Handbook of the History of Logic: - Fordham University Faculty

94 Ian Wilks
understandings they generate, not on the things they denote [Abelard, 1927, p.
309 (5–8); Abelard, 2006, 00.9]. (iii) Semantic theory typically attempts to show,
as far as possible, how the meaning of a compound linguistic unit is the product of
the meanings of its components. Understandings are able to do a much better job
of explaining this sort of compositionality than denotations. Abelard makes this
point by reference to the proposition as a whole. The understanding which the
proposition produces is very closely linked to the understandings produced by the
parts. But we cannot plausibly say that the proposition has a denotation which
is similarly linked to the denotations of its parts, since whole propositions do not,
strictly speaking, denote [Abelard, 1927, p. 308 (34–40); Abelard, 2006, 00.8]. So
we cannot appeal to denotations in way of showing how the proposition’s meaning
is the product of the meaning of its parts.
Accordingly, as Abelard proceeds through the levels of letters, words and whole
propositions, his key analyses generally turn on how understandings are signified,
and the modes of signification involved, rather than on how things are denoted.
Since the Dialectica is organized not as a commentary but as an independent,
free-standing work, it is able to give us a good sense of way Abelard organizes this
analysis in his own mind, even if it does not always give us his final solutions to the
problems raised therein. The discussion of individual words [Abelard, 1970, pp.
111 (1)–142 (20)] singles out three kinds of words for separate treatment: what
are called “indefinites” (i.e., conjunctions and prepositions), names and verbs. 21
This seems intended to be a complete classification of the basic kinds of words
there are, because under the heading of names are included pronouns, adverbs
and interjections [Abelard, 1970, p. 121 (8-9)]. The inclusion of pronouns under
this heading is unproblematic, because of their obvious naming function. The
inclusion of adverbs here is less intuitive, but may follow from regarding them
as having some kind of adjectival function — as “quickly” in “he runs quickly”
can be taken as qualifying the one who is doing the running as opposed to the
running itself. 22 Of course Abelard does not even consider adjectives as distinct
kinds of words; they are automatically to be taken as names, and if adverbs are
interpreted adjectivally then they will be taken as names too. Interjections are
names as well, he argues, because they denote feelings such as admiration or fear
on the part of the speaker [Abelard, 1970, p. 121 (14–16)]. 23 So what a more recent
grammatical tradition has labelled the “seven parts of speech” is thus reduced to
a simpler lexical classification: names, verbs and indefinites, where indefinites
comprise prepositions and conjunctions.
Of these three classes, the first to be treated in the Dialectica is the class of
indefinites. The main question is how these words signify. They are problematic
21 [Abelard, 1970] covers these three topics respectively at pp. 118 (1)–120 (20), 121 (1)–129
(5) and 129 (7)–142 (20).
22In [Abelard, 1970, p. 121 (13–14)] we encounter the view that interjections, like adverbs, are
atttached (supponuntur) to names. Note that in [Abelard, 1927, p. 334 (27-36); Abelard, 2006,
02.3] this view is refined to relegate certain interjections and adverbs to the class of indefinites.
23 “Denote” translates designat [Abelard, 1970, p. 121 (15)]. For this translation of designare
see [Nuchelmans, 1973, p. 140].