The Semiotic Aspects of Sanctius' Minerva

8/12/2019 The Semiotic Aspects of Sanctius' Minerva

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-semiotic-aspects-of-sanctius-minerva 1/10

Manuel Breva Claramonte

The Semiotic aspects of Sanctius' MinervaIn: Bulletin de l'Association d'étude sur l'humanisme, la réforme et la renaissance. N°15, 1982. pp. 56-64.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Breva Claramonte Manuel. The Semiotic aspects of Sanctius' Minerva. In: Bulletin de l'Association d'étude sur l'humanisme, la

réforme et la renaissance. N°15, 1982. pp. 56-64.

doi : 10.3406/rhren.1982.1292

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rhren_0181-6799_1982_num_15_1_1292

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rhren_139

http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rhren.1982.1292



http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rhren.1982.1292

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rhren_139



56

THESEMIOTICASPECTSOFSAXCTIUS*MINERVA

0.0 — INTRODUCTION.The purpose of this paper is to delineateSanctius'views on signs.A number ofstudieson Sanctius'linguisticprinciples (cf.Garcia I960,Breva1975and 1981, Viljamaa 1976,and Clerico1977and 1981)havebeen made,buttheseworksdevote little spaceto the topic of the signin theMinerva(1).Consequently,it is quite relevantfor linguistichistoriography withinthe Renaissanceperiod to reconstruct he semiotic aspects of the Minerva.To achieve this goal those passageswhereSanctius madea direct mentionof signsand those where thereferenceis implicit havebeen set aside and carefullyanalyzed.The paper has been divided into three unequalparts. The first coversthe historicalbackgroundleadingto Sanctius.The second,by farthe longest,focuses onSanctius'views onsigns.Finally,the third suggestshis possible

influenceon seventeenthandeighteenthcenturyscholars.

1.0 - HISTORICALBACKGROUNDBeforewe approach the study ofSanctius, it would be useful to providea brief accountof the fieldof semioticspreceding nd surroundinghis time (2).Weknowthat thereexisteda seriesof treatiseson gesture languageduring theGraeco-Romanperiod (seeRomeo 1978: 356 and cf. Know-lson 1975 : 211 and 215), whose contents have notbeen investigatedso far. Sporadicresearchcoveringnon-spoken languagein the MiddleAges hasbeen carriedout by severalscholars(cf. Sulowski1973 for Bede'sDe loqueladigitorum).Udalricusof Bamberg,aBenedictinemonk wholivedin the earlypart of the twelfthcentury,collectedrecordsonthe «hand languages»of Medievalmonasticallife (cf.Migne1882,CXLIX: 635, Stokoe1978, and Romeo1979).Investigationon the more specificarea of the linguisticsignmay be found in Chevalier(1968),Bursill-Hall(1971and 1972),and Stéfanini(1973).Stéfanini (1973 : 266-264)quite correctlyindicatesthat in Modistictheory the parts ofspeech are believed to have counterpartsin extralinguistic reality.As Plato (cf. the o

phist 261c-262e,in Jowett 1953, Vol. 3) had claimed,in languagethere is a contrastbetween nounsand verbs since in the worlda dichotomy exists between permanentobjects and events.Furthermore,universalgrammariansin the MiddleAges consideredlanguageas the mirror of our thoughts.AristotlealsoinfluencedModistictheorywith r egard to hisanalysisof men tal,spoken,and writtensigns.

In Renaissancesemiotics,Pedro daFonseca(1528-1599),

a contemporary ofSanctius, servesto illustratethe concernsof semioticistsin that period.In addition, hisviews(seeHerculanode Carvalho1970-1973and cf. Romeo1979),overlappingat timeswith those of Sanctius, throwsome light on the latter s ideason signs.It is easilydiscerniblethat da Fonsecais indebted to Aristotle(cf.Deinterpretation, Chap. 1, in Ross1928, Vol.1), although he addsnewinsightsinto the Greekphilosopher'sconsiderationson signs.Da Fonsecafocuses on the studyofinstrumental, natural,conventional^andimproper,signs. Instrumentalsigns are indicators whichlead to the cognition of something else ; examplesmay be seen in spokenand writtenwords. Naturalsignsare thosewhichsignify the samething toeverybody. Thus,a groanis a signof pain whereasa laughis an expressionof joy. Conventionalsignsare those whichsignifyaccordingto men's

will, as if by agreement.Some signify by impositionas in vocal symbols and writing.Others signifythroughtradition and usageas whenmerchandiseis displayedin shop win-



57

dows indicatingitems for sale.Impropersigns( Tf o io/1 in Greek) refer to those wordswhich haveundergone changesfrom the time of their originalimposition. Finally,concepts are naturalsignswhichsignify.In fact, conceptsare the samefor everyone,i.e.,bynature they mean the samething to everyone; but spokenand writtenwordsare not so.

The definition ofconceptsas naturalsignsis one of the mainassumptionsof Sanctius'linguisticstheory. However,Sanctiusidentifiesas natural not onlythe conceptsbehindwords but also the linguisticexpressionsof those concepts and their properties.Afterthis brief historicalreview,helpfulin placingSanctius'ideasin their propercontext, hisMinervawillbeanalyzedin some detail.

2.0. SANCTIUS'VIEWSONSIGNS. In the Minervathe studyof signsis notlimitedto considerationson humanlanguage sinceit alsoextends to the broader areaofnon-human communication.He examinesthe signsutilized by both humanbeingsntndanimalsin order tocommunicateand expressesthisnotion by wordssuchas nota,signutn,declaratio, vox,simulachrum, and imago.Heapparentlydistinguishesbetweenthree maintypes : interjectional,gestural,and linguisticor rationalsigns.Thismajorclassificationwillbe discussedbelow.

2.1. Interjectionaland gesturalsigns.Interjectionalsignsare both human andnon-human in that they are used by menand animalsalike. Their main characteristicisthat they are non-rational,in addition to the factthat theyare inarticulatesoundswhichare not expressibleby means of voces. Sanctiusbelievesthat interjectionsshouldnot beincludedwithin the parts of speech,becausewhat is natural (i.e.,irrational)signifies thesame thing for all beings.Indeed,groansand signsof happinessare the samefor all, therefore hey are naturalsigns(1587, Book1, Chap.2 : llr . Interjectionsare neitherGreeknor Latin words, evenif they are written with Latin or Greek letters ; they are signs,foundalso in birds and quadrupeds,which arenot capableof utteringany word(vox)orsentence (3).Finally, Sanctius(1587,Book1, Chap.17:43 and Book2 Chap.6:54v)ex

plains that interjections(e.g.,en, ecce,o, heus),whichgenerallyare abruptly interposedin the speechchain,areincapableof governingcases.Forinstance,the particleo doesnotgovernthe vocative,for it is simplyan exclamatorysign.

Gesticulationas a means of communicationis mentioned by Sanctiusin Book4:236v-237r.Heexaminesthe wordpax whichoccurs bothin Greekand Latin, butwithtwo differentmeanings.Thus, in Greekpax is an adverbindicating silencewhenthe finger is placedto the mouth and not of admirationas some believe. However,in Latinpox

may be translatedas peace*.Furthermore,gesticulation and intonationas devicesfor conveying messagesare discussedin his treatmentof antiphrasis. Antiphrasis(1587, Book4:250v-251)is a certain form of irony whichconsistsin negatingwhat oughtto be af

firmed as in non mihidisplicet for placet.Anotherexamplecan be found in Terence's«Ehodumbonevir», i.e.tpessime,where thecontraryis suggestedthroughintonationandgestures.The semantic valueof those expressionshas nothingto do with the originali m

position of names onobjects,but depends ontropesor impropersigns,sinceit would befoolishto inventsigns bymeans of their oppositemeaning.Theseintonational and gestural patternsbecomepart of language asthe resultof traditionalusage.

2.2. Linguisticsigns. Sanctius(1587, Book1, Chap.1 and Book3, Chap. 1)seeksto uncover the relationshipbetweenlanguage andrealityby reconstructingthe causesof the Latin language,i.e., the originalor logicallanguage,becauseit is at the incep-



58

tion stagethat languagemirrorsnature.The linguisticsignis naturalby virtueof the factthat it comesout of man'sreason.Asa reasoninganimal, manwillnot engineer,utter, ordo anythingwithoutreason and logic.The questionarisesas to howone shouldinterpretSânctius'viewthat linguisticsignsare natural.He seemsto suggestthat wordsrepresent

the basic conceptsof realityand includegrammaticalmarkers toshowthe propertiesofobjects in the real world. Similarly, syntaxrevealshowobjectsrelateto one anotherandhelps to join together agents,actions,and receiversof actions. In what follows, wewillclarify his notion of 'naturalness' with regard to both the wordand the sentence andwill explainhow his conceptionof linguisticsignhas importantconsequencesfor hisla nguageanalysis.

2.2.1. The word. At timesSanctiusdoesnot distinguishbetween vocesanddictiones. Forinstance,he (1587,Book1, Chap. 2)states that sentencesare madeofvocal signs{ex vocibus)or words(vel dictionibus).But at other timesthe vox is thesignifiant(1587,,Book4:233v).The ideasin the mindof the speakerare communicatedby oralor articulated signs(voces),which incidentally contrastwith thegroansand noisesmadeby beastsandanimals.

Sanctius(1587,Book1, Chaps.1 and 2, and cf. Book3, Chap.1) is helpedbyhis notion 'naturalness' to obtain the partsof speech. Nouns andverbssymbolize, respectively, the permanentand flowingthings of reality, while particlesare connective e l

ements(causarumratio) for nouns, verbs,and sentences.Thistripartitedivision,basedonthe concepts behind vocalsigns, is commonto all languages andis supportedby Plato,Aristotle, Plutarch,Quintilian, andSaintAugustine.In Sanctius' opinion(1587,Book4:234), Aristotle's conventionis reasonedand thereforeboth Plato'sand Aristotle'sideas

on the originof linguisticsignsare similar.Sanctius assumptionthat grammaticalmarkersexhibitthe propertiesof things

in the real world maybe exemplifiedin the descriptionof case. He(1587, Book1, Chap.6) writes thatnature hasestablishedsix partsin everynoun, whichshowthe wayobjectsrelate to one another. Sincesucha divisionof casesis natural, it wouldbe necessaryforall languagesto possessthis samenumber.Evenif languageshavefeweror morecasesinterms of markers/he arguesthat at the originalor logicallevelthey all havesix cases.Quintilianhad maintained that a seventh case existedin Latin, butSanctiusrepliesthatQuintilian'sseventhcaseshouldbe includedwithin the sixth or the ablative..Quintiliandid notobservethat the sixth casedependson a covertor oyertpreposition andthat the

meaningchanges in accordancewith thepreposition. In a similarvein, he attemptstoprove that Greekdoes not lack a sixth case. Whathappensin Greekis that the dativemarker is used for semanticnotions expressedby thesixth case.In fact, in all languagesthe dative only servesto signify acquisition,thereforeit cannot indicate price,matter,and place.He concludesthat his argumentmay be strengthenedby scoresof examplesfrom Ciceroin whichLatin adjectivesin the sixth casearefoundwith Greeknounsas in(Epistulaead Atticum, Book16, Letter 8),«Nunquamin majore o^T»f«-otfui», and inexampleswhereLatinprepositionsgoverningthe sixthcaseappearwith Greeknouns asin (Epistulaead Atticum,Book4) «/» iro* -x t<-d » (4)

2.2.2. The sentence. DespiteSanctius'presentationof the configurationofwordsin isolation,his feeling,basedon semanticgrounds,is that thesentenceis the only



59

real unit of grammar,all otherdivisionsbeinginadequate.In the Sophist,Plato explainsthis point when he maintainsthat a successionof nouns alone(like leo, cervus,equus)neverform a sentence- similarlywhenone saysambulat, currit, dormit,no completesentence is produced.From all this Sanctiusdrawsthe conclusionthat theverbitselfis s imply a word with no semantic valueunlessit is accompaniedby a supposition either ex

pressed or understood.Thisview,whichhad alsobeen held by such ancient scholarsasAristotle and Quintilian,explainswhy for Sanctius the main goal of grammarcentersaround the study of the well-formedsentence (cf. 1587,Book1, Chap.2 and Book3,Chap. 1).

In his effort to show the constituentsof the logicalsentence, Sanctius(1587,Book 3, Chaps.2 and 3), followingphilosophicalstatementsfromAristotle andScaliger,only accepts active(i.e., transitive)and passiveverbs.Philosophyproves that if one en

tity acts, it mustact on something; thus if one lives,one must livea life. The implicat i on s that any sentence contains no less than three elements: the one whoacts, the

activity, and the thing acted upon. The grammaticalcorollary of his doctrine(1587,Book 3, Chap. 1) is that curro and vivo are describedrespectively ascurro cursumandvivovitamwhilein cutritur, cursusis understood, and in sedetur,sessio.

The significance of assuming thatthe sentence is the basic unit of grammarhas consequencesin his analysisof particles.It is argued(1587, Book2, Chaps.2 and 6,and Book4, On Ellipsisof Verbs) that the particleo governsthree cases,but, in Sanctius'opinion, it doesnot governany. In o Pamphile,the vocativedoesnot requireany particlebecauseall constructed sentencesare directedto avocative.Withthe nominativeand theaccusative,as in o vir fortis atqueamicusand o curashominum, it is a sign of exclamation nd either the verbaudio or narro is missing(5).As maybë noted,he proposeshis

originalor logicalstructureson criteriaof 'naturalness', meaning,and philosophy.Sincethe sentenceas a linguisticsign is natural(in a rationalsense),it willsharesimilarunderlying tructuresand rulesin the variouslanguagesof the world.

3.0. THEMINERVAANDITSINFLUENCE.It is commonknowledgethatScaliger'sand Sanctius'workshad a bearingon the developmentof universalgrammarinthe seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies.Ideason the linguisticsign outlinedin this p aper reemergedin the Port-Royalgrammar(1660)via Claude Lancelotand in the Grammaire générale(1767)of NicolasBeauzée.Sincethis topic has been touchedupon, (seeChevalier 1968, Breva1978 and 1980,and Clerico1981),there is no need to reiterateideasalreadyknown.

A connectionseemingly existsbetween sixteenth centurytheoryand attemptsto reduce language.to reason onthe one hand,and the wayscholarsviewedthe problemof mutismon the other (cf.Read 1977: 303 and 306).Juan Pablo Bonet(1579-1633)wrote a treatisefor teachingthe deaf to communicatethrough writing, speaking,andgestures (6). Bonet (1930)mentionsSanctius with regardto the universalityof thetripartite division of the parts of speechand discreditsnaturalistviewsconcerningthespoken languagesincethe idea of an'infused or natural languageis only acceptableforAdam. This position is quite similar tothat of Sanctius.However,the maindifferencebetween the two scholarslies in the fact that Sanctius'logicallanguage correspondsto

the gestures ofthe deaf in Bonet. Bonetbelievesthat the gestures ofthe deaf form thenatural languageof mankindand could providean admirableuniversallanguage.Thisis



60

supported by the fact that if deaf-mutes meetfor the first time, they understand eachother by the use of the same signs(cf. Knowlson1975:216and Read 1977:308)(7).Sanctius theoretical views apparentlyinfluencedthe studyof gesturein Bonet and possibly in someof his followers.

4.0. CLOSINGREMARKS.In the Minervaand consequentlyin this study,the term natural has beenusedambiguously,somethingwhichcouldcreatesomeconfusion n the mind ofthe reader.WhenSanctiusmaintainsthat interjectionsare natural,hedenotes what is instinctiveand animal-like(cf. Sanchez1919:13-14).This meaning ofnaturalequallyextends to human beingsinsofaras theyperformactions outsidethe control of reason. Interjectionsare producedspontaneously andwithoutdeliberation.Howeve r atural is also employedto suggestthe generalpropertiesof the logicallanguageofmankind. The ambiguitystems from the very definitionof natural sign, i.e., the onewhichsignifies thesameto everyone.Interjectionsarenaturalin that they mean the sameto animalsand human beingsalike, whilehuman languagesare natural(i.e.,rational)b ecause they share similargrammaticalfeatures,syntacticproperties,and an identical se

mantic universesincethey alloriginatein ourreasoningcapacity.

It is easilydiscerniblethat Sanctiusis not a semioticistin the full senseof theword,indeed he does not focus exclusivelyon the description ofsigns.His mainpurposein composingthe Minerva is grammaticaltheory and its philosophicaland pedagogicalimplications. Nonetheless,his analysisof particularlanguages dependsuponhis concept ion f signsand his specificlinguistictheorizingrestsupon the broader knowledgeprovided by the fieldof semiotics.It is this aspectof his workthat makes the topic of thispaperrelevantfor both semiotics andlinguistichistoriography.

ManuelBREVACLARAMONTEUniversitéde Deusto-Bilbao

NOTES

1 — Breva(1978),however,does compare somecharacteristicsof the linguisticsignin Sanctius and

the Port-Royalgrammar.2 — Fora summaryof the field ofsemiotics,consultCalabreseandMucci(1975207-291).

3 — OnthissubjectSanctiuscoincideswithVallaandScaliger.

4 — In the studyof genderwe findanotherinstancewhereSanctius languagedataanalysisis affectedby hisstatementthat the linguisticsignisnatural(see1587,Book1 Chap.7 andBook2, Chap.1).

5 — Someanalysesare moreinvolvedandwouldmakethispaper unduly long.However, an additionalexamplecouldbe mentionedin which, followingPriscian,pudetme tut is derivedfrompudorhabet metui (1587,Book2, Chap.3).



61

6 — For someof his ideas,Bonet(cf.Navarro1924)drawsuponFray PedroPoncede Leon(1520-1584),ManuelRamirezde Carrion(1584-1650),and probablyFrayMelchorde Yebra (1526-1586).

7 — It should be emphasizedthat the schematic presentationof the relationshipbetweenSanctiusdoctrineandgesturelanguageisquitetentative.Thisareais inneedof further research.

REFERENCES

Bonet, Juan Pablo.1930 1620] Reduccionde las letrasy artepara ensenara hablarlosmudos. Nuevaedicion anotada, comentaday precedidade un estudio criticobio-graficosobreJuan Pablo Bonety su obra por Jacobo OrellanaGarridoy LorenzoGascon Portero.Madrid: FranciscoBeltran, LibreriaEspanolay Extranjera.

Breva-Claramonte,Manuel.1975. «Sanctius'Minervaof 1562 and the evolutionof hislinguistictheory». HistoriographiaLinguistica2.49-66.

1978. «Thesign and the notion of 'generalgrammarin Sanctiusand Port-Royal».Review of Jacques Rieux and BernardE. Rollin 1975.Semiotica24.353-370.

1980. «La teoria gramaticaldel Brocenseen los siglosXVIIy XVIII».RevistaEspanolade Linguistica10.351-371.

198.1.Sanctius'theory of language: A contribution to the history of Renaissancelinguistics.(Studiesin the History ofLinguistics,27). Amsgerdam: John Benjamins B.V. (Revisedversionof Ph.D.dissertation submittedat the UniversityofColorado,1975).

Bursill-Hall, GeoffreyL. 1971.Speculativegrammarsof theMiddleAges.Thedoctrineofpartes orationis of the modistae.(Approachesto Semiotics,11).TheHague: Mouton.

1972. Grammaticaspeculativa of Thomasof Erfurt. An edition with translationand commentary. London: Longman

Calabrese,Omar and Egidio Mucci.1975.Guidaa la semiotica.(SansoniUniversita).Firenze : Sansoni.

Chevalier,Jean-Claude.1968.Histoirede la syntaxe : naissancede la notion de complément ans la grammairefrançaise (1530-1750).(PublicationsRomaneset Françaises 00).Genève:Droz.

Clerico,Geneviève.1977.«F. Sanctius : histoired'une réhabilitation».In Joly and Stéfa-

nini. 125-143.



62

1981.Sanctius: Minerveou lescausesde la langue latine. Traduction, introductionet notes.Villeneuve-d'Ascq:Publicationsde l Universitéde LilleIII.

Garcia, Constantino.1960.«Contribuciona la historiade losconceptosgramaticales.Laaportaciondel Brocense».Madrid: ConsejoSuperior deInvestigacionesCientificas.Revistade FilologiaEspanola.Anejo71.

Herculanode Carvalho,JoséG. 1970-1973,Teoria da linguagem.Naturezado fenomenolinguisticoea analisedaslinguas. 2 vols.Coimbra: Atlântida.

Joly, Andréet JeanStéfanini.1977.Lagrammairegénérale.Dèsmodistesauxidéologues.Villeneuved'Ascq: Publicationsde l Universitéde LilleIII.

Jowett, B. (ed).1953 1871 The dialoguesofPlato.Translatedinto Englishwith analys e s nd introductions.4 vols.,fourth edition.Oxford : ClarendonPress.

Knowlson,James. 1975.Universallanguage schemesin Englandand France,1600-1800.Toronto Buffalo: Univ.of TorontoPress.(AppendixA, pp. 211-223,appearedoriginallyin 1965as«Theideaof gestureas auniversallanguagein the XVIIth andXVIIIthcenturies».Journal of the Historyof deas 26.495-508).

Migne,J-P. 1882.Patrologiaecursus completus.SeriesLatina. 221vols. Parish s: ApudGamierFratres,editores.

NavarroTomas,Tomas.1924.«ManuelRamirez deCarriony el artede ensenara hablaralos mudos.Datospara la historiade la culturaespanola».Revistade FilologiaEspanola11.225-266.

Read, Malcolm K.1977.«Linguistictheoryand the problemof mutism.The contributionof JuanPablo Bonetand LorenzoHervasy Panduro».HistoriograpbiaLinguistica4.303-318.

Rieux, Jacquesand BernardE. Rollin (eds.and trans.).1975.Arnauldand Lancelot:Generaland rationalgrammar: ThePort-Royalgrammar.(Janua Linguarum, SeriesMinor,208).TheHague: Mouton.

Romeo,Luigi.1978.«Fora medievalhistoryof gesturecommunication».SignLanguageStudies21.353-380.

1979. «Pedroda Fonsecain Renaissance semiotics». ArsSemeiotica2. 187-204.

Ross, WilliamDavid(éd.). 1908-1952.The worksof Aristotle translated into English.12 vols.Oxford : ClarendonPress.

SanchezBarrado, Moisés.1919. «Estudiossobreel Brocense».Revista CriticaHispano-Americana5.5-24.

Sanctius, Franciscus.1587.Minervaseu de causislinguaeLatinae.Salmanticae: ApudJoannem AndraeamRenaut,fratres.





64

H. LEWICKA— Est-ceque vouscroyezqueSanctiusa eu l'intuition de ceque letexte est une structurede surface,alorsque les «signesnaturels»qui représententlescatégoriesuniversellesde la pensée«cas» (ausens fillmorien) etc., sontune structuresémantique sous-jacente?Evidemmentces termessont trop modernespour Sanctius,maislefait est qu'on/voit chezlui des germesde la grammairegénéraleàla mode actuellement.Eneffet, commel'a indiquéM.STEFANINI,il se situeentre lestraitésmédiévaux«Demodissigniftcandi»et lagrammairede Port-Royal.

M. BREVACLARAMONTË— In the area of language,Sanctiusdistinguishes,at least,between two types of natural signs : logical structures(withregard to both the word and the sentence) and semanticstructures. The formerare the linguisticmirror of the latter.Thesemanti c tructure or meaningis naturalin that it is the samefor all man

kind (cf. Aristotle'sDeinterpretatione,Chap.1) and logicalstructures are naturalbecausethey are similarin the various languagesof the world. To clarifythis point,it appears appropriateto examine the analysisof case madeby Sanctius. He(1587,Book 1,Chap.6) writes thatnature hasestablishedsix partsin everynoun,whichshow the way objectsrelate to one another. For instance,the genitiveindicates possession,the dativemarks the endor goalof the action. Sincesucha division ofcasesis natural,if wouldbenecessaryfor all languagesto possessthis samenumber.This statementis true at thesemanticlevelor its syntactic counterpart,i.e.,the logicallevel. Thisis the reasonhe arguesthat evenit languageshave feweror morecasesin termsof markers,they allhavesix ca

ses in terms of meaning.For logicalor underlyingstructure he(Book4:165r)employs the expression «tospeakgrammatically»while«to speak Latin» wouldcorrespondto surfacestructure.Heclaims that ego vivo vitam is the logical structureof vivowhichwith two elementsdeleted constitutesthe surface structure.Theway to passfrom the underlyinglevelto the levelof speechis bymeansof figuresof speech, especiallyellipsis.CharlesFillmores notion of case(seeFillmore1968)is moreempirical and morewell-defined thanthat of Sanctius ; however,bothscholarscoincidewhenthey characterizecasein semantic anduniversal termsat the underlyinglevel.

Finally, the differencebetweenModisticand Sanctiangrammaristhat the formergoesdirectlyfrom universalsemantics(the modisignificandt)to surfacestructure(i.e.,the manisfationof the modisigniftcandiin language).In Sanctius, universalmeaning(e.g.,doerof action, action,objectactedupon)is representedin language bya logicalstructure,whichin turn becomessurfacestructureby theapplicationof devicessuchas ellipsis,addition, transposition,andpermutation. These devices playpractically no role in Modistic

grammar.

Documents

The Semiotic Aspects of Sanctius' Minerva