THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY GRAMMARIANS AND RHETORICIANS

Introduction
The divide between prescriptivism and linguistics is well-known and longstanding. Generally
speaking, linguists deplore the seeming naivety of prescriptivism, and prescriptivists deplore the
seeming permissiveness of linguistics. Both linguists and prescriptivists claim to be experts: linguists
claim to be experts on how language works, and prescriptivists claim to be experts on how language
ought to be used. But few claims to be experts in both. Most prescriptivists do not hold advanced
degrees in linguistics, publish language research in professional journals, or belong to professional
linguistics societies, while most linguists pay little attention to prescriptivism.

The simplest answer to this question is that the eighteenth-century grammarians were not
language experts, simply because experts, as they have come to be considered nowadays, did not
exist for practically any field. Today we live in an expert society. We trust experts in medicine, law,
highway construction, and most other aspects of life. We hardly think about the qualifications of the
experts – we take it for granted that mechanics, dentists, architects and physical therapists know
their craft. Yet for that confidence to exist, considerable machinery must be in place. Experts are
educated and trained, tested and certified. They produce and share knowledge within professional
associations (cf. Haskell 1984: ix–xviii; MacDonald 1995: 157–174).

Credentials of famous grammarians

The credentials discussed in § 2 would not appear especially robust for establishing
expertise, but it would be useful to see how well they apply to those eighteenth-century
grammarians who have been highly regarded, either in their own day or ours. Lowth looks like a
language expert par excellence, when measured by explicit credentials of his day. Before he wrote
his grammar, he had been educated at Winchester, one of the finest grammar schools in the
country, and then New College at Oxford, where he received BA and MA degrees. He was selected as
a fellow of his college, and not long afterwards, as a chair of poetry at Oxford. Later Oxford awarded
him with a doctorate in divinity. His publications on Hebrew poetry were highly regarded. In the end,
he supported himself by writing. His writings made him a leading figure, and in 1755, just before the
publication of his dictionary, Oxford conferred an MA on him, so that he could style himself properly
on the dictionary title-page. Later, in 1765, the University of Dublin created him a Doctor of Laws,
hence the “Dr. Johnson” (Lane 1975). Today Johnson remains one of the most respected figures of
his age, and his dictionary is still highly regarded, but by the explicit credentials, he hardly looks like a
language expert.

Engagement of famous grammarians

Again, it is worthwhile to see what the prefaces say about the expertise of the grammarians
with strong reputations. Lowth shows a rather high degree of engagement with linguistic ideas of his
time. He addresses universal grammar explicitly when he argues that one must first see universal
principles applied to a particular language to understand them: Universal Grammar cannot be taught
abstractedly: it must be done with reference to some language already known … When [the learner]
has a competent knowledge of the main principles, the common terms, the general rules, the whole
subject and business of Grammar, exemplified in his own Language; he then will apply himself with
great advantage to any foreign language, whether ancient or modern. To enter at once upon the
Science of Grammar, and the Study of a foreign Language, is to encounter two difficulties together
(Lowth 1762: xi–xii).

Conclusion
The eighteenth-century grammarians are frequently disparaged as the fountainhead of the
prescriptive tradition. For present-day linguists, most eighteenth-century views on language change
and correctness look antiquated and naive, yet those ideas remain preserved in today’s prescriptivist
tradition. It is that preservation, more than anything, that very likely leads to the opprobrium among
linguists for eighteenth-century grammarians; otherwise, linguists would probably regard the early
stages of their discipline similar to how experts in other disciplines regard their early stages: with a
slight, perhaps even fond, curiosity. The real split between linguists and prescriptivists did not begin
with the writing of grammars. Instead, it began when grammar writers became complacent in their
views on language and became satisfied with merely passing on the received wisdom of the earlier
grammarians.

So, were the eighteenth-century grammarian’s language experts? To a degree yes. At least
some of them were with respect to their time. So not only were they the precursors of today’s usage
experts, some of them can be seen to be precursors of today’s language experts. In their day, both
enterprises were the same. It was at the end of the eighteenth century that we find the divide.

References:
Book Name: Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth Century
England (Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York)

Edit by: Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade

Primary sources
For reasons of space, the information on the primary sources of the grammars and other works on
the English language referred to in the present volume is kept to a minimum. For full bibliographical
information on these works, see either Alston (1965), Alston (1974), ECCO or, in the case of works
published before the eighteenth century, EEBO. Access to the websites mentioned was between
September 2005 and September 2007.