A nE s s a yO n T h eOrigin O fL a n g u a g e : B a s e dO n R e s e a r c h e sAnd T h eW o r k sOf M .

R e n a n
ANEW--

F r e d e r i cW .Farrar

C O N T E N T S .
C H A P T E R
THEORIGIN OFLANGUAGE.

T i mfacultyofs p e e c h . D e n i t i o nofl a n g u a g e .--Importance o fp h i l o l o g y . T h r e emaintheoriesontheorigin of l a n g u a g e L .Thatl a . n g u a g ew a sinnateandorganic C u r i o u serrors.--Objectionstothisview.-2.Thatlaug u a g o wastheresultofimitation3.ndc o n v e n t i o n . Objections.-3.Thatl a n g u a g ew a srevealed.Inwhat s e n s ethism a yb eheldtob etrue.Thep h r a s ec b b s c u r e , a n dleadstom a n ym i s c o n c e p t i o n s . D a n g e rof amils. a p p l i e dliteralism.Fiveo b j e c t i o n stothec o m m o n' T h erealm e a n i n gofG e n .il. 19 , s t o o d2 it exactl ya c c o r d swiththetruet h e o r y , G e r mof ) 0 . truth c hoft h e s ev i e w s , d i ein te .a Rightly u n d eC r -E H A P T R G M L L IN IA L d e v e l o p m e n toflauguage.--llowc a m e w o r d s t 4 : 1b e a c c e p t o dass i g n s The inquirynota b s u r d . W h a tis a w o r d ! W o r d sonlye x p r e s stherelationsoft h i n g s . C o n n e c t i o uofthoughtands p e e c h . G r o w t hof indiriduality .T h e o r yof M.Steinthal.--Specchd e p e n d s o nthep o w e rofabstraction;thetrausformationof intuitionsintoiaeas.--1.I m p r e s s i o n sa w o k es o u n d s . -

P A O

TREPSYCHOLUOICALDR vICLOMIENT OF TM IDEA OF EJ'ELCri.

tJi

 X 1 1 C a N T E N T S

2.S o u n d s ,by thea s s o c i a t i o nof ideas,recalled imprestions.-3,& J u n &b e c a m ew o r d sbyc o n n e c t i n gthe externalobjectandtheinwardi m p r e s s i o n , I n u e n c e ofnrganismliarlienti m p r e s s i o n se l t p r o s s e dby the s i m p l e s tsowalt.Inueneeofw o m e n . I n u e n c e sof climate 3 4
CHAPTER ITT,

P A O K

Tut LaINN8 OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICA-NICE, OR TIM CREATION OP FarY r 1 4

W o r m s neverpurelyarbitrary .Theyb c c o m e c o n v e n t i o n a lin t i m e . C o r r u p t L o n s p r o d u c c dbythedislikeofm e c h a n i c a l w o r d s .Inappropriatecorruptions.W o r d s ,signicant atrst,areallowedtob e c o m ec o n v e n t i o n a l . G r a m m a r t h elife ofal a n g u a g e . O n o m a t o w i coritnitatirew o r d s . M o t i v eofw o r d s . D e l i c a c yoftheappellativefaculty . T h eimitationa l w a y spurely artigti. s o n t a n e o u stactw h i c hg i v e sriseton e wn a m e s . . ,p ,..Instances o f ca t h e rilbtrAMATiriPCP.TA A Bot k nfants,ands a v a g er a c c s . W i d eapplicationofthislaw - i T o v e r t c o k e d . T h eimitationmodiedorganicallyand N ideally .Adruirable p e r f e c t i o noftheo r 7 .a n sofs o u n d . E o u n d l e s scapabilitie sofl a n g u a g e . D i v e r s i t yofrelations - B R g a v erise to diffemtimitations.Rootsuniversally D.5 _ o u o m a t o p w i e . -C a u s eofdialocticvariety .Interjections n d o n o m a t o p w i athe w onaturale l e m e n t sofl a n g u a g e . n a Lt I n s t a n c e sofw o r d sd e r i v e c tfrome x c l a m a t i o n s;andfrom a ti E m i t a t i o n . S u p p o E e dvulgaritynfo n o m a t o m i cw o r d s . s e d . I n s t a n e e sfrom u r Theirreal dignitywhenwellu t h epoeta,-Theycannotbea v o i d e d i H a r m o n i e sof all a n g u a g e . 0 ly u s e d a e l ,

Enen sous (tollsdd u t e u r

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER V.
THE DE11_0 r m rA9J; R O O T S s u p p o s e dto beprimitiveandirreducible.--Words VNT i P d e r i v e dfmm sensi b lei m a g e s _ ;thep e r s o n a lp r o n o u n s n n o r s antieventhen u m e r a l s . T h everb ' t A )be,' in all lang u a g e s ,from;a materialroot. P e r m u t a t i o n sandcom-

b i n a t i o n sofafelvr o e t s . I n s t a n c e softheird i f f u s i v e n e s s . T h eroot1a c h . ' T h erout an:TheF a m eroot tu e x p r e s so p p o s i t emeaning.Rootsrefractedand re&cl o CHAPTER VI. t 'IfET AliyHAIL nothinga W E knew b s o l u t e l y . L a n g u a g eartasymptote. N c e s s i t yof analogy to expremthings.Allwords Ie timateildetirablefroms u o s i b l ei d e a s . I n s t a n c e sin m t h eSemiticl a n g u a g e s . O r a p h i ce f f e c t sthusp r o d u c e d . po W r d sinvolveallb i s t o r y . C a t a c h r e s i sa n dm e t a p h o r . D e f e n c eof bothfromthecharge ofimperfection. -o N e c e s s i t y ,power ,andvalueofm e t a p h o r . C o m p a r i s o n s r styl t e.Rigidaecuntcyandc of h u o s i n e s sof scientic t e r m i n o l o g y . W o r d sarebuts y m b o l s . T h etwoworlds. a --roetr3roflife totheprimalman,anditsinuenceo n n t l anguage. --Anation'sl a n g u a g ee x p r e s s e sitscharacter . 11t3 a cjarIELLKIL p irV iiTtir)itX Y H p 1NG Lir I N is i i cl ' s e n i b l eid eas. G r a d u a ld e g e n e r a c y1 theS e n s a t i o n a l v t r Ile/vvtius.T h eDiversions of z s Sel o o& ey .d Purl a h a tw o r d sreallystandfor .Thec o n c l u a i o n sof r RW e a l m i n a l i s mneednot be accept.-Ron.--Words to a n e r w i c hc a no n l ybee x p l a i n e dbytheidea. 1 4 7 w d ih n i v a o f tio r n o n s m o o t f h f A t t d h h e o r e w

t _len sousdrolis i d u t e u r

XIV C O N T E N T S .

C H A P T E R .VIII_

T I R I V T A W M o o r irro T H Elawsprveholtigical. 1L a n g u a g e sadvancefrom e x w,TIV.L.LT UnityGfs p e e c htheresultofe i v i l i s a t i o n . R e d u n d a n c y N earlystageofthought,Superuousw m a r k sart o r d s n d r o p p e d or e s y n o n y m i s e d 2 . L a n g u a g e sa d v a n c efrom . i n d e t e r m i n a t i o ntogrammar .Simplieitys u c c e e d setimb L A N G U plexity.e rw v a n ,from synthesi s toitualysis.T z n e s i sa rtlie of A G E , P o l y s y n t h e t i s m . A n a l y s i snotiliferior tos y n t h e s i sfor

a t h eexpressionufthought.In5tances in the ludo. Instuwe n E u r o p e a n a n dS e m i t i cl a n g u a g e s . G r i n i mo ntheE o g l i s h $ o f l a n g u a g e . S a m e w o u l da d da4 1 1 1law.viz.:thep r o g r e s s e a g g l iabisin.--A f r o m raonosyl r g u m e n t sinfavourofthislaw. o -- It u t remains i n a veryunstionable;only riekinvultient h y p o t h e s i s . 1 6 6 t tion. o C RPTER TX m F Vint IFS OF L A N 3 . THE Y o S T A G R E I of Language. --The logicalordernotthebistorical. L a GTA GE''!, h eI n d o E u r o p e a na n dAziar . u u i t y a n d d T n g i m p o r t a n c e h L i f e if tho e:trlyArians,"Linguistic e P a 1 i e o n t o 1 o g y . " 2 ,TheSemiticfamily .---Itscharacter u a n ddivisions,3.TheAllopbyliannrT uranianC O ra g e fami l y (0.Canonlyb ecalleda ' family'hypothetically , a I n c l u d e savastn u m b e r lang-ua; s o n n e c t i o nwithe a c h1gk3 tn c a ics, - - w h i c h d C H A P T E RX Nr_ o A R E I S RE N Y P R O O F S O FA LCL E P R I A L I T I V E L A N G U A G E hE aA v e e 1 8 5 n v e r y lutiorsEuumberofl a n g u a g e sdeadaswell is living. b T h r e eirreduciblefatuilicts.--Arginnent in favourofan originallanguage. 1 !All mayhederived'notfrom y e l i m i m i t

ler sousdrolis0d u t e u r

C O N T E N T S .

V
F AGg

e a c hother ,but)froms o m elostl a n g u a g o . O b j e c t i o n s . 2.S u p p o s e dafnitiesb e t w e e n(Efferentfamilies. i Non. S a n s k r i t i ce l e m e n t ' sinCeltic, ii Possiblereductionof t h etriliteralSemiticroots.--Objectionss.L a n g u a g e s a p p a r e n t l ya n o m a l o u s .--Egyptian,Berber , H o w t h e ymaypossiblybea c c o u n t e dfor.Inference. -A p p a r e n ts u e f f f s s i o n sofraces--1.Theinferiorr a c e s . 2 Thesemi-civilised. 3. Thegroatn o b l er a c e s 203 CHAPTER XI.
7rut FrITTRE OP LANatrAGE,

1,DestiniesoftheArianrace.---ThefutureoftheEnglish l a n g u a g e . T h edistinctionofnationsad e s i g nofProvid e n c e . 2.A d v a n t a g e swhichresultfromdiversitiesof l a n g u s g e . I n d i s p e n F a b l eforthep r e A e r v a t i o noftruth.. V a l u eofk n o w i n glanguages.-3. Aunivermlt a n g u s g o c o u l d ,inthepresentstateoftheworld,onlylastfor s h o r tt i m e . C o n c l u s i o n , f t m 220 A LISTof& o a k svaluableasforminganintroductiontothe S t u d yofPhilology . 229

Enen sous(tollsod u t e u r

E l e m e n t ss o u sdroitsd'auteur

AN ESSAY
O N

T H EORIGINOFL A N G U A G E .
1 1 1 W. 1 1 P-

CHAPTER
THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

"S p r a e h eit dervoileA t h e mm e o s o l i l i c h e rS e c l e . " G R I N t m .

OT h i s noblestcreature,noneismoredivineand 1 m y s t e r i o u sthanthefacultyofs p e e c h . I t isthe a gift w h e r e b ym a nisraiseda b o v etheb e a s t s;the gift e r e b ys o u ls p e a k stos o u l;thegiftw h e r e b y lw lh m e r e p u l s e s of articulated air b e c o m e breathi n g t t h o u g h t sandburningw o r d s;the giftw h e r e b y h w e understandtheaffectionsofmenandgive e x p r e s s i o ntothew o r s h i pofG o d;thegiftw h e r e b y e t h elip of divine*inspirationutteringthings fp s i m l ea n d=perfumedandu n a d o r n e d ,reacheth a* a t a m e f o r t i r d r a t c a la 2 . c g p t o r iSalv Oetiv. m L 1 p a le ' sHeraditim,p.29. -a u 8 st 1 cppurre Plut l o P he t y ota t t rA Oi r a c . r t . pc e A 3a 9 s i 7 i, v ew t

tim ents sous oi , (.1E.ILiteUr

ESSA Y ON

w i t hitsp a s s i o n a t ev o i c et h r o u g hat h o u s a n dg e n e r a t i o n sbythehelpofGod. L a n g u a g eis thesumtotaloft h o s earticulate s o u n d s w h i c hm a n ,bytheaidofthismarvellous facultyofs p e e c h ,h a sp r o d u c e da n da c c e p t e da sthe s i g n sofallt h o s einwarda n do u t w a r dp h e n o m e n a w h e r e w i t hheism a d eacquaintedbys e n s eand t h o u g h t .Thesesignsare"those*s h a d o w sof t h esoul,t h o s elivings o a n d sw h i c hw ecallw o r d s ! a n d c o m p a r e dwiththemhowp o o rareallother m o n u m e n t sofh u m a npower ,orp e r s e v e r a n c e ,or skill,org e n i u s! Theyrenderthem e r ec l o w nan artist,nationsimmortal,writers,poets,philosop h e r sdivineI" Let himw h ow o u l drightlyund e r s t a n dthegrandeuranddignity ofs p e e c h , m e d i t a t eonthedeepmysteryinvolved in the revelationoftheLordJ e s u sastheW ordofG o d . N ostudyism o r eriching r a n dresultsthanthe s t u d yoflanguage,andtonostudycanw elook withgreatercertaintytoelucidatetheearliest historyofm a n k i n d . For therootsofl a n g u a g e+
1 w i r d3 c 1 1 1 e c h t e r d i n g snichtswaterb c a b s i c h t i g e t ,alsdieB e z e i c h ' n u n g d e sG e d a t i k e n s . " F i c h t e ,V onderSprachlaigkeitland SrreprungederS d e m p r a c h e . "Die S p r a c h ( ) it dieA e u s s e r u n g d e s d u n k e n d e nU c i d e sinarticolirtenlanten."---Ileyse,S y s t e mder i S p r a e l t w i e s e n s c h a f t ,S.35. r 1 J o G h r n i S m t m o , d f

THEORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

s p r i n gintheprimitivelibertyofh u m a nintellig e n c e ,andthereforeitsr e c o r d sbearont h e mthe t r a c e sofh u m a nhistory . We readwithdeep interestthew o r k sofindividualgenius,andtrace inthemthe lifeandcharacter of themenon w h o mith a sb e e nb e s t o w e d;w etoilfullye x a m i n e t h eunburiedm o n u m e n t sofextinctnations,and a r er e w a r d e dforyearsoflabourifw ecannally s u c c e e dingainingafeebleg l i m p s eoftheirhistory b yd e c i p h e r i n gtheu n l m o w nlettersc a r v e do nthe c r u m b l i n gf r a g m e n t sofhalf-calcinedstone;but inl a n g u a g ew eh a v ethehistorynotonlyofindiv i d u a l sbutofn a t i o n s;notonlyof'nationsbutof m a n k i n d .For unlikemusicandpoetry ,w h i c h a r ethespecialprivilegeofthefew ,language*is t h epropertyofall,asn e c e s s a r ya n da c c e s s i b l eas t h eairw ebreathe.Of allthatm e nh a v einvented a n d c o m b i n e d;of all thattheyh a v ep r o d u c e dor i n t e r c h a n g e da m o n gt h e m s e l v e s; of all thatthey h a v edrawnfromtheirpeculiarorganism,lang u a g eisthenoblesta n dm o s tindispensibletreas u r e .An i m m e d i a t ee m a n a t i o nofh u m a nnature, a n dp r o g r e s s i n gwithit,l a n g u a g eis thec o m m o n b l e s s i n g ,thec o m m o npatrimony ,ofm a n k i n d . It isantadmirablep o e mo nthehistoryofalla g e s;
e G r i m m ,e.52. tR e n a n ,De Or ig i n eduL a n g a g e .Deux.4d.p.4 3 9 . a'2

tJi

ESSA Y ON

alivingmonument,onwhich is written the g e n e s i sofh u m a nthought.Thus "theground* o n w h i c hourcivilisationstandsisas a c r e done, forit isthedepositofthought. For language, a sit isthemirror ,s ois it theproductofreason, a n dasite m b o d i e sthought,s ois it thechildof t h o u g h t . I n it aredepositedtheprimordial s p a r k softhatcelestialre,w h i c h ,fromao n c e brightcentreofcivilisation,hasstreamedforth o v e rtheinhabitedearth,andw h i c hnowalready , afterlessthanthreemyriadsofyears,formsa g a l a x yr o u n dtheglobe,achainoflightfrompole t opole." Philology ,thesciencew h i chdevotesitselfto t h estudyoflanguage,hasrecentlyIarrivedat resultsalmostu n d r e a m e dofbyp r e c e d i n gcenturies.Indeed, itr e c e i v e ditsm o s tv i g o r o u simp u l s efromthea c q u a i n t a n c ewiththel a n g n a g e s ofIndia,and,aboveall, withSanskrit,which, likesomanyothergreatblessings,directlyres u l t e dfromourdominionin India.Already it h a sthrownnewlightonmanyofthemostperplexingp r o b l e m sofreligion,history ,a n dethnog r a p h y ;and,beingyetbutaninfantscience,it i Rin allprobabilityd e s t i n e dtoa c h i e v etriumphs,
B u n s e n o p ttheP h i l a s o p h yofM a m m aBigot%ii.126. +H t u n b o l d t ' sCo3rno/ 3 IL 101-10 9, e d . S a b i n e .

m e n t s s o u sal

T E L EORIGIN OFLANGUAGE.

ofw h i c hatpresentw ecanbutdimlyp r o p h e s y t h ec o n s e q u e n c e s " S i n c ethem o s tancientm o n u m e n t sofSanskrit, Z e n d , 1 -Hebrew ,andinfactof alll a n g u a g e s ,are s e p a r a t e d ,p e r h a p sbyt h o u s a n d sofyearsfromt t h ea p p e a r a n c eofl a n g u a g e(i.e.,f r o mthecreation oftheh u m a nrace), it mightseetuhapossibleto t h r o wanylightonthatmostinterestingof all c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ,theoriginoflanguage.And yet s o p e r m a n e n tarethecreationsofs p e e c h ,s oinvariableandascertainableare thelaws of its mutation,thatthegeologistislessclearlyable t od e s c r i b ethec o n v u l s i o n softheearth'sstrata t h a nthephilologisttopointout,bytheindicat i o n sof language,theundoubtedtraces of a
Philologyh a sb e e nwelld e n e da sthecognitiocopiti,a n d r A ) m p a r a t i v eG r a m m a r ,(theb r a n c hofPhilologywhicho c c u p i e s itselfwiththestudy of the birth, thed e v e l o p m e n t ,andthe d e c a d e n c eofv a r i o u sl a n g u a g e s ,t o g e t h e rwiththeird i v e r g e n c e sa n d afnities),h a s d e s e r v e dthetitleofe p r p c N s p a t h y a k r i g w 4 > a o l k o 7 t K t 2 w , "thec o p i n g s t o n eofphilologicalinquiries."SeeS c i e n c eC o m p a r a t i v ed e sL a n g u c t ,parL o u i slicnioew .Paris,1858. tT h u s ,t h o u g hZ e n da n dS a n s k r i taretheo l d e s t ,l a n g u a g e aoft h e I n d o R u r o p e a nfaznily ,theya r ooffsetsofanolderprimitiveo n e . "A m o n gothere v i d e n c e sof this,m a yb em e n t i o n e dthec h a n g e s thatw o r d sh a dalreadyu n d e r g o n einZ e n dandSanseritf r o mthe o r i g i n a lformtheyh a d .inthep4rentt o n g u e;asinthen u m b e r 'twenty ,'whichbeingin the' L e n d ' visaid,'and in Sanserit vinsaiti, 1 two.". e w sSir t hG . a tW i l t k i n h s o e n y i

m e n t s s o u sal

ti

ESSAY ON

nation'spreviouslife. On thestonetabletsof t h euniverse,God'sownngerh a swrittenthe c h a n g e s w h i c hmillionsofyearsh a v ew r o u g h ton t h emountainandtheplain; in the uid air, w h i c hhearticulatesintoh u m a nutterance,m a n h a sp r e s e r v e dforeverthemainfactsof hispast history ,andthemainp r o c e s s e sof hisinmost s o u l .Thes o n o r o u sw a v e ,indeed,w h i c htransmits t oourearstheutteredthought,r e a c h e sbut a littledistance,andthenv a n i s h e slikethetremul o u srippleonthesurfaceofthesea;but,cons c i o u sof hisdestiny ,maninventedwritingto g i v e it perpetuityfromagetoage. Its short r e a c h ,itsbriefc o n t i n u a n c e ,arethedefectsofthe s p o k e nw o r d ,batw h e ngravenonthestoneor p a i n t e do nthevellum itp a s s e sf r o moneendof t h eearthtotheotherforallLime;itc o n q u e r sat o n c eeternitya n dspace.* F r o mtheearliestagestheoriginofl a n g u a g e h a sbeenatopicofd i s c u s s i o nandspeculation, a n davastn u m b e roftreatisesh a v eb e e nwritten u p o nit. But it isonlyinm o d e r ntimesthatw e h a v ecollectedsufcientdatatoadmit of any c o n s i s t e n tore x h a u s t i v etheory ,andtheearliert
*Charm*,HuaigurleL a n g a g e ,p.60. t "Icic o m m eailleurtiona commt a n ebonieralo b s e r v a t i o ndefaits."AbelRanusat. ,lieudes nc6 p a r h i t i r d e s y s t i l i n e s ,

tJi

THEORIGIN OF LANGV AGE.

writersc o n t e n t e dt h e m s e l v e sforthemostpart w i t hbuildings y s t e m sbeforetheyh a dcollected f a c t s . T h e r eh a v eb e e nthreem a i ntheoriestoa c c o u n t forthea p p e a r a n c eofl a n g u a g e ,a n dit willbeboth interestinga n dinstructivetop a s st h e minbrief r e v i e w .Theyare :-1. Thatl a n g u a g e W A S innate a n dorganic. 2. Thatl a n g u a g ew a stheresult partlyof imitation,andpartly ofconvention. 3 .Thatl a n g u a g ew a srevealed. I t willbes e e n f r o mourconsiderationof them,thatnone of t h e s etheoriesisinitselfw h o lytrueora d e q u a t e , yetthate a c hofthemhasa partialvalue,and thattheyarenotsoirreconcileablyo p p o s e dto e a c hotherasmightatrsts i g h tbei m a g i n e d . 1. It w a n d p e r h a p s by the majority of m o d e r n s , that . l a n g u a g ew a sinnateandorganic i.e., adistinct as c r e a t i o ns y n c h r o n i s i n gwiththecreationofman. T h ein ferences d r a w nfromthissuppositionled b e l m e nto regardwordsas "types of objective i e,the vs reality h a d o wof thebodyandtheimage reected o r d sw e r esup. e d inthemirror." Thew B u n s e n ,P AR. of UtuHist. i. 40. Thep h i l o s o p h e r swho b h e l dt h e s ev i e w sw e r ecalled"Analogiste,"whilet h o s ew h ol e a n e d tuthe conventionaloriginofl a n g u a g ewerestyled"titemallists.." y B u tPlatoa n dAristotleadmitthee x i s t e n c eofb o t hprinciples,and h a v e twrittenontheprubjectwithadepthofphilosophies1insight, h e a n c a i r e n t s s o u s al i

A NESSA YON

p o s e dtobenotonlyasignofthethingintended b yt h e m ,butins o m ew a ytopartakeofitsnature, a n dtoexpressands y m b o l i s es o m e t h i n gofits i d e a .Hencetheverynotionofarbitrarinessw a s well-nighexpelledfromlanguage,andtherew a s s u p p o s e dto be adeepharmony*b e t w e e nthe p h y s i o l o g i c a lqualityofthes o u n da n ditssignic a n c e b e t w e e nthecombinationandc o n n e c t i o n ofs o u n d swith theconnectionandc o m b i n e d relationsofthethingstheyrepresented.Whoever ,therefore,knewthen a m e s ,knewalsothe t h i n g swhichthenamesimplied.tHowever
w h i c h ,inspiteof theird e f e c t i v ek n o w l e d g e ,hasneverb e e nsure p a w d sSeec l u m b o l d e sC o m m ,L41, iL261. ' Plato'sCrayt u o ,p.428,etp a s s i m;a n dS c h l e i e r m a c h e r ' sIntrod u c t i o n .Tho greatauthorityontheancieldviensofphilology i sLatch,Spraciaphilosoplacder Allen.(Bonn.1838-181 1.) T h eq u e s t i o nwhichagitatedthes c h o o l swas,c p 4 E r e tZylittara ; it w a sgenerallydecidedinfavourof the " Analogists," t h o u g hoftenforfrivolousr e a s o n s .See Au].Gell.Nod.Att. x 4.(Henan, p. 137.) Cf. Xen. Jirrn. iv. 6. 1.Arrian,Epic& L17,H.10. Marc,Aur . iii. 2; v. 8 ; x. 8.Thesev i e w softhe T o l u le t i Ccharacterofwords(Arist. Met. iiL 1, 2), and their intrinsicc o n n e c t i o nwiththings,didnots e e mtob em u c hd i s t u r b e d b ythefactofthemultiplicityofl a n g u a g e s ,althoughthisfactled Aristotletop l a c ethec o n v e n t i o n a lc l e m e n trst. The B c i p i 3 a p o s im pliesa loftyc o n t e m p tfor alll a n g u a g e se x c e p tG r e e k , v e r y a n dtracesofE tsimilarc o n t e m p tmayI r t ef o u n din thev o c a b u l a r y w o rnati d ons. Cf. Timtim,Z o fm a n y a m t u m m i m , Itenan, p.178. Pletet'sOrilitnesAdo-Bur .p,.56,s e q q .41 ( J c o %xiv l . He) z s T 4414712limicrryfrat r r U a so. Ta wpciyiAa Plato, -Graf.435, e. In proofthatPlath didrecogniseboth ra.

timents sous al , ; ( . 1

TEEORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

s t r a n g eandevenridiculoustheseviewsmay a p p e a rtoours o m e w h a tsuperciala n dtmphilos o p h i c a lage,it isfarm o r edifcultt ou n d e r s t a n d t h e mtrulythantos p e a koft h e mc o n t e m p t u o u s l y , a n dtheyledtoar e v e r e n c efortheu s eofs p e e c h w h i c hreactedbeneciallyinproducingcareful writinga n daccuratethought. T h ebeliefthatl a n g u a g ew a sinnateledtothe s t r a n g ehallucinationthatif achildw e r eentirely s e c l u d e dfromh u m a ncontact,hewouldspeak instinctivelytheprimitivel a n g u a g eofmankind. A c c o r d i n gto Herodotus,theexperimentwas actuallym a d ebyP s a m m e t i c h u s ,KingofEgypt, w h o entrustedtwonew-borninfantsto ashepherd,withtheinjunctiontolett h e ms u c kagoat's milk,a n dtos p e a know o r d sintheirp r e s e n c e ,but too b s e r v ew h a tw o r dtheyw o u l drstutter .After t w oyearsthes h e p h e rdvisitedthem,andthey a p p r o a c h e dhim,stretching*outtheirh a n d s ,a n d utteringthew o r d .gekilg. I t w a sfoundthatthis v o c a b l eexisted la thePhrygianlanguage,and m e a n t" b r e a d;"w h e n c eit w a ssagelyinferred thatthePhrygianss p o k etheoriginallanguage,
e l e m e n t sofl a n g u a g e t h eabsoluteandthee o n v o 3 n t i o n a l ,see Ow.4 3 5 c.,a n dPhila.Trani. ill. 137. Forana b l ee x p o s i t i o n o ftheCratytta, eeDr.D o n a l d s o n ' sN e wCrca.p.93,s e q q . Horedet. ii. 2 4

t i m e n t s s o u s( 1 ,( . 1 d u l e U r

10

ESSAY ON

a n dw e r ethemostancientofpeople.There is inthisstorys u c hadeliciousnaivet,thatone c o u l dhardlyexpectthat itw o u l dh a v eh a p p e n e d inanye x c e p tveryearlya g e s . I t can,h o w e v e r , b eparalleledbythepopularopinionivhichattri b a t e dthes a m eexperimenttoJ a m e sTV.and Frederic II.* intheMiddleAges. In thelatter c a s ethe littleunfortunatesdied for want of lulabies!Similarly,a l m o s teverynationhasreg a r d e ditso w nl a n g u a g eastheprimitiveone. O n eofthehistoriansofSt.L o u i ss a y sthatadeaf m u t e ,miraculouslyhealed at theking'stomb, s p o k e ,uot in thelanguageofBurgundy ,w h e r e h e w a sborn,butinthelanguagetofthecapital. Asimilarbeliefs e e m stounderlietheextreme anxietya n dcuriosityofs a v a g e stolearnthen a m e ofa n yarticlehithertou n k n o w ntot h e m ,a st h o u g h
R a u m e r ,Gesell.derH o h e n s t a u f e n ,i.491,q u o t e dbyBaehr , Herod.I.e. Fors o m eothert h e o r i e s A ntheprimitivel a n g u a g e ,s e e C a r d i n a lW i s e m a n ' aLureso nS c i e n c e ,i. 19.Becanuss u p p o s e d s e r i o u s l ythatLowD u t c h N T a s s p o l c e ninP a r a d i s e .liollgattliena, J i b .ix. p.904. "That childrennaturallys p e a kHebrew ,"iso n e ofthevulgarerrorsw h i c hh a dtob oe x p l o d e de v e ninthetimeof SirT .B r o w n e .Vulg. Err. v.ch.26.WhenJ a m e sIV. ofS c o t / a n d r e p e a t e dthee x p e r i m e n tofP s a m m o t i c h u s ,theinfantsw e r eshutu p w i t had u m bman.ands p o k eHebrews p o n t a n e o u s l ytBasque, S w e d i s h ,R u s s ,lie.,haveallhadtheira d v o c a t e s .Charms.,Emii turleL a n g a g e ,p.242,sew!.Leibnitz,Lettre a M.deS p a r v e n feld, 8. + R e n a n ,p.147.

tJi

THEORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

1 1 .

t h on a m ehads o m ea b s o l u t esignicance.This isnotthep l a c etoenterintoad i s c u s s i o nofthat d e e pgermoftruthw h i c hs u c hfanciesinvolve; b u thintsof itm a ybef o u n dinTiolyScripture. N odoubtatrstsight ita p p e a r sthatm u c h m i g h tb esaidinfavouroftheinnatea n do r g a n i c n a t u r eofl a n g u a g e . Its b e a u t y titsdiversity ,its p o w e r ,itsdiffusionoverthew h o l es u r f a c eofthe g l o b e ,giveitthesupernaturalairofagiftw h i c h m a n ,s ofarfromoriginating,canonlyruinand d e s t r o y .We seethat infavourablesituations l a n g u a g e ,likevegetation,ourishesandbloss o m s ,whilee l s e w h e r eitf a d e sanddiesa w a yas aplantl o s e sitsfoliagew h e nd e p r i v e dofn o u r i s h m e n tandlight. It s e e m s ,too,toparticipatein thathealingp o w e rofnature,w h i c he f f a c e srapidly alltraceofw o u n d sreceived. Like nature, it p r o d u c e sm i g h t yresultsoutoff e e b l er e s o u r c e s it ise c o n o m i c a lwithoutavarice,a n dliberalwitho u tprodigality . A g a i n;dow enots e ethata l m o s te v e r yliving t h i n gise n d o w e din innitevarietywith the
Thereares o m enobleremarksto thiseffect inS c h l e g e r s P h i l o s o p h i s c h tV orletungeLWiem.1830.HebrewB a h a i s mwill readilyr e m e m b e r c a s e sof theimportancea t t a c h e dbythes a c r e d _ writerstothem e r e$ o u n dGfw o r d s; ar e m a r k a b l einstancemay tos e e nin% t e r .1.11, 12 b e c o n d v e r s eofG e n e s i s . t Grimm,s.12. 1 a n d a c u r i o u s p l a y o n s o u n d s o c c u r s

tJi

12

ESSAY ON

facultyof utterings o u n d s ,andevenof interc o m m u n i c a t i n gfeelings?* The air isthrilled withthevoiceofbirds,ands o m eofthemeven p o s s e s sa powerof articulation,whicha m o n g m a n ynations is thedistinctive t denitionof m a n .Nay, fancyhasattributed to anilnats a p o w e rofl a n g u a g ein theageofg o l d ap o w e r w h i c hundercertaincircumstancesthey are s u p p o s e dtob estillallowedtoexercise. Butthisleadsu btothetruepointofdifference. T h ed o gbarks,asitb a r k e datthecreation,a n d t h ec r o wofthec o c kisthes a m en o wasw h e nit r e a c h e dtheearofrepentantPeter . Thes o n gof t h enightingale,andtheh o w loftheleopard,h a v e c o n t i n u e dasu n c h a n g e a b l eas theconcentric
" Ia mbynom e a n sclearthatthed o gmaynotb a T oan a n a l o g o nof words."--Coleridge.SimilarlyPlatoattributes a ticliaterostoanimals,a d d u c i n g s o m everyinterestingp r o o f s . So C l e m e n sAlexandr .&ram.1. 21, 413. See, too,T h o m s o n ' P a . y r i ( o u tofAnimal&"Theyalsoknow ,andreasonnotcoutcroptibly ."lilton. i s i p o r e s$porot.--Iforner ,p a s s i m _ : As in theinstanceorBalaam.--Nuteb.22. Cf. Tibull. T .78. Horn. 1 1.T .407,Ito. Dr.tuthampointsoutthatthiss t a t e m e n tr e q u i r e sm o d i c a tion; e.g., it is d i t h eorganica n dinstinctives o u n dutteredbyd o g s .(Encyd. Brit. Art.Language.)Stillw e d on o tanticipatethata n y o n ewilld i s p u t e lh u b te fr u lr t eg e n a lp o p o s i t i o n .SeeHeyst,S y s t e mdoS p r a c h w i t u n s c h a f t , 25 w h e t h e r a h o l d , a n d n o len t

TEE ORIGIN OF LA YGIJAGE.

c i r c l e softhespider ,a n dthew a x e nh e x a g o nof t h eb e e .The onea sm u c hastheotherarethe resultofablindthoughoftenperfectinstinct. T h e yareunalterableb e c a u s etheyareinnate, a n dtheutterancesofm a n k i n dw o u l dh a v eb e e n a s u n c h a n g e a b l easthoseofanimals,hadthey b e e nin thes a m ew a ytheresultnotofliberty b u tofnecessity . To thecriesofanimalswe m u s t c o m p a r e ,notman'sever-varyingl a n g u a g e , b u tt h o s einstinctives o u n d sofw e e p i n g ,s o b b i n g , m o a n i n g t h e c h a n g e l e s ss c r e a m ,sigh,orlaughter b y w h i c h ,s i n c ethecreation,hehasgivenreliefore x p r e s s i o ntohisphysical*s e n s a t i o n s . Inpointoff a c t a sat h o u s a n de x p e r i m e n t s m i g h th a v ep r o v e dtoP s a m m e t i c h u s an e w b o r n infantp o s s e s s e sthefaculty oflanguage,not actually ,butonlypotentially . I t iso b v i o u sthat a nItalianinfant,p i c k e dupontheeldofSolferinoa n dcarriedtoParis,w o u l dnoth a v es p o k e n ItalianbutFrench,a n danEnglishb a b e ,carried offbytheCafrs,w o u l dndnodifcultyin learningtherichl a n g u a g eofCaffraria,withits ve-and-twentym o o d s .Forl a n g u a g eis clearly l e a r n e d ,byimitation. This istheintermediate
G r i m m ,13,14."Language,"bea d d a(p.17),"canonly b e c o m p a r e dtothecriesofa n i m a l s ,inr e s p e c tthatb o t hareH u b . j o e t e dtocertalL',bravac o n d i t i o n sofo r g a n i s m . "

e n t s s o u sui , duieur

1 4

ESSA Y ON

linkb e t w e e nthe8 l ; v a p . t s andthelpyov .When p o o rKasparHausertotteredintothestreetsof Niiremburg,theonlyw o r d shecouldsaywere, "I willbe asoldierasmyfatherw a s , "b e c a u s e t h o s ew e r etheonlyw o r d swhichhehadheard inhismiserableconnement.Doubtless,the Egyptianchildrenp r o n o u n c e dtheword /3e b e c a u s eit a p p r o a c h e dasrcearlyaspossibleto t h ebleating*ofthegoatbyw h i c htheyh a db e e n K0'c, s u c k l e d . H a dthereeverbeenaninnateorganiclang u a g e ,it isquitecertainthat it musthaveleft s o m etraces;for,asDr.Lathamo b s e r v e s ,"lang u a g e(asaninstrumentofcriticismine t h n o l o g y ) isthem o s tp e r m a n e n tofthecriteria ofh u m a n
"On a treej u d i c i e u s e m e n trernarqut,sir celle-ci,"saysMN o d i e r ,"(lac la muleinductionquienresultMnaturellement, forte o n e l o a n t epour lalangueprimitive et immudiabled e s c h e i r r e sneprouvoitrien enfaveurde la premierelanguede l h ' o m m epuisque1 echenesf o r r e o i e r Ae le 5 t T a m e 8ininom a n i e r e tres-distinctelesd e u xarticulationsdontc e senfantsavoientc o m p o s eleuretroitvocabuIaire." Sir G a r d n e rW i l k i n s o ndigeretlits t h ew h o l estory ,ands u p p o s e sthat it originateda m o n gtheG r e e k c i c e r o n iinEgypt,b e c a u s ehethinksthatchildren,u n l e s sartiEeialyinstructed,w o u l dnothaveb e e nabletogetb e y o n dthe labials o u n d "be (Rawlistson'sIterodotas, i. 251.)Surelythis ism e r e l yab e g g i n goftheq u e s t i o n .The tactthattheinference f r o mthee x p e r i m e n tw a so n eu n f a v o u r a b l etothenationalvanity oftheE g y p t i a n s ,isonlyo n eof ther e A t s o u swhichi n d u c eusto credititsreality . Larder(adloc.)rightlyr e g a r d stheo sa sm e r e l y t h eG r e e ktermination.

tJi

THEORIGIN OFLANGUAGE.

1 5

relationshipsderivablefromourmoralconstitut i o n s "T alleyrandtsw i c k e dwitticism,that" Ian. g u a g ewasgivenus toconcealourthoughts," a r o s efromthefactthat it isusedforthatpurp o s eonat h o u s a n do c c a s i o n s . But althougha m a n m a y"coinhisfaceintosmiles,"a n duttera t h o u s a n dh o n e y e dw o r d s ,hisreals e n t i m e n t swill a s houts o m e t i m e sinpassionategestureand rapidg l a n c e;a n djustinthes a m eway ,h a dthere e v e nbeen alanguagewhichwastheorganic e x p r e s s i o nofe m o t i o n ,it isabsolutelyi m p o s s i b l e that it shouldhavewhollydisappeared. That w h i c his reallyimplantedis for themostpart unalterable. 2 4 .Seeing,then,thatpositiveexperiment,as wella sotherc o n s i d e r a t i o n s ,d i s p r o v etheinneity oflanguage,otherp h i l o s o p h e r sbelievedthat it w a ssimplyconventional,andgrewupgradually after a periodofmutism. The Epicureanphil o s o p h y ,deeplytaintedwiththeerror ofmans s l o wa n dt o i l s o m ed e v e l o p m e n tf r o mas a v a g ea n d a l m o s tbestial*condition,g a v etheproblemthe
"Mutum et turpep e e n s . " H o r SaLfr. 3. 99. Similar v i e w sareu)befoundinDiod.Sic.1.1; Vitruy.4rchi4. iL 1. " T h r o w nasitw e r ebyc h a n c enaac o n f u s e da n d s a v a g eland,an o r p h a n a b a n d o n e db ytheu n k n o w nhatidthath a dp r o d u c e dbind." V o l n e y .Epicurusthoughttbatm e ns p o k ejustasd o g sbark,
r P v C r a t i ; i so c I P O I S A t i / 0 4

t i m e n t s s o u s( 1 C id u t e u r

1 6

ESSA YON

h a r d e s tof all materialsolutions. Thisschool f o u n dinLucretiusitsmostsplendidexponent, a n dthepoeta c c o u n t sfor thea p p e a r a n c eof s p e e c ha sthegradualandinstinctivee n d e a v o u r t osupplyawant.' In short,w o r d sc a m e b e c a u s e t h e yw e r erequired,m u c hiuthes a m ewaythat, a c c o r d i n gto thetheory of Lamarck,organic peculiaritiesaretheresultofhabitandinstinct, s othatthec r a n eacquiredalongneckandlong l e g sbyp e r s e v e r i n gattemptstosh.Lucretius c o m p a r e sl a n g u a g eto thewidelydiverses o u n d s w h i c hc t n i m a l semittoe x p r e s sdifferents e n s a t i o n s , a n d ,scornfullyrejectingthetheoryofo n eN a m e giver ,a s s e r t srepeatedlythat
"Minus*e x p r e E s i tn o m i n arerum"

Itw a sgenerallybelievedbythisschoolthat m a noriginallyacquiredthefacultyofs p e e c hby a nobservationof thes o u n d sofnature. The c r i e sofanimals, " thehollowm u r m u r i n gwind a n dsilverrain,"thesighingofthew o o d s ,
*Lucre,1 %1027-1059. Thew h o l ep a s s a g eiso n eofremark. a b l ebeautya n dingenuity .NeitherEpicurusnorLucretiusex. e l u d e daltogethertheinnateelement; v. Diog.Laert. x. 75,sq. L u c r e t i u srightlyregardslanguageas nolessnaturalthan g e s t i c u l a t i o n ,andsom i g hf .havetaught l e s s o nto Reidand D u g a l dStewart.SeeFleming'sF r o m &ofP h i l o s o p h y ,B.T .Lang u a g e .Thew h o l etheoryisstatedandridiculedbyLactantins, 'nada.Dint.vs.10.

J i n e n t s s o u su. o d u i e u r

THEORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

"Thet o n g u eofforestsg r e e na n dowerywilds,"

t h e s e ,its e e m s ,w e r em a n ' s* of articulation. 1 teachers g lThej o y o u sbirdsa h r o u d e dincheerfuls h a d e , i n Tbeirnotesuntothevoiceattemptedsweet; Th'angeliealsofttremblingv o i c e sm a d e t hT e oth' i n s t r u m e n t adiviner e s p o n d e n c emeet, W i t htheb a s em u r t n u r softhewater's ; p oThewater w 'sfall e withd i f f e r e n c ediscreet, N o w'oft,n o wloud,intothewinddidcall; r Th eg e n t l ew a r b l i n gwindlowa n s w e r e dtoall," t M a n ,too,w o u l de n d e a v o u rtotakehispartin t h edivineh a r m o n y; hewouldtranslateinto livihgandintelligentutterancesthedimand s u b l i m em u s i cofthisu n c o n s c i o u sh y m n . Likemosttheoriesthathavemetwithany . a m o u n tofa c c e p t a n c e ,thisbeliefc o n t a i n sag e r m
Heb e g a n "Inm u r m u r sw h i c hhisrste n d e a v o r i n gt o n g u e C a t t g h tinfautplikef r o mthef a r f o z i m e ds a n d s . " A nextremelycariousEsthonianl e g e n d(the onlyo n ewhich G r i m mhasd i s c o v e r e dbearinganyr e s e m b l a n c eto theBabeld i s p e r s i o n )B e e m s S A J involvethes a m ec o n c e p t i o n .God,s e e i n g g i v i n gtoe a c hnationadistinctt o n g u e .Accordingly ,hep l a c e do n t t h ere acaldronfull of water ,andm a d ethedifferentrues h s u c c e s a i v e l yappmach s e u n d s of thehissinga n dsingingw a t e r . G r i m m ,p. 28.Others a i w h o h a v e c o m p a r e dwith it theM e x i c a nl e g e n da b o u tthed o v e s .See t a p r o pR ra W i n e r ,p B i b l i s c h e s e l w O r t t r b .s.v.Sprach. e n d e r s ' Ray*Q u e r n . p i aS tp e d o r e s p e p c t i v e u l y l t h a e t v a r i o u o s

tJi

IS

ESSA YON

oftruth. I t originatedfromtheo n o m a t o p c e i c c h a r a c t e rof a large part of all languages. Butwereject theconclusiondrawnfromthis fact. Thatm a np r o d u c e da largeorverylarge partofhisv o c a b u l a r ybyanimitationofnatural s o u n d sis entirelytrue, but that the idea of s p e e c hw a screated in him by thehearing of t h o s es o u n d swebelievetobeeminentlyfalse. Thistheory ,however ,foundespecialfavour a m o n gthephilosophersoftheeighteenthcentury ,exceptthatwiththemamysteriousconv e n t i o ns e e m e dnoteventorequirethisnatural b a s i s .Maupertuis,C o n d i llac,R o u s s e a u ,V oh a e y , Nodier ,Herder,M o n b o d d o ,a n dDr. Smith,*all s e e mtobelieve in anoriginaltimew h e nafew intonations,joinedtogesturea n de x p r e s s i o nof t h eface,sufcedfor the wants of nascent h u m a n i t y ,a n df o r m e d ,infact,anaturall a n g u a g e; butinc o u r s eoftimethisw a sfoundinadequate, aidso"onconvint,to ns'arrangeaal'aimable, ctainsifutOtablilel a n g a g earlicid.o uarticuk." A c c o r d i n gtoM o n b o d d othes t e p softhep r o c e s s
F o ra b i s e r t i o n sof theconventionalcharacterofl a n g u a g e ,s e e Ariat. 'Epplyetar, II. 1. Plato,Gras.adimHarris,Hermes, iiL1. Locke, iii 1-8. Fknelon,Leetred p u rtatoccupalionsde 3. (nest aroquoted at lengthbyCliarmap. 208) S m i t h ,Theoryoft h eMoralS e n t i m e n e s ,ii.864. thiiuro, 39 L e r u c h ,p a t Rena]; p. 78. 1 4 0 .svim,

m e n t s s o u sal

THEORIGIN OFLANGUAGE.

1 9

w e r ebrieyasfollows :-1, Inarticulatecries; 2,Gestures;3,Imitatives o u n d s; 4,Anarticial l a n g u a g e ,formedbyconvention,andresulting f r o mthenecessitiesof therace. Thisl a n g u a g e w a soriginallyp o o randdefective,butd e v e l o p e d intorichness,justas(toq u o t ethesimileofAdel t m g )thec a n o eofthes a v a g eh a sg r o w nintothe oatingcityofm o d e r nnations. All otherconjecturesare,h o w e v e r ,eclipsedby Dr.Murray's derivationof all thel a n g u a g e sofEuropefrom n i n eo n o m a t o p c e i csyllables.Thesew o n d r o u s vocables 4,Cwag; 5, Lag; 0, Mag; 7, Nag; 8, Rag; 11 9,Swag!!! M. R e u a n( w h obelievesthatallthe w e rs p a r t sof p e e c hexistedimplicitlyintheprimitive l a n g u a g e )maywellremarkthatof alltheories e thisis"them o s tfalse,orrathertheleastrichin A truth;"anditm a ybek n o w nbyits fruits natural g inferencefromitiseither"that 1 . t S e eW i s e m a n ,g p. 54. This theory of thed e v e l o p m e n tof ; h o u h t h m n l a n g u a g e ,u fa o r trequired h ethesuppositionofanindeaniteperiod of 2humanexistence;buteven if thishefreelyadmitted, it is i m p o s s i b l etop r o v othejirses t e pbyw h i c hunarticulateds o u n d s , t h em e r e l yp a s s i v ee c h o e sofblindinstinctsoro u t w a r dp h e n o m e n a , , o o n l d d e v e l o pintothee x p r e s s i o nofthought.SeeB u n s e n ,IL76. It B w o u l dhaveb e e nn a s . r v e lo u sindeed, ifm a nhadbythemere y o s s e m i o nofv o c a lcries,notdifferingfromt h o s eofanimals,been a a b l etoraisetkimsellf r o mtheu t t e r a n c e sofinstincta n dappetiteto e x p r e s sthee m o t i o n sofadmiration,h o p e ,andlove.SeeNodier , g N o t i o n e ,y. 14. t B u n s e n ,U.130. ; 3 , D w tJi a

20

ESSA Y ON

ismerelyanaffectionofperishablematter(materialietn),orthatbothareindiscriminatelyaccid e n t softheo n edivines u b s t a n c eoftheuniverse ( p a n t h e i s m ) . " I t is true thatlanguage,though n o ttheresult ofconvention,tendstob e c o m e " ' c o n v e n t i o n a linthep r o c e s softime,butthisvery t e n d e n c yisoftenamarkofd e c a ya n druin,and a l a n g u a g eisanobleandpowerfulinstrumentof t h o u g h tinproportionas it keepsin viewthe m o t i v e sa n dprinciplesw h i c horiginatedthew o r d s ofw h i c hit isc o m p o s e d . 3.Thethirdmaintheory ,whichhasfound n u m b e r l e s ssupporters,is,thatl a n g u a g eisc l u eto directrevelation. The tenacityofthisbeliefw a s m a i n l yduetotheviolentreactionof thespiritualistschoolin thenineteenthcenturyagainst t h es y s t e m a t i s i n gs c e p t i c i s moftheirp r e d e c e s s o r s . It w a swarmlya d o p t e dbyMM.deBonala,de Maistre,DeL a m m e n a i s ,andothers,andw a sin o n e s e n s oa stepforwards,for it recognisedat leastthat "divine I *Thuswordsandphrasesrepeatedlyacquireaconventional m e a n i n gfor ageneration,andthenrecur to their olds e n s e . s pa r every k profession,andeveneveryfamily,have A l m o s tevery sect, certainw o r d sinusetow h i c htheyattach a peculiarandspecial w h ichis c h m e w l i n g ,whi s o m e t i m e sunintelligibletoo t h e r s .KC o u s i n h a sb e e nunabletod i s c o v e rthem e a n i n gw h i c hthePort-Royalists g ltothe o a t t a c h e d w o r d"m a c h i n e . "SeeC h a r m a ,p.209. t Wilh1atV w s ebUUMb01 1 i it n tre a at b e t l lM .
A b e l R i t n u s e t . P a r i

THEORIGLsi OF LANGUAGE.

i d i o m se v e nthem o s timperfecta n duncultivated." Butthistheorymustlikewiseberejected. I t raises*m e ntothelevelofg o d s ,asm u c hasthe f o r m e rtheoryhadd e g r a d e dthemtotherankof b e a s t s . " Sptualismcontradictsnature, as materialismcontradictsmind. I t h a srealitya n d historyagainstita sm u c hasitsopposite." Thisviewopensconsiderationsofsuchimp o r t a n c ethatw emustsubject it to a stillm o r e carefuldiscussion. W eobject,in therstplace,tothedifculty a n dobscurityof thephrase. In onesense,t indeedifwetake it metaphorically , i t is p e r h a p sthemostexactexpressiontodescribe t h ewonderfulapparitionofh u m a ns p e e c h ,w h i c h it rightlywithdrawsfromthesphereof vulgar inventions.Language,a sani m m e d i a t ep r o d u c tof
Grimm,28. +In thefollowingo b s e r v a t i o n s , I quotethothoughtsof M. P o la n ,pp.81--33. 1 harenotu s e dinvertedo o m n i a a ,b e c a u s eI h a v eoftent r a n s p o s e datkdabbreviatedhisactualwords. Very similararetheexcellentr e m a r k sofNodier ,whicharetooa p p o s i t e tobeomitted. "On nemes o u p c o n n e r apas d'tred'asset m a u v a i agotpouravoirattendtk I substituermes theoriesaux faitsd erevelation.. Je croisf e r m e m e n tq u elaparoleaeted e n n e e r h o m m e , c o m m ejelecroisd otoute slesfacultesq u olacreationa repartientrelescreatures. Le sealpointsurleguelrosedifferer d e s c a s u i s t e sdusonlittera!,c'estq u eccdonnemeparoltpas a v o i rc o n s i s t 6d a n slac o m m t m i c a t i o nd'uns y s t k m elexicologiquo t fait,S z e . " N o t i o n sd eLinguistique,p. 9.

22

ESSA Y ON

h u m a npowers,mightp e r h a p s ,withmoresafety , b eattributedtotheUniversalC a u s e ,thantothe particularactionofh u m a nliberty. I f byrevelationbeintendedthes p o n t a n e o u splay of the h u m a nfaculties, in thiss e n s e ,God,havingend o w e d m a nwith allthingsrequisiteforthedisc o v e r yofl a n g u a g e ,may ,withneara p p r o x i m a t i o n t otruth, becalled itsAuthor;but then,why m a k eu s eofane x p r e s s i o ns oindirectandliable tobem i s u n d e r s t o o d ,w h e nothersmorenatural a n dmorephilosophicalmighthavebeenf o u n d t oindicatethes a m e *fact? But,unhappily ,M.deBonaldandothersw h o u r g e dthisviewtookthee x p r e s s i o nliterally,and m a d eit notscienticbuttheological;notadisinterestedI-andindependentconclusiondrawn
Abeautifulillustration ofHerder'swill belptos h o wour m e a n i n g ."Observe," hesays, "this tree with itsvigorous trunk,itsmagnicentc r o w nofverdure,itab r a n c h e s ,itsfoliage, itsdowers,its fruits,raisingitselfu p o nitsrootsaso nathrone. S e i z e dwitha d m i r a t i o na n da s t o n i s h m e n t ,y o uexclaim, 'It isdivine, d i v i n e!' Nowo b s e r v ethil littles e e d;seeith i d d e nintheearth, t h e np u s h i n goutafeebleg e r m ,c o v e r i n gitselfwithb u d s ,clothing itselfwithl e a v e s;youwillagainexclaim, 'It isdivine I' butin am a n n e rm o r ew o r t h ya n dm o r eintelligent." t Nothinghasb o e nm o r efatallyprejudicialtothop r o g r e s sof s c i e n c ethan a theologicalbias in itavotaries; andn o t h i n gm o r e fatalto thep e a c eof trued i s c o v e r e r sthanitsigogranttyranny . A d e l u n g s h o w struew i s d o minpretteinghisillidtriAlatetwiththe s t a t e m e n t , " lchbabekeineLieblinpmeimulg,keineH y p o t h e s e

t i m e n t s s o u s( 1 C id u t e u r

THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

f r o minduction,butam e r ed o g m aoffaithtobe f o r c e d(likesomanyotherfalsee x c r e s c e n c e sof t h e o l o g i c a ltradition)u p o nthec o n s c i e n c eof all Christians. In general,t h o s ew h omaintainthe literalrevelation of language,andreject its h u m a norigin,arethedirects u c c e s s o r softhose t h e o l o g i a n sw h ohaves olongo p p o s e deverydisc o v e r yinscience,andrejectedtheplainestded u c t i o n sofg e o m e t r yandlogic. They intrude intoas p h e r ein whichtheyh a v enok n o w l e d g e a n dno place; theirargumentsare neither scienticnorr e a s o n a b l e;theyarenotr e a s o n s butassertions; notconclusionsbut idle and g r o u n d l e s sprejudices. I t hasbeenwell said thattheypertaintoanorderofideasandinter e s t sw h i c hsciencerepudiates,andwithwhich s h eh a snothingtodo.Ignorancehasnoclaim t oahearinge v e nw h e ns h es p e a k sexcathedrd. N o wwhatismeantbys u c hanexpressionas t h erevelationofl a n g n a g erigorouslyu n d e r s t o o d ? If, forinstance,wetake it materially , if we u n d e r s t a n dit tom e a nthatavoicefromh e a v e n dictatedtomenthen a m e soft h i n g s s u c ha c o n c e p t i o niss ogrosslysa n t h r o p o m o r p h i c , it is
z a m O r u n d ezulegen.Noali'sArchist mirnineV e r s c h l o s s e n e B u r g ,undB a b y l o n ' sSchuttbleibt-rormirvl1i in seinerRake." Its e e m stom e ,h o w e v e r ,thatG r i m m ' sspeciala r g u m e n t so n thissubjectarew e a k(p.2IJ);heisclearlyright inpointingout

t J i n e n t s s o u sal' ; aa u t e u r

24

ESSA Y ON

s outterlyatvariancewithallscienticexplanation, it issoirreconcileablyo p p o s e dto all our i d e a sof thelaws of nature,that it needsno refutationforonewho is in the leastdegree initiatedintothem e t h o d sofm o d e r ncriticismB e s i d e s ,as M.C o u s i nshasremarked, "it only r e m o v e sthedifcultyastepb a c k w a r d swithout r e s o l v i n git. For signsdivinelyinventedw o u l d forusnotbesignsbutthings,whichweshould h a v ebeens u b s e q u e n t l yobligedtoelevateinto s i g n sbyattachingtothemcertainsignications." T h erevealed"term"w o u l dbeau s e l e s se n c u m b r a n c eunless it c o r r e s p o n d e dwithsomewell u n d e r s t o o dconception;andtherefore if w o r d s w e r erevealed,c o n c e p t i o n smustalsohavebeen implanted;and we are thusdriven to the a b s u r d i t yofs u p p o s i n gthatanteriortoallexperience,wek n e wthatw h i c he x p e r i e n c e(i.e ant actualrelationofintelligencewiththatw h i c his t h eobjectofintelligence)alonec o u l dteachus. W ehavealreadysaid that thesemodern spiritualistsconsideredtherevelation of lang u a g etobeatruthinvolvedbythenarrative of
t h efutilityofs u c hc o n j e c t u r e sftsT h o s eofLesiing,thatl a n g u a g e v a l s m a d ek n o w ntom a nb yi n t e r c o u r s ewithi n t e r m e d i a t espirits. ( L e m i n g ,S ' i m m t e .Schriften,Bd.10.) 5 Prelfareauz(EurresPhilo:*deMainedeBiran t a r m ,Essai lC ih v .a p . tin-le x Lavagt v . o 120.

tim e n t s s o u sal

THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

G e n e s i s . In thistheyw e r ethes l a v e sof afalse a n dnarrowexegesis,whichhadnoteventhe p o o re x c u s eofbeingliteral. What is thetrue m e a n i n gofthes a c r e dwriterw eshalle n d e a v o u r t os h o wfurtheron;butw ecannothereabstain f r o ma g a i nutteringas t r o n gprotestagainstthe barrierplacedinthew a yofallh o n e s tscientic inquirybythetimidp r e j u d i e e softhatc l a s sw h i c h t y r a n n i s e soverpublicopinion.Whenshallw e l e a r ntoa c q u i e s c epracticallyinthebeliefw h i c h theoreticallythemostorthodoxhavelongexp r e s s e d ,that it isan e e d l e s sincongruitytolook intheBibleforscientictruthswhich it does n o tp r o f e s storeveal? " Such*anattempt," it h a sbeenwellsaid,"hasbeena,p e r v e r s i o nof t h ep u r p o s eof a divinerevelation,andcannot l e a dtoanyp h y s i c a ltruth." H o n e s t yall themoreimperiouslyd e m a n d s thisrenfark,b e c a u s ehere,asinat h o u s a n dother p l a c e s ,pervertedbys y s t e mandignorance,we b e l i e v ethattheBiblerightlyu n d e r s t o o dc o n t a i n s ( n o tp r e c i s ed o g m a s ,but)thegeneralindications ofas u b l i m etruth;a n db e c a u s eitm a ybes h o w n
* Dr.Whewell,Hitt. of Ind.S c i e n c e ,ilL 504. A host of e m i n e n tauthorities,fromB a c o n d o w nto SirJ o h nH e r s c h e l ,h a v e s a i dthe we thing;hitherto,alas, in vain! SeeHerschel's Letterto Dr. Pe Smith- Mill's bizsert. i. 4 3 5 l s e -Rel.xxviLChums,p.248. -E 461. R e n a l ' ,

a i r e n t ss o u sal

2 0

ESSA YON'

thatinthisparticularinstanceitsr e c o r d saccuratelyagree with the results of careful and l a b o r i o u sinquiry . Here, asoften, the Bible d o e snotclashwiththec o n c l u s i o n sofscience, if taken to implynomorethanwhat it categoricallyasserts, But the Bible is not theonly s o u r c eofinformationopentous,and if weare e v e rin anywayto ll np "the vastlacunas w h i c hcharacterisethatgiganticandmysterious e p i t a p hofhumanitye n g r a v e dintherstc h a p tersofGenesis,"wemustd os onotbyignorant a n dd o g m a t i cassertions,butbyb u m b l esincerity n n dpatientr e s e a r c h . If, then,l a n g u a g ewererevealed,theBible is notonlysilentonsuch a revelation,butdistinctlyimpliesthereverse. We shallexamine t h enarrativeofG e n e s i s(H.19,20)fartherOn; butw em u s therestoptoo b s e r v ethatw h e r ethe Deityisrepresentedastalking toAdamand otherpatriarchs,s u c hp a s s a g e sm u s tnotbesupp o s e dtoh a v eanybearingonthequestion,asit isquiteclearthattheyareonlyintendedforan e x p r e s s i v ea n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m I Even Luther,
''St.G r e g o r yofN y s s ahase x p r e s s e dhimselfonthissubject % v t i hstarttinerf r e e d o mofthought. Ile a 1 1 u c 1 t t otbosewhospeakof thoDeityasthe bricatorofA d a m ' s , l a n g u a g e ,anopinionwhichbeesprel!slycons a sottiAand s3 w i t h,quite i r o n cextravagantp r i d i c u l o u svanity worthy ofithe r o E u m p t i o n p i t y

frT rEORIOLNOFLANGUAGE.

2 7

inhisC o m m e n t a r yonGenesis,g o e sout of his w a ytoprovethatnothingmaterialisintended insuchphrasesasGod's"speakingto"Adam, a n dthat itw o u l dbeasstrangetos u p p o s ethat t h e yimply any*revelation oflanguage,as it w o u l dbeto infertherevelationofwritingfrom t h em e n t i o nof thestonetables"writtenbythe ngerofGod."Writingalsoh a sb e e nattributed directlytoGod'sexternalgift,although,as in thecaseoflanguage,thereistheclearestproof ofitsh u m a norigina n dgradualperfectionment. Butwemustnotomitoneor twopositive a r g u m e n t sagainstthistheory . 1.Hadlanguagebeenrevealed,mankindat rstw o u l dh a v eb e e nbettersituatedthananyof theirposterity;andsuchadispositionisunlike t h eordinaryc o u r s eofG o d ' sjustdealings.
oftheJ e w s .And onthesubjectDfBabel,hes a y s ,"Theconf u s i o uoft o n g u e smustbenecessarilyattributed to the will of G o d a c c o r d i n gtothet h c o l o g i cpointofview .buta c c o r d i n gtothe truth of history it is theworkofman."ContraZotomium, Or .xii. p.782.Nodicr, p.56. St. Augustindistinctlyimplies thes a m ething.DeOrd.iL12. Sincewritingthea b o v e , I havemetwithanotherBiblical a r g u m e n tin favourof theRevelationofL a n g u a g e ,drawnfrom O e n .i.5. tecr .1 , v I r o r r a irci OIilyepw,s-aso L Khi/ 4 P C ; O f ik a p c u l t r6u vT 7-6 ItiterT02 i c r a . a A A : 01)3i ' 7 1 o re lv ttti e k l o p i& a r o l oI r o i h e r a F r e rawl etoilTheophil.adAutollic.U p 1 & b lW i ) i 4 v Z /P o k a t a n t r t e w g l ( . . 5 e 6 t ; p a p a

timents sous al , ; ( . 1

28

ESSA YON

2.Sofarfrombeing "a palei m a g eandfeeble e c h oofs p l e n d o u r swhichh a v ep a s s e da w a yfrom thes c e n eof earth,'eachh u m a nl a n g u a g eb e a r s initselfthemostdistincttracesofgrowthand p r o g r e s s t h emarksof aregulard e v e l o p m e n t ina c c o r d a n c ewithdenitel a w s t h es u c c e s s i v e t r a c e sofinfancy ,youth,maturity ,awlm a n h o o d . T h o u g hm a n yexistingl a n g u a g e s ,a n de v e nt h o s e ofs o m es a v a g enationsarebut"degradedand d e c a y i n gfragments of noblerformations,"yet t h e r eareproofsasdecisivethattheyroseto g r a d u a lperfection,asthattheys u b s e q u e n t l yfell f r o mperfectiontodecay . 3. If thespiritualisttheoryw e r etrue, itw o u l d b eamostnaturalinferencethat thespiritual a n dabstractsignicationofroots is alsothe originalone. Buts u c hana s s u m p t i o n(although it ismadebyFredericSchlegel), "is contrad i c t e dby thehistoryofeveryl a n g u a g eof the world." 4. It is equallyimprobablethat Godwho r e v e a l e dthe primitivelanguage, or manwho r e c e i v e dit,s h o u l dh a v esufferedit (divine,ason thiss u p p o s i t i o nitm u s th a v eb e e n )tod e g e n e r a t e intob a r b a r o u s andfeeblejargons.
18.ed.Wolf.p.140. I presentthisargumentwithoutropbr a n yo n ew h oisc o n v i n c e dby it.

J i n e n t s s o u su. o d u i e u r

THE()MGM OFLANGUAGE.

2 9

5. " f o r m a t i o noflanguage." I t isthereforetotally T unlikeGod'sm e t h o d s ,aso b s e r v e dinHisw o r k s . h e directlywhatcanbeevolvedmediately togive . For a s t ein thee c o n o m yof hthereisclearlynow Nature,noprodigalityinthedisplayofmiracles. Inu thew o r d sofGrimm, "its e e m scontraryto m t h e w i s d o mofGodtoi m p o s etherestraintof a c r e a t e dformonthatwhichwasdestinedto a a freehistoricdevelopment." At anyrate, as a n fact w ec a nhistoricallytracethed e v e l o p m e n tof l a n g u a g efrom a verysmallnucleus,andthis f b e i n gthec a s ethesuppositionofanyprevious a r e v e a l e dl a n g u a g eisag r o u n d l e s sandi m p r o b a b l e c b y p o t h e s i s . t Furthera r g u m e n t swillappearasw ep r o c e e d; u butw em u s tn o wpointoutthetruemeaningof lstatementinG t h e e n e s i s ,that "G o dbroughtall living t creaturestoAdamtoseewhathewould callthem.;andw h a t s o e v e rAdamcalledevery i Stewart,Phil. oftheMind, iii. 1. -e framer ,ig a shorteut toe s c a p einquiryandexplanation. I t t s s a v e sthep h i l o s o p h e rm u c htrouble,butleavesmankindingreat 4 i g n o r a n c e ,l a u dleadst c pgreaterror, Nond i g n u avindieen o d u . s . a G o d havingfurnishedm a nwiths e n s e s ,andwitho r g a n sofarticu" lation,asbebas% 1 s t )withwater ,lime,a n dsand,its h o u l ds e e m r To n o m r en e c e s s a r ytoformthew o r d sform a n ,thantot e m p e rthe mortar."--Di vers. of Purley , Jt. 1eh. 2. h e i c s o m e m t p h e o d t

J i n e n t s s o u su. o d u i e u r

30

ESSA Y ON

livingcreaturethatwasthenamethereof." N o w ,merelyremarking(bywayof limitation) thatthewriterclearlys u p p o s e dhiso w nl a n g u a g e t obethatofParadise,andthatthereishereno a t t e m p ttoa c c o u n tforall tl a n g u a g e ,b e c a u s ehe iss p e a k i n gofacertainclassofw o r d so n l y w e ndinthisnarrativeitp r o f o u n dverityclothedin amostbeautifulandappropriatesymbol:'We s e e m a nasthetruen o m e n c l a t o r m a nactingby hiso w npeculiarfacultiesunder'theg u i d eofthe Deity .Philosophycould ndn om o r eperfect guretoe x p r e s sherc o n c l u s i o n sthant h i s G o d t e a c h i n gm a ntospeakasafatherw o u l dason.' Butto give thissimplenarrative a material e x p l a n a t i o nis tofaLsifyatoncebothits letter a n dits spirit. On theotherhand,"tosaywith t h et h e o l o g i a n sthatG o dhadcreatedlanguage
G. IL 19 t a. g There isn ohintofg r a m m a r ,thoveryb l o o dofl a n g u a g e . 1 2 0 . "tineL a n 6 r u eD ' e s tp a sC u r sde 1829, Iii. 212. ao m s e t t l e ane R e n a n ,p,85.See l o q u e n tp a s s a g eofS c h l e g e r stothe c o l lq e c tW ii s a m e effect, u o t a din s e m a n ' sLect-i. 108.Pythagorasprob a L i yhads o m e v a g u es e n t i m e n tofthekindw h e nhesaidthat, o n "then a m e g i v e r " w a sb o t hthem o s ta n c i e n ta n dthem o s trational o d fm e n .e TheE s g y p t i a n sw o r s h i p p e dTheuthastheR e g u l a t o rof L a n g u a g e;and theC h i n e s ereferreditsorigintotheirgreatm y s m o t a . t e r i o u sRingPohl. See Cie.7 t 1 8 0 6 L 26.Lersch "p S r a c h p h i l o g .derAlton.Bonn,1835,1. 2 3 l d i e B u n s e n ,1.19. C o u s i 2 n9 . ,

tJi

THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

a s hebadc r e a t e dm a n ,andthatl a n g u a g eisnot t h eactandworkofman,"is tocontradictnot o n l yr e a s o nbuttheBibletoo. For be it obs e r v e d ,that theBibledistinctlyconrmsour a r g u m e n t sbysaying,notthatG o dn a m e dthe a n i m a l s ,butthatA d a mn a m e dthem,andthat w h a t s o e v e rhen a m e deverylivingcreaturethat w a s then a m ethereof. Inshort,l a n g u a g eis "onlydivineinproportiontothedivinityofournaturea n doursoul;" it is only a gift ofGodb e c a u s ethefaculty naturallyresultedf r o mthep h y s i c a la n dspiritual o r g a n i s mw h i c hG o dh a dcreated.Thiss e e m sa m o r enaturalandp h i l o s o p h i csuppositionthan t h ebeliefthate v e nthee m b r y o n i cg e r moflang u a g e w a srevealed.Thee x e r c i s eofthefaculty intheoriginalutteranceofprimitivew o r d shas c e a s e dto becalledintoplayb e c a u s e it has c e a s e dtoberequired. Wecannotn o winvent originalw o r d sb e c a u s ethere isnolongerany n e c e s s i t yford o i n gso. In thes a m e w a y a sis wellk n o w n adeafm u t ew h e no n c einstructed inanarticiall a n g u a g elosesthequickinstinctivep o w e rofcreatingintelligiblenaturals i g n s . W ec o n c l u d e ,then,thatl a n g u a g eis neither i n n a t ea n dorganic;noram e c h a n i c a linvention; n o ranexternalgiftofrevelation; but anatural

tJi

32

ESSA Y0,N

facultyswiftlyd e v e l o p e d ,by apowerfulinstinct, theresult ofintelligence*andh u m a nfreedom w h i c hh a v enoplaceinpurelyo r g a n i cffunctions. Itw a s"the livingproductof thew h o l e:inner m a n . " I t was"not a giftb e s t o w e dready f o r m e dtom a n ,buts o m e t h i n gc o m i n gfromhimself." I t is"essentiallyIIh u m a n; ito w e stoour fulllibertybothitsoriginanditsp r o g r e s s; it is o u rhistory , our heritage."Objectivelycons i d e r e d , it w a stheresult ofo r g a n i s m:subjectively ,theproductofintelligence. i t was "a primitiveintuition,i m p e r s o n a la n dyeti n u e n c e d b yindividualgenius;" in aword,itscharacter is "at onceobjectiveandsubjective,ato n c e individualandgeneral,ato n c efreeandnecessary ,ato n c eh u m a nanddivine. Thats u c haconclusion,"h o w e v e r m u c hitm a y
*Thefactthatm a r tisas o c i a lanimal(CioriroArrikSr)w h i c h h a s becasostrangelyurgedby thea d v o c a t e sof arevealed l a n g u a g e ,fromLactantinsd o w nto M.deBonaldandtheAbbe G o m b a l o t ,inn ow a ymilitatesa g a i n s tthisc o n c l u s i o n . Here,S y s t e mderS r r a c h w i s s e n A c h a f t , O. S c h l e g e l . W U .v o nH u m b o l d t . IIGrimm. a g " TheRerektionofL o u a g u a g eiss u p p o r t e dinab o o kby3.S. S C i s s m i l o b ,Berlin,1766. An excellentreview of the main o p i n i o n sisg i v e nbyR.W .Z o b e l ,G e d a n k e n*herdiev e r s e k i e d e n e n

tJi

TUEORIGIN'p O FLANGUAGE.

3 3

s e e mtos a v o u rofaw e a keclecticismbyc o m b i n i n gallf o r m e rtheories,isyetinp r o f o u n da c c o r d a n c ewith all theascertainedfactsofl a n g u a g e w e shallh o p etop r o v einthefollowingchtipten
M e i n u n g o tderG e l d : m i e nv o n E I r s p r w a g ederS p r a c A e n .M a g d e b
1 7 3 3 .

t i m e n t s s o u sui 1,t . 1a u [ e u r

34

ESSA Y ON

CHAPTER
TILEPSYCHOLOGICALDEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA O FSPEECH.

" S p e e c hIsm o r n i n gtothem i n a; Its p r e a d stheb e a u t e o u s i m a g e sa b r o a d , W h i c h e l a eliedarka n db u r i e dinthe:400."

F R O M abstractanddprioriconsiderations,we h a v earrivedatthec o n c l u s i o nthatl a n g u a g ew a s a c h i e v e dorcreatedbytheh u m a nrace,bythe u n c o n s c i o u sors p o n t a n e o u se x e r c i s eofdivinely i m p l a n t e dpowers;that itw a safacultyanalog o u sto andcloselyimplicatedwith that of t h o u g h t ,and, like thought,developingitself with*theaid oftime. The ideaofs p e e c hw a s innate,andtheevolutionof thatideamaybe t r a c e din thegrowthandhistory ofl an g u ag e. It ismostimportanttohaveaclearc o n c e p t i o n ofthefactthatthisd e v e l o p m e n tdidnotresult
Signe,. I musthereagaincautionthereaderthattheviewhere

*S e eFranck'sDictionsaired e s tS e i e n t e sP h i l o s o p h i q u e s ,Art,

s u p p o r t e dis t h e c o n v e n t i o n a lt h e o r yorl a n g u a g e c o n d e m n e din t h elastchapter ,a l t h o u g hitm i g h teasilyb e c o m e sointheh a n d s o fa,p e r s o ninclinedtolookatthep h y s i o l o g i c a lratherthanthe
p s y c h o l o g i c a la s p e c t 3ofthequestion.

d i r e n t ss o u sui , ( . 1 d u i e U r

T E L EORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

f r o manatomisticsreunion of parts,butfrom t h evitalityderivedfromaninwardprinciple L a n g u a g e w a s f o r m e d by a p r o c e s s not of crystal. lineaccretion but of germinaldevelopment. E v e r yessentialpartofl a n g u a g eexistedasc o m pletely(althoughonlyimplicitly)intheprimitive g e r m ,asthepetalsof aowerexistin thebud b e f o r ethemingledinuencesofthes u nandthe airh a v ec a u s e dit tounfold. O u rbeliefthusarrivedatviz.,thatl a n g u a g e w a s ana c h i e v e m e n toftheh u m a ngeniuswhich G o dimplanted.in theprimevalm a n ,adevelopm e n tofthefacultywithwhichhee n d o w e dour r a c e d o e snotat allnecessitatethebelief in a p e r i o dwhenmanwasunable toc o m m u n i c a t e withm a n .The exerciseofthefacultym a yh a v e b e e nrapidinthaty o u n gandnoblenatureto a d e g r e ewh ic hnoww ecannotevenconceive. A f e wimitativeroots,utteredundertheguidance ofadivineinstinct,andaidedby theplay of intelligenceinm o v e m e n ta n dfeature,w o u l dwith fortheneedsof anascenthumanity ,andthe

w o n d e r f u le a s eg r o winto al a n g u a g esufcient

livingg e r mw o u l ds o o nbadandb o u r g e o nby

t h everylawofitsproduction.Even ifwewere
Thisisat'e x p r e s s i o nof F.B e h l e g e r s(Philos.V orl e s : e v e n ,p. 78-80).R e n a na l s oq u o t e stheauthorityofH u m b o l d taidG o e t h e .
D

tim e n t s s o u sai ; duteur

36

ESSA YON

c o m p e le dtobelievethatthisl a n g u a g ewasat rstofthescantiestcharacter ,weseein this s u p p o s i t i o nnothingmoreabsurdthan in the certaintythatk n o w l e d g eands c i e n c e ,p h i l o s o p h y a n dart,aretheslow ,gradual,andtoilsomec o n . q u e s t sofaneverprogressiverace. I t isnow wellu n d e r s t o o dthate v e ntheuseof thes e n s e s h a stobelearnt,----that it isonlybypracticethat w eare able to discriminatedistances in the v a r i o u s l y c o l o u r e dsurfacewhichis all thatwe reallysee.Whys h o u l ditthenbeunnaturalto s u p p o s ethats p e e c halsow a satrstonlyimplicitlyb e s t o w e donus,andthat it requiredtime a n dexperiencetodevelopfully theimplanted c a p a c i t y? H o wfarthegrowthofl a n g u a g ew a saffected b yexternalc i r c u m s t a n c e s , a s ,forinstance,by t h ei m p r e s sofindividualminds,bythearistoc r a c yore v e na u t o c r a c yofp h i l o s o p h i cbodies,by t h einuenceofsex,bythevariationsofclimate, b ythec o n v u l s i o n sofhistory ,bythes l o wc h a n g e ofreligiousorpoliticalc o n v i c t i o n s ,ande v e nby t h elawsofe u p h o n yandorganisation,wemay c o n s i d e rhereafter;butw em u s trstofallenter o n t w overyinterestingpreliminaryinquiries,viz., 1,H o wdidw o r d srstc o m etobea c c e p t e das s i g n satall?and,2, Bywhatp r o c e s s e sdidm e n

tJi

THEORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

hitu p o nthew o r d st h e m s e l v e s? Or, toputthe q u e s t i o n sdifferently:1,Howdidvariousm o d u lationsoftheh u m a nvoiceacquireanysignic a n c ebyb e i n gc o n n e c t e dwitho u t w a r dorinward p h e n o m e n a ?and,2,Whats p e c i a lc a u s e sled in s p e c i a lc a s e sto thechoiceofs o m eparticular m o d u l a t i o n srathorthanofa n yother? I tunwellawarethatthesequestionsmay a p p e a rridiculousto anyonewhois entirely u n a c c u s t o m e dtot h e s eb r a n c h e sofinquiry;and t h e ym a ypossiblybeinclinedtosetthew h o l e m a t t e ratrestbyad o g m a t i s mor a jeer. They wills a yp e r h a p s:
"Hereb a b b l i n gInsights h o u t sinNature'scars Hiskatc o n u n d r u moftheo r b sa n ds p h e r e s; T h e r eS e l f i n s p e c t i o ngadohislittlethumb, With' W h e n c ea mI ?'and'Whereforedid Ic o m et' "*

Withr e a d e r sofs u c hat e m p e r a m e n tit isidleto r e a s o n ,nordoweexpectthat,whiletheworld lasts,i g n o r a n c ewillc e a s etotakeitselffork n o w l e d g e ,andd e n o u n c ewhatitcannotu n d e r s t a n d . T oo t h e r sw ewillm e r e l ys a ythatt h e s einquiries h a v eoccupied,andare stillo c c u p y i n gin an
"Seht, i t s e h w e rzud e n k e uaufw e l c h eArtmandenkt. Ichdenke,undTnitdeinlenge,womitichdeuke,soil id & o a k e nwied i e s e sZeogb e s e h a f f e nsei," B l a u b a r i ,

a c tii.s o .1.

J i n e n t s s o u su u d u k e u r

3 8

'

ESSA YON

i n c r e a s i n gd e g r e e ,s o m eofthem o s tp r o f o u n da n d s o b e rintellectsinEurope,a n dthat(inthew o r d s ofPlato)'wisemendonotusuallytalk nons e n s e : Withthisremark,letusp r o c e e dtoourrst q u e s t i o n:Howc a m e s o u n d s m e r evibrationsof thea t m o s p h e r e t obea c c e p t e dassigns,1.e.to b e u s e da sw o r d s? But(aso n einquiryleadsusback,perpetually , t oanother ,evenuntil " allthingsend in a m y s t e r y"),wemusthere againpausefor a m o m e n tto askwhat is a word?So vastan a m o u n thasbeenwritten in answer to this inquiry ,that it isobviouslyimpossibleto do m o r ethanstatethec o n c l u s i o n *w eadopt,witha m e r ehintastotheg r o u n donw h i c hw eadoptit. H o r n eT ookemaintainedthatw o r d sare"the n a m e softhings,"adenitionm o s to b v i o u s l yin a d e q u a t e;othersh a v ecalledthem"thepictures ofideas,"fandalthoughthisdenitionisnot w i t h o u titsvalue,yetthes y s t e m a t i cperversionof t h ew o r d"idea,"renders it insufcient.Harris
'W eare,fori n s t a n c e ,o b l i g e dentirelytop a s bo v e rtheq u e s t i o n a sto theTrilliumC o g n i t u m ,onwhichseeSir W.Hamilton's tecluret,IL319-381. "O n emightb et e m p t e dtocallL a n g u a g eakindofPictnreof t h eUniverse,w h e r ethew o r d sarea sthe g u r e sa n d i z n a g e sof all particulars."Harris'sHermes,p.330. This iss o m e t h i n glike

a i r e n t ss o u sal

THEORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

d e v o t e sachaptertoestablishingthedenition that"Wordsare thes y m b o l sof ideas,both g e n e r a landparticular; yet, of thegeneral, primarily ,essentially ,andimmediately; of the particularonlysecondly ,accidentally ,andmediately ." But this is veryquestionableand c u m b r o u s;and,o nthew h o l e ,w ebelievethatn o betterdenitionc a nbegiventhanthat ofthe lateMr.Garnett,*thatw o r d sr e p r e s e n t"c o n c e p t i o n sf o u n d e donperceptions,"or "thatw o r d s e x p r e s stherelationsofthings." Theyd onot a n d c a n n o te x p r e s s"anintrinsicmewling,constitutingt h e mthec o u n t e r partsandequivalents o ft h o u g h t .Theyaren o t h i n gmore,a n dc a nbe n o t h i n gm o r e ,thans i g n sofrelations,a n dit isa c o n t r a d i c t i o nintermstoafrnithatarelation s a y sM.P e i s s e ,t "ispurelyindirect,limited,relative; itd o e snotr e a c htothebeingst h e m s e l v e s intheira b s o l u t erealitya n de s s e n c e s ,butonlyto theira c c i d e n t s ,theirm o d e s ,theirrelations,their limitations,theirdifferences,theirqualities; all
P l a t o ' sc u r i o u sn a t i o nthatw o r d sareaL t i m a t sofexternalthingT p ) l v i c o 4 2 . a m t S , s y e 3 1 O p o n T a w . -H e r a c l i t u s ,ap.A m m o n i u m ,adAria.de_ I n t e r p .p. 24. 1 D e m o c r i t u sc a le dt h e m e r v d t . A g a r atpowitirra.. * s t a y x ,p.281-341. 4 1 4 0 2 T a IGarnett'sE tQ u o t e dbyMr .aarnett,p.283. f ikoin Tin/

c a nbe inherent." "Our knowledgeof beings,"

40

ESSAY ON

w h i c harem a n n e r sofc o n c e i v i n ga n dk n o w i n g , w h i c hnotonlyd onotimparttok n o w l e d g ethe a b s o l u t ec h a r a c t e rwhichs o m e p e r s o n sattribute t oit,butevenpositivelye x c l u d eit. Matter(or e x i s t e n c e ,theobjectofs e n s i b l eperception),only fallswithinthes p h e r eofourk n o w l e d g et h r o u g h itsqualities;mindonlyby itsmodications; a n d t h e s equalitiesandmodicationsa r eallthat c a n b ec o m p r e h e n d e da n de x p r e s s e dintheo b j e c t s T h eobjectitself,c o n s i d e r e dabsolutely ,remains o u tof thereachof allperception." I t is aui o b v i o u sinferencethat,aswecanonlytalk of w h a tw ek n o w ,a n da sw ec a nonlyk n o wtherelat i o n softhings,w o r d sarethem e d i u m ,ofe x p r e s s i n g(notthenatureofthings,whichisincognisable),buttheo b s e r v e drelationsb e t w e e nT h i n g s . T h e ya r er e v e l a t i o n snotoftheo u t w a r d ,butofthe i n w a r d , n o toftheuniverse,butofthet h o u g h t s ofm a n . L e a v i n gtom e t a p h y s i c i a n sall furtherdiscuss i o nof thisquestion,weagainrecur to our inquiry ,H o wc a m e w o r d stobea c c e p t e da ssigni c a m to ftheserelations?Thought*a n ds p e e c h
G r i m m ,29-31.C o m p a r eHeyse,S y s t e m ,s. 28. 41Nur w a s g e c l a c h t it, k a n ng e s p r o c h e n w e r d e nIna &laMarg e d a c h t e n o t h w e n d i g m u c h a n s p r e c h b a r . "What St.Pattis a win his r a p t u r ewasonlyunutterableb e c a u s e it recallednoh u m a n a n a l o g o u .(2C o nxii. 4.)

tim e n t s s o u sal

THEORIGIN Or LANGUAGE.

4 1

a r einseparablyc o n n e c t e d;theveryrootofthe w o r dMan*implies, in Sanskrit, "a thinking b e i n g , "a n dit iswellk n o w nthatthereis ac l o s e c o n n e c t i o nb e t w e e n " ratio"and " ratio,"a n d thatc l A o y a ( 6 1 am e a n sanimals,notonly"without s p e e c h , "but"withoutreason."Eloquence, in fact,isg e n i u s ,a n dthegreatestpoetororatoris h e w h o h a sm o s t c o m m a n doverhisnativet o n g u e . It h a se v e nbeenaq u e s t i o nwiths o m ephilos o p h e r swhetherthought is possiblewithout s p e e c h , w h e t h e r ,forinstance,blind-deaf-mutes (liketheAmericangirl,LauraBridgman),are c a p a b l et h e yhavebeentaughtanarticialm e t h o dof I e x p r e s s i o n? - of M a r n d s c h a ,Goth.Matmikka,G e r m .M e n s c h;fromtheroot e x m a n ,"tn think."Comparec p p t i C c i r ,"tospeak,"ando p t i C o f f e c u , "tothink,"Heyse,a.40.Turnera dHero&ii. 7, et "Speech, r c "saysHumboldt, " isthenecessaryconditionofthe t h o u g h toftheindividual." Thes t a t e m e n tshouldat leastbe i s i qualiedb ythe i n gd i s c u s s i o n ,seeArchbishopWlately'sLogic,ch. ii, M.cle w o r d n g " S e b a l d a s m t m e dther e v e r s e:"L'hommep e l a g esaparoleavantd o "n o w - "See,too,Mill'sLogic,ii. 201,Charma,p.184. parl o r s a penset. t O c o u r s etheshort-handofh u m a nintelligenceistooinnitely . f" r a p i da n da b b r e v i a t e dforu st A )bealwayltabletoread it offwith h F o facility ; or,asMr.T e n n y s o ne x p r e s s e s "Thoughtleaptonttow e dIvitht h o u g h t . , r e E r et h o u g h tc o u l dw e ditselftos p e e c h; s o bttt we areinclined to believethat withouts o m esigns(not f a 11 n e c e s s a r i l yw o r d s s e eCharms,EssaiEar leLangage, p. 50) m e c a l l u u sl i o n s t t y o o t f h r i

, d i r e n t s s o u sui 1,ud u [ e u r

4 2 .

ESSA YON

Certain it is that the childbeginstos p e a k w h e nitbeginstothink,andthatitsrstinteLli. g e n tp e r c e p t i o nofrelationsisf o lo w e dbyitsrst articulateutterances. We mayillustrate this r e m a r kin aninterestingmanner . We nd it s t a t e din theJ a d s c h u r v e d a ,thattherstw o r d s utteredbythearstmanwere, " I ammyself," a n dthat,w h e ncalled,hea n s w e r e d , "I a mhe." With all duedeferenceto theancientphilos o p h e rw h oheldthisbelief,w emaysafelyassert thats u c ha thingw a simpossiblewithouts o m e s p e c i a linterposition;forthegrowthof as e n s e ofindividualityisextremelyslow ,andc o m e sto C h i l d r e nlongaftertheirm a i np e r c e p t i o n s .Ap o e t i nw h o mnothingismoreremarkablethanhis p r o f o u n dlearningandmetaphysicala c c u r a c y trulys a y s:
"Thehillyuoirtoeartha n dsky , W h a ttimehisteuderp a l misprest A g a i n s tthecircleofthebreast, H a t hn e v e rt h o u g h tthat'Thisis I: t b o u g l a tc o u l dnotexist.W h e nw ee a n n y te x p r e s sw h a tw ew e a n ,the r e a s o np r o b a b l yisthatw ehaven odearm e a n i n g . "Die S p r a c h e istnicbtsa m d e r e sallderindieE r s e b e i n t m gtretendeG e d a u k e , l a n dbeidesindinnerlichnurein3!and(tat aellpe."--Bedier , O r g a n i s m .derSpraae,pi2. " S a n s G i g u e s n o u nnep e n s e r i o n s p r e s q u epas."DeatuttdeTracy ,idioioyie, pt. xvii.Pllotinus diFtinctlywens thecontrary .T j X 0 7 1 C o p t V O Y'riff4 e v A 4 I F o t o & v o swp4ThA c r y i C t r e mEttvovc r i o p . a T t o t o i ;bFertrou.--E n n e a d , v .1,ch.10

a i r e n t ss o u sal

TIIE ORIGIN OFLANGUAGE. B u ta sh eg r o w sheg a t h e r sm u c h , A n dlearnstheu s eof a n d 'me,' A n dnds'1a mnotwhat1s e e , A n dotherthanthethingsI touch.'

4 3

A n dthisgivesusatoncethetrueexplanation ofthefact,that it iss o m etimebeforeachild l e a r n storegarditselfasasubject,andtherefore, thatit to b j e c t i s c sitself in all itslanguage. I t w o u l dsay ,not "I w a n tanapple,"but"Charlie w a n t sanapple " noteven"giveme,"--sofreq u e n t l ya s"giveCharlie."WhenHamlets i g n s h i m s e l fas'Them a c h i n ethatistom eHamlet,' h eonlys h o w s ,byanextremeinstance,the r e m a r k a b l edifcultythatam a nalwayshasin m a s t e r i n gthisveryc o n c e p t i o nof individuality , w h i c htheHindoophilosophywoulds e e mto r e g a r dasaprimitiveintuition. B yt h e s er e m a r k sw ehavegreatlyclearedthe w a yforoure x p l a n a t i o nof them a n n e rinw h i c h w o r d soriginated;---a nexplanationwhich is
In M it en Harper ,o.I k eF o r c eoft h eG r e e kT e n s e s . tS re r DerV rsprungderSpracite.Bellin o A L R e n a n ' s exposi tio na sgiven in hispreface,pp.Sl,sq.Heyse t 1 8 5 1 . W e s u t z l it up ino n es e n t e n c e ,"Mankannmithin ind e mWorte r c faches l oM s e lt y endrei o m e n tu n e r s c h e i d e n 1. dieL a u t f o r m; 2. daa iu a m . d a d r c h b e s e i e h n c t o p r a c h b e w u s a t s e i nliegendeAterkrualder f o l linS o w V orateNag; 3. denreinenBegriff,w e l c h e nderd e n k e n d eGeist inseinerE r h e b u n gO b e rc U iIndividuelleV o r s t e lu n g s w e i s ehildet,

tJi

41

ESSA YON'

p u r e l yp s y c h o l o g i c a l ,a n dw h i c hw a srstp r o m u l g a t e dinthiss h a p ebyM.Steintbal. M a nh a sthefacultyofinterpretation,orofu s i n g w o r d sforsigns,ascompletelyashehasthe facultiesofsighta n dhearing;andw o r d sarethe m e a n s h Pe m p l o y sfortheexerciseoftheformer faculty ,justa sthee y eandtheeararee m p l o y e d a stheo r g a n softhelatter. T h ep o w e rofs p e e c hd e p e n d so nthep o w e rof abstraction, i. e., oftransformingintuitionsinto i d e a s . Let u sexplain. At thesightof ah o r s e galloping,or of a plainwhitewithsnow ,the primitiveMITIformed, at rst,o n eundivided i m a g e; themotiona n dthehorse,theelda n d t h es n o w ,w e r eu n s e p a r a t e d .But,byl a n g u a g e ,the a c tofrunningw a sdistinguishedfromthecreaturethatran,a n dthecolourseparatedfromthe thingcoloured. Each of thesetwoelements b e c a m exed inanisolatedword,andsothe w o r d d i s m e m b e r e dthec o m p l e t eperception.But, f r o manotherpoint ofview,thewordismore e x t e n d e dthanthepresentation;e.g., theword "white"e x p r e s s e snotonlyanattributeofs n o w , b u tof all whiteobjects; its meaning,then,
u n dalsd a m nZ e i e b e nihmgleichfallsd a sW ortd i e n e nmuse H e y s ;Soon,E L ,160. Gamier ,Troiadofacultad e1'4m e .&pan,p.90.

tJi

lau ORIGIN OFLANGUAGE.

4 5

ism o r eabstractandindeterminatethanthatof "whitesnow ."Instead of onlye m b r a c i n gan e x i s t e n c e ,o ra nobjectina na c c i d e n t a lstate,aw o r d r e p r e s e n t sthethingwithoutitsaccidentalcha. racters,whicharer e m o v e dbyabstraction,and indicatesitu n d e rall thec i r c u m s t a n c e sinw h i c h itm a ybeplaced. T h etransformation,then, of intuitionsinto i d e a s ,bythef r e e d o mandactivityoftheh u m a n intelligence,constitutesthee s s e n c eof aword, a l t h o u g hthespeakermaybeasu n c o n s c i o u sof t h ep r o c e s sasheis oftheorganicm e c h a n i s m s w h i c hgiveutterancetohisthoughts. I. 'Asforthec o n d itio n su n d e rw h i c harticulate l a n g u a g ersta p p e a r e d ,M.Steinthalrepresents t h e masfollows. A t theoriginofhumanitythe B o l d a n dtheb o d yw e r einsuchmutuald e p e n d e n c ethatallthee m o t i o n s *ofthesoulhadtheir e c h ointhebody ,principallyintheo r g a n softhe respirationandthevoice. This sympathyof s o u la n dbody ,stillfoundin theinfantandthe s a v a g e ,w a sintimateandfruitfulintheprimitive m a n;eachintuitiona w o k einhimana c c e n tor
Motu*animi. In theorigin ofl a n g u a g e ,thes p o n t a n e o u s a w a k e n i n gof as e n s eof thepossibilityofe x p r e s s i n gt h o u g h tby S p e e c h , w a sinpointoffacts i m u l t : l u e o u Rwiththep r o d u c t i o nuf a nobjectiveL a n g u a g easthematerial inwhichthea w a k e n e d i n t e li g e n c ec o u l df u a de x p r e s s i o n .Heyse,a.47.

e m e n t s s o u sal

E l e m e n t ssousdroitsd'auteur