The Principles of Language-Study

by Harold E. Palmer

Immediate fluency or gradual fluency?

It is easy to pronounce a sentence slowly and distinctly; difficult to pronounce it rapidly and fluently.	It is just as easy to pronounce a sentence rapidly and fluently as to pronounce it slowly; it is even easier in some cases. The converse is only true when we are constructing our sentences synthetically, word by word, but this is not a sound process.
It is more correct to articulate clearly and deliberately.	To articulate more clearly and deliberately than the average educated native is a mark of inaccuracy, for, as Dr Cummings says, “fluency is an integral part of accuracy.”
‘Shortened forms,’ such as don’t or I’m, should never be taught. The student, alas! will only too soon pick up these undesirable vulgarisms. Don’t hasten the process.	All ‘shortened forms’ which are invariably used in normal speech by educated natives (e.g. don’t, I’m) should be taught to the exclusion of the longer form. The student, alas! will only too soon acquire the habit of using pedanticisms. Let us not hasten the process.
It is always easy, too easy, to transform clear and incisive speech into a blurred and slovenly style of speaking.	It is almost impossible, in the case of foreign students, to convert an over-distinct and halting speech into a smooth, harmonious style of utterance with the proper cadence and rhythm. It is for this reason that when a foreigner wishes to say Sunday, two to two, or four for four, we so frequently understand some day, 2, 2, 2, or 4, 4, 4.
A vowel or even a consonant may perhaps disappear when we are speaking very rapidly or very carelessly. When, however, we are deliberately teaching a word, we should give the most perfect model and employ the most sonorous forms.	The maintenance of such syllables in ordinary rapid speech is one of the characteristics of pidgin or foreigner’s speech. It is not yet sufficiently realized that the use of certain sounds is only correct in slow speech or in isolated words. If ‘stayshun’ is a more sonorous and correct rendering of s-t-a-t-i-o-n than ‘stayshn,’ then ‘stayshon’ is still better, and ‘stay-si-on’ or ‘stay-ti-on’ better still.

Conclusion

On the basis of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that it is desirable, if not essential:	On the basis of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that it is desirable, if not essential:
(a) To learn to read and to write before learning to speak and to understand what is said.	(a) To learn to speak and to understand what is said before learning to read and to write.
(b) To avoid systematic ear-training and articulation exercises, at any rate in the early stages.	(b) To start a language-course with systematic ear-training and articulation exercises.
(c) To reject the use of phonetic transcription.	(c) To make a most extensive use of the phonetic transcription, especially in the early stages.
(d) To leave to a very late stage or to omit altogether the study of intonation.	(d) To teach intonation at a very early stage.
(e) To memorize words and to learn to inflect them, before memorizing and learning how to construct sentences.	(e) To memorize sentences and to learn how to construct them, before memorizing words and learning how to build either inflected forms or derivatives.
(f) To avoid irregular and idiomatic forms in the earlier stages.	(f) To include irregular and idiomatic forms even in the earlier stages.
(g) To pronounce very slowly and distinctly, leaving fluency to a later stage.	(g) To teach from the outset a rapid and fluent style of pronunciation, reserving more distinct utterance to a later stage.

All our experience leads us to endorse most emphatically all the statements made in the right-hand column.

Numbers of those who were formerly of the opinion expressed in the left-hand column have become and are becoming converted to the opposite view; the contrary case is practically unknown. The modernists are not arguing in the dark; they have their data and their evidence, and are perfectly well acquainted with the arguments of the ancients, whereas few of those professing the older views have ever even heard of the modernists’ case, still less given it any reasonable amount of consideration.

We should note that the protagonists of each of the two schools are not invariably as sharply and as consistently divided as in the foregoing comparison. It is only natural that we should find individuals taking the modern view in the case of certain of the points quoted, and the ancient view in the other cases.

An enthusiastic adherent of the phonetic theory will not necessarily endorse the view that rapid and fluent speech should precede slow and distinct speech. One may believe in teaching sentences before words and yet be unconvinced as to the necessity for phonetics and all that that implies. Some may favour the memorizing of sentences at an early stage, but will not agree that the colloquial language should be given a more favoured place than the classical.

The two schools, however, do appear to be fairly well defined, for in the majority of cases it will most probably be found that those who favour the ancient view in any one respect will generally favour the whole of the ancient programme and regard with distrust and misgivings the order of progression generally recommended by the modernists.