The "Experiment" Explained.

Abstract

The "Experiment" Explained John B. Burnet Mr. Jacobs "does not see the point of the objection" to his theory, founded on the comparative slowness of reading by signs. I will explain. I understand Mr. Jacobs to deny, or at least to doubt, the possibility of written words becoming for a deaf mute the direct object and instrument of thought. In the preface to the volume of lessons published by him in 1834 or 1835, he says of written words, "They can only become the signs of signs; to us, the signs of words; to the deaf and dumb, the signs of gestures." In his article in the last number of the ANNALS, he however admits that words representing visible objects may become directly the signs of the things they stand for. I supposed from the preface just cited, and the general drift of Mr. Jacobs' reasoning, that he considered it necessary for the deaf mute to have some set of signs intermediary between written words and ideas; that for a deaf mute to read, necessarily supposed the repetition, actual or mental, of the sign corresponding to each word, as with those who hear, to read is to repeat, aloud or mentally, the articulation corresponding to each written word. And Mr. Jacobs seems still of that opinion, so far as concerns words not representing visible objects. Now, if of two boys, one of whom read by methodical signs, and the other merely recognized each printed word, without repeating mentally the corresponding signs, the latter could read the fastest, and get the sense of the passage at least as well, as my experiment showed, I conceive the result is decidedly against Mr. Jacobs' theory. I admit, however, that a single experiment is not decisive of a question of this kind. I will repeat it as I have opportunity, and I would suggest that teachers who feel interested in the decision of the question, should make similar experiments, and send the result to the ANNALS, I hold that it is possible, indeed a fact confirmed by the experience of every teacher, that written words can be retained in the memory of a deaf mute, though not associated with any signs or even with any ideas. (The case is the same with words spelled on the fingers. Deaf mutes in general remember words under the latter form. Some, however, remember and repeat them mentally, under their written or printed form.) Has not Mr. Jacobs been applied to, by many of his pupils, for the explanation of words and phrases which they had committed to memory for the express purpose of asking their meaning, and which, of course, they could remember and repeat without associating them either with signs or even with ideas ? And if written words can be remembered and repeated by deaf mutes without associating them with any signs, why can not ideas, abstractions, as well as sensible images, be attached to them directly, without the intermediary of signs? Let those who doubt this make the experiment. But if it be granted that deaf mutes can acquire the ability to use writing or dactylology as the direct object and instrument [End Page 54] of thought, it may still be urged that they will retain the forms of language better by using methodical signs. The consideration of this point would require more time and thought than I can now give to it. I would again propose that it be tested by experiments. That Mr. Jacobs has succeeded remarkably well by using methodical signs, Mr. Brown* bears strong testimony. Let those who endeavor to lead their pupils to attach their ideas directly to the visible forms of words, compare their results, in some appreciable form: with those obtained by using methodical signs. [End Page 55] Footnotes * See Proceedings of the Third Convention. Copyright © 2022 Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf