292 MENTAL EVOLUTION IN MAN. 



that the hitherto speechless child will spontaneously use 

 arbitrary sounds (both articulate and otherwise) whereby to 

 denotate habitual recepts. And even after it has begun 

 to learn the use of actual words, arbitrary additions are 

 frequently made to its vocabulary which defy any explanation 

 at the hands of onomatopoeia — not only, as in the cases above 

 alluded to, where they are left to themselves, but even in 

 cases where they are in the closest contact with language as 

 spoken by their elders. I could quote many instances of this 

 fact ; but it will be enough to refer to one already given on 

 page 144 (foot-note). When, however, these spontaneous 

 efforts are not controlled by constant association with elders, 

 but fostered by children of about the same age being left 

 much together, the remarkable consequence previously alluded 

 to arises — namely, a newly devised language which depends 

 but in small part upon the principle of onomatopoeia, and is 

 therefore wholly unintelligible to all but its inventors.* 



I have now briefly stated all the main facts and considera- 

 tions which appear to me worth stating, both for and against 

 the theory of onomatopoeia. And, having done this, I wish 

 in conclusion to make it clear that the matter is not one 

 which seriously affects the theory of evolution. To the 

 philologist, no doubt, the question as to how far the element 

 of onomatopoeia entered into the formation of aboriginal 

 speech is a really important question, so that, as Geiger says, 

 "Diess ist die gemeinsame Frage, und die Antwort wird auf 

 der einen Seite von einem inneren Zusammenhang zwischen 

 je einem Laut und dem entsprechenden Begriffe, auf der 

 andern aus Willkiir und Uebereinkunft hergeleitet." t But 

 the question is one which the evolutionist may view with 

 indifference. Whether words were all originally dependent 

 on an inherent connection between every sound they made 



• See above, pp. 138-143. 



t Der Ursprung der Sprache, s. 31. His own answer to the question is as 

 follows: — "Sind die Worter Produkte der Natur order der Willkur? Beides, 

 und beides nicht. Kein Wort hat naturnothwendig seine bestimmte Bedeutung ; 

 insofern sind sie alle willkiirlich : aber keines ist zu seiner Bedeutung durch 

 menschliche Willensthatigkeit gekommen" {ibid., s. 113). 



