In the history of all other sciences we may observe the same situation. It is not thus characteristic of linguists alone. Conflicts are naturally more frequent in sciences which deal with phenomena, the laws of variation of which are not yet discovered. Particularly, the study of languages is in a special position, for as to the nature of language, that is, the material dealt with, linguists have not yet completely agreed. The success of the search for origin, evolution, and even relationship between the languages, cannot naturally be assured until the fundamental problems are solved. In spite of this, the interest in these problems does exist and the attempts at the solution of these problems are made and probably will be made, for which there are serious reasons. The reasons lie outside of the scientific researches and they cannot thus be checked up by the linguists themselves. First of all, the phenomenon of language attracts the attention of every one who meets with the difference of his own language as compared with that of other people; second, the language attracts the attention of people who realize the value of this cultural achievement; third, the difference in language is one of the fundamental conditions of differentiation of human groups, and thus it is an instrument of attraction and repulsion between the persons; fourth, the language has great political importance in the interethnical relations. With the growth of interethnical pressure and ethnical consciousness, the interest in the language naturally greatly increases. So that besides the general impulse of knowledge, — inquisitiveness, — there are many other impulses for linguistical studies. It may be noted, for instance, that after the last Great War the linguistical and general publications dealing with the problem of language greatly increased in number [64]. Yet, the ethnical groups which are in the process of consolidation or in the process of extension as a rule pay great attention to their own language. For illustration, I will give some instances. Linguistical studies in Germany preceded the national unification in the nineteenth century. The great effort made in Finland and Hungary for study of the Finno-Ugrian group during the last quarter of the same century was stimulated by the national movement. The great interest in the language in China after the downfall of the empire is connected with the increase of ethnical consciousness and further efforts for the strengthening of the ethnical cohesion. Such instances may be multiplied ad libitum, but one of them is especially demonstrative. This is that of Russia. Prior to the Great War, the interest in the languages was cultivated by the government and scientific circles, so the studies progressed rapidly. However, after the collapse of the old government and the partial disintegration of the nation, the interest in the languages as a distinct ethnical character has enormously increased: hundreds of persons have shown their interest in research work along this particular line. This interest is still more stimulated, owing to the practical importance of linguistical studies in dealing with different ethnical groups whose «autonomy» is now recognized as a result of the partial disintegration of the former unit [65]. It is thus natural, whether the scientists are interested in the problems which cannot yet be solved or not, that the public attention to these problems cannot diminish, and if they refuse to discuss these problems, the same problems will be discussed by still less competent persons. So this movement is actually beyond control.
We have already seen that the linguistical researches are closely bound with the existing ethnographical complexes and the extension and deepening of knowledge is hindered by manyfold difficulties of social, ethnical, and in a still greater degree of individual, personal character. In spite of all these hindrances, studies into the problem of language and languages are going on as in other sciences which touch too closely the essential problems of the ethnical existence of units.
Our opinion as to what is «good» and what is «bad» in this process is of no importance, for we are now concerned only with the situation that is under our observation. It may be supposed that in the given conditions of science its organization probably requires not only new ideas and new works revealing the mechanisms of phenomena observed, but also a class of linguists contributing little to the actual knowledge of language and languages and slightly arresting, perhaps, a too rapid advance of studies. As a matter of fact, before the next step can be done, the most backward members of the large family must digest what leaders have done. Naturally, popularization, the adaptation to the average mentality, takes a great part of the energy and time left at the disposal of actual creators of science. This seems to be a general phenomenon characteristic of the process of variation of ethnographical elements. Perhaps too rapid an accumulation of knowledge and too deep a penetration into the phenomena may result in the disrupture between the leaders and their large group of followers [66]. This is one of the curious mechanisms of the equilibrium of ethnographical complexes closely connected with the problem of tempo of variations and ethnical tension.
The psycho-mental state, as pictured in the lines
above, is not, of course, characteristic of all linguists. The opposition to
this complex is coming, as stated, from different quarters, but the prevailing
ideas are still the same, for they are what is called «in the air»;
they are still an essential part of the whole modern European complex in which
the place of the individual will was occupied at a certain moment by the
complex of evolution. So in order to understand the working mechanism of some
scientific theories, one must go first into the problem of the ethnographical
complex underlying these theories.
64. Naturally their quality is not equal, for most of them were written for the special purpose of proving a certain proposition inspired by the political tastes and interests of the authors. Yet the professional linguists have also contributed to this political movement, e. g., A. Meilletin «Les Langues dans l'Europe nouvelle» (Paris, 1928), and under his and M. Cohen's edition «Les Langues du monde par un groupe de linguistes sous la derection de…» (Paris, 1924).
65. Here we are naturally concerned with the increase of interest and stimuli and not with the actual success in the studies.
66. However, the instances of disconnexion between the leaders and their followers are common in the history of science; e.g., the case of Mendel's theory is one which could be recently observed, but there are those which are too far from the existing mentality that they cannot even be detected, especially when the leader does not publish the results achieved and sometimes confines himself to oral communications with his nearest friends and colleagues.