Indeed, it is a plain truth that language does not exist beyond society, in a broad sense of the word. However, the process of stabilization of a language, i. e., when starters become effective instruments in the hands of individuals, may take place only in the case of a certain stability and continuity of the organized unit. The new starters receive their functional value, gradually spreading over larger groups of individuals, so that their spreading is conditioned by the existence of interrelations between the units. The language as a complex of starters has thus certain limits for its variations and spreading. As shown, such units are ethnoses, so we may now proceed to the fate of language when it is used in ethnoses.
When an ethnical unit needs a new starter, it uses the known elementary sounds of the unit. However, since the number of combinations is limited, all possible sounds are soon exhausted, and the unit may choose one of certain ways for producing new sounds. These ways may be of purely phonetic order, as, e. g., a change of quantity of the elementary sounds, a change of sounds through palatalization, aspiration, labialization, voicing, regulation of explosion, etc. If these methods do not suffice, there is one more means; namely, the increase of sounds with varied musical content, pitch of tone, etc. Lastly, the method of a change of the type of sound may be used; e. g., when a bilabial consonant is altered into a glottal.
The phonetic change may be substituted by other methods of production of new sounding starters, so that the original simple starter may be increased with other sounding elements. This method receives a prevailing application in the formation of new starters. The latter may be produced by the repetition of an old complex, its increase with another handy complex, or an increase with special starters leading the process of the hearer in a certain definite direction by means of various suffixes, prefixes, or infixes. As stated, this group of starters does not differ from any other group of starters. The most common case is the preservation of the old phonetic complex and its combinations with some other old complexes. A new combination receives the function of a distinct starter. It is evident that the ethnical unit may use any of the above-indicated methods with a preference to some of them, or without any particular choice of methods. The latter may depend on various conditions in which the habit of using certain methods may become responsible for a further application of the same method, till it becomes the only one used. Yet the accidental discovery of new possibilities also occurs, as it does in special sounds, like the lateral spirant tenuis of the Tibeto-Burman and the Paleasiatic-American L, or the famous sounds of the Hottentot and Bushman languages, as is also true with the using of tones, the musical accentuation of complex starters, etc. The same is true of the methods of phonetic changes and specified starters such as affixes, or the rearrangement of the word order, etc. [32] Since in the possession of an ethnos there is a certain amount of various starters, they may be used for thousands of years without any essential change or with only slight variations. However, there are two permanently acting factors of changes; namely, the need of having new starters for new phenomena (variations of milieus) and the imitation of neighbours (varying interethnical milieu) [33]. We have already seen that these conditions of existence of the ethnical unit are also responsible for the change of other elements of the secondary milieu. So, all that has been stated in this reference may also be applied to language. However, language forms only one of the elements of the secondary milieu, so that the first adaptation of language is that to this milieu. Since the secondary milieu usually changes, the amount of starters also changes in so far as new starters are needed for new elements about to be included into the old complex. Here it ought to be pointed out that the change of the secondary milieu is more likely to occur amongst ethnoses which are under the influence of a varying primary milieu, so that the greatest stability of the complex is observed only amongst the groups living in isolation and under very even climatic conditions [34]. The greatest influence on the changes has a particular adaptation in small groups of limited, or geographically and ethnically isolated, areas. This tendency has been indicated as one of the effects of the centripetal movements in the ethnoses. On the other hand, the adoption of new habits by a small group is easier than by a large group, especially when the latter has not created great cohesion, so that the effect of the centrifugal movement is also stronger. The new elements of the secondary milieu are either created by the unit in the process of their adaptation or are borrowed from their neighbours. The same is true of the starters. As to the second permanent factor of change, — inter-ethnical pressure, — it is produced in different ways; e.g., the need of terms for interethnical relations, the perception of phenomena of interethnical milieu, which is gradually becoming more and more complex; and lastly, an adaptation to the periodically occurring lack of equilibrium between the centripetal and centrifugal movements. As to the sources of new starters, the unit may choose any source in any way suitable to it [35]; but as to borrowing from their neighbours, there are great limitations; namely, the element, especially the phonetic one, must suit the existing complex. What is actually observed amongst the living ethnoses and in their languages is that usually the unit elaborates its particular habits and complex sounds, adapting themselves and adapted by the existing «artikulationbasis» which are not alike amongst the ethnical units. So that a new, unknown sound has a certain chance of being adopted if it may be reproduced without great effort and without a change of the basis of articulation (artikulationbasis). If it requires a readaptation of the organs used for speech, it is more likely to be modified, owing to its adaptation to the existing basis of articulation. Thus the adoption of the new sounds is not an easy task. This does not occur when the basis of articulation of two groups are more or less alike — the borrowing is then easy; yet, through the borrowing of starters, the new sounds are also assimilated. Under this condition, the whole phonetic system may gradually be substituted and thus affect an original stock of starters. However, it does not mean that if the basis of articulation of two languages is different from each other no mutual or unilateral influence may occur. The whole system of adaptation for articulation may be changed. Owing to this, one may observe geographical areas covered by different languages, but possessing nearly the same phonetic system, side by side with cases where, in the midst of certain phonetic areas, islands of special phonetic complexes [36] are preserved. The starters are also easily borrowed when phonetic differences are not great, and if the morphological characters of the languages are not too distinct. But in some cases the borrowing is altogether impossible. For instance, a long German «word» cannot be borrowed by the Chinese without being entirely modified and adapted. The long Tungus words cannot be adopted by the Chinese, as well as the long «sentence-like» Chukchi words cannot be borrowed by the Tungus, and so on. Yet the borrowing of Chinese starters with their characteristic musical content presents such great difficulties that the words borrowed by foreigners often remain unrecognized by the Chinese. The German borrowings of French starters are modified, as is true of most of the European languages, but in a much lesser degree than it is with the Chinese words. Yet the Mongol borrowings in some Tungus dialects, especially Manchu, can easily be recognized, for they are but slightly modified. A great difference in the phonetic system and structure of language may result in a complete isolation of language which will not influence nor be influenced by other languages. Indeed, the borrowing of starters will meet with great hindrance.
Special emphasis has been put on the difference between the grammatical forms of language and the vocabulary. The former ones, phonems and morphological particles, as well as the order of «words,» were supposed to be stable elements of the language which could not be easily borrowed, while the vocabulary was supposed to be a moving element of language. Such was A. Meillet's idea, especially in his earlier works (cf. «Linguistique historique et linguistique generale»), still maintained with a lesser emphasis. Other linguists, as, for example, J. Vendryes, bring forth a series of facts showing that, under the influence of what I call interethnical milieu, the «morphological» elements and order of «words» may change as well («Le Langage,» op. cit., p. 341, et seq.). A number of analogous facts may be brought from the Asiatic languages too. Here we have a rather complex case, for the frequency of borrowing is not only proportional to the elements to be borrowed (the «morphological» elements as compared with the lexic elements are not numerous), but it is also conditioned by the fact of the existence of complexes which were postulated by A. Meillet as having almost absolute stability. Indeed, if there are two grammatical complexes entirely different, the chance of borrowing is greatly reduced; but if the difference is not great, the borrowing will go on very easily. In such a way, theoretically speaking, a certain grammatical complex may be gradually substituted by another one. As to the phonems, their geographical distribution, for example, in Asia, is such that they Eeem to have their own areas, more or less independent on the languages spoken,— «Chaque fait linguistique a ses limites propres,» as A. Meillet says in reference to the dialectal vocabulary and which should be extended over other elements of language.
It may thus be generalized: If the difference between the existing phonetic system, the method of producing new starters, the method of producing complex starters on the one hand, and those used by the neighbours on the other, is not great, the imitation and incorporation of alien elements into the existing complex will not meet with the opposition on the part of the unit; but if the difference is great, the completeisolation of the language may be produced. So that if the effort required for the adoption of new elements from their neighbours is higher than that required for the invention of needed equivalents, borrowing does not take place; but if they are equal, the chance of invention and borrowing is equal. As to the effort required, it is defined by numerous conditions, amongst which there may be mentioned, not only the physical condition of the adapted organs for the definite phonetic system, but also the degree of ethnical cohesion; that is, the equilibrium between centripetal and centrifugal movements within the given unit. It is thus evident that the problem of possibilities of borrowing is rather complex. There are some cases where borrowing is going on very easily, notwithstanding the physical difficulties; and there are even cases of complete self-isolation of the language. These phenomena sometimes cannot be understood from the linguistic point of view only, for their mechanism lies out of the range of the elements directly responsible for the existence of language.
Together with the quantitative growth of population, the change of the secondary milieu and the interethnical milieu, which are also in the process of increase, the language as a function is in the process of a continuous adaptation. During this process all available means are used, for this is essentially a function of adaptation along the line of least resistance. The complexes are built up gradually from various elements, regardless of their «origin»; so that in the large geographical areas, where the relations between the units are not physically restricted, where the interethnical pressure is intensive, and if, in addition to this, the area was several times covered by distinct migratory waves, the geographical distribution of elements (e. g., «words») seems to be independent on that of languages, just as it is often seen in other cultural phenomena.
If we now compare what has been formulated in reference
to the cultural phenomena (the secondary milieu) in general with the
characteristics of languages and their variations, we may see that the language
is a direct product of the cultural complex. From this point of view, the
nature of language does not differ from that of other cultural phenomena — it
is a function.
32. I think P. Rivet (op. cit., p. 162) is incorrect when he says that for linguists «l'interet reside surtout dans l'etude des variations internes d'une meme langue an cours des ages et des phenomenes generaux d'evolution,» while an anthropologist (according to my terminology «ethnologist») «s'interesse, au contraire, beaucoup plus aux mots qu'aux formes, an vocabulaire qu'a la grammaire. Les deux conceptions different exactement comme different en sciences nuturelles celles du biologiste et du systematicien.» The importance of the structure of a language and its phonetic variations is very great, indeed, for both structure and phonetics may directly affect the «lexic» contents of a language, and if the investigator confines himself to the idea of «words» (mots) [the latter as a phenomenon which may be regarded independently on other elements (and starters) forming a language], the essential sides of the linguistical complex may escape his attention, and bring him to a wrong conception as to the relationship between the languages; at least, that is what usually happens.
33. It may be pointed out, for example, that the influence of changes due to children (emphasized by O. Jespersen) who imperfectly imitate adults is not a permanently acting factor of changes, although it may serve as a source of production of new or modified starters. Indeed, when a language is found in the process of readaptation all sources of changes are used. However, there are instances of preservation and sudden change of languages as well (cf., e.g., A. Meillet, «La Methode comparative en linguistique historique,» Chap. IV, where numerous instances are given), which facts point to the potential character of this source. The same is true of other sources of variations which must not be regarded as factors of changes.
34. Perhaps this is the case in Polynesian groups.
35. The sources of new starters found within the units are numerous; e.g., sounds found in nature (primary milieu), in the phenomena of the secondary milieu, in individual invention, in children's imperfectness and new starters, accidental lapsus lingua, etc., the enumeration of which is not now important to us.
36. A. Meillet has always maintained the hypothesis that the phonetic elements are not borrowed, which idea is chiefly based upon the facts observed when loaned «words» are modified according to the local phonetic complex. He has explained it by another hypothesis; namely, that the acquired habits (habitudes) are transmitted through heredity («La Methode,» op. cit., p. 80). Both hypotheses, however, seem to be unnecessary, for in this case we have a simple phenomenon of adaptation of one complex to another, in which process some elements are better preserved than the others. Indeed, the mechanism of phonetic articulation of various organs is a physical phenomenon, for it is a function of the physical organs and the nervous system. The organs, and thus their potential functioning, are inherited, but the function as such is not transmitted through the mechanism of inheritance. Another question, whether the individual adaptation of organs (including the nervous system) is transmitted or not [A. Meillet postulates that they do not, for he understands «organs» as large anatomical units without taking into consideration a simple fact — the complex structure (even beyond the reach of the microscope) of certain organs which may change without affecting the morphology of large anatomical units, but which may essentially change various functions], is still discussed, but it cannot be treated here even superficially, for it will bring us too far. However, the 'habitudes» are functional phenomena, and as such they cannot be inherited. This reference to biology is not incidental, for he sees something predestinated in language and particularly in phonetics. In showing that «les habitudes linguistiques acquises se transmettent de generation en generation,» he makes observation that «les enfants de parents connaissant bien plusieurs langues ou des enfants des parents bilingues seraientplus aptes a bien apprendre eux-memes des langues diverses que des enfants de parents parlant l'un et l'autre une seule langne et la mime» (id., p. 110). Without speaking of the possibility of a simple case of selection, which in such a condition is common we may now refer to the remarks mentioned above regarding inheritance. It seems to me that when linguistical phenomena can be interpreted from the linguistical (and ethnological) point of view, it is much safer to remain on this ground. This hypothesis is needed by A. Meillet as a support for other hypotheses; namely, his supposition of the existing stability of phonetic elements, one of the backbones of the theory of common languages.