Modern English Grammar

Author(s): Otto Jespersen

Source: The School Review , Oct., 1910, Vol. 18, No. 8 (Oct., 1910), pp. 530-540
Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1076931

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The School Review

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MODERN ENGLISH GRAMMAR 1

OTTO JESPERSEN
University of Copenhagen, Denmark

A great many people seem to think that the study of grarm-

mar is a very dry subject indeed, but that it is extremely us
ful, assisting the pupils in writing and in speaking the language
in question. Now I hold the exactly opposite view. I thin
that the study of grammar is really more or less useless, b
that it is extremely fascinating. I don't think that the stud
of grammar, at least in the way in which grammar has bee
studied hitherto, has been of very material assistance to an
one of the masters of English prose or poetry, but I think th
there are a great many things in grammar that are interesti
and that can be made interesting to any normal schoolboy
schoolgirl.
The chief thing is not to approach grammar from the side
of logic or abstract definitions. What is wanted is to show
that language is a living thing and what that means. When
children begin to learn about cats and dogs they don't start
with the definition of what a cat is or what a dog is, but they
learn that this animal, which is very interesting to them, is a
cat, and that this other animal, which is perhaps even more
interesting to them, is a dog, and then perhaps after many
years they will advance so far in their study of zoology that
they would be asked in an examination the question, "How
would you define a cat?" or "How would you define a dog?"-
though I don't believe that even in the case of zoology you
would think of asking that sort of question. Now, then, why
should we start with definitions of nouns, adjectives, and verbs,
and all these things? I don't see that there is any reason in
that.
As I said, language should be considered as a living thing,
'A stenographic report of an extempore speech before the New England
Association of Teachers of English.
530

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MODERN ENGLISH GRAMMAR 53I

or, rather, not as a thing, but as an activity, bec

really what language is. Language means speaking
ing means certain activities on the part of one m
to be understood by other men. And what are
ties? Well, in the first place, of course, they are
of the organs of speech. Now, as grammar has g
looked upon, these organs of speech play no part
any rate they are not the first thing to be mentione
as usually taught is something dealing with pr
not even written words, but printed words-whereas what
we should deal with is the activity of man, the manner in
which he shapes his lips and tongue, etc., in order to produce
sounds which are capable of being heard by someone else and
which are fit to convey thoughts and wishes and desires on
the part of the speaker. This study of the first part of
grammar can be made extremely interesting to boys and
girls at a very early period. I know that from personal
experience, and teachers of zoology and others, who really
don't know much about language, also have told me that
when they ask questions about such things as these, "How do
you put your lips in order to produce such and such a sound?"
"What do you do with your tongue?" etc., the attention of the
children is aroused, and they find that they are able, without
any difficult phonetic terms, to find out a good many things for
themselves and to express them in their own way. I should take
that as the basis of the study of the mother tongue or of any
other tongue, and make everything as inductive as possible by
making the pupils find out as much as possible for themlselves.
I think that there is a very fruitful field that has been very much
neglected.
I am not, however, speaking so much about that, because
that part of the subject has not been discussed today at all, but
about the other parts of language-meaning, function, and form.
What do I mean by looking upon those as parts of a living
thing, a living activity? Well, there is a very good expression
by Alexander Ellis that always has made a great impression
on me. He says: "At last language study began, but unfor-

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
532 THE SCHOOL REVIEW

tunately it began with the wrong end; that is to s

with Sanskrit." Historical grammar began with th
Sanskrit; it should have begun at the other end, an
end is living individuals speaking and wanting to e
thoughts and feelings to their fellow-men. If we
language as an activity, and not as dead letters, w
a great many things of interest that have been neglec
ordinary grammars. The subject is so vast that
be able to touch upon a few things here.
There is one thing, I think, which any child cou
to understand, and which is very important; that is,
ence between formulas and free expressions, as I
Some things in language-in any language-are of t
character; that is to say, no one can change anythi
When you take such a phrase as "How do you d
entirely different from a phrase like "I gave the
of sugar," or anything like that. In "How do you
thing is fixed. You cannot change it. You cannot e
the stress, saying "How do you do?" or make a pa
the words. It is one fixed formula, and has to be h
such, unchanged. In the other case you have free e
which can be changed. Instead of "I gave the boy"
say, "She gave the girl," etc. You may take any w
these free expressions and substitute another one
the activity, the language-creating activity, of the
comes in.

Any sentence except those that are fixed formulas the

speaker has to create, at the moment when he is speaking, and
in order to do that he utilizes certain types of thought that he
has acquired from what he has heard before. The child hears
a great many sentences of the same type, and then he creates
new ones of the same type, even without knowing that he is
creating anything at the moment that he is speaking. And this
distinction pervades the whole field of language. In mor-
phology or accidence we have on the one hand formulas, that
is to say, forms that have been handed down by tradition,
from generation to generation, and that are not created afresh,

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MODERN ENGLISH GRAMMAR 533

because they are so fixed that no change is poss

irregular plurals, like "men" and "women." These
created every time that they are used. On the other
have regular formations by means of the ending "s,"
be added freely to any substantive for which we
formular plural, thus also to all new words that com
language. When the child says such a word as "st
"automobiles" or "kodaks" for the first time no one can tell
whether he has learned that form or whether it is somethin
that he is just now creating on the analogy of other forms th
he has heard.

Or take English compounds. There are some of these, like

"husband" and a great many others, that are handed down
traditionally and that are taken as wholes, but any man may
make and, as a matter of fact, does make in every hour of his
existence new compound terms, such as the "speed mania,"
"the trust bill," a "high grade neckwear," an "open-air class."
And in that way I think we can explain a great many things so as
to show that language is not in every respect something that is
fixed and immutable, but that all these individual creations that
have to be made every moment by the speakers tend, or may tend,
to change the language. Those new forms that in historical
grammars are called analogical formations have arisen in that
way; but very often the same forms, the same expressions, that
have been used a great many times before, are constantly re-
created by speakers on the spur of the moment.
Or take such things as English stress. Here, too, we find
that a great many words are handed down traditionally-we
have traditional stress in them. But in many other cases people
fashion the words at the very moment when they want them,
and therefore they may very often change the stress according to
such types of stress as are found in the language. Adjectives
in the ending "-able" or "-ible" as a rule have the stress on the
fourth syllable from the ending. This is due to the rhythmic
principle that the vowel which is one syllable removed from the
original French stress-syllable has secondary stress. Thus we
have "despicable," originally "despicable," with a strong stress

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
534 THE SCHOOL REVIEW

on "a," and "comparable," "lamentable," "prefer

erable," etc. In some of these, but not in all, th
the same syllable as in the word from which the w
But very often a speaker would be simply think
and then add the ending "-able," and that would
ferent accentuation. Thus we often see two con
nunciations: "acceptable"-the old rhythmic for
Shakespeare and other poets and is still used in
the Prayerbook, but generally the word is prono
able"; we have "refutable" and more commonly
"respectable" formerly, but now always "respec
speare and Spenser have "detestable," but that
planted by "detestable," which is Milton's form
of "admirable," the new form, "admirable," has
cessful in supplanting the old "admirable," but in
adjectives, analogy, that is to say, free formation
entirely-"agreeable," "depi6rable," "remarkable,"
etc. That is just one instance to show that not
fixed. I think such instances as these might b
various parts of grammar to show the pupils t
living, and not consisting of a set of fixed rules
and immutable forever.
In any part of grammar I think the first thing would be to
make the pupil find out for himself some facts about his own
language. Ask him how in English the distinction is made
between one or more, and let him find out some instances him-
self. Take words like "table"-if there is more than one table
you say "tables." Then I should ask him to classify the ending
or various changes found to express "more than one." He
would notice "oxen" without being able to find any othe
instance of that ending; but then he finds "children," and he
sees that beside the ending we have a distinction in pronuncia
tion between "child" and "children." I think he will be able
in many ways to classify these things for himself, and he will
do that without having learned any definition of plural or singu-
lar, or any definition of the noun or the adjective, or anything
like that.

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MODERN ENGLISH GRAMMAR 535

Then you may go on, I think, to say, "Well, now t

and 'men' and 'woman' and 'women,' and add 'old': 'old man'
and 'old woman,' 'old men' and 'old women.' Is there any dif-
ference there in the form of 'old'?" The pupil will easily find
out for himself that there is none. And we may go on like
that through various parts, and make him find out that we say
"he goes," but "we go." Then you will ask him what is that
distinction. He will find out that it is the distinction between
the verb in the singular and the verb in the plural. And then
you will say, "Is it always like that? Do we always add 's'
to the singular?" And he will find out that if we say "I go"
or "you go" there is no such "s," and that in "I went" and
"we went" the verbal form is identical.
I think a great many of these things can be worked out
inductively at a very early age, and that they will interest the
children much more than definitions of parts of speech, etc.-
definitions which, by the way, are always imperfect and will
vary from one book to another, because even the authors of
the best textbooks cannot define these things.
One of the speakers said that it was easy to make a child
understand such a definition as this: "A noun is a name." I was
very glad to hear one of the other speakers say that this is a
very bad definition, because all the verbs also are names-the
names of activities or states, etc.-just as well as nouns are.
This shows that we should be careful not to give too vague
definitions. Some definitions really tend to confuse the minds
of the pupils.
No one can really define what a substantive is or what a
verb is, in a satisfactory manner, and too much work has been
wasted, I think, in writing textbooks and in teaching from text-
books which lay great stress on such valueless definitions. The
essential thing is to find out the facts of the language, the forms
used to express such and such a thing; and then you may com-
pare these forms with the means of expression found in other
languages.
If the pupil knows anything about German or Latin he may
of course compare the manner of forming the plural there with

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
536 THE SCHOOL REVIEW

the manner of forming the plural in English, and h

out that the rules in English are much easier and s
those found either in German or in Latin. Then y
him something about the earlier stages of English
teaching him Anglo-Saxon grammar. Just tell him
merly the system of English accidence was much m
cated than it is now; give him a few examples of ol
and point out that some words have retained traces of
complicated system-for example, in the very form
pupil has found out for himself as being irregul
"men," "women," "oxen," "children." He will now b
for such a question as this: "Why do you think tha
words, and not other words, are irregularly inflec
should it be like that?" The pupil will see that t
are the most ordinary words, the words in most co
that come up much more frequently than the plural
or "automobile" or "association," etc. He will easily
that the child in acquiring his mother tongue will
irregular forms much more often and at a much e
than the plurals of such words as "oak" or "book" o
and that that is one of the reasons why they are k
faithfully from generation to generation, while less
used words cannot easily retain irregularities. "Oak
"friend" formerly had irregular plurals, but are no
I think a great many such things can be made intelligi
pupil, and will prove immensely interesting to him
fruitful for him, not exactly for his expression in
don't think that that would be improved very mu
study-but for his general understanding of the wor
he is living; because, after all, human speech is an
important factor in the life of us all. I don't lay m
on terminology, and I think that most of those things
mar that require a learned term to be taught are o
at all. They will not help the pupil to understand the w
mechanism that he has in his own language.
Word order is another subject that may be trea
advantage. In many cases word order is fixed; then

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MODERN ENGLISH GRAMMAR 537

a sort of formula. But in many other cases word or

be determined in each particular case by the speake
He may arrange his words in one order or in ano
may take the indication of time first and the subject af
or he may take the indication of time after the subject
after the verb. It will be easy to show that sometim
arrangement is made quite mechanically, but that in ot
the individuality of the speaker comes into account, and
his individual needs at every moment. Why does he
place the indication of time first, and sometimes at
the sentence? An intelligent pupil will be able to dis
sometimes one thing is more important to what has
than at other times, and that therefore some things
sentence be placed first and in other sentences be ex
a kind of afterthought because the speaker after h
about something comes to think that it will be impo
to indicate at what time it happened.
The next step will be to show that word order ve
is expressive. Sometimes the change is only one of st
shift the position of some particular word; in othe
would change the whole meaning, and is thus seen to be
matical device, as when "John beats Peter" means s
different from "Peter beats John." Some things
relation between various linguistic means, such as ca
stress, word order, and the passive construction, may b
into play, I think, very intelligibly to even those 96 per
the pupils who are spoken of as never entering colleg
Why not show also how some of the grammatica
used in our language are at times insufficient? In m
when we add an "s" to a substantive it shows either
tive case or the plural; but if we have to express th
of the plural, how then? The pupil will find out that he
the same "s" to express that. But then you may call
tion to the fact that because such a form as "prince
prince's carriage," is ambiguous in the spoken langu
is it might be taken either as a singular or as the plural
or princes')-there is a great tendency to use the per

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
538 THE SCHOOL REVIEW

form in the plural (the carriage of the princes)

not use the word "periphrastic." And you migh
through whole volumes of English literature wi
more than one or two genitive plurals in "s." So
simple system of expressing the plural and the
means of the ending "s" is sometimes deficient
supplemented by other means.
Or take the distinction in word order between "I had it
made" and "I had made it." This too is in most cases efficient
enough, but in some cases it breaks down. The distinction i
made by the position of the object, but if one has to place
the object first, as when it is a relative or an interrogative pro-
noun, we seem to have no distinction between "the shoes which
I had made" in one and in the other sense. But I think that
the pupil may be led to discover that there is really a mean
indicating that distinction, namely, stress-"had" being tota
unstressed and run together with "I" in the second significatio
but not in the first. There are a great many neat little thi
of that order, which are scarcely ever mentioned in the us
grammars, because these are all more or less made on the p
tern of dead languages known only from books, and theref
leave out much of what can be discovered by the ear only.
I think, then, that there are a great many things in English
grammar that could be made interesting and that could be taug
in such a way that the pupil himself would be active all the tim
in finding out interesting things that he uses in his own speec
instinctively without knowing it. In a great many cases he m
be made to see not only the fact, but also the reasons why
so; and those other things in English grammar which he ca
be made to understand in that way I think we had better
alone.

Now I should like to say just a few words about terminology.

as that has been discussed here today. I was very sorry to hear
that the English committee on terminology has decided to use
such terms as accusative and dative cases in English, because I
think it is entirely wrong. No case distinctions should be allowed
except those that find an expression in form somewhere in the

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MODERN ENGLISH GRAMMAR 539

English language. A case need not be formally disti

in all words, but in order to be acknowledged as
English grammar it must exist as a separate form
guage; and accusatives and datives have no longer
existence in the English language. There is no accusa
is no dative, in English. Both these old forms have d
as well as the old English instrumental. If we ar
about a dative and an accusative I don't see why we s
speak about an instrumental and an ablative and a gr
other cases. If we say "I go that way," why not
locative, and if we say "I slall leave this afternoon,
speak of that as a temporal case? There is no end o
English if we admit the accusative and the dative w
disappeared from the English language.
Now, if we take the accusative and dative as one case, the
question arises what to call it. The name "objective" has been
found fault with because the case is not always used as the
object. I do not think that that objection is really valid, because
names must be taken from some function or other. In many
cases I think we have to choose terms that say very little indeed,
because it is quite impossible to find terms that will comprise
everything or that will suggest a complete definition. We must
take what is the most important function, and say that there
are some things which are not exactly covered by that, in the
same manner as we have in ordinary practical life a great many
names of objects which are really inadequate and don't describe
everything that might be predicated about the thing in question.
The name "adverbial" was proposed, but I think that is just as
faulty as "objective." It would tend to create some confusion
with "adverb"; and then a noun or a substantive in that case
of which we are speaking is not always adverbial. It is very
often found, for instance, after a preposition. Hence, after
all, I should prefer either the name "objective" or else the name
"oblique." Such a term as "oblique" is really a very good
expression, because the only thing that it shows is that the case
is different from the nominative, and that is all that we want
to know.

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
540 THE SCHOOL REVIEW

If I should give you some advice-

incompetent in advising English-spe
own language, but if I were to give
put it in this form: Think always of
spoken language, and as being essentiall
speakers, in the first place; and then,
your teaching of grammar as little ab
sible. Thereby I think you will gai
interest your pupils more, and you wil
stand the subject better than by abstra
be more or less pedantic.

This content downloaded from

118.179.211.97 on Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:42:34 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms