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 (35)
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