LB460-462

p460
Very few linguists concurred with Schleicher’s thinking and his commitment to natural science. Surprisingly, Friedrich Max Muller (1823-1900) favored the idea that linguistics was natural science, for fore had Schleicher’s opinion that language evolved from natural sounds. This German born, Oxford professor of linguistics and literature popularized linguistics by his lectures and is still quoted today as an authority by nonlinguists. He considered language an irresistible exclusively human instinct. Known languages had developed out of word roots. These roots, the basic components of language, had originally been used in speech. They were composed of phonetic types, the product of a power inherent in human nature. He considered language and thought inseparable, “… to think is to speak low, to speak is to think aloud” [83].

The public acclaim which Muller received was not based on his erudition, and this irritated the linguists who recognized his fallacies. In 1892, William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894), professor at Yale, opposed Muller’s view on the identity of language and thought, and denied the possibility of a natural science of linguistics. Language was a social product based on a God-given energy. He feared that the inclusion of linguistics in the natural sciences would be used to deny free will which Whitney wanted to preserve at all costs [84].

The view that language was unique to man was not considered contradictory to evolution by Charles Darwin 91809-1882). “The faculty of articulated speech does not in itself offer any insuperable objection to the belief that man has been developed from some lower form” [85].For Darwin articulation, association of ideas, and the ability to connect definite ideas with definite sounds, were not unique characteristics of human language. Man differed from animals solely by his infinitely larger power of associating together the most diversified sounds and ideas. Originally, language had evolved out of man’s imitation of animal noises. Man had shard with the apes their strong tendency to imitate sound. Now, “man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children, whilst no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake or write. Moreover, no philologist no supposes that any language has been deliberately invented.” He found that “The intimate connection between the brain is well shown by these curious cases of brain disease in which speech is specially affected” [86].

The study of aphasia lead John Hughlings Jackson (1834-1911) to formulations on language which went beyond the simple conceptualizations of his predecessors. In his paper written in 1864, he differentiated between intellectual speech used for propositions, and oaths which, like other interjectional expression, are nonpropositional. Among the workers on aphasia, he was the first to emphasize that “language is not a wordheap” and that meaning is gained by placing words in context [87]. In order to understand the disturbances of language, it would be necessary to have a psychology and a physiology of language. Her drew on Herbert Spencer for his psychological formulations and proceeded to construct a very complicated hypothesis to explain the cerebral processes serving language function [88].
He formulated his findings, derived from the observation of cases of aphasia, in terms of cortical function. Learning language would have to be related to the establishment of sensory motor reflexes. For example:
“we learn the word ball, by hearing it and by the consequent articulatory adjustments… We learn the object ball, by receiving retinal impressions and by the occurrence of consequent ocular adjustment” [89].17

Jackson warned against confusing psychology with physiology and anatomy, but could not always avoid this confusion himself [90]. When he succeeded, it was often by the use of hypothetical construct. “Internal speech” may serve as an example of this. He had derived it from psychological introspection and attributed to it a physiological motor function of less intensity than uttered speech. An “idea” became physiologically speaking “a nervous process of a highly special movement of the articulatory series”… although Jackson had to admit that “ no actual movement occurs” [91] most of his theoretical elaborations were confined to a consideration of words or images, although he knew that language could not be understood or explained in terms of these elements! The interrelationships of words did not receive the attention which he knew they deserved.

Most physicians were content with the simple mechanistic explanations about single words, but Hughlings Jackson’s interest in a language psychology was shared by the most prominent linguist H. Steintal.18

Nearly fifty years after von Humboldt had formulated the aims of linguistics, Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899) undertook the task of providing the discipline with a scientific basis. With the advantage of having voluminous compendiums and detailed grammars at his disposal, Stenthal realized that language could only be fully understood, if it was regarded a part of mind. Its scientific study would have to be based on psychology. Only psychological description would permit the elucidation of man’s language capacity and the conditions under which it can develop. “Language appears of necessity… when mental development has reached a certain point.” It comes about after reflexive body movements had entered man’s consciousness, and after the association of perceptions with sounds. Language had not been adequately understood in the past, because it had been regarded solely as a means of communication. It had been incorrectly assumed that man had images, thoughts and the additional ability to express these in terms of sounds. Images and thoughts were themselves based on language.


Notes 17-18
17. What would he have said about bell, a word used by Wernicke in a similar connection?
18. Jackson was mostly ignored. His use of Herbert Spencer’s nomenclature, his own lack of clarity and consistency may have contributed to this. With an increasing interest in psychology in the first part of the twentieth century, his papers were republished by Head (Brain, 1915).


Reference 83-91
83. Muller, Max, Lectures on the Science of Language. Longman, Green, London, 1862. pp. 22, 32, 349, 356, 386-388.
84. Whitney William D., Max Mueller and the Science of Language. Appleton, New York, 1892, pp. 23, 29, 74.
Jolly, Julius (ed. And Trans.) Die Sprachwissenschaft W. D. Whitneys Vorlesungen, Ackermann, Muenchen, 1874 (1st Eng. Ed., 1867), pp. 73, 553-557, 686.
85. Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Random House, New York (1st ed., 1871), p.467.
86. ------. Pp. 462-467.
87. Jackson, J. Hughlings, Brain, Vol. 38, p. 56 (1915)
88. ------. P. 133.
89. ------. Pp. 94-5.
90. -----. P. 67See also Head, H., op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 138, 194, 244.
91. Jackson, J. H., op. cit., p.85.