Cover not available
Part of
Chapters of Dependency Grammar: A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière
Edited by András Imrényi and Nicolas Mazziotta
[Studies in Language Companion Series 212] 2020
► pp. 23–58

Chapter 1
Syntactic relations in ancient and medieval grammatical theory

| University of Helsinki
It was the Stoics among the ancient philosophers who most vividly developed the philosophy of language as part of their logic. Within their theory of meaning, they recognized various types of predicates which required one or more cases or ‘arguments’ to complete their meaning. A minimal complete statement consisting of a verb and one or two nominals formed a logical proposition. This minimal statement also became the point of departure for syntactic analysis when a theory of syntax began to be integrated in grammars. Indeed, some of the basic elements of Stoic logic were adopted into the earliest grammatical theory of syntax, the one composed by the Greek grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus (2nd century AD). His theory, as transmitted to the Middle Ages by the Latin grammar of Priscian (c. 500 AD), established itself as the foundation of the Western theory of syntax. Within this framework, the verb was regarded as an incomplete expression, which needed one or more nominal cases to perfect its meaning. It would then appear that the approach was verb-centered, as it was the verb that drew the nominal parts of speech into a construction. In the Middle Ages, grammar came under the influence of Aristotelian logic, and the functional notions of subject and predicate were incorporated into medieval syntactic theory. As the predicate was defined as saying something about the subject, it could be maintained that logically the subject is prior to its predicate. The same view was implied in the medieval idea of a logical or natural ordering of the parts of speech, whereby the noun occupied the primary position. Thus, the noun occupied the first place, because the verb drew some of its features from the noun, such as number and gender. Such tensions in the inherited theories provided ingredients for lively scholarly discussions throughout the Middle Ages.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Stoic logic
    • 2.1Stoic proposition
    • 2.2Self-sufficiency (Autoteleia)
    • 2.3Stoic predicate types
    • 2.4Referentiality
  • 3.Ancient theory of syntax
    • 3.1Rationalistic grammar
    • 3.2Meaning (intelligibile)
    • 3.3Definition of sentence
    • 3.4Congruity (katallelotes, congruitas)
    • 3.5Noun-centered view
    • 3.6Verb-centered view
    • 3.7Transitivity
      • 3.7.1Genus verbi (Diathesis)
      • 3.7.2A third actant?
      • 3.7.3Mixed criteria
    • 3.8Concord and coreferentiality
  • 4.Syntactic theory in the High Middle Ages
    • 4.1Hugh of St. Victor’s De grammatica
      • 4.1.1Well-formed and perfect construction
      • 4.1.2Transitivity
    • 4.2The Summa super Priscianum of Peter Helias
      • 4.2.1Causae inventionis
      • 4.2.2Modi significandi
      • 4.2.3Sentence (oratio) and construction (constructio)
      • 4.2.4Government (regimen)
        • 4.2.4.1Government of nouns
        • 4.2.4.2Government of verbs
      • 4.2.5Transitivity
  • 5.The speculative grammar of the late Middle Ages
    • 5.1Modes of signifying
    • 5.2Transitivity
    • 5.3New dependency relations
      • 5.3.1Dependens – terminans
      • 5.3.2Primum/secundum
    • 5.4Grammaticality and well-formedness
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.212.02luh
References (67)
References
A. Primary sources
Apollonius Dyscolus. (1878–1910). Apollonii Dyscoli quae supersunt. Grammatici Graeci II.1 & 3. Ed. by R. Schneider. Leipniz: Teubner. (2nd c. AD)Google Scholar
Aristotle. (1938). The categories. On interpretation (De interpretatione). Ed. and transl. H. P. Cook. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. (1933–1935). Metaphysics. Ed. and transl. by H. Tredennick. 2 Vols. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. (1957–1960). Physics. Ed. and transl. by P. H. Wicksteed & Francis M. Cornford. 2 Vols. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bacon, R. (1940). Summa grammatica. Ed. by Robert Steele. (= Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi, 15.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Boethius, A. M. S. (1876, 1880). Commentarii in librum Aristotelis ‘Peri hermeneias’. Ed. by C. Meiser. Leipzig: Teubner, V.Google Scholar
(1998). De divisione. Ed. J. Magee. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Boethius Dacus. (1969). Modi significandi sive quaestiones super Priscianum maiorem. Ed. by Jan Pinborg & Heinrich Roos. Copenhague: G.E.C. Gad.Google Scholar
CIMAGL = Cahiers de l’institut du Moyen Âge grec et latin. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen 1969– .[URL] since 2010.Google Scholar
DL = Diogenes Laertius. (1950). Lives of eminent philosophers with an English translation by Robert D. Hicks. 2 vols. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
GG = Schneider, H., & Uhlig, G. (1878–1910). Grammatici Graeci. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. (Repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965)Google Scholar
GL = Keil, H. (Ed.). (1981/1855–1880). Grammatici Latini. Repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 8 vols.Google Scholar
Fredborg, K. M. (Ed.). (2011). Glosa Victorina super partem Prisciani de Constructione (ms Paris Bibliothèque de l’Arsénal 910) (Studia Artistarum, 27). Turnhout: Brepols. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fredborg, K. M., & Kneepkens, C. H. (Eds.). (1988). Grammatica Porretana. CIMAGL 57, 11–67.Google Scholar
Grotans, A., & Porter, D. (Eds.). (1995). The St. Gall Tractate: A medieval guide to rhetorical syntax. Columbia: Camden House.Google Scholar
Hugh of St. Victor. (1966). De grammatica. Hugonis de Sancto Victore opera propaedeutica. Ed. by Roger Baron (pp.67–166). (University of Notre Dame Publications in Medieval Studies, 20). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Jordanus. (1980). Notulae super Priscianum Minoren Magistri Jordani (CIMAGL 36), Ed. by Mary Sirridge. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Martianus Capella. (1978). De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii. Ed. by A. Dick. Stuttgart: Teubner.Google Scholar
Martinus de Dacia. (1961). = Martini de Dacia Opera. Ed. by Heinrich Roos (Corpus Philosophorum Danicorum, 2). Copenhagen: Gad.Google Scholar
Notae Dunelmenses. (2017). Ed. with introduction by Anne Grondeux & Irène Rosier-Catach. Priscien lu par Guillaume de Champeaux et son école. Les Notae Dunelmensees (Durham, D.C.L., C.IV.29). 2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Petrus Helias. (1993). Summa super Priscianum. Ed. by Leo Reilly. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
Priscian [Priscianus Caesariensis]. (1855–1859). Institutionum grammaticarum libri XVIII ex recensione Martini Hertzii. In H. Keil (Ed.). Grammatici Latini (Vols. 2–3). Leipzig: Teubner. (= GL II–III). (Original work published ca. 526–527)Google Scholar
Promisimus. (1999). Ed. by K. M. Fredborg. CIMAGL 70, 81–228.Google Scholar
Simon Dacus Modista. (1963). Quaestiones super secundum minoris voluminis Prisciani. Simonis Daci opera. Ed. by Alfred Otto (Corpus Philosophorum Danicorum Medii Aevi, III, 89–178). Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad.Google Scholar
Siger de Courtrai. (1998). Summa modorum significandi. Ed. by Jan Pinborg (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, III. Studies in the History of Linguistics, 14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Simon Dacus Domifex. (1963). Domus grammaticae. Simonis Daci opera. Ed. by Alfred Otto. (Corpus Philosophorum Danicorum Medii Aevi, III, 1–88). Copenhague: G. E. C. Gad.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (2015). Elements of structural syntax. Transl. by T. Osborne & S. Kahane). Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Trans. of Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck, 1966, 2nd ed.; 1st ed., 1959).Google Scholar
Thomas of Erfurt. (1972). Grammatica speculativa. Ed. by Geoffrey L. Bursill-Hall. London: Longman.Google Scholar
William of Conches. Glose super Priscianum. Ms. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 15130 (late version).
B. Critical sources
Ackrill, J. L. (1963). Aristotle’s Categories and De interpretatione, translated with notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arens, H. (1984). Aristotle’s theory of language and its tradition (Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, III, 29.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baratin, M. (1989). La naissance de la syntaxe a Rome. Paris: Éditions de minuit.Google Scholar
Blank, D. (1982). Ancient philosophy and grammar. The syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. (American Classical Studies, 10). Chico, CA: Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Brehier, E. (1951). Chrysippe et l’ancien stoicisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Colombat, B. (2020). Chapter 2. The notion of dependency in Latin grammar in the Renaissance and the 17th century. In A. Imrényi & N. Mazziotta (Eds.), Chapters of dependency grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière (Studies in Language Companion Series 212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Covington, M. (1984). Syntactic theory in the High Middle Ages: Modistic models of sentence structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fredborg, K. M. (1973). “The dependence of Petrus Helias’ Summa super Priscianum on William of Conches’ Glose super Priscianum”. CIMAGL 11, 1–57.Google Scholar
(1977). “Tractatus glosarum Prisciani in MS Vat. lat. 1486”. CIMAGL 21, 27–44.Google Scholar
(1981). Some notes on the grammar of William of Conches. CIMAGL 37, 21–41.Google Scholar
(1988). Speculative grammar. In P. Dronke (Ed.), A history of twelfth-century Western philosophy (pp.177–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frede, M. (1977). The origins of traditional grammar. In R. E. Butts & J. Hintikka (Eds.), Historical and philosophical dimensions of logic, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp.51–79). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gibson, M. (1979). The early scholastic ‘Glosule’ to Priscian, Institutiones grammaticae: The text and its influene. Studi Medievali, 3(ser. 21:1), 235–254.Google Scholar
Grondeux, A., & Rosier-Catach, I. (2011). Les Glosulae super Priscianum et leur tradition. Arts du langage et théologie aux confins des xie/xiie siècles. Studia Artistarum 26, 107–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Householder, F. W. (1981). Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R. W. 1941-43. “Studies on Priscian in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. I. Petrus Helias and his Predecessors”. Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 194231 [repr. in The History of Grammar in the Middle Ages. Collected Papers, Bursill-Hall, Geoffrey L. ed., Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1980, 1-38].Google Scholar
Kelly, L. G. (2002). The mirror of grammar. Theology, philosophy and the Modistae (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahane, S., & Osborne, T. (2015). Translators’ introduction. In L. Tesnière, Elements of structural syntax (pp.ixxx–lxiii). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kneepkens, C. H. (1978). Master Guido and his view on government: On twelfth-century linguistic thought. Vivarium 16(2), 108–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. Het iudicium constructionis: Het Leersstuk van de Constructio in de 2de Helft van de 12de Eeuw. 4 vols. Nijmegen: Ingenium.Google Scholar
(1990). Transitivity, intransitivity and related concepts in 12th century grammar. An explorative study. In G. L. Bursill-Hall, S. Ebbesen, & K. Koerner (Eds.). De ortu grammaticae. Studies in Medieval Grammar and Linguistic Theory in memory of Jan Pinborg (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 43) (pp.161–189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lallot, J. (1997). Apollonius Dyscolus. De la construction. 2 vols. Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar
Lloyd, A. C. (1978). Definite propositions and the concept of reference. In J. Brunschwig (Ed.), Stoiciens et leur logique (pp.285–295). Chantilly: Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Interdisciplinaires de Chantilly.Google Scholar
Long, A. A., & Sedley. D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic philosophers 2 Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luhtala, A. (1993). Syntax and dialectic in Carolingian commentaries on Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae. In V. A. Law (Ed.). History of linguistic thought in the Early Middle Ages (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 71) (pp.145–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000a). On the origin of syntactical description in Stoic logic (The Henry Sweet Society Studies in the History of Linguistics, 8.) Münster: Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
(2000b). Early medieval commentary on Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae. CIMAGL 71, 115–188.Google Scholar
(2005). Grammar and philosophy in Late Antiquity (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences, 107.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Pedagogical grammars before the eighteenth century. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistcs (pp.341–358). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luhtala, A., & Amsler, M. (Eds.). (2017). Latin grammars in transition 1200–1600. Special issue of Historiographia Linguistica 44(2/3).Google Scholar
Marmo, C. (1994). Semiotica e linguaggio nella Scolastica: Parigi, Bologna, Erfurt 1270–1330. La semiotica dei Modisti. Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo.Google Scholar
Martinelli, C. (2017). Some pedagogical and syntactical aspects of Francesco da Buti’s Regule grammaticales. In A. Luhtala & M. Amsler (Eds.), Latin Grammars in Transition: 1200–1600. Special issue of Historiogaphia Linguistica , 44(2/3), 204–227.Google Scholar
Pinborg, J. (1975). Classical antiquity: Greece. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.). Historiography of linguistics (Current Trends in Linguistics, 13.1) (pp.69–126). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rosier-Catach, I. (1983). La grammaire spéculative des Modistes. Lille: Presses Universitaires.Google Scholar
(1984). Transitivité et ordre des mots chez les grammairiens médiévaux. In S. Auroux, M. Glatigny et al. (Eds.), Matériaux pour une histoire des théories linguistiques (pp.181–190). Lille: Presses Universitaires.Google Scholar
(1994). L’Introduction des notions de sujet et de prédicat dans la grammaire médiévale. Archives et documents de la SHESL 10, 81–119.Google Scholar
(2010). Grammar. In R. Pasnau & C. Van Dyke (Eds.), Cambridge history of medieval philosophy (Vol. I, pp.196–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (2015). Elements of structural syntax, transl. S. Kahane & T. Osborne. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Colombat, Bernard
2020. Chapter 2. The notion of dependency in Latin grammar in the Renaissance and the 17th century. In Chapters of Dependency Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series, 212], ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo
Imrényi, András & Zsuzsa Vladár
2020. Chapter 5. Sámuel Brassai in the history of dependency grammar. In Chapters of Dependency Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series, 212], ► pp. 164 ff. DOI logo
Mazziotta, Nicolas
2020. Chapter 4. Dependency in early sentence diagrams. In Chapters of Dependency Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series, 212], ► pp. 134 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.