He Just Isn't Motivated
If children have the basic linguistic equipment, why is it not used and developed by many of them? The answers must be complex and varied, but ultimately they come down to a matter of motivation; such children do not feel the need to do so. Now by ‘need’ here we do not mean anything the individual is aware of or can speak about, but a deep unconscious feeling of the worthwhileness or otherwise of doing something. (WILKINSON A. 1971)
If a person does not have the need to communicate he is unlikely to be helped by any intervention with any communication strategy. (SILVERMAN F. 1980)
A lack of ‘motivation’ generally signals that the person appears negative and unwilling. There is no reason to take this as an expression of a general reluctance to communicate, but rather as an expression of the fact that the inability to do so is frustrating. (VON TETZCHNER S. & MARTINSEN H. 1992)
The title relates to both the user of an AAC system and to any significant other who isn’t motivated to help.
If a person does not have the need to communicate he is unlikely to be helped by any intervention with any communication strategy. (SILVERMAN F. 1980)
A lack of ‘motivation’ generally signals that the person appears negative and unwilling. There is no reason to take this as an expression of a general reluctance to communicate, but rather as an expression of the fact that the inability to do so is frustrating. (VON TETZCHNER S. & MARTINSEN H. 1992)
The title relates to both the user of an AAC system and to any significant other who isn’t motivated to help.
MOTIVATE 2 - Task & Discussion Sheet
Uncover the information section. Allow staff time to study the definition of motivation. Uncover the tasks. Allow time (10 - 15 minutes is reasonable) to complete the tasks. Work through the discussion topics offered.
Motivation has both an internal and an external (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) component. I may be motivated to try my hand at parachuting. This may come from an internal desire for adventure or someone may be giving me ,10,000 for the effort. Rarely is any one thing motivated entirely internally. Further, there has to be an opportunity for the desire to be fulfilled. If no one will teach me what I need to know to make my first parachute jump, if no one will take me up, if I can not afford the costs involved, if I’m criticised for taking chances with my life, if the weather is inclement on the day that I am free to make the jump, then my motivation may begin to wane.
Motivation has both an internal and an external (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) component. I may be motivated to try my hand at parachuting. This may come from an internal desire for adventure or someone may be giving me ,10,000 for the effort. Rarely is any one thing motivated entirely internally. Further, there has to be an opportunity for the desire to be fulfilled. If no one will teach me what I need to know to make my first parachute jump, if no one will take me up, if I can not afford the costs involved, if I’m criticised for taking chances with my life, if the weather is inclement on the day that I am free to make the jump, then my motivation may begin to wane.
MOTIVATE 3 - How do you motivate your users?
‘Lack of motivation’ is rarely the root cause of a user’s failure to progress with augmentative communication skills. There are many reasons why a user may appear to lack the motivation to communicate:
C criticism of AAC system by a significant other;
C criticism of augmented communicator’s use of AAC system by a significant other;
C failure to perceive a need to communicate;
C lack of availability of AAC system;
C learned helplessness and passivity;
C significant others unmotivated;
C little training and support of significant others;
C little training and support of user;
C low expectation;
C negated initiation;
C no opportunity;
C no respect;
C others predict messages;
C others speak on behalf of the user;
C others unwilling to interact;
C provision of incorrect or inappropriate system;
C the established routine means that communication is unnecessary;
C available vocabulary does not meet communicative needs;
C the consistent use of the yes or no question and other ‘alternative’ strategies;
C vocabulary too difficult to access;
C others depend on passivity of user;
C little to communicate about;
C little to communicate with.
There is no pretence that this list is exhaustive. However, it does begin to make an apparent lack of motivation understandable. Indeed, it is a wonder that some augmented communicators succeed at all. Staff awareness through staff training is a vital component in beginning to address the motivational issue. Prayer might also help!
C criticism of AAC system by a significant other;
C criticism of augmented communicator’s use of AAC system by a significant other;
C failure to perceive a need to communicate;
C lack of availability of AAC system;
C learned helplessness and passivity;
C significant others unmotivated;
C little training and support of significant others;
C little training and support of user;
C low expectation;
C negated initiation;
C no opportunity;
C no respect;
C others predict messages;
C others speak on behalf of the user;
C others unwilling to interact;
C provision of incorrect or inappropriate system;
C the established routine means that communication is unnecessary;
C available vocabulary does not meet communicative needs;
C the consistent use of the yes or no question and other ‘alternative’ strategies;
C vocabulary too difficult to access;
C others depend on passivity of user;
C little to communicate about;
C little to communicate with.
There is no pretence that this list is exhaustive. However, it does begin to make an apparent lack of motivation understandable. Indeed, it is a wonder that some augmented communicators succeed at all. Staff awareness through staff training is a vital component in beginning to address the motivational issue. Prayer might also help!
MOTIVATE 4 - Catch someone doing something right
It is not easy to change people’s attitudes. It is difficult to force people to interact with a user in a manner which will promote AAC use. Even if this were possible, there are better ways of achieving the same goal. The cartoon depicts the issue. A tutor is being forced into listening. When the motivating force is removed what happens to the behaviour? It is better to motivate active communicators and positive attitudes.
Ask yourself when was the last time you got a pat on the back for a job well done from a senior member of staff. Not for some outstanding event such as organising a complete school opera but for your normal work. It is very rare and yet people respond positively to praise and encouragement. Rather than patrolling the corridors to catch someone doing something wrong (mushroom management), patrol to catch someone doing something right and say so. Actions reinforced by praise tend to be repeated:
AI really liked the way you spent time with Jimmy just then - I think you’ve encouraged him a lot.”
AThe way you kept Sally’s attention and asked just the right questions was inspiring. I think some of the other staff could learn a lot from watching you.”
AI loved the way you encouraged Sam to use his system. It was so subtle and so effective. He really needs that sort of support.”
It should not be patronising and should be genuinely meant.
Integrating the therapies into the classroom can also help this process. Therapists can comment positively on the those aspects of teachers’ and teaching aids’ work which support language and communication skills. Indeed, I should not just focus on therapists but on senior staff as well:
One of the best heads I have ever met was a principal of a New York high school with 7,000 pupils. He could have spent all his time on paper work, or with the police, for the area had a horrendous crime record. Yet almost every day he watched and discussed a lesson with one of the school’s 375 teachers. That, he said, was his top priority. (WRAGG T. 1995 page 60)
Getting into the classroom of that one member of staff you particularly want to influence may not be easy but it is worth the attempt. The approach should be non-threatening and supportive with a stated focus that steers clear of words that might suggest staff evaluation or criticism.
Ask yourself when was the last time you got a pat on the back for a job well done from a senior member of staff. Not for some outstanding event such as organising a complete school opera but for your normal work. It is very rare and yet people respond positively to praise and encouragement. Rather than patrolling the corridors to catch someone doing something wrong (mushroom management), patrol to catch someone doing something right and say so. Actions reinforced by praise tend to be repeated:
AI really liked the way you spent time with Jimmy just then - I think you’ve encouraged him a lot.”
AThe way you kept Sally’s attention and asked just the right questions was inspiring. I think some of the other staff could learn a lot from watching you.”
AI loved the way you encouraged Sam to use his system. It was so subtle and so effective. He really needs that sort of support.”
It should not be patronising and should be genuinely meant.
Integrating the therapies into the classroom can also help this process. Therapists can comment positively on the those aspects of teachers’ and teaching aids’ work which support language and communication skills. Indeed, I should not just focus on therapists but on senior staff as well:
One of the best heads I have ever met was a principal of a New York high school with 7,000 pupils. He could have spent all his time on paper work, or with the police, for the area had a horrendous crime record. Yet almost every day he watched and discussed a lesson with one of the school’s 375 teachers. That, he said, was his top priority. (WRAGG T. 1995 page 60)
Getting into the classroom of that one member of staff you particularly want to influence may not be easy but it is worth the attempt. The approach should be non-threatening and supportive with a stated focus that steers clear of words that might suggest staff evaluation or criticism.
MOTIVATE 5 - Talk to other members of staff positively about AAC
The root of the disadvantage of many people is that they do not feel a need to develop their language, and the reason is that they are unaware of the possibilities of language. They imperfectly appreciate the nature, the uses, and the joy of language. They have a jewel which is worth a fortune, which can be worked to a rare edge of precision, which can be cut to a many-faceted beauty; and they are playing marbles with it in the backyard. (WILKINSON A. 1971)
If we do not believe in the power of enablement through AAC ourselves, how can we expect others to believe? Positive words can help others to see users in a positive light. These ‘words’ may be just simple throw away lines as detailed on the overhead. Fostering the multi-disciplinary effort that is essential for success will not be helped if we are negative and pessimistic. Our positivism should be the catalyst to better implementation practice. AAC is too often marginalised, pushed into the background, or designated as the speech professional’s task. It is important that others understand this is not the case, that AAC is the task of all, and that AAC may be the foundation stone on which cognitive growth is built and through which subjects are taught. Further, we all need that ‘shot in the arm’ from time to time to keep us motivated. The odd word of praise and encouragement is often all that is necessary. So be positive!
If we do not believe in the power of enablement through AAC ourselves, how can we expect others to believe? Positive words can help others to see users in a positive light. These ‘words’ may be just simple throw away lines as detailed on the overhead. Fostering the multi-disciplinary effort that is essential for success will not be helped if we are negative and pessimistic. Our positivism should be the catalyst to better implementation practice. AAC is too often marginalised, pushed into the background, or designated as the speech professional’s task. It is important that others understand this is not the case, that AAC is the task of all, and that AAC may be the foundation stone on which cognitive growth is built and through which subjects are taught. Further, we all need that ‘shot in the arm’ from time to time to keep us motivated. The odd word of praise and encouragement is often all that is necessary. So be positive!
MOTIVATE 6 - Talk to a parent/significant other positively about AAC
It is not only staff that require verbal support, all significant others do. Many parents may feel left out, not really knowing what is happening and what their role should be. If this is so, it would be a folly if this continued. Parents are vital members of the team. They should be kept informed of and involved in all aspects of progress. A phone call from an obviously enthusiastic communication professional every now and again is a good tactic. It maintains contact, lets them know their son or daughter is being successful, and may be the vital injection of adrenalin needed to maintain motivation:
AMrs. Smythe? I’m just ringing to let you know what Sam’s just said. He just stopped by to tell me he wasn’t able to come to my lesson tomorrow as he was going to the hospital with you. Is that correct? It is! Wow! Isn’t that wonderful? He actually said ‘No come tomorrow. Go Mum hospital’. He is really beginning to use his system very well. I can’t tell you how pleased I am. We must all keep up the good work. I’m excited about his potential. You ought to be extremely proud of him.”
Sending a letter or message home with the user will also suffice. These, however, may not convey your excitement and enthusiasm as effectively as a face-to-face meeting or words over a telephone. There is a motivational aspect to the user knowing that there is communication between home and school or college. That little bit of praise from mother and father for good work done at school may be an incentive to work even harder.
AMrs. Smythe? I’m just ringing to let you know what Sam’s just said. He just stopped by to tell me he wasn’t able to come to my lesson tomorrow as he was going to the hospital with you. Is that correct? It is! Wow! Isn’t that wonderful? He actually said ‘No come tomorrow. Go Mum hospital’. He is really beginning to use his system very well. I can’t tell you how pleased I am. We must all keep up the good work. I’m excited about his potential. You ought to be extremely proud of him.”
Sending a letter or message home with the user will also suffice. These, however, may not convey your excitement and enthusiasm as effectively as a face-to-face meeting or words over a telephone. There is a motivational aspect to the user knowing that there is communication between home and school or college. That little bit of praise from mother and father for good work done at school may be an incentive to work even harder.
MOTIVATE 7 - Increase others' expectancy of potential and ability
I once read an interview with Elisabeth Mann Borghese, wife of the Italian philosopher and daughter of Thomas Mann, in which she discussed her attempts to communicate with dogs and chimpanzees. She taught her dog Arlecchino, a setter, to take dictation at a specially constructed typewriter. He would press the keys of this typewriter with his nose. His vocabulary was sixty words and he worked with seventeen letters. Although in most cases the dog only took dictation, Mrs. Borghese reported that he did make up a few things on his own. Once when she asked the dog where he wanted to go, Arlecchino, who loved to ride, typed Acar”. On another occasion, he didn’t feel like typing and resisted all entreaties to get him to take dictation. After yawning and stretching out for a while, Mrs. Borghese recounted that the dog lifted his nose and, on his own, typed AA bad bad dog.” (LINDEN E. 1976 page 183)
Note: I must admit that I am extremely sceptical about the above report especially as it is third hand information and I have never read any other reports of this lady’s amazing dog. However, it illustrates my cartoon rather well! How often have we heard it said that AMy xxx understands me perfectly well” where xxx could be a dog or a cat or any household pet? While the majority of people wouldn’t then go on to say that the particular pet in question had a ‘language’ there are some who claim otherwise ....
She has analysed the language cats speak amongst themselves and written it all down - syntax, vocabulary, pronunciation - and all for humans who want to become proficient in spoken cat.....’Cat is a tonal language like Chinese.’ confirms Alexandra. ‘You get the tone wrong at your peril, as you may end up saying something quite different to what you intended - which may be very offensive to your cat’. ( ROBERTS G. 1996 page 9 on the work of Alexandra Sellers)
My own opinion(on dogs’ knowledge and use of the English or, for that matter, any other language) is more akin is that of Robert Fulghum’s - although I don’t know how he knows what the dog is Abelieving”....
Especially when people do the ventriloquist act where they speak to the dog and then answer for it in another voice. You know what I mean. You’ve heard it. Even dogs think it’s weird. Watch a dog when a human does this. The dog can’t believe what he’s hearing either. ADoes Poochie wantum drinky? No Poochie wantum go outside.” (FULGHUM R. 1988)
While people may think that their pets demonstrate high levels of intelligence and communicative ability the same may not be true about the capacities of people with learning difficulties and / or physical disabilities when coupled with communicative impairments:
People with significant communication disabilities have for too long been the victims of the low expectations for them held by their often overwhelmed therapists. A part of this victimization is that people with disabilities regularly come to share those same low expectations. The great majority of us, in my opinion, can achieve independent, effective, communication if we are provided with appropriate technology and appropriate long-term, often intensive intervention strategies. I worked hard to get my communication to where it is today, but it has been infinitely worthwhile to me and to my family. (CREECH R. 1995 page 11)
After I conclude one of my talks, someone invariably comes up to me and starts cooing over me like a semi-extinct bird. They usually say something like this, AYou’re so wonderful, Michael; you’ve done so much with your life, but you know, you’re the exception to the rule. None of my clients could have done what you have done.” (WILLIAMS M. 1995 page 1)
My colleagues can all relate stories about the people who, though working with people with a severe communication impairment, have very little expectation of user potential. I was told, for example, that any system which provided more than four messages was a waste of time.
AThese people only require the phrases; ‘Can I have a drink please?’, ‘Can I have something to eat please?’, ‘Can I go to the toilet please?’, ‘I am unhappy about something’”
I asked if the four provided a starting point. The reply was a definite Ano”:
ALet’s face it, they are going to be in care all their lives. What more do they need to say?”
I think if I was working with a person with an attitude like that I would want to say AI am unhappy about something” too. Apes and Gorillas have been taught to sign or use symbols (and even to speak a couple of words - see LINDEN E. 1976 page 14), dogs to type (LINDEN E. 1976 page 183), rats to make selections, pigeons to discriminate and even hold quasi-conversations (EPSTEIN R., LANZA R., & SKINNER B. 1982). See AITCHISON J. 1989; WALLMAN J. 1992 for reviews of animal work. Much of this work is contentious and some of the claims made may not logically follow from the animals behaviour.
By and by we are called to see Sir W. Battens to see the strange creature that Captain Holmes hath brought with him from Guiny; it is a great baboone, but so much like a man in most things, that ( though they say there is a Species of them) yet I cannot believe but that it is a monster got of a man and a she-baboone. I do believe it already understands much english; and I am of the mind it might be taught to speak or make signs (THE DIARY OF SAMUEL PEPYS. AUGUST 24TH 1661)
Although we may continue to make claims about ‘hidden’ abilities and attempt to teach animals all sorts of new and particularly human ‘tricks’, it may be that, in their present state of evolution, animals are not equipped with the right mental structure to ‘understand’ what it is we are asking of them:
As researchers regularly discover, the more ingeniously you investigate the competence of nonhuman animals, the more likely you are to discover abrupt gaps in competence. The ability of animals to generalize from their particular exploitations of wisdom is severely limited. (DENNETT D. 1996 page 116)
For further readings on animals (notably primates) and language acquisition (both for and against) see:
Older Studies on teaching apes to communicate through their vocal apparatus: WITMER L. 1909; FURNESS W. 1916; KELLOGG W. & KELLOGG L. (1933); HAYES C. (1951); HAYES K. & HAYES C. 1951, 1954; KELLOGG W. 1968.
Work with apes: PREMACK D. & SCHWARTZ A. 1966; GARDNER R.A. & GARDNER B. T. 1969, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1978, 1984; PREMACK D. 1970, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1976, 1979, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1990; GARDNER B. T. & GARDNER R.A. 1971, 1974, 1975, 1980, 1985; SCHRIER A. & STOLLNITZ F. 1971; FOUTS R. S. 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1983; DENDY L. 1973; RUMBAUGH D., GILL T., & BROWN J. 1973; RUMBAUGH D., GILL T., & VON GLASERFELD E. 1973; LINDEN E. 1974, 1987; PREMACK D. & PREMACK A. 1974, 1983; FOUTS R. S., CHOWN B., & GOODIN L. 1976; MILES L. 1976, 1978, 1983; PREMACK A. 1976; RUMBAUGH D. & GILL T. 1976, 1977; FOUTS R. S. & RIGBY R. 1977; GILL T. 1977; GILL T. & RUMBAUGH D. 1977; PARKEL D., WHITE R., & WARNER H. 1977; RUMBAUGH D. 1977; RUMBAUGH D., STAHLKE H., & GILL T. 1977; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. & RUMBAUGH D. 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., WILKERSON B., & BAKEMAN R. 1977; FOUTS R. S., SHAPIRO G., & O’NEIL C. 1978; PATTERSON F. G. 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1987; PREMACK D. & WOODRUFF G. 1978; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., RUMBAUGH D., & BOYSEN S. 1978, 1980; FOUTS R. S., COUCH J., & O’NEIL C. 1979; RUMBAUGH D., SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., & GILL T. 1979; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. 1979, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988; SCHIEFELBUSCH R. L. & HOLLIS J. H. 1979; TERRACE H. 1979; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., RUMBAUGH D., SMITH S., & LAWSON J. 1980; GARDNER B. T. 1981, 1982; PATTERSON F. G. & LINDEN E. 1981; RUMBAUGH D., SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., SCHIEFELBUSCH R., & ROMSKI M. 1981; FOUTS R. S., HIRSCH A., & FOUTS D. H. 1982; SHAPIRO G. 1982; VAN CANTFORD T. & RIMPAU J. 1982; De LUCE J. & WILDER H. 1983; PATE J. & RUMBAUGH D. 1983; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., PATE J., LAWSON J., SMITH S., & ROSENBAUM S. 1983; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., ROMSKI M., SEVCIK R., & PATE J. 1983; WARD E. 1983; FOUTS R.S. , FOUTS D. H., & SCHOENFELD D. 1984; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. 1984, 1986; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., McDONALD K., SEVCIK R., HOPKINS W., & RUBERT E. 1986; FOUTS R. S. , FOUTS D. H., & VAN CANTFORD T. 1989; GARDNER R. & VAN CANTFORD T. 1989; O’SULLIVAN C. & YEAGER C. 1989; ROMSKI M. 1989; SEVCIK R. 1989; GREENFIELD P. & SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. 1990; PARKER S. & GIBSON K. 1990; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., SEVCIK R., BRAKKE K., RUMBAUGH D. & GREENFIELD P. 1990; GARDNER R., VAN CANTFORD T., & GARDNER B. T. 1992; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. 1992; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. & LEWIN R. 1994; SEVCIK R. & SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. 1994;
ALanguage” work with other species: PFUNGST O. 1911; VON FRISCH K. 1967; TERRACE H., STRAUB R., BEVER T., SEIDENBERG M. 1977; PEPPERBERG I. 1981; SEBEOK T. & ROSENTHAL R. 1981; UMIKER-SEBEOK J. & SEBEOK T. 1981; PEPPERBERG I. 1983; HERMAN L., RICHARDS D., & WOLZ J. 1984; RICHARDS D., WOLZ J., &HERMAN L. 1984; PEPPERBERG I. 1985; PEPPERBERG I. 1986; PEPPERBERG I. & KOZAK F. 1986; PEPPERBERG I. 1987; DEMERS R. 1988; NEAPOLITAN D., PEPPERBERG I., & SCHINKE‑LLANO L. 1988; PEPPERBERG I. 1988; PEPPERBERG I. & NEAPOLITAN D. 1988; PEPPERBERG I. 1989; PEPPERBERG I. 1990; PEPPERBERG I. & FUNK M. 1990; PEPPERBERG I. & OTTERSTAL K. 1990; KAUFMAN K. 1991; PEPPERBERG I. 1991; PEPPERBERG I., BRESE K., & HARRIS B. 1991; PEPPERBERG I. & BREZINSKY M. 1991; PEPPERBERG I. & SCHINKE‑LLANO L. 1991; PEPPERBERG I. 1992; PEPPERBERG I. 1993; PATTERSON D. & PEPPERBERG I. 1994; PEPPERBERG I. 1994; PEPPERBERG I. GARCIA S., JACKSON E., & MARCONI S. 1995; MONTGOMERY S. 1995; DISCOVERY CHANNEL ONLINE 1996; MUKERJEE M. 1996; ROBERTS G. 1996; DAVIS C.; GERMANE C.;
Irene Pepperberg’s work (see above) with Alex (an African Grey parrot is extremely thought provoking - unlike the apes, parrots do have the ability to vocalise!)
Connected works: There is a wealth of literature on (non-human) animal communication - indeed, too much to attempt to list in any depth here. However, some which may be of interest are: WARDEN C. & WARNER L. 1928; VON FRISCH K. 1950; 1954; 1967; STRUHSAKER T. 1967; LILLY J. 1969; MENZEL E. 1971; SEYFARTH R., CHENEY D., & MARLER P. 1980a & b; CHENEY D. & SEYFARTH R. 1982; CHENEY D. & SEYFARTH R. 1990; CHENEY D., SEYFARTH R., & SILK J. 1995; MATSUZAWA T. 1985; DUNBAR R. 1996; CLARK R. 1997; SNELL K. 1997;
Criticisms of the assumptions of the ape studies: McNEIL D. 1974; TERRACE H. & BEVER T. 1976; LIMBER J. 1977, 1982; SEBEOK T. & UMIKER-SEBEOK J. 1979, 1980; TERRACE H. 1979, 1981, 1982; 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987; RISTAU C. & ROBBINS D. 1979, 1982; SEIDENBERG M. & PETITTO L. 1979, 1987; TERRACE H., PETITTO L., SANDERS R., & BEVER T. 1979, 1980, 1981; EPSTEIN R., LANZA R., & SKINNER B. F. 1980; GARDNER M. 1980; THOMPSON C. & CHURCH R. 1980; UMIKER-SEBEOK J. & SEBEOK T. 1980, 1981, 1982; SEBEOK T. & ROSENTHAL R. 1981; EPSTEIN R. 1982; SUGARMAN S. 1983; SANDERS R. 1985; SEIDENBERG M. 1986; MARSHALL J. 1987; WALLMAN J. 1992
General remarks, observations, & reviews for and against: HOCKETT C. 1959; LINDEN E. 1976, 1987; CHOMSKY N. 1980a, page 57; STAHLKE H. 1980; FREIHERR G. 1981; AITCHISON J. 1989; BOTHA R. 1989 page28, page 76 - 77 (on CHOMSKY); INGRAM J. 1992 (chapter 17); WALLMAN J. 1992; JACKENDOFF R. 1993 chapter 10; STEINBERG D. 1993 chapter 2; PINKER S. 1994 (Chapter 11); See also BLAKEMORE C. & GREENFIELD S. 1987 (Part 2 - Animals do they think and do they have minds?); PARKER K. & GIBSON K. 1990; HARLEY T. 1995 (chapter 1); KHODADAD R. 1995
Animal thought and animal minds: GOODALL J. 1963, 1968, 1971; HAYES K. & NISSEN C. 1971; GRIFFIN D. 1976, 1984, 1992; BLAKEMORE C. & GREENFIELD S. 1987 (Part 2 - Animals do they think and do they have minds?); PEARCE J. 1987; GOULD J. & GOULD C. 1994; DENNETT D. 1996; DEACON T. 1997; SYKES C. 1997; TUDGE C. 1997;
Follow up studies etc. with people with learning difficulties and disabilities using similar symbol systems: GLASS A., GAZZANIGA M. & PREMACK D. 1973; McLEAN L. & McLEAN J. 1974; CARRIER J. & PEAK T. 1975; CLARK C. 1981; HODGES P. & SCHWETHELM B. 1984; ROMSKI M. , WHITE R., MILLEN C. & RUMBAUGH D. 1984; ROMSKI M. & SEVCIK R. 1988; ROMSKI M., SEVCIK R., & PATE J. 1988; ROMSKI M. & SEVCIK R. 1992; (See also LENNEBERG E. 1975)
Beyond the Planet of the Apes! Fictional accounts of animal speech (there are far too many too include here and most are at too superficial a level to be considered. However there are some which delve a little deeper into the mystery): MIEDANER T. 1977;
Can machines think and speak independently? HOFSTADTER D. & DENNETT D. 1981;
It by no means clear that the primates taught to use Alanguage” in the above studies demonstrate anything other than a paired association between a symbol and an event (in a behaviourist sense). In an interesting experiment (See LENNEBERG E. 1975 page 125) was undertaken in a high school in which experimenters attempted to condition the student subjects to manouevre coloured plastic shapes in certain ways in order to obtain rewards. The order in which the plastic shapes had to be positioned to obtain the various rewards was itself a form of simple language each piece having a specific meaning and yet the majority of the students subsequently reported that they had never thought of it in this way. They had simply learnt which patterns produced results:
Now the sequences in which they learned to arrange the chips in order to get the desired objects could be in fact decoded into simple English requests for the objects - and yet most of the students claimed to have never thought of matters this way. They said that they detected patterns that worked and patterns that didn’t work, and that was as far as it went. To them it felt like an exercise in meaningless symbol manipulation! (HOFSTADTER D. & DENNETT D. 1981)
What we may have to learn from the above studies is, not that apes can talk but, not to be too quick to jump to assumptions of competence:
This problem of gratuitous attribution was quite general across the various constructions trained and tested. Sarah learned to construct the appropriate sentence, say Ared on green” versus Agreen on red”, when shown one coloured card on top of another one, and also to arrange the two cards appropriately in response to such a Astatement” assembled by the trainer. But this skill does not support Premack’s conclusion that Sarah understood prepositions. Since Aon” is not contrasted with other prepositions, such as Aunder”, it would not be necessary for Sarah to attend to that element at all. For example, she could solve the second version, as Terrace points out, merely by noting which item is mentioned first and placing it on top of the remaining one. (WALLMAN J. 1992 page 39)
To be sure - many kinds of animals convey information to each other. But in none of the known systems - birds, bees, whales, nonhuman primates, or whatever - is there an inventory of elements like words that can be combined and recombined in limitless new ways to express new messages. There are no elements that indicate points in time (Ayesterday”), a desire for information (Aare there ...A), or possibility (Amight”). Animals may have a way to indicate their own desires or feelings, but they can’t convey someone else’s, as in ABirds like that tree”. Nor can animal communication systems explicitly draw resemblances among different objects as in AThat tree looks like a bird.” (JACKENDOFF R. 1993 page 10)
Wallman (see WALLMAN J. 1992, chapter 5) argues, quite convincingly, that even at a single word level there is some cause for concern over claims that the apes in question were using signs and symbols in a linguistic sense. However, even he finds some evidence which would appear to point toward a very basic language awareness:
The fact that he acquired his lexigrams without training, his untutored ability to press the corresponding lexigram when shown an object, and the reportedly significant frequency of noninstrumental lexigram presses all suggest that Kanzi was functionally aware that lexigrams are names for things. (WALLMAN J. 1992 page 76)
However, the fact that, in a subsequent effort, Savage-Rumbaugh (1981) was able to teach Sherman to draw a four-way distinction among foods, drinks, locations, and tools argues in favour of the interpretation of Savage-Rumbaugh et al. (WALLMAN J. 1991 page 74)
Whatever the explanation for the apes seeming ability to use symbols as ‘referents’ for other things, the human potential for language, even in those with a severe impairment, is greater. If pigeons can be taught to simulate communication (See EPSTEIN R., LANZA R., & SKINNER B. 1982) then there must be hope for the development of real communication skills in people with severe learning difficulties. The cartoon makes this point. The ever increasing number of people who are fluent users of AAC make an even stronger point. It will be necessary to convince some people that fluent communication through AAC is possible and that a user’s potential should not be falsely limited by the self-fulfilling prophecy (ROSENTHAL R. and JACOBSON L. 1968, 1992; ROSENTHAL R. 1973, 1974, 1981; ROSENTHAL R. & RUBIN D. 1971):
Children who are unable to express themselves verbally, whose speech is hesitant or whose articulation is deviant may well have average or above average intelligence. And yet their inability to show their understanding of things of things or to voice their ideas, together with the atypical impression of voice or speech pattern will lead not only other children but teachers and parents to regard them as ‘not very bright’. Once this notion is set, such a child will become resigned to it, cease to try to compete and settle for underachievement as the line of least resistance. (DALTON P. 1994, page 132)
It is not possible to know what children of five will achieve by the time they are 15. We can only speculate. However, if our assumptions create the reality are we worthy of the title of special educators? I think not. Amelioration of the cognitive condition and development to potential through communication should be the goal. There is potential in all people: indeed, even the severely cognitively challenged possess a good deal of ‘cognitive competence’:
It should also become evident that people that may seem to be Acognitively limited” nevertheless have a great deal of cognitive competence. You will see that without this competence simple things like pointing or eye gaze in a way that is appropriate to the context would not be possible. Such seemingly simple behaviours are still beyond the capabilities of very sophisticated computer simulations and could not occur without considerable knowledge of the world and how to solve problems in that world. (ANDERSON J. 1990). Hopefully, you will see that even Acognitively limited” individuals are capable of more than most people think they are (BRAY N. & TURNER L. 1986,1987). Facilitators can build on this cognitive base. (BRAY N. 1990)
Lowered expectations may:
C lead to some individuals taking on the mantle of incompetence;
C be a factor that leads some to passivity and helplessness;
C lead some to be classed as over-achievers:
It’s easy to be an over-achiever in the land of lowered expectations. If people expect nothing from you because they think you are too disabled to do anything, and you do almost anything at all, people will be impressed. And if you reach a little higher and do something interesting with your life, people will be amazed. (WILLIAMS M. 1995 page 4)
I have labelled the latter example ‘soap’ (only in a soap could this happen!), in which SOAP is an acronym for ‘Subject’s Over Achieving Phenomena’. An individual (Subject) Over-Achieves (in the Williams’ sense) and this is seen as an isolated Phenomena demonstrating the super-abilities of a particular individual and not a skill that could be learnt by many others:
AYes but he is so clever. My children could not possibly do that.”
Change is possible. We do not have to accept things as they are we can work to improve them. It is possible to raise the expectation of the other:
Educate and Empower.
Xplain what you are doing and how people can help.
Pat People on the back for Positive Performances.
Easy steps. Don’t make it a chore for anyone.
Concrete objectives. Let people know where they are going.
Talking positively and passionately.
Note: I must admit that I am extremely sceptical about the above report especially as it is third hand information and I have never read any other reports of this lady’s amazing dog. However, it illustrates my cartoon rather well! How often have we heard it said that AMy xxx understands me perfectly well” where xxx could be a dog or a cat or any household pet? While the majority of people wouldn’t then go on to say that the particular pet in question had a ‘language’ there are some who claim otherwise ....
She has analysed the language cats speak amongst themselves and written it all down - syntax, vocabulary, pronunciation - and all for humans who want to become proficient in spoken cat.....’Cat is a tonal language like Chinese.’ confirms Alexandra. ‘You get the tone wrong at your peril, as you may end up saying something quite different to what you intended - which may be very offensive to your cat’. ( ROBERTS G. 1996 page 9 on the work of Alexandra Sellers)
My own opinion(on dogs’ knowledge and use of the English or, for that matter, any other language) is more akin is that of Robert Fulghum’s - although I don’t know how he knows what the dog is Abelieving”....
Especially when people do the ventriloquist act where they speak to the dog and then answer for it in another voice. You know what I mean. You’ve heard it. Even dogs think it’s weird. Watch a dog when a human does this. The dog can’t believe what he’s hearing either. ADoes Poochie wantum drinky? No Poochie wantum go outside.” (FULGHUM R. 1988)
While people may think that their pets demonstrate high levels of intelligence and communicative ability the same may not be true about the capacities of people with learning difficulties and / or physical disabilities when coupled with communicative impairments:
People with significant communication disabilities have for too long been the victims of the low expectations for them held by their often overwhelmed therapists. A part of this victimization is that people with disabilities regularly come to share those same low expectations. The great majority of us, in my opinion, can achieve independent, effective, communication if we are provided with appropriate technology and appropriate long-term, often intensive intervention strategies. I worked hard to get my communication to where it is today, but it has been infinitely worthwhile to me and to my family. (CREECH R. 1995 page 11)
After I conclude one of my talks, someone invariably comes up to me and starts cooing over me like a semi-extinct bird. They usually say something like this, AYou’re so wonderful, Michael; you’ve done so much with your life, but you know, you’re the exception to the rule. None of my clients could have done what you have done.” (WILLIAMS M. 1995 page 1)
My colleagues can all relate stories about the people who, though working with people with a severe communication impairment, have very little expectation of user potential. I was told, for example, that any system which provided more than four messages was a waste of time.
AThese people only require the phrases; ‘Can I have a drink please?’, ‘Can I have something to eat please?’, ‘Can I go to the toilet please?’, ‘I am unhappy about something’”
I asked if the four provided a starting point. The reply was a definite Ano”:
ALet’s face it, they are going to be in care all their lives. What more do they need to say?”
I think if I was working with a person with an attitude like that I would want to say AI am unhappy about something” too. Apes and Gorillas have been taught to sign or use symbols (and even to speak a couple of words - see LINDEN E. 1976 page 14), dogs to type (LINDEN E. 1976 page 183), rats to make selections, pigeons to discriminate and even hold quasi-conversations (EPSTEIN R., LANZA R., & SKINNER B. 1982). See AITCHISON J. 1989; WALLMAN J. 1992 for reviews of animal work. Much of this work is contentious and some of the claims made may not logically follow from the animals behaviour.
By and by we are called to see Sir W. Battens to see the strange creature that Captain Holmes hath brought with him from Guiny; it is a great baboone, but so much like a man in most things, that ( though they say there is a Species of them) yet I cannot believe but that it is a monster got of a man and a she-baboone. I do believe it already understands much english; and I am of the mind it might be taught to speak or make signs (THE DIARY OF SAMUEL PEPYS. AUGUST 24TH 1661)
Although we may continue to make claims about ‘hidden’ abilities and attempt to teach animals all sorts of new and particularly human ‘tricks’, it may be that, in their present state of evolution, animals are not equipped with the right mental structure to ‘understand’ what it is we are asking of them:
As researchers regularly discover, the more ingeniously you investigate the competence of nonhuman animals, the more likely you are to discover abrupt gaps in competence. The ability of animals to generalize from their particular exploitations of wisdom is severely limited. (DENNETT D. 1996 page 116)
For further readings on animals (notably primates) and language acquisition (both for and against) see:
Older Studies on teaching apes to communicate through their vocal apparatus: WITMER L. 1909; FURNESS W. 1916; KELLOGG W. & KELLOGG L. (1933); HAYES C. (1951); HAYES K. & HAYES C. 1951, 1954; KELLOGG W. 1968.
Work with apes: PREMACK D. & SCHWARTZ A. 1966; GARDNER R.A. & GARDNER B. T. 1969, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1978, 1984; PREMACK D. 1970, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1976, 1979, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1990; GARDNER B. T. & GARDNER R.A. 1971, 1974, 1975, 1980, 1985; SCHRIER A. & STOLLNITZ F. 1971; FOUTS R. S. 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1983; DENDY L. 1973; RUMBAUGH D., GILL T., & BROWN J. 1973; RUMBAUGH D., GILL T., & VON GLASERFELD E. 1973; LINDEN E. 1974, 1987; PREMACK D. & PREMACK A. 1974, 1983; FOUTS R. S., CHOWN B., & GOODIN L. 1976; MILES L. 1976, 1978, 1983; PREMACK A. 1976; RUMBAUGH D. & GILL T. 1976, 1977; FOUTS R. S. & RIGBY R. 1977; GILL T. 1977; GILL T. & RUMBAUGH D. 1977; PARKEL D., WHITE R., & WARNER H. 1977; RUMBAUGH D. 1977; RUMBAUGH D., STAHLKE H., & GILL T. 1977; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. & RUMBAUGH D. 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., WILKERSON B., & BAKEMAN R. 1977; FOUTS R. S., SHAPIRO G., & O’NEIL C. 1978; PATTERSON F. G. 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1987; PREMACK D. & WOODRUFF G. 1978; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., RUMBAUGH D., & BOYSEN S. 1978, 1980; FOUTS R. S., COUCH J., & O’NEIL C. 1979; RUMBAUGH D., SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., & GILL T. 1979; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. 1979, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988; SCHIEFELBUSCH R. L. & HOLLIS J. H. 1979; TERRACE H. 1979; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., RUMBAUGH D., SMITH S., & LAWSON J. 1980; GARDNER B. T. 1981, 1982; PATTERSON F. G. & LINDEN E. 1981; RUMBAUGH D., SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., SCHIEFELBUSCH R., & ROMSKI M. 1981; FOUTS R. S., HIRSCH A., & FOUTS D. H. 1982; SHAPIRO G. 1982; VAN CANTFORD T. & RIMPAU J. 1982; De LUCE J. & WILDER H. 1983; PATE J. & RUMBAUGH D. 1983; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., PATE J., LAWSON J., SMITH S., & ROSENBAUM S. 1983; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., ROMSKI M., SEVCIK R., & PATE J. 1983; WARD E. 1983; FOUTS R.S. , FOUTS D. H., & SCHOENFELD D. 1984; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. 1984, 1986; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., McDONALD K., SEVCIK R., HOPKINS W., & RUBERT E. 1986; FOUTS R. S. , FOUTS D. H., & VAN CANTFORD T. 1989; GARDNER R. & VAN CANTFORD T. 1989; O’SULLIVAN C. & YEAGER C. 1989; ROMSKI M. 1989; SEVCIK R. 1989; GREENFIELD P. & SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. 1990; PARKER S. & GIBSON K. 1990; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E., SEVCIK R., BRAKKE K., RUMBAUGH D. & GREENFIELD P. 1990; GARDNER R., VAN CANTFORD T., & GARDNER B. T. 1992; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. 1992; SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. & LEWIN R. 1994; SEVCIK R. & SAVAGE-RUMBAUGH E. 1994;
ALanguage” work with other species: PFUNGST O. 1911; VON FRISCH K. 1967; TERRACE H., STRAUB R., BEVER T., SEIDENBERG M. 1977; PEPPERBERG I. 1981; SEBEOK T. & ROSENTHAL R. 1981; UMIKER-SEBEOK J. & SEBEOK T. 1981; PEPPERBERG I. 1983; HERMAN L., RICHARDS D., & WOLZ J. 1984; RICHARDS D., WOLZ J., &HERMAN L. 1984; PEPPERBERG I. 1985; PEPPERBERG I. 1986; PEPPERBERG I. & KOZAK F. 1986; PEPPERBERG I. 1987; DEMERS R. 1988; NEAPOLITAN D., PEPPERBERG I., & SCHINKE‑LLANO L. 1988; PEPPERBERG I. 1988; PEPPERBERG I. & NEAPOLITAN D. 1988; PEPPERBERG I. 1989; PEPPERBERG I. 1990; PEPPERBERG I. & FUNK M. 1990; PEPPERBERG I. & OTTERSTAL K. 1990; KAUFMAN K. 1991; PEPPERBERG I. 1991; PEPPERBERG I., BRESE K., & HARRIS B. 1991; PEPPERBERG I. & BREZINSKY M. 1991; PEPPERBERG I. & SCHINKE‑LLANO L. 1991; PEPPERBERG I. 1992; PEPPERBERG I. 1993; PATTERSON D. & PEPPERBERG I. 1994; PEPPERBERG I. 1994; PEPPERBERG I. GARCIA S., JACKSON E., & MARCONI S. 1995; MONTGOMERY S. 1995; DISCOVERY CHANNEL ONLINE 1996; MUKERJEE M. 1996; ROBERTS G. 1996; DAVIS C.; GERMANE C.;
Irene Pepperberg’s work (see above) with Alex (an African Grey parrot is extremely thought provoking - unlike the apes, parrots do have the ability to vocalise!)
Connected works: There is a wealth of literature on (non-human) animal communication - indeed, too much to attempt to list in any depth here. However, some which may be of interest are: WARDEN C. & WARNER L. 1928; VON FRISCH K. 1950; 1954; 1967; STRUHSAKER T. 1967; LILLY J. 1969; MENZEL E. 1971; SEYFARTH R., CHENEY D., & MARLER P. 1980a & b; CHENEY D. & SEYFARTH R. 1982; CHENEY D. & SEYFARTH R. 1990; CHENEY D., SEYFARTH R., & SILK J. 1995; MATSUZAWA T. 1985; DUNBAR R. 1996; CLARK R. 1997; SNELL K. 1997;
Criticisms of the assumptions of the ape studies: McNEIL D. 1974; TERRACE H. & BEVER T. 1976; LIMBER J. 1977, 1982; SEBEOK T. & UMIKER-SEBEOK J. 1979, 1980; TERRACE H. 1979, 1981, 1982; 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987; RISTAU C. & ROBBINS D. 1979, 1982; SEIDENBERG M. & PETITTO L. 1979, 1987; TERRACE H., PETITTO L., SANDERS R., & BEVER T. 1979, 1980, 1981; EPSTEIN R., LANZA R., & SKINNER B. F. 1980; GARDNER M. 1980; THOMPSON C. & CHURCH R. 1980; UMIKER-SEBEOK J. & SEBEOK T. 1980, 1981, 1982; SEBEOK T. & ROSENTHAL R. 1981; EPSTEIN R. 1982; SUGARMAN S. 1983; SANDERS R. 1985; SEIDENBERG M. 1986; MARSHALL J. 1987; WALLMAN J. 1992
General remarks, observations, & reviews for and against: HOCKETT C. 1959; LINDEN E. 1976, 1987; CHOMSKY N. 1980a, page 57; STAHLKE H. 1980; FREIHERR G. 1981; AITCHISON J. 1989; BOTHA R. 1989 page28, page 76 - 77 (on CHOMSKY); INGRAM J. 1992 (chapter 17); WALLMAN J. 1992; JACKENDOFF R. 1993 chapter 10; STEINBERG D. 1993 chapter 2; PINKER S. 1994 (Chapter 11); See also BLAKEMORE C. & GREENFIELD S. 1987 (Part 2 - Animals do they think and do they have minds?); PARKER K. & GIBSON K. 1990; HARLEY T. 1995 (chapter 1); KHODADAD R. 1995
Animal thought and animal minds: GOODALL J. 1963, 1968, 1971; HAYES K. & NISSEN C. 1971; GRIFFIN D. 1976, 1984, 1992; BLAKEMORE C. & GREENFIELD S. 1987 (Part 2 - Animals do they think and do they have minds?); PEARCE J. 1987; GOULD J. & GOULD C. 1994; DENNETT D. 1996; DEACON T. 1997; SYKES C. 1997; TUDGE C. 1997;
Follow up studies etc. with people with learning difficulties and disabilities using similar symbol systems: GLASS A., GAZZANIGA M. & PREMACK D. 1973; McLEAN L. & McLEAN J. 1974; CARRIER J. & PEAK T. 1975; CLARK C. 1981; HODGES P. & SCHWETHELM B. 1984; ROMSKI M. , WHITE R., MILLEN C. & RUMBAUGH D. 1984; ROMSKI M. & SEVCIK R. 1988; ROMSKI M., SEVCIK R., & PATE J. 1988; ROMSKI M. & SEVCIK R. 1992; (See also LENNEBERG E. 1975)
Beyond the Planet of the Apes! Fictional accounts of animal speech (there are far too many too include here and most are at too superficial a level to be considered. However there are some which delve a little deeper into the mystery): MIEDANER T. 1977;
Can machines think and speak independently? HOFSTADTER D. & DENNETT D. 1981;
It by no means clear that the primates taught to use Alanguage” in the above studies demonstrate anything other than a paired association between a symbol and an event (in a behaviourist sense). In an interesting experiment (See LENNEBERG E. 1975 page 125) was undertaken in a high school in which experimenters attempted to condition the student subjects to manouevre coloured plastic shapes in certain ways in order to obtain rewards. The order in which the plastic shapes had to be positioned to obtain the various rewards was itself a form of simple language each piece having a specific meaning and yet the majority of the students subsequently reported that they had never thought of it in this way. They had simply learnt which patterns produced results:
Now the sequences in which they learned to arrange the chips in order to get the desired objects could be in fact decoded into simple English requests for the objects - and yet most of the students claimed to have never thought of matters this way. They said that they detected patterns that worked and patterns that didn’t work, and that was as far as it went. To them it felt like an exercise in meaningless symbol manipulation! (HOFSTADTER D. & DENNETT D. 1981)
What we may have to learn from the above studies is, not that apes can talk but, not to be too quick to jump to assumptions of competence:
This problem of gratuitous attribution was quite general across the various constructions trained and tested. Sarah learned to construct the appropriate sentence, say Ared on green” versus Agreen on red”, when shown one coloured card on top of another one, and also to arrange the two cards appropriately in response to such a Astatement” assembled by the trainer. But this skill does not support Premack’s conclusion that Sarah understood prepositions. Since Aon” is not contrasted with other prepositions, such as Aunder”, it would not be necessary for Sarah to attend to that element at all. For example, she could solve the second version, as Terrace points out, merely by noting which item is mentioned first and placing it on top of the remaining one. (WALLMAN J. 1992 page 39)
To be sure - many kinds of animals convey information to each other. But in none of the known systems - birds, bees, whales, nonhuman primates, or whatever - is there an inventory of elements like words that can be combined and recombined in limitless new ways to express new messages. There are no elements that indicate points in time (Ayesterday”), a desire for information (Aare there ...A), or possibility (Amight”). Animals may have a way to indicate their own desires or feelings, but they can’t convey someone else’s, as in ABirds like that tree”. Nor can animal communication systems explicitly draw resemblances among different objects as in AThat tree looks like a bird.” (JACKENDOFF R. 1993 page 10)
Wallman (see WALLMAN J. 1992, chapter 5) argues, quite convincingly, that even at a single word level there is some cause for concern over claims that the apes in question were using signs and symbols in a linguistic sense. However, even he finds some evidence which would appear to point toward a very basic language awareness:
The fact that he acquired his lexigrams without training, his untutored ability to press the corresponding lexigram when shown an object, and the reportedly significant frequency of noninstrumental lexigram presses all suggest that Kanzi was functionally aware that lexigrams are names for things. (WALLMAN J. 1992 page 76)
However, the fact that, in a subsequent effort, Savage-Rumbaugh (1981) was able to teach Sherman to draw a four-way distinction among foods, drinks, locations, and tools argues in favour of the interpretation of Savage-Rumbaugh et al. (WALLMAN J. 1991 page 74)
Whatever the explanation for the apes seeming ability to use symbols as ‘referents’ for other things, the human potential for language, even in those with a severe impairment, is greater. If pigeons can be taught to simulate communication (See EPSTEIN R., LANZA R., & SKINNER B. 1982) then there must be hope for the development of real communication skills in people with severe learning difficulties. The cartoon makes this point. The ever increasing number of people who are fluent users of AAC make an even stronger point. It will be necessary to convince some people that fluent communication through AAC is possible and that a user’s potential should not be falsely limited by the self-fulfilling prophecy (ROSENTHAL R. and JACOBSON L. 1968, 1992; ROSENTHAL R. 1973, 1974, 1981; ROSENTHAL R. & RUBIN D. 1971):
Children who are unable to express themselves verbally, whose speech is hesitant or whose articulation is deviant may well have average or above average intelligence. And yet their inability to show their understanding of things of things or to voice their ideas, together with the atypical impression of voice or speech pattern will lead not only other children but teachers and parents to regard them as ‘not very bright’. Once this notion is set, such a child will become resigned to it, cease to try to compete and settle for underachievement as the line of least resistance. (DALTON P. 1994, page 132)
It is not possible to know what children of five will achieve by the time they are 15. We can only speculate. However, if our assumptions create the reality are we worthy of the title of special educators? I think not. Amelioration of the cognitive condition and development to potential through communication should be the goal. There is potential in all people: indeed, even the severely cognitively challenged possess a good deal of ‘cognitive competence’:
It should also become evident that people that may seem to be Acognitively limited” nevertheless have a great deal of cognitive competence. You will see that without this competence simple things like pointing or eye gaze in a way that is appropriate to the context would not be possible. Such seemingly simple behaviours are still beyond the capabilities of very sophisticated computer simulations and could not occur without considerable knowledge of the world and how to solve problems in that world. (ANDERSON J. 1990). Hopefully, you will see that even Acognitively limited” individuals are capable of more than most people think they are (BRAY N. & TURNER L. 1986,1987). Facilitators can build on this cognitive base. (BRAY N. 1990)
Lowered expectations may:
C lead to some individuals taking on the mantle of incompetence;
C be a factor that leads some to passivity and helplessness;
C lead some to be classed as over-achievers:
It’s easy to be an over-achiever in the land of lowered expectations. If people expect nothing from you because they think you are too disabled to do anything, and you do almost anything at all, people will be impressed. And if you reach a little higher and do something interesting with your life, people will be amazed. (WILLIAMS M. 1995 page 4)
I have labelled the latter example ‘soap’ (only in a soap could this happen!), in which SOAP is an acronym for ‘Subject’s Over Achieving Phenomena’. An individual (Subject) Over-Achieves (in the Williams’ sense) and this is seen as an isolated Phenomena demonstrating the super-abilities of a particular individual and not a skill that could be learnt by many others:
AYes but he is so clever. My children could not possibly do that.”
Change is possible. We do not have to accept things as they are we can work to improve them. It is possible to raise the expectation of the other:
Educate and Empower.
Xplain what you are doing and how people can help.
Pat People on the back for Positive Performances.
Easy steps. Don’t make it a chore for anyone.
Concrete objectives. Let people know where they are going.
Talking positively and passionately.
MOTIVATE 8 - Out of sight, out of mind - out of voice
In the overhead Mr. Lukforjob is telling Mrs. Saymoor that he has no idea why the pupils are not using their communication systems in his lesson. The fact that two of the systems have been left on the top of cupboard and Shani’s switch is completely out of her reach has escaped his attention!
CASE STUDY: I was asked to investigate why a pupil was not motivated to use his communication system. As is usual in these cases, I followed him through a typical morning at school, sitting at the back of each class, noting the interactions between the pupil and his peers, as well as the pupil and the staff. Although the staff were aware that I was attending school the communication aid was not put onto his chair at any time during the day. Staff dutifully transported it from one lesson to the next where it was again left ‘dormant’ at the side of the room. He never requested that it should be used and no member of staff asked that it be placed on his chair. Interactions with him were infrequent and generally of the closed question type. In one class, the teacher asked another pupil to work with him to help him answer questions. The friend suggested an answer to each question and the pupil nodded in compliance. The friend then gave the reply (which was in fact the friend’s) to the teacher. Later that day, the head teacher asked if I had any thoughts as to why he lacked the motivation to use his system.
CASE STUDY: A female student of 19 accompanied her mother to church every Sunday. Mother reported that X loved going to church and had a crush on the young preacher. When X had her VOCA she would often say things during the service when people were talking to the congregation. Mother found this embarrassing and said that she left the VOCA at home to silence her daughter. Mother had tried to tell her daughter that she should be silent when people were trying to speak but to no avail. It was suggested that the behaviour should be directly addressed and not conveniently side-stepped. Rather than removing her voice the speakers in church should respond appropriately to this interruption to their talks. Initially, this should be done gently:
AX could you be quiet, people are trying to listen, and I can’t concentrate when you are speaking”
but, if this failed to have the desired effect the rebuke could be given a little more firmly:
AX I have asked you to be quiet. Now, be quiet!”
People attending church are (supposedly) more sympathetic to the needs of others and would not want to respond in what might be seen as an uncaring manner. However, it is because we care that things often go wrong. While the removal of the system had prevented X from making such interruptions, it had also infringed her liberties, taught her the wrong lesson and taken away her voice for interacting after the service.
For some individuals the desire to initiate communication is a rare event when it is not encouraged and nurtured. If a need is not fulfilled because there is no way to make it known then this may lead to frustration and anger or acceptance and passivity. An AAC system should be available at all times. The system may have to be changed to allow for the nature of the environment (for example, from a high to low-tech system when swimming) but users should always have some way of making their wishes known.
CASE STUDY: A school has enlarged symbol boards pasted to the walls in the toilets and bathrooms so that the pupils can continue to communicate with staff even while being toiletted or bathed.
CASE STUDY: A father adapted his car so that his son could use his VOCA to talk to him while he was driving. He used the head rest of the front seat to provide a secure tray for the VOCA.
CASE STUDY: I was asked to investigate why a pupil was not motivated to use his communication system. As is usual in these cases, I followed him through a typical morning at school, sitting at the back of each class, noting the interactions between the pupil and his peers, as well as the pupil and the staff. Although the staff were aware that I was attending school the communication aid was not put onto his chair at any time during the day. Staff dutifully transported it from one lesson to the next where it was again left ‘dormant’ at the side of the room. He never requested that it should be used and no member of staff asked that it be placed on his chair. Interactions with him were infrequent and generally of the closed question type. In one class, the teacher asked another pupil to work with him to help him answer questions. The friend suggested an answer to each question and the pupil nodded in compliance. The friend then gave the reply (which was in fact the friend’s) to the teacher. Later that day, the head teacher asked if I had any thoughts as to why he lacked the motivation to use his system.
CASE STUDY: A female student of 19 accompanied her mother to church every Sunday. Mother reported that X loved going to church and had a crush on the young preacher. When X had her VOCA she would often say things during the service when people were talking to the congregation. Mother found this embarrassing and said that she left the VOCA at home to silence her daughter. Mother had tried to tell her daughter that she should be silent when people were trying to speak but to no avail. It was suggested that the behaviour should be directly addressed and not conveniently side-stepped. Rather than removing her voice the speakers in church should respond appropriately to this interruption to their talks. Initially, this should be done gently:
AX could you be quiet, people are trying to listen, and I can’t concentrate when you are speaking”
but, if this failed to have the desired effect the rebuke could be given a little more firmly:
AX I have asked you to be quiet. Now, be quiet!”
People attending church are (supposedly) more sympathetic to the needs of others and would not want to respond in what might be seen as an uncaring manner. However, it is because we care that things often go wrong. While the removal of the system had prevented X from making such interruptions, it had also infringed her liberties, taught her the wrong lesson and taken away her voice for interacting after the service.
For some individuals the desire to initiate communication is a rare event when it is not encouraged and nurtured. If a need is not fulfilled because there is no way to make it known then this may lead to frustration and anger or acceptance and passivity. An AAC system should be available at all times. The system may have to be changed to allow for the nature of the environment (for example, from a high to low-tech system when swimming) but users should always have some way of making their wishes known.
CASE STUDY: A school has enlarged symbol boards pasted to the walls in the toilets and bathrooms so that the pupils can continue to communicate with staff even while being toiletted or bathed.
CASE STUDY: A father adapted his car so that his son could use his VOCA to talk to him while he was driving. He used the head rest of the front seat to provide a secure tray for the VOCA.
MOTIVATE 9 - Little to communicate with
The children are required to communicate with restricted vocabulary sets which inevitably restrict the form and content of their communicative output and the diversity of functions that can be expressed (UDWIN O. & YULE W. 1991 page 142)
CASE STUDY: I approached a teenager with a VOCA and spoke to him. AHello” I said. AHello” was the immediate response. AMy name’s Tony. I’m here to ....... What’s your name?” Silence! The teenager attempted to vocalise. Then I understood. His name had not been stored in his system.
Access to relevant vocabulary early in training is imperative. It is little wonder a person lacks the motivation to communicate if his or her vocabulary does not permit an appropriate utterance.
CASE STUDY: On examining the vocabulary stored in a VOCA of a 35-year-old lady it was found to contain 5 phrases - ‘Can I have something to eat please?’, ‘Can I have a drink please?’, ‘Can I watch TV please?’, ‘Can I go shopping please?’, ‘I want to go to the toilet please’. The staff reported that she was not motivated to use the system.
In the cartoon, the teacher is asking Saul a question but Saul is unable to respond because the appropriate vocabulary has not been stored in his system. The teacher now believes that Saul lacks the motivation to communicate.
The vocabulary needs of an individual change with location and over time. Encouraging the already passive user to communicate is often a long and involved task. To report lack of motivation after a few weeks as an excuse for no longer working with a system is akin to giving up the piano because you are unable to play the ‘Moonlight Sonata’ after the first three lessons on a child’s toy piano with only 8 keys!
CASE STUDY: I approached a teenager with a VOCA and spoke to him. AHello” I said. AHello” was the immediate response. AMy name’s Tony. I’m here to ....... What’s your name?” Silence! The teenager attempted to vocalise. Then I understood. His name had not been stored in his system.
Access to relevant vocabulary early in training is imperative. It is little wonder a person lacks the motivation to communicate if his or her vocabulary does not permit an appropriate utterance.
CASE STUDY: On examining the vocabulary stored in a VOCA of a 35-year-old lady it was found to contain 5 phrases - ‘Can I have something to eat please?’, ‘Can I have a drink please?’, ‘Can I watch TV please?’, ‘Can I go shopping please?’, ‘I want to go to the toilet please’. The staff reported that she was not motivated to use the system.
In the cartoon, the teacher is asking Saul a question but Saul is unable to respond because the appropriate vocabulary has not been stored in his system. The teacher now believes that Saul lacks the motivation to communicate.
The vocabulary needs of an individual change with location and over time. Encouraging the already passive user to communicate is often a long and involved task. To report lack of motivation after a few weeks as an excuse for no longer working with a system is akin to giving up the piano because you are unable to play the ‘Moonlight Sonata’ after the first three lessons on a child’s toy piano with only 8 keys!
MOTIVATE 10 - Little to communicate about
I am sometimes told that an individual has no interests at all and that it is impossible to find a topic of conversation. If this is the case, then it is necessary to begin afresh and create an interest for the person in question. Does she go horse riding? Has he been to a specialised outward bound centre? Would she like to see your collection of stamps featuring animals? Would he like to take responsibility for the rabbits the school is keeping?
In some cases it will be difficult to find things or activities that are interesting for the individual. When this is the case then measures must be taken to improve the situation: in such instances teaching should begin by creating interest and awareness. (VON TETZCHNER S. & MARTINSEN H. 1992)
The over-the-top cartoon makes the point that in ‘Bleak House’ ‘Cell block A’, where Jimmy has done nothing all day but sit in his room, there is little to talk about. It is possible that a lack of interest in everything is a result of a passive lifestyle. He has learnt that not to do things for himself and that ‘all things come to he who waits’. The environment, the routine, the expectation of significant others, the philosophy of the establishment may need to be considerably altered to motivate a user:
Communication becomes a non-issue when it concerns individuals who have no one, other than paid employees, with whom to interact, nothing to communicate about, and nowhere to go. (CALCULATOR S. 1995 page 52)
Participation is the only prerequisite to communication. Without participation, there is no one to talk to, nothing to talk about, and no reason to communicate. (BEUKELMAN D. & MIRENDA P. 1992 page 177)
In some cases it will be difficult to find things or activities that are interesting for the individual. When this is the case then measures must be taken to improve the situation: in such instances teaching should begin by creating interest and awareness. (VON TETZCHNER S. & MARTINSEN H. 1992)
The over-the-top cartoon makes the point that in ‘Bleak House’ ‘Cell block A’, where Jimmy has done nothing all day but sit in his room, there is little to talk about. It is possible that a lack of interest in everything is a result of a passive lifestyle. He has learnt that not to do things for himself and that ‘all things come to he who waits’. The environment, the routine, the expectation of significant others, the philosophy of the establishment may need to be considerably altered to motivate a user:
Communication becomes a non-issue when it concerns individuals who have no one, other than paid employees, with whom to interact, nothing to communicate about, and nowhere to go. (CALCULATOR S. 1995 page 52)
Participation is the only prerequisite to communication. Without participation, there is no one to talk to, nothing to talk about, and no reason to communicate. (BEUKELMAN D. & MIRENDA P. 1992 page 177)
MOTIVATE 11 - Have you got the RACS?
Reluctant Augmented Communicator Syndrome
The limited use of sign and symbol systems of communication is likely to be due to a range of factors, including the reduced motivation to communicate of many physically handicapped and non-verbal children, the slow transmission rates of the augmentative systems themselves, and perhaps also the training practices adopted in the schools. (UDWIN O. & YULE W. 1990 page 308)(My italics and underlining)
I have been in the privileged position of shadowing many (I’ve probably done this forty times to date) a user around a school, a college, or other for a whole day (in some cases, even longer). Initially, usually over the phone, I am often told that the user in question lacks motivation or is just plain lazy. However, after a day or more of shadowing a different picture begins to emerge. It is a picture of lack of expectation, missed opportunities and, in some cases, an unconscious devaluation of the user’s augmentative communication system through the working practices adopted by significant others. Thus, while I understand the authors (in the above quotation) pointing out (see italics above) the lack of user motivation (intrinsic), I would argue that (as the authors suggest - see underline above) this has more to do with the working practices, ethos, and philosophy of significant others (extrinsic). Can we really assume that an individual’s seeming lack of motivation to communicate is due to some neonatal (or other) traumatic factor? Even if this were true (I’m not convinced) then short of some surgical or pharmaceutical intervention there is little we can do about it. What we can work on is the extrinsic motivation to communicate - we can provide an environment which expects, encourages, and supports augmentative communication. Udwin and Yule, in a subsequent article, go on to say that:
it is likely that poor system use may be at least partly explained in terms of the augmentative communication training practices adopted in the schools. Information gathered during the course of this investigation indicated that many of the children were receiving fairly limited exposure to sign and symbol use at school, and that relatively few attempts were being made by teachers and speech and language therapists to foster generalisation of augmentative systems use outside of formal training sessions. UDWIN O. & YULE W. 1991 page 147)
Reluctant Augmented Communicator Syndrome may strike anywhere. Beware! Prevention is better than cure. How do you know if a user has the Reluctant Augmented Communicator Syndrome? These are typical symptoms:
C apparent lack of motivation;
C others criticise AAC system (slow, difficult to use, difficult to understand, too much trouble, etc);
C others criticise user of AAC system;
C others comment on user’s use of syntax;
C others comment on user’s failure to learn system;
C others rationalise user’s inability to use system;
C others may state they have explored all methods and have already implemented every strategy;
All is not lost. Prevention is better than cure. Do not let your user develop a bad case of the RACS. This can be achieved with team effort. The causal factors are:
C lack of support of significant others for user and AAC system;
C lack of awareness of system potential of significant others;
C lack of knowledge of AAC system;
C lack of belief in AAC system;
C lack of expectation of significant others;
C establishment philosophy which does not support AAC;
C establishment practices which do not support AAC;
C missed opportunities to engage the user in use of the AAC system;
C missed opportunities to develop further the understanding of AAC symbols in use;
C historic use of closed question approach interfering with development of functional communication;
C little time devoted to system tuition;
C acquired passivity of user;
C rationalisation of own or others approach (or lack of approach) to AAC;
C failure to see the importance of communication in other than literacy skills;
C high staff turn over. User has to constantly adjust to new communicative partners.
There is a cure for the RACS. It requires that you TEACH:
Time, Effort, Awareness, Commitment, and Humour.
Tuition, Expertise, Ability, Change, and Heart
As this manual will suggest, the individual aspects of the acronym TEACH are important factors in keeping the RACs at bay.
RACS can be avoided. An alternative way of looking at lack of motivation is the result of continuing pejorative interactions with significant others. That is as other-caused. Staff need not accept this notion in a masochistic fashion but as a basis from which to examine their current practices with view to change.
The limited use of sign and symbol systems of communication is likely to be due to a range of factors, including the reduced motivation to communicate of many physically handicapped and non-verbal children, the slow transmission rates of the augmentative systems themselves, and perhaps also the training practices adopted in the schools. (UDWIN O. & YULE W. 1990 page 308)(My italics and underlining)
I have been in the privileged position of shadowing many (I’ve probably done this forty times to date) a user around a school, a college, or other for a whole day (in some cases, even longer). Initially, usually over the phone, I am often told that the user in question lacks motivation or is just plain lazy. However, after a day or more of shadowing a different picture begins to emerge. It is a picture of lack of expectation, missed opportunities and, in some cases, an unconscious devaluation of the user’s augmentative communication system through the working practices adopted by significant others. Thus, while I understand the authors (in the above quotation) pointing out (see italics above) the lack of user motivation (intrinsic), I would argue that (as the authors suggest - see underline above) this has more to do with the working practices, ethos, and philosophy of significant others (extrinsic). Can we really assume that an individual’s seeming lack of motivation to communicate is due to some neonatal (or other) traumatic factor? Even if this were true (I’m not convinced) then short of some surgical or pharmaceutical intervention there is little we can do about it. What we can work on is the extrinsic motivation to communicate - we can provide an environment which expects, encourages, and supports augmentative communication. Udwin and Yule, in a subsequent article, go on to say that:
it is likely that poor system use may be at least partly explained in terms of the augmentative communication training practices adopted in the schools. Information gathered during the course of this investigation indicated that many of the children were receiving fairly limited exposure to sign and symbol use at school, and that relatively few attempts were being made by teachers and speech and language therapists to foster generalisation of augmentative systems use outside of formal training sessions. UDWIN O. & YULE W. 1991 page 147)
Reluctant Augmented Communicator Syndrome may strike anywhere. Beware! Prevention is better than cure. How do you know if a user has the Reluctant Augmented Communicator Syndrome? These are typical symptoms:
C apparent lack of motivation;
C others criticise AAC system (slow, difficult to use, difficult to understand, too much trouble, etc);
C others criticise user of AAC system;
C others comment on user’s use of syntax;
C others comment on user’s failure to learn system;
C others rationalise user’s inability to use system;
C others may state they have explored all methods and have already implemented every strategy;
All is not lost. Prevention is better than cure. Do not let your user develop a bad case of the RACS. This can be achieved with team effort. The causal factors are:
C lack of support of significant others for user and AAC system;
C lack of awareness of system potential of significant others;
C lack of knowledge of AAC system;
C lack of belief in AAC system;
C lack of expectation of significant others;
C establishment philosophy which does not support AAC;
C establishment practices which do not support AAC;
C missed opportunities to engage the user in use of the AAC system;
C missed opportunities to develop further the understanding of AAC symbols in use;
C historic use of closed question approach interfering with development of functional communication;
C little time devoted to system tuition;
C acquired passivity of user;
C rationalisation of own or others approach (or lack of approach) to AAC;
C failure to see the importance of communication in other than literacy skills;
C high staff turn over. User has to constantly adjust to new communicative partners.
There is a cure for the RACS. It requires that you TEACH:
Time, Effort, Awareness, Commitment, and Humour.
Tuition, Expertise, Ability, Change, and Heart
As this manual will suggest, the individual aspects of the acronym TEACH are important factors in keeping the RACs at bay.
RACS can be avoided. An alternative way of looking at lack of motivation is the result of continuing pejorative interactions with significant others. That is as other-caused. Staff need not accept this notion in a masochistic fashion but as a basis from which to examine their current practices with view to change.
MOTIVATE 12 - TAKE a TURN at TALKING
The medium is the message. (McLUHAN M. 1964)
Have you ever spent a week or two in a different part of your country or abroad in a foreign country and found yourself taking on some of the indigenous linguistic mannerisms as well as starting to acquire a slight accent? We appear to be biologically and psychologically motivated to speak and linguistically to behave in the fashion of the people we chose to have around us. How often have we said or heard it said,
ASay it on your machine”
or AUse your board”
In other words,
ADon’t do as I say - do as I say!”
That is, ‘don’t try and talk like I talk - talk like I tell you to talk’. What sort of example are setting?
CASE STUDY: A mother taught herself to use her daughter’s communication aid. When her daughter arrived home from school, Mum began to ask the things she normally asked at this time BUT she used her daughter’s system and not her own voice:
AWhat did you do at school today?”
AWhat did you have for lunch?”
ADid you get to go on the computer?”
The daughter was motivated to use the system to reply.
There are additional benefits in using the communication aid to communicate with the user:
a. greater empathy with user;
b. greater understanding may lead to better teaching;
c. greater understanding may lead to a higher quality of help for user;
d. better ability to demonstrate system potential to others;
e. it is possible to discover if there are any limitations or drawbacks:
C Can it really be used to communicate?
C Is the vocabulary choice limiting?
C Are there any navigational issues?
C Is the communication rate sufficient to hold others interest?
C Do others understand it?
C Does it promote a typical conversational style?
Are conversational partners face to face, for example.
This technique may be best used with unmotivated users. It may prove to be counterproductive in other instances. For example, a person who has to resort to writing notelets to others in order to communicate would not thank you if you were to write a notelet back instead of using your voice to respond. The person may think you are making fun of his or her condition.
Have you ever spent a week or two in a different part of your country or abroad in a foreign country and found yourself taking on some of the indigenous linguistic mannerisms as well as starting to acquire a slight accent? We appear to be biologically and psychologically motivated to speak and linguistically to behave in the fashion of the people we chose to have around us. How often have we said or heard it said,
ASay it on your machine”
or AUse your board”
In other words,
ADon’t do as I say - do as I say!”
That is, ‘don’t try and talk like I talk - talk like I tell you to talk’. What sort of example are setting?
CASE STUDY: A mother taught herself to use her daughter’s communication aid. When her daughter arrived home from school, Mum began to ask the things she normally asked at this time BUT she used her daughter’s system and not her own voice:
AWhat did you do at school today?”
AWhat did you have for lunch?”
ADid you get to go on the computer?”
The daughter was motivated to use the system to reply.
There are additional benefits in using the communication aid to communicate with the user:
a. greater empathy with user;
b. greater understanding may lead to better teaching;
c. greater understanding may lead to a higher quality of help for user;
d. better ability to demonstrate system potential to others;
e. it is possible to discover if there are any limitations or drawbacks:
C Can it really be used to communicate?
C Is the vocabulary choice limiting?
C Are there any navigational issues?
C Is the communication rate sufficient to hold others interest?
C Do others understand it?
C Does it promote a typical conversational style?
Are conversational partners face to face, for example.
This technique may be best used with unmotivated users. It may prove to be counterproductive in other instances. For example, a person who has to resort to writing notelets to others in order to communicate would not thank you if you were to write a notelet back instead of using your voice to respond. The person may think you are making fun of his or her condition.