Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 11:1/2 (1984) ► pp.117–127

The semiotic aspects of Sanctius’ Minerva

| Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao
The purpose of this paper is to delineate Sanctius’ views on signs. To achieve this goal those passages have been analized in which the author made direct mention of signs as well as those where the reference is implicit. The first part of this study covers the historical background leading to Sanctius. The second, by far the longest, focuses on Sanctius, in particular his views on interjectional, gestural, and linguistic signs. Among the latter, the word and the sentence as instrumental signs reflecting reality are considered. The third and final part attempts to show how his theory possibly influenced Juan Pablo Bonet’s gesture language. It is concluded that although Sanctius is not a semioticist, his linguistic theorizing rests upon the broader knowledge provided by the field of what we now call semiotics.
Published online: 1 January 1984
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.11.1-2.08bre
References (30)
References
Bonet, Juan Pablo. 1930 [1620]. Reducción de las letras y arte para enseñar a hablar los mudos. Nueva edición anotada, comentada y precedida de un estudio crítico biográfico por Jacobo Orellana Garrido y Lorenzo Gascón Portero. Madrid: Francisco Beltrán.Google Scholar
Breva-Claramonte, Manuel, 1975. “Sanctius’ Minerva of 1562 and the Evolution of his Linguistic Theory”. Historiographia Linguistica 21.49–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
,. 1978. “The Sign and the Notion of ‘General’ Grammar in Sanctius and Port-Royal”. (Review of Jacques Rieux and Bernard E. Rollin 1975.) Semiotica 241.353–370.Google Scholar
,. 1980. “La teoría gramatical del Brocense en los siglos XVII y XVIII”. Revista Española de Lingüística 101.351–371.Google Scholar
,. 1983. Sanctius’ Theory of Language: A Contribution to the History of Renaissance Linguistics.( = Studies in the History of Linguistics, 27.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bursill-Hall, Geoffrey L. 1971. Speculative Grammars of the Middle Ages. The Doctrine of partes orationis of the modistae. (= Approaches to Semiotics, 11.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1972. Grammatica speculativa of Thomas of Erfurt. An edition with translation and commentary. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Omar and Egidio Mucci. 1975. Guida a la semiotica. Con un saggio di Luis J. Prieto. Firenze: Sansoni.Google Scholar
Chevalier, Jean-Claude. 1968. Histoire de la syntaxe: Naissance de la notion de complément dans la grammaire française (1530–1750). ( = Publications Romanes et Françaises, 100.) Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Clérico, Geneviève. 1977. “F. Sanctius: histoire d’une réhabilitation”. Joly & Stéfanini 1977. 125–143.Google Scholar
. 1982. Sanctius: Minerve ou les causes de la langue latine. Traduction, introduction et notes. Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Publications de l’Université de Lille III.Google Scholar
Deely, John. 1982. Introducing Semiotic: Its History and Doctrine. With a foreword by Thomas A. Sebeok. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
García, Constantino. 1960. Contribución a la historia de los conceptos gramaticales. La aporatción del Brocense. ( = Revista de Filología Española. Anejo 71.) Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.Google Scholar
Herculano de Carvalho, José G. 1970–1973. Teoria da linguagem. Natureza do fenómeno linguístico e a análise das línguas. 21 vols. Coimbra: Atlântida.Google Scholar
Joly, André & Jean Stéfanini,. 1977. La grammaire générale. Des modistes aux idéologues. Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Publications de l’Université de Lille III.Google Scholar
Jowett, B. 1953 (1871). The Dialogues of Plato. Translated into English with analyses and introductions. 41 vols., fourth edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Knowlson, James. 1975. Universal Language Schemes in England and France, 1600–1800. Toronto & Buffalo: Univ. of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Migne, Jean-Paul. 1882. Patrologiae cursus completus. (= Series Latina, 221 vols.) Parisiis: Apud Gamier Fratres, editores.Google Scholar
Navarro Tomás, Tómas, 1924. “Manuel Ramírez de Carrión y el arte de enseñar a hablar a los mudos. Datos para la historia de la cultura expañola”. Revista de Filología Española 111. 225–66.Google Scholar
Read, Malcolm K. 1977. “Linguistic Theory and the Problem of Mutism. The Contribution of Juan Pablo Bonet and Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro”. Historiographia Linguistica 41.303–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rieux, Jacques and Bernard E. Rollin, eds. and trans. 1975. Arnauld and Lancelot: General and Rational Grammar: The Port-Royal Grammar. ( = Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 208.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Romeo, Luigi. 1978. “For a Medieval History of Gesture Communication”. Sign Language Studies 211.353–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1979. “Pedro da Fonseca in Renaissance Semiotics”. Ars Semeiotica 21.187–204.Google Scholar
Ross, William David. 1908–1952. The Works of Aristotle Translated into English. 121 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sánchez Barrado, Moisés. 1919. “Estudios sobre el Brocense”. Revista Crítica Hispano-Americana 51.5–24.Google Scholar
Sanctius, Franciscus. 1587. Minerva seu de causis linguae Latinae. Salmanticae: Apud Joannem & Adraeam Renaut, fratres.Google Scholar
Stéfanini, Jean. 1973. “Les modistes et leur apport à la théorie de la grammaire et du signe linguistique”. [Review of Geoffrey L. Bursill-Hall 1971]. Semiotica 81.263–275.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1978. “Sign Language and Monastic Use of Lexical Gestures”. Semiotica 241.181–194.Google Scholar
Sulowski, Jan. 1973. “Bedy (672–735): De loquela digitorum”. Studia z Historii Semiotyki 21.187–206.Google Scholar
Viljamaa, Toivo. 1976. The Renaissance Reform of Latin Grammar. ( = Annales Universitatis Turkuensis: Serja B, Osa 142.) Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar