The Principles of Language-Study

by Harold E. Palmer

Let us apply the principle of the multiple line of approach to the solving of a number of vexed questions, well known to all those who have read or participated in discussions and controversies on the subject of language-teaching.

Shall reading be intensive or extensive? That is to say, shall we take a text, study it line by line, referring at every moment to our dictionary and our grammar, comparing, analysing, translating, and retaining every expression that it contains? Or shall we take a large number of texts and read them rapidly and carelessly, trusting that quantity will make up for the lack of quality in our attention and the lack of intensity?

Shall we translate? We can learn much from translation; it affords us many types of interesting and valuable exercises. Or shall we ban translation? For we know that under certain conditions translation may foster and encourage more than one vicious tendency.

Shall we memorize sentences or shall we learn to construct them, both synthetically and by the substitution process?[5] Either plan seems to have its advantages and its disadvantages.

Which is better: drill-work or free work? The principle of accuracy inclines us towards the former; the principle of interest and our instinctive striving for naturalness incline us towards the latter.

Are we to study with conscious attention or with effortless attention? In the average lesson or language-course, the former alone is considered, but the young child, or the adult assimilating a language under ideal conditions, knows no other than the latter.

Shall we assimilate our language-material by reading or by listening to people? Many claim to have mastered a language rapidly and successfully by the one method, while many others ascribe their success to the fact that they have learnt exclusively by the other.

Which is the best method of retaining language-material: by repeating it aloud or by writing it? There again, we find many who are staunch adherents of either method (and consequently opponents of the other).

Active or passive work? Do we gain and retain our impressions by speaking and writing, or do we in reality acquire proficiency in the use of language by the processes of reading and listening?

Without the principle of the multiple line of approach there are only two ways of settling these and all similar questions. One is to adopt one alternative, rejecting the second; the other is to effect a working compromise between the two. Shall we read intensively or extensively? “Read intensively,” says one; “No, read extensively,” says another; and the compromiser comes along and says, “Read neither very intensively nor very extensively.” Shall we translate or shall we banish translation? “Translate by all means,” says one; “Banish translation,” says another; and the compromiser says, “Translate a little occasionally, but do not let the translation be particularly good.” Drill-work or free work? The compromiser suggests something between the two, mechanical enough to destroy naturalness, and free enough to encourage inaccuracy. Shall we memorize sentences, or shall we construct them? The compromiser suggests that we should aid our memory by doses of mental synthesis, in fact just enough to prevent the laws of memorizing from operating.