520 Evolution and Language 



few years or, at most, a few centuries when they have been observed 

 by competent scholars of European origin. But, if we may judge by 

 the history of geology and other studies, it is well to be cautious 

 in assuming for the first stages of development forces which do 

 not operate in the later, unless we have direct evidence of their 

 existence. 



It is unnecessary here to enter into a prolonged discussion of the 

 other views christened by Max Miiller, not without energetic protest 

 from their supporters, the bow-wow and pooh-pooh theories of lan- 

 guage. Suffice it to say that the former recognises as a source of 

 language the imitation of the sounds made by animals, the fall of 

 bodies into water or on to solid substances and the like, while the 

 latter, also called the inter] ectional theory, looks to the natural 

 ejaculations produced by particular forms of effort for the first 

 beginnings of speech. It would be futile to deny that some words 

 in most languages come from imitation, and that others, probably 

 fewer in number, can be traced to ejaculations. But if either of 

 these sources alone or both in combination gave rise to primitive 

 speech, it clearly must have been a simple form of language and very 

 limited in amount. There is no reason to think that it was otherwise. 

 Presumably in its earliest stages language only indicated the most 

 elementary ideas, demands for food or the gratification of other 

 appetites, indications of danger, useful animals and plants. Some 

 of these, such as animals or indications of danger, could often be 

 easily represented by imitative sounds: the need for food and the 

 like could be indicated by gesture and natural cries. Both sources 

 are verae causae ; to them Noire", supported by Max Miiller, has 

 added another which has sometimes been called the Yo-heave-ho 

 theory. Noire contends that the real crux in the early stages of 

 language is for primitive man to make other primitive men under- 

 stand what he means. The vocal signs which commend themselves 

 to one may not have occurred to another, and may therefore be 

 unintelligible. It may be admitted that this difficulty exists, but it 

 is not insuperable. The old story of the European in China who, 

 sitting down to a meal and being doubtful what the meat in the dish 

 might be, addressed an interrogative Quack-quack? to the waiter and 

 was promptly answered by Bow-wow, illustrates a simple situation 

 where mutual understanding was easy. But obviously many situations 

 would be more complex than this, and to grapple with them Noird 

 has introduced his theory of communal action. " It was common 

 effort directed to a common object, it was the most primitive 

 (uralteste) labour of our ancestors, from which sprang language and 

 the life of reason 1 ." As illustrations of such common effort he cites 



1 Noire, Der Ursprung der Sprache, p. 331, Maiuz, 1877. 



