Basic English

Author(s): I. A. Richards
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan., 1945), pp. 60-65
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/318107 .
Accessed: 11/01/2015 21:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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 support@jstor.org.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:25:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Basic English
I. A. RICHARDS
HarvardUniversity

INNOVATIONS are always likely to be misunderstood.This is true

whetherthe novel thingoccursas end or as means,is a changein purpose or in method. Misunderstandingis especially probable when the
noveltyis both in design and in technique,in what is attemptedand in
is above all to be expected
theways of achievingit. And misunderstanding
available-for discussingends or means--are inwhenthe termscurrently
whenmanydifferent
discriminateand confusing,
purposesare bundledtomethodssharecommon
getherunderthe same labels and as manydifferent
descriptions,and when even the broad distinctionbetweenan end and a
means is itselfdisregarded.
Basic English is my example. It has noveltiesto offerin aim and in
technique,and it offersthemin a fieldwherethe languageof discussionis
in thislamentablestate. The commentsto whichit has movedthe ignorant
and even more the learned,illustratevery well a recurrentsituationfor
far widerin significancethan any singleoccasion
human communications
misforit. There is nothingabout Basic whichhas not been confidently
or
apprehendedby those who would be countededitorially academically
as amongthebest informed.What it aims to do, how it attemptsthis,what
it is, what its effectsare, and how it came about have al been authoritaby experts.And no experiencedpersonwill be surtivelymisrepresented
have been
prisedto hear thaton all thesepointsthewildestmisconceptions
students
oflinguistics
in theranksofthespecialists-among
thoseoccurring
and preeminentlyamong techniciansin language-instruction.
Whysuchthingsshouldbe is a legitimate,an importantand a profitable
field for inquiry.Intellectualhistorysupplies materialsin embarrassing
quantity.As has oftenbeen noted certainareas of inquirysufferfar more
than othersfromthiskindof sclerosisof the imagination,thissettlinginto
grooves,this inabilityof the varyingadepts to see possibilitieson other
lines than theirown. Or rathercertainsubjects throughcertainphases of
theirgrowthsufferespecially.The period of strainand release is usually
markedby a good deal of stirand noise-enough to raise eyebrowsin the
used to makeall bystanders
subjects.As theodiumtheologicum
surrounding
in psychologyand
in
in
marvel,so successively philology, anthropology,
and obloquious
in
rise
a
nowin linguistics startling
obliquitousapprehension
it
seems
the
Like
of
remarked.
been
have
to signal,
comment
break-up ice,
with
as a rule,bettertimesahead. But whileit lasts it certainlyinterferes
traffic.
Somepartofthiscurrentrancorin linguisticsseemsevento have entered
throughpsychology.It is in thosepages whichbrandishwordslike "mental60

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:25:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BASIC ENGLISH

61

istic," keeping forlornfaith with Behaviorismof the Watson era, that

contumeliousmannersare most affected.There may be a clew hereworth
followingup.
The early Behavioristscame forward(one should perhaps rathersay
"charged") witha techniqueof inquirywhichtheybelievedto be new and
subversiveand thereforeverylikelyto be ignoredand tacitlysuppressed
in theintellectualstatus
by traditionalinterestscarryingheavyinvestments
a
It
laborious
was
technique,imposingpainfulself-sacrifice
upon its
quo.
who
had
to
themselves
use
of
much
overt
common
knowladherents,
deny
It
was
an
short
of
short
of
achieveexperience,
exiguoustechnique,
edge.
All the traditionallanguageof psychology
mentand shortof terminology.
(frompsychodown) was pre-emptedby and dependenton theveryassumptions denial of which was Behaviorism'sraison d'etre.In brief,sufficient
conditions for Ishmaelism were present. The Behaviorist became one
"whose hand is against everyman, and everyman's hand against him."
A certain sympathyfor this attractivefigurewill be felt by anyone
whosepositionis in any way analogous,and especiallyby anyoneanxious
to advance some new, puristic,laborious,self-denying
and possiblyoverambitious technique in anotherfield. Hence, I suggest,the odd alliance
withBehaviorismearlydeclaredby some whoprofessed"linguisticscience"
in a markedlyexclusivesense. Hence too, perhaps,thehaughtytone sometimestaken by themin discussionwith theirconfreres.
I have not forgotten
that some misconceptions
of Basic Englishare my
theme.An expandedframewithinwhichto view themappeared desirable
if the contributions
whichthe aims and techniquesof Basic and those of
for
phonemicanalysis,
example,can make in language teachingare to be
seen in relation.That thereneed be no clash is my main point. But some
conjecturesas to why conflictshouldbe supposed to arise seemeda necessary preliminary.
As those familiarwith the literatureknow,Basic was not put forward
to replacefullerformsof Englishforany learnerswho have the time,the
need, the opportunitiesand the abilitiesto go further.It was, indeed,so
designedthat it would make theirfurtheradvance as rapid and secureas
possible--byprovidingthemwiththat dream of the good teacher,a truly
solid foundation,a base which will not slide away as he builds upon it.
The fact is that thosewho come into unlimitedEnglishthroughBasic are
saved muchunnecessaryconfusion.They knowwhat theyknowand where
theyare. They are not over-extended,
tryingto develop too wide a front.
Primarily,Basic exists forthose who are not going much furtherinto
English.It is forthosewho need enoughEnglishfortrulywidecommunicationwithoutneeding,or being able to acquire, or keep up, more English
than will decentlydo that job. The job is considerable.Truly wide communicationcovers much more than the traveler'sor the business man's

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:25:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

62

I. A. RICHARDS

requirementsplus supplies for "phatic communion"to use Malinowski's

famousterm.1It covers all of an intelligentand civilizedmind's general
contactswithpeople and things,both in the worldof eventsand the world
of ideas. And that is a range of interestsmuch wider than elementary
language courses or, we may remarkin sadness, language teachers,are
usuallyconcernedwith.
Most mindswill,of course,be muchnarrower.They willnot themselves
make use ofall the resourcesoffered
by a minimumlanguagecoveringtruly
But menare moremyriad-minded
wide communication.
and less standardized than currentassumptionssuppose. A commongeneralequipment,like
a Place de la Concorde,must frontin all directions,and take care of the
meetingsofmindswhichhave littlein common.It mustbe preparedforall
eventualitiesand subjects and be ready to deal--satisfactorilywithinits
limits--witheverything.Milton called a generouseducation "that which
fitsa man to dischargejustly,skilfullyand magnanimouslyall the offices
both public and private of peace and war." Basic, underits conditionsof
spare economyand utmost reductionof the learningcharge,has a like
and the same aim. It had in factto be the simplestinstrument
of
definition
the liberalintelligence.At the same timeit has to handleadequately every
possiblevarietyofminorchore.
It is onlywhenwe have realizedtherangeofthetaskswhichBasic is designedto performthat we can reasonablyconsiderany of its otheraspects.
The degree,forexample,to whicha learnerequipped withBasic can adequately meet his multifariousneeds. Here a very widespreadmisapprehensipnmust be mentioned.People oftensuppose that a man who has
learnedBasic becomes,in someway, 'frozen'there,thatthepoweroflearning and usingan additionalword,when the occasionmakes that wise and
convenient,is somehowtakenfromhim. For example,cup is a Basic word,
saucer (for sundryobvious reasons) is not. Criticsunder the influenceof
are apt to ask: "How then is the poor man to get
this misapprehension
himselfa saucer?" The answer,of course,is: By describinga saucer--just
as we all do (and good dictionariesdo) withany otherthingwhosename we
don't happen to know. He says, "One of those small roundplates we put
undercups. What's its name? Oh, saucerl" He may not retainthis word.
Ten years may elapse beforehe meetsor needs it again. But forthe time
beingifit helpshe has it.
I have pickedthisabsurdinstancebecause it is a favoritewithcriticsof
Basic. Surelytheirinabilityto answersuch questions("How is he goingto
get himselfpumpkinpie!" etc.) argues some paralysisof the imagination,
and a sad lack of realism.How is any language course,at the cost of no
matterwhat timeand toil,goingto stockus ahead witheverywordwhich
may happen on occasionto be handy?
1 See 'The Problem of Meaning in PrimitiveSocieties' (BronislawMalinowski) SupplementI in TheMeaningofMeaning,HarcourtBrace, 6th Edition,p. 315.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:25:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BASIC ENGLISH

63

The pointis that Basic providesthe mostwidelyusefulmeansofasking

forand learningabout any wordswe may need forspecial purposes.A Chinese,learningto fly,forexample,needs,fairlyearly,about a hundredtechnical termsnot in Basic. It has been found(at Luke Field and elsewhere)
that Basic gives us a directand economical(in fact a life-saving)means of
teaching him how to use them. Similarlythe Chinese ArmoredForces
(learningBasic as their operatinglanguage) also need about a hundred
technicalwordsfortheirworkand notthesame ones.Basic again is a speedy
and economicalway of teachingthem. Moreover,the Air Force and the
Armorthushave the rootsand the main stemof theirEnglishin common,
and in commonwithFrenchAirmenand all otherswhoare learningthrough
Basic. Each may have his specialbranchand whatevertwigshis local needs
and conditionshave developedin him. But all have in commona body of
knowledgeselected and organizedon the principleof makingas littleas
possiblego as farand do as muchas possible.None ofthemmay have much
English (measured in vocabulary and syntacticresources).But they all
have the same English. And that will seem to us very important,if we
realizewhatnon-conterminous,
contactlessvarietiesofelementarytechnical
exist
and
how
a
English
easily man may pick up only a sort of English
whichsets himapart fromsimilarlearnersin otherfields.
In all thisI have laid no stress,so far,on a fourthrequirement
ofBasic
-in additionto rangeofcoverage,
and
economy
ofefort,
uniformity-namely
normality.
Any language whichis rapidlyexpandingis in some dangerof
disruption.It is in dangerof developingregionalvariantswhichare muofdiversemother
tuallyunintelligible-dialectsderivingfromtheinfluences
is
It
in
of
tongues.
danger developingtechnologicallingoes.The termsof
art of the departmentof education,the laboratory,the attorney'sor the
psychologist'soffice,the coulisse,the Air Force, the shipyard,the 'sweatbox' and the studio (forradio,painteror 'mobilist')do not jibe--as we are
all becomingincreasingly
aware.Now thewar,in boththeseways,is causing
the greatestand most violentlinguisticeruptionof all time. Historiansin
thefuturemay possiblyrecordthisas its mostfundamentaland permanent
effect.Merely in geographicaltermsEnglish is being spread abroad this
year as no otherlanguage ever has been spread. The organizationof the
peace and the airwaysof tomorrowwill continuethe process.And at the
same timeunderthe researchand manufacturing
pressuresof war, English
is flowering
and sportingas it has not done since Elizabethan days.
In all thisthedesirability
ofa commoncore,a centralstem,ofbeginner's
as
normal
as
the
other
threerequirements
English,
permit,and as rugged
to withstandthe learner'swrenchesas possible,needs no stressing.
The learner'swrenchescome,ofcourse,mainlyfromhis efforts
to equate
with
his
native
It
is
the
of
English
language.
livingpatterns his own speech
which distorthis acquired English. Here comes in the fifthrequirement
which Basic had to fulfil.Range, economy,uniformity
and normality
perlearnableas possible.
mitting,it had to be as directly

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:25:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

64

I. A. RICHARDS

As we all know, thereare broadlytwo ways of learninga language:

throughequations (commonlyfallacious)witha mothertongue--theway
ofthebilingualdictionaryorphrasebook-and directly
throughengagement
with the situation,the need, the fact,the feeling(to generalize,with the
'experience'2)to handle whichthe sentencehas come into being-engagementin briefwithits work.A keyaim and principleofdesignin Basic was
to make the learningof it throughouttie up as directlyand visibly as
possiblewiththe workits wordsand sentencesdo. Towardsthisimmediacy
of learning,Mr. Ogden's choiceof the Basic wordsgives enormousaid. Its
sixteen"operators"in theirkey senses are the most demonstrableof all
as theydo to visibleactable operations.(They
generalverbs,corresponding
of
course,
indispensable
anyhowto any English howeverunlimited.)
are,
of the Basic "directives"as dealing with
Mr.
analysis
Ogden's
Similarly,
senses
in
their
direction
and
(to be learntfirst)cuts out innumerkey
place
able opportunitiesof confusionwithsupposed'opposite numbers'in other
languages.To describein detail how thisis done is not possiblehere.Both
and texts4are available.
expositions3
To sum up: Basic bars no one fromgoingbeyondit. To thosewho are
capable ofhigherstudies"i Englishit servesas an escalator.It choosesfor
an entranceinto English the selectionwhichwill do mostat least cost for
the learner-rightaway and in the long run-a minimumselectionwhich
is normaland in the highestdegreeteachable directlyby demonstration.
What is therehereto repelthosewho are interestedin otherlanguageteachingaims and in the techniquesappropriateto them?The aim may be
to producestudentsable to pass fornative speakers-"with an acceptable
approximationto a native pronunciationand a practicallyperfectauditory
of the languageas spokenby natives." This is a highaim,
comprehension
and high things,we know,are hard. But the studenthas to make a beginning.Why shouldhis teachernot welcomeprinciplesof selectionwhich
will cut down the thousandsof morphemesand tagmemesof the foreign
languageto a minimum-forthefirststage ofhis study?Withsuch a minimum the constantrepetitionneeded forhis purpose becomes practicable
2 May I, on the need forcare with this greatword,referto discussionsof it in my How
toRead a Page (Norton1942). See Index.
s The Systemof Basic English, C. K. Ogden (Harcourt, Brace and Co. 1934); Basic
Englishand Its Uses,I. A. Richards(W. W. Norton 1943).
in Teaching(Harcourt Brace and Co. 1938) I go
In Chapter XI of my Interpretation
and peculiarsecurityofundermoredeeplyinto the groundsforthe peculiardemonstrability
and Its Uses will be found
In
Basic
to
the
Basic
anchored
English
"operations."
standings
some of the reasonswhyBasic lendsitselfespeciallyto pictorialand motionpictureteaching
-possibilities towardswhichthePocketBookof Basic Englishand the teachingfilmsnowin
contributions.
productionwithMarch of Time are forthcoming
* Learningthe English Language (Houghton MifflinCompany,1943); Wordson Paper,
(Harvard Commissionon EnglishLanguage Studies,1943); TheBasic Way toEnglish(Evans
BrothersLtd.)

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:25:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BASIC ENGLISH

65

the furtheraims whichhe too has in view.

withoutdelayingor sacrificing
It is perfectly
to
combine
the 'informant'methodand any desired
possible
amount of 'instructionin sound productionand structurefunction'with
such a selectionof the matterto be presentedas was workedout by Mr.
Ogden forEnglish.
And on the otherside workaimed at the fullestand readiestcommand
ofall theresourcesofa language,at themostexactand systematiclinguistic
analyses,may,under the rightconditions,assist Basic in smoothingthe
beginner'sway into practical intelligibility-providedalways we do not
delay the buildingof the houses in the interestof the color of the bricks.
Thereis no reasonablereasonwhythereshouldnot be cooperationbetween
all who,fromwhateverangle,are concernedwithlanguageteaching.Alas,
in point of fact there are innumerableunreasonable reasons for noncooperation.
First,althoughthetask is urgentand immenseand although,obviously,
it will have to be tackledfrommanysides,thereis a tendency(as natural
as mankind)to thinkin termsofrivalryabout workdonefromotherangles
than one's own. Typically the 'linguisticscientist'fears that 'the Basic
fromhis own importantand
craze' will divectattentionand opportunities
field
of
and
the
of
effort,
promising
proponent Basic fearsthat linguistic
and
hold
polish
spit
may
up gigantictroopmovementslate already.Simiresentthe inlarly,teachersof otherlanguages than Englishunwittingly
the
escapable spread of Englishand stillmoreresent,equally unwittingly,
unfairlyprivilegedposition(as regardstheeasy acquirementofa modicum)
whichBasic has givento English.On his side,theproponentof Basic is apt
to make such,no doubt,irrelevantand baseless chargesas this.
This sad state of thingsis to be regretted.It is illustratedby a widely
publicizedremark(whichmade the columnsof Time) that ninetypercent
of'scientific
linguists'are againstBasic English.The title'scientific
linguist'
(or 'linguisticscientist') itselfseems to show some uneasy awarenessof
it labels is not too well defined;its memsuperiormerit.The confraternity
bers exhibita behaviorto one anotherwhichis eitherfarfrombrotherlyor
as you will.But in any case theremarkmay be suspected
too,too brotherly,
to be an exaggeration.There is some doubt as to who would be admitted
to be 'linguisticscientists'and as to how manyofthemthereare. I suppose
therewould have to be ten of them-unless personsof two mindsmaybe
included!
But to be serious.This acrimony,theseexclusiveairs,theseattitudesof
the sectary,theseaccusations,all thesepolemicalperformances
are out of
date. They belongto ages less consciousthan we shouldbe of intellectual
history,of its turnovers--inwhichtheythat were firstshall be last-and
of theprovisionalcharacterof all techniques.In such a matteras language
study--manymansionedbeyondothers-controversialmannersare rather
shameful.They are against commonhumaninterestin an importantfield.

This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:25:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions