PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON. 139 



a natural tendency to self-repression, and may lead to a factitious 

 self-repression. 



Mr. Powell held the reverse view. 



The next communication was by Mr. O. T. Mason, entitled 



COMPARISON OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE WITH THAT WHICH IS SPOKEN 



ONLY. 



In undertaking the study of any of our aboriginal languages, 

 one is at once arrested by the difficulty of committing it to writing. 

 Throughout his investigation he must constantly bear in mind the 

 fact that the people who used the language had no graphic method 

 of representing it. This consideration led the writer to inquire 

 into the real differences that exist between written language and 

 that which is not yet sufficiently developed to enter the written 

 stage. 



Spoken language is a compromise between the speaker and the 

 hearer. The former is the creator of language ; he is also its des- 

 troyer. The latter is its preserver. Men may speak as they please, 

 indeed, they are continually making changes, such as coining terms, 

 eliding portions of words, etc. This alteration of speech would 

 go on indefinitely, were it not that the prime object of speaking,, 

 the desire to be understood, brings the speaker under obligation to 

 the hearer. 



Thus spoken language obeys two forces, a centrifugal and a 

 centripetal, and its condition at any time is the resultant of these 

 two. 



On the other hand, written language is the product of four 

 agencies — the speaker, the hearer, the writer, and the reader. 

 Spoken language is addressed to the ear, and obeys the laws of 

 audition. Written language is addressed to the eye, and is amena- 

 able to the laws of vision. It will readily occur to one engaged in 

 the study of language, how much more intelligence it would require 

 to manage so complex a machine, how liable some of the parts are to 

 get out of order, and how the constant effort to readjust disturbances 

 would itself elevate the people using a written language. 



This difference manifests itself in the form of language. The 

 classification of languages into polysynthetic, agglutinated, in- 

 flected, and monosyllabic, is subject to a higher generalization, 

 namely, into the unwritten and the written. A people who never 



