Dr. Gallaudet acknowledged the power of hearing when it came to education and teaching people with hearing loss. He explained to the Royal Commission of the United Kingdom on the Condition of the Blind, the Deaf and Dumb (as reported in the 1892 Volta Bureau report) on commending the successful use of the aural and oral teaching method despite the availability of the manual method at the time.
Segment 13.147 - 13.152 from the Commission notes, Dr. Gallaudet detailed on how he exhibited a young boy the example of on the power of hearing to the National Academy of Sciences which gave him further insight and understanding on the power of using residual hearing for teaching and developing a language. Dr. Gallaudet acknowledged that success to the Royal Commission despite the crude"technological" approach that was available to them at the time. So successful was the use of this boy's residual hearing by using a particular method of teaching ensured his language success to carry on appropriate conversations with hearing people.
Dr. Gallaudet:
A third method which we are now practising in America with some exceedingly interesting results may be spoken of as the aural or auricular method. A very considerable percentage of those who are classed in the community as deaf-mutes have a degree of hearing which makes it entirely possible that they may be educated through the ear. The percentage is put variously at from 12 to 25 per cent., which even at the lowest figure is a large percentage of the whole number. The first movement in reference to the aural teaching of the deaf was made in Nebraska four years ago, and it was found in that institution that the percentage was quite large of those who were capable of being taught by the ear. I saw in that institution a little more than two years ago a class which was being taught entirely upon this method, and the process of teaching was an exceedingly interesting one. The class consisted, perhaps, of 11 or 12 pupils. There had been a careful examination of the amount of hearing possessed by each of these pupils, and that pupil who heard the least was placed at the teacher's right hand, the one who had a little more hearing was placed next, and the one who had a little more further on, while the one who had the greatest amount of hearing was furthest removed from the teacher. The teacher then in a voice elevated above the ordinary tone was able to dictate to those pupils, and they had all of them been actually taught to use that hearing which they possessed, which prior to the instruction was not supposed to have been sufficient to be made available at all as a means of instruction. In other words, those pupils were gradually ceasing to be deaf-mutes; they were speaking very well, and they were hearing as well as persons whom we call hard of-hearing persons. The result would be that, having come to the school under the legal appellation of "deaf-mutes," they would go out of the school not deaf-mutes at all.
The Commission (LORD EGERTON OF TATTON):Now, imagine with today's technology on hearing aids and cochlear implants, and how much of a boon they would bring. Of course, there are no one shoe size fits all here. Each to his or her own on how one is taught and raised, and, of course, an informed parents' own decision on how it would be done for their child with a hearing loss.
How is that result attained?
Dr. Gallaudet:
The process I can describe a little more fully by reference to the result of a very interesting experiment which we tried in the primary school connected with our college at Washington. In that primary school we try a good many experiments, and we do what we can to develop various methods. The children come in at the age of seven, and they continue in the school for eight or nine years. We had a boy who entered before we began to teach articulation. He was accredited to us as a deaf-mute from one year of age. He lost his hearing in infancy before he learnt to speak; he was absolutely dumb, and the degree of hearing that he possessed was not supposed to be of any account at all. He was registered as hearing slightly very loud noises. Not long after he entered we began teaching him speech, and he was taught to articulate. His progress was only moderate; his success was so imperfect that after a year's effort it was almost decided to give up attempting to teach him any further, but his teacher discovered, purely accidentally, that in uttering a word when the boy's face was turned away from him the boy reproduced the sound. With the use of the hearing tube it was presently discovered that the boy could repeat the vowel sounds and many of the consonant sounds without difficulty; he could repeat words the meaning of which he did not in the least degree understand. The teacher then at once began to educate his hearing. This degree of hearing which the boy possessed had never been enough for him to hold any conversation with members of his family or with any person at an ordinary distance from him.
The Commission:
Was the speaking tube that was used an ordinary speaking tube?
Dr. Gallaudet:
Yes, a flexible speaking tube. Within two years after that time I exhibited this boy before the National Academy of Sciences at Washington, and talked with him through the tube without difficulty, and today he has advanced far enough to be a student in our college; he is a young man full of promise, and he hears well enough to be able to sit by the side of either of you gentlemen and carry on a conversation with you through the tube.
The Commission:
The fact is that his power of hearing had been overlooked?
Dr. Gallaudet:
Just so.
The Commission:
There was no extra mechanism in the tube?
Dr. Gallaudet:
No. The result in that case shows that a very small amount of hearing, untrained to be useful, has existed in hundreds of deaf persons who have gone on through life dumb and hard of hearing, and classed as deaf, whereas they might, under this aural or auricular method of instruction, have been taken entirely out of the category of deaf-mutes.
The Commission:
Is there any medical inspection of these children before they enter school, and is any attempt made by the doctors to improve the hearing if the passages have become clogged by cold or disease?
Dr. Gallaudet:
Yes, in all our better schools there is a careful medical inspection of the children as they enter; it is usually the case that all means have been exhausted to benefit the hearing by the parents and friends of the children before they are brought to the institution. An examination by the medical man exhibits that fact. There are a few instances where the hearing by medical treatment has been improved, but they are very few. I commend this auricular method to all who are interested in the education of the deaf as one deserving of very great attention, because, if we take the number of the deaf who are capable of being taught aurally as amounting to 10 per cent, only, it is conferring upon them a great boon to teach them aurally; it is a greater boon even than giving them the power of imperfect speech.
Who ever thought that Dr. Gallaudet would trot out a boy to the National Academy of Sciences (see bolded red color words above) and hold him up as an example of a successful product of an oral and auditory teaching approach to gain a language?
ADDENDUM: In 1886 according to the Royal Commission report (see excerpt above in red bold letters), Edward Miner Gallaudet acknowledged the importance of listening and speaking. This acknowledgment came six years after the famous Milan Conference in 1880.
In 1880, there was an international conference of deaf educators, the Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf. At this conference, held September 6-11, 1880, a declaration was made that oral education was better than manual (sign) education. A resolution was passed banning sign language. The only countries opposed to the ban were the United States (represented by Edward Miner Gallaudet, Rev. Thomas Gallaudet, Issac Peet, James Denison, and Charles Stoddard) and Britain. The sign supporters tried, but failed, to get their voices heard.How come this was never brought up whenever people used the old Milan Conference argument? Did E.M. Gallaudet handed in his own head on a platter when he trotted that deaf boy out to the National Academy of Sciences about his remarkable speaking and listening ability via the "tubes"? Did the Deaf community ever find out about this or was this tidbit of information was purposely withheld and not discussed when E.M. Gallaudet practically fawned over the deaf boy as being able to speak quite well and hear some, and be able to carry a conversation with a hearing person by show casing him in front of the National Academy of Sciences?
Ah ha....I see. I see. Hmmm. Hmmm. *nods my head*
24 comments:
Let's present both sides of an issue.
Edward Miner Gallaudet, along with his father Rev. Thomas Gallaudet, were present at Milan 1880 and were in the minority that vociferously opposed the resolutions.
He later published his impressions: "The writer of this article opposed the use of either the German or the French method to the exclusion of the other, and advocated a combined system, in which all available means should be employed, these being wisely adapted to the diverse conditions of those who are to be taught."
The Terlinguan (http://theterlinguan.blogspot.com/2011/02/advocate-and-audist.html) respondents give specific citations of Gallaudet's resolute support of the Deaf people. They're interesting contrasts to your article.
I just happen to come across the reference material that Mike has used on this post, and the date where that took place was in 1886, six years after Milan.
This is quite interesting, Edward Miner Gallaudet acknowledging the importance on the focus of the "ears" [box on ear]and "mouth" [box on mouth]. Interesting, indeed.
And your point is? What a waste of time!
Anonymous...
point is, either you're in discussion or you're not. Not interested? Why bother to comment, I wonder.
I think this brings up a question here:
Is Edward Miner Gallaudet an extremist?
If Alexander Graham Bell, the man is then wouldn't it be fair to say that Edward Miner Gallaudet, also is?
Yes, it'd be fair to ask that same question about E.M. Gallaudet since he's on the other end of the spectrum. Although he did suggest in 1886 that sign language not be used by teachers of the deaf but rather that the manual system be employed instead.
Yes, it'd be fair to ask that same question about E.M. Gallaudet since he's on the other end of the spectrum. Although he did suggest in 1886 that sign language not be used by teachers of the deaf but rather that the manual system be employed instead.
Anonymous comment that I just deleted....why? Observe the rules by clicking on the link above the comment box. If ya wanna discuss, do so accordingly.
anonymous commenter, again, observe the rules by clicking on the link above the comment box.
Huh? Were you trying to prove Gallaudet an oralist? The excerpt you added doesn't prove that:
...A resolution was passed banning sign language. The only countries opposed to the ban were the United States (represented by Edward Miner Gallaudet, Rev. Thomas Gallaudet...
Again, Gallaudet favored the combined system and was not inconsistent by showcasing an oral success. You'll find most Deaf people are like that, too...they will admit to all kinds of communication successes. What they will not support are intentionally and inflexibly restricted systems.
No, nothing like that. Gallaudet an oralist? LOL.
Remember, he trotted out a deaf boy and showcased his oral and listening skills to the National Academy of Sciences. Had he done that today Deaf people would've been horrified at his conduct.
Mike,
EMG certainly advocated the combined method, and said kids should be taught to speak and listen where possible. He also called Milan and most of the oralists of that time frauds, and wrote vehemently against them in letter after letter.
This was very common; at the time most schools went around to rich people and governments begging for funding, and they did this by bringing children to impress audiences and gain money, sort of like tupperware parties with much larger stakes. Rarely these children were actually fully deaf; often they were not, and sometimes even hearing children were used-funding was rare, and most schools existed in desperate situations. They had scripts they rehearsed and followed, and often the children couldn't tell when the adult was finished speaking and would begin to answer the question before it was asked. Many schools had no choice and had to push the speaking and hearing components of education plans to get funds. We had several such situations in America and in Europe. Being an orally focused educator then is not necessarily synonymous with being an orally focused educator today.
Gallaudet, to be sure, supported the combined method. But he also vilely opposed these kinds of frauds. He points out how obvious the fakery was at the Milan convention in a letter:
"Now, while this was all true, the English letter-writer failed to report that the examinations followed very closely the printed programmes; that the answers were in many instances begun before the examiner had completed his questions; that no real examinations was made by outside persons; that many pupils were asked very few questions, while certain other pupils were examined at great length; that these discriminations were made by the teachers in every instance; that no information was given as to the history of the pupil—that is to say, as to whether deafness was congenital or acquired, and whether speech had been developed before hearing was lost or not; that the impression was thus sought to be conveyed to the audiences that all the speech possessed by all the pupils had been imparted to them by their teachers, which was certainly not the case. In view of all which we do not hesitate to characterize these so-called examinations as mere exhibitions, deserving to have very little influence with the professional observer."
So, to answer your question, EMG was certainly not an "oralist" as they were known at the time. He would not be considered one today. He would be considered an advocate of total communication or bilingual communication, either of which closely resembles the combined method. -Joseph
PS all of this is set out-and honestly-in Harlan Lane's scrupulously researched book "When The Mind Hears;" Lane does not pretend his subjects are mythical ASL fanatics but shows them as real people with complex lives and therefore complex linguistic identities no matter what happens. It's worth reading.
Again, Dr. Gallaudet trotted out a deaf boy and showcased his oral and listening skills to the National Academy of Sciences. Had he done that today Deaf people would've been horrified at his conduct.
Funnily enough he advocated for the use of manual method and not sign language when it came for teachers teaching the deaf.
Dianrez,
Rev. Thomas Gallaudet was an older brother -- not the father -- of Edward Miner Gallaudet (EMG).
EMG's father, Dr. Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet died in 1851.
Jean Boutcher
Mike,
Edward Miner Gallaudet (let us call him EMG henceforth) and his father, Dr. Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet were NOT linguists.
It must be noted that Chomsky was the father of linguistics. He wrote a book about the universal rules of grammar in -- are you ready? -- in 1957. Stokoe joined the staff at Gallaudet in 1955 and decided to do research on our sign language TO SEE if the structure and syntax of our ASL indeed met the universal rules of grammar.
Eureka! Yes, ASL is a language!
EMG died some 50 years before Stokoe disovered ASL as a language.
If he rose from the grave, he would have been intellectually honest enough TO TELL YOU that he did not know the linguistics, so he used "MANUAl".
When Stokoe declared it to be ASL, I told my Mother. She was very skeptic, very understandably. She and her contemporaries did not consider ASL as a foreign language; ragther, they said that the sign language that they utilised was representing the written English -- "Signed English" and fingerspelling. Their sign language was exactly the same as that of George Veditz. All of them attended my alma mater -- Maryland School for the Deaf.
Jean Boutcher
Addendum:
The gentleman in the photo showm above is not Edward Miner Gallaudet.
Jean Boutcher
I didn't say anything about the photo as being EMG but rather to show what the tubes are used for and what they look like.
Let me make it clear. He advocated at one time the manual method which includes sign-language, the manual alphabet, and writing.
lol
I'm laughing...okay..let's see, your pictures are much more interesting than your post.
Folks skirting the entree?
But seriously, questions need to be asked and answered then put in the history books within deaf studies.
Why did EMG do what he did in 1886?
You know, had it been the modern day version of that happening today you'd have people attacking him for daring to trot out a deaf boy like a prized possession for his speaking and listening ability in front of a scientific body....6 years after the whole Milan Convention thing.
Yeah, sweep it under the rug, folks.
Nobody swept it under the rug.
I pointed out what he did and why he did it, as a historical fact.
Yes, it's true that what had been done then would be abhorred today. So would slavery, the kind of discrimination they had back then, and the lack of rights for women. It was over a hundred years ago.
Again, the same thing happened with MANY schools for the deaf and blind. That's how they got money without public education funding. Even Helen Keller spoke to prove how effective sign language was in the instruction of the deaf-blind, and hearing students perform piano (just as Deaf students did in my time at MSSD.) I see no point in getting upset about it-it's an interesting historical weirdness. Do you think schools get money by magic? They impress ignorant rich folks, their pockets get lined. Of course, this opened the door for many charlatans to operate.
Your argument technique of repeating yourself and ignoring the facts others bring to the table is tiresome. -Joseph
Yet, Dr. Gallaudet did do it. But had it been done today it may have probably only horrified the very few. Just some of the Deaf crowd would be more apt to be horrified/disgusted at the prospect. Then again, you'd have hearing technology when it's common to see a deaf/hh person's ability to talk and hear. Yet it's the historical fascination that he actually did that.
Nothing surprising about discrimination as it was a common thing back then. Still is today but not on such a level or scale that is.
Pointing out a fact on what Dr. Gallaudet did has nothing to do with being me upset. I found it quite suprising seeing that fact and I merely pointed out a historical fact on what he did.
Mike:
"Yet, Dr. Gallaudet did do it. But had it been done today it may have probably only horrified the very few. Just some of the Deaf crowd would be more apt to be horrified/disgusted at the prospect."
if Dr. Gallaudet had done the same today, and presented the boy to a panel of experts, including one Harlan Lane, the boy's existence would have been denied, even if the boy had stood squarely in front of Harlan Lane.
Hello there. This is KarissaMann05 aka DarkCougar555. I've not visit your blog for quite while, so here I go. So after I read, it's interesting what you wrote about him. But I can't believe that he suggested sign language should not to be used (And I hope he didn't support the ban on sign languages). I'm so glad ASL is legal again! Otherwise I would not who I am today if ASL stays illegal... Same with another Deaf people as well...
But it is interesting to read...
- Jessy
Jessy,
It was not like that. Dr. Gallaudet recommended no sign language for teachers of the deaf because he saw that many teachers were basically doing "bad signing" and it'd be better off for them to teach deaf students using other means like manual alphabet and such. Back then signing was in its infancy.
Post a Comment