Thought v. Language (Modern Enthymeme)


Kristen Seas ENGL 624/Sullivan Fall 2005 Purdue University	Thought v. Language: Key distinction made in theories of discourse during the modern era, which has indirect but critical implications for the concept of enthymeme, lies in the separation of thought and language, with the former preceding the approximations of the latter. The development of this split between language and thought can be seen in the Lockian philosophical tradition, which is later picked up by Campbell in his conceptions of language and rhetoric, as illustrated by the following exerpts from these two thinkers: "Besides articulate sounds, therefore, it was further necessary that he should be able to use these sounds as signs of internal conceptions; and to make them stand as marks for the ideas within his own mind, whereby they might be made known to others, and the thoughts of men's minds be conveyed from one to another." (Bk III, Ch I, §2) "The use, then, of words, is to be sensible marks of ideas; and the ideas they stand for are their proper and immediate signification." (Bk III, Ch II, §1) "Now, since sounds have no natural connexion with our ideas, but have all their signification from the arbitrary imposition of men, the doubtfulness and uncertainty of their signification, which is the imperfection we here are speaking of, has its cause more in the ideas they stand for than in any incapacity there is in one sound more than in another to signify any idea." (Bk III, Ch IX, §4) - John Locke, 1690 "[T]here are two thing in every discourse which principally claim our attention, the sense and the expression; or in other words, the thought and the symbol by which it is communicated. These may be said to constitute the soul and the body of an oration, or indeed of whatever is signified to another by language. For, as in man, each of these contituent parts hath its distinctive attributes, and as the perfection of the latter consisteth in its fitness for serving the purposes of the former, so it is precisely with those two essential parts of every speech, the sense and the expression." (172) "As the soul is of heavenly extraction and the body of earthly, so the sense of the discourse ought to have its source in the invariable nature of truth and right, whereas the expression can derive its energy only from the arbitrary conventions of men […]." (173) - George Campbell, 1776 But there are theories forwarded during this time, such as the following by Whately, in which language is not seen merely as the vehicle of transmitting thought, but is essential to the cultivation of reason itself: "There are still […] many, - though I believe not near so many as a few years back, - who, if questioned on the subject, would answer that the use of Language is to communicate our thoughts to each other; and that is is pexuliar to Man: the truth being that that use of Languages is not peculiar to Man, […] that which does distinguish Man from Brute, is another, and quite distinct, use of Language, viz. as an instrument of thought, - a system of General-Signs, whichout which the Reasoning-process could not be conducted" (Rhetoric 291) - Richard Whately, 1828
Table of Contents: Project Description 19th c. Logical Definitions of Enthymeme Main Contentions of Project: Thought v. Language Logic v. Rhetoric Argument and Reason Syllogistic Reasoning Enthymeme as Abridged Argument Lost Translation - Missing Definition of Enthymeme Works Cited

Kristen Seas
ENGL 624/Sullivan
Fall 2005
Purdue University

Thought v. Language:

Key distinction made in theories of discourse during the modern era, which has indirect but critical implications for the concept of enthymeme, lies in the separation of thought and language, with the former preceding the approximations of the latter.

The development of this split between language and thought can be seen in the Lockian philosophical tradition, which is later picked up by Campbell in his conceptions of language and rhetoric, as illustrated by the following exerpts from these two thinkers:

"Besides articulate sounds, therefore, it was further necessary that he should be able to use these sounds as signs of internal conceptions; and to make them stand as marks for the ideas within his own mind, whereby they might be made known to others, and the thoughts of men's minds be conveyed from one to another." (Bk III, Ch I, §2)

"The use, then, of words, is to be sensible marks of ideas; and the ideas they stand for are their proper and immediate signification." (Bk III, Ch II, §1)

"Now, since sounds have no natural connexion with our ideas, but have all their signification from the arbitrary imposition of men, the doubtfulness and uncertainty of their signification, which is the imperfection we here are speaking of, has its cause more in the ideas they stand for than in any incapacity there is in one sound more than in another to signify any idea." (Bk III, Ch IX, §4)

- John Locke, 1690

"[T]here are two thing in every discourse which principally claim our attention, the sense and the expression; or in other words, the thought and the symbol by which it is communicated. These may be said to constitute the soul and the body of an oration, or indeed of whatever is signified to another by language. For, as in man, each of these contituent parts hath its distinctive attributes, and as the perfection of the latter consisteth in its fitness for serving the purposes of the former, so it is precisely with those two essential parts of every speech, the sense and the expression." (172)

"As the soul is of heavenly extraction and the body of earthly, so the sense of the discourse ought to have its source in the invariable nature of truth and right, whereas the expression can derive its energy only from the arbitrary conventions of men […]." (173)

- George Campbell, 1776

But there are theories forwarded during this time, such as the following by Whately, in which language is not seen merely as the vehicle of transmitting thought, but is essential to the cultivation of reason itself:

"There are still […] many, - though I believe not near so many as a few years back, - who, if questioned on the subject, would answer that the use of Language is to communicate our thoughts to each other; and that is is pexuliar to Man: the truth being that that use of Languages is not peculiar to Man, […] that which does distinguish Man from Brute, is another, and quite distinct, use of Language, viz. as an instrument of thought, - a system of General-Signs, whichout which the Reasoning-process could not be conducted" (Rhetoric 291)

- Richard Whately, 1828

Thought v. Language:

Table of Contents: