darwin and modern science-第131章

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！


age　585。）；　〃the　miracle　of　language　is　subsumed　in　the　miracle　of　creation。〃　　If　Adam　developed　language　of　himself；　we　are　carried　over　to　the　alternative　origin　of　phusei。　　On　this　hypothesis　we　must　assume　that　the　natural　growth　which　modern　theories　of　development　regard　as　the　painful　progress　of　multitudinous　generations　was　contracted　into　the　experience　of　a　single　individual。

But　even　if　the　origin　of　language　is　admitted　to　be　NATURAL　there　may　still　be　much　variety　of　signification　attached　to　the　word：　　NATURE；　like　most　words　which　are　used　by　philosophers；　has　accumulated　many　meanings；　and　as　research　into　the　natural　world　proceeds；　is　accumulating　more。

Forty　years　ago　an　animated　controversy　raged　among　the　supporters　of　the　theories　which　were　named　for　short　the　bow…wow；　the　pooh…pooh　and　the　ding…dong　theories　of　the　origin　of　language。　　The　third；　which　was　the　least　tenacious　of　life；　was　made　known　to　the　English…speaking　world　by　the　late　Professor　Max　Muller　who；　however；　when　questioned；　repudiated　it　as　his　own　belief。　　（〃Science　of　Thought〃；　London；　1887；　page　211。）　　It　was　taken　by　him　from　Heyse's　lectures　on　language　which　were　published　posthumously　by　Steinthal。　　Put　shortly　the　theory　is　that　〃everything　which　is　struck；　rings。　　Each　substance　has　its　peculiar　ring。　　We　can　tell　the　more　or　less　perfect　structure　of　metals　by　their　vibrations；　by　the　answer　which　they　give。　　Gold　rings　differently　from　tin；　wood　rings　differently　from　stone；　and　different　sounds　are　produced　according　to　the　nature　of　each　percussion。　　It　may　be　the　same　with　man；　the　most　highly　organised　of　nature's　work。〃　　（Max　Muller　as　above；　translating　from　Heyse。）　　Max　Muller's　repudiation　of　this　theory　was；　however；　not　very　whole…hearted　for　he　proceeds　later　in　the　same　argument：　　〃Heyse's　theory；　which　I　neither　adopted　nor　rejected；　but　which；　as　will　be　seen；　is　by　no　means　incompatible　with　that　which　for　many　years　has　been　gaining　on　me；　and　which　of　late　has　been　so　clearly　formulated　by　Professor　Noire；　has　been　assailed　with　ridicule　and　torn　to　pieces；　often　by　persons　who　did　not　even　suspect　how　much　truth　was　hidden　behind　its　paradoxical　appearance。　　We　are　still　very　far　from　being　able　to　identify　roots　with　nervous　vibrations；　but　if　it　should　appear　hereafter　that　sensuous　vibrations　supply　at　least　the　raw　material　of　roots；　it　is　quite　possible　that　the　theory；　proposed　by　Oken　and　Heyse；　will　retain　its　place　in　the　history　of　the　various　attempts　at　solving　the　problem　of　the　origin　of　language；　when　other　theories；　which　in　our　own　days　were　received　with　popular　applause；　will　be　completely　forgotten。〃　　（〃Science　of　Thought〃；　page　212。）

Like　a　good　deal　else　that　has　been　written　on　the　origin　of　language；　this　statement　perhaps　is　not　likely　to　be　altogether　clear　to　the　plain　man；　who　may　feel　that　even　the　〃raw　material　of　roots〃　is　some　distance　removed　from　nervous　vibrations；　though　obviously　without　the　existence　of　afferent　and　efferent　nerves　articulate　speech　would　be　impossible。　　But　Heyse's　theory　undoubtedly　was　that　every　thought　or　idea　which　occurred　to　the　mind　of　man　for　the　first　time　had　its　own　special　phonetic　expression；　and　that　this　responsive　faculty；　when　its　object　was　thus　fulfilled；　became　extinct。　　Apart　from　the　philosophical　question　whether　the　mind　acts　without　external　stimulus；　into　which　it　is　not　necessary　to　enter　here；　it　is　clear　that　this　theory　can　neither　be　proved　nor　disproved；　because　it　postulates　that　this　faculty　existed　only　when　language　first　began；　and　later　altogether　disappeared。　　As　we　have　already　seen；　it　is　impossible　for　us　to　know　what　happened　at　the　first　beginnings　of　language；　because　we　have　no　information　from　any　period　even　approximately　so　remote；　nor　are　we　likely　to　attain　it。　　Even　in　their　earliest　stages　the　great　families　of　language　which　possess　a　history　extending　over　many　centuries　the　Indo…Germanic　and　the　Semitichave　very　little　in　common。　　With　the　exception　of　Chinese；　the　languages　which　are　apparently　of　a　simpler　or　more　primitive　formation　have　either　a　history　which；　compared　with　that　of　the　families　mentioned；　is　very　short；　or；　as　in　the　case　of　the　vast　majority；　have　no　history　beyond　the　time　extending　only　over　a　few　years　or；　at　most；　a　few　centuries　when　they　have　been　observed　by　competent　scholars　of　European　origin。　　But；　if　we　may　judge　by　the　history　of　geology　and　other　studies；　it　is　well　to　be　cautious　in　assuming　for　the　first　stages　of　development　forces　which　do　not　operate　in　the　later；　unless　we　have　direct　evidence　of　their　existence。

It　is　unnecessary　here　to　enter　into　a　prolonged　discussion　of　the　other　views　christened　by　Max　Muller；　not　without　energetic　protest　from　their　supporters；　the　bow…wow　and　pooh…pooh　theories　of　language。　　Suffice　it　to　say　that　the　former　recognises　as　a　source　of　language　the　imitation　of　the　sounds　made　by　animals；　the　fall　of　bodies　into　water　or　on　to　solid　substances　and　the　like；　while　the　latter；　also　called　the　interjectional　theory；　looks　to　the　natural　ejaculations　produced　by　particular　forms　of　effort　for　the　first　beginnings　of　speech。　　It　would　be　futile　to　deny　that　some　words　in　most　languages　come　from　imitation；　and　that　others；　probably　fewer　in　number；　can　be　traced　to　ejaculations。　　But　if　either　of　these　sources　alone　or　both　in　combination　gave　rise　to　primitive　speech；　it　clearly　must　have　been　a　simple　form　of　language　and　very　limited　in　amount。　　There　is　no　reason　to　think　that　it　was　otherwise。　　Presumably　in　its　earliest　stages　language　only　indicated　the　most　elementary　ideas；　demands　for　food　or　the　gratification　of　other　appetites；　indications　of　danger；　useful　animals　and　plants。　　Some　of　these；　such　as　animals　or　indications　of　danger；　could　often　be　easily　represented　by　imitative　sounds：　　the　need　for　food　and　the　like　could　be　indicated　by　gesture　and　natural　cries。　　Both　sources　are　verae　causae；　to　them　Noire；　supported　by　Max　Muller；　has　added　another　which　has　sometimes　been　called　the　Yo…heave…　ho　theory。　　Noire　contends　that　the　real　crux　in　the　early　stages　of　language　is　for　primitive　man　to　make　other　primitive　men　understand　what　he　means。　　The　vocal　signs　which　commend　themselves　to　one　may　not　have　occurred　to　another；　and　may　therefore　be　unintelligible。　　It　may　be　admitted　that　this　difficulty　exists；　but　it　is　not　insuperable。　　The　old　story　of　the　European　in　China　who；　sitting　down　to　a　meal　and　being　doubtful　what　the　meat　in　the　dish　might　be；　addressed　an　interrogative　Quack…quack？　to　the　waiter　and　was　promptly　answered　by　Bow…wow；　illustrates　a　simple　situation　where　mutual　understanding　was　easy。　　But　obviously　many　situations　would　be　more　complex　than　this；　and　to　grapple　with　them　Noire　has　introduced　his　theory　of　communal　action。　　〃It　was　common　effort　directed　to　a　common　object；　it　was　the　most　primitive　（uralteste）　labour　of　our　ancestors；　from　which　sprang　language　and　the　life　of　reason。〃　　（Noire　〃Der　Ursprung　der　Sprache〃；　page　331；　Mainz；　1877。）　　As　illustrations　of　such　common　effort　he　cites　battle　cries；　the　rescue　of　a　ship　running　on　shore　（a　situation　not　likely　to　occur　very　early　in　the　history　of　man）；　and　others。　　Like　Max　Muller　he　holds　that　language　is　the　utterance　and　the　organ　of　thought　for　mankind；　the　one　characteristic　which　separates　man　from　the　brute。　　〃In　common　action　the　word　was　first　produced；　for　long　it　was　inseparably　connected　with　action；　through　long…continued　connection　it　gradually　became　the　firm；　intelligible　symbol　of　action；　and　then　in　its　development　indicated　also　things　of　the　external　world　in　so　far　as　the　action　affected　them　and　finally　the　sound　began　to　enter　into　a　connexion　with　them　also。〃　　（Op。　cit。　page　339。）　　In　so　far　as　this　theory　recognises　language　as　a　social　institution　it　is　undoubtedly　correct。　　Darwin　some　years　before　Noire　had　pointed　to　the　same　social　origin　of　language　in　the　fourth　chapter　of　his　work　on　〃The　Expression　of　the　Emotions　in　Man　and　Animals〃。　　〃Naturalists　have　remarked；　I　believe　with　truth；　that　social　animals；　from　habitually　using　their　vocal　organs　as　a　means　of　intercommunication；　use　them　on　other　occasions　much　more　freely　than　other　animals。。。The　principle；　also；　of　association；　which　is　so　widely　extended　in　its　power；　has　likewise　played　its　part。　　Hence　it　allows　that　the　voice；　from　having　been　employed　as　a　serviceable　aid　under　certain　conditions；　inducing　pleasure；　pain；　rage；　etc。；　is　commonly　used　whenever　the　same　sensations　or　emotions　are　excited；　under　quite　different　conditions；　or　in　a　lesser　degree。〃　　（〃The　Expression　of　the　Emotions〃；　page　84　（Popular　Edition；　1904）。

Darwin's　own　views　on　language　which　are　set　forth　most　fully　in　〃The　Descent　of　Man〃　（page　131　ff。　（Popular　Edition；　1906）。）　are　characterised　by　great　modesty　and　caution。　　He　did　not　profess　to　be　a　philologist　and　the　facts　are　naturally　taken　from　the　best　known　works　of　the　day　（1871）。　In　the　notes　added　to　the　second　edition　he　remarks　on　Max　Muller's　denial　of　thought　without　words；　〃what　a　strange　definition　must　here　be　given　to　the　word　thought！〃　　（Op。　cit。　page　135；　footnote　63。）　　He　naturally　finds　the　origin　of　language　in　〃the　imitation　and　modification　of　various　natural　sounds；　the　voices　of　other　animals；　and　man's　own　instinctive　cries　aided　by　signs　and　gestures　（op。　cit。　page　132。）。。。As　the　voice　was　used　more　and　more；　the　vocal　organs　would　have　been　strengthened　and　perfected　through　the　principle　of　the　inherited　effects　of　use；　and　this　would　have　reacted　on　the　power　of　speech。〃　　（Op。　cit。　page　133。）　　On　man's　own　instinctive　cries；　he　has　more　to　say　in　〃The　Expression　of　the　Emotions〃。　　（Page　93　（Popular　Edition；　1904）　and　elsewhere。）　　These　remarks　have　been　utilised　by　Prof。　Jespersen　of　Copenhagen　in　propounding　an　ingenious　theory　of　his　own　to　the　effect　that　speech　develops　out　of　singing。　　（〃Progress　in　Language〃；　page　361；　London；　1894。）

For　many　years　and　in　many　books　Max　Muller　argued　against　Darwin's　views　on　evolution　on　the　one　ground　that　thought　is　impossible　without　speech；　consequently　as　speech　is　confined　to　the　human　race；　there　is　a　gulf　which　cannot　be　bridged　between　man　and　all　other　creatures。　　（Some　interesting　comments　on　the　theory　will　be　found　in　a　lecture　on　〃Thought　and　Language〃　in　Samuel　Butler's　〃Essays　on　Life；　Art　and　Science〃；　London；　1908。）　　On　the　title…page　of　his　〃Science　of　Thought〃　he　put　the　two　sentences　〃No　Reason　without　Language：　　No　Language　without　Reason。〃　　It　may　be　readily　admitted　that　the　second　dictum　is　true；　that　no　language　properly　so…　called　can　exist　without　reason。　　Various　birds　can　learn　to　repeat　words　or　sentences　used　by　their　masters　or　mistresses。　　In　most　cases　probably　the　birds　do　not　attach　their　proper　meaning　to　the　words　they　have　learnt；　they　repeat　them　in　season　and　out　of　season；　sometimes　apparently　for　their　own　amusement；　generally　in　the　expectation；　raised　by　past　experience；　of　being　rewarded　for　their　proficiency。　　But　even　here　it　is　difficult　to　prove　a　universal　negative；　and　most　possessors　of　such　pets　would　repudiate　indignantly　the　statement　that　the　bird　did　not　understand　what