An Important Distinction: Methodical Signs

In the report of the Conferences of British Instructors, Dr. Scott of the Exeter Institution said, "The earlier teachers produced a system of methodical signs so perfect, that each word had its equivalent sign, and the education of the pupil was to be accomplished by his learning to associate both of these together. When he could translate the signs of the master into proper language, his education was considered complete. This was a grievous error no doubt, and productive of more evils than one. In such a system, storing the pupil's mind with facts, or in other words, giving him information in the different branches of knowledge, is altogether lost sight of, while we do not really give him that acquirement we most desire to bestow, the language of his country. It is true that this must ever remain one of the great objects of our instruction, but if it is to be the mere power of writing words, or even sentences, from signs made by the teacher, without comprehending their meaning, then, as far as its real usefulness goes, it might as well have remained unlearned."

"It is true, methodical signs may not, in all cases, be altogether arbitrary; but still, in their use, they are essentially word signs, and contrary, in this respect, to natural signs, whose office it is to give ideas. 'Res non verba."'

From the above extract, as well as from the subsequent remarks of Dr. Scott, it is abundantly evident that he uses the term, "Methodical signs," in the sense of arbitrary signs, used merely to recall words without conveying their meaning. I wonder there could be a moment's hesitation among intelligent men about discarding a body of such signs. They are worse than useless, and ought to be utterly rejected. Methodical signs, however, seems to me not the proper term by which they ought to be designated. This term ought rather to be appropriated to a system of natural and significant signs, reduced to an intelligent and scientific method, based upon the philosophy of language, both lingual and gesticulatory. About the employment of arbitrary' signs, except in a very limited degree, there can be, I suppose, among American instructors, little or no difference of opinion.

Dr. Scott sees, and himself makes the distinction here sought to be made, when he says: "It must not be forgotten that there is a vital difference between descriptive [significant] signs given methodically and in order, and methodical [arbitrary] signs, a difference of such importance that it can never be lost sight of, without serious error" "Descriptive signs, in all cases, convey ideas, while methodical signs are essentially word signs, and can not be depended on safely to afford us more assistance than we have already indicated." While methodical or arbitrary signs have been wisely discarded by British teachers, and have never been in use, to any great extent, in this country to my knowledge, "natural" and significant signs, "methodized" and following the "order" of written words, are understood to be recommended by them. This is the class of signs used in the Kentucky Institution for the Deaf and Dumb.

"An Experiment"

In the last number of the ANNALS, Mr. Burnet gives the result of an experiment made to ascertain the difference between the time occupied by well educated speaking persons in reading, viva voce, and also mentally, a given number of words, and that occupied by some mute pupils in passing over the same words by writing, dactylology, and by reading mentally by methodical signs, and concludes, because the process of a mute, reading by methodical signs, was slower than that of a speaking person, this constitutes an objection to my theory of instruction.

I do not see the point of the objection. If it could be clearly established, that deaf mutes could never attain to an equal rapidity with speaking persons, in mental reading by methodical signs, used in the sense in which I apply this term, it would constitute no valid objection to the mode of instruction presented in my article in the last January number of the ANNALS...