LANGUAGES

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Your recent article about the teaching of languages at Harvard, while interesting and in some ways constructive, suffers, I believe from two major defects. In the first place, it seems to be based on interviews held more than a year ago; we have made many changes since. More importantly, it sets up false alternatives: either, it implies, we must follow the Cornell system, or teach French, German, etc. as dead languages. We have managed to avoid both these extremes. (Even Cornell has recently modified its method to make it less flagrantly anti-humanistic.) Nor does anyone in the Division of Modern Languages, to my knowledge, believe in disregarding the "aural-oral" aspects. A synthesis is possible. In German A, for example, while we put great stress on speaking and listening, we manage to get the students reading rather difficult prose within a few weeks.

A few other implications of your article must be challenged. Not everyone agrees that native speakers are necessarily the best elementary teachers of a language. While one of our most successful instructors was born in Vienna, and others in Germany, our brightest star comes from New Jersey. Nor is it true, at least in Germanics, that the great bulk of language teaching is done by Teaching Fellows; of eleven sections in German A, seven are taught by persons of higher rank. Not that the teaching ability of our high brass is by definition greater than that of our Teaching Fellows; the point is that there are "devoted teachers of language" right here, on all rungs of the academic ladder.

In the last year or so, we have made certain real advances. Thanks to the generous support of the administration, Boylston Hall is being remodeled; most of the building will be reserved for the various departments of modern languages, and we shall have one of the finest language laboratories in the country. Various new courses have been introduced. We now have a coordinator in Germanics as well as in Romance; Mr. Lunt has long been in general charge of language teaching in Russian. Mr. Rogers is now teaching a course for future teachers of Romance languages which, though devoted to descriptive linguistics and phonetics, stresses the applicability of these subjects to teaching at all levels; this is roughly parallel to a similar course in Germanics which Mr. Atkins introduced a few years ago. Finally, it should be pointed out that the enrollment in modern languages has risen sharply and in some cases dramatically.

While we cannot afford to be smug about the present situation, we do not need to be apologetic either. We are continuing to attempt improvements within the limits of our resources and energy. If this be stagnation, Heaven save us from activity. Henry Hatfield,   Chairman,   Germanic Languages and Literatures.