the method of grammatical induction will be more and more applied.

(2) The grammatical stage. It is evident from what has been said that the transition from the first to the second stage may be either quick and abrupt or slow and gradual, and that the two stages may overlap in various ways.

This second stage presupposes a thorough mastery of the pronunciation and the acquisition of a certain amount of materials for grammatical study in the shape of words, sentences, and texts whose meanings are known. What further preparation for grammatical analysis has been made will depend on the length and character of the first stage.

In this stage the texts will be so chosen as to embody the different grammatical categories in progressive order of difficulty as far as is compatible with employing genuine texts which reproduce the actual language. The texts will naturally become longer and less simple in style and subject, and will embody a more and more extensive vocabulary. But as the vocabulary is in this stage entirely subordinated to the grammar, there will be no attempt to develope the vocabulary systematically. It will be taken into account only from the negative point of view of keeping out rare and superfluous elements, and using as small a vocabulary as is consistent with general efficiency.

In most cases the grammatical training will consist in a gradual expansion of the deductive method, till the learner is able to read with profit a grammar founded on the texts he is studying together with those he has learnt in the first stage. When he has gone through his first grammar, he will begin again at the beginning and revise all the texts in the first stage from a grammatical point of view.

The study of grammar is not confined to the second stage, but is necessarily continued through all the following stages. At the end of the second stage the learner will be able to read a general grammar-one that takes its material from the whole of the language, not merely from the texts already read-but this grammar will necessarily deal only with the modern colloquial language. The student will not be able to read a grammar that includes the literary language till he is in the fourth stage, and for historical grammar he will have to wait till he has finished the fifth stage.

The historical study of grammar lies outside the domain of the practical study of languages. Even if we admit, with Storm and the majority of German linguists, that the study of historical grammar and comparative philology is practical in a higher sense, because it facilitates the comprehension and acquisition of the facts,' we cannot admit that it is an essential part of the practical study. We only have to ask ourselves the question whether three years spent in the exclusively practical study of a language, or the same time spent partly in practical, partly in theoretical studies such as historical grammar, would yield the better results. We cannot hesitate in answering that the latter method would be a failure as compared with the former, if only because it would not allow time for acquiring the necessary practical knowledge of the older periods of the language. If we extended the period to five years, the disparity as regards practical results would not be so glaring, but the advantage would still be on the side of the purely practical course.

(3) In the idiomatic and lexical stage the idioms will be learnt systematically, partly from reading idiomatic texts, partly from a phraseology in which the idioms will be classed under psychological categories, as will be explained hereafter.

At the end of this stage the learner will have acquired a thorough command of a limited number of words and phrases and idioms expressing the most necessary ideas. His vocabulary will not be large-perhaps not more than three thousand words-but he will command it with ease and certainty.

Those who learn a language through its literature often have as wide a vocabulary as the natives, but have no command of the elementary phraseology: they know words, but do not know how to combine them, except from a purely grammatical point of view. They are, indeed, often unable to describe the simplest mechanical operations, such as 'tie in a knot,' 'turn up the gas,' or express such ideas as 'make haste' or 'what is the matter?' As Storm remarks (Forbedret Undervisning, 22), there are hundreds of expressions in French, which, although they occur incessantly in conversation, are seldom or never taught in the ordinary school-books because they cannot be brought under the conventional rules of grammar. Hence even those who have learnt French for years do not know that, for instance, the French for 'it is kind of you' is c'est aimable à vous, not de vous, and that it smokes here' cannot be

translated by il fume ici, which means 'he smokes,' but only by ça fume ici. Very few have the gift of being able to learn such expressions from books. The material afforded by literature, even in that form of it which approximates most closely to the colloquial language, namely, novels and comedies, is such a medley, so varied, and so mixed, and often so difficult, that one expression drives out the other; the reader has enough to do to understand the contents, and has not time to concentrate himself on the separate expressions. The great art is, not to learn everything, but to take note of the special expressions that one really requires; but this is an art which only very few are capable of.'

All this points to the necessity of a systematic study of the vocabulary and phraseology of the language, which should begin in this stage, and be carried on in the next stage as well, where it will have the further use of helping to prevent confusion between the colloquial and the literary language.

It must be understood that the study of the phraseology is only a part of the study of the vocabulary, as given in an ideological dictionary, as explained hereafter. The learner should begin with phrases and idioms, and then study the whole of his vocabulary from the ideological point of view.

(4) The literary stage. As our ideal student advances, he will be able to choose his texts with greater freedom and with less subordination of matter to form, till at last he is able to enter on the fourth stage, and begin to read the actual literature unmodified and uncurtailed, beginning, of course, with ordinary prose, and proceeding gradually to the higher prose literature and to poetry.

There is no reason why some literary texts of exceptional simplicity should not be read in the previous stage. In fact, simple poetry might be read almost from the beginning, for the metrical form is generally an effectual bar to any cross-associations with the divergent forms of colloquial prose. The greatest danger of confusion is with the antiquated or artificial colloquial style of the drama.

In the course of this stage the learner will begin to acquire the nomic spelling of such unphonetically written languages as French and English. In dealing with less unphonetic languages, the nomic spelling may be begun earlier. With others the nomic spelling will be used almost from the beginning.

The learner will henceforth be able to dispense with the phonetic transcription altogether, except when he wishes to refresh his memory for purposes of conversation.

(5) The archaic stage presupposes a thorough mastery of the modern literary language in its most important branches, as far, at least, as understanding it goes.

In proceeding to the older literature of such a language as English, he may either work his way back through Milton to Shakespeare and Spenser, or he may begin at once with Old English (Anglo-Saxon), and work his way down through Chaucer to the modern period.

The choice between these two main lines of study and the details of the study will, of course, depend on what his objects are especially on whether his interests are purely linguistic, or whether he means to use his knowledge of the language as a key to literary, historical, or other non-linguistic studies and investigations.

CHAPTER XI

GRAMMAR

GRAMMAR, like all the other divisions of the study of language, has to deal with the antithesis between form and meaning.

Accidence and Syntax

The fact that in language there is generally a divergence between form and meaning-as when the idea of plurality is expressed by a variety of forms, and sometimes by none at all (trees, men, sheep), or when the same form is used to express distinct grammatical functions (he sees the trees)-makes it not only possible, but in many cases desirable, to treat grammatical form and grammatical meaning apart.

That part of grammar which concerns itself simply with forms, and ignores the meanings of the grammatical forms as far as possible, is called accidence or 'forms' (German formenlehre); that which concentrates its attention on the meanings of grammatical forms is called syntax. Thus under accidence an English grammar describes, among other details, those of the formation of the plural of nouns-how some add -s, some -es, while others mark the plural by vowel-change, and so on. In the syntax, on the other hand, the grammar ignores such formal distinctions as are not accompanied by corresponding distinctions of meaning, or rather takes them for granted, and considers only the different meanings and grammatical functions of noun-plurals in general. The business of syntax is, therefore, to explain the meaning and function of grammatical forms, especially the various ways in which words are joined together to make sentences. As the form of a sentence depends partly on the order of its words, word-order is an important part of syntax, especially when it serves to make such distinctions as