- Email: [email protected]
The linguistic conceptions of the encyclopédie
Since RosielVs lit -philosophical essay (1967) and Chevalier’s t horsugh study ( 196 723, the grammatical conceptions of the E~~c~T/o~,&~~~ have Zen dealt with in a rapidly increasing number of publications, connected with the names of H. Aarsleff, S. Auroux, Droixhe, P. Juliard, U. Ricken, A. 8obinet.l The study under he publication of Monreal-Wickert’s doctoral dissertation presented at the Saarland University in 197% It seems worthwhile to judge this study according to some standard criteria, which in my opinion must be imposed on each contribution to the historiography of lin first part of our review will consist of rief outline of these standard criteria; the second part compares the st f Monreal-Wickert with these basic requirements; the third part proposes a critical conclusion and opens, + Published by TL Verlag Gwnter Narr, TUbingcn, 1037. 199 pp, I am indcbtcd f z J. Stdfanini (Aix-en-Provence) and F,J, Martens (Louvain) for w~cful information or crit4sms. and to D. Gecns (Louvain) who corrected my En I assume complete responsibility for the content and form of the present text. For final corrections I am inaebted to Prof. W.S. Allen (Cambridge). l An excellent survey of the hisforisgraphy of 18th+~ntury linguistics can be found in Aarsleff (1975). This somewhat outdated article - conceived as ‘a state of the art’ (in accordance with the generat aim of Cwrent Trerrds,vol. 13) - was written in f 972 (Aarslcff 1975: 383). For the most recent bibliography on French 18th~century linguistics see Rickcn ( 1978).
240
Review article
in a very cautious way, some perspectives for the historiography of linguistics and, more particularly, for the historiography of I&h-cemury linguistics. 1.
Three basic requirements can be made with regard to lin uistic historiography .ISa scientific discipline :
Linguistic historiography requires a critical examination of a limitedcomplete amount of relevant linguistic data and sources. A research topic (just like a particular science) is defined and limited by the data which constitute it (objectwn mtcride, in the medieval terminology). In the case of linguistic historiography these data are mostly texts (old or new) concerning, implicitly or explicitly, language in general, particular languages and language sciences (descriptive linguistics, historical linguistics, comparative linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, . . .).2 The specific research topic, on the other hand, is defined by the view (or intention) of the scientist and of the cultural or scientific tradition. This view (objectm formde) depends on the research standards, on the developmental stage of the science in question, on the social relevance of scientific research in a particular area (and as a whole), and on the existing methods. The topic is mostly constituted by important problems concerning, as far as linguistic historiography is concerned, the whole history of linguistics, certain periods, certain texts, etc. and concerning the methouology of linguistic historiograptly (periodization, the applicability of notions as ‘paradigm ‘3). The data ahe always amassed in relation to the research topic and they must be ‘limited-complete’ with regard to this topic,* defined by spatio-temporal limits (e.g. the study of French grammar in the 18th cer,tury). This means that historiographical contributions can only be judged adequately if one takes into account their limited-completeness. ’ One can find masterly introductions to most of these sciences in Tervoort (1977). A review of this book is forthcoming in TtjXdzrift voor Filosofie. 3 The best account of this problem is given by Hymes : 1974b). 4 Just as there are no absolute simples (Wittgenstein 1953: $8 46-48), there is no absolute completeness (for arithmetic this has been proved by Gijdel): completeness is always relative completeness.
241
which obtain ese resuEtscan be (more or even an CEX
by r~s~ar~~ on related topics.
f
con-
caries cannot be falsified entirely. 1.3. raphy requires a structural and, if possible, an axi~~at~~ exposition of the research results having passed the confrontan (see 1.2). 1 think there are two valuable and hi ly controllable raphical exposition : a structural one and n axiomatic one. exposition wiil provide a systematic articulation of the research results (mostly combined with a systematic description of the texts which were examined), Its emphasis lies on the dimer,sisns and categories and the classificatory criteria to be distin ished within the topic under discussion. This topic m an architectonic whole, constituted by a coherent and is rarely used in human The axiomatic exposition (unfort -59, 62-65). An axiomatic sciences (Bochetiski 1962: 91-124; exposition consists of givi (1) the T-theoretical pr itive terms and axioms of a certain theory or system; (2) the deduction rule: allowed by the theory; (3) a rigorous description of the set empirical and theoretical statements derived from (1) by applyi Both types may not be kept separate. It will ometimes be difficult to formulate the results in an axiomatic form, but even an unsuccessful trial might throw some new light on the problems under study. It can also help to give the structural exposition more scientific rigour.
242
Retie w article
2. 2.1. Monreal-Wickert’s book should be devoted, according to the title and the introduction (p. 9), to the linguistic conceptions of the Encyclopkdie. If one takes ‘linguistic’ in the strict lexicographical sense of ‘related to language’ (a more general sense than ‘related to linguistics’), one must draw the logical (though terrifying) conclusion that Monreal-Wickert had to investigate the whole Encycloyhdie, since this work offers - in alphabetical order - definitions and explications of more or less technical terms (Proust 1965: 176). The study of Monreal-Wickert however is exclusively (p. 17) concerned with the metalinguistic level (articles on grammatical terminology and theoretical articles on language). The author also proposes a somewhat external delimitation of the topic: “Es gibt verschiedene Miiglichkeiten, die fiir uns belangvollen Artikeln zu isolierett : (1) Die Verfasser; (2) Die Verweise in den Artikeln selbst; (3) Die Titel der Artikel” (p. 18). Most of these metalinguistic or grammatical articles have been compiled, some of them in a modified form, in the Enrr*c/opklie mkthodique. Gramm(rrireet litt&ature (and not ‘ Langue et li&rature’ as mentioned in the bibliography, p. NO), and in the Dictionnnire tkd grammire et de litt&ature. A detailed study of Monreal-Wickert’s book (footnotes included) reveals that she has (tacitly) made some heavy restrictions. Among the numerous contributors to the metalinguistic articles of the EncyclopMe only four receive a detailed account: Beauzke, Dumarsais, Turgot and Diderot.5 The other contributors to these grammatical articles - Voltaire, de Jaucourt, D’Alembert, and the anonymous author(s) of the articles ‘Racine’ and ‘Regulier - are briefly dismissed or ignored? But what is 5 Monreal-Wickert also mentions Jacques Philippe August in Douchet, who wrote, in collaboration with Nicola!; Beauztie, some grammatical articles in the seventh and eighth volllmes of the Ettc_w/opPdie. The articles arc signed E.R.M. ( = Ecolc Royalc Militairc, where Douchet and Beauzee taught). The signature B.E.R.M. (or E.R.M.B.) which becomes current from the eighth volun~c on, stands for: ’ Beauzde, Ecolc Royalc Militaire’. 6 Monreal-Wickert only mentions VoltaIre’s article ’ Franqois ou Franqais’ (misprinted on p. 92 and p. 93). Another article of Voltaire on ‘ Musiquc’ is very important for the l&hcentury conceptions on the origin of language. Louis Chevalier de Jadcourt wrote the articles ‘ Hi&-oglyphe’, ‘ Hyperbiasmc‘, ‘Jcux de mot\‘, ‘(Phrase) imitatise’, ‘ Justcsse’, * Labdacisme’, ‘ Langage‘, ‘ Prosopopde’, ’ Puriste’, ’ Repetition’, * Romane (langue -)‘, ’ Saxonne (langue -)‘, ‘Signal’, ‘Signe’, ‘Style’, ‘Thau’, ‘ Tout ‘, ‘Tu-Vous’, ’ Tutoyment’. In Monreal-Wickert (1977: 159, fn. 48) the article ‘Signe’ is wrongly attributed to Beauzdc. D’Alembcrt wrote the article ‘Dictionnaire’.
worse:
of that
(pp. 171-179), the ‘ Alphsbet ‘+ ’ halo
grammatical articles listed 7 by Monresl-Wickert uthor cites only 21 in her study (viz. ’ Adjectif’, e ‘, ’ Article ‘, ‘ Auxiiiaire ‘, ‘ CL?S’, ’ Construction ‘. Fralqois ou Frnnqnis’, ’ Grammaire‘, ’ M&hode’, ‘ Phitos-
s aspect partly in relation with the second and third criteria. Ft will therefore be necessary to analyse the chapters devoted to Beau&e (pp. 25-94), Dumarsais (pp. 95--147), Turgot and Diderot (pp. 148-168).
The first chapter provides an outline of Beau&e’s conceptions on (general) grammar and on language. In an introductory paragraph (pp. 25-22) Monreirl-Wickert retraces the origin and development of general grammar (‘grammaire ginerale’). I think the author is fundamentally wrong when she states: “ In ihren wesentlichen iigen fiihrt die Grammatik von Port-Royal die Tradition der aristotelischen Grammatik weiter, die im Mittelalter von der scholastischen Grammatica speculativa eben worden war” (p. 26). aufgenommen und an die Neuzeit weiter There is an undeniable difference (and per an historic.21discontinuity) between these two trends: (I) speculati mars are exclusively based imars are based on the vernaon Latin, while general (or universal’) cular languages (French/English); (2) in speculative grammars the universality of grammatical cate ories is ultimately based on ontological structures (n&i esslerdi); in neral grammars it is based on the CQ structures of the mind (‘la raison’); (3) speculative rammars gre ex inspired by the Aristotelian-Boethian categories, while ’ The list is based on Sahlin (f928 : x) and Chevalier ( 1968: 722-723). Porsct ( t 970: 299~301) also draws a list of “articles de Du Marsais inserCs dans SEmyclupPdie”.
244
Review article
mainly inspired by Descartes* - only incorporate Aristoteliara notions such as substance, accident (mostly used in a rather untechnical se rse). It is even harder to follow the author when she states: “ Darin lag die Pointe Qer Grammairc g&&ale: die Allgemeinheit der antiken oder der scholastischen Grammatik war sozusagen inhaltlich leer, da diese mit der lateinischen (resp. griechischen) Grammatik zusammenfielen. Die Grammatik von Port-Royal dagegen konnte, aufgrund der Situation auf der Objektebene, eine ‘ Metagrammatik ‘, eine Grammaire des grammaires sein” (p. 29).g The opposite seems to be equally acceptable, if not better. And after all, in how far were genernl grammars dependent on the grammatical categories of Latin . . ? The following paragraph, entitled Xcammaire’ (p. 33-40), is a resume of the corresponding Elzcyc~~~~~~~-article. The problem faced by such 18th.century linguists as Beauzee and Dumarsais was how to justify the possibility (and necessity) of general grammar along with the existence of various particular languages. The answer one can find in the article ‘ Grammaire’ is the following I “ La Grammaire admet done deux sortes de principes. Les urs sont d’une verite immuable & d’un usage universel; ils tiennent a la nature de la pensee meme . . . Les autres n’ont qu’une v&it6 hypothetique & dependante de conventions libres & muab!es . . . La Grammaire g&rale est done la science raisonnee des principes immuables & generaux de la parole prononcee ou &rite dans toutes les langues. Une Grammaire particuliere est l’art d’appliquer aux principes iiilmuables & generaux de la parole prononcee ou &rite, les institutions arbitraires & usuelles d’une langue particuliere. La Grammaire g&r&ale est une science, parce qu’elfe n’a pour objet que la speculation raisonnee des principes immuables & generaux de la parole; une Grammaire particuliere est un art, parce qu’elle envisage l’application pratique des institutions arbitraires et usuelles d’une langue particuliere aux principes generaux de la parole. La science grammaticale est anterieure a toutes les langues, parce que ses principes sont d’une verite eternelle, & qu’ils ne supposent que la possibilite des langues; l’art grammatical au contraire est posterieur aux langues, parce que les usages des langues doivent exister avant qu’on les rapporte
@See Chouillet (1972). This perhaps cannot justify the label ‘Cartesian linguistics’, but, OII the other hand, the ‘anti-Cartesian linguistics’ trend (Aarsleff 1970, 1971; Joly 1972, 1977) seems to go astray, since the influence of Descartes - as a philosopher (and not as a linguist i) - on most general grammars cannot be denied. ’ I think Monreal-Wickert has misinterpreted here the citation of Joly (ed., 1972: 21).
Review article
245
artificiellement aux principes generaux” (Em. VII : 841--842; EM. INWI. II : !90)? Without questioning the ‘anteriority ’ (in the orcio essedi or in the orcJo cogrloscerdi?) of ti.sse principles, Monreal-Wickert makes a rather bold statement: “ Die Grammatik kann, entsprechend ihren Zwecken, apriorisch oder empirisch sein. Die apriorische Grammatik thematisiert was Sprache ist, - wenn man sich so ausdrticken will -die Bedingungen der Moglichkeit von Sprache (‘la possibilite des langues’)” (p. 35). What bothers me, is (1) the strict opposition made between the apriori and the empirical approach (an opposition which Beauzee never made; beside:;, he would probably have considered the investigation of these ‘principes d’une v&rite eternelle’ to be an ‘empirical’ study); and (2) the misinterpretation of the sentence “ces principes . . . ne supposent que la possibilite des langues”, which has nothing to do with the constructive conditions (and restrictions) by which languages become possible. It is regrettable that the very important synoptic table (‘Systeme figure des parties de la Grammaire’) is reproduced here (p. 40) without any comment. The following section, ‘Langue’ (pp. 41-73) is devoted to Beauzee’s definition of language and to his conceptions of the origin of language and of language typology. The section is based on Beauzee’s article ‘Langue’ and includes an historical survey of different conceptions of the origin of language (Descartes, Herder, Smith, Turgot, Maupertuis, Rousseau) and of language typology (Girard, Smith, A.W. Schlegel). Tt must be said that Monreal-Wickert is at her besP when writing historical surveys without raising methodological questions. So this section appears to be one of the best in Monreal-Wickert’s book. However, one misses here the discussion by Foucault (1966) of the fundamental change in the ‘episteme’ at the beginning of the 19th century, when language becomes an object of historical investigation; furthermore, one must regret the absence of a thorough methodological lo Also in Beauzee (i 767: x-xi). The text is also cited by Monrcal-Wickert (1977: 34) with instead of ‘science raisonnee’, ‘ces principes’ a few errors: e.g. ‘science raisonnable’ instead of ‘ses princ’pes’, etc. *I Monreal-Wickert (1977: 44) - about the influence of Descartes on the study of the origin of language - is, hcwever, a bad example of this: argument ( I ) is an exaggeration (” Die ganze christliche Eroche litt bis zur Aufklgrung unter dem Dogma, dass Hebrtiisch die Mutter aller Sprachen se?‘); argument (2) is a petitio principii - and unacceptable as a syllogism since it contains five terms; argument (3) is logically correct, but cannot be linked with Descartes or Cartesian philosophy.
246
Review article
discussion (based on modern theories) of the language typology proposed by Bcauzee.12 The third paragraph, ‘Usage-Analogie’ (pp. 76--94), is a chapter in the history of ‘la grammaire des puristes’. After an excellent discussion of the notion ‘usage’ in Vaugelas’ Rernarques, Monreal-Wickert offers a rather condensed study of the relation between ‘usage’ and ‘raison’ in the works of Irson, Port-Royal, Bossuet, Bouhours, Buffier, Girard, Dumarsais and Beauzee. Beauzee himself made an important distinction between ‘usage’ (in fact the practical knowledge of a particular language), ‘raison’ (rational principles of language), and ‘analogie’ (a rationalization procedure which consists of reducing the ‘irrational’ exceptions to one, and to explain - rationally - the other exceptions by arta/ogy with the first). As Monreal-Wickert rightly observes, “bei Beauzee markiert die Analogie die Ueberschneidung der Allgemeinen Grammatik mit der Einzelgrammatik” (p. 84). The final part of this paragraph is devoted to the link between the empirical and the ‘diachronic’ principle in Beauzee’s linguistic theory. Apart from the ‘de re - de ditto’ confusion (viz. with regard to the use of the terms ‘historical’ and ‘diachronic’) in the author’s mind, one must also question the author’s conclusion : Monreal-Wickert states (pp. 90-91) that the use of empirical methods13 led to the discovery of the historical character of language. The contrary would seem a more appropriate affirmation, although I recognize that both elements are interdependent. 2.1.2. The second chapter, devoted to Dumarsais, starts with a survey of Condillac’s linguistic conceptions and discusses the opposition between sensualism and rationalism in linguistics (the scheme on p. 98 is a superficial and quite incorrect account of the very complicated semiotic relation between language, thought and reality in Port-Royal). The following paragraphs are concerned with Dumarsais’ linguistic theory, without, however, offering a general view of this theory. Monreal-Wickert provides I2 it seems to me t I ) that Bcauzee’s typolog:/ is tlot a morphological one (Munreal-Wickert 1977: 53), but a syntactical one (having implications for morphology). See Beauzee’s article ‘ Lang&, Emyclophdie, vol. IX, pp. 257-258; Etuy;lop6die nGtlzodiqlre, vol. II, pp. 41 l-41 2; at the typologies proposed by Beauzee, Girard (whose typology is much more morphogicaliy based), Schlegel and Smith have to be compared with much more caution than %Ionreal-Wickert seems to admit. I3 It is regrettable that Monreal-Wickert nowhere explains her us:: of the term ‘empirical ethod’, which seems to have a nontrivial sense with regard to 18th~century linguistics.
Review article
247
a detailed analysis cIf three articles by Dumarsais : ‘ Cas’, ‘Article’, ‘Construction’. The discussion is in general very correct, although one would have expected an historical survey as in the previous chapter devoted to Beauzee. The author restricts herself to the 18th century (except for Port-Royal): however, the history of the article and case in French 18thcentury grammars cannot be written without mentioning, for instance, Scaliger, Ramus, Cauchie, Sanctius, D. Martin, and Maupas. Monreal-Wickert rightly stresses the importance of Dumarsais’ distinction between a grammatical and a logical analysis of sentences. The following quote is one of the most important methodological statements within French 18th.century linguistics: “On peut considerer une proposition ou grammaticalement ou logiquement: quand on considere une proposition grammaticalement, on n’a egard qu’aux rapports reciproques qui sont entre les mots; au lieu que dans la proposition logique, on n’a egard qu’au sens total qui resulte de I’assemblage des mots: ensorte que l’on pourroit dire que la proposition consideree grammaticalement est la proposition de l’elocution; au lieu que la proposition consideree logiquement est celle de l’entendement, qui n’a egard qu’aux differentes parties, je veux dire aux differents points de vue de la pensee”.14 It is regrettable that Monreal-Wickert does not discuss here the vigourous attack by Serrus (1933) on the ‘ parallelisme logico-grammatical’ (for a methodological discussion of Serrus (1933) and (1941) see Swiggers 1978 : 52-55). The paragraph on Dumarsais’ didactic principles suffers from a too radica! opposition between ‘ rationalism ’ and ‘sensualism ’ (pp. 145-147). Locke is presented here as the strict opponent of Cartesian rationalism, although Aarsleff (1971: 5-9) has pointed out that Locke is much more a rationalist than one might think. Duma:“sais, as Monreal-Wickert sometimes recognizes (p. 143), invokes ‘ratio list’ arguments and Beauzee’s grammatical works are deeply marked by empirical considerations. However, Monreal-Wickert sticks to the canonized tradition, opposing the ‘ sensualist’ Dumarsais to the ‘rationalist’ Beauzee (p. 145). 2.1.3. The third chapter of this book is a study of two articles in the En&+ p&die, one by Turgot on etymology and the other by Diderot (‘Encyclopedie’). These articles are thoroughly examined (and abundantly cited), l4 Dumarsais, article ‘Construction’, vol. I, p. 494.
Eucyclopkdie,
vol. IV, p. 84; Encycloptdie
mPthodiqlre,
248
Review mticle
but again without any methodological criticism. One misses, for instance, a critical remark on Turgot’s problematic use of semantic categories in etymological research, or on his rather odd combination of ‘rationalism’ and ‘empiricism ‘. Furthermore, I cannot accept two parallels drawn by Monreal-Wickert : ( I) bcDie allgemeine Wissenschaft von der Sprache und die Etymologie stehen in einem ahnlichen Theorie-Praxis-Verhtiltnis zueinander wie Allgemeine und einzelsprachliche Grammatik im Artikel Gramvaire von Reauzee” (p. 150). Besides the anachronistic use of the notions “Theorie’ and ‘ Praxis’ (which in fact do llot apply to the distinction Grarltrvtaire ~~tl~~rrie,!G~Nj~~t??~~ire pnrticrrli&e), one cannot accept the parallel, because the relation between general and particular grammar (according to Beauzee) is not a relation of inclusion, while the relation between ‘the general science of language’ and ‘etymology’ (according to Turgot) is in fact a relation of inclusion.15 (2) Monreal-Wickert regards Turgot as a precursor of the distinction between synchrony and diachrony (p. 159). She follows here a remark of %I. Piron, a Belgian literary critic, who has new!y edited the text of Turgot : “ En somme, unz telle demarche comporte implicitement la distinction des points de vue spwc’hro~~ie et diachrom’e, qui est fondamentale dans la Iinguistique du XXe siecle” (Piron 1961: 93). T have not been able to locate one instance in Turgot’s text which could confirm this statement: simply because Turgot never made the tnethodo/ogica/ distinction between synchrony and diachrony (a distinction which Piron, and also MonrealWickert, probably has interpreted as an ontological one). Furthermore, it is rather surprising that the author made no use of the important debate between Turgot and Maupertuis on the origin of language (Porset 1970; Grimsley 1971) and of some important chapters in the Port-Royal Logiqrre on the arbitrariness of linguistic signs (Swiggers 1978: 14-51). The section on Diderot’s ‘ linguistic philosophy’ is rather disappointing, even if one takes into account the ‘captatio benevalentiae’ at p. 160. The exposition is mainly based on Diderot’s article ‘Zncyclopedie’ and on seconlsry studies: a too narrow base indeed to offer a survey of Diderot’s (highly complex) linguistic thinking. Monreal-Wickert handles three problems: definition (without any reference to major works as De Patcr (1965) and Robinson (1962)) the structuration of knowledge (without any I 3 See Reauzk, article ‘Grammairc’, LmyclopPdie, vol. VII, p. 842; EttcyclopPdie mtthodique, vol. II, p. 190; T urgot, article ’ Etymologie’, EmyclopPdie, vol. VI, p. 98; EtmycfopPdie n@tilodiqrre, vol. I I 9 pp. 20-2 1.
Review article
249
reference to Foucault (1966)), communication within the scientific community (based on the work of two German scholars, A el and Hentig). T sincerely hope that the announced study (p. 160, n. 52) on Diderot’s ‘Sprachauffassung’ will fill the most striking lacunas and will provide a thorough and methodologically sound study of Diderot’s philosophy of language. 2.2. As to the second claim, the study of Monreal-Wickert appears to be an investigation carried out entirely ruithh the field under consideration. The linguistic problems are approached from a surprisingly narrow point of view and the confrontation with philosophical problems or questions is carefully avoided. At first sight this is not an important lacuna or failure; but it implies that the arguments presented in this book have to be convincing in se, since no parallel is drawn with other fields or topics. The arguments presented in this study are generally not convincing in se, as indicated in 2.1. Foucault’s important study of 1966 is quoted only once (p. 28): I believe that no historiographical study on 17th- and 18thcentury French linguistics can avoid a thorough confrontation with this major work, even if it contains many defects (Robinet 1978; Swiggers 1978 : 37-39, 90-93). 2.3. As to the third claim, it must be stressed that Monreal-Wickert’s study neither has a fully structural exposition nor an axiomatic one. The exposition focuses on major figures (Beauzee, Dumarsais, Diderot, Turgot), on major themes (general grammar vis-a-vis p titular grammar, language typology, the origin of language), but these oblems are never regarded as a structured whole. One can, of course, allege that, since the linguistic articles were composed by various contributors, there is nc, fully coherent and canonized language theory in the EncyclopP’die. But we cannot dismiss the fact that (1) the linguistic articles can be defined as a structured field within the whole EncyclopPdie on the basis of D’Alembert’s Discours /3r4lirninaire ;
(2) Beauzee (and Douchet) grammar in their article
.)rovided A ‘
Grammaire’
a synopsis ;
of the science of
250
Review article
(3) the system of cross-references (within and at the end of each article) enables us to link several articles as forming a solidary whole. Monreal-Wickert’s exposition is rather ‘atomistic’: the Encycloyc’clie articles are discussed separately, without any attempt to integrate this in a (reconstructed) synthesis (‘the linguistic theory of the Encyc/op?die’). This would, of course, have been quite an immense task, and Monreal-Wickert’s study still leaves us with this gap. 3. Conchusion and perspectives Monreal-Wickert has made a courageous attempt to propose an interpretation of the linguistic articles in the Encyc/op&die.However, it seems that only 5y0 of the available material was studied, so that the linguistic conceptions of the &7c)‘c/o@/ie still need to be integrated in a (reconstructed) theory. This would require an investigation of important articles such as: ‘Apposition ‘, ‘Classe’, ‘Concordance’, ‘ Dkterminatlon’, ‘ Ellipse’, ‘ Identitk’, ‘Mode’, ‘Mot’, ‘Oraison’, ‘Passif’, ‘Phrase’, ‘Proposition’, ‘ Rigime ‘, ‘ Sens ‘, ‘ Substant if ‘, ‘ Sujet ‘, ‘ Supplement ‘, ‘ Temps ‘, ‘ Transit if ‘* ‘ Verbe ‘, ‘ %4x’. The few articles the author cites several times, were studied with care and are abundantly explained in the book. The historical background (16th and 17th centuries) is sometimes lacking, and it appears that Monreal-Wickert could have made a better use of Chevalier’s ‘summa’ ( 1968). I would like to open some perspectives with regard to linguistic historiography (especially concerning the French 18th century). A primary task seems to be the need for a methodological framework within linguistic historiography. A growing interest in these basic problems is discernible within the available literature (Bugarski 1976; Koerner 11976; Simone 1975); this is indirectly confirmed by the organization of conferencesl” and the foundatii;*n of societies17 for the historiography of linguistics. A second task would be a reflexion on some ‘received ideas’: I am thinking, for example, of the ‘rationalism-empiricism ’ dichotomy. Is this dichotomy historically justified ? Does it prove fruitful for linguistic ” E.g. International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (Ottawa, 28-31 August 1978); and the Conference of the Stichtiug Tuuheter~schnp (Amsterdam, 18 October 1978). I7 A very important society, recently founded: So&P d’histoire et d’Ppistt!mologie des sciem-es &I Iaugage (address: Ecole Normale Supkrieure, 2 Avenue du Palais, 922211 Saint Cloud, France).
Review article
251
historiography ? These questions deserve a patient examination and a well-pondered answer. As to the French 18th~century linguistics, many issues are still left open: for example, the link between theoretical grammar and the teaching of French grammar; the debates on the origin of language and their impact on grammatical conceptions; the role of the ‘logical proposition’ in morphology and syntax; the interplay between methodologically and ontologically based arguments within grammars; the structure of grammar books from Regnier Desmarais to Sicard. Furthermore, the general issues within this “rational research program” (Lakatos 1970) have to be prepared and completed by case studies devoted to l&h-century grammarians and to the history of various grammatical problems.
References Aarsleff, H., 1970. The history of linguistics and Professor Chomsky. Language 46 (3), 570-585. Aarsleff, H., 1971. ‘Cartesian linguistics’: History or fantasy? Language Sciences 17, l-12. Aarsleff, H., 1975. The eighteenth century, including Leibniz. In: T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Current trends in linguistics, vol. 13, Historiography of linguistics, part I, 383-479. The Hague: Mouton. Acton, I&B., 1959. The philosophy of language in revolutionary France. Proceedings of the British Academy, 45, 199-219 (French translation : La philosophie du langage sous la Revolution francaise. i1rchives de Philosophie, juillet-dec. 1961, 426-449), Arens, I-I., 1955 (1969”). SftAc:!wissenschaft: der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Freiburg/Miinchen: K. Alber. Bartlett, B., 1975. Beauzee’s Grammaire generale. Theory and methodology. The Hague: Mouton. Beauzee, N., 1767. Grammaire g&t&ale, ou exposition raisonnee des elements necessaires du langage, Pour servir de fondement a l’etude de toutes les langues. Paris: J. Barbou Cannstatt : Frommann(reprint: Grammatica Universalis 8, 2 vols., Stuttgart/Bad Holzboog, 1974). Bochenski, J.M., 1962, Wijsgerige methoden in de moderne wetenschap. Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Bochefiski, J.M., 1965. The logic of religion. New York: New York Univ. Press. Bugarski, R., 1976. The object of linguistics in historical perspective. In: H. Parret (ed.), History of linguistic thought and contemporary linguistics, 1-12. Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter. Chevalier, J.-C,, 1968. Histoire de la syntaxe. La naissance de la notion de complement dans la grammaire francaise (1530-l 750). Geneve: Droz. Chouillet, J., 1972. Descartes et le probleme de I’origine des langues au XVIIIe siecle. Dixhuitieme siecle 4, 39-60. Couturat, L., 1901. La logique de Leibniz, d’apres des documents inedits. Paris: Alcan (repr. Hildesheim: G. Glms, 1961).
252
Review article
De Pater, W., 1965. Les Topiques d’Aristote et la dialectique platonicienne. MCthodologie de la definition. (Etudes thomistes, vol. X.1 Fribourg: Ed. St. Paul. Derrida, J., 1973. L’arch&logie du frivole. (Bibl. Mediations. no. 135.) Paris: Denoel/ Gont hier. Dictionnaire de grammaire et de ‘litterature, 1789. Eds. Beauzke and Marmontel. 6 ~01s. Liege: Panckoucke. Encyclop&ie ou Dictionnaire raisonne des Sciences, des Arts et des Metiers, par une societe de gem de lettres. Mis en ordre & publie par M. Diderot, de 1’Acadkmie Royale des Sciences & des Belles-Lettres de Prusse; & quant a la Partie Mathematique par M. D’Alembert, de 1’Academie FranGoise (. ..), 1751-l 780. 35 ~01s.Paris: Brinsson-DavidLe Breron-Durand. Encyclop&!rt: methodique. Grammaire et litterature, 1782. 3 vals. Paris/Liege: PanckouckePlomtegx. Foucault, M., 1966. Les mots et les chases. Une arc; iologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard. Grimsley, R. (ed.), 1971. Sur l’origine du langage, suivi de trois textes (Maupertuis, Turgot, Maine de Biran). Geneve: Droz. Hildebrandt, R., 1976. Cartesianische Linguistik. Eine Analyse der Sprachauffassueg Noam Chomskys. Frankfurt am Main/Bern: P. Lang-H. Lang. Hymes, D. (ed.), 1974a. Studies in the history of linguistics. Traditions and paradigms. Bloomington : Indiana Univ. Press. Hymes, D., 1974b. introduction. In: Hymes (ed.), 1974a, l-38. Joly, A. (ed.), 1972. James Harris: Hermes ou recherches philosophiques sur la grammaire universelle. Geneve: Droz. Joly, A., 1972. Cartesianisme et linguistique cartesienne: Mythe ou realite? Beitrage zur romanischen Philologie Xl, 861-94. Joly, A., 1977. La linguistique cartesienne: une erreur memorable. In: A. Joly, J. Stefanini (eds.), La Grammaire g&ret-ale. Des modistes aux ideologues, 165-199. Lille: PUL. Juliard, P., 1970. Philosophies of language in eighteenth century France. The Hague: Mouton. Koerner, E.F.K., 1976. The importance of linguistic historiography and the place of history in linguistic science. Foundations of Language 14 (41, 541-547. Lakatos, I., 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: I. Lakatos, Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge, 91-195. [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Monreal-Wickert, I., 1977. Die Sprachforschung der Aufklirung im Spiegel der grcssen franzosischen Enzyklopadie. (Lingua et Tradit ic, Band 3.) Tubingen: TBL Verlag G. Narr. Piron, M. (ed.), 1961. Turgot : Etymologie. Brugge: De Tempel. Porset, Ch. (ed.), 19’0. Maupertuis - Turgot - Condillac - Du Marsais - Adam Smith. Varia linguistica. Textes rassembles et annotes par Ch. Porset, preface par M. Duchet. Bordeaux : Ducros. Proust, J., 1965. L’Encyclopedie. Paris: Colin. Ricken, U., 1978. Grammaire et philosophic au siecle des Lumieres. Controverses sur l’ordre nature1 et la clarte du franqais. Lille: PUL. Robinet, A., 1978. Le langage a l’ige classique. Paris: Klincksieck. Robinson, R., 1962. Definition. Oxford: Clarendor Press. Rosiello, L., 1967. Linguistica illuminista. Bologna: 11 Mulino. Sahlin, G., 1928. Cksar Chesneau Do Marsais et son rGle dans l’evolution de la grammaire g&r&ale. Paris : PU F.
Review article
253
Serrus, Ch., 1933. Le parallelisme logico-grammatical. Paris: Alcan. Serrus, Ch., 1941. La langue, le sens, la pensee. Paris: PUF. Simone, R., 1975. Theorie et histoire de la linguistique. Historiographia Linguistica II (3), 353-378. Stefanini, J., 1962. La voix pronominale en ancien et rnoyen francais. Gap: Ophrys. Swiggers, P., 1978. Grammaire in semiotisch perspektief: Port-Royal. Louvain: Inst. of Philosophy (unpubl. diss.). Tervoort, B. (ed.), 1977. Wetenschap en taal. Het verschijnsel taal van verschillende zijden benaderd. Muiderberg: D. Coutinho. Wittgenstein, L., 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
240
Review article
in a very cautious way, some perspectives for the historiography of linguistics and, more particularly, for the historiography of I&h-cemury linguistics. 1.
Three basic requirements can be made with regard to lin uistic historiography .ISa scientific discipline :
Linguistic historiography requires a critical examination of a limitedcomplete amount of relevant linguistic data and sources. A research topic (just like a particular science) is defined and limited by the data which constitute it (objectwn mtcride, in the medieval terminology). In the case of linguistic historiography these data are mostly texts (old or new) concerning, implicitly or explicitly, language in general, particular languages and language sciences (descriptive linguistics, historical linguistics, comparative linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, . . .).2 The specific research topic, on the other hand, is defined by the view (or intention) of the scientist and of the cultural or scientific tradition. This view (objectm formde) depends on the research standards, on the developmental stage of the science in question, on the social relevance of scientific research in a particular area (and as a whole), and on the existing methods. The topic is mostly constituted by important problems concerning, as far as linguistic historiography is concerned, the whole history of linguistics, certain periods, certain texts, etc. and concerning the methouology of linguistic historiograptly (periodization, the applicability of notions as ‘paradigm ‘3). The data ahe always amassed in relation to the research topic and they must be ‘limited-complete’ with regard to this topic,* defined by spatio-temporal limits (e.g. the study of French grammar in the 18th cer,tury). This means that historiographical contributions can only be judged adequately if one takes into account their limited-completeness. ’ One can find masterly introductions to most of these sciences in Tervoort (1977). A review of this book is forthcoming in TtjXdzrift voor Filosofie. 3 The best account of this problem is given by Hymes : 1974b). 4 Just as there are no absolute simples (Wittgenstein 1953: $8 46-48), there is no absolute completeness (for arithmetic this has been proved by Gijdel): completeness is always relative completeness.
241
which obtain ese resuEtscan be (more or even an CEX
by r~s~ar~~ on related topics.
f
con-
caries cannot be falsified entirely. 1.3. raphy requires a structural and, if possible, an axi~~at~~ exposition of the research results having passed the confrontan (see 1.2). 1 think there are two valuable and hi ly controllable raphical exposition : a structural one and n axiomatic one. exposition wiil provide a systematic articulation of the research results (mostly combined with a systematic description of the texts which were examined), Its emphasis lies on the dimer,sisns and categories and the classificatory criteria to be distin ished within the topic under discussion. This topic m an architectonic whole, constituted by a coherent and is rarely used in human The axiomatic exposition (unfort -59, 62-65). An axiomatic sciences (Bochetiski 1962: 91-124; exposition consists of givi (1) the T-theoretical pr itive terms and axioms of a certain theory or system; (2) the deduction rule: allowed by the theory; (3) a rigorous description of the set empirical and theoretical statements derived from (1) by applyi Both types may not be kept separate. It will ometimes be difficult to formulate the results in an axiomatic form, but even an unsuccessful trial might throw some new light on the problems under study. It can also help to give the structural exposition more scientific rigour.
242
Retie w article
2. 2.1. Monreal-Wickert’s book should be devoted, according to the title and the introduction (p. 9), to the linguistic conceptions of the Encyclopkdie. If one takes ‘linguistic’ in the strict lexicographical sense of ‘related to language’ (a more general sense than ‘related to linguistics’), one must draw the logical (though terrifying) conclusion that Monreal-Wickert had to investigate the whole Encycloyhdie, since this work offers - in alphabetical order - definitions and explications of more or less technical terms (Proust 1965: 176). The study of Monreal-Wickert however is exclusively (p. 17) concerned with the metalinguistic level (articles on grammatical terminology and theoretical articles on language). The author also proposes a somewhat external delimitation of the topic: “Es gibt verschiedene Miiglichkeiten, die fiir uns belangvollen Artikeln zu isolierett : (1) Die Verfasser; (2) Die Verweise in den Artikeln selbst; (3) Die Titel der Artikel” (p. 18). Most of these metalinguistic or grammatical articles have been compiled, some of them in a modified form, in the Enrr*c/opklie mkthodique. Gramm(rrireet litt&ature (and not ‘ Langue et li&rature’ as mentioned in the bibliography, p. NO), and in the Dictionnnire tkd grammire et de litt&ature. A detailed study of Monreal-Wickert’s book (footnotes included) reveals that she has (tacitly) made some heavy restrictions. Among the numerous contributors to the metalinguistic articles of the EncyclopMe only four receive a detailed account: Beauzke, Dumarsais, Turgot and Diderot.5 The other contributors to these grammatical articles - Voltaire, de Jaucourt, D’Alembert, and the anonymous author(s) of the articles ‘Racine’ and ‘Regulier - are briefly dismissed or ignored? But what is 5 Monreal-Wickert also mentions Jacques Philippe August in Douchet, who wrote, in collaboration with Nicola!; Beauztie, some grammatical articles in the seventh and eighth volllmes of the Ettc_w/opPdie. The articles arc signed E.R.M. ( = Ecolc Royalc Militairc, where Douchet and Beauzee taught). The signature B.E.R.M. (or E.R.M.B.) which becomes current from the eighth volun~c on, stands for: ’ Beauzde, Ecolc Royalc Militaire’. 6 Monreal-Wickert only mentions VoltaIre’s article ’ Franqois ou Franqais’ (misprinted on p. 92 and p. 93). Another article of Voltaire on ‘ Musiquc’ is very important for the l&hcentury conceptions on the origin of language. Louis Chevalier de Jadcourt wrote the articles ‘ Hi&-oglyphe’, ‘ Hyperbiasmc‘, ‘Jcux de mot\‘, ‘(Phrase) imitatise’, ‘ Justcsse’, * Labdacisme’, ‘ Langage‘, ‘ Prosopopde’, ’ Puriste’, ’ Repetition’, * Romane (langue -)‘, ’ Saxonne (langue -)‘, ‘Signal’, ‘Signe’, ‘Style’, ‘Thau’, ‘ Tout ‘, ‘Tu-Vous’, ’ Tutoyment’. In Monreal-Wickert (1977: 159, fn. 48) the article ‘Signe’ is wrongly attributed to Beauzdc. D’Alembcrt wrote the article ‘Dictionnaire’.
worse:
of that
(pp. 171-179), the ‘ Alphsbet ‘+ ’ halo
grammatical articles listed 7 by Monresl-Wickert uthor cites only 21 in her study (viz. ’ Adjectif’, e ‘, ’ Article ‘, ‘ Auxiiiaire ‘, ‘ CL?S’, ’ Construction ‘. Fralqois ou Frnnqnis’, ’ Grammaire‘, ’ M&hode’, ‘ Phitos-
s aspect partly in relation with the second and third criteria. Ft will therefore be necessary to analyse the chapters devoted to Beau&e (pp. 25-94), Dumarsais (pp. 95--147), Turgot and Diderot (pp. 148-168).
The first chapter provides an outline of Beau&e’s conceptions on (general) grammar and on language. In an introductory paragraph (pp. 25-22) Monreirl-Wickert retraces the origin and development of general grammar (‘grammaire ginerale’). I think the author is fundamentally wrong when she states: “ In ihren wesentlichen iigen fiihrt die Grammatik von Port-Royal die Tradition der aristotelischen Grammatik weiter, die im Mittelalter von der scholastischen Grammatica speculativa eben worden war” (p. 26). aufgenommen und an die Neuzeit weiter There is an undeniable difference (and per an historic.21discontinuity) between these two trends: (I) speculati mars are exclusively based imars are based on the vernaon Latin, while general (or universal’) cular languages (French/English); (2) in speculative grammars the universality of grammatical cate ories is ultimately based on ontological structures (n&i esslerdi); in neral grammars it is based on the CQ structures of the mind (‘la raison’); (3) speculative rammars gre ex inspired by the Aristotelian-Boethian categories, while ’ The list is based on Sahlin (f928 : x) and Chevalier ( 1968: 722-723). Porsct ( t 970: 299~301) also draws a list of “articles de Du Marsais inserCs dans SEmyclupPdie”.
244
Review article
mainly inspired by Descartes* - only incorporate Aristoteliara notions such as substance, accident (mostly used in a rather untechnical se rse). It is even harder to follow the author when she states: “ Darin lag die Pointe Qer Grammairc g&&ale: die Allgemeinheit der antiken oder der scholastischen Grammatik war sozusagen inhaltlich leer, da diese mit der lateinischen (resp. griechischen) Grammatik zusammenfielen. Die Grammatik von Port-Royal dagegen konnte, aufgrund der Situation auf der Objektebene, eine ‘ Metagrammatik ‘, eine Grammaire des grammaires sein” (p. 29).g The opposite seems to be equally acceptable, if not better. And after all, in how far were genernl grammars dependent on the grammatical categories of Latin . . ? The following paragraph, entitled Xcammaire’ (p. 33-40), is a resume of the corresponding Elzcyc~~~~~~~-article. The problem faced by such 18th.century linguists as Beauzee and Dumarsais was how to justify the possibility (and necessity) of general grammar along with the existence of various particular languages. The answer one can find in the article ‘ Grammaire’ is the following I “ La Grammaire admet done deux sortes de principes. Les urs sont d’une verite immuable & d’un usage universel; ils tiennent a la nature de la pensee meme . . . Les autres n’ont qu’une v&it6 hypothetique & dependante de conventions libres & muab!es . . . La Grammaire g&rale est done la science raisonnee des principes immuables & generaux de la parole prononcee ou &rite dans toutes les langues. Une Grammaire particuliere est l’art d’appliquer aux principes iiilmuables & generaux de la parole prononcee ou &rite, les institutions arbitraires & usuelles d’une langue particuliere. La Grammaire g&r&ale est une science, parce qu’elfe n’a pour objet que la speculation raisonnee des principes immuables & generaux de la parole; une Grammaire particuliere est un art, parce qu’elle envisage l’application pratique des institutions arbitraires et usuelles d’une langue particuliere aux principes generaux de la parole. La science grammaticale est anterieure a toutes les langues, parce que ses principes sont d’une verite eternelle, & qu’ils ne supposent que la possibilite des langues; l’art grammatical au contraire est posterieur aux langues, parce que les usages des langues doivent exister avant qu’on les rapporte
@See Chouillet (1972). This perhaps cannot justify the label ‘Cartesian linguistics’, but, OII the other hand, the ‘anti-Cartesian linguistics’ trend (Aarsleff 1970, 1971; Joly 1972, 1977) seems to go astray, since the influence of Descartes - as a philosopher (and not as a linguist i) - on most general grammars cannot be denied. ’ I think Monreal-Wickert has misinterpreted here the citation of Joly (ed., 1972: 21).
Review article
245
artificiellement aux principes generaux” (Em. VII : 841--842; EM. INWI. II : !90)? Without questioning the ‘anteriority ’ (in the orcio essedi or in the orcJo cogrloscerdi?) of ti.sse principles, Monreal-Wickert makes a rather bold statement: “ Die Grammatik kann, entsprechend ihren Zwecken, apriorisch oder empirisch sein. Die apriorische Grammatik thematisiert was Sprache ist, - wenn man sich so ausdrticken will -die Bedingungen der Moglichkeit von Sprache (‘la possibilite des langues’)” (p. 35). What bothers me, is (1) the strict opposition made between the apriori and the empirical approach (an opposition which Beauzee never made; beside:;, he would probably have considered the investigation of these ‘principes d’une v&rite eternelle’ to be an ‘empirical’ study); and (2) the misinterpretation of the sentence “ces principes . . . ne supposent que la possibilite des langues”, which has nothing to do with the constructive conditions (and restrictions) by which languages become possible. It is regrettable that the very important synoptic table (‘Systeme figure des parties de la Grammaire’) is reproduced here (p. 40) without any comment. The following section, ‘Langue’ (pp. 41-73) is devoted to Beauzee’s definition of language and to his conceptions of the origin of language and of language typology. The section is based on Beauzee’s article ‘Langue’ and includes an historical survey of different conceptions of the origin of language (Descartes, Herder, Smith, Turgot, Maupertuis, Rousseau) and of language typology (Girard, Smith, A.W. Schlegel). Tt must be said that Monreal-Wickert is at her besP when writing historical surveys without raising methodological questions. So this section appears to be one of the best in Monreal-Wickert’s book. However, one misses here the discussion by Foucault (1966) of the fundamental change in the ‘episteme’ at the beginning of the 19th century, when language becomes an object of historical investigation; furthermore, one must regret the absence of a thorough methodological lo Also in Beauzee (i 767: x-xi). The text is also cited by Monrcal-Wickert (1977: 34) with instead of ‘science raisonnee’, ‘ces principes’ a few errors: e.g. ‘science raisonnable’ instead of ‘ses princ’pes’, etc. *I Monreal-Wickert (1977: 44) - about the influence of Descartes on the study of the origin of language - is, hcwever, a bad example of this: argument ( I ) is an exaggeration (” Die ganze christliche Eroche litt bis zur Aufklgrung unter dem Dogma, dass Hebrtiisch die Mutter aller Sprachen se?‘); argument (2) is a petitio principii - and unacceptable as a syllogism since it contains five terms; argument (3) is logically correct, but cannot be linked with Descartes or Cartesian philosophy.
246
Review article
discussion (based on modern theories) of the language typology proposed by Bcauzee.12 The third paragraph, ‘Usage-Analogie’ (pp. 76--94), is a chapter in the history of ‘la grammaire des puristes’. After an excellent discussion of the notion ‘usage’ in Vaugelas’ Rernarques, Monreal-Wickert offers a rather condensed study of the relation between ‘usage’ and ‘raison’ in the works of Irson, Port-Royal, Bossuet, Bouhours, Buffier, Girard, Dumarsais and Beauzee. Beauzee himself made an important distinction between ‘usage’ (in fact the practical knowledge of a particular language), ‘raison’ (rational principles of language), and ‘analogie’ (a rationalization procedure which consists of reducing the ‘irrational’ exceptions to one, and to explain - rationally - the other exceptions by arta/ogy with the first). As Monreal-Wickert rightly observes, “bei Beauzee markiert die Analogie die Ueberschneidung der Allgemeinen Grammatik mit der Einzelgrammatik” (p. 84). The final part of this paragraph is devoted to the link between the empirical and the ‘diachronic’ principle in Beauzee’s linguistic theory. Apart from the ‘de re - de ditto’ confusion (viz. with regard to the use of the terms ‘historical’ and ‘diachronic’) in the author’s mind, one must also question the author’s conclusion : Monreal-Wickert states (pp. 90-91) that the use of empirical methods13 led to the discovery of the historical character of language. The contrary would seem a more appropriate affirmation, although I recognize that both elements are interdependent. 2.1.2. The second chapter, devoted to Dumarsais, starts with a survey of Condillac’s linguistic conceptions and discusses the opposition between sensualism and rationalism in linguistics (the scheme on p. 98 is a superficial and quite incorrect account of the very complicated semiotic relation between language, thought and reality in Port-Royal). The following paragraphs are concerned with Dumarsais’ linguistic theory, without, however, offering a general view of this theory. Monreal-Wickert provides I2 it seems to me t I ) that Bcauzee’s typolog:/ is tlot a morphological one (Munreal-Wickert 1977: 53), but a syntactical one (having implications for morphology). See Beauzee’s article ‘ Lang&, Emyclophdie, vol. IX, pp. 257-258; Etuy;lop6die nGtlzodiqlre, vol. II, pp. 41 l-41 2; at the typologies proposed by Beauzee, Girard (whose typology is much more morphogicaliy based), Schlegel and Smith have to be compared with much more caution than %Ionreal-Wickert seems to admit. I3 It is regrettable that Monreal-Wickert nowhere explains her us:: of the term ‘empirical ethod’, which seems to have a nontrivial sense with regard to 18th~century linguistics.
Review article
247
a detailed analysis cIf three articles by Dumarsais : ‘ Cas’, ‘Article’, ‘Construction’. The discussion is in general very correct, although one would have expected an historical survey as in the previous chapter devoted to Beauzee. The author restricts herself to the 18th century (except for Port-Royal): however, the history of the article and case in French 18thcentury grammars cannot be written without mentioning, for instance, Scaliger, Ramus, Cauchie, Sanctius, D. Martin, and Maupas. Monreal-Wickert rightly stresses the importance of Dumarsais’ distinction between a grammatical and a logical analysis of sentences. The following quote is one of the most important methodological statements within French 18th.century linguistics: “On peut considerer une proposition ou grammaticalement ou logiquement: quand on considere une proposition grammaticalement, on n’a egard qu’aux rapports reciproques qui sont entre les mots; au lieu que dans la proposition logique, on n’a egard qu’au sens total qui resulte de I’assemblage des mots: ensorte que l’on pourroit dire que la proposition consideree grammaticalement est la proposition de l’elocution; au lieu que la proposition consideree logiquement est celle de l’entendement, qui n’a egard qu’aux differentes parties, je veux dire aux differents points de vue de la pensee”.14 It is regrettable that Monreal-Wickert does not discuss here the vigourous attack by Serrus (1933) on the ‘ parallelisme logico-grammatical’ (for a methodological discussion of Serrus (1933) and (1941) see Swiggers 1978 : 52-55). The paragraph on Dumarsais’ didactic principles suffers from a too radica! opposition between ‘ rationalism ’ and ‘sensualism ’ (pp. 145-147). Locke is presented here as the strict opponent of Cartesian rationalism, although Aarsleff (1971: 5-9) has pointed out that Locke is much more a rationalist than one might think. Duma:“sais, as Monreal-Wickert sometimes recognizes (p. 143), invokes ‘ratio list’ arguments and Beauzee’s grammatical works are deeply marked by empirical considerations. However, Monreal-Wickert sticks to the canonized tradition, opposing the ‘ sensualist’ Dumarsais to the ‘rationalist’ Beauzee (p. 145). 2.1.3. The third chapter of this book is a study of two articles in the En&+ p&die, one by Turgot on etymology and the other by Diderot (‘Encyclopedie’). These articles are thoroughly examined (and abundantly cited), l4 Dumarsais, article ‘Construction’, vol. I, p. 494.
Eucyclopkdie,
vol. IV, p. 84; Encycloptdie
mPthodiqlre,
248
Review mticle
but again without any methodological criticism. One misses, for instance, a critical remark on Turgot’s problematic use of semantic categories in etymological research, or on his rather odd combination of ‘rationalism’ and ‘empiricism ‘. Furthermore, I cannot accept two parallels drawn by Monreal-Wickert : ( I) bcDie allgemeine Wissenschaft von der Sprache und die Etymologie stehen in einem ahnlichen Theorie-Praxis-Verhtiltnis zueinander wie Allgemeine und einzelsprachliche Grammatik im Artikel Gramvaire von Reauzee” (p. 150). Besides the anachronistic use of the notions “Theorie’ and ‘ Praxis’ (which in fact do llot apply to the distinction Grarltrvtaire ~~tl~~rrie,!G~Nj~~t??~~ire pnrticrrli&e), one cannot accept the parallel, because the relation between general and particular grammar (according to Beauzee) is not a relation of inclusion, while the relation between ‘the general science of language’ and ‘etymology’ (according to Turgot) is in fact a relation of inclusion.15 (2) Monreal-Wickert regards Turgot as a precursor of the distinction between synchrony and diachrony (p. 159). She follows here a remark of %I. Piron, a Belgian literary critic, who has new!y edited the text of Turgot : “ En somme, unz telle demarche comporte implicitement la distinction des points de vue spwc’hro~~ie et diachrom’e, qui est fondamentale dans la Iinguistique du XXe siecle” (Piron 1961: 93). T have not been able to locate one instance in Turgot’s text which could confirm this statement: simply because Turgot never made the tnethodo/ogica/ distinction between synchrony and diachrony (a distinction which Piron, and also MonrealWickert, probably has interpreted as an ontological one). Furthermore, it is rather surprising that the author made no use of the important debate between Turgot and Maupertuis on the origin of language (Porset 1970; Grimsley 1971) and of some important chapters in the Port-Royal Logiqrre on the arbitrariness of linguistic signs (Swiggers 1978: 14-51). The section on Diderot’s ‘ linguistic philosophy’ is rather disappointing, even if one takes into account the ‘captatio benevalentiae’ at p. 160. The exposition is mainly based on Diderot’s article ‘Zncyclopedie’ and on seconlsry studies: a too narrow base indeed to offer a survey of Diderot’s (highly complex) linguistic thinking. Monreal-Wickert handles three problems: definition (without any reference to major works as De Patcr (1965) and Robinson (1962)) the structuration of knowledge (without any I 3 See Reauzk, article ‘Grammairc’, LmyclopPdie, vol. VII, p. 842; EttcyclopPdie mtthodique, vol. II, p. 190; T urgot, article ’ Etymologie’, EmyclopPdie, vol. VI, p. 98; EtmycfopPdie n@tilodiqrre, vol. I I 9 pp. 20-2 1.
Review article
249
reference to Foucault (1966)), communication within the scientific community (based on the work of two German scholars, A el and Hentig). T sincerely hope that the announced study (p. 160, n. 52) on Diderot’s ‘Sprachauffassung’ will fill the most striking lacunas and will provide a thorough and methodologically sound study of Diderot’s philosophy of language. 2.2. As to the second claim, the study of Monreal-Wickert appears to be an investigation carried out entirely ruithh the field under consideration. The linguistic problems are approached from a surprisingly narrow point of view and the confrontation with philosophical problems or questions is carefully avoided. At first sight this is not an important lacuna or failure; but it implies that the arguments presented in this book have to be convincing in se, since no parallel is drawn with other fields or topics. The arguments presented in this study are generally not convincing in se, as indicated in 2.1. Foucault’s important study of 1966 is quoted only once (p. 28): I believe that no historiographical study on 17th- and 18thcentury French linguistics can avoid a thorough confrontation with this major work, even if it contains many defects (Robinet 1978; Swiggers 1978 : 37-39, 90-93). 2.3. As to the third claim, it must be stressed that Monreal-Wickert’s study neither has a fully structural exposition nor an axiomatic one. The exposition focuses on major figures (Beauzee, Dumarsais, Diderot, Turgot), on major themes (general grammar vis-a-vis p titular grammar, language typology, the origin of language), but these oblems are never regarded as a structured whole. One can, of course, allege that, since the linguistic articles were composed by various contributors, there is nc, fully coherent and canonized language theory in the EncyclopP’die. But we cannot dismiss the fact that (1) the linguistic articles can be defined as a structured field within the whole EncyclopPdie on the basis of D’Alembert’s Discours /3r4lirninaire ;
(2) Beauzee (and Douchet) grammar in their article
.)rovided A ‘
Grammaire’
a synopsis ;
of the science of
250
Review article
(3) the system of cross-references (within and at the end of each article) enables us to link several articles as forming a solidary whole. Monreal-Wickert’s exposition is rather ‘atomistic’: the Encycloyc’clie articles are discussed separately, without any attempt to integrate this in a (reconstructed) synthesis (‘the linguistic theory of the Encyc/op?die’). This would, of course, have been quite an immense task, and Monreal-Wickert’s study still leaves us with this gap. 3. Conchusion and perspectives Monreal-Wickert has made a courageous attempt to propose an interpretation of the linguistic articles in the Encyc/op&die.However, it seems that only 5y0 of the available material was studied, so that the linguistic conceptions of the &7c)‘c/o@/ie still need to be integrated in a (reconstructed) theory. This would require an investigation of important articles such as: ‘Apposition ‘, ‘Classe’, ‘Concordance’, ‘ Dkterminatlon’, ‘ Ellipse’, ‘ Identitk’, ‘Mode’, ‘Mot’, ‘Oraison’, ‘Passif’, ‘Phrase’, ‘Proposition’, ‘ Rigime ‘, ‘ Sens ‘, ‘ Substant if ‘, ‘ Sujet ‘, ‘ Supplement ‘, ‘ Temps ‘, ‘ Transit if ‘* ‘ Verbe ‘, ‘ %4x’. The few articles the author cites several times, were studied with care and are abundantly explained in the book. The historical background (16th and 17th centuries) is sometimes lacking, and it appears that Monreal-Wickert could have made a better use of Chevalier’s ‘summa’ ( 1968). I would like to open some perspectives with regard to linguistic historiography (especially concerning the French 18th century). A primary task seems to be the need for a methodological framework within linguistic historiography. A growing interest in these basic problems is discernible within the available literature (Bugarski 1976; Koerner 11976; Simone 1975); this is indirectly confirmed by the organization of conferencesl” and the foundatii;*n of societies17 for the historiography of linguistics. A second task would be a reflexion on some ‘received ideas’: I am thinking, for example, of the ‘rationalism-empiricism ’ dichotomy. Is this dichotomy historically justified ? Does it prove fruitful for linguistic ” E.g. International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (Ottawa, 28-31 August 1978); and the Conference of the Stichtiug Tuuheter~schnp (Amsterdam, 18 October 1978). I7 A very important society, recently founded: So&P d’histoire et d’Ppistt!mologie des sciem-es &I Iaugage (address: Ecole Normale Supkrieure, 2 Avenue du Palais, 922211 Saint Cloud, France).
Review article
251
historiography ? These questions deserve a patient examination and a well-pondered answer. As to the French 18th~century linguistics, many issues are still left open: for example, the link between theoretical grammar and the teaching of French grammar; the debates on the origin of language and their impact on grammatical conceptions; the role of the ‘logical proposition’ in morphology and syntax; the interplay between methodologically and ontologically based arguments within grammars; the structure of grammar books from Regnier Desmarais to Sicard. Furthermore, the general issues within this “rational research program” (Lakatos 1970) have to be prepared and completed by case studies devoted to l&h-century grammarians and to the history of various grammatical problems.
References Aarsleff, H., 1970. The history of linguistics and Professor Chomsky. Language 46 (3), 570-585. Aarsleff, H., 1971. ‘Cartesian linguistics’: History or fantasy? Language Sciences 17, l-12. Aarsleff, H., 1975. The eighteenth century, including Leibniz. In: T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Current trends in linguistics, vol. 13, Historiography of linguistics, part I, 383-479. The Hague: Mouton. Acton, I&B., 1959. The philosophy of language in revolutionary France. Proceedings of the British Academy, 45, 199-219 (French translation : La philosophie du langage sous la Revolution francaise. i1rchives de Philosophie, juillet-dec. 1961, 426-449), Arens, I-I., 1955 (1969”). SftAc:!wissenschaft: der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Freiburg/Miinchen: K. Alber. Bartlett, B., 1975. Beauzee’s Grammaire generale. Theory and methodology. The Hague: Mouton. Beauzee, N., 1767. Grammaire g&t&ale, ou exposition raisonnee des elements necessaires du langage, Pour servir de fondement a l’etude de toutes les langues. Paris: J. Barbou Cannstatt : Frommann(reprint: Grammatica Universalis 8, 2 vols., Stuttgart/Bad Holzboog, 1974). Bochenski, J.M., 1962, Wijsgerige methoden in de moderne wetenschap. Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Bochefiski, J.M., 1965. The logic of religion. New York: New York Univ. Press. Bugarski, R., 1976. The object of linguistics in historical perspective. In: H. Parret (ed.), History of linguistic thought and contemporary linguistics, 1-12. Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter. Chevalier, J.-C,, 1968. Histoire de la syntaxe. La naissance de la notion de complement dans la grammaire francaise (1530-l 750). Geneve: Droz. Chouillet, J., 1972. Descartes et le probleme de I’origine des langues au XVIIIe siecle. Dixhuitieme siecle 4, 39-60. Couturat, L., 1901. La logique de Leibniz, d’apres des documents inedits. Paris: Alcan (repr. Hildesheim: G. Glms, 1961).
252
Review article
De Pater, W., 1965. Les Topiques d’Aristote et la dialectique platonicienne. MCthodologie de la definition. (Etudes thomistes, vol. X.1 Fribourg: Ed. St. Paul. Derrida, J., 1973. L’arch&logie du frivole. (Bibl. Mediations. no. 135.) Paris: Denoel/ Gont hier. Dictionnaire de grammaire et de ‘litterature, 1789. Eds. Beauzke and Marmontel. 6 ~01s. Liege: Panckoucke. Encyclop&ie ou Dictionnaire raisonne des Sciences, des Arts et des Metiers, par une societe de gem de lettres. Mis en ordre & publie par M. Diderot, de 1’Acadkmie Royale des Sciences & des Belles-Lettres de Prusse; & quant a la Partie Mathematique par M. D’Alembert, de 1’Academie FranGoise (. ..), 1751-l 780. 35 ~01s.Paris: Brinsson-DavidLe Breron-Durand. Encyclop&!rt: methodique. Grammaire et litterature, 1782. 3 vals. Paris/Liege: PanckouckePlomtegx. Foucault, M., 1966. Les mots et les chases. Une arc; iologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard. Grimsley, R. (ed.), 1971. Sur l’origine du langage, suivi de trois textes (Maupertuis, Turgot, Maine de Biran). Geneve: Droz. Hildebrandt, R., 1976. Cartesianische Linguistik. Eine Analyse der Sprachauffassueg Noam Chomskys. Frankfurt am Main/Bern: P. Lang-H. Lang. Hymes, D. (ed.), 1974a. Studies in the history of linguistics. Traditions and paradigms. Bloomington : Indiana Univ. Press. Hymes, D., 1974b. introduction. In: Hymes (ed.), 1974a, l-38. Joly, A. (ed.), 1972. James Harris: Hermes ou recherches philosophiques sur la grammaire universelle. Geneve: Droz. Joly, A., 1972. Cartesianisme et linguistique cartesienne: Mythe ou realite? Beitrage zur romanischen Philologie Xl, 861-94. Joly, A., 1977. La linguistique cartesienne: une erreur memorable. In: A. Joly, J. Stefanini (eds.), La Grammaire g&ret-ale. Des modistes aux ideologues, 165-199. Lille: PUL. Juliard, P., 1970. Philosophies of language in eighteenth century France. The Hague: Mouton. Koerner, E.F.K., 1976. The importance of linguistic historiography and the place of history in linguistic science. Foundations of Language 14 (41, 541-547. Lakatos, I., 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: I. Lakatos, Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge, 91-195. [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Monreal-Wickert, I., 1977. Die Sprachforschung der Aufklirung im Spiegel der grcssen franzosischen Enzyklopadie. (Lingua et Tradit ic, Band 3.) Tubingen: TBL Verlag G. Narr. Piron, M. (ed.), 1961. Turgot : Etymologie. Brugge: De Tempel. Porset, Ch. (ed.), 19’0. Maupertuis - Turgot - Condillac - Du Marsais - Adam Smith. Varia linguistica. Textes rassembles et annotes par Ch. Porset, preface par M. Duchet. Bordeaux : Ducros. Proust, J., 1965. L’Encyclopedie. Paris: Colin. Ricken, U., 1978. Grammaire et philosophic au siecle des Lumieres. Controverses sur l’ordre nature1 et la clarte du franqais. Lille: PUL. Robinet, A., 1978. Le langage a l’ige classique. Paris: Klincksieck. Robinson, R., 1962. Definition. Oxford: Clarendor Press. Rosiello, L., 1967. Linguistica illuminista. Bologna: 11 Mulino. Sahlin, G., 1928. Cksar Chesneau Do Marsais et son rGle dans l’evolution de la grammaire g&r&ale. Paris : PU F.
Review article
253
Serrus, Ch., 1933. Le parallelisme logico-grammatical. Paris: Alcan. Serrus, Ch., 1941. La langue, le sens, la pensee. Paris: PUF. Simone, R., 1975. Theorie et histoire de la linguistique. Historiographia Linguistica II (3), 353-378. Stefanini, J., 1962. La voix pronominale en ancien et rnoyen francais. Gap: Ophrys. Swiggers, P., 1978. Grammaire in semiotisch perspektief: Port-Royal. Louvain: Inst. of Philosophy (unpubl. diss.). Tervoort, B. (ed.), 1977. Wetenschap en taal. Het verschijnsel taal van verschillende zijden benaderd. Muiderberg: D. Coutinho. Wittgenstein, L., 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.