by Raul Corazzon - e-mail: raul.corazzon[at]ontology.co
Click on the image for the mobile version 
For an overview see this Index of the Pages or the Alphabetical Index of the Philosophers: A-F - G-O - P-Z; you can also download the page as 
or see the Table of
Contemporary Ontologists
(click on the image to see the PDF file)
Change of Address: The site www.formalontology.it is now at www.ontology.co
Index of the Section: "The Problem of Universals from the Antiquity to Middle Ages"
Universals in Antiquity and Middle Ages
Abelard's Logic and the Origins of Nominalism
Index of the Section: "Ontological Topics in the History of Philosophy"
"Abelard composed four works on logic:
(1) Introductiones Parvulorum, which consists of short glosses on Porphyry Eisagoge and Aristotle Categories and De Interpretatione;
(2) Logica Ingredientibus (so called because ingredientibus is the first word of its text), which consists of longer glosses on the texts covered by the previous work together with Boethius' De Differentiis Topicis and was probably written while Abelard was teaching in Paris before 1120;
(3) Logica Nostrorum Petitioni (so called because nostrorum petitioni are the first words of its text), which consists of longer glosses on the Eisagoge and may date from the time of his teaching at the hermitage of the Paraclete;
(4) Dialectica, which has the form of an independent work about the subjects covered by Boethius' logical writings and Victorinus' treatise De Definitionibus and seems to contain materials from different periods of Abelard's life but probably did not reach its final form until a late date, perhaps the time of his stay at Cluny shortly before his death. Of these the second and the fourth are the most valuable.
The Dialectica indeed, though based, like that of Garland, chiefly on the works of Boethius and written with the prolixity which was all too common among medieval authors, is an original composition of great importance for the development of logic. Abelard's mind was the keenest (though not in all respects the most admirable) that had been devoted to the subject for more than a thousand years, and he approached his task with the belief that it was still possible to make discoveries: 'Non enim tanta fuit antiquorum scriptorum perfectio ut non et nostro doctrina indigeat studio, nec tantum in nobis mortalibus scientia potest crescere ut non ultra possit augmentum recipere.' (1) The Dialectica survives in a single manuscript which lacks the opening sections. Excerpts from it were published by Victor Cousin in 1836 in his Ouvrages inédits d' Abelard. But unfortunately the text was not printed in full until 1956, and before that date it was therefore not possible to appreciate the magnitude of Abelard's contribution to the doctrines we regard as characteristically medieval. (...).
The text is divided into five tractatus which correspond to groups of Boethius' writings and are called respectively: I Liber Partium, II De Categoricis, III Topica, IV De Hypotheticis, and V De Divisionibus et Definitionibus. Of these the first is subdivided into three volumina dealing with the antepraedicamenta (or quinque voces of Porphyry), the praedicamenta (or categories of Aristotle), and the postpraedicamenta (or questions about meaning raised in the De Interpretatione). (2) But our sole surviving manuscript lacks the whole of the first volume and the opening of the second. This is unfortunate, since the missing part probably contained Abelard's last thoughts about universals. We can be reasonably sure also that it contained an account of the distinction between words of first and words of second imposition, since this was mentioned by Boethius in his commentary on the Categories and is taken for granted later by Abelard."
(1) Dialectica p. 535
(2) In later times the name antepraedicamenta was used (more naturally) for the subjects treated by Aristotle in his Categories, 1-3 (i.e. equivocal and univocal naming, simple and complex expressions, etc.), and the name postpraedicamenta for the subjects treated by Aristotle in his Categories, 10-15 i.e. kinds of opposites, kinds of priority, etc.).
(3) Dialectica p. 122
From: William & Marta Kneale - The development of logic - Oxford, Clarendon Press 1962, pp. 203-204. (some notes omitted)
"For Abelard there are primarily six modes of signification.
It is in the discussion of the nature of universals that we follow the development of Abelardian theory of signification. The problematic revolves around the relation between the signifier and the signified, the word and the thing, and its numerous implications for the general theory of semiotics (9). To signify or to designate is the function of words, to be signified is that of the things. A universal is that which by nature can serve as a predicate of several subjects, a singular, which cannot. It seems that both words and things can be considered as universals, one has to see how the definition of universal can be applied to things. Abelard states that some thinkers attribute universality to things by arguing that there is essentially the same substance in things which are different on in form. If we take away the forms, there would be no difference in things. The difference lies in form or accidents and not in essence. There is the same substance of man which becomes here Plato, there, Socrates, due to their respective accidents.
Abelard argues that this theory does not stand the test of "physics". Suppose that there is in fact a being essentially the same, even though it appears in different forms, exists in different subjects. It must follow that the thing that is within this form be the same in another form. For example, an animal inhabited by rationality be also the animal inhabited by irrationality, thus the rational animal is at the same time, the irrational animal; is such the two contraries exist in the same subject. Moreover, they will not really be contrary as they would co-exist in the same absolutely identical essence. In fact, the contraries cannot be together in the same subject, even under different rapports, as it is the case with relational and other attributes.
These contraries are presented by some thinkers under different perspective by stating that one should not formulate the proposition as "rational animal is irrational animal". A being can be rational from a certain point of view and irrational from another, the forms which correspond to he same subject are no more opposing forms. And, one does criticize propositions such as "rational and mortal animal" or "white animal and animal that walks", for man is not mortal inasmuch as he is rational or he is white inasmuch as he walks. The one and the same animal can have two properties under different rapports.
Then we come to the Aristotelian theory of ten essences or ten most general genres, for in each case we find the same essence diversified only due to different forms. Thus substances are absolutely the same beings, he same is true of all qualities and all quantities. The realities signified by Socrates and Plato are absolutely the same for essentially they are no more different than the substances to which they are attached as the quality of Socrates and the quality of Plato, for both are qualities. They do not differ from each other in the nature of their qualities or the nature of their substances as the essence of their substance is the same.
Abelard refutes this theory. First of all, why should one restrict only to ten essences. There can be more or less. And, how can we perceive a numerical multiplicity in substances if only the forms are different? We do not consider Socrates as numerically multiple just because he may have multiple forms. Another affirmation that does not stand the test of verity is he statement that the individuals are made by their proper accidents. If the individuals derive their being from their accidents, the accidents should precede them. If man differs from other species because of the difference n form, the individual named, Socrates, is distinguished by his accidents. Socrates thus cannot exist without his accidents nor man without his differences. Socrates is not the substratum of his accidents. If the accidents are not in the individual substances, they are not in the universal substances also. The theory that states that an absolutely identical essence is found simultaneously in different beings is illogical, asserts Abelard.
There are others who have a slightly better theory of universality when they state that the individuals do not differ from each other only due to their forms, they are also individually distinct in their very essence. Matter and form are both different in every individual. Even if the forms are suppressed, their individual distinctions stay because of the diversity of essences. But there is an impasse, for the theory of universality is not abandoned in this case. It is argued that the distinct beings are the same thing, not by essence but by non-difference. Thus the individual men are distinct from each other but they have the same being in man. They do not differ in the nature of humanity. This universality is due to this non-difference.
Abelard continues to present the divergent views within this doctrine of non-difference. There are some thinkers, he says, who perceive this universal element in the collection constituted of several elements. For them, Socrates and Plato by themselves do not represent a species, but all men taken together constitute the species, man, and all animals together form a genre. A certain unity is attributed to this collectivity, for without this one cannot have a predicate of several individuals. A universal thing will not have multiple subjects and the universals will not be as numerous as the singulars. As such, Socrates inasmuch as he is a man is dissociated from himself as Socrates. He cannot be his own genre or his own species if he is not in one way or the other different from himself, for the relative terms must oppose each other.
Abelard thus refutes this theory of collection. How can a collection of men taken together as one species be a predicate of several subjects and thus be universal while taken in its totality we do not attribute it to subjects taken one by one. If we accept that there is a predicate of different subjects according to its parts, it has nothing to do with the community of the universals, which according to Boethius, should entirely be in each subject. It is this that distinguishes it from the common base, which following its parts, is like a field whose different parts belong to different masters. We could then attribute the predicate, Socrates, to several subjects which would be his different parts, and he would himself be universal. Moreover, we will have to consider a universal any plurality of men put together. Similarly, we will make a unique universal substance from any collection of bodies and souls, and in that case the entire collection of substances will be one of the most general genres. In fact, argues Abelard, if one of the substances is subtracted, the remaining collection is not the most general genre while it is a universal substance. It must be a species of the genre of substance and should have a species which corresponds to it under the 1 same genre. A part is not identical with the whole but the species is always identical with the genre. How can then the entire collection of men be equivalent to an ensemble of animals?
Finally, Abelard presents the theory of those who consider individuals as universals inasmuch as they correspond with others, and accept that they are predicates of several subjects not because they are essentially multiple but because these multiple subjects correspond with them. But argues Abelard, if to be predicated of multiple subjects is equivalent to corresponding with these multiple, how can we say that the predicate individual is accorded to another that is isolated? How the fact of being predicate of several subjects distinguishes the universal from the singular? For, man, inasmuch as he is a man, corresponds with several subjects, but neither man, inasmuch as he is Socrates, nor Socrates inasmuch as he is Socrates, corresponds with others.
Man in Socrates and Socrates himself do not differ from each other. Nothing can be different from itself. This is why Socrates as white and Socrates as grammarian, even though with two different characteristics, is not different from himself, for he is not a grammarian in a way that he is not himself, nor when he is considered white. When they say that Socrates and Plato correspond with each other in "man", how can we believe this, for it is certain that all men are different from each other in matter and in form.
It is obvious that the things, whether they are taken one be one or together, cannot be considered universals, i.e., predicates of several subjects. Thus we must attribute this universality, argues Abelard, to words alone. The grammarians consider some nouns as "appelative", others, "proper". Similarly, for the dialecticians, some simple terms are "universals", others, "particulars", or "singulars". The universal is a vocable that is instituted to serve as a predicate of several subjects taken separately, as the noun, man, that one can join with specific men due to the nature of the real subjects to whom it is attributed. The singular is that which can be a predicate of any one subject, like Socrates." (pp. 38-41)
(...)
"Abelard's theory of signification is further crystallized in Logica Nostrorum where he makes a distinction between vox and sermo. The universals are neither things nor sounds, votes, they are due to sermones which may be singular or universal. A noun or a term is due to human institution but a thing or a sound is due to nature. The signifying act is thus a human fact, a cultural fact, as opposed to the physical aspect of the word that is purely natural. Abelard compares this phenomenon with the creative act. A stone and a statue are one and the same "thing" but they are derived from different sources. The stone is the work of God (nature) while the statue is the work of man (culture). The sermones are universal because they are created by man, they are predicates of several subjects. The sounds and things are not at all universal even if in physical reality votes and sermones are not different. Abelard's theory of signification is presented in an important article by L. M. De Rijk (**) where he distinguishes between Abelard's views on the signification of words and propositions. To signify, significare, with words, dictiones, is to generate an intellection in the soul of the hearer. The same is applicable to the denotation of external things, and in this case, the verb is synonymous with appellare, nominare, demonstare, designare. To signify with complete sentences, propositiones, is to generate an intellection which is constituted with the liaison of the intellections with its parts, dictiones. For Abelard the words first signify intellections, then the things which correspond them. The words generate intellections and with these we arrive at the knowledge of things. Intellections thus play an intermediary role. We have now to enquire about the exact status of things. For Abelard, the race, cursus, and he runs, currit, refer to the same things as it is considered in essentia, the race, and in adiacentia, he runs. Jean Jolivet believes that this linguistic approach is more concerned with the mental activity than with the exact nature of things. This is true if we think only of the external aspect of things. In this case, Abelardian theory is different from that of Aristotle. Aristotle's emphasis is on the external things and Abelard is primarily interested in the domain of the spirit or the domain of intellections. As such, we can say that the things signified by words are things as thought of or as produced by intellection. This difference with Aristotle is manifest most clearly in Abelardian theory of the proposition, propositio. Even though for Abelard the signification of a proposition is definite, its signified, significatum, is not a thing, it is a sort of a half-thing, quasi-res. It depends upon three aspects of the proposition. One may consider it as a verbal phrase, as an intellection expressed by words, or as a thing that is the object of the verbal phrase or the intellection. Abelard states that our expressions have a consignificatum rather than a signification so-called, and the task of the proposition is to present a mode of conception, modus concipiendi. It does not have a specific content, in istis nulla imagine nititur intellectus, but it is derived from it.
The signification of a proposition is further explained by means of the logic of implication, si rosa est, flos est. The logic of this necessity lies in the fact that what is stated by the antecedent, rosa est, cannot be stated without what is stated by the consequent, flos est. If the antecedent is taken either as a grammatical construct or as an act of intellection, it can be without the consequent which can be taken separately as a grammatical or an intellective construct. On the contrary, the antecedent taken as a fact of logic implies the logical existence of the consequent. This necessity is purely relational, quidam rerum modus habendi se and it does not concern the relation between the external aspect of things, nor between intellections taken as psychological or rational acts. It is a relation between the contents of intellections. In other words, these relations are purely logical or formal. The dictum of Abelard is neither an external thing, res, nor a mental act as such, but the objectivated content of this act, which being neither a thing nor an act, is called half-thing, quasi-res." (pp. 43-44)
(*) CF. Petrus Abaelardus, Dialectica, ed. L. M. de Rijk.
(**) L. M. de Rijk - La signification de la proposition (dictum propositionis) chez Abélard. In Pierre Abélard - Pierre le Vénérable. Les courants philosophiques, littéraires et artistiques en Occident au milieu du XII siècle. Edited by Jolivet Jean and Louis René. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 1975. pp. 547-555.
From: Harjeet Singh Gill - The Abelardian tradition of semiotics - in: Signs and signification. Vol. I. Edited by Harjeet Singh Gill and Giovanni Manetti. New Delhi: Bahri Publications 1999. pp. 35-67
"Although Abelard draws the material for his studies on logic from such traditional sources as Boethius in the field of dialectic and Priscian in the field of grammar, many of his reflections are so fresh and original that in the history of the problems concerning the bearers of truth and falsity he belongs among the few pioneers who really broke new ground and contributed insights which were a lasting source of inspiration for later generations. The following survey is based upon his glosses on Porphyry's introduction to the Categories and Aristotle's Categories and De interpretatione, which are found in the so-called Logica ingredientibus (1) , and upon his systematic treatise Dialectica (2).
Abelard defines a word (dictio) as a sound significant by convention none of whose parts is significant in separation (D 147, 21). Some words, namely nouns and verbs, have a definite signification by themselves; other words, namely conjunctions and prepositions, have an indefinite signification by themselves (D 117, 26). The definite signification of nouns and verbs, which for certain purposes include also pronouns, adverbs, conventional interjections, and participles (D 121, 8, 18; G 334, 23), is twofold: they signify thoughts (intellectus) and they signify things (res). Thoughts are the affections of the soul or the noemata of which Aristotle speaks in the first chapter of De interpretatione; Abelard interprets an intellectus as an act of attending to the nature or a property of a thing which is either present to the senses or put before the mind by means of a mental image (G 20, 30; G 312, 36; G 328, 18). In connection with a thought the verb significare either has the same meaning as exprimere or manifestare intellectum -- the speaker or the word he uses expresses the speaker's act of thinking -- or, more often, it has the same meaning as constituere3 or generare intellectum: the speaker or the word he uses produces a certain act of thinking in the hearer's mind (G 307, 30). For this meaning of significare I shall commonly use the phrase 'to produce a thought'. Further, nouns and verbs signify things; for this kind of signifying Abelard uses, apart from significare, such verbs as appellare, demon-ware, denotare, designare, and nominare. For this meaning of significare I shall employ the phrase 'to denote a thing'. Although for several reasons Abelard regards the signification of thoughts as more important, in the context of his reflections on De interpretatione, than the signification of things (G 308, 19), there is some difference between his conception of the signification of nouns and verbs and Aristotle's. For the latter nouns and verbs primarily signify thoughts; they can only be said to signify things because of the fact that the thoughts which they signify are the likenesses of things. In Abelard, on the other hand, this difference between the directness of the signification of thoughts and the indirect character of the signification of things is less prominent; both significations are treated, so to speak, on the same level.
That conjunctions and prepositions have an indefinite signification is the view defended by Abelard in his Dialectica (118-120). When, for instance, the preposition de and the conjunction et are uttered in isolation, they have a signification which is vague and undetermined: the hearer's mind is kept in suspense about that to which they are to be attached. Only when the open places by which they are accompanied have been filled is their imperfect and indefinite signification rendered precise and definite. In the me of homo et lapis, for example, the general signification of et, namely that things are conjoined, has been made specific by the meanings of the two nouns: we now know that we are dealing with the conjunction of a man and a stone. In the glosses on De interpretatione, however, Abelard objects that this view makes it impossible to draw a clear distinction between, on the one hand, conjunctions and prepositions and, on the other hand, nouns and verbs; for the latter, too, can be said to have a signification which is not precise until they are combined with other words (G 337, 41). He therefore prefers to say that conjunctions and prepositions when uttered by themselves have no signification at all; they signify only in combination with other words (consignificant), but in that case they contribute a clearly distinguishable part to the meaning of the whole. It is necessary to hold that they have a signification of their own when they are used in combination with other words, since otherwise they cannot be differentiated from letters and syllables.
Whichever of the two views one adopts, there is a problem about the intellectus and the res which are produced and denoted by conjunctions and prepositions. If those words have a signification, either in isolation or only in combination with other words, they must produce some thought; and they can produce a thought only if there is a thing or a mental image of a thing to which the thought is directed (G 338, 41). According to Abelard some authors held that words with an indefinite signification produce a thought but do not denote a thing, in the same way as propositiones (D 119, 3). But it is hard to see how they could produce a thought if there is nothing to which the thought is related. Some grammarians tried to solve this difficulty by suggesting that prepositions denote the thing which is denoted by the noun to which the preposition is attached; but in that case the denotation of the noun would be superfluous. Abelard's own view is that conjunctions and prepositions denote a certain characteristic (proprietas) with regard to the thing that is denoted by the adjoining nouns or verbs. In the combination in domo, for instance, the preposition in denotes the characteristic of the house that consists in its containing something; and the conjunction ergo, placed between statements, denotes the characteristic that consists in the circumstance that the premisses prove the conclusion and the conclusion is proved by the pre-misses. Abelard finds it difficult, however, to state clearly the thought which belongs to each preposition and conjunction; it is as hard, he says, as stating explicitly the thought that belongs to utterances that are not used for the purpose of making a statement, such as 'Come to me' (D 118, 29).
The copulas est and non est get a separate treatment. They neither produce a thought nor denote anything, but they contribute to the affirmative or negative import of a propositio (ad vim affirmationis or ad vim negationis proficit) by causing the mind to combine or separate the things thought of (the intellecta or intellectae res; cf. D 154, 25-27). In understanding a propositio the mind performs three acts: it thinks of each of the two parts, the subject and the predicate, and it combines or separates the things thought of. Although the act of combining or separating the things thought of is not itself an intellectus, it nevertheless is part of the thought produced by the whole propositio (G 339, 20). Similarly, the conjunctions si and non si have no signification, but they unite or separate significant sounds by inclining the mind to a certain mode of conceiving (animum inclinant ad quendam concipiendi modum; cf. also G 329, 29).
The same expression modus concipiendi is used in connection with the difference between a finite verb such as currit and a noun such as cursus. The verb and the noun denote the same thing, running, but the different mode of conceiving it causes a difference in the thought produced (diversus modus concipiendi variat intellectum). The distinction between parts of speech pertains to a difference in thought produced rather than to a difference of denotation (G 308, 25).
In D 124, 11, a distinction is made between the principal signification of a noun and its accidental significations, which have to do with the modes of signifying. The difference between singular and plural is said to be a difference of accidental signification. Differences in case and gender, on the other hand, are not related to any difference in signification, but only to the position which nouns can occupy in constructions (Cf. G 364, 2). Similarly, such pairs as comedere/vesci ('to eat') and carere/non habere ('to lack') have the same signification but they play different roles in constructions (D 125, .33; G 369, 27). The same is true of such forms as curro, curris, currit, curritur. They all have the same signification but the ways in which they are completed into a full propositio by the addition of such pronouns as ego, tu, tile, a me, a te, ab illo are different. In other words, differences in person are not connected with any difference in signification, whereas differences in number, tense, and mood are differences in (accidental) signification (G 138, 31)." pp. 139-142
(1)1 Edited by B. Geyer, Peter Abaelards philosophische Schriften, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophie and Theologie des Mittelalters XXI, 1-3, Münster, 1919-1927; I shall refer to this work by means of the letter G, followed by page and line.
(2) Edited by L.M. De Rijk, Assen, 1956 (revised edition 1970); I shall refer to this work by means of the letter D, followed by page and line.
I Abelard (D 112, 6; G 308, 11; G 357, 29) and others connect the phrase continuere intellectum with Aristotle, De int. 16 b 21: histesi -- ten dianoian had been translated by Boethius as constituit intellectum. They apparently took intellectum as referring to the hearer's thought.
From: Gabriel Nuchelmans - Theories of proposition. Ancient and medieval conceptions of the bearers of truth and falsity. Amsterdam : North-Holland 1973.
"With Abelard, the term 'copula' enters into western thought. In fact, although widely attested, the use of the term 'copula' in reference to Aristotle's work is totally anachronistic. (1)
What led to this term? In his Dialectica, Abelard was mainly concerned with the way syllogisms can be construed. The interest of the copula was in fact derivative from this main concern. As Kneale and Kneale (The development of logic, 1962: 206) put it, 'it is clear that for his [Aristotle's] theory of syllogism he assumes in every general proposition two terms of the same kind, that is to say, each capable of being a subject and each capable of being a predicate'. Thus, since the only linguistic entities that can play these two roles are nouns (in modern terms, noun phrases), it is easy to understand why the copula became central. Abelard pursued the Aristotelian theory by emphasizing the role of be as the element that can turn a noun into a predicate in a syllogism rather than as the element that provides the sentence with a time specification (see Dialectica: 161).
It is this conceptual shift that underlies the invention of the term 'copula', which is cast on the Latin copulare meaning 'to link'. For example, in sentences like a man is a mammal and Socrates is a man the copula allows the noun phrase a man to play the role of the subject, in the first, and that of the predicate, in the second.
Clearly, in such a framework the assumption that the copula can be interpreted as a predicate meaning 'existence' cannot be maintained (...). We have an explicit argument by Abelard to overcome this problem. Let us reproduce it synthetically as follows. A sentence like Socrates est (Socrates is), where est (is) just occurs with a subject, potentially undermines the theory of the 'copula' as link between a predicate and a subject like in Socrates est homo (Socrates is man). To avoid this inconsistency, Abelard appeals to a typical reductio ad absurdum (Dialectica) (1).
(1) See for example J. L. Ackrill's comment on De Interpretatione (Ackrill 1963). Aristotle always avoids employment of a special name for the copula: rather he refers to actual instances of 137, 162). We interpret Socrates est as meaning Socrates est ens (Socrates is existing, where ens is (the Nominative, singular form of) the present participle of esse, be). Suppose that est means est ens, that is, est is a predicate meaning existence. Then nothing would prevent a sentence like Socrates est ens from being interpreted as Socrates est ens ens, and that from being interpreted as Socrates est ens ens ens, etc., ad infinitum without reaching a stable meaning. (2) Thus, Abelard concludes, in the sentence Socrates est, the predicate of existence is just not expressed. (3) εἰναι (be). Not all translators seem to be aware of this fact. In the De Interpretatione (De Int. 3, 16b, 25), for example, Aristotle says that εἰναι προσσημαίνει δὲ σύνθεσίν τινα. Ackrill's translation says "but it additionally signifies some combination" (Ackrill 1963: 45). Cooke, instead, renders it as "but imply a copulation [sic] or synthesis" (Cooke 1938: 121).
Apart from the question related to the invention of the term 'copula', the term σύνθεσις (synthesis) employed here seems to imply that Aristotle already conceived εἰναι as a copula in the Abelardian sense. This possibility is excluded here, following Ackrill's hypothesis that in this passage Aristotle is not talking about "the copulative but about the existential is" (Ackrill 1963: 123).
(2) For a discussion on this matter see Kneale and Kneale (The development of logic, 1962) and Pinborg (Logik und Semantik im Mittelalter, 1972).
(3) Correspondingly, the common use of to be (or being) as a shortened form of to be (or being) existent is to be treated in the same way. The following passage pointed out to me by Giulio Lepschy illustrates the point: Dixit Deus ad Moysen: ego sum qui sum. Ait: sic dices filiis Israel: qui est, misit me ad vos (Exodus, III 14). From a linguistic point of view, however, this should not be surprising. A similar case is that of to do (or doing) as a shortened form of to do (or doing) something. Interestingly, the term 'existence' is not etymologically related to the copula essere / εἰναι but to a locative predicate sisto and a locative particle ek-.
From: Andrea Moro: The raising of predicates. Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure - Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 251-252.
"The distinction of nouns or names (a category that includes adjectives) from verbs was as much argued over in Abelard's day as in ancient times, and it provided Abelard with an entry to matters that lie at the heart of his philosophy. He rejects Aristotle's view that verbs differ from nouns in having a consignification of time, for he sees no reason not to ascribe a similar consignification to nouns:
For just as 'run' or 'running' indicate running in connection with a person as presently inhering in him. so 'white' determines whiteness in connection with a substance as presently inhering, for it is called white only because of present whiteness. (1)
Abelard is equally unhappy with the idea that verbs, as distinct from other parts of speech, signify only actions and passions, or what might better be called 'receptions' (passiones, i.e. the passive correlates of actions). This view runs afoul of the copula which although accepted as a verb can he used to 'join' (copulare) to its subject any sort of entity whatsoever.'(2)What distinguishes verbs, in Abelard's view, is that they provide the 'completeness of sense' (sensus perfectio) characteristic of whole sentences (orationes perfectae) as distinct from mere phrases (orationes imperfectae). What is the difference, he asks, between 'A man runs' and 'a running man'? Of constructions such as the latter he remarks:
But a completeness of sense has not yet been brought about in them; for when this expression has been uttered the mind of the hearer is suspended and desires to hear more in order to arrive at completeness of sense, for example. 'is' or some other acceptable verb. For without a verb there is no completeness of sense.' (3)
Verbs can perform this function because they propose the inherence of what they signify in the subject.
Thus we see that this completeness of sense depends mainly on verbs, since only by them is inherence of something in something indicated in a manner expressive of different mental states; without this inherence there is no completeness of sense. When I say 'Come to me' or 'If only you would come to me', in a way I propound the inherence of coming to me in a manner expressive of my order or my desire; in the one case I order that coming should belong to him, in the other I have a desire, namely, that he come.' (4)
The talk of 'inherence', however, must be treated delicately, for it is not Abelard's view that any verb, even the copula, signifies some relational property of inherence. Rather verbs generally signify that which 'inheres', while the copula, according to one of Abelard's accounts of it, signifies nothing at all. If any verb were to signify 'inherence', then it would be unable to perform the 'linking' function, i.e., the function of the copula, which is to 'link' what the predicate signifies to the subject. 'Runs' signifies running and 'links' it as well. The copula 'is' really expresses just this linking function implicit in all verbs; if it were to signify anything on its own it could no more take a predicate noun or adjective and link its significate to a subject than can 'runs'. (5)
This view is taken still further when Abelard separates 'to be' used as a copula from 'to be' used to mean 'to exist'. If the separation is not made we have problems with sentences such as 'Homer is a poet' and 'A chimera is conceivable', where the subjects are non-existent or even impossible. Abelard's solution is to treat the whole phrase consisting of copula plus predicate noun or adjective as a single verb-phrase and in this way eliminate any idea that 'to be' on its own is predicated of the subject.
Thus it seems to me if I may dare to speak freely, that it would be more rational and satisfying to reason that ... we understand as a single verb 'to be a man' or 'to be white' or 'to be conceivable'. Aristotle indeed says that in 'Homer is a poet-to be' is predicated per accidens, i.e., 'to be' is predicated accidentally of Homer in that the poem belongs to him, but it is not predicated per se of Homer that he is. But since 'to be', as was said, is not a verbal unit, to be predicated per accidens is not to be predicated; rather 'to be' is part of the predicate."
Abelard in effect wants us to treat the copula as what a modem grammarian would call an auxiliary, and indeed Abelard draws support for his view from the implausibility of dividing up 'erit sedens' (will be sitting) into two parts, because of the conflict of tenses between auxiliary and participle."
The copula, then, turns out to be a verb-phrase-maker, taking as complements nouns, participles, and whole clauses and turning them into verb phrases. But the process should not be thought to leave the complement with the same meaning it has in isolation, for this leads to logical absurdities. As we have seen, the noun following the copula has in isolation a tense of its own (generally the present), and this can conflict with the tense of the copula. For example, 'This old man was a boy' will be necessarily false if we treat 'boy' as retaining its signification of present time, for then the sentence is equivalent to 'This old man was one of those who is presently a boy." What we must do, Abelard says, is treat the whole copula plus predicate noun as a single verb having the tense of the copula. He shows how only in this way can the rules of conversion and syllogistic inference be made to apply to sentences with verbs in tenses other than the present.' (6)
(1) Abelard, Dialectica p. 122.22-5
(2) Ibid., 130.32 - 131.7
(3) Ibid., 148.26-30
(4) Ibid., 149.20-6
(5) See Abelard 1919-1927 p. 362.25-9
(6) Abelard, Dialectica p. 138.11-22
From: Martin Tweedale - Abelard and the culmination of the old logic. In The Cambridge history of Later Medieval philosophy: from the rediscovery of Aristotle to the disintegration of Scholasticism, 1100-1600. Edited by Kretzmann Norman, Kenny Anthony, and Pinborg Jan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1982. pp. 144-146 (Latin text in the notes omitted).
"Before embarking on a discussion of Abelard's views on sentential predication and the role of the copula, it seems useful to summarize our author's basic views on the noun and verb.
(1) 'Nomen' (noun, name) is defined (in the Aristotelian-Boethian tradition) as 'a spoken sound having a signification by convention, without the notion of time, of which no parts are meaningful in separation' (Dialectica 121,28-9; cf. 129,4-5 and Glosses in Peri hermeneias 334,18ff.). It should be borne in mind that like the Ancients the Medievals too, were in the constant habit of not sharply distinguishing between a noun's (or verb's or any other significative expression's) significate and the 'thing' (whether substantial or accidental) signified in the outside world. (1)
(2) Verbum ('verb') is defined (Dialectica 129,11-3) as: 'a spoken sound, having a signification by convention, which, in its finite forms, is designative of the present time, of which no part have meaning in separation'.
(3) As a logician Abelard is quite explicit throughout his works about the semantic difference between categorematic words (nouns and verbs) and syncategorematic ones (prepositions, conjunctions etc.). As to the differences between the noun and verb his opinions are less stable, it seems. So much seems to be certain, on the semantic level Abelard recognizes a close affinity between the noun and verb as, in his opinion, they are just various tools to convey identical sememes [so e.g. 'cursus' ('course') and 'currere' ('to run')], whereas they only differ by the different ways in which they convey the common sememe ('modus significandi').
(4) Both nouns and verbs have the job of naming and determining, whereby the difference between 'naming' and 'determining' is only of a syntactic nature, it seems. On the level of naming and determining (onomazein-level), the noun and verb convey, each in their own ways (nominally or verbally, respectively), some semantic content ('sememe'). By this, they constitute some 'idea' ('conceptio', 'conceptus', 'intellectus') in somebody's mind (the speaker's or the hearer's that is), but still without conveying any complete thought or sense.
(5) Contrariwise, on the level of 'statement-making' (legein level) the (finite) verb when actually used (2) comes to be really 'statement making', to the extent indeed that it performs this job together with some noun(s) but nonetheless being itself the statement-maker, properly speaking."
(1) For this phenomenon, see e.g. De Rijk - Plato's Sophist. A philosophical commentary - Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1986, Index, s.v. Name. For Peter Abelard, see e.g. Glosses in Peri hermeneias 126,35-127,13; Dialectica 564,6-9 and all the passages in which he explains the significatio rerum (vs. intellectuum). The distinction always concerns the opposition of res significata to intellectus significans res, rather than the intellectus as such.
(2) For this condition, see N. Kretzmann - The culmination of the Old Logic in Peter Abelard - p. 495, n. 33, cf. De Rijk Plato's Sophist. A philosophical commentary 15.23. 15.32 and 16.4 and below p. 101
From: L. M. de Rijk - "Peter Abelard's semantics and his doctrine of Being" Vivarium 24: 85-127 (1986). pp. 98-99
Medieval Latin Logic from Boethius to 1400 ca.
Medieval Theories of Supposition (Reference) and Mental Language (with an annotated bibliography on the medieval theory of supposition)
An annotated bibliography on the history of the Problem of Universals
Annotated bibliography of L. M. de Rijk
Three sites (currently under development) which will be devoted to studies on Ontology in Italian, French and German:
Teoria e Storia dell'Ontologia
Théorie et Histoire de l'Ontologie
Theorie und Geschichte der Ontologie
Mobile version of this site for phone and laptop users:
Theory and History of Ontology (Mobile version)
The PDF version of all the pages is also available:
Theory and History of Ontology (PDF version)