The Role of ‘Denotatur’ in Ockham’s Theory of Supposition

Catarina Dutilh Novaes University of Groningen

Abstract In the scholarship on medieval logic and semantics of the last decades, Ockham’s the- ory of supposition is probably the most extensively studied version of such theories; yet, it seems that we still do not fully understand all its intricacies. In this paper, I focus on a phrase that occurs countless times throughout Ockham’s writings, but in particu- lar in the sections dedicated to supposition in the Summa logicae: the phrase ‘denotatur’. I claim that an adequate understanding of the role of the concept of denotatur within Ockham’s supposition theory shall yield a deeper understanding of the theory as a whole. Here, I first examine a few uses of the term ‘denotatur’ and its variants by other authors. I then turn to Ockham: first I briefly mention some uses of the term in contexts other than his theory of supposition. Following that, I focus on his supposition theory, in particular on how ‘denotatur’ allows him to deal with two crucial puzzles, namely the supposition of empty terms and the supposition of terms in false affirmative proposi- tions. The treatment of these two puzzles suggests that Ockham’s theory of supposition must be understood as a theory chiefly intended for the generation of the meanings of propositions.

Keywords Ockham, supposition theory, denotatur, empty terms, affirmative false propositions

1. Introduction Ockham’s theory of supposition is probably still the most extensively studied of such medieval theories. Interest in Ockham’s theory in particular can be traced back to the pioneering works of E.A. Moody and Ph. Boehner in the 1940s and 1950s; since then, a considerable number of studies have focused on Ockham’s theory, including works by P.V. Spade, E. Karger, and C. Panaccio, among many others. Ockham is also among the most widely edited medieval The Role of ‘Denotatur’ in Ockham’s Theory of Supposition 353 authors, almost all of his writings having received modern critical editions and often even having been translated from the Latin. And yet, I think it is fair to say that we still do not fully understand Ockham’s theory of supposition; there are still several bits and pieces that are not entirely accounted for in the standard interpretations. This is why I propose to exam- ine his theory yet again, in spite of all the scholarship already produced on the topic. Naturally, I do not claim to offer the final word on the matter here, but I do think that paying attention to some of its aspects that have hitherto not received the attention they deserve should bring us closer to a more thorough understanding of this theory. Generally speaking,1 the main source of confu- sion seems to be the pervasive and vigorous association of theories of supposi- tion to theories of reference. Instead, I believe that what could be described as an intensional interpretation of Ockham’s theory of supposition, based on the idea that it is chiefly aimed at the generation of the different possible readings of propositions, does better justice to the textual and conceptual elements present in Ockham’s own formulation of the theory. Here, and in the spirit of my overall intensional approach to Ockham’s the- ory of supposition, I propose to examine an expression that occurs countless times throughout his writings, but in particular in the sections dedicated to supposition in the Summa logicae, namely the expression ‘denotatur’. Not that its importance for Ockham’s supposition theory has never been noticed before: scholars such as C. Marmo,2 U. Eco,3 E. Karger4 and E. Perini-Santos5 have duly noted its significance. Nevertheless, I believe that the crucial role played by ‘denotatur’ within Ockham’s theory is not yet fully appreciated. More gener- ally, and beyond specific uses of the term ‘denotatur’, we should also be inter- ested in the conceptual impact that the analysis of this particular aspect of Ockham’s theory may have for a wider understanding of theories of supposi- tion in general. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep in mind that Ockham’s use of the term ‘denotatur’ differs from the current meaning of the term ‘denotation’ in two fundamental aspects. Firstly, the first relatum in the Ockhamist relation of denotation is not a single term or a description denoting an individual, as is usually the case in current uses of the term ‘denotation’ in the English-speaking­

1) As I have argued elsewhere—Dutilh Novaes (2007), ch. 1; Dutilh Novaes (2008). 2) Marmo (1984). 3) Eco (1987). 4) Karger (1976). 5) Perini-Santos (2001), (2006).