A. Sauvageot's methods of analysis of the linguistical material and particularly etymologies as they appear after the critical analysis are such that one naturally turns one's eyes to the problem of how he came to such a result. So, for instance, some etymologies and parallels in terms of J. Piaget should be defined as «spontaneous etymology, i.e., the imaginative interpretation of imperfectly understood words,» [150] characteristic, according to this author, of children's practice. The bringing of uncertain evidences seemingly supporting the main idea (as we have seen with numberless hypotheses) is also characteristic of the child and the maniacal state [151]. Yet the scaffolding of hypotheses supposed to support the fundamental hypothesis which we have observed throughout the whole of A. Sauvageot's work is characteristic of the same mental state. The imaginary reasoning «in which every possibility becomes a probability or a certainty» [152] has been pointed out on several occasions. The diagnosis of a psychiatrist would be that we have a case of «interpretative mania,» the diagnosis of a psychologist would be that we have a case of child's behaviour, and the diagnosis of a fervent student of primitive mentality would be that we have a case of the survival of primitive mentality. None of these is good, although formally such diagnoses cannot be rejected. The etiology of the case is different. In fact, first of all the limits between «normal» and «abnormal» thinking and «childish» and «adult» thinking as well cannot be formally established. Second, the case here treated is not characteristic of one person, but in various degrees it is typical of a large group of persons to the work of which in a greater or lesser degree the above-given characteristics may be applied. Third, no one would agree that the survival of a primitive mentality may affect the leading group of linguists. And lastly, if the persons in question are not children, then perhaps is the conception of child's mentality defective? If this is so, then the whole phenomenon cannot be interpreted in one of the above-indicated ways and the problem is more complex than it first appears. What comes to mind is that such a behaviour is not particularly characteristic of childish, abnormal, and «primitive» man, but in certain conditions it is characteristic of all human adult beings. I will permit myself to be detained on this side of the problem in order to show how far I am from the idea of giving insulting labels and diagnoses to the work with the methods of which I disagree, and how one must be careful with the similar allusions in critical references to others' works.
A «wrong reference» or a «wrong conclusion» may be conditioned by various causes, but the first place belongs to «lack of experience» in the matter referred to. In fact, the child acquires the ability of doing correct references and conclusions only after certain experience, which results in the stabilization of «meanings» and corresponding «starters» for personal and social use. The larger the field of milieu, the longer the process of adaptation, and thus the longer the period of occurrence of «wrong references and inferences.» Indeed, this process is closely correlated with the duration of the process of growth which in different human and animal groups is variable. However, the tempo of acquirement of the experience is conditioned, not only by the quantity of the elements to be known, but also by their relative value in reference to the security of the growing and self-reproducing organism. Some- of the elements of milieu are not indispensable for the survival, while some other elements may threaten the very existence of the growing organism which must know them as soon as it is left without constant help from the society, be it represented even by the mother alone. The amount of the experience needed for survival and self-reproduction is subject to great variations, which depend upon a number of conditions; e.g., the size of the animal, its position in the inter-species milieu, the degree of secondary adaptation (particularly the secondary milieu in man), the degree of ethnical and interethnical cohesion, etc. The quantity of elements of a milieu of the complexly adapted groups is much larger than that of groups simply adapted. Amongst the elements constituting the milieu, there are some which are transmitted from the experience of previous generations through the mechanism of tradition and there are some other elements which are only scarcely known. Yet since there is a constant increase of the elements due to the adaptation of the secondary milieu to the ethnical and interethnical milieus, there are always some new elements of the preceding generations unknown and which must be percepted and investigated by the living generation. Amongst these elements there are some of vital importance and some other elements of secondary importance from the point of view of security of individuals and the unit to which they belong. By which way the process of perception of new elements is going on is not essential for the moment, but it is essential that it should be correctly done, for in many a case it becomes condicio sine qua non of survival.
Indeed, a child may have a «childish» method of thinking and communicating with the outer world, so long as it is protected by society This period is shorter in animals and probably it is shorter in simply organized ethnical units. In reference to the elements which do not seem to be indispensable for the survival of the unit and individuals, the childish and «primitive» attitude may persist throughout life, and in reference to various elements and complexes of the milieu. The difference between the «childish» and «adult» method of thinking is that which is seen when one refers to the unknown and the known. The same is true of the «primitive» mind. The difference is that of the quantity of elements and complexes of the milieu to be «meant.» Let us suppose for a moment that the individual throughout his life preserves the «childish» or «primitive» mind and is unable to make correct references and inferences to and from the elements and complexes indispensable for life. It is evident that such a theoretical individual would perish very soon. We may go further and suppose that the other animals, in so far as their central and peripheral nervous systems are involved into the process of adaptation, must have the ability of forming the correct «meaning» of milieu in so far as it conditions the survival. The difference in all cases is that of the quantity to be meant, the quality of method of thinking being in all cases the same.
Now if we remember the history of different sciences (branches of knowledge), we may see that at a certain moment all of them were built upon the principle of a «childish» and «primitive» method of thinking. The child and the «savage» will never do «wrong» in reference to the elements indispensable for their life, but they will do it in reference to the elements unknown to them. Although in the eighteenth century the Western mind was not «primitive» ncr «childish» in reference to mathematics, yet the science of society and language of that time very often showed all typical characters of «primitive» and «childish» production. From this point of view, there is no difference between the mentality of children, adult, «primitive,» and «civilized» men.
It may be here noted that the extension of the field of observation and approach greatly helps in avoiding methodological eirors at the early stages of science. It is so, particularly speaking, in the field of language, where the individual conditions, as seen from psychology, and social conditions, as seen from ethnology, yet the physical conditions of the formation of sounds as seen from anatomy, physiology, and the theory of sound, are helpful in avoiding elementary cases of spontaneous etymologies, imaginary reasoning, etc. On the other hand, the inoffensive character of the «wrong references and inferences» concerning linguistical phenomena which are not yet threatening (in the given conditions) individuals and which are not yet very harmful for the ethnical units [153], are favourable conditions for uncontrolled application of the above-described methods.
I have already shown how and in which conditions the idea of the evolution of languages has made its appearance. In some ways it remains beyond control, for it forms one of the essential elements of the present psycho-mental complex of the European cultural cycle. In the particular case of the Ural-Altaic languages, the idea of an organically evolving phenomenon has been developed in a manner too artlessly carried out and presented in a too naive form. This was greatly due to the fact that A. Sauvageot was not alone in such an approach to the problem and he was preceded by a brilliant group of old linguists and a not less brilliant group of living linguists who joined their efforts for a «cause commune» — to prove the existence of the Ural-Altaic family and the parenthood of a certain pra-language. Under these conditions, it is very difficult for a new author to keep his own path of investigation. However, at the present time the choice of a new path is rather easy, for the neighbouring sciences have already solved many a problem which could not have been solved through the linguistical ground. The theory of complexes and their variations is fairly well advanced. The theory of evolution has already given place to other methods in ethnography and ethnology. The facts, linguistical facts, are row much more numerous than they were some fifty years ago. The only difficulty, which is not the least one, is the ethnographical complex in which the linguists are living and which they must leave if they want to keep their pace with the neighbouring sciences.
There are many things to be thought over before the
coming generation of linguists may successfully choose their path.
150. Cf. J. Piaget, «The Language and Thought of the Child,» op. cit., p. 149 (I use the English translation here).
151. Cf. G. Dromard's definition of delire d'interpretation, quoted by J. Piaget.
152. J. Piaget, op. cit., p. 148.
153. The inoffensive character of linguistics (without speaking of ethnography, ethnology, and also anthropology) will very soon be a thing of the past. During the last war and during the Peace Conference, the linguistical problems had a certain importance in finding a correct solution to the problems created by the collapse of the former interethnical equilibrium. This will be shown still better in the near future.