In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK NOTICES Language, sense and nonsense: A critical investigation into modern theories of language. By G. P. Baker and P. M. S. Hacker. Oxford & New York: Blackwell, 1984. Pp. xiii, 397. $34.95. This critique of modern linguistic theory and philosophy of language, written by two non-linguists , tackles four issues: 'first, the doctrine of the separation of the sense of a sentence from its force; secondly, the conception of the truthconditions of a sentence as a key to a comprehensive theory of meaning; thirdly, the notion of a hidden, "tacitly known" system of linguistic rules underlying our thought and speech; and finally, the alleged mystery of our capacity to understand sentences we have never heard before ' (ix-x). The exposition proceeds by taking out-of-context quotations from various philosophers and linguists, following them by expressions of unreflecting dumbfoundedness, e.g., 'Can meanings really be processed like sausages ?' (277, fn. 21); 'On such foundations is the kingdom of linguistics erected!' (ibid.); 'this bizarre view [that universal grammar is part of the initial state ofmind] seems to be the received wisdom amongst theoretical linguists' (288, fn. 43). B&H reveal a pathetic ignorance ofthe fundamental concepts of linguistic theory; thus they attribute the beliefthat deep structures are meanings—a doctrine of generative semantics, explicitly denied by Chomsky—to linguists and philosophers generally (73). Similarly, they think that an analogy to computer programs provided the impetus for the development of linguistic rules (ix, 279). B&H's discussion of 'the bizarre supposition that rules of a language must be "represented in the mind" of every speaker, buried deep beyond the reach of consciousness and awaiting discovery by the linguist' (275) is pointless when their understanding of rule is limited to laws, convention, standard, maxim, and instruction (255 ff.) Their ridicule ('Putting aside one's immediate qualms about speakers rummaging around in the infinite collection of sentences ...', 272) does not conceal their misunderstanding of the concept of an infinite set of sentences in a language; nor do statements like 'What would really be mysterious is a person 's only being able to understand (and speak with understanding) 7,568 sentences, and not a single one more' (354). The unsupported assertion that 'the roots of the mastery of language lie in training'—that parents and siblings teach the child, 'encourage it, train it to imitate, ... correct its stumbling repetitions and imitations' (289-90)—betray a complete disregard for the enormous body of evidence to the contrary. Few linguists will be swayed by this arrogant claim that their field has no content. There is some danger that non-linguists will get a grossly distorted view of the field from B&H. But the blatant lack of serious argumentation in this book should suffice to prevent even linguistically unsophisticated readers from taking it very seriously. They will quickly realize that there is much nonsense about language here, and very little sense. [John T. Jensen, University of Ottawa.] Les conceptions linguistiques des encyclop édistes: Étude sur la constitution d'une théorie de la grammaire au siècle des lumières. By Pierre Swiggers. (Sammlung Groos, 21.) Heidelberg: Groos, 1984. Pp. 165. DM 28.00. S has here revised and shortened his doctoral dissertation of the same title. In four chapters, he covers the Encyclopédie's interpretations of (1)the definition and subdivisions of grammar, (2)etymology and meaning, (3) phonetics and prosody, and (4) syntax. The grammatical arguments ofthe Encyclopedists andthe preceding Port-Royal school are clearly and concisely portrayed . The emphasis is both philosophical and grammatical; thus the views of Frege and Wittgenstein , among others, are briefly interpolated to highlight the continuing relevance oflate 18th century debates. The volume does not purport to be definitive. It concentrates on a few major, specifically 'grammatical', articles in the Encyclopédie méthodique: Grammaire et littérature (178286 ), rather than commenting on linguistic references or articles in the entire Encyclopédie (although tables from some ofthe minor articles are reprinted at the back). As in many disser205 ...

pdf

Share