The use of syncategorema as a technical term derives from a well-known passage in Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae, in which he lists the parts of speech (partes orationis). In this passage, Priscian refers to the ‘‘dialecticians’’ (most probably the Peripatetici), who distinguish between two parts of speech: the first kind include nouns and verbs, such that when they alone are combined in a proposition they make up a complete statement; the second kind are called syncategoremata, that is, consignifying, i. e., having a particular meaning in combination with categorematic words.
While we do not find the expression syncategorema as such in his works, Boethius does have clear views about the notion of consignificare. He considers nouns and verbs (including adverbs, participles, pronouns, and interjections) as the only parts of speech; conjunctives and prepositions are not parts of speech, because they either have no signification of their own or none at all, except when they are used in combination with the ones that do. This idea fits in with his view that only nouns and verbs can function as the subject or predicate of a proposition; the copula est (is) and non est (is not), the expressions omnis (every), nullus (no), and aliquis (some) (i. e., the signa quantitatis, expressions we now know as quantifiers) do not, but merely indicate the quality and quantity respectively of the propositions they occur in, e. g., omnis homo est animal. The semantic function of these signs of quality and quantity is to consignify.
The syncategoremata became a distinct topic of interest from about the middle of the eleventh century, when logic first entered the domain of grammar and the two fields became increasingly intertwined. Grammarians commenting on Priscian’s works were particularly interested in providing explanations for the division into different parts of speech, and both grammarians and logicians attempted to deal with the correct way of interpreting linguistic expressions. The logicians’ concern with the syncategoremata is to be seen in the context of the logica modernorum, which emerged from the second half of the twelfth century. From then on, the study of syncategorematic words became part of the standard literature on logic. Syncategoremata were dealt with in Syncategoremata-treatises proper from about the last quarter of the twelfth century onward until the final quarter of the thirteenth century. They were also studied in more general tracts on logic, particularly devoted to discussions on sophismata and/or fallacies, in which all kinds of logical and grammatical distinctions were introduced. Throughout this time, the medievals gradually came to form their own ideas about the distinguishing features, the nature and function of syncategorematic words.
Several works on grammar, such as the Ars disserendi by Adam of Petit Pont (1132), the Glosses on Priscian by William of Conches (c. 1080-1154) and the Summa super Priscianum by Peter Helias (taught in Paris c. 1140), pay attention to the notion of consignificare. While Adam appears to confine the notion of consignificatio to the semantic function of prepositions and conjunctives, his account offers evidence that he also uses the expression in a broader sense for words that acquire a more determinate meaning within a particular context. William’s treatise explicitly distinguishes several uses of the expression consignificare, viz., as equivalent to ‘‘to secondarily signify’’ (secundario significare), as in, ‘‘a verb consignifies time’’ (verbum consignificat tempus) to denominate (denominare), as in, ‘‘the predicate consignifies the subject’’ (predicatum consignificat subiectum), and as used for that which by itself signifies nothing, but only when it is combined with some other meaningful expression. It is in this latter way that conjunctives and prepositions consignify. He considers the signa quantitatis a separate group of nominal expression, alongside expressions that signify a substance (such as ‘‘Socrates’’ and ‘‘man’’), those that signify things that inhere in a substance (such as ‘‘whiteness’’ and ‘‘blackness’’), and the ones that signify fictitious entities (such as ‘‘goat-stag’’ and ‘‘chimera’’); they do not signify a substance or quality, but modes of speaking about things (modus loquendi de rebus). Peter Helias also devotes considerable attention to Priscian’s division of parts of speech. In his view prepositions and conjunctives are indeed classes of words, and have the same kind of semantic function as prepositions, conjunctives, adverbs, and pronouns do, viz., to consignify (Braakhuis 1979).
In the Dialectica, the Logica ingredientibus and the Glossae super Perihermeneias, the logician Peter Abelard (1079-1142) explicitly devotes attention to the semantic function of prepositions and conjunctives; of these expressions he says that they have no definitive meaning on their own but only in combination with other linguistic expressions, or that they have no meaning whatsoever, but only come to consignify when they are combined with other expressions. In general, their function is to indicate some property of that which is signified by the nouns and verbs they are conjoined with. The signa quantitatis are counted among the parts of a proposition (partes propositionis); they are nominal expressions, but it is difficult to decide what they signify. Of the expressions est and non est, like si (if) and et (and), he also says that they do not have a meaning of their own; they only contribute to the affirmative or negative force (vis affirmationis vel negationis) of an expression, because they produce a composition or division in the mind. Abelard identifies the basis of these expressions with the intellect’s way of conceiving that which is signified by the subject and predicate of the proposition at issue. The expressions necessarium (necessary) and possibile (possible) do not have a signification of their own either; their semantic function is comparable with that of the copula and conjunctives.
In the period after Abelard, the treatment of syncate-gorematic terms is incorporated in discussions on fallacious reasoning. In a number of works dating from the third quarter of the twelfth century syncategorematic words are extensively discussed: they are considered important because they can lead to fallacies and misunderstandings. In the Fallacie Parvipontane syncategore-matic words feature in a section on the fallacy of equivocation: the class of words labelled as
Syncategoremata is identified with that of indeclinable expressions. The Ars Emmerana also mentions expressions like unum (one), tantum (only), solus (alone), and nisi (unless), which are identified as words that can easily produce fallacies. In the Tractatus De univocatione Monacensis we find similar remarks to the effect that expressions like tantum, solus, and nisi can cause problems in inferences. The Ars Meliduna considers the signa and the words solus, tantum and preter as syncategoremata. The Tractatus Anagnini devotes discussions to distributive terms, such as omnis, infinite terms, such as non-homo (not-man), and exclusive terms, such as tantum (only), nisi (unless), and preter (but), and solus (alone). The focus is on the congruity and incongruity of propositions.
The Dialectica Monacensis, which was presumably written somewhere between the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century, lists three kinds of equivocation, one of which is connected with the occurrence of a syncategorematic word in a proposition: among such words are exclusive and exceptive words, prepositions and conjunctives (that can cause ambiguity). Furthermore the expressions incipit (begins) and desinit (ceases) are reckoned among the syncategoremata; so is est insofar as it involves the composition of subject and predicate. Although there is evidence suggesting that the author of the Dialectica Monacensis also wrote a treatise on syncategoremata, the treatises on which research has been done all stem from the thirteenth century. Other treatises, which deal with sophismata (Sophistaria), take grammatical and logical distinctions as their starting point for the study of syncategoremata.
In general, the thirteenth century forms the highlight of intensive study of syncategorematic words. Syncategoremata treatises were written by several authors, such as Robert (Roger?) Bacon (written around the first quarter of the thirteenth century), Jean le Page (taught in Paris between 1225 and 1235), Peter of Spain (written in the second quarter of the thirteenth century), William of Sherwood (written between 1230 and 1240), Nicolas of Paris (written between 1240 and 1250), and Henry of Ghent (written between 1240-1250).
In the fourteenth century all kinds of material discussed in the syncategoremata treatises find their way into more general works on logic, and works devoted to sophismata. Some of these sophismata specifically deal with physical problems, particularly those connected with the analysis of motion; examples are found in the tradition of the De probationes propositionum, inspired by Richard Billingham (fl. c. 1340). Prominent authors such as William of Ockham (c. 1287-1347), John Buridan (c. 1300-1362) and Peter of Ailly (1350-1420) speak about the distinction between categorematic and syncate-gorematic expressions in connection with their accounts of mental language.
World History
