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！
spoken in articulate words and sentences。 He also denies that we
can think at all unless we do so in words； that is to say； in
sentences with verbs and nouns。 Indeed he goes so far as to say
upon his title…page that there can be no reasonwhich I imagine
comes to much the same thing as thoughtwithout language； and no
language without reason。
Against the assertion that there can be no true language without
reason I have nothing to say。 But when the Professor says that
there can be no reason； or thought； without language； his opponents
contend； as it seems to me； with greater force； that thought； though
infinitely aided； extended and rendered definite through the
invention of words； nevertheless existed so fully as to deserve no
other name thousands； if not millions of years before words had
entered into it at all。 Words； they say； are a comparatively recent
invention； for the fuller expression of something that was already
in existence。
Children； they urge； are often evidently thinking and reasoning；
though they can neither think nor speak in words。 If you ask me to
define reason； I answer as before that this can no more be done than
thought； truth or motion can be defined。 Who has answered the
question； 〃What is truth？〃 Man cannot see God and live。 We cannot
go so far back upon ourselves as to undermine our own foundations；
if we try to do we topple over； and lose that very reason about
which we vainly try to reason。 If we let the foundations be； we
know well enough that they are there； and we can build upon them in
all security。 We cannot； then； define reason nor crib； cabin and
confine it within a thus…far…shalt…thou…go…and…no…further。 Who can
define heat or cold； or night or day？ Yet； so long as we hold fast
by current consent； our chances of error for want of better
definition are so small that no sensible person will consider them。
In like manner； if we hold by current consent or common sense； which
is the same thing； about reason； we shall not find the want of an
academic definition hinder us from a reasonable conclusion。 What
nurse or mother will doubt that her infant child can reason within
the limits of its own experience； long before it can formulate its
reason in articulately worded thought？ If the development of any
given animal is； as our opponents themselves admit； an epitome of
the history of its whole anterior development； surely the fact that
speech is an accomplishment acquired after birth so artificially
that children who have gone wild in the woods lose it if they have
ever learned it； points to the conclusion that man's ancestors only
learned to express themselves in articulate language at a
comparatively recent period。 Granted that they learn to think and
reason continually the more and more fully for having done so； will
common sense permit us to suppose that they could neither think nor
reason at all till they could convey their ideas in words？
I will return later to the reason of the lower animals； but will now
deal with the question what it is that constitutes language in the
most comprehensive sense that can be properly attached to it。 I
have said already that language to be language at all must not only
convey fairly definite coherent ideas； but must also convey them to
another living being。 Whenever two living beings have conveyed and
received ideas； there has been language； whether looks or gestures
or words spoken or written have been the vehicle by means of which
the ideas have travelled。 Some ideas crawl； some run； some fly； and
in this case words are the wings they fly with； but they are only
the wings of thought or of ideas； they are not the thought or ideas
themselves； nor yet； as Professor Max Muller would have it；
inseparably connected with them。 Last summer I was at an inn in
Sicily； where there was a deaf and dumb waiter； he had been born so；
and could neither write nor read。 What had he to do with words or
words with him？ Are we to say； then； that this most active； amiable
and intelligent fellow could neither think nor reason？ One day I
had had my dinner and had left the hotel。 A friend came in； and the
waiter saw him look for me in the place I generally occupied。 He
instantly came up to my friend； and moved his two forefingers in a
way that suggested two people going about together； this meant 〃your
friend〃； he then moved his forefingers horizontally across his eyes；
this meant； 〃who wears divided spectacles〃； he made two fierce marks
over the sockets of his eyes； this meant； 〃with the heavy eyebrows〃；
he pulled his chin； and then touched his white shirt； to say that my
beard was white。 Having thus identified me as a friend of the
person he was speaking to； and as having a white beard； heavy
eyebrows； and wearing divided spectacles； he made a munching
movement with his jaws to say that I had had my dinner； and finally；
by making two fingers imitate walking on the table； he explained
that I had gone away。 My friend； however； wanted to know how long I
had been gone； so he pulled out his watch and looked inquiringly。
The man at once slapped himself on the back； and held up the five
fingers of one hand； to say it was five minutes ago。 All this was
done as rapidly as though it had been said in words； and my friend；
who knew the man well； understood without a moment's hesitation。
Are we to say that this man had no thought； nor reason； nor
language； merely because he had not a single word of any kind in his
head； which I am assured he had not； for； as I have said； he could
not speak with his fingers？ Is it possible to deny that a dialogue…
…an intelligent conversationhad passed between the two men？ And
if conversation； then surely it is technical and pedantic to deny
that all the essential elements of language were present。 The signs
and tokens used by this poor fellow were as rude an instrument of
expression； in comparison with ordinary language； as going on one's
hands and knees is in comparison with walking； or as walking
compared with going by train； but it is as great an abuse of words
to limit the word 〃language〃 to mere words written or spoken； as it
would be to limit the idea of a locomotive to a railway engine。
This may indeed pass in ordinary conversation； where so much must be
suppressed if talk is to be got through at all； but it is
intolerable when we are inquiring about the relations between
thought and words。 To do so is to let words become as it were the
masters of thought； on the ground that the fact of their being only
its servants and appendages is so obvious that it is generally
allowed to go without saying。
If all that Professor Max Muller means to say is； that no animal but
man commands an articulate language； with verbs and nouns； or is
ever likely to command one （and I question whether in reality he
means much more than this）； no one will differ from him。 No dog or
elephant has one word for bread； another for meat； and another for
water。 Yet； when we watch a cat or dog dreaming； as they often
evidently do； can we doubt that the dream is accompanied by a mental
image of the thing that is dreamed of； much like what we experience