Library Collections: Document: Full Text

IV. He must present to the eye of his pupil, language under a visible form, and under this form must teach him to associate its terms directly with their corresponding ideas.

To restore language merely to the deaf and dumb, is not however, the teacher's only task. Language, as written, must be made to subserve, for him, all the purposes, which speech fulfils in the case of other men. It is the office of spoken language, not only to afford an easy and universal means of communication among men, but also to aid the conception and arrangement of ideas; and to facilitate the operations of the intellect. Every instrument, it is true, which shall answer the first of these ends, must, necessarily, at least to some extent, assist the exercise of the intelligence. But it is not equally true, that whatever instrument shall supply the intellect with the means of activity, shall also enable the individual who employs it, freely to hold intercourse with other men: since the teacher may devise a language, whether of action or of writing, which may be intelligible only to himself and his pupil. In the present case, indeed, he might easily create one, much more easy of acquisition, than any which actually exists. Yet, as this would but partially fulfil the purposes of his education, the deaf and dumb must be content to take language as it is, encumbered with all its difficulties, its anomalies, its phrases and its idioms. Hence, in the words of Degerando, 'It is necessary to put the deaf and dumb in possession of the common language of his country, in so effectual a manner, that he may, first, find in this instrument the means of obtaining, in the highest possible degree, the intellectual culture, in which he is deficient; and, secondly, that it may afford him the means of communication, the most constant and general, with his fellow-men. Whence it follows, that to enable him to use this language, we must afford him the material means, which is, itself, of most universal and familiar use.'

Here are presented two different species of labor in the field of instruction; the one relating simply to the material or mechanical means, by which language is to be employed in practice; the other, to the value of language itself. Thus early does the art begin to ramify; and, from this point, the systems of instruction, most widely differing, date their divergence.

By adopting the material form under which language appears to the deaf and dumb most simple, and under which it may be most easily acquired by one incapable of distinguishing between articulate sounds, time is gained for the more accurate study of language itself; while, as respects ease and rapidity of communication with the world, something is necessarily lost. By cultivating, on the other hand, a more rapid means of communication, time is wasted in an employment almost wholly mechanical; while the ease of intercourse, consequent on such an attainment, will render it a valuable auxiliary to the pupil, in rectifying his knowledge of words, and of the forms of speech in ordinary use among his more favored fellow beings.

The material instrument which first suggests itself, as adapted to the wants of the deaf and dumb, is writing. Being already in use, and generally understood in society, it affords all the means absolutely necessary to the purpose's of communication between man and man. Still it is a process always laborious, often exceedingly inconvenient; it exacts a great consumption of time, and requires him who is dependent on it to be always furnished with the materials which its employment renders indispensable. It is, therefore, certainly desirable, that the deaf and dumb should acquire, if such an acquisition be possible, some method more rapid than this, for the purposes of colloquial intercourse. Still, the nature of things confines our choice within narrow limits. Writing and artificial articulation are the only means which present themselves, available to the deaf and dumb, and, at the same time, universally intelligible among men.

The field is less circumscribed, when we address ourselves to the second part of our task, which is that of teaching language itself. We may here pursue the course, which nature has made necessary in ordinary education; to give the learner, first a practical knowledge of language, and afterwards methodical instruction in its principles; or we may combine these two branches of instruction into one. The latter is evidently the most cumbrous method, and the most tardy in its results; yet it is the plan of Sicard in his Cours d'Instruction, and it has the authority of other respectable names.

Either plan subdivides itself into two branches, of which the one is logical, the other grammatical. It will be the province of the former to acquaint the pupil with the value of language in discourse, and of the other to develope its principles.

Each of these ramifications will have two subordinate divisions: the former embracing the significations of isolated words, and the consideration of their combined value in propositions; the latter, the elements of language on the one hand, and the principles of construction on the other. Thus in this second, and more difficult part of the undertaking, four distinct objects present themselves.