Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Another class repeat certain sounds or expressions of an emotional character, prompted perhaps by some emotion, though the sound or expression used has no apposite relation to the emotion felt.

There is another class to whom the term parrot-like is still more appropriate. I recall two girls of some ten years old; idiots of low grade; with no comprehension of language, not even having learned to distinguish the name of a single object called in their presence. They had, however, learned to discriminate sounds, without attaching any meaning to those sounds. The faculty of imitation had been somewhat developed in them. They had some memory.

This threefold aptitude was manifested in this way. In the marches in the school-room and elsewhere they would not only sing two or three tunes quite correctly, but the very words of the tunes, to the extent of two or three verses. At the same time, they did not comprehend a single word of the verses, any more than of the mechanism of the vocal organs involved in their production.

In another case I have heard a child burst out with quite a sentence, heard perhaps the preceding day, to which it did not attach the slightest meaning, and yet quite perfect in modulation and emphasis.

There is still another class of cases where speech is merely imitative, that simulates to a still greater degree intelligent speech. I recall a case that was quite interesting in several ways. A girl of eight years old; the idiocy resulting from brain disease in early infancy. She was a pretty child, with an absent and dreamy look, and alive only to the customary signs of affection on the part of her care-takers. Her parents were religious people, who often sang or repeated a variety of hymns in her presence. These she learned to repeat till she had quite a stock at her command. It was only necessary to start one of these in her hearing to have her repeat the remainder. Even a single word would prove suggestive of the context and start her utterances. The parents, when they brought her to the institution, told some incidents where quite unconsciously to them a word had given rise to the most apposite quotations on her part, and similar occurrences were not infrequent while she remained in the asylum: thus, while I was dressing a very painful ingrowing thumb-nail, she caught some remark of a by-stander and burst out with "I'll bear the cross, endure the pain, supported by thy word."

From a somewhat careful study of the imitative speech of parrots, I am led to believe that the appositeness of their utterances, upon which their reputation for intelligence depends, is the result of similar accidental suggestion or association.

Thirdly, where the default of speech is the result of idiocy; i.e., from want of intelligence and want of control over the vocal organs. The individual does not speak because he is not as intelligent as ordinary children are when they begin to comprehend language, or begin to speak. Or he has attained a degree of speech corresponding with the various stages in the normal process of learning to talk, in the cage of a child of average intelligence.

There is still another class who may be said to possess the faculty of speech. These belong to a higher grade. They are only imbecile or weak-minded. But this possession of speech, even if amounting to fluency, is a moderate one, when tested by the use of words expressing the relations of ideas. It is of necessity simple, because in any case language is never given or acquired beyond the mental requirements of the individual or the race.

For obvious reasons, the two first classes should be excluded from our present discussion. Of the remainder, we may assign them to several categories, and these in the main corresponding with certain degrees of intelligence, -- subject, of course, to the exceptional circumstances of paralysis of organization or other analogous conditions.

As an illustration of the fitness and practical nature of this mode of classification, take the inquiries we propound to the parents or friends of pupils on admission.

How large a portion of these relate to language, by signs or spoken, and speech? Thus: Have they any idea of language? Do they notice when their attention is called? Know their own names? Do they understand any simple command, like "Stand up, sit down," without the aid of signs? Do they know the names of any objects or persons, names of qualities, large and small, etc.? Of me and you and mine and yours? Do they know the names of any numbers? Can you send them on any errand about the house or place?

Then as to speech: Do they make signs to express their wants, leading you to the object sought or pointing to it? Will they bring you a mug when they want water? Do they show affection by caressing or kissing you? Do they extend the sign-language beyond its natural range or as seen in the case of ordinary children? Do they hum any tunes? Imitate any sounds? Do they attempt to speak? At what age did they begin? Is the utterance distinct? What words do they use? Do they put words together? Do they form sentences? The nature of the sentences? Do they speak of themselves in the third person? Do they repeat your question or answer it? Do they combine the gesture-language with their speech? Is there any imperfection in the organs of speech, any paralysis?