2. Uniformitarianism and Linguistics. Uniformi-
tarianism did not have any detectable direct influence
upon linguistics until more than thirty years after Lyell
set it forth in geology. We first describe the circum-
stances of this detectable impact, and then go back
to look at the situation in linguistics before then.
The impact was due, in part, to Lyell himself. Chap-
ter 23 of his work, Geologic Evidences of the Antiquity
of Man (1863), is entitled “Origin and development
of languages and species compared.” The leading
thoughts are that (1) there are various analogies be-
tween languages and biological species as regards mu-
tation, splitting of one species (or language) into two,
arrested development, competition among different
species (or languages), and so forth, and (2) sometimes
we can see more clearly what happens to species,
sometimes to languages. Lyell was looking for light
on what happened to species, and he thought that some
light might come from what happened to languages.
Lyell's concern with language was distinct from, and
independent of, a concern with language as a power
of man. The latter concern—seen for instance in
Darwin's Descent of Man (1871) and Expression of the
Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), includes such
questions as how far language resembles and how far
it differs from such other things as gestures, brute cries,
etc., and whether it can be regarded as having evolved
from any of them.
Lyell's Chapter 23 began with a quotation from
F. Max Müller, and the next year Müller returned the
compliment by quoting Lyell (Müller [1864], Ch. 5,
pp. 232, 239ff.). Müller might have done so from mere
courtesy or timeliness. But beyond this obvious ac-
knowledgment, Müller in the same work took account
of Lyell's ideas in a much profounder way. For in an
earlier chapter (Ch. 2) he virtually incorporated
uniformitarianism into linguistics, by formulating two
“principles on which the science of language rests,
namely, that what is real in modern formations must
be admitted as possible in more ancient formations,
and that what has been found to be true on a small
scale may be true on a large scale.” The eminent
American linguist W. D. Whitney, in his review of this
book (1865, p. 567), commented disdainfully, “We
should have called these, not fundamental principles,
but obvious considerations, which hardly required any
illustrations.” But this disparagement was unfair if, as
seems to be the case, Müller was the first in linguistics
to formulate them. It should be noted, moreover, that
Whitney did not question the truth of Müller's princi-
ples. Again, in 1885, Whitney admitted their truth and
questioned the importance of stating them. That he
was himself uniformitarian was stressed, shortly after
his death, by the great Indo-Europeanist Karl Brug-
mann ([1897]; cf. W. P. Lehmann,
Language, 34 [1958],
179-80, n. 2).
Through the German linguist Friedrich Techmer we
gain further information on the channel of influence.
He cites (1880, 1, 119) a passing allusion by Geiger
(1869, p. 65) which suggests that the uniformitarian-
catastrophist issue was familiar; in Techmer himself,
familiarity with the issue is simply one instance of a
general familiarity and sympathy with British logic and
scientific method. The same familiarity and sympathy
are manifest in Kruszewski (1884-90, 1, 295; 3, 167)
a few years later.
Besides the major influence of uniformitarianism,
linguistics shows influence from geology in two minor
ways, namely, in its metaphors “substratum” and
“linguistic paleontology.” On substratum, see Y.
Malkiel, Language, 43 (1967), 231ff. On linguistic
paleontology, see Pictet (1859-63); Techmer (1880), 1,
60-61; Saussure (1922), §5.4.3; Nehring (1931). The
history of the latter metaphor deserves further investi-
gation. It doubtless involves some connection between
A. Pictet (1799-1875) and F.-J. Pictet (1809-72). Both
Pictets were professors at the University of Geneva.
F.-J. Pictet was an eminent paleontologist; both
Darwin and Huxley speak respectfully of his review
of The Origin of Species.
