LB460-461T

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 a natural science, for he had rejected 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].
當時極少語言家贊同Schleicher的想法和他對自然科學的付出。令人意外的是，Muller贊同語言學為一項自然科學的想法，儘管他排斥了Schleicher的主張，亦即：”語言係從自然的聲音演化而來”。這位生於德國的牛津語言學暨文學教授，藉由授課來推廣語言學，而迄今他仍被語言學界外引為權威。他認為語言是一種無法抗拒而為人類獨有的本能。已知的語言都發展自詞根。這些詞根，作為語言的基本成分，原先就已用於言語之中。它們是由語音形式所構成，而這此語音形式係產自於人類天性的一種內在力量。他認為語言和思維密不可分，”…思考即是低聲言語，言語即是高聲思考” [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].
Muller雖廣受讚賞，但並非基於其學識，這可惹惱了一些看出其謬誤的語言學家。1892年耶魯的Whitney教授反對Muller將語言和思維視為一體的看法，並且否定了語言學作為一門自然科學的可能性。語言是基於神授力量的社會產物。Whitney擔心要是語言學被納入自然科學一事成真，此事會被用來否定他不計代價都要維護的自由意志[84]。

The view that language was unique to man was not considered contradictory to evolution by Charles Darwin (1809-1882). “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 shared 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 now 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].
達爾文並不認為語言為人類獨有這樣的看法和演化有矛盾之處。能使用分節語言的官能本身並不能斷然否定人類是由某種低等形式演化而來的信念。對達爾文來說，發聲，概念的聯想，以及連結特定概念和特定聲音的能力並不是人類語言獨有的特徵。人不同動物，只因其連結各式各樣的聲音和概念的能力遠遠勝於動物。起初，語言演化自人類對動物聲音的模仿。人類和猿類都有很強的傾向去模仿聲音。但人類卻有本能的傾向去說話，正如同我們可以在孩童的牙牙學語中看到的，然而卻沒有任何兒童本能地傾向去釀酒、烘焙或寫字。此外，現在沒有語文學家會認為有任何語言是被刻意創造出來的。達爾文發現”一些稀奇的腦部疾病案例已展示了人腦的緊密連結，在這些個案裡，言語明確地受到影響[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. He 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].
有關失語症的研究引導Jackson對語言的構想，他的構想超越了前輩們的簡易的概念化。在1864年寫的那篇文章裡，他區分了用於命題的理智言語和誓言，誓言如同其他感嘆的表達，都是非命題的。在研究失語症的人當中，他是第一個強調”語言不是詞堆”以及，並不是把詞置於情境之中即可獲致意義。想要瞭解語言的混亂現象，語言的生理學和生理學是必要的。為了其心理學構想，他汲取Spencer了的思想，並且進而建構一個極為複雜的假設來解釋用於語言功能的腦部處理過程[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
他依據大腦皮質的功能來闡明其發現(衍生自對失語症個案的觀察)。語言學習得要聯繫到感覺與運動反射(sensory motor reflexes)的建立。例如：
“我們學習”ball”這個詞，是藉著聽到這個詞，以及接下來的發聲調整…我們認識到ball這個物體，是經由視網膜上的印象以及接下來視覺調整的出現”[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.
Jackson提醒我們不要將心理學混同於生理學、解剖學，但他自己也並非總是能避免這樣的混淆。他通常是藉由假設性的建構才得以成功。”內在言語”可以作為一個例子。他從心理學的內省導出”內在言語”，並將其歸因於生理學上的運動機能，此機能的強度低於發出的言語(uttered speech)。就生理學而言，一個觀念變成了一連串發聲中特殊動作的神經過程”…雖然Jackson坦承”實際上沒有動作發生”Jackson在理論上的巧思局限於考量到詞或者影像，儘管他也知道我們不能憑這些成分來理解或解釋語言！詞與詞的相互關係在當時沒有得到重視，而Jackson知道不應如此。

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
大部分的醫師滿足於對單詞作簡單、機械式的解釋，但是Jackson在語言的心理學這方面與當時最著名的語言學家Steinthal和有著同樣的興趣。

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, Steinthal 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.
在Humboldt構想出了語言學之目標近五十年後，Steinthal承擔重任，試圖為這個學科提供科學的基礎。擁有大量的手冊和詳盡的語法是Steinthal的優勢，他知道如果把語言視為心智的一部分，那麼我們就不可能完全理解語言。要對語言作科學的研究得靠心理學。只有靠心理學的描述，我們才有可能闡明人類的語言能力以及此能力得以發展的條件。”語言源自需求…當心理發展達到了某一點”一旦人類注意到自己反射性的身體動作、連結了感知和聲音，語言就誕生了。語言在過去未曾被適當的理解，這是因為語言僅被視為溝通的工作。長久以來，人們誤以為人類擁有影像、思維以及另一額外的能力來用聲音表達此二者。影像和思維本身即基於語言。