The history of the biological basis of language
The proponents of a “natural scientific” approach had been very few in number, and the majority of the learned had confined their thinking to written language and had framed their opinions in theology.
自然科學方案提倡者並不多；大多研究者把想法侷限於書面文字，並以神學理論建造其想法。
The beginnings of a separation of language philosophy from theology are found in the writings of Dante Alighieri (1265-1321). In his works on language theory and in the Divine Comedy, Dante relegated the contemplation of language origins to language theology. Thereby, he initiated the development of a secular language theory to deal with diversification and evolution of languages. The multiplicity of languages was no longer regarded as God's punishment for the attempt to build the tower of Babylon, but a natural phenomenon. The primary function of language was human communication and not the search for truth, as Thomas Aquinas had believed [36].
從但丁(1265-1321)的作品，開始看出神學思想從語言哲學中抽離。在他的語言理論和神曲裡，但丁將語言起源來自神學理論之預想屏除。因此但丁開創非宗教語言理論發展，並將語言演化推向多樣化。語言多樣性不再被視為人們試圖修造巴比倫塔－一種瀆神行為，而是一種自然現象。。語言最主要功能為人類溝通，而非尋求真理，如同托瑪斯阿奎斯所相信。（譯註：巴比倫這個名稱在巴比倫語的語音義與古希來語『變亂』一詞相同）
The search for biblical sources was no longer a part of language philosophy of Cardinal of Brixen, Nicholas of Cues (1401-1464). In 1440, he attributed language differences to the influences of climate [37].
聖經原始資料探究不再是語言哲學的重要核心，Nicholas of Cues (1401-1464)於1440年將語言差異歸因於不同面向影響。
But the detachment of language history from biblical tradition was only slowly accomplished. Supposedly, King James IV (1473-1513) of Scotland repeated Psammeticho's experiment. His aim was to prove a biblical origin for his country. If the utterings of the children had been in a biblical language, the genealogy of Scotland would extend to the days of Bible [38]. [7]
然而語言歷史與聖經傳統分化的相法卻緩慢地實現。根據推測詹姆士四世重複Psammeticho的實驗，他目標要為國家應證聖經的起源。如果孩子們說的話為聖經語，那麼英格蘭的系譜就可能擴展至聖經時期。
Language became the subject of an ever-increasing number of writers. The poets who wrote in their native tongue emphasizes the creative principle inherent in language, and although some, such as Jacob Böehme (1575-1624) wrote of language as a gift of nature, this was meant in a spiritualistic and mystical sense [39]. Others, for example, the polyhistorian and physician Konrad Gesner (1516-1565), considered language in the wake of the Reformation in terms of religious belief. The Reformators had re-emphasized the bond between language and God when they had translated the Bible [39x].
語言不斷地成為筆者的主題。一些詩人用母語方言來強調語言固有的起源；但有些如Jacob Boehme (1575-1624)將語言起源視為大自然賦予的禮物，存有神聖高尚和神秘意味，而有些如歷史兼醫師Konrad Gesner (1516-1565)依宗教信仰來探究語言，認為語言為引發宗教改革運動因子。這些改革者翻譯聖經時，重新強調與統結語言和上帝之間的關連性。
A more naturalistic approach is evident in the writings of some men very close to church like Pietro Bembo (1470-1547) a Venetian patrician and secretary to Pope Leo X [40]. The leading Spanish humanist, Juan Luis Vives (1492-1540), a pedagogue and anthropologist who taught at English and French universities, proposed that every language has a natural order which no individual can determine or change.
Languages undergo changes with time and his idea that the simpler languages are the oldest was to reappear frequently. He believed in an original perfect “language adamique” but did not equate in with Hebrew. Man's language ability is expressed in the various mother tongues (hence there is no need to search the natural language) [41].
與教宗密切者顯然地也從更自然的角度來看語言。例如：一、Pietro Bembo (1470-1547) 身為威尼斯貴族和Pope Leo X的秘書，二、Juan Luis Vives (1492-1540) 為西班牙人類學派領導者，於法國大學內任教，提出每種語言有自己的自然程序，沒有人能決定或改變。語言隨著時間改變，他所提出的想法『最簡易的語言為最原始的語言』更不時地為人討論。他相信一種完美原始的language adamique，但與希伯來語是不等同。人類語言能力表現於不同母語。（因為人們不需要尋找自然語言。）
A sceptic viewpoint was expressed by the French philosopher
法國哲學家Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) 提出無神論觀點。語言不是物質而是種接近而未達到事物定義的聲音。它建立於人類需求上，一個小孩獨立成長就具有能力駕馭語言來表達自己的想法。顯然甚至連無神論者也相信語言自然根據。
The philosopher's emphasis on language, as the expression of concepts or of man's reason, undoubtedly was a factor in confining to philosophy the considerations of all language elements. This cannot have been considered a restriction as long as natural science was still a part of philosophy. But the study of nature began to differentiate itself from philosophy in the 17th century. The separation was to some extent influenced by René Descartes (1596-1650). He considered reason and the use of words and signs the two most reliable means of distinguishing man from human machine. He differentiated language from articulation which man shared with parrots and magpies, and from the expression of emotions which he shared with most animals [43].
哲學家強調語言主要為表達人類思想和理智。無疑地這只侷限於用哲學解釋所有語言要素。不過這解釋仍有限制，因為自然科學為哲學一部份，但自然研究在17世紀逐漸地從至哲學中區別，這區分在一定程度上受到René Descartes (1596-1650)的影響，他認為理性和字與符號使用，這兩項最能拿來區分『人』、『人性化機器』的不同。他將人類語言與鸚鵡和鵲的發音區分，並將人類與大部份動物的情感表達區別看待。
Descartes' aim to prove the complete independence of man' s soul from his body was to prove fruitful in the development of the scientific study of the body. But because language had been attributed to the soul, the study of biological basis of language could not develop to the extent to which Descartes' division of man was accepted. Although he had recognized the production of language as inherent in man and believed that children raised alone develop a language like ours, his concern with language in this connection was the old question of the relationship of language to the true nature of things [44].
Descartes的目標藉由說明人體和靈魂間完整獨立性，來證明人體科學研究具有豐富成效。不過由於語言被歸因於靈魂，以生物基礎的語言研究無法建立於Descartes的人類區分上，即使他承認語言產生為人類固有並相信小孩獨立成長時能發展和成人一樣的語言。他所提出關於語言和這方面的關係，仍為語言與天性之間的老問題。
Justus Georg Schottel (1612-1676) the best known German language theoretician of his time wrote, in summarizing his views on language in 1663, that language is not man-made but natural. But the term natural is not to be understood as opposed to cultural, for he considered that the characteristics of a society, for instance, natural to it. He believed that true nature of things was expressed by a natural language which German approximated most closely [45]. The superiority of German because of its closeness to “language adamique” was also a tenet of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716). Language ability was a gift of God, and the form of language was determined by natural instinct, with the exception of Chinese, which could have been invented by a wise man, and some other languages, which may have been the result of selecting words from languages already existent [46]. His view has been interpreted to be a modification of Locke's pure invention theory [47].
蔚為聞名的德國語言理論作家－Justus Georg Schottel (1612-1676)，於1663年概述對語言的見解，內容提到語言非人造而成，而是天性。但是相對地天性無法和他所認知的社會特徵－文化一同解釋。例如：天性相對於文化。他相信『真』自然的事物是由自然語言來傳達，與德國人推估的非常接近。因為德人信仰相似language adamique，也為Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716)之宗旨，語言能力為上帝賜與的禮物，語言格式也決定於自然天性。不過中文除外，中文傳說是由一位智者創造，而其它有些語言也除外，因為那些語言可能是由已存語言中的字經由挑選後形成，有人以Locke純創造論修訂版來解釋他(Justus Georg Schottel (1612-1676))的觀點。
Vocabulary
2. relegate (v.) 放逐; 貶謫
3. contemplation (n.) 沉思; 凝想
4. diversification (n.) 多樣化; 經營多樣化
5. multiplicity (n.) 多樣性; 重複
6. biblical (adj.) 《聖經》的;《聖經》中的
7. genealogy (n.) 系譜(圖); 家譜(圖); 宗譜(圖)
8. spiritualistic (adj.) 唯心論的; 降神術的
9. mystical (adj.) 神祕的; 信奉(或實踐)神祕主義的
10. Reformation (n.) 宗教改革(十六至十七世紀的天主教會改革運動,結果產生了基督
11. naturalistic (adj.) 博物學的; 自然主義的;【宗】自然論的
12. patrician (n.) 古羅馬的)貴族; (羅馬帝國在義大利及非洲的)地方行政長官顯貴,貴族
13. anthropologist (n.) 人類學家
14. pedagogue (n.) (小學)教師; 喜歡賣弄學問的教師
15. differentiate (v.) 使有差異;構成...間的差別[(+from)]
16. theoretician (n.) 理論家
17. tenet (n.) 信條;主義;教義;宗旨;原則
NOTES
7. Borst could find no evidence of experiment in contemporary sources. A. Borst, op. cit., p. 1010.
REFERENCES
36. Apel, Karl O. Archiv f. Begriffsgeschichte. Bonn, 1963, Vol.8, pp. 104-106.
Borst, A., op.cit., pp.801, 871 et seq.
37. _____. P. 1027.
38. Panconcelli-Calzia, Guilo, Sprachformen, Vol. I. 1955, p.272. Cited by A. Borst,
op. cit., p1010.
39. Hankamer, Paul, Die Sprache. Cohen, Bonn, 1927, p.123 er seq.
39x. Borst, A., op.cit., p. 1086.
40. _____. P. 1107.
41. _____. Pp. 1137-8.
42. _____. P.1256.
43. Dèscartes, Renè, Philosoph. Werke. Edited and translated by J. H. von
Kirchmann, Heimann. Berlin, 1870: sur la methode, pp.66-68.
44. Borst, A., op. cit., p.1086.
45. Hankamer, P., op.cit., pp.127 et seq.
46. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Werke. Edited and translated by W. von Engelhardt and H. H. Holz, Wiss. Buchgesellsch, Darmstadt, 1961, pp. 1, 21.
47. Borst, A., op. cit., p. 1475.
