The Semantic Theory of James Harris: A Study of Hermes (1751)

Joseph L. Subbiondo
University of Santa Clara
Summary

Although the semantic theory proposed by Harris in Hermes (1751) was not well received in 18th-century England and has been generally neglected by scholars ever since, it is certainly deserving of our attention because it is a perceptive analysis of the logico-semantic structure of language. In the tradition of philosophical or universal grammar, Harris argued that the subject matter of the linguist should be the conceptual level or the deep structure of language rather than the utterance or the surface structure. Therefore, Harris reasoned that an adequate explanation of meaning required a description of the relationship of language and thought. Furthermore, since he recognized that the study of language was necessary for the advancement of learning, which he considered to be the essence of science, he regarded the limits of 18th-century science too narrow in that they excluded semantics. Harris’ theory advanced that an analysis of the sentence, the basis of the synthesis of the mind and language, was crucial to a semantic theory. Since the number of utterances is infinite, Harris attempted to discover a finite and universal set of psychological principles which he believed generated sentences. Although he concluded that a notion of general and particular ideas would ultimately explain verbal communication, he hoped that identifying the source of these ideas would be the work of future scholars.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Aarsleff, Hans
1967 The Study of Language in England 1780–1860. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Asbach-Schnitker, Brigitte
1973 A Linguistic Commentary on John Fearn’s “Anti-Tooke” (1824/27). Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1965 “Structural Linguistics and the Philosophy of Science”. Diogenes 51.111–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baugh, Albert C.
1957 History of the English Language. 2nd. ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Morton W., and Leonard Newmork
1963 A Linguistic Introduction to the History of English. New York: A. A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Bohnert, Herbert G.
1974 “The Logico-Linguistic Mind-Brain Problem and a Proposed Step towards its Solution”. Philosophy of Science 41.1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boswell, James
(1740–95.) 1791 Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. London: Baldwin. (2nd. ed. London: Oxford Univ. Press 1957.)Google Scholar
Brekle, Herbert E.
1976 “An Early Plea for a Relation Treatment of Verbs and Prepositions: John Fearn’s Anti-Tooke (1824–27)”. History of Linguistic Thought and Contemporary Linguistics ed. by Herman Parret, 503–17. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bursill-Hall, G. L.
1974 “Toward a History of Linguistics in the Middle Ages, 1100–1450”. Hymes 1974.77–92.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1966 Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dalgarno, George
(c. 1626–87) 1661 Ars signorum, vulgo character universalis. London: J. Hayes. (Repr., Menston: Scolar Press 1969.)Google Scholar
DeMott, Benjamin
1957 “Science versus Mnemonics: Notes on John Ray and on John Wilkins’ Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Grammar ”. Isis 48.3–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1958 “The Sources and Development of John Wilkins’ Philosophical Language”. JEGP 52.1–13.Google Scholar
Derwing, Bruce
1973 Transformational Grammar as a Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Fearn, John
(1768–1837). 1824–1827 Anti-Tooke; or an Analysis of the Principles and Structures of Language exemplified in the English Tongue. 2 vols. London. (Facs.-ed., Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog 1972.)Google Scholar
Funke, Otto
1959 “On the Sources of John Wilkins’ ‘Philosophical Language’ (1668)”. ES 40.208–14.Google Scholar
Harris, James
(1709–80). 1751 Hermes: or, a Philosophical Inquiry concerning Language and Universal Grammar. London: J. Nourse and P. Vaillant. (Repr., Menston: Scolar Press 1968.)Google Scholar
Home Tooke, John
(1736–1812). 1798–1805 or, The diversions of Purley. 2 vols. London: J. Johnson.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell
ed. 1974 Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and Paradigms. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Richard F.
1930 “Science and English Prose Style in the Third Quarter of the Seventeenth Century”. PMLA 45.917–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1932 “Science and Language in England of the Mid-Seventeenth Century”. JEGP 31.315–31.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J.
1972 Semantic Theory. New York & London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K.
1972 “Towards a Historiography of Linguistics: 19th and 20th Century Paradigms”. AnL 14.255–80.Google Scholar
1974 “Editorial: Purpose and Scope of Historiographia Linguistica ”. HL 1.1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S.
1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd. ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffry
1974 Semantics. Middlesex, England: Penguin.Google Scholar
Leonard, Sterling A(ndrus
1888–1931). 1929 The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage, 1700–1800. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Lowth, Robert
(1710–87). 1762 A Short Introduction to English Grammar. London: A. Miller & R. & J. Dodsby. (Repr., Menston: Scolar Press 1967.)Google Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1970 “Where Do Noun Phrases Come From?”. Readings in Transformational Grammar ed. by Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 166–83. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
Ney, James W.
1975 “The Decade of Private Knowledge: Linguistics from the early 60’s to the early 70’s”. HL 2:2.143–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara Hall
1971 “On the Requirement that Transformations Preserve Meaning”. Studies in Linguistic Semantics ed. by Charles L. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen, 1–21. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Peters, Robert A.
1968 A Linguistic History of English. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
Purver, Margery
1967 Royal Society: Concept and Creation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pyles, Thomas
1971 The Origin and Development of the English Language. 2nd. rev. ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Robins, R(obert) H(enry)
1974 “Theory-Orientation versus Data-Orientation: A recurrent theme in linguistics”. HL 1:1.11–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Vivian
1974 “John Wilkins’ Essay (1668): Critics and continuais”. HL 1:2.147–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975 Review of Asbach-Schnitker 1973 Anglia 93: 4.443–46.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Barbara
1969 John Wilkins 1614–1672. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, Danny D., and Leon A. Jakobovits
eds. 1971 Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, Dorothy
1931 “Dr. Wilkins and the Royal Society”. The Journal of Modern History 3.539–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stankiewicz, Edward
1974 “The Dityramb to the Verb in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Linguistics”. In Hymes 1974.157–90.Google Scholar
Subbiondo, Joseph L.
1975 “William Ward and the ‘Doctrine of Correctness’”. JEL 9.36–46.Google Scholar
Sugg, Redding S.
1964 “The Mood of Eighteenth-Century English Grammar”. PhQ 43.239–52.Google Scholar
Wald, Lucia
1974 “Filozofia limbajului în opera lui James Harris”. Probleme de lingvistica generala 6.7–15. (E. summ., p. 16.)Google Scholar
Wallis, John
(1616–1703). 1653 Grammatica lingua Anglicanae. Oxford: L. Lichfield. (Repr., Menston: Scolar Press 1969.)Google Scholar
Ward, William
(fl. 1765–85). 1765 An Essay on Grammar. London: Hors-field. (Repr., Menston: Scolar Press 1967.)Google Scholar
Wilkins, John
(1614–72) 1668 An Essay Towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language. London: Gellibrand & Martin. (Repr., Menston: Scolar Press 1968.)Google Scholar