darwin and modern science-第159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！


esearch；　but　he　was　inspiring。　　Not　upon　him　but　upon　Franz　Bopp；　a　struggling　German　student　who　spent　some　time　in　Paris　and　London　a　dozen　years　later；　fell　the　mantle　of　Sir　William　Jones。　　In　Bopp's　Comparative　Grammar　of　the　Indo…Germanic　languages　which　appeared　in　1833；　three…　quarters　of　a　century　ago；　the　foundations　of　Comparative　Philology　were　laid。　　Since　that　day　the　literature　of　the　subject　has　grown　till　it　is　almost；　if　not　altogether；　beyond　the　power　of　any　single　man　to　cope　with　it。　　But　long　as　the　discourse　may　be；　it　is　but　the　elaboration　of　the　text　that　Sir　William　Jones　supplied。

With　the　publication　of　Bopp's　Comparative　Grammar　the　historical　study　of　language　was　put　upon　a　stable　footing。　　Needless　to　say　much　remained　to　be　done；　much　still　remains　to　be　done。　　More　than　once　there　has　been　danger　of　the　study　following　erroneous　paths。　　Its　terminology　and　its　point　of　view　have　in　some　degree　changed。　　But　nothing　can　shake　the　truth　of　the　statement　that　the　Indo…Germanic　languages　constitute　in　themselves　a　family　sprung　from　the　same　source；　marked　by　the　same　characteristics；　and　differentiated　from　all　other　languages　by　formation；　by　vocabulary；　and　by　syntax。　　The　historical　method　was　applied　to　language　long　before　it　reached　biology。　　Nearly　a　quarter　of　a　century　before　Charles　Darwin　was　born；　Sir　William　Jones　had　made　the　first　suggestion　of　a　comparative　study　of　languages。　　Bopp's　Comparative　Grammar　began　to　be　published　nine　years　before　the　first　draft　of　Darwin's　treatise　on　the　Origin　of　Species　was　put　on　paper　in　1842。

It　is　not　therefore　on　the　history　of　Comparative　Philology　in　general　that　the　ideas　of　Darwin　have　had　most　influence。　　Unfortunately；　as　Jowett　has　said　in　the　introduction　to　his　translation　of　Plato's　〃Republic〃；　most　men　live　in　a　corner。　　The　specialisation　of　knowledge　has　many　advantages；　but　it　has　also　disadvantages；　none　worse　perhaps　than　that　it　tends　to　narrow　the　specialist's　horizon　and　to　make　it　more　difficult　for　one　worker　to　follow　the　advances　that　are　being　made　by　workers　in　other　departments。　　No　longer　is　it　possible　as　in　earlier　days　for　an　intellectual　prophet　to　survey　from　a　Pisgah　height　all　the　Promised　Land。　And　the　case　of　linguistic　research　has　been　specially　hard。　　This　study　has；　if　the　metaphor　may　be　allowed；　a　very　extended　frontier。　　On　one　side　it　touches　the　domain　of　literature；　on　other　sides　it　is　conterminous　with　history；　with　ethnology　and　anthropology；　with　physiology　in　so　far　as　language　is　the　production　of　the　brain　and　tissues　of　a　living　being；　with　physics　in　questions　of　pitch　and　stress　accent；　with　mental　science　in　so　far　as　the　principles　of　similarity；　contrast；　and　contiguity　affect　the　forms　and　the　meanings　of　words　through　association　of　ideas。　　The　territory　of　linguistic　study　is　immense；　and　it　has　much　to　supply　which　might　be　useful　to　the　neighbours　who　border　on　that　territory。　　But　they　have　not　regarded　her　even　with　that　interest　which　is　called　benevolent　because　it　is　not　actively　maleficent。　　As　Horne　Tooke　remarked　a　century　ago；　Locke　had　found　a　whole　philosophy　in　language。　　What　have　the　philosophers　done　for　language　since？　　The　disciples　of　Kant　and　of　Wilhelm　von　Humboldt　supplied　her　plentifully　with　the　sour　grapes　of　metaphysics；　otherwise　her　neighbours　have　left　her　severely　alone　save　for　an　occasional　〃Ausflug；〃　on　which　it　was　clear　they　had　sadly　lost　their　bearings。　　Some　articles　in　Psychological　Journals；　Wundt's　great　work　on　〃Volkerpsychologie〃　（Erster　Band：　　〃Die　Sprache〃；　Leipzig；　1900。　　New　edition；　1904。　　This　work　has　been　fertile　in　producing　both　opponents　and　supporters。　　Delbruck；　〃Grundfragen　der　Sprachforschung〃；　Strassburg；　1901；　with　a　rejoinder　by　Wundt；　〃Sprachgeschichte〃　and　〃Sprachpsychologie〃；　Leipzig；　1901；　L。　Sutterlin；　〃Das　Wesen　der　Sprachgebilde〃；　Heidelberg；　1902；　von　Rozwadowski；　〃Wortbildung　und　Wortbedeutung〃；　Heidelberg；　1904；　O。　Dittrich；　〃Grundzuge　der　Sprachpsychologie〃；　Halle；　1904；　Ch。　A。　Sechehaye；　〃Programme　et　methodes　de　la　linguistique　theorique〃；　Paris；　1908。）；　and　Mauthner's　brilliantly　written　〃Beitrage　zu　einer　Kritik　der　Sprache〃　（In　three　parts：　　（i）　〃Sprache　und　Psychologie；　（ii）　〃Zur　Sprachwissenschaft〃；　both　Stuttgart　1901；　（iii）　〃Zur　Grammatic　und　Logik〃　（with　index　to　all　three　volumes）；　Stuttgart　and　Berlin；　1902。）　give　some　reason　to　hope　that；　on　one　side　at　least；　the　future　may　be　better　than　the　past。

Where　Charles　Darwin's　special　studies　came　in　contact　with　the　Science　of　Language　was　over　the　problem　of　the　origin　and　development　of　language。　　It　is　curious　to　observe　that；　where　so　many　fields　of　linguistic　research　have　still　to　be　reclaimedmany　as　yet　can　hardly　be　said　to　be　mapped　out；the　least　accessible　field　of　allthat　of　the　Origin　of　Language　has　never　wanted　assiduous　tillers。　　Unfortunately　it　is　a　field　beyond　most　others　where　it　may　be　said　that

〃Wilding　oats　and　luckless　darnel　grow。〃

If　Comparative　Philology　is　to　work　to　purpose　here；　it　must　be　on　results　derived　from　careful　study　of　individual　languages　and　groups　of　languages。　But　as　yet　the　group　which　Sir　William　Jones　first　mapped　out　and　which　Bopp　organised　is　the　only　one　where　much　has　been　achieved。　　Investigation　of　the　Semitic　group；　in　some　respects　of　no　less　moment　in　the　history　of　civilisation　and　religion；　where　perhaps　the　labour　of　comparison　is　not　so　difficult；　as　the　languages　differ　less　among　themselves；　has　for　some　reason　strangely　lagged　behind。　　Some　years　ago　in　the　〃American　Journal　of　Philology〃　Paul　Haupt　pointed　out　that　if　advance　was　to　be　made；　it　must　be　made　according　to　the　principles　which　had　guided　the　investigation　of　the　Indo…Germanic　languages　to　success；　and　at　last　a　Comparative　Grammar　of　an　elaborate　kind　is　in　progress　also　for　the　Semitic　languages。　　（Brockelmann；　〃Vergleichende　Grammatik　der　semitischen　Sprachen〃；　Berlin；　1907　ff。　　Brockelmann　and　Zimmern　had　earlier　produced　two　small　hand…　books。　　The　only　large　work　was　William　Wright's　〃Lectures　on　the　Comparative　Grammar　of　the　Semitic　Languages〃；　Cambridge；　1890。）　　For　the　great　group　which　includes　Finnish；　Hungarian；　Turkish　and　many　languages　of　northern　Asia；　a　beginning；　but　only　a　beginning　has　been　made。　　It　may　be　presumed　from　the　great　discoveries　which　are　in　progress　in　Turkestan　that　presently　much　more　will　be　achieved　in　this　field。　　But　for　a　certain　utterance　to　be　given　by　Comparative　Philology　on　the　question　of　the　origin　of　language　it　is　necessary　that　not　merely　for　these　languages　but　also　for　those　in　other　quarters　of　the　globe；　the　facts　should　be　collected；　sifted　and　tabulated。　　England　rules　an　empire　which　contains　a　greater　variety　of　languages　by　far　than　were　ever　held　under　one　sway　before。　　The　Government　of　India　is　engaged　in　producing；　under　the　editorship　of　Dr　Grierson；　a　linguistic　survey　of　India；　a　remarkable　undertaking　and；　so　far　as　it　has　gone；　a　remarkable　achievement。　　Is　it　too　much　to　ask　that；　with　the　support　of　the　self…governing　colonies；　a　similar　survey　should　be　undertaken　for　the　whole　of　the　British　Empire？

Notwithstanding　the　great　number　of　books　that　have　been　written　on　the　origin　of　language　in　the　last　three　and　twenty　centuries；　the　results　of　the　investigation　which　can　be　described　as　certain　are　very　meagre。　　The　question　originally　raised　was　whether　language　came　into　being　thesei　or　phusei；　by　convention　or　by　nature。　　The　first　alternative；　in　its　baldest　form　at　least；　has　passed　from　out　the　field　of　controversy。　　No　one　now　claims　that　names　were　given　to　living　things　or　objects　or　activities　by　formal　agreement　among　the　members　of　an　early　community；　or　that　the　first　father　of　mankind　passed　in　review　every　living　thing　and　gave　it　its　name。　Even　if　the　record　of　Adam's　action　were　to　be　taken　literally　there　would　still　remain　the　question；　whence　had　he　this　power？　　Did　he　develop　it　himself　or　was　it　a　miraculous　gift　with　which　he　was　endowed　at　his　creation？　　If　the　latter；　then　as　Wundt　says　（〃Volkerpsychologie〃；　I。　2；　page　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　w