A good hearing friend of mine contacted me about this interesting information from a book “Our Attitude Toward the Sign Language” at the library.

It is a very interesting speech by Mr. Steppuhn, A German teacher of the deaf in Essen, Germany.  It indicates some of the challenges we face in the U.S. - Today and around the globe.  History repeats itself?  See bottom for year of speech.

OUR PRESENT ATTITUDE WITH RESPECT TO THE SIGN LANGUAGE

To speak on the sign language and its importance in the education and instruction of the deaf is generally a thankless undertaking, for if in one’s investigations one arrives at conclusions differing from those now prevailing in the profession, one is suspected of being an opponent of the oral method. To prevent any misunderstanding, I desire to state at the beginning that nothing could be more remote from my intention than to make an attack upon our oral instruction. Its promotion is a matter of deep interest to me and I reject all suggestions and measures which seem liable to jeopardize or minimize its results.

Is the sign language really the enemy which we must combat under all circumstances in order to attain our aim of restoring the deaf to speaking humanity?

There was a time when this question was unqualifiedly answered in the affirmative;  when that teacher of the deaf was regarded as the most efficient who in his instruction and conversation not only anxiously avoided every sign and every movement that might possibly be construed as a sign, but also regarded it as his chief duty to suppress signs among his pupils under all circumstances. To-day it is different.  We have come to recognize the fact that the sign language – here as throughout this paper I refer always to the natural language of signs – is by no means so dangerous as it was once thought to be; that our success in oral teaching depends on other and far more important factors than the suppression of signs.

The credit for having brought about this change of opinion undoubtedly belongs to Heidsiek.  Before his appearance the absolute suppression of the sign language was the highest aim of schools for the deaf. In those days who would have dared publicly to declare that the speech bacillus was innocuous?  The unexpected happened when, at the meeting of this Association here in Cologne in 1889, the late School Councillor Cuppers, in speaking of the use of signs by the deaf among themselves, said: “I do not belong to those who are horrified when they see a sign.”  Since then, as every one will admit, slowly but steadily we have become more tolerant in our opinion of the sign language.  This became evident as long ago as 1894 at the Augsburg Congress.  While that Congress affirmed the principle of pure oral instruction and resolved that signs and the sign language should be excluded from the classroom, it no longer demanded that they should be excluded from the conversation of the pupils, and, it gave approval to use of pantomime and action in the classroom.  This compromise, however, produced a feeling of general dissatisfaction.  In the opinion of many the resolution went too far.  They objected to the complete “purity” of the method.  On the other hand there were some oral fanatics who were not content that signs should be excluded only from the instruction.  Thus our friend Mr. Schneider of Brunswick, some little time after the Augsburg Congress, published an article in the Organ on “Opinions regarding the German Method and the Use of Signs in our Schools,” in which he demanded that “signs should also be excluded from the conversation of the deaf among themselves.”

At present the sign language is regarded more favorably; its study is demanded, and a more important place in our instruction is given it than formerly.  Thus Reuschert of Berlin in his work,  “The Sign Language of Deaf-Mutes and the Expressive motions of Hearing Persons,”  has given us a splendid exposition of the sign language, while Schneider, formerly the bitter opponent and contemner of  this language, has published pamphlets and articles in which he has come out as its warmest admirer and advocate.  I refer to his “Thought and Language of the Deaf-Mute,” his “Idea and Method of Deaf-Mute Instruction Viewed from the Point of the Dialectic Process of Thought.”  All these writings evince warm enthusiasm, careful reflection, zealous study, and well deserve our consideration.

My first thesis is:

In estimating the importance of the sign language in the instruction and education of the deaf, a change has gradually taken place, which aims at a higher and more friendly appreciation.  The time has come, therefore, to consider this important problem without bias.

Reuschert’s exposition of the sign language has been received with great satisfaction by German teachers of the deaf – at least by a part of them.  In its publication he complied with the wish of many who felt the need of becoming more familiar with the nature of the language of their pupils, and he performed the task with skill and ability.  But while there has been in our ranks a demand for a better knowledge of the sign language, this demand has not been universal.  On the contrary, the need of understanding the sign language is still denied by many.  It is therefore worthwhile to say a work on the point.

How is it possible, one involuntarily asks, that a teacher of the deaf, to whom from the first day of his activity no other peculiarity of his pupils is so evident as their disposition to make signs, is not influenced to investigate this phenomenon?  The explanation is not difficult for those who know.  A teacher who regards the sign language as the worst evil in his field of work may simply determine to ignore its existence.  But is this wise?   If the sign language is really the enemy of oral teaching, should it be contemptuously ignored?  No, for if we wish to combat an enemy successfully we must first learn to know him well.

Let the position of the teacher toward the sign language be what it may, if he is seriously interested in his work, if his pupil is to him something more than a subject for experiment, he must endeavor to become acquainted with his mental and linguistic development; that is, he must study his pupil’s language of signs.

As Reuschert says:  “The sign language, like all human languages, has been created from observation, sensation, necessity, and activity; it therefore affords us a view of the workshop of the thoughts and imaginations of the deaf-mute.  It thus becomes the key to the life of his soul.  It is the bubbling spring of his experience and mental development.  In it we have the incarnation of his individual ideas, and through it the life wonder of his inmost nature finds expression.”

That the teacher of the deaf should learn the natural language of signs is demanded by some of the most zealous champions of the pure oral method. Vatter says:  “Notwithstanding all effort to exclude the sign language from the instruction of the deaf, its study must not be neglected by the teacher.  Pantomime and the sign language, not only physiologically but also psychologically, offer the instructor of the deaf much of interest, while they are also of great practical importance, since the new pupils possess no other means of expressing their thoughts and desires.”

Due recognition of the value of the sign language was shown in the regulations for the examination of candidates for the position of teacher in the year 1878, which required that the oral examination should “include the peculiar manner of thought and expression of the deaf-mute,” and the recently issued “General regulations for the admission and employment of  normal students at the Royal School for the Deaf in Berlin” demanded “thorough familiarity with the mental and linguistic development of the deaf child – especially also with the sign language.”  If in spite of this requirement the knowledge of the sign language frequently leaves much to be desired, this is due to the generally low estimation in which this language is held, from the influence of which even the examining board cannot escape.

From what has been said it ought to be clear that the sign language must be of great service to the teacher of the deaf and greatly increase his efficiency.  I trust that my appeal, especially to the younger men and women, to devote themselves zealously to its study will not be without result.

One other suggestion,  A still young but growing branch of the tree of general psychology is child study.  In this department the deaf child, so far as I know, has as yet hardly been considered.  For this neglect, there are many causes, but I believe one of the most important is the past neglect of the study of sign language.  If in the future more effort and attention are given to this language the day may not be distant when worthy contributions to the psychology of the child will be made from our profession, much to the benefit of our special work as well as to that of psychology in general.

My second thesis is:

A thorough knowledge of the sign language offers the most natural means of becoming thoroughly familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the deaf.  More attention must therefore be paid to its study on the part of teachers of the deaf than hitherto.

We come to my third thesis:

The sign language cannot be dispensed with either in the instruction of the deaf or in intercourse(interact) with them.

I have here expressed a truism which requires no further argument.  The burning question,  in the answer to which we do not all agree, is:  What place must be accorded to the sign language (the natural language of signs is always meant) in our instruction?  In trying to answer this question, let us study Schneider’s theories more closely.

As I have already said, these theories demand our serious consideration.  They express the striving and searching of an honest teacher.  We ought to investigate them without prejudice, in order to profit from them as much as possible.  This indeed is not easy, at least not for all of us;  it is most difficult for those (I believe there are some of this class among us) who rave over the “pure” oral method and regard it as the only source of salvation.

Mr. Schneider emphatically demands that “the sign language be given a place of honor in the instruction of the deaf.  It is indispensable in teaching speech.  In all grades of instruction and with all subjects of instruction it is needed.  The instruction of the deaf without signs is a monstrous error.”

Our friend Schneider goes to extremes.  As previously, when he was an opponent of the sign language, he waged war upon it to the knife, now he will not have it excluded anywhere or at any time.

How was he led from one extreme to the other?  First, through dissatisfaction with the results of pure oral instruction.  Notwithstanding earnest endeavor, the desired restoration of the deaf to speech was not accomplished;  the sign language could not be suppressed; and above all there appeared to be no enjoyment and delight in the work, especially in speech, on the part of the pupils.  Schneider was startled by these results, and came to the conclusion that there must be something wrong with a pure oral method.  His search for truth made him a disciple of Dr. Baron Cay von Brockdorff and this philosopher’s teaching brought him to the conclusion that without signs the deaf-mute cannot be instructed either in speech or in language.

Schneider’s fundamental principle, on which all his conclusions are based, is this:  “All understanding is an understanding through signs.”  He claims that this is true not only of the deaf  but also of hearing people.  “The human mind seeks to retain its observations and thoughts and for this it needs an expression.  Nearest to the mind are the movements which are associated in the conception with the pictures of the corresponding thought contents.  The mind grasps at these movements in order to obtain a language sign, and thus it arrives at a gesture sign.”  When the perception takes place under strong sensations, there is also an effort toward expression connected with motor tendencies which produces involuntary or imitated sounds.  These lead to the creation of speech.  Thus there are in the dawn of all mental and linguistic evolution two important elements:  gesture and sound.

Schneider permits no differentiation between perception and understanding.  In his opinion there exists between the two no difference in kind but merely “a difference in direction.”  In perception and understanding we always pass through opposite yet connected mental movements.  If we start from the perception, we lead our thought, conscious of single certainties, to unity;  if we place the idea at the exit, we have the opposite path before us.  I can think out the idea only when I place its contents in a picture before my mind.  If I concentrate my attention upon an idea, it runs back and forth between the objective symbols of the contents of the idea, and the whole appears to me as an ordered unity.  “All thinking,” says Schneider, “is reflecting and reflection is orientation, consequently motion.”

“Self-observation,” he continues, “teaches me that I reproduce no idea without executing physical movements – or at least becoming conscious of an impulse to do so.  Through the word alone no understanding is possible; it only introduces the action.  The understanding is effected through signs, but in the rapidity of the understanding the signs are usually unnoticed.  So far as the idea is concerned, the word has nothing in common with the content of the thought; it is only, except in the case of onomatopoetic sounds, an arbitrary sign.  It cannot awaken in us the conception of an object or of another idea.  Only signs – motions or their inceptions – are able to draw out conceptions.  In the reproduction of an idea the course of the perceptions through which I have obtained the idea becomes known.

“The motion therefore is and remains the creator of the conception, though in familiar ideas it is more or less transferred into the imagination and is actually made only in the case of unfamiliar ideas, when it is necessary to explain the content of the thought content to another person.

“There is no essential difference between the thought of the deaf-mute and our own.”

“With the suppression of signs one clips the wings of the mind and binds its natural self-activity.  Without this original activity, which with the deaf finds expression in signs, thought does not attain the clearness that is necessary in order to master the difficulties of language.  The sign is and remains the original symbol of the formation of ideas and the basis of understanding.”

Now what is Schneider’s position in regard to speech in the education of the deaf?  He recognizes its importance to the deaf as social beings as fully as the most zealous follower of the pure oral method and therefore desires to have it cultivated as much as possible. And here he especially emphasizes the idea that signs and sounds do not conflict, as was formerly thought, but are closely associated.  As the sign is a support for the idea it is also a support for the spoken work, and precisely at the moment when we bring the word to the deaf-mute, the sign is of the greatest importance.  It does not hinder and disturb thought in any way; on the contrary it stimulates it and gives it the necessary impulse in the mind of the deaf-mute.

Schneider then investigates the relative importance of the spoken word for the hearing person the sign leads to vocal utterance, to the word.  This is because the word appeals to his acoustic sense and not in order to characterize the image of the thought.  The word cannot be the carrier of the thought; it can only point to it like a signal given on an instrument.  The enormous importance of the word for hearing people, however, is not exhausted by this.  Its great power comes from the influence which the sense of hearing has upon our feeling and thought.  The asthetical effect of the word gives it such a predominance over the other means of expression that the latter are obscured and tend to disappear in the background.  Moreover the word is easy to learn and to use, and its general convenience assures its supremacy among hearing people.

But how is it with the deaf-mute?

Here the matter is entirely different.  By him the word is not readily acquired nor easily utilized, and it has not the slightest influence upon his aesthetic sensations.  For him it will never be the most essential part of expression, but in its importance for thought will rank far below the sign.  For him the word becomes only an “optical” signal, given through the mouth.  For hearing people the word is so predominant that they generally have no ready understanding of idea signs and are not practiced in the art of representing them clearly.  The instruction of the deaf has to reckon with these facts, which render it necessary to teach the use of word language in the most careful manner.  Through a skillfully developed method of instruction, based upon a knowledge of psychology, the word must be made for the deaf-mute a part of his means of expression; he must obtain as full control of it as possible and he must learn to appreciate and love it.

In this new significance the word goes peaceably along with the sign, but it must relinquish its supremacy as a mere signal for the eye.

What practical conclusions does Schneider draw from these theories?  He maintains that there is no such “direct association with speech” as Hill claimed, and that, instead of following Hill’s recommendation, “Present objects to your pupil and associate our signs of speech directly with them,” the proper method is:

1.   Whatever your pupils learn, let it become a part of their inner experience.

2.   Direct the process of expression with psychological foresight, connecting the word with the natural sign in such a manner that one action will spontaneously produce the other and both will become instruments of understanding and comprehension.

The second of the resolutions adopted at Milan in 1880 naturally does not meet with Schneider’s approval.  This resolution reads: “The Congress, considering that the simultaneous use of articulation and signs has the disadvantage of injuring articulation and lip-reading and the precision of ideas, declares that the pure oral method should be preferred.”

Schneider does not admit the statements made in that resolution, not even the statement that lip-reading must necessarily suffer.  He declares that lip-reading is too much regarded as a physiological act of the eye, whereas we can reach a full comprehension of what is spoken only by the psychological valuation of what has preceded.  Complete success in lip-reading can be expected only when the deaf-mute’s mental power has been so far developed by language instruction that he can grasp a thought by means of signs, analyze it locally, and give it shape grammatically.

It may further be stated that Schneider regards the use of signs for sounds – a new sort of manual alphabet – as very desirable in speech teaching as well as lip-reading, and that he would not dispense with the mental stimulus derived from signs in teaching the forms of language.

I believe I have now given the main points of Schneider’s theories, so that those who have not read his articles mentioned above can form an approximate idea of how far he goes.  Let us see how far we can follow him in these theories.

If Schneider’s fundamental thesis is right without qualification, then his deductions are also right, and the proud structure of the pure German method, which has been built up with so much labor and care, falls to pieces.

“All understanding is an understanding by signs.”  Our thought shows motor tendency and therefore always finds expression in movements which, with advanced mental culture and the supremacy of speech, do not always come to our consciousness.  Impulses of the will are, however, always present.  Philosophy is one of the most difficult of sciences;  its theories change like the stars.  How shall we decide concerning their correctness or fallacy?  And yet it would be wrong to avoid expressing an opinion.

For my part I cannot fully agree with Schneider.

That thought in its inceptions shows a motor tendency, that the mind here strives to study itself and the outer world by means of movements, I observe every day in the conduct of the little hearing child, of the uneducated man, and also of the deaf-mute.  But is it true of the educated man also?  My self-observation says no.  With the most intensive thought I am not able to observe motor impulses in myself. (Naturally the case if different when one is in a state of excitement, but that state is not now under consideration.)  I therefore incline to the old scholastic view that my mind in thinking does not differentiate the parts of an idea but operates simultaneously with symbols.  What then do I conclude on the subject?

As speech is gradually acquired, it obstructs, by reason of its brevity and pregnancy, the original innate tendency of motion, so that the latter gradually falls into disuse.  It is true that speech and motion do not conflict as long as the former is in the first stage of development.  But it is equally true that the further development of speech diminishes the motor tendency.

Thus we draw for our practical work the following conclusions:

1.   With beginners, especially those who are poor in language, the use of signs may prove useful in the development of ideas.  Signs are adapted to stimulate the pupils to think, to awaken in them a desire to communicate, to make their conceptions clear, and to enliven their instruction.

2.   Gradually their value diminishes and their use, except in special cases, becomes detrimental.  Their continued employment must increase the already strong motor tendency of the deaf-mute, so that his speech cannot proceed satisfactorily.  With the hearing person the motor tendency declines of itself as the ability to speak is developed.  With the deaf-mute this tendency must be diminished artificially in the interest of his progress in speech, by gradually suppressing and finally wholly excluding signs.  The entire suppression of signs will hardly be possible with those of feeble mental endowment, but with the normally endowed speech should make it possible to do without signs in the first period of instruction.  I say in the first period of instruction; I do not say after the first school year.  The exact time for their entire exclusion cannot be fixed with apodeictic certainty.  Even in a higher class the teacher may occasionally make use of a sign advantageously; for instance, in religious instruction, when the thread of tender impression and high exaltation is in danger of being broken through sudden difficulties of speech or lip-reading. In this I cannot with the best of intentions see anything contradictory to the spirit of oral teaching.

My fourth thesis, therefore, is:

Natural signs are to be used in the instruction of the deaf until speech has developed, both in extent and quality, sufficiently to be employed as a satisfactory means of instruction.  With the feebly endowed the sign language is to be used at all stages, but with the normally endowed only during the first period of instruction.

As far as the term “signs for sounds” indicates special signs to illustrate movements made in articulation, there can be no objection to their use.  I should like to see the articulation teacher who does not make use of them.  But in lip-reading and in teaching the forms of language there is no place for signs.  Where the hand speaks lip-reading cannot thrive.  As for signs to designate grammatical relations, their employment would lead us directly to the artificial signs of the Abbe de l’Epee.

We now come to my fifth thesis:

 In the intercourse(interact) of deaf pupils among themselves, our educational aim requires that the sign language be gradually suppressed as far as possible and that our pupils be earnestly, yet without severity, urged to oral communication.

We all know that in the intercourse(interact) of pupils with one another the possibility of lip-reading has rather narrow limitations and that signs cannot be wholly suppressed.  Where this was formerly attempted, it resulted in the suppression of full communication of thought.  We no longer desire this.  But must we therefore permit the sign language to rule absolutely?  No;  the supervising teacher on duty must constantly encourage the older pupils to use speech in their conversation with one another.

At the close of the discussion of my fourth thesis, I expressed the opinion that it is no transgression against the oral method if the teacher of an advanced class, while generally repudiating signs, yet occasionally makes use of one in the interest of moral and religious teaching.  This thought leads me to formulate the sixth thesis:

Our educational aims may imperatively demand the aid of the sign language even with advanced pupils.

Those who know how dead and cold the spoken word often leaves the deaf-mute will agree with me that there can be no valid objection if the instructor, in order to render admonition or rebuke more effective, allows the permitted pantomime and gesture to become a regular sign.

My seventh thesis is added merely for the sake of completeness.  It is:

In the spiritual and religious care of the adult deaf, where the aim is not oral instruction but higher interests predominate, and where, moreover, a large assembly of the deaf is addressed, the inequality of whose mental and linguistic attainments renders the effect of the spoken word somewhat doubtful, it is desirable to make a reasonable use of the sign language together with speech.

In the cases here referred to we are not dealing with pupils the development of whose speech, even if not our main object, is still of very great importance.  Our former pupils come to us to receive entertainment instruction, moral encouragement, and religious edification.  The assemblage is often large; the mental and linguistic development of some of them is very deficient; the difficulties encountered in lip-reading are many.  Under these circumstances it is only a simple dictate of wisdom and humanity to make a judicious use of the natural language of signs in connection with the spoken word.

I have completed my discussion of this subject.  It was not my intention to lay before you a plethora of new ideas.  My purpose was merely to incite you to the study of a question which has more or less engaged the minds of teachers of the deaf at all times, and at the present time, owing to Schneider’s publications, claims our especial interest.  The question is far from having reached its final solution and the indications are that our friend Schneider will see to it that its consideration shall not end immediately.

Let us put ourselves in a position to meet the inevitable discussion intelligently, calmly, and discreetly.

STEPPUHN,

Director of the Provincial Institution,

Essen, Rhine Province, Germany

May 21, 1910

To readers interested in this speech;

We see toward the end of the speech he has unrealistic expectations for the oral method and he believes that the deaf students should use signs less and less.

He does not understand that that deaf students can be bilingual.  Part of the problem is that he does not understand that a signed language (such as German Sign Language) is a bona fide language, so he doesn’t put the issue in the proper perspective.  He knows that being bilingual in German and French is desirable and one language does not inhibit the other, but he was unable to make the connection to the idea of bilingualism with signed languages(ASL, etc) and spoken languages(English-reading/writing, etc).

However it is interesting how he says that sign language can be a useful “tool” in oral instruction.

John Egbert

Posted on January 4th, 2008 by egbertpress
Filed under: Uncategorized