Language is one of the most complex ethnographical phenomena. Since the existing definitions of language show great variety, I shall point out the views which form the basis of my present work [21]. First of all, I presume, as the most probable conception, that the processes emotionally percepted by individuals as «thought» are chemo-physical in their nature which form a chain of absolute and conditioned reflexes [22], and the origin and location of which are not confined to the central nervous system only. Language, in a broad sense of the word, may be thus defined as a complex of various methods by means of which an individual may produce in another individual, and in himself, a chain of emotionally percepted chemo-physical processes — the thought. Since the aim of the acting individual is to start in another individual a certain reflex, or a chain of reflexes, I shall use the term «starter» for all the methods used for the realization of the aim of the acting individual [23].
In this complex we may include ail the methods used without giving preference to any one of them and call this complex language. The narrow sense of «language» is that confined to a selected group of elements constituting a language.
The technical methods of language chiefly comprise two groups; namely, optical and auditory starters [24]. In the first group we have (1) images; (2) symbols (e.g., written languages, including those approaching the image, but used as «symbols»); and (3) gestures (e.g., those of the hands, the arms, and the legs, together with the feet, and especially of the whole body, and particularly mimics), which may have direct and symbolic functions. As a matter of fact, conversation in certain cases may be successfully carried out only by means of the optical starters of the third type. The written language may be effective without ever being «read» with the voice and even without being expressed in corresponding sounds (sounding starters), as, for example, in mathematical symbolism; yet it may give origin to a spoken language when the symbols are «named,» i. e., when the symbols are «read» in sounding starters. In the second group we have combinations of sounds. The latter are built up by sounds produced by a combination of physical organs [25], by the pitch of musical tone and its complexes, and by a variable length and degree of air pressure.
A spoken language may consist not only of sounds, but it may also include elements of the first group; e.g., gestures, particularly mimics [26]. The using of gestures is subject to great variations in different languages and individuals. Some languages cannot be spoken in the dark, while some others may. The language of the latter group cannot be considered as «better developed or richer» than the language of the first group, but it may be regarded as more specialized in choosing «starters» [27]. From this point of view, specialization is only a way of adaptation, and is as good as any other in responding to the needs. Naturally, the choice of starters and their grouping into complexes is a long process, originating first in individuals who are actual inventors (conscious or unconscious) of starters. Besides the starters originating in a given milieu (transmitted by tradition — imitated or invented by other members of the same group), there are starters introduced by individuals for their own personal use as well as for starters of processes in other persons, and the number may be restricted to one more person or spread over hundreds of millions. Individuals and groups of individuals may have a distinct complex of starcers. We may distinguish (1) the individual language (used in monologues that are usually not pronounced, and, as a rule, unknown to other persons) [28]; (2) the language of a small group (e.g., the family language, the lovers' language, various argos and slang, the club language, etc); (3) the language of a larger group, containing the more or less stabilized complex of a great number of starters; and (4) the inter-species language (particularly for domesticated animals), containing a small series of conditioned and absolute starters. The use of methods in producing starters is naturally subject to great variations in these four types of language.
The question when and how language was begun we must answer in the sense that the language is not a particular phenomenon confined to man, for the ancestors of man, other and distinct animals, possessed their own languages, just as other animals now living possess their own languages as a complex of sounding and non-sounding starters. From this point of view, there is no dividing line between «human» and «animal» languages, and historically the «origin» of language cannot be established. From the «human» point of view, it ever existed as a function.
It is different when one excludes certain elements forming a language or if one puts a special limit (e.g., only «articulated») or emphasis on certain elements of a language. So, in dependence upon the choice of elements, there are many distinct definitions of language. For illustration, I shall now quote some of the latest definitions. E. Sapir gives the definition of language as an acquired, cultural function which may be accepted if we extend «cultural» to the meaning of «adaptive»; but he puts an essential limitation when he considers the language as a «system of voluntary produced symbols» («Language,» p. 7.), for the language contains also «absolute starters» and the limitation is still extended when he introduces another definition — «language is primarily an auditory system of symbols,» where all optical elements and all «emotive signs» are excluded. Such a definition of language practically reflects the idea of modern linguists on the spoken languages which may be easily viewed and with which they are dealing. The definition given by O. Jespersen («The Philosophy of Grammar,» p. 17) is different, namely: «The essence of language is human activity — activity on the part of one individual to make himself understood by another, and activity on the part of that other to understand what was in the mind of the first»; but the language is actually confined to the «human» species and to spoken language, for in reference to written language O. Jespersen says, «A written word is mummified until some one imparts life to it by transposing it mentally into corresponding spoken word,» which, as a matter of fact, is not always necessary. Another definition is that «the language of a nation is the set of habits by which members of the nation are accustomed to communicate with one another» (cf. «Mankind, Nation, and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View,» p. 23). Here we may point out the conception of the nation as a unit. J. Vendryes («Le Lan-gage. Introduction linguistique a l'histoire») agrees with the definition of language as «un systeme de signes» given by B. Leroy («Le Langage,» 1905) in which all starters are included. However, «signe» he identifies with «symbol capable de servir a la communication entre les hommes.» He confines himself to «le langage auditif, appele aussi langage parte ou langage articule» (id., pp. 8, 9), However, F. de Saussure (op. cit., p. 26) comes to the conclusion that a language is «un systeme de signes distincts correspondant a des idees distinctes»; but he has previously formulated that «il ne se laisse pas classer dans aucune categorie des faits humains parce qu'on ne sait comment degager son unite» (id., p. 25).
One may see that these definitions are not absolutely alike. These differences are due chiefly to the character of language itself. The existence of specialists, such as «grammarians,» «philologists,» «linguists,» etc., who attack the language from various points and give different definitions of language, shows how great is the complexity of the phenomenon. At which moment this form of human adaptation may be called «language» totally depends upon the author's point of view.
21. To clear up the field of our discussion, let us first point out that the organs used for speech throughout all human groups do not present any hindrance for producing any sound met with in different languages. Yet the organs that are now used for speech might have existed at the period when tbe ancestor of the present man could hardly be regarded as an animal of the same species as the present man. Investigations into the evolution of the human brain have already led anthropologists to the idea that even the earliest precursors of man, such as the Pithecanthropus erectus, possessed the necessary physical conditions for certain speech, in so far as one may infer from the structure of the brain. The anatomical characters of the facial, nasal, palatal, and jaw-bones in quaternary Neanderthal man (i.e., a hundred thousand years ago) were of the nature to permit their possessor of having soft parts adapted enough for producing various sounds needed for speech (cf. the works of M. Boule and Elliot Smith). Thus, from this point of view, the conditions of the physical factor is nearly constant for all human groups and practically unvariable during the period when the variations of language may be observed. Since this is true, the individual physical adaptation of the organs used for speech is the only aspect directly connected with physical fitness and unfitness, which thus cannot be held responsible for the peculiarities of phonetics of particular languages. In other words, the anatomical point of view cannot help us in finding the differences in existing languages. Thus there remain for consideration only the functional, also psychological and social aspects of the problem.
22. I. Pavlov has not yet published his final conclusions as to the human «thought,» but he leaves us to understand that such is the nature of all simple and complex phenomena of animal behaviour.
23. The starters, as well as the processes implied by them, have received various names; e.g., «sign,» «image,» «word,» etc., and particularly «symbol.» I avoid the use of the term «symbol» in this sense, for it has already been used by L. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards for covering only a certain group of starters. According to them, a «word may function as a symbol and as an emotive sign» (op. cit., pp. 228, 257, and Chap. X). Indeed, «symbol» as it is used by these authors must be reserved for a special study into the «meaning of meaning» and ' 'symbolism.» Whether the starter acts like a «symbol» or like an «emotive sign,» in either case the process implied is percepted conditionally. Degrees of participation of various organs in this perception are naturally different, which is again connected with the complex of conditioned reflexes, and which sometimes is strongly felt by the individual (emotion).
24. I say «chiefly,» for there are other groups of starters — olfactory, touch, etc., but they do not play a very great part in the language.
25. According to all linguists, there are no special organs of speech, but various organs axe adapted for this function.
26. It is a well-known fact that the speeches of some famous speakers lose their beauty, even their sense, when they are reproduced without gestures and especially when they are reproduced in written form. In the last form they sometimes become «meaningless» and flat.
27. It may be pointed out that the specialization of a language along the line of its approach to a symbolic written form is an evident impoverishing in the sense of limiting the means of producing starters.
28. The reason fot the existence of an individual language (the complex of starters!) is that individuals also need special starters for their own use when «thinking» or «monologuing».