4 8 HENRY CECIL WYL.D [jantjabt 



the above comparison between language and species. It appears that 

 we are to consider the speakers from whom we learn our language 

 as corresponding to the parents on the biological plane, and the 

 speaker's own individual temperament of mind and body as corresponding 

 to environment. Now, as a matter of fact, the great majority of speakers 

 with whom we come in contact must, as regards their influence, be 

 divided into at least two classes : the persons who, in the first place, 

 teach us the beginnings of speech, and the persons who afterwards 

 modify in one way or another the speech which we already possess. 

 The first class are all those speakers who help to build up our mode of 

 speech down to the moment when, so to speak, our speecli crystallises 

 and becomes characteristic of ourselves. This moment is, of course, an 

 abstraction, but there comes a time in the life of each individual 

 speaker when his habit of speech is to all intents and purposes 

 formed, and after which he practically ceases to " learu." Until this 

 happens, we may, if we choose, consider our associates as our speech- 

 parents. This is, as it were, the period of gestation, and when it is 

 over our independent life begins ; independent, that is to say, just as far 

 as any life can be independent of its environment. The associates of 

 this second period of life, in which we are independent of parents, must 

 be considered rather as part of the linguistic environment. Professor 

 Paul's contention that the animal has only two parents is, of course, 

 without weight, since the individual organism is the product, not of a 

 single pair, but of millions of ancestors, any one of whom, remote or 

 near, may assert his supremacy in the building up of his descendant. 

 In this way the physical structure of an animal is the result of factors 

 certainly no less numerous, complex, and varied than those which go to 

 the making of a man's manner of speech. 



It seems to me improper to drag the mental and physical con- 

 stitution of the speaker into this analogy, because to do so is to go off 

 into the domain of biology and psychology, and we are comparing 

 linguistic facts with facts of organic life, and not these with themselves. 

 But, it may be asked, are we to leave these facts altogether out of con- 

 sideration as regards language and its development ? The answer is, 

 certainly not, and the whole difficulty arises from having made a false 

 analogy at the outset. There is an unfortunate habit amongst students 

 of language, of considering this as if it had an existence apart from the 

 speakers. Professor Paul in his brilliant book has done more, perhaps, 

 than any other philologist to break through this mode of thought, but 

 he has apparently lapsed into it again in the chapter on " Sprach- 

 spaltung." 



The safest way to think of language is as a habit of body express- 

 ing a habit of mind. Sounds, which are the external side of speech, 

 are due to certain modes of movement of the vocal organs. Vocabulary, 

 or system of nomenclature, is the association of sounds with emotions 

 and ideas. Grammar, a further mental process, is the expression of 



