cratylus-第14节

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！


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　arise　out　of　the

many　degrees　and　kinds　of　human　intercourse；　there　is　also　the　unknown　or

over…ruling　law　of　God　or　nature　which　gives　order　to　it　in　its　infinite

greatness；　and　variety　in　its　infinitesimal　minutenessboth　equally

inscrutable　to　us。　　We　need　no　longer　discuss　whether　philology　is　to　be

classed　with　the　Natural　or　the　Mental　sciences；　if　we　frankly　recognize

that；　like　all　the　sciences　which　are　concerned　with　man；　it　has　a　double

aspect；inward　and　outward；　and　that　the　inward　can　only　be　known　through

the　outward。　　Neither　need　we　raise　the　question　whether　the　laws　of

language；　like　the　other　laws　of　human　action；　admit　of　exceptions。　　The

answer　in　all　cases　is　the　samethat　the　laws　of　nature　are　uniform；

though　the　consistency　or　continuity　of　them　is　not　always　perceptible　to

us。　　The　superficial　appearances　of　language；　as　of　nature；　are　irregular；

but　we　do　not　therefore　deny　their　deeper　uniformity。　　The　comparison　of

the　growth　of　language　in　the　individual　and　in　the　nation　cannot　be　wholly

discarded；　for　nations　are　made　up　of　individuals。　　But　in　this；　as　in　the

other　political　sciences；　we　must　distinguish　between　collective　and

individual　actions　or　processes；　and　not　attribute　to　the　one　what　belongs

to　the　other。　　Again；　when　we　speak　of　the　hereditary　or　paternity　of　a

language；　we　must　remember　that　the　parents　are　alive　as　well　as　the

children；　and　that　all　the　preceding　generations　survive　（after　a　manner）

in　the　latest　form　of　it。　　And　when；　for　the　purposes　of　comparison；　we

form　into　groups　the　roots　or　terminations　of　words；　we　should　not　forget

how　casual　is　the　manner　in　which　their　resemblances　have　arisenthey　were

not　first　written　down　by　a　grammarian　in　the　paradigms　of　a　grammar　and

learned　out　of　a　book；　but　were　due　to　many　chance　attractions　of　sound　or

of　meaning；　or　of　both　combined。　　So　many　cautions　have　to　be　borne　in

mind；　and　so　many　first　thoughts　to　be　dismissed；　before　we　can　proceed

safely　in　the　path　of　philological　enquiry。　　It　might　be　well　sometimes　to

lay　aside　figures　of　speech；　such　as　the　'root'　and　the　'branches；'　the

'stem；'　the　'strata'　of　Geology；　the　'compounds'　of　Chemistry；　'the　ripe

fruit　of　pronouns　dropping　from　verbs'　（see　above）；　and　the　like；　which　are

always　interesting；　but　are　apt　to　be　delusive。　　Yet　such　figures　of　speech

are　far　nearer　the　truth　than　the　theories　which　attribute　the　invention

and　improvement　of　language　to　the　conscious　action　of　the　human

mind。。。Lastly；　it　is　doubted　by　recent　philologians　whether　climate　can　be

supposed　to　have　exercised　any　influence　worth　speaking　of　on　a　language：　

such　a　view　is　said　to　be　unproven：　　it　had　better　therefore　not　be

silently　assumed。



'Natural　selection'　and　the　'survival　of　the　fittest'　have　been　applied　in

the　field　of　philology；　as　well　as　in　the　other　sciences　which　are

concerned　with　animal　and　vegetable　life。　　And　a　Darwinian　school　of

philologists　has　sprung　up；　who　are　sometimes　accused　of　putting　words　in

the　place　of　things。　　It　seems　to　be　true；　that　whether　applied　to　language

or　to　other　branches　of　knowledge；　the　Darwinian　theory；　unless　very

precisely　defined；　hardly　escapes　from　being　a　truism。　　If　by　'the　natural

selection'　of　words　or　meanings　of　words　or　by　the　'persistence　and

survival　of　the　fittest'　the　maintainer　of　the　theory　intends　to　affirm

nothing　more　than　thisthat　the　word　'fittest　to　survive'　survives；　he

adds　not　much　to　the　knowledge　of　language。　　But　if　he　means　that　the　word

or　the　meaning　of　the　word　or　some　portion　of　the　word　which　comes　into　use

or　drops　out　of　use　is　selected　or　rejected　on　the　ground　of　economy　or

parsimony　or　ease　to　the　speaker　or　clearness　or　euphony　or　expressiveness；

or　greater　or　less　demand　for　it；　or　anything　of　this　sort；　he　is　affirming

a　proposition　which　has　several　senses；　and　in　none　of　these　senses　can　be

assisted　to　be　uniformly　true。　　For　the　laws　of　language　are　precarious；

and　can　only　act　uniformly　when　there　is　such　frequency　of　intercourse

among　neighbours　as　is　sufficient　to　enforce　them。　　And　there　are　many

reasons　why　a　man　should　prefer　his　own　way　of　speaking　to　that　of　others；

unless　by　so　doing　he　becomes　unintelligible。　　The　struggle　for　existence

among　words　is　not　of　that　fierce　and　irresistible　kind　in　which　birds；

beasts　and　fishes　devour　one　another；　but　of　a　milder　sort；　allowing　one

usage　to　be　substituted　for　another；　not　by　force；　but　by　the　persuasion；

or　rather　by　the　prevailing　habit；　of　a　majority。　　The　favourite　figure；　in

this；　as　in　some　other　uses　of　it；　has　tended　rather　to　obscure　than

explain　the　subject　to　which　it　has　been　applied。　　Nor　in　any　case　can　the

struggle　for　existence　be　deemed　to　be　the　sole　or　principal　cause　of

changes　in　language；　but　only　one　among　many；　and　one　of　which　we　cannot

easily　measure　the　importance。　　There　is　a　further　objection　which　may　be

urged　equally　against　all　applications　of　the　Darwinian　theory。　　As　in

animal　life　and　likewise　in　vegetable；　so　in　languages；　the　process　of

change　is　said　to　be　insensible：　　sounds；　like　animals；　are　supposed　to

pass　into　one　another　by　imperceptible　gradation。　　But　in　both　cases　the

newly…created　forms　soon　become　fixed；　there　are　few　if　any　vestiges　of　the

intermediate　links；　and　so　the　better　half　of　the　evidence　of　the　change　is

wanting。



（3）　　Among　the　incumbrances　or　illusions　of　language　may　be　reckoned　many

of　the　rules　and　traditions　of　grammar；　whether　ancient　grammar　or　the

corrections　of　it　which　modern　philology　has　introduced。　　Grammar；　like

law；　delights　in　definition：　　human　speech；　like　human　action；　though　very

far　from　being　a　mere　chaos；　is　indefinite；　admits　of　degrees；　and　is

always　in　a　state　of　change　or　transition。　　Grammar　gives　an　erroneous

conception　of　language：　　for　it　reduces　to　a　system　that　which　is　not　a

system。　　Its　figures　of　speech；　pleonasms；　ellipses；　anacolutha；　pros　to

semainomenon；　and　the　like　have　no　reality；　they　do　not　either　make

conscious　expressions　more　intelligible　or　show　the　way　in　which　they　have

arisen；　they　are　chiefly　designed　to　bring　an　earlier　use　of　language　into

conformity　with　the　later。　　Often　they　seem　intended　only　to　remind　us　that

great　poets　like　Aeschylus　or　Sophocles　or　Pindar　or　a　great　prose　writer

like　Thucydides　are　guilty　of　taking　unwarrantable　liberties　with

grammatical　rules；　it　appears　never　to　have　occurred　to　the　inventors　of

them　that　these　real　'conditores　linguae　Graecae'　lived　in　an　age　before

grammar；　when　'Greece　also　was　living　Greece。'　　It　is　the　anatomy；　not　the

physiology　of　language；　which　grammar　seeks　to　describe：　　into　the　idiom

and　higher　life　of　words　it　does　not　enter。　　The　ordinary　Greek　grammar

gives　a　complete　paradigm　of　the　verb；　without　suggesting　that　the　double

or　treble　forms　of