Ahn, Robertson, Ollendorff, and Berlitz

Some of the first forerunners in FLT in the 19^th century sprang up in France: Pierre Charles Théodore Lafforgue- known as T. Robertson- (1803-1871), Germany: Franz Ahn (1796-1865) and H. G. Ollendorff (1803-1865), and the USA: Maximilien D.

Berlitz (1852-1921). Their revolutionary methods or textbooks are the following:

-Ahn, F. (1834). Praktischer Lehrgang zur schnellen und leichten Erlennung der französischen Sprache. Cologne, Dumont-Schauberg.

-Ollendorff, H. G. (1835). Nouvelle Méthode pour apprendre à lire, à écrire, et a parler une langue en six mois, appliquée à l’Allemand. Paris , the Author.

-Robertson, T. (1835). Cours pratique, analytique, théorique et synthétique de langue anglaise. Paris , Lance.

-Berlitz, D. M. (1882). Méthode pour l’enseignement de la langue française dans les écoles Berlitz. Boston, Schoenhof. With E. Dubois.

110 The Natural or Direct Method emerged in the 1880s although it soon became a vague term as Brebner (1898: 1) states: ‘Almost everywhere in Germany the term ‘New Method’

is applied to the present system of Modern Language teaching prevalent in all the more advanced Secondary schools. Yet it is liable to a certain amount of ambiguity, as there are many modifications of this method. Moreover, some of the strongest advocates for the system in its newest form object to the term “new” as being of necessity temporary, whereas the method itself will be employed long after it has become old. They would prefer an epithet at once more definite and lasting. The terms ‘analytic’, ‘direct’, and ‘imitative’ stand out among others that have been suggested and employed by good authorities, but as yet there is none universally accepted’.

111 In some cases, the adaptors were of English origin although they resided and worked as English teachers in Spain.

Alberto Lombardero Caparrós Dipòsit Legal: T 1588-2015

After the first editions of these works, they expanded their original method to other languages covering English, French, German and Italian, among others (Corvo, 2012:

150-153).

In order to provide a clear picture of their methods (see tables below), two secondary sources have been consulted: Howatt and Widdowson (2004: 159-162) for Ahn and Ollendorff and Rius (2010: 78-79) for Robertson and Berlitz:

Ahn’s Method Ollendorff’s Method - Presented as a new and easy method.

- Use of the grammar-translation method more consistently and self-effacingly.

- His principal market was the private learner for whom a grammatical description and a bilingual approach were essential.

- Brief introduction to pronunciation.

- There is a grammar summary, usually in the form of a paradigm, and about a dozen new vocabulary items, followed by a set of sentences to translate into the mother tongue.

- Sentences to translate into the foreign language, and no new teaching points.

Ahn’s grammatical notes require only a minimum knowledge of grammar terminology: singular, plural, masculine, feminine, etc.

- Useful vocabulary on the whole. The practice sentences are short and easy to translate.

-Intuitive feeling of simplicity.

- He promised to teach a language in six months.

- His books are massive, two-volume manuals.

- Exercise examples are always given in the learner’s mother tongue for translation into the foreign language.

- Two original features of interest:

1- A system of interaction on which he based all his exercises (question/

answer).

2- A system of linguistic grading.

- Questions and answers are in the learner’s mother tongue for translation into the foreign language.

Table 10. Ahn’s and Ollendorffs’s Methods (Adapted from Howatt and Widdowson, 24, 159-162).

Alberto Lombardero Caparrós Dipòsit Legal: T 1588-2015

Robertson’s Method Berlitz’s Method -Method inspired on that of Jacotot’s^*.

- Grammar structured in function of some objectives which, apart from theoretical knowledge, give priority to practical knowledge.

- Robertson begins with the study of a text combining both theoretical and practical exercises.

- A text as the nucleus of each lesson, highlighting a practical approach and demoting the role of grammar rules to a second place.

- Progressively banishes the use of the mother tongue in class.

* Jean Joseph Jacotot (1770-1840), in Howatt’s words (1984: 151), ‘saw language teaching as one dimension of a philosophy of universal education’ as expressed in his Enseignement universel, langue étrangère (1830). His doctrine was mainly based on the motto ‘All is in all’, or into the more explicit advice

‘learn something thoroughly and relate everything else to it’.

- An intuitive and essentially practical method.

- Maximum stress on the oral lan-guage.

- Native teachers for the language be-ing taught.

- An accessible guide for teachers and easy to use.

Table 11. Robertson’s and Berlitz’s Methods. Source: Rius (2010: 78-79)

From the above tables, one can deduct that the then Grammar-Translation Method was facing some new versions or even departures from it as in the Berlitz Method. All but Berlitz regard translation as the main basis to learn a foreign language. Following Puren’s typologies (mentioned on page 85) of the grammar-translation method, they would fit into the translation-grammar typology. That is to say, translation exercises as the required and focal practice to learn a language. In Spain, authors such as Rius (2010) and Fernández and Suso (1999) use the term Método Tradicional con Objetivos Prácticos (Método Gramatical Práctico) (Traditional Method with Practical Aims (Practical Grammar Method) to label individual deductive methods such as those of Ahn, Ohllendoff and Robertson. On this issue, Howatt and Widdowson (2004) conclude that:

Alberto Lombardero Caparrós Dipòsit Legal: T 1588-2015

it is sad that, after all the excellent situational language teaching between the sixteenth and the eighteenth centuries, courses like Ahn’s and Ollendorff’s with their futile sentences should be thought of as ‘practical’

and ‘conversational’. Academicism laid a heavy hand on the teaching of languages in the nineteenth century. (p. 164-165).

As for Ahn, Ollendorff and Robertson, their Spanish adaptations started to appear in the 1840s and 1850s in Spain. The repercussions of these methods surpassed the 19^th century and their adaptations went on being published during the first half of the XX century¹¹².

Ahn’s adaptor for the English language was Enrique [Henry] MacVeigh¹¹³, a teacher of English at the Ateneo de Madrid, whose book Método de Ahn. Curso de inglés arreglado al Castellano¹¹⁴ was first published in 1859 in Madrid by the publisher Alejandro Gómez Fuentenebro. By 1897, it had reached its 19^th edition showing a popularity hardly ever reached by any previous English course in Spain. MacVeigh’s adaptation is a direct translated version of Ahn’s English Course. Apart from English, other FL adaptors of Ahn’s Method in Spain include Francisco de Paula Hidalgo who wrote a Portuguese version of Ahn’s Method called Método de Ahn. Primer y segundo curso de portugués con la clave de temas¹¹⁵ (1876, Madrid) and Camilo Vallés who wrote for the German language a book called Nuevo método para aprender alemán según el Sistema de F. Ahn (Madrid, 3rd ed. 1889). The second edition of his Segundo curso and Tercer curso were published in Madrid too in 1890 (Corvo, 2012: 149-150).

For the French language Henry MacVeigh himself adopted Ahn’s Method and it also proved to be highly popular –in 1899 it reached its 20th edition. Oddly enough and unlike those versions for the French and German languages, Mac Veigh’s English 112 A point in case is Eduardo Benot’s adaptation of Ollendorff not only for the English language but for the French, Italian and German languages. Benot’s English grammar reached its 15th edition in 1929.

113 See Appendix II for a detailed biography of all the authors who published English grammars and dictionaries in Spain between 1769 and 1900.

114 Ahn’s Method. English course adapted to the Spanish language.

115 Ahn’s Method. First and second course of Portuguese. With a key.

Alberto Lombardero Caparrós Dipòsit Legal: T 1588-2015

adaptation never went beyond its first course (either for editorial reasons or others that are beyond our grasp).

Ollendorff’s Method also had a great impact in 19^th century Spain, very similar to that of Ahn’s. One of the adaptors of his method into English was Eduardo Benot, a renowned scientist and linguist who taught English at the Colegio de San Felipe Neri (School of Saint Felipe Neri) in Cádiz in the 1850s. His book was called Nuevo método del Dr Ollendorff para aprender á leer, hablar y escribir una lengua cualquiera. Adaptado al Inglés¹¹⁶. It was first published in Cádiz in 1851 by Revista Médica. Although it did not have as many editions as MacVeigh’s, it reached its 8^th in 1898; a far from negligible figure considering that the average number of editions of works from our corpus is between three or four. From its third edition (1858) onwards, Benot’s English grammar was renamed as Ollendorff reformado (Reformed Ollendorff). Benot also made Ollendorff’s versions for the French (1850), Italian (1852) and German (1853) languages. He was not the only author who adapted Ollendorff for the English language in Spain although he was the most popular at the time. Our corpus of nineteenth-century grammars includes a work written by John George Brown called Gramática española-inglesa: Sistema teórico-práctico por un nuevo método, modificación del Doctor Ollendorff. There is only one edition of this work from 1858 which leads us to think that it did not become very popular. Then, Lorenzo Reynal, who held a chair of English at the Instituto de Tarragona (Tarragona High School), published a booklet called Método Ollendorff adaptado á la correspondencia mercantil española-inglesa in 1872. It was published in Tarragona by Tort & Cusidó and it was the fourth of a six-book English course called Curso completo de lengua inglesa. They all were published in the 1870s. There are still two authors who partially adapted Ollendorff for their English grammars as openly expressed either in their titles or prologues. The first one is Bergnes de Las Casas whose second edition, unlike the first (1845), of his English grammar (1864, Barcelona) includes the name of Ollendorff on the title page: Novísima gramática inglesa…Nueva edición considerablemente mejorada…

para lo cual se han tenido presente todas las gramáticas inglesas publicadas hasta el día, inclusa la de G. H. OLLENDORFF¹¹⁷. In fact, to our surprise, Ollendorff’s name 116 New Dr Ollendorff’s Method to learn how to read, speak and write any languages.

Adapted to the English language.

117 New english grammar...New edition considerably improved...for which all the English grammars hitherto published have been taken into account, including that of H. G. Ollendorff.

Alberto Lombardero Caparrós Dipòsit Legal: T 1588-2015

stands out more than that of the author, Bergnes de Las Casas, on the title page (see Appendix IV). Despite Ollendorff’s mention on the title page, Bergnes de Las Casas must not have drawn much on the German reformer if we are to read his prologue to the second edition. Referring to Ollendorff, Bergnes (1964) states that:

La presente gramática viene á formar un código de la lengua inglesa, en el cual pueden encontrarse, en los capítulos correspondientes, las leyes que la rigen: método preferible siempre al de Ollendorff, en el cual están las reglas dispersas y sin el enlace conveniente para que puedan fijarse en la memoria¹¹⁸. (Prologue: vii).

Our last Ollendorffian influence comes from William Mountifield’s work entitled Novísimo metodo teorico, practico, analitico y sintetico de lengua inglesa. In the prologue to the second edition (1854, Madrid) which is the same as in the first (1851), Mountifield claims that:

La idea capital sobre que está basado el método, es la misma que adoptaron para los suyos los célebres Robertson y Ollendorff, si bien el Doctor Mountifield la ha dado más desarrollo y la ha hecho más completa¹¹⁹.

Of special interest is to find out that the prologue in Mountifield’s second edition is signed by William Mountifield’s wife, Anne Mountifield, due to the death of her husband some time before the second edition was out. In the third (1859) and fourth (1861) editions the author is Anne Mountifield.

Aside from the Mountifields, Bergnes de Las Casas also acknowledged Robertsons’

influence. Of the five parts his grammar is divided into (Analogy, Word Formation, Syntax, Orthography, and Appendix), the second, Word Formation, is largely drawn on Robertson as Bergnes (1864, Prologue, v) admits:

118 This grammar comes to form a code of the English language, where one can find, in the corresponding chapters, the laws governing it: always a preferable method to that of Ollendorff, where the rules are scattered around and without the convenient link so that they can be fixed in memory.

119 The key idea this method is based on, it is the same adopted by the famous Robertson and Ollendorff, although Doctor Mountifield has developed it further and has made it more complete.

Alberto Lombardero Caparrós Dipòsit Legal: T 1588-2015

La segunda [Formación de las palabras], obra apreciabilísima de un inglés (M. Robertson), trata del mecanismo verbal de la lengua inglesa, de sus raíces, derivados y compuestos, […]; y no puede menos de ser utilísima para los que deseen poseer fundamentalmente la lengua inglesa¹²⁰.

Bergnes’ reference of M. Robertson as English may be due to the French author’s pseudonym which clearly has an English ring. What is also puzzling is the initial ‘M.’

since the Robertson’s first initial is T. Be it as it may, after comparing both authors’

prologue and introduction to their works, everything leads us to think that Bergnes is referring to the French author T. Robertson. Both make reference to very similar expressions when referring to the parts of their works if we compare Bergnes’ above-mentioned citation with Robertson’s (1839, Introduction: 6):

La connaissance complète d’une langue vivante se compose des connaissances suivantes:

- La science de la prononciation ;

- La science purement mnémotechnique des mots ;

- La science du mécanisme des mots ; c’est-à-dire de leur formation et de leurs inflexions ;

- La science des rapports des mots entre eux, ou de la construction des phrases.

Our corpus includes a further adaptor of Robertson’s Method: Manuel de Moradillo’s Método práctico, analítico, teórico y sintético de la lengua inglesa á imitación del sistema de T. Robertson¹²¹. It was published in 1843 in San Sebastián by Ignacio Ramón Baroja. Viña (2005: 195-197) initially regards him as an advocate for the natural or inductive method in Spain although a closer look at Moradillo’s work makes her conclude that se siente atraído por la Metodología Natural pero no lleva a cabo sus principales fundamentos (he is lured into the Natural Method but he fails to carry out 120 The second [Word Formation], a work of the Englishman, M. Robertson, deals with the verbal mechanism of the English language, of its roots, endings and compounds, […];

and it cannot fail to be highly useful for those who wish to fundamentally master the English tongue.

121 Practical, analytic, theoric and synthetic method of the english language in imitation of T. Robertson’s system.

Alberto Lombardero Caparrós Dipòsit Legal: T 1588-2015

its fundamental principles). Our last author, Pedro José Rojas was a Spanish immigrant in New York where he wrote Nuevo curso práctico, analítico, teórico y sintético del idioma inglés, por T. Robertson. Adaptado al Castellano por Pedro José Rojas¹²². It must have been a real success, since its first edition in 1850, considering that in 1917 the 59th edition was published. Despite this forthright success, Rojas’s adaptation was never published in Spain. Last but not least, Robertson’s influence was also exerted in Spain as far as the rest of foreign languages, other than English, are concerned. Corvo (2012: 151-152) mentions the following works: Pedro de Baringa’s Curso de lengua italiana, escrito con arreglo a las bases del método de Robertson, (Madrid, 1843) and Joaquin Mendizabal’s El Robertson español o sea curso práctico-teórico de lengua francesa, (Madrid, 1846).

Before moving on to consider some of the individual methods in ELT from diverse authors in our corpus in detail, it is worth noting the role played by some late nineteenth-century German authors whose English grammars were also published in Spain. Both of them enjoyed a great success on Spanish soil in the XX century, and even the 21^st in one of the cases, mainly due to their deductive approach. The authors and their works in question are:

-Emile Otto & Gustavo Kordgien¹²³, Gramática sucinta de la lengua inglesa¹²⁴. Also known as the Gaspey-Otto-Sauer Method, it was first published in Spain in 1884. Astonishingly, it reached its 33rd edition in 2002. Its main adaptors in Spain were, first, Luigi Pavia and, then, Mª Isabel Iglesias.

-Dr Doppelheim, El inglés al alcance de los niños¹²⁵. First published in Barcelona in the 1890s by the editorial Sopena. He also wrote an English course for self-learners called El inglés sin maestro (English without a teacher) which was very popular in the first decades of the XX century.

In view of the different foreign influences, we move on to show in detail three chronological examples of actual methods as explained by their authors in the para-122 New practical, analitical, theorical and synthetic course of the English language by T.

Robertson. Adapted into Spanish by Pedro José de Rojas.

123 His name appears together with Emil Otto as Otto & Kordgien.

124 Short grammar of the english language.

125 English for children.

Alberto Lombardero Caparrós Dipòsit Legal: T 1588-2015

texts of their works. The first one belongs to the fifth and last edition of Jorge Shipton’s Gramatica para aprender la lengua inglesa (A grammar to learn the English language).

It was quite a popular grammar in Spain between its first edition in 1810 and its last one in 1826. Therefore, it can be a clear exponent of how English was taught in the early decades of the nineteenth century apart from becoming a guide for (inexperienced) teachers.