COMPLIMENTS OF THE AUTHOR. Utility ok Signs BY ALEXANDER GRAHAM BEEE, Ph. D. Reprinted from the Educator of May, 1894.. PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTION; PRINT. 1894. With the compliments of Alexander Graham Bell, 1331 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, B. 0. Utility of Signs BY ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL, Ph. D. Reprinted from the Ediccator of May, 1894.. PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTION PRINT. 1894. UTILITY OF SIQNS. ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL. To the Editors of The Educator : It gives me much pleasure to respond to your invitation to address your readers upon the subject of “ Signs.” You say : “ Just what you think of signs and their utility, or lack of utility, is not generally known. I do not know that you have 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 have very aptly remarked in your editorial upon “ The Sign-language Defined,” ‘ ‘has been for the most part profitless and unproductive of results from the fact that terms have been used indiscriminately and without an agreed-upon and clearly understood meaning. ’ ’—(Educator, December, 1893, p. 230.) The nature of my difficulty will be best under- stood from an example. Allow me to ask the reader a question ; DO YOU USE SIGNS IN YOUR SCHOOL ? Now, suppose you say “Yes,” what would we understand you to mean ? Surely that the De I’Epee Sign-language is employed in your school. But sup- pose you say “ No,” would this meaning of the word be retained ? lam afraid not ; and the result would simply be that your veracity would be open to ques- 4 tion ; for observation of your school work would undoubtedly show that you use natural actions to illustrate and explain the meaning of English expres- sions; and expressive gestures to emphasize your words, and give life, and force, and point to what you say. It is true that these are not De I’Epee signs—(by which I mean the conventional gestures employed in the De I’Epee language of signs)but are they not natu- ral signs ? Even though you should claim that many natural actions are not signs at all, in any sense of the word ; and that expressive gestures are not signs when used as accompaniments, merely, of English words; can stou5tou deny that natural gestures are natural signs, properly so called, when used alone, without words at all, to express thought—in the wTay they are employed occasionally by hearing people ? We sometimes, for example, command silence, without speaking our- selves, by placing a finger on the lips. We sometimes rebuke by a gesture or a look alone; or express approval by a nod, or a pat on the head, without words at.all. We sometimes beckon a boy to come, or motion him away, without speaking. Every teacher admits that he uses natural signs of this sort— at least occasionally—as hearing people do. But can you deny that natural signs are signs ? If not, how can you truthfully say that you do not use signs in your school ? “ signs.” If you mean the De I’Epee Language, then they are not signs in that sense, any more than the signs of the Zodiac are signs, for they do not consti- tute the De I’Epee Language of Signs- Indeed, they are called “ natural ” signs for the very purpose of distin- guishing them from the conventional signs charac- teristic of the De I’Epee Language, Of course it all depends upon what you mean by 5 The question proposed seems a very simple one to a .sign teacher, for he can say “ Yes ” at once, and nobody doubts the truth of his assertion ; but to those who do not employ the De I’Epee language of signs it is a veritable “ catch question,” comparable to the old problem of toss-penny, “ Heads, I win ; tails, you lose,”—the result is against you every time! If you say “Yes,” you are apt to convey a meaning that you know to be untrue; and if you say “No,” your veracity is equally open to question. WHY TEACHERS CANNOT AMICABRY DISCUSS THE QUESTION OF SIGNS. I have no doubt that this is the reason why dis- cussions of this subject in the past have usualty been more productive of friction between the disputants than of good to the world. Nobody likes to have his veracity doubted—most people decidedly it—so that profitable discussion under such circumstances is not possible. Most teachers who do not employ the De I’Epee Eanguage 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” the signs employed 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’Epee Eanguage. 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 employed as a convenient abbreviation for “De I’Epee Sign Eanguage,” so long, of course, will many of those who are opposed to the use of that language deny that they 6 use “ signs ”at all. Then comes unfriendly criticism, 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’Kpee Language.) Bitterness of heart follows as a natural con- sequence. 111-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 ‘ ‘ sign ’ ’ is used in very many different senses in the English language. The new Century Dictionary (a quarto) devotes no less than a whole page to the definition of the meanings of that one word. So that an unfriendly critic, unlimited by any technical mean- ing of the word, is able to find “ signs ” everywhere in schools that do not employ the De I’Epee 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 plausibility. If you use finger spelling 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 these are “signs.” In fact }mu 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” ? 7 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 maybe a “ sign ” ! “This shall be a sign unto you. Ye shall find the babe, wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.”—(l,uke ii;i2.) 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 dis- cuss the subject of “signs’ ’at all, until some agreement has been reached by the profession as to the technical meaning to be assigned to the term. I shall therefore, with your leave, speak of “Action” and “Gesture” instead ; because these words have a technical and well understood meaning in Oratory (to which oral work properly belongs ;) whereas the technical mean- ing of “signs” has never been authoritatively defined. I must leave your readers to decide for themselves how far the actions and gestures of which I approve con- stitute ‘ ‘ signs ’ ’ in the sense that word is employed by teachers of the deaf. ACTION, GESTURE, 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 gestures are signs. All potatoes are vegetables, but all vege- table sare not potatoes. All gestures are actions, but 8 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 wrere 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 inclined to be suspicious of his actions, and clung to me in terror. The dog sat quietly near us in the mid- dle of the road, while I wrote something about him upon 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 secret—intended for George’s eye alone—which the dog must not know. In a moment the little fellow forgot his fears. Curiosity got the better of him. He was interested ; and, with a knowing wag of his head towards the dog, and with a happy laugh, he looked at the paper. Upon it was written thesentence “ George, look at the dog running.” I then picked up a stone and threw it at the dog—and he was off like a shot ! This natural action—of the dog’s—interpreted the meaning of the sentence I had written. But was the dog running away a “sign” or even a “gesture?” My natural action in picking up the stone, and throw- ing it, may have been a “gesture, ” but was it a “ sign ?” The natural actions by means of which I 9 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 I’Epee language; but they were signs in the broader sense of gestures of some sort employed in place of words to express ideas. This is one of the meanings attached to the term by ordinary hearing people who know noth- ing about the deaf. “And they made signs to his father how he would have him called.”—(Eukei: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 before a public audience ; actors do not know the word in the sense of “ action” on the stage ; and teachers of elo- cution, though “gesture” forms a special branch of their professional work, do not know the word “signs” as an equivalent. I say this from personal knowledge ; for long before 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 princi- ples of ‘ ‘ Expressive Gesture ” as a part of my pro- fessional work, to elocutionary pupils both hearing and deaf. In teaching a deaf boy to recite a dramatic poem, for instance, I would of course teach him also to use natural and appropriate gestures, just as I would with a hearing boy under similar circumstances. If you study Elocution you must study ‘ ‘ action ’ ’ and 10 ‘ ‘gesture” .'as a necessary part of your course. An awk- ward position of the body, ungraceful movements of the limbs, inappropriate actions, etc., detract seriously from the effect of the best articulation. On the other hand, a good presence, graceful movements, and appropriate actions, improve the effect of poor articulation. 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 saying, Master, we would see a Sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign ; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah: For 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 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). In this sense also an endless variety of actions and gestures may be signs even though they simply accom- pany words instead of taking their place. For in- stance, they may constitute signs of pleasure, affection, love, approval, dislike, anger, hatred, etc. But it will be observed that in ordinary parlance actions or ges- tures are not signs at all, in any sense of the term (any more than they are “symbols” or “tokens”) unless 11 they mean something more than the mere motions themselves. They must be significant 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 Chairman thought that the definition of technical terms did not properly come within the pro- vince of the Committee. The object of the Conference of Superintendents and Principals in appointing the Com- mittee 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 Quadrennial Convention of Instructors will take the matter up, and settle it once for all. UTILITY OF ACTION AND GESTURE- I think that natural actions and gestures are of great utility in the instruction of the Deaf, when used as hearing people employ them, as accompaniments of English words, to emphasize and reinforce their mean- ing. They are useful to illustrate English expressions, just as pictures illustrate the text of a book. They give life and force to the utterances of thought. Books intended for very little children must be copiously illustrated or they will fail to interest at all. Language unaccompanied by natural actions and expressive ges- tures, is like a book without 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 12 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. Ido not know. But if such ac- tions 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 the meaning of the word from the signs f He did, and lam 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’Kpee language of signs. Then again all teachers permit little children to play; and what we call ‘1 play ’ ’ consists largely of imitative actions, which, if employed without words, would be called pantomime—the acting out of imaginary 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 mean- ing 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 actions and gestures, in play, for the instruction of *See Annals, 1888, Yol. XXVIII, pp. 134-189. “Upon a method of teaching language to a very young congenitally deaf child.” Reprints may he obtained through the Volta Bureau. 13 hearing children. We need a system of kindergarten for the deaf, specially adapted for the teaching of lan- 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 process by which hearing children come to understand their vernacular, and study the part played by natural actions and ges- tures 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 independent attempts at composition are made. Comprehension comes first, composition afterwards. 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 English words— we do not expect him to talk to us. The language we want him to learn, we use ourselves—constantly—in his presence. But does he at first understand what 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 interpret 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. Tittle 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 all. And all this process goes on, in the case of the hearing child, before he litters his fist word. Phrases and idiomatic expressions are compre- hended as wholes, even though the component words may not be fully understood ; just as we understand what Mr. Jenkins meant by “the mix of the whole question.” But how many of us know what “mix''’ means ? Just think what a multitude of words and phrases are presented to the ears of the hearing child during the first two years of his life, before he is expected to speak at all; and then consider how much English our pupils see before they are required to express their thoughts by writing or speech. Here is the true “ mix of the whole question, ” to borrow Mr. Jenkins’ ex- pression : More English, less signs; and don’t use signs in the place of words. Use natural actions, and natural gestures, just as you use them with hearing children—neither less, nor more, nor in a different manner—and you should get the same results. APPLICATION OF THE NATURAL PROCESS TO THE CASE OF THE DEAF. If we follow the natural process we should begin by talking to the child in English words (spoken, writ- ten, or spelled upon the fingers, according to the method we prefer to employ); and we should be careful to use complete sentences—idiomatic phrases and all—just such language, in fact, as we would have employed if the child could hear. And these sentences should be given rapidly, with natural emphasis and expression and action, even though the child may fail to catch each individual word. 15 The whole is more important than the parts. Illit- erate hearing children and adults cannot tell how many letters, or syllables, or words proceed from the mouth of a speaker. It is sufficient for them to understand the general meaning. A phrase, or sentence, is the unit of language, not a word. In teaching English to a hearing baby we don’t begin with elements—(f—p—s—etc.,)—or syllables, or words; we use sentences as wholes, not sentences slow- ly uttered, word by word, with clear, deliberate enuncia- tion. We utter them rapidly, with plenty of life and action as accompaniment, subordinating details of every kind to the effect as a whole. We don’t even stop to inquire whether the child understands what we say. Indeed, we know he does not at first; but we talk right on, just the same, whether he does or not. We don’t stop to philosophize about the apparent uselessness of our employing language that we know is beyond the baby’s comprehension at the time we use it; we talk right on. We don’t stop to speculate how or by what process the child is to acquire the meaning of colloquial phrases and idiomatic expressions. We simply use them ourselves and talk right on. What- ever we desire to say, we say, quite irrespective of grammatical constructions; and leave the rest to nature without bothering our brains about the how and when to do this or that. “ The Centipede was puzzled quite When Polliwig in fun, Said ‘ Pray which leg comes after which ? ’ This put her mind in such a pitch, She lay distracted in the ditch Considering how to run.” Don’t let us be deterred by imaginary difficulties from going right ahead, and presenting to the eyes of the deaf whatever we do to the ears of the hearing. The language we employ in talking to a hearing baby in arms is surely 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 nurse 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, even in his cradle, when he begins risu cognoscere viatrem, 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 in the case of the hear- ing child. After the deaf child has begun to recog- nize sentences, and comprehend their general meaning (even though he may not fully understand the compo- nent words), actions and gestures should be used more sparingly so as to force him to apply context to the in- terpretation 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 gradually to the comprehension of English, unac- companied by action 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 See Didascalocophus, published 1680; reprinted in the Annals for 1875, Yol. IX, pages 14 to 64. 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 was your own hearing boy. For example: “Papa, what does politeness mean?” Would you not at once attempt to explain its meaning by other Eng- lish 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, would be very polite.” You would probably give him a number or 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 was a mere baby you would of course use natural actions at once. For example, you might show him how to hand a book to Mamma “ very politely,” 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 ad- dressed 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 case require. There need be no differ- ence in the matter of “Signs;” and I think there should not; for it is certainly one of our objects, as instructors, to make the deaf child as like the hearing child as the necessities of his case admit. 18 sign-languagk. In tlie Christmas pantomime we have an illustration of natural 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 gestures 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? Ask that question 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. I mean to assert that not one of you who read this paper—if you could possibly avoid it—would want your own hearing child to use pantomime, as his ordinary and usual means of communication, in place of English, though all the world might be able to understand it. What then would be your attitude towards a language of pantomime that nobody could understand, save yourself and a few others? If, through ignorance of howto manage your boy, you had neglected to teach him English, so that he had been forced to invent a crude language of this sort, which nobody could understand save yourself and the few people at home, would you want him to retain it? Certainly not. You would want him to get rid of it just as soon as you knew how, and substitute English. Now this is the actual condition of the deaf child when he first 19 enters school, and the actual attitude of the parents towards the child. He is sent to us to learn English, not other signs. And what is our attitude towards the home-signs he brings into school ? We all agree that it is not de- sirable to retain them. We get rid of them as soon as we possibly can, by substituting for them either Eng- lish words, or De I’Epee Signs (according to the method we employ.) But the De I’Epee Sign-lan- guage is a language of pantomime even less intelligible to ordinary people than the home sign-languages of the pupils; for it is not understood by the people at home, with whom the children come into the most personal and intimate relations; and most of the reasons that lead us to discard home-signs, are equally applicable, I think, to the De I’Epee signs as well. Some of the disadvantages that I believe to attach to the use of the De I’Epee Sign-Eanguage have been touched upon incidentally in my remarks concerning Mr. Jenkins’ paper, (published in the Educator for April, 1894), so that I need not enlarge upon them here. The disadvantages are many and obvious, but the advantages are not so clear to my mind. I should be very glad if some of my good friends among the sign-teach- ers would only point them out to your readers; for I am sure we are all open 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’Epee language stimulates the mind of 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 em- ploy. The dwarfed mental condition of the uned- 20 treated deaf child is simply due to lack of suitable communication with other minds ; he needs a lan- guage of greater capacity to express ideas than he possesses in his own home-signs. The De I’Epee language has greater capacity; but English has greater capacity still. I speak from personal knowledge here; for it must not be supposed that I am entirely ignor- ant of the De 1 'Epee language of signs, having studied it conscientiously 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’Epee language is an easier language to learn than English. This may be so, but is that a sufficient reason for its use? Italian 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’Epee 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 the De I’Epee Sign-language when he enters school ;he acquires it there. It is true that he already knows and uses a crude form of sign- language invented by himself and his friends at home ; so that in this way peculiar signs, of home man- ufacture, are introduced into every school. This is the reason why pupils, even in oral schools, are some- times found to be using signs of some sort among 21 themselves on the play-ground and elsewhere. We are not responsible for the home-signs that appear in onr schools ; but we are responsible for the De I’Epee 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 ground that we do not “teach” the De I’Kpee signs in our schools, but that the children acquire them themselves—naturally—without special instruc- tion from us. The fact remains that the deaf child does not know them when he enters school, but ac- quires 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 Eng- lish 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 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. Eet us have as few of them as we possibly can. You have asked me for “an authoritative state- ment” of my views relating to signs and the questions involved. You wish me in fact to place myself “in a clear and unequivocal position ’ ’ so that all may under- stand exactly where I stand. In conclusion, then, I may say :—- CONCLUSION. 22 I believe in the use of natural actions and natu- ral gestures, as hearing people employ them, not in any other way. I believe it to be a mistake to employ gestures in place of words ; and natural panto- mime, or sign-language of any sort, should not, I think, be used as a means of communication. Ido not object to manual alphabets of any kind in the earlier stages of instruction. I prefer the pure oral method to any other ; but I would rather liave a deaf child taught through De I’Epee signs than not educated at all. I think there are two classes of deaf persons who should certainly be taught by oral methods, the semi-deaf, and the semi- mute ; and I think that all the semi-deaf should receive the benefits of auricular instruction. In regard to the others I am not so sure. In their case I am not an advocate exclusively of the oral method alone, but look also with favor upon the manual alphabet method as developed in the Rochester school. In fact I advocate pure English methods whatever you do ; and do not think it matters very much whether you begin with written language and end with speech ; or begin with speech and end with written language; the final result, I think, will be .substantially the same. I do not approve of continuing the manual alphabet method throughout the whole school life of the pupil, but look upon it only as 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 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. 23 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 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 direction. My attitude towards 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 : ‘‘l 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 action to the word, and the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o’erdo not the modesty of Nature. ’ ’