LANGUAGE

AnIntroductiontotheStudyofSpeech
by

EdwardSapir

1939 1921

Preface
Thislittlebookaimstogiveacertainperspectiveonthesubjectoflanguageratherthanto assemblefactsaboutit.Ithaslittletosayoftheultimatepsychologicalbasisofspeechandgives onlyenoughoftheactualdescriptiveorhistoricalfactsof particularlanguagestoillustrate principles.ItsmainpurposeistoshowwhatIconceivelanguagetobe,whatisitsvariabilityin placeandtime,andwhatareitsrelationstootherfundamentalhumanintereststheproblemof thought,thenatureofthehistoricalprocess,race,culture,art. Theperspectivethusgainedwillbeuseful,Ihope,bothtolinguisticstudentsandtotheoutside publicthatishalfinclinedtodismisslinguisticnotionsastheprivatepedantriesofessentially idleminds.Knowledgeofthewiderrelationsoftheirscienceisessentialtoprofessionalstudents oflanguageiftheyaretobesavedfromasterileandpurelytechnicalattitude.Among contemporarywritersofinfluenceonliberalthoughtCroceisoneoftheveryfewwhohave gainedanunderstandingofthefundamentalsignificanceoflanguage.Hehaspointedoutits closerelationtotheproblemofart.Iamdeeplyindebtedtohimforthisinsight.Quiteasidefrom theirintrinsicinterest,linguisticformsandhistoricalprocesseshavethegreatestpossible diagnosticvaluefortheunderstandingofsomeofthemoredifficultandelusiveproblemsinthe psychologyofthoughtandinthestrange,cumulativedriftinthelifeofthehumanspiritthatwe callhistoryorprogressor evolution.Thisvaluedependschieflyontheunconsciousand unrationalizednatureoflinguisticstructure. Ihaveavoidedmostofthetechnicaltermsandallofthetechnicalsymbolsofthelinguistic academy.Thereisnotasinglediacriticalmarkinthebook.Wherepossible,thediscussionis basedonEnglishmaterial.Itwasnecessary,however,fortheschemeofthebook,which includesaconsiderationoftheproteanformsinwhichhumanthoughthasfoundexpression,to quotesomeexoticinstances.Forthesenoapologyseemsnecessary.Owingtolimitationsof spaceIhavehadtoleaveoutmanyideasorprinciplesthatIshouldhavelikedtotouchupon. Otherpointshavehadtobebarelyhintedatinasentenceorflyingphrase.Nevertheless,Itrust thatenoughhasherebeenbroughttogethertoserveasastimulusforthemorefundamentalstudy ofaneglectedfield. Idesiretoexpressmycordialappreciationofthefriendlyadviceandhelpfulsuggestionsofa numberoffriendswhohavereadtheworkinmanuscript,notablyProfs.A.L.KroeberandR.H. LowieoftheUniversityofCalifornia,Prof.W.D.WallisofReedCollege,andProf.J.Zeitlinof theUniversityofIllinois. EdwardSapir. Ottawa,Ont., April8,1921.

Contents

1. Preface 2. chapter 1. Introductory:LanguageDefined Languageacultural,notabiologicallyinherited,function.Futilityof interjectionalandsoundimitativetheoriesoftheoriginofspeech.Definitionof language.Thepsychophysicalbasisofspeech.Conceptsandlanguage.Is thoughtpossiblewithoutlanguage?Abbreviationsandtransfersofthespeech process.Theuniversalityoflanguage. 2. TheElementsofSpeech Soundsnotproperlyelementsofspeech.Wordsandsignificantparts ofwords (radicalelements,grammaticalelements).Typesofwords.Thewordaformal,not afunctionalunit.Thewordhasarealpsychologicalexistence.Thesentence.The cognitive,volitional,andemotionalaspectsofspeech.Feelingtonesofwords. 3. TheSoundsofLanguage Thevastnumberofpossiblesounds.Thearticulatingorgansandtheirshareinthe productionofspeechsounds:lungs,glottalcords,nose,mouthanditsparts. Vowelarticulations.Howandwhereconsonantsarearticulated.Thephonetic habitsofalanguage.Thevaluesofsounds.Phoneticpatterns. 4. ForminLanguage:GrammaticalProcesses Formalprocessesasdistinctfromgrammaticalfunctions.Intercrossingofthetwo pointsofview.Sixmaintypesofgrammaticalprocess.Wordsequenceasa method.Compoundingofradicalelements.Affixing:prefixesandsuffixes infixes.Internalvocalicchangeconsonantalchange.Reduplication.Functional variationsofstressofpitch. 5. ForminLanguage:GrammaticalConcepts AnalysisofatypicalEnglishsentence.Typesofconceptsillustratedbyit. Inconsistentexpressionofanalogousconcepts.Howthesamesentencemaybe expressedinotherlanguageswithstrikingdifferencesintheselectionand groupingofconcepts.Essentialandnonessentialconcepts.Themixingof essentialrelationalconceptswithsecondaryonesofmoreconcreteorder.Form forformssake.Classificationoflinguisticconcepts:basicorconcrete, derivational,concreterelational,purerelational.Tendencyforthesetypesof conceptstoflowintoeachother.Categoriesexpressedinvariousgrammatical systems.Orderandstressasrelatingprinciplesinthesentence.Concord.Partsof speech:noabsoluteclassificationpossiblenounandverb. 6. TypesofLinguisticStructure

Thepossibilityofclassifyinglanguages.Difficulties.Classificationintoform languagesandformlesslanguagesnotvalid.Classificationaccordingtoformal processesusednotpracticable.Classificationaccordingtodegreeofsynthesis. Inflectiveandagglutinative.Fusionandsymbolismaslinguistictechniques. Agglutination.Inflectiveaconfusedterm.Threefoldclassificationsuggested: whattypesofconceptsareexpressed?whatistheprevailingtechnique?whatis thedegreeofsynthesis?Fourfundamentalconceptualtypes.Examplestabulated. Historicaltestofthevalidityofthesuggestedconceptualclassification. 7. LanguageasaHistoricalProduct:Drift Variabilityoflanguage.Individualanddialecticvariations.Timevariationor drift.Howdialectsarise.Linguisticstocks.Directionorslopeoflinguistic drift.TendenciesillustratedinanEnglishsentence.Hesitationsofusageas symptomaticofthedirectionofdrift.LevelingtendenciesinEnglish.Weakening ofcaseelements.Tendencytofixedpositioninthesentence.Drifttowardthe invariableword. 8. LanguageasaHistoricalProduct:PhoneticLaw Parallelsindriftinrelatedlanguages.Phoneticlawasillustratedinthehistoryof certainEnglishandGermanvowelsandconsonants.Regularityof phoneticlaw. Shiftingofsoundswithoutdestructionofphoneticpattern.Difficultyof explainingthenatureofphoneticdrifts.VowelmutationinEnglishandGerman. Morphologicalinfluenceonphoneticchange.Analogicallevelingstooffset irregularitiesproducedbyphoneticlaws.Newmorphologicalfeaturesdueto phoneticchange. 9. HowLanguagesInfluenceEachOther Linguisticinfluencesduetoculturalcontact.Borrowingofwords.Resistancesto borrowing.Phoneticmodificationofborrowedwords.Phoneticinterinfluencings ofneighboringlanguages.Morphologicalborrowings.Morphological resemblancesasvestigesofgeneticrelationship. 10. Language,Race,andCulture Navetendencytoconsiderlinguistic,racial,andculturalgroupingsascongruent. Raceandlanguageneednotcorrespond.Culturalandlinguisticboundariesnot identical.Coincidencesbetweenlinguisticcleavagesandthoseoflanguageand cultureduetohistorical,notintrinsicpsychological,causes.Languagedoesnotin anydeepsensereflectculture. 11. LanguageandLiterature

Languageasthematerialormediumofliterature.Literaturemaymoveonthe generalizedlinguisticplaneormaybeinseparablefromspecificlinguistic conditions.Languageasacollectiveart.Necessaryestheticadvantagesor limitationsinanylanguage.Styleasconditionedbyinherentfeaturesofthe language.Prosodyasconditionedbythephoneticdynamicsofalanguage. 3. Index

I
Introductory:LanguageDefined
Speechissofamiliarafeatureofdailylifethatwerarelypausetodefineit.Itseemsasnaturalto manaswalking,andonlylesssothanbreathing.Yetitneedsbutamomentsreflectionto convinceusthatthisnaturalnessofspeechisbutanillusoryfeeling.Theprocessofacquiring speechis,insoberfact,anutterlydifferentsortofthingfromtheprocessoflearningtowalk.In thecaseofthelatterfunction,culture,inotherwords,thetraditionalbodyofsocialusage,isnot seriouslybroughtintoplay.Thechildisindividuallyequipped,bythecomplexsetoffactorsthat wetermbiologicalheredity,tomakealltheneededmuscularandnervousadjustmentsthatresult inwalking.Indeed,theveryconformationofthesemusclesandoftheappropriatepartsofthe nervoussystemmaybesaidtobeprimarilyadaptedtothemovementsmadeinwalkingandin similaractivities.Inaveryrealsensethenormalhumanbeingispredestinedtowalk,not becausehiselderswillassisthimtolearntheart,butbecausehisorganismispreparedfrombirth, orevenfromthemomentofconception,totakeonallthoseexpendituresofnervousenergyand allthosemuscularadaptationsthatresultinwalking.Toputitconcisely,walkingisaninherent, biologicalfunctionofman. Notsolanguage.Itisofcoursetruethatinacertainsensetheindividualispredestinedtotalk, butthatisdueentirelytothecircumstancethatheisbornnotmerelyinnature,butinthelapofa societythatiscertain,reasonablycertain,toleadhimtoitstraditions.Eliminatesocietyandthere iseveryreasontobelievethathewilllearntowalk,if,indeed,hesurvivesatall.Butitisjustas certainthathewillneverlearntotalk,thatis,tocommunicateideasaccordingtothetraditional systemofaparticularsociety.Or,again,removethenewbornindividualfromthesocial environmentintowhichhehascomeandtransplanthimtoanutterlyalienone.Hewilldevelop theartofwalkinginhisnewenvironmentverymuchashewouldhavedevelopeditintheold. Buthisspeechwillbecompletelyatvariancewiththespeechofhisnativeenvironment. Walking,then,isageneralhumanactivitythatvariesonlywithincircumscribedlimitsaswe passfromindividualtoindividual.Itsvariabilityisinvoluntaryandpurposeless.Speechisa humanactivitythatvarieswithoutassignablelimitaswepassfromsocialgrouptosocialgroup, becauseitisapurelyhistoricalheritageofthegroup,theproductoflongcontinuedsocialusage. Itvariesasallcreativeeffortvariesnotasconsciously,perhaps,butnonethelessastrulyasdo thereligions,thebeliefs,thecustoms,andtheartsofdifferentpeoples.Walkingisanorganic,an instinctive,function(not,ofcourse,itselfaninstinct)speechisanoninstinctive,acquired, culturalfunction.

Thereisonefactthathasfrequentlytendedtopreventtherecognitionoflanguageasamerely conventionalsystemofsoundsymbols,thathasseducedthepopularmindintoattributingtoitan instinctivebasisthatitdoesnotreallypossess.Thisisthewellknownobservationthatunderthe stressofemotion,sayofasuddentwingeofpainorofunbridledjoy,wedoinvoluntarilygive utterancetosoundsthatthehearerinterpretsasindicativeoftheemotionitself.Butthereisall thedifferenceintheworldbetweensuchinvoluntaryexpressionoffeelingandthenormaltype ofcommunicationofideasthatisspeech.Theformerkindofutteranceisindeedinstinctive,but itisnonsymbolicinotherwords,thesoundofpainorthesoundofjoydoesnot,assuch, indicatetheemotion,itdoesnotstandaloof,asitwere,andannouncethatsuchandsuchan emotionisbeingfelt.Whatitdoesistoserveasamoreorlessautomaticoverflowofthe emotionalenergyinasense,itispartandparceloftheemotionitself.Moreover,such instinctivecrieshardlyconstitutecommunicationinanystrictsense.Theyarenotaddressedto anyone,theyaremerelyoverheard,ifheardatall,asthebarkofadog,thesoundofapproaching footsteps,ortherustlingofthewindisheard.Iftheyconveycertainideastothehearer,itisonly intheverygeneralsenseinwhichanyandeverysoundorevenanyphenomenoninour environmentmaybesaidtoconveyanideatotheperceivingmind.Iftheinvoluntarycryofpain whichisconventionallyrepresentedbyOh!belookeduponasatruespeechsymbolequivalent tosomesuchideaasIamingreatpain,itisjustasallowabletointerprettheappearanceof cloudsasanequivalentsymbolthatcarriesthedefinitemessageItislikelytorain.Adefinition oflanguage,however,thatissoextendedastocovereverytypeofinferencebecomesutterly meaningless. Themistakemustnotbemadeofidentifyingourconventionalinterjections(ouroh!andah!and sh!)withtheinstinctivecriesthemselves.Theseinterjectionsaremerelyconventionalfixations ofthenaturalsounds.Theythereforedifferwidelyinvariouslanguagesinaccordancewiththe specificphoneticgeniusofeachofthese.Assuchtheymaybeconsideredanintegralportionof speech,intheproperlyculturalsenseoftheterm,beingnomoreidenticalwiththeinstinctive criesthemselvesthansuchwordsascuckooandkilldeerareidenticalwiththecriesofthe birdstheydenoteorthanRossinistreatmentofastormintheoverturetoWilliamTellisin factastorm.Inotherwords,theinterjectionsandsoundimitativewordsofnormalspeechare relatedtotheirnaturalprototypesasisart,apurelysocialorculturalthing,tonature.Itmaybe objectedthat,thoughtheinterjectionsdiffersomewhataswepassfromlanguagetolanguage, theydoneverthelessofferstrikingfamilyresemblancesandmaythereforebelookeduponas havinggrownupoutofacommoninstinctivebase.Buttheircaseisnowisedifferentfromthat, say,ofthevaryingnationalmodesofpictorialrepresentation.AJapanesepictureofahillboth differsfromandresemblesatypicalmodernEuropeanpaintingofthesamekindofhill.Bothare suggestedbyandbothimitatethesamenaturalfeature.Neithertheonenortheotheristhe samethingas,or,inanyintelligiblesense,adirectoutgrowthof,thisnaturalfeature.Thetwo modesofrepresentationarenotidenticalbecausetheyproceedfromdifferinghistorical traditions,areexecutedwithdifferingpictorialtechniques.TheinterjectionsofJapaneseand Englishare,justso,suggestedbyacommonnaturalprototype,theinstinctivecries,andarethus unavoidablysuggestiveofeachother.Theydiffer,nowgreatly,nowbutlittle,becausetheyare buildedoutofhistoricallydiversematerialsortechniques,therespectivelinguistictraditions, phoneticsystems,speechhabitsofthetwopeoples.Yettheinstinctivecriesassuchare practicallyidenticalforallhumanity,justasthehumanskeletonornervoussystemistoall

intentsandpurposesafixed,thatis,anonlyslightlyandaccidentallyvariable,featureof mansorganism. Interjectionsareamongtheleastimportantofspeechelements.Theirdiscussionisvaluable mainlybecauseitcanbeshownthateventhey,avowedlythenearestofalllanguagesoundsto instinctiveutterance,areonlysuperficiallyofaninstinctivenature.Wereitthereforepossibleto demonstratethatthewholeoflanguageistraceable,initsultimatehistoricalandpsychological foundations,totheinterjections,itwouldstillnotfollowthatlanguageisaninstinctiveactivity. But,asamatteroffact,allattemptssotoexplaintheoriginofspeechhavebeenfruitless.There isnotangibleevidence,historicalorotherwise,tendingtoshowthatthemassofspeechelements andspeechprocesseshasevolvedoutoftheinterjections.Theseareaverysmalland functionallyinsignificantproportionofthevocabularyoflanguageatnotimeandinno linguisticprovincethatwehaverecordofdoweseeanoticeabletendencytowardstheir elaborationintotheprimarywarpandwoofoflanguage.Theyarenevermore,atbest,thana decorativeedgingtotheample,complexfabric. Whatappliestotheinterjectionsapplieswithevengreaterforcetothesoundimitativewords. Suchwordsaswhippoorwill,tomew,tocawareinnosensenaturalsoundsthatmanhas instinctivelyorautomaticallyreproduced.Theyarejustastrulycreationsofthehumanmind, flightsofthehumanfancy,asanythingelseinlanguage.Theydonotdirectlygrowoutofnature, theyaresuggestedbyitandplaywithit.Hencetheonomatopoetictheoryoftheoriginofspeech, thetheorythatwouldexplainallspeechasagradualevolutionfromsoundsofanimitative character,reallybringsusnonearertotheinstinctivelevelthanislanguageasweknowittoday. Astothetheoryitself,itisscarcelymorecrediblethanitsinterjectionalcounterpart.Itistrue thatanumberofwordswhichwedonotnowfeeltohaveasoundimitativevaluecanbeshown tohaveoncehadaphoneticformthatstronglysuggeststheiroriginasimitationsofnatural sounds.SuchistheEnglishwordtolaugh.Forallthat,itisquiteimpossibletoshow,nordoes itseemintrinsicallyreasonabletosuppose,thatmorethananegligibleproportionoftheelements ofspeechoranythingatallofitsformalapparatusisderivablefromanonomatopoeticsource. Howevermuchwemaybedisposedongeneralprinciplestoassignafundamentalimportancein thelanguagesofprimitivepeoplestotheimitationofnaturalsounds,theactualfactofthematter isthattheselanguagesshownoparticularpreferenceforimitativewords.Amongthemost primitivepeoplesofaboriginalAmerica,theAthabaskantribesoftheMackenzieRiverspeak languagesinwhichsuchwordsseemtobenearlyorentirelyabsent,whiletheyareusedfreely enoughinlanguagesassophisticatedasEnglishandGerman.Suchaninstanceshowshowlittle theessentialnatureofspeechisconcernedwiththemereimitationofthings. Thewayisnowclearedforaserviceabledefinition oflanguage.Languageisapurelyhumanand noninstinctivemethodofcommunicatingideas,emotions,anddesiresbymeansofasystemof voluntarilyproducedsymbols.Thesesymbolsare,inthefirstinstance,auditoryandtheyare producedbythesocalledorgansofspeech.Thereisnodiscernibleinstinctivebasisinhuman speechassuch,howevermuchinstinctiveexpressionsandthenaturalenvironmentmayserveas astimulusforthedevelopmentofcertainelementsofspeech,howevermuchinstinctive tendencies,motorandother,maygiveapredeterminedrangeormoldtolinguisticexpression. Suchhumanoranimalcommunication,ifcommunicationitmaybecalled,asisbroughtabout byinvoluntary,instinctivecriesisnot,inoursense,languageatall.

Ihavejustreferredtotheorgansofspeech,anditwouldseematfirstblushthatthisis tantamounttoanadmissionthatspeechitselfisaninstinctive,biologicallypredetermined activity.Wemustnotbemisledbythemereterm.Thereare,properlyspeaking,noorgansof speechthereareonlyorgansthatareincidentallyusefulintheproductionofspeechsounds.The lungs,thelarynx,thepalate,thenose,thetongue,theteeth,andthelips,areallsoutilized,but theyarenomoretobethoughtofasprimaryorgansofspeechthanarethefingerstobe consideredasessentiallyorgansofpianoplayingorthekneesasorgansofprayer.Speechisnot asimpleactivitythatiscarriedonbyoneormoreorgansbiologicallyadaptedtothepurpose.It isanextremelycomplexandevershiftingnetworkofadjustmentsinthebrain,inthenervous system,andinthearticulatingandauditoryorganstendingtowardsthedesiredendof communication.Thelungsdeveloped,roughlyspeaking,inconnectionwiththenecessary biologicalfunctionknownasbreathingthenose,asanorganofsmelltheteeth,asorgansuseful inbreakingupfoodbeforeitwasreadyfordigestion.If,then,theseandotherorgansarebeing constantlyutilizedinspeech,itisonlybecauseanyorgan,onceexistentandinsofarasitis subjecttovoluntarycontrol,canbeutilizedbymanforsecondarypurposes.Physiologically, speechisanoverlaidfunction,or,tobemoreprecise,agroupofoverlaidfunctions.Itgetswhat serviceitcanoutoforgansandfunctions,nervousandmuscular,thathavecomeintobeingand aremaintainedforverydifferentendsthanitsown. Itistruethatphysiologicalpsychologistsspeakofthelocalizationof speechinthebrain.This canonlymeanthatthesoundsofspeecharelocalizedintheauditorytractofthebrain,orin somecircumscribedportionofit,preciselyasotherclassesofsoundsarelocalizedandthatthe motorprocessesinvolvedinspeech (suchasthemovementsoftheglottalcordsinthelarynx,the movementsofthetonguerequiredtopronouncethevowels,lipmovementsrequiredtoarticulate certainconsonants,andnumerousothers)arelocalizedinthemotortractpreciselyasareall otherimpulsestospecialmotoractivities.Inthesamewaycontrolislodgedinthevisualtractof thebrainoverallthoseprocessesofvisualrecognitioninvolvedinreading.Naturallythe particularpointsorclustersofpointsoflocalizationintheseveraltractsthatrefertoanyelement oflanguageareconnectedinthebrainbypathsofassociation,sothattheoutward,orpsycho physical,aspectoflanguage,isofavastnetworkofassociatedlocalizationsinthebrainand lowernervoustracts,theauditorylocalizationsbeingwithoutdoubtthemostfundamentalofall forspeech.However,aspeechsoundlocalizedinthebrain,evenwhenassociatedwiththe particularmovementsofthespeechorgansthatarerequiredtoproduceit,isveryfarfrom beinganelementoflanguage.Itmustbefurtherassociatedwithsomeelementorgroupof elementsofexperience,sayavisualimageoraclassofvisualimagesorafeelingofrelation, beforeithasevenrudimentarylinguisticsignificance.Thiselementofexperienceisthe contentormeaningofthelinguisticunittheassociatedauditory,motor,andothercerebral processesthatlieimmediatelybackoftheactofspeakingandtheactofhearingspeechare merelyacomplicatedsymboloforsignalforthesemeanings,ofwhichmoreanon.Wesee thereforeatoncethatlanguageassuchisnotandcannotbedefinitelylocalized,foritconsistsof apeculiarsymbolicrelationphysiologicallyanarbitraryonebetweenallpossibleelementsof consciousnesson theonehandandcertainselectedelementslocalizedintheauditory,motor,and othercerebralandnervoustractsontheother.Iflanguagecanbesaidtobedefinitelylocalized inthebrain,itisonlyinthatgeneralandratheruselesssenseinwhichallaspectsof consciousness,allhumaninterestandactivity,maybesaidtobeinthebrain.Hence,wehave norecoursebuttoacceptlanguageasafullyformedfunctionalsystemwithinmanspsychicor

spiritualconstitution.Wecannotdefineitasanentityinpsychophysicaltermsalone,however muchthepsychophysicalbasisisessentialtoitsfunctioningintheindividual. Fromthephysiologistsorpsychologistspointofviewwemayseemtobemakingan unwarrantableabstractionindesiringtohandlethesubjectofspeechwithoutconstantand explicitreferencetothatbasis.However,suchanabstractionisjustifiable.Wecanprofitably discusstheintention,theform,andthehistoryofspeech,preciselyaswediscussthenatureof anyotherphaseofhumanculturesayartorreligionasaninstitutionalorculturalentity, leavingtheorganicandpsychologicalmechanismsbackofitassomethingtobetakenfor granted.Accordingly,itmustbeclearlyunderstoodthatthisintroductiontothestudyofspeech isnotconcernedwiththoseaspectsofphysiologyandofphysiologicalpsychologythatunderlie speech.Ourstudyoflanguageisnottobeoneofthegenesisandoperationofaconcrete mechanismitis,rather,tobeaninquiryintothefunctionandformofthearbitrarysystemsof symbolismthatwetermlanguages. Ihavealreadypointedoutthattheessenceoflanguageconsistsintheassigningofconventional, voluntarilyarticulated,sounds,oroftheirequivalents,tothediverseelementsofexperience.The wordhouseisnotalinguisticfactifbyitismeantmerelytheacousticeffectproducedonthe earbyitsconstituentconsonantsandvowels,pronouncedinacertainordernorthemotor processesandtactilefeelingswhichmakeupthearticulationofthewordnorthevisual perceptiononthepartofthehearerofthisarticulationnorthevisualperceptionoftheword houseonthewrittenorprintedpagenorthemotorprocessesandtactilefeelingswhichenter intothewritingofthewordnorthememoryofanyoralloftheseexperiences.Itisonlywhen these,andpossiblystillother,associatedexperiencesareautomaticallyassociatedwiththeimage ofahousethattheybegintotakeonthenatureofasymbol,aword,an elementoflanguage.But themerefactofsuchanassociationisnotenough.Onemighthaveheardaparticularword spokeninanindividualhouseundersuchimpressivecircumstancesthatneitherthewordnorthe imageofthehouseeverrecurinconsciousnesswithouttheotherbecomingpresentatthesame time.Thistypeofassociationdoesnotconstitutespeech.Theassociationmustbeapurely symboliconeinotherwords,thewordmustdenote,tagoff,theimage,musthavenoother significancethantoserveasacountertorefertoitwheneveritisnecessaryorconvenienttodo so.Suchanassociation,voluntaryand,inasense,arbitraryasitis,demandsaconsiderable exerciseofselfconsciousattention.Atleasttobeginwith,forhabitsoonmakestheassociation nearlyasautomaticasanyandmorerapidthanmost. Butwehavetraveledalittletoofast.Werethesymbolhousewhetheranauditory,motor,or visualexperienceorimageattachedbuttothesingleimageofaparticularhouseonceseen,it mightperhaps,byanindulgentcriticism,betermedanelementofspeech,yetitisobviousatthe outsetthatspeechsoconstitutedwouldhavelittleornovalueforpurposesofcommunication. Theworldofourexperiencesmustbeenormouslysimplifiedandgeneralizedbeforeitis possibletomakeasymbolicinventoryofallourexperiencesofthingsandrelationsandthis inventoryisimperativebeforewecanconveyideas.Theelementsoflanguage,thesymbolsthat ticketoffexperience,mustthereforebeassociatedwithwholegroups,delimitedclasses,of experienceratherthanwiththesingleexperiencesthemselves.Onlysoiscommunication possible,forthesingleexperiencelodgesinanindividualconsciousnessandis,strictlyspeaking, incommunicable.Tobecommunicateditneedstobereferredtoaclasswhichistacitlyaccepted

bythecommunityasanidentity.Thus,thesingleimpressionwhichIhavehadofaparticular housemustbeidentifiedwithallmyotherimpressionsofit.Further,mygeneralizedmemoryor mynotionofthishousemustbemergedwiththenotionsthatallotherindividualswhohave seenthehousehaveformedofit.Theparticularexperiencethatwestartedwithhasnowbeen widenedsoastoembraceallpossibleimpressionsorimagesthatsentientbeingshaveformedor mayformofthehouseinquestion.Thisfirstsimplificationofexperienceisatthebottomofa largenumberofelementsofspeech,thesocalledpropernounsornamesofsingleindividualsor objects.Itis,essentially,thetypeofsimplificationwhichunderlies,orformsthecrudesubjectof, historyandart.Butwecannotbecontentwiththismeasureofreductionoftheinfinityof experience.Wemustcuttotheboneofthings,wemustmoreorlessarbitrarilythrowwhole massesofexperiencetogetherassimilarenoughtowarranttheirbeinglookeduponmistakenly, butconvenientlyasidentical.Thishouseandthathouseandthousandsofotherphenomenaof likecharacterarethoughtofashavingenoughin common,inspiteofgreatandobvious differencesofdetail,tobeclassedunderthesameheading.Inotherwords,thespeechelement houseisthesymbol,firstandforemost,notofasingleperception,norevenofthenotionofa particularobject,butofaconcept,inotherwords,ofaconvenientcapsuleofthoughtthat embracesthousandsofdistinctexperiencesandthatisreadytotakeinthousandsmore.Ifthe singlesignificantelementsofspeecharethesymbolsofconcepts,theactualflowofspeechmay beinterpretedasarecordofthesettingoftheseconceptsintomutualrelations. Thequestionhasoftenbeenraisedwhetherthoughtispossiblewithoutspeechfurther,ifspeech andthoughtbenotbuttwofacetsofthesamepsychicprocess.Thequestionisallthemore difficultbecauseithasbeenhedgedaboutbymisunderstandings.Inthefirstplace,itiswellto observethatwhetherornotthoughtnecessitatessymbolism,thatisspeech,theflowoflanguage itselfisnotalwaysindicativeof thought.Wehaveseenthatthetypicallinguisticelementlabelsa concept.Itdoesnotfollowfromthisthattheusetowhichlanguageisputisalwaysoreven mainlyconceptual.Wearenotinordinarylifesomuchconcernedwithconceptsassuchaswith concreteparticularitiesandspecificrelations.WhenIsay,forinstance,Ihadagoodbreakfast thismorning,itisclearthatIamnotinthethroesoflaboriousthought,thatwhatIhaveto transmitishardlymorethanapleasurablememorysymbolicallyrenderedinthegroovesof habitualexpression.Eachelementinthesentencedefinesaseparateconceptorconceptual relationorbothcombined,butthesentenceasawholehasnoconceptualsignificancewhatever. Itissomewhatasthoughadynamocapableofgeneratingenoughpowertorunanelevatorwere operatedalmostexclusivelytofeedanelectricdoorbell.Theparallelismoresuggestivethanat firstsightappears.Languagemaybelookeduponasaninstrumentcapableofrunningagamut ofpsychicuses.Itsflownotonlyparallelsthatoftheinnercontentofconsciousness,but parallelsitondifferentlevels,rangingfromthestateofmindthatisdominatedbyparticular imagestothatinwhichabstractconceptsandtheirrelationsarealoneatthefocusofattention andwhichisordinarilytermedreasoning.Thustheoutwardformonlyoflanguageisconstant itsinnermeaning,itspsychicvalueorintensity,variesfreelywithattentionortheselective interestofthemind,also,needlesstosay,withthemindsgeneraldevelopment.Fromthepoint ofviewoflanguage,thoughtmaybedefinedasthehighestlatentorpotentialcontentofspeech, thecontentthatisobtainedbyinterpretingeachoftheelementsintheflowoflanguageas possessedofitsveryfullestconceptualvalue.Fromthisitfollowsatoncethatlanguageand thoughtarenotstrictlycoterminous.Atbestlanguagecanbutbetheoutwardfacetofthoughton thehighest,mostgeneralized,levelofsymbolicexpression.Toputourviewpointsomewhat

differently,languageisprimarilyaprerationalfunction.Ithumblyworksuptothethoughtthat islatentin,thatmayeventuallybereadinto,itsclassificationsanditsformsitisnot,asis generallybutnavelyassumed,thefinallabelputupon,thefinishedthought. Mostpeople,askediftheycanthinkwithoutspeech,wouldprobablyanswer,Yes,butitisnot easyformetodoso.StillIknowitcanbedone.Languageisbutagarment!Butwhatif languageisnotsomuchagarmentasapreparedroadorgroove?Itis,indeed,inthehighest degreelikelythatlanguageisaninstrumentoriginallyputtouseslowerthantheconceptual planeandthatthoughtarisesasarefinedinterpretationofitscontent.Theproductgrows,in otherwords,withtheinstrument,andthoughtmaybenomoreconceivable,initsgenesisand dailypractice,withoutspeechthanismathematicalreasoningpracticablewithouttheleverofan appropriatemathematicalsymbolism.Noonebelievesthateventhemostdifficultmathematical propositionisinherentlydependentonanarbitrarysetofsymbols,butitisimpossibletosuppose thatthehumanmindiscapableofarrivingatorholdingsuchapropositionwithoutthe symbolism.Thewriter,forone,isstronglyoftheopinionthatthefeelingentertainedbysomany thattheycanthink,orevenreason,withoutlanguageisanillusion.Theillusionseemstobedue toanumberoffactors.Thesimplestoftheseisthefailuretodistinguishbetweenimageryand thought.Asamatteroffact,nosoonerdowetrytoputanimageintoconsciousrelationwith anotherthanwefindourselvesslippingintoasilentflowofwords.Thoughtmaybeanatural domainapartfromtheartificialoneofspeech,butspeechwouldseemtobetheonlyroadwe knowofthatleadstoit.Astillmorefruitfulsourceoftheillusivefeelingthatlanguagemaybe dispensedwithinthoughtisthecommonfailuretorealizethatlanguageisnotidenticalwithits auditorysymbolism.Theauditory symbolismmaybereplaced,pointforpoint,byamotororby avisualsymbolism(manypeoplecanread,forinstance,inapurelyvisualsense,thatis,without theintermediatinglinkofaninnerflowoftheauditoryimagesthatcorrespondtotheprinted or writtenwords)orbystillother,moresubtleandelusive,typesoftransferthatarenotsoeasyto define.Hencethecontentionthatonethinkswithoutlanguagemerelybecauseheisnotawareof acoexistingauditoryimageryisveryfarindeedfrombeingavalidone.Onemaygosofarasto suspectthatthesymbolicexpressionofthoughtmayinsomecasesrunalongoutsidethefringe oftheconsciousmind,sothatthefeelingofafree,nonlinguisticstreamofthoughtisforminds ofacertaintypearelatively,butonlyarelatively,justifiedone.Psychophysically,thiswould meanthattheauditoryorequivalentvisualormotorcentersinthebrain,togetherwiththe appropriatepathsofassociation,thatarethecerebralequivalentofspeech,aretouchedoffso lightlyduringtheprocessofthoughtasnottoriseintoconsciousnessatall.Thiswouldbea limitingcasethoughtridinglightlyonthesubmergedcrestsofspeech,insteadofjoggingalong withit,handinhand.Themodernpsychologyhasshownushowpowerfullysymbolismisat workintheunconsciousmind.Itisthereforeeasiertounderstandatthepresenttimethanit wouldhavebeentwentyyearsagothatthemostrarefiedthoughtmaybebuttheconscious counterpartofanunconsciouslinguisticsymbolism. Onewordmoreastotherelationbetweenlanguageandthought.Thepointofviewthatwehave developeddoesnotbyanymeansprecludethepossibilityofthegrowthofspeechbeinginahigh degreedependentonthedevelopmentofthought.Wemayassumethatlanguagearosepre rationallyjusthowandonwhatpreciselevelofmentalactivitywedonotknowbutwemust notimaginethatahighlydevelopedsystemofspeechsymbolsworkeditselfoutbeforethe genesisofdistinctconceptsandofthinking,thehandlingofconcepts.Wemustratherimagine

thatthoughtprocessessetin,asakindofpsychicoverflow,almostatthebeginningoflinguistic expressionfurther,thattheconcept,oncedefined,necessarilyreactedonthelifeofitslinguistic symbol,encouragingfurtherlinguisticgrowth.Weseethiscomplexprocessoftheinteractionof languageandthoughtactuallytakingplaceunderoureyes.Theinstrumentmakespossiblethe product,theproductrefinestheinstrument.Thebirthof anewconceptisinvariably foreshadowedbyamoreorlessstrainedorextendeduseofoldlinguisticmaterialtheconcept doesnotattaintoindividualandindependentlifeuntilithasfoundadistinctivelinguistic embodiment.Inmostcasesthenewsymbolisbutathingwroughtfromlinguisticmaterial alreadyinexistenceinwaysmappedoutbycrushinglydespoticprecedents.Assoonastheword isathand,weinstinctivelyfeel,withsomethingofasighofrelief,thattheconceptisoursforthe handling.Notuntilweownthesymboldowefeelthatweholdakeytotheimmediate knowledgeorunderstandingoftheconcept.Wouldwebesoreadytodieforliberty,to struggleforideals,ifthewordsthemselveswerenotringingwithinus?Andtheword,aswe know,isnotonlyakeyitmayalsobeafetter. Languageisprimarilyanauditorysystemofsymbols.Insofarasitisarticulateditisalsoa motorsystem,butthemotoraspectofspeechisclearlysecondarytotheauditory.Innormal individualstheimpulsetospeechfirsttakeseffectinthesphereofauditoryimageryandisthen transmittedtothemotornervesthatcontroltheorgansofspeech.Themotorprocessesandthe accompanyingmotorfeelingsarenot,however,theend,thefinalrestingpoint.Theyaremerely ameansandacontrolleadingtoauditoryperceptioninbothspeakerandhearer.Communication, whichistheveryobjectofspeech,issuccessfullyeffectedonlywhenthehearersauditory perceptionsaretranslatedintotheappropriateandintendedflowofimageryorthoughtorboth combined.Hencethecycleofspeech,insofaraswemaylookuponitasapurelyexternal instrument,beginsandendsintherealmofsounds.Theconcordancebetweentheinitialauditory imageryandthefinalauditoryperceptionsisthesocialsealorwarrantofthesuccessfulissueof theprocess.Aswehavealreadyseen,thetypicalcourseofthisprocessmayundergoendless modificationsortransfersintoequivalentsystemswithouttherebylosingitsessentialformal characteristics. Themostimportantofthesemodificationsistheabbreviationofthespeechprocessinvolvedin thinking.Thishasdoubtlessmanyforms,accordingtothestructural orfunctionalpeculiaritiesof theindividualmind.Theleastmodifiedformisthatknownastalkingtoonesselforthinking aloud.Herethespeakerandthehearerareidentifiedinasingleperson,whomaybesaidto communicatewithhimself.Moresignificantisthestillfurtherabbreviatedformin whichthe soundsofspeecharenotarticulatedatall.Tothisbelongallthevarietiesofsilentspeechandof normalthinking.Theauditorycentersalonemaybeexcitedortheimpulsetolinguistic expressionmaybecommunicatedaswelltothemotornervesthatcommunicatewiththeorgans ofspeechbutbeinhibitedeitherinthemusclesoftheseorgansoratsomepointinthemotor nervesthemselvesor,possibly,theauditorycentersmaybeonlyslightly,ifatall,affected,the speechprocessmanifestingitselfdirectlyinthemotorsphere.Theremustbestillothertypesof abbreviation.Howcommonistheexcitationofthemotornervesinsilentspeech,inwhichno audibleorvisiblearticulationsresult,isshownbythefrequentexperienceoffatigueinthe speechorgans,particularlyinthelarynx,afterunusuallystimulatingreadingorintensive thinking.

Allthemodificationssofarconsideredaredirectlypatternedonthetypicalprocessofnormal speech.Ofverygreatinterestandimportanceisthepossibilityoftransferringthewholesystem ofspeechsymbolismintoothertermsthanthosethatareinvolvedinthetypicalprocess.This process,aswehaveseen,isamatterofsoundsandofmovementsintendedtoproducethese sounds.Thesenseof visionisnotbroughtintoplay.Butletussupposethatonenotonlyhears thearticulatedsoundsbutseesthearticulationsthemselvesastheyarebeingexecutedbythe speaker.Clearly,ifonecanonlygainasufficientlyhighdegreeofadroitnessin perceivingthese movementsofthespeechorgans,thewayisopenedforanewtypeofspeechsymbolismthatin whichthesoundisreplacedbythevisualimageofthearticulationsthatcorrespondtothesound. Thissortofsystemhasnogreatvalueformostofusbecausewearealreadypossessedofthe auditorymotorsystemofwhichitisatbestbutanimperfecttranslation,notallthearticulations beingvisibletotheeye.However,itiswellknownwhatexcellentusedeafmutescanmakeof readingfromthelipsasasubsidiarymethodofapprehendingspeech.Themostimportantof allvisualspeechsymbolismsis,ofcourse,thatofthewrittenorprintedword,towhich,onthe motorside,correspondsthesystemofdelicatelyadjustedmovementswhichresultinthewriting ortypewritingorothergraphicmethodofrecordingspeech.Thesignificantfeatureforour recognitioninthesenewtypesofsymbolism,apartfromthefactthattheyarenolongeraby productofnormalspeechitself,isthateachelement(letterorwrittenword)inthesystem correspondstoaspecificelement(soundorsoundgrouporspokenword)intheprimarysystem. Writtenlanguageisthusapointtopointequivalence,toborrowamathematicalphrase,toits spokencounterpart.Thewrittenformsaresecondarysymbolsofthespokenonessymbolsof symbolsyetsocloseisthecorrespondencethattheymay,notonlyintheorybutintheactual practiceofcertaineyereadersand,possibly,incertaintypesofthinking,beentirelysubstituted forthespokenones.Yettheauditorymotorassociationsareprobablyalwayslatentattheleast, thatis,theyareunconsciouslybroughtintoplay.Eventhosewhoreadandthinkwithoutthe slightestuseofsoundimageryare,atlastanalysis,dependentonit.Theyaremerelyhandlingthe circulatingmedium,themoney,ofvisualsymbolsasaconvenientsubstitutefortheeconomic goodsandservicesofthefundamentalauditorysymbols. Thepossibilitiesoflinguistictransferarepracticallyunlimited.AfamiliarexampleistheMorse telegraphcode,inwhichthelettersofwrittenspeecharerepresentedbyaconventionallyfixed sequenceoflongerorshorterticks.Herethetransfertakesplacefromthewrittenwordrather thandirectlyfromthesoundsof spokenspeech.Theletterofthetelegraphcodeisthusasymbol ofasymbolofasymbol.Itdoesnot,ofcourse,intheleastfollowthattheskilledoperator,in ordertoarriveatanunderstandingofatelegraphicmessage,needstotransposetheindividual sequenceofticksintoavisualimageofthewordbeforeheexperiencesitsnormalauditory image.Theprecisemethodofreadingoffspeechfromthetelegraphiccommunication undoubtedlyvarieswidelywiththeindividual.Itisevenconceivable,ifnotexactlylikely,that certainoperatorsmayhavelearnedtothinkdirectly,sofarasthepurelyconsciouspartofthe processofthoughtisconcerned,intermsofthetickauditorysymbolismor,iftheyhappento haveastrongnaturalbenttowardmotorsymbolism,intermsofthecorrelatedtactilemotor symbolismdevelopedinthesendingoftelegraphicmessages. Stillanotherinterestinggroupoftransfersarethedifferentgesturelanguages,developedforthe useofdeafmutes,ofTrappistmonksvowedtoperpetualsilence,orofcommunicatingparties thatarewithinseeingdistanceofeachotherbutareoutofearshot.Someofthesesystemsare

onetooneequivalencesofthenormalsystemofspeechothers,likemilitarygesturesymbolism orthegesturelanguageofthePlainsIndiansofNorthAmerica(understoodbytribesofmutually unintelligibleformsofspeech)areimperfecttransfers,limitingthemselvestotherenderingof suchgrosserspeechelementsasareanimperativeminimumunderdifficultcircumstances.In theselattersystems,asinsuchstillmoreimperfectsymbolismsasthoseusedatseaorinthe woods,itmaybecontendedthatlanguagenolongerproperlyplaysapartbutthattheideasare directlyconveyedbyanutterlyunrelatedsymbolicprocessorbyaquasiinstinctiveimitativeness. Suchaninterpretationwouldbeerroneous.Theintelligibilityofthesevaguersymbolismscan hardlybeduetoanythingbuttheirautomaticandsilenttranslationintothetermsofafullerflow ofspeech. Weshallnodoubtconcludethatallvoluntarycommunicationofideas,asidefromnormalspeech, iseitheratransfer,directorindirect,fromthetypicalsymbolismoflanguageasspokenand heardor,attheleast,involvestheintermediaryoftrulylinguisticsymbolism.Thisisafactofthe highestimportance.Auditoryimageryandthecorrelatedmotorimageryleadingtoarticulation are,bywhateverdeviouswayswefollowtheprocess,thehistoricfountainheadofallspeech andofallthinking.Oneotherpointisofstillgreaterimportance.Theeasewithwhichspeech symbolismcanbetransferredfromonesensetoanother,fromtechniquetotechnique,itself indicatesthatthemeresoundsofspeecharenottheessentialfactoflanguage,whichliesrather intheclassification,intheformalpatterning,andintherelatingofconcepts.Oncemore, language,asastructure,isonitsinnerfacethemoldofthought.Itisthisabstractedlanguage, rathermorethanthephysicalfactsofspeech,thatistoconcernusinourinquiry. Thereisnomorestrikinggeneralfactaboutlanguagethanitsuniversality.Onemayargueasto whetheraparticulartribeengagesinactivitiesthatareworthyofthenameofreligionorofart, butweknowofnopeoplethatisnotpossessedofafullydevelopedlanguage.ThelowliestSouth AfricanBushmanspeaksintheformsofarichsymbolicsystemthatisinessenceperfectly comparabletothespeechofthecultivatedFrenchman.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthemore abstractconceptsarenotnearlysoplentifullyrepresentedinthelanguageofthesavage,noris theretherichterminologyandthefinerdefinitionofnuancesthatreflectthehigherculture.Yet thesortoflinguisticdevelopmentthatparallelsthehistoricgrowthofcultureandwhich,inits laterstages,weassociatewithliteratureis,atbest,butasuperficialthing.Thefundamental groundworkoflanguagethedevelopmentofaclearcutphoneticsystem,thespecific associationofspeechelementswithconcepts,andthedelicateprovisionfortheformal expressionofallmannerofrelationsallthismeetsusrigidlyperfectedandsystematizedin everylanguageknowntous.Manyprimitivelanguageshaveaformalrichness,alatent luxurianceofexpression,thateclipsesanythingknowntothelanguagesofmoderncivilization. Eveninthemerematteroftheinventoryofspeechthelaymanmustbepreparedforstrange surprises.Popularstatementsastotheextremepovertyofexpressiontowhichprimitive languagesaredoomedaresimplymyths.Scarcelylessimpressivethantheuniversalityofspeech isitsalmostincrediblediversity.ThoseofusthathavestudiedFrenchorGerman,or,betteryet, LatinorGreek,knowinwhatvariedformsathoughtmayrun.Theformal divergencesbetween theEnglishplanandtheLatinplan,however,arecomparativelyslightintheperspectiveofwhat weknowofmoreexoticlinguisticpatterns.Theuniversalityandthediversityofspeechleadtoa significantinference.Weareforcedtobelievethatlanguageisanimmenselyancientheritageof thehumanrace,whetherornotallformsofspeecharethehistoricaloutgrowthofasingle

pristineform.Itisdoubtfulifanyotherculturalassetofman,beittheartofdrillingforfireorof chippingstone,maylayclaimtoagreaterage.Iaminclinedtobelievethatitantedatedeventhe lowliestdevelopmentsofmaterialculture,thatthesedevelopments,infact,werenotstrictly possibleuntillanguage,thetoolofsignificantexpression,haditselftakenshape.

II
TheElementsofSpeech
Wehavemorethanoncereferredtotheelementsofspeech,bywhichweunderstood,roughly speaking,whatareordinarilycalledwords.Wemustnowlookmorecloselyattheseelements andacquaintourselveswiththestuffoflanguage.Theverysimplestelementofspeechandby speechweshallhenceforthmeantheauditorysystemofspeechsymbolism,theflowof spokenwordsistheindividualsound,though,asweshallseelateron,thesoundisnotitselfa simplestructurebuttheresultantofaseriesofindependent,yetcloselycorrelated,adjustmentsin theorgansofspeech.Andyettheindividualsoundisnot,properlyconsidered,anelementof speechatall,forspeechisasignificantfunction andthesoundassuchhasnosignificance.It happensoccasionallythatthesinglesoundisanindependentlysignificantelement(suchas French ahasandtoorLatin igo!),butsuchcasesarefortuitouscoincidencesbetween individualsoundandsignificantword.Thecoincidenceisapttobefortuitousnotonlyintheory butinpointofactualhistoricfactthus,theinstancescitedaremerelyreducedformsof originallyfullerphoneticgroupsLatin habetandadandIndoEuropean eirespectively.If languageisastructureandifthesignificantelementsoflanguagearethebricksofthestructure, thenthesoundsofspeechcanonlybecomparedtotheunformedandunburntclayof whichthe bricksarefashioned.Inthischapterweshallhavenothingfurthertodowithsoundsassounds. Thetrue,significantelementsoflanguagearegenerallysequencesofsoundsthatareeither words,significantpartsofwords,orwordgroupings.Whatdistinguisheseachoftheseelements isthatitistheoutwardsignofaspecificidea,whetherofasingleconceptorimageorofa numberofsuchconceptsorimagesdefinitelyconnectedintoawhole.Thesinglewordmayor maynotbethesimplestsignificantelementwehavetodealwith.TheEnglishwordssing,sings, singing,singereachconveysaperfectlydefiniteandintelligibleidea,thoughtheideais disconnectedandisthereforefunctionallyofnopracticalvalue.Werecognizeimmediatelythat thesewordsareoftwosorts.Thefirstword, sing,isanindivisiblephoneticentityconveyingthe notionofacertainspecificactivity.Theotherwordsallinvolvethesamefundamentalnotionbut, owingtotheadditionofotherphoneticelements,thisnotionisgivenaparticulartwistthat modifiesormorecloselydefinesit.Theyrepresent,inasense,compoundedconceptsthathave floweredfromthefundamentalone.Wemay,therefore,analyzethewordssings,singing,and singerasbinaryexpressionsinvolvingafundamentalconcept,aconceptofsubjectmatter(sing), andafurtherconceptofmoreabstractorderoneofperson,number,time,condition,function, orofseveralofthesecombined. IfwesymbolizesuchatermassingbythealgebraicformulaA,weshallhavetosymbolizesuch termsassingsandsingerbytheformulaA +b.[1]TheelementAmaybeeitheracompleteand independentword(sing)orthefundamentalsubstance,thesocalledrootor stem[2]orradical

element(sing)ofaword.Theelementb(s, ing,er)istheindicatorofasubsidiaryand,asa rule,amoreabstractconceptinthewidestsenseofthewordform,itputsuponthe fundamentalconceptaformallimitation.Wemaytermitagrammaticalelementoraffix.As weshallseelateron,thegrammaticalelementorthegrammaticalincrement,aswehadbetter putit,neednotbesuffixedtotheradicalelement.Itmaybeaprefixedelement(liketheun of unsingable),itmaybeinsertedintotheverybodyofthestem(likethenoftheLatin vincoI conquerascontrastedwithitsabsencein viciIhaveconquered),itmaybethecompleteor partialrepetitionofthestem,oritmayconsistofsomemodificationoftheinnerformofthe stem(changeofvowel,asin sungandsongchangeofconsonantasin deadanddeathchange of accent actualabbreviation).Eachandeveryoneofthesetypesof grammaticalelementor modificationhasthispeculiarity,thatitmaynot,inthevastmajorityofcases,beused independentlybutneedstobesomehowattachedtoorweldedwitharadicalelementinorderto conveyanintelligiblenotion.Wehadbetter, therefore,modifyourformula,A +b,toA +(b), theroundbracketssymbolizingtheincapacityofanelementtostandalone.Thegrammatical element,moreover,isnotonlynonexistentexceptasassociatedwitharadicalone,itdoesnot even,asarule,obtainitsmeasureofsignificanceunlessitisassociatedwithaparticularclassof radicalelements.Thus,thes ofEnglish hehitssymbolizesanutterlydifferentnotionfromthes of books,merelybecausehitandbookaredifferentlyclassifiedastofunction.Wemusthastento observe,however,thatwhiletheradicalelementmay,onoccasion,beidentical withtheword,it doesnotfollowthatitmayalways,orevencustomarily,beusedasaword.Thus,thehort gardenofsuchLatinformsashortus,horti,andhortoisasmuchofanabstraction,thoughone yieldingamoreeasilyapprehendedsignificance,thantheing of singing.Neitherexistsasan independentlyintelligibleandsatisfyingelementofspeech.Boththeradicalelement,assuch, andthegrammaticalelement,therefore,arereachedonlybyaprocessofabstraction.Itseemed propertosymbolizesingerasA +(b) hortusmustbesymbolizedas(A)+(b). Sofar,thefirstspeechelementthatwehavefoundwhichwecansayactuallyexistsisthe word.Beforedefiningtheword,however,wemustlookalittlemorecloselyatthetypeofword thatisillustratedby sing.Arewe,afterall,justifiedinidentifyingitwitharadicalelement?Does itrepresentasimplecorrespondencebetweenconceptandlinguisticexpression?Istheelement sing,thatwehaveabstractedfrom sings,singing,andsingerandtowhichwemayjustlyascribe ageneralunmodifiedconceptualvalue,actuallythesamelinguisticfactasthewordsing?It wouldalmostseemabsurdtodoubtit,yetalittlereflectiononlyisneededtoconvinceusthatthe doubtisentirelylegitimate.Thewordsingcannot,asamatteroffact,befreelyusedtoreferto itsownconceptualcontent.Theexistenceofsuchevidentlyrelatedformsassangandsungat onceshowsthatitcannotrefertopasttime,butthat,foratleastanimportantpartofitsrangeof usage,itislimitedtothepresent.Ontheotherhand,theuseof singasaninfinitive(insuch locutionsastosingandhewillsing)doesindicatethatthereisafairlystrongtendencyforthe word sing torepresentthefull,untrammeledamplitudeofaspecificconcept.Yetif singwere,in anyadequatesense,thefixedexpressionoftheunmodifiedconcept,thereshouldbenoroomfor suchvocalicaberrationsaswefindin sangandsungandsong,norshouldwefindsing specificallyusedtoindicatepresenttimeforallpersonsbutone(thirdpersonsingularsings). Thetruthofthematteristhatsingisakindoftwilightword,tremblingbetweenthestatusofa trueradicalelementandthatofamodifiedwordofthetypeof singing.Thoughithasnooutward signtoindicatethatitconveysmorethanageneralizedidea,wedofeelthattherehangsaboutit

avariablemistofaddedvalue.TheformulaAdoesnotseemtorepresentitsowellasA +(0). Wemightsuspectsing ofbelongingtotheA +(b)type,withthereservationthatthe(b)had vanished.Thisreportofthefeelofthewordisfarfromfanciful,forhistoricalevidencedoes, inallearnest,showthatsingisinoriginanumberofquitedistinctwords,oftypeA +(b),that havepooledtheirseparatevalues.The(b)ofeachofthesehasgoneasatangiblephonetic elementitsforce,however,lingersoninweakenedmeasure.Thesingof Isingisthe correspondentoftheAngloSaxon singetheinfinitivesing,of singantheimperativesingof sing.EversincethebreakdownofEnglishformsthatsetinaboutthetimeoftheNorman Conquest,ourlanguagehasbeenstrainingtowardsthecreationofsimpleconceptwords, unalloyedbyformalconnotations,butithasnotyetsucceededinthis,apart,possibly,from isolatedadverbsandotherelementsofthatsort.Werethetypicalunanalyzablewordofthe languagetrulyapureconceptword(typeA)insteadofbeingofastrangelytransitionaltype (typeA +[0]),oursing andworkandhouseandthousandsofotherswouldcomparewiththe genuineradicalwordsofnumerousotherlanguages.[3]Sucharadicalword,totakearandom example,istheNootka[4]wordhamot bone.OurEnglishcorrespondentisonlysuperficially comparable.HamotmeansboneinaquiteindefinitesensetoourEnglishwordclingsthe notionofsingularity.TheNootkaIndiancanconveytheideaofplurality,inoneofseveralways, if hesodesires,buthedoesnotneedto hamotmaydoforeithersingularorplural,shouldno interesthappentoattachtothedistinction.Assoonaswesaybone(asidefromitssecondary usagetoindicatematerial),wenotmerelyspecifythenatureof theobjectbutweimply,whether wewillorno,thatthereisbutoneoftheseobjectstobeconsidered.Andthisincrementofvalue makesallthedifference. Wenowknowoffourdistinctformaltypesofword:A(Nootka hamot)A +(0)(sing, bone) A +(b)(singing)(A)+(b)(Latin hortus).Thereisbutoneothertypethatisfundamentally possible:A +B,theunionoftwo(ormore)independentlyoccurringradicalelementsintoa singleterm.SuchawordisthecompoundfireengineoraSiouxformequivalenttoeatstand (i.e.,toeatwhilestanding).Itfrequentlyhappens,however,thatoneoftheradicalelements becomesfunctionallysosubordinatedtotheotherthatittakesonthecharacterofagrammatical element.WemaysymbolizethisbyA +b,atypethatmaygradually,bylossofexternal connectionbetweenthesubordinatedelementbanditsindependentcounterpartBmergewith thecommonertypeA +(b).Awordlikebeautiful isanexampleofA +b,theful barely preservingtheimpressofitslineage.Awordlikehomely,ontheotherhand,isclearlyofthe typeA +(b),fornoonebutalinguisticstudentisawareoftheconnectionbetweenthelyand theindependentwordlike. Inactualuse,ofcourse,thesefive(orsix)fundamentaltypesmaybeindefinitelycomplicatedin anumberofways.The(0)mayhaveamultiplevalueinotherwords,theinherentformal modificationofthebasicnotionofthewordmayaffectmorethanonecategory.InsuchaLatin wordascorheart,forinstance,notonlyisaconcreteconceptconveyed,butthereclingtothe form,whichisactuallyshorterthanitsownradicalelement(cord),thethreedistinct,yet intertwined,formalconceptsofsingularity,genderclassification(neuter),andcase(subjective objective).Thecompletegrammaticalformulaforcoris,then,A +(0)+ (0) + (0),thoughthe merelyexternal,phoneticformulawouldbe(A),(A)indicatingtheabstractedstemcord, theminussignalossofmaterial.Thesignificantthingaboutsuch awordascoristhatthethree conceptuallimitationsarenotmerelyexpressedbyimplicationasthewordsinksintoplaceina

sentencetheyaretiedup,forgoodandall,withintheveryvitalsofthewordandcannotbe eliminatedbyanypossibilityof usage. Othercomplicationsresultfromamanifoldingofparts.Inagivenwordtheremaybeseveral elementsoftheorderA(wehavealreadysymbolizedthisbythetypeA+B),oftheorder(A),of theorderb,andoftheorder(b).Finally,thevarioustypesmaybecombinedamongthemselves inendlessways.AcomparativelysimplelanguagelikeEnglish,orevenLatin,illustratesbuta modestproportionofthesetheoreticalpossibilities.Butifwetakeourexamplesfreelyfromthe vaststorehouseoflanguage,fromlanguagesexoticaswellasfromthosethatwearemore familiarwith,weshallfindthatthereishardlyapossibilitythatisnotrealizedinactualusage. Oneexamplewilldoforthousands,onecomplextypeforhundredsofpossibletypes.Iselectit fromPaiute,thelanguageoftheIndiansofthearidplateausofsouthwesternUtah.Thewordwii tokuchumpunkurganiyugwivantm()[5]isofunusuallength evenforitsownlanguage, butitisnopsychologicalmonsterforallthat.Itmeanstheywhoaregoingtositandcutupwith aknifeablackcow(orbull),or,intheorderoftheIndianelements,knifeblackbuffalopet cutupsit(plur.)futureparticipleanimateplur.Theformulaforthisword,inaccordancewith oursymbolism,wouldbe(F)+(E) +C+d +A + B+(g) +(h)+(i)+(0).Itisthepluralofthe futureparticipleofacompoundverbtositandcutupA +B.Theelements(g)which denotesfuturity,(h)aparticipialsuffix,and(i)indicatingtheanimatepluralare grammaticalelementswhichconveynothingwhendetached.Theformula(0)isintendedto implythatthefinishedwordconveys,inadditiontowhatisdefinitelyexpressed,afurther relationalidea,thatofsubjectivityinotherwords,theformcanonlybeusedasthesubjectofa sentence,notinanobjectiveorothersyntacticrelation.TheradicalelementA(tocutup), beforeenteringintocombinationwiththecordinateelementB(tosit),isitselfcompounded withtwonominalelementsorelementgroupsaninstrumentallyusedstem(F)(knife),which maybefreelyusedastheradicalelementofnounformsbutcannotbeemployedasanabsolute nouninitsgivenform,andanobjectivelyusedgroup(E) +C+d(blackcoworbull).This groupinturnconsistsofanadjectivalradicalelement(E)(black),whichcannotbe independentlyemployed(theabsolutenotionofblackcanberenderedonlyastheparticipleof averb:blackbeing),andthecompoundnounC+d(buffalopet).TheradicalelementC properlymeansbuffalo,buttheelementd,properlyanindependentlyoccurringnounmeaning horse(originallydogordomesticatedanimalingeneral),isregularlyusedasaquasi subordinateelementindicatingthattheanimaldenotedbythestemtowhichitisaffixedis ownedbyahumanbeing.Itwillbeobservedthatthewholecomplex(F)+(E)+ C+d +A +B isfunctionallynomorethanaverbalbase,correspondingtothesing ofanEnglishformlike singingthatthiscomplexremainsverbalinforceontheadditionofthetemporalelement(g) this(g),bytheway,mustnotbeunderstoodasappendedtoBalone,buttothewholebasic complexasaunitandthattheelements(h)+(i)+(0)transformtheverbalexpressionintoa formallywelldefinednoun. Itishightimethatwedecidedjustwhatismeantbyaword.Ourfirstimpulse,nodoubt,would havebeentodefinethewordasthesymbolic,linguisticcounterpartofasingleconcept.Wenow knowthatsuchadefinitionisimpossible.Intruthitisimpossibletodefinethewordfroma functionalstandpointatall,forthewordmaybeanythingfromtheexpressionofasingle conceptconcreteorabstractorpurelyrelational(asin ofor by orand)totheexpressionofa completethought(asinLatin dicoIsayor,withgreaterelaboratenessofform,inaNootka

verbformdenotingIhavebeenaccustomedtoeattwentyroundobjects[e.g.,apples]while engagedin[doingsoandso]).Inthelattercasethewordbecomesidenticalwiththesentence. Thewordismerelyaform,adefinitelymoldedentitythattakesinasmuchoraslittleofthe conceptualmaterialofthewholethoughtasthegeniusofthelanguagecarestoallow.Thusitis thatwhilethesingleradicalelementsandgrammaticalelements,thecarriersofisolatedconcepts, arecomparableaswepassfromlanguagetolanguage,thefinishedwordsarenot.Radical(or grammatical)elementandsentencethesearetheprimary functionalunitsofspeech,theformer asanabstractedminimum,thelatterastheestheticallysatisfyingembodimentofaunified thought.Theactual formalunitsofspeech,thewords,mayonoccasionidentifythemselveswith eitherofthetwofunctionalunitsmoreoftentheymediatebetweenthetwoextremes, embodyingoneormoreradicalnotionsandalsooneormoresubsidiaryones.Wemayputthe wholematterinanutshellbysayingthattheradicalandgrammaticalelementsoflanguage, abstractedastheyarefromtherealitiesofspeech,respondtotheconceptualworldofscience, abstractedasitisfromtherealitiesofexperience,andthattheword,theexistentunitofliving speech,respondstotheunitofactuallyapprehendedexperience,ofhistory,ofart.Thesentence isthelogicalcounterpartofthecompletethoughtonlyifitbefeltasmadeupoftheradicaland grammaticalelementsthatlurkintherecessesofitswords.Itisthepsychologicalcounterpartof experience,ofart,whenitisfelt,asindeeditnormallyis,asthefinishedplayofwordwith word. Asthenecessityofdefiningthoughtsolelyandexclusivelyforitsownsakebecomesmore urgent,thewordbecomesincreasinglyirrelevantasameans.Wecanthereforeeasilyunderstand whythemathematicianandthesymboliclogicianaredriventodiscardthewordandtobuildup theirthoughtwiththehelpofsymbolswhichhave,eachofthem,arigidlyunitaryvalue. Butisnottheword,onemayobject,asmuchofanabstractionastheradicalelement?Isitnotas arbitrarilyliftedoutofthelivingsentenceasistheminimumconceptualelementoutoftheword? Somestudentsoflanguagehave,indeed,lookeduponthewordassuchanabstraction,though with verydoubtfulwarrant,itseemstome.Itistruethatinparticularcases,especiallyinsome ofthehighlysyntheticlanguagesofaboriginalAmerica,itisnotalwayseasytosaywhethera particularelementoflanguageistobeinterpretedasanindependentwordoraspartofalarger word.Thesetransitionalcases,puzzlingastheymaybeonoccasion,donot,however,materially weakenthecaseforthepsychologicalvalidityoftheword.Linguisticexperience,bothas expressedinstandardized,written formandastestedindailyusage,indicatesoverwhelmingly thatthereisnot,asarule,theslightestdifficultyinbringingthewordtoconsciousnessasa psychologicalreality.Nomoreconvincingtestcouldbedesiredthanthis,thatthenaveIndian, quiteunaccustomedtotheconceptofthewrittenword,hasneverthelessnoseriousdifficultyin dictatingatexttoalinguisticstudentwordbywordhetends,ofcourse,torunhiswords togetherasinactualspeech,butifheiscalledtoahaltandismadetounderstandwhatisdesired, hecanreadilyisolatethewordsassuch,repeatingthemasunits.Heregularlyrefuses,onthe otherhand,toisolatetheradicalorgrammatical element,onthegroundthatitmakesno sense.[6]What,then,istheobjectivecriterionoftheword?Thespeakerandhearerfeelthe word,letusgrant,buthowshallwejustifytheirfeeling?Iffunctionisnottheultimatecriterion oftheword,whatis? Itiseasiertoaskthequestionthantoanswerit.Thebestthatwecandoistosaythatthewordis oneofthesmallest,completelysatisfyingbitsofisolatedmeaningintowhichthesentence resolvesitself.Itcannotbecutintowithoutadisturbanceofmeaning,oneortheotherorbothof

theseveredpartsremainingasahelplesswaifonourhands.Inpracticethisunpretentious criteriondoesbetterservicethanmightbesupposed.InsuchasentenceasItisunthinkable,itis simplyimpossibletogrouptheelementsintoanyotherandsmallerwordsthanthethree indicated.Think orthinkable mightbeisolated,butasneitherunnor able nor isunyieldsa measurablesatisfaction,wearecompelledtoleaveunthinkableasanintegralwhole,aminiature bitofart.Addedtothefeelofthewordarefrequently,butbynomeansinvariably,certain externalphoneticcharacteristics.Chiefoftheseisaccent.Inmany,perhapsinmost,languages thesinglewordismarkedbyaunifyingaccent,anemphasisononeofthesyllables,towhichthe restaresubordinated.Theparticularsyllablethatistobesodistinguishedisdependent,needless tosay,onthespecialgeniusofthelanguage.Theimportanceofaccentasaunifyingfeatureof thewordisobviousinsuchEnglishexamplesasunthinkable,characterizing.ThelongPaiute wordthatwehaveanalyzedismarkedasarigidphoneticunitbyseveralfeatures,chiefofwhich aretheaccentonitssecondsyllable(wiiknife)andtheslurring(unvoicing,tousethe technicalphoneticterm)ofitsfinalvowel(m,animateplural).Suchfeaturesasaccent, cadence,andthetreatmentofconsonantsandvowelswithinthebodyofawordareoftenuseful asaidsintheexternaldemarcationof theword,buttheymustbynomeansbeinterpreted,asis sometimesdone,asthemselvesresponsibleforitspsychologicalexistence.Theyatbestbut strengthenafeelingofunitythatisalreadypresentonothergrounds. Wehavealreadyseenthatthemajorfunctionalunitofspeech,thesentence,has,liketheword,a psychologicalaswellasamerelylogicalorabstractedexistence.Itsdefinitionisnotdifficult.It isthelinguisticexpressionofaproposition.Itcombinesasubjectofdiscoursewith astatement inregardtothissubject.Subjectandpredicatemaybecombinedinasingleword,asinLatin dicoeachmaybeexpressedindependently,asintheEnglishequivalent,Isayeachoreither maybesoqualifiedastoleadtocomplexpropositionsofmanysorts.Nomatterhowmanyof thesequalifyingelements(wordsorfunctionalpartsofwords)areintroduced,thesentencedoes notloseitsfeelingofunitysolongaseachandeveryoneofthemfallsinplaceascontributory to thedefinitionof eitherthesubjectofdiscourseorthecoreofthepredicate[7].Suchasentenceas ThemayorofNewYorkisgoingtodeliveraspeechofwelcomeinFrenchisreadilyfeltasa unifiedstatement,incapableofreductionbythetransferofcertainofitselements,intheirgiven form,totheprecedingorfollowingsentences.Thecontributoryideasof ofNewYork,of welcome,andinFrenchmaybeeliminatedwithouthurtingtheidiomaticflowofthesentence. Themayorisgoingtodeliveraspeechisaperfectlyintelligibleproposition.Butfurtherthanthis wecannotgointheprocessofreduction.Wecannotsay,forinstance,Mayorisgoingto deliver.[8]Thereducedsentenceresolvesitselfintothesubjectofdiscoursethemayorand thepredicateisgoingtodeliveraspeech.Itiscustomarytosaythatthetruesubjectofsucha sentenceismayor,thetruepredicateisgoing oreven is,theotherelementsbeingstrictly subordinate.Suchananalysis,however,ispurelyschematicandiswithoutpsychologicalvalue. Itismuchbetterfranklytorecognizethefactthateitherorbothofthetwotermsofthesentence propositionmaybeincapableofexpressionintheformofsinglewords.Therearelanguagesthat canconveyallthatisconveyedby Themayorisgoingtodeliveraspeechintwowords,a subjectwordandapredicateword,butEnglishisnotsohighlysynthetic.Thepointthatweare reallymakinghereisthatunderlyingthefinishedsentenceisalivingsentencetype,offixed formalcharacteristics.Thesefixedtypesoractualsentencegroundworksmaybefreelyoverlaid bysuchadditionalmatterasthespeakerorwritercarestoputon,buttheyarethemselvesas rigidlygivenbytraditionasaretheradicalandgrammaticalelementsabstractedfromthe

finishedword.Newwordsmaybeconsciouslycreatedfromthesefundamentalelementsonthe analogyofoldones,buthardlynewtypesofwords.Inthesamewaynewsentencesarebeing constantlycreated,butalwaysonstrictlytraditionallines.Theenlargedsentence,however, allowsasaruleofconsiderablefreedominthehandlingofwhatmaybecalledunessential parts.Itisthismarginoffreedomwhichgivesustheopportunityofindividualstyle. Thehabitualassociationofradicalelements,grammaticalelements,words,andsentenceswith conceptsorgroupsofconceptsrelatedintowholesisthefactitselfoflanguage.Itisimportantto notethatthereisinalllanguagesacertainrandomnessofassociation.Thus,theideaofhide maybealsoexpressedbythewordconceal,thenotionofthreetimesalsobythrice.The multipleexpressionofasingleconceptisuniversallyfeltasasourceoflinguisticstrengthand variety,notasaneedlessextravagance.Moreirksomeisarandomcorrespondencebetweenidea andlinguisticexpressioninthefieldofabstractandrelationalconcepts,particularlywhenthe conceptisembodiedinagrammaticalelement.Thus,therandomnessoftheexpressionof pluralityinsuchwordsasbooks,oxen, sheep,andgeeseisfelttoberathermore,Ifancy,an unavoidableandtraditionalpredicamentthanawelcomeluxuriance.Itisobviousthatalanguage cannotgobeyondacertainpointinthisrandomness.Manylanguagesgoincrediblyfarinthis respect,itistrue,butlinguistichistoryshowsconclusivelythatsoonerorlaterthelessfrequently occurringassociationsareironedoutattheexpenseofthemorevitalones.Inotherwords,all languageshaveaninherenttendencytoeconomyofexpression.Werethistendencyentirely inoperative,therewouldbenogrammar.Thefactofgrammar,auniversaltraitoflanguage,is simplyageneralizedexpressionofthefeelingthatanalogousconceptsandrelationsaremost convenientlysymbolizedinanalogousforms.Werealanguageevercompletelygrammatical, itwouldbeaperfectengineofconceptualexpression.Unfortunately,orluckily,nolanguageis tyrannicallyconsistent.Allgrammarsleak. Uptothepresentwehavebeenassumingthatthematerialoflanguagereflectsmerelytheworld ofconceptsand,onwhatIhaveventuredtocalltheprerationalplane,ofimages,whichare therawmaterialofconcepts.Wehave,inotherwords,beenassumingthatlanguagemoves entirelyintheideationalorcognitivesphere.Itistimethatweamplifiedthepicture.The volitionalaspectofconsciousnessalsoistosomeextentexplicitlyprovidedforinlanguage. Nearlyalllanguageshavespecialmeansfortheexpressionofcommands(intheimperative formsoftheverb,forexample)andofdesires,unattainedorunattainable(Wouldhemightcome! or Wouldhewerehere!)Theemotions,onthewhole,seemtobegivenalessadequateoutlet. Emotion,indeed,isproverbiallyinclinedtospeechlessness.Most,ifnotall,theinterjectionsare tobeputtothecreditofemotionalexpression,also,itmaybe,anumberoflinguisticelements expressingcertainmodalities,suchasdubitativeorpotentialforms,whichmaybeinterpretedas reflectingtheemotional statesofhesitationordoubtattenuatedfear.Onthewhole,itmustbe admittedthatideationreignssupremeinlanguage,thatvolitionandemotioncomeinas distinctlysecondaryfactors.This,afterall,isperfectlyintelligible.Theworldofimageand concept,theendlessandevershiftingpictureofobjectivereality,istheunavoidablesubject matterofhumancommunication,foritisonly,ormainly,intermsofthisworldthateffective actionispossible.Desire,purpose,emotionarethepersonalcoloroftheobjectiveworldthey areappliedprivatelybytheindividualsoulandareofrelativelylittleimportancetothe neighboringone.Allthisdoesnotmeanthatvolitionandemotionarenotexpressed.Theyare, strictlyspeaking,neverabsentfromnormalspeech,buttheirexpressionisnotofatruly

linguisticnature.Thenuancesofemphasis,tone,andphrasing,thevaryingspeedandcontinuity ofutterance,theaccompanyingbodilymovements,alltheseexpresssomethingoftheinnerlife ofimpulseandfeeling,butasthesemeansofexpressionare,atlastanalysis,butmodifiedforms oftheinstinctiveutterancethatmanshareswiththeloweranimals,theycannotbeconsideredas formingpartoftheessentialculturalconceptionoflanguage,howevermuchtheymaybe inseparablefromitsactuallife.Andthisinstinctiveexpressionofvolitionandemotionis,forthe mostpart,sufficient,oftenmorethansufficient,forthepurposesofcommunication. Thereare,itistrue,certainwritersonthepsychologyoflanguage[9]whodenyitsprevailingly cognitivecharacterbutattempt,onthecontrary,todemonstratetheoriginofmostlinguistic elementswithinthedomainoffeeling.IconfessthatIamutterlyunabletofollowthem.What thereisoftruthintheircontentionsmaybesummedup,itseemstome,bysayingthatmost words,likepracticallyallelementsofconsciousness,haveanassociatedfeelingtone,amild,yet nonethelessrealandattimesinsidiouslypowerful,derivativeofpleasureorpain.Thisfeeling tone,however,isnotasaruleaninherentvalueintheworditselfitisratherasentimental growthonthewordstruebody,onitsconceptualkernel.Notonlymaythefeelingtonechange fromoneagetoanother(this,ofcourse,istrueoftheconceptualcontentaswell),butitvaries remarkablyfromindividualtoindividualaccordingtothepersonalassociationsofeach,varies, indeed,fromtimetotimeinasingleindividualsconsciousnessashisexperiencesmoldhimand hismoodschange.Tobesure,therearesociallyacceptedfeelingtones,orrangesoffeelingtone, formanywordsoverandabovetheforceofindividualassociation,buttheyareexceedingly variableandelusivethingsatbest.Theyrarelyhavetherigidityofthecentral,primaryfact.We allgrant,forinstance,thatstorm,tempest,andhurricane,quiteasidefromtheirslightdifferences ofactualmeaning,havedistinctfeelingtones,tonesthatarefeltbyallsensitivespeakersand readersofEnglishinaroughlyequivalentfashion.Storm,wefeel,isamoregeneralanda decidedlylessmagnificentwordthantheothertwo tempestisnotonlyassociatedwiththesea butislikely,inthemindsofmany,tohaveobtainedasoftenedglamourfromaspecific associationwithShakespearesgreatplay hurricanehasagreaterforthrightness,adirecter ruthlessnessthanitssynonyms.Yettheindividualsfeelingtonesforthesewordsarelikelyto vary enormously.Tosometempestandhurricanemayseemsoft,literarywords,thesimpler stormhavingafresh,ruggedvaluewhichtheothersdonotpossess(thinkof stormandstress).If wehavebrowsedmuchinourchildhooddaysinbooksoftheSpanishMain,hurricaneislikely tohaveapleasurablybracingtoneifwehavehadthemisfortunetobecaughtinone,wearenot unlikelytofeelthewordascold,cheerless,sinister. Thefeelingtonesofwordsareofnouse,strictlyspeaking,tosciencethephilosopher,ifhe desirestoarriveattruthratherthanmerelytopersuade,findsthemhismostinsidiousenemies. Butmanisrarelyengagedinpurescience,insolidthinking.Generallyhismentalactivitiesare bathedinawarmcurrentoffeelingandheseizesuponthefeelingtonesofwordsasgentleaids tothedesiredexcitation.Theyarenaturallyofgreatvaluetotheliteraryartist.Itisinterestingto note,however,thateventotheartisttheyareadanger.Awordwhosecustomaryfeelingtoneis toounquestioninglyacceptedbecomesaplushybitoffurniture,aclich.Everynowandthenthe artisthastofightthefeelingtone,togetthewordtomeanwhatitnakedlyandconceptually shouldmean,dependingfortheeffectoffeelingonthecreativepowerofanindividual juxtapositionofconceptsorimages.

III
TheSoundsofLanguage
Wehaveseenthatthemerephoneticframeworkofspeechdoesnotconstitutetheinnerfactof languageandthatthesinglesoundofarticulatedspeechisnot,assuch,alinguisticelementatall. Forallthat,speechissoinevitablyboundupwithsoundsandtheirarticulationthatwecan hardlyavoidgivingthesubjectofphoneticssomegeneralconsideration.Experiencehasshown thatneitherthepurelyformalaspectsofalanguagenorthecourseofitshistorycanbefully understoodwithoutreferencetothesoundsinwhichthisformandthishistoryareembodied.A detailedsurveyofphoneticswouldbebothtootechnicalforthegeneralreaderandtooloosely relatedtoourmainthemetowarranttheneededspace,butwecanwellaffordtoconsiderafew outstandingfactsandideasconnectedwiththesoundsoflanguage. Thefeelingthattheaveragespeakerhasofhislanguageisthatitisbuiltup,acoustically speaking,ofacomparativelysmallnumberofdistinctsounds,eachofwhichisratheraccurately providedforinthecurrentalphabetbyoneletteror,inafewcases,bytwoormorealternative letters.Asforthelanguagesofforeigners,hegenerallyfeelsthat,asidefromafewstriking differencesthatcannotescapeeventheuncriticalear,thesoundstheyusearethesameasthose heisfamiliarwithbutthatthereisamysteriousaccenttotheseforeignlanguages,acertain unanalyzedphoneticcharacter,apartfromthesoundsassuch,thatgivesthemtheirairof strangeness.Thisnavefeelingislargelyillusoryonbothscores.Phoneticanalysisconvinces onethatthenumberofclearlydistinguishablesoundsandnuancesofsoundsthatarehabitually employedbythespeakersofalanguageisfargreaterthantheythemselvesrecognize.Probably notoneEnglishspeakeroutofahundredhastheremotestideathatthet ofawordlikestingis notatallthesamesoundasthet of teem,thelatter thavingafullnessofbreathreleasethatis inhibitedintheformercasebytheprecedingsthattheeaof meatisofperceptiblyshorter durationthantheeaof meadorthatthefinal sofawordlikeheadsisnotthefull,buzzingz soundofthesinsuch awordasplease.Itisthefrequentfailureofforeigners,whohaveacquired apracticalmasteryofEnglishandwhohaveeliminatedallthecruderphoneticshortcomingsof theirlesscarefulbrethren,toobservesuchminordistinctionsthathelpstogivetheirEnglish pronunciationthecuriouslyelusiveaccentthatweallvaguelyfeel.Wedonotdiagnosethe accentasthetotalacousticeffectproducedbyaseriesofslightbutspecificphoneticerrorsfor theverygoodreasonthatwehavenevermadecleartoourselvesourownphoneticstockintrade. Iftwolanguagestakenatrandom,sayEnglishandRussian,arecomparedastotheirphonetic systems,wearemoreaptthannottofindthatveryfewofthephoneticelementsoftheonefind anexactanalogueintheother.Thus,thet ofaRussianwordliketamthereisneitherthe English tof stingnortheEnglish tof teem.Itdiffersfrombothinitsdentalarticulation,in otherwords,inbeingproducedbycontactofthetipofthetonguewiththeupperteeth,not,asin English,bycontactofthetonguebackofthetipwiththegumridgeabovetheteethmoreover,it differsfromthetof teemalsointheabsenceofamarkedbreathreleasebeforethefollowing vowelisattached,sothatitsacousticeffectisofamoreprecise,metallicnaturethanin English.Again,theEnglish lisunknowninRussian,whichpossesses,ontheotherhand,two distinctlsoundsthatthenormalEnglishspeakerwouldfinditdifficultexactlytoreproducea hollow,gutturallikelandasoft,palatalizedlsoundthatisonlyveryapproximately

rendered,inEnglishterms,asly.Evensosimpleand,onewouldimagine,soinvariableasound asmdiffersinthetwolanguages.InaRussianwordlikemostbridgethemisnotthesameas them oftheEnglishwordmostthelipsaremorefullyroundedduringitsarticulation,sothatit makesaheavier,moreresonantimpressionontheear.Thevowels,needlesstosay,differ completelyinEnglishandRussian,hardlyanytwoofthembeingquitethesame. Ihavegoneintotheseillustrativedetails,whichareoflittleornospecificinterestforus,merely inordertoprovidesomethingofanexperimentalbasistoconvinceourselvesofthetremendous variabilityofspeechsounds.Yetacompleteinventoryoftheacousticresourcesofallthe Europeanlanguages,thelanguagesnearerhome,whileunexpectedlylarge,wouldstillfallfar shortofconveyingajustideaofthetruerangeofhumanarticulation.Inmanyofthelanguages ofAsia,Africa,andaboriginalAmericatherearewholeclassesofsoundsthatmostofushave noknowledgeof.Theyarenotnecessarilymoredifficultofenunciationthansoundsmore familiartoourearstheymerelyinvolvesuchmuscularadjustmentsoftheorgansofspeechas wehaveneverhabituatedourselvesto.Itmaybesafelysaidthatthetotalnumberofpossible soundsisgreatlyinexcessofthoseactuallyinuse.Indeed,anexperiencedphoneticianshould havenodifficultyininventingsoundsthatareunknowntoobjectiveinvestigation.Onereason whywefinditdifficulttobelievethattherangeofpossiblespeechsoundsisindefinitelylargeis ourhabitofconceivingthesoundasasimple,unanalyzableimpressioninsteadofastheresultant ofanumberofdistinctmuscularadjustmentsthattakeplacesimultaneously.Aslightchangein anyoneoftheseadjustmentsgivesusanewsoundwhichisakintotheoldone,becauseofthe continuanceoftheotheradjustments,butwhichisacousticallydistinctfromit,sosensitivehas thehumanearbecometothenuancedplayofthevocalmechanism.Anotherreasonforourlack ofphoneticimaginationisthefactthat,whileourearisdelicatelyresponsivetothesoundsof speech,themusclesofourspeechorganshaveearlyinlifebecomeexclusivelyaccustomedto theparticularadjustmentsandsystemsofadjustmentthatarerequiredtoproducethetraditional soundsofthelanguage.Allornearlyallotheradjustmentshavebecomepermanentlyinhibited, whetherthroughinexperienceorthroughgradualelimination.Ofcoursethepowertoproduce theseinhibitedadjustmentsisnotentirelylost,buttheextremedifficultyweexperiencein learningthenewsoundsofforeignlanguagesissufficientevidenceofthestrangerigiditythat hassetinformostpeopleinthevoluntarycontrolofthespeechorgans.Thepointmaybe broughthomebycontrastingthecomparativelackoffreedomofvoluntaryspeechmovements withtheallbutperfectfreedomofvoluntarygesture.[10] Ourrigidityinarticulationistheprice wehavehadtopayforeasymasteryofahighlynecessarysymbolism.Onecannotbeboth splendidlyfreeintherandomchoiceofmovementsandselectivewithdeadlycertainty.[11] Thereare,then,anindefinitelylargenumberofarticulatedsoundsavailableforthemechanicsof speechanygivenlanguagemakesuseofanexplicit,rigidlyeconomicalselectionoftheserich resourcesandeachofthemanypossiblesoundsofspeechisconditionedbyanumberof independentmuscularadjustmentsthatworktogethersimultaneouslytowardsitsproduction.A fullaccountoftheactivityofeachoftheorgansofspeechinsofarasitsactivityhasabearing onlanguageisimpossiblehere,norcanweconcernourselvesinasystematicwaywiththe classificationofsoundsonthebasisoftheirmechanics.[12]Afewboldoutlinesareallthatwe canattempt.Theorgansofspeecharethelungsandbronchialtubesthethroat,particularlythat partof itwhichisknownasthelarynxor,inpopularparlance,theAdamsapplethenosethe uvula,whichisthesoft,pointed,andeasilymovableorganthatdependsfromtherearofthe

palatethepalate,whichisdividedintoaposterior,movablesoftpalateorvelumandahard palatethetonguetheteethandthelips.Thepalate,lowerpalate,tongue,teeth,andlipsmay belookeduponasacombinedresonancechamber,whoseconstantlyvaryingshape,chieflydue totheextrememobilityofthetongue,isthemainfactoringivingtheoutgoingbreathitsprecise quality[13]ofsound. Thelungsandbronchialtubesareorgansofspeechonlyinsofarastheysupplyandconductthe currentofoutgoingairwithoutwhichaudiblearticulationisimpossible.Theyarenotresponsible foranyspecificsoundoracousticfeatureofsoundsexcept,possibly,accentorstress.Itmaybe thatdifferencesofstressareduetoslightdifferencesinthecontractingforceofthelungmuscles, buteventhisinfluenceofthelungsisdeniedbysomestudents,whoexplainthefluctuationsof stressthatdosomuchtocolorspeechbyreferencetothemoredelicateactivityoftheglottal cords. Theseglottalcordsaretwosmall,nearlyhorizontal,andhighlysensitivemembranes withinthelarynx,whichconsists,forthemostpart,oftwolargeandseveralsmallercartilages andofanumberofsmallmusclesthatcontroltheactionofthecords. Thecords,whichareattachedtothecartilages,aretothehumanspeechorganswhatthetwo vibratingreedsaretoaclarinetorthestringstoaviolin.Theyarecapableofatleastthree distincttypesofmovement,eachofwhichisofthegreatestimportanceforspeech.Theymaybe drawntowardsorawayfromeachother,theymayvibratelikereedsorstrings,andtheymay becomelaxortenseinthedirectionoftheirlength.Thelastclassofthesemovementsallowsthe cordstovibrateatdifferentlengthsordegreesoftensenessandisresponsibleforthevariations inpitchwhicharepresentnotonlyinsongbutinthemoreelusivemodulationsofordinary speech.Thetwoothertypesofglottalactiondeterminethenatureofthevoice,voicebeinga convenienttermforbreathasutilizedinspeech.Ifthecordsarewellapart,allowingthebreathto escapeinunmodifiedform,wehavetheconditiontechnicallyknownasvoicelessness.All soundsproducedunderthesecircumstancesarevoicelesssounds.Sucharethesimple, unmodifiedbreathasitpassesintothemouth,whichis,atleastapproximately,thesameasthe soundthatwewriteh,alsoalargenumberofspecialarticulationsinthemouthchamber,likep ands.Ontheotherhand,theglottal cordsmaybebroughttighttogether,withoutvibrating. Whenthishappens,thecurrentofbreathischeckedforthetimebeing.Theslightchokeor arrestedcoughthatisthusmadeaudibleisnotrecognizedinEnglishasadefinitesoundbut occursneverthelessnotinfrequently.[14]Thismomentarycheck,technicallyknownasaglottal stop,isanintegralelementofspeechinmanylanguages,asDanish,Lettish,certainChinese dialects,andnearlyallAmericanIndianlanguages.Betweenthetwoextremesofvoicelessness, that ofcompletelyopenbreathandthatofcheckedbreath,liesthepositionoftruevoice.Inthis positionthecordsareclosetogether,butnotsotightlyastopreventtheairfromstreaming throughthecordsaresetvibratingandamusicaltoneofvaryingpitchresults.Atoneso producedisknownasavoicedsound.Itmayhaveanindefinitenumberofqualitiesaccording totheprecisepositionoftheupperorgansofspeech.Ourvowels,nasals(suchasmandn),and suchsoundsasb,z,andlareallvoicedsounds.Themostconvenienttestofavoicedsoundisthe possibilityofpronouncingitonanygivenpitch,inotherwords,ofsingingonit.[15] Thevoiced soundsarethemostclearlyaudibleelementsofspeech.Assuchtheyarethecarriersof practicallyallsignificantdifferencesinstress,pitch,andsyllabification.Thevoicelesssounds arearticulatednoisesthatbreakupthestreamofvoicewithfleetingmomentsofsilence. Acousticallyintermediatebetweenthefreelyunvoicedandthevoicedsoundsareanumberof

othercharacteristictypesofvoicing,such asmurmuringandwhisper.[16]Theseandstillother typesofvoicearerelativelyunimportantinEnglishandmostotherEuropeanlanguages,but therearelanguagesinwhich theyrisetosomeprominenceinthenormalflowofspeech. Thenoseisnotanactiveorganofspeech,butitishighlyimportantasaresonancechamber.It maybedisconnectedfromthemouth,whichistheothergreatresonancechamber,bythelifting of themovablepartofthesoftpalatesoastoshutoffthepassageofthebreathintothenasal cavityor,ifthesoftpalateisallowedtohangdownfreelyandunobstructively,sothatthebreath passesintoboththenoseandthemouth,thesemakeacombinedresonancechamber.Such soundsasbanda(asin father)arevoicedoralsounds,thatis,thevoicedbreathdoesnot receiveanasalresonance.Assoonasthesoftpalateislowered,however,andthenoseaddedas aparticipatingresonancechamber,thesoundsbanda takeonapeculiarnasalqualityand become,respectively,mandthenasalizedvowelwritten aninFrench(e.g., sang, tant).Theonly Englishsounds[17]thatnormallyreceiveanasalresonancearem,n,andthengsoundof sing. Practicallyallsounds,however,maybenasalized,notonlythevowelsnasalizedvowelsare commoninallpartsoftheworldbutsuchsoundsasl orz.Voicelessnasalsareperfectly possible.Theyoccur,forinstance,inWelshandinquiteanumberofAmericanIndianlanguages. Theorgansthatmakeuptheoralresonancechambermayarticulateintwoways.Thebreath, voicedorunvoiced,nasalizedorunnasalized,maybeallowedtopassthroughthemouthwithout beingcheckedorimpededatanypointoritmaybeeithermomentarilycheckedorallowedto streamthroughagreatlynarrowedpassagewithresultingairfriction.Therearealsotransitions betweenthetwolattertypesofarticulation.Theunimpededbreathtakesonaparticularcoloror qualityinaccordancewiththevaryingshapeoftheoralresonancechamber.Thisshapeischiefly determinedbythepositionofthemovablepartsthetongueandthelips.Asthetongueisraised orlowered,retractedorbroughtforward,heldtenseorlax,andasthelipsarepursed(rounded) invaryingdegreeorallowedtokeeptheirpositionofrest,alargenumberofdistinctqualities result.Theseoralqualitiesarethevowels.Intheorytheirnumberisinfinite,inpracticetheear candifferentiateonlyalimited,yetasurprisinglylarge,numberofresonancepositions.Vowels, whethernasalizedornot,arenormallyvoicedsoundsinnotafewlanguages,however, voicelessvowels[18]alsooccur. Theremainingoralsoundsaregenerallygroupedtogetherasconsonants.Inthemthestreamof breathisinterferedwithinsomeway,sothatalesserresonanceresults,andasharper,more incisivequalityoftone.Therearefourmaintypesofarticulationgenerallyrecognizedwithinthe consonantalgroupofsounds.Thebreathmaybecompletelystoppedforamomentatsome definitepointintheoralcavity.Soundssoproduced,liketord orp,areknownasstopsor explosives.[19]Orthebreathmaybecontinuouslyobstructedthroughanarrowpassage,not entirelychecked.Examplesofsuchspirantsorfricatives,astheyarecalled,aresandzandy. Thethirdclassofconsonants,thelaterals,aresemistopped.Thereisatruestoppageatthe centralpointofarticulation,butthebreathisallowedtoescapethroughthetwosidepassagesor throughoneofthem.OurEnglish d,forinstance,maybereadilytransformedintol,whichhas thevoicingandthepositionof d,merelybydepressingthesidesofthetongueoneithersideof thepointofcontactsufficientlytoallowthebreathtocomethrough.Lateralsarepossiblein manydistinctpositions.Theymaybeunvoiced(theWelsh llisanexample)aswellasvoiced. Finally,thestoppageofthebreathmayberapidlyintermittentinotherwords,theactiveorgan

of contactgenerallythepointofthetongue,lessoftentheuvula[20]maybemadetovibrate againstornearthepointofcontact.Thesesoundsarethetrillsorrolledconsonants,ofwhich thenormalEnglish risanonetootypicalexample.Theyarewelldevelopedinmanylanguages, however,generallyinvoicedform,sometimes,asinWelshandPaiute,inunvoicedformaswell. Theoralmannerofarticulationisnaturally notsufficienttodefineaconsonant.Theplaceof articulationmustalsobeconsidered.Contactsmaybeformedatalargenumberofpoints,from therootofthetonguetothelips.Itisnotnecessaryheretogoatlengthintothissomewhat complicatedmatter.Thecontactiseitherbetweentherootofthetongueandthethroat,[21] some partofthetongueandapointonthepalate(asin k orch or l),somepartofthetongueandthe teeth(asintheEnglish thof thickandthen),theteethandoneofthelips(practicallyalwaysthe upperteethandlowerlip,asin f),orthetwolips(asin porEnglishw).Thetonguearticulations arethemostcomplicatedofall,asthemobilityofthetongueallowsvariouspointsonitssurface, saythetip,toarticulateagainstanumberofopposedpointsofcontact.Hencearisemany positionsofarticulationthatwearenotfamiliarwith,suchasthetypicaldentalpositionof RussianorItalian tanddorthecerebralpositionofSanskritandotherlanguagesofIndia,in whichthetipofthetonguearticulatesagainstthehardpalate.Asthereisnobreakatanypoint betweentherimsoftheteethbacktotheuvulanorfromthetipofthetonguebacktoitsroot,itis evidentthatallthearticulationsthatinvolvethetongueformacontinuousorganic(andacoustic) series.Thepositionsgradeintoeachother,buteachlanguageselectsalimitednumberofclearly definedpositionsascharacteristicofitsconsonantalsystem,ignoringtransitionalorextreme positions.Frequentlyalanguageallowsacertainlatitudeinthefixingoftherequiredposition. Thisistrue,forinstance,oftheEnglish ksound,whichisarticulatedmuchfurthertothefrontin awordlikekinthanin cool.Weignorethisdifference,psychologically,asanonessential, mechanicalone.Anotherlanguagemightwellrecognizethedifference,oronlyaslightlygreater one,assignificant,asparallelingthedistinctioninpositionbetweenthekof kinandthet of tin. Theorganicclassificationofspeechsoundsisasimplematterafterwhatwehavelearnedoftheir production.Anysuchsoundmaybeputintoitsproperplacebytheappropriateanswertofour mainquestions:Whatisthepositionoftheglottalcordsduringitsarticulation?Doesthebreath passintothemouthaloneorisitalsoallowedtostreamintothenose?Doesthebreathpass freelythroughthemouthorisitimpededatsomepointand,if so,inwhatmanner?Whatarethe precisepointsofarticulationinthemouth?[22]Thisfourfoldclassificationofsounds,worked outinallitsdetailedramifications,[23]issufficienttoaccountforall,orpracticallyall,the soundsoflanguage.[24] Thephonetichabitsofagivenlanguagearenotexhaustivelydefinedbystatingthatitmakesuse ofsuchandsuchparticularsoundsoutoftheallbutendlessgamutthatwehavebrieflysurveyed. Thereremainstheimportantquestionofthedynamicsofthesephoneticelements.Two languagesmay,theoretically,bebuiltupofpreciselythesameseriesofconsonantsandvowels andyetproduceutterlydifferentacousticeffects.Oneofthemmaynotrecognizestriking variationsinthelengthsorquantitiesofthephoneticelements,theothermaynotesuch variationsmostpunctiliously(inprobablythemajorityoflanguageslongandshortvowelsare distinguishedinmany,asinItalianorSwedishorOjibwa,longconsonantsarerecognizedas distinctfromshortones).Ortheone,sayEnglish,maybeverysensitivetorelativestresses, whileintheother,sayFrench,stressisaveryminorconsideration.Or,again,thepitch

differenceswhichareinseparablefromtheactualpracticeoflanguagemaynotaffectthewordas such,but,asinEnglish,maybeamoreorlessrandomor,atbest,butarhetoricalphenomenon, whileinotherlanguages,asinSwedish,Lithuanian,Chinese,Siamese,andthemajorityof Africanlanguages,theymaybemorefinelygraduatedandfeltasintegralcharacteristicsofthe wordsthemselves.Varyingmethodsofsyllabifyingarealsoresponsiblefornoteworthyacoustic differences.Mostimportantofall,perhaps,aretheverydifferentpossibilitiesofcombiningthe phoneticelements.Eachlanguagehasitspeculiarities.Thetscombination,forinstance,isfound inbothEnglishandGerman,butinEnglishitcanonlyoccurattheendofaword(asin hats), whileitoccursfreelyinGermanasthepsychologicalequivalentofasinglesound(asin Zeit, Katze).Somelanguagesallowofgreatheapingsofconsonantsorofvocalicgroups(diphthongs), inothersnotwoconsonantsornotwovowelsmayevercometogether.Frequentlyasound occursonlyinaspecialpositionorunderspecialphoneticcircumstances.InEnglish,forinstance, thezsoundof azurecannotoccurinitially,whilethepeculiarqualityofthetof stingis dependentonitsbeingprecededbythes.Thesedynamicfactors,intheirtotality,areas importantfortheproperunderstandingofthephoneticgeniusofalanguageasthesoundsystem itself,oftenfarmoreso. Wehavealreadyseen,inanincidentalway,thatphoneticelementsorsuchdynamicfeaturesas quantityandstresshavevaryingpsychologicalvalues.TheEnglish tsof fiatsismerelyat followedbyafunctionallyindependents,thets oftheGermanword Zeithasanintegralvalue equivalent,say,tothet oftheEnglishwordtide.Again,thet of timeisindeednoticeablydistinct fromthatof sting,butthedifference,totheconsciousnessofanEnglishspeakingperson,isquite irrelevant.Ithasnovalue.IfwecomparethetsoundsofHaida,theIndianlanguagespokenin theQueenCharlotteIslands,wefindthatpreciselythesamedifferenceofarticulationhasareal value.Insuchawordasstingtwo,thetispronouncedprecisely asinEnglish,butin sta fromthetisclearlyaspirated,likethatof time.Inotherwords,anobjectivedifferencethatis irrelevantinEnglishisoffunctionalvalueinHaidafromitsownpsychologicalstandpointthet of stingisasdifferentfromthatof staas,fromourstandpoint,isthetof timefromthedof divine.FurtherinvestigationwouldyieldtheinterestingresultthattheHaidaearfindsthe differencebetweentheEnglish tof stingandthedof divineasirrelevantasthenaveEnglishear findsthatofthetsoundsof stingandtime.Theobjectivecomparisonofsoundsintwoormore languagesis,then,ofnopsychologicalorhistoricalsignificanceunlessthesesoundsarefirst weighted,unlesstheirphoneticvaluesaredetermined.Thesevalues,inturn,flowfromthe generalbehaviorandfunctioningofthesoundsinactualspeech. Theseconsiderationsastophoneticvalueleadtoanimportantconception.Backofthepurely objectivesystemofsoundsthatispeculiartoalanguageandwhichcanbearrivedatonlybya painstakingphoneticanalysis,thereisamorerestrictedinneroridealsystemwhich,while perhapsequallyunconsciousasasystemtothenavespeaker,canfarmorereadilythantheother bebroughttohisconsciousnessasafinishedpattern,apsychologicalmechanism.Theinner soundsystem,overlaidthoughitmaybeby themechanicalortheirrelevant,isarealandan immenselyimportantprincipleinthelifeofalanguage.Itmaypersistasapattern,involving number,relation,andfunctioningofphoneticelements,longafteritsphoneticcontentischanged. Twohistoricallyrelatedlanguagesordialectsmaynothaveasoundincommon,buttheirideal soundsystemsmaybeidenticalpatterns.Iwouldnotforamomentwishtoimplythatthis patternmaynotchange.Itmay shrinkorexpandorchangeitsfunctionalcomplexion,butitsrate

ofchangeisinfinitelylessrapidthanthatofthesoundsassuch.Everylanguage,then,is characterizedasmuchbyitsidealsystemofsoundsandbytheunderlyingphoneticpattern (system,onemighttermit,ofsymbolicatoms)asbyadefinitegrammaticalstructure.Boththe phoneticandconceptualstructuresshowtheinstinctivefeelingoflanguageforform.[25]

IV
ForminLanguage:GrammaticalProcesses
Thequestionofforminlanguagepresentsitselfundertwoaspects.Wemayeitherconsiderthe formalmethodsemployedbyalanguage,itsgrammaticalprocesses,orwemayascertainthe distributionofconceptswithreferencetoformalexpression.Whataretheformalpatternsofthe language?Andwhattypesofconceptsmakeupthecontentoftheseformalpatterns?Thetwo pointsofviewarequitedistinct.TheEnglishwordunthinkinglyis,broadlyspeaking,formally paralleltothewordreformers,eachbeingbuiltuponaradicalelementwhichmayoccurasan independentverb(think, form),thisradicalelementbeingprecededbyanelement(un, re)that conveysadefiniteandfairlyconcretesignificancebutthatcannotbeusedindependently,and followedbytwoelements(ing, ly er,s)thatlimittheapplicationoftheradicalconceptina relationalsense.Thisformalpattern(b)+A +(c)+ (d)[26]isacharacteristicfeatureofthe language.Acountlessnumberoffunctionsmaybeexpressedbyitinotherwords,allthe possibleideasconveyedbysuchprefixedandsuffixedelements,whiletendingtofallintominor groups,donotnecessarilyformnatural,functionalsystems.Thereisnologicalreason,for instance,whythenumeralfunctionof sshouldbeformallyexpressedin amannerthatis analogoustotheexpressionoftheideaconveyedby ly.Itisperfectlyconceivablethatin anotherlanguagetheconceptofmanner(ly)maybetreatedaccordingtoanentirelydifferent patternfromthatofplurality.Theformermighthavetobeexpressedbyanindependentword (say,thusunthinking),thelatterbyaprefixedelement(say,plural[27]reformer).Thereare,of course,anunlimitednumberofotherpossibilities.EvenwithintheconfinesofEnglishalonethe relativeindependenceofformandfunctioncanbemadeobvious.Thus,thenegativeidea conveyedby uncanbejustasadequatelyexpressedbyasuffixedelement(less)insuchaword asthoughtlessly.Suchatwofoldformalexpressionofthenegativefunctionwouldbe inconceivableincertainlanguages,sayEskimo,whereasuffixedelementwouldalonebe possible.Again,thepluralnotionconveyedbythesof reformersisjustasdefinitelyexpressed inthewordgeese,whereanutterlydistinctmethodisemployed.Furthermore,theprincipleof vocalicchange(goosegeese)isbynomeansconfinedtotheexpressionoftheideaofplurality itmayalsofunctionasanindicatorofdifferenceoftime(e.g., singsang,throwthrew).But theexpressioninEnglish ofpasttimeisnotbyanymeansalwaysboundupwithachangeof vowel.Inthegreatmajorityofcasesthesameideaisexpressedbymeansofadistinctsuffix (died,worked).Functionally,diedandsangareanalogoussoarereformersandgeese. Formally,wemustarrangethesewordsquiteotherwise.Both diedandreformersemploythe methodofsuffixinggrammaticalelementsboth sangandgeesehavegrammaticalformby virtueofthefactthattheirvowelsdifferfromthevowelsofotherwordswithwhichthey are closelyrelatedinformandmeaning(goose sing,sung).

Everylanguagepossessesoneormoreformalmethodsorindicatingtherelationofasecondary concepttothemainconceptoftheradicalelement.Someofthesegrammaticalprocesses,like suffixing,areexceedinglywidespreadothers,likevocalicchange,arelesscommonbutfar fromrarestillothers,likeaccentandconsonantalchange,aresomewhatexceptionalas functionalprocesses.NotalllanguagesareasirregularasEnglishin theassignmentoffunctions toitsstockofgrammaticalprocesses.Asarule,suchbasicconceptsasthoseofpluralityand timearerenderedbymeansofoneorothermethodalone,buttherulehassomanyexceptions thatwecannotsafelylayitdownasaprinciple.Whereverwegoweareimpressedbythefact thatpatternisonething,theutilizationofpatternquiteanother.Afewfurtherexamplesofthe multipleexpressionofidenticalfunctionsinotherlanguagesthanEnglishmayhelptomakestill morevividthisideaoftherelativeindependenceofformandfunction. InHebrew,asinotherSemiticlanguages,theverbalideaassuchisexpressedbythree,lessoften bytwoorfour,characteristicconsonants.Thus,thegroupshmrexpressestheideaof guarding,thegroupgnb thatofstealing,ntn thatofgiving.Naturallytheseconsonantal sequencesaremerelyabstractedfromtheactualforms.Theconsonantsareheldtogetherin differentformsbycharacteristicvowelsthatvaryaccordingtotheideathatitisdesiredto express.Prefixedandsuffixedelementsarealsofrequentlyused.Themethodofinternalvocalic changeisexemplifiedin shamarhehasguarded,shomerguarding,shamurbeingguarded, shmor(to)guard.Analogously,ganabhehasstolen,gonebstealing,ganubbeingstolen, gnob(to)steal.Butnotallinfinitivesareformedaccordingtothetypeof shmorandgnoborof othertypesofinternalvowelchange.Certainverbssuffixatelementfortheinfinitive,e.g., ten ethtogive,heyothtobe.Again,thepronominalideasmaybeexpressedbyindependent words(e.g.,anoki I),byprefixedelements(e.g., eshmorIshallguard),orbysuffixed elements(e.g., shamartiIhaveguarded).InNass,anIndianlanguageofBritishColumbia, pluralsareformedbyfourdistinctmethods.Mostnouns(andverbs)arereduplicatedinthe plural,thatis,partoftheradicalelementisrepeated,e.g., gyatperson,gyigyatpeople.A secondmethodistheuseofcertaincharacteristicprefixes,e.g., anon hand,kaanonhands waionepaddles,luwaiseveralpaddle.Stillotherpluralsareformedbymeansofinternal vowelchange,e.g., gwulacloak,gwilacloaks.Finally,afourthclassofpluralsisconstituted bysuchnounsassuffixagrammaticalelement,e.g.,wakybrother,wakykw brothers. Fromsuchgroupsofexamplesastheseandtheymightbemultipliedadnauseamwecannot butconcludethatlinguisticformmayandshouldbestudiedastypesofpatterning,apartfromthe associatedfunctions.Wearethemorejustifiedinthisprocedureasalllanguagesevincea curiousinstinctforthedevelopmentofoneormoreparticulargrammaticalprocessesatthe expenseofothers,tendingalwaystolosesightofanyexplicitfunctionalvaluethattheprocess mayhavehadinthefirstinstance,delighting,itwouldseem,inthesheerplayofitsmeansof expression.ItdoesnotmatterthatinsuchacaseastheEnglish goosegeese,fouldefile, singsangsungwecanprovethatwearedealingwithhistoricallydistinctprocesses,thatthe vocalicalternationof singandsang,forinstance,iscenturiesolderasaspecifictypeof grammaticalprocessthantheoutwardlyparalleloneof gooseandgeese.Itremainstruethat thereis(orwas)aninherenttendencyinEnglish,atthetimesuchformsasgeesecameintobeing, fortheutilizationofvocalicchangeasasignificantlinguisticmethod.Failingtheprecedentset bysuchalreadyexistingtypesofvocalicalternationassingsangsung,itishighlydoubtfulif thedetailedconditionsthatbroughtabouttheevolutionofformsliketeethandgeesefrom tooth

andgoosewouldhavebeenpotentenoughtoallowthenativelinguisticfeelingtowinthroughto anacceptanceofthesenewtypesofpluralformationaspsychologicallypossible.Thisfeeling forformassuch,freelyexpandingalongpredeterminedlinesandgreatlyinhibitedincertain directionsbythelackofcontrollingtypesofpatterning,shouldbemoreclearlyunderstoodthan itseemstobe.Ageneralsurveyofmanydiversetypesoflanguagesisneededtogiveusthe properperspectiveonthispoint.Wesawintheprecedingchapterthateverylanguagehasan innerphoneticsystemofdefinitepattern.Wenowlearnthatithasalsoadefinitefeelingfor patterningonthelevelofgrammaticalformation.Bothofthesesubmergedandpowerfully controllingimpulsestodefiniteformoperateassuch,regardlessoftheneedforexpressing particularconceptsorof givingconsistentexternalshapetoparticulargroupsofconcepts.Itgoes withoutsayingthattheseimpulsescanfindrealizationonlyinconcretefunctionalexpression. Wemustsaysomethingtobeabletosayitinacertainmanner. Letusnowtakeupalittlemoresystematically,howeverbriefly,thevariousgrammatical processesthatlinguisticresearchhasestablished.Theymaybegroupedintosixmaintypes: wordordercompositionaffixation,includingtheuseofprefixes,suffixes,andinfixesinternal modificationoftheradicalorgrammaticalelement,whetherthisaffectsavoweloraconsonant reduplicationandaccentualdifferences,whetherdynamic(stress)ortonal(pitch).Therearealso specialquantitativeprocesses,likevocaliclengtheningorshorteningandconsonantaldoubling, butthesemaybelookeduponasparticularsubtypesoftheprocessofinternalmodification. Possiblystillotherformaltypesexist,buttheyarenotlikelytobeofimportanceinageneral survey.Itisimportanttobearinmindthatalinguisticphenomenoncannotbelookeduponas illustratingadefiniteprocessunlessithasaninherentfunctionalvalue.Theconsonantal changeinEnglish,forinstance,of booksandbags(sintheformer,zinthelatter) isofno functionalsignificance.Itisapurelyexternal,mechanicalchangeinducedbythepresenceofa precedingvoicelessconsonant,k,intheformercase,ofavoicedconsonant, g,inthelatter.This mechanicalalternationisobjectivelythesameasthatbetweenthenoun houseandtheverb to house.Inthelattercase,however,ithasanimportantgrammaticalfunction,thatoftransforming anounintoaverb.Thetwoalternationsbelong,then,toentirelydifferentpsychological categories.Onlythelatterisatrueillustrationofconsonantalmodificationasagrammatical process. Thesimplest,atleastthemosteconomical,methodofconveyingsomesortofgrammatical notionistojuxtaposetwoormorewordsinadefinitesequencewithoutmakingany attemptby inherentmodificationofthesewordstoestablishaconnectionbetweenthem.Letusputdown twosimpleEnglishwordsatrandom,say singpraise.Thisconveysnofinishedthoughtin English,nordoesitclearlyestablisharelationbetweentheideaofsingingandthatofpraising. Nevertheless,itispsychologicallyimpossibletohearorseethetwowordsjuxtaposedwithout strainingtogivethemsomemeasureofcoherentsignificance.Theattemptisnotlikelytoyield anentirelysatisfactoryresult,butwhatissignificantisthatassoonastwoormoreradical conceptsareputbeforethehumanmindinimmediatesequenceitstrivestobindthemtogether withconnectingvaluesofsomesort.Inthecaseof singpraisedifferentindividualsarelikelyto arriveatdifferentprovisionalresults.Someofthelatentpossibilitiesofthejuxtaposition, expressedincurrentlysatisfyingform,are:singpraise(tohim)! orsingingpraise,praise expressedinasong or tosingandpraiseoronewhosingsasongofpraise(comparesuch Englishcompoundsaskilljoy,i.e.,onewhokillsjoy)or hesingsasongofpraise(tohim).The

theoreticalpossibilitiesinthewayofroundingoutthesetwoconceptsintoasignificantgroupof conceptsorevenintoafinishedthoughtareindefinitelynumerous.Noneofthemwillquitework inEnglish,buttherearenumerouslanguageswhereoneorotheroftheseamplifyingprocessesis habitual.Itdependsentirelyonthegeniusoftheparticularlanguagewhatfunctionisinherently involvedinagivensequenceofwords. Somelanguages,likeLatin,expresspracticallyallrelationsbymeansofmodificationswithinthe bodyoftheworditself.Inthese,sequenceisapttobearhetoricalratherthanastrictly grammaticalprinciple.WhetherIsayinLatin hominemfeminavidet or feminahominemvidet or hominemvidetfemina or videtfeminahominemmakeslittleornodifferencebeyond,possibly,a rhetoricalorstylisticone.Thewomanseesthemanistheidenticalsignificanceofeachofthese sentences.InChinook,anIndianlanguageoftheColumbiaRiver,onecanbeequallyfree,for therelationbetweentheverbandthetwonounsisasinherentlyfixedasinLatin.Thedifference betweenthetwolanguagesisthat,whileLatinallowsthenounstoestablishtheirrelationtoeach otherandtotheverb,Chinooklaystheformalburdenentirelyontheverb,thefullcontentof whichismoreorlessadequatelyrenderedby shehimsees.EliminatetheLatincasesuffixes(a andem)andtheChinookpronominalprefixes(shehim)andwecannotaffordtobeso indifferenttoourwordorder.Weneedtohusbandourresources.Inotherwords,wordorder takesonarealfunctionalvalue.LatinandChinookareatoneextreme.Suchlanguagesas Chinese,Siamese,andAnnamite,inwhicheachandeveryword,ifitistofunctionproperly, fallsintoitsassignedplace,areattheotherextreme.Butthemajorityoflanguagesfallbetween thesetwoextremes.InEnglish,forinstance,itmaymakelittlegrammaticaldifferencewhetherI say yesterdaythemansawthedogorthemansawthedogyesterday,butitisnotamatterof indifferencewhetherIsay yesterdaythemansawthedog or yesterdaythedogsawthemanor whetherIsay heishereorishehere?Intheonecase,ofthelattergroupofexamples,thevital distinctionofsubjectandobjectdependsentirelyontheplacingofcertainwordsofthesentence, inthelatteraslightdifferenceofsequencemakesallthedifferencebetweenstatementand question.ItgoeswithoutsayingthatinthesecasestheEnglishprincipleofwordorderisas potentameansofexpressionasistheLatinuseofcasesuffixesorofaninterrogativeparticle. Thereisherenoquestionoffunctionalpoverty,butof formaleconomy. Wehavealreadyseensomethingoftheprocessofcomposition,theunitingintoasinglewordof twoormoreradicalelements.Psychologicallythisprocessiscloselyalliedtothatofwordorder insofarastherelationbetweentheelementsisimplied,notexplicitlystated.Itdiffersfromthe merejuxtapositionofwordsinthesentenceinthatthecompoundedelementsarefeltas constitutingbutpartsofasinglewordorganism.SuchlanguagesasChineseandEnglish,in whichtheprincipleofrigidsequenceiswelldeveloped,tendnotinfrequentlyalsotothe developmentofcompoundwords.ItisbutastepfromsuchaChinesewordsequenceasjintak manvirtue,i.e.,thevirtueof men,tosuchmoreconventionalizedandpsychologically unifiedjuxtapositionsastientszheavenson,i.e.,emperor,orshuifuwaterman,i.e., watercarrier.Inthelattercasewemayaswellfranklywriteshuifu asasingleword,the meaningofthecompoundasawholebeingasdivergentfromthepreciseetymologicalvaluesof itscomponentelementsasisthatofourEnglishword typewriterfromthemerelycombined valuesof typeandwriter.InEnglishtheunityofthewordtypewriterisfurthersafeguardedbya predominantaccentonthefirstsyllableandbythepossibilityofaddingsuchasuffixedelement astheplural stothewholeword.Chinesealsounifiesitscompoundsbymeansofstress.

However,then,initsultimateoriginstheprocessofcompositionmaygobacktotypical sequencesofwordsinthesentence,itisnow,forthemostpart,aspecializedmethodof expressingrelations.FrenchhasasrigidawordorderasEnglishbutdoesnotpossessanything likeitspowerofcompoundingwordsintomorecomplexunits.Ontheotherhand,classical Greek,inspiteofitsrelativefreedomintheplacingofwords,hasaveryconsiderablebentfor theformationofcompoundterms. Itiscurioustoobservehowgreatlylanguagesdifferintheirabilitytomakeuseoftheprocessof composition.Onewouldhavethoughtongeneralprinciplesthatsosimpleadeviceasgivesus our typewriterandblackbirdandhostsofotherwordswouldbeanallbutuniversalgrammatical process.Suchisnotthecase.Thereareagreatmanylanguages,likeEskimoandNootkaand, asidefrompaltryexceptions,theSemiticlanguages,thatcannotcompoundradicalelements. Whatisevenstrangeristhefactthatmanyoftheselanguagesarenotintheleastaverseto complexwordformations,butmayonthecontraryeffectasynthesisthatfarsurpassesthe utmostthatGreekandSanskritarecapableof.SuchaNootkaword,forinstance,aswhen,as theysay,hehadbeenabsentforfourdaysmightbeexpectedtoembodyatleastthreeradical elementscorrespondingtotheconceptsofabsent,four,andday.Asamatteroffactthe Nootkawordisutterlyincapableofcompositioninoursense.Itisinvariablybuiltupoutofa singleradicalelementandagreaterorlessnumberofsuffixedelements,someofwhichmay haveasconcreteasignificanceastheradicalelementitself.In,theparticularcasewehavecited theradicalelementconveystheideaoffour,thenotionsofdayandabsentbeing expressedbysuffixesthatareasinseparablefromtheradicalnucleusofthewordasisan Englishelementlikeerfromthesingor hunt ofsuchwordsassingerandhunter.Thetendency towordsynthesisis,then,bynomeansthesamethingasthetendencytocompoundingradical elements,thoughthelatterisnotinfrequentlyareadymeansforthesynthetictendencytowork with. Thereisabewilderingvarietyoftypesofcomposition.Thesetypesvaryaccordingtofunction, thenatureofthecompoundedelements,andorder.Inagreatmanylanguagescompositionis confinedtowhatwemaycallthedelimitingfunction,thatis,ofthetwoormorecompounded elementsoneisgivenamorepreciselyqualifiedsignificancebytheothers,whichcontribute nothingtotheformalbuildofthesentence.InEnglish,forinstance,suchcompoundedelements asredin redcoatoroverin overlookmerelymodifythesignificanceofthedominantcoat orlook withoutinanywaysharing,assuch,inthepredicationthatisexpressedbythesentence.Some languages,however,suchasIroquoisandNahuatl,[28]employthemethodofcompositionfor muchheavierworkthanthis.InIroquois,forinstance,thecompositionofanoun,initsradical form,withafollowingverbisatypicalmethodofexpressingcaserelations,particularlyofthe subjectorobject. Imeateat forinstance,istheregularIroquoismethodofexpressingthe sentenceIameatingmeat.Inotherlanguagessimilarformsmayexpresslocalorinstrumentalor stillotherrelations.SuchEnglishformsaskilljoyandmarplotalsoillustratethecompoundingof averbandanoun,buttheresultingwordhasastrictlynominal,notaverbal,function.We cannotsay hemarplots.Somelanguagesallowthecompositionofallornearlyalltypesof elements.Paiute,forinstance,maycompoundnounwithnoun,adjectivewithnoun,verbwith nountomakeanoun,nounwithverbtomakeaverb,adverbwithverb,verbwithverb.Yana,an IndianlanguageofCalifornia,canfreelycompoundnounwithnounandverbwithnoun,butnot verbwithverb.Ontheotherhand,Iroquoiscancompoundonlynounwithverb,nevernounand

nounasinEnglishorverbandverbasinsomanyotherlanguages.Finally,eachlanguagehasits characteristictypesoforderofcomposition.InEnglishthequalifyingelementregularlyprecedes incertainotherlanguagesitfollows.Sometimesbothtypesareusedinthesamelanguage,asin Yana,wherebeefisbittervenisonbutdeerliverisexpressedbyliverdeer.The compoundedobjectofaverbprecedestheverbalelementinPaiute,Nahuatl,andIroquois, followsitinYana,Tsimshian,[29]andtheAlgonkinlanguages. Ofallgrammaticalprocessesaffixingisincomparablythemostfrequentlyemployed.Thereare languages,likeChineseandSiamese,thatmakenogrammaticaluseofelementsthatdonotat thesametimepossessanindependentvalueasradicalelements,butsuchlanguagesare uncommon.Ofthethreetypesofaffixingtheuseofprefixes,suffixes,andinfixessuffixing ismuchthecommonest.Indeed,itisafairguessthatsuffixesdomoreoftheformativeworkof languagethanallothermethodscombined.Itisworthnotingthattherearenotafewaffixing languagesthatmakeabsolutelynouseofprefixedelementsbutpossessacomplexapparatusof suffixes.SuchareTurkish,Hottentot,Eskimo,Nootka,andYana.Someofthese,likethethree lastmentioned,havehundredsofsuffixedelements,manyofthemofaconcretenessof significancethatwoulddemandexpressioninthevastmajorityoflanguagesbymeansofradical elements.Thereversecase,theuseofprefixedelementstothecompleteexclusionofsuffixes,is farlesscommon.AgoodexampleisKhmer(orCambodgian),spokeninFrenchCochinChina, thoughevenherethereareobscuretracesofoldsuffixesthathaveceasedtofunctionassuchand arenowfelttoformpartoftheradicalelement. Aconsiderablemajorityofknownlanguagesareprefixingandsuffixingatoneandthesame time,buttherelativeimportanceofthetwogroupsofaffixedelementsnaturallyvaries enormously.Insomelanguages,suchasLatinandRussian,thesuffixesalonerelatethewordto therestofthesentence,theprefixesbeingconfinedtotheexpressionofsuchideasasdelimitthe concretesignificanceoftheradicalelementwithoutinfluencingitsbearingintheproposition.A Latinformlikeremittebanturtheywerebeingsentbackmayserveasanillustrationofthis typeofdistributionofelements.Theprefixedelementrebackmerelyqualifiestoacertain extenttheinherentsignificanceoftheradicalelementmitt send,whilethesuffixeseba,nt, andurconveythelessconcrete,morestrictlyformal,notionsoftime,person,plurality,and passivity. Ontheotherhand,therearelanguages,liketheBantugroupofAfricaortheAthabaskan languages[30]ofNorthAmerica,inwhichthegrammaticallysignificantelementsprecede,those thatfollowtheradicalelementformingarelativelydispensableclass.TheHupawordteseya teIwillgo,forexample,consistsofaradicalelementya togo,threeessentialprefixesand aformallysubsidiarysuffix.Theelementteindicatesthattheacttakesplacehereandtherein spaceorcontinuouslyoverspacepractically,ithasnoclearcutsignificanceapartfromsuch verbstemsasitiscustomarytoconnectitwith.Thesecondprefixedelement,s,isevenless easy todefine.Allwecansayisthatitisusedinverbformsofdefinitetimeandthatitmarks actionasinprogressratherthanasbeginningorcomingtoanend.Thethirdprefix,e,isa pronominalelement,I,whichcanbeusedonlyindefinitetenses.Itishighlyimportantto understandthattheuseof eisconditionalonthatof sorofcertainalternativeprefixesand thattealsoisinpracticelinkedwith s.Thegroupteseyaisafirmlyknitgrammaticalunit. Thesuffix te,whichindicatesthefuture,isnomorenecessarytoitsformalbalancethanisthe

prefixedreoftheLatinworditisnotanelementthatiscapableofstandingalonebutits functionismateriallydelimitingratherthanstrictlyformal.[31] Itisnotalways,however,thatwecanclearlysetoffthesuffixesofalanguageasagroupagainst itsprefixes.Inprobablythemajorityoflanguagesthatusebothtypesofaffixeseach grouphas bothdelimitingandformalorrelationalfunctions.Themostthatwecansayisthatalanguage tendstoexpresssimilarfunctionsineithertheoneortheothermanner.Ifacertainverb expressesacertaintensebysuffixing,theprobabilityisstrongthatitexpressesitsothertensesin ananalogousfashionandthat,indeed,allverbshavesuffixedtenseelements.Similarly,we normallyexpecttofindthepronominalelements,sofarastheyareincludedintheverbatall, eitherconsistently prefixedorsuffixed.But theserulesarefarfromabsolute.Wehavealready seenthatHebrewprefixesitspronominalelementsincertaincases,suffixestheminothers.In Chimariko,anIndianlanguageofCalifornia,thepositionofthepronominalaffixesdependson theverbtheyareprefixedforcertainverbs,suffixedforothers. Itwillnotbenecessarytogivemanyfurtherexamplesofprefixingandsuffixing.Oneofeach categorywillsufficetoillustratetheirformativepossibilities.TheideaexpressedinEnglishby thesentenceIcametogiveittoherisrenderedinChinook[32]by inialudam.Thisword anditisathoroughlyunifiedwordwithaclearcutaccentonthefirstaconsistsofaradical element,d togive,sixfunctionallydistinct,ifphoneticallyfrail,prefixedelements,anda suffix.Oftheprefixes,iindicatesrecentlypasttime n,thepronominalsubjectI i,the pronominalobjectit[33]a,thesecondpronominalobjecther l,aprepositionalelement indicatingthattheprecedingpronominalprefixistobeunderstoodasanindirectobject(herto, i.e.,toher)andu,anelementthatitisnoteasytodefinesatisfactorilybutwhich,onthe whole,indicatesmovementawayfromthespeaker.Thesuffixedammodifiestheverbalcontent inalocalsenseitaddstothenotionconveyedby theradicalelementthatofarrivingorgoing (orcoming)forthatparticularpurpose.ItisobviousthatinChinook,asinHupa,thegreater partofthegrammaticalmachineryresidesintheprefixesratherthaninthesuffixes. Areversecase,onein whichthegrammaticallysignificantelementscluster,asinLatin,atthe endofthewordisyieldedbyFox,oneofthebetterknownAlgonkinlanguagesofthe MississippiValley.Wemaytaketheform ehkiwinamohtatiwach(i)thentheytogether kept(him)inflightfromthem.Theradicalelementhereiskiwi,averbstemindicatingthe generalnotionofindefinitemovementroundabout,hereandthere.Theprefixedelementehis hardlymorethananadverbialparticleindicatingtemporalsubordinationitmaybeconveniently renderedasthen.Ofthesevensuffixesincludedinthishighlywroughtword, n seemstobe merelyaphoneticelementservingtoconnecttheverbstemwiththefollowinga[34]aisa secondarystem[35]denotingtheideaofflight,toflee mdenotescausalitywithreference toananimateobject[36]o(ht)indicatesactivitydoneforthesubject(thesocalledmiddleor mediopassivevoiceofGreek) (a)tiisareciprocalelement,oneanother wach(i)isthe thirdpersonanimateplural(wa,plural chi,moreproperlypersonal)ofsocalled conjunctiveforms.Thewordmaybetranslatedmoreliterally(andyetonlyapproximatelyas togrammaticalfeeling)asthenthey(animate)causedsomeanimatebeingtowanderaboutin flightfromoneanotherofthemselves.Eskimo,Nootka,Yana,andotherlanguageshave similarlycomplexarraysofsuffixedelements,thoughthefunctionsperformedbythemandtheir principlesofcombinationdifferwidely.

Wehavereservedtheverycurioustypeofaffixationknownasinfixingforseparateillustration. ItisutterlyunknowninEnglish,unlessweconsiderthen of stand(contraststood)asaninfixed element.TheearlierIndoEuropeanlanguages,suchasLatin,GreekandSanskrit,madeafairly considerableuseofinfixednasalstodifferentiatethepresenttenseofacertainclassofverbs fromotherforms(contrastLatin vincoIconquerwith viciIconqueredGreeklambanoI takewith elabonItook).Thereare,however,morestrikingexamplesoftheprocess, examplesinwhichithasassumedamoreclearlydefinedfunctionthanintheseLatinandGreek cases.ItisparticularlyprevalentinmanylanguagesofsoutheasternAsiaandoftheMalay archipelago.GoodexamplesfromKhmer(Cambodgian)aretmeuonewhowalksanddaneu walking(verbalnoun),bothderivedfrom deutowalk.Furtherexamplesmaybequoted fromBontocIgorot,aFilipinolanguage.Thus,aninfixedinconveystheideaoftheproductof anaccomplishedaction,e.g., kayuwood,kinayu gatheredwood.Infixesarealsofreelyused intheBontocIgorotverb.Thus,aninfixedumischaracteristicofmanyintransitiveverbswith personalpronominalsuffixes,e.g., sadtowait, sumidakIwait kinegsilent,kuminekak Iamsilent.Inotherverbsitindicatesfuturity,e.g., tengaotocelebrateaholiday, tumengaoakIshallhaveaholiday.Thepasttenseisfrequentlyindicatedbyaninfixedinif thereisalready aninfixedum,thetwoelementscombinetoinm,e.g., kinminekakIam silent.Obviouslytheinfixingprocesshasinthis(andrelated)languagesthesamevitalitythatis possessedbythecommonerprefixesandsuffixesofotherlanguages.Theprocessisalsofound inanumberofaboriginalAmericanlanguages.TheYanapluralissometimesformedbyan infixedelement,e.g.,kuruwimedicinemen,kuwimedicinemaninChinookaninfixedl isusedincertainverbstoindicaterepeatedactivity,e.g.,ksikludelkshekeepslookingathim, iksiklutkshelookedathim(radicalelementtk).Apeculiarlyinterestingtypeofinfixationis foundintheSiouanlanguages,inwhichcertainverbsinsertthepronominalelementsintothe verybodyoftheradicalelement,e.g.,Sioux chetitobuildafire,chewatiIbuildafire shuta tomiss,shuuntapiwemiss. Asubsidiarybutbynomeansunimportantgrammaticalprocessisthatofinternalvocalicor consonantalchange.Insomelanguages,asinEnglish(sing,sang,sung,song goose,geese),the formerofthesehasbecomeoneofthemajormethodsofindicatingfundamentalchangesof grammaticalfunction.Atanyrate,theprocessisaliveenoughtoleadourchildrenintountrodden ways.Weall knowofthegrowingyoungsterwhospeaksofhavingbrungsomething,onthe analogyofsuchformsassungandflung.InHebrew,aswehaveseen,vocalicchangeisofeven greatersignificancethaninEnglish.WhatistrueofHebrewisofcoursetrueofall otherSemitic languages.AfewexamplesofsocalledbrokenpluralsfromArabic[37]willsupplementthe HebrewverbformsthatIhavegiveninanotherconnection.Thenoun baladplacehasthe pluralform bilad[38]gildhideformstheplural gulud ragilman,theplural rigal shibbak window,theplural shababik.VerysimilarphenomenaareillustratedbytheHamiticlanguages ofNorthernAfrica,e.g.,Shilh[39]izbilhair,plural izbel aslemfish,plural islimen snto know,sentobeknowing rmitobecometired,rumnitobetired ttss[40]tofallasleep, ttosstosleep.StrikinglysimilartoEnglish andGreekalternationsofthetypesingsangand leipoIleave,leloipaIhaveleft,aresuchSomali[41]casesasalIam,ilIwas idaha Isay,idiIsaid,dehsay! VocalicchangeisofgreatsignificancealsoinanumberofAmericanIndianlanguages.Inthe Athabaskangroupmanyverbschangethequalityorquantityofthevoweloftheradicalelement

asitchangesitstenseormode.TheNavahoverbfor Iput(grain)intoareceptacleisbihish ja,inwhich jaistheradicalelementthepasttense,bihija,hasalongavowel,followedby theglottalstop[42] thefutureisbihdeshjiwithcompletechangeofvowel.Inothertypesof Navahoverbsthevocalicchangesfollowdifferentlines,e.g.,yahaniye youcarry(apack) into(astable)past,yahiniyin (withlongiin yin nishereusedtoindicatenasalization) future, yahadiyehl(withlonge).InanotherIndianlanguage,Yokuts[43],vocalic modificationsaffectbothnounandverbforms.Thus,buchongsonformstheplural bochangi (contrasttheobjectivebuchonga) enashgrandfather,theplural inashatheverb engtyimto sleepformsthecontinuativeingetymadtobesleepingandthepastingetymash. Consonantalchangeasafunctionalprocessisprobablyfarlesscommonthanvocalic modifications,butitisnotexactlyrare.ThereisaninterestinggroupofcasesinEnglish,certain nounsandcorrespondingverbsdifferingsolelyinthatthefinalconsonantisvoicelessorvoiced. Examplesarewreath(with thasin think),buttowreathe(with thasin then) house,buttohouse (with spronouncedlikez).Thatwehaveadistinctfeelingfortheinterchangeasameansof distinguishingthenounfromtheverbisindicatedbytheextensionoftheprinciplebymany Americanstosuchanounasrise(e.g., theriseofdemocracy)pronouncedlikericein contrasttotheverb torise(slikez). IntheCelticlanguagestheinitialconsonantsundergoseveraltypesofchangeaccordingtothe grammaticalrelationthatsubsistsbetweentheworditselfandtheprecedingword.Thus,in modernIrish,awordlikebooxmayundertheappropriatecircumstances,taketheformsbho (pronouncewo)ormo (e.g., anbo theox,asasubject,buttirnamo landoftheoxen,asa possessiveplural).Intheverbtheprinciplehasasoneofitsmoststrikingconsequencesthe aspirationofinitialconsonantsinthepasttense.Ifaverbbeginswith t,say,itchangesthet to th(nowpronouncedh)informsofthepastif itbeginswith g,theconsonantchanges,in analogousforms,togh (pronouncedlikeavoicedspirant[44] g orlikey,accordingtothenature ofthefollowingvowel).InmodernIrishtheprincipleofconsonantalchange,whichbeganinthe oldestperiodofthelanguageasasecondaryconsequenceofcertainphoneticconditions,has becomeoneoftheprimarygrammaticalprocessesofthelanguage. PerhapsasremarkableastheseIrishphenomenaaretheconsonantalinterchangesofFul,an AfricanlanguageoftheSoudan.Herewefindthatallnounsbelongingtothepersonalclassform thepluralbychangingtheirinitial g,j,d,b,k,ch,andptoy (orw),y,r,w,h,sandfrespectively e.g., jimo companion,yimbecompanions pioobeater, fiobe beaters.Curiously enough,nounsthatbelongtotheclassofthingsformtheirsingularandpluralinexactlyreverse fashion,e.g., yolaregrassgrownplace,jolajegrassgrownplaces fitandu soul,pitali souls.InNootka,torefertobutoneotherlanguageinwhichtheprocessisfound,thet ortl[45] ofmanyverbalsuffixesbecomeshlinformsdenotingrepetition,e.g., hitaatotofallout, hitaahl tokeepfallingout matachishtutl toflyontothewater,matachishtohltokeep flyingontothewater.Further,thehl ofcertainelementschangestoapeculiarhsoundinplural forms,e.g.,yakohl sorefaced,yakohsorefaced(people). Nothingismorenaturalthantheprevalenceofreduplication,inotherwords,therepetitionofall orpartoftheradicalelement.Theprocessisgenerallyemployed,withselfevidentsymbolism, toindicatesuchconceptsasdistribution,plurality,repetition,customaryactivity,increaseofsize,

addedintensity,continuance.EveninEnglishitisnotunknown,thoughitisnotgenerally accountedoneofthetypicalformativedevicesofourlanguage.Suchwordsasgoodygoody and topoohpooh havebecomeacceptedaspartofournormalvocabulary,butthemethodof duplicationmayonoccasionbeusedmorefreelythanisindicatedbysuchstereotypedexamples. Suchlocutionsasabigbigman or Letitcooltillitsthickthickarefarmorecommon,especially inthespeechofwomenandchildren,thanourlinguistictextbookswouldleadonetosuppose. Inaclassbythemselvesarethereallyenormousnumberofwords,manyofthem soundimitative orcontemptuousinpsychologicaltone,thatconsistofduplicationswitheitherchangeofthe vowelorchangeoftheinitialconsonantwordsofthetypesingsong,riffraff,wishywashy, harumskarum,rolypoly.Wordsofthistypeareall butuniversal.SuchexamplesastheRussian ChudoYudo(adragon),theChinesepingpangrattlingofrainontheroof,[46] theTibetan kyangkyonglazy,andtheManchuporponparpanbleareyedarecuriouslyreminiscent, bothinformandinpsychology,ofwordsnearerhome.Butitcanhardlybesaidthatthe duplicativeprocessisofadistinctivelygrammaticalsignificanceinEnglish.Wemustturnto otherlanguagesforillustration.SuchcasesasHottentotgogotolookatcarefully(from goto see),Somali fenfentognawatonallsides(from fentognawat),Chinookiwiiwitolook aboutcarefully,toexamine(from iwitoappear),orTsimshian amamseveral(are)good (from amgood)donotdepartfromthenaturalandfundamentalrangeofsignificanceofthe process.AmoreabstractfunctionisillustratedinEwe,[47] inwhichbothinfinitivesandverbal adjectivesareformedfromverbsbyduplicatione.g., yitogo,yiyi togo,actofgoingwo todo,wowo[48]done mawomawonottodo(withbothduplicatedverbstemand duplicatednegativeparticle).CausativeduplicationsarecharacteristicofHottentot,e.g.,gam gam[49]tocausetotell(from gamtotell).Ortheprocessmaybeusedtoderiveverbsfrom nouns,asinHottentotkhoekhoetotalkHottentot(from khoebman,Hottentot),orasin Kwakiutl metmattoeatclams(radicalelementmetclam). Themostcharacteristicexamplesofreduplicationaresuchasrepeatonlypartoftheradical element.Itwouldbepossibletodemonstratetheexistenceofavastnumberofformaltypesof suchpartialduplication,accordingtowhethertheprocessmakesuseofoneormoreofthe radicalconsonants,preservesorweakensoralterstheradicalvowel,oraffectsthebeginning,the middle,ortheendoftheradicalelement.Thefunctionsareevenmoreexuberantlydeveloped thanwithsimpleduplication,thoughthebasicnotion,atleastinorigin,isnearlyalwaysoneof repetitionorcontinuance.Examplesillustratingthisfundamentalfunctioncanbequotedfromall partsoftheglobe.Initiallyreduplicatingare,forinstance,Shilhggentobesleeping(from gen tosleep)Ful pepeudoliar(i.e.,onewhoalwayslies),plural fefeube (from fewato lie)BontocIgorotanak child,ananakchildren kamuekIhasten,kakamuekIhasten moreTsimshian gyadperson,gyigyadpeopleNassgyibayuktofly,gyigyibayukone whoisflying.Psychologicallycomparable,butwiththereduplicationattheend,areSomali ur body,plural urarHausasunaname,plural sunanakiWasho[50] gusubuffalo,gususu buffaloesTakelma[51]himidtotalkto, himimdtobeaccustomedtotalkto.Even morecommonlythansimpleduplication,thispartialduplicationoftheradicalelementhastaken oninmanylanguagesfunctionsthatseeminnowayrelatedtotheideaofincrease.Thebest knownexamplesareprobablytheinitialreduplicationofourolderIndoEuropeanlanguages, whichhelpstoformtheperfecttenseofmanyverbs(e.g.,SanskritdadarshaIhaveseen, GreekleloipaIhaveleft,Latin tetigiIhavetouched,GothiclelotIhavelet).InNootka reduplicationoftheradicalelementisoftenemployedinassociationwith certainsuffixese.g.,

hluchwomanformshluhluchituhltodreamofawoman,hluhluchkokresemblinga woman.PsychologicallysimilartotheGreekandLatinexamplesaremanyTakelmacasesof verbsthatexhibittwoformsofthestem,oneemployedinthepresentorpast,theotherinthe futureandincertainmodesandverbalderivatives.Theformerhasfinalreduplication,whichis absentinthelattere.g., alyebebin Ishow(orshowed)tohim,alyebinIshallshowhim. Wecomenowtothesubtlestofallgrammaticalprocesses,variationsin accent,whetherofstress orpitch.Thechiefdifficultyinisolatingaccentasafunctionalprocessisthatitissooften combinedwithalternationsinvocalicquantityorqualityorcomplicatedby thepresenceof affixedelementsthatitsgrammaticalvalueappearsasasecondaryratherthanasaprimary feature.InGreek,forinstance,itischaracteristicoftrueverbalformsthattheythrowtheaccent backasfarasthegeneralaccentualruleswillpermit,whilenounsmaybemorefreelyaccented. Thereisthusastrikingaccentualdifferencebetweenaverbalformlikeeluthemenwewere released,accentedonthesecondsyllableoftheword,anditsparticipialderivativelutheis released,accentedonthelast.Thepresenceofthecharacteristicverbalelementseandmen inthefirstcaseandofthenominal sinthesecondtendstoobscuretheinherentvalueofthe accentualalternation.ThisvaluecomesoutveryneatlyinsuchEnglishdoubletsastorefundand arefund, toextractandanextract,tocomedownandacomedown,tolacklusterandlackluster eyes,inwhichthedifferencebetweentheverbandthenounisentirelyamatterofchanging stress.IntheAthabaskanlanguagestherearenotinfrequentlysignificantalternationsofaccent, asinNavahotadigisyouwashyourself(accentedonthesecondsyllable),tadigishe washeshimself(accentedonthefirst).[52] Pitchaccentmaybeasfunctionalasstressandisperhapsmoreoftenso.Themerefact,however, thatpitchvariationsarephoneticallyessentialtothelanguage,asinChinese(e.g., fengwind withaleveltone, feng toservewithafallingtone)orasinclassicalGreek(e.g., labon havingtakenwithasimpleorhightoneonthesuffixedparticipial on,gunaikonofwomen withacompoundorfallingtoneonthecasesuffixon)doesnotnecessarilyconstitutea functional,orperhapswehadbettersaygrammatical,useofpitch.Insuchcasesthepitchis merelyinherentintheradicalelementoraffix,asanyvowelorconsonantmightbe.Itis differentwithsuchChinesealternationsaschung(level)middleandchung(falling)tohitthe middle mai(rising)tobuyandmai(falling)tosell pei(falling)backandpei(level)to carryontheback.ExamplesofthistypearenotexactlycommoninChineseandthelanguage cannotbesaidtopossessatpresentadefinitefeelingfortonaldifferencesassymbolicofthe distinctionbetweennounandverb. Therearelanguages,however,inwhichsuchdifferencesareofthemostfundamental grammaticalimportance.TheyareparticularlycommonintheSoudan.InEwe,forinstance, thereareformedfrom subotoservetworeduplicatedforms,aninfinitivesubosubotoserve, withalowtoneonthefirsttwosyllablesandahighoneonthelasttwo,andanadjectival subosuboserving,inwhichallthesyllableshaveahightone.Evenmorestrikingarecases furnishedbyShilluk,oneofthelanguagesoftheheadwatersoftheNile.Thepluralofthenoun oftendiffersintonefromthesingular,e.g.,yit (high)earbutyit(low)ears.Inthepronoun threeformsmaybedistinguishedbytonealone ehehasahightoneandissubjective,e him(e.g., achwolehecalledhim)hasalowtoneandisobjective,ehis(e.g.,wodehis house)hasamiddletoneandispossessive.Fromtheverbalelementgwedtowriteare

formedgwedo(he)writeswithalowtone,thepassivegwet(itwas)writtenwithafalling tone,theimperativegwetwrite!witharisingtone,andtheverbalnoun gwetwritingwitha middletone.InaboriginalAmericaalsopitchaccentisknowntooccurasagrammaticalprocess. AgoodexampleofsuchapitchlanguageisTlingit,spokenbytheIndiansofthesoutherncoast ofAlaska.Inthislanguagemanyverbsvarythetoneoftheradicalelementaccordingtotense huntosell,sintohide,tintosee,andnumerousotherradicalelements,iflowtoned,refer topasttime,ifhightoned,tothefuture.AnothertypeoffunctionisillustratedbytheTakelma formshelsong,withfallingpitch,buthelsing!witharisinginflectionparallel tothese formsaresel(falling)blackpaint,sel(rising)paintit!Allinallitisclearthatpitchaccent, likestressandvocalicorconsonantalmodifications,isfarlessinfrequentlyemployedasa grammaticalprocessthanourown habitsofspeechwouldprepareustobelieveprobable.

V
ForminLanguage:GrammaticalConcepts
Wehaveseenthatthesinglewordexpresseseitherasimpleconceptoracombinationof conceptssointerrelatedastoformapsychologicalunity.Wehave,furthermore,brieflyreviewed fromastrictlyformalstandpointthemainprocessesthatareusedbyallknownlanguagesto affectthefundamentalconceptsthoseembodiedinunanalyzablewordsorintheradical elementsofwordsbythemodifyingorformativeinfluenceofsubsidiaryconcepts.Inthis chapterweshalllookalittlemorecloselyintothenatureoftheworldofconcepts,insofaras thatworldisreflectedandsystematizedinlinguisticstructure. Letusbeginwithasimplesentencethatinvolvesvariouskindsofconceptsthefarmerkillsthe duckling.Aroughandreadyanalysisdisclosesherethepresenceofthreedistinctand fundamentalconceptsthatarebroughtintoconnectionwitheachotherinanumberofways. Thesethreeconceptsarefarmer(thesubjectofdiscourse),kill(definingthenatureofthe activitywhichthesentenceinformsusabout),andduckling(anothersubject[53] ofdiscourse thattakesanimportantthoughsomewhatpassivepartinthisactivity).Wecanvisualizethe farmerandtheducklingandwehavealsonodifficultyinconstructinganimageofthekilling.In otherwords,theelementsfarmer,kill,andducklingdefineconceptsofaconcreteorder. Butamorecarefullinguisticanalysissoonbringsustoseethatthetwosubjectsofdiscourse, howeversimplywemayvisualizethem,arenotexpressedquiteasdirectly,asimmediately,as wefeelthem.Afarmerisinonesenseaperfectlyunifiedconcept,inanotherheisonewho farms.Theconceptconveyedbytheradicalelement(farm)isnotoneofpersonalityatallbut ofanindustrialactivity(tofarm),itselfbasedontheconceptofaparticulartypeof object(a farm).Similarly,theconceptof ducklingisatoneremovefromthatwhichisexpressedbythe radicalelementoftheword,duck.Thiselement,whichmayoccurasanindependentword,refers toawholeclassofanimals,bigandlittle,whileducklingislimitedinitsapplicationtotheyoung ofthatclass.Theword farmerhasanagentivesuffixerthatperformsthefunctionof indicatingtheonethatcarriesoutagivenactivity,inthiscasethatoffarming.Ittransformsthe verb tofarmintoanagentivenounpreciselyasittransformstheverbstosing,topaint,toteach intothecorrespondingagentivenounssinger,painter,teacher.Theelementling isnotsofreely

used,butitssignificanceisobvious.Itaddstothebasicconceptthenotionofsmallness(asalso in gosling, fledgeling)orthesomewhatrelatednotionofcontemptible(asinweakling, princeling,hireling).Theagentiveerandthediminutivelingbothconveyfairlyconcreteideas (roughlythoseofdoerandlittle),buttheconcretenessisnotstressed.Theydonotsomuch definedistinctconceptsasmediatebetweenconcepts.Theer of farmerdoesnotquitesayone who(farms)itmerelyindicatesthatthesortofpersonwecallafarmeriscloselyenough associatedwithactivity onafarmtobeconventionallythoughtofasalwayssooccupied.He may,asamatteroffact,gototownandengageinanypursuitbutfarming,yethislinguisticlabel remainsfarmer.Languageherebetraysacertainhelplessnessor,ifoneprefers,astubborn tendencytolookawayfromtheimmediatelysuggestedfunction,trustingtotheimaginationand tousagetofillinthetransitionsofthoughtandthedetailsofapplicationthatdistinguishone concreteconcept(tofarm)fromanotherderivedone(farmer).Itwouldbeimpossibleforany languagetoexpresseveryconcreteideabyanindependentwordorradicalelement.The concretenessofexperienceisinfinite,theresourcesoftherichestlanguagearestrictlylimited.It mustperforcethrowcountlessconceptsundertherubricofcertainbasicones,usingother concreteorsemiconcreteideasasfunctionalmediators.Theideasexpressedbythesemediating elementstheymaybeindependentwords,affixes,ormodificationsoftheradicalelement maybecalledderivationalorqualifying.Someconcreteconcepts,suchaskill,areexpressed radicallyothers,suchasfarmerandduckling,areexpressedderivatively.Correspondingtothese twomodesofexpressionwehavetwotypesofconceptsandoflinguisticelements,radical(farm, kill,duck)andderivational(er,ling).Whenaword(orunifiedgroupofwords)containsa derivationalelement(orword)theconcretesignificanceoftheradicalelement(farm,duck) tendstofadefromconsciousnessandtoyieldtoanewconcreteness(farmer,duckling)thatis syntheticinexpressionratherthaninthought.Inoursentencetheconceptsof farmandduckare notreallyinvolvedatalltheyaremerelylatent,forformalreasons,inthelinguisticexpression. Returningtothissentence,wefeelthattheanalysisof farmerandducklingarepractically irrelevanttoanunderstandingofitscontentandentirelyirrelevanttoafeelingforthestructureof thesentenceasawhole.Fromthestandpointofthesentencethederivationalelementserand lingaremerelydetailsinthelocaleconomyoftwoofitsterms(farmer,duckling)thatitaccepts asunitsofexpression.Thisindifferenceofthesentenceassuchtosomepartoftheanalysisofits wordsisshownbythefactthatifwesubstitutesuchradicalwordsasmanandchickfor farmer andduckling,weobtainanewmaterialcontent,itistrue,butnotintheleastanewstructural mold.Wecangofurtherandsubstituteanotheractivityforthatofkilling,saytaking.The newsentence,themantakesthechick,istotallydifferentfromthefirstsentenceinwhatit conveys,notinhowitconveysit.Wefeelinstinctively,withouttheslightestattemptat consciousanalysis,thatthetwosentencesfitpreciselythesamepattern,thattheyarereallythe samefundamentalsentence,differingonlyintheirmaterialtrappings.Inotherwords,they expressidenticalrelationalconceptsinanidenticalmanner.Themannerisherethreefoldthe useofaninherentlyrelationalword(the)inanalogouspositions,theanalogoussequence(subject predicate,consistingofverbandobject)oftheconcretetermsofthesentence,andtheuseofthe suffixedelementsintheverb. Changeanyofthesefeaturesofthesentenceanditbecomesmodified,slightlyorseriously,in somepurelyrelational,nonmaterialregard.If theisomitted(farmerkillsduckling, mantakes chick),thesentencebecomesimpossibleitfallsintonorecognizedformalpatternandthetwo

subjectsofdiscourseseemtohangincompletelyinthevoid.Wefeelthatthereisnorelation establishedbetweeneitherofthemandwhatisalreadyinthemindsofthespeakerandhis auditor.Assoonasatheisputbeforethetwonouns,wefeelrelieved.Weknowthatthefarmer andducklingwhichthesentencetellsusaboutarethesamefarmerandducklingthatwehad beentalkingaboutorhearingaboutorthinkingaboutsometimebefore.IfImeetamanwhois notlookingatandknowsnothingaboutthefarmerinquestion,Iamlikelytobestaredatformy painsifIannouncetohimthatthefarmer[whatfarmer?]theduckling[didntknowhehadany, whoeverheis].Ifthefactneverthelessseemsinterestingenough tocommunicate,Ishouldbe compelledtospeakofafarmerupmywayandofaducklingofhis.Theselittlewords, the anda,havetheimportantfunctionofestablishingadefiniteoranindefinitereference. IfIomitthefirsttheandalsoleaveout thesuffixeds,Iobtainanentirelynewsetofrelations. Farmer,killtheduckling impliesthatIamnowspeakingtothefarmer,notmerelyabouthim further,thatheisnotactuallykillingthebird,butisbeingorderedbymetodoso.Thesubjective relationofthefirstsentencehasbecomeavocativeone,oneofaddress,andtheactivityis conceivedintermsofcommand,notofstatement.Weconclude,therefore,thatifthefarmeristo bemerelytalkedabout,thelittlethemustgobackintoitsplaceandthesmustnotberemoved. Thelatterelementclearlydefines,orratherhelpstodefine,statementascontrastedwith command.Ifind,moreover,thatifIwishtospeakofseveralfarmers,Icannotsay thefarmers killstheduckling,butmustsay thefarmerskilltheduckling.Evidently sinvolvesthenotionof singularityinthesubject.Ifthenounissingular,theverbmusthaveaformtocorrespondifthe nounisplural,theverbhasanother,correspondingform.[54]ComparisonwithsuchformsasI killandyoukillshows,moreover,thattheshasexclusivereferencetoapersonotherthanthe speakerortheonespokento.Weconclude,therefore,thatitconnotesapersonalrelationaswell asthenotionofsingularity.Andcomparisonwithasentencelikethefarmerkilledtheduckling indicatesthatthereisimpliedinthisoverburdenedsadistinctreferencetopresenttime. Statementassuchandpersonalreferencemaywellbelookeduponasinherentlyrelational concepts.NumberisevidentlyfeltbythosewhospeakEnglishasinvolvinganecessaryrelation, otherwisetherewouldbenoreasontoexpresstheconcepttwice,inthenounandintheverb. Timealsoisclearlyfeltasarelationalconceptifitwerenot,weshouldbeallowedtosay the farmerkilleds tocorrespondtothefarmerkills.Ofthefourconceptsinextricablyinterwovenin thessuffix,allarefeltasrelational,twonecessarilyso.Thedistinctionbetweenatruly relationalconceptandonethatissofeltandtreated,thoughitneednotbeinthenatureofthings, willreceivefurtherattentioninamoment. Finally,Icanradicallydisturbtherelationalcutofthesentencebychangingtheorderofits elements.Ifthepositionsof farmerandkillsareinterchanged,thesentencereadskillsthefarmer theduckling,whichismostnaturallyinterpretedasanunusualbutnotunintelligiblemodeof askingthequestion,doesthefarmerkilltheduckling?Inthisnewsentencetheactisnot conceivedasnecessarilytakingplaceatall.Itmayoritmaynotbehappening,theimplication beingthatthespeakerwishestoknowthetruthofthematterandthatthepersonspokentois expectedtogivehimtheinformation.Theinterrogativesentencepossessesanentirelydifferent modalityfromthedeclarativeoneandimpliesamarkedlydifferentattitudeofthespeaker towardshiscompanion.Anevenmorestrikingchangeinpersonalrelationsiseffectedifwe interchangethefarmerandtheduckling.Theducklingkillsthefarmerinvolvespreciselythe samesubjectsofdiscourseandthesametypeofactivityasourfirstsentence,buttherlesof

thesesubjectsofdiscoursearenowreversed.Theducklinghasturned,liketheproverbialworm, or,toputitingrammaticalterminology,whatwassubjectisnowobject,whatwasobjectis nowsubject. Thefollowingtabularstatementanalyzesthesentencefromthepointofviewoftheconcepts expressedinitandofthegrammaticalprocessesemployedfortheirexpression. I. CONCRETECONCEPTS: 1. Firstsubjectofdiscourse:farmer 2. Secondsubjectofdiscourse:duckling 3. Activity:kill analyzableinto: D. RADICAL CONCEPTS: 1. Verb:(to)farm 2. Noun:duck 3. Verb:kill E. DERIVATIONAL CONCEPTS: 1. Agentive:expressedbysuffixer 2. Diminutive:expressedbysuffix ling RELATIONAL CONCEPTS: Reference: 0. Definitenessofreferencetofirstsubjectofdiscourse:expressedbyfirstthe, whichhaspreposedposition 1. Definitenessofreferencetosecondsubjectofdiscourse:expressedbysecondthe, whichhaspreposedposition Modality: 2. Declarative:expressedbysequenceofsubjectplusverbandimpliedby suffixedsPersonalrelations: 3. Subjectivityof farmer:expressedbypositionof farmerbeforekillsandby suffixeds 4. Objectivityof duckling:expressedbypositionof ducklingafterkillsNumber: 5. Singularityoffirstsubjectofdiscourse:expressedbylackofpluralsuffixin farmerandbysuffixsinfollowingverb 6. Singularityofsecondsubjectofdiscourse:expressedbylackofpluralsuffixin ducklingTime: 7. Present:expressedbylackofpreteritsuffixinverbandbysuffixeds Inthisshortsentenceoffivewordsthereareexpressed,therefore,thirteendistinctconcepts,of whichthreeareradicalandconcrete,twoderivational,andeightrelational.Perhapsthemost strikingresultoftheanalysisisarenewedrealizationofthecuriouslackofaccordinour languagebetweenfunctionandform.Themethodofsuffixingisusedbothforderivationaland

II.

forrelationalelementsindependentwordsorradicalelementsexpressbothconcreteideas (objects,activities,qualities)andrelationalideas(articlesliketheandawordsdefiningcase relations,likeof, to, for,with,bywordsdefininglocalrelations,likein,on, at)thesame relationalconceptmaybeexpressedmorethanonce(thus,thesingularityof farmerisboth negativelyexpressedinthenounandpositivelyintheverb)andoneelementmay conveya groupofinterwovenconceptsratherthanonedefiniteconceptalone(thusthes of kills embodiesnolessthanfourlogicallyindependentrelations). Ouranalysismayseemabitlabored,butonlybecausewearesoaccustomedtoourownwell worngroovesofexpressionthattheyhavecometobefeltasinevitable.Yetdestructiveanalysis ofthefamiliaristheonlymethodofapproachtoanunderstandingoffundamentallydifferent modesofexpression.Whenonehaslearnedtofeelwhatisfortuitousorillogicalorunbalanced inthestructureofhisownlanguage,heisalreadywellonthewaytowardsasympatheticgrasp oftheexpressionofthevariousclassesofconceptsinalientypesofspeech.Noteverythingthat isoutlandishisintrinsicallyillogicalorfarfetched.Itisoftenpreciselythefamiliarthata widerperspectiverevealsasthecuriouslyexceptional.Fromapurelylogicalstandpointitis obviousthatthereisnoinherentreasonwhytheconceptsexpressedinoursentenceshouldhave beensingledout,treated,andgroupedastheyhavebeenandnototherwise.Thesentenceisthe outgrowthofhistoricalandofunreasoningpsychologicalforcesratherthanofalogicalsynthesis ofelementsthathavebeenclearlygraspedintheirindividuality.Thisisthecase,toagreateror lessdegree,inalllanguages,thoughintheformsofmanywefindamorecoherent,amore consistent,reflectionthaninourEnglishformsofthatunconsciousanalysisintoindividual conceptswhichisneverentirelyabsentfromspeech,howeveritmaybecomplicatedwithor overlaidbythemoreirrationalfactors. Acursoryexaminationofotherlanguages,nearandfar,wouldsoonshowthatsomeorallofthe thirteenconceptsthatoursentencehappenstoembodymaynot onlybeexpressedindifferent formbutthattheymaybedifferentlygroupedamongthemselvesthatsomeamongthemmaybe dispensedwithandthatotherconcepts,notconsideredworthexpressinginEnglishidiom,may betreatedasabsolutely indispensabletotheintelligiblerenderingoftheproposition.Firstastoa differentmethodofhandlingsuchconceptsaswehavefoundexpressedintheEnglishsentence. IfweturntoGerman,wefindthatintheequivalentsentence(DerBauerttetdasEntelein)the definitenessofreferenceexpressedbytheEnglishtheisunavoidablycoupledwiththreeother conceptsnumber(both deranddasareexplicitlysingular),case(derissubjective dasis subjectiveorobjective,byeliminationthereforeobjective),andgender,anewconceptofthe relationalorderthatisnotinthiscaseexplicitlyinvolvedinEnglish(derismasculine,dasis neuter).Indeed,thechiefburdenoftheexpressionofcase,gender,andnumberisintheGerman sentencebornebytheparticlesofreferenceratherthanbythewordsthatexpresstheconcrete concepts(Bauer, Entelein)towhichtheserelationalconceptsoughtlogicallytoattach themselves.InthesphereofconcreteconceptstooitisworthnotingthattheGermansplitsupthe ideaofkillingintothebasicconceptofdead(tot)andthederivationaloneofcausingtodo (orbe)soandso(bythemethodofvocalicchange,tt)theGerman ttet(analytically tot +vowelchange+et)causestobedeadis,approximately,theformalequivalentofour deaden s,thoughtheidiomaticapplicationofthislatterwordisdifferent.[55]

Wanderingstillfurtherafield,wemayglanceattheYanamethodofexpression.Literally translated,theequivalentYanasentencewouldreadsomethinglikekillshefarmer[56]heto duckling,inwhichheandtoareratherawkwardEnglishrenderingsofageneralthird personalpronoun(he,she, it,or they)andanobjectiveparticlewhichindicatesthatthefollowing nounisconnectedwiththeverbotherwisethanassubject.Thesuffixedelementinkills correspondstotheEnglishsuffixwiththeimportantexceptionsthatitmakesnoreferencetothe numberofthesubjectandthatthestatementisknowntobetrue,thatitisvouchedforbythe speaker.Numberisonlyindirectlyexpressedinthesentenceinsofarasthereisnospecificverb suffixindicatingpluralityofthesubjectnorspecificpluralelementsinthetwonouns.Hadthe statementbeenmadeonanothersauthority,atotallydifferenttensemodalsuffixwouldhave hadtobeused.Thepronounsofreference(he)implynothingbythemselvesastonumber, gender,orcase.Gender,indeed,iscompletelyabsentinYanaasarelationalcategory. TheYanasentencehasalreadyillustratedthepointthatcertainofoursupposedlyessential conceptsmaybeignoredboththeYanaandtheGermansentenceillustratethefurtherpointthat certainconceptsmayneedexpressionforwhichanEnglishspeakingperson,orratherthe Englishspeakinghabit,findsnoneedwhatever.Onecouldgoonandgiveendlessexamplesof suchdeviationsfromEnglishform,butweshallhavetocontentourselveswithafewmore indications.IntheChinesesentenceMankillduck,whichmaybelookeduponasthepractical equivalentofTheman killstheduck,thereisbynomeanspresentfortheChinese consciousnessthatchildish,halting,emptyfeelingwhichweexperienceintheliteralEnglish translation.Thethreeconcreteconceptstwoobjectsandanactionareeachdirectlyexpressed byamonosyllabicwordwhichisatthesametimearadicalelementthetworelational conceptssubjectandobjectareexpressedsolelybythepositionoftheconcretewords beforeandafterthewordofaction.Andthatisall.Definitenessorindefinitenessofreference, number,personalityasaninherentaspectoftheverb,tense,nottospeakofgenderalltheseare givennoexpressionintheChinesesentence,which,forallthat,isaperfectlyadequate communicationprovided,ofcourse,thereisthatcontext,thatbackgroundofmutual understandingthatisessentialtothecompleteintelligibilityofallspeech.Nordoesthis qualificationimpairourargument,forintheEnglishsentencetooweleaveunexpressedalarge numberofideaswhichareeithertakenforgrantedorwhichhavebeendevelopedorareaboutto bedevelopedinthecourseoftheconversation.Nothinghasbeensaid,forexample,inthe English,German,Yana,orChinesesentenceastotheplacerelationsofthefarmer,theduck,the speaker,andthelistener.Arethefarmerandtheduckbothvisibleorisoneortheotherinvisible fromthepointofviewofthespeaker,andarebothplacedwithinthehorizonofthespeaker,the listener,orofsomeindefinitepointofreferenceoffyonder?Inotherwords,toparaphrase awkwardlycertainlatentdemonstrativeideas,doesthisfarmer(invisibletousbutstanding behindadoornotfarawayfromme,youbeingseatedyonderwelloutofreach)killthat duckling(whichbelongstoyou)?ordoesthatfarmer(wholivesinyourneighborhoodand whomweseeoverthere)killthatduckling(thatbelongstohim)?Thistypeofdemonstrative elaborationisforeigntoourwayofthinking,butitwouldseemverynatural,indeedunavoidable, toaKwakiutlIndian. What,then,aretheabsolutelyessentialconceptsinspeech,theconceptsthatmustbeexpressed iflanguageistobeasatisfactorymeansofcommunication?Clearlywemusthave,firstofall,a largestockofbasicorradicalconcepts,theconcretewherewithalofspeech.Wemusthave

objects,actions,qualitiestotalkabout,andthesemusthavetheircorrespondingsymbolsin independentwordsorinradicalelements.Noproposition,howeverabstractitsintent,ishumanly possiblewithoutatyingonatone ormorepointstotheconcreteworldofsense.Inevery intelligiblepropositionatleasttwooftheseradicalideasmustbeexpressed,thoughin exceptionalcasesoneorevenbothmaybeunderstoodfromthecontext.And,secondly,such relationalconceptsmustbeexpressedasmoortheconcreteconceptstoeachotherandconstruct adefinite,fundamentalformofproposition.Inthisfundamentalformtheremustbenodoubtas tothenatureoftherelationsthatobtainbetweentheconcreteconcepts.Wemustknowwhat concreteconceptisdirectlyorindirectlyrelatedtowhatother,andhow.Ifwewishtotalkofa thingandanaction,wemustknowiftheyarecordinatelyrelatedtoeachother(e.g.,Heis fondof wineandgambling)orifthethingisconceivedofasthestartingpoint,thedoerof theaction,or,asitiscustomarytosay,thesubjectofwhichtheactionispredicatedorif,on thecontrary,itistheendpoint,theobjectoftheaction.IfIwishtocommunicatean intelligibleideaaboutafarmer,aduckling,andtheactofkilling,itisnotenoughtostatethe linguisticsymbolsfortheseconcreteideasinanyorder,higgledypiggledy,trustingthatthe hearermayconstructsomekindofarelationalpatternoutofthegeneralprobabilitiesofthecase. Thefundamentalsyntacticrelationsmustbeunambiguouslyexpressed.Icanaffordtobesilent onthesubjectoftimeandplaceandnumberandofahostofotherpossibletypesofconcepts,but Icanfindnowayofdodgingtheissueastowhoisdoingthekilling.Thereisnoknown languagethatcanordoesdodgeit,anymorethanitsucceedsinsayingsomethingwithoutthe useofsymbolsfortheconcreteconcepts. Wearethusoncemoreremindedofthedistinctionbetweenessentialorunavoidablerelational conceptsandthedispensabletype.Theformerareuniversallyexpressed,thelatterarebut sparselydevelopedinsomelanguages,elaboratedwithabewilderingexuberanceinothers.But whatpreventsusfromthrowinginthesedispensableorsecondaryrelationalconceptswith thelarge,floatinggroupofderivational,qualifyingconceptsthatwehavealreadydiscussed?Is there,afterallissaidanddone,afundamentaldifferencebetweenaqualifyingconceptlikethe negativein unhealthyandarelationalonelikethenumberconceptin books?If unhealthymaybe roughlyparaphrasedasnothealthy,maynotbooks bejustaslegitimatelyparaphrased,barring theviolencetoEnglishidiom,asseveralbook?Thereare,indeed,languagesinwhichtheplural, ifexpressedatall,isconceivedofinthesamesober,restricted,onemightalmostsaycasual, spiritinwhichwefeelthenegativein unhealthy.Forsuchlanguagesthenumberconcepthasno syntacticsignificancewhatever,isnotessentiallyconceivedofasdefiningarelation,butfalls intothegroupofderivationalorevenofbasicconcepts.InEnglish,however,asinFrench, German,Latin,Greekindeedinallthelanguagesthatwehavemostfamiliaritywiththeidea ofnumberisnotmerelyappendedtoagivenconceptofathing.Itmayhavesomethingofthis merelyqualifyingvalue,butitsforceextendsfarbeyond.Itinfectsmuchelseinthesentence, moldingotherconcepts,evensuchashavenointelligiblerelationtonumber,intoformsthatare saidtocorrespondtooragreewiththebasicconcepttowhichitisattachedinthefirstinstance. IfamanfallsbutmenfallinEnglish,itisnotbecauseofanyinherentchangethathastaken placeinthenatureoftheactionorbecausetheideaofpluralityinherentinmenmust,inthe verynatureofideas,relateitselfalsototheactionperformedbythesemen.Whatwearedoingin thesesentencesiswhatmostlanguages,ingreaterorlessdegreeandinahundredvaryingways, areinthehabitofdoingthrowingaboldbridgebetweenthetwobasicallydistincttypesof concept,theconcreteandtheabstractlyrelational,infectingthelatter,asitwere,withthecolor

andgrossnessoftheformer.Byacertainviolenceof metaphorthematerialconceptisforcedto dodutyfor(orintertwineitselfwith)thestrictlyrelational. Thecaseisevenmoreobviousifwetakegenderasourtext.InthetwoEnglishphrases,The whitewomanthatcomesandThewhitementhatcome,wearenotremindedthatgender,as wellasnumber,maybeelevatedintoasecondaryrelationalconcept.Itwouldseemalittlefar fetchedtomakeofmasculinityandfemininity,crasslymaterial,philosophicallyaccidental conceptsthattheyare,ameansofrelatingqualityandperson,personandaction,norwouldit easilyoccurtous,ifwehadnotstudiedtheclassics,thatitwasanythingbutabsurdtoinjectinto twosuchhighlyattenuated relationalconceptsasareexpressedbytheandthatthecombined notionsofnumberandsex.Yetallthis,andmore,happensinLatin.Illaalbafeminaquaevenit andillialbihominesquiveniunt,conceptuallytranslated,amounttothis:thatonefeminine doer[57] onefemininewhitedoerfemininedoingonewomanwhichonefemininedoer other[58]onenowcomeand:thatseveralmasculinedoerseveralmasculinewhitedoer masculinedoingseveralmanwhichseveralmasculinedoerotherseveralnowcome.Eachword involvesnolessthanfourconcepts,aradicalconcept(eitherproperlyconcretewhite,man, woman,comeordemonstrativethat,which)andthreerelationalconcepts,selectedfromthe categoriesofcase,number,gender,person,andtense.Logically,onlycase[59](therelationof womanormen toafollowingverb,of whichtoitsantecedent,of thatandwhitetowomanormen, andof whichtocome)imperativelydemandsexpression,andthatonlyinconnectionwiththe conceptsdirectlyaffected(thereis,forinstance,noneedtobeinformedthatthewhitenessisa doingordoerswhiteness[60]).The otherrelationalconceptsareeithermerelyparasitic(gender throughoutnumberinthedemonstrative,theadjective,therelative,andtheverb)orirrelevantto theessentialsyntacticformofthesentence(numberinthenounpersontense).Anintelligent andsensitiveChinaman,accustomedasheistocuttotheveryboneoflinguisticform,might wellsayoftheLatinsentence,Howpedanticallyimaginative!Itmustbedifficultforhim, whenfirstconfrontedbytheillogicalcomplexitiesofourEuropeanlanguages,tofeelathomein anattitudethatsolargelyconfoundsthesubjectmatterofspeechwithitsformalpatternor, tobe moreaccurate,thatturnscertainfundamentallyconcreteconceptstosuchattenuatedrelational uses. Ihaveexaggeratedsomewhattheconcretenessofoursubsidiaryorrathernonsyntactical relationalconceptsInorderthattheessentialfactsmightcomeoutinboldrelief.Itgoeswithout sayingthataFrenchmanhasnoclearsexnotioninhismindwhenhespeaksof unarbre(a masculinetree)orof unepomme(afeminineapple).Norhavewe,despitethegrammarians,a veryvividsenseofthepresentascontrastedwithallpastandallfuturetimewhenwesay He comes.[61]Thisisevidentfromouruseofthepresenttoindicatebothfuturetime(Hecomes tomorrow)andgeneralactivityunspecifiedastotime(Wheneverhecomes,Iamgladtosee him,wherecomesreferstopastoccurrencesandpossiblefutureonesratherthantopresent activity).InboththeFrenchandEnglishinstancestheprimaryideasofsexandtimehave becomedilutedbyformanalogyandbyextensionsintotherelationalsphere,theconcepts ostensiblyindicatedbeingnowsovaguelydelimitedthatitisratherthetyrannyofusagethanthe needoftheirconcreteexpressionthatswaysusin theselectionofthisorthatform.Ifthe thinningoutprocesscontinueslongenough,wemayeventuallybeleftwithasystemofformson ourhandsfromwhichallthecoloroflifehasvanishedandwhichmerelypersistbyinertia, duplicatingeachotherssecondary,syntacticfunctionswithendlessprodigality.Hence,inpart,

thecomplexconjugationalsystemsofsomanylanguages,inwhichdifferencesofformare attendedbynoassignabledifferencesoffunction.Theremusthavebeenatime,forinstance, thoughitantedatesourearliestdocumentaryevidence,whenthetypeoftenseformation representedby droveorsankdifferedinmeaning,inhoweverslightlynuancedadegree,from thetype(killed,worked)whichhasnowbecomeestablishedinEnglishastheprevailingpreterit formation,verymuchaswerecognizeavaluabledistinctionatpresentbetweenboththesetypes andtheperfect(hasdriven,haskilled)butmayhaveceasedtodosoatsomepointinthe future.[62]Nowformliveslongerthanitsownconceptualcontent.Bothareceaselessly changing,but,onthewhole,theformtendstolingeronwhenthespirithasflownorchangedits being.Irrationalform,form forformssakehoweverwetermthistendencytoholdonto formaldistinctionsoncetheyhavecometobeisasnaturaltothelifeoflanguageasisthe retentionofmodesofconductthathavelongoutlivedthemeaningtheyoncehad. Thereisanotherpowerfultendencywhichmakesforaformalelaborationthatdoesnotstrictly correspondtoclearcutconceptualdifferences.Thisisthetendencytoconstructschemesof classificationintowhichalltheconceptsoflanguagemustbefitted.Oncewehavemadeupour mindsthatallthingsareeitherdefinitelygoodorbadordefinitelyblackorwhite,itisdifficultto getintotheframeofmindthatrecognizesthatanyparticularthingmaybebothgoodandbad(in otherwords,indifferent)orbothblackandwhite(inotherwords,gray),stillmoredifficultto realizethatthegoodbadorblackwhitecategoriesmaynotapplyatall.Languageisinmany respectsasunreasonableandstubbornaboutitsclassificationsasissuchamind.Itmusthaveits perfectly exclusivepigeonholesandwilltoleratenoflyingvagrants.Anyconceptthatasksfor expressionmustsubmittotheclassificatoryrulesofthegame,justastherearestatisticalsurveys inwhicheventhemostconvincedatheistmustperforcebelabeledCatholic,Protestant,orJewor getnohearing.InEnglishwehavemadeupourmindsthatallactionmustbeconceivedofin referencetothreestandardtimes.If,therefore,wedesiretostateapropositionthatisastrueto morrowasitwasyesterday,wehavetopretendthatthepresentmomentmaybeelongatedfore andaftsoastotakeinalleternity.[63]InFrenchweknowonceforallthatanobjectis masculineorfeminine,whetheritbelivingornotjustasinmanyAmericanandEastAsiatic languagesitmustbeunderstoodtobelongtoacertainformcategory(say,ringround,ballround, longandslender,cylindrical,sheetlike,inmasslikesugar)beforeitcanbeenumerated(e.g., twoballclasspotatoes,threesheetclasscarpets)orevensaidtobeorbehandledina definiteway(thus,intheAthabaskanlanguagesandinYana,tocarryorthrowapebbleis quiteanotherthingthantocarryorthrowa log,linguisticallynolessthanintermsofmuscular experience).Suchinstancesmightbemultipliedatwill.Itisalmostasthoughatsomeperiodin thepasttheunconsciousmindoftheracehadmadeahastyinventoryofexperience,committed itselftoaprematureclassificationthatallowedofnorevision,andsaddledtheinheritorsofits languagewithasciencethattheynolongerquitebelievedinnorhadthestrengthtooverthrow. Dogma,rigidlyprescribedbytradition,stiffensintoformalism.Linguisticcategoriesmakeupa systemofsurvivingdogmadogmaoftheunconscious.Theyareoftenbuthalfrealasconcepts theirlifetendsevertolanguishawayintoformforformssake. Thereisstillathirdcausefortheriseofthisnonsignificantform,orratherofnonsignificant differencesofform.Thisisthemechanicaloperationofphoneticprocesses,whichmaybring aboutformaldistinctionsthathavenotandneverhadacorrespondingfunctionaldistinction. Muchoftheirregularityandgeneralformalcomplexityofourdeclensionalandconjugational

systemsisduetothisprocess.Thepluralof hatishats,thepluralof selfisselves.Intheformer casewehaveatruessymbolizingplurality,inthelattera zsoundcoupledwithachangein the radicalelementofthewordof ftov.Herewehavenotafallingtogetherofformsthatoriginally stoodforfairlydistinctconceptsaswesawwaspresumablythecasewithsuchparallelforms asdroveandworkedbutamerelymechanicalmanifoldingofthesameformalelementwithout acorrespondinggrowthofanewconcept.Thistypeofformdevelopment,therefore,whileofthe greatestinterestforthegeneralhistoryoflanguage,doesnotdirectlyconcernusnowinour efforttounderstandthenature ofgrammaticalconceptsandtheirtendencytodegenerateinto purelyformalcounters. Wemaynowconvenientlyreviseourfirstclassificationofconceptsasexpressedinlanguage andsuggestthefollowingscheme: I. II. Basic(Concrete)Concepts(suchasobjects,actions,qualities):normallyexpressedby independentwordsorradicalelementsinvolvenorelationassuch[64] DerivationalConcepts(lessconcrete,asarule,thanI,moresothanIII):normally expressedbyaffixingnonradicalelementstoradicalelementsorbyinnermodification ofthesedifferfromtypeIindefiningideasthatareirrelevanttothepropositionasa wholebutthatgivearadicalelementaparticularincrementofsignificanceandthatare thusinherentlyrelatedinaspecificwaytoconceptsoftypeI[65] ConcreteRelationalConcepts(stillmoreabstract,yetnotentirelydevoidofameasureof concreteness):normallyexpressedbyaffixingnonradicalelementstoradicalelements, butgenerallyatagreaterremovefromthesethanisthecasewithelementsoftypeII,or byinnermodificationofradicalelementsdifferfundamentallyfromtypeIIinindicating orimplyingrelationsthattranscendtheparticularwordtowhichtheyareimmediately attached,thusleadingoverto PureRelationalConcepts(purelyabstract):normallyexpressedbyaffixingnonradical elementstoradicalelements(inwhichcasetheseconceptsarefrequentlyintertwined withthoseoftypeIII)orbytheirinnermodification,byindependentwords,orby positionservetorelatetheconcreteelementsofthepropositiontoeachother,thus givingitdefinitesyntacticform.

III.

IV.

Thenatureofthesefourclassesofconceptsasregardstheirconcretenessortheirpowerto expresssyntacticrelationsmaybethussymbolized: MaterialContent { Relation I. BasicConcepts II. DerivationalConcepts III.ConcreteRelationalConcepts { IV. PureRelationalConcepts

Theseschemesmustnotbeworshippedasfetiches.Intheactualworkof analysisdifficult problemsfrequentlyariseandwemaywellbeindoubtastohowtogroupagivensetof concepts.Thisisparticularlyapttobethecaseinexoticlanguages,wherewemaybequitesure oftheanalysisofthewordsinasentenceandyetnotsucceedinacquiringthatinnerfeelofits structurethatenablesustotellinfalliblywhatismaterialcontentandwhatisrelation.

ConceptsofclassIareessentialtoallspeech,alsoconceptsofclassIV.ConceptsIIandIIIare bothcommon,butnotessentialparticularlygroupIII,whichrepresents,ineffect,a psychologicalandformalconfusionoftypesIIandIVoroftypesIandIV,isanavoidableclass ofconcepts.LogicallythereisanimpassablegulfbetweenIandIV,buttheillogical, metaphoricalgeniusofspeechhaswilfullyspannedthegulfandsetupacontinuousgamutof conceptsandformsthatleadsimperceptiblyfromthecrudestofmaterialities(houseorJohn Smith)tothemostsubtleofrelations.Itisparticularly significantthattheunanalyzable independentwordbelongsinmostcasestoeithergroupIorgroupIV,ratherlesscommonlytoII orIII.Itispossibleforaconcreteconcept,representedbyasimpleword,toloseitsmaterial significanceentirelyandpassoverdirectlyintotherelationalspherewithoutatthesametime losingitsindependenceasaword.Thishappens,forinstance,inChineseandCambodgianwhen theverbgiveisusedinanabstractsenseasameresymboloftheindirectobjectiverelation (e.g.,CambodgianWemakestorythisgiveallthatpersonwhohavechild,i.e.,Wehave madethisstory forallthosethathavechildren). Thereare,ofcourse,alsonotafewinstancesoftransitionsbetweengroupsIandIIandIandIII, aswellasofthelessradicalonebetweenIIandIII.Tothefirstofthesetransitionsbelongsthat wholeclassofexamplesinwhichtheindependentword,afterpassingthroughthepreliminary stageoffunctioningasthesecondaryorqualifyingelementinacompound,endsupbybeinga derivationalaffixpureandsimple,yetwithoutlosingthememoryofitsformerindependence. Suchanelementandconceptisthefull of teaspoonfull,which hoverspsychologicallybetween thestatusofanindependent,radicalconcept(compare full)orofasubsidiaryelementina compound(cf.brimfull)andthatofasimplesuffix(cf.dutiful)inwhichtheprimary concretenessisnolongerfelt.Ingeneral,themorehighlysyntheticourlinguistictype,themore difficultandevenarbitraryitbecomestodistinguishgroupsIandII. NotonlyisthereagraduallossoftheconcreteaswepassthroughfromgroupItogroupIV, thereisalsoaconstantfadingawayofthefeelingofsensiblerealitywithinthemaingroupsof linguisticconceptsthemselves.Inmanylanguagesitbecomesalmostimperative,therefore,to makevarioussubclassifications,tosegregate,forinstance,themoreconcretefromthemore abstractconceptsofgroupII.Yetwemustalwaysbewareofreadingintosuchabstractergroups thatpurelyformal,relationalfeelingthatwecanhardlyhelpassociatingwithcertainofthe abstracterconceptswhich,withus,fallingroupIII,unless,indeed,thereisclearevidenceto warrantsuchareadingin.Anexampleor twoshouldmakecleartheseallimportant distinctions.[66] InNootkawehaveanunusuallylargenumberofderivationalaffixes (expressingconceptsofgroupII).Someof thesearequitematerialincontent(e.g.,inthe house,todreamof),others,likeanelementdenotingpluralityandadiminutiveaffix,arefar moreabstractincontent.Theformertypearemorecloselyweldedwiththeradicalelementthan thelatter,whichcanonlybesuffixedtoformationsthathavethevalueof completewords.If, therefore,IwishtosaythesmallfiresinthehouseandIcandothisinonewordImust formthewordfireinthehouse,towhichelementscorrespondingtosmall,ourplural,and theareappended.Theelementindicatingthedefinitenessofreferencethatisimpliedinour thecomesattheveryendoftheword.Sofar,sogood.Fireinthehousetheisan intelligiblecorrelateofourthehousefire.[67]ButistheNootkacorrelateofthesmallfiresin thehousethetrueequivalentofanEnglishthehousefirelets?[68]Bynomeans.Firstofall, thepluralelementprecedesthediminutiveinNootka:fireinthehousepluralsmallthe,in

otherwordsthehousefireslet,whichatoncerevealstheimportantfactthatthepluralconcept isnotasabstractly,asrelationally,feltasinEnglish.Amoreadequaterenderingwouldbethe housefireseverallet,inwhich,however,severalistoogrossaword,lettoochoicean element(smallagainistoogross).Intruthwecannotcarry overintoEnglishtheinherent feelingoftheNootkaword,whichseemstohoversomewherebetweenthehousefireletsand thehousefireseveralsmall.Butwhatmorethananythingelsecutsoffallpossibilityof comparisonbetweentheEnglish sofhousefireletsandtheseveralsmalloftheNootka wordisthis,thatinNootkaneitherthepluralnorthediminutiveaffixcorrespondsorrefersto anythingelseinthesentence.InEnglishthehousefireletsburn(notburns),inNootka neitherverb,noradjective,noranythingelseinthepropositionisintheleastconcernedwiththe pluralityorthediminutivenessofthefire.Hence,whileNootkarecognizesacleavagebetween concreteandlessconcreteconceptswithingroupII,thelessconcretedonottranscendthegroup andleadusintothatabstracterairintowhichourplural scarriesus.Butatanyrate,thereader mayobject,itissomethingthattheNootkapluralaffixissetapartfromtheconcretergroupof affixesandmaynottheNootkadiminutivehaveaslenderer,amoreelusivecontentthanourlet or ling ortheGerman chenorlein?[69] Cansuchaconceptasthatofpluralityeverbeclassifiedwiththemorematerialconceptsof groupII?Indeeditcanbe.InYanathethirdpersonoftheverbmakesnoformaldistinction betweensingularandplural.Neverthelessthepluralconceptcanbe,andnearlyalwaysis, expressedbythesuffixingofanelement(ba)totheradicalelementoftheverb.Itburnsinthe eastisrenderedbytheverbyahausiburneasts.[70]Theyburnintheeastisyabahausi. Notethat thepluralaffiximmediatelyfollowstheradicalelement(ya),disconnectingitfromthe localelement(hau).Itneedsnolaboredargumenttoprovethattheconceptofpluralityishere hardlylessconcretethanthatoflocationintheeast,andthattheYanaformcorrespondsin feelingnotsomuchtoourTheyburnintheeast(arduntoriente)astoaBurnseveraleasts, itplurallyburnsintheeast,anexpressionwhich wecannotadequatelyassimilateforlackofthe necessaryformgroovesintowhichtorunit. Butcanwegoastepfartheranddisposeofthecategoryofpluralityasanutterlymaterialidea, onethatwouldmakeofbooksapluralbook,inwhichtheplural,likethewhiteof whitebook,fallscontentedlyintogroupI?Ourmanybooksandseveralbooksare obviouslynotcasesinpoint.Evenifwecouldsaymanybookandseveralbook(aswecan saymanyabookandeachbook),thepluralconceptwouldstillnotemergeasclearlyasit shouldforourargumentmanyandseveralarecontaminatedbycertainnotionsofquantity orscalethatarenotessentialtotheideaofpluralityitself.Wemustturntocentralandeastern Asiaforthetypeofexpressionweareseeking.InTibetan,forinstance,ngasmimthong[71]I bymansee,bymeamanisseen,IseeamanmayjustaswellbeunderstoodtomeanIsee men,iftherehappenstobenoreasontoemphasizethefactofplurality.[72]Ifthefactisworth expressing,however,Icansay ngasmirnamsmthongbymemanpluralsee,wherernamsis theperfectconceptualanalogueof sin books,divestedofallrelationalstrings.Rnamsfollows itsnounaswouldanyotherattributivewordmanplural(whethertwooramillion)likeman white.Noneedtobotherabouthispluralityanymorethanabouthiswhitenessunlessweinsist onthepoint.

Whatistrueoftheideaofpluralityisnaturallyjustastrueofagreatmanyotherconcepts.They donotnecessarilybelongwherewewhospeakEnglishareinthehabitofputtingthem.They maybeshiftedtowards IortowardsIV,thetwopolesoflinguisticexpression.Nordarewelook downontheNootkaIndianandtheTibetanfortheirmaterialattitudetowardsaconceptwhichto usisabstractandrelational,lestweinvitethereproachesoftheFrenchmanwhofeelsasubtlety ofrelationin femmeblancheandhommeblanc thathemissesinthecoarsergrainedwhite womanandwhiteman.ButtheBantuNegro,wereheaphilosopher,mightgofurtherandfindit strangethatweputingroupIIacategory,thediminutive,whichhestronglyfeelstobelongto group IIIandwhichheuses,alongwithanumberofotherclassificatoryconcepts,[73] torelate hissubjectsandobjects,attributesandpredicates,asaRussianoraGermanhandleshisgenders and,ifpossible,withanevengreaterfinesse. Itisbecauseourconceptualschemeisaslidingscaleratherthanaphilosophicalanalysisof experiencethatwecannotsayinadvancejustwheretoputagivenconcept.Wemustdispense, inotherwords,withawellorderedclassificationofcategories.Whatbootsittoputtenseand modehereornumbertherewhenthenextlanguageonehandlesputstenseapeglowerdown (towardsI),modeandnumberapeghigherup(towardsIV)?Noristheremuchtobegainedin asummaryworkofthiskindfromageneralinventoryofthetypesofconceptsgenerallyfound ingroupsII,III,andIV.Therearetoomanypossibilities.Itwouldbeinterestingtoshowwhat arethemosttypicalnounformingandverbformingelementsofgroupIIhowvariouslynouns maybeclassified(bygenderpersonalandnonpersonalanimateandinanimatebyform commonandproper)howtheconceptofnumberiselaborated(singularandpluralsingular, dual,andpluralsingular,dual,trial,andpluralsingle,distributive,andcollective)whattense distinctionsmaybemadeinverbornoun(thepast,forinstance,maybeanindefinitepast, immediate,remote,mythical,completed,prior)howdelicatelycertainlanguageshave developedtheideaofaspect[74] (momentaneous,durative,continuative,inceptive,cessative, durativeinceptive,iterative,momentaneousiterative,durativeiterative,resultative,andstill others)whatmodalitiesmayberecognized(indicative,imperative,potential,dubitative,optative, negative,andahostofothers[75])whatdistinctionsofpersonarepossible(iswe,forinstance, conceivedofasapluralityofIorisitasdistinctfromIaseitherisfromyouorhe? bothattitudesareillustratedinlanguagemoreover,doesweincludeyoutowhomIspeakor not?inclusiveandexclusiveforms)whatmaybethegeneralschemeoforientation,the socalleddemonstrativecategories(thisandthatinanendlessprocessionofnuances)[76] howfrequentlytheformexpressesthesourceornatureofthespeakersknowledge(knownby actualexperience,byhearsay,[77]byinference)howthesyntacticrelationsmaybeexpressedin thenoun(subjectiveandobjectiveagentive,instrumental,andpersonaffected[78]varioustypes ofgenitiveandindirectrelations)and,correspondingly,intheverb(activeandpassiveactive andstatictransitiveandintransitiveimpersonal,reflexive,reciprocal,indefiniteastoobject, andmanyotherspeciallimitationsonthestartingpointandendpointoftheflowofactivity). Thesedetails,importantasmanyofthemaretoanunderstandingoftheinnerformof language,yieldingeneralsignificancetothemoreradicalgroupdistinctionsthatwehavesetup. Itisenoughforthegeneralreadertofeelthatlanguagestrugglestowardstwopolesoflinguistic expressionmaterialcontentandrelationandthatthesepolestendtobeconnectedbyalong seriesoftransitionalconcepts.

Indealingwithwordsandtheirvaryingformswehavehadtoanticipatemuchthatconcernsthe sentenceasawhole.Everylanguagehasitsspecialmethodormethodsofbindingwordsintoa largerunity.Theimportanceofthesemethodsisapttovarywiththecomplexityofthe individualword.Themoresyntheticthelanguage,inotherwords,themoreclearlythestatusof eachwordinthesentenceisindicatedbyitsownresources,thelessneedisthereforlooking beyondthewordtothesentenceasawhole.TheLatin agit(he)actsneedsnooutsidehelpto establishitsplaceinaproposition.WhetherIsay agitdominusthemasteractsor sicfemina agitthusthewomanacts,thenetresultastothesyntacticfeeloftheagitispracticallythe same.Itcanonlybeaverb,thepredicateofaproposition,anditcanonly beconceivedasa statementofactivitycarriedoutbyaperson(orthing)otherthanyouorme.Itisnotsowith suchawordastheEnglish act.Actisasyntacticwaifuntilwehavedefineditsstatusina propositiononethingintheyactabominably,quiteanotherinthatwasakindlyact.The Latinsentencespeakswiththeassuranceofitsindividualmembers,theEnglishwordneedsthe promptingofitsfellows.Roughlyspeaking,tobesure.Andyettosaythatasufficiently elaboratewordstructurecompensatesforexternalsyntacticmethodsisperilouslycloseto beggingthequestion.Theelementsofthewordarerelatedtoeachotherinaspecificwayand followeachotherinarigorouslydeterminedsequence.Thisistantamounttosayingthataword whichconsistsofmorethanaradicalelementisacrystallizationofasentenceorofsomeportion ofasentence,thataformlikeagitisroughlythepsychological[79]equivalentofaformlikeage isacthe.Breakingdown,then,thewallthatseparateswordandsentence,wemayask:What, atlastanalysis,arethefundamentalmethodsofrelatingwordtowordandelementtoelement,in short,ofpassingfromtheisolatednotionssymbolizedbyeachwordandbyeachelementtothe unifiedpropositionthatcorrespondstoathought? Theanswerissimpleandisimpliedintheprecedingremarks.Themostfundamentalandthe mostpowerfulofallrelatingmethodsisthemethodoforder.Letusthinkofsomemoreorless concreteidea,sayacolor,andsetdownitssymbolredofanotherconcreteidea,sayaperson orobject,settingdownitssymboldogfinally,ofathirdconcreteidea,sayanaction,setting downitssymbolrun.Itishardlypossibletosetdownthesethreesymbolsreddogrun withoutrelatingtheminsomeway,forexample(the)reddogrun(s).Iamfarfromwishingto statethatthepropositionhasalwaysgrownupinthisanalyticmanner,merelythatthevery processofjuxtaposingconcepttoconcept,symboltosymbol,forcessomekindofrelational feeling,ifnothingelse,uponus.Tocertainsyntacticadhesionsweareverysensitive,for example,totheattributiverelationofquality(reddog)orthesubjectiverelation(dogrun)orthe objectiverelation(killdog),tootherswearemoreindifferent,forexample,totheattributive relationofcircumstance(todayreddogrun or reddogtodayrun or reddogruntoday,allof whichareequivalentpropositionsorpropositionsinembryo).Wordsandelements,then,once theyarelistedinacertainorder,tendnotonlytoestablishsomekindofrelationamong themselvesbutareattractedtoeachotheringreaterorinlessdegree.Itispresumablythisvery greaterorlessthatultimatelyleadstothosefirmlysolidifiedgroupsofelements(radicalelement orelementsplusoneormoregrammaticalelements)thatwehavestudiedascomplexwords. Theyareinalllikelihoodnothingbutsequencesthathaveshrunktogetherandawayfromother sequencesorisolatedelementsintheflowofspeech.Whiletheyarefullyalive,inotherwords, whiletheyarefunctionalateverypoint,theycankeepthemselvesatapsychologicaldistance fromtheirneighbors.Astheygraduallylosemuchoftheirlife,theyfallbackintotheembraceof thesentenceasawholeandthesequenceofindependentwordsregainstheimportanceithadin

parttransferredtothecrystallizedgroupsofelements.Speechisthusconstantlytighteningand looseningitssequences.Initshighlyintegratedforms(Latin,Eskimo)theenergyofsequence islargelylockedupincomplexwordformations,itbecomestransformedintoakindofpotential energythatmaynotbereleasedformillennia.Initsmoreanalyticforms(Chinese,English)this energyismobile,readytohandforsuchserviceaswedemandofit. Therecanbelittledoubtthatstresshasfrequentlyplayedacontrollinginfluenceintheformation ofelementgroupsorcomplexwordsoutofcertainsequencesinthesentence.SuchanEnglish wordaswithstandismerelyanoldsequencewithstand,i.e.,against[80]stand,inwhichthe unstressedadverbwaspermanentlydrawntothefollowingverbandlostitsindependenceasa significantelement.InthesamewayFrenchfuturesofthetypeirai(I)shallgoarebutthe resultantsofacoalescenceoforiginallyindependentwords:ir[81]aitogoIhave,underthe influenceofaunifyingaccent.Butstresshasdonemorethanarticulateorunifysequencesthatin theirownrightimplyasyntacticrelation.Stressisthemostnaturalmeansatourdisposalto emphasizealinguisticcontrast,toindicatethemajorelementinasequence.Henceweneednot besurprisedtofindthataccenttoo,nolessthansequence,mayserveastheunaidedsymbolof certainrelations.Suchacontrastasthatof go'between(onewhogoesbetween)andtogo between'maybeofquitesecondaryorigininEnglish,butthereiseveryreasontobelievethat analogousdistinctionshaveprevailedatalltimesinlinguistichistory.Asequencelikesee'man mightimplysometypeofrelationinwhich seequalifiesthefollowingword,henceaseeing manoraseen(orvisible)man,orisitspredication,hencethemanseesorthemanis seen,whileasequencelikeseeman'mightindicatethattheaccentedwordinsomewaylimits theapplicationofthefirst,sayasdirectobject,hencetoseeamanor(he)seestheman. Suchalternationsofrelation,assymbolizedbyvaryingstresses,areimportantandfrequentina numberoflanguages.[82] Itisasomewhatventuresomeandyetnotanaltogetherunreasonablespeculationthatseesin wordorderandstresstheprimarymethodsfortheexpressionofallsyntacticrelationsandlooks uponthepresentrelationalvalueofspecificwordsandelementsasbutasecondarycondition duetoatransferofvalues.Thus,wemaysurmisethattheLatin m ofwordslikefeminam, dominum,andcivemdidnotoriginally[83]denotethatwoman,master,andcitizenwere objectivelyrelatedtotheverbofthepropositionbutindicatedsomethingfarmoreconcrete,[84] thattheobjectiverelationwasmerelyimpliedbythepositionoraccentoftheword(radical element)immediatelyprecedingthem,andthatgradually,asitsmoreconcretesignificance fadedaway,ittookoverasyntacticfunctionthatdidnotoriginallybelongtoit.Thissortof evolutionbytransferistraceableinmanyinstances.Thus,theofinanEnglishphraselikethe lawofthelandisnowascolorlessincontent,aspurelyarelationalindicatorasthegenitive suffix isintheLatin lexurbisthelawofthecity.Weknow,however,thatitwasoriginallyan adverbofconsiderableconcretenessofmeaning,[85]away,movingfrom,andthatthe syntacticrelationwasoriginallyexpressedbythecaseform[86] ofthesecondnoun.Asthecase formlostitsvitality,theadverbtookoveritsfunction.Ifweareactuallyjustifiedinassuming thattheexpressionofallsyntacticrelationsisultimatelytraceabletothesetwounavoidable, dynamicfeaturesofspeechsequenceandstress[87]aninterestingthesisresults:Allofthe actualcontentofspeech,itsclustersofvocalicandconsonantalsounds,isinoriginlimitedtothe concreterelationswereoriginallynotexpressedinoutwardformbutweremerelyimpliedand articulatedwiththehelpoforderandrhythm.Inotherwords,relationswereintuitivelyfeltand

couldonlyleakoutwiththehelpofdynamicfactorsthatthemselvesmoveonanintuitional plane. Thereisaspecialmethodfortheexpressionofrelationsthathasbeensooftenevolvedinthe historyoflanguagethatwemustglanceatitforamoment.Thisisthemethodofconcordorof likesignaling.Itisbasedonthesameprincipleasthepasswordorlabel.Allpersonsorobjects thatanswertothesamecountersignorthatbearthesameimprintaretherebystampedas somehowrelated.Itmakeslittledifference,oncetheyaresostamped,wheretheyaretobefound orhowtheybehavethemselves.Theyareknowntobelongtogether.Wearefamiliarwiththe principleofconcordinLatinandGreek.Manyofushavebeenstruckbysuchrelentlessrhymes asvidiiliumbonumdominumIsawthatgoodmasteror quarumdearumsaevarumofwhich sterngoddesses.Notthatsoundecho,whetherintheformofrhymeorofalliteration[88]is necessarytoconcord,thoughinitsmosttypicalandoriginalformsconcordisnearlyalways accompaniedbysoundrepetition.Theessenceoftheprincipleissimplythis,thatwords (elements)thatbelongtogether,particularlyiftheyaresyntacticequivalentsorarerelatedinlike fashiontoanotherwordorelement,areoutwardlymarkedbythesameorfunctionallyequivalent affixes.Theapplicationoftheprinciplevariesconsiderablyaccordingtothegeniusofthe particularlanguage.InLatinandGreek,forinstance,thereisconcordbetweennounand qualifyingword(adjectiveordemonstrative)asregardsgender,number,andcase,betweenverb andsubjectonlyasregardsnumber,andnoconcordbetweenverbandobject. InChinookthereisamorefarreachingconcordbetweennoun,whethersubjectorobject,and verb.Everynounisclassifiedaccordingtofivecategoriesmasculine,feminine,neuter,[89] dual,andplural.Womanisfeminine,sandisneuter,tableismasculine.If,therefore,I wishtosayThewomanputthesandonthetable,Imustplaceintheverbcertainclassor genderprefixesthataccordwithcorrespondingnounprefixes.Thesentencereadsthen,The (fem.)womanshe(fem.)it(neut.)it(masc.)onputthe(neut.)sandthe(masc.)table.Ifsand isqualifiedasmuchandtableaslarge,thesenewideasareexpressedasabstractnouns, eachwithitsinherentclassprefix(muchisneuterorfeminine,largeismasculine)andwith apossessiveprefixreferringtothequalifiednoun.Adjectivethuscallstonoun,nountoverb. Thewomanputmuchsandonthelargetable,therefore,takestheform:The(fem.)woman she(fem.)it(neut.)it(masc.)onputthe(fem.)thereof(neut.)quantitythe(neut.)sandthe (masc.)thereof(masc.)largenessthe(masc.)table.Theclassificationoftableasmasculineis thusthreetimesinsistedoninthenoun,intheadjective,andintheverb.IntheBantu languages,[90] theprincipleofconcordworksverymuchasinChinook.Inthemalsonounsare classifiedintoanumberofcategoriesandarebroughtintorelationwithadjectives, demonstratives,relativepronouns,andverbsbymeansofprefixedelementsthatcallofftheclass andmakeupacomplexsystemofconcordances.InsuchasentenceasThatfiercelionwho camehereisdead,theclassoflion,whichwemaycalltheanimalclass,wouldbereferredto byconcordingprefixesnolessthansixtimes,withthedemonstrative(that),thequalifying adjective,thenounitself,therelativepronoun, thesubjectiveprefixtotheverboftherelative clause,andthesubjectiveprefixtotheverbofthemainclause(isdead).Werecognizeinthis insistenceonexternalclarityofreferencethesamespiritasmovesinthemorefamiliarillum bonumdominum.

Psychologicallythemethodsofsequenceandaccentlieattheoppositepoletothatofconcord. Wheretheyareallforimplication,forsubtletyoffeeling,concordisimpatientoftheleast ambiguitybutmusthaveitswellcertificatedtagsateveryturn.Concordtendstodispensewith order.InLatinandChinooktheindependentwordsarefreeinposition,lesssoinBantu.Inboth ChinookandBantu,however,themethodsof concordandorderareequallyimportantforthe differentiationofsubjectandobject,astheclassifyingverbprefixesrefertosubject,object,or indirectobjectaccordingtotherelativepositiontheyoccupy.Theseexamplesagainbringhome tousthesignificantfactthatatsomepointorotherorderassertsitselfineverylanguageasthe mostfundamentalofrelatingprinciples. Theobservantreaderhasprobablybeensurprisedthatallthistimewehavehadsolittletosayof thetimehonoredparts ofspeech.Thereasonforthisisnotfartoseek.Ourconventional classificationofwordsintopartsofspeechisonlyavague,waveringapproximationtoa consistentlyworkedoutinventoryofexperience.Weimagine,tobeginwith,thatallverbsare inherentlyconcernedwithactionassuch,thatanounisthenameofsomedefiniteobjector personalitythatcanbepicturedbythemind,thatallqualitiesarenecessarilyexpressedbya definitegroupofwordstowhichwemayappropriatelyapplythetermadjective.Assoonas wetestourvocabulary,wediscoverthatthepartsofspeecharefarfromcorrespondingtoso simpleananalysisofreality.Wesayitisredanddefineredasaqualitywordoradjective. Weshouldconsideritstrangetothinkofanequivalentofisredinwhichthewholepredication (adjectiveandverbofbeing)isconceivedofasaverbinpreciselythesamewayinwhichwe thinkofextendsorliesorsleepsasaverb.Yetassoonaswegivethedurativenotion of beingredaninceptiveortransitionalturn,wecanavoidtheparallelformitbecomesred,it turnsredandsayitreddens.Noonedeniesthatreddensisasgoodaverbassleepsor evenwalks.Yetitisredisrelatedtoitreddensvery muchasishestandstohestands uporherises.ItismerelyamatterofEnglishorofgeneralIndoEuropeanidiomthatwe cannotsayitredsinthesenseofitisred.Therearehundredsoflanguagesthatcan.Indeed therearemanythatcanexpresswhatweshouldcallanadjectiveonlybymakingaparticipleout ofaverb.Redinsuchlanguagesismerelyaderivativebeingred,asoursleepingor walkingarederivativesofprimaryverbs. Justaswecanverbifytheideaofaqualityinsuchcasesasreddens,sowecanrepresenta qualityoranactiontoourselvesasathing.Wespeakoftheheightofabuildingorthefallof anapplequiteasthoughtheseideaswereparalleltotheroofofabuildingortheskinofan apple,forgettingthatthenouns(height, fall)havenotceasedtoindicateaqualityandanact whenwehavemadethemspeakwiththeaccentofmereobjects.Andjustastherearelanguages thatmakeverbsofthegreatmassofadjectives,sothereareothersthatmakenounsofthem.In Chinook,aswehaveseen,thebigtableisthetableitsbignessinTibetanthesameidea maybeexpressedbythetableofbigness,verymuchaswemaysayamanofwealthinstead ofarichman. Butaretherenotcertainideasthatitisimpossibletorenderexceptbywayofsuchandsuch partsofspeech?Whatcanbedonewiththetoofhecametothehouse?Well,wecansay hereachedthehouseanddodgetheprepositionaltogether,givingtheverbanuancethat absorbstheideaoflocalrelationcarriedbytheto.Butletusinsistongivingindependenceto thisideaoflocalrelation.Mustwenotthenholdtothepreposition?No,wecanmakeanounof

it.Wecansaysomethinglikehereachedtheproximityofthehouseorhereachedthehouse locality.Insteadofsayinghelookedintotheglasswemaysayhescrutinizedtheglass interior.SuchexpressionsarestiltedinEnglishbecausetheydonoteasilyfitintoourformal grooves,butinlanguageafterlanguagewefindthatlocalrelationsareexpressedinjustthisway. Thelocalrelationisnominalized.Andsowemightgoonexaminingthevariouspartsofspeech andshowinghowtheynotmerelygradeintoeachotherbutaretoanastonishingdegreeactually convertibleintoeachother.Theupshotofsuchanexaminationwouldbetofeelconvincedthat thepartofspeechreflectsnotsomuchourintuitiveanalysisofrealityasourabilityto composethatrealityintoavarietyofformalpatterns.Apart ofspeechoutsideofthelimitations ofsyntacticformisbutawillothewisp.Forthisreasonnologicalschemeofthepartsof speechtheirnumber,nature,andnecessaryconfinesisoftheslightestinteresttothelinguist. Eachlanguagehasitsown scheme.Everythingdependsontheformaldemarcationswhichit recognizes. Yetwemustnotbetoodestructive.Itiswelltorememberthatspeechconsistsofaseriesof propositions.Theremustbesomethingtotalkaboutandsomethingmustbesaidaboutthis subjectofdiscourseonceitisselected.Thisdistinctionisofsuchfundamentalimportancethat thevastmajorityoflanguageshaveemphasizeditbycreatingsomesortofformalbarrier betweenthetwotermsoftheproposition.Thesubjectofdiscourseisanoun.Asthemost commonsubjectofdiscourseiseitherapersonorathing,thenounclustersaboutconcrete conceptsofthatorder.Asthethingpredicatedofasubjectisgenerallyanactivityinthewidest senseoftheword,apassagefromonemomentofexistencetoanother,theformwhichhasbeen setasideforthebusinessofpredicating,inotherwords,theverb,clustersaboutconceptsof activity.Nolanguagewhollyfailstodistinguishnounandverb,thoughinparticularcasesthe nature ofthedistinctionmaybeanelusiveone.Itisdifferentwiththeotherpartsofspeech.Not oneofthemisimperativelyrequiredforthelifeoflanguage.[91]

VI
TypesofLinguisticStructure
Sofar,indealingwithlinguisticform,wehavebeenconcernedonlywithsinglewordsandwith therelationsofwordsinsentences.Wehavenotenvisagedwholelanguagesasconformingto thisorthatgeneraltype.Incidentallywehaveobservedthatonelanguagerunstotightknit synthesiswhereanothercontentsitselfwithamoreanalytic,piecemealhandlingofitselements, orthatinonelanguagesyntacticrelationsappearpurewhichinanotherarecombinedwith certainothernotionsthathavesomethingconcreteaboutthem,howeverabstracttheymaybefelt tobeinpractice.Inthiswaywemayhaveobtainedsomeinklingofwhatismeantwhenwe speakofthegeneralformofalanguage.Foritmustbeobvioustoanyonewhohasthought aboutthequestionatallorwhohasfeltsomethingofthespiritofaforeignlanguagethatthereis suchathingasabasicplan,acertaincut,toeachlanguage.Thistypeorplanorstructural geniusofthelanguageissomethingmuchmore fundamental,muchmorepervasive,thanany singlefeatureofitthatwecanmention,norcanwegainanadequateideaofitsnaturebyamere recitalofthesundryfactsthatmakeupthegrammarofthelanguage.WhenwepassfromLatin toRussian,wefeel thatitisapproximatelythesamehorizonthatboundsourview,eventhough

thenear,familiarlandmarkshavechanged.WhenwecometoEnglish,weseemtonoticethatthe hillshavedippeddownalittle,yetwerecognizethegenerallayoftheland.Andwhenwehave arrivedatChinese,itisanutterlydifferentskythatislookingdownuponus.Wecantranslate thesemetaphorsandsaythatalllanguagesdifferfromoneanotherbutthatcertainonesdifferfar morethanothers.Thisistantamounttosayingthatitispossibletogrouptheminto morphologicaltypes. Strictlyspeaking,weknowinadvancethatitisimpossibletosetupalimitednumberoftypes thatwoulddofulljusticetothepeculiaritiesofthethousandsoflanguagesanddialectsspoken onthesurfaceoftheearth.Likeallhumaninstitutions,speechistoovariableandtooelusiveto bequitesafelyticketed.Evenifweoperatewithaminutelysubdividedscaleoftypes,wemaybe quitecertainthatmanyofourlanguageswillneedtrimmingbeforetheyfit.Togetthemintothe schemeatallitwillbenecessarytooverestimatethesignificanceofthisorthatfeatureorto ignore,forthetimebeing,certaincontradictionsintheirmechanism.Doesthedifficultyof classificationprovetheuselessnessofthetask?Idonotthinkso.Itwouldbetooeasytorelieve ourselvesoftheburdenofconstructivethinkingandtotakethestandpointthateachlanguagehas itsuniquehistory,thereforeitsuniquestructure.Suchastandpointexpressesonlyahalftruth. Justassimilarsocial,economic,andreligiousinstitutionshavegrownupindifferentpartsofthe worldfromdistincthistoricalantecedents,soalsolanguages,travelingalongdifferentroads, havetendedtoconvergetowardsimilarforms.Moreover,thehistoricalstudyoflanguagehas proventousbeyondalldoubtthatalanguagechangesnotonlygraduallybutconsistently,thatit movesunconsciouslyfromonetypetowardsanother,andthatanalogoustrendsareobservablein remotequartersoftheglobe.Fromthisitfollowsthatbroadlysimilarmorphologiesmusthave beenreachedbyunrelatedlanguages,independentlyandfrequently.Inassumingtheexistenceof comparabletypes,therefore,wearenotgainsayingtheindividualityofallhistoricalprocesses wearemerelyaffirmingthatbackofthefaceofhistoryarepowerfuldriftsthatmovelanguage, likeothersocialproducts,tobalancedpatterns,inotherwords,totypes.Aslinguistsweshallbe contenttorealizethatthereare thesetypesandthatcertainprocessesinthelifeoflanguagetend tomodifythem.Whysimilartypesshouldbeformed,justwhatisthenatureoftheforcesthat makethemanddissolvethemthesequestionsaremoreeasilyaskedthananswered.Perhapsthe psychologistsofthefuturewillbeabletogiveustheultimatereasonsfortheformationof linguistictypes. Whenitcomestotheactualtaskofclassification,wefindthatwehavenoeasyroadtotravel. Variousclassificationshavebeensuggested,andtheyallcontainelementsofvalue.Yetnone provessatisfactory.Theydonotsomuchenfoldtheknownlanguagesintheirembraceasforce themdownintonarrow,straightbackedseats.Thedifficultieshavebeenofvariouskinds.First andforemost,ithasbeendifficulttochooseapointofview.Onwhatbasisshallweclassify?A languageshowsussomanyfacetsthatwemaywellbepuzzled.Andisonepointofview sufficient?Secondly,itisdangeroustogeneralizefromasmallnumberofselectedlanguages.To take,asthesumtotalofourmaterial,Latin,Arabic,Turkish,Chinese,andperhapsEskimoor Siouxasanafterthought,istocourtdisaster.Wehavenorighttoassumethatasprinklingof exotictypeswilldotosupplementthefewlanguagesnearerhomethatwearemoreimmediately interestedin.Thirdly,thestrongcravingforasimpleformula[92]hasbeentheundoingof linguists.Thereissomethingirresistibleaboutamethodofclassificationthatstartswithtwo poles,exemplified,say,byChineseandLatin,clusterswhatitconvenientlycanaboutthesepoles,

andthrowseverythingelseintoatransitionaltype.Hencehasarisenthestillpopular classificationoflanguagesintoanisolatinggroup,anagglutinativegroup,andan inflectivegroup.SometimesthelanguagesoftheAmericanIndiansaremadetostragglealong asanuncomfortablepolysyntheticrearguardtotheagglutinativelanguages.Thereis justificationfortheuseofalloftheseterms,thoughnotperhapsinquitethespiritinwhichthey arecommonlyemployed.Inanycaseitisverydifficulttoassignallknownlanguagestooneor otherofthesegroups,themoresoastheyarenotmutuallyexclusive.Alanguagemaybeboth agglutinativeandinflective,orinflectiveandpolysynthetic,orevenpolysyntheticandisolating, asweshallseealittlelateron. Thereisafourthreasonwhytheclassificationoflanguageshasgenerallyprovedafruitless undertaking.Itisprobablythemostpowerfuldeterrentofalltoclearthinking.Thisisthe evolutionaryprejudicewhichinstilleditselfintothesocialsciencestowardsthemiddleofthelast centuryandwhichisonlynowbeginningtoabateitstyrannicalholdonourmind.Intermingled withthisscientificprejudiceandlargelyanticipatingitwasanother,amorehumanone.Thevast majorityoflinguistictheoriststhemselvesspokelanguagesofacertaintype,ofwhichthemost fullydevelopedvarietiesweretheLatinandGreekthatthey hadlearnedintheirchildhood.It wasnotdifficultforthemtobepersuadedthatthesefamiliarlanguagesrepresentedthehighest developmentthatspeechhadyetattainedandthatallothertypeswerebutstepsonthewayto thisbelovedinflectivetype.WhateverconformedtothepatternofSanskritandGreekand LatinandGermanwasacceptedasexpressiveofthehighest,whateverdepartedfromitwas frowneduponasashortcomingorwasatbestan interestingaberration.[93]Nowany classificationthatstartswithpreconceivedvaluesorthatworksuptosentimentalsatisfactionsis selfcondemnedasunscientific.AlinguistthatinsistsontalkingabouttheLatintypeof morphologyasthoughitwerenecessarilythehighwatermarkoflinguisticdevelopmentislike thezologistthatseesintheorganicworldahugeconspiracytoevolvetheracehorseorthe Jerseycow.Languageinitsfundamentalformsisthesymbolicexpressionofhumanintuitions. Thesemayshapethemselvesinahundredways,regardlessofthematerialadvancementor backwardnessofthepeoplethathandletheforms,ofwhich,itneedhardlybesaid,theyarein themainunconscious.If,therefore,wewishtounderstandlanguageinitstrueinwardnesswe mustdisabuseourmindsofpreferredvalues[94]andaccustomourselvestolookuponEnglish andHottentotwiththesamecool,yetinterested,detachment. Wecomebacktoourfirstdifficulty.Whatpointofviewshallweadoptforourclassification? Afterallthatwehavesaidaboutgrammaticalformintheprecedingchapter,itisclearthatwe cannotnowmakethedistinctionbetweenformlanguagesandformlesslanguagesthatusedto appealtosomeoftheolderwriters.Everylanguagecanandmustexpressthefundamental syntacticrelationseventhoughthereisnotasingleaffixtobefoundinitsvocabulary.We concludethateverylanguageisaformlanguage.Asidefromtheexpressionofpurerelationa languagemay,ofcourse,beformlessformless,thatis,inthemechanicalandrather superficialsensethatitisnotencumberedbytheuseofnonradicalelements.Theattempthas sometimesbeenmadetoformulateadistinctiononthebasisofinnerform.Chinese,for instance,hasnoformalelementspureandsimple,noouterform,butitevidencesakeensense ofrelations,ofthedifferencebetweensubjectandobject,attributeandpredicate,andsoon.In otherwords,ithasaninnerforminthesamesenseinwhichLatinpossessesit,thoughitis outwardlyformlesswhereLatinisoutwardlyformal.Ontheotherhand,therearesupposed

tobelanguages[95]whichhavenotruegraspofthefundamentalrelationsbutcontent themselveswiththemoreorlessminuteexpressionofmaterialideas,sometimeswithan exuberantdisplayofouterform,leavingthepurerelationstobemerelyinferredfromthe context.Iamstronglyinclinedtobelievethatthissupposedinnerformlessnessofcertain languagesisanillusion.Itmaywellbethatintheselanguagestherelationsarenotexpressedin asimmaterialawayasinChineseorevenasinLatin,[96] orthattheprincipleoforderissubject togreaterfluctuationsthaninChinese,orthatatendencytocomplexderivationsrelievesthe languageofthenecessityofexpressingcertainrelationsasexplicitlyasamoreanalyticlanguage wouldhavethemexpressed.[97]Allthisdoesnotmeanthatthelanguagesinquestionhavenota truefeelingforthefundamentalrelations.Weshallthereforenotbeabletousethenotionof innerformlessness,exceptinthegreatlymodifiedsensethatsyntacticrelationsmaybefused withnotionsofanotherorder.Tothiscriterionofclassificationweshallhavetoreturnalittle later. Morejustifiablewouldbeaclassificationaccordingtotheformalprocesses[98]mosttypically developedinthelanguage.Thoselanguagesthatalwaysidentifythewordwiththeradical elementwouldbesetoffasanisolatinggroupagainstsuchaseitheraffixmodifyingelements (affixinglanguages)orpossessthepowertochangethesignificanceoftheradicalelementby internalchanges(reduplicationvocalicandconsonantalchangechangesinquantity,stress,and pitch).Thelattertypemightbenotinaptlytermedsymboliclanguages.[99]Theaffixing languageswouldnaturallysubdividethemselvesintosuchasareprevailinglyprefixing,like BantuorTlingit,andsuch asaremainlyorentirelysuffixing,likeEskimoorAlgonkinorLatin. Therearetwoseriousdifficultieswiththisfourfoldclassification(isolating,prefixing,suffixing, symbolic).Inthefirstplace,mostlanguagesfallintomorethanoneofthesegroups.TheSemitic languages,forinstance,areprefixing,suffixing,andsymbolicatoneandthesametime.Inthe secondplace,theclassificationinitsbareformissuperficial.Itwouldthrowtogetherlanguages thatdifferutterlyinspiritmerelybecauseofacertainexternalformalresemblance.Thereis clearlyaworldofdifferencebetweenaprefixinglanguagelikeCambodgian,whichlimitsitself, sofarasitsprefixes(andinfixes)areconcerned,totheexpressionofderivationalconcepts,and theBantulanguages,inwhichtheprefixedelementshaveafarreachingsignificanceassymbols ofsyntacticrelations.Theclassificationhasmuchgreatervalueifitistakentorefertothe expressionofrelationalconcepts[100]alone.Inthismodifiedformweshallreturntoitasa subsidiarycriterion.Weshallfindthatthetermsisolating,affixing,andsymbolichavea realvalue.Butinsteadofdistinguishingbetweenprefixingandsuffixinglanguages,weshallfind thatitisofsuperiorinteresttomakeanotherdistinction,onethatisbasedontherelativefirmness with whichtheaffixedelementsareunitedwiththecoreoftheword.[101] Thereisanotherveryusefulsetofdistinctionsthatcanbemade,butthesetoomustnotbe appliedexclusively,orourclassificationwillagainbesuperficial.Irefertothenotionsof analytic,synthetic,andpolysynthetic.Thetermsexplainthemselves.Ananalyticlanguage isonethateitherdoesnotcombineconceptsintosinglewordsatall(Chinese)ordoesso economically(English,French).Inananalyticlanguagethesentenceisalwaysofprime importance,thewordisofminorinterest.Inasyntheticlanguage(Latin,Arabic,Finnish)the conceptsclustermorethickly,thewordsaremorerichlychambered,butthereisatendency,on thewhole,tokeeptherangeofconcretesignificanceinthesingleworddowntoamoderate compass.Apolysyntheticlanguage,asitsnameimplies,ismorethanordinarilysynthetic.The

elaborationofthewordisextreme.Conceptswhichweshouldneverdreamoftreatingina subordinatefashionaresymbolizedbyderivationalaffixesorsymbolicchangesintheradical element,whilethemoreabstractnotions,includingthesyntacticrelations,mayalsobeconveyed bytheword.Apolysyntheticlanguageillustratesnoprinciplesthatarenotalreadyexemplified inthemorefamiliarsyntheticlanguages.Itisrelatedtothemverymuchasasyntheticlanguage isrelatedtoourownanalyticEnglish.[102]Thethreetermsarepurelyquantitativeandrelative, thatis,alanguagemaybeanalyticfromonestandpoint,syntheticfromanother.Ibelievethe termsaremoreusefulindefiningcertaindriftsthanasabsolutecounters.Itisoftenilluminating topointoutthatalanguagehasbeenbecomingmoreandmoreanalyticinthecourseofits historyorthatitshowssignsofhavingcrystallizedfromasimpleanalyticbaseintoahighly syntheticform.[103] Wenowcometothedifferencebetweenaninflectiveandanagglutinativelanguage.AsI havealreadyremarked,thedistinctionisauseful,evenanecessary,one,butithasbeen generallyobscuredbyanumberofirrelevanciesandbytheunavailingefforttomaketheterms coveralllanguagesthatarenot,likeChinese,ofadefinitelyisolatingcast.Themeaningthatwe hadbestassigntotheterminflectivecanbegainedbyconsideringverybrieflywhataresome ofthebasicfeaturesofLatinandGreekthathavebeenlookedupon aspeculiartotheinflective languages.Firstofall,theyaresyntheticratherthananalytic.Thisdoesnothelpusmuch. Relativelytomanyanotherlanguagethatresemblestheminbroadstructuralrespects,Latinand Greekarenotnotablysyntheticontheotherhand,theirmoderndescendants,ItalianandModern Greek,whilefarmoreanalytic[104]thanthey,havenotdepartedsowidelyinstructuraloutlines astowarranttheirbeingputinadistinctmajorgroup.Aninflectivelanguage,wemustinsist, maybeanalytic,synthetic,orpolysynthetic. LatinandGreekaremainlyaffixingintheirmethod,withtheemphasisheavilyonsuffixing.The agglutinativelanguagesarejustastypicallyaffixingasthey,someamongthemfavoringprefixes, othersrunningtotheuseofsuffixes.Affixingalonedoesnotdefineinflection.Possibly everythingdependsonjustwhatkindofaffixingwehavetodealwith.Ifwecompareour Englishwordsfarmerandgoodnesswithsuchwordsasheightanddepth,wecannotfailtobe struckbyanotabledifferenceintheaffixingtechniqueofthetwosets.Theerandnessare affixedquitemechanicallytoradicalelementswhichareatthesametimeindependentwords (farm, good).Theyareinnosenseindependentlysignificantelements,buttheyconveytheir meaning(agentive,abstractquality)withunfailingdirectness.Theiruseissimpleandregular andweshouldhavenodifficultyinappendingthemtoanyverbortoanyadjective,however recentinorigin.Fromaverb tocamouflage wemayformthenoun camouflageronewho camouflages,fromanadjectivejazzyproceedswith perfectcasethenoun jazziness.Itis differentwith heightanddepth.Functionallytheyarerelatedtohighanddeeppreciselyasis goodnesstogood,butthedegreeofcoalescencebetweenradicalelementandaffixisgreater. Radicalelementandaffix,whilemeasurablydistinct,cannotbetornapartquitesoreadilyas couldthegoodandnessof goodness.Thet of heightisnotthetypicalformoftheaffix (comparestrength,length, filth,breadth, youth),whiledepisnotidenticalwith deep.Wemay designatethetwotypesofaffixingasfusingandjuxtaposing.Thejuxtaposingtechniquewe maycallanagglutinativeone,ifwelike.

Isthefusingtechniquetherebysetoffastheessenceofinflection?Iam afraidthatwehavenot yetreachedourgoal.Ifourlanguagewerecrammedfullofcoalescencesofthetypeof depth,but if,ontheotherhand,itusedthepluralindependentlyofverbconcord(e.g., thebooksfallslike thebookfalls,or thebookfalllikethebooksfall),thepersonalendingsindependentlyoftense (e.g.,thebookfellslikethebookfalls,orthebookfall likethebookfell),andthepronouns independentlyofcase(e.g., Iseehelikeheseesme,or himseetheman likethemanseeshim), weshouldhesitatetodescribeitasinflective.Themerefactoffusiondoesnotseemtosatisfyus asaclearindicationoftheinflectiveprocess.Thereare,indeed,alargenumberoflanguagesthat fuseradicalelementandaffixinascompleteandintricateafashionasonecouldhopetofind anywherewithouttherebygivingsignsofthatparticularkindofformalismthatmarksoffsuch languagesasLatinandGreekasinflective. Whatistrueoffusionisequallytrueofthesymbolicprocesses.[105]Therearelinguiststhat speakof alternationslikedrinkanddrankasthoughtheyrepresentedthehighwatermarkof inflection,akindofspiritualizedessenceofpureinflectiveform.InsuchGreekforms, nevertheless,aspepomphaIhavesent,ascontrastedwith pempoIsend,withitstrebly symbolicchangeoftheradicalelement(reduplicatingpe,changeof etoo,changeof ptoph),it isratherthepeculiaralternationofthefirstpersonsingularaoftheperfectwiththeo ofthe presentthatgivesthemtheirinflectivecast.Nothingcouldbemoreerroneousthantoimagine thatsymbolicchangesoftheradicalelement,evenfortheexpressionofsuchabstractconceptsas thoseofnumberandtense,isalwaysassociatedwiththesyntacticpeculiaritiesofaninflective language.Ifbyanagglutinativelanguagewemeanonethataffixesaccordingtothe juxtaposingtechnique,thenwecanonlysaythattherearehundredsoffusingandsymbolic languagesnonagglutinativebydefinitionthatare,forallthat,quitealieninspirittothe inflectivetypeofLatinandGreek.Wecancallsuchlanguagesinflective,ifwelike,butwemust thenbepreparedtoreviseradicallyournotionofinflectiveform. Itisnecessarytounderstandthatfusionoftheradicalelementandtheaffixmaybetakenina broaderpsychologicalsensethanIhaveyetindicated.IfeverynounpluralinEnglishwereofthe typeof book:books,iftherewerenotsuchconflictingpatternsasdeer:deer,ox:oxen,goose: geesetocomplicatethegeneralformpictureofplurality,thereislittledoubtthatthefusionof theelementsbookandsintotheunifiedwordbookswouldbefeltasalittlelesscompletethanit actuallyis.Onereasons,orfeels,unconsciouslyaboutthemattersomewhatasfollows:Ifthe formpatternrepresentedbythewordbooksisidentical,asfarasuseisconcerned,withthatof thewordoxen, thepluralizingelementssandencannothavequitesodefinite,quiteso autonomous,avalueaswemightatfirstbeinclinedtosuppose.Theyarepluralelementsonlyin sofaraspluralityispredicatedofcertainselectedconcepts.Thewordsbooksandoxenare thereforealittleotherthanmechanicalcombinationsofthesymbolofathing(book,ox)anda clearsymbolofplurality.Thereisaslightpsychologicaluncertaintyorhazeaboutthejuncturein booksandoxen.Alittleoftheforceof sandenisanticipatedby,orappropriatedby,the wordsbook andoxthemselves,justastheconceptualforceof thin depthisappreciablyweaker thanthatof nessin goodnessinspiteofthefunctionalparallelismbetween depthandgoodness. Wherethereisuncertaintyaboutthejuncture,wheretheaffixedelementcannotrightlyclaimto possessitsfullshareofsignificance,theunityofthecompletewordismorestronglyemphasized. Themindmustrestonsomething.Ifitcannotlingerontheconstituentelements,ithastensall themoreeagerlytotheacceptanceofthewordasawhole.Awordlikegoodnessillustrates

agglutination,booksregularfusion,depthirregularfusion,geesesymbolicfusionor symbolism.[106] Thepsychologicaldistinctnessoftheaffixedelementsinanagglutinativetermmaybeeven moremarkedthaninthenessof goodness.Tobestrictlyaccurate,thesignificanceoftheness isnotquiteasinherentlydetermined,asautonomous,asitmightbe.Itisatthemercyofthe precedingradicalelementtothisextent,thatitrequirestobeprecededbyaparticulartypeof suchelement,anadjective.Itsownpoweristhus,inamanner,checkedinadvance.Thefusion here,however,issovagueandelementary,somuchamatterofcourseinthegreatmajorityof allcasesofaffixing,thatitisnaturaltooverlookitsrealityandtoemphasizeratherthe juxtaposingoragglutinativenatureof theaffixingprocess.Ifthenesscouldbeaffixedasan abstractiveelementtoeachandeverytypeofradicalelement,ifwecouldsay fightness(theact orqualityoffighting)orwaterness(thequalityorstateofwater)orawayness(thestateof beingaway)aswecansay goodness(thestateofbeinggood),weshouldhavemoved appreciablynearertheagglutinativepole.Alanguagethatrunstosynthesisofthisloosejointed sortmaybelookeduponasanexampleoftheidealagglutinativetype,particularlyifthe conceptsexpressedbytheagglutinatedelementsarerelationalor,attheleast,belongtothe abstracterclassofderivationalideas. InstructiveformsmaybecitedfromNootka.Weshallreturntoourfireinthehouse.[107]The Nootkawordinikwihlfireinthehouseisnotasdefinitelyformalizedawordasitstranslation, suggests.Theradicalelementinikwfireisreallyasmuchofaverbalasofanominaltermit mayberenderednowbyfire,nowbyburn,accordingtothesyntacticexigenciesofthe sentence.Thederivationalelementihl inthehousedoesnotmitigatethisvaguenessor generality inikwihlisstillfireinthehouseorburninthehouse.Itmaybedefinitely nominalizedorverbalizedbytheaffixingofelementsthatareexclusivelynominalorverbalin force.Forexample,inikwihli,withitssuffixedarticle,isaclearcutnominalform:the burninginthehouse,thefireinthehouse inikwihlma,withitsindicativesuffix,isjustas clearlyverbal:itburnsinthehouse.Howweakmustbethedegreeoffusionbetweenfirein thehouseandthenominalizingorverbalizingsuffixisapparentfromthefactthattheformally indifferentinikwihlisnotanabstractiongainedbyanalysisbutafullfledgedword,readyforuse inthesentence.Thenominalizingiandtheindicativemaarenotfusedformaffixes,theyare simplyadditionsofformalimport.Butwecancontinuetoholdtheverbalornominalnatureof inikwihlinabeyancelongbeforewereachthei orma.Wecanpluralizeit:inikwihlminihit isstilleitherfiresinthehouseorburnplurallyinthehouse.Wecandiminutivizethisplural: inikwihlminihis,littlefiresinthehouseorburnplurallyandslightlyinthehouse.What ifweaddthepreterittensesuffix it?Isnotinikwihlminihisitnecessarilyaverb:several smallfireswereburninginthehouse?Itisnot.Itmaystillbenominalized inikwihlminihisit imeanstheformersmallfiresinthehouse,thelittlefiresthatwereonceburninginthehouse. Itisnotanunambiguousverbuntilitisgivenaformthatexcludeseveryotherpossibility,asin theindicativeinikwihlminihisitaseveralsmallfireswereburninginthehouse.Werecognize atoncethattheelementsihl, minih, is,andit,quiteasidefromtherelativelyconcreteor abstractnatureoftheircontentandaside,further,fromthedegreeoftheirouter(phonetic) cohesionwiththeelementsthatprecedethem,haveapsychologicalindependencethatourown affixesneverhave.Theyaretypicallyagglutinatedelements,thoughthey havenogreater externalindependence,arenomorecapableoflivingapartfromtheradicalelementtowhich

theyaresuffixed,thanthenessandgoodnessorthesof books.Itdoesnotfollowthatan agglutinativelanguagemaynotmakeuseoftheprincipleoffusion,bothexternal and psychological,orevenofsymbolismtoaconsiderableextent.Itisaquestionoftendency.Isthe formativeslantclearlytowardstheagglutinativemethod?Thenthelanguageisagglutinative. Assuch,itmaybeprefixingorsuffixing,analytic,synthetic,orpolysynthetic. Toreturntoinflection.AninflectivelanguagelikeLatinorGreekusesthemethodoffusion,and thisfusionhasaninnerpsychologicalaswellasanouterphoneticmeaning.Butitisnotenough thatthefusionoperatemerelyinthesphereofderivationalconcepts(groupII),[108]itmust involvethesyntacticrelations,whichmayeitherbeexpressedinunalloyedform(groupIV)or, asinLatin andGreek,asconcreterelationalconcepts(groupIII).[109]AsfarasLatinand Greekareconcerned,theirinflectionconsistsessentiallyofthefusingofelementsthatexpress logicallyimpurerelationalconceptswithradicalelementsandwithelementsexpressing derivationalconcepts.Bothfusionasageneralmethodandtheexpressionofrelationalconcepts inthewordarenecessarytothenotionofinflection. Buttohavethusdefinedinflectionistodoubtthevalueofthetermasdescriptiveofamajor class.Whyemphasizebothatechniqueandaparticularcontentatoneandthesametime?Surely weshouldbeclearinourmindsastowhetherwesetmorestoreby oneortheother.Fusional andsymboliccontrastwithagglutinative,whichisnotonaparwithinflectiveatall.What arewetodowiththefusionalandsymboliclanguagesthatdonotexpressrelationalconceptsin thewordbutleavethemtothesentence?Andarewenottodistinguishbetweenagglutinative languagesthatexpressthesesameconceptsinthewordinsofarinflectivelikeandthosethat donot?Wedismissedthescale:analytic,synthetic,polysynthetic,astoomerelyquantitativefor ourpurpose.Isolating,affixing,symbolicthisalsoseemedinsufficientforthereasonthatitlaid toomuchstressontechnicalexternals.Isolating,agglutinative,fusional,andsymbolicisa preferablescheme,butstillskirtstheexternal.Weshalldobest,itseemstome,toholdto inflectiveasavaluablesuggestionforabroaderandmoreconsistentlydevelopedscheme,asa hintforaclassificationbasedonthenatureoftheconceptsexpressedbythelanguage.Theother twoclassifications,thefirstbasedondegreeofsynthesis,thesecondondegreeoffusion,maybe retainedasintercrossingschemesthatgiveustheopportunitytosubdivideourmainconceptual types. Itiswelltorecallthatalllanguagesmustneedsexpressradicalconcepts(groupI)andrelational ideas(groupIV).Ofthetwootherlargegroupsofconceptsderivational(groupII)andmixed relational(groupIII)bothmaybeabsent,bothpresent,oronlyonepresent.Thisgivesusat onceasimple,incisive,andabsolutelyinclusivemethodofclassifyingallknownlanguages. Theyare: A. SuchasexpressonlyconceptsofgroupsIandIVinotherwords,languagesthatkeepthe syntacticrelationspureandthatdonotpossessthepowertomodifythesignificanceof theirradicalelementsbymeansofaffixesorinternalchanges.[110]Wemaycallthese Purerelationalnonderivinglanguagesor,moretersely,SimplePurerelational languages.Thesearethelanguagesthatcutmosttotheboneoflinguisticexpression. B. SuchasexpressconceptsofgroupsI,II,andIVinotherwords,languagesthatkeepthe syntacticrelationspureandthatalsopossessthepowertomodifythesignificanceoftheir

radicalelementsbymeansofaffixesorinternalchanges.ThesearethePurerelational derivinglanguagesor ComplexPurerelationallanguages. C. SuchasexpressconceptsofgroupsIandIII[111] inotherwords,languagesinwhichthe syntacticrelationsareexpressedinnecessaryconnectionwithconceptsthatarenot utterlydevoidofconcretesignificancebutthatdonot,apartfromsuchmixture,possess thepowertomodifythesignificanceoftheirradicalelementsbymeansofaffixesor internalchanges.[112]ThesearetheMixedrelationalnonderivinglanguages or Simple Mixedrelationallanguages. D. SuchasexpressconceptsofgroupsI,II,andIIIinotherwords,languagesinwhichthe syntacticrelationsareexpressedinmixedform,asinC,andthatalsopossessthepower tomodifythesignificanceoftheirradicalelementsbymeansofaffixesorinternal changes.ThesearetheMixedrelationalderivinglanguagesor ComplexMixedrelational languages.Herebelongtheinflectivelanguagesthatwearemostfamiliarwithaswell asagreatmanyagglutinativelanguages,somepolysynthetic,othersmerelysynthetic. Thisconceptualclassificationoflanguages,Imustrepeat,doesnotattempttotakeaccountofthe technicalexternalsoflanguage.Itanswers,ineffect,twofundamental questionsconcerningthe translationofconceptsintolinguisticsymbols.Doesthelanguage,inthefirstplace,keepits radicalconceptspureordoesitbuildupitsconcreteideasbyanaggregationofinseparable elements(typesAandCversustypesBandD)?And,inthesecondplace,doesitkeepthebasic relationalconcepts,suchasareabsolutelyunavoidableintheorderingofaproposition,freeofan admixtureoftheconcreteornot(typesAandBversustypesCandD)?Thesecondquestion,it seemstome,isthemorefundamentalofthetwo.Wecanthereforesimplifyourclassification andpresentitinthefollowingform: A.Simple B.Complex C.Simple II.MixedrelationalLanguages{ D. Complex I.PurerelationalLanguages { Theclassificationistoosweepingandtoobroadforaneasy,descriptivesurveyofthemany varietiesofhumanspeech.Itneedstobeamplified.EachofthetypesA,B,C,Dmaybe subdividedintoanagglutinative,afusional,andasymbolicsubtype,accordingtotheprevailing methodofmodificationoftheradicalelement.IntypeAwedistinguishinadditionanisolating subtype,characterizedbytheabsenceofallaffixesandmodificationsoftheradicalelement.In theisolatinglanguagesthesyntacticrelationsareexpressedbythepositionofthewordsinthe sentence.ThisisalsotrueofmanylanguagesoftypeB,thetermsagglutinative,fusional, andsymbolicapplyingintheircasemerelytothetreatmentofthederivational,notthe relational,concepts.Suchlanguagescouldbetermedagglutinativeisolating,fusional isolatingandsymbolicisolating. Thisbringsuptheimportantgeneralconsiderationthatthemethodofhandlingonegroupof conceptsneednotintheleastbeidenticalwiththatusedforanother.Compoundtermscouldbe usedtoindicatethisdifference,ifdesired,thefirstelementofthecompoundreferringtothe treatmentoftheconceptsofgroupII,thesecondtothatoftheconceptsofgroupsIIIandIV.An

agglutinativelanguagewouldnormallybetakentomeanonethatagglutinatesallofitsaffixed elementsorthatdoessotoapreponderatingextent.Inanagglutinativefusionallanguagethe derivationalelementsareagglutinated,perhapsintheformofprefixes,whiletherelational elements(pureormixed)arefusedwiththeradicalelement,possiblyasanothersetofprefixes followingthefirstsetorintheformofsuffixesoraspartprefixesandpartsuffixes.Bya fusionalagglutinativelanguagewewouldunderstandonethatfusesitsderivationalelements butallowsagreaterindependencetothosethatindicaterelations.Alltheseandsimilar distinctionsarenotmerelytheoreticalpossibilities,theycanbeabundantlyillustratedfromthe descriptivefactsoflinguisticmorphology.Further,shoulditprovedesirabletoinsistonthe degreeofelaborationoftheword,thetermsanalytic,synthetic,andpolysyntheticcanbe addedasdescriptiveterms.ItgoeswithoutsayingthatlanguagesoftypeAarenecessarily analyticandthatlanguagesoftypeCalsoareprevailinglyanalyticandarenotlikelytodevelop beyondthesyntheticstage. Butwemustnotmaketoomuchofterminology.Muchdependsontherelativeemphasislaidon thisorthatfeatureorpointofview.Themethodofclassifyinglanguagesheredevelopedhasthis greatadvantage,thatitcanberefinedorsimplifiedaccordingtotheneedsofaparticular discussion.Thedegreeofsynthesismaybeentirelyignoredfusionandsymbolismmay oftenbecombinedwithadvantageundertheheadoffusioneventhedifferencebetween agglutinationandfusionmay,ifdesired,besetasideaseithertoodifficulttodraworas irrelevanttotheissue.Languages,afterall,areexceedinglycomplexhistoricalstructures.Itisof lessimportancetoputeachlanguageinaneatpigeonholethantohaveevolvedaflexible methodwhichenablesustoplaceit,fromtwoorthreeindependentstandpoints,relativelyto anotherlanguage.Allthisisnottodenythatcertainlinguistictypesaremorestableand frequentlyrepresentedthanothersthatarejustaspossiblefromatheoreticalstandpoint.Butwe aretooillinformedasyetofthestructuralspiritofgreatnumbersoflanguagestohavetheright toframeaclassificationthatisotherthanflexibleandexperimental. Thereaderwillgainasomewhatlivelierideaofthepossibilitiesoflinguisticmorphologyby glancingdownthesubjoinedanalyticaltableofselectedtypes.ThecolumnsII,III, IVreferto thegroupsofconceptssonumberedintheprecedingchapter.Thelettersa, b, c,d refer respectivelytotheprocessesofisolation(positioninthesentence),agglutination,fusion,and symbolism.Wheremorethanonetechniqueisemployed,theyareputintheorderoftheir importance.[113] Fundamental Type I II III a a,b Technique Isolating Synthesis Analytic Examples Chinese Annamite Ewe(Guinea Coast) ModernTibetan Polynesian

A (SimplePure (d) relational) (b) b, B (ComplexPure (d)

Isolating(weakly Analytic agglutinative) a, Agglutinative(mildly Analytic b,c agglutinativefusional) a Agglutinativeisolating Analytic

relational)

a, Agglutinativeisolating Polysynthetic (b) c a Fusionalisolating Analytic b b Agglutinative Synthetic Agglutinative b,d (b) b Polysynthetic (symbolictinge) c,d, Fusionalagglutinative a,b Synthetic(mildly) (b) (symbolictinge) Synthetic(mildly b c Agglutinativefusional polysynthetic) b c c Fusional Synthetic Analytic Synthetic Analytic(mildly synthetic) Polysynthetic Polysynthetic (mildly) Polysynthetic Analytic Synthetic Synthetic Synthetic

Haida Cambodgian Turkish Yana(N. California) ClassicalTibetan Sioux Salinan(S.W. California) Shilluk(Upper Nile) Bantu French[114] Nootka (Vancouver Island)[115] Chinook(lower ColumbiaR.) Algonkin English Latin,Greek, Sanskrit Takelma(S.W. Oregon) Semitic(Arabic, Hebrew)

d,c (d)

(b) b C (SimpleMixed c, (c) a relational) (d) b,c, b d

d, Symbolic c,a Agglutinative Fusional Agglutinative (symbolictinge)

c, b Fusionalagglutinative (d) c, c, (d), Fusional D (d) (b) (ComplexMixed relational) c c,d a Fusional Fusional(symbolic c,d c,d tinge) c,b, Fusional(strongly c,d (a) d symbolic) d,c c,d (a) Symbolicfusional

Ineedhardlypointoutthattheseexamplesarefarfromexhaustingthepossibilitiesoflinguistic structure.Northatthefactthattwolanguagesaresimilarlyclassifieddoesnotnecessarilymean thattheypresentagreatsimilarityonthesurface.Wearehereconcernedwiththemost fundamentalandgeneralizedfeaturesof thespirit,thetechnique,andthedegreeofelaborationof agivenlanguage.Nevertheless,innumerousinstanceswemayobservethishighlysuggestive andremarkablefact,thatlanguagesthatfallintothesameclasshaveawayofparallelingeach otherinmanydetailsorinstructuralfeaturesnotenvisagedbytheschemeofclassification.Thus, amostinterestingparallelcouldbedrawnonstructurallinesbetweenTakelmaandGreek,[116] languagesthatareasgeographicallyremotefromeachotherandasunconnectedinahistorical senseastwolanguagesselectedatrandomcanwellbe.Theirsimilaritygoesbeyondthe

generalizedfactsregisteredinthetable.Itwouldalmostseemthatlinguisticfeaturesthatare easilythinkableapartfromeachother,thatseemtohavenonecessaryconnectionintheory,have neverthelessatendencytoclusterortofollowtogetherinthewakeofsomedeep,controlling impulsetoform thatdominatestheirdrift.If,therefore,wecanonlybesureoftheintuitive similarityoftwogivenlanguages,oftheirpossessionofthesamesubmergedformfeeling,we neednotbetoomuchsurprisedtofindthattheyseekandavoidcertainlinguisticdevelopments incommon.Weareatpresentveryfarfromabletodefinejustwhatthesefundamentalform intuitionsare.Wecanonlyfeelthemrathervaguelyatbestandmustcontentourselvesforthe mostpartwithnotingtheirsymptoms.Thesesymptomsarebeinggarneredinourdescriptiveand historicalgrammarsofdiverselanguages.Someday,itmaybe,weshallbeabletoreadfrom themthegreatunderlyinggroundplans. Suchapurelytechnicalclassificationoflanguagesasthecurrentoneintoisolating, agglutinative,andinflective(readfusional)cannotclaimtohavegreatvalueasanentering wedgeintothediscoveryoftheintuitionalformsoflanguage.Idonotknowwhetherthe suggestedclassificationintofourconceptualgroupsislikelytodrivedeeperornot.Myown feelingisthatitdoes,butclassifications,neatconstructionsofthespeculativemind,areslippery things.Theyhavetobetestedateverypossibleopportunitybeforetheyhavetherighttocryfor acceptance.Meanwhilewemaytakesomeencouragementfromtheapplicationofarather curious,yetsimple,historicaltest.Languagesareinconstantprocessofchange,butitisonly reasonabletosupposethattheytendtopreservelongestwhatismostfundamentalintheir structure.Nowifwetakegreatgroupsofgeneticallyrelatedlanguages,[117]wefindthataswe passfromonetoanotherortracethecourse oftheirdevelopmentwefrequently encountera gradualchangeofmorphologicaltype.Thisisnotsurprising,forthereisnoreasonwhya languageshouldremainpermanentlytruetoitsoriginalform.Itisinteresting,however,tonote thatofthethreeintercrossingclassificationsrepresentedinourtable(conceptualtype,technique, anddegreeofsynthesis),itisthedegreeofsynthesisthatseemstochangemostreadily,thatthe techniqueismodifiablebutfarlessreadilyso,andthattheconceptualtypetendstopersistthe longestofall. Theillustrativematerialgatheredinthetableisfartooscantytoserveasarealbasisofproof, butitishighlysuggestiveasfarasitgoes.Theonlychangesofconceptualtypewithingroupsof relatedlanguagesthataretobegleanedfromthetableareofBtoA(Shillukascontrastedwith Ewe[118]ClassicalTibetanascontrastedwithModernTibetanandChinese)andofDtoC (FrenchascontrastedwithLatin[119]).ButtypesA :BandC:Darerespectivelyrelatedtoeach otherasasimpleandacomplexformofastillmorefundamentaltype(purerelational,mixed relational).OfapassagefromapurerelationaltoamixedrelationaltypeorviceversaIcangive noconvincingexamples. Thetableshowsclearlyenoughhowlittlerelativepermanencethereisinthetechnicalfeatures oflanguage.Thathighlysyntheticlanguages(LatinSanskrit)havefrequentlybrokendowninto analyticforms(French Bengali)orthatagglutinativelanguages(Finnish)haveinmany instancesgraduallytakenoninflectivefeaturesarewellknownfacts,butthenaturalinference doesnotseemtohavebeenoftendrawnthatpossiblythecontrastbetweensyntheticandanalytic oragglutinativeandinflective(fusional)isnotsofundamentalafterall.TurningtotheIndo Chineselanguages,wefindthatChineseisasneartobeingaperfectlyisolatinglanguageasany

examplewearelikelytofind,whileClassicalTibetanhasnotonlyfusionalbutstrongsymbolic features(e.g., gtongbatogive,pastbtang,future gtang,imperativethong)butbothare purerelationallanguages.Eweiseitherisolatingoronlybarelyagglutinative,whileShilluk, thoughsoberlyanalytic,isoneofthemostdefinitelysymboliclanguagesIknowbothofthese Soudaneselanguagesarepurerelational.TherelationshipbetweenPolynesianandCambodgian isremote,thoughpracticallycertainwhilethelatterhasmoremarkedlyfusionalfeaturesthan theformer,[120]bothconformtothecomplexpurerelationaltype.YanaandSalinanare superficiallyverydissimilarlanguages.Yanaishighlypolysyntheticandquitetypically agglutinative,Salinanisnomoresyntheticthanandasirregularlyandcompactlyfusional (inflective)asLatinbotharepurerelational,ChinookandTakelma,remotelyrelated languagesofOregon,havedivergedveryfarfromeachother,notonlyasregardstechniqueand synthesisingeneralbutinalmostallthedetailsoftheirstructurebotharecomplexmixed relationallanguages,thoughinverydifferentways.Factssuchastheseseemtolendcolortothe suspicionthatinthecontrastofpurerelationalandmixedrelational(orconcreterelational)we areconfrontedbysomethingdeeper,morefarreaching,thanthecontrastofisolating, agglutinative,andfusional.[121]

VII
LanguageasaHistoricalProduct:Drift
Everyoneknowsthatlanguageisvariable.Twoindividualsofthesamegenerationandlocality, speakingprecisely thesamedialectandmovinginthesamesocialcircles,areneverabsolutelyat oneintheirspeechhabits.Aminuteinvestigationofthespeechofeachindividualwouldreveal countlessdifferencesofdetailinchoiceofwords,insentencestructure,intherelative frequencywithwhichparticularformsorcombinationsofwordsareused,inthepronunciation ofparticularvowelsandconsonantsandofcombinationsofvowelsandconsonants,inallthose features,suchasspeed,stress,andtone,thatgivelifetospokenlanguage.Inasensetheyspeak slightlydivergentdialectsofthesamelanguageratherthanidenticallythesamelanguage. Thereisanimportantdifference,however,betweenindividualanddialecticvariations.Ifwetake twocloselyrelateddialects,sayEnglishasspokenbythemiddleclassesofLondonand EnglishasspokenbytheaverageNewYorker,weobservethat,howevermuchtheindividual speakersineachcitydifferfromeachother,thebodyofLondonersformsacompact,relatively unifiedgroupincontrasttothebodyofNewYorkers.Theindividualvariationsareswampedin orabsorbedbycertainmajoragreementssayofpronunciationandvocabularywhichstand outverystrongly whenthelanguageofthegroupasawholeiscontrastedwiththatoftheother group.Thismeansthatthereissomethinglikeanideallinguisticentitydominatingthespeech habitsofthemembersofeachgroup,thatthesenseofalmostunlimitedfreedomwhicheach individualfeelsintheuseofhislanguageisheldinleashbyatacitlydirectingnorm.One individualplaysonthenorminawaypeculiartohimself,thenextindividualisnearerthedead averageinthatparticularrespectinwhichthefirstspeakermostcharacteristicallydepartsfromit butin turndivergesfromtheaverageinawaypeculiartohimself,andsoon.Whatkeepsthe individualsvariationsfromrisingtodialecticimportanceisnotmerelythefactthattheyarein anyeventofsmallmomenttherearewellmarkeddialecticvariationsthatareofnogreater

magnitudethanindividualvariationswithinadialectitischieflythattheyaresilently correctedorcanceledbytheconsensusofusage.Ifallthespeakersofagivendialectwere arrangedinorderinaccordancewiththedegreeoftheirconformitytoaverageusage,thereis littledoubtthattheywouldconstituteaveryfinelyintergradingseriesclusteredaboutawell definedcenterornorm.Thedifferencesbetweenanytwoneighboringspeakersoftheseries[122] wouldbenegligibleforanybutthemostmicroscopiclinguisticresearch.Thedifferences betweentheoutermostmembersoftheseriesaresuretobeconsiderable,inalllikelihood considerableenoughtomeasureuptoatruedialecticvariation.Whatpreventsusfromsaying thattheseuntypicalindividualsspeakdistinctdialectsisthattheirpeculiarities,asaunified whole,arenotreferabletoanothernormthanthenormoftheirownseries. Ifthespeechofanymemberoftheseriescouldactuallybemadetofitintoanotherdialect series,[123]weshouldhavenotruebarriersbetweendialects(andlanguages)atall.Weshould merelyhaveacontinuousseriesofindividualvariationsextendingoverthewholerangeofa historicallyunifiedlinguisticarea,andthecuttingupofthislargearea(insomecasesembracing partsofseveralcontinents)intodistinctdialectsandlanguageswouldbeanessentiallyarbitrary proceedingwithnowarrantsavethatofpracticalconvenience.Butsuchaconceptionofthe natureofdialecticvariationdoesnotcorrespondtothefactsasweknowthem.Isolated individualsmaybefoundwhospeakacompromisebetweentwodialectsofalanguage,andif theirnumberandimportanceincreasestheymayevenendbycreatinganewdialecticnormof theirown,adialectinwhichtheextremepeculiaritiesof theparentdialectsareironedout.In courseoftimethecompromisedialectmayabsorbtheparents,thoughmorefrequentlythesewill tendtolingerindefinitelyasmarginalformsoftheenlargeddialectarea.Butsuchphenomena andtheyarecommonenoughinthehistoryoflanguageareevidentlyquitesecondary.They arecloselylinkedwithsuchsocialdevelopmentsastheriseofnationality,theformationof literaturesthataimtohavemorethanalocalappeal,themovementofruralpopulationsintothe cities,andallthoseothertendenciesthatbreakuptheintenselocalismthatunsophisticatedman hasalwaysfoundnatural. Theexplanationofprimarydialecticdifferencesisstilltoseek.Itisevidentlynotenoughtosay thatifadialectorlanguageisspokenintwodistinctlocalitiesorbytwodistinctsocialstratait naturallytakesondistinctiveforms,whichintimecometobedivergentenoughtodeservethe nameofdialects.Thisiscertainlytrueasfarasitgoes.Dialectsdobelong,inthefirstinstance, toverydefinitelycircumscribedsocialgroups,homogeneousenoughtosecurethecommon feelingandpurposeneededtocreateanorm.Buttheembarrassingquestionimmediatelyarises, Ifalltheindividualvariationswithinadialectarebeingconstantlyleveledouttothedialectic norm,ifthereisnoappreciabletendencyfortheindividualspeculiaritiestoinitiateadialectic schism,whyshouldwehavedialecticvariationsatall?Oughtnotthenorm,whereverand wheneverthreatened,automaticallytoreassertitself?Oughtnottheindividualvariationsofeach locality,evenintheabsenceofintercoursebetweenthem,tocancelouttothesameaccepted speechaverage? Ifindividualvariationsonaflatweretheonlykindofvariabilityinlanguage,Ibelievewe shouldbeatalosstoexplainwhyandhowdialectsarise,whyitisthatalinguisticprototype graduallybreaksupintoanumberofmutuallyunintelligiblelanguages.Butlanguageisnot merelysomethingthatisspreadoutin space,asitwereaseriesofreflectionsinindividual

mindsofoneandthesametimelesspicture.Languagemovesdowntimeinacurrentofitsown making.Ithasadrift.Iftherewerenobreakingupofalanguageintodialects,ifeachlanguage continuedasafirm,selfcontainedunity,itwouldstillbeconstantlymovingawayfromany assignablenorm,developingnewfeaturesunceasinglyandgraduallytransformingitselfintoa languagesodifferentfromitsstartingpointastobeineffectanewlanguage.Nowdialectsarise notbecauseofthemerefactofindividualvariationbutbecausetwoormoregroupsof individualshavebecomesufficientlydisconnectedtodriftapart,orindependently,insteadof together.Solongastheykeepstrictlytogether,noamountofindividualvariationwouldleadto theformationofdialects.Inpractice,ofcourse,nolanguagecanbespreadoveravastterritoryor evenoveraconsiderableareawithoutshowingdialecticvariations,foritisimpossibletokeepa largepopulationfromsegregatingitselfintolocalgroups,thelanguageofeachofwhichtendsto driftindependently.Underculturalconditionssuchasapparentlyprevailtoday,conditionsthat fightlocalismateveryturn,thetendencytodialecticcleavageisbeingconstantlycounteracted andinpartcorrectedbytheuniformizingfactorsalreadyreferredto.Yeteveninsoyounga countryasAmericathedialecticdifferencesarenotinconsiderable. Underprimitiveconditionsthepoliticalgroupsaresmall,thetendencytolocalismexceedingly strong.Itisnatural,therefore,thatthelanguagesofprimitivefolkorofnonurbanpopulationsin generalaredifferentiatedintoagreatnumberofdialects.Therearepartsoftheglobewhere almosteveryvillagehasitsowndialect.Thelifeofthegeographicallylimitedcommunityis narrowandintenseitsspeechiscorrespondinglypeculiartoitself.Itisexceedinglydoubtfulifa languagewilleverbespokenoverawideareawithoutmultiplyingitselfdialectically.Nosooner aretheolddialectsironedoutbycompromisesoroustedbythespreadandinfluenceoftheone dialectwhichisculturallypredominantwhenanewcropofdialectsarisestoundotheleveling workofthepast.ThisispreciselywhathappenedinGreece,forinstance.Inclassicalantiquity therewerespokenalargenumberoflocaldialects,severalofwhicharerepresentedinthe literature.AstheculturalsupremacyofAthensgrew,itsdialect,theAttic,spreadattheexpense oftherest,until,inthesocalledHellenisticperiodfollowingtheMacedonianconquest,theAttic dialect,inthevulgarizedformknownastheKoine,becamethestandardspeechofallGreece. Butthislinguisticuniformity[124]didnotlongcontinue.Duringthetwomillenniathatseparate theGreekoftodayfromitsclassicalprototypetheKoinegraduallysplitupintoanumberof dialects.NowGreeceisasrichlydiversifiedinspeechasinthetimeofHomer,thoughthe presentlocaldialects,asidefromthoseofAtticaitself,arenotthelinealdescendantsoftheold dialectsofpreAlexandriandays.[125]TheexperienceofGreeceisnotexceptional.Olddialects arebeingcontinuallywipedoutonlytomakeroomfornewones.Languagescanchangeatso manypointsofphonetics,morphology,andvocabularythatitisnotsurprisingthatoncethe linguisticcommunityisbrokenitshouldslipoffindifferentdirections.Itwouldbetoomuchto expectalocallydiversifiedlanguagetodevelopalongstrictlyparallellines.Ifoncethespeechof alocalityhasbeguntodriftonitsownaccount,itispracticallycertaintomovefurtherand furtherawayfromitslinguisticfellows.Failingtheretardingeffectofdialecticinterinfluences, whichIhavealreadytouchedupon,agroupofdialectsisboundtodivergeonthewhole,each fromalloftheothers. Incourseoftimeeachdialectitselfsplitsupintosubdialects,whichgraduallytakeonthe dignityofdialectsproperwhiletheprimarydialectsdevelopintomutuallyunintelligible languages.Andsothebuddingprocesscontinues,untilthedivergencesbecomesogreatthat

nonebutalinguisticstudent,armedwithhisdocumentaryevidenceandwithhiscomparativeor reconstructivemethod,wouldinferthatthelanguagesinquestionweregenealogicallyrelated, representedindependentlinesofdevelopment,inotherwords,fromaremoteandcommon startingpoint.Yetitisascertainasanyhistoricalfactcanbethatlanguagessolittleresembling eachotherasModernIrish,English,Italian,Greek,Russian,Armenian,Persian,andBengaliare butendpointsinthepresentofdriftsthatconvergetoameetingpointinthedimpast.Thereis naturallynoreasontobelievethatthisearliestIndoEuropean(orAryan)prototypewhich wecaninpartreconstruct, inpartbutdimlyguessat,isitselfotherthanasingledialectofa groupthathaseitherbecomelargelyextinctorisnowfurtherrepresentedbylanguagestoo divergentforus,withourlimitedmeans,torecognizeasclearkin.[126] Alllanguagesthatareknowntobegeneticallyrelated,i.e.,tobedivergentformsofasingle prototype,maybeconsideredasconstitutingalinguisticstock.Thereisnothingfinal abouta linguisticstock.When wesetitup,wemerelysay,ineffect,thatthusfarwecangoandno farther.Atanypointintheprogressofourresearchesanunexpectedrayoflightmayrevealthe stockasbutadialectofalargergroup.Thetermsdialect,language,branch,stockitgoes withoutsayingarepurelyrelativeterms.Theyareconvertibleasourperspectivewidensor contracts.[127] Itwouldbevaintospeculateastowhetherornotweshalleverbeableto demonstratethatalllanguagesstemfromacommonsource.Oflateyearslinguistshavebeen abletomakelargerhistoricalsynthesesthanwereatonetimedeemedfeasible,justasstudentsof culturehavebeenabletoshowhistoricalconnectionsbetweencultureareasorinstitutionsthat wereatonetimebelievedtobetotallyisolatedfromeachother.Thehumanworldiscontracting notonlyprospectivelybuttothebackwardprobingeyeofculturehistory.Neverthelessweare asyetfarfromabletoreducetheriotofspokenlanguagestoasmallnumberofstocks.We muststilloperatewithaquiteconsiderablenumberofthesestocks.Someofthem,likeIndo EuropeanorIndoChinese,arespokenovertremendousreachesothers,likeBasque,[128]havea curiouslyrestrictedrangeandareinalllikelihoodbutdwindlingremnantsofgroupsthatwereat onetimemorewidelydistributed.Asforthesingleormultipleoriginofspeech,itislikely enoughthatlanguageasahumaninstitution(or,ifoneprefers,asahumanfaculty)developed butonceinthehistoryoftherace,thatallthecomplexhistoryoflanguageisauniquecultural event.Suchatheoryconstructedongeneralprinciplesisofnorealinterest,however, to linguisticscience.Whatliesbeyondthedemonstrablemustbelefttothephilosopherorthe romancer. Wemustreturntotheconceptionofdriftinlanguage.Ifthehistoricalchangesthattakeplace inalanguage,ifthevastaccumulationofminutemodificationswhichintimeresultsinthe completeremodelingofthelanguage,arenotinessenceidenticalwiththeindividualvariations thatwenoteoneveryhandaboutus,ifthesevariationsarebornonlytodiewithoutatrace, whiletheequallyminute,orevenminuter,changesthatmakeupthedriftareforeverimprinted onthehistoryofthelanguage,arewenotimputingtothishistoryacertainmysticalquality?Are wenotgivinglanguageapowertochangeofitsownaccordoverandabovetheinvoluntary tendencyofindividualstovarythenorm?Andifthisdriftoflanguageisnotmerelythefamiliar setofindividualvariationsseeninvertical perspective,thatishistorically,insteadofhorizontally, thatisindailyexperience,whatisit?Languageexistsonlyinsofarasitisactuallyused spokenandheard,writtenandread.Whatsignificantchangestakeplaceinitmustexist,tobegin with,asindividualvariations.Thisisperfectlytrue,andyetitbynomeansfollowsthatthe

generaldriftoflanguagecanbeunderstood[129]fromanexhaustivedescriptivestudyofthese variationsalone.Theythemselvesarerandomphenomena,[130]likethewavesofthesea, movingbackwardandforwardinpurposelessflux.Thelinguisticdrifthasdirection.Inother words,onlythoseindividualvariationsembodyitorcarryitwhichmoveinacertaindirection, justasonlycertainwavemovementsinthebayoutlinethetide.Thedriftofalanguageis constitutedbytheunconsciousselectiononthepartofitsspeakersofthoseindividualvariations thatarecumulativeinsomespecialdirection.Thisdirectionmaybeinferred,inthemain,from thepasthistoryofthelanguage.Inthelongrunanynewfeatureofthedriftbecomespartand parcelofthecommon,acceptedspeech,butforalongtimeitmayexistasameretendencyinthe speechofafew,perhapsofadespisedfew.Aswelookaboutusandobservecurrentusage,itis notlikelytooccurtousthatourlanguagehasaslope,thatthechangesofthenextfew centuriesareinasenseprefiguredincertainobscuretendenciesofthepresentandthatthese changes,whenconsummated,willbeseentobebutcontinuationsofchangesthathavebeen alreadyeffected.Wefeelratherthatourlanguageispracticallyafixedsystemandthatwhat slightchangesaredestinedtotakeplaceinitareaslikelytomoveinonedirectionasanother. Thefeelingisfallacious.Ourveryuncertaintyastotheimpendingdetailsofchangemakesthe eventualconsistencyoftheirdirectionallthemoreimpressive. Sometimeswecanfeelwherethedriftistakingusevenwhilewestruggleagainstit.Probably themajorityofthosewhoreadthesewordsfeelthatitisquiteincorrecttosayWhodidyou see?WereadersofmanybooksarestillverycarefultosayWhomdidyousee?butwefeela littleuncomfortable(uncomfortablyproud,itmaybe)intheprocess.Wearelikelytoavoidthe locutionaltogetherandtosayWhowasityousaw?conservingliterarytradition(thewhom) withthedignityofsilence.[131]Thefolkmakesnoapology.Whomdidyousee?mightdofor anepitaph,butWhodidyousee?isthenatural formforaneagerinquiry.Itisofcoursethe uncontrolledspeechofthefolktowhichwemustlookforadvanceinformationastothegeneral linguisticmovement.Itissafetoprophesythatwithinacoupleofhundredyearsfromtodaynot eventhemostlearnedjuristwillbesayingWhomdidyousee?Bythattimethewhomwill beasdelightfullyarchaicastheElizabethanhisforits.[132]Nologicalorhistorical argumentwillavailtosavethishaplesswhom.ThedemonstrationI:me=he:him=who: whomwillbeconvincingintheoryandwillgounheededinpractice. Evennowwemaygosofarastosaythatthemajorityofusaresecretlywishingtheycouldsay Whodidyousee?Itwouldbeaweightofftheirunconsciousmindsifsomedivineauthority, overrulingtheliftedfingerofthepedagogue,gavethem carteblanche.Butwecannottoo franklyanticipatethedriftandmaintaincaste.Wemustaffectignoranceofwhitherwearegoing andrestcontentwithourmentalconflictuncomfortableconsciousacceptanceofthewhom, unconsciousdesireforthewho.[133]Meanwhileweindulgeoursneakingdesireforthe forbiddenlocutionbytheuseofthewhoincertaintwilightcasesinwhichwecancoverupour faultbyabitofunconsciousspecialpleading.Imaginethatsomeonedropstheremarkwhenyou arenotlisteningattentively,JohnSmithiscomingtonight.Youhavenotcaughtthenameand ask,notWhomdidyousay?butWhodidyousay?Thereislikelytobealittlehesitationin thechoiceoftheform,buttheprecedentofusageslikeWhomdidyousee?willprobablynot seemquitestrongenoughtoinduceaWhomdidyousay?Notquiterelevantenough,the grammarianmayremark,forasentencelikeWhodidyousay?isnotstrictlyanalogousto Whomdidyousee?orWhomdidyoumean?Itisratheranabbreviatedformofsomesuch

sentenceasWho,didyousay,iscomingtonight?ThisisthespecialpleadingthatIhave referredto,andithasacertainlogiconitsside.Yetthecaseismorehollowthanthegrammarian thinksittobe,forinreplytosuchaqueryasYoureagoodhandatbridge,John,arentyou? John,alittletakenaback,mightmutterDidyousayme?hardlyDidyousayI?Yetthelogic forthelatter(DidyousayIwasagoodhandatbridge?)isevident.Therealpointisthatthere isnotenoughvitalityinthewhomtocarryitoversuchlittledifficultiesasamecancompass withoutathought.TheproportionI:me=he:him =who:whomislogicallyandhistorically sound,butpsychologicallyshaky.Whomdidyousee?iscorrect,butthereissomethingfalse aboutitscorrectness. Itisworthlookingintothereasonforourcuriousreluctancetouselocutionsinvolvingtheword whomparticularlyinitsinterrogativesense.Theonlydistinctivelyobjectiveformswhichwe stillpossessinEnglishareme,him, her(alittleblurredbecauseofitsidentitywiththe possessiveher),us,them,andwhom.Inallothercasestheobjectivehascometobeidentical withthesubjectivethatis,inouterform,forwearenotnowtakingaccountofpositioninthe sentence.Weobserveimmediatelyinlookingthroughthelistofobjectiveformsthatwhomis psychologicallyisolated.Me, him, her,us,andthemformasolid,wellintegratedgroupof objectivepersonalpronounsparalleltothesubjectiveseriesI,he,she,we,they.Theformswho andwhomaretechnicallypronounsbuttheyarenotfelttobeinthesameboxasthepersonal pronouns.Whomhasclearlyaweakposition,anexposedflank,forwordsofafeathertendto flocktogether,andifonestraysbehind,itislikelytoincurdangeroflife.Nowtheother interrogativeandrelativepronouns(which,what,that),withwhichwhomshouldproperlyflock, donotdistinguishthesubjectiveandobjectiveforms.Itispsychologicallyunsoundtodrawthe lineofformcleavagebetweenwhomandthepersonalpronounsontheoneside,theremaining interrogativeandrelativepronounsontheother.Theformgroupsshouldbesymmetrically relatedto,ifnotidenticalwith,thefunctiongroups.Hadwhich,what,andthat objectiveforms paralleltowhom,thepositionofthislastwouldbemoresecure.Asitis,thereissomething unestheticabouttheword.Itsuggestsaformpatternwhichisnotfilledoutbyitsfellows.The onlywaytoremedytheirregularityofformdistributionistoabandonthewhomaltogetherfor wehavelostthepowertocreatenewobjectiveformsandcannotremodelourwhichwhatthat group soastomakeitparallelwiththesmallergroupwhowhom.Oncethisisdone,whojoinsits flockandourunconsciousdesireforformsymmetryissatisfied.Wedonotsecretlychafeat Whomdidyousee?withoutreason.[134] Butthedriftawayfrom whomhasstillotherdeterminants.Thewordswhoandwhomintheir interrogativesensearepsychologicallyrelatednotmerelytothepronounswhichandwhat,butto agroupofinterrogativeadverbswhere,when,howallofwhichareinvariableandgenerally emphatic.IbelieveitissafetoinferthatthereisaratherstrongfeelinginEnglishthatthe interrogativepronounoradverb,typicallyanemphaticelementinthesentence,shouldbe invariable.Theinflectivemof whomisfeltasadragupontherhetoricaleffectivenessofthe word.Itneedstobeeliminatediftheinterrogativepronounistoreceiveallitslatentpower. Thereisstillathird,andaverypowerful,reasonfortheavoidanceof whom.Thecontrast betweenthesubjectiveandobjectiveseriesofpersonalpronouns(I, he,she,we,they:me,him, her,us,them)isinEnglishassociatedwithadifferenceofposition.Wesay Iseethemanbutthe manseesme hetoldhim,neverhimhetold or himtoldhe.Suchusagesasthelasttwoare distinctlypoeticandarchaictheyareopposedtothepresentdriftofthelanguage.Eveninthe

interrogativeonedoesnotsay Himdidyousee?ItisonlyinsentencesofthetypeWhomdidyou see?thataninflectedobjectivebeforetheverbisnowusedatall.Ontheotherhand,theorderin Whomdidyousee?isimperativebecauseofitsinterrogativeformtheinterrogativepronounor adverbnormallycomesfirstinthesentence(Whatareyoudoing?Whendidhego? Whereare youfrom?).Inthewhomof Whomdidyousee?thereisconcealed,therefore,aconflict betweentheorderpropertoasentencecontaininganinflectedobjectiveandtheordernaturalto asentencewithaninterrogativepronounoradverb.Thesolution Didyouseewhom?or Yousaw whom?[135]istoocontrarytotheidiomaticdriftofourlanguagetoreceiveacceptance.The moreradicalsolution Whodidyousee?istheonethelanguageisgraduallymakingfor. Thesethreeconflictsonthescoreofformgrouping,ofrhetoricalemphasis,andoforderare supplementedbyafourthdifficulty.Theemphaticwhom,withitsheavybuild(halflongvowel followedbylabialconsonant),shouldcontrastwithalightlytrippingsyllableimmediately following.Inwhomdid,however,wehaveaninvoluntaryretardationthatmakesthelocution soundclumsy.Thisclumsinessisaphoneticverdict,quiteapartfromthedissatisfactiondueto thegrammaticalfactorswhichwehaveanalyzed.Thesameprosodicobjectiondoesnotapplyto suchparallellocutionsaswhatdidandwhendid.Thevowelsof whatandwhenareshorterand theirfinalconsonantsmelteasilyintothefollowingd,whichispronouncedinthesametongue positionastandn.Ourinstinctforappropriaterhythmsmakesitasdifficultforustofeelcontent withwhomdidasforapoettousewordslikedreamedandhummedinarapidline.Neither commonfeelingnorthepoetschoiceneedbeatallconscious.Itmaybethatnotallareequally sensitivetotherhythmicflowofspeech,butitisprobablethatrhythmisanunconscious linguisticdeterminantevenwiththosewhosetlittlestorebyitsartisticuse.Inanyeventthe poetsrhythmscanonlybeamoresensitiveandstylicizedapplicationofrhythmictendencies thatarecharacteristicofthedailyspeechofhispeople. Wehavediscoverednolessthanfourfactorswhichenterintooursubtledisinclinationtosay Whomdidyousee?TheuneducatedfolkthatsaysWhodidyousee?withnotwingeof consciencehasamoreacuteflairforthegenuinedriftofthelanguagethanitsstudents.Naturally thefourrestrainingfactorsdonotoperateindependently.Theirseparateenergies,ifwemay makeboldtouseamechanicalconcept,arecanalizedintoasingleforce.Thisforceorminute embodimentofthegeneraldriftofthelanguageispsychologicallyregisteredasaslight hesitationinusingthewordwhom.Thehesitationislikelytobequiteunconscious,thoughit maybereadilyacknowledgedwhenattentioniscalledtoit.Theanalysisiscertaintobe unconscious,orratherunknown,tothenormalspeaker.[136] How,then,canwebecertainin suchananalysisaswehaveundertakenthatalloftheassigneddeterminantsarereallyoperative andnotmerelysomeoneofthem?Certainlytheyarenotequallypowerfulinallcases.Their valuesarevariable,risingandfallingaccordingtotheindividualandthelocution.[137]Butthat theyreally exist,eachinitsownright,maysometimesbetestedbythemethodofelimination.If oneorotherofthefactorsismissingandweobserveaslightdiminutioninthecorresponding psychologicalreaction(hesitationinourcase),wemayconcludethatthefactorisinotheruses genuinelypositive.Thesecondofourfourfactorsappliesonlytotheinterrogativeuseof whom, thefourthfactorapplieswithmoreforcetotheinterrogativethantotherelative.Wecan thereforeunderstandwhyasentencelikeIshethemanwhomyoureferredto?thoughnotas idiomaticasIshetheman(that)youreferredto? (rememberthatitsinsagainstcountsoneand three),isstillnotasdifficulttoreconcilewithourinnatefeelingforEnglishexpressionasWhom

didyousee?Ifweeliminatethefourthfactorfromtheinterrogativeusage,[138]sayin Whom areyoulookingat?wherethevowelfollowingwhomrelievesthiswordofitsphoneticweight, wecanobserve,ifIamnotmistaken,alesserreluctancetousethewhom.Whoareyoulooking at?mightevensoundslightlyoffensivetoearsthatwelcomeWhodidyousee? Wemaysetupascaleofhesitationvaluessomewhatafterthisfashion: 1. 2. 3. 4. Value1:factors1,3.ThemanwhomIreferredto. Value2:factors1,3,4.Themanwhomtheyreferredto. Value3:factors1,2,3.Whomareyoulookingat? Value4:factors1,2,3,4.Whomdidyousee?

WemayventuretosurmisethatwhilewhomwillultimatelydisappearfromEnglishspeech, locutionsofthetypeWhomdidyousee?willbeobsoletewhenphraseslikeThemanwhomI referredtoarestillinlingeringuse.Itisimpossibletobecertain,however,forwecannevertell ifwehaveisolatedallthedeterminantsofadrift.Inourparticularcasewehaveignoredwhat maywellprovetobeacontrollingfactorinthehistoryof whoandwhomintherelativesense. Thisistheunconsciousdesiretoleavethesewordstotheirinterrogativefunctionandto concentrateon that ormerewordorderasexpressionsoftherelative(e.g.,ThemanthatI referredtoorThemanIreferredto).Thisdrift,whichdoesnotdirectlyconcerntheuseof whom assuch(merelyof whomasaformof who),mayhavemadetherelativewhoobsoletebeforethe otherfactorsaffectingrelativewhomhaveruntheircourse.Aconsiderationlikethisis instructivebecauseitindicatesthatknowledgeofthegeneraldriftofalanguageisinsufficientto enableustoseeclearlywhatthedriftisheadingfor.Weneedtoknowsomethingoftherelative potenciesandspeedsofthecomponentsofthedrift. Itishardlynecessarytosaythattheparticulardriftsinvolvedintheuseof whomareofinterest tousnotfortheirownsakebutassymptomsoflargertendenciesatworkinthelanguage.At leastthreedriftsofmajorimportancearediscernible.Eachofthesehasoperatedforcenturies, eachisatworkinotherpartsofourlinguisticmechanism,eachisalmostcertaintocontinuefor centuries,possiblymillennia.Thefirstisthefamiliartendencytolevelthedistinctionbetween thesubjectiveandtheobjective,itselfbutalatechapterinthesteadyreductionoftheoldIndo Europeansystemofsyntacticcases.Thissystem,whichisatpresentbestpreservedin Lithuanian,[139]wasalreadyconsiderablyreducedintheoldGermaniclanguageofwhich English,Dutch,German,Danish,andSwedisharemoderndialecticforms.ThesevenIndo Europeancases(nominativegenitive,dative,accusative,ablative,locative,instrumental)had beenalreadyreducedtofour(nominativegenitive,dative,accusative).Weknowthisfroma carefulcomparisonofandreconstructionbasedontheoldestGermanicdialectsofwhichwestill haverecords(Gothic,OldIcelandic,OldHighGerman,AngloSaxon).InthegroupofWest Germanicdialects,forthestudyofwhichOldHighGerman,AngloSaxon,OldFrisian,andOld Saxonareouroldestandmostvaluablesources,westillhavethesefourcases,butthephonetic formofthecasesyllablesisalreadygreatlyreducedandincertainparadigmsparticularcases havecoalesced.Thecasesystemispracticallyintactbutitisevidentlymovingtowardsfurther disintegration.WithintheAngloSaxonandearlyMiddleEnglishperiodtheretookplacefurther changesinthesamedirection.Thephoneticformofthecasesyllablesbecamestillfurther reducedandthedistinctionbetweentheaccusativeandthedativefinallydisappeared.Thenew

objectiveisreallyanamalgamofoldaccusativeanddativeformsthus,him,theolddative(we stillsay Igivehimthebook,notabbreviatedfrom IgivetohimcompareGothicimma, modernGerman ihm),tookoverthefunctionsoftheoldaccusative(AngloSaxon hinecompare Gothicina,ModernGerman ihn)anddative.Thedistinctionbetweenthenominativeand accusativewasnibbledawaybyphoneticprocessesandmorphologicallevelingsuntilonly certainpronounsretaineddistinctivesubjectiveandobjectiveforms. Inlatermedievalandinmoderntimestherehavebeencomparativelyfewapparentchangesin ourcasesystemapartfromthegradualreplacementof thouthee(singular)andsubjectiveye objectiveyou(plural)byasingleundifferentiatedform you.Allthewhile,however,thecase system,suchasitis(subjectiveobjective,reallyabsolutive,andpossessiveinnounssubjective, objective,andpossessiveincertainpronouns)hasbeensteadilyweakeninginpsychological respects.Atpresentitismoreseriouslyunderminedthanmostofusrealize.Thepossessivehas littlevitalityexceptinthepronounandinanimatenouns.Theoreticallywecanstillsay the moonsphasesor anewspapersvoguepracticallywelimitourselvesprettymuchtoanalytic locutionslikethephasesofthemoonandthevogueofanewspaper.Thedriftisclearlytoward thelimitation,ofpossessiveformstoanimatenouns.Allthepossessivepronominalformsexcept itsand,inpart, theirandtheirs,arealsoanimate.Itissignificantthattheirsishardlyeverusedin referencetoinanimatenouns,thatthereissomereluctancetosousetheir,andthatitsalsois beginningtogivewaytoofit.Theappearanceofit or thelooksofitismoreinthecurrentofthe languagethan itsappearance.Itiscuriouslysignificantthatitsyoung (referringtoananimals cubs)isidiomaticallypreferabletotheyoungofit.Theformisonlyostensiblyneuter,infeeling itisanimatepsychologicallyitbelongswith hischildren,notwith thepiecesofit.Canitbethat socommonawordasitsisactuallybeginningtobedifficult?Isittoodoomedtodisappear?It wouldberashtosay thatitshowssignsofapproachingobsolescence,butthatitissteadily weakeningisfairlyclear.[140]Inanyevent,itisnottoomuchtosaythatthereisastrongdrift towardstherestrictionoftheinflectedpossessiveformstoanimatenounsandpronouns. Howisitwiththealternationofsubjectiveandobjectiveinthepronoun?Grantedthatwhomisa weaksister,thatthetwocaseshavebeenleveledin you(in it,that,andwhattheywerenever distinct,sofaraswecantell[141]),andthatherasanobjectiveisatrifleweakbecauseofits formalidentitywiththepossessiveher,isthereanyreasontodoubtthevitalityofsuch alternationsasIseethemanandthemanseesme?SurelythedistinctionbetweensubjectiveI andobjectiveme,betweensubjectiveheandobjectivehim,andcorrespondinglyforother personalpronouns,belongstotheverycoreofthelanguage.Wecanthrowwhomtothedogs, somehowmakeshifttodowithoutan its,buttolevel Iandmetoasinglecasewouldthatnot betounEnglishourlanguagebeyondrecognition?ThereisnodrifttowardsuchhorrorsasMe seehimorIseehe.True,thephoneticdisparitybetween Iandme,heandhim,weandus,has beentoogreatforanyseriouspossibilityofformleveling.Itdoesnotfollowthatthecase distinctionassuchisstillvital.Oneofthemostinsidiouspeculiaritiesofalinguisticdriftisthat whereitcannotdestroywhatliesinitswayitrendersitinnocuousbywashingtheold significanceoutofit.Itturnsitsveryenemiestoitsownuses.Thisbringsustothesecondofthe majordrifts,thetendencytofixedpositioninthesentence,determinedbythesyntacticrelation oftheword.

Weneednotgointothehistoryofthisallimportantdrift.Itisenoughtoknowthatasthe inflectedformsofEnglishbecamescantier,asthesyntacticrelationsweremoreandmore inadequatelyexpressedbytheformsofthewordsthemselves,positioninthesentencegradually tookoverfunctionsoriginallyforeigntoit.Themanin themanseesthedogissubjectivein the dogseestheman,objective.Strictlyparalleltothesesentencesareheseesthedogandthedog seeshim.Arethesubjectivevalueof heandtheobjectivevalueof himentirely,orevenmainly, dependentonthedifferenceofform?Idoubtit.Wecouldholdtosuchaviewifitwerepossible tosay thedogseesheor himseesthedog.Itwasoncepossibletosaysuchthings,butwehave lostthepower.Inotherwords,atleastpartofthecasefeelingin heandhimistobecreditedto theirpositionbeforeoraftertheverb.Mayitnotbe,then,thathe andhim,weandus,arenotso muchsubjectiveandobjectiveformsaspreverbalandpostverbal[142]forms,verymuchasmy andminearenowprenominal andpostnominalformsofthepossessive(myfatherbutfather mine itismybookbutthebookismine)?Thatthisinterpretationcorrespondstotheactualdrift oftheEnglishlanguageisagainindicatedbythelanguageofthefolk.Thefolksaysitisme,not itisI,whichiscorrectbutjustasfalselysoasthewhomdidyousee?thatwehaveanalyzed. Imtheone,itsmeweretheones,itsusthatwillwinoutsucharetheliveparallelismsin Englishtoday.ThereislittledoubtthatitisIwillonedaybeasimpossibleinEnglishascestje, forcestmoi,isnowinFrench. HowdifferentlyourI: mefeelsthaninChaucersdayisshownbytheChaucerian itamI.Here thedistinctivelysubjectiveaspectoftheIwasenoughtoinfluencetheformofthepreceding verbinspiteoftheintroductory itChaucerslocutionclearlyfeltmorelikeaLatin sumegothan amodern itisI orcolloquial itisme.Wehaveacuriousbitoffurtherevidencetoprovethatthe Englishpersonalpronounshavelostsomeshareoftheiroriginalsyntacticforce.Wereheandshe subjectiveformspureandsimple,weretheynotstriving,sotospeak,tobecomecaseless absolutives,likemanoranyothernoun,weshouldnothavebeenabletocoinsuchcompounds ashegoatandshegoat,wordsthatarepsychologicallyanalogoustobullmooseandmother bear.Again,ininquiringaboutanewbornbaby,weaskIsitaheorashe?quiteasthough he andsheweretheequivalentsof maleandfemale or boyandgirl.Allinall,wemayconcludethat ourEnglishcasesystemisweakerthanitlooksandthat,inonewayoranother,itisdestinedto getitselfreducedtoanabsolutive(caseless)formforallnounsandpronounsbutthosethatare animate.Animatenounsandpronounsaresuretohavedistinctivepossessiveformsforan indefinitelylongperiod. Meanwhileobservethattheoldalignmentofcaseformsisbeinginvadedbytwonew categoriesapositionalcategory(preverbal,postverbal)andaclassificatorycategory(animate, inanimate).Thefactsthatinthepossessiveanimatenounsandpronounsaredestinedtobemore andmoresharplydistinguishedfrominanimatenounsandpronouns(themans,butofthehouse his,butofit)andthat,onthewhole,itisonlyanimatepronounsthatdistinguishpreverbaland postverbalforms[143]areofthegreatesttheoreticalinterest.Theyshowthat,howeverthe languagestriveforamoreandmoreanalyticform,itisbynomeansmanifestingadrifttoward theexpressionofpurerelationalconceptsintheIndoChinesemanner.[144]Theinsistenceon theconcretenessoftherelationalconceptsisclearlystrongerthanthedestructivepowerofthe mostsweepingandpersistentdriftsthatweknowofinthehistoryandprehistoryofourlanguage.

Thedrifttowardtheabolitionofmostcasedistinctionsandthecorrelativedrifttowardposition asanallimportantgrammaticalmethodareaccompanied,inasensedominated,bythelastof thethreemajordriftsthatIhavereferredto.Thisisthedrifttowardtheinvariableword.In analyzingthewhomsentenceIpointedoutthattherhetoricalemphasisnaturaltoan interrogativepronounlostsomethingbyitsformvariability(who,whose,whom).Thisstriving forasimple,unnuancedcorrespondencebetweenideaandword,asinvariableasmaybe,isvery stronginEnglish.Itaccountsforanumberoftendencieswhichatfirstsightseemunconnected. Certainwellestablishedforms,likethepresentthirdpersonsingularsof worksortheplural s of books,haveresistedthedrifttoinvariablewords,possiblybecausetheysymbolizecertain strongerformcravingsthatwedonotyetfullyunderstand.Itisinterestingtonotethat derivationsthatgetawaysufficientlyfromtheconcretenotionoftheradicalwordtoexistas independentconceptualcentersarenotaffectedbythiselusivedrift.Assoonasthederivation runsdangerofbeingfeltasamerenuancingof,afinickyplayon,theprimaryconcept,ittends tobeabsorbedbytheradicalword,todisappearassuch.English wordscravespacesbetween them,theydonotliketohuddleinclustersofslightlydivergentcentersofmeaning,eachedging alittleawayfromtherest. Goodness,anounofquality,almostanounofrelation,thattakesits cuefromtheconcreteideaof goodwithoutnecessarilypredicatingthatquality(e.g.,Idonot thinkmuchofhisgoodness)issufficientlyspacedfrom gooditselfnottoneedfearabsorption. Similarly,unablecanholditsownagainstablebecauseitdestroysthelatterssphereof influence unableispsychologicallyasdistinctfrom ableasisblunderingorstupid.Itis differentwithadverbsin ly.Theseleantooheavilyontheiradjectivestohavethekindof vitalitythatEnglishdemandsofitswords. Doitquickly! dragspsychologically.Thenuance expressedby quicklyistooclosetothatof quick,theircirclesofconcretenessaretoonearlythe same,forthetwowordstofeelcomfortabletogether.Theadverbsin lyarelikelytogotothe wallinthenottoodistantfutureforthisveryreasonandinfaceoftheirobvioususefulness. Anotherinstanceofthesacrificeofhighlyusefulformstothisimpatienceofnuancingisthe group whence,whither,hence,hither,thence, thither.Theycouldnotpersistinliveusage becausetheyimpingedtoosolidlyuponthecirclesofmeaningrepresentedbythewordswhere, hereandthere.Insayingwhitherwefeeltookeenlythatwerepeatallof where.Thatweaddto whereanimportantnuanceofdirectionirritatesratherthansatisfies.Weprefertomergethe staticandthedirective(Wheredoyoulive?likeWhereareyougoing?)or,ifneedbe,tooverdo alittletheconceptofdirection(Whereareyourunningto?). Nowitishighlysymptomaticofthenatureofthedriftawayfromwordclustersthatwedonot objecttonuancesassuch,weobjecttohavingthenuancesformallyearmarkedforus.Asa matteroffactourvocabularyisrichinnearsynonymsandingroupsofwordsthatare psychologicallynearrelatives,butthesenearsynonymsandthesegroupsdonothangtogether byreasonofetymology.Wearesatisfiedwith believeandcrediblejustbecausetheykeepaloof fromeachother. Goodandwellgobettertogetherthan quickandquickly.TheEnglish vocabularyisarichmedleybecauseeachEnglishwordwantsitsowncastle.HasEnglishlong beenpeculiarlyreceptivetoforeignwordsbecauseitcravesthestakingoutofasmanyword areasaspossible,or,conversely,hasthemechanicalimpositionofafloodofFrenchandLatin loanwords,unrootedinourearliertradition,sodulledourfeelingforthepossibilitiesofour nativeresourcesthatweareallowingthesetoshrinkbydefault?Isuspectthatbothpropositions aretrue.Eachfeedsontheother.Idonotthinkitlikely,however,thattheborrowingsinEnglish havebeenasmechanicalandexternalaprocessastheyaregenerallyrepresentedtohavebeen.

TherewassomethingabouttheEnglishdriftasearlyastheperiodfollowingtheNorman Conquestthatwelcomedthenewwords.Theywereacompensationforsomethingthatwas weakeningwithin.

VIII
LanguageasaHistoricalProduct:PhoneticLaw
Ihavepreferredtotakeupinsomedetailtheanalysisofourhesitationinusingalocutionlike Whomdidyousee?andtopointtosomeoftheEnglishdrifts,particularandgeneral,thatare impliedbythishesitationthantodiscusslinguisticchangeintheabstract.Whatistrueofthe particularidiomthatwestartedwithistrueofeverythingelseinlanguage.Nothingisperfectly static.Everyword,everygrammaticalelement,everylocution,everysoundandaccentisa slowlychangingconfiguration,moldedbytheinvisibleandimpersonaldriftthatisthelifeof language.Theevidenceisoverwhelmingthatthisdrifthasacertainconsistentdirection.Its speedvariesenormouslyaccordingtocircumstancesthatitisnotalwayseasytodefine.Wehave alreadyseenthatLithuanianistodayneareritsIndoEuropeanprototypethanwasthe hypotheticalGermanicmothertonguefivehundredorathousandyearsbeforeChrist.German hasmovedmoreslowlythanEnglishinsomerespectsitstandsroughlymidwaybetween EnglishandAngloSaxon,inothersithasofcoursedivergedfromtheAngloSaxonline.WhenI pointedoutintheprecedingchapterthatdialectsformedbecausealanguagebrokenupintolocal segmentscouldnotmovealongthesamedriftinallofthesesegments,Imeantofcoursethatit couldnotmovealongidenticallythesamedrift.Thegeneraldriftofalanguagehasitsdepths.At thesurfacethecurrentisrelativelyfast.Incertainfeaturesdialectsdriftapartrapidly.Bythat veryfactthesefeaturesbetraythemselvesaslessfundamentaltothegeniusofthelanguagethan themoreslowlymodifiablefeaturesinwhichthedialectskeeptogetherlongaftertheyhave growntobemutuallyalienformsofspeech.Butthisisnotall.Themomentumofthemore fundamental,thepredialectic,driftisoftensuchthatlanguageslongdisconnectedwillpass throughthesameorstrikinglysimilarphases.Inmanysuchcasesitisperfectlyclearthatthere couldhavebeennodialecticinterinfluencing. Theseparallelismsindriftmayoperateinthephoneticaswellasinthemorphologicalsphere,or theymayaffectbothatthesametime.Hereisaninterestingexample.TheEnglishtypeofplural representedby foot: feet,mouse:miceisstrictlyparalleltotheGerman Fuss:Fsse, Maus:Muse.Onewouldbeinclinedtosurmisethatthesedialecticformsgobacktoold GermanicorWestGermanicalternationsofthesametype.Butthedocumentaryevidenceshows conclusivelythattherecouldhavebeennopluralsofthistypeinprimitiveGermanic.Thereisno traceofsuchvocalicmutation(umlaut)inGothic,ourmostarchaicGermaniclanguage.More significantstillisthefactthatitdoesnotappearinouroldestOldHighGermantextsandbegins todeveloponlyattheveryendoftheOldHighGermanperiod(circa1000A.D.).IntheMiddle HighGermanperiodthemutationwascarriedthroughinalldialects.ThetypicalOldHigh Germanformsaresingularfuoss,plural fuossi[145]singularmus,plural musi.The correspondingMiddleHighGermanformsarefuoss,fesse mus,mse.ModernGerman Fuss:Fsse,Maus:Musearetheregulardevelopmentsofthesemedievalforms.Turningto AngloSaxon,wefindthatourmodernEnglishformscorrespondtofot, fet mus,mys.[146]

TheseformsarealreadyinuseintheearliestEnglishmonumentsthatwepossess,datingfrom theeighthcentury,andthusantedatetheMiddleHighGermanformsbythreehundredyearsor more.Inotherwords,onthisparticularpointittookGermanatleastthreehundredyearstocatch upwithaphoneticmorphologicaldrift[147] thathadlongbeenunderwayinEnglish.Themere factthattheaffectedvowelsofrelatedwords(OldHighGerman uo,AngloSaxon o)arenot alwaysthesameshowsthattheaffectiontookplaceatdifferentperiodsinGermanand English.[148]Therewasevidentlysomegeneraltendencyorgroupoftendenciesatworkin earlyGermanic,longbeforeEnglishandGermanhaddevelopedassuch,thateventuallydrove bothofthesedialectsalongcloselyparallelpaths. Howdidsuchstrikinglyindividualalternationsasfot: fet, fuoss: fessedevelop?Wehavenow reachedwhatisprobablythemostcentralprobleminlinguistichistory,gradualphoneticchange. Phoneticlawsmakeupalargeandfundamentalshareofthesubjectmatteroflinguistics. Theirinfluencereachesfarbeyondthepropersphereofphoneticsandinvadesthatof morphology,asweshallsee.Adriftthatbeginsasaslightphoneticreadjustmentorunsettlement mayinthecourseofmillenniabringaboutthemostprofoundstructuralchanges.Themerefact, forinstance,thatthereisagrowingtendencytothrowthestressautomaticallyonthefirst syllableofawordmayeventuallychangethefundamentaltypeofthelanguage,reducingits finalsyllablestozeroanddrivingittotheuseofmoreandmoreanalyticalorsymbolic[149] methods.TheEnglish phoneticlawsinvolvedintheriseofthewords foot, feet,mouseandmice fromtheirearlyWestGermanicprototypesfot, foti,mus,musi[150]maybebrieflysummarized asfollows: 1. In foti feetthelongowascoloredbythefollowingitolong,thatis,okeptitslip roundedqualityanditsmiddleheightoftonguepositionbutanticipatedthefronttongue positionoftheiistheresultingcompromise.Thisassimilatorychangewasregular,i.e., everyaccentedlongofollowedbyan iinthefollowingsyllableautomaticallydeveloped tolonghencetothiteethbecametthi, fodian tofeedbecamefdian.Atfirstthere isnodoubtthealternationbetween oandwasnotfeltasintrinsicallysignificant.It couldonlyhavebeenanunconsciousmechanicaladjustmentsuchasmaybeobservedin thespeechofmanytodaywhomodifytheoosoundofwordslikeyouandfew inthe directionofGerman without,however,actuallydepartingfarenoughfromtheoo voweltopreventtheiracceptanceof whoandyouassatisfactoryrhymingwords.Lateron thequalityofthevowelmusthavedepartedwidelyenoughfromthatof otoenableto riseinconsciousness[151]asaneatlydistinctvowel.Assoonasthishappened,the expressionofpluralityinfti, tthi,andanalogouswordsbecamesymbolicandfusional, notmerelyfusional. 2. In musimicethelonguwascoloredbythefollowingitolong.Thischangealsowas regular lusilicebecamelsi,kuicowsbecameki(latersimplifiedtokstill preservedaskiin kine), fuliantomakefoulbecameflian(stillpreservedasfilein defile).Thepsychologyofthisphoneticlawisentirelyanalogoustothatof1. 3. Theolddrifttowardreducingfinalsyllables,arhythmicconsequenceofthestrong Germanicstressonthefirstsyllable,nowmanifesteditself.Thefinal i,originally an importantfunctionalelement,hadlonglostagreatshareofitsvalue,transferredasthat wastothesymbolicvowelchange(o:).Ithadlittlepowerofresistance,therefore,tothe drift.Itbecamedulledtoacolorlesse fti becamefte.

4. Theweakefinallydisappeared.Probablytheformsfteandft longcoexistedas prosodicvariantsaccordingtotherhythmicrequirementsofthesentence,verymuchas FsseandFssnowcoexistinGerman. 5. Theof ft becameunroundedtolonge(ourpresenta of fade).Thealternationof fot: foti,transitionally fot: fti, fte, ft,nowappearsasfot: fet.Analogously,tthappears asteth, fdian as fedian,later fedan.Thenewlongevowelfelltogetherwiththeolder evowelalreadyexistent(e.g.,herhere,hehe).Henceforwardthetwoaremerged andtheirlaterhistoryisincommon.Thusourpresenthehasthesamevowelasfeet,teeth, andfeed.Inotherwords,theoldsoundpattern o,e,afteraninterimof o,,e,reappeared aso,e,exceptthatnowtheehadgreaterweightthanbefore. 6. Fot:fet,mus:ms (written mys)arethetypicalformsofAngloSaxonliterature.Atthe veryendoftheAngloSaxonperiod,sayabout1050to1100A.D.,the,whetherlongor short,becameunroundedtoi. Myswasthenpronouncedmiswithlongi(rhymingwith presentniece).Thechangeisanalogousto5,buttakesplaceseveralcenturieslater. 7. InChaucersday(circa13501400A.D.)theformswerestill fot: fet (written foot, feet) andmus:mis(writtenveryvariably,butmous,mysearetypical).About1500allthelong ivowels,whetheroriginal(asinwrite,ride,wine)orunroundedfromAngloSaxon (as in hide,bride,mice,defile),becamediphthongizedtoei (i.e.,e of met+shorti). Shakespearepronouncedmiceasmeis(almostthesameasthepresentCockney pronunciationof mace). 8. Aboutthesametimethelonguvowelswerediphthongizedtoou (i.e.,o ofpresent Scotch not+u of full).TheChaucerian mus:misnowappearsastheShakespearean mous:meis.Thischangemayhavemanifesteditselfsomewhatlaterthan7allEnglish dialectshavediphthongizedoldGermaniclongi,[152]butthelongundiphthongizeduis stillpreservedinLowlandScotch,inwhich houseandmouserhymewithourloose.7and 8areanalogousdevelopments,aswere5and68apparentlylagsbehind7as6,centuries earlier,laggedbehind7. 9. Sometimebefore1550thelongeof fet (written feet)tookthepositionthathadbeen vacatedbytheoldlongi,nowdiphthongized(see7),i.e.,e tookthehighertongue positionof i.Our(andShakespeares)longeis,then,phoneticallythesameastheold longi.Feetnowrhymedwiththeoldwriteandthepresentbeat. 10. Aboutthesametimethelongoof fot (written foot)tookthepositionthathadbeen vacatedbytheoldlongu,nowdiphthongized(see8),i.e.,o tookthehighertongue positionof u.Our(andShakespeares)longooisphoneticallythesameastheoldlong u.Footnowrhymedwiththeoldoutandthepresentboot.Tosummarize7to10, Shakespearepronouncedmeis,mous, fit, fut,ofwhich meisandmouswouldaffectour earsasarathermincingrenderingofourpresentmiceandmouse,fitwouldsound practicallyidenticalwith(butprobablyabitmoredrawledthan)ourpresentfeet,while foot,rhymingwith boot,wouldnowbesetdownasbroadScotch. 11. Graduallythefirstvowelofthediphthongin mice(see7)wasretractedandloweredin position.TheresultingdiphthongnowvariesindifferentEnglishdialects,butai (i.e.,a of father,butshorter,+ shorti)maybetakenasafairlyaccuraterenderingofitsaverage quality.[153]Whatwenowcallthelongi(ofwordslikeride,bite,mice)is,ofcourse, an aidiphthong.Miceisnowpronouncedmais.

12. Analogouslyto11,thefirstvowelofthediphthongin mouse(see8)wasunroundedand loweredinposition.Theresultingdiphthongmaybephoneticallyrenderedau,thoughit toovariesconsiderablyaccordingtodialect.Mouse,then,isnowpronouncedmaus. 13. Thevowelof foot (see10)becameopeninqualityandshorterinquantity,i.e.,itfell togetherwiththeoldshortuvowelofwordslikefull,wolf,wool.Thischangehastaken placeinanumberofwordswithanoriginallylongu(Chaucerianlongcloseo),suchas forsook,hook, book, look, rook,shook,allofwhichformerlyhadthevowelof boot.The oldervowel,however,isstillpreservedinmostwordsofthisclass,suchasfool,moon, spool,stoop.Itishighlysignificantofthenatureoftheslowspreadofaphoneticlaw thatthereislocalvacillationatpresentinseveralwords.Onehearsroof,soot,andhoop, forinstance,bothwiththelongvowelof bootandtheshortof foot.Itisimpossible now,inotherwords,tostateinadefinitivemannerwhatisthephoneticlawthat regulatedthechangeoftheolderfoot (rhymingwith boot)tothepresentfoot.Weknow thatthereisastrongdrifttowardstheshort,openvowelof foot,butwhetherornotallthe oldlongoowordswilleventuallybeaffectedwecannotpresumetosay.Iftheyall,or practicallyall,aretakenbythedrift,phoneticlaw13willbeasregular,assweeping,as mostofthetwelvethathaveprecededit.Ifnot,itmayeventuallybepossible,ifpast experienceisasafeguide,toshowthatthemodifiedwordsformanaturalphoneticgroup, thatis,thatthelawwillhaveoperatedundercertaindefinablelimitingconditions,e.g., thatallwordsendinginavoicelessconsonant(suchasp,t,k, f)wereaffected(e.g.,hoof, foot,look,roof),butthatallwordsendingintheoovowelorinavoicedconsonant remainedunaffected(e.g.,do, food,move, fool).Whatevertheupshot,wemaybe reasonablycertainthatwhenthephoneticlawhasrunitscourse,thedistributionof longandshortvowelsintheoldoowordswillnotseemquiteaserraticasatthe presenttransitionalmoment.[154] Welearn,incidentally,thefundamentalfactthat phoneticlawsdonotworkwithspontaneousautomatism,thattheyaresimplyaformula foraconsummateddriftthatsetsinatapsychologicallyexposedpointandgradually wormsitswaythroughagamutofphoneticallyanalogousforms. Itwillbeinstructivetosetdownatableofformsequences,akindofgrosshistoryofthewords foot, feet,mouse,miceforthelast1500years:[155] I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. fot: foti mus:musi(WestGermanic) fot: fti mus:msi fot: fte mus:mse fot: ft mus:ms fot: fet mus:ms(AngloSaxon) fot: fet mus:mis(Chaucer) fot: fet mous:meis fut (rhymeswith boot):fit mous:meis(Shakespeare) fut: fit maus:mais fut (rhymeswith put):fit maus:mais (Englishof1900)

ItwillnotbenecessarytolistthephoneticlawsthatgraduallydifferentiatedthemodernGerman equivalentsoftheoriginalWestGermanicformsfromtheirEnglishcognates.Thefollowing tablegivesaroughideaoftheformsequencesinGerman:[156]

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.

fot: foti mus:musi(WestGermanic) foss:[157] fossi mus:musi fuoss: fuossi mus:musi(OldHighGerman) fuoss: fessi mus:msi fuoss: fesse mus:mse(MiddleHighGerman) fuoss: fesse mus:mze[158] fuos: fese mus:mze fuos: fese mous:mze fus: fse mous:mze(Luther) fus: fse maus:moize(Germanof1900)

Wecannotevenbegintoferretoutanddiscussallthepsychologicalproblemsthatareconcealed behindtheseblandtables.Theirgeneralparallelismisobvious.Indeedwemightsaythattoday theEnglishandGermanformsresembleeachothermorethandoeseithersettheWestGermanic prototypesfromwhicheachisindependentlyderived.Eachtableillustratesthetendencyto reductionofunaccentedsyllables,thevocalicmodification oftheradicalelementunderthe influenceofthefollowingvowel,theriseintonguepositionofthelongmiddlevowels(English o tou,e toiGerman otouo tou, e to),thediphthongizingoftheoldhighvowels(English i toei toaiEnglishandGerman u toou toauGerman to tooi).Thesedialecticparallels cannotbeaccidental.Theyarerootedinacommon,predialecticdrift. Phoneticchangesareregular.Allbutone(Englishtable,X.),andthatasyetuncompleted,of theparticularphoneticlawsrepresentedinourtablesaffectallexamplesofthesoundinquestion or,ifthephoneticchangeisconditional,allexamplesofthesamesoundthatareanalogously circumstanced.[159]AnexampleofthefirsttypeofchangeisthepassageinEnglishofallold longivowelstodiphthongal aiviaei.Thepassagecouldhardlyhavebeensuddenorautomatic, butitwasrapidenoughtopreventanirregularityofdevelopmentduetocrossdrifts.Thesecond typeofchangeisillustratedinthedevelopmentofAngloSaxonlongotolonge,via,underthe influenceofafollowingi.Inthefirstcasewemaysaythataumechanicallyreplacedlongu,in thesecondthattheoldlongosplitintotwosoundslongo,eventually u,andlonge, eventually i.Theformertypeofchangedidnoviolencetotheoldphoneticpattern,theformal distributionofsoundsintogroupsthelattertyperearrangedthepatternsomewhat.Ifneitherof thetwosoundsintowhichanoldonesplitsisanewsound,itmeansthattherehasbeena phoneticleveling,thattwogroupsofwords,eachwithadistinctsoundorsoundcombination, havefallentogetherintoonegroup.Thiskindoflevelingisquitefrequentinthehistoryof language.InEnglish,forinstance,wehaveseenthatalltheoldlongvowels,aftertheyhad becomeunrounded,wereindistinguishablefromthemassoflongivowels.Thismeantthatthe longivowelbecameamoreheavilyweightedpointofthephoneticpatternthanbefore.Itis curioustoobservehowoftenlanguageshavestriventodriveoriginallydistinctsoundsinto certainfavoritepositions,regardlessofresultingconfusions.[160]InModernGreek,forinstance, thevowel iisthehistoricalresultantofnolessthantenetymologicallydistinctvowels(longand short)anddiphthongsoftheclassicalspeech ofAthens.Thereis,then,goodevidencetoshow thattherearegeneralphoneticdriftstowardparticularsounds. Moreoftenthephoneticdriftisofamoregeneralcharacter.Itisnotsomuchamovement towardaparticularsetofsoundsastowardparticulartypesofarticulation.Thevowelstendto

becomehigherorlower,thediphthongstendtocoalesceintomonophthongs,thevoiceless consonantstendtobecomevoiced,stopstendtobecomespirants.Asamatteroffact,practically allthephoneticlawsenumeratedinthetwotablesarebutspecificinstancesofsuchfarreaching phoneticdrifts.TheraisingofEnglishlongotou andoflongetoi,forinstance,waspartofa generaltendencytoraisethepositionofthelongvowels,justasthechangeof ttossinOldHigh Germanwaspartofageneraltendencytomakevoicelessspirantsoftheoldvoicelessstopped consonants.Asinglesoundchange,evenifthereisnophoneticleveling,generallythreatensto upsettheoldphoneticpatternbecauseitbringsaboutadisharmonyinthegroupingofsounds. Torestablishtheoldpattern withoutgoingbackonthedrifttheonlypossiblemethodistohave theothersoundsoftheseriesshiftinanalogousfashion.If,forsomereasonorother,p becomes shiftedtoitsvoicedcorrespondentb,theoldseriesp, t, kappearsintheunsymmetricalform b,t, k.Suchaseriesis,inphoneticeffect,nottheequivalentoftheoldseries,howeveritmayanswer toitinetymology.Thegeneralphoneticpatternisimpairedtothatextent.Butif tandkarealso shiftedtotheirvoicedcorrespondentsdandg,theoldseriesisrestablishedinanewform:b,d, g.Thepatternassuchispreserved,orrestored. Providedthat thenewseriesb,d,g doesnot becomeconfusedwithanoldseriesb,d,g ofdistincthistoricalantecedents.Ifthereisnosuch olderseries,thecreationofab,d,g seriescausesnodifficulties.Ifthereis,theoldpatterningof soundscanbekeptintactonlybyshiftingtheoldb,d,g soundsinsomeway.Theymaybecome aspiratedtobh, dh, gh orspirantizedornasalizedortheymaydevelopanyotherpeculiaritythat keepsthemintactasaseriesandservestodifferentiatethemfromotherseries.Andthissortof shiftingaboutwithoutlossofpattern,orwithaminimumlossofit,isprobablythemost importanttendencyinthehistoryofspeechsounds.Phoneticlevelingandsplittingcounteract ittosomeextentbut,onthewhole,itremainsthecentralunconsciousregulatorofthecourseand speedofsoundchanges. Thedesiretoholdontoapattern,thetendencytocorrectadisturbancebyanelaboratechain ofsupplementarychanges,oftenspreadovercenturiesorevenmillenniathesepsychic undercurrentsoflanguageareexceedinglydifficulttounderstandintermsofindividual psychology,thoughtherecanbenodenialoftheirhistoricalreality.Whatistheprimarycauseof theunsettlingofaphoneticpatternandwhatisthecumulativeforcethatselectstheseorthose particularvariationsoftheindividualonwhichtofloatthepatternreadjustmentswehardlyknow. Manylinguisticstudentshavemadethefatalerrorofthinkingofsoundchangeasaquasi physiologicalinsteadofasastrictlypsychologicalphenomenon,orthey havetriedtodisposeof theproblembybandyingsuchcatchwordsasthetendencytoincreasedeaseofarticulationor thecumulativeresultoffaultyperception(onthepartofchildren,say,inlearningtospeak). Theseeasyexplanationswillnotdo.Easeofarticulationmayenterinasafactor,butitisa rathersubjectiveconceptatbest.Indiansfindhopelesslydifficultsoundsandsound combinationsthataresimpletousonelanguageencouragesaphoneticdriftthatanotherdoes everythingtofight.Faultyperceptiondoesnotexplainthatimpressivedriftinspeechsounds whichIhaveinsistedupon.Itismuchbettertoadmitthatwedonotyetunderstandtheprimary causeorcausesoftheslowdriftinphonetics,thoughwecanfrequentlypointtocontributing factors.Itislikelythatweshallnotadvanceseriouslyuntilwestudytheintuitionalbasesof speech.Howcanweunderstandthenatureofthedriftthatfraysandreformsphoneticpatterns whenwehaveneverthoughtofstudyingsoundpatterningassuchandtheweightsandpsychic relationsofthesingleelements(theindividualsounds)inthesepatterns?

Everylinguistknowsthatphoneticchangeisfrequentlyfollowedbymorphological rearrangements,butheisapttoassumethatmorphologyexerciseslittleornoinfluenceonthe courseofphonetichistory.Iaminclinedtobelievethatourpresenttendencytoisolatephonetics andgrammarasmutuallyirrelevantlinguisticprovincesisunfortunate.Therearelikelytobe fundamental relationsbetweenthemandtheirrespectivehistoriesthatwedonotyetfullygrasp. Afterall,ifspeechsoundsexistmerelybecausetheyarethesymboliccarriersofsignificant conceptsandgroupingsofconcepts,whymaynotastrongdriftorapermanentfeatureinthe conceptualsphereexerciseafurtheringorretardinginfluenceonthephoneticdrift?Ibelievethat suchinfluencesmaybedemonstratedandthattheydeservefarmorecarefulstudythantheyhave received. Thisbringsusbacktoourunansweredquestion:HowisitthatbothEnglishandGerman developedthecuriousalternationofunmodifiedvowelinthesingular(foot,Fuss)andmodified vowelintheplural(feet,Fsse)?WasthepreAngloSaxonalternationof fotand ftian absolutelymechanicalmatter,withoutotherthanincidentalmorphologicalinterest?Itisalways sorepresented,and,indeed,alltheexternalfactssupportsuchaview.Thechangefrom oto, latere,isbynomeanspeculiartotheplural.Itisfoundalsointhedativesingular(fet),forittoo goesbacktoanolderfoti.Moreover, fet ofthepluralappliesonlytothenominativeand accusativethegenitivehasfota,thedativefotum.Onlycenturieslaterwasthealternationof o andereinterpretedasameansof distinguishingnumber owasgeneralizedforthesingular,efor theplural.Onlywhenthisreassortmentofformstookplace[161]wasthemodernsymbolicvalue ofthefoot: feetalternationclearlyestablished.Again,wemustnotforgetthatowasmodifiedto (e)inallmannerofothergrammaticalandderivativeformations.Thus,apreAngloSaxon hohan(laterhon)tohangcorrespondedtoahhith,hehith (laterhehth) hangstodom doom,blodblood,and fodfoodcorrespondedtheverbalderivativesdmian(laterdeman) todeem,bldian(laterbledan)tobleed,andfdian(later fedan)tofeed.Allthisseemsto pointtothepurelymechanicalnatureofthemodificationof oto toe.Somanyunrelated functionswereultimatelyservedbythevocalicchangethatwecannotbelievethatitwas motivatedbyanyoneofthem. TheGermanfactsareentirelyanalogous.Onlylaterinthehistoryofthelanguagewasthe vocalicalternationmadesignificantfornumber.Andyetconsiderthefollowingfacts.The changeof foti toftiantedatedthatof fti to fte, ft.Thismaybelookeduponasalucky accident,forif fotihadbecomefote, fotbeforetheihadhadthechancetoexertaretroactive influenceontheo,therewouldhavebeennodifferencebetweenthesingularandtheplural.This wouldhavebeenanomalousinAngloSaxonforamasculinenoun.Butwasthesequenceof phoneticchangesanaccident?Considertwofurtherfacts.AlltheGermaniclanguageswere familiarwithvocalicchangeaspossessedoffunctionalsignificance.Alternationslikesing,sang, sung(AngloSaxonsingan,sang,sungen)wereingrainedinthelinguisticconsciousness.Further, thetendencytowardtheweakeningoffinalsyllableswasverystrongeventhenandhadbeen manifestingitselfinonewayandanotherforcenturies.Ibelievethatthesefurtherfactshelpus tounderstandtheactualsequenceofphoneticchanges.Wemaygosofarastosaythattheo (and u)couldaffordtostaythechangeto (and)untilthedestructivedrifthadadvancedtothe pointwherefailuretomodifythevowelwouldsoonresultinmorphologicalembarrassment.Ata certainmomentthei endingoftheplural(andanalogousendingswith iinotherformations)was felttobetooweaktoquitebearitsfunctionalburden.TheunconsciousAngloSaxonmind,ifI

maybeallowedasomewhatsummarywayofputtingthecomplexfacts,wasgladofthe opportunityaffordedbycertainindividualvariations,untilthenautomaticallycanceledout,to havesomeshareoftheburdenthrownonthem.Theseparticularvariationswonthroughbecause theysobeautifullyallowedthegeneralphoneticdrifttotakeitscoursewithoutunsettlingthe morphologicalcontoursofthelanguage.Andthepresenceofsymbolicvariation(sing,sang, sung)actedasanattractingforceontheriseofanewvariationofsimilarcharacter.Allthese factorswereequallytrueoftheGerman vocalicshift.Owingtothefactthatthedestructive phoneticdriftwasproceedingataslowerrateinGermanthaninEnglish,thepreservativechange of uotoe (u to)didnotneedtosetinuntil300yearsormoreaftertheanalogousEnglish change.Nordidit.Andthisistomymindahighlysignificantfact.Phoneticchangesmay sometimesbeunconsciouslyencouragedinordertokeepintactthepsychologicalspaces betweenwordsandwordforms.Thegeneraldriftseizesuponthoseindividualsoundvariations thathelptopreservethemorphologicalbalanceortoleadtothenewbalancethatthelanguageis strivingfor. Iwouldsuggest,then,thatphoneticchangeiscompactedofatleastthreebasicstrands:(1)A generaldriftinonedirection,concerningthenatureofwhichweknowalmostnothingbutwhich maybesuspectedtobeofprevailinglydynamiccharacter(tendencies,e.g.,togreaterorless stress,greaterorlessvoicingofelements)(2)Areadjustingtendencywhichaimstopreserveor restorethefundamentalphoneticpatternofthelanguage(3)Apreservativetendencywhichsets inwhenatooseriousmorphologicalunsettlementisthreatenedbythemaindrift.Idonot imagineforamomentthatitisalwayspossibletoseparatethesestrandsorthatthispurely schematicstatementdoesjusticetothecomplexforcesthatguidethephoneticdrift.The phoneticpatternofalanguageisnotinvariable,butitchangesfarlessreadilythanthesounds thatcomposeit.Everyphoneticelementthatitpossessesmaychangeradicallyandyetthe patternremainunaffected.ItwouldbeabsurdtoclaimthatourpresentEnglishpatternis identicalwiththeoldIndoEuropeanone,yetitisimpressivetonotethatevenatthislatedaythe Englishseriesof initialconsonants: pt k bd g f th h correspondspointforpointtotheSanskritseries: b d g bhdh gh p t k Therelationbetweenphoneticpatternandindividualsoundisroughly paralleltothatwhich obtainsbetweenthemorphologictypeofalanguageandoneofitsspecificmorphological features.Bothphoneticpatternandfundamentaltypeareexceedinglyconservative,all superficialappearancestothecontrarynotwithstanding.Whichismoresowecannotsay.I suspectthattheyhangtogetherinawaythatwecannotatpresentquiteunderstand.

Ifallthephoneticchangesbroughtaboutbythephoneticdriftwereallowedtostand,itis probablethatmostlanguageswouldpresentsuchirregularitiesofmorphologicalcontourasto losetouchwiththeirformalgroundplan.Soundchangesworkmechanically.Hencetheyare likelytoaffectawholemorphologicalgroupherethisdoesnotmatter,onlypartofa morphologicalgroupthereandthismaybedisturbing.Thus,theoldAngloSaxonparadigm: Plur. fet (olderfoti) N.Ac. fot fota G. fotes D. fet (olderfoti) fotum couldnotlongstandunmodified.Theoealternationwaswelcomein sofarasitroughly distinguishedthesingularfromtheplural.Thedativesingularfet,however,thoughjustified historically,wassoonfelttobeanintrusivefeature.Theanalogyofsimplerandmore numerouslyrepresentedparadigmscreatedtheform fote(compare,e.g., fiscfish,dative singularfisce).Fetasadativebecomesobsolete.Thesingularnowhadothroughout.Butthis veryfactmadethegenitiveanddativeoformsofthepluralseemoutofplace.Thenominative andaccusativefetwasnaturallyfarmorefrequentlyinusethanwerethecorrespondingformsof thegenitiveanddative.These,intheend,couldnotbutfollowtheanalogyof fet.Atthevery beginningoftheMiddleEnglishperiod,therefore,wefindthattheoldparadigmhasyieldedtoa moreregularone: Sing. Plur. N.Ac. * fot * fet G. * fotes fete fote feten D. Thestarredformsaretheoldnucleusaroundwhichthenewparadigmisbuilt.Theunstarred formsarenotgenealogicalkinoftheirformalprototypes.Theyareanalogicalreplacements. ThehistoryoftheEnglishlanguageteemswithsuchlevelingsorextensions.Elderandeldest wereatonetimetheonlypossiblecomparativeandsuperlativeformsof old(compareGerman alt,lter, derltestethevowelfollowingtheold, alt wasoriginallyan i,whichmodifiedthe qualityofthestemvowel).ThegeneralanalogyofthevastmajorityofEnglishadjectives, however,hascausedthereplacementoftheformselderandeldestbytheformswithunmodified vowel,olderandoldest.Elderandeldestsurviveonlyassomewhatarchaictermsfortheolder andoldestbrotherorsister.Thisillustratesthetendencyforwordsthatarepsychologically disconnectedfromtheiretymologicalorformalgrouptopreservetracesofphoneticlawsthat haveotherwiseleftnorecognizabletraceortopreserveavestigeofamorphologicalprocessthat haslonglostitsvitality.Acarefulstudyofthesesurvivalsoratrophiedformsisnotwithout valueforthereconstructionoftheearlierhistoryofalanguageorforsuggestivehintsastoits remoteraffiliations. Sing.

Analogymaynotonlyrefashionformswithintheconfinesofarelatedclusterofforms(a paradigm)butmayextenditsinfluencefarbeyond.Ofanumberoffunctionallyequivalent elements,forinstance,onlyonemaysurvive,therestyieldingtoitsconstantlywidening influence.ThisiswhathappenedwiththeEnglishsplural.Originally confinedtoaparticular classofmasculines,thoughanimportantclass,thespluralwasgraduallygeneralizedforall nounsbutamerehandfulthatstillillustratepluraltypesnowallbutextinct(foot:feet, goose:geese,tooth:teeth, mouse:mice,louse:lice ox:oxen child:children sheep:sheep, deer:deer).Thusanalogynotonlyregularizesirregularitiesthathavecomeinthewakeof phoneticprocessesbutintroducesdisturbances,generallyinfavorofgreatersimplicityor regularity,inalongestablishedsystemofforms.Theseanalogicaladjustmentsarepractically alwayssymptomsofthegeneralmorphologicaldriftofthelanguage. Amorphologicalfeaturethatappearsastheincidentalconsequenceofaphoneticprocess,like theEnglishpluralwithmodifiedvowel,mayspreadbyanalogynolessreadilythanoldfeatures thatowetheirorigintootherthanphoneticcauses.OncetheevowelofMiddleEnglish fethad becomeconfinedtotheplural,therewasnotheoreticalreasonwhyalternationsofthetype fot: fetandmus:mismightnothavebecomeestablishedasaproductivetypeofnumber distinctioninthenoun.Asamatteroffact,itdidnotsobecomeestablished.Thefot: fet typeof pluralsecuredbutamomentaryfoothold.Itwassweptintobeingbyoneofthesurfacedriftsof thelanguage,tobesweptasideintheMiddleEnglishperiodbythemorepowerfuldrifttoward theuseofsimpledistinctiveforms.Itwastoolateinthedayforourlanguagetobeseriously interestedinsuchprettysymbolismsasfoot: feet.Whatexamplesofthetypearoselegitimately, inotherwordsviapurelyphoneticprocesses,weretoleratedforatime,butthetypeassuch neverhadaseriousfuture. ItwasdifferentinGerman.Thewholeseriesofphoneticchangescomprisedundertheterm umlaut,ofwhich u:andau:oi(written u)arebutspecificexamples,strucktheGerman languageatatimewhenthegeneraldrifttomorphologicalsimplificationwasnotsostrongbut thattheresultingformaltypes(e.g., Fuss:Fsse fallentofall:fllentofell Hornhorn: Gehrnegroupofhorns Haushouse:Husleinlittlehouse)couldkeepthemselvesintact andevenextendtoformsthatdidnotlegitimatelycomewithintheirsphereofinfluence. UmlautisstillaverylivesymbolicprocessinGerman,possiblymorealivetodaythanin medievaltimes.SuchanalogicalpluralsasBaumtree: Bume (contrastMiddleHighGerman boum:boume)andderivativesaslachentolaugh:Gelchterlaughter(contrastMiddleHigh German gelach)showthatvocalicmutationhaswonthroughtothestatusofaproductive morphologicprocess.SomeofthedialectshaveevengonefurtherthanstandardGerman,atleast incertainrespects.InYiddish,[162]forinstance,umlautpluralshavebeenformedwherethere arenoMiddleHighGermanprototypesormodernliteraryparallels,e.g., togday:tegdays (butGerman Tag:Tage)ontheanalogyof gastguest:gestguests(German Gast:Gste), shuch[163]shoe:shichshoes(butGerman Schuh:Schuhe)ontheanalogyof fusfoot: fis feet.Itispossiblethatumlautwillrunitscourseandceasetooperateasalivefunctional processinGerman,butthattimeisstilldistant.Meanwhileallconsciousnessofthemerely phoneticnatureofumlautvanishedcenturiesago.Itisnowastrictlymorphologicalprocess, notintheleastamechanicalphoneticadjustment.Wehaveinitasplendidexampleofhowa simplephoneticlaw,meaninglessinitself,mayeventuallycolorortransformlargereachesof the morphologyofalanguage.

IX
HowLanguagesInfluenceEachOther
Languages,likecultures,arerarelysufficientuntothemselves.Thenecessitiesofintercourse bringthespeakersofonelanguageintodirectorindirectcontactwiththoseofneighboringor culturallydominantlanguages.Theintercoursemaybefriendlyorhostile.Itmaymoveonthe humdrumplaneofbusinessandtraderelationsoritmayconsistofaborrowingorinterchangeof spiritual goodsart,science,religion.Itwouldbedifficulttopointtoacompletelyisolated languageordialect,leastofallamongtheprimitivepeoples.Thetribeisoftensosmallthat intermarriageswithalientribesthatspeakotherdialectsoreventotallyunrelatedlanguagesare notuncommon.Itmayevenbedoubtedwhetherintermarriage,intertribaltrade,andgeneral culturalinterchangesarenotofgreaterrelativesignificanceonprimitivelevelsthanonourown. Whateverthedegreeornatureofcontactbetweenneighboringpeoples,itisgenerallysufficient toleadtosomekindoflinguisticinterinfluencing.Frequentlytheinfluencerunsheavilyinone direction.Thelanguageofapeoplethatislookeduponasacenterofcultureisnaturallyfar morelikelytoexertanappreciableinfluenceonotherlanguagesspokeninitsvicinitythantobe influencedbythem.ChinesehasfloodedthevocabulariesofCorean,Japanese,andAnnamitefor centuries,buthasreceivednothinginreturn.InthewesternEuropeofmedievalandmodern timesFrenchhasexercisedasimilar,though probablyalessoverwhelming,influence.English borrowedanimmensenumberofwordsfromtheFrenchoftheNormaninvaders,lateralsofrom thecourtFrenchofIsledeFrance,appropriatedacertainnumberofaffixedelementsof derivationalvalue(e.g., essof princess,ard of drunkard,ty of royalty),mayhavebeen somewhatstimulatedinitsgeneralanalyticdriftbycontactwithFrench,[164]andevenallowed Frenchtomodifyitsphoneticpatternslightly(e.g.,initial vandjinwordslikevealandjudgein wordsofAngloSaxonoriginvandjcanonlyoccuraftervowels,e.g., over,hedge).ButEnglish hasexertedpracticallynoinfluenceonFrench. Thesimplestkindofinfluencethatonelanguagemayexertonanotheristheborrowingof words.Whenthereisculturalborrowingthereisalwaysthelikelihoodthattheassociatedwords maybeborrowedtoo.WhentheearlyGermanicpeoplesofnorthernEuropefirstlearnedof winecultureandofpavedstreetsfromtheircommercialorwarlikecontactwiththeRomans,it wasonlynaturalthattheyshouldadopttheLatinwordsforthestrangebeverage(vinum,English wine,GermanWein)andtheunfamiliartypeofroad(strata[via],English street,German Strasse).Later,whenChristianitywasintroducedintoEngland,anumberofassociatedwords, suchasbishopandangel,foundtheirwayintoEnglish.Andsotheprocesshascontinued uninterruptedlydowntothepresentday,eachculturalwavebringingtothelanguageanew depositofloanwords.Thecarefulstudyofsuchloanwordsconstitutesaninteresting commentaryonthehistoryofculture.Onecanalmostestimatetherlewhichvariouspeoples haveplayedinthedevelopmentandspreadofculturalideasbytakingnoteoftheextenttowhich theirvocabularieshavefilteredintothoseofotherpeoples.Whenwerealizethataneducated JapanesecanhardlyframeasingleliterarysentencewithouttheuseofChineseresources,thatto thisdaySiameseandBurmeseandCambodgianbeartheunmistakableimprintoftheSanskrit andPalithatcameinwithHinduBuddhismcenturiesago,orthatwhetherwearguefor or againsttheteachingofLatinandGreekourargumentissuretobestuddedwithwordsthathave

cometousfromRomeandAthens,wegetsomeinklingofwhatearlyChinesecultureand BuddhismandclassicalMediterraneancivilizationhavemeantintheworldshistory.Thereare justfivelanguagesthathavehadanoverwhelmingsignificanceascarriersofculture.Theyare classicalChinese,Sanskrit,Arabic,Greek,andLatin.Incomparisonwiththeseevensuch culturallyimportantlanguagesasHebrewandFrenchsinkintoasecondaryposition.Itisalittle disappointingtolearnthatthegeneralculturalinfluenceofEnglishhassofarbeenallbut negligible.TheEnglishlanguageitselfisspreadingbecausetheEnglishhavecolonizedimmense territories.Butthereisnothingtoshowthatitisanywhereenteringintothelexicalheartofother languagesasFrenchhascoloredtheEnglishcomplexionorasArabichaspermeatedPersianand Turkish.Thisfactaloneissignificantofthepowerofnationalism,culturalaswellaspolitical, duringthelastcentury.Therearenowpsychologicalresistancestoborrowing,orrathertonew sourcesofborrowing,[165] thatwerenotgreatlyaliveintheMiddleAgesorduringthe Renaissance. Arethereresistancesofamoreintimatenaturetotheborrowingofwords?Itisgenerally assumedthatthenatureandextentofborrowingdependentirelyonthehistoricalfactsofculture relation thatifGerman,forinstance,hasborrowedlesscopiouslythanEnglishfromLatinand FrenchitisonlybecauseGermanyhashadlessintimaterelationsthanEnglandwiththeculture spheresofclassicalRomeandFrance.Thisistruetoaconsiderableextent,butitisnotthewhole truth.WemustnotexaggeratethephysicalimportanceoftheNormaninvasionnorunderratethe significanceofthefactthatGermanyscentralgeographicalpositionmadeitpeculiarlysensitive toFrenchinfluencesallthroughtheMiddleAges,tohumanisticinfluencesinthelatterfifteenth andearlysixteenthcenturies,andagaintothepowerfulFrenchinfluencesoftheseventeenthand eighteenthcenturies.Itseemsveryprobablethatthepsychologicalattitudeoftheborrowing languageitselftowardslinguisticmaterialhasmuchtodowithitsreceptivitytoforeignwords. Englishhaslongbeenstrivingforthecompletelyunified,unanalyzedword,regardlessof whetheritismonosyllabicorpolysyllabic.Suchwordsascredible,certitude, intangible are entirelywelcomeinEnglishbecauseeachrepresentsaunitary,wellnuancedideaandbecause theirformalanalysis(credible,certitude,intangible)isnotanecessaryactoftheunconscious mind(cred,cert,andtang havenorealexistenceinEnglishcomparabletothatof goodin goodness).Awordlikeintangible,onceitisacclimated,isnearlyassimpleapsychological entityasanyradicalmonosyllable(say vague,thin,grasp).InGerman,however,polysyllabic wordsstrivetoanalyzethemselvesintosignificantelements.HencevastnumbersofFrenchand Latinwords,borrowedattheheightofcertaincultural influences,couldnotmaintainthemselves inthelanguage.LatinGermanwordslikekredibelcredibleandFrenchGermanwordslike reussierentosucceedofferednothingthattheunconsciousmindcouldassimilatetoits customarymethodoffeelingandhandlingwords.Itisasthoughthisunconsciousmindsaid:I amperfectlywillingtoacceptkredibelifyouwilljusttellmewhatyoumeanby kred.Hence Germanhasgenerallyfounditeasiertocreatenewwordsoutofitsownresources,asthe necessityforthemarose. ThepsychologicalcontrastbetweenEnglishandGermanasregardsthetreatmentofforeign materialisacontrastthatmaybestudiedinallpartsoftheworld.TheAthabaskanlanguagesof Americaarespokenbypeoplesthathavehadastonishinglyvariedculturalcontacts,yetnowhere dowefindthatanAthabaskandialecthasborrowedatallfreely[166]fromaneighboring language.Theselanguageshavealwaysfounditeasiertocreatenewwordsbycompounding

afreshelementsreadytohand.Theyhaveforthisreasonbeenhighlyresistanttoreceivingthe linguisticimpressoftheexternalculturalexperiencesoftheirspeakers.CambodgianandTibetan offerahighlyinstructivecontrastintheirreactiontoSanskritinfluence.Bothareanalytic languages,eachtotallydifferentfromthehighlywrought,inflectivelanguageofIndia. Cambodgianisisolating,but,unlikeChinese,itcontainsmanypolysyllabicwordswhose etymologicalanalysisdoesnotmatter.LikeEnglish,therefore,initsrelationtoFrenchandLatin, itwelcomedimmensenumbersofSanskritloanwords,manyofwhichareincommonusetoday. Therewasnopsychologicalresistancetothem.ClassicalTibetanliteraturewasaslavish adaptationofHinduBuddhistliteratureandnowherehasBuddhismimplanteditselfmorefirmly thaninTibet,yetitisstrangehowfewSanskritwordshavefoundtheirwayintothelanguage. TibetanwashighlyresistanttothepolysyllabicwordsofSanskritbecausetheycouldnot automaticallyfallintosignificantsyllables,astheyshouldhaveinordertosatisfytheTibetan feelingforform.TibetanwasthereforedriventotranslatingthegreatmajorityoftheseSanskrit wordsintonativeequivalents.TheTibetancravingforformwassatisfied,thoughtheliterally translatedforeigntermsmustoftenhavedoneviolencetogenuineTibetanidiom.Eventhe propernamesoftheSanskritoriginalswerecarefullytranslated,elementforelement,into Tibetane.g., SuryagarbhaSunbosomedwascarefullyTibetanizedintoNyimaisnyingpo Sunofheartthe,theheart(oressence)ofthesun.Thestudyofhowalanguagereactstothe presenceofforeignwordsrejectingthem,translatingthem,orfreelyacceptingthemmay throwmuchvaluablelightonitsinnateformaltendencies. Theborrowingofforeignwordsalwaysentailstheirphoneticmodification.Therearesuretobe foreignsoundsoraccentualpeculiaritiesthatdonotfitthenativephonetichabits.Theyarethen sochangedastodoaslittleviolenceaspossibletothesehabits.Frequentlywehavephonetic compromises.SuchanEnglishwordastherecentlyintroducedcamouflage,asnowordinarily pronounced,correspondstothetypicalphoneticusageofneitherEnglishnorFrench.The aspiratedk,theobscurevowelofthesecondsyllable,theprecisequalityofthelandofthelasta, and,aboveall,thestrongaccentonthefirstsyllable,arealltheresultsofunconscious assimilationtoourEnglishhabitsofpronunciation.Theydifferentiateour camouflageclearly fromthesamewordaspronouncedbytheFrench.Ontheotherhand,thelong,heavyvowelin thethirdsyllableandthefinalpositionofthezhsound(likezin azure)aredistinctlyun English,justas,inMiddleEnglish,theinitial jandv[167] musthavebeenfeltatfirstasnot strictlyinaccordwithEnglishusage,thoughthestrangenesshaswornoffbynow.Inallfourof thesecasesinitial j,initial v,finalzh,andunaccenteda of fatherEnglishhasnottakenona newsoundbuthasmerelyextendedtheuseofanoldone. Occasionallyanewsoundisintroduced,butitislikelytomeltawaybeforelong.InChaucers daytheoldAngloSaxon (written y)hadlongbecomeunroundedtoi,butanewsetof vowelshadcomeinfromtheFrench(insuchwordsasdue,value,nature).Thenewdidnot longholditsownitbecamediphthongizedtoiuandwasamalgamatedwiththenativeiw of wordslikenew andslew.Eventuallythisdiphthongappearsasyu,withchangeofstressdew (fromAngloSaxon deaw)likedue(Chaucerian d).Factsliketheseshowhowstubbornlya languageresistsradicaltamperingwithitsphoneticpattern. Nevertheless,weknowthatlanguagesdoinfluenceeachotherinphoneticrespects,andthat quiteasidefromthetakingoverofforeignsoundswithborrowedwords.Oneofthemostcurious

factsthatlinguisticshastonoteistheoccurrenceofstrikingphoneticparallelsintotally unrelated orveryremotelyrelatedlanguagesofarestrictedgeographicalarea.Theseparallels becomeespeciallyimpressivewhentheyareseencontrastivelyfromawidephoneticperspective. Hereareafewexamples.TheGermaniclanguagesasawholehavenotdevelopednasalized vowels.CertainUpperGerman(Suabian)dialects,however,havenownasalizedvowelsinlieu oftheoldervowel +nasalconsonant(n).Isitonlyaccidentalthatthesedialectsarespokenin proximitytoFrench,whichmakesabundantuseofnasalizedvowels?Again,therearecertain generalphoneticfeaturesthatmarkoffDutchandFlemishincontrast,say,toNorthGermanand Scandinaviandialects.Oneoftheseisthepresenceofunaspiratedvoicelessstops(p, t, k),which haveaprecise,metallicqualityreminiscentofthecorrespondingFrenchsounds,butwhich contrastwiththestronger,aspiratedstopsofEnglish,NorthGerman,andDanish.Evenifwe assumethattheunaspiratedstopsaremorearchaic,thattheyaretheunmodifieddescendantsof theoldGermanicconsonants,isitnotperhapsasignificanthistoricalfactthattheDutchdialects, neighborsofFrench,wereinhibitedfrommodifyingtheseconsonantsinaccordancewithwhat seemstohavebeenageneralGermanicphoneticdrift?Evenmorestrikingthantheseinstancesis thepeculiarresemblance,incertainspecialphoneticrespects,ofRussianandotherSlavic languagestotheunrelatedUralAltaiclanguages[168] oftheVolgaregion.Thepeculiar,dull vowel,forinstance,knowninRussianasyeri[169]hasUralAltaicanalogues,butisentirely wantinginGermanic,Greek,Armenian,andIndoIranian,thenearestIndoEuropeancongeners ofSlavic.WemayatleastsuspectthattheSlavicvowelisnothistoricallyunconnectedwithits UralAltaicparallels.Oneofthemostpuzzlingcasesofphoneticparallelismisaffordedbya largenumberofAmericanIndianlanguagesspokenwestoftheRockies.Evenatthemostradical estimatethereareatleastfourtotallyunrelatedlinguisticstocksrepresentedintheregionfrom southernAlaskatocentralCalifornia.Neverthelessall,orpracticallyall,thelanguagesofthis immenseareahavesomeimportantphoneticfeaturesincommon.Chiefoftheseisthepresence ofaglottalizedseriesofstoppedconsonantsofverydistinctiveformationandofquiteunusual acousticeffect.[170] Inthenorthernpartoftheareaallthelanguages,whetherrelatedornot, alsopossessvariousvoicelesslsoundsandaseriesofvelar(backguttural)stopped consonantswhichareetymologicallydistinctfromtheordinary kseries.Itisdifficulttobelieve thatthreesuchpeculiarphoneticfeaturesasIhavementionedcouldhaveevolvedindependently inneighboringgroupsoflanguages. Howarewetoexplaintheseandhundredsofsimilarphoneticconvergences?Inparticularcases wemayreallybedealingwitharchaicsimilaritiesduetoageneticrelationshipthatitisbeyond ourpresentpowertodemonstrate.Butthisinterpretationwillnotgetusfar.Itmustberuled entirelyoutofcourt,forinstance,intwoofthethreeEuropeanexamplesIhaveinstancedboth nasalizedvowelsandtheSlavicyeriaredemonstrablyofsecondaryorigininIndoEuropean. Howeverweenvisagetheprocessindetail,wecannotavoidtheinferencethatthereisa tendencyforspeechsoundsorcertaindistinctivemannersofarticulationtospreadovera continuousareainsomewhatthesamewaythatelementsofculturerayoutfromageographical center.Wemaysupposethatindividualvariationsarisingatlinguisticborderlandswhetherby theunconscioussuggestiveinfluenceofforeignspeechhabitsorbytheactualtransferofforeign soundsintothespeechofbilingualindividualshavegraduallybeenincorporatedintothe phoneticdriftofalanguage.Solongasitsmainphoneticconcernisthepreservationofitssound patterning,notofitssoundsassuch,thereisreallynoreasonwhyalanguagemaynot unconsciouslyassimilateforeignsoundsthathavesucceededinwormingtheirwayintoits

gamutofindividualvariations,providedalwaysthatthesenewvariations(orreinforcedold variations)areinthedirectionofthenativedrift. Asimpleillustrationwillthrowlightonthisconception.Letussupposethattwoneighboringand unrelatedlanguages,AandB,eachpossessvoicelesslsounds(compareWelsh ll).Wesurmise thatthisisnotanaccident.PerhapscomparativestudyrevealsthefactthatinlanguageAthe voicelesslsoundscorrespondtoasibilantseriesinotherrelatedlanguages,thatanold alternation s:shhasbeenshiftedtothenewalternation l(voiceless):s.[171] Doesitfollowthat thevoicelessloflanguageBhashadthesamehistory?Notintheleast.PerhapsBhasastrong tendencytowardaudiblebreathreleaseattheendofaword,sothatthefinal l,likeafinalvowel, wasoriginallyfollowedbyamarkedaspiration.Individualsperhapstendedtoanticipatealittle thevoicelessreleaseandtounvoicethelatterpartofthefinal lsound(verymuchasthel of Englishwordslikefelt tendstobepartlyvoicelessinanticipationofthevoicelessnessofthet). Yetthisfinal lwithitslatenttendencytounvoicingmightneverhaveactuallydevelopedintoa fullyvoicelesslhadnotthepresenceofvoicelesslsoundsinAactedasanunconsciousstimulus orsuggestivepushtowardamoreradicalchangeinthelineofBsowndrift.Oncethefinal voicelesslemerged,itsalternationinrelatedwordswithmedialvoicedlisverylikelytohave ledtoitsanalogicalspread.TheresultwouldbethatbothAandBhaveanimportantphonetic traitincommon.Eventuallytheirphoneticsystems,judgedasmereassemblagesofsounds, mightevenbecomecompletelyassimilatedtoeachother,thoughthisisanextremecasehardly everrealizedinpractice.Thehighlysignificantthingaboutsuchphoneticinterinfluencingsisthe strongtendencyofeachlanguagetokeepitsphoneticpatternintact.Solongastherespective alignmentsofthesimilarsoundsisdifferent,solongastheyhavedifferingvaluesand weightsintheunrelatedlanguages,theselanguagescannotbesaidtohavedivergedmaterially fromthelineoftheirinherentdrift.Inphonetics,asinvocabulary,wemustbecarefulnotto exaggeratetheimportanceofinterlinguisticinfluences. IhavealreadypointedoutinpassingthatEnglishhastakenoveracertainnumberof morphologicalelementsfromFrench.Englishalsousesanumberofaffixesthatarederivedfrom LatinandGreek.Someoftheseforeignelements,liketheizeof materializeortheable of breakable,areevenproductivetoday.Suchexamplesasthesearehardlytrueevidencesofa morphologicalinfluenceexertedbyonelanguageonanother.Settingasidethefactthatthey belongtothesphereofderivationalconceptsanddonottouchthecentralmorphologicalproblem oftheexpressionofrelationalideas,theyhaveaddednothingtothestructuralpeculiaritiesofour language.Englishwasalreadypreparedfortherelationof pitytopiteousbysuchanativepairas luckandlucky materialandmaterializemerely swelledtheranksofaformpatternfamiliarfrom suchinstancesaswideandwiden.Inotherwords,themorphologicalinfluenceexertedbyforeign languagesonEnglish,ifitistobegaugedbysuchexamplesasIhavecited,ishardlydifferentin kindfromthemereborrowingofwords.Theintroductionofthesuffix izemadehardlymore differencetotheessentialbuildofthelanguagethandidthemerefactthatitincorporatedagiven numberofwords.HadEnglishevolvedanewfutureonthemodelofthesyntheticfuturein FrenchorhaditborrowedfromLatinandGreektheiremploymentofreduplicationasa functionaldevice(Latin tango:tetigiGreekleipo: leloipa),weshouldhavetherighttospeakof truemorphologicalinfluence.Butsuchfarreachinginfluencesarenotdemonstrable.Withinthe wholecourseofthehistoryoftheEnglishlanguagewecanhardlypointtooneimportant

morphologicalchangethatwasnotdeterminedbythenativedrift,thoughhereandtherewemay surmisethatthisdriftwashastenedalittlebythesuggestiveinfluenceofFrenchforms.[172] Itisimportanttorealizethecontinuous,selfcontainedmorphologicaldevelopmentofEnglish andtheverymodestextenttowhichitsfundamentalbuildhasbeenaffectedbyinfluencesfrom without.ThehistoryoftheEnglishlanguagehassometimesbeenrepresentedasthoughit relapsedintoakindofchaosonthearrivaloftheNormans,whoproceededtoplayninepins withtheAngloSaxontradition.Studentsaremoreconservativetoday.Thatafarreaching analyticdevelopmentmaytakeplacewithoutsuchexternalforeigninfluenceasEnglishwas subjectedtoisclearfromthehistoryofDanish,whichhasgoneevenfurtherthanEnglishin certainlevelingtendencies.Englishmaybeconvenientlyusedasan afortiori test.Itwasflooded withFrenchloanwordsduringthelaterMiddleAges,atatimewhenitsdrifttowardtheanalytic typewasespeciallystrong.Itwasthereforechangingrapidlybothwithinandonthesurface.The wonder,then,isnotthatittookonanumberofexternalmorphologicalfeatures,mereaccretions onitsconcreteinventory,butthat,exposedasitwastoremoldinginfluences,itremainedsotrue toitsowntypeandhistoricdrift.TheexperiencegainedfromthestudyoftheEnglishlanguage isstrengthenedbyallthatweknowofdocumentedlinguistichistory.Nowheredowefindany butsuperficialmorphologicalinterinfluencings.Wemayinferoneofseveralthingsfromthis: Thatareallyseriousmorphologicalinfluenceisnot,perhaps,impossible,butthatitsoperationis soslowthatithashardlyeverhadthechancetoincorporateitselfintherelativelysmallportion oflinguistichistorythatliesopentoinspectionorthattherearecertainfavorableconditionsthat makeforprofoundmorphologicaldisturbancesfromwithout,sayapeculiarinstabilityof linguistictypeoranunusualdegreeofculturalcontact,conditionsthatdonothappentobe realizedinourdocumentarymaterialor,finally,thatwehavenottherighttoassumethata languagemayeasilyexertaremoldingmorphologicalinfluenceonanother. Meanwhileweareconfrontedbythebafflingfactthatimportanttraitsofmorphologyare frequentlyfounddistributedamongwidelydifferinglanguageswithinalargearea,sowidely differing,indeed,thatitiscustomarytoconsiderthemgeneticallyunrelated.Sometimeswemay suspectthattheresemblanceisduetoamereconvergence,thatasimilarmorphologicalfeature hasgrownupindependentlyinunrelatedlanguages.Yetcertainmorphologicaldistributionsare toospecificincharactertobesolightlydismissed.Theremustbesomehistoricalfactorto accountforthem.Nowitshouldberememberedthattheconceptofalinguisticstockisnever definitive[173]inanexclusivesense.Wecanonlysay,withreasonablecertainty,thatsuchand suchlanguagesaredescendedfromacommonsource,butwecannotsaythatsuchandsuch otherlanguagesarenotgeneticallyrelated.Allwecandoistosaythattheevidencefor relationshipisnotcumulativeenoughtomaketheinferenceofcommonoriginabsolutely necessary.Mayitnotbe,then,thatmanyinstancesofmorphologicalsimilaritybetween divergentlanguagesofarestrictedareaaremerelythelastvestigesofacommunityoftypeand phoneticsubstancethatthedestructiveworkofdivergingdriftshasnowmadeunrecognizable? ThereisprobablystillenoughlexicalandmorphologicalresemblancebetweenmodernEnglish andIrishtoenableustomakeoutafairlyconclusivecasefortheirgeneticrelationshiponthe basisofthepresentdaydescriptiveevidencealone.Itistruethatthecasewouldseemweakin comparisontothecasethatwecanactuallymakewiththehelpofthehistoricalandthe comparativedatathatwepossess.Itwouldnotbeabadcasenevertheless.Inanothertwoor threemillennia,however,thepointsofresemblancearelikelytohavebecomesoobliteratedthat

EnglishandIrish,intheabsenceofallbuttheirowndescriptiveevidence,willhavetobeset downasunrelatedlanguages.They willstillhaveincommoncertainfundamental morphologicalfeatures,butitwillbedifficulttoknowhowtoevaluatethem.Onlyinthelightof thecontrastiveperspectiveaffordedbystillmoredivergentlanguages,suchasBasqueand Finnish,willthesevestigialresemblancesreceivetheirtruehistoricvalue. Icannotbutsuspectthatmanyofthemoresignificantdistributionsofmorphologicalsimilarities aretobeexplainedasjustsuchvestiges.Thetheoryofborrowingseemstotallyinadequateto explainthosefundamentalfeaturesofstructure,hiddenawayintheverycoreofthelinguistic complex,thathavebeenpointedoutascommon,say,toSemiticandHamitic,tothevarious Soudaneselanguages,toMalayoPolynesianandMonKhmer[174]andMunda,[175] to AthabaskanandTlingitandHaida.Wemustnotallowourselvestobefrightenedawaybythe timidityofthespecialists,whoareoftennotablylackinginthesenseofwhatIhavecalled contrastiveperspective. Attemptshavesometimesbeenmadetoexplainthedistributionofthesefundamentalstructural featuresbythetheoryofdiffusion.Weknowthatmyths,religiousideas,typesofsocial organization,industrialdevices,andotherfeaturesofculturemayspreadfrompointtopoint, graduallymakingthemselvesathomeinculturestowhichtheywereatonetimealien.Wealso knowthatwordsmaybediffusednolessfreelythanculturalelements,thatsoundsalsomaybe borrowed,andthatevenmorphologicalelementsmaybetakenover.Wemaygofurtherand recognizethatcertainlanguageshave,inallprobability,takenonstructuralfeaturesowingtothe suggestiveinfluenceofneighboringlanguages.Anexaminationofsuchcases,[176]however, almostinvariablyrevealsthesignificantfactthattheyarebutsuperficialadditionsonthe morphologicalkernelofthelanguage.Solongassuchdirecthistoricaltestimonyaswehave givesusnoreallyconvincingexamplesofprofoundmorphologicalinfluencebydiffusion,we shalldowellnottoputtoomuchrelianceindiffusiontheories.Onthewhole,therefore,weshall ascribethemajorconcordancesanddivergencesinlinguisticformphoneticpatternand morphologytotheautonomousdriftoflanguage,nottothecomplicatingeffectofsingle, diffusedfeaturesthatclusternowthisway,nowthat.Languageisprobablythemostself contained,themostmassivelyresistantofallsocialphenomena.Itiseasiertokillitoffthanto disintegrateitsindividualform.

X
Language,RaceandCulture
Languagehasasetting.Thepeoplethatspeakitbelongtoarace(oranumberofraces),thatis, toagroupwhichissetoffbyphysicalcharacteristicsfromothergroups.Again,languagedoes notexistapartfromculture,thatis,fromthesociallyinheritedassemblageofpracticesand beliefsthatdeterminesthetextureofourlives.Anthropologistshavebeeninthehabitof studyingmanunderthethreerubricsofrace,language,andculture.Oneofthefirstthingsthey dowithanaturalarealikeAfricaortheSouthSeasistomapitoutfromthisthreefoldpointof view.Thesemapsanswerthequestions:Whatandwherearethemajordivisionsofthehuman animal,biologicallyconsidered(e.g.,CongoNegro,EgyptianWhiteAustralianBlack,

Polynesian)?Whatarethemostinclusivelinguisticgroupings,thelinguisticstocks,andwhat isthedistributionof each(e.g.,theHamiticlanguagesofnorthernAfrica,theBantulanguagesof thesouththeMalayoPolynesianlanguagesofIndonesia,Melanesia,Micronesia,andPolynesia)? Howdothepeoplesofthegivenareadividethemselvesasculturalbeings?whatare the outstandingculturalareasandwhatarethedominantideasineach(e.g.,theMohammedan northofAfricatheprimitivehunting,nonagriculturalcultureoftheBushmeninthesouththe cultureoftheAustraliannatives,poorinphysicalrespectsbutrichly developedinceremonialism themoreadvancedandhighlyspecializedcultureofPolynesia)? Themaninthestreetdoesnotstoptoanalyzehispositioninthegeneralschemeofhumanity.He feelsthatheistherepresentativeofsomestronglyintegratedportionofhumanitynowthought ofasanationality,nowasaraceandthateverythingthatpertainstohimasatypical representativeofthislargegroupsomehowbelongstogether.IfheisanEnglishman,hefeels himselftobeamemberoftheAngloSaxonrace,thegeniusofwhichracehasfashionedthe EnglishlanguageandtheAngloSaxoncultureofwhichthelanguageistheexpression. Scienceiscolder.Itinquiresifthesethreetypesofclassificationracial,linguistic,and culturalarecongruent,iftheirassociationisaninherentlynecessaryoneorismerelyamatter ofexternalhistory.Theanswertotheinquiryisnotencouragingtoracesentimentalists. Historiansandanthropologistsfindthatraces,languages,andculturesarenotdistributedin parallelfashion,thattheirareasofdistributionintercrossinthemostbewilderingfashion,and thatthehistoryofeachisapttofollowadistinctivecourse.Racesintermingleinawaythat languagesdonot.Ontheotherhand,languagesmayspreadfarbeyondtheiroriginalhome, invadingtheterritoryofnewracesandofnewculturespheres.Alanguagemayevendieoutin itsprimaryareaandliveonamongpeoplesviolentlyhostiletothepersonsofitsoriginal speakers.Further,theaccidentsofhistoryareconstantlyrearrangingthebordersofcultureareas withoutnecessarilyeffacingtheexistinglinguisticcleavages.Ifwecanoncethoroughly convinceourselvesthatrace,initsonlyintelligible,thatisbiological,sense,issupremely indifferenttothehistoryoflanguagesandcultures,thatthesearenomoredirectlyexplainableon thescoreofracethanonthatofthelawsofphysicsandchemistry,weshallhavegaineda viewpointthatallowsacertaininteresttosuchmysticslogansasSlavophilism,AngloSaxondom, Teutonism,andtheLatingeniusbutthatquiterefusestobetakeninbyanyofthem.Acareful studyoflinguisticdistributionsandofthehistoryofsuchdistributionsisoneofthedriestof commentariesonthesesentimentalcreeds. Thatagroupoflanguagesneednotintheleastcorrespondtoaracialgrouporacultureareais easilydemonstrated.Wemayevenshowhowasinglelanguageintercrosseswithraceand culturelines.TheEnglishlanguageisnotspokenbyaunifiedrace.IntheUnitedStatesthereare severalmillionsofnegroeswhoknownootherlanguage.Itistheirmothertongue,theformal vestureoftheirinmostthoughtsandsentiments.Itisasmuchtheirproperty,asinalienably theirs,astheKingofEnglands.NordotheEnglishspeakingwhitesofAmericaconstitutea definiteraceexceptbywayofcontrasttothenegroes.Ofthethreefundamentalwhiteracesin EuropegenerallyrecognizedbyphysicalanthropologiststheBalticorNorth European,the Alpine,andtheMediterraneaneachhasnumerousEnglishspeakingrepresentativesinAmerica. ButdoesnotthehistoricalcoreofEnglishspeakingpeoples,thoserelativelyunmixed populationsthatstillresideinEnglandanditscolonies,representarace,pureandsingle?I cannotseethattheevidencepointsthatway.TheEnglishpeopleareanamalgamofmany

distinctstrains.BesidestheoldAngloSaxon,inotherwordsNorthGerman,elementwhichis conventionallyrepresentedasthebasicstrain,theEnglishbloodcomprisesNormanFrench,[177] Scandinavian,Celtic,[178]andpreCelticelements.IfbyEnglishwemeanalsoScotchand Irish,[179] thenthetermCelticislooselyusedforatleasttwoquitedistinctracialelements theshort,darkcomplexionedtypeofWalesandthetaller,lighter,oftenruddyhairedtypeofthe HighlandsandpartsofIreland.EvenifweconfineourselvestotheSaxonelement,which, needlesstosay,nowhereappearspure,wearenotattheendofourtroubles.Wemayroughly identifythisstrainwiththeracialtypenowpredominantinsouthernDenmarkandadjoining partsofnorthernGermany.Ifso,wemustcontentourselveswiththereflectionthatwhilethe EnglishlanguageishistoricallymostcloselyaffiliatedwithFrisian,inseconddegreewiththe otherWestGermanicdialects(LowSaxonorPlattdeutsch,Dutch,HighGerman),onlyinthird degreewithScandinavian,thespecificSaxonracialtypethatoverranEnglandinthefifthand sixthcenturieswaslargelythesameasthatnowrepresentedbytheDanes,whospeaka Scandinavianlanguage,whiletheHighGermanspeakingpopulationofcentralandsouthern Germany[180]ismarkedlydistinct. ButwhatifweignorethesefinerdistinctionsandsimplyassumethattheTeutonicorBalticor NorthEuropeanracialtypecoincidedinitsdistributionwiththatoftheGermaniclanguages? Arewenotonsafegroundthen?No,wearenowinhotterwaterthanever.Firstofall,themass oftheGermanspeakingpopulation(centralandsouthernGermany,GermanSwitzerland, GermanAustria)donotbelongtothetall,blondhaired,longheaded[181]Teutonicraceatall, buttotheshorter,darkercomplexioned,shortheaded[182]Alpinerace,ofwhichthecentral populationofFrance,theFrenchSwiss,andmanyofthewesternandnorthernSlavs(e.g., BohemiansandPoles)areequallygoodrepresentatives.ThedistributionoftheseAlpine populationscorrespondsinparttothatoftheoldcontinentalCelts,whoselanguagehas everywheregivenwaytoItalic,Germanic,andSlavicpressure.Weshalldowelltoavoid speakingofaCelticrace,butifweweredriventogivethetermacontent,itwouldprobably bemoreappropriatetoapplyitto,roughly,thewesternportionoftheAlpinepeoplesthantothe twoislandtypesthatIreferredtobefore.TheselatterwerecertainlyCelticized,inspeechand, partly,inblood,preciselyas,centurieslater,mostofEnglandandpartofScotlandwas TeutonizedbytheAnglesandSaxons.Linguisticallyspeaking,theCeltsoftoday(Irish Gaelic,Manx,ScotchGaelic,Welsh,Breton)are CelticandmostoftheGermansoftodayare GermanicpreciselyastheAmericanNegro,AmericanizedJew,MinnesotaSwede,andGerman AmericanareEnglish.But,secondly,theBalticracewas,andis,bynomeansanexclusively Germanicspeakingpeople.ThenorthernmostCelts,suchastheHighlandScotch,areinall probabilityaspecializedoffshootofthisrace.Whatthesepeoplespokebeforetheywere Celticizednobodyknows,butthereisnothingwhatevertoindicatethattheyspokeaGermanic language.TheirlanguagemayquitewellhavebeenasremotefromanyknownIndoEuropean idiomasareBasqueandTurkishtoday.Again,totheeastoftheScandinaviansarenon GermanicmembersoftheracetheFinnsandrelatedpeoples,speakinglanguagesthatarenot definitelyknowntoberelatedtoIndoEuropeanatall. Wecannotstophere.ThegeographicalpositionoftheGermaniclanguagesissuch[183]asto makeithighlyprobablethattheyrepresentbutanoutlyingtransferofanIndoEuropeandialect (possiblyaCeltoItalicprototype)toaBalticpeoplespeakingalanguageoragroupoflanguages thatwasalientoIndoEuropean.[184]Notonly,then,isEnglishnotspokenbyaunifiedraceat

presentbutitsprototype,morelikelythannot,wasoriginallyaforeignlanguagetotheracewith which Englishismoreparticularlyassociated.Weneednotseriouslyentertaintheideathat Englishorthegroupoflanguagestowhichitbelongsisinanyintelligiblesensetheexpression ofrace,thatthereareembeddedinitqualitiesthatreflectthetemperamentorgeniusofa particularbreedofhumanbeings. Manyother,andmorestriking,examplesofthelackofcorrespondencebetweenraceand languagecouldbegivenifspacepermitted.Oneinstancewilldoformany.TheMalayo PolynesianlanguagesformawelldefinedgroupthattakesinthesouthernendoftheMalay Peninsulaandthetremendousislandworldtothesouthandeast(exceptAustraliaandthegreater partofNewGuinea).Inthisvastregionwefindrepresentednolessthanthreedistinctraces theNegrolikePapuansofNewGuineaandMelanesia,theMalayraceofIndonesia,andthe Polynesiansoftheouterislands.ThePolynesiansandMalaysallspeaklanguagesoftheMalayo Polynesiangroup,whilethelanguagesofthePapuansbelongpartlytothisgroup(Melanesian), partlytotheunrelatedlanguages(Papuan)ofNewGuinea.[185]Inspiteofthefactthatthe greatestracecleavageinthisregionliesbetweenthePapuansandthePolynesians,themajor linguisticdivisionisofMalayanontheoneside,MelanesianandPolynesianontheother. Aswithrace,sowithculture.Particularlyinmoreprimitivelevels,wherethesecondarily unifyingpowerofthenational[186]idealdoesnotarisetodisturbtheflowofwhatwemight callnaturaldistributions,isiteasytoshowthatlanguageandculturearenotintrinsically associated.Totallyunrelatedlanguagesshareinoneculture,closelyrelatedlanguagesevena singlelanguagebelongtodistinctculturespheres.Therearemanyexcellentexamplesin aboriginalAmerica.TheAthabaskanlanguagesformasclearlyunified,asstructurally specialized,agroupasanythatIknowof.[187] Thespeakersoftheselanguagesbelongtofour distinctcultureareasthesimplehuntingcultureofwesternCanadaandtheinteriorofAlaska (Loucheux,Chipewyan),thebuffalocultureofthePlains(Sarcee),thehighlyritualizedculture ofthesouthwest(Navaho),andthepeculiarlyspecializedcultureofnorthwesternCalifornia (Hupa).TheculturaladaptabilityoftheAthabaskanspeakingpeoplesisinthestrangestcontrast totheinaccessibilitytoforeigninfluencesofthelanguagesthemselves.[188]TheHupaIndians areverytypicalofthecultureareatowhichtheybelong.Culturallyidenticalwiththemarethe neighboringYurokandKarok.ThereistheliveliestintertribalintercoursebetweentheHupa, Yurok,andKarok,somuchsothatallthreegenerallyattendanimportantreligiousceremony givenbyanyoneofthem.Itisdifficulttosaywhatelementsintheircombinedculturebelongin origintothistribeorthat, somuchatonearetheyincommunalaction,feeling,andthought.But theirlanguagesarenotmerelyalientoeachothertheybelongtothreeofthemajorAmerican linguisticgroups,eachwithanimmensedistributiononthenortherncontinent.Hupa,aswehave seen,isAthabaskanand,assuch,isalsodistantlyrelatedtoHaida(QueenCharlotteIslands)and Tlingit(southernAlaska)YurokisoneofthetwoisolatedCalifornianlanguagesofthe Algonkinstock,thecenterofgravityofwhichliesintheregionoftheGreatLakesKarokisthe northernmostmemberoftheHokangroup,whichstretchesfartothesouthbeyondtheconfines ofCaliforniaandhasremoterrelativesalongtheGulfofMexico. ReturningtoEnglish,mostofuswouldreadilyadmit,Ibelieve,thatthecommunityoflanguage betweenGreatBritainandtheUnitedStatesisfarfromarguingalikecommunityofculture.Itis customarytosaythattheypossessacommonAngloSaxonculturalheritage,butarenotmany

significantdifferencesinlifeandfeelingobscuredbythetendencyoftheculturedtotakethis commonheritagetoomuchforgranted?InsofarasAmericaisstillspecificallyEnglish,itis onlycoloniallyorvestigiallysoitsprevailingculturaldriftispartlytowardsautonomousand distinctivedevelopments,partlytowardsimmersioninthelargerEuropeancultureofwhichthat ofEnglandisonlyaparticularfacet.Wecannotdenythatthepossessionofacommonlanguage isstillandwilllongcontinuetobeasmootherofthewaytoamutualculturalunderstanding betweenEnglandandAmerica,butitisveryclearthatotherfactors,someofthemrapidly cumulative,areworkingpowerfullytocounteractthislevelinginfluence.Acommonlanguage cannotindefinitelysetthesealonacommon culturewhenthegeographical,political,and economicdeterminantsoftheculturearenolongerthesamethroughoutitsarea. Language,race,andculturearenotnecessarilycorrelated.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheyneverare. Thereissometendency,asamatteroffact,forracialandculturallinesofcleavagetocorrespond tolinguisticones,thoughinanygivencasethelattermaynotbeofthesamedegreeof importanceastheothers.Thus,thereisafairlydefinitelineofcleavagebetweenthePolynesian languages,race,andcultureontheonehandandthoseoftheMelanesiansontheother,inspite ofaconsiderableamountofoverlapping.[189]Theracialandculturaldivision,however, particularlytheformer,areofmajorimportance,whilethelinguisticdivisionisofquiteminor significance,thePolynesianlanguagesconstitutinghardlymorethanaspecialdialectic subdivisionofthecombinedMelanesianPolynesiangroup.Stillclearercutcoincidencesof cleavagemaybefound.Thelanguage,race,andcultureoftheEskimoaremarkedlydistinct fromthoseoftheirneighbors[190]insouthernAfricathelanguage,race,andcultureofthe BushmenofferanevenstrongercontrasttothoseoftheirBantuneighbors.Coincidencesofthis sortareofthegreatestsignificance,ofcourse,butthissignificanceisnotoneofinherent psychologicalrelationbetweenthethreefactorsofrace,language,andculture.Thecoincidences ofcleavagepointmerelytoareadilyintelligiblehistoricalassociation.IftheBantuandBushmen aresosharply differentiatedinallrespects,thereasonissimplythattheformerarerelatively recentarrivalsinsouthernAfrica.Thetwopeoplesdevelopedincompleteisolationfromeach othertheirpresentpropinquityistoorecentfortheslowprocessofculturalandracial assimilationtohavesetinverypowerfully.Aswegobackintime,weshallhavetoassumethat relativelyscantypopulationsoccupiedlargeterritoriesforuntoldgenerationsandthatcontact withothermassesofpopulationwasnotasinsistentandprolongedasitlaterbecame.The geographicalandhistoricalisolationthatbroughtaboutracedifferentiationswasnaturally favorablealsotofarreachingvariationsinlanguageandculture.Theveryfactthatracesand cultureswhicharebroughtintohistoricalcontacttendtoassimilateinthelongrun,while neighboringlanguagesassimilateeachotheronlycasuallyandinsuperficialrespects[191], indicatesthatthereisnoprofoundcausalrelationbetweenthedevelopmentoflanguageandthe specificdevelopmentofraceandofculture. Butsurely,thewaryreaderwillobject,theremustbesomerelationbetweenlanguageand culture,andbetweenlanguageandatleastthatintangibleaspectofracethatwecall temperament.Isitnotinconceivablethattheparticularcollectivequalitiesofmindthathave fashionedaculturearenotpreciselythesameaswereresponsibleforthegrowthofaparticular linguisticmorphology?Thisquestiontakesusintotheheartofthemostdifficultproblemsof socialpsychology.Itisdoubtfulifanyonehasyetattainedtosufficientclarityonthenatureof thehistoricalprocessandontheultimatepsychologicalfactorsinvolvedinlinguisticandcultural

driftstoansweritintelligently.Icanonlyverybrieflysetforthmyownviews,orrathermy generalattitude.Itwouldbeverydifficulttoprovethattemperament,thegeneralemotional dispositionofapeople[192],isbasicallyresponsiblefortheslantanddriftofaculture,however muchitmaymanifestitselfinanindividualshandlingoftheelementsofthatculture.But grantedthattemperamenthasacertainvaluefortheshapingofculture,difficultthoughitbeto sayjusthow,itdoesnotfollowthatithasthesamevaluefortheshapingoflanguage.Itis impossibletoshowthattheformofalanguagehastheslightestconnectionwithnational temperament.Itslineofvariation,itsdrift,runsinexorablyinthechannelordainedforitbyits historicantecedentsitisasregardlessofthefeelingsandsentimentsofitsspeakersasisthe courseofariveroftheatmospherichumorsofthelandscape.Iamconvincedthatitisfutileto lookinlinguisticstructurefordifferencescorrespondingtothetemperamentalvariationswhich aresupposedtobecorrelatedwithrace.Inthisconnectionitiswelltorememberthatthe emotionalaspectofourpsychiclifeisbutmeagerlyexpressedinthebuildoflanguage[193]. Languageandourthoughtgroovesareinextricablyinterwoven,are,inasense,oneandthesame. Asthereisnothingtoshowthattherearesignificantracialdifferencesinthefundamental conformationofthought,itfollowsthattheinfinitevariabilityoflinguisticform,anothername fortheinfinitevariabilityoftheactualprocessofthought,cannotbeanindexofsuchsignificant racialdifferences.Thisisonlyapparentlyaparadox.Thelatentcontentofalllanguagesisthe sametheintuitivescienceofexperience.Itisthemanifestformthatisnevertwicethesame, forthisform,whichwecalllinguisticmorphology,isnothingmorenorlessthanacollectiveart ofthought,anartdenudedoftheirrelevanciesofindividualsentiment.Atlastanalysis,then, languagecannomoreflowfromraceassuchthancanthesonnetform. NorcanIbelievethatcultureandlanguageareinanytruesensecausallyrelated.Culturemaybe definedaswhatasocietydoesandthinks.Languageisaparticularhow ofthought.Itisdifficult toseewhatparticularcausalrelationsmaybeexpectedtosubsistbetweenaselectedinventoryof experience(culture,asignificantselectionmadebysociety)andtheparticularmannerinwhich thesocietyexpressesallexperience.Thedriftofculture,anotherwayofsayinghistory,isa complexseriesofchangesinsocietysselectedinventoryadditions,losses,changesof emphasisandrelation.Thedriftoflanguageisnotproperlyconcernedwithchangesofcontentat all,merelywithchangesinformalexpression.Itispossible,inthought,tochangeeverysound, word,andconcreteconceptofalanguagewithoutchangingitsinneractualityintheleast,justas onecanpourintoafixedmoldwaterorplasterormoltengold.Ifitcanbeshownthatculturehas aninnateform,aseriesofcontours,quiteapartfromsubjectmatterofanydescription whatsoever,wehaveasomethinginculturethatmayserveasatermofcomparisonwith and possiblyameansofrelatingittolanguage.Butuntilsuchpurelyformalpatternsofcultureare discoveredandlaidbare,weshalldowelltoholdthedriftsoflanguageandofculturetobenon comparableandunrelatedprocesses.Fromthisitfollowsthatallattemptstoconnectparticular typesoflinguisticmorphologywithcertaincorrelatedstagesofculturaldevelopmentarevain. Rightlyunderstood,suchcorrelationsarerubbish.Themerestcoupdoeilverifiesourtheoretical argumentonthispoint.Bothsimpleandcomplextypesoflanguageofanindefinitenumberof varietiesmaybefoundspokenatanydesiredlevelofcultural advance.Whenitcomesto linguisticform,PlatowalkswiththeMacedonianswineherd,Confuciuswiththeheadhunting savageofAssam.

Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthemerecontentoflanguageisintimatelyrelatedtoculture.A societythathasnoknowledgeoftheosophyneedhavenonameforitaboriginesthathadnever seenorheardofahorsewerecompelledtoinventorborrowawordfortheanimalwhenthey madehisacquaintance.Inthesensethatthevocabularyofalanguagemoreorlessfaithfully reflectstheculturewhosepurposesitservesitisperfectlytruethatthehistoryoflanguageand thehistoryofculturemovealongparallellines.Butthissuperficialandextraneouskindof parallelismisofnorealinteresttothelinguistexceptinsofarasthegrowthorborrowingofnew wordsincidentallythrowslightontheformaltrendsofthelanguage.Thelinguisticstudent shouldnevermakethemistakeofidentifyingalanguagewithitsdictionary. Ifboththisandtheprecedingchapterhavebeenlargelynegativeintheircontentions,Ibelieve thattheyhavebeenhealthilyso.Thereisperhapsnobetterway tolearntheessentialnatureof speechthantorealizewhatitisnotandwhatitdoesnotdo.Itssuperficialconnectionswithother historicprocessesaresoclosethatitneedstobeshakenfreeofthemifwearetoseeitinitsown right.Everythingthatwehavesofarseentobetrueoflanguagepointstothefactthatitisthe mostsignificantandcolossalworkthatthehumanspirithasevolvednothingshortofafinished formofexpressionforallcommunicableexperience.Thisformmaybeendlesslyvariedbythe individualwithouttherebylosingitsdistinctivecontoursanditisconstantlyreshapingitselfas isallart.Languageisthemostmassiveandinclusiveartweknow,amountainousand anonymousworkofunconsciousgenerations.

XI
LanguageandLiterature
Languagesaremoretousthansystemsofthoughttransference.Theyareinvisiblegarmentsthat drapethemselvesaboutourspiritandgiveapredeterminedformtoallitssymbolicexpression. Whentheexpressionisofunusualsignificance,wecallitliterature.[194] Artissopersonalan expressionthatwedonotliketofeelthatitisboundtopredeterminedformofanysort.The possibilitiesofindividualexpressionareinfinite,languageinparticularisthemostfluidof mediums.Yetsomelimitationtheremustbetothisfreedom,someresistanceofthemedium.In greatartthereistheillusionofabsolutefreedom.Theformalrestraintsimposedbythe materialpaint,blackandwhite,marble,pianotones,orwhateveritmaybearenotperceived itisasthoughtherewerealimitlessmarginofelbowroombetweentheartistsfullestutilization offormandthemostthatthematerialisinnatelycapableof.Theartisthasintuitively surrenderedtotheinescapabletyrannyofthematerial,madeitsbrutenaturefuseeasilywithhis conception.[195]Thematerialdisappearspreciselybecausethereisnothingintheartists conceptiontoindicatethatanyothermaterialexists.Forthetimebeing,he,andwewithhim, moveintheartisticmediumasafishmovesinthewater,obliviousoftheexistenceofanalien atmosphere.Nosooner,however,doestheartisttransgressthelawofhismediumthanwerealize withastartthatthereisamediumtoobey. Languageisthemediumofliteratureasmarbleorbronzeorclayarethematerialsofthesculptor. Sinceeverylanguagehasitsdistinctivepeculiarities,theinnateformallimitationsand possibilitiesofoneliteratureareneverquitethesameasthoseofanother.Theliterature

fashionedoutoftheformandsubstanceofalanguagehasthecolorandthetextureofitsmatrix. Theliteraryartistmayneverbeconsciousofjusthowheishinderedorhelpedorotherwise guidedbythematrix,butwhenitisaquestionoftranslatinghisworkintoanotherlanguage,the natureoftheoriginalmatrixmanifestsitselfatonce.Allhiseffectshavebeencalculated,or intuitivelyfelt,withreferencetotheformalgeniusofhisownlanguagetheycannotbecarried overwithoutlossormodification.Croce[196]isthereforeperfectlyrightinsayingthataworkof literaryartcanneverbetranslated.Neverthelessliteraturedoesgetitselftranslated,sometimes withastonishingadequacy.Thisbringsupthequestionwhetherintheartofliteraturethereare notintertwinedtwodistinctkindsorlevelsofartageneralized,nonlinguisticart,whichcanbe transferredwithoutlossintoanalienlinguisticmedium,andaspecificallylinguisticartthatis nottransferable.[197]Ibelievethedistinctionisentirelyvalid,thoughwenevergetthetwo levelspureinpractice.Literaturemovesinlanguageasamedium,butthatmediumcomprises twolayers,thelatentcontentoflanguageourintuitiverecordofexperienceandtheparticular conformationofagivenlanguagethespecifichowofourrecordofexperience.Literaturethat drawsitssustenancemainlyneverentirelyfromthelowerlevel,sayaplayofShakespeares, istranslatablewithouttoogreatalossofcharacter.Ifitmovesintheupperratherthanin the lowerlevelafairexampleisalyricofSwinburnesitisasgoodasuntranslatable.Bothtypes ofliteraryexpressionmaybegreatormediocre. Thereisreallynomysteryinthedistinction.Itcanbeclarifiedalittlebycomparingliterature with science.Ascientifictruthisimpersonal,initsessenceitisuntincturedbytheparticular linguisticmediuminwhichitfindsexpression.Itcanasreadilydeliveritsmessagein Chinese[198]asinEnglish.Neverthelessitmusthavesomeexpression,andthatexpressionmust needsbealinguisticone.Indeedtheapprehensionofthescientifictruthisitselfalinguistic process,forthoughtisnothingbutlanguagedenudedofitsoutwardgarb.Thepropermediumof scientificexpressionisthereforeageneralizedlanguagethatmaybedefinedasasymbolic algebraofwhichallknownlanguagesaretranslations.Onecanadequatelytranslatescientific literaturebecausetheoriginalscientificexpressionisitselfatranslation.Literaryexpressionis personalandconcrete,butthisdoesnotmeanthatitssignificanceisaltogetherboundupwiththe accidentalqualitiesofthemedium.Atrulydeepsymbolism,forinstance,doesnotdependonthe verbalassociationsofaparticularlanguagebutrestssecurelyonanintuitivebasisthatunderlies alllinguisticexpression.Theartistsintuition,touseCrocesterm,isimmediatelyfashioned outofageneralizedhumanexperiencethoughtandfeelingofwhichhisownindividual experienceisahighlypersonalizedselection.Thethoughtrelationsinthisdeeperlevelhaveno specificlinguisticvesturetherhythmsarefree,notbound,inthefirstinstance,tothetraditional rhythmsoftheartistslanguage.Certainartistswhosespiritmoveslargelyinthenonlinguistic (better,inthegeneralizedlinguistic)layerevenfindacertaindifficultyingettingthemselves expressedintherigidlysettermsoftheiracceptedidiom.Onefeelsthattheyareunconsciously strivingforageneralizedartlanguage,aliteraryalgebra,thatisrelatedtothesumofallknown languagesasaperfectmathematicalsymbolismisrelatedtoalltheroundaboutreportsof mathematicalrelationsthatnormalspeechiscapableofconveying.Theirartexpressionis frequentlystrained,itsoundsattimeslikeatranslationfromanunknownoriginalwhich, indeed,ispreciselywhatitis.TheseartistsWhitmansandBrowningsimpressusratherby thegreatnessoftheirspiritthanthefelicityoftheirart.Theirrelativefailureisofthegreatest diagnosticvalueasanindexofthepervasivepresenceinliteratureofalarger,moreintuitive linguisticmediumthananyparticularlanguage.

Nevertheless,humanexpressionbeingwhatitis,thegreatestorshallwesaythemost satisfyingliteraryartists,theShakespearesandHeines,arethosewhohaveknown subconsciouslytofitortrimthedeeperintuitiontotheprovincialaccentsoftheirdailyspeech. Inthemthereisnoeffectofstrain.Theirpersonalintuitionappearsasacompletedsynthesisof theabsoluteartofintuitionandtheinnate,specializedartofthelinguisticmedium.WithHeine, forinstance,oneisundertheillusionthattheuniversespeaksGerman.Thematerial disappears. Everylanguageisitselfacollectiveartofexpression.Thereisconcealedinitaparticularsetof estheticfactorsphonetic,rhythmic,symbolic,morphologicalwhichitdoesnotcompletely sharewithanyotherlanguage.Thesefactorsmayeithermergetheirpotencieswiththoseofthat unknown,absolutelanguagetowhichIhavereferredthisisthemethodofShakespeareand Heineortheymayweaveaprivate,technicalartfabricoftheirown,theinnateartofthe languageintensifiedorsublimated.Thelattertype,themoretechnicallyliteraryartof Swinburneandofhostsofdelicateminorpoets,istoofragileforendurance.Itisbuiltoutof spiritualizedmaterial,notoutofspirit.ThesuccessesoftheSwinburnesareasvaluablefor diagnosticpurposesasthesemifailuresoftheBrownings.Theyshowtowhatextentliteraryart mayleanonthecollectiveartofthelanguageitself.Themoreextremetechnicalpractitioners maysooverindividualizethiscollectiveartastomakeitalmostunendurable.Oneisnotalways thankfultohaveonesfleshandbloodfrozentoivory. Anartistmustutilizethenativeestheticresourcesofhisspeech.Hemaybethankfulifthegiven paletteofcolorsisrich,ifthespringboardislight.Buthedeservesnospecialcreditforfelicities thatarethelanguagesown.Wemusttakeforgrantedthislanguagewithallitsqualitiesof flexibilityorrigidityandseetheartistsworkinrelationtoit.Acathedralonthelowlandsis higherthanastickonMontBlanc.Inotherwords,wemustnotcommitthefollyofadmiringa Frenchsonnetbecausethevowelsaremoresonorousthanourownorofcondemning Nietzschesprosebecauseitharborsinitstexturecombinationsofconsonantsthatwouldaffright onEnglishsoil.TosojudgeliteraturewouldbetantamounttolovingTristanundIsolde becauseoneisfondofthetimbreofhorns.Therearecertainthingsthatonelanguagecando supremelywellwhichitwouldbealmostvainforanothertoattempt.Generallythereare compensations.ThevocalismofEnglishisaninherentlydrabberthingthanthevowelscaleof French,yetEnglishcompensatesforthisdrawbackbyitsgreaterrhythmicalalertness.Itiseven doubtfuliftheinnatesonorityofaphoneticsystemcountsforasmuch,asestheticdeterminant, astherelationsbetweenthesounds,thetotalgamutoftheirsimilaritiesandcontrasts.Aslongas theartisthasthewherewithaltolayouthissequencesandrhythms,itmatterslittlewhatarethe sensuousqualitiesoftheelementsofhismaterial. Thephoneticgroundworkofalanguage,however,isonlyoneofthefeaturesthatgiveits literatureacertaindirection.Farmoreimportantareitsmorphological peculiarities.Itmakesa greatdealofdifferenceforthedevelopmentofstyleifthelanguagecanorcannotcreate compoundwords,ifitsstructureissyntheticoranalytic,ifthewordsofitssentenceshave considerablefreedomofpositionorarecompelledtofallintoarigidlydeterminedsequence.The majorcharacteristicsofstyle,insofarasstyleisatechnicalmatterofthebuildingandplacingof words,aregivenbythelanguageitself,quiteasinescapably,indeed,asthegeneralacoustic effectofverseisgivenbythesoundsandnaturalaccentsofthelanguage.Thesenecessary

fundamentalsofstylearehardlyfeltbytheartisttoconstrainhisindividualityofexpression. Theyratherpointthewaytothosestylisticdevelopmentsthatmostsuitthenatural bentofthe language.Itisnotintheleastlikelythatatrulygreatstylecanseriouslyopposeitselftothebasic formpatternsofthelanguage.Itnotonlyincorporatesthem,itbuildsonthem.Themeritofsuch astyleasW.H.HudsonsorGeorgeMoores[199] isthatitdoeswitheaseandeconomywhat thelanguageisalwaystryingtodo.Carlylese,thoughindividualandvigorous,isyetnotstyleit isaTeutonicmannerism.NoristheproseofMiltonandhiscontemporariesstrictlyEnglishitis semiLatindoneintomagnificentEnglishwords. ItisstrangehowlongithastakentheEuropeanliteraturestolearnthatstyleisnotanabsolute,a somethingthatistobeimposedonthelanguagefromGreekorLatinmodels,butmerelythe languageitself,runninginitsnaturalgrooves,andwithenoughofanindividualaccenttoallow theartistspersonalitytobefeltasapresence,notasanacrobat.Weunderstandmoreclearly nowthatwhatiseffectiveandbeautifulinonelanguageisaviceinanother.LatinandEskimo, withtheirhighlyinflectedforms,lendthemselvestoanelaboratelyperiodicstructurethatwould beboringinEnglish.Englishallows,evendemands,aloosenessthatwouldbeinsipidinChinese. AndChinese,withitsunmodifiedwordsandrigidsequences,hasacompactnessofphrase,a terseparallelism,andasilentsuggestivenessthatwouldbetootart,toomathematical,forthe Englishgenius.WhilewecannotassimilatetheluxuriousperiodsofLatinnorthepointilliste styleoftheChineseclassics,wecanentersympatheticallyintothespiritofthesealien techniques. IbelievethatanyEnglishpoetoftodaywouldbethankfulfortheconcisionthataChinese poetasterattainswithouteffort.Hereisanexample:[200] Wuriver[201]streammoutheveningsunsink, NorthlookLiaoTung,[202]notseehome. Steamwhistleseveralnoise,skyearthboundless, FloatfloatonereedoutMiddleKingdom. Thesetwentyeightsyllablesmaybeclumsilyinterpreted:AtthemouthoftheYangtszeRiver, asthesunisabouttosink,IlooknorthtowardLiaoTungbutdonotseemyhome.Thesteam whistleshrillsseveraltimesontheboundlessexpansewheremeetskyandearth.Thesteamer, floatinggentlylikeahollowreed,sailsoutoftheMiddleKingdom.[203]Butwemustnotenvy Chineseitstersenessunduly.Ourmoresprawlingmodeofexpressioniscapableofitsown beauties,andthemorecompactluxurianceofLatinstylehasitslovelinesstoo.Therearealmost asmanynaturalidealsofliterarystyleastherearelanguages.Mostofthesearemerelypotential, awaitingthehandofartistswhowillnevercome.Andyetintherecordedtextsofprimitive traditionandsongtherearemanypassagesofuniquevigorandbeauty.Thestructureofthe languageoftenforcesanassemblageofconceptsthatimpressesusasastylisticdiscovery.Single Algonkinwordsareliketinyimagistpoems.Wemustbecarefulnottoexaggerateafreshnessof contentthatisatleasthalfduetoourfreshnessofapproach,butthepossibilityisindicatednone thelessofutterlyalienliterarystyles,eachdistinctivewithitsdisclosureofthesearchofthe humanspiritforbeautifulform.

Probablynothingbetterillustratestheformaldependenceofliteratureonlanguagethanthe prosodicaspectofpoetry.QuantitativeversewasentirelynaturaltotheGreeks,notmerely becausepoetrygrewupinconnectionwiththechantandthedance,[204]butbecause alternationsoflongandshortsyllableswerekeenlylivefactsinthedailyeconomyofthe language.Thetonalaccents,whichwereonlysecondarilystressphenomena,helpedtogivethe syllableitsquantitativeindividuality.WhentheGreekmeterswerecarriedoverintoLatinverse, therewascomparativelylittlestrain,forLatintoowascharacterizedbyanacuteawarenessof quantitativedistinctions.However,theLatinaccentwasmoremarkedlystressedthanthatof Greek.Probably,therefore,thepurelyquantitativemetersmodeledafter theGreekwerefeltasa shademoreartificialthaninthelanguageoftheirorigin.TheattempttocastEnglishverseinto LatinandGreekmoldshasneverbeensuccessful.ThedynamicbasisofEnglishisnot quantity,[205]butstress,thealternationofaccentedandunaccentedsyllables.Thisfactgives Englishverseanentirelydifferentslantandhasdeterminedthedevelopmentofitspoeticforms, isstillresponsiblefortheevolutionofnewforms.Neitherstressnorsyllabicweightisavery keenpsychologicfactorinthedynamicsofFrench.Thesyllablehasgreatinherentsonorityand doesnotfluctuatesignificantlyastoquantityandstress.Quantitativeoraccentualmetricswould beasartificialinFrenchasstressmetricsinclassicalGreekorquantitativeorpurelysyllabic metricsinEnglish.Frenchprosodywascompelledtodeveloponthebasisofunitsyllablegroups. Assonance,laterrhyme,couldnotbutproveawelcome,anallbutnecessary,meansof articulatingorsectioningthesomewhatspinelessflowofsonoroussyllables.Englishwas hospitabletotheFrenchsuggestionofrhyme,butdidnotseriouslyneeditinitsrhythmic economy.Hencerhymehasalwaysbeenstrictlysubordinatedtostressasasomewhatdecorative featureandhasbeenfrequentlydispensedwith.Itisnopsychologicaccidentthatrhymecame laterintoEnglishthaninFrenchandisleavingitsooner.[206] Chineseversehasdeveloped alongverymuchthesamelinesasFrenchverse.Thesyllableisanevenmoreintegraland sonorousunitthaninFrench,whilequantityandstressaretoouncertaintoformthebasisofa metricsystem.Syllablegroupssoandsomanysyllablesperrhythmicunitandrhymeare thereforetwoofthecontrollingfactorsinChineseprosody.Thethirdfactor,thealternationof syllableswithleveltoneandsyllableswithinflected(risingorfalling)tone,ispeculiarto Chinese. Tosummarize,LatinandGreekversedependsontheprincipleofcontrastingweightsEnglish verse,ontheprincipleofcontrastingstressesFrenchverse,ontheprinciplesofnumberand echoChineseverse,ontheprinciplesofnumber,echo,andcontrastingpitches.Eachofthese rhythmicsystemsproceedsfromtheunconsciousdynamichabitofthelanguage,fallingfromthe lipsofthefolk.Studycarefullythephoneticsystemofalanguage,aboveallitsdynamicfeatures, andyoucantellwhatkindofaverseithasdevelopedor,ifhistoryhasplayedprankswithits phychology,whatkindofverseitshouldhavedevelopedandsomedaywill. Whateverbethesounds,accents,andformsofalanguage,howevertheselayhandsontheshape ofitsliterature,thereisasubtlelawofcompensationsthatgivestheartistspace.Ifheis squeezedabithere,hecanswingafreearmthere.Andgenerallyhehasropeenoughtohang himselfwith,ifhemust.Itisnotstrangethatthisshouldbeso.Languageisitselfthecollective artofexpression,asummaryofthousandsuponthousandsofindividualintuitions.The individualgoeslostinthecollectivecreation,buthispersonalexpressionhasleftsometraceina certaingiveandflexibilitythatareinherentinallcollectiveworksofthehumanspirit.The

languageisready,orcanbequicklymadeready,todefinetheartistsindividuality.Ifnoliterary artistappears,itisnotessentiallybecausethelanguageistooweakaninstrument,itisbecause thecultureofthepeopleisnotfavorabletothegrowthofsuchpersonalityasseeksatruly individualverbalexpression.

Index
Note.Italicizedentriesarenamesoflanguagesorgroupsoflanguages.

A
1. Abbreviationofstem,(26) 2. Accent,stress, (26) (36) (48)(55) (61) (64) 1. asgrammaticalprocess,(82)(83) 2. importanceof,(118) (119) (120) 3. metricalvalueof (244)(245) (246) 3. Accent,(44) 4. Adamsapple,(48) 5. Adjective,(123)(124)(125) 6. Affixation,(26)(64) (706) 7. Affixinglanguages,(133) (134) (137) 8. Africanlanguages,pitchin,(55) 9. Agglutination,(1403) 10. Agglutinativelanguages,(130)(1368) (139) (146)(147)(148) (150) (151) (155) 11. Agglutinativefusional,(148)(150) 12. Agglutinativeisolating,(148) (150) 13. Algonkinlanguages(N.Amer.),(70)(74) (134) (151)(229)(244) 14. Alpinerace,(223) (225) 15. Analogicalleveling,(193) (197) (2003) 16. Analytictendency,(135)(136) (148) (150) (151)(154)(216)(217) 17. Angles,(224) (225) 18. AngloSaxon, (28) (175) (183) (185) (1868) (191) (197) (198) (201) 19. AngloSaxon: 1. culture, (229) 2. race,(222)(223) (224) 20. Annamite(S.E.Asia),(66) (150) (205) 21. Apache(N.Amer.),(71) 22. Arabic,(76) (77) (135) (151) (207) 23. Armenian,(163)(212) 24. Art, (23640) 1. languageas,(233) (235) (240)(241) (246) (247) 2. transferabilityof,(237) (238) 25. Articulation: 1. easeof,(196) 2. typesof,drifttoward, (194)

26. Articulations: 1. laryngeal,(49) 2. mannerofconsonantal,(52)(53) 3. nasal,(50)(51) 4. oral,(51) (52) 5. placeofconsonantal,(53) (54) 6. vocalic,(52) 27. Aryan.See IndoEuropean. 28. Aspect, (114) 29. Associationofconceptsandspeechelements,(38) (39) 30. Associationsfundamentaltospeech,(10) (11) 31. Athabaskanlanguages(N.Amer.), (6) (71) (77) (83)(105)(209) (214) (219) (228) (229) 32. Athabaskans,culturesof,(228) 33. Atticdialect,(162) 34. Attribution,(101) 35. Auditorycycleinlanguage,(17) 36. Australianculture,(221) (222) 37. Avestan,(175)

B
1. Bach,(238) 2. Balticrace,(223)(225) (226) 3. Bantulanguages(Africa),(71) (113) (122) (123) (134)(135)(151) (221) (230) 4. Bantus,(230) (231) 5. Basque(Pyrenees),(164) (219) 6. Bengali(India),(155) (163) 7. Berber.SeeHamitic. 8. Bohemians,(225) 9. BontocIgorot (Philippines),(75) (81) 10. Borrowing,morphological,(21517) (219) (220) 11. Borrowing,word, (2057) 1. phoneticadaptationin,(210)(211) 2. resistancesto,(20710) 12. Breton,(225) 13. Bronchialtubes,(48) 14. Browning,(239) (240) 15. Buddhism,influenceof,(207) (209) 16. Burmese,(207) 17. Bushman(S.Africa),(55) (230) 18. Bushmen,(221) (230) (231)

C
1. Cambodgian(S.E.Asia),(71) (75) (108)(134) (150)(155)(207) (209) (219)

2. Carlyle,(242) 3. Carrier(BritishColumbia),(71) 4. Case,(115) 1. SeeAttribution Object Personalrelations Subject. 5. Casesystem,historyof,(1747) 6. Caucasus,languagesof,(213) 7. Celtic.SeeCelts. 8. Celticlanguages,(78) (79) 9. Celts,(224) (225) (226) 1. Brythonic,(224) 10. Cerebralarticulations,(54) 11. Chaucer,Englishof,(179)(188) (191) (211) 12. Chimariko(N.California),(73) 13. Chinese: 1. absenceofaffixes,(70) 2. analyticcharacter, (135) (136) 3. attribution,(101) 4. compounds,(67) 5. grammaticalconceptsillustrated, (96) (97) 6. influence,(205) (207) 7. innerform,,(132) 8. pitchaccent,(55)(83) (84) 9. radicalwords, (29) 10. relationaluseofmaterialwords,(108) 11. sounds,(49) 12. stress,(119) 13. structure,(150) (154) (155) 14. style,(243) 15. survivals,morphological,(152) 16. symbolism,(134) 17. verse,(243)(244) (245) 18. wordduplication,(80) 19. wordorder, (66) (97) (118) 14. Chinook(N.Amer.), (66) (73) (76)(80) (121) (122)(123)(124) (135) (136) (151) (155) (220) 15. Chipewyan(N.Amer.),(71) 1. C.Indians,(228) 16. Chopin,(238) 17. Christianity,influenceof,(206) 18. Chukchi,(230) 19. Classification: 1. ofconcepts,rigid,(104)(105) 2. oflinguistictypes,(12956) 3. SeeStructure,linguistic. 20. Clicks,(55)(81) 21. Composition,(29)(30)(64) (145)

1. absenceof,incertainlanguages,(68) 2. typesof,(69) (70) 3. wordorderasrelatedto, (67) (68) 22. Concepts,(12) (2530) (31) 23. Concepts,grammatical: 1. analysisof,insentence,(8694) 2. classificationof,(104) (105) 3. concrete, (86) (87)(92) (106) 4. concreterelational,(98102)(107) 5. concretenessin,varyingdegreeof,(108)(109) 6. derivational,(87)(88) (92) (106) 7. derivational,abstract, (10911) 8. essential,(98)(99) (107) (108) 9. groupingof,nonlogical,(94) 10. lackofexpressionofcertain,(97)(98) 11. purerelational,(99)(107) (179) 12. radical,(88)(92) (98) 13. redistributionof,(948) 14. relational,(8993)(98)(99) 15. thinningoutofsignificanceof,(1024) 16. typesof,(106) (107) (108) (109) 17. typicalcategoriesof,(11315) 18. SeeStructure,linguistic. 24. Concord, (100)(12023) 25. Concreteconcepts.SeeConcepts. 26. Conflict, (167) (168) (171) (172) 27. Consonantalchange,(26) (61) (64) (78) (79) 28. Consonants,(524) 1. combinationsof,(56) 29. Cordinatesentences,(37) 30. Corean,(205) 31. Croce,Benedetto, (237) (239) 32. Culture,(221) 1. languageand,(22730) (231) (232) (2335) 2. languageasaspectof,(2)(10) 3. language,raceand,(222)(223)(230) (231) 4. reflectionofhistoryof,inlanguage,(206) (207) 33. Cultureareas,(221)(222) (228)

D
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Danish,(49) (110) (136) (175) (217) Demonstrativeideas,(97) (98) (114) Dentalarticulations,(54) (192) Derivationalconcepts.SeeConcepts. Determinativestructure, (135)

6. Dialects: 1. causesof,(1603) 2. compromisebetween,(159) 3. distinctnessof,(159) 4. driftsin,diverging,(183) (184) 5. driftsin,parallel,(18493) 6. splittingupof,(162) (164) 7. unityof,(1579) 7. Diffusion,morphological,(21720) 8. Diphthongs,(56) 9. Drift,linguistic,(1603) (183) (184) 1. componentsof,(1724) 2. determinantsof,inEnglish,(16882) 3. directionof,(165) (166) (183) 4. directionof,illustratedinEnglish,(1668) 5. examplesofgeneral,inEnglish,(17482) 6. parallelismsin,(18493) 7. speedof,(183) (184) 8. SeePhoneticLaw Phoneticprocesses. 10. Duplicationofwords,(7981) 11. Dutch,(175)(188) (212) (224)

E
1. Elementsofspeech,(2442) 2. Emotion,expressionof: 1. involuntary,(3) 2. linguistic,(3941) 3. English: 1. agentivesuffix,(87) 2. analogicalleveling,(202) (203) 3. analytictendency,(135)(136) (216) (217) 4. animateandinanimate,(176) (177) (179)(180) 5. aspect,(114) 6. attribution,(101) 7. case,historyof,(169) (170) (1757) (179) 8. compounds,(67) (68) (69)(70) 9. concepts,grammatical,insentence,(8694) 10. concepts,passageofconcreteintoderivational,(108)(109) 11. consonantalchange,(64) (78) 12. cultureofspeakersof,(229) (230) 13. desire,expressionof,(39) 14. diminutivesuffix,(87) 15. drift,(16682) 16. duplication,word, (79) (80) 17. estheticqualities,(241) (243)

18. feelingtone,(41) (42) 19. form,word,(59) (60) (61) 20. Frenchinfluenceon,(206) (207) (208) (210)(211) (215) (216) 21. functionandform,(93) (94) 22. fusingandjuxtaposing,(137)(138) (13941) 23. gender,(100) 24. Greekinfluenceon,(215)(216) 25. influenceof,(207) 26. influenceon,morphological,lackofdeep,(21517) 27. interrogativewords,(170) 28. invariablewords,tendencyto, (1802) (208) 29. infixing,(75) 30. Latininfluenceon,(206) (207) (208) (215) (216) 31. loanwords,(182) 32. modality,(90)(91) (92) (93) 33. number,(90) (91) 34. order,word, (65)(66) (170) (171) (1779) (191) (192) 35. partsofspeech,(1235) 36. patterning,formal,(62)(63) 37. personalrelations,(91) (92) (93) 38. phoneticdrifts,historyof,(18493) (194) (1979) 39. phoneticleveling,(193) (194) 40. phoneticpattern,(200) (206) 41. plurality,(38)(39)(100) (105) (106) (202) 42. raceofspeakersof,(2237) 43. reference,definitenessof,(89) (90) (92) (93) 44. relationalwords,(32) 45. relations,genetic,(163)(175) (183) (218) 46. rhythm,(171)(172) 47. sentence,analysisof,(37) 48. sentence,dependenceofwordon,(116) 49. soundimitativewords, (6) (80) 50. sounds,(44) (45) (49) (51) (53) (54) 51. stressandpitch,(36)(55) (83) 52. structure,(151) (180) 53. survivals,morphological,(149) (152) 54. symbolism,(134) 55. syntacticadhesions,(117)(118) 56. syntacticvalues,transferof,(120) 57. tense,(91) (93) (102) (103) (104) 58. verb,syntacticrelationsof,(115) 59. verse,(245)(246) 60. vocalicchange,(76) 61. wordandelement,analysisof,(25)(26)(27) (28) (29)(30)(35) 4. English,Middle, (175) (176)(188) (191) (201) (202)(203) 5. Englishpeople,(223) (224)

6. Eskimo,(60)(68) (70) (74) (118) (134)(135) (230)(243) 7. Eskimos,(230) 8. Ewe(Guineacoast,Africa),(80)(84) (150) (154) (155) 9. Expiratorysounds,(55) 10. Explosives,(52)

F
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Faucalposition,(53) Feelingtonesofwords,(41) (42) Fijians,(230) Finnish,(135) (155) (219) Finns,(226) Flemish,(212) Foot,feet(English),historyof,(18493)(1979) (201) (202) Form,cultural,(233) (234) 1. feelingoflanguagefor, (58) (62) (63) (152) (153) (210) (220) 2. inner,(132)(133) 9. Form,linguistic: 1. conservatismof,(1024) 2. differencesof,mechanicaloriginof,(105) (106) 3. elaborationof,reasonsfor, (1026) 4. functionand,independenceof,(5963) (93) (94) 5. grammaticalconceptsembodiedin,(82126) 6. grammaticalprocessesembodying,(5985) 7. permanenceofdifferentaspectsof,relative,(1536) 8. twofoldconsiderationof,(5961) 9. SeeStructure,linguistic. 10. Formclasses,(105) (113) 1. SeeGender. 11. Formalunitsofspeech,(33) 12. Formlessness,inner,(132) (133) 13. Fox(N.Amer.),(74) 14. French: 1. analyticaltendency,(135)(136) (137) 2. estheticqualities,(241) 3. gender,(102) (104) (113) 4. influence,(205) (206) (207) (208) (209)(210) (211)(212)(215) (216) 5. order,word, (67) 6. plurality,(99) 7. sounds,(51) (212) 8. soundsaswords,single,(24) 9. stress,(55)(118) 10. structure,(151) (154) 11. tenseforms,(103) 12. verse,(245)(246)

15. French,Norman,(224) 16. Frenchpeople,(224) (225) 17. Freud,(168) 18. Fricatives,(52) 19. Frisian,(175)(224) 20. Ful(Soudan),(79)(81) 21. Function,independenceofformand,(5963) (93) (94) 22. Functionalunitsofspeech,(33) 23. Fusion,(137)(138) (139) (140) (141) (149) 24. Fusionallanguages,(147) (150) (151) 1. SeeFusion. 25. Fusionalagglutinative,(148) (150) (151) 26. Fusionalisolating,(148) (150) 27. Fuss,Fsse(German),historyof,(184) (185) (1913) (19799)

G
1. Gaelic,(225) 2. Gender,(1002) (113) 3. German: 1. Frenchinfluenceon,(208) (209) (212) 2. grammatical 3. conceptsinsentence,(95) 4. Latininfluenceon,(206) (208) 5. phoneticdrifts,historyof,(184)(185) (188) (1913)(1979) 6. plurality,(100) 7. relations,(175)(183) 8. soundimitativewords, (6) 9. sounds,(56) (212) 10. tenseforms,(103) 11. umlaut,(202) (203) (204) 12. unanalyzablewords,resistanceto,(208) (209) 4. German,High, (224) 5. German,MiddleHigh,(184) (185) (192) (204) 6. German,OldHigh, (175) (184)(185) (192) (194) 7. Germaniclanguages,(175)(183)(184) (185) (186)(206)(212) (226) 8. Germanic,West,(175)(184) (185) (186) (187) (191)(192)(224) 9. Germans,(224)(225) (226) 10. Gesturelanguages,(20) (21) 11. Ginneken,Jacvan,(40) 12. Glottalcords, (48) 1. actionof,(4850) 13. Glottalstop, (49) 14. Gothic,(82) (175) (184) 15. Grammar,(39) 16. Grammaticalelement, (2632)

17. Grammaticalconcepts.SeeConcepts,grammatical. 18. Grammaticalprocesses: 1. classifiedby,languages,(1335) 2. particular,developmentbyeachlanguageof,(62) (63) 3. typesof,(63) (64) 4. varietyof,useinonelanguageof,(61) (62) 19. Greek,dialectichistoryof,(162) 20. Greek,classical: 1. affixing,(137) 2. compounds,(67) (68) 3. concord, (121) 4. infixing,(75) 5. influence,(207) (215) (216) 6. pitchaccent,(83) 7. plurality,(100) 8. reduplicatedperfects,(82) (216) 9. stress,(82)(83) 10. structure,(139) (151) (152) 11. syntheticcharacter,(137) 12. verse,(244)(246) 21. Greek,modern,(137) (163) (194) (212)

H
1. Haida(BritishColumbia),(56) (57) (150)(219) (229) 2. Hamiticlanguages(N.Africa),(77) (219) (221) 3. Hausa(Soudan),(81) 4. Hebrew,(61)(62) (73) (76) (151) (207) 5. Heine,(240) 6. Hesitation,(172)(173) (183) 7. History,linguistic,(1536) (7204) 8. Hokanlanguages(N.Amer.),(220) (229) 9. Hottentot(S.Africa),(55)(70) (80) (81) 10. Hudson,W.H., (242) 11. Humming,(50) 12. Hupa(N.California),(71) (72) 13. HupaIndians,(228)

I
1. Icelandic,Old,(175) 2. India,languagesof,(54) 3. Indians,American,languagesof,(34)(35)(49) (51)(56)(57) (58) (84) (85) (105)(130) (212) (213)

1. SeealsoAlgonkin Athabaskan Chimariko Chinook EskimoFox Haida Hokan Hupa Iroquois Karok Kwakiutl Nahuatl NassNavaho Nootka Ojibwa Paiute Sahaptin Salinan Shasta Siouan SiouxTakelma Tlingit Tsimshian Washo Yana Yokuts Yurok. 4. IndoChineselanguages,(155) (164) 5. IndoEuropean, (24) (75) (82) (163) (164) (174) (175)(186)(200) (226) 6. IndoIranianlanguages,(175) (212) 7. Infixes,(26) (64) (75) (76) 8. Inflection.SeeInflectivelanguages. 9. Inflectivelanguages,(130) (13641) (143)(144) (146)(155) 10. Influence: 1. cultural,reflectedinlanguage,(20510) 2. morphological,ofalienlanguage,(21517) (220) 3. phonetic,ofalienlanguage,(21015) 11. Inspiratorysounds,(55) 12. Interjections,(4) (5) 13. Irish,(224) 14. Irish,(78) (79) (163) (218) 15. Iroquois(N.Amer.), (69) (70) 16. Isolatinglanguages,(130)(133)(147) (150) 17. Italian, (54) (55)(137) (163) 18. Its,historyof,(167)(176)(177)

J
1. Japanese,(205) (207) 2. Jutes,(224) 3. Juxtaposing.SeeAgglutination.

K
1. Karok(N.California),(220) (229) 1. K.Indians,(227) 2. Khmer.SeeCambodgian. 3. Knowledge,sourceof,asgrammaticalcategory,(115) 4. Koine,(162) 5. Kwakiutl(BritishColumbia),(81)(97) (98)

L
1. Labialtrills,(53) 2. Language: 1. associationsin,(38) (39) 2. associationsunderlyingelementsof,(10) (11) 3. auditorycyclein,(17)

4. conceptsexpressedin,(12) 5. aculturalfunction,(2)(10) 6. definitionof,(7) 7. diversityof,(213) 8. elementsof,(2438) 9. emotionexpressedin,(3941) 10. feelingtonesin,(41)(42) 11. grammaticalconceptsof,(86126) 12. grammaticalprocessesof,(5985) 13. historicalaspectsof,(157204) 14. imitationsofsounds,notevolvedfrom,(5) (6) 15. influenceson,exotic,(20520) 16. interjections,notevolvedfrom,(5) 17. literatureand,(23647) 18. modificationsandtransfersof typicalformof,(1721) 19. anoverlaidfunction,(8) 20. psychophysicalbasisof,(8) (9) 21. race,cultureand,(22135) 22. simplificationofexperiencein,(11)(12) 23. soundsof,(4358) 24. structureof,(12756) 25. thoughtand,(1217)(232) (233) 26. universalityof,(213) 27. variabilityof,(15765) 28. volitionexpressedin,(3941) 3. Larynx,(4850) 4. Lateralsounds,(52) (53) 5. Latin: 1. attribution,(101) 2. concord, (121) 3. infixing,(26)(75) 4. influenceof,(206)(207) (215) (216) 5. objectivem,(119) (120) 6. orderofwords, (65) (66)(123) 7. plurality,(100) 8. prefixesandsuffixes,(71) 9. reduplicatedperfects,(82) (216) 10. relationalconceptsexpressed,(101) (102) 11. sentenceword, (33) (36) 12. soundaswordin,single,(24) 13. structure,(151) (154) 14. style,(243)(244) 15. suffixingcharacter,(134)(137) 16. syntacticnatureofsentence,(116) (118) 17. syntheticcharacter,(135)(137) 18. verse,(244)(245) (246)

19. wordandelementin,analysisof,(27) (29) (30) 6. Lettish,(49) 7. Leveling,phonetic,(193) (194) (195) 1. SeeAnalogicalleveling. 8. Lips,(48) 1. actionof,(52)(53) 9. Literature: 1. compensationsin,formal,(246)(247) 2. languageand,(42)(23647) 3. levelsin,linguistic,(23741) 4. mediumof,languageas,(236) (237) 5. scienceand,(23840) 10. Literature,determinantsof: 1. linguistic,(240)(241) 2. metrical,(2446) 3. morphological,(2414) 4. phonetic,(241) 11. Lithuanian, (55) (175) (183) 12. Localism,(161) 13. Localizationofspeech,(8)(9) 14. Loucheux(N.Amer.), (71) 1. L.Indians,(228) 15. Lungs,(48) 16. Luther,Germanof,(192)

M
1. Malay, (132) 1. M.race, (227) 2. Malayan, (227) 3. MalayoPolynesianlanguages,(219) (221) (227) 4. Manchu, (80) 5. Manx, (225) 6. Maus,Muse(German),historyof,(184) (185) (1913) 7. Mediterraneanrace,(223) 8. Melanesianlanguages,(227) (230) 9. Meter.SeeVerse. 10. Milton,(242) 11. Mixedrelationallanguages,(146)(147)(154) 1. complex,(146)(147) (151) (155) 2. simple,(146)(147)(151) 12. Modality,(90)(91)(92) (93) (114) 13. MonKhmer(S.E.Asia),(219) 14. Moore,George, (242) 15. Morphologicalfeatures,diffusionof,(21720) 16. Morphology.SeeStructure,linguistic.

17. Mouse,mice(English),historyof,(18493) 18. Mundalanguages(E. India),(219) 19. Murmuring,(50) 20. Mutation,vocalic,(184)(185) (1979) (203) (204)

N
Nahuatl(Mexico), (69) (70) Nasalsounds,(51) Nasaltwang,(51) Nasalizedstops, (52) Nass(BritishColumbia),(62) (81) Nationality,(222)(227) (228) Navaho(Arizona,NewMexico),(71) (77) (83) (136) 1. N.Indians,(228) 8. Nietzsche,(241) 9. Nootka(VancouverId.), (29)(33) (35) (68) (70) (74)(79)(82) (95) (10911)(135) (141 3)(151) 10. Nose, (48) 1. actionof,(50)(51) 11. Noun,(123)(124) (126) 12. Nouns,classificationof,(113) 13. Number,(90) (91) (93) (114) 1. SeePlurality. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

O
1. Object,(92) (98) 1. SeePersonalrelations. 2. Ojibwa(N,Amer.), (55) 3. Onomatopoetictheoryoforiginofspeech,(5)(6) 4. Oralsounds,(514) 5. Order,word, (646) (91) (92) 1. compositionasrelatedto, (67)(68) 2. fixed,Englishtendency,(1779) 3. sentencemoldedby,(117) (118) 4. significanceof,fundamental,(119)(120) (123) 6. Organsofspeech,(7) (8) (47) (48) 1. actionof,(4854)

P
1. Paiute(N.Amer.), (31) (32) (36) (52) (53) (69) (70) 2. Palate,(48) 1. actionofsoft, (51)

2. articulationsof,(53) 3. Pali(India),(207) 4. Papuanlanguages,(227) 5. Papuans,(227) (230) 6. Partsofspeech,(1235) (126) 7. Pattern: 1. formal,(61)(63) (234) (242) 2. phonetic,(57)(58) (187) (936)(99) (200) (206) (211)(214)(215) (220) 8. Persian,(163) (207) 9. Person,(114) 10. Personalrelations,(91) (92) (93) (115) 11. Phoneticadaptation,(210) (211) 12. Phoneticdiffusion,(21115) 13. Phoneticlaw: 1. basisof,(195)(196) (199) (200) 2. directionof,(194) (195) (199) 3. examplesof,(18693) 4. influenceof,onmorphology,(203) (204) 5. influenceofmorphologyon,(1969) 6. regularityof,(193)(194) 7. significanceof,(186) 8. spreadof,slow,(190) (191) 9. SeeLeveling,phonetic Pattern,phonetic. 14. Phoneticprocesses, 1. formcausedby,differencesof,(105)(106) 2. paralleldriftsin,(18493) (1979) 15. Pitch,grammaticaluseof,(835) 1. metricaluseof,(246) 2. productionof,(49) 3. significantdifferencesin,(55) (64) 16. PlainsIndians,gesturelanguageof,(20) 17. Plattdeutsch,(224) (225) 18. Plurality: 1. classificationofconceptof,variable,(110) (111) (112) 2. aconcreterelationalcategory,(99) (100) 3. aderivationalorradicalconcept,(99) 4. expressionof,multiple,(38)(62) 5. SeeNumber. 19. Poles,(225) 20. Polynesian,(132)(150) (155) (227) (230) 21. Polynesians,(221) (222) (227) (230) 22. Polysyntheticlanguages,(130) (135) (146)(148) (150)(151) 23. Portuguese,(137) 24. Predicate,(37) (126) 25. Prefixes,(26) (64) (70) (715) 26. Prefixinglanguages,(134)(135)

27. Preposition,(125) 28. Psychophysicalaspectofspeech,(8) (9) 29. Purerelationallanguages,(145)(147) (154) (155) 1. complex,(145)(147) (150) (155) 2. simple,(145)(147)(150)

Q
1. Qualifyingconcepts.SeeConcepts,derivational. 2. Quality 1. ofspeechsounds,(48) 2. ofindividualsvoice,(48) 3. Quantityofspeechsounds,(55) (64)

R
1. Race,(221) (222) 1. languageand,lackofcorrespondencebetween,(227) 2. languageand,theoreticalrelationbetween,(2313) 3. languageascorrelatedwith,English,(2237) 4. language,cultureand,correspondencebetween,(230)(231) 5. language,cultureand,independenceof,(222) (223) 2. Radicalconcepts.SeeConcepts. 3. Radicalelement,(2632) 4. Radicalword,(28) (29) 5. Readingfromthelips,(19) 6. Reduplication,(64)(7982) 7. Reference,definiteandindefinite,(89) (90) 8. Repetitionofstem,(26) 1. SeeReduplication. 9. Repressionofimpulse,(167)(168) 10. Rhyme,(245)(246) 11. Rolledconsonants,(53) 12. Romancelanguages,(137) 13. Root, (25) 14. Roumanian, (137) 15. Roundedvowels,(52) 16. Russian,(44) (45)(54) (71) (80) (163) (212)

S
1. 2. 3. 4. Sahaptinlanguages(N.Amer.), (220) Salinan(S.W.California),(150) (155) Sanskrit(India),(54) (75)(82) (151) (154) (175) (200)(207)(209) (210) SarceeIndians,(228)

5. Saxon: 1. Low,(224) 2. Old,(175) 3. Upper,(225) 6. Saxons,(224)(225) 7. Scandinavian,(224) 1. SeeDanish Icelandic Swedish. 8. Scandinavians,(224) 9. Scotch,(224) (226) 10. Scotch,Lowland,(188) 11. Semiticlanguages,(61)(68) (76) (134) (151) (219)(228) 12. Sentence,(33)(368) 1. bindingwordsinto,methodsof,(11517) 2. stressin,influenceof,(118) (119) 3. wordorderin,(117)(118) 13. Sequence.SeeOrderofwords. 14. Shakespeare: 1. artof,(238) (240) 2. Englishof,(188) (189) (191) 15. Shasta(N.California),(220) 16. Shilh(Morocco), (77) (81) 17. Shilluk(Nileheadwaters),(84) (150) (154) (155) 18. Siamese,(55) (66) (70) (207) 19. Singing,(50) 20. Siouanlanguages(N.Amer.), (76) 21. Sioux(Dakota), (29) (76) (95) (150) 22. Slaviclanguages,(212) 23. Slavs,(225) 24. Somali(E.Africa),(77) (80) (81) 25. Soudaneselanguages,(84)(154) (155) (163) 26. Soundimitativewords, (4) (5) (6) (80) 27. Soundsofspeech,(24) 1. adjustmentsinvolvedin,muscular,(46) 2. adjustmentsinvolvedincertain,inhibitionof,(46) (47) 3. basicimportanceof,(43) 4. classificationof,(54) (54) 5. combinationsof,(56) 6. conditionedappearanceof,(56)(57) 7. dynamicsof,(55) (56) 8. illusoryfeelingsinregardto, (435) 9. inneroridealsystemof,(57) (58) 10. placeinphoneticpatternof,(1946) 11. productionof,(4754) 12. valuesof,psychological,(568) 13. variabilityof,(45) (46) 28. Spanish,(137)

29. Speech.SeeLanguage. 30. Spirants,(52) 31. Splittingofsounds,(193) (195) 32. Stem,(26) 33. Stock,linguistic,(1635) (218) (221) 34. Stoppedconsonants(orstops), (52) 35. Stress.SeeAccent. 36. Structure,linguistic,(12756) 1. conservatismof,(200) 2. differencesof,(127)(128) 3. intuitionalformsof,(153) (154) 37. Structure,linguistic,typesof: 1. classificationof,bycharacterofconcepts,(1437) 2. bydegreeoffusion,(13643) 3. bydegreeofsynthesis,(135)(136) 4. byformalprocesses,(1335) 5. fromthreefoldstandpoint,(1479) (154) 6. intoformalandformless,(132)(133) 7. classifying,difficultiesin,(12932)(149) 8. examplesof,(14951) 9. mixed,(148) 10. realityof,(128) (129) (149) (152)(153) 11. validityofconceptual,historicaltestof,(1526) 38. Style,(38) (216) (2424) 39. Subject,(92) (98) 1. SeePersonalrelations. 40. Subjectofdiscourse,(37) (126) 41. Suffixes,(26) (64) 42. Suffixing,(61) (70) (715) 43. Suffixinglanguages,(134)(135) 44. Survivals,morphological,(149)(152)(202) (218) (219) 45. Swedish,(55) (110) (175) 46. Swinburne,(238) (240) 47. Swiss,French,(225) 48. Syllabifying,(56) 49. Symboliclanguages,(133) (134) (147) (150) (151) 50. Symbolicprocesses,(134) (138) (139) (140) 51. Symbolicfusional,(151) 52. Symbolicisolating,(148) 53. Symons,(245) 54. Syntacticadhesions,(117) (118) 55. Syntacticrelations: 1. primarymethodsofexpressing,(119) (120) 2. transferofvaluesin,(120) 3. SeeConcepts,relational Concord Order,word Personalrelations Sentence. 56. Synthetictendency,(69)(135) (136) (137)(148) (150)(151)(154)

T
1. Takelma(S.W.Oregon), (81) (82)(84) (85) (151) (152) (220) 2. Teeth, (48) 1. articulationsof,(53)(54) 3. Telegraphcode, (20) 4. Temperament, (231) (232) 5. Tense,(91)(93)(114) 6. Teutonicrace.SeeBalticrace. 7. Thinking,typesof,(17) (18) 8. Thought,relationoflanguageto, (1217)(232) (233) 9. Throat, (48) 1. articulationsof,(49)(50) (53) 10. Tibetan, (80) (102) (112) (124)(125) (136) (143) (144)(150)(154) (155) (209) (210) 11. Time.SeeTense. 12. Tlingit (S.Alaska),(84) (134) (135) (219)(229) 1. T.Indians,(230) 13. Tongue, (48) 1. actionof,(52)(53)(54) 14. Transfer,typesoflinguistic,(1821) 15. Trills,(53) 16. Tsimshian(BritishColumbia),(70)(80) (81) 1. SeeNass. 17. Turkish,(70) (135) (150) (207)(212) 18. Types,linguistic,changeof,(1536) 1. SeeStructure,linguistic.

U
1. UgroFinnic,(212) 2. Umlaut.SeeMutation,vocalic. 3. UnitedStates: 1. culturein,(209) 2. racein,(223) 4. UralAltaiclanguages,(212) 5. Uvula,(48)(53)

V
1. Values: 1. hesitation,(173) 2. morphologic,(131)(132) 3. phonetic,(568) 4. variabilityin,ofcomponentsofdrift,(172) (173) 2. Variations,linguistic:

1. dialect,(15765) 2. historical,(160204) 3. individual,(1579)(165)(199) 3. Verb,(123) (124) (126) 1. syntacticrelationsexpressedin,(115) 4. Verhaeren,(245) 5. Verse: 1. accentual,(244) (245) 2. linguisticdeterminantsof,(2426) 3. quantitative,(244) (245) 4. syllabic,(244)(245) 6. Vocalicchange,(26)(61) (64) (768) 1. SeeMutation,vocalic. 7. Voice,productionof,(50) 8. Voicedsounds,(50) 9. Voiceless: 1. laterals,(53) 2. nasals,(51) 3. sounds,(49) (50) 4. trills,(53) 5. vowels,(52) 10. Voicelessness,productionof,(49) 11. Volitionexpressedinspeech,(38)(39) 12. Vowels,(52)

W
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Walking,abiologicalfunction,(1) (2) Washo(Nevada),(81) Welsh,(51)(53) (225) Westermann,D., (154) Whisper,(50) Whitman,(239) Whom,useanddriftof,(16674) Word, (258) 1. definitionof,(326) 2. syntacticoriginofcomplex,(117)(118) 3. twilighttypeof,(28) (29) 4. typesof,formal,(2932) 9. Writtenlanguage,(19) (20)

Y
1. Yana(N.California),(69) (70)(74) (76) (96) (105)(111)(112) (126) (150) (155) 2. Yiddish,(204)

3. Yokuts(S.California),(77) (78) 4. Yurok(N.W.California),(229) 1. Y.Indians,(228)

Z
1. ZaconicdialectofGreek,(162) Footnote1:Weshallreservecapitalsforradicalelements. Footnote2: Thesewordsarenothereusedinanarrowlytechnicalsense. Footnote3: ItisnotaquestionofthegeneralisolatingcharacterofsuchlanguagesasChinese (seeChapterVI).Radicalwordsmayanddooccurinlanguagesofallvarieties,manyofthemof ahighdegreeofcomplexity. Footnote4: SpokenbyagroupofIndiantribesinVancouverIsland. Footnote5: InthisandotherexamplestakenfromexoticlanguagesIamforcedbypractical considerationstosimplifytheactualphoneticforms.Thisshouldnotmatterperceptibly,aswe areconcernedwithformassuch,notwithphoneticcontent. Footnote6: Theseoralexperiences,whichIhavehadtimeandagainasafieldstudentof AmericanIndianlanguages,areveryneatlyconfirmedbypersonalexperiencesofanothersort. TwiceIhavetaughtintelligentyoungIndianstowritetheirownlanguagesaccordingtothe phoneticsystemwhichIemploy.Theyweretaughtmerelyhowtorenderaccuratelythesounds assuch.Bothhadsomedifficultyinlearningtobreakupawordintoitsconstituentsounds,but nonewhateverindeterminingthewords.Thistheybothdidwithspontaneousandcomplete accuracy.InthehundredsofpagesofmanuscriptNootkatextthatIhaveobtainedfromoneof theseyoungIndiansthewords,whetherabstractrelationalentitieslikeEnglish thatandbutor complexsentencewordsliketheNootkaexamplequotedabove,are,practicallywithout exception,isolatedpreciselyasIoranyotherstudentwouldhaveisolatedthem.Such experienceswithnavespeakersandrecordersdomoretoconvinceoneofthedefinitelyplastic unityofthewordthananyamountofpurelytheoreticalargument. Footnote7:CordinatesentenceslikeIshallremainbutyoumaygomayonlydoubtfullybe consideredastrulyunifiedpredications,astruesentences.Theyaresentencesinastylisticsense ratherthanfromthestrictlyformallinguisticstandpoint.Theorthography Ishallremain.Butyou maygoisasintrinsicallyjustifiedasIshallremain.Nowyoumaygo.Thecloserconnectionin sentimentbetweenthefirsttwopropositionshasledtoaconventionalvisualrepresentationthat mustnotdeceivetheanalyticspirit. Footnote8: Except,possibly,inanewspaperheadline.Suchheadlines,however,arelanguage onlyinaderivedsense. Footnote9: E.g.,thebrilliantDutchwriter,JacvanGinneken. Footnote10:Observethevoluntary.Whenweshoutorgruntorotherwiseallowourvoicesto takecareofthemselves,aswearelikelytodowhenaloneinthecountryonafinespringday,we arenolongerfixingvocaladjustmentsbyvoluntarycontrol.Underthesecircumstancesweare almostcertaintohitonspeechsoundsthatwecouldneverlearntocontrolinactualspeech. Footnote11: Ifspeech,initsacousticandarticulatoryaspect,isindeedarigidsystem,how comesit,onemayplausiblyobject,thatnotwopeoplespeakalike?Theanswerissimple.All thatpartofspeechwhichfallsoutoftherigidarticulatoryframeworkisnotspeechinidea,butis merelyasuperadded,moreorlessinstinctivelydeterminedvocalcomplicationinseparablefrom

speechinpractice.Alltheindividualcolorofspeechpersonalemphasis,speed,personal cadence,personalpitchisanonlinguisticfact, justastheincidentalexpressionofdesireand emotionare,forthemostpart,alientolinguisticexpression.Speech,likeallelementsofculture, demandsconceptualselection,inhibitionoftherandomnessofinstinctivebehavior.Thatits ideaisneverrealizedassuchinpractice,itscarriersbeinginstinctivelyanimatedorganisms,is ofcoursetrueofeachandeveryaspectofculture. Footnote12: Purelyacousticclassifications,suchasmoreeasilysuggestthemselvestoafirst attemptatanalysis,arenowinlessfavoramongstudentsofphoneticsthanorganic classifications.Thelatterhavetheadvantageofbeingmoreobjective.Moreover,theacoustic qualityofasoundisdependentonthearticulation,eventhoughinlinguisticconsciousnessthis qualityistheprimary,notthesecondary,fact. Footnote13:Byqualityisheremeanttheinherentnatureandresonanceofthesoundassuch. Thegeneralqualityoftheindividualsvoiceisanothermatteraltogether.Thisischiefly determinedbytheindividualanatomicalcharacteristicsofthelarynxandisofnolinguistic interestwhatever. Footnote14:Asattheendofthesnappilypronouncedno! (sometimeswritten nope!)orinthe overcarefullypronouncedatall,whereonemayhearaslightcheckbetweenthetandthea. Footnote15:Singingishereusedinawidesense.Onecannotsingcontinuouslyonsucha soundasbord,butonemayeasilyoutlineatuneonaseriesof bsor dsinthemannerofthe pluckedpizzicatoonstringedinstruments.Aseriesoftonesexecutedoncontinuantconsonants, likem,z,or l,givestheeffectofhumming,droning,orbuzzing.Thesoundofhumming, indeed,isnothingbutacontinuousvoicednasal,heldononepitchorvaryinginpitch,asdesired. Footnote16: Thewhisperofordinaryspeechisacombinationofunvoicedsoundsand whisperedsounds,asthetermisunderstoodinphonetics. Footnote17:Asidefromtheinvoluntarynasalizingofallvoicedsoundsinthespeechofthose thattalkwithanasaltwang. Footnote18: Thesemaybealsodefinedasfreeunvoicedbreathwithvaryingvocalictimbres.In thelongPaiutewordquotedon page31 thefirstu andthefinal arepronouncedwithoutvoice. Footnote19:Nasalizedstops,say morn,cannaturallynotbetrulystopped,asthereisnoway ofcheckingthestreamofbreathinthenosebyadefinitearticulation. Footnote20: Thelipsalsomaytheoreticallysoarticulate.Labialtrills,however,arecertainly rareinnaturalspeech. Footnote21: Thisposition,knownasfaucal,isnotcommon. Footnote22:Pointsofarticulationmustbeunderstoodtoincludetongueandlippositionsof thevowels. Footnote23: Including,underthefourthcategory,anumberofspecialresonanceadjustments thatwehavenotbeenabletotakeupspecifically. Footnote24: Insofar,itshouldbeadded,asthesesoundsareexpiratory,i.e.,pronouncedwith theoutgoingbreath.Certainlanguages,liketheSouthAfricanHottentotandBushman,havealso anumberofinspiratorysounds,pronouncedbysuckinginthebreathatvariouspointsoforal contact.Thesearethesocalledclicks. Footnote25: Theconceptionoftheidealphoneticsystem,thephoneticpattern,ofalanguageis notaswellunderstoodbylinguisticstudentsasitshouldbe.Inthisrespecttheunschooled recorderoflanguage,providedhehasagoodearandagenuineinstinctforlanguage,isoften ata greatadvantageascomparedwiththeminutephonetician,whoisapttobeswampedbyhismass ofobservations.IhavealreadyemployedmyexperienceinteachingIndianstowritetheirown

languageforitstestingvalueinanotherconnection.Ityieldsequallyvaluableevidencehere.I foundthatitwasdifficultorimpossibletoteachanIndiantomakephoneticdistinctionsthatdid notcorrespondtopointsinthepatternofhislanguage,howeverthesedifferencesmightstrike ourobjectiveear,butthatsubtle,barelyaudible,phoneticdifferences,ifonlytheyhitthepoints inthepattern,wereeasilyandvoluntarilyexpressedinwriting.InwatchingmyNootka interpreterwritehislanguage,Ioftenhadthecuriousfeelingthathewastranscribinganideal flowofphoneticelementswhichheheard,inadequatelyfromapurelyobjectivestandpoint,as theintentionoftheactualrumbleofspeech. Footnote26:Forthesymbolism,seechapterII. Footnote27:Pluralishereasymbolforanyprefixindicatingplurality. Footnote28: ThelanguageoftheAztecs,stillspokeninlargepartsofMexico. Footnote29: IndianlanguageofBritishColumbiacloselyrelatedtotheNassalreadycited. Footnote30: IncludingsuchlanguagesasNavaho,Apache,Hupa,Carrier,Chipewyan, Loucheux. Footnote31: ThismayseemsurprisingtoanEnglishreader.Wegenerallythinkoftimeasa functionthatisappropriatelyexpressedinapurelyformalmanner.Thisnotionisduetothebias thatLatingrammarhasgivenus.AsamatteroffacttheEnglishfuture(Ishallgo)isnot expressedbyaffixingatallmoreover,itmaybeexpressedbythepresent,asin tomorrowI leavethisplace,wherethetemporalfunctionisinherentintheindependentadverb.Thoughin lesserdegree,theHupateisasirrelevanttothevitalwordasistomorrow tothegrammatical feelof Ileave. Footnote32:Wishramdialect. Footnote33:Reallyhim,butChinook,likeLatinorFrench,possessesgrammaticalgender.An objectmaybereferredtoashe,she,orit,accordingtothecharacteristicformofitsnoun. Footnote34: Thisanalysisisdoubtful.Itislikelythatn possessesafunctionthatstillremains tobeascertained.TheAlgonkinlanguagesareunusuallycomplexandpresentmanyunsolved problemsofdetail. Footnote35:Secondarystemsareelementswhicharesuffixesfromaformalpointofview, neverappearingwithoutthesupportofatrueradicalelement,butwhosefunctionisasconcrete, toallintentsandpurposes,asthatoftheradicalelementitself.Secondaryverbstemsofthistype arecharacteristicoftheAlgonkinlanguagesandofYana. Footnote36: IntheAlgonkinlanguagesallpersonsandthingsareconceivedofaseitheranimate orinanimate,justasinLatinorGermantheyareconceivedofasmasculine,feminine,orneuter. Footnote37: Egyptiandialect. Footnote38: Therearechangesofaccentandvocalicquantityin theseformsaswell,butthe requirementsofsimplicityforceustoneglectthem. Footnote39:ABerberlanguageofMorocco. Footnote40: SomeoftheBerberlanguagesallowconsonantalcombinationsthatseem unpronounceabletous. Footnote41:OneoftheHamiticlanguagesofeasternAfrica. Footnote42: Seepage49. Footnote43: SpokeninthesouthcentralpartofCalifornia. Footnote44: Seepage50. Footnote45: Theseorthographiesarebutmakeshiftsforsimplesounds. Footnote46:Whenceourpingpong. Footnote47:AnAfricanlanguageoftheGuineaCoast.

Footnote48: Intheverbaladjectivethetoneofthesecondsyllablediffersfromthatofthefirst. Footnote49: Initialclick(seepage55,note15)omitted. Transcriber'sNote:Thisfootnotehas beenrenumberedasFootnote24. Footnote50:AnIndianlanguageofNevada. Footnote51:AnIndianlanguageofOregon. Footnote52: Itisnotunlikely,however,thattheseAthabaskanalternationsareprimarilytonalin character. Footnote53:Notinitstechnicalsense. Footnote54: Itis,ofcourse,anaccidentthatsdenotespluralityinthenoun,singularityinthe verb. Footnote55:Tocausetobedeadortocausetodieinthesenseoftokillisanexceedingly widespreadusage.Itisfound,forinstance,alsoinNootkaandSioux. Footnote56:AgriculturewasnotpractisedbytheYana.Theverbalideaoftofarmwould probablybeexpressedinsomesuchsyntheticmannerastodigearthortogrowcause. Therearesuffixedelementscorrespondingtoerandling. Footnote57:Doer,notdoneto.Thisisanecessarilyclumsytagtorepresentthe nominative(subjective)incontrasttotheaccusative(objective). Footnote58: I.e.,notyouorI. Footnote59:Bycaseisheremeantnotonlythesubjectiveobjectiverelationbutalsothatof attribution. Footnote60: ExceptinsofarasLatinusesthismethodasaratherawkward,roundaboutmethod ofestablishingtheattributionofthecolortotheparticularobjectorperson.Ineffectonecannot inLatindirectlysaythatapersoniswhite,merelythatwhatiswhiteisidenticalwiththeperson whois,acts,orisacteduponinsuchandsuchamanner.InoriginthefeeloftheLatin illaalba feminaisreallythatone,thewhiteone,(namely)thewomanthreesubstantiveideasthatare relatedtoeachotherbyajuxtapositionintendedtoconveyanidentity.EnglishandChinese expresstheattributiondirectlybymeansoforder.InLatintheillaandalbamayoccupyalmost anypositioninthesentence.Itisimportanttoobservethatthesubjectiveformof illaandalba, doesnottrulydefinearelationofthesequalifyingconceptstofemina.Sucharelationmightbe formallyexpressedviaanattributivecase,saythegenitive(womanofwhiteness).InTibetan boththemethodsoforderandoftruecaserelationmaybeemployed:womanwhite(i.e.,white woman)orwhiteofwoman(i.e.,womanofwhiteness,womanwhoiswhite,whitewoman). Footnote61:Aside,naturally,fromthelifeandimminencethatmaybecreatedforsucha sentencebyaparticularcontext. Footnote62: ThishaslargelyhappenedinpopularFrenchandGerman,wherethedifferenceis stylisticratherthanfunctional.Thepreteritsaremoreliteraryorformalintonethantheperfects. Footnote63:Hence,thesquarerootof4is2,preciselyasmyuncleisherenow.Thereare manyprimitivelanguagesthataremorephilosophicalanddistinguishbetweenatruepresent andacustomaryorgeneraltense. Footnote64: Except,ofcourse,thefundamentalselectionandcontrastnecessarilyimpliedin definingoneconceptasagainstanother.Manandwhitepossessaninherentrelationto womanandblack,butitisarelationofconceptualcontentonlyandisofnodirectinterestto grammar. Footnote65: Thus,theer of farmermayhedefinedasindicatingthatparticularsubstantive concept(objectorthing)thatservesasthehabitualsubjectoftheparticularverbtowhichitis affixed.Thisrelationofsubject(afarmerfarms)isinherentinandspecifictotheworditdoes

notexistforthesentenceasawhole.Inthesamewaytheling of ducklingdefinesaspecific relationofattributionthatconcernsonlytheradicalelement,notthesentence. Footnote66: Itispreciselythefailuretofeelthevalueortone,asdistinctfromtheouter significance,oftheconceptexpressedbyagivengrammaticalelementthathassooftenled studentstomisunderstandthenatureoflanguagesprofoundlyalientotheirown.Noteverything thatcallsitselftenseormodeornumberorgenderorpersonisgenuinelycomparable towhatwemeanbythesetermsinLatinorFrench. Footnote67: SuffixedarticlesoccuralsoinDanishandSwedishandinnumerousother languages.TheNootkaelementforinthehousediffersfromourhouseinthatitissuffixed andcannotoccurasanindependentwordnorisitrelatedtotheNootkawordforhouse. Footnote68:Assumingtheexistenceofawordfirelet. Footnote69: TheNootkadiminutiveisdoubtlessmoreofafeelingelement,anelementof nuance,thanour ling.Thisisshownbythefactthatitmaybeusedwithverbsaswellaswith nouns.Inspeakingtoachild,oneislikelytoaddthediminutivetoanywordinthesentence, regardlessofwhetherthereisaninherentdiminutivemeaninginthewordornot. Footnote70: siisthethirdpersonofthepresenttense.hau eastisanaffix,nota compoundedradicalelement. Footnote71: Theseareclassical,notmoderncolloquial,forms. Footnote72:JustasinEnglishHehaswrittenbooksmakesnocommitmentonthescoreof quantity(afew,several,many). Footnote73: Suchaspersonclass,animalclass,instrumentclass,augmentativeclass. Footnote74:AtermborrowedfromSlavicgrammar.Itindicatesthelapseofaction,itsnature fromthestandpointofcontinuity.Ourcryisindefiniteastoaspect,becryingisdurative, cryputismomentaneous,burstintotearsisinceptive,keepcryingiscontinuative,startin cryingisdurativeinceptive,crynowandagainisiterative,cryouteverynowandthenor cryinfitsandstartsismomentaneousiterative.Toputonacoatismomentaneous,towear acoatisresultative.Asourexamplesshow,aspectisexpressedinEnglishbyallkindsof idiomaticturnsratherthanbyaconsistentlyworkedoutsetofgrammaticalforms.Inmany languagesaspectisoffargreaterformalsignificancethantense,withwhichthenavestudentis apttoconfuseit. Footnote75:BymodalitiesIdonotmeanthematteroffactstatement,say,ofnegationor uncertaintyassuch,rathertheirimplicationintermsofform.Therearelanguages,forinstance, whichhaveaselaborateanapparatusofnegativeformsfortheverbasGreekhasoftheoptative orwishmodality. Footnote76:Comparepage97. Footnote77: Itisbecauseofthisclassificationofexperiencethatinmanylanguagestheverb formswhichareproper,say,toamythicalnarrationdifferfromthosecommonlyusedindaily intercourse.Weleavetheseshadestothecontextorcontentourselveswithamoreexplicitand roundaboutmodeofexpression,e.g.,Heisdead,asIhappentoknow,Theysayheisdead, Hemustbedeadbythelooksofthings. Footnote78:WesayIsleepandIgo,aswellasIkillhim,buthekillsme.Yetme ofthe lastexampleisatleastasclosepsychologicallyto I ofIsleepasisthelattertoI ofIkill him.ItisonlybyformthatwecanclassifytheInotionofIsleepasthatof anacting subject.Properlyspeaking,IamhandledbyforcesbeyondmycontrolwhenIsleepjustastruly aswhensomeoneiskillingme.Numerouslanguagesdifferentiateclearlybetweenactivesubject andstaticsubject(Igo andIkillhimasdistinctfrom Isleep,Iamgood,Iamkilled)orbetween

transitivesubjectandintransitivesubject(Ikillhimasdistinctfrom Isleep,Iamgood, Iam killed,Igo).Theintransitiveorstaticsubjectsmayormaynotbeidenticalwiththeobjectofthe transitiveverb. Footnote79:Ultimately,alsohistoricalsay,agetoactthat(one). Footnote80:Forwithinthesenseofagainst,compareGermanwideragainst. Footnote81:Cf.Latin iretogoalsoourEnglishidiomIhavetogo,i.e.,mustgo. Footnote82: InChinesenolessthaninEnglish. Footnote83:ByoriginallyImean,ofcourse,sometimeantedatingtheearliestperiodofthe IndoEuropeanlanguagesthatwecangetatbycomparativeevidence. Footnote84: Perhapsitwasanounclassifyingelementofsomesort. Footnote85:Compareitsclosehistoricalparallel off. Footnote86:Ablativeatlastanalysis. Footnote87:Verylikelypitchshouldbeunderstoodalongwithstress. Footnote88:AsinBantuorChinook. Footnote89: Perhapsbettergeneral.TheChinookneutermayrefertopersonsaswellas thingsandmayalsobeusedasaplural.Masculineandfeminine,asinGermanandFrench, includeagreatnumberofinanimatenouns. Footnote90: SpokeninthegreaterpartofthesouthernhalfofAfrica.Chinookisspokenina numberofdialectsinthelowerColumbiaRivervalley.Itisimpressivetoobservehowthe humanmindhasarrivedatthesameformofexpressionintwosuchhistoricallyunconnected regions. Footnote 91: InYanathenounandtheverbarewelldistinct,thoughtherearecertainfeatures thattheyholdincommonwhichtendtodrawthemnearertoeachotherthanwefeeltobe possible.Butthereare,strictlyspeaking,nootherpartsofspeech.Theadjectiveisaverb.Soare thenumeral,theinterrogativepronoun(e.g.,tobewhat?),andcertainconjunctionsand adverbs(e.g.,tobeandandtobenotonesaysandpastIgo,i.e.,andIwent).Adverbs andprepositionsareeithernounsormerelyderivativeaffixesintheverb. Footnote92: Ifpossible,atriuneformula. Footnote93:OnecelebratedAmericanwriteroncultureandlanguagedeliveredhimselfofthe dictumthat,estimableasthespeakersofagglutinativelanguagesmightbe,itwasneverthelessa crimeforaninflectingwomantomarryanagglutinatingman.Tremendousspiritualvalueswere evidentlyatstake.Championsoftheinflectivelanguagesarewonttogloryinthevery irrationalitiesofLatinandGreek,exceptwhenitsuitsthemtoemphasizetheirprofoundly logicalcharacter.YetthesoberlogicofTurkishorChineseleavesthemcold.Theglorious irrationalitiesandformalcomplexitiesofmanysavagelanguagestheyhavenostomachfor. Sentimentalistsaredifficultpeople. Footnote94: Ihaveinmindvaluationsofformassuch.Whetherornotalanguagehasalarge andusefulvocabularyisanothermatter.Theactualsizeofavocabularyatagiventimeisnota thingofrealinteresttothelinguist,asalllanguageshavetheresourcesattheirdisposalforthe creationofnewwords,shouldneedforthemarise.Furthermore,wearenotintheleast concernedwithwhetherornotalanguageisofgreatpracticalvalueoristhemediumofagreat culture.Alltheseconsiderations,importantfromotherstandpoints,havenothingtodowithform value. Footnote95: E.g.,Malay,Polynesian. Footnote96:Where,aswehaveseen,thesyntacticrelationsarebynomeansfreefromanalloy oftheconcrete.

Footnote97:VerymuchasanEnglish codliveroildodgestosomeextentthetaskofexplicitly definingtherelationsofthethreenouns.ContrastFrench huiledefoiedemorueoilofliverof cod. Footnote98: SeeChapterIV. Footnote99: Thereisprobablyarealpsychologicalconnectionbetweensymbolismandsuch significantalternationsasdrink,drank,drunkorChinesemai(withrisingtone)tobuyandmai (withfallingtone)tosell.Theunconscioustendencytowardsymbolismisjustlyemphasized byrecentpsychologicalliterature.PersonallyIfeelthatthepassagefrom singtosanghasvery muchthesamefeelingasthealternationofsymboliccolorse.g.,greenforsafe,redfordanger. Butweprobablydiffergreatlyastotheintensitywithwhichwefeelsymbolisminlinguistic changesofthistype. Footnote100: Pureorconcreterelational.SeeChapterV. Footnote101: Inspiteofmyreluctancetoemphasizethedifferencebetweenaprefixinganda suffixinglanguage,Ifeelthatthereismoreinvolvedinthisdifferencethanlinguistshave generallyrecognized.Itseemstomethatthereisaratherimportantpsychologicaldistinction betweenalanguagethatsettlestheformalstatusofaradicalelementbeforeannouncingitand this,ineffect,iswhatsuchlanguagesasTlingitandChinookandBantuareinthehabitof doingandonethatbeginswiththeconcretenucleusofawordanddefinesthestatusofthis nucleusbysuccessivelimitations,eachcurtailinginsomedegreethegeneralityofallthat precedes.Thespiritoftheformermethodhassomethingdiagrammaticorarchitecturalaboutit, thelatterisamethodofpruningafterthoughts.Inthemorehighlywroughtprefixinglanguages thewordisapttoaffectusasacrystallizationoffloatingelements,thewordsofthetypical suffixinglanguages(Turkish,Eskimo,Nootka)aredeterminativeformations,eachadded elementdeterminingtheformofthewholeanew.Itissodifficultinpracticetoapplythese elusive,yetimportant,distinctionsthatanelementarystudyhasnorecoursebuttoignorethem. Footnote102: English,however,isonlyanalyticintendency.RelativelytoFrench,itisstill fairlysynthetic,atleastincertainaspects. Footnote103:TheformerprocessisdemonstrableforEnglish,French,Danish,Tibetan,Chinese, andahostofotherlanguages.Thelattertendencymaybeproven,Ibelieve,foranumberof AmericanIndianlanguages,e.g.,Chinook,Navaho.Underneaththeirpresentmoderately polysyntheticformisdiscernibleananalyticbasethatintheonecasemayberoughlydescribed asEnglishlike,intheother,Tibetanlike. Footnote104: ThisappliesmoreparticularlytotheRomancegroup:Italian,Spanish,Portuguese, French,Roumanian.ModernGreekisnotsoclearlyanalytic. Footnote105: Seepages133,134. Footnote106: Thefollowingformulaemayproveusefultothosethataremathematically inclined.Agglutination:c=a+bregularfusion:c=a+ (b x)+xirregularfusion:c=(a x)+(b y)+(x +y)symbolism:c=(a x)+x.Idonotwishtoimplythatthereisanymystic valueintheprocessoffusion.Itisquitelikelytohavedevelopedasapurelymechanicalproduct ofphoneticforcesthatbroughtaboutirregularitiesofvarioussorts. Footnote107: Seepage110. Footnote108: SeeChapterV. Footnote109: Ifwedenytheapplicationoftheterminflectivetofusinglanguagesthatexpress thesyntacticrelationsinpureform,thatis,withouttheadmixtureofsuchconceptsasnumber, gender,andtense,merelybecausesuchadmixtureisfamiliartousinLatin andGreek,wemake ofinflectionanevenmorearbitraryconceptthanitneedbe.Atthesametimeitistruethatthe

methodoffusionitselftendstobreakdownthewallbetweenourconceptualgroupsIIandIV,to creategroupIII.Yetthepossibility ofsuchinflectivelanguagesshouldnotbedenied.In modernTibetan,forinstance,inwhichconceptsofgroupIIarebutweaklyexpressed,ifatall, andinwhichtherelationalconcepts(e.g.,thegenitive,theagentiveorinstrumental)are expressedwithoutalloyofthematerial,wegetmanyinterestingexamplesoffusion,evenof symbolism.Midi,e.g.,manthis,themanisanabsolutiveformwhichmaybeusedasthe subjectofanintransitiveverb.Whentheverbistransitive(reallypassive),the(logical)subject hastotaketheagentiveform.Midi thenbecomesmidi bytheman,thevowelofthe demonstrativepronoun(orarticle)beingmerelylengthened.(Thereisprobablyalsoachangein thetoneofthesyllable.)This,ofcourse,isoftheveryessenceofinflection.Itisanamusing commentaryontheinsufficiencyofourcurrentlinguisticclassification,whichconsiders inflectiveandisolatingasworldsasunder,thatmodernTibetanmaybenotinaptlydescribed asanisolatinglanguage,asidefromsuchexamplesoffusionandsymbolismastheforegoing. Footnote110: Iameliminatingentirelythepossibilityofcompoundingtwoormoreradical elementsintosinglewordsorwordlikephrases(seepages6770).Toexpresslyconsider compoundinginthepresentsurveyoftypeswouldbetocomplicateourproblemunduly.Most languagesthatpossessnoderivationalaffixesofanysortmayneverthelessfreely compound radicalelements(independentwords).Suchcompoundsoftenhaveafixitythatsimulatesthe unityofsinglewords. Footnote111:WemayassumethatintheselanguagesandinthoseoftypeDallormostofthe relationalconceptsareexpressedinmixedform,thatsuchaconceptasthatofsubjectivity,for instance,cannotbeexpressedwithoutsimultaneouslyinvolvingnumberorgenderorthatan activeverbformmustbepossessedofadefinitetense.HencegroupIIIwillbeunderstoodto include,orratherabsorb,groupIV.Theoretically,ofcourse,certainrelationalconceptsmaybe expressedpure,othersmixed,butinpracticeitwillnotbefoundeasytomakethedistinction. Footnote112: ThelinebetweentypesCandDcannotbeverysharply drawn.Itisamatter largelyofdegree.Alanguageofmarkedlymixedrelationaltype,butoflittlepowerofderivation pureandsimple,suchasBantuorFrench,maybeconvenientlyputintotypeC,eventhoughitis notdevoidofanumberofderivational affixes.Roughlyspeaking,languagesoftypeCmaybe consideredashighlyanalytic(purified)formsoftypeD. Footnote113: Indefiningthetypetowhichalanguagebelongsonemustbecarefulnottobe misledbystructuralfeatureswhicharemeresurvivalsofanolderstage,whichhaveno productivelifeanddonotenterintotheunconsciouspatterningofthelanguage.Alllanguages arelitteredwithsuchpetrifiedbodies.TheEnglishsterof spinsterandWebsterisanold agentivesuffix,but,asfarasthefeelingofthepresentEnglishspeakinggenerationisconcerned, itcannotbesaidtoreallyexistatallspinsterandWebsterhavebeencompletelydisconnected fromtheetymologicalgroupof spinandof weave(web).Similarly,therearehostsofrelated wordsinChinesewhichdifferintheinitialconsonant,thevowel,thetone,orinthepresenceor absenceofafinalconsonant.EvenwheretheChinamanfeelstheetymologicalrelationship,asin certaincaseshecanhardlyhelpdoing,hecanassignnoparticularfunctiontothephonetic variationassuch.Henceitformsnolivefeatureofthelanguagemechanismandmustbeignored indefiningthegeneralformofthelanguage.Thecautionisallthemorenecessary,asitis preciselytheforeigner,whoapproachesanewlanguagewithacertainpryinginquisitiveness, thatismostapttoseelifeinvestigialfeatureswhichthenativeiseithercompletelyunawareof orfeelsmerelyasdeadform. Footnote114:MightnearlyaswellhavecomeunderD.

Footnote115:Verynearlycomplexpurerelational. Footnote116:NotGreekspecifically,ofcourse,butasatypicalrepresentativeofIndoEuropean. Footnote117: Such,inotherwords,ascanbeshownbydocumentaryorcomparativeevidenceto havebeen derivedfromacommonsource.SeeChapterVII. Footnote118: ThesearefareasternandfarwesternrepresentativesoftheSoudangroup recentlyproposedbyD.Westermann.ThegeneticrelationshipbetweenEweandShillukis exceedinglyremoteatbest. Footnote119: Thiscaseisdoubtfulatthat.IhaveputFrenchinCratherthaninDwith considerablemisgivings.Everythingdependsonhowoneevaluateselementslikealin national, tin bont,orrein retourner.Theyarecommonenough,butaretheyasalive,aslittlepetrified orbookish,asourEnglish nessandfulandun? Footnote120: Inspiteofitsmoreisolatingcast. Footnote121: Inabookofthissortitisnaturallyimpossibletogiveanadequateideaof linguisticstructureinitsvaryingforms.Onlyafewschematicindicationsarepossible.A separatevolumewouldbeneededtobreathelifeintothescheme.Suchavolumewouldpointout thesalientstructuralcharacteristicsofanumberoflanguages,soselectedastogivethereaderan insightintotheformaleconomyofstrikinglydivergenttypes. Footnote122: Insofarastheydonotfalloutofthenormalspeechgroupbyreasonofamarked speechdefectorbecausetheyareisolatedforeignersthathaveacquiredthelanguagelateinlife. Footnote123:Observethatwearespeakingofanindividualsspeechasawhole.Itisnota questionofisolatingsomeparticularpeculiarityofpronunciationorusageandnotingits resemblancetooridentitywithafeatureinanotherdialect. Footnote124: Itisdoubtfulifwehavetherighttospeakoflinguisticuniformityevenduringthe predominanceoftheKoine.ItishardlyconceivablethatwhenthevariousgroupsofnonAttic GreekstookontheKoinetheydidnotatoncetingeitwith dialecticpeculiaritiesinducedby theirpreviousspeechhabits. Footnote125: TheZaconicdialectofLacedaemonisthesoleexception.Itisnotderivedfrom theKoine,butstemsdirectlyfromtheDoricdialectofSparta. Footnote126: ThoughindicationsarenotlackingofwhattheseremoterkinoftheIndo Europeanlanguagesmaybe.Thisisdisputedground,however,andhardlyfitsubjectforapurely generalstudyofspeech. Footnote127:Dialectincontrasttoanacceptedliterarynormisauseofthetermthatweare notconsidering. Footnote128: SpokeninFranceandSpainintheregionofthePyrenees. Footnote129:Orratherapprehended,forwedonot,insoberfact,entirelyunderstanditasyet. Footnote130:Notultimatelyrandom,ofcourse,onlyrelativelyso. Footnote131: Inrelativeclausestoowetendtoavoidtheobjectiveformofwho.Insteadof ThemanwhomIsawwearelikelytosayThemanthatIsaworThemanIsaw. Footnote132:ItswasatonetimeasimpertinentadepartureasthewhoofWhodidyou see?ItforceditselfintoEnglishbecausetheoldcleavagebetweenmasculine,feminine,and neuterwasbeingslowlyandpowerfullysupplementedbyanewonebetweenthingclassand animateclass.Thelatterclassificationprovedtoovitaltoallowusagetocouplemalesandthings (his)asagainstfemales(her).Theformitshadtobecreatedontheanalogyofwordslike mans,tosatisfythegrowingformfeeling.Thedriftwasstrongenoughtosanction a grammaticalblunder.

Footnote133: Psychoanalystswillrecognizethemechanism.Themechanismsofrepressionof impulseandofitssymptomaticsymbolizationcanbeillustratedinthemostunexpectedcorners ofindividualandgrouppsychology.AmoregeneralpsychologythanFreudswilleventually provethemtobeasapplicabletothegropingforabstractform,thelogicalorestheticorderingof experience,astothelifeofthefundamentalinstincts. Footnote134:Notethatitisdifferentwithwhose.Thishasnotthesupportofanalogous possessiveformsinitsownfunctionalgroup,buttheanalogicalpowerofthegreatbodyof possessivesofnouns(mans,boys)aswellasofcertainpersonalpronouns(his,itsas predicatedpossessivealsohers,yours,theirs)issufficienttogiveitvitality. Footnote135:Asidefromcertainidiomaticusages,aswhenYousawwhom?isequivalenttoYou sawsoandsoandthatsoandsoiswho?Insuchsentenceswhomispronouncedhighand lingeringlytoemphasizethefactthatthepersonjustreferredtobythelistenerisnotknownor recognized. Footnote136: Studentsoflanguagecannotbeentirelynormalintheirattitudetowardstheirown speech.Perhapsitwouldbebettertosaynavethannormal. Footnote137: Itisprobablythisvariabilityofvalueinthesignificantcompoundsofageneral linguisticdriftthatisresponsiblefortheriseofdialecticvariations.Eachdialectcontinuesthe generaldriftofthecommonparent,buthasnotbeenabletoholdfasttoconstantvaluesforeach componentofthedrift.Deviationsastothedriftitself,atfirstslight,latercumulative,are thereforeunavoidable. Footnote138:Mostsentencesbeginningwithinterrogativewhomarelikelytobefollowedby did ordoes, do.Yetnotall. Footnote139:Better,indeed,thaninouroldestLatinandGreekrecords.TheoldIndoIranian languagesalone(Sanskrit,Avestan)showanequallyormorearchaicstatusoftheIndoEuropean parenttongueasregardscaseforms. Footnote140: Shoulditseventuallydropout,itwillhavehadacurioushistory.Itwillhave playedtherleofastopgapbetween hisinitsnonpersonaluse(seefootnote11,page167)and thelateranalyticof it.Transcriber'sNote:ThisfootnotehasbeenrenumberedasFootnote132. Footnote141: Exceptinsofarasthathasabsorbedotherfunctionsthansuchasoriginally belongedtoit.Itwasonlyanominativeaccusativeneutertobeginwith. Footnote142:Asidefromtheinterrogative:amI?ishe?Emphasiscountsforsomething.There isastrongtendencyfortheoldobjectiveformstobearastrongerstressthanthesubjective forms.ThisiswhythestressinlocutionslikeHedidntgo,didhe?andisnthe?isthrownback ontheverbitisnotamatteroflogicalemphasis. Footnote143: They:themasaninanimategroupmaybelookeduponasakindofborrowing fromtheanimate,towhich,infeeling,itmoreproperlybelongs. Footnote144: Seepage155. Footnote145: IhavechangedtheOldandMiddleHighGermanorthographyslightlyinorderto bringitintoaccordwithmodernusage.Thesepurelyorthographicalchangesareimmaterial.The u of musisalongvowel,verynearlyliketheooofEnglish moose. Footnote146: Thevowelsofthesefourwordsarelong oasin rode,elikeaof fade,u likeooof brood,ylikeGerman . Footnote147:Orratherstageinadrift. Footnote148:AngloSaxon fetisunroundedfromanolderft,whichisphoneticallyrelatedto fot preciselyasismys(i.e.,ms)tomus.MiddleHighGerman ue(ModernGerman u)didnot developfromanumlautedprototypeofOldHighGerman uoandAngloSaxon o,butwas

baseddirectlyonthedialecticuo.Theunaffectedprototypewaslongo.Hadthisbeenaffectedin theearliestGermanicorWestGermanicperiod,weshouldhavehadapreGermanalternation fot: ftithisoldercouldnotwellhaveresultedin ue.Fortunatelywedonotneedinferential evidenceinthiscase,yetinferentialcomparativemethods,ifhandledwith care,maybe exceedinglyuseful.Theyareindeedindispensabletothehistorianoflanguage. Footnote149: Seepage133. Footnote150: PrimitiveGermanicfot(s), fotiz, mus,musizIndoEuropean pods,podes,mus, muses.Thevowelsofthefirstsyllablesarealllong. Footnote151:Orinthatunconscioussoundpatterningwhichiseveronthepointofbecoming conscious.Seepage57. Footnote152:AshavemostDutchandGermandialects. Footnote153:AtleastinAmerica. Footnote154: Itispossiblethatotherthanpurelyphoneticfactorsarealsoatworkinthehistory ofthesevowels. Footnote155: Theorthographyisroughlyphonetic.Pronounceallaccentedvowelslongexcept whereotherwiseindicated,unaccentedvowelsshortgivecontinentalvaluestovowels,not presentEnglishones. Footnote156:AfterI.thenumbersarenotmeanttocorrespondchronologicallytothoseofthe Englishtable.Theorthographyisagainroughlyphonetic. Footnote157: Iusess toindicateapeculiarlong,voicelessssoundthatwasetymologicallyand phoneticallydistinctfromtheoldGermanics.Italwaysgoesbacktoanoldt.Intheoldsources itisgenerallywrittenasavariantof z,thoughitisnottobeconfusedwiththemodernGerman z (=ts).Itwasprobablyadental(lisped)s. Footnote158: ZistobeunderstoodasFrenchorEnglish z,notinitsGermanuse.Strictly speaking,thisz(intervocalics)wasnotvoicedbutwasasoftvoicelesssound,asibilant intermediatebetweenours andz.InmodernNorthGermanithasbecomevoicedtoz.Itis importantnottoconfoundthisszwiththevoicelessintervocalicsthatsoonarosefromthe olderlispedss.InModernGerman(asidefromcertaindialects),oldsandssarenotnow differentiatedwhenfinal(MausandFusshaveidenticalsibilants),butcanstillbedistinguished asvoicedandvoicelesssbetweenvowels(MuseandFsse). Footnote159: Inpracticephoneticlawshavetheirexceptions,butmoreintensivestudyalmost invariablyshowsthattheseexceptionsaremoreapparentthanreal.Theyaregenerallyduetothe disturbinginfluenceofmorphologicalgroupingsortospecialpsychologicalreasonswhich inhibitthenormalprogressofthephoneticdrift.Itisremarkablewithhowfewexceptionsone needoperateinlinguistichistory,asidefromanalogicalleveling(morphologicalreplacement). Footnote160: Theseconfusionsaremoretheoreticalthanreal,however.Alanguagehas countlessmethodsofavoidingpracticalambiguities. Footnote161:Atypeofadjustmentgenerallyreferredtoasanalogicalleveling. Footnote162: IsolatedfromotherGermandialectsinthelatefifteenthandearlysixteenth centuries.Itisthereforeagoodtestforgaugingthestrengthofthetendencytoumlaut, particularlyasithasdevelopedastrongdrifttowardsanalyticmethods. Footnote163:Ch asinGerman Buch. Footnote164: TheearlierstudentsofEnglish,however,grosslyexaggeratedthegeneral disintegratingeffectofFrenchonmiddleEnglish.Englishwasmovingfasttowardamore analyticstructurelongbeforetheFrenchinfluencesetin.

Footnote165:ForwestillnameournewscientificinstrumentsandpatentmedicinesfromGreek andLatin. Footnote166:Onemightallbutsay,hasborrowedatall. Footnote167: Seepage206. Footnote168:UgroFinnicandTurkish(Tartar) Footnote169: Probably,inSweetsterminology,highback(or,better,betweenbackand mixedpositions)narrowunrounded.ItgenerallycorrespondstoanIndoEuropeanlongu. Footnote170: Thereseemtobeanalogousorpartlyanalogoussoundsincertainlanguagesofthe Caucasus. Footnote171: ThiscanactuallybedemonstratedforoneoftheAthabaskandialectsoftheYukon. Footnote172: InthesphereofsyntaxonemaypointtocertainFrenchandLatininfluences,butit isdoubtfuliftheyeverreacheddeeperthanthewrittenlanguage.Muchofthistypeofinfluence belongsrathertoliterarystylethantomorphologyproper. Footnote173: Seepage163. Footnote174:AgroupoflanguagesspokeninsoutheasternAsia,ofwhichKhmer(Cambodgian) isthebestknownrepresentative. Footnote175:AgroupoflanguagesspokeninnortheasternIndia. Footnote176: Ihaveinmind,e.g.,thepresenceofpostpositionsinUpperChinook,afeaturethat isclearlyduetotheinfluenceofneighboringSahaptinlanguagesortheusebyTakelmaof instrumentalprefixes,which arelikelytohavebeensuggestedbyneighboringHokan languages(Shasta,Karok). Footnote177: ItselfanamalgamofNorthFrenchandScandinavianelements. Footnote178: TheCelticbloodofwhatisnowEnglandandWalesisbynomeansconfinedto theCelticspeakingregionsWalesand,untilrecently,Cornwall.Thereiseveryreasonto believethattheinvadingGermanictribes(Angles,Saxons,Jutes)didnotexterminatethe BrythonicCeltsofEnglandnoryetdrivethemaltogetherintoWalesandCornwall(therehas beenfartoomuchdrivingofconqueredpeoplesintomountainfastnessesandlandsendsin ourhistories),butsimplyintermingledwiththemandimposedtheirruleandlanguageuponthem. Footnote179: Inpracticethesethreepeoplescanhardlybekeptaltogetherdistinct.Theterms haveratheralocalsentimentalthanaclearlyracialvalue.Intermarriagehasgoneonsteadilyfor centuriesanditisonlyincertainoutlyingregionsthatwegetrelativelypuretypes,e.g.,the HighlandScotchoftheHebrides.InAmerica,English,Scotch,andIrishstrandshavebecome inextricablyinterwoven. Footnote180: TheHighGermannowspokeninnorthernGermanyisnotofgreatage,butisdue tothespreadofstandardizedGerman,basedonUpperSaxon,aHighGermandialect,atthe expenseofPlattdeutsch. Footnote181:Dolichocephalic. Footnote182:Brachycephalic. Footnote183:Byworkingbackfromsuchdataaswepossesswecanmakeitprobablethatthese languageswereoriginallyconfinedtoacomparativelysmallareainnorthernGermanyand Scandinavia.ThisareaisclearlymarginaltothetotalareaofdistributionoftheIndoEuropean speakingpeoples.Theircenterofgravity,say1000B.C.,seemstohavelaininsouthernRussia. Footnote184:Whilethisisonlyatheory,thetechnicalevidenceforitisstrongerthanonemight suppose.ThereareasurprisingnumberofcommonandcharacteristicGermanicwordswhich cannotbeconnectedwithknownIndoEuropeanradicalelementsandwhichmaywellbe

survivalsofthehypotheticalpreGermaniclanguagesucharehouse,stone,sea,wife(German Haus,Stein, See,Weib). Footnote185:OnlytheeasternmostpartofthisislandisoccupiedbyMelanesianspeaking Papuans. Footnote186:Anationalityisamajor,sentimentallyunified,group.Thehistoricalfactorsthat leadtothefeelingofnationalunityarevariouspolitical,cultural,linguistic,geographic, sometimesspecificallyreligious.Trueracialfactorsalsomayenterin,thoughtheaccenton racehasgenerallyapsychologicalratherthanastrictlybiologicalvalue.Inanareadominated bythenationalsentimentthereisatendencyforlanguageandculturetobecomeuniformand specific,sothatlinguisticandculturalboundariesatleasttendtocoincide.Evenatbest,however, thelinguisticunificationisneverabsolute,whiletheculturalunityisapttobesuperficial,ofa quasipoliticalnature,ratherthandeepandfarreaching. Footnote187: TheSemiticlanguages,idiosyncraticastheyare,arenomoredefinitelyear marked. Footnote188: Seepage209. Footnote189: TheFijians,forinstance,whileofPapuan(negroid)race,arePolynesianrather thanMelanesianintheirculturalandlinguisticaffinities. Footnote190: Thoughevenherethereissomesignificantoverlapping.Thesouthernmost EskimoofAlaskawereassimilatedinculturetotheirTlingitneighbors.InnortheasternSiberia, too,thereisnosharpculturallinebetweentheEskimoandtheChukchi. Footnote191: Thesupersessionofonelanguagebyanotherisofcoursenottrulyamatterof linguisticassimilation. Footnote192:Temperamentisadifficulttermtoworkwith.Agreatdealofwhatisloosely chargedtonationaltemperamentisreallynothingbutcustomarybehavior,theeffectof traditionalidealsofconduct.Inaculture,forinstance,thatdoesnotlookkindlyupon demonstrativeness,thenaturaltendency tothedisplayofemotionbecomesmorethannormally inhibited.Itwouldbequitemisleadingtoarguefromthecustomaryinhibition,aculturalfact,to thenativetemperament.Butordinarilywecangetathumanconductonlyasitisculturally modified.Temperamentintherawisahighlyelusivething. Footnote193: Seepages39,40. Footnote194: Icanhardlystoptodefinejustwhatkindofexpressionissignificantenoughto becalledartorliterature.Besides,Idonotexactlyknow.Weshallhavetotakeliteraturefor granted. Footnote195: Thisintuitivesurrenderhasnothingtodowithsubserviencetoartistic convention.Morethanonerevoltinmodernarthasbeendominatedbythedesiretogetoutof thematerialjustwhatitisreallycapableof.Theimpressionistwantslightandcolorbecause paintcangivehimjusttheseliteratureinpainting,thesentimentalsuggestionofastory,is offensivetohim becausehedoesnotwantthevirtueofhisparticularformtobedimmedby shadowsfromanothermedium.Similarly,thepoet,asneverbefore,insiststhatwordsmeanjust whattheyreallymean. Footnote196: SeeBenedettoCroce,Aesthetic. Footnote197: Thequestionofthetransferabilityofartproductionsseemstometobeofgenuine theoreticinterest.Forallthatwespeakofthesacrosanctuniquenessofagivenartwork,we knowverywell,thoughwedonotalwaysadmitit,thatnotallproductionsareequallyintractable totransference.AChopintudeisinviolateitmovesaltogetherintheworldofpianotone.A Bachfugueistransferableintoanothersetofmusicaltimbreswithoutseriouslossofesthetic

significance.Chopinplayswiththelanguageofthepianoasthoughnootherlanguageexisted (themediumdisappears)Bachspeaksthelanguageofthepianoasahandymeansofgiving outwardexpressiontoaconceptionwroughtinthegeneralizedlanguageoftone. Footnote198: Provided,ofcourse,Chineseiscarefultoprovideitselfwiththenecessary scientificvocabulary.Likeanyotherlanguage,itcandosowithoutseriousdifficultyiftheneed arises. Footnote199:Asidefromindividualpeculiaritiesofdiction,theselectionandevaluationof particularwordsassuch. Footnote200:Notbyanymeansagreatpoem,merelyabitofoccasionalversewrittenbya youngChinesefriendofminewhenheleftShanghaiforCanada. Footnote201: TheoldnameofthecountryaboutthemouthoftheYangtsze. Footnote202:AprovinceofManchuria. Footnote203: I.e.,China. Footnote204: Poetryeverywhereisinseparableinitsoriginsfromthesingingvoiceandthe measureofthedance.Yetaccentualandsyllabictypesofverse,ratherthanquantitativeverse, seemtobetheprevailingnorms. Footnote205:Quantitativedistinctionsexistasanobjectivefact.Theyhavenotthesameinner, psychologicalvaluethattheyhadinGreek. Footnote206:VerhaerenwasnoslavetotheAlexandrine,yetheremarkedtoSymons,propos ofthetranslationof LesAubes,thatwhileheapprovedoftheuseofrhymelessverseinthe Englishversion,hefounditmeaninglessinFrench.