Condillac, philosophe du langage ?

For sure Condillac is a philosopher of language, but in what sense can he be thus described? Is it enough to describe him so as we would do for a contemporary philosopher of language that he be a philosopher in the 18th century meaning of the term, and that he wrote a lot on language? Do his comments on the tradition of grammarian and his stunning Dictionnaire des synonymes belong to the realm of « philosophy of language »? What to think about his concern for the question of the origin of language, considered by linguists for a long period of time as suspect? Should it make of him a fore-runner of paleolinguistic? With the help of scholars coming from various disciplines (history of philosophy, philosophy of language, linguists, lexicographers, the present volume suggests various ways to circulate in Condillac's interests for language; contemporary philosophy of language, history of French, and theory of language. From « philosophy of language » to an art of writing, so to speak.