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！
men thought the gods to be the first essences of things； he would deem the
reflection to have been inspired and would consider that； whereas probably
every art and part of wisdom had been DISCOVERED AND LOST MANY TIMES OVER；
such notions were but a remnant of the past which has survived to our
day。'）
It can hardly be supposed that any traces of an original language still
survive； any more than of the first huts or buildings which were
constructed by man。 Nor are we at all certain of the relation； if any； in
which the greater families of languages stand to each other。 The influence
of individuals must always have been a disturbing element。 Like great
writers in later times； there may have been many a barbaric genius who
taught the men of his tribe to sing or speak； showing them by example how
to continue or divide their words； charming their souls with rhythm and
accent and intonation； finding in familiar objects the expression of their
confused fanciesto whom the whole of language might in truth be said to
be a figure of speech。 One person may have introduced a new custom into
the formation or pronunciation of a word； he may have been imitated by
others； and the custom； or form； or accent； or quantity； or rhyme which he
introduced in a single word may have become the type on which many other
words or inflexions of words were framed； and may have quickly ran through
a whole language。 For like the other gifts which nature has bestowed upon
man； that of speech has been conveyed to him through the medium； not of the
many； but of the few； who were his 'law…givers''the legislator with the
dialectician standing on his right hand；' in Plato's striking image； who
formed the manners of men and gave them customs； whose voice and look and
behaviour； whose gesticulations and other peculiarities were instinctively
imitated by them；the 'king of men' who was their priest； almost their
God。。。But these are conjectures only： so little do we know of the origin
of language that the real scholar is indisposed to touch the subject at
all。
（2） There are other errors besides the figment of a primitive or original
language which it is time to leave behind us。 We no longer divide
languages into synthetical and analytical； or suppose similarity of
structure to be the safe or only guide to the affinities of them。 We do
not confuse the parts of speech with the categories of Logic。 Nor do we
conceive languages any more than civilisations to be in a state of
dissolution； they do not easily pass away； but are far more tenacious of
life than the tribes by whom they are spoken。 'Where two or three are
gathered together；' they survive。 As in the human frame； as in the state；
there is a principle of renovation as well as of decay which is at work in
all of them。 Neither do we suppose them to be invented by the wit of man。
With few exceptions； e。g。 technical words or words newly imported from a
foreign language； and the like； in which art has imitated nature； 'words
are not made but grow。' Nor do we attribute to them a supernatural origin。
The law which regulates them is like the law which governs the circulation
of the blood； or the rising of the sap in trees； the action of it is
uniform； but the result； which appears in the superficial forms of men and
animals or in the leaves of trees； is an endless profusion and variety。
The laws of vegetation are invariable； but no two plants； no two leaves of
the forest are precisely the same。 The laws of language are invariable；
but no two languages are alike； no two words have exactly the same meaning。
No two sounds are exactly of the same quality； or give precisely the same
impression。
It would be well if there were a similar consensus about some other points
which appear to be still in dispute。 Is language conscious or unconscious？
In speaking or writing have we present to our minds the meaning or the
sound or the construction of the words which we are using？No more than
the separate drops of water with which we quench our thirst are present：
the whole draught may be conscious； but not the minute particles of which
it is made up： So the whole sentence may be conscious； but the several
words； syllables； letters are not thought of separately when we are
uttering them。 Like other natural operations； the process of speech； when
most perfect； is least observed by us。 We do not pause at each mouthful to
dwell upon the taste of it： nor has the speaker time to ask himself the
comparative merits of different modes of expression while he is uttering
them。 There are many things in the use of language which may be observed
from without； but which cannot be explained from within。 Consciousness
carries us but a little way in the investigation of the mind； it is not the
faculty of internal observation； but only the dim light which makes such
observation possible。 What is supposed to be our consciousness of language
is really only the analysis of it； and this analysis admits of innumerable
degrees。 But would it not be better if this term； which is so misleading；
and yet has played so great a part in mental science； were either banished
or used only with the distinct meaning of 'attention to our own minds；'
such as is called forth； not by familiar mental processes； but by the
interruption of them？ Now in this sense we may truly say that we are not
conscious of ordinary speech； though we are commonly roused to attention by
the misuse or mispronunciation of a word。 Still less； even in schools and
academies； do we ever attempt to invent new words or to alter the meaning
of old ones； except in the case； mentioned above； of technical or borrowed
words which are artificially made or imported because a need of them is
felt。 Neither in our own nor in any other age has the conscious effort of
reflection in man contributed in an appreciable degree to the formation of
language。 'Which of us by taking thought' can make new words or
constructions？ Reflection is the least of the causes by which language is
affected； and is likely to have the least power； when the linguistic
instinct is greatest； as in young children and in the infancy of nations。
A kindred error is the separation of the phonetic from the mental element
of language； they are really inseparableno definite line can be drawn
between them； any more than in any other common act of mind and body。 It
is true that within certain limits we possess the power of varying sounds
by opening and closing the mouth； by touching the palate or the teeth with
the tongue； by lengthening or shortening the vocal instrument； by greater
or less stress； by a higher or lower pitch of the voice； and we can
substitute one note or accent for another。 But behind the organs of speech
and their action there remains the informing mind； which sets them in
motion and works together with them。 And behind the great structure of
human speech and the lesser varieties of language which ari