05.04.2016 Views

A History of English Language

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The appeal to authority, 1650-1800 259<br />

mar was more in accordance with the tendencies <strong>of</strong> the time and soon swept the field. At<br />

least twenty-two editions appeared during the eighteenth century, and its influence was<br />

spread by numerous imitators, including the well-known Lindley Murray. The British<br />

Grammar by James Buchanan appeared in the same year. A somewhat more elementary<br />

manual, by John Ash, was published in 1763 with the title Grammatical Institutes. It was<br />

designed as an “easy introduction to Dr. Lowth’s <strong>English</strong> Grammar.” These were the<br />

most popular grammars in the eighteenth century. In 1784 Noah Webster published the<br />

second part <strong>of</strong> A Grammatical Institute <strong>of</strong> the <strong>English</strong> <strong>Language</strong>, which enjoyed much<br />

prestige in America and not a little circulation in England. Most <strong>of</strong> these books were the<br />

work <strong>of</strong> men with no special qualifications for the thing they attempted to do. There<br />

were, to be sure, writings on linguistic matters that were not in the mold <strong>of</strong> the practical,<br />

prescriptive grammars. A philosophical concern for linguistic universals, especially lively<br />

in France at the time, found expression in England in works such as John Wilkins’ Essay<br />

towards a Real Character and a Philosophical <strong>Language</strong> (1668) and James Harris’<br />

Hermes (1751). After more than a century <strong>of</strong> relative neglect these and other “universal<br />

grammars” have recently been revived because <strong>of</strong> similarities that have been found<br />

between them and certain aspects <strong>of</strong> contemporary linguistics. 30 The effect <strong>of</strong> these<br />

philosophical writings upon the development <strong>of</strong> specific structures in the <strong>English</strong><br />

language is difficult to assess, but it seems to have been negligible. More important for<br />

the history <strong>of</strong> the <strong>English</strong> language are the works <strong>of</strong> more practical and <strong>of</strong>ten less gifted<br />

grammarians who turned philosophical concerns into linguistic prescriptions. They<br />

exerted a considerable influence, especially through the use <strong>of</strong> their books in the schools,<br />

and it will be necessary to consider their aims, the questions they attempted to settle, their<br />

method <strong>of</strong> approach, and the results they achieved. 31<br />

With them belongs another group that may be called the rhetoricians. Though they did<br />

not compile grammars, they <strong>of</strong>ten discussed the same questions <strong>of</strong> usage. Of these one <strong>of</strong><br />

the most important was Thomas Sheridan, father <strong>of</strong> the dramatist. His most important<br />

work was a lengthy treatise called British Education (1756), in which he attempted to<br />

show “that a revival <strong>of</strong> the art <strong>of</strong> speaking, and the study <strong>of</strong> our language, might<br />

contribute, in a great measure,” to the cure <strong>of</strong> “the evils <strong>of</strong> immorality, ignorance and<br />

false taste.” The second part <strong>of</strong> his<br />

30<br />

See Noam Chomsky, Cartesian Linguistics (New York, 1966), an influential but pr<strong>of</strong>essedly<br />

polemical account. Cf. Robin Lak<strong>of</strong>f, rev. <strong>of</strong> facsimile ed. <strong>of</strong> Grammaire générale et raisonée, ou<br />

La Grammaire du Port-Royal, <strong>Language</strong>, 45 (1969), 343–64, and Hans Aarsleff, “The <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

Linguistics and Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Chomsky,” <strong>Language</strong>, 46 (1970), 570–85.<br />

31<br />

Here, too, discriminations must be made among grammars such as Lowth’s, which by the light <strong>of</strong><br />

the times was by no means contemptible, and inferior imitations such as Murray’s. See R.S.Sugg,<br />

Jr., “The Mood <strong>of</strong> Eighteenth-Century <strong>English</strong> Grammar,” PQ, 43 (1964), 239–52.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!