350

Error in Conversation.

in our hearing, if a lobster was animal food. In view of these facts, is it to be wondered at, that children fall into mistakes?

The difficulty had its origin in the errors of those who ought to have been their teachers. They do not make it a leading point to correct early mistakes, especially inadequate ideas of words. A child is early accustomed to a primer, perhaps, which has in it pictures of some of the more common domestic animals. These objects, there represented, he afterwards sees in the fields and elsewhere; and in both cases, hears them called animals. As he grows older, and reads of the lion, the tiger, &c., he hears them called animals, too. All the while, however, he seldom if ever hears a fish, or a bird, or a man, called an animal, at least, in any connection which is intelligible to him. He may, indeed, read something of the kind in a book, at ten, twelve or fifteen years of age; but books are all Latin, or what is no better, to him; and he still gets no distinct or adequate ideas of the meaning of the word animal. And thus the error clings to him till he comes into active life; nay, sometimes even as long as he lives.

This may suffice for examples of the error of which we are now speaking. The way to correct it is to prevent it. But to prevent it, the work must be commenced in the family and carried out in the school. It is a grand point in the work of instruction. It were a far more tolerable evil for a child who was well instructed in regard to definitions to be without instruction in every thing else, than to be well versed in every thing else we mean apparently so, for it could not be real-and yet be unpractised in the great work of defining.

Another error still, in talking to children, or in writing for them, consists in taking them to know too little. We are prone to extremes, and not less so in the education of children, whether by writing, conversation, or direct effort, than in other mat

ters.

You will ask, perhaps, how it can be true that we both take children to know too much and too little. The thing is perfectly easy; but whether easy or not, is certainly common.

It is most common in conversation with them, and frequently leads to a pronunciation which is highly injudicious. Thus the child, having become familiar with an associate who is a little older than himself, is at length to be told that he is his brother. But if so, why not use the plain word? Why contract it, by exchanging the softer sound of the th, for the sound, twice repeated, of the ugly mute b, and at the same time suppress the r? Why not, we repeat it, just say brother? Or, if the child is not yet old enough, or if his vocal organs are not yet suffi

ciently developed, why not wait a little while before we attempt to teach him to talk?

And yet the contrary practice is almost universal; not in relation to this word always, or to this alone; but to many words in common use among parents, though not yet familiar to the child. The consequence is, almost every where, a sort of baby dialect, which it is much more difficult to eradicate than it is to establish; and which, in some of its parts, is not unfrequently carried through life.

The same is true of the style of conversation. There is a style often in vogue with those who impart the first lessons to children-their lessons and language, as well as almost every thing else which bears about the same relation to a true style, as bubba does to the true pronunciation of the word brother.— Whereas we consider it is as the plainest dictate of common sense, that both pronunciation and style should be correct, whether we speak to the babe or the octogenarian. We would not of course make use of so extended a vocabulary, in conversing with the child, as we would in conversing with the adult; nor would we converse with either on topics of which they were utterly ignorant, at least without sufficient explanation and illustration.

That there are some sounds, and by consequence some words large and small, which a child cannot utter as early as others, we fully admit. His vocal organs, like the rest, are not prepared for every thing at once. All that we insist on, is that when he is taught to enunciate, or to pronounce, he should be taught to do it properly and correctly. This we conceive to be the legitimate, and the only legitimate field for educational effort. We have nothing to do with hastening the process of utterance or even of language. When however, a child inclines to speak and give names, it is the business of the educator to see that he does it right. God has given the organs, and a due attention to his physical laws will duly and seasonably develop them; and a due attention to the laws of the mind and heart, will call forth seasonable thought. The business of the man whom God has created, as of the first man,-is to give the names, and, as we have already said, give them correctly.

There is, however, another branch of the error to which we refer, which prevails among our writers for children; sometimes to an alarming extent. We allude to a certain baby style which is used. To simplicity of style, we have, of course, no objection; on the contrary, it is exceedingly important and desirable. It delights even the adult. Indeed there are no books which are better understood or better relished, both by old and

350

Error in Conversation.

in our hearing, if a lobster was animal food. In view of these facts, is it to be wondered at, that children fall into mistakes?

The difficulty had its origin in the errors of those who ought to have been their teachers. They do not make it a leading point to correct early mistakes, especially inadequate ideas of words. A child is early accustomed to a primer, perhaps, which has in it pictures of some of the more common domestic animals. These objects, there represented, he afterwards sees in the fields and elsewhere; and in both cases, hears them called animals. As he grows older, and reads of the lion, the tiger, &c., he hears them called animals, too. All the while, however, he seldom if ever hears a fish, or a bird, or a man, called an animal, at least, in any connection which is intelligible to him. He may, indeed, read something of the kind in a book, at ten, twelve or fifteen years of age; but books are all Latin, or what is no better, to him; and he still gets no distinct or adequate ideas of the meaning of the word animal. And thus the error clings to him till he comes into active life; nay, sometimes even as long as he lives.

This may suffice for examples of the error of which we are now speaking. The way to correct it is to prevent it. But to prevent it, the work must be commenced in the family and carried out in the school. It is a grand point in the work of instruction. It were a far more tolerable evil for a child who was well instructed in regard to definitions to be without instruction in every thing else, than to be well versed in every thing else we mean apparently so, for it could not be real-and yet be unpractised in the great work of defining.

Another error still, in talking to children, or in writing for them, consists in taking them to know too little. We are prone to extremes, and not less so in the education of children, whether by writing, conversation, or direct effort, than in other mat

ters.

You will ask, perhaps, how it can be true that we both take children to know too much and too little. The thing is perfectly easy; but whether easy or not, is certainly common.

It is most common in conversation with them, and frequently leads to a pronunciation which is highly injudicious. Thus the child, having become familiar with an associate who is a little older than himself, is at length to be told that he is his brother. But if so, why not use the plain word? Why contract it, by exchanging the softer sound of the th, for the sound, twice repeated, of the ugly mute b, and at the same time suppress the r? Why not, we repeat it, just say brother? Or, if the child is not yet old enough, or if his vocal organs are not yet suffi

ciently developed, why not wait a little while before we attempt to teach him to talk?

And yet the contrary practice is almost universal; not in relation to this word always, or to this alone; but to many words in common use among parents, though not yet familiar to the child. The consequence is, almost every where, a sort of baby dialect, which it is much more difficult to eradicate than it is to establish; and which, in some of its parts, is not unfrequently carried through life.

The same is true of the style of conversation. There is a style often in vogue with those who impart the first lessons to children-their lessons and language, as well as almost every thing else which bears about the same relation to a true style, as bubba does to the true pronunciation of the word brother.Whereas we consider it is as the plainest dictate of common sense, that both pronunciation and style should be correct, whether we speak to the babe or the octogenarian. We would not of course make use of so extended a vocabulary, in conversing with the child, as we would in conversing with the adult; nor would we converse with either on topics of which they were utterly ignorant, at least without sufficient explanation and illustration.

That there are some sounds, and by consequence some words large and small, which a child cannot utter as early as others, we fully admit. His vocal organs, like the rest, are not prepared for every thing at once. All that we insist on, is that when he is taught to enunciate, or to pronounce, he should be taught to do it properly and correctly. This we conceive to be the legitimate, and the only legitimate field for educational effort. We have nothing to do with hastening the process of utterance or even of language. When however, a child inclines to speak and give names, it is the business of the educator to see that he does it right. God has given the organs, and a due attention to his physical laws will duly and seasonably develop them; and a due attention to the laws of the mind and heart, will call forth seasonable thought. The business of the man whom God has created, -as of the first man,-is to give the names, and, as we have already said, give them correctly.

There is, however, another branch of the error to which we refer, which prevails among our writers for children; sometimes to an alarming extent. We allude to a certain baby style which is used. To simplicity of style, we have, of course, no objection; on the contrary, it is exceedingly important and desirable. It delights even the adult. Indeed there are no books which are better understood or better relished, both by old and

young, than some of those of Gallaudet and Goodrich.* And we have always found, too, that a sermon which really interested and improved children, was equally interesting and improving to parents. The truth is, that the style of books and sermons for adults, is usually as much above their heads as those for children are below theirs. The true simple style of Gallaudet, for children and youth, is what is wanted for books and sermons, and conversation too-for there should be one style, both for speaking and writing.

At the same time, however, we would guard, as we have already said, with great care, against affectation-against puerility and childishness. It is not pleasing even to the child himself. He likes to be treated as a man, and to be approached with manly language. Why else is it that he is always imitating the pursuits and employments of manhood? Puerility is as inexpedient as it is unpleasant. Even the philosopher Locke assures us that the sooner we take a child to be a man, the sooner he will become so.

We will present a single example of that affected simplicity of style of which we speak; and we do it with the more cheerfulness, because it is the error of one who we are sure will not be offended at the hints which it affords; for no man, more than he, desires to improve in the means of being useful to children.

In a popular children's paper, we find an account of the Florida Indians, and of our treatment of them, in the war against them. The writer certainly toils hard to make himself simple and intelligible, but the greater his effort, as often happens, the greater his failure. Towards the close, he says as follows.

Then our rulers offered money to any body who would be a soldier, and go to Florida to shoot Indians; there a great many Indians and white men have been killed, and more are likely to be. But they have not driven the Indians away; and General Jessup, who commanded our troops there, says we cannot, and if we could, it would do us no good, because white men would die in that sickly country, and only runaway slaves would soon be the inhabitants. He says the land would not be worth the medicines necessary for the sick soldiers.

'How do you think it may seem to God, who sees all things, for a nation of many millions of people, with more land than they want, and Bibles to teach them to do better, to hire men to kill a few Indians who want to live in the land where they were born and brought up? If this is wrong, we know that

We allude to S. G. Goodrich, the famous Peter Parley.