The mind of primitive man

by Franz Boas

What is true of language is obviously even more true of culture. In other words, if a certain type of man migrated over a considerable area before its language assumed the form which can now be traced in related linguistic groups, and before its culture assumed the definite type the further development of which can now be recognized, there would be no possibility of ever discovering a correlation of type, language, and culture, even if it had ever existed; but it is quite possible that such correlation has really never occurred.

It is quite conceivable that a certain racial type may have scattered over a considerable area during a formative period of speech, and that the languages which developed among the various groups of this racial type came to be so different that it is now impossible to prove them to be genetically related. In the same way, new developments of culture may have taken place which are so entirely disconnected with older types that the older genetic relationships, even if they existed, can no longer be discovered.

If we adopt this point of view, and thus eliminate the hypothetical assumption of correlation between primitive type, primitive language, and primitive culture, we recognize that any attempt at classification which includes more than one of these traits cannot be consistent.

It may be added that the general term “culture,” which has been used here, may be subdivided from a considerable number of points of view; and different results again might be expected when we consider the inventions, the types of social organization, or beliefs, as leading points of view in our classification.

After we have thus shown that language, culture, and type cannot be considered as constantly associated, and after we have recognized that the same type of man has developed distinct languages, the question still remains open, whether the languages developed by any one stock bear marks of superiority or inferiority. It has been claimed, for instance, that the highly developed inflected languages of Europe are much superior to the cumbersome agglutinative or polysynthetic languages of northern Asia and of America (Gabelentz). We have also been told that lack of phonetic discrimination, lack of power of abstraction, are characteristics of primitive languages. It is important to show whether these traits are really associated with any languages of primitive man. In a way this consideration leads us back to the study of alleged mental characteristics of distinct human types.

The view of the lack of phonetic differentiation is based on the fact that certain sounds of primitive languages are interpreted by the European sometimes as one of our familiar sounds, sometimes as another; they have been called alternating sounds. A better knowledge of phonetics has shown in all these cases, however, that the sounds are quite definite, but that owing to the manner of their production they are intermediate between sounds familiar to us. Thus an m produced by a very weak closing of the lips, and with half-open nose, sounds to our ear a little like m, a little like b, and a little like w; and according to slight accidental changes, it is sometimes heard as one of these sounds, sometimes as another, without, however, being in reality more variable than our m. Cases of this kind are quite numerous, but it would be a misinterpretation to adduce them as proof of lack of definiteness of the sound of primitive languages (Boas). In fact, it would seem that limitation in the number of sounds is necessary in each language in order to make possible rapid communication. If the number of sounds that are used in any particular language were unlimited, the accuracy with which the movements of the complicated mechanism required for producing the sounds are performed, would presumably be lacking; and consequently rapidity and accuracy of pronunciation, and with them the possibility of accurate interpretation of the sounds heard, would be difficult or even impossible. On the other hand, limitation of the number of sounds brings it about that the movements required in the production of each become automatic; that the association between the sound heard and the muscular movements, and that between the auditory impression and the muscular sensation of the articulation, become firmly fixed. Thus it would seem that limited phonetic resources are necessary for easy communication.

The second point that is often brought up to characterize primitive languages is the lack of power of classification and abstraction. Here, again, we are easily misled by our habit of using the classifications of our own language, and considering these, therefore, as the most natural ones, and by overlooking the principles of classification used in the languages of primitive people.

It may be well to make clear to our minds what constitutes the elements of all languages. It is a fundamental and common trait of articulate speech that the groups of sounds which are uttered serve to convey ideas, and each group of sounds has a fixed meaning. Languages differ not only in the character of their constituent phonetic elements and sound clusters, but also in the groups of ideas that find expression in fixed phonetic groups.

The total number of possible combinations of phonetic elements is also unlimited, but only a limited number are used to express ideas. This implies that the total number of ideas that are expressed by distinct phonetic groups is limited in number. We will call these phonetic groups “word-stems.”

Since the total range of personal experience which language serves to express is infinitely varied, and its whole scope must be expressed by a limited number of word-stems, it is obvious that an extended classification of experiences must underlie all articulate speech.