Die Sprachforschung der Aufklärung im Spiegel der grossen französischen Enzyklopädie By I. Monreal- Wickert (review)

Abstract

BOOK NOTICES 465 universals; thus it has often been noted that deictic expressions are accompanied by an appropriate gesture (250). The article by Franz Stachowiak (207-28) further explores the matter of naming and descriptivity. When does naming become descriptive? The faculty of categorizing perceptual data is presupposed in the act of naming. How are the universals of space and time dimensions expressed in language ? How do speech errors (slips of the tongue) contribute to our knowledge of language universals ? The articles in this collection do not represent a clique of like-minded thinkers; there are healthy differences of opinion and approaches, with historical perspective. This book should be in the library of every college and university that offers linguistic courses. [Mary Ritchie Key, University of California, Irvine.] Die Sprachforschung der Aufklärung im Spiegel der grossen französischen Enzyklopädie. By I. MonrealWickert . Tübingen: Narr, 1977. Pp. 199. This book is a study of the linguistic conceptions of the French Encyclopedists of the 18th century, based on the articles concerned with grammatical terminology and linguistic analysis in their monumental work. MW has made some heavy restrictions: only four authors are discussed (Beauzée, Dumarsais , Turgot, and Diderot); and of the 340 grammatical articles, only 21 are cited here. Among the secondary literature (bibliography, 186-93), one misses the works of Acton, Arens, Bartlett, Couturat, Derrida, Grimsley, Hildebrandt, Juliard, and Stéfanini. Chapter I outlines Beauzée's conception of general grammar and of language. Disregarding the non-existent link which MW establishes between speculative grammars of the Middle Ages and general grammars of the 17th—18th centuries, and her candid distinction (pace Aarsleff) between a-priorism and empiricism, we can see that she fundamentally misunderstands Beauzée's distinction between general and particular grammar (35). The section entitled 'Langue', devoted to Beauzée's language typology, is marred by the absence of a thorough methodological discussion based on modern theories such as Skaliöka's, Greenberg's, and Keenan's. Chapter II, devoted to Dumarsais, does not offer a general view of his grammatical theory : MW provides only a detailed analysis of three articles ('Cas', 'Article', and 'Construction'). Chapter III is a study of two articles in the Encyclopédie, one by Turgot on etymology and the other by Diderot ('Encyclopédie'). These articles are thoroughly examined, but again with no methodological criticism. I cannot accept the following parallel drawn by MW: 'Die allgemeine Wissenschaft von der Sprache und die Etymologie stehen in einem ähnlichen Theorie-Praxis-Verhältnis zueinander wie Allgemeine und einzelsprachliche Grammatik im Artikel Grammaire von Beauzée' (150). Besides the anachronistic use of the notions 'Theorie' and 'Praxis' (which in fact do not apply to the distinction 'Grammaire générale' vs. 'Grammaire particuli ère'), the relation between general and particular grammar (according to Beauzée) 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. Furthermore, following a remark by M. Piron, MW regards Turgot as a precursor of the distinction between synchrony and diachrony (159). I have been unable to locate one instance in Turgot's text which could confirm this statement: Turgot never made the methodological (de dicto) distinction between synchrony and diachrony —a distinction which Piron, and also MW, probably interpreted as an ontological (de re) one. Furthermore, it is rather surprising that MW has made no use of the important debate between Turgot and Maupertuis on the origin of language, or of some important chapters in the Port-Royal Logic on the arbitrariness of linguistic signs. The section on Diderot's 'linguistic philosophy ' is rather disappointing, even if one takes into account the captatio benevolentiae (160). The exposition is based mainly on Diderot's 'Encyclopédie' and on secondary studies—a narrow base indeed for a survey of Diderot's highly complex linguistic thinking. MW handles three problems: definition (with no reference to the major works of De Pater and Robinson), the structuring of knowledge (with no reference to Foucault), and communication within the scientific community. As a result, MW's study appears to be an 466 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 56, NUMBER 2...