darwin and modern science-第161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！


le　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　was　said　to　it；　and　would　also　contend　that　in　many　cases　the　words　which　it　used　were　employed　in　their　ordinary　meaning。　　The　first　dictum　seems　to　be　inconsistent　with　fact。　　The　case　of　deaf　mutes；　such　as　Laura　Bridgeman；　who　became　well　educated；　or　the　still　more　extraordinary　case　of　Helen　Keller；　deaf；　dumb；　and　blind；　who　in　spite　of　these　disadvantages　has　learnt　not　only　to　reason　but　to　reason　better　than　the　average　of　persons　possessed　of　all　their　senses；　goes　to　show　that　language　and　reason　are　not　necessarily　always　in　combination。　　Reason　is　but　the　conscious　adaptation　of　means　to　ends；　and　so　defined　is　a　faculty　which　cannot　be　denied　to　many　of　the　lower　animals。　　In　these　days　when　so　many　books　on　Animal　Intelligence　are　issued　from　the　press；　it　seems　unnecessary　to　labour　the　point。　　Yet　none　of　these　animals；　except　by　parrot…imitation；　makes　use　of　speech；　because　man　alone　possesses　in　a　sufficient　degree　of　development　the　centres　of　nervous　energy　which　are　required　for　the　working　of　articulation　in　speech。　　On　this　subject　much　investigation　was　carried　on　during　the　last　years　of　Darwin's　life　and　much　more　in　the　period　since　his　death。　　As　early　as　1861　Broca；　following　up　observations　made　by　earlier　French　writers；　located　the　centre　of　articulate　speech　in　the　third　left　frontal　convolution　of　the　brain。　　In　1876　he　more　definitely　fixed　the　organ　of　speech　in　〃the　posterior　two…　fifths　of　the　third　frontal　convolution〃　（Macnamara；　〃Human　Speech〃；　page　197；　London；　1908。）；　both　sides　and　not　merely　the　left　being　concerned　in　speech　production。　　Owing　however　to　the　greater　use　by　most　human　beings　of　the　right　side　of　the　body；　the　left　side　of　the　brain；　which　is　the　motor　centre　for　the　right　side　of　the　body；　is　more　highly　developed　than　its　right　side；　which　moves　the　left　side　of　the　body。　　The　investigations　of　Professors　Ferrier；　Sherrington　and　Grunbaum　have　still　more　precisely　defined　the　relations　between　brain　areas　and　certain　groups　of　muscles。　　One　form　of　aphasia　is　the　result　of　injury　to　or　disease　in　the　third　frontal　convolution　because　the　motor　centre　is　no　longer　equal　to　the　task　of　setting　the　necessary　muscles　in　motion。　　In　the　brain　of　idiots　who　are　unable　to　speak；　the　centre　for　speech　is　not　developed。　　（Op。　cit。　page　226。）　　In　the　anthropoid　apes　the　brain　is　similarly　defective；　though　it　has　been　demonstrated　by　Professors　Cunningham　and　Marchand　〃that　there　is　a　tendency；　especially　in　the　gorilla's　brain；　for　the　third　frontal　convolution　to　assume　the　human　form。。。But　if　they　possessed　a　centre　for　speech；　those　parts　of　the　hemispheres　of　their　brains　which　form　the　mechanism　by　which　intelligence　is　elaborated　are　so　ill…developed；　as　compared　with　the　rest　of　their　bodies；　that　we　can　not　conceive；　even　with　more　perfect　frontal　convolutions；　that　these　animals　could　formulate　ideas　expressible　in　intelligent　speech。〃　　（Op。　cit。　page　223。）

While　Max　Muller's　theory　is　Shelley's

〃He　gave　man　speech；　and　speech　created　thought；　Which　is　the　measure　of　the　universe〃　（〃Prometheus　Unbound〃　II。　4。）；

it　seems　more　probable　that　the　development　was　just　the　oppositethat　the　development　of　new　activities　originated　new　thoughts　which　required　new　symbols　to　express　them；　symbols　which　may　at　first　have　been；　even　to　a　greater　extent　than　with　some　of　the　lower　races　at　present；　sign　language　as　much　as　articulation。　　When　once　the　faculty　of　articulation　was　developed；　which；　though　we　cannot　trace　the　process；　was　probably　a　very　gradual　growth；　there　is　no　reason　to　suppose　that　words　developed　in　any　other　way　then　they　do　at　present。　　An　erroneous　notion　of　the　development　of　language　has　become　widely　spread　through　the　adoption　of　the　metaphorical　term　〃roots〃　for　the　irreducible　elements　of　human　speech。　　Men　never　talked　in　roots；　they　talked　in　words。　　Many　words　of　kindred　meaning　have　a　part　in　common；　and　a　root　is　nothing　but　that　common　part　stripped　of　all　additions。　　In　some　cases　it　is　obvious　that　one　word　is　derived　from　another　by　the　addition　of　a　fresh　element；　in　other　cases　it　is　impossible　to　say　which　of　two　kindred　words　is　the　more　primitive。　　A　root　is　merely　a　convenient　term　for　an　abstraction。　　The　simplest　word　may　be　called　a　root；　but　it　is　nevertheless　a　word。　　How　are　new　words　added　to　a　language　in　the　present　day？　　Some　communities；　like　the　Germans；　prefer　to　construct　new　words　for　new　ideas　out　of　the　old　material　existing　in　the　language；　others；　like　the　English；　prefer　to　go　to　the　ancient　languages　of　Greece　and　Rome　for　terms　to　express　new　ideas。　　The　same　chemical　element　is　described　in　the　two　languages　as　sour　stuff　（Sauerstoff）　and　as　oxygen。　　Both　terms　mean　the　same　thing　etymologically　as　well　as　in　fact。　　On　behalf　of　the　German　method；　it　may　be　contended　that　the　new　idea　is　more　closely　attached　to　already　existing　ideas；　by　being　expressed　in　elements　of　the　language　which　are　intelligible　even　to　the　meanest　capacity。　　For　the　English　practice　it　may　be　argued　that；　if　we　coin　a　new　word　which　means　one　thing；　and　one　thing　only；　the　idea　which　it　expresses　is　more　clearly　defined　than　if　it　were　expressed　in　popularly　intelligible　elements　like　〃sour　stuff。〃　　If　the　etymological　value　of　words　were　always　present　in　the　minds　of　their　users；　〃oxygen〃　would　undoubtedly　have　an　advantage　over　〃sour　stuff〃　as　a　technical　term。　　But　the　tendency　in　language　is　to　put　two　words　of　this　kind　which　express　but　one　idea　under　a　single　accent；　and　when　this　has　taken　place；　no　one　but　the　student　of　language　any　longer　observes　what　the　elements　really　mean。　　When　the　ordinary　man　talks　of　a　〃blackbird〃　it　is　certainly　not　present　to　his　consciousness　that　he　is　talking　of　a　black　bird；　unless　for　some　reason　conversation　has　been　dwelling　upon　the　colour　rather　than　other　characteristics　of　the　species。

But；　it　may　be　said；　words　like　〃oxygen〃　are　introduced　by　learned　men；　and　do　not　represent　the　action　of　the　man　in　the　street；　who；　after　all；　is　the　author　of　most　additions　to　the　stock　of　human　language。　　We　may　go　back　therefore　some　four　centuries　to　a　period；　when　scientific　study　was　only　in　its　infancy；　and　see　what　process　was　followed。　　With　the　discovery　of　America　new　products　never　seen　before　reached　Europe；　and　these　required　names。　　Three　of　the　most　characteristic　were　tobacco；　the　potato；　and　the　turkey。　　How　did　these　come　to　be　so　named？　　The　first　people　to　import　these　products　into　Europe　were　naturally　the　Spanish　discoverers。　　The　first　of　these　wordstobaccoappears　in　forms　which　differ　only　slightly　in　the　languages　of　all　civilised　countries：　　Spanish　tabaco；　Italian　tabacco；　French　tabac；　Dutch　and　German　tabak；　Swedish　tobak；　etc。　　The　word　in　the　native　dialect　of　Hayti　is　said　to　have　been　tabaco；　but　to　have　meant　not　the　plant　（According　to　William　Barclay；　〃Nepenthes；　or　the　Virtue　of　Tobacco〃；　Edinburgh；　1614；　〃the　countrey　which　God　hath　honoured　and　blessed　with　this　happie　and　holy　herbe　doth　call　it　in　their　native　language　'Petum'。〃）　but　the　pipe　in　which　it　was　smoked。　　It　thus　illustrates　a　frequent　feature　of　borrowingthat　the　word　is　not　borrowed　in　its　proper　signification；　but　in　some　sense　closely　allied　thereto；　which　a　foreigner；　understanding　the　language　with　difficulty；　might　readily　mistake　for　the　real　meaning。　　Thus　the　Hindu　practice　of　burning　a　wife　upon　the　funeral　pyre　of　her　husband　is　called　in　English　〃suttee〃；　this　word　being　in　fact　but　the　phonetic　spelling　of　the　Sanskrit　〃sati〃；　〃a　virtuous　woman；〃　and　passing　into　its　English　meaning　because　formerly　the　practice　of　self…immolation　by　a　wife　was　regarded　as　the　highest　virtue。

The　name　of　the　potato　exhibits　greater　variety。　　The　English　name　was　borrowed　from　the　Spanish　〃patata〃；　which　was　itself　borrowed　from　a　native　word　for　the　〃yam〃　in　the　dialect　of　Hayti。　　The　potato　appeared　early　in　Italy；　for　the　mariners　of　Genoa　actively　followed　the　footsteps　of　their　countryman　Columbus　in　exploring　America。　　In　Italian　generally　the　form　〃patata〃　has　survived。　　The　tubers；