should stress: first, the correction of such extreme individual faults as stammering and stuttering; second, reading and writing; third, the teaching of standard English. If this is done, the teacher of college English will give the Freshman student elementary information on the relation of writing to speech, the relationship of standard speech to sub-standard speech and dialect, and some history of the English language. In the more advanced courses there is need of awakening interest. We must give students not the literary-philosophical culture which was the ideal a hundred years ago, but the culture of today-the mathematical, physical, biological, and the practical approach through scientific method. Linguistic study uses this method, makes contact thus with modern science, and so leads to a connection of literature with economics and science, and to a consideration of literature as an activity of the human race. In the discussion of Professor Bloomfield's paper, Professor Lathrop, of the University of Wisconsin, corroborated the speaker, so far as speech was concerned, but mentioned that he has had success in improving the written language of students. Mr. Clapp supported the idea that writing can be improved, if it is revised. Mr. Coulter refused to accept the pessimistic view concerning the teaching of grammar or the speech habits of college students. His attack for grammar is not to present it as a set of rules, but as a descriptive device. This he considers productive of results. DICTIONARIES AS AUTHORITIES ON USAGE G. and C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Massachusetts Dictionaries never have posed as authorities on English, though some, such as Walker, Sheridan, and Smart, and some “Pronouncing Dictionaries" have seemed to do so with reference to correctness of pronunciation. But such claim to authority for the dictionaries has never been so violent as the claims of some literary men and textbook-makers. The standard English language is a result of elaborate, conscientious, consistent efforts of great men to create a medium of communication. It is not the teacher who tries to stop Johnnie from saying "he seen" who creates standard language, but the professional writers of English. Even in the earliest period the language of poetry was artificial and different from the speech of common people. Writers of the period of Middle English tried to re-create a literary form of expression out of a language socially despised. Their aim was to create a language with diction and syntax competent to bear up under the general literary burden. Chaucer, of course, was the culmination of this movement. There has been an economic rise of the middle classes in the United States which frees young people free from economic necessity and shifts them from one social class to another. These young people come, in time, to ask questions about usage; and when they do, they will remember what their teachers struggled to teach them, and they will turn to the dictionaries. If the well-edited ones do not answer their questions, the charlatans will, for people want to know. There is a heavy and constant call upon the dictionaries to settle questions. Another justification for the apparent assumption of authority by the dictionary can be read from a certain condition in Illinois. Twenty-five per cent of all the teachers in Illinois are teaching for the first time, yet the National Council of Teachers of English does not give them aid in planning their curriculums. A SURVEY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, AN INVESTIGATION BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH C. C. FRIES University of Michigan The survey is not trying to prove anything, but to ascertain and record the facts of usage. It does, however, rest upon two underlying assumptions, the first of which is that we have differing sets of speech habits, and the second that the only correctness in language must be determined by usage. Under the first assumption we have differences of vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, dialect, and the distinct forms due to social usage. "Vulgar English," for example, is not an English derived by carelessness from the language of the socially accepted group. It often perpetuates older forms, while the habits of the socially accepted group have consciously changed as it has in discarding the older acceptable forms "clumb" and "yourn." The second assumption is that the only correctness in language must be usage, that problems in language come only when there is a mixture of social groups. This survey has worked on a large mass of material consisting of the correspondence of thousands of persons from every walk of life. Thousands of examples of English usage have been collected. Because of the confidential nature of this material, it is not possible to reveal exactly what it was; but it gave authentic information about the individuals studied, telling their names, ages, places of birth, schooling, occupations, as well as that of their fathers, and the date and place of birth of their fathers and mothers. A report of this committee, it is hoped, will be published within a year, giving authoritative answers on questions of usage. The discussion brought out general approval of the aim and method of the survey. Mr. Clapp noticed in all three papers a challenging of the right of standard speech to its supremacy; and questioned whether or not we have been trying to teach an unreal thing. He predicted that the coming age will have a new set of minimum essentials, and the atti tude of pious horror at the facts of usage will abate. He felt we are on the road to working out a discipline in teaching which can be applied. In answer to the question, "What is the difference between these conclusions and those of Krapp and Lounsbury?" Professor Fries stated that there was practically none. The schools are still perpetuating the creed of the eighteenth century as the basis of correctness. Although there have been linguistic investigations in the historical manner for a hundred years, the results have not yet come into the schools. At the Saturday morning session Professor Ramsay, of the University of Missouri presented his paper on "Introducing English Teachers to the English Language." This is to be published in a later edition of the Journal. In the discussion of Professor Ramsay's paper, the chairman questioned what would happen if we got rid of much of Freshman English, as it is now taught, for those who have acquired the ordinary decencies of expression, and put in the material suggested by Professor Ramsay. Mr. Knott said it would necessitate newly trained teachers, which was generally admitted. Advantages of such a procedure cited were that this type of study is advantageous to the lawyer, the preacher, the teacher of English, the teacher of subjects in education courses; that it eliminates essays on a variety of subjects, and centers study on English; and that it does bring interest, and develops a bit of philosophy concerning language. SPEECH TRAINING FOR ENGLISH TEACHERS University of Michigan The ultimate objective of both speech and English work is to aid in the development of the individual, and in his adjustment to environment. Orientation requires that the teacher should recognize that speech training is not necessarily English-training, any more than it is training in French or German. Speech training is training in human expression or communication through means which are to be found in the human body. Basically its problems are the same regardless of the particular language that may be employed in it. The teacher of English should recognize that teaching English literature or English composition is not teaching speech-though the English teacher needs to be competent in speech. Turning to some more specialized considerations, it is axiomatic that the English teacher should know how to read literature to others. This involves more than an understanding and appreciation of literature; it means the ability to communicate orally the full ideational or emotional content of the literature read. Second, the teacher of English should know that serious disorders, disabilities, and difficulties in voice or other aspects of speech should not be treated except by well-prepared specialists. The teacher who tries to shock a student out of such difficulties as speech hesitations is a menace to the public. Further, the English teacher should have special training in whatever phase of speech work is to be engaged in, such as debating, reading and dramatics, public speaking, and speech correction. Finally, the English teacher should be so trained (in addition to the special training for any particular type of speech work) as to be able to make all instruction and activity serve in the development of the student. He should be able to make careful personal analysis. For this the most helpful training in other fields than English and speech is found in psychology and mental hygiene. In the discussion of Professor O'Neill's paper, Professor Lathrop brought out the fact that in Shakespeare classes it seems difficult to get any but those unspoiled by education to read; and they show the need of much more training in reading in high school. Professor O'Neill described these "unspoiled by education" as our few realities-the spontaneous ones, whom repression has not affected. This difficulty has its roots in the repression of the primary grades. The chairman hazarded the suggestion that neither administration nor teacher dares encourage intellectual curiosity on the part of the students. Professor Ernest Bernbaum, of the University of Illinois, spoke on the "Aim and Ideals of Graduate Work in English." He made a vigorous plea for securing enthusiasm by awakening students and teachers to the truth that literary scholarship is not merely the accumulation of masses of antiquarian information but is a modern function pursued in the light of successive modern discoveries and animated by modern purposes. His paper appears in the college edition of the January Journal. In the discussion of Professor Bernbaum's paper, Professor Lathrop asked if it would be fair to apply his principles to the incoming honors courses; this led to a suggestion that "Honors Courses" be the theme of next year's program. Another suggestion arising from Professor Bernbaum's paper was that there be some method for correlation between students working for Master's degrees. Some such plan was said to have been established by the Modern Language Association in connection with theses in American literature. JOINT MEETING, ELEMENTARY AND NORMAL-SCHOOL SECTION C. C. Certain, of Detroit Teachers College had, at the request of President Miles, arranged the program for this group, and presided at the meeting. Miss Lillian Farnum, of the van Vlissingen School, Chicago, served as secretary. The audience was reasonably large, and the program effective. Ida J. Jewett, of Teachers College, Columbia University, pleaded for more definite goals of accomplishment for each year of our work in elementary-school composition. We need to be more specific in such expressions as: "Ability to think clearly, speak concisely, and write accurately," "Skill in sentence structure, development of the paragraph sense, improvement in organization." It is only as we see our targets clearly and set them fairly that we can hope to hit them consistently. S. A. Leonard, of the University of Wisconsin, urged the adoption of simple standards of English, standards that every pupil can attain. In cases of "divided usage" the teacher should not attempt to teach the form she prefers as the "right" one. Repetition is futile unless the necessity for the correct form is realized. Frederick S. Breed, of the University of Chicago, showed that the list of words most commonly used by children corresponds rather closely with the list of words most commonly used by adults. Clifford Archer, State Teachers College, Moorhead, Minnesota, in a talk profusely illustrated with the stereopticon made it clear that in spelling there is considerable transfer from one form learned to derived forms, and also to other somewhat similar words. In some cases this transfer is very helpful, but in others it produces misspellings. Harry V. Masters, supervisor of elementary education, Hibbing, Minnesota, reported, with the aid of the lantern, a study in which 65 per cent of all the misspellings made by eighth-grade pupils in attempting to spell a list of 268 common, difficult words were found to be possible from the phonetic point of view, and an additional 14 per cent approximately phonetic. The papers presented at this session are to be published in The Elementary English Review. THE NORMAL-SCHOOL SECTION In this section attention was focused upon the training of English teachers, both prospective and those in service. Conrad T. Logan, of the State Teachers College, Harrisonburg, Virginia, was chairman and Warren Jones, of the State Teachers College, Kirksville, Missouri, secretary. Abstracts of the papers follow: |