Synkategorematische Sprachzeichen bilden ein zentrales Thema der Logik, Sprachphilosophie, Linguistik und Grammatik von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Im Mittelalter verstand man unter "syncategoremata "Ausdrücke, denen eine besondere Bedeutung für die logische Analyse von Aussagen und Schlüssen zukommt. Zu den Synkategoremata zählte eine relativ eng begrenzte Gruppe von Wörtern wie etwa die distributiven Zeichen ("jeder", "kein"), die Exklusiva ("allein", "nur"), Konjunktionen wie "und", "oder" und "wenn", die Kopula "ist", aber auch einzelne Verben wie "anfangen" und "aufhören". Synkategoremata haben anders (...) als Kategoremata wie "Mensch", "Lebewesen "und "läuft" keine selbständige Bezeichnungsfunktion, sondern erhalten eine solche Funktion erst im Satzzusammenhang. In den im 13. Jhdt. verbreiteten und einflussreichen Traktaten dieses Genres werden Synkategoremata oft unter Rückgriff auf Sophismata, d.h. mehrdeutige, analysebedürftige Aussagen, behandelt. Im Mittelpunkt stehen neben Fragen zu ihrem Skopus (insbesondere bei quantifizierenden und in irgendeiner Form negierenden Zeichen) auch die der Abhängigkeit ihrer syntaktischen Funktion von ihrer Bezeichnungsfunktion. Die Traktate bieten Regeln zur Verwendung der einzelnen Synkategoremata und weisen dabei vielfältige Bezüge zur aristotelischen Logik, speziell der Fehlschlusslehre, sowie zu den genuin mittelalterlichen Lehren der Folgerungen und der Supposition der Termini auf. (shrink)

In this paper, I raise the following problem: What terms are considered as syncategoremata in the Arabic logical texts? How are they defined? How do they determine the forms of the propositions and the inferences? To answer these questions, I focus on the analyses provided by al-Fārābī and Avicenna. Both authors apply the grammatical distinction between the particle, the noun and the verb to logic. They also state the semantic and the syntactic criterions, but their analyses of the particles (...) are different. For al-Fārābī devotes two treatises to the analysis of particles: al-musta‘malah fī l-maniq, where he provides a listing of particles that he classifies in the manner of the Greek grammarians and Kitāb al-urūf, where he analyzes some particles used in metaphysics; while Avicenna, despite the considerable amount of his logical corpus, does not devote a special book to the analysis of particles. He does not provide any listing either but characterizes each logical particle on its own, while analyzing the propositions, their elements and the inferences. In this paper, I argue that this treatment of particles in the two frames shows a significant difference between the two authors with regard to the relation between logic and grammar, and with regard to the characterizations of the logical particles themselves. For Avicenna is much less interested than al-Fārābī by the grammatical analysis and focuses much more on the logical particles, which he scrutinizes meticulously. This enriches his definitions of the logical constants and leads him in the final analysis to different and more various inferences than those hold by al-Fārābī. (shrink)

The thirteenth-century treatises on syncategorematic words still form a gold mine for studying the development of logic after Aristotle and Boethius. Generally speaking, the class of words labelled syncategoremata included expressions that, more than their categorematic counterparts, require the context of an expression in order to be meaningful. Nouns and verbs, such as ‘man’ and ‘to run’, were considered as having a more determined meaning than expressions such as ‘every’ or ‘not’. In the early days of the syncategoremata (...) literature, the criteria for distinguishing categorematic from syncategorematic words were not entirely clear; authors used both syntactic and semantic criteria to separate the two classes from each other. The different ways of describing the two classes of words sometimes led to alternative lists of syncategoremata. Eventually the list came to include: the verb ‘is’; the negation ‘not’; the modal adverbs ‘necessarily’ and ‘contingently’; the exclusives ‘only’ and ‘alone’; the exceptives ‘except’ and ‘unless’ ; the distributive signs ‘every’ , ‘whole’ (‘ totum. (shrink)

Modern linguistics usually differentiates between content or syncategorematic words and function or categorematic words.

Synkategorematische Sprachzeichen bilden ein zentrales Thema der Logik, Sprachphilosophie, Linguistik und Grammatik von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Im Mittelalter verstand man unter "syncategoremata "Ausdrücke, denen eine besondere Bedeutung für die logische Analyse von Aussagen und Schlüssen zukommt. Zu den Synkategoremata zählte eine relativ eng begrenzte Gruppe von Wörtern wie etwa die distributiven Zeichen ("jeder", "kein"), die Exklusiva ("allein", "nur"), Konjunktionen wie "und", "oder" und "wenn", die Kopula "ist", aber auch einzelne Verben wie "anfangen" und "aufhören". Synkategoremata haben anders (...) als Kategoremata wie "Mensch", "Lebewesen "und "läuft" keine selbständige Bezeichnungsfunktion, sondern erhalten eine solche Funktion erst im Satzzusammenhang. In den im 13. Jhdt. verbreiteten und einflussreichen Traktaten dieses Genres werden Synkategoremata oft unter Rückgriff auf Sophismata, d.h. mehrdeutige, analysebedürftige Aussagen, behandelt. Im Mittelpunkt stehen neben Fragen zu ihrem Skopus (insbesondere bei quantifizierenden und in irgendeiner Form negierenden Zeichen) auch die der Abhängigkeit ihrer syntaktischen Funktion von ihrer Bezeichnungsfunktion. Die Traktate bieten Regeln zur Verwendung der einzelnen Synkategoremata und weisen dabei vielfältige Bezüge zur aristotelischen Logik, speziell der Fehlschlusslehre, sowie zu den genuin mittelalterlichen Lehren der Folgerungen und der Supposition der Termini auf. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 53, Issue 2-4, pp 405 - 423 This article deals with a brief _difficultas_ in the _Tractatus de compositione propositionis mentalis_ by Fernando de Enzinas: _qualiter copule significent tempus et an copule de presenti et preterito sint synonime_. A progressive determination of the signification of the copula is analysed: first, Enzinas defines his position about the principal syncategorematic signification of the copula; then, he analyses the sense of the consignification of time traditionally attributed to the copula. The (...) originality of Enzinas’ position is highlighted, given the fact that he gives preference to the question as to _how_ the copulae signify time rather than the question as to _which_ time the copulae signify. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 56, Issue 3-4, pp 320 - 339 Thirteenth-century views on consequences have not yet received much attention. Authors of this period deserve closer scrutiny, because of their profound interest in the nature of consequence. The fundamental feature of a consequence was captured in the claim that its antecedent is the cause of its consequent. At the same time authors systematically discussed consequences in terms of truth-preservation. This paper considers the requirements of syllogistic argument and consequences in general, (...) including the role of ‘cause’ in the identification of syllogisms proper, looks at different descriptions of consequence, moves on to discussions of the syncategorema ‘_si_’ – in _syncategoremata_ treatises by Peter of Spain, Henry of Ghent, Nicholas of Paris and William of Sherwood, as well as some _sophismata_ tracts – and explores what thirteenth-century authors make of the truth-functional characterisation of consequence, showing how it clashes with the authors’ insistence on a causal connection between antecedent and consequent. (shrink)

This paper accomplishes two goals. First, I elucidate Edmund Husserl’s theory of inauthentic judgments from his 1890 “On the Logic of Signs.” It will be shown how inauthentic judgments are distinct from other signitive experiences, in such a manner that when Husserl seeks to account for them, he is forced to revise the general structure of his philosophy of meaning and in doing so, is also able to realize novel insights concerning the nature of signification. Second, these conclusions are revealed (...) to be the foundation of Husserl’s pure logical grammar, found in the 1901 “Fourth Logical Investigation.” In his analysis of inauthentic judgments, Husserl already recognized, albeit in a problematic way and for entirely different reasons, many of the central tenets of the 1901 work concerning categoremata and syncategoremata, matter and form, and the isomorphism between them. (shrink)

This paper accomplishes two goals. First, I elucidate Edmund Husserl’s theory of inauthentic judgments from his 1890 “On the Logic of Signs (Semiotic).” It will be shown how inauthentic judgments are distinct from other signitive experiences, in such a manner that when Husserl seeks to account for them, he is forced to revise the general structure of his philosophy of meaning and in doing so, is also able to realize novel insights concerning the nature of signification. Second, these conclusions are (...) revealed to be the foundation of Husserl’s pure logical grammar, found in the 1901 “Fourth Logical Investigation.” In his analysis of inauthentic judgments, Husserl already recognized, albeit in a problematic way and for entirely different reasons, many of the central tenets of the 1901 work concerning categoremata and syncategoremata, matter and form, and the isomorphism between them. (shrink)

The change of medieval philosophy, known to have taken place in the 14th century, is accompanied by a new and extensive application of terminist logic and by a growing importance of the university of Oxford. This essay asks the question whether this development can be explained as a development of a specific English tradition within medieval logic. In the first part of the paper it is briefly shown that a certain discontinuity can be observed in the most important continental intellectual (...) centers; the 'sociological' conditions which make possible such distinct local traditions within the general development of medieval scholasticism are considered shortly. The second and larger part of the paper is a census of the English contribution to logic before Ockham, ordered according to the various literary genres: Summulae, Syncategoremata/sophismata, Grammar, Commentaries on the Organon. This census tends to prove that terminist logic had a continuous tradition in Oxford, a fact which may account for the preponderance of Oxford logic in the early 14th century. (shrink)

Impossible antecedents entered the scene of medieval logic around the 1120s and soon started to dominate this scene, becoming one of the most debated issues from the second half of the twelfth century onwards. This article focuses on theories of counterpossibles from this period and aims to offer an overview of the different responses offered by twelfth-century logicians on whether everything, something, or nothing follows from an impossible statement. Rather than trying to historically reconstruct the positions of the different authors (...) – an operation that may be premature given the insufficient notions we still have of the authorship and dating of sources – I aim to provide a provisional map of the main arguments that were advanced in favour of or against the ex impossibili quodlibet principle. The article also aims to show that the strategies developed by twelfth-century logical schools in their approach to counterpossibles survive in logical discussions of the same topic during the thirteenth and the early fourteenth century, especially in the syncategoremata and sophistaria traditions. (shrink)

[Supposition of Mental Term according to William of Ockham :] This paper investigates Ockham ’s claim that there is a diversity of suppositions of a mental term. First, it summarizes the hitherto research in Ockham ’s theory of concepts and the theory of mental language ascribed to him. Secondly, it describes his theory of supposition, focusing on the interpretation of this theory which describes it as a device for interpretation of propositions. Thirdly, the paper examines the problems which arise from (...) combining Ockham ’s theory concepts and his theory of supposition – namely, the problems concerning the nature of mental proposition, the question of mental syncategoremata, and of equivocation in mental language. Part 8 then reveals the absurdity of understanding the supposition of a mental term as an instrument for interpretation of mental propositions. Finally, I propose a new interpretation of the whole issue, based on Ockham ’s early commentary on the Sentences. According to this interpretation, the diversity of supposition of a mental term is not triggered by the need of distinguishing various meanings of a mental propositions, but by Ockham ’s nominalistic theory of science. (shrink)

Against Quine's thesis of the ?indeterminacy of translation?, in Word and Object, it is argued that the extension of terms, where determinable at all except by arbitrary decision, is determinable by empirical means other than comparison of ?stimulus meaning?, that translation of terms does not presuppose prior translation of syncategoremata, that parallelisms of function of syncategoremata in different languages can in part be discovered on the basis of stimulus meanings, that it is incorrect to speak of bilinguals? necessarily (...) using ?analytical hypotheses?, that in one form the thesis is correct and uncontroversial, that in another it is controversial but both unacceptable and at variance with Quine's own views on language. (shrink)

Resumo: Pedro Hispano define os sincategoremas como expressões que revelam de que maneira os sujeitos e os predicados estão de fato relacionados nas proposições, contribuindo assim para o estabelecer o que elas significam e fixar as condições de verdade e as formas lógicas correspondentes. Entre as expressões que ele julga serem sincategoremáticas, ‘não’, ‘e’, ‘ou’, ‘se’, ‘todo’ e ‘necessário’ se destacam atualmente como constantes lógicas. Todavia, opondo-se a grande parte dos lógicos contemporâneos para quem tais expressões possuem um significado fixo (...) na medida em que integram as formas lógicas das respectivas proposições, Pedro Hispano admite que seu significado pode ser modificado quando a expressões do mesmo tipo credita a capacidade de atuarem em determinados contextos como categoremas. Além disso, ao defender que as expressões ora em questão explicitam as formas lógicas das proposições mediante a articulação dos categoremas a elas associados, ele também demonstra divergir dos principais critérios de demarcação das constantes lógicas atualmente vigentes que não preveem a atribuição de tal comportamento a expressões desse tipo. Portanto, não resta dúvida de que a teoria de Pedro Hispano sobre os sincategoremas enriquece a nossa compreensão ainda insuficiente da natureza das constantes lógicas e contribui para a resolução do problema da demarcação de tais expressões.: According to Petrus Hispanus, syncategoremata are expressions that determine how subjects and predicates are actually related in propositions. They contribute to establishing what the categoremata mean and to specifying the truth conditions of the corresponding logical forms. Among the expressions Peter of Spain thinks of as syncategorematic, ‘not’, ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘if’, ‘all, and ‘necessary’ are nowadays considered to be logical operators. But unlike the contemporary logicians who argue that these expressions have fixed meanings because they belong to the logical forms of the corresponding propositions, Peter of Spain allows that their meanings can be modified, attributing to them the ability to act in certain contexts as categoremata. In addition, he argues that these expressions make explicit the logical forms through the articulation of corresponding propositions’ categoremata; thus he also diverges from the main contemporary criteria of demarcation of logical constants, which does not allow that these expressions have such behavior. Therefore, there is no doubt that Hispanus’ theory of the syncategoremata enriches our still insufficient understanding of the logical constants and contributes to the resolution of the problem of the demarcation of such expressions. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.2 (2003) 272-273 [Access article in PDF] Matthew of Orléans. Sophistaria sive summa communium distinctionum circa sophismata accidentium. Edited by Joke Spruyt. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Pp. ix + 581. Cloth, $151.00. Matthew of Orléans is not a famous author (indeed, even his name is given tentatively by the editor on the basis of the explicit of one manuscript). And the Sophistaria was apparently (...) not one the most influential works of its time, the early thirteenth century (its full text is preserved only in a couple of manuscripts, and it has never been printed before). Yet, the Sophistaria of Matthew of Orléans is a fine example of a characteristic genre in the rich tradition of medieval logical literature. The genre itself is an interesting combination of two other characteristic genres: treatises on syncategoremata and sophismata. The sophismata treatises are discussions of problem-sentences (sophismata) usually grouped together to illustrate some logical doctrinal points, especially concerning the resolution of ambiguities caused by the logical behavior of syncategorematic terms in various contexts. The treatises on syncategoremata provide systematic discussions of the logical behavior of syncategorematic words, i.e., logical connectives, themselves. But these treatises also illustrate their doctrinal points by resolving the ambiguities of sophismata, mostly using some commonly accepted distinctions concerning how the function of the syncategoremata is to be construed in the contexts provided by these problem-sentences. The proper subject matter of the sophistaria treatises is the discussion of these common distinctions, dealing especially with ambiguities caused by (what we would describe as) the different possible scopes of the syncategoremata occurring in the paradigmatic sophismata.For example, take the sentence "Someone seeing nothing is someone seeing something." This sentence can be regarded as ambiguous, if we analyze "nothing" into "not... a thing," yielding (1) "Someone not seeing a thing is someone seeing something," which can be taken to be ambiguous between (a) "Someone not seeing anything is someone seeing something" and (b) "Someone not seeing something is someone seeing something," depending on whether we take "not" in (1) to be operating (a) on "seeing a thing," or (b) only on "seeing." On this analysis, the ambiguous sentence is obviously false in the first sense, but may be true in the second, for it may be true of Socrates who does not see Plato but sees Coriscus.To be sure, this is not the only possible way to account for the (genuine or putative) ambiguity of the original sentence. In fact, this is not the account considered by Matthew of Orléans or in a parallel passage by Peter of Spain in their analyses of the corresponding Latin sentence (Nihil videns est aliquid videns), although one of the arguments for the truth of the sophisma they reject would be a good argument for the second reading provided here (cf. Peter of Spain, Tractatus [Van Gorcum: Assen, 1972], 220, ll. 10-6, and Sophistaria, 88, ll. 16-20). In any case, the point of the sophistaria treatises is precisely the discussion of the merits and demerits of such possible accounts.The Sophistaria of Matthew of Orléans is a well-organized, highly structured treatise, divided into eight chapters, corresponding to the eight groups of syncategorematic terms [End Page 272] it deals with. The first chapter is devoted to the discussion of common distinctions concerning negations (both propositional and term-negations, including privative negation), the second deals with exclusive words (such as "only"), the third with exceptive words ("besides," "except," "unless"), the fourth with the conditional sign "if," the fifth with the modalities "necessarily" and "contingently," the sixth with the verbs "begins" and "ceases," the seventh with the word "whether," and the eighth with the distributive sign "every," that is, the universal sign that causes the terms it is construed with to be distributed for everything that falls under it.The discussion of these topics in the individual chapters is organized around typical scholastic questions raised concerning the validity of some common distinction in connection with typical sophismata, involving ambiguities in the operation... (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 56, Issue 3-4, pp 340 - 366 The history of thinking about consequences in the Middle Ages divides into three periods. During the first of these, from the eleventh to the middle of the twelfth century, and the second, from then until the beginning of the fourteenth century, the notion of natural consequence played a crucial role in logic, metaphysics, and theology. The first part of this paper traces the development of the theory of natural consequence in (...) Abaelard’s work as the conditional of a connexive logic with an equivalent connexive disjunction and the crisis precipitated by the discovery of inconsistency in this system. The second part considers the accounts of natural consequence given in the thirteenth century as a special case of the standard modal definition of consequence, one for which the principle _ex impossibili quidlibet_ does not hold, in logics in which disjunction is understood extensionally. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 53, Issue 2-4, pp 269 - 293 This article presents some results of the study of seventeen medieval treatises containing a logical analysis of the syncategorem ‘_an_’. On the one hand, a new classification is proposed of the literary genres of the _Logica Modernorum_, based on the four elements involved in the logical analysis of syncategorematic terms: the meaning of the syncategorem, logical rules, related sophisms, and proposed solutions. On the other, three texts are studied in detail, (...) showing the origins and development of the logical analysis of the syncategorem ‘_an_’ between the 12th and the 13th centuries. Finally, a comparative study is offered of different analyses of the sophism ‘_Tu scis an de mentiente sit falsum Sortem esse illum_’, a sophism that does not raise any problem as to the particle ‘_an_’, but introduces the issue of the truth conditions of the _dicta_. (shrink)