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