The Child and Childhood in Folk-Thought - Alexander F. Chamberlain (best way to read an ebook txt) 📗

The prominence of the mother-influence in the child’s linguistic development is also accentuated by Professor Mason, who devotes a chapter of his recent work on woman’s part in the origin and growth of civilization to woman as a linguist. The author points out how “women have helped to the selection and preservation of language through onomatopoeia,” their vocal apparatus being “singularly adapted to the imitation of many natural sounds,” and their ears “quick to catch the sounds within the compass of the voice” (113. 188-204). To the female child, then, we owe a good deal of that which is now embodied in our modern speech, and the debt of primitive races is still greater. Many a traveller has found, indeed, a child the best available source of linguistic information, when the idling warriors in their pride, and the hard-working women in their shyness, or taboo-caused fear, failed to respond at all to his requests for talk or song.

Canon Farrar, in his Chapters on Language, makes the statement: “It is a well-known fact that the neglected children, in some of the Canadian and Indian villages, who are left alone for days, can and do invent for themselves a sort of lingua franca, partially or wholly unintelligible to all except themselves” (200. 237). Mr. W. W. Newell speaks of the linguistic inventiveness of children in these terms

(313. 24):—

“As infancy begins to speak by the free though unconscious combination of linguistic elements, so childhood retains in language a measure of freedom. A little attention to the jargons invented by children might have been serviceable to certain philologists. Their love of originality finds the tongue of their elders too commonplace; besides, their fondness for mystery requires secret ways of communication. They, therefore, often create (so to speak) new languages, which are formed by changes in the mother-speech, but sometimes have quite complicated laws of structure and a considerable arbitrary element.” The author cites examples of the “Hog Latin” of New England schoolchildren, in the elaboration of which much youthful ingenuity is expended. Most interesting is the brief account of the “cat” language:—

“A group of children near Boston invented the cat language, so called because its object was to admit of free intercourse with cats, to whom it was mostly talked, and by whom it was presumed to be comprehended. In this tongue the cat was naturally the chief subject of nomenclature; all feline positions were observed and named, and the language was rich in such epithets, as Arabic contains a vast number of expressions for lion. Euphonic changes were very arbitrary and various, differing for the same termination; but the adverbial ending -ly was always -osh; terribly, terriblosh. A certain percentage of words were absolutely independent, or at least of obscure origin. The grammar tended to Chinese or infantine simplicity; ta represented any case of any personal pronoun. A proper name might vary in sound according to the euphonic requirements of the different Christian names by which it was preceded. There were two dialects, one, however, stigmatized as provincial. This invention of language must be very common, since other cases have fallen under our notice in which children have composed dictionaries of such” (313. 25).

This characterization of child-speech offers not a few points of contact with primitive languages, and might indeed almost have been written of one of them.

More recently Colonel Higginson (262) has given some details of “a language formed for their own amusement by two girls of thirteen or thereabouts, both the children of eminent scientific men, and both unusually active-minded and observant.” This dialect “is in the most vivid sense a living language,” and the inventors, who keep pruning and improving it, possess a manuscript dictionary of some two hundred words, which, it is to be hoped, will some day be published. An example or two from those given by Colonel Higginson will serve to indicate the general character of the vocabulary:—

bojiwassis, “the feeling you have just before you jump, don’t you know—when you mean to jump and want to do it, and are just a little bit afraid to do it.”

spygri, “the way you feel when you have just jumped and are awfully proud of it.”

pippadolify, “stiff and starched like the young officers at Washington.”

Other information respecting this “home-made dialect,” with its revising academy of children and its standard dictionary, must be sought in the entertaining pages of Colonel Higginson, who justly says of this triumph of child-invention: “It coins thought into syllables, and one can see that, if a group of children like these were taken and isolated until they grew up, they would forget in time which words were their own and which were in Worcester’s Dictionary; and stowish and krono and bojiwassis would gradually become permanent forms of speech” (262. 108).

In his valuable essay on The Origin of Languages (249), Mr. Horatio Hale discusses a number of cases of invention of languages by children, giving interesting, though (owing to the neglect of the observers) not very extensive, details of each.

One of the most curious instances of the linguistic inventiveness of children is the case of the Boston twins (of German descent on the mother’s side) born in 1860, regarding whose language a few details were given by Miss E. H. Watson, who says: “At the usual age these twins began to talk, but, strange to say, not their ‘mother-tongue.’ They had a language of their own, and no pains could induce them to speak anything else. It was in vain that a little sister, five years older than they, tried to make them speak their native language,—as it would have been. They persistently refused to utter a syllable of English. Not even the usual first words, ‘papa,’ ‘mamma,’ ‘father,’ ‘mother,’ it is said, did they ever speak; and, said the lady who gave this information to the writer,—who was an aunt of the children, and whose home was with them,—they were never known during this interval to call their mother by that name. They had their own name for her, but never the English. In fact, though they had the usual affections, were rejoiced to see their father at his returning home each night, playing with him, etc., they would seem to have been otherwise completely taken up, absorbed, with each other…. The children had not yet been to school; for, not being able to speak their ‘own English,’ it seemed impossible to send them from home. They thus passed the days, playing and talking together in their own speech, with all the liveliness and volubility of common children. Their accent was German,—as it seemed to the family. They had regular words, a few of which the family learned sometimes to distinguish; as that, for example, for carriage [_ni-si-boo-a_], which, on hearing one pass in the street, they would exclaim out, and run to the window” (249. 11). We are further informed that, when the children were six or seven years old, they were sent to school, but for a week remained “perfectly mute”; indeed, “not a sound could be heard from them, but they sat with their eyes intently fixed upon the children, seeming to be watching their every motion,—and no doubt, listening to every sound. At the end of that time they were induced to utter some words, and gradually and naturally they began, for the first time, to learn their ‘native English.’ With this accomplishment, the other began also naturally to fade away, until the memory with the use of it passed from their mind”

(249. 12).

Mr. Horatio Hale, who resumes the case just noticed in his address before the Anthropological Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Buffalo, 1886), gives also valuable details of the language of a little four-year-old girl and her younger brother in Albany, as reported by Dr. E. R. Hun (249. 13). The chief facts are as follows: “The mother observed when she was two years old that she was backward in speaking, and only used the words ‘papa’ and ‘mamma.’ After that she began to use words of her own invention, and though she readily understood what was said, never employed the words used by others. Gradually she extended her vocabulary until it reached the extent described below [at least twenty-one distinct words, many of which were used in a great variety of meanings]. She has a brother eighteen months younger than herself, who has learned her language, so that they talk freely together. He, however, seems to have adopted it only because he has more intercourse with her than with others; and in some instances he will use a proper word with his mother, and his sister’s word with her. She, however, persists in using only her own words, though her parents, who are uneasy about her peculiarity of speech, make great efforts to induce her to use proper words.”

More may be read concerning this language in the account of Dr. Hun (published in 1868).

Mr. Hale mentions three other cases, information regarding which came to him. The inventors in the first instance were a boy between four and five years old, said to have been “unusually backward in his speech,” and a girl a little younger, the children of a widower and a widow respectively, who married; and, according to the report of an intimate friend: “He and the little girl soon became inseparable playmates, and formed a language of their own, which was unintelligible to their parents and friends. They had names of their own invention for all the objects about them, and must have had a corresponding supply of verbs and other parts of speech, as their talk was fluent and incessant.” This was in Kingston, Ontario, Canada (249. 16).

The second case is that of two young children, twins, a boy and a girl: “When they were three or four years old they were accustomed, as their elder sister informs me, to talk together in a language which no one else understood…. The twins were wont to climb into their father’s carriage in the stable, and ‘chatter away,’ as my informant says, for hours in this strange language. Their sister remembers that it sounded as though the words were quite short. But the single word which survives in the family recollection is a dissyllable, the word for milk, which was cully. The little girl accompanied her speech with gestures, but the boy did not. As they grew older, they gradually gave up their peculiar speech” (249. 17).

The third case cited by Mr. Hale is that of two little boys of Toronto, Canada,—five or six years of age, one being about a year older than the other, who attended a school in that city: “These children were left much to themselves, and had a language of their own, in which they always conversed. The other children in the school used to listen to them as they chattered together, and laugh heartily at the strange speech of which they could not understand a word. The boys spoke English with difficulty, and very imperfectly, like persons struggling to express their ideas in a foreign tongue. In speaking it, they had to eke out their words with many gestures and signs to make themselves understood; but in talking together in their own language, they used no gestures and spoke very fluently. She remembers that the words which they used seemed quite short” (249. 18).

Mr. Hale’s studies of these comparatively uninvestigated forms of human speech led him into the wider field of comparative philology and linguistic origins. From the consideration of these data, the distinguished ethnologist came to regard the child as a factor of the utmost importance in the development of dialects and families of speech, and to put forward in definite terms a theory of