I20 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XXI. No. 526 



either by the voice or by such means as the rustling of paper. 

 Almost any novel sound induces temporary distraction from 

 crying. 



Imitation plays an all-important part in the acquisition of con- 

 ventional speech. In the case of 0., the faculty of imitation ap- 

 peared first in manual actions and during the tenth month. 

 Vocal imitation was first observed in the thirteenth month, n hen, 

 underthestimulusof the shouting of other children at play, he, also, 

 began to shout vociferously. Shortly afterwards he began, under 

 instruction, to imitate the sound of a watch's "tick-tick." But 

 in this instance, and others which followed, there is no argument 

 for an onomatopoetic origin of language, for in no case did the 

 child originate the imitation. He merely imitated an imitation 

 first made by his parents. From this period imitation showed 

 itself frequently, and the child was delighted with his successful 

 attempts; the delight was increased when these attempts were ap- 

 preciated and reproduced by those about him. 



It is scarcely necessary to mention that infants understand a 

 considerable range of language hmg before they can speak. A 

 child readily learns a few words for simple objects or actions be- 

 fore he is a year old, and some children can be taught to under- 

 stand "No" as a sign of prohibition as early as the eighth month. 

 This last is a similar development of intelligence to that early 

 gained from an experience of pain resulting from contact with 

 injurious objects. In his seventh month O. was accidentally 

 allowed to touch a hot lamp chimney, and, being burnt, he would 

 always afterwards draw back on being brought near a lamp. 



We may sometimes hear it said that the first words uttered by 

 children are nouns, in respect to grammatical function. The 

 truth is that, though an infant's Mrst words are commonly such 

 as are used by us in nominal relations, yet in the infant's speech 

 these words are not nouns, but equivalent to whole sentences. 

 When a very young child says "water,'' he is not using that 

 word merely as the name of the object so denoted by us, but with 

 the value of an assertion something like "I want water," or 

 " There is water." the distinction in meaning between the two ex- 

 pressions being shown by the child's tone of utterance. 



Tliere is no form of linguistic study more instructive and inter- 

 esting than the observation of the successive and correlative 

 processes in the growth of such interjectional expressions as this 

 into the various and complex forms of conventional sentences. 

 With the child O. some of the various steps along the straight 

 line of development from the single word to the full, simple sen- 

 tence were as follows: " Water," " drink water," ' want a drink 

 of water," "baby wants a drink of water," or "him wants a 

 drink of water," "I want a drink; baby wants a drink of water," 

 " I want a drink of water." No instruction was given the child 

 in the case, and it took him more than two years to develop the 

 conventional sentence after he had begun to use the word 

 " water." The natural difficulty which (Children have in acquiring 

 the use of the personal " I " appears in the foregoing examples. 

 Even after O. began to use " 1" as a name for himself he seemed 

 to think it necessary to explain or justify the word to himself by 

 repeating the statement and using instead of "I" the name 

 "baby" or "Oscar.'' Occasionally he used the noun first and 

 repeated, as in " Baby want a drink, I want a drink." 



Similarly, the child was long in learning to use the objective 

 personal " me." The earlier mode of expression was to employ 

 the name baby, as "Papa, carry baby." Before reaching the 

 regular use of the possessive " my," O. always expressed this re- 

 lation by "its," as in '■ Papa, take its hand," " Mamma, wipe its 

 eyes." Thus until nearly three years of age, the child apparently 

 regarded himself only as object and not at all as subject. Other 

 curious forms of expression in habitual use shortly after this 

 were such as "I am going down, me," "I'm going home, I'm 

 are." 



Notional words were acquired before those indicating relations, 

 and of the latter the simpler and more notional were first ac- 

 quired. Vocabulary and expression developed considerably with- 

 out the use of the verb "to be." Interrogati>e pronouns, in- 

 terrogative adjectives and adverbs came into use early, the 

 relative or conjunctive pronouns much later — nearly two years. 

 Adverbs came before prepositions. At first the prepositional 



function was served by placing the related words in juxtapositicn, 

 as "See old man (with) head down." In this sentence note also 

 the omission of the comparatively noticnles-s word " the.'' 



Color names caused great difficulty, their proper application de- 

 pending, of course, on a considerable development of the percep- 

 tive powers. During the early part of his third year O. used 

 "blue" freely, but he applied it to any striking color, as to a 

 white horse and a red book. Similarly with number names, O. 

 could not use the simpler names properly beyond one and two 

 until nearly his fourth year. Any numher beyond two he called 

 "nine.'' " No" was easily acquired ; " yes'' coi-t a great deal of 

 effort, not in pronunciation, but in comprehen.'sion and applica- 

 tion. At three years of age, to give an affirmative answer be 

 would repeat the question in the form of an affirmntion, or reply 

 by "it is" or "it does." Then, after beginning to use "jes," 

 it was applied irregularly, as in answering the question, "Will 

 you do that any more?" O. said, "Yes, I won't." This is not a 

 self-contradictory expression, as it would superficially seem. The 

 child meant by "yes" that he was willing to obey, and the "I 

 won't " defined the form the obedience would take. 



The strength of the linguistic instinct in children is shown by 

 the remarkab'e shifts they will make to find forms of expression 

 for their perceptions or feelings. An examination of these shifts 

 will show that the energy of the child manifests itself along pre- 

 cisely the same lines as have been taken by the languages of the 

 races of mankind towards their ultimate forms. Thus, lacking 

 the work "wide," O. said, "Open the door loud," extending the 

 meaning of the word " loud " precisely as we do when we apply 

 it colloquially to colors. So, too, he called a raccoon a "cat,'' 

 just as we speak of " plumes" of horsehair. Other illustrations 

 I have without number, but will add only a few. "I have a 

 headache in my neck,'' " There's a boat swimming, " "Mamma, 

 you never cut the toe-nails off my fingers." "Cows eats drinks 

 of water, cows do," "I broked it (cp. wept)," "He goed," 

 " Papa's gooder than you," " Papa can the see (i.e., light) come 

 in here," "Which would you rather have, Mary OMdRhoda?" 

 " Papa's got that coat on," (i.e., a new coat). In the lack of a 

 knowledge of negative forms, O. used some curious expressions. 

 Thus, not wanting me to go out, he said, "Papa, come in ; papa, 

 stay home ; " again, not wanting his coat taken off after being out, 

 he said, "Put baby's coat on." 



The most common means by which infants enlarge their powers 

 of expression is by the metaphorical extension of terms already 

 known, as where O. called a piece of fur "kitty." Now this 

 ability to use words metaphorically implies the possession of the 

 power of abstraction in some rude degree, for metaphor-forming 

 is a mode of abstraction. It is a remarkable thing that very 

 young children can form these abstractions. Thus O , at the age 

 of eighteen months, having learned the name knee from a limb 

 in a bent position, afterwards called his mother's chin "knee,'' 

 and presently applied the same term to the projecting corner of 

 a pillow. A more striking instance occurred shortly afterwards. 

 Being a delicate child, he was just then at the stage of beginning 

 to stand alone. He had been frequently told to "stand up like 

 a man." The first time he tried this feat with entire success he 

 said "man!" with much self-approbation. Within a few days 

 he applied the same term to his doll when standing upright, and 

 also to a long, narrow box when set upon end. All this time he 

 was perfectly familiar with the common uses of the names man, 

 doll, and box. Evidently, then, in the special cases noted, he 

 was using the term man in the sense of " the upright thing," a 

 considerable abstraction for an infant under two years. 



Finally, children invent entirely new words. A few of O.'s 

 original were "oiiah" = water, "ob6" = music, "gladdies'' = 

 dandelion flowers, "aneen"= wagon. The last word may be a 

 case of aphoeresis and substitution, but it seems hardly liUfly. 

 The others are inexplicable, except as pure inventions. 1 know of 

 two cases where a pair of children, besides acquiring their mother- 

 tongue, invented a full voi abulary entirely unintelligible to any 

 one but themselves. It is on the observation of such cases as 

 these that Mr. Horatio Hale has very reasonably based his theory 

 that the closest of blood relationship may exist between tribes or 

 races of people whose languages differ in every particular. 



