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！
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
in dreams ourselves； and much doubtless like the mental images which
must have passed through the mind of my deaf and dumb waiter？ If
they have mental images in sleep； can we doubt that waking； also；
they picture things before their mind's eyes； and see them much as
we dotoo vaguely indeed to admit of our thinking that we actually
see the objects themselves； but definitely enough for us to be able
to recognise the idea or object of which we are thinking； and to
connect it with any other idea； object； or sign that we may think
appropriate？
Here we have touched on the second essential element of language。
We laid it down； that its essence lay in the communication of an
idea from one intelligent being to another； but no ideas can be
communicated at all except by the aid of conventions to which both
parties have agreed to attach an identical meaning。 The agreement
may be very informal； and may pass so unconsciously from one
generation to another that its existence can only be recognised by
the aid of much introspection； but it will be always there。 A
sayer； a sayee； and a convention； no matter what； agreed upon
between them as inseparably attached to the idea which it is
intended to conveythese comprise all the essentials of language。
Where these are present there is language； where any of them are
wanting there is no language。 It is not necessary for the sayee to
be able to speak and become a sayer。 If he comprehends the sayer
that is to say； if he attaches the same meaning to a certain symbol
as the sayer doesif he is a party to the bargain whereby it is
agreed upon by both that any given symbol shall be attached
invariably to a certain idea； so that in virtue of the principle of
associated ideas the symbol shall never be present without
immediately carrying the idea along with it； then all the essentials
of language are complied with； and there has been true speech though
never a word was spoken。
The lower animals； therefore； many of them； possess a part of our
own language； though they cannot speak it； and hence do not possess
it so fully as we do。 They cannot say 〃bread；〃 〃meat；〃 or 〃water；〃
but there are many that readily learn what ideas they ought to
attach to these symbols when they are presented to them。 It is idle
to say that a cat does not know what the cat's…meat man means when
he says 〃meat。〃 The cat knows just as well； neither better nor
worse than the cat's…meat man does； and a great deal better than I
myself understand much that is said by some very clever people at
Oxford or Cambridge。 There is more true employment of language；
more bona fide currency of speech； between a sayer and a sayee who
understand each other； though neither of them can speak a word； than
between a sayer who can speak with the tongues of men and of angels
without being clear about his own meaning； and a sayee who can
himself utter the same words； but who is only in imperfect agreement
with the sayer as to the ideas which the words or symbols that he
utters are intended to convey。 The nature of the symbols counts for
nothing； the gist of the matter is in the perfect harmony between
sayer and sayee as to the significance that is to be associated with
them。
Professor Max Muller admits that we share with the lower animals
what he calls an emotional language； and continues that we may call
their interjections and imitations language if we like； as we speak
of the language of the eyes or the eloquence of mute nature； but he
warns us against mistaking metaphor for fact。 It is indeed mere
metaphor to talk of the eloquence of mute nature； or the language of
winds and waves。 There is no intercommunion of mind with mind by
means of a covenanted symbol； but it is only an apparent； not a
real； metaphor to say that two pairs of eyes have spoken when they
have signalled to one another something which they both understand。
A schoolboy at home for the holidays wants another plate of pudding；
and does not like to apply officially for more。 He catches the
servant's eye and looks at the pudding； the servant understands；
takes his plate without a word； and gets him some。 Is it metaphor
to say that the boy asked the servant to do this； or is it not
rather pedantry to insist on the letter of a bond and deny its
spirit； by denying that language passed； on the ground that the
symbols covenanted upon and assented to by both were uttered and
received by eyes and not by mouth and ears？ When the lady drank to
the gentleman only with her eyes； and he pledged with his； was there
no conversation because there was neither noun nor verb？ Eyes are
verbs； and glasses of wine are good nouns enough as between those
who understand one another。 Whether the ideas underlying them are
expressed and conveyed by eyeage or by tonguage is a detail that
matters nothing。
But everything we say is metaphorical if we choose to be captious。
Scratch the simplest expressions； and you will find the metaphor。
Written words are handage； inkage and paperage； it is only by
metaphor； or substitution and transposition of ideas； that we can
call them language。 They are indeed potential language； and the
symbols employed presuppose nouns； verbs； and the other parts of
speech； but for the most part it is in what we read between the
lines that the profounder meaning of any letter is conveyed。 There
are words unwritten and untranslatable into any nouns that are
nevertheless felt as above； about and underneath the gross material
symbols that lie scrawled upon the paper； and the deeper the feeling
with which anything is written the more pregnant will it be of
meaning which can be conveyed securely enough； but which loses
rather than gains if it is squeezed into a sentence； and limited by
the parts of speech。 The language is not in the words but in the
heart…to…heartness of the thing； which is helped by words； but is
nearer and farther than they。 A correspondent wrote to me once；
many years ago； 〃If I could think to you without words you would
understand me better。〃 But surely in this he was thinking to me；
and without words； and I did understand him better 。 。 。 So it is
not by the words that I am too presumptuously venturing to speak to…
night that your opinions will be formed or modified。 They will be
formed or modified； if either； by something that you will feel； but
which I have not spoken； to the full as much as by anything that I
have actually uttered。 You may say that this borders on mysticism。
Perhaps it does； but their really is some mysticism in nature。
To return； however； to terra firma。 I believe I am right in saying
that the essence of language lies in the intentional conveyance of
ideas from one living being to another through the instrumentality
of arbitrary tokens or symbols agreed upon； and understood by both
as being associated with the particular ideas in question。 The
nature of the symbol chosen is a matter of indifference； it may be
anything that appeals to human senses； and is not too hot or too
heavy； the esse