Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 8:1 (1981) ► pp.47–62

Thomas stackhouse’s theory of linguistic rhetoric

A study of reflections on the nature and property of languages (1731)

| University of Santa Clara

Thomas Stackhouse’s (1657–1752) Reflections On the Nature and Property of Languages (1731) was directly concerned with two areas critical to an understanding of 18th century English linguistic theory: the nature and origin of language, and rhetorical grammar. Stackhouse’s method was as follows: he defined language according to its origins and history, and he identified those rhetorical universals which he believed were essential for the refinement of language. Assuming that all languages were equal in their capacity to communicate, Stackhouse argued that perspicuity, purity, copiousness, neatness, energy, sublimity, and number increased the effectiveness of language. A study of Reflections suggests that theories of language, thought, and society must dovetail if we are to ever explain communication.

Published online: 1 January 1981
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.8.1.05sub
References

Bibliography

Allen, W. Sydney
1948 “Ancient Ideas on the Origin and Development of Language”. TPhS 1948.35–60.Google Scholar
Alston, R. C.
ed. 1968 Stackhouse (1731), Reflections on the Nature and Property of Languages. Menston: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Burnett, Gilbert
1833 (1724) History of His Own Times. 2nd ed., prepared by Speaker Onslow and Dean Swift. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Murray
1977 Sensible Words: Linguistic Practice in England, 16401785. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Dalgarno, George
1611 Ars Signorum, vulgo character universalis et lingua philosophica. London: J. Hayes.Google Scholar
Descartes, Rene
1971 Philosophical Writings. Transl, and ed. by Elizabeth Anscombe and Peter Thomas Geach. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley E.
ed. 1971 Seventeenth-Century Prose. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Russell
1977 The Language of Adam: On the limits and systems of discourse. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Harnois, Guy
[1928] Les Théories du Langage en France de 1660 à 1821. Paris: Société d’Edition “Les Belles Lettres”.Google Scholar
Howell, Wilbur Samuel
1956 Logic and Rhetoric in England 1500–1700. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1971 Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric. Ibid.Google Scholar
Jones, Richard F.
1961 Ancients and Modems: A study of the background of the “Battle of the Books”. St.Louis: Washington Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, L. G.
1979 “ Modus Significandi, an interdisciplinary concept”. HL 61.159–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemp, J. A.
1972 John Wallis’s Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kuehner, Paul
1944 Theories on the Origin and the Formation of Language in the Eighteenth Century in Frence. Dissertation. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y.
1979 “Some Thoughts on the Foundations of the Theory of Language Use”. Linguistics and Philosophy 31.1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Land, Stephen K.
1974 From Signs to Propositions: The Concept of Form in Eighteenth-Century Semantic Theory. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K.
1969 Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lodowyck, Francis
1652 A Groundwork, or Foundations Laid, for the Framing of a New Perfect Language. London.Google Scholar
Ogle, Richard
1980 “Two Port-Royal Theories of Natural Order”. Progress in Linguistic Historiography: Papers form the International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (Ottawa, 28–31 August 1978), ed. by Konrad Koerner, 102–12. Amsterdam J. Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padley, G. A.
Grammatical Theory in Western Europe 1500–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI logo
Purver, Margery
1967 Royal Society: Concept and Creation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V.
1936 “Truth by Convention”. Philosophical Essays for A. N. Whitehead, ed. by O. H. Lee. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Salmon, Vivian
1972 The Works of Francis Lodowyck. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schreyer, Rüdiger
1978 “Condillac, Mandeville, and the Origin of Language”. HL 51.15–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprat, Thomas
1958 (1667) History of the Royal Society. New ed. by Jackson I. Cope and Harold Whitmore Jones. St. Louis: Washington Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Stackhouse, Thomas
1731 Reflections on the Nature and Property of Languages. London: J. Batley. (Repr., Menston, Yorks.: Scolar Press 1968.)Google Scholar
Stam, James H.
1976 Inquiries into the Origin of Language. New York, London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Stephen, Leslie, and Sidney Lee
eds. 1937–1938 Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. (Referred to as DNB.)Google Scholar
Subbiondo, Joseph L.
1977 “John Wilkins’ Theory of Memory and the Development of a Semantic Model”. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa 51.41–61.Google Scholar
1978 “William Holder’s Elements of Speech (1669): A study of applied English phonetics and speech therapy”. Lingua 461.169–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viertel, John
1966 “Concepts of Language Underlying the 18th Century Controversy about the Origins of Language”. MSLL 191.109–32.Google Scholar
Wilkins, John
1668 An Essay Towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language. London: Sa. Gellibrand and John Martyn.Google Scholar
Willey, Basil
1953 The Seventeenth Century Background. New York: Double-day.Google Scholar
Williamson, George
1951 The Senecam Amble. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar