CHAPTER XII
CONCRETENESS
Such expressions as for instance, for example, or here is a case in point are fairly common in our speech. Whenever we hear somebody explaining something we may be certain that one of these expressions will occur not once but many times. When we ourselves set out to explain anything we may be quite sure that in a very few moments we shall use one of the expressions in question, and indeed our certainty is justified in almost every case. The reason for using such phrases is quite clear; every time we do so it is because we feel instinctively that we have just made a statement which is not sufficiently explicit; we are more or less aware that we have expressed something in terms rather too abstract, and we wish to reduce our statement to more concrete terms; we feel the necessity for concreteness. There is a similar reason for using such expressions as in other terms, in other words, or that is to say. We feel in these cases that an explanation just given is wanting in lucidity, and we add a supplementary explanation in order to make our point more concrete.
The substance of the principle of concreteness is contained in the maxim, “Example is better than precept”; we intuitively know this to be true, and our own experience confirms our judgment; we remember on how many occasions a few typical examples have been of greater help to our understanding than the best-worded definitions or the most detailed descriptions. Psychologists confirm us in our impression and assure us that it is correct; indeed, one of the fundamental principles of the psychology of study is that we must work from the concrete to the abstract.
Let us take a concrete example to serve as an illustration. One of the things we have to teach the French student of English is that anterior duration is expressed in English by the use of the perfect tenses (if possible in their progressive form) and not by the use of the ordinary non-perfect tenses as in French, and that depuis or its equivalent is not merely since. The whole point can be expressed more or less abstractly by the following formula:
| French | English | |
|---|---|---|
| Non-perfect tense + depuis + measure of duration or Il y + (non-perfect tense of avoir) + measure of duration + que + non-perfect tense | = | Corresponding perfect (progressive) tense + (for) + measure of duration. |
| Non-perfect tense + depuis + term signifying initial moment of duration | = | Corresponding perfect (progressive) tense + since + term signifying initial moment of duration. |
Now this is a very concise formula and probably covers the whole of the ground. But it is expressed in such abstract terms that we cannot expect the average student to grasp it, still less to apply it in his speech. We can concretize it by furnishing one or two typical examples. We can say: “Look at the clock, it’s just half-past twelve—we started this lesson at twelve, didn’t we? Well, it means that we have been working since twelve o’clock; we have been working for half an hour. How long have we been working? For half an hour. Since when have we been working? Since twelve o’clock. Repeat that after me. Repeat it again. Now just note that we say We have been working, not We work or We are working. Now, then, how do you say Nous travaillons depuis midi? And Nous travaillons depuis une demi-heure? Note that nous sommes sometimes becomes we have been.”
That would be a fairly concrete (but not ideally concrete) way of teaching the point in question. The average student would grasp the point, and the conscientious student would probably observe it and incorporate it into his usage.
But the principle of concreteness goes beyond this; it does not merely state that examples of every rule should be given, it specifies various degrees and various kinds of concreteness. An example in itself is more concrete than a rule, but one example may be more concrete than another; let us therefore choose the more concrete examples, that is to say, those which will create the strongest semantic associations. Concreteness will be the chief determining factor in the choice of the early vocabularies; it will tend to make us give a preference to words and compounds lending themselves to ‘direct’ work. It will not, however, be the sole factor, for if we decided to make an exclusive use of such words it would be at the expense of the principle of proportion.
Here is another example of what is implied by concreteness. It often occurs that a student will learn how to construct a sentence—indeed, he may even memorize it—and yet fail to realize that it is a real living sentence, an integral part of his linguistic repertory ready for immediate use. He may have learnt the construction Would you mind ——ing and be able to translate it backwards and forwards and invariably to quote it in his list of compounds requiring the use of the ing-form, and yet, instead of using it in actual practice, may replace it by Would you be so kind as to or some such stilted equivalent. In such cases we may be sure that the principle of concreteness has not been sufficiently observed.