Vers une histoire sociale de la linguistique Ed. by Jean-Claude Chevalier and Pierre Encrevé (review)

206 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 1 (1986) tations, there is a surplus of lengthy quotations which unnecessarily break up one's train of thought. Also distracting is a tendency to jump back and forth between synchronic and more historical interpretations given by the Encyclopedists , and similarly to concatenate centuries-distant interpretations of their ideas' relevance. Perhaps this is a result ofS's conception of his work as synchronic (p. 2), or ofwhat he describes as the Encyclopedists' integration of diachrony into their synchronic descriptive grammar (41). Nevertheless, the work's clarity and conciseness make it a useful addition to the burgeoning literature on the grammatical theories of the French Encyclopedists and Ideologues. It is commendable that a German publisher has seen fit to publish it in French. [Joan Leopold, UCLA.] Vers une histoire sociale de la linguistique . Ed. by Jean-Claude Chevalier and Pierre Encrevé. (Langue française, 63). Paris: Larousse, 1984. Pp. 128. F 130. According to C&E, the contributions contained here open new vistas for the historical study of the linguistic disciplines. This may be true for the French scene, but one can hardly claim it on a larger scale: since the 1950's, foundation -laying work on the social history of (national ) linguistics has been published in various East European countries—the most productive schools being those ofMoscow and Berlin—and by American linguists (the most successful endeavor being D. Hymes & J. Fought's history of American structuralism). Orientations and backgrounds of these 'social historiographies' are widely divergent, ranging from Marxism/ Leninism to post-structural anthropology. In France, sociological theory is now under the spell of P. Bourdieu's theory of 'fields' (champ scientifique, champ intellectuel, champ politique, champ du pouvoir), basically defined in terms of market structure. The four studies contained here borrow their conceptual apparatus (which, after all, is not highly technical, and easy to assimilate) from the publications and lectures of this leading French sociologist. The articles offer a fascinating account, in most cases thoroughly documented, of the social history of French linguistics from 1870 to the present. The documentation is unique, and constitutes a useful supplement to all kinds ofbookknowledge of modern French linguistics. G. Bergounioux, 'La science du langage en France de 1870 à 1885: Du marché civil au marché étatique' (7-41), brings together an impressive amount of information on the early history of French linguistics (comparative grammar, Old French philology, oriental studies etc.) B analyses the role ofinstitutions (Collège de France, École des Chartes, École Nationale des Langues Orientales Vivantes, the Sorbonne —and the very influential École Pratique des Hautes Études, founded in 1867); of individuals (G. Paris, P. Meyer, M. Bréal, A. Brächet, L. Clédat, A. Hovelacque, A. Darmesteter , H. Derenbourg, J. Darmesteter); of journals (Revue Critique d'Histoire et de Litt érature, Revue des Langues Romanes, Romania , Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris etc.); of ideologies (religious and political convictions); and of backgrounds (see the table on p. 41 , which surveys the education and intellectual formation of some 20 leading linguists or philologists between 1870 and 1884). B has specifically studied the market of Romance scholars—divided by the strong opposition between the German-minded Parisian philologists, such as P. Meyer and G. Paris, and the literaryminded Provençal scholars, who strongly favored the autonomy of the 'langue d'oc'—and the field of oriental studies (especially Indo-Iranian , Egyptian, and the Semitic languages). The importance of ethnic factors, as with the Darmesteter brothers, is duly emphasized. It would have been worthwhile to make a study in depth of the controversy between Meyer and Ascoli concerning Franco-Provençal (including subsequent work by Swiss scholars), or to study the role of minor figures such as Antoine d'Abbadie , the Comte de Charencey, or DufricheDesgenettes ; also somewhat neglected is the situation of French classical scholarship between 1870 and 1885. A. Kihm, 'Les difficiles débuts des études créoles en France (1870-1920)' (42-56), characterizes the attitude (which was and is one of relative neglect) of 19th and 20th century French linguists toward creóle languages. Social and ideological reasons are given as an explanation for the depreciatory attitude of scholars such as A...