按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
speech too is a kind of gesture； and in the child or savage accompanied
with gesture。 We may observe that the child learns to speak； as he learns
to walk or to eat； by a natural impulse； yet in either case not without a
power of imitation which is also natural to himhe is taught to read； but
he breaks forth spontaneously in speech。 We can trace the impulse to bind
together the world in ideas beginning in the first efforts to speak and
culminating in philosophy。 But there remains an element which cannot be
explained； or even adequately described。 We can understand how man creates
or constructs consciously and by design； and see； if we do not understand；
how nature； by a law； calls into being an organised structure。 But the
intermediate organism which stands between man and nature； which is the
work of mind yet unconscious； and in which mind and matter seem to meet；
and mind unperceived to herself is really limited by all other minds； is
neither understood nor seen by us； and is with reluctance admitted to be a
fact。
Language is an aspect of man； of nature； and of nations； the
transfiguration of the world in thought； the meeting…point of the physical
and mental sciences； and also the mirror in which they are reflected；
present at every moment to the individual； and yet having a sort of eternal
or universal nature。 When we analyze our own mental processes； we find
words everywhere in every degree of clearness and consistency； fading away
in dreams and more like pictures； rapidly succeeding one another in our
waking thoughts； attaining a greater distinctness and consecutiveness in
speech； and a greater still in writing； taking the place of one another
when we try to become emancipated from their influence。 For in all
processes of the mind which are conscious we are talking to ourselves； the
attempt to think without words is a mere illusion；they are always
reappearing when we fix our thoughts。 And speech is not a separate
faculty； but the expression of all our faculties； to which all our other
powers of expression； signs； looks； gestures； lend their aid； of which the
instrument is not the tongue only； but more than half the human frame。
The minds of men are sometimes carried on to think of their lives and of
their actions as links in a chain of causes and effects going back to the
beginning of time。 A few have seemed to lose the sense of their own
individuality in the universal cause or nature。 In like manner we might
think of the words which we daily use； as derived from the first speech of
man； and of all the languages in the world； as the expressions or varieties
of a single force or life of language of which the thoughts of men are the
accident。 Such a conception enables us to grasp the power and wonder of
languages； and is very natural to the scientific philologist。 For he； like
the metaphysician； believes in the reality of that which absorbs his own
mind。 Nor do we deny the enormous influence which language has exercised
over thought。 Fixed words； like fixed ideas； have often governed the
world。 But in such representations we attribute to language too much the
nature of a cause； and too little of an effect；too much of an absolute；
too little of a relative character；too much of an ideal； too little of a
matter…of…fact existence。
Or again； we may frame a single abstract notion of language of which all
existent languages may be supposed to be the perversion。 But we must not
conceive that this logical figment had ever a real existence； or is
anything more than an effort of the mind to give unity to infinitely
various phenomena。 There is no abstract language 'in rerum natura；' any
more than there is an abstract tree； but only languages in various stages
of growth； maturity； and decay。 Nor do other logical distinctions or even
grammatical exactly correspond to the facts of language； for they too are
attempts to give unity and regularity to a subject which is partly
irregular。
We find； however； that there are distinctions of another kind by which this
vast field of language admits of being mapped out。 There is the
distinction between biliteral and triliteral roots； and the various
inflexions which accompany them； between the mere mechanical cohesion of
sounds or words； and the 'chemical' combination of them into a new word；
there is the distinction between languages which have had a free and full
development of their organisms； and languages which have been stunted in
their growth；lamed in their hands or feet； and never able to acquire
afterwards the powers in which they are deficient； there is the distinction
between synthetical languages like Greek and Latin； which have retained
their inflexions； and analytical languages like English or French； which
have lost them。 Innumerable as are the languages and dialects of mankind；
there are comparatively few classes to which they can be referred。
Another road through this chaos is provided by the physiology of speech。
The organs of language are the same in all mankind； and are only capable of
uttering a certain number of sounds。 Every man has tongue； teeth； lips；
palate； throat； mouth； which he may close or open； and adapt in various
ways； making； first； vowels and consonants； and secondly； other classes of
letters。 The elements of all speech； like the elements of the musical
scale； are few and simple； though admitting of infinite gradations and
combinations。 Whatever slight differences exist in the use or formation of
these organs； owing to climate or the sense of euphony or other causes；
they are as nothing compared with their agreement。 Here then is a real
basis of unity in the study of philology； unlike that imaginary abstract
unity of which we were just now speaking。
Whether we regard language from the psychological； or historical； or
physiological point of view； the materials of our knowledge are
inexhaustible。 The comparisons of children learning to speak； of barbarous
nations； of musical notes； of the cries of animals； of the song of birds；
increase our insight into the nature of human speech。 Many observations
which would otherwise have escaped us are suggested by them。 But they do
not explain why； in man and in man only； the speaker met with a response
from the hearer； and the half articulate sound gradually developed into
Sanscrit and Greek。 They hardly enable us to approach any nearer the
secret of the origin of language； which； like some of the other great
secrets of nature；the origin of birth and death； or of animal life；
remains inviolable。 That problem is indissolubly bound up with the origin
of man； and if we ever know more of the one； we may expect to know more of
the other。 （Compare W。 Humboldt； 'Ueber die Verschiedenheit des
menschlichen Sprachbaues；' M。 Muller； 'Lectures on the Science of
Language；' Steinthal； 'Einleitung in die Psychologie und
Sprachwissenschaft。'
。。。
It is more than sixteen years since the preceding remarks were written；
which with a few alterations have now been reprinted。 During the interval
the progress of philology has been very great。 More languages have been
compared； the inner structure of language has been laid bare； the relations
of sounds have been more accurately discriminated； the manner in which
dialects affect or are affected by the literary or principal form of a
language is better understood。 Many merely verbal questions have been
eliminated； the remains of the old traditional methods have died away。 The
study has passed from the metaphysical into an historical stage。 Grammar
is no longer confused with language； nor the anatomy of words and sentences
with their life and use。 Figures of speech； by which the vagueness of
theories is often concealed； have been stripped off； and we see language
more as it truly was。 The immensity of the subject is gradually revealed
to us； and the reign of law becomes apparent。 Yet the law is but partially
seen； the traces of it are often lost in the distance。 For languages have
a natural but not a perfect growth； like other creations of nature into
which the will of man enters； they are full of what we term accident and
irregularity。 And the difficulties of the subject become not less； but
greater； as we proceedit is one of those studies in which we seem to know
less as we know more； partly because we are no longer satisfied with the
vague and superficial ideas of it which prevailed fifty years ago； partly
also because the remains of the languages with which we are acquainted
always were； and if they are still living； are； in a state of transition；
and thirdly； because there are lacunae in our knowledge of them which can
never be filled up。 Not a tenth； not a hundredth part of them has been
preserved。 Yet the materials at our disposal are far greater than any
individual can use。 Such are a few of the general reflections which the
present state of philology calls up