176 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



tion, "which is an emotional manifestation, must be distinguished from 

 pantomime, which is part of intellectual language, {b.) The frequent 

 persistence of " Yes " and " No," in the case of patients who are oth- 

 erwise entirely speechless, is a fact of extreme significance. We see 

 that the patient has lost all speech, with the exception of the two most 

 automatic of all verbal utterances. " Yes " and "No " are evidently 

 most general, for they assent to or dissent from any statement. In 

 consequence of being frequently used, the correlative nervous arrange- 

 ments are of necessity highly organized, and, as a further consequence, 

 they are deeply automatic, (c.) A more important, though not more 

 significant, illustration is that the patient who can not get out a word 

 in speech nevertheless understands all that we say to him. Plainly 

 this shows loss of a most voluntary service of words, with persistence 

 of a more automatic service of words. We find illustrations in small 

 corners, {d.) There are three degrees of the utterance "No" by 

 aphasics. A patient may use it emotionally only — a most automatic 

 service ; another patient may also be able to reply correctly with it 

 — a less automatic but still very automatic service. (Here there is 

 some real speech.) There is a still higher use of it, which some 

 aphasics have not got. A patient who can reply " No " to a question 

 may be unable to say " No " when told to do so. You ask the aphasic, 

 " Is your name Jones ? " he replies, " No." You tell him to say 

 " No," he tries and fails. You ask, " Are you a hundred years old ? " 

 He replies, "No." You tell him to say "No." He can not. 

 While not asserting that the inability to say " No " when told is a 

 failure in language, it is asserted that such inability with retention of 

 power to use the word in reply illustrates dissolution, {e.) A patient 

 who is speechless may be unable to put out his tongue when told to 

 do so ; that he knows what is wanted is sometimes shown by his put- 

 ting his finger in his mouth to help out the organ. That the tongue 

 is not paralyzed in the ordinary sense is easily proved. The patient 

 swallows well, which he could not do if his tongue were as much para- 

 lyzed as " it pretends to be." Besides, on other occasions he puts out 

 his tongue, for example, to catch a stray crumb. Here is a reduction 

 to a more automatic condition ; there is no movement of the tongue 

 more voluntary than that of putting it out when told. 



[The lecturer then remarked on swearing and on the utterance of 

 other and innocent ejaculations by aphasics, remarking that some of 

 these utterances had elaborate proposition al structure but no jDropo- 

 sitional value. The patients could not repeat, say, what under excite- 

 ment they uttered glibly and well. He spoke next of the frequent 

 retention of some recurring utterance by aphasics, such as " Come on 

 to me." These were not, from the mouth of the aphasic, of any prep- 

 ositional value, were not speech. He had no explanation to offer of 

 these, but stated the hypothesis that they were the words the patient 

 was uttering, or was about to utter, at the time he was taken ill.] 



