Handbook of the History of Logic: - Fordham University Faculty

Logic and Theories of Meaning . . . 355
part of speech, one or more modi significandi are necessary, e.g. the modes of
noun, nominative case, singular. The dictio itself does not appear in linguistic
expressions, only its realisation as a particular part of speech. Thus, when the
dictio driv* possesses the modi significandi of noun, nominative case and singular,
the word ‘driver’ appears as a part of speech. The process can be stated in the
following manner:
sound (vox) + semantic meaning (ratio significandi) > dictio
dictio + grammatical meaning (ratio consignificandi, modus significandi) > part of speech
part of speech + other part of speech > construction
For a construction to be well formed (congruous) it is necessary that the mode of
signifying of one part of speech is compatible with the mode of signifying of the
other part. 36 The following example from the English language may help to make
this clearer. For the expression ‘playing children’ to be well-formed, it is necessary
that ‘playing’ possesses the mode of signifying of a participle and ‘children’ the
mode of signifying of a noun (substantive), of number (plural) and of case (nominative).
In the expression ‘playing games’, on the other hand, the mode of signifying
of an accusative case is required. However, for the expression ‘logic matters’ to be
well-formed, there are two possibilities: either ‘logic’ possesses the mode of signifying
of a noun and ‘matters’ the mode of signifying of a verb, or ‘logic’ possesses
the mode of signifying of an adjective and ‘matters’ that of a noun. The difference
between the two interpretations can be visualized as follows: ‘logic matters’ respectively, the arrows denoting the so-called dependency. A
grammatical construction will only be perfect, if its parts match not only syntactically,
but also semantically. The expression ‘crying toothbrushes’, for example,
would be syntactically well-formed (congruous) according to the grammar check of
my computer, but in most cases we would agree that it is not well-formed semantically,
37 because the expression doesn’t make sense, except perhaps metaphorically
or in sentences like ‘I was dreaming of crying toothbrushes’. Nevertheless, the
grammarians were primarily concerned with congruity of speech, not with truth.
What mattered was the way reality was described, not reality itself, 38 but they
needed to take the structure of reality into account, if only as a warrant for the
scientific and universal status of their doctrine. Therefore, the modes of signifying
(modi significandi) had to have an ontological counterpart, which the Modists
called: the modes of being (modi essendi). Furthermore, since the modes of being
cannot be signified without being understood, the Modists also needed a mental
counterpart: the modes of understanding or conceiving (modi intelligendi).
The modes of being were considered accidental properties of the objects outside
the mind. The intellect knows the objects through these accidental properties. In
36Radulphus Brito [op.cit., qu. 12] speaks of “proportion and similitude” being required for a
construction.
37According to Thomas of Erfurt [c. 53, Bursill-Hall, 1972, p. 309], the expression cappa nigra
(white hood) is congruous and proper, and a construction such as cappa categorica (categorical
hood) is improper but congruous.
38Pinborg [1982, p. 261].