Handbook of the History of Logic: - Fordham University Faculty

354 Ria van der Lecq
everyone, they claimed that there has to be one universal grammar with rules that
are independent of any language in which they might be expressed. Not surprisingly,
their work has often been compared with Chomsky’s generative grammar. 31
Thus, at the end of the 13th century the goal of grammar was no longer to
describe how to write and speak well, but to explain the conditions for correct
discourse in an idealised, perfect language. The Modists stressed the universal deep
structure as opposed to the surface differences between languages. In their view
grammarians study linguistic expressions, but not in the same way as logicians.
Logicians study propositions as the bearers of truth and falsity. They are interested
in the logical form of sentences and argumentations. Medieval grammarians are
not interested in truth conditions, and not at all in argumentation, but in the
linguistic form (congruitas) of sentences. Grammarians analyse the structure of
language, not its content, although the relation between language, thought and
reality has to be taken into account. The proper object of modistic grammar is
the construction (constructio) of linguistic expressions. 32
Modus significandi, modus intelligendi, modus essendi
A construction in grammar is a union of two parts of speech 33 (e.g. a noun and
a verb, or a noun and an adjective), each of which has its own mode of signifying
(modus significandi). Modes of signifying (modi significandi) are the principles
of grammar. According to modistic analysis a word consists of a phonological
component (vox, an articulated sound) and two levels of semantic components.
On the first level a vox has a semantic meaning (ratio significandi) by which it is
associated with an object or content, and on the second level it has a grammatical
meaning on which the syntactical component depends. This grammatical meaning
is called ratio consignificandi or modus significandi. The semantic meaning turns
a vox into a dictio and is responsible for the relation between a vox and something
outside the mind (res). This ‘object’ outside the mind is not a particular thing,
but a so-called essentia, 34 a content not yet determined in a category. It could
be a substance, but also an accident. So, a dictio is not a term in the logical
sense, but something more abstract. Let us take as an example the English word
‘drive’. In modistic terms this would be a manifestation of the dictio driv*, which
includes all occurrences of the words ‘drive’, ‘driver’, ‘driving’, ‘driven’, and their
derivations. And since the Modists use Latin as their model language, it includes
also flexional forms.The dictio is the highest common factor of these words and
word forms. 35 For a dictio to become a linguistic expression and a particular
31See e.g. Enders & Pinborg, Introduction to Radulphus Brito, Quaestiones super Priscianum
minorem, [1980, p. 49].
32Rosier [1984, p. 30].
33Radulphus Brito, Quaestiones super Priscianum minorem, qu. 8, 1980.
34Pinborg [1972, p. 113].
35Pinborg [1972, p. 115] proposed to use the term ‘lexeme’ for dictio, in the sense given to
the term by John Lyons. For a discussion on the applicability of this term, see: Marmo [1994,
p. 127].