 | |
 | |
 | ||
| | |
 | ||
| | |
 | ||
| | |
Summary of the day's Proceedings – Wednesday 8th September |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The sitting was opened at 12.50pm. The minutes of the previous meeting were read out by the respective Secretaries of Italy and France. Certain corrections having been made, on the interposition of M. Vaïsse (Paris), a short discussion followed between M. Magnat (Paris) and M. Frauck, Special Delegate from France, of the Minister of the Interior; after which the minutes were read in English. Telegrams from the King, Queen and Minister were read.
M. L'Abbe Guerin (Marseilles), upon the suggestion of M. Vaïsse (Paris), proposed that the term "Méthode Orale pure" should be used during the sittings, to express the articulating, or German System, approved by the Resolution passed yesterday. M. Graveau, inspector-General of the Charitable Institutions of France, next addressed the meeting, upon Question 2, Section 3. Dr. Treibel (Berlin) proposed that Question 3, Section 3, should be taken first. On the difference between Natural and Methodical Signs. Mr. Arnold (Northampton, UK) next spoke upon this question: observing that in his opinion Natural Signs were those used by the uneducated deaf to express their thoughts; that they were rude descriptions of objects and actions. Methodical Signs were abbreviations of such signs, arranged according to some systematic method. Conventional signs were not symbols - they were abridged outlines of natural objects - and such aerial outlines were incompetent to express mental ideas. He concluded by stating that the sign language introduces an inverted order, and impedes the progress of language. A resume of his address was given in French by M. Vaïsse. Mr. Hugentobler (Lyon) read Herr Dr. Bossler's (Hildeshiem) answer to the same question, to the effect that natural signs are those used and understood by hearing persons, all others are conventional and should be abolished. The answer of Mr. Elliott) (London and Margate) to the same question was read by M. Vaïsse. He thought it a very difficult matter to define exactly the difference between natural and conventional signs. Dr. Treibel (Berlin) said that teachers in Germany could not agree to define the exact difference between natural and artificial signs. A sign which was natural to one child was sometimes acquired or artificial in another. This opinion was the same as given in Herr Bossler's reply. He would willingly see many of the signs observable in certain schools entirely dispensed with; but at the same time would not propose to deal with a young pupil after the manner of a disciplined soldier with his arms rightly fixed to his sides. Dr. Peet (New York), whose remarks were translated by M. Vaïsse, thought that signs grew naturally out of the mind-picture of a deaf-mute, and that two deaf-mutes placed together would unquestionably develop a language of signs. The order of such a language was the same as that of an artist in painting a picture, and the incident of a boy shooting a bird would be dealt with in the same way, viz., that both artist and deaf-mute would delineate - first, the tree, then the bird, next the boy, then the gun; and, finally, the shooting and the falling. Those who say that the sign language injures the English language should make the deaf-mute blind as well, for nothing they see is in the English language; but all in the language of signs. He then concluded by giving some examples of signs, supposed to represent the abstract ideas of religion, philosophy, etc. M. L'Abbé Balestra (Como) replied that signs differed, as countries differed. Signs, it is true, might constitute the first crude language of mime; but we cannot make them into a language in the proper sense of the word. M. Houdin (Paris) thought that the only conventional signs were those of the Abbé de l'Epee, or others modelled upon them, and considered the time was lost in discussing the difference between artificial and natural signs. Miss Hull then proceeded with the concluding portion of her Paper, in which she showed most clearly the weakness and failure of the various systems so long and earnestly tried by her, to advance deaf pupils to a serviceable command of language, with the sole exception of the Pure Oral Method, in which now "rests with perfect satisfaction". In her own, but most effective language, she said that she gave up signs because they injured speech; she gave up the Combined system because it injured the voice as well as language, and she gave up vocal symbols (Visible Speech) because they reversed the process of nature, and hindered ready command of speech. The reading of this Paper was several times interrupted by general applause, and it was ordered to be printed. Signor Fornari (Milan), next speaking, described that himself as a disciple of the late Inspector Hill, of Weissentels, who favoured natural signs as the only medium by which the teacher can at first make himself understood by his pupil, but went on to say that you must not make a regular language of signs, because signs once learnt by the pupil cannot be forgotten. We ought to abolish such a language from every institution. For himself, he upheld speech; "Viva la parola" (The word lives). Don Vittore Rambilla (Milan) urged similar views, reading from a printed word published some years ago. M. Magnat (Paris) considered that the elementary signs were to a certain extent, needed. M. Hugentobler (Lyon) would not admit that signs were necessary at all. The President then addressed the meeting, saying that yesterday the Assembly passed a Resolution, by which articulation was declared preferable to the sign system. They must choose one method or the other. Like the real mother before King Solomon, who claimed her child in his entirely or not at all, so he decided wholly in favour of speech. To teach by speech alone required great courage, and sighs must be abjured, though a very few simple gestures might be allowed when the little child was first introduced to school life. In the schoolroom begins the "redemption" of the deaf-mute; he is waiting to be made a man of by his teacher. Let the pupil be taught to move his lips in speech, not his hands in signs. The Oral Method is possible, the Mixed system impossible and illogical. To make the deaf baby into a speaking man, give him what our mothers gave us - language. The Mixed system is impossible, because, if you move the fingers, hands, arms, head and the whole body at the same time as the lips, the pupil's attention is distracted. The method of signs stands in deadly opposition to that of speech. Of all moments for the expression ideas, those of the lips are the most perfect. All is comprehended in that wonderful instrument, the mouth, played upon by the hand of the Deity. Patience, patience, and patience! Instructors must concentrate their efforts to teach pronunciation quietly, exactly, and perfectly, and then will speech prove itself to be the best, the only possible method. The President broke off here almost enthusiastic applause. The sitting was adjourned at 4.30pm and the following day of 8am, when the President would continue his address. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Milan 1880 History & The Congress are OPEN source material and therefore can be used for any purposes without the consent as long as the milan1880.com is acknowledged. Some of the images in both sections are copyrighted by the original source material . | ||
| | |