Reviewed by FREDRIC DOLEZAL, University of Georgia. When we consider .... Dictionary Research Centre Seminar at Exeter, March 1986. ( = Studies in the ...
158
159
REVIEWS
COMPTES RENDUS/BESPRECHUNGEN
Their manner of discourse. Nachdenken iiber Sprache im Vmkreis der Royal Society. By WERNER HOLLEN. Tiibingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1989. Pp. xii , 292.
The second chapter is an extended discussion of Francis Bacon (15611626) as linguistic theoretician. Hiillen accomplishes this analysis by gleaning Bacon's remarks on language from his philosophical work. He argues that Bacon proposes a theory of language that has a strong pragmatic component. Here we see that Hiillen is not afraid to draw connections between past and present conceptions of language; for example, 'pragmatics' is not exactly a 17th-century concept. The strength and weakness of this monograph are seen in this method: whether one can accepl the putative congruencies as theoretical twins depends not only on the care and interpretive skill of the author , but also on the historiographical stance of the reader. An erudite exposition on the style of natural histories and other scientific reports can be found in the third chapter. He provides a brief history that brings us to Bacon and the 17th century. He shows the development from Bacon to scientists such as Robert Hooke (1635-1703) and Robert Boyle (1682-1691). He claims that the prose style of these and other scientists display the connection between the programmatic aspects of Bacon's plans for natural history and linguistic practice. Chapter four .develops this theme by changing the focus to include histories of animals and beekeeping manuals. He notes a shift from a figurative approach to describing bees (and other organisms) to a morphological approach. Chapter five directly analyzes one of the best known apologetics for science: Thomas Sprat's (1635-1713) History of the Royal Society (1667); Hiillen's main interest falls on the history as guide to scientific prose style, from whence the title of this book. He suggests that Sprat (thus the main figures in the Royal Society) makes prose style an integral component of the social reform that was inherent in the universalist tendencies of the scientific community. His analysis is based on a close readi111g of Sprat which is as interesting for its claims as the textual and literary method that is employed. One cannot imagine many linguists today who would have the imagination to undertake such an eclectic approach. Some may consider Hiillen's conclusions flawed but one is not displeased along the way (cf. H iillen 1987). , T he sixth chapter introduces the ' idea of a museum'. In this chapter Hiillen makes claims dependent upon a strong notion of ' paradigm'. Of course, 'taxonomy' stands nominally for the putative paradigm. Here we have an instance of a non-narrative text: the catalogue. He claims that the museum catalogue duplicates or mirrors the world, or 'reality'; he refers to contemporary discussions of specific catalogue to prove the thesis. In this
Reviewed by FREDRIC DOLEZAL, University of Georgia
When we consider the early moments of modern science, especially as it is represented in certain quarters of England in the 17th century, :'e notice that issues of language, philosophy, experimental method, apphed science and what could be called public relations were, in turn, given considerable attention. T he hierarchical and logical structure of ideas could ideally be considered the abstract manifestatio n of the structure of ~hings observed in the world ; it is no wonder that discourse, whether narrative or non-narrative, shoultl hold the attention of the scientific community. Hiillen approaches the questions of language and science by developing an analysis of Francis Bacon's language theory that moves into a discussion of natural histories, a guide to prose style (hence " their manner of discourse" - as Sprat's celebrated passage runs [Hiillen 1987:254]) , museum catalogues, and philosophical languages. His study is preceded by an elaborate essay on historiography. This valuable monograph helps establish the intellectual interconnection of language theory and the empirical method of the new philosophy. According to Hiillen, scientific thought of the period influenced comtemporary linguistic theory and prose style. He uses the Royal Society as an organizing principle for his thesis. A further claim is made concerning the present relevance of understanding scientific style. T he book begins with a comprehensively considered argument on linguistic historiography; he refers to the literature on this subject that one would expect, expanding the discussion by juxtaposing ideas from Foucault and Kuhn. When Hiillen delves into his own thinking on historiographic evidence and establishing an accepted canon of texts , the arguments are worth consideration and debate; the imposition of arguments from the expected list of recent linguistic historiographic scholarship , including Kuhn and Foucault, seems forced and only weakens his thesis. However, he cannot be blamed for observing the formal requirements of showing awareness of the accepted scholarship. Hiillen's contribution helps accentuate the need to study linguistics as textual history.
160
COMPTES RENDUS/BESPRECHUNGEN
REVIEWS
chapter, as in the others, Hiillen provides a comprehensive bibliography and extensive detail , including sample illustrations from primary texts. We begin to see where the main thrust of the argument will take us in chapter· seven; Hiillen looks at 17th century philosophical languages. He suggests that two separate paradigms are at work: the instrumental and the hermeneutic (partially represented by Bacon and Comenius respectively). One cannot help wondering why the insistence on Kuhn and/or Foucault based historiography; surely, the existence of two paradigms calls the notion of paradigm/episteme into some doubt. Hiill@'s command of the primary material is strong enough to be presented without the trappings of authority. In any case, he follows the path from these early language schemes to 19th-century artifical languages, botanical charts (Linnreus), and even the analytic philosophy of our century (cf. Dolezal 1983, 1987). T he eighth altd last chapter presents a brief, but concise, analysis of John Wilkins' Essay (1668). Hiillen makes a claim that contained within the Essay is an English thesaurus (cf. Hiillen 1986, Dolezal 1986, McArthur 1986). He redraws a couple of Wilkins' tables of radicals to fit the recognizable pattern of a tree diagram (as far as I know this was first attempted , but not so precisely, by Subbiondo 1977). One must question the general validity of this reconfiguration; while it is a fascinating exercize, the legitimacy of the results requires a strong argument; Hiillen does not provide a an argument for considering structural representations as theory-neutral. T here is no doubt that a portion of Wilkins' work has the look of a thesaurus ; however, 'thesaurus' has no theoretical basis. Thus, just about any non-alphabetical list could be called a thesaurus (and is). Furthermore, Hiillen's use of the term paradigm in this context does not strengthen his claim, it merely glosses a complicated problem of textual anaylysis (cf. Dolezal 1983). The book conludes with a comprehensive bibliography of primary and secondary texts on all related topics; this is a valuable part of the text in itself. T he generous inclusion of selections from primary sources increases the utility and value of the work. There is a strong interest in Germany on these issues as they are found in 17h century English print, or we would not have expected such an erudite and knowledgeable speaker and writer of English to have published this stimulating book in German.
161
Reviewer's address: Fredric Dolezal Department of English 254 Park Hall University of Georgia ATHENS, GA 30602 U.S.A.
REFERENCES Aarsfeff, Hans, Louis G. Kelly & Hans-Josef Niederehe, eds. 1987. Papers in the History of Linguistics: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS Ill) , Princeton, 19-23 August 1984. ( = Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 38.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dolezal , Fredric. 1983. The Lexicological and Lexicographical Meth ods and Procedures of John Wilkins and William Lloyd. Ph.D. dissertation , Univ. of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. -----. 1986. "How Abstract Is the English Dictionary?". Hartmann 1986:47-56. -----. 1987. "John Wilkins and the Development of a Structural Semantics". Aarsleff, Kelly & Niederehe 1987:271-282. Hartmann , Reinhard R. K. , ed. 1986. The History of L exicography: Papers from the Dictionary Research Centre Seminar at Exeter, March 1986. ( = Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 40.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. . . Hiillen, Werner. 1986. "The Paradigm of John Wilkins' Thesaurus". Hartn1ann 1986.115-126. -----. 1987. "Style and Utopia: Sprat's demand for a plain style, re~on sidered". Aarsleff, Kelly & Niederehe 1987:247-262. I McArthur, Tom. 1986. "Thematic Lexicography". Hartm ann 1987.157-166. Subbiondo, Joseph L. 1977. "John Wilkins' Theory of Meaning and the Developm ent of a Semantic Model". Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa 9:41-61. (Repr. in John Wilkins and 17th-Century British Linguistics ed. by J . L. Subbiondo, 291-308. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1992.)
*******
