LB 455 T 勝芬

Appendix B (p.455)

Even for the author of the “Natural History,” reason seemed to be the most basic aspect of language. However, in the mid-eighteenth century man’s reason was, strictly speaking, not considered a part of nature. A more naturalistic approach is expressed in the “Lectures on the Theory of Language and Universal Grammar,” published in 1762 by Joseph Priestley (1733-1804). All social creatures have a God-given way of communication, and languages are like plants, which grow, blossom, and then wilt. The complexity of a language is never the result of design, but is due to accident and the structure of Man’s speech organs. Languages are subject to natural law, therefore one should not attempt to fix strict rules for its usage [58]. [58] Funke, Otto, Neujahrsblatt literarischen Gesellschaft Bern. Neue Folge Heft II. Francke, Bern, 1934, p.32 et seq.

甚至對「自然史」的作者來說，理智(reason)似乎是語言最基本的面向，然而嚴格看來，在十八世紀中葉，人類的理性不被視為自然(nature)的一部分。1762年，約瑟‧普里斯特利(Joseph Priestley(1733-1804))在「語言理論與世界語法(universal grammar)教程」中提出一項更為偏向自然主義的假說(A more naturalistic approach)，他認為所有群居生物都擁有與天俱來(G0d-given)的溝通能力。語言就像植物一般會成長、開花、凋零，語言的複雜性絕對不是設計規劃得來，而是偶然的因素和人類特殊的說話構造(speech organs)所造成，語言依循的是自然法則，因此，不應該為了用法而試圖修正它嚴謹的規則。


The president of the Court of Dijon, Charles de Brosses (1709-1777), constructed a language theory in which reason played no basic role. Originally, language had been determined by the properties of the speech organs and by the nature of the objects to be named. Man’s speech organs can produce only certain sounds, and the nature of the objects compelled man to designate them with those sounds which depicted their properties. These sounds became names which could arouse the idea of the object in the mind [59].
[59] De Brosses, Charles, Traité de la formation méchanique des langues et de principes physiques de l’etymologie. Translated by M. Hismann, Über Sprache und Schrift. Weygand, Leipzig, 1777, Vol. I, pp. 11, 12, 14, 310.

第戎(Dijon)法院院長查爾斯‧德‧布朗司(Charles de Brosses (1709-1777))建立了一套語言理論，當中並不同意理性扮演了基本的角色，他認為語言的形成是起因於人類說話器官的特性，以及為了命名自然萬物。人類的說話器官只能發出部分特定的聲音，但為了明白表示自然萬物，人類不得不使用這些聲音來描述萬物的屬性，而這些聲音就形成了名稱，當聽到這些名稱的時候，所代表的事物就會出現在我們的腦海中浮現。


De Brosses had directly applied the philosophical idea that names are physis to a language theory. He concluded that there must have been one organically developed language which all people possessed at some time but which is no longer spoken or known. For natural language was later elaborated by the intellect and utilized to fashion the various languages. The remnants of the original natural language inherent in all languages cannot be easily recognized because of all the multiple fortuitous changes to which languages have been subjected. In this process, the natural relationship between sound and meaning was lost, so that the languages we know are deteriorated languages. The original words and their true meanings can be rediscovered by Etymology [60] (a belief which had also been held by those Greeks who believed that language is physis).
[60] De Brosses, C., op. cit., Bol. I. pp. 68, 75 et seq., 102 et seq. Vol.II, p.25 et seq. See also Funke, O., op. cit., pp.41-54 Borst, A., op. cit., p. 1446 et seq.

德‧布朗司直接運用哲學的概念來說明「名稱」就是「自然」(physis)，他的結論認為人類在某段時間一定有一種因為器官構造而發展的語言(one organically developed language)，但現在已經不再使用或理解了。自然語言而後被人類的智慧縝密的處理(elaborated by the intellect)，並用來改革其他語言(fashion the various languages)，部分殘存的自然語言仍保留在所有的語言之中，但由於各式各樣偶發的改變，使得這些殘存的自然語言已不易分辨，在這個過程中，聲音和意義之間的自然關係已經丟失，因此我們現在所知的是變質後的語言，而詞源學能幫助我們重新探知字詞的來源和真正含意。(相信語言即是「自然」的希臘人也抱持這種信念。)


De Brosses’ ideas have been considered the most typical expression of the spirit of the Enlightenment in the field of language theory. He had attributed language to a biological and a natural basis, but considered contemporary languages predominantly the product of man’s reason. The immediate contact with nature had been lost by the intervention of reason. For reason was not a part of nature, and primitive man, a barbarian, did not possess it.

德‧布朗司的論點在語言理論之中，被視為是最典型的啟蒙運動精神，他把語言建構在生物和自然的基礎層面上，但他也明白的表示，當代語言是人類理性之下的產物，和自然的直接連結已經因為理性而中斷，因為理智不是自然的一部分，原始人和野蠻人(primitive man, a barbarian)就沒有理性可言。



This assumption led Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1788) and James Burnet, Lord Monboddo (1714-1799) to believe that man must have fashioned language for himself, after he had become an intelligent being, had formed societies, and developed his arts11. The implication was that man had not been originally a social being [61].
[61] Schmid,. E. A., Des Lord Monboddo Werk, etc. Harknoch, Riga, 1784, (Introduction by J.G. Herder), Book 1, p. 11. Book 2, Ch. 1. Book 3, p.281. Funke, O., op. cit., pp. 54, 56, 82.

這項假說促使盧梭(Jacques Rousseau (1712-1788))和詹姆士‧伯納(蒙巴多爵士 James Burnet, Lord Monboddo (1714-1799))相信在人類有了智慧，建立社群和發展出藝術之後，勢必會改變他的語言，言外之意即是人類最初始並不是社會動物。



Adam Ferguson professor of moral philosophy in Edinburgh (1723-1816) could not accept this belief in his Essay on the History of Civil Society, written in 1767. ” The earliest and latest accounts …represent mankind as assembled in troops and companies…[62].
[62] Ferguson, Adam, An Essay on the History of Civil Society. (1st ed., 1767.) Tourneisen, Basle, 1789, p.4.

愛丁堡大學的倫理學教授亞當‧弗格生(Adam Ferguson (1723-1816) )在他1767年發表的「文明社會史論」表示不同意此種說法，「根據最早與最近的記載…表示人類群聚於軍隊和社群之中…」