A schoolboy at home for the holidays wants another plate of pudding；
and does not like to apply officially for more。 He catches the
servant's eye and looks at the pudding； the servant understands；
takes his plate without a word； and gets him some。 Is it metaphor
to say that the boy asked the servant to do this； or is it not
rather pedantry to insist on the letter of a bond and deny its
spirit； by denying that language passed； on the ground that the
symbols covenanted upon and assented to by both were uttered and
received by eyes and not by mouth and ears？ When the lady drank to
the gentleman only with her eyes； and he pledged with his； was there
no conversation because there was neither noun nor verb？ Eyes are
verbs； and glasses of wine are good nouns enough as between those
who understand one another。 Whether the ideas underlying them are
expressed and conveyed by eyeage or by tonguage is a detail that
matters nothing。
But everything we say is metaphorical if we choose to be captious。
Scratch the simplest expressions； and you will find the metaphor。
Written words are handage； inkage and paperage； it is only by
metaphor； or substitution and transposition of ideas； that we can
call them language。 They are indeed potential language； and the
symbols employed presuppose nouns； verbs； and the other parts of
speech； but for the most part it is in what we read between the
lines that the profounder meaning of any letter is conveyed。 There
are words unwritten and untranslatable into any nouns that are
nevertheless felt as above； about and underneath the gross material
symbols that lie scrawled upon the paper； and the deeper the feeling
with which anything is written the more pregnant will it be of
meaning which can be conveyed securely enough； but which loses
rather than gains if it is squeezed into a sentence； and limited by
the parts of speech。 The language is not in the words but in the
heart…to…heartness of the thing； which is helped by words； but is
nearer and farther than they。 A correspondent wrote to me once；
many years ago； 〃If I could think to you without words you would
understand me better。〃 But surely in this he was thinking to me；
and without words； and I did understand him better 。 。 。 So it is
not by the words that I am too presumptuously venturing to speak to…
night that your opinions will be formed or modified。 They will be
formed or modified； if either； by something that you will feel； but
which I have not spoken； to the full as much as by anything that I
have actually uttered。 You may say that this borders on mysticism。
Perhaps it does； but their really is some mysticism in nature。
To return； however； to terra firma。 I believe I am right in saying
that the essence of language lies in the intentional conveyance of
ideas from one living being to another through the instrumentality
of arbitrary tokens or symbols agreed upon； and understood by both
as being associated with the particular ideas in question。 The
nature of the symbol chosen is a matter of indifference； it may be
anything that appeals to human senses； and is not too hot or too
heavy； the essence of the matter lies in a mutual covenant that
whatever it is it shall stand invariably for the same thing； or
nearly so。
We shall see this more easily if we observe the differences between
written and spoken language。 The written word 〃stone；〃 and the
spoken word； are each of them symbols arrived at in the first
instance arbitrarily。 They are neither of them more like the other
than they are to the idea of a stone which rises before our minds；
when we either see or hear the word； or than this idea again is like
the actual stone itself； but nevertheless the spoken symbol and the
written one each alike convey with certainty the combination of
ideas to which we have agreed to attach them。
The written symbol is formed with the hand； appeals to the eye；
leaves a material trace as long as paper and ink last； can travel as
far as paper and ink can travel； and can be imprinted on eye after
eye practically ad infinitum both as regards time and space。
The spoken symbol is formed by means of various organs in or about
the mouth； appeals to the ear； not the eye； perishes instantly
without material trace； and if it lives at all does so only in the
minds of those who heard it。 The range of its action is no wider
than that within which a voice can be heard； and every time a fresh
impression is wanted the type must be set up anew。
The written symbol extends infinitely； as regards time and space；
the range within which one mind can communicate with another； it
gives the writer's mind a life limited by the duration of ink；
paper； and readers； as against that of his flesh and blood body。 On
the other hand； it takes longer to learn the rules so as to be able
to apply them with ease and security； and even then they cannot be
applied so quickly and easily as those attaching to spoken symbols。
Moreover； the spoken symbol admits of a hundred quick and subtle
adjuncts by way of action； tone and expression； so that no one will
use written symbols unless either for the special advantages of
permanence and travelling power； or because he is incapacitated from
using spoken ones。 This； however； is hardly to the point； the point
is that these two conventional combinations of symbols； that are as
unlike one another as the Hallelujah Chorus is to St。 Paul's
Cathedral； are the one as much language as the other； and we
therefore inquire what this very patent fact reveals to us about the
more essential characteristics of language itself。 What is the
common bond that unites these two classes of symbols that seem at
first sight to have nothing in common； and makes the one raise the
idea of language in our minds as readily as the other？ The bond
lies in the fact that both are a set of conventional tokens or
symbols； agreed upon between the parties to whom they appeal as
being attached invariably to the same ideas； and because they are
being made as a means of communion between one mind and another；
for a memorandum made for a person's own later use is nothing but a
communication from an earlier mind to a later and modified one； it
is therefore in reality a communication from one mind to another as
much as though it had been addressed to another person。
We see； therefore； that the nature of the outward and visible sign
to which the inward and spiritual idea of language is attached does
not matter。 It may be the firing of a gun； it may be an old
semaphore telegraph； it may be the movements of a needle； a look； a
gesture； the breaking of a twig by an Indian to tell some one that
he has passed that way： a twig broken designedly with this end in
view is a letter addressed to whomsoever it may concern； as much as
though it had been written out in full on bark or paper。 It does
not matter one straw what it is； provided it is agreed upon in
concert； and stuck to。 Just as the lowest forms of life
nevertheless present us with all the essential characteristics of
livingness； and are as much alive in their own humble way as the
most highly developed organisms； so the rudest intentional and
effectual communication between two minds through the
instrumentality of a concerted symbol is as much language as the
most finished oratory of Mr。 Gladstone。 I demur therefore to the
assertion that the lower animals have no language； inasmuch as they
cannot themselves articulate a grammatical sentence。 I do not
indeed pretend that when the cat calls upon the tiles it uses what
it consciously and introspectively recognises as language； it says
what it has to say without introspection； and in the ordinary course
of business； as one of the common forms of courtship。 It no more
knows that it has been using language than M。 Jourdain knew he had
been speaking prose； but M。 Jourdain's knowing or not knowing was
neither here nor there。
Anything which can be made to hitch on invariably to a definite idea
that can carry some distancesay an inch at the least； and which
can be repeated at pleasure； can be pressed into the service of
language。 Mrs。 Bentley； wife of the famous Dr。 Bentley of Trinity
College； Cambridge； used to send her snuff…box to the college
buttery when she wanted beer； instead of a written order。 If the
snuff…box came the beer was sent； but if there was no snuff…box
there was no beer。 Wherein did the snuff…box differ more from a
written order； than a written order differs from a spoken one？ The
snuff…box was for the time being language。 It sounds strange to say
that one might take a pinch of snuff out of a sentence； but if the
servant had helped him or herself to a pinch while carrying it to
the buttery this is what would have been done； for if a snuff…box
can say 〃Send me a quart of beer；〃 so efficiently that the beer is
sent； it is impossible to say that it is not a bona fide sentence。
As for the recipient of the message； the butler did not probably
translate the snuff…box into articulate nouns and verbs； as soon as
he saw it he just went down into the cellar and drew the beer； and
if he thought at all； it was probably about something else。 Yet