaching, and language teaching more widely, is informed by the ideologies of our time, as Moul’s discussion of how teaching of grammatical gender in one of her seventeenth-century sources also expresses social gender hierarchies shows. The setting for teaching matters too, perhaps often more than we realize. It is noteworthy that Wanostrocht, whose grammar is discussed by Coffey, taught French in a so-called “dissenting academy” that allowed, indeed invited, innovations in curriculum, and it is certainly no accident that Walter Rippmann, the most radical Reform Movement teacher of French and German in the UK, taught in girls’ schools, freed from at least some of the constraints of curriculum and examinations that dominated education for boys.2 This book is of course, not just for teachers, but is also intended by the editor as a “helpful overview to students and scholars who are relatively new to language historiography” (here limited to Britain and parts of Europe). It is fitting, then, that besides Latin and English, French features prominently (Raby, Weber, Coffey, Kislova et al.), for French was the most widely taught foreign language in many parts of Europe, and remains so in Britain today,

2

McLelland ‘Walter Rippmann and Otto Siepmann as Reform Movement textbook authors’.

248 

Nicol a McLell and

even as Spanish (represented here by Gómez Asencio, Quijada & Swiggers) increasingly competes with it.3 I have greatly enjoyed reading the original research contributions that make up this volume, which offer far more than I have been able to hint to in this short Afterword. I trust that readers will, as I have, found that the book prompts them, too, to further reflection and, perhaps, even, to further exploration of the history of language learning and teaching. 4

Bibliography McLelland, Nicola, ‘Understanding German grammar takes centuries …’, in Landmarks in the history of the German language, ed. by Nils Langer, Geraldine Horan and Sheila Watts (Oxford: Lang, 2009), 57-84. McLelland, Nicola, ‘Walter Rippmann and Otto Siepmann as Reform Movement textbook authors: A contribution to the history of teaching and learning German in the United Kingdom’, Language & History, 55 (2012),125-45. McLelland, Nicola, German through English eyes. A history of language teaching and learning in Britain, 1500-2000 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015). McLelland, Nicola, Teaching and learning foreign languages: A history of language education, assessment and policy in Britain (London: Routledge, 2017). McLelland, Nicola, ‘The history of language learning and teaching in Britain’, Language Learning Journal 46/1 (2018), 6-16. McLelland, Nicola, & Richard Smith (eds.) The history of language learning and teaching. I. 16th-eighteenth century Europe. II. nineteenth-20th century Europe. III. Across cultures (London: Legenda, 2018). Smith, Richard, and Nicola McLelland, ‘Histories of language learning and teaching in Europe’. Language Learning Journal 46/1 (2018), 1-5.

3 In the absence of a chapter on German (which I was, regrettably, unable to take on), I take the liberty of pointing interested readers to McLelland ‘Understanding German grammar takes centuries …’ and McLelland German through English eyes. 4 For example, McLelland Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages: A History of Language Education, Assessment and Policy in Britain; McLelland & Smith The History of Language Learning and Teaching; Smith and McLelland ‘Histories of language learning and teaching in Europe’.

Af terword

249

About the author Nicola McLelland is Professor of German and History of Linguistics at the University of Nottingham. She has published widely on the history of language learning and teaching. Her publications include German Through English Eyes (Harrassowitz, 2015, now open access), and Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages. A History of Language Education, Assessment and Policy in Britain (Routledge, 2017). She has co-edited, with Richard Smith, The History of Language Learning and Teaching (3 volumes, Legenda, 2018), as well as two special issues in the field. Email: [email protected]

Index Academy of Fine Arts, St Petersburg 139 Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 143-144, 147 Adodurov, Vasilii 144 agreement/concord 16, 55, 121 Ælfric’s colloquy 63-65, 67-68, 74 Alcuin 50-53 ontological categories 51-52 Alessandri d’Urbino, Giovanni Mario 87 Alexander Villa-Dei (Doctrinale) 53 Alexandrian school (of philology and grammar) 14, 24, 26-28, 34, 37 Alexei Petrovich, son of Peter the Great 143 Alvar, Emmanuel 145n Anaphores (anaphora) 237, 240 anonymous grammars (of Spanish published in Louvain) 84-85, 90 Anschauung 198; see also Lesebuch Apollonius Dyscolus 27, 34 approche mécanique 198, 200, 206 Aristotle 8, 12, 24, 26, 50-51, 55, 57, 135 Ars Ambianensis, Bernensis, Bonifatii. Tatuini 48 ars bene loquendi 160 Ars grammatica 9; see also Donatus for Ars minor/maior Association for Language Learning (ALL) 226 Athelwold 65 Austria 182, 213 Barbarismus 49 Barnes, William 182, 186 Battle of the Arts 45, 53 Bauckham Report 224 Becker, Carl Ferdinand 173, 181, 183 Benedictine Reform 64, 66 Berlaimont, Noël de 83-84, 89, 92 Berlitz, Maximilian 174, 195, 205 Betskoi, Ivan 137 bilingual education 63 Bolkhovitinov, Evgeniy 145 book trade 18, 167 Books (alphabet and vocabulary-) 145 booksellers 155, 167 Carolingian reform 15, 43, 50, 56 case (grammatical) 26, 34, 35n, 37, 46, 48, 55-56, 72, 74, 85, 104, 120, 163, 177-178, 180-181, 185, 187, 199, 204 catechetical method 19n, 46-47, 56, 118n Charles V (Habsburg emperor) 83, 86 Charpentier, Antoine 90-91 Chomsky, Noam 173 church orthodox 135, 137n Slavonic 134-135 classical Greece 8, 13-14; see also Greek

classical trivium 8 classics (school subject) 212-213, 215 Commission of Public Schools 145 Committee for Linguistics in Education (CliE) 225 communicative language pedagogy/teaching 8, 19, 147, 164, 211, 214, 222-223 comparison (linguistic –) 46, 57, 127, 166, 169, 177, 218, 222 conscience grammaticale 242 constructions clivées 237, 240 correctness 7, 64, 68 Corro, Antonio de(l) 88-89, 92 declinationes nominum 49, 70, 72 degrees (university – in foreign languages) 223 démarche inductive 201-206 Des Pêpliers, Jean Robert 143, 146, 148 didactique de la grammaire 106 Dionysius Thrax 14, 27-33 direct method 18-19, 137, 174, 191, 212, 214, 216, 222-223 Disticha Catonis (Psalter) 43-44 Donatus 9, 15, 44, 46-50, 52-55, 57-58, 70, 144 Ars maior 44, 49-50, 66, 69, 71 Ars minor 46-48, 50, 53-54, 56-57, 118n Donatuses in the High and Later Middle Ages 52-53 early medieval Donatuses 47 Du Grain, Jean 143 Eberhard of Bethune (Graecismus) 53 émigré tutors 17, 155-156 English teaching 211, 220 Eratosthenes of Cyrene 27 étapes d’acquisition (Sweet) 193-195, 199, 205 examination 19, 214, 217-218, 220, 223 exercises 7, 17, 33-36, 45-46, 54, 56-57, 113n, 114n, 115n, 116, 123, 140-142, 155, 159n, 163-168 grammatical – in Greek Antiquity 33 see also klisis chreias Fillmore, Charles 184 Flanders (‘Spanish Netherlands’) 77-78, 92 Spanish grammars published in – 79 FLE (français langue étrangère) 230, 232 France 52, 77-79, 90-91, 99-100, 144, 156, 182, 191, 192n, 198n, 213, 231-232, 235 Franciosini, Lorenzo 87 Fries, Charles 183 function, -al 10n, 114, 175-178, 181, 183-185 gender (grammatical) 26, 46, 48, 72, 116, 118-120, 127-129, 177-181, 185, 245, 247 Germany 182, 190, 213

252 

THE HISTORY OF GR AMMAR IN FOREIGN L ANGUAGE TEACHING

girls 45, 114, 247 Graeco-Latin model 9, 24n, 26n, 78, 85-86, 91, 124 – in Spanish grammaticography 78, 85-86 grammaire de l’oral 230, 233-234, 236, 238, 240, 242; see also oralité grammaire des dames 144 grammar core – 174 descriptive – 183 elementary – 57, 65, 212 elementary grammars (Insular) 47-48, 63 – exercises see exercises explanatory – 183 medieval – 44, 58 ‘practical –’ 17, 155, 157, 159, 165, 167 – rules 7, 97, 139, 163n, 179 ‘to lay down’ the language in – (Nebrija) 81 traditional – 44, 173, 179 universal – 160, 173, 183 grammar schools see schools grammar teaching at university Arts Faculty 53-54, 57-58 Liberal Arts 55; see also liberal arts grammar-translation 17-18, 155, 165-167, 169, 211, 213, 216 Grammaticae Marchica 144-145 grammatical papyri 29n conjugation lists in – 36 Greek [ancient] – grammar 23, 46, 125, 127, 135 Gymnasium of Academy of Sciences (in St. Petersburg) 134, 136, 143, 145 of Moscow University 134, 138, 146 Habsburg Empire 16, 77-78, 91-92 Hawkins, Eric 217, 222-223 Helias, Peter 53 Henri III (king of France) 90 Henri IV (king of France) 90-91 Henri d’Andeli 45 Henry VIII (king of England) 87, 115n, 179 Homeric epics 33 Hugh of St Victor 51-52 Huysen, Heinrich van 143 idéologie/ideologies 232, 247 inductive (approaches) 18, 191, 198, 203, 205; see also démarche inductive Institutiones grammaticae (Priscian) 48, 50-54, 66, 69, 71 Jespersen, (Jens) Otto 192, 195, 198, 202 John of Salisbury 47, 51 klisis chreias (as grammatical exercise) 35 koinê (‘common language’) 33, 36-37 Kyiv-Mohyla Academy 137

La Touche, Pierre de 98 label 174-175, 183, 186-188 Lagov, Simon 145n Land Noble Cadet Corps, in St Petersburg 17, 133, 136, 138-139, 143, 147-148 Lange, J. 144 language awareness 222-223 language manuals 14-15, 24, 28, 29n, 32-34, 37, 46-47, 51, 57, 77, 84, 90, 117, 156n Latin 9, 15-18, 44-50, 58, 63-75, 78-87, 89, 91, 98, 100-106, 113-129, 133 Laval, Pierre 142 Lavie, Henri 146 Leathes Report 19, 212-215, 224 Lebedev, Vasilii 145 Lesebuch (livre de lecture) 194 letters (alphabet) 8, 14, 24-25, 31, 35, 45, 67, 82, 89, 137, 160-162 liberal arts 8, 12, 49, 54, 68; see also grammar teaching at university Lily, William 115-120, 122, 127, 179-180, 184 linguistics 10, 12, 42, 77, 173, 175-176, 182-183, 207, 212, 221-222, 226, 229-232 computational 184 formal 184 general 176 theoretical 173 Linguistics Association of Great Britain (LAGB) 187 literacy 8, 14-15, 45, 50, 65, 114, 125, 166, 214; see also writing Llull, Ramon 135 Louvain see anonymous grammars marqueurs de temps 236, 240 medieval semantics 49 memory 116, 140, 200 metalanguage see terminology Meurier, Gabriel 84, 91, 98 Michael, Ian 160, 162 Minsheu, John 88-89 Miranda, Juan de 86-87, 91-92 morphology 23, 33, 70, 80, 85, 91, 137, 141 Moscow Theological Academy 140 Moscow University 134, 138, 146 motivation 126, 247 mouvement de la réforme 191-192, 198; see also Reform movement Murray, Lindley 181 National Association for Teachers of English (NATE) 225 National Curriculum (England) 224-226 Nebrija, Antonio de 80-82, 87 Newbolt Report 212-213, 220 norme 98, 231, 241 notion, -al 183, 186 opaque (terminology) 186 oralité 231-232; see also grammaire de l’oral

253

Index

order (in learning grammar) 45-46, 48, 72n, 82, 118, 191; see also word order ordre naturel d’apprentissage (Bréal) 193-194, 196 Oudin, César 87, 89, 90-92, 98 Padley, George A. 99n, 162 papyri/-us 14, 29, 29n, 30-32, 35-37, 45, 67; see also grammatical papyri) parsing 31, 44, 54, 56-57, 165, 181, 211 participant role 175-178, 180, 184, 186 parts of speech 8, 14, 23, 33-34, 36, 38n, 43-44, 46-47, 50, 54, 78, 85, 87, 89, 91, 122, 134-135, 139-140, 160, 162-163, 169, 177, 179, 183, 184; see also word classes Percyvall, Richard 88-89 Philology 10, 23, 33, 215 Plato 12, 24, 52, 55 polyglot 83, 89, 220 polysemy, -ous 174-175, 185, 187 Port-Royal 11-12, 106, 108, 160, 164-166 predicate 26, 55, 176, 184-185 Priscian see Institutiones grammaticae pronunciation 82, 84-85, 87, 89, 91, 145, 161-162, 167-168 Quintilian 44 Ralf of Beauvais 47, 55 Ratio Studiorum 137 réflexivité 230, 232, 241 Reform movement 18, 165, 246-247; see also mouvement de la réforme Regulae (texts) 56-57 Renius, Johannis 144 Restaut, Pierre 143, 146, 148 Russia 17, 133-149 Russian orthodox seminaries 133, 136-137, 141-142, 145-147 schooling context medieval – 44 – of grammar in Greek Antiquity 26 schools cathedral – 44, 52 grammar – 16n, 57, 114, 115n, 123, 126, 165-166, 211-212, 215, 217, 219-220 Schwanwitz, Martin 144 Sechenov, Dmitrii 145n Sokolovskii, Martyn 144 Sonnenschein, Edward 182, 186 Spanish – grammaticography (fifteenth-sixteenth centuries) 77-80, 83, 85, 91-92 teaching of – (fifteenth-sixteenth centuries) 77-79 speaking (teaching of –) 67-68, 87, 160, 162, 166-168, 175, 214-215, 229; see also grammaire de l’oral, oralité, pronunciation, usages parlés spelling, grammar and punctuation (SPaG) test 225

Spiritual Regulation (Russian Orthodox Church) 137 stages of acquisition see étapes d’acquisition stages of grammatical learning 123 Stepney, William 88-89 Stoics 24, 26 Sweet, Henry see also étapes d’acquisition Syllables 25, 35, 43, 45, 82, 160 synonymy 174, 179 syntax 23-24, 34, 43, 50, 53, 55-56, 70, 79-80, 85, 87, 89, 91, 116, 122, 137, 141, 162, 168, 175, 183, 185, 246; see also word order Tekhnê grammatikê (= ars grammatica) 14, 27-28, 29n, 30, 245 Teplov, Vasilii 143, 146 terminology (grammatical) 18, 27n, 42, 63, 70, 73, 82, 85, 89, 92, 95, 122, 146, 175-187, 204, 211-213, 216, 221, 225-226 classical – 26 didactic – 186 Latinate – 163 metalinguistic 19, 173, 187 pedagogical – 186 ʽscientificʼ – 186 traditional – 176, 183 unified – 182 Theodosius 27n, 34, 37 theory of meaning 51 timetable (language study in schools’ –) 139 transitivity 55 translation(s) 54, 64, 69, 73-74, 133, 136-140, 146-148, 156, 159-160, 164, 165n, 166, 168, 187, 218; see also grammar-translation trivium 9n, 15, 58; see also classical trivium Trubetskoi, Princes 142 Tver noble school 139-141, 141n, 144 USA 155n, 217 usages parlés 231, 235, 239, 241-242 verbes 102, 104, 108, 236-237, 240 Villalón, Cristóbal de 84-87, 91, 92 voice (grammatical) 56, 71n, 178, 186 Wanostrocht, Nicolas 17-18, 155-169, 247 Alfred House Academy 157-158, 166, 168 Practical grammar 17, 155, 159, 164, 167 Recueil choisi 159, 168 Winchester (school) 64, 66, 70, 74 word classes 69, 86-87, 89, 91, 183; see also parts of speech – in ancient Greek grammar 23, 26, 33-34, 36, 38 word order 35n, 168, 246 logical/natural – 10 SVO – 55 writing 9, 18, 24, 25n, 27, 37, 77, 122n, 134-136, 138-139, 146, 162, 212, 214, 216, 221; see also literacy



Languages and Culture in History Series Editors: Willem Frijhoff and Karène Sanchez-Summerer

Willem Frijhoff, Marie-Christine Kok Escalle, and Karène SanchezSummerer: Multilingualism, Nationhood, and Cultural Identity. Northern Europe 16th-19th Centuries, 2017 isbn 978 94 6298 061 7 Madeleine van Strien-Chardonneau and Marie-Christine Kok Escalle: French as Language of Intimacy in the Modern Age / Le français, langue de l’intime à l’époque moderne et contemporaine, 2017 isbn 978 94 6298 059 4 Karène Sanchez-Summerer and Willem Frijhoff: Linguistic and Cultural Foreign Policies of European States. 18th-20th Centuries, 2017 isbn 978 94 6298 060 0 Mathilde Kang: Francophonie en Orient. Aux croisements France-Asie (18401940), 2018 isbn 978 94 6298 514 8 Rick Honings, Gijsbert Rutten and Ton van Kalmthout: Language, Literature and the Construction of a Dutch National Identity (1780-1830), 2018 isbn 978 90 8964 827 3 Vladislav Rjéoutski and Willem Frijhoff: Language Choice in Enlightenment Europe. Education, Sociability, and Governance, 2018 isbn 978 94 6298 471 4 Mathilde Kang: Francophonie and the Orient. French-Asian Transcultural Crossings (1840-1940), 2018 isbn 978 94 6298 825 5 Derek Offord, Vladislav Rjéoutski, and Gesine Argent: The French Language in Russia. A Social, Political, Cultural, and Literary History, 2018 isbn 978 94 6298 272 7

Alberto Lombardero Caparrós: Two Centuries of English Language Teaching and Learning in Spain. 1769-1970, 2019 isbn 978 94 6298 628 2