The semiotic aspects of Sanctius’ Minerva

Manuel Breva Claramonte
Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao
Summary

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.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

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 2.49–66. 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 24.353–370.Google Scholar
1980 “La teoría gramatical del Brocense en los siglos XVII y XVIII”. Revista Española de Lingüística 10.351–371.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. 2 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. 4 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 11. 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 4.303–318. 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 21.353–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979 “Pedro da Fonseca in Renaissance Semiotics”. Ars Semeiotica 2.187–204.Google Scholar
Ross, William David
1908–1952 The Works of Aristotle Translated into English. 12 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sánchez Barrado, Moisés
1919 “Estudios sobre el Brocense”. Revista Crítica Hispano-Americana 5.5–24.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 8.263–275.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C.
1978 “Sign Language and Monastic Use of Lexical Gestures”. Semiotica 24.181–194.Google Scholar
Sulowski, Jan
1973 “Bedy (672–735): De loquela digitorum”. Studia z Historii Semiotyki 2.187–206.Google Scholar
Viljamaa, Toivo
1976 The Renaissance Reform of Latin Grammar. ( = Annales Universitatis Turkuensis: Serja B, Osa 142.) Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar