Skip to main content

Understanding the Semantics of “Relativa Grammaticalia” some Medieval Logicians on Anaphoric Pronouns

  • Chapter
Reference and Anaphoric Relations

Part of the book series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ((SLAP,volume 72))

Abstract

When in the early nineteen-sixties Geach presented his by now well known theory of the semantic roles of anaphoric pronouns, he did something quite unusual in those days: time and again he critically referred to certain medieval approaches to the same subject. He thought, apparently, that these sophisticated approaches showed the enormous difficulties a coreferential approach was bound to lead into. Geach (1960) even went so far as to claim sweepingly that “the medievals who discussed relativa — pronouns with antecedents — were groping in the dark despite all their ingenuity.” It is one of the ironies of the history of philosophy that one such medieval theory — to be found in the fourteenth-century philosopher Buridan and his pupils (though foreshadowed a century earlier) — has now raised his head again in the work of Gareth Evans — this time against Geach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abaelardus, Petrus 1958. Twelfth Century Logic Texts and Studies II. Abaelardiana Inedita. Ed. by L. Minio-Paluello. Roma: Edizione di Storia e Letteratura.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, E. 1973. Priority of Analysis and Merely Confused Supposition. Franciscan Studies 33, 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. 1972. Walter Burleigh’s ‘Treatise de suppositionibus’ and its Influence of William of Ockham. Franciscan Studies 32, 15–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burleigh, Walter [Burlaeus, Gualterus] 1955. De Puritate Artis Logicae Tractatus Longior. Ed. by P. Boehner. St. Bonaventure/NY: Franciscan Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbesen, S. 1981. Early Supposition Theory (12th-13th century). Histoire, Epistemologie, Langage 3, 5–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, M. J. 1978. Ockham’s Implicit Priority of Analysis Rule? Franciscan Studies 38, 213–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geach, P. 1960-1961. Ryle on Namely-Riders. Analysis 21, 88–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hülsen, R. 1994. Zur Semantik anaphorischer Pronomina: Untersuchungen scholastischer und moderner Theorien. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil, H. (ed.) 1855. Grammatici Latini. Vol. 2: Priscianus (Caesariensis): Institutiones grammaticae 1, Books I-XII. Leipzig: Teubner. Reprint: Hildesheim: Olms (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneepkens, C. 1976. ‘Mulier Quae Damnavit, Salvavit’. A Note on the Early Development of the Relatio simplex. Vivarium 14, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneepkens, C. 1977. The Relatio simplex in the Grammatical Tracts of the Late Twelfth and Early Thirteenth Century. Vivarium 15, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loux, M. 1974. Ockham’s Theory of Terms. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarry, D. 1971 The Metalogicon of John of Salisbury: A Twelfth-Century Defense of the Verbal and Logical Arts of the Trivium. Translated by D. McGarry. Gloucester/MA: Smith.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ockham, William of [Guilelmus de] 1974. Summa Logicae. Ed. by P. Boehner & G. Gál & S. Brown. St. Bonaventure/NY: Franciscan Institute Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G. & Read, S. 1980. Merely Confused Supposition: A Theoretical Advance or a Mere Confusion? Franciscan Studies 40, 265–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reina, M. 1957. Giovanni Buridano: Tractatus de Suppositionibus. Rivista Critica di storia delta Filosofia 12, 175–208; 323-352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury, John of 1929. Ioannes Saresberiensis Episcopi Carnotensis Metalogicon Libri IIII. Recognovit et prolegomenis, apparatu critico, commentario, indicibus instruxit Clement Charles Julian Webb. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spade, P. 1976. Priority of Analysis and the Predicates of “0”-Form Sentences. Franciscan Studies 36, 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hülsen, R. (2000). Understanding the Semantics of “Relativa Grammaticalia” some Medieval Logicians on Anaphoric Pronouns. In: von Heusinger, K., Egli, U. (eds) Reference and Anaphoric Relations. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 72. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3947-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3947-2_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0291-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-3947-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics