LANGUAGE.

LANGUAGE, in the proper sense, signifies the expres sion of our ideas and their various relations, by certain articulate sounds which are used as the signs of those ideas and relations. In a more general sense of the word, Language is sometimes used to denote all sounds by which animals of every kind express their particular feelings and impulses, in a manner that is intelligible to their own species. Nature has endowed every animal with powers sufficient to make known all its sensations and desires, with which it is necessary, for the preservation of the individual or the continuance of the kind, that others of the same species should be acquainted. For this purpose the organs of vocal animals are so formed, as upon any particular impulse, to utter sounds of which, those of the same species, instinctively know the meaning. The summons of the hen is instantly obeyed by the whole brood of chickens; and in many others of the irrational tribes, a similar mode of communication may be observed between the parents and the offspring, and between one animal and its customary associate. it is not among animals of the same species only, that these instinctive sounds are mutually understood. It is as necessary for animals to know the voices of their enemies, as the voices of their friends: and the roar

But

ing of the lion is a sound, of which, previous to all experience, every beast of the forest is naturally afraid.

Between these animal voices and the language of men, there is, however, very little analogy. Human language is capable of expressing ideas and notions, which there is every reason to believe the brutal understanding cannot conceive. "Speech," says Aristotle, "is made to indicate what is expedient, and what is inexpedient; and in consequence of this, what is just and what is unjust. It is therefore given to men, because it is peculiar to them that, of good and evil, just and unjust, they, only, possess a sense or feeling."

The voices of brutes seem intended by nature to express, not distinct ideas or moral conceptions, but only such feelings as it is for the good of the species that they should have the power of making known; and in this, as in all other respects, these voices are analogous, not to our speaking, but to our weeping, laughing, singing, groaning, screaming, and other natural and audible expressions of appetite and passion. Another difference between the language of men and the voices of brutes, consists in articulation, by which the former may be resolved into distinct elementary sounds or syllables; whereas the latter, being for the most part unarticulated, are not capable of such a resolution. Hence Homer and Hesiod characterize man by the epithet merops, or "voice-dividing," as denoting a power peculiar to the human species.

A third difference between the language of men and the significant cries of brute animals is, that the former is from art, and the latter from nature. Every

human language is learned by imitation, and is intelligible only to those who either inhabit the country where it is vernacular, or have been taught that language. But the voices of brutes are not learned by imitation; they are wholly instinctive, and are intelligible to all the animals of that species by which they are uttered, though brought together from the most distant countries on earth. Thus, a dog which has never heard another dog bark will, notwithstanding, bark himself; and the barkings or yelps of a Lapland dog will be instinctively understood by the dogs of Spain, Calabria, or any other country. But there is no reason to imagine that a man who has never heard any language spoken, will himself speak; and it is well known that the language spoken in one country is unintelligible to the natives of another country.

It is therefore clearly evident that there is no instinctive articulated language; and it has become a question of some importance how mankind were first induced to fabricate articulate sounds, and to employ them for the purpose of communicating their thoughts. Children learn to speak by insensible imitation; and when advanced some years in life, they study foreign languages under proper instructors; but the first men had no speakers to imitate, and no formed language to study; by what means, then, did they learn to speak? On this question, only two opinions can be formed. Either language must have been originally revealed from heaven, or it must be the fruit of human invention. The greater part of Jews and Christians, and even some of the wisest Pagans, have embraced the former opinion, which seems to be supported by the authority

of Moses, for he represents the Supreme Being as teaching our first parents the names of animals. The latter opinion is held by many Greek and Roman writers, who consider language as one of the arts invented by man. The first men, say they, lived for some time in woods and caves, after the manner of beasts, uttering only confused and indistinct noises; till associating for mutual assistance, they came by degrees to use articulate sounds mutually agreed upon, as the arbitrary signs or marks of those ideas in the mind of the speaker, which he wanted to communicate to the hearer. This opinion has been adopted by several modern writers of high rank, and is certainly in itself worthy of examination. But we can only mention these two hypotheses: the narrow limits of this article will not allow us to offer even an outline of the arguments by which each of them is supported.

Language, whatever was its origin, must be subject to perpetual changes, from its very nature, as well as from that variety of incidents which affect everything relating to human society; and these changes must always correspond with the change of circumstances in the people by whom the language is spoken. When a particular set of ideas become prevalent among any society of men, words must be adopted to express them; and from these the language must assume its character. Hence the language of a brave and martial people is bold and nervous, although, perhaps, rude and uncultivated; while the languages of those nations in which luxury and effeminacy prevail, are flowing and harmonious, yet devoid of force and energy of expression.

But although it may be considered as a general rule that the language of any people is a very exact index of the state of their minds, yet it admits of some particular exceptions. For as man is naturally an imitative animal, and in matters of this kind, never has recourse to invention but through necessity, colonies planted by any nation, at whatever distance from the mother country, always retain the same general sounds and idioms of language, with those from whom they are separated. In process of time, however, the colonists and people of the mother country, by living under different climates, by being engaged in different occupations, and by adopting, of course, different modes of life, may lose all knowledge of one another, assume different national characters, and form each a language to themselves, totally different in genius and style, though agreeing with one another in fundamental sounds and general idiom. Thus various languages may have been formed out of one parent tongue; and thus that happy concurrence of circumstances which has raised some languages to a high degree of perfection may be easily accounted for, while many ineffectual efforts have been made to raise other languages to the same degree of excellence.

The knowledge of languages constitutes an important part of modern learning, and their beauty and defects furnish constant employment to taste. These depend upon the idioms of the different tongues. As the word idiom in relation to language, is often confounded with genius, it will be necessary to inform the reader that, by idiom, we mean that general mode of arranging words into sentences which prevails in