w i\ l. i Iff ' s IMAGE EV; TEST TARGI I *4f ^^ <^ /2 ^} M 1.0 I.I 1.25 ^^1 Photographic Sciences Corporation IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) i 1.0 I.I 1.25 1- IB 1 2.2 '■ '" III— 1.8 U III 1.6 'hotogrdphic Sciences Corporation 73 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^ -A ^ V> *^ o^ ^^ .«i> f ■■ -- CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / In i I '••, — E— -*ii;^ttiJh..3^»ipa ■fA.'iu* TSKS'JCT^f^'ciJi*^" '-*-''*w*»*««*(ii*ite< CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. i i ' icroreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historique* "**«««S«wSi»*' ^■MBfc* »tt fv^' m * ■j Mj ■■*J- Reprinted bv jjeniiissioii from //if F.ducator. WASHINGTON, D. C. : Sanders Printing Offick, 3414 Q Strkbt. 1898. «*»S£wS4»=iJ^''^^^^ r.? 2 1 <);J4 1 I .. » !■ It I wt ■ "irwW'y*'^ ' 1 CONTENTS. I. The yrK.sTioN of Sion-1,anguagr ... pp. 5 to 9 II. The Utility OF siON.s pp. 11(029 Do You Use Signs iti Your School ' p. 1 1 Why Teachers Cinuot Amicably Discuss the Question of Signs p. >3 Action, Clesture, and Signs p- 'S Utility of Action and Gesture p. 18 The Natural Process of Learning a I~-"*-~»e;&*'Xi--^fcW>i"==**^^ I 1 THE QUKSTION OK SI( JN-LAN( JUAdR. [I'Voiii ///(• luliiiator Vol. \', pp. ,\ — 4.] To tfie Etiifors <./' ///»• Ent'CATOK : You hav(3 invitt'd iu»i to iniik«< a f»'w ri'nmrks coneerninj? Mr. Jenkins' coniinnnication ui>on i\w "Question of Sijjns, "' i»iblislie(l in the P^i)r(;ATOU Vol. IV, ]»i). 21(5 -L'l'O; and also to oxpj-oss my own views ui»ou the subject. In your editorial notes upon the •' Sieak of the "lan- guage of tl ) stars," the "language of flowers, "etc. For exam])le he says : "It is customary among us to spealt of the 'sign-lan- guage,' or tlie 'language of signs,' l)ut language is that which belong:; to the tongue, liiit^un ; it is the utterance of vocal speech. In a remote, modified, accommodated sense, we may call it a langu.-ge, ju.st p.s we speak of the language of flowers, the language of the eyc^s, the language of stars, or anv other non-oral metho«3^r»-T>>t«et'?r'Tj^r; r-^^r-"«*MC?..?M"fi»TS»5Wi'V« K-.(.l«*;r.r.M:*r"->i" --cVw^MfcW^ » Mr, Jenkins is certainly in error in thus seeking to limit tlie legitimate use of the word " language " to "the utterance of vocal speech" alone, for reference to the dictionary will show that it includes "the ex- pression of ideas by writing, or any other instrumen- tality . "—(Webster. ) As we can express ideas through the instrumental- ity of the De rEp6e sign-language alone, without re- course to English, we are justified, I think, in claiming, not only that it is a "language" (in the correct and proper use of that term — not in a loose sense) but that it is a distinct language— as distinct from English as French or German, or any other spoken tongue. Mr. Jenkins says : "Thete is no especial objection to the phrase 'sign- language, ' unless ^n attempt be made to raise it to the dignity of a spoken language, and thus conceive of it as coming into competition with the National speech, which its proper, normal use never permits it to do." Tlie fact i.s patent, however, and has never been denied, that it becomes the ordinary and usual means of communication— the "vernacular" so to speak-— of many of our pupils, so that, as a matter of fact, it does come into competition with the National speech, what- ever "its proper, normal use" may be. Pupils certainly are not sent to school to acquire as their vernacular, a language not understood by the people among whom they live. That such a language should be employed as a means of communication and instruc- tion in our publi"! schools \r, contrary to the spirit and practice of American instituaons (as foreign immi- grants have found out.) In my opinion necessity alone could justify it ; and necessity certainly has not been shown. Mr. Jenkins says that even if we admit that the De I'Eiiee sign-language does constitute a 'language, ' in the true acceptation of that term, there is nothing at all improbable in children "acquiring two lan- guages;"' and he claims that this is actually done in sign schools , though why it should be necessary for i \ V df^af children to acquire two lan^ua^es where one alone is sufficient, he f'lils to state. When I receiviul your note recjuestin^ me to write this article, I was under the impression that Mr. Jenkins' paper contained some argument in favor of the use of the De I'Epee Lan^'Uiijje of Signs. I am surprised therefore to tind, uixm careful peiusal of his paper, that there is no such argument there. The sum and substance of what he s^ays appears to me to be as follows : The sign-language is not a language. If it is, then deaf cliildren can learn two ; and they do in sign- schools. Poor English is found' in oraJ, as well as in sign-schools. If there be any argument here in favor of the sign-language, it must surely be found in the last point named, which Mr. Jenkins considers of sufficient importance to be termed "the vu.f of the whole ques- tion."' He says : " .\n the errors peculiar to deaf-mutes, in schools where si}i;ns are used, are found in the compositions of pupils taujjht under the oral method. This is the uti.v of the whole question." Of course lack of familiarity with the English lan- guage is, of itself, a sufficient cause for poor English ; but it would not account for the appearance of pecul- iarities of expression apparently copying the idioms of the De TEpee language of signs. If by " errors pecul- iar to deaf-mutes " he means to assert that peculiarities of this sort are to be found in the compo.sitions of pu- pils taught tinder the oral method, it would be a most interesting circumstarce, well worthy of investigation, but notj I think, of any special imi)ortance in connec- tion with the present subject ; because, even if true, it does not afford a reason why the sign-language should bo emjiloyed in thc^ education of th(j deaf. The utmost result claimed, even by Mr. Jenkins, is as follows : " If this can be proved true, then the constant charge against signs i'.s the cause «of pigeon Knglish nnist fall to pieces." vsiiiSffiBess**^**'^*^^^''****'*""'™"'''"'' ^ It will thus be seen that in the eulminatin/? part of his whole arjfument he simply seeks to claim that the sign-language does not do as much harm as is com- monly supposed ; but this is not an argument showing that any advantage arises from its use. Mr. Jenkins, it is true, expresses the opinion that the graduates of schools that employ the sign-language are better educated than those of oral schools. This of course would be an argument if it were established by facts ; but Mr. Jenkins offers no evidence in its sup- port. The experience of the Pennsylvania Institution certainly does not justify his conclusion. It is well known that a careful comimrison of results obtained in the Oral and Manual Dei)artments of that school re- vealed the fact that the pujjils of the Oral Department, were not infex-ior to those of the other in their general education, and ability to use written English, while they were superior in their ability to use and under- stand speech. It cannot be denied that many deaf persons have obtained an excellent education with a good command of English without recourse to the De I'Epee Language of Signs. They are to be found among the graduates of Oral Schools, Manual Alphabet Schools (like the Rochester), and the pupils of private teachers. Helen Keller is a notable case in point with which every one is familiar ; and I may also cite the case of Miss Maud Jones, of England, (daughter of Sir Will- oughby Jones), because she was deaf from birth. Her letters, as well as her conversation, show that she has acquired as complete a mastery of the English lan- guage as that ijnssessed by any hearing person. If then a good education, with a good command of the English language, can be obtained without any re- course to the De I'Epoe language of signs, the question naturally arises, what need is there for the latter at all ? But Mr. Jenkins does not touch this jjoint. In conclusion allow me to say that if it is not nec- essary, it is obviously not advisable that deaf children ) '.^■ji ll should acquire, and use, as their ordinary and hn.>>iti:!al nuuius of communi(!ation — their vernacular in fact — a lanf,'uaKe which is not understood by the i)eoi)le among whom they live. I have a great deal more that I could say upon this subject, but in my opinion this is sufficient. And I feel myself placed in the position of the counsel who was called ui)on by the judge to show cause why his client had not appeared in court when summoned to attend. "Please your Honor," said he, "I have twenty- one reasons to present, to account for the absence of my client in this case. " " Let us hear them, " said the judge. " Well, in the first place, he died this morning ; and—" "Holdon,"saidthe judge, "that'll do. We'll waive the other twenty reasons, "—and dismissed the case.* In another article I shall be glad to state my own views concerning "The Utility of Signs," as you re- quest. Alexander Graham Belt.. * The late Mr. \V. O. Jenkins replied to this paper in an article en- titled •' nr. Bell's Criticisms." Seai/ie Ediualor, Vol. V, pp. 77 to 79. ..„-^;..^j* m.-^ UTILITY OF SIGNS. [I'Voiii ///(■ I'.diiaUor Vol. V, pj). 3S to 4J.] To tliv Editofn 0/ The EnrcATOH : It gives me much pleasure to respond to your in- vitation to address your readers ui)on the subject of "Signs." You say : "Just what you think of signs and their utility, or lack of utility, is not generally known. 1 do not know that you liave ever given anything that would be considered an authoritative statement of your position." It is with some diffidence, I must confess, that I comply with your request, for the discussion of this subject in the past, as you liave very aptl^ remarked in your editorial upon "The Sign-language Defined," "has been for the most part profitless and unpro» '• 18 WHY TEACHERS CANNOT AMICABLY DISCUSS THE QUESTION OF SIGNS. I have no doubt that this is the reason why dis- cussions of this subject in the past have usually been more productive of friction between the disputants than of good to the world. Nobody likes to have his veracity doubted — moK' people decidedly resent it — so that pr table discussion under such circumstances is not possible. Most teachers who do not employ the De rEi)6e Language of Signs, are quite willing to admit that they employ "natural signs," at least occasionally , if by that term you mean the signs employed by hearing people. But even in this case usage differs. Some teachers understand by " natural signs " tha signs em- ployed by uneducated deaf children at home before they come to school, although many of these home- signs are just as truly conventional as any of the signs of the De I'Ep^ Language. This is why some teach- ers, in their desire to avoid ambiguity, declare that they use "natural gestures," not "signs." So long as the word "signs" is currently em- ployed as a convenient abbreviation for "De VEp^e Sign Language," so long, of course, will many of those who are opposed to the use of that language deny that they use "signs " at all. Then comes unfriendly criti- cism, and the charge of untruth : " They say they don't use signs and they do, ' ' (although all the time it is well understood that they do not employ the De I'Ep^a Language.) Bitterness of heart follows as a natural consequence. Ill-feeling is aroused on both sides, and no good comes of discussion. Assertions take the place of arguments. One side asserts that they do not use signs ; the other that they do ; while all the time the definition of what they mean by "signs" is left in abeyance. Now it is a curious fact, and, under the circum- stances perhaps a lamentable one, that the word ■ii 14 "sipn" is used in very many different senses in the English languaKi^. The new Centu-y Dictionary (a quarto) devotes no less than a whole i)age to the defl- niti'»n of the meanings of that one word. So that an unfriendly critic, unlimited by any technical meaning of the word, is able to And "signs" everywhere m schools that do not employ the De I'Ep/'e Language. Once you depart from the technical meaning of the term (whatever that may be,) there is no end to the meanings that may be assigned to the word with some show of plaup'bility. If you use finger sijelling in your school, are not the movements of the fingers in forming the manual alphabet "signs" for the letters of the alphabet? If you are an oralist, are not the movements of the lips "signs" to the deaf ? (I have known the veracity of honest teachers to be impugned on just such grounds as these.) You cannot frown, or smile, or laugh, or stamp your foot, but the.se are "signs. " In fact you cannot do anything that is not a sign! For you cannot do anything without moving; and are not actions and motions and gestures of all sorts "signs"? But an unfriendly critic need not confine himself to motions or gestures. He can prove, if he chooses, that every picture you show to a child is a "sign," nay more, the very words you employ — whether spoken, or written, or spelled upon the fingers — are "signs " of ideas. In fact, anything whatever may be a "sign"! "This shall be a sifjn unto you. Ye shall find the babe, wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." — (L,uke ii : 12. ) Now you ask me what I think of "signs;" — their utility, inutility, etc. Well I must say that with my knowledge of the possible latitude in the meaning of the word, and with the experience of past discussions of this subject before me, I think we can not profitably discuss the subject of "signs " at all, until some agree ment has been reached by the profession as to the technical meaning to be assigned to the term. I shall < 15 therefore, with your leave, speak of "Action" and "Gesture" instead; because these words have a tech- nical and well understood meaning in Oratory (to which oral work properly belongs ;) whereas the tech- nical meaning of "signs" has never been authorita- tively defined. I must leave your readers to decide for themselves how far the actions and gestures of which I approve constitute "signs" in the sense that word is employed by teachers of the deaf. ACTION, OESTUIIE, AND SIGNS. It may be well here to remark that ordinary hear- ing people do not consider " gestures " and "signs " as synonymous terms. Although in our technical use of the word, it is undoubtedly true that all signs are gestures, it does not necessarily follow that all gest- ures are signs. All potatoes are vegetables, but all vegetables are not potatoes. All gestures are actions, but all actions are not gestures. Perhaps it may be well to illustrate : — A number of years ago I had a little congenitally deaf pupil, only five years of age, to whom I taught the English language, through writing and a manual alphabet. I preferred writing wherever possible ; and we carried a writing pad with us when we went for a walk, so that I could write to him about the various things we saw. Indeed I preferred this method of instruction to the more formal processes of the school room. I remember that upon one occasion, while walking along a country road, we were followed by a strange dog. I saw, by the wagging of his tail, that there was no harm in him ; but my little pupil was in- clined to be suspicious of his actions, and clung to me in terror. The dog sat quietly near us in the middle of the road, while I wrote something about him Uix)h my pad. With my finger on my lips, and in 'the most mysterious manner possible, I showed the paper to George — so that the dog should not see it. I con- veyed the idea, by my actions, that this was a great 1« I socrot — intondod for G(H)rK<''s oyc^ ulon«^ — which the do^ iiitiHt not know. In a morntnit thw littlo follow forgot his fi'ivrs. CurioMity ^'ot tlm hotter of liiin. H« wuH intt>rnst»Ml ; and, with a knowing wa^ of his lunid towards tho doj;, and with a happy laugh, lut l(K)ked at tho pajM'r. UiK)n it was written tho H«*nt«mc« " Georgo, look at the dog running," I thon picked uj) a stone and threw it at the dog — and he was off like a shot ! This natural action — of tho dog's — interpreted the meaning of tho sontonco I had written. But was the dog-running -away a "sign" or even a "gesture?" My natural action in ])icking up tho stone, and throw- ing it, may have been a "gesture," but was it a "slgnl*" The natural actions by means of which I conveyed to the boy's mind, without words, the idea that what I was going to show him was a secret, were undoubtedly natural "signs" as well as "gestures." They were not signs in the sense of the De rEp<''o language ; but they were signs in the broader sense of gestures of some sort emi)loyed in i)laco of words to express ideas. This is one of the meanings attached to the terra by ordinary hearing people who know nothing about the deaf. "And they nuule sIkiis to his father how he wouUl have him called." — (Luke i : 62. ) This implies that they did not speak. They used gestures instead of words. "Action" and "Gesture" form special branches of Oratory ; but the word "Signs " is not understood in this sense alone, by orators, actors, or teachers of elocution. Orators do not understand that they use "signs " when they gesticulate, in impassioned delivery befo' v a public audience ; actors do not know the word in the sense of "action " o" the stage ; and teachers of elo- cution, though "gesture" forms a special branch of their professional work, do not know the worf' "signs " as an equivalent. vrfafaaa:^ mma*^-* w 4 I I I- L I I » 17 I say this from personal knowledge ; for long be- fore I became an instructor of the deaf, I was myself a teacher of elocution, as my father was before me, and my grandfather before him. I have taught the piinciples of "Expressive Gesture" as apart of my professional worlc , to elocutionary pupils both hearing and deaf. In teaching a deaf boy to recil;e a dramatic poem, for instance, I would of course teach him also to use natural and appropriate gestures, just as I would a hearing boy under similar circumstances. If you study Elocution you must study "action" and "gesture" as a necessary part of your course. An awl^ward position of the body, ungraceful movements of the limbs, inappropriate actions, etc., detract seri- ously from the effect of the best articulation. On the other hand, a good presence, graceful movements, and appropriate actions, improve the elfect of poor articu- lati(m. In the very broadest sense in which hearing per- sons employ the term, the word "sign " has the mean- ing of "symbol " or " token," not "gesture." "Then certain of the Scribes and of the Pharisees answered siiving, Master, we would see a Sign ftoni thee. But he answered and said unto tlieni, an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign ; and there shall no sign l-e ,riven to it, hut the sign of the prophet Jonah. I'or as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."— (Matthew xii : 38, 39, 40). Other examples will readily occur to the reader- such as "signs of the times, " " signs of poverty, ' etc. "The evening red, and the morning gray, is a sure sign of a very fine day. " It is in this sense ("symbol " oi""t(jken") that words, (whether spoken, written, or spelled upon the fingers) are signs of ideas ; and that the movements of the fingers in forming the manual alphabet are signs for the letters of the alphabet ; and that frowning, smiling, laughing, and stamping your foot are signs, (signs of emotion for example). 18 In this sense also an endless variety of actions and postures may be sijrns oven though they simply accom- pany words instead of takin«? their place. For in- stance, they may constitute si^'ns of pleasure, affection, lov«', approval, dislike, anpcr, hatred, etc. But it will be observed that in ordinary parlance actions or gest- ures are not signs at all, in any .sense of the term (any more than they are "symbols" or "tokens") unless th<>y mean something more than the mere motions themselves. They must be signiftcant gestures— gestures that mean something— gestures that are employed for the expression of emotion or thought— in order to be signs at all in my opinion. In my last letter to the Commit- tee on Classification of Methods of Instructing the Deaf, I offered this as a definition of "signs"*; but it was not accepted by the Committee, or discussed at all ; and the Chainnan thought that tiie definition of technical tc^rms did not properly come within the pro- vince of the Connnittee. The object of the Conference of Superintendents and Principals in appointing the Committee was defeated largely through the inability of the Committee to agree upon the meaning of " Sign Language" and "Signs." This shows the necessity for some authoritative definition ; and I hope that the Cd as heiii-ing ])eople employ them, as accomi)animents of English words, to emi)hasize and reinforce their mean- ing. They are u.sef ul to illustrate English expressions, just as pictures illustrate the text of a book. Th<>y give life and force to the utterances of thought. Boolcs intended for very little children must be copiously * .litnals 1S93 Vol. XXXVIII. foot of pape 401. -"Vsmi i I 18 illustrated or they will fail to interest at all. Lan- guage unaccompanied by natural actions and expres- sive gestures, is like a book witliout pictures, a dry and cold thing to present to little children whether hearing or deaf. There are no teachers in existence who do not use them, and use them freely. For example : I have seen one of the gentle women of our Oral Schools teach a deaf baby the meaning of ' ' come. ' ' She said the word, she opened wide her arms, and with a winning smile enticed the child to come ; and when he came she clasped him lovingly in her arms and rewarded him with a kiss. Now I fancy some captious critic may exclaim that these were "signs, " Perhaps they were —to the child. I do not know. But if such actions as these are what you mean by "signs," they were natural signs— the kind of signs which every loving mother uses with her child. But did not the child get tlie meaning of the word from the signs ? He did, and I am glad of it. We all obtained our first knowledge of words in this way. I say, God bless the gentle teachers who use such signs as these, whether they do, or do not, employ the De I'Ep^e language of signs. Then again all teachers permit little children to play; and what we call "play" consists largely of imitative actions, which, if employed without words, would be called pantomime— the acting out of imagi- nary incidents in a realistic way. It is action, action, action all the time. Many teachers utilize play in the instruction of the deaf for the purpose of teaching the meaning of English expressions to very young children. I think it an admirable plan. In my own practice I have used play freely for this purpose.* One of the fundamental principles of Froebel's Kindergarten is the systematic utilization of natural »See Annals7\^2„ Vol. XXVIII, pp. 124—139. " Tpon n tnetliod of teaching language to a very young congenitally deaf child." Re- prints may l)e ohtaiued through the Volta Bureau. '20 actions and gestures, in play, for the instruction of hearing children. We need a system of kindergarten for the deaf, specially adapted for the teaching of Ian guage ; and I view the introduction of kindergarten methods into so many schools for the deaf with great hope. Progress undoubtedly lies in that direction. The best way to arrive at such a system, I think, is to examine very carefully the i^rocess by which hearing children come to understand their vernacuhir, and study the part played by natural actions and gest- ures in that process. We certainly do not begin by performing natural actions before a hearing baby, and then require him to express what we have done in English words. The child understands the language to a very considerable extent before his first independ- ent attempts at composition are made. Comprehension comes first, composition afterwards. THK NATURAL PROCESS OF LEARNING A LANOl'AGE. The natural process of learning a language is by imitation. What does this mean ? Consider what we do. We talk to the hearing baby in Engliwh words — we do not expect him to talk to us. The language we want him to learn, we use ourselves — constantly — in his pi'esence. But does he at first understand ..hat we say ? No, he does not. How then does he come to understand ? The first glimmering conceptions are aroused by concurrent actions — which he observes : natural actions interjiret the meaning. "John, go and shut the door," and baby .sees John get up and shut the door. You talk to the baby about what is going on. He sees what is going on, and this inter- prets the meaning. Expressive Gestures, too, are freely used to give emphasis and life to what you say. Little by little, as the power of comprehension in- creases, context comes into play. Words known inter- pret those that are obscure, by context ; and many new words and forms of expression in this way reveal their meaning to the child quite independently of actions at ' UIJj, l Ji;i,lUP i J i I I I . .i i llJJtt ;i ' 81 all. And all this process j?oes on, in the case of the hearing child, before he utters /ly not too difficult to be presented to the very youngest child in our schools. The fact is we are altogether too learned in our ways of teaching. Old Dalgarno was just right when he said that in the teaching of language "a prattling nur.se is a better tutrix to her foster child, than the most profoundly learned doctor in the University;" and that "there might be successful addresses made to a dumb child. ' ): i t L'8 even in his cradle, when he begins riftu vognoscore matreiii, if the mother, or nurse, had but as nimble a hand, as commonly they have a tongue. ' '* Natural actions and gestures should, I think, be used with great freedom at the outset of education, in conjunction with words ; but not independently of words any more than m the case of the hearing child. After the deaf child has begun to recognize sentences, and comprehend their general meaning (even though he may not fully understand the component words), actions and gestures should be used more sparingly so as to force him to apply context to the interpretation of the language employed. They should be used less and less as his education advances, so as to force him to use context more and more, and thus lead him grad- ually to the comprehension of English, unaccompanied by j,ction at all. It should be our constant endeavor, I think, to use words without action, and avoid action without words. Indeed, as a general rule, I think it would advance the deaf child more in his knowledge of language, to ex- plain unknown words and phrases by other words than to illustrate the meaning by actions, pictures, or even by objects themselves. Express the same thought in other terms. Incorporate the unknown term in a new sentence. In a word : prefer context to every other method of explanation. I believe the true principle is — to treat the child as though he could hear. Consider what you would do if he were your own hearing boy. For example : " Pai)a, what does politeness mean ?" Would you not at once attempt to explain its meaning by other English words, and try to enable him to get it by context ? ' ' Why you know, my dear, if you do thus and so, you would be very rude ; but if you do so, you would be very polite." You would probably give him a number *See Didascalocophus, published 1680; reprinted in the Annals for 1875, Vol. IX, pages 14 to 64. M of such examples ; but, unless he was a very little fel- low indeed, you would never dream of accompanying your words by illustrative actions. If he were a nn're baby you would of course use natural ai-.tions at once. For example, you miKht show him how to hand a book to Mamma " very ix)litely," etc.,— but with an older child you would use words alone. The only natural defect in the deaf child is his in- ability to hear. I think, therefore, we should treat him exactly as we treat the hearing child, excepting in matters affecting the ear. The English language is addressed to the ear of the ordinary child. In the case of the deaf it must be addressed to the eye, (or some other sense than that of hearing). This is all that the necessities of his ca.so recjuire. There need l>e no difference in the matter of "Signs ;" and I think there should not ; for it is certainly one of our objects, as instructors, tt) make the deaf clsild as like the hear- ing child as the necessities of his case admit. SKIN-I.ANOI'AOIO. In the Christmas i)antomime we have an illustra- tion of natiu-al actions and natural gestures employed by themselves in place of words to express ideas. This then is an exhibition of natural sign-language. We all enjoy pantomimic acting wherever we see it ; and it is therefore surely a strange and significant fact that pantomime should only be presented to the public as a comic show. I would not use natural actions and natural gest- ures in this way in the instruction of the deaf, I don't want a deaf child to form the habit of expressing his thoughts by pantomime if it can possibly be helped. I wouldn't like my hearing child to do it ; and you wouldn't like yours. Why not V Ask that questit)n of your heart ; and then apply the answer to the case of the deaf. Whatever your reasons may be, they are my reasons for not desiring it in the case of the deaf child. ■■.g-;.,*:ar»icsi- ). 25 I moan to assort that not ono of you who road this ])aiH'r if you could ])ossihly avoid it — wouhl wuiit your own h(>annH' child to uso pantoniimo, as his ordi- nary and usual nioans of communication, in placo of Kn>,'lish, though all tho world mijrht bo able to undor- sland it. What thon would bo your attitudo towards a hin^ua^o of ])antoinimo that nobody could undorstand, savi,' yoursolf ami a fow othors i' If, throu^'h i«rno- ranco of how to mana^^e your boy, you had nofyhnrtod to toach liim En^'lish, so that ho had boon forcod to invont a crudo lanjjfuajro of this sort, which nobody (!ould undorstand savo yoursolf and tho fow i)ooi)l(^ at home, would you want him to ''(itain it ? Cortainly not. You would want him to ^« t rid o* it just as soon as you knew how, and substitute Enjjlish. Now this i.s tho actual condition of the deaf child when ho tirst ontoi's school, and the actual attitudo of tho i)aronts towards the child. Ho is sent to us to loarn Enjrlish, ni<('aaai'aig 3 iiiai[ii!r«t W i' ii ' ««' Q " ^'*' 2fl The disadvantiijyos iiro many and obvious, but the advantaK^^s aro not so ck'ar to my mind. 1 should be very ghid if some of my pood friends among the sign- teachers would only point them out to your i , aders ; for I am sure wo aro all oi«m to conviction, and have the welfare and happiness of deaf children much more at heart than the way in which they are taught. It has often been claimed that the use of the De I'Epte language stimulates the mind ox the pupil and arouses his dormant faculties. I can readily see that this may be the case ; but I do not see why this is not also true of any other language you choose to employ. The dwarfed mental condition of the uneducated deaf child is simply due to lack of suitable communication with other minds ; ho needs a language of greater capacity to exjjress ideas than he possesses in his own home-signs. The De I'EpC'e language has greater cai)acity ; but English has greater capacity still. I speak from personal knowledge here ; for it must not be supposed that I am entirely ignorant of the De rEp6e language of signs, having studied it conscien- tiously for over a year, under such able instructors as William Martin Chamberlain, Philo Packard, and others. I must confess I do not see why we should use an inferior language, when we have English right at our hands — and must teach it to him anyway, first or last. Why not teach it first as last ? It has been claimed that the De I'Ep^e language is an easier language to learn than English. This may be so, but is that a suificient reason for its use ? Ital- ian is probably easier than English ; but that is no reason why we should make Italian the vernacular of an American child. That is no reason why we should teach him English by means of Italian. The very ease with which the De I'Epte Sign-language is ac quired affords an explanation of the curious fact that it often usurps the place of English, as the vernacular of the deaf child, in spite of exclusion from the school- room, and against the wishes of the teachers. The remedy however is in our own hands. The deaf child does not know tlio Do I'Eiu'e Si^n lan^najre when ho enti>rs school ; he acHiuirt's it tlit'n\ It is true that ho already knows and uses a crude form of sij,'n-lan;i;ua^'o invented by himself and his fri»Muls at home; so that in this way peculiar sijrns. of home manufacture, are introduced into every school. This is the reason why pupils, «?ven in oral schools, are sometimes found to bo usinj,' si^ms of some sort amouf; themselves on the playjjrround and elsewhen\ We are not resjjonsible for the home-si^ns that appear in our schools ; but we are responsible for the Do TEpi'-e signs that are acquired in their place. The blame, if blame there be, rests on our shoulders ; and we cannot shuffle off the responsibility on the j^round that we do not "teach" the Do I'Ep^'e signs in our schools, but that the children acquire them themselves — naturally — without si)ecial instruction from us. The fact re- mains that the deaf child does not know them when he enters school, but acquires them there, and he would not acquire them if he did not see them used. The remedy then is in our own hands : Don't use them at all, use English instead. Give him pure English instead of signs. Teach English by usage, and drop the sign- language from our schools. I have no doubt that all things have a use ; and there may even be a use for the De I'Epee language of signs ; but I do not think it is to be found in the in- struction of the young. If use it has at all, it lies, I think, in the possibility of employing it as a means of reaching and benefiting adults who are unable to com- municate with the hearing world. But this field of usefulness lies beyond our province as instructors of the young. We deal with children alone. The adults referred to represent our failures. Let us have as few of them as we possibly can. ■ »l»l— CONCIil'SION DKKININd TIIK At PriOli'S ATTI'I'I l)K TOWAUDS 'I'lIK DIFFKUHNT MK'l'HODS OK INHTUrOTINC! IIIK I)I;AI'. You Imv*' iiskcd iiic for "an luillioritiitivt' stiito- ment" of my views i-clatin^' to si>,'us imd the (iiicstions involvod. Y(ju wish iiin in fact to jduco myself "in a fh'ar uiul uneijuivocal jtositioii " so tliut all may uuder- staml exactly where I stand. In conclusion, then, I may say : I believe in tlu» use of natural actions and natural gestures, as hearing' people employ them, not in any other way. I helitjve it to l)e a mistake to employ fj:estures in place of words ; and natural pantomime, or 8i^'n-lan^'uaiid with speech ; or begin with speech and end with written languaf?e ; the tinal result, I think, will be substantially the same. I do not approve of contirn- ing the manual alphabet method throughout the whole sclu)ol life of the pupil, but look upon it only us a means to an end. The oral method should, I think, be used in the higher grades ; and speech-reading be sub- stituted for the manual alphabet after familiarity with I f-^ ^ i 29 the English language, and a good vocabulary, have been gained. In my preference, oral methods come first ; the manual alphabet method second ; and the sign-language method last ; but my heart is with teachers of the deaf whatever their method may be. The great movement now going on in sign schools towards the greater use of manually spelled English, and the less use of signs, meets with my full sympathy and approval. Those schools that now limit the use of the sign language to chapel exercises, and to com- munication in the play ground, have, in my opinion, made a step in the right direv'.tion. My attitude to- wards them is Hamlet's attitude towards the players : "Do not saw the air too much with your hand — thus. • • • • I pray you avoid it. " You remember what the first player said : "I hope we have reformed that indifferently with us." To which Hamlet replied, "O! reform it altogether." In regard to the proper use of action and gesture, I cannot do better than give you Hamlet's advice to the players — which is my advice to you all. "Suit the adtion to the word, and the word to the aei-rii^,i!uASi%ii««'«i^^ tt -A - :;ii,i6A**iSrtftS*Wt*fciySSSft»^ i^S»g»fiSS»i6t^ fciR*»tif*riS9W»i!W^S=**^«'*«*'» J