Abstract

In the late Middle Ages there appeared certain grammarians called the "modistae". Questions about the beauty and rationality of language struck these grammarians with a fresh force and set them thinking about how words have meaning and about the causes of the grammatical structure of language. In the last hundred years there has been a revival of interest in the doctrine of these grammarians. As a result of this, a number of issues have come to be associated with the modistae's grammatical doctrine and a number of conclusions about that doctrine have been generally accepted. For example, it is often thought that the modistae considered grammar to be productive of scientific knowledge just as mathematics is. One also hears it commonly said that the modistae maintained that grammar is an autonomous and independent science in the way that speculative sciences like natural philosophy, mathematics, and metaphysics are. Or again, it is routinely claimed that the modistae taught that there are linguistic universals and that they tried to identify what these are. ;This study deals with these and other matters that touch on the larger questions about the modistae's understanding of grammar, namely, what on their views are the principles of grammar, its subject matter, its end or purpose, its method, its relationship to other branches of knowledge, and its underlying assumptions. It tests the acceptability of the received, scholarly opinion, and it does so by checking three grammars by three of the best modistae for what they have to say. The three considered are by Boethius of Dacia, Radulphus Brito, and Thomas of Erfurt. ;In the end, it seems that one must conclude that the modistae's thought has been misstated and misunderstood by many. What they teach is far more sensible than is often admitted, and they provide a clear and simple account of many of the fundamental questions about the nature of language. Moreover, because the modistae keep close to common experience, their thought is a sound starting point for reflection on language and grammar. Although their approach to a philosophy of grammar may not be the most profound, it seems that a fuller and deeper account should appreciate what is right in theirs before going beyond it