Cover not available

Article published In: New Approaches to the Study of Later Modern English
[Historiographia Linguistica 33:1/2] 2006
► pp. 57–84

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The problem of Joseph Priestley’s (1733–1804) descriptivism

 | University of Sheffield
Published online: 17 July 2006
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.33.1.06hod
Summary
Joseph Priestley’s (1733–1804) Rudiments of English Grammar (1761, second revised edition 1768) has often been interpreted as demonstrating that, unlike most 18th-century grammarians, Priestley took a descriptive approach towards the study of language. This article argues that such a characterisation both of Priestley’s work and that of his contemporaries is misleading. The article offers a reappraisal of Priestley’s Grammar, demonstrating that the idea of linguistic perfectibility is central to his linguistic ideas, but that it has often been overlooked by modern commentators. The two editions of Priestley’s Grammar are assessed, and it is argued that the substantial alterations that he makes for the second edition reveal a grammarian struggling to bring order to the study of the English language.
Résumé
L’ouvrage Rudiments of English Grammar (1761, deuxième édition révisée : 1768) de Joseph Priestley (1733–1804), selon plusieurs, démontrerait que, contrairement à tant de grammairiens du dix-huitième siècle, Priestley étudiait la langue d’un point de vue descriptif. Dans cet article, on soutient que c’est faire fausse route que de qualifier ainsi l’ouvrage de Priestley ainsi que ceux de ses contemporains. On y présente une nouvelle évaluation de la grammaire de Priestley, montrant que l’idée d’un niveau croissant de perfection du langage demeure central à sa pensée linguistique, mais aussi que les commentateurs modernes n’ont souvent pas vu cette idée. On fait le point sur les deux éditions de la grammaire de Priestley, et on soutient que les changements de fond qu’apporte Priestley à la seconde édition font montrent un grammairien s’efforçant de rendre plus ordonnée l’étude de la langue anglaise.
Zusammenfassung
Die Rudiments of English Grammar (1761, 2. überarbeitete Auflage 1768) von Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) sind oft so verstanden worden, als ob darin, anders als in den meisten Grammatiken des 18. Jahrhunderts, Sprachbeschreibung deskriptiv betrieben worden wäre. In dem vorliegenden Beitrag wird gezeigt, daß dies aber weder für Priestleys Werk noch für das seiner Zeitgenossen zutrifft. Statt dessen wird dargelegt, daß im Zentrum seiner linguistischen Ideen die Vervollkommnung der linguistischen Beschreibung steht, was aber von modernen Kommentatoren oft übersehen worden ist. Die vergleichende Wertung der beiden Auflagen von Priestleys Grammatik zeigen darüber hinaus, daß hier ein Grammatiker am Werke ist, der Ordnung in das Studium der englischen Sprache zu bringen versucht.
References (39)
References
Aitchison, Jean. 1981. Language Change: Progress or decay? London: Fontana.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anon. 1797. “Review of William Godwin, The Enquirer”. Monthly Review, New Series 231.291–301.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Azad, Yusef. 1989. The Government of Tongues: Common usage and the ‘prescriptive’ tradition 1650–1800. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barrell, John. 1983. English Literature in History 1780–1830: An equal, wide survey. London: Hutchison.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baugh, Albert C[roll] & Thomas Cable. 1993 [31978]. A History of the English Language. 4th rev. ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. 1999. English Pronunciation in the Eighteenth Century: Thomas Spence’s ‘Grand Repository of the English Language (1775). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. English in Modern Times. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bevilacqua, Vincent M. & Richard Murphy, eds. 1965. “Introduction”. A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism by Joseph Priestley. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crowley, Tony. 2003. Standard English and the Politics of Language. 2nd ed. revised. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [1st ed. published under the title The Politics of Discourse, London: Macmillan, 1989.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elledge, Scott. 1967. “The Naked Science of Language”. Studies in Criticism and Aesthetics 1660–1800: Essays in honor of Samuel Holt Monk ed. by Howard Anderson & John S. Shea, 266–295. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fenn, Ellenor. [1798?]. The Mother’s Grammar. London: John Marshall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward. 1998. “Chapter 6: English Grammar and Usage”. Cambridge History of the English Language, volume IV1: 1776–1997 ed by Suzanne Romaine, 536–588. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godwin, William. 1793. An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. 21 vols. London: G.G.J. & J. Robinson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1797. “Of English Style”. The Enquirer: Reflections on education, manners and literature by William Godwin, 368–488. London: G.G.J. & J. Robinson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1993. “Introduction”. Reprint of Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language and Universal Grammar by Joseph Priestley, v–xi. London: Routledge / Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoecker, James J. 1987. Joseph Priestley and the Idea of Progress. New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leonard, Sterling Andrus. 1962 [1929]. The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700–1800. New York: Russell & Russell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locke, Don. 1980. A Fantasy of Reason: The life and thought of William Godwin. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McIntosh, Carey. 1998. The Evolution of English Prose, 1700–1800: Style, politeness, and print culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michael, Ian. 1970. English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitchell, Linda C. 2001. Grammar Wars: Language as cultural battlefield in 17th and 18th century England. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2003 [1995]. ‘Talking Proper’: The rise of accent as social symbol. 2nd rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Percy, Carol. 1994. “Paradigms for Their Sex? Women’s grammars in late eighteenth-century England”. Histoire Épistémologie Histoire 16:2.121–141.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Priestley, Joseph. 1761. Rudiments of English Grammar; Adapted to the Use of Schools. with Observations on Style. London: R. Griffiths.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1762. A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language and Universal Grammar. Warrington: W. Eyres. (Facs.-reprint, London: Routledge / Thoemmes Press, 1993.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1768. The Rudiments of English Grammar, Adapted to the Use of Schools; with Notes and Observations for the use of those who have made some Proficiency in the Language. 2nd edition revised. London: T. Becket, P. A. de Hondt & J. Johnson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1772. A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism. London: J. Johnson. (Facs.-reprint, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Gil, Maria. 2002. Teaching English Grammar in the Eighteenth Century: Ann Fisher. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Las Palmas, Tenerife.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1998. “Introduction”. Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. IV1: 1776–1997 ed. by Suzanne Romaine, 3–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1974 [1916]. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger. Translated by Wade Baskin. London: Fontana.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schofield, Robert E. 1997. The Enlightenment of Joseph Priestley: A study of his life and work from 1733 to 1773. College Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Olivia. 1986. The Politics of Language 1791–1819. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon. [1st ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sugg, Redding S. Jr. 1964. “The Mood of Eighteenth-Century English Grammar”. Philological Quarterly 43:2.239–252.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swift, Jonathan. 1712. A Proposal for Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English Tongue in a Letter to the Most Honourable Robert Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain. London: Benj. Tooke. (Facs.-reprint, Menston, Yorks.: Scolar Press, 1969.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, Talbot J. 1990. “Which Is to Be Master? The institutionalization of authority in the science of language”. Ideologies of Language ed. by John E. Joseph & Talbot J. Taylor, 9–26. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1996. “Lindley Murray and the Concept of Plagiarism”. Two Hundred Years of Lindley Murray ed. by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 81–96. Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wales, Katie. 1996. “With Apologies to Lindley Murray: The narrative method of the ‘Eumaeus’ episode in Ulysses”. Two Hundred Years of Lindley Murray ed. by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 207–216. Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Gwyn A. 1989. Artisans and Sans-Culottes: Popular movements in France and Britain during the French Revolution. 2nd rev. ed. London: Libris. [1st ed., London: Arnold, 1968.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

van Ostade, Ingrid Tieken-Boon
2025. Writing Grammars for English. In The New Cambridge History of the English Language, ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo
Wendy Ayres-Bennett & John Bellamy
2021. The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization, DOI logo
McLelland, Nicola
2021. Grammars, Dictionaries and Other Metalinguistic Texts in the Context of Language Standardization. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization, ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Oaks, Dallin D.
2021. Linguistic encounters in real world prescriptivism: Acknowledging its place and role. Lingua 264 ► pp. 103159 ff. DOI logo
Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Emma Moore, Linda van Bergen & Willem B. Hollmann
2019. Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax, DOI logo
Yáñez‐Bouza, Nuria & María E. Rodríguez‐Gil
2013. The ECEG database. Transactions of the Philological Society 111:2 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Percy, Carol
2012. Attitudes, prescriptivism, and standardization. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, ► pp. 446 ff. DOI logo
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria
2011. The ‘Glaring’ Place of Prepositions. Historiographia Linguistica 38:3 ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria
2022. Methodological approaches to the study of codification, prescription, and prescriptivism. Studia Neophilologica 94:3 ► pp. 334 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue