Abstract
At Varro LL VI.56 and SE M 8.275-276, we find reports of the Stoic view that children and articulate non-rational animals such as parrots cannot genuinely speak. Absent from these testimonia is the peculiar case of the superficiality of the actor’s speech, which appears in one edition of the unstable text of PHerc 307.9 containing fragments of Chrysippus’ Logical Investigations. Commentators who include this edition of the text in their discussions of the Stoic theory of speech do not offer a univocal account of the superficiality of the parrot’s, the child’s, and the actor’s speech. In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of the Stoic account of genuine and superficial speech and show that not only is there an account of superficial speech that univocally explains the superficiality of the speech of parrots, children, and actors, but that this account challenges traditional assumptions about the entities at the heart of the Stoic theory of language—lekta. It will turn out that genuine speech is the expression of a lekton by way of performing a speech act, and that this account of superficial speech can be used to explain other linguistic phenomena that are of interest to the Stoics, such as sentences in insoluble sophisms and sentences containing demonstratives that do not refer to anything in the subject term. Importantly, my reconstruction shows, against the near consensus view of lekta, that lekta do not primarily explain what makes an utterance meaningful. Rather, they primarily explain what makes an utterance an instance of genuine speech.
References
Editions of Primary Sources
Busse, A. 1897. Ammonius in Aristotelis de Interpretatione Commentarium (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca), Prussian Academy Series. Berlin: Reimer.10.1515/9783112361023Search in Google Scholar
Dorandi, T. 2013. Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Cambridge, New York: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511843440Search in Google Scholar
Goetz, G., and F. Schoell. 1910. M. Terenti Varronis De Lingia Latina Quae Supersunt. Leipzig: Teubner.Search in Google Scholar
Hülser, K. 1987. Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker: Neue Sammlung der Texte mit der deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentaren. 4 Bände. Stuttgart: Frommann-holzboog.Search in Google Scholar
Marrone, L. 1997. “Le Questioni Logichi di Crisippo (PHerc 307).” Cronache Ercolanesi 27: 83–100.Search in Google Scholar
Mau, J., and H. Mutschmann. 1914–1961. Sexti Empirici Opera, 2nd ed., Vol. 2 & 3, 1–177. Leipzig: Teubner. 2, 1914; 3, 1961: 2: p. 3–429; 3.Search in Google Scholar
Rabe, H. 1931. Prolegomenon Sylloge, Rhetores Graeci, Vol. xiv: Prolegomenon Sylloge. (Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Tuebneriana).Search in Google Scholar
Remnant, P., and J. Bennett. 1996. Leibniz: New Essays on Human Understanding (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166874Search in Google Scholar
Schenkle, H. 1916. Epictetus: Dissertationes Ab Arriano Digestae; Enchiridion. Leipzig: Teubner.Search in Google Scholar
Usener, H., and I. Radermacher. 1899–1929. Dionysii Halicarnasei Quae Exstant, De Compositione Verborum in Vol. 5. Leipzig: Teubner.Search in Google Scholar
Von Arnim, Hans. (1905). Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, Vol. 3. In Aedibus B. G. Teubneri.Search in Google Scholar
Walz, C. 1832–1836. Rhetores Graeci. Tubingen: Sumtibus J. C. Cottae.Search in Google Scholar
Winkler, K. P. 1996. Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett.Search in Google Scholar
Secondary Literature
Atherton, C. 1993. The Stoics on Ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ax, W. 1986. Laut, Stimme und Sprache: Studien zu drei Grundbegriffen der antiken Sprachtheorie. Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht.10.13109/9783666251818Search in Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 1993. “Meaning, Saying, and Thinking.” In Dialektiker und Stoiker: Zur Logik der Stoa und ihrer l’orläufer, Philosophie der Antike, 1, edited by K. Döring and T. Ebert. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.Search in Google Scholar
Blank, D. L. 2014. Ammonius: On Aristotle on Interpretation 1–8. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar
Bobzien, S. 2002. “Chrysippus and the epistemic theory of vagueness.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102 (1): 217–38.10.1111/j.0066-7372.2003.00051.xSearch in Google Scholar
Brittain, C. 2002. “Non-Rational Perception in the Stoics and Augustine.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 22: 253–308.Search in Google Scholar
Bronowski, A. 2019a. The Stoics on Lekta: All There Is to Say. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198842880.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Bronowski, A. 2019b. “What Is Wrong with Lekta? Ancient Critics of Stoic Logic and Language.” Methodos 19.10.4000/methodos.5276Search in Google Scholar
Caluori, D. 2018. “Aporia and the Limits of Reason and Language in Damascius.” In The Aporetic Tradition in Ancient Philosophy, edited by K. George and V. Politis, 269–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316274293.015Search in Google Scholar
de Harven, V. 2019. “Rational Impressions and the Stoic Philosophy of Mind.” In History of Philosophy of Mind: Pre-socratics to Augustine, edited by J. Sisko, 214–35. New York: Acumen Publishing.10.4324/9780429508219-12Search in Google Scholar
Fögen, T. 2014. “Animal Communication.” In The Oxford Handbook of Animals in Classical Thought and Life, edited by G. L. Campbell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199589425.013.013Search in Google Scholar
Frede, M. 1987. “Stoics and Skeptics on Clear and Distinct Impressions.” In Essays in Ancient Philosophy, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Search in Google Scholar
Frede, M. 1994. “The Stoic Notion of a Lekton.” In Language, edited by S. Everson, 109–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Glidden, D. K. 1994. “Parrots, Pyrrhonists, and Native Speakers.” In Language, edited by S. Everson, 129–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Graeser, A. 1982. “The Stoic Theory of Meaning.” In The Stoics, edited by Rist.10.1525/9780520339255-005Search in Google Scholar
Hahm, D. E. 1977. The Origins of Stoic Cosmology. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hülser, K. 2012. “Pragmatics and the Idea of the Illocutionary in Stoic Language Theory.” In Politics of Practical Reasoning: Integrating Action, Discourse, and Argument, edited by R. Edmondson and K. Hülser, 31–45. Plymouth: Lexington Books.Search in Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A. 1990. “Presentation and Assent: A Physical and Cognitive Problem in Early Stoicism.” The Classical Quarterly 40: 433–49.10.1017/S0009838800043007Search in Google Scholar
Kneale, W., and M. Kneale. 1962. The Development of Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lesses, G. 1998. “Content, Cause, and Stoic Impressions.” Phronesis 43: 1–25.10.1163/15685289860517775Search in Google Scholar
Long, A. A. 1971. “Language and Thought in Stoicism.” In Problems in Stoicism, edited by A. A. Long, 75–113. New Jersey: Athlone Press.Search in Google Scholar
Long, A. A., and D. Sedley. 1987 The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165907Search in Google Scholar
Mates, B. 1961. Stoic Logic. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mühl, M. 1962. “Der λόγος ἐνδιάθετος und προφορικός von der Älteren Stoa bis zur Synode von Sirmium 351.” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 7: 7–56.Search in Google Scholar
Nuchelmans, G. 1973. Theories of the Proposition: Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity. Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co.Search in Google Scholar
Panaccio, C. 1999. Le discours intérieur: De Platon à Guillaume d’Ockham. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Search in Google Scholar
Pohlenz, M. 1939. “Die Begründung der abendländischen Sprachlehre durch die Stoa.” Kleine Schriften I: 79–86. Hildesheim.Search in Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D. M. 1984. “Stoic and Peripatetic Kinds of Speech Act and the Distinction of Grammatical Moods.” Mnemosyne 37: 291–52.10.1163/156852584X00574Search in Google Scholar
Shogry, S. 2019. “What Do Our Impressions Say? The Stoic Theory of Perceptual Content and Belief Formation.” Apeiron 52 (1): 29–63.10.1515/apeiron-2018-0001Search in Google Scholar
Smyth, H. W. 1920. Greek Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. 1990. “Perceptual Content in the Stoics.” Phronesis 35: 307–14.10.1163/156852890X00213Search in Google Scholar
Vogt, K. M. 2012. “Appearances and Assent: Sceptical Belief Reconsidered.” Classical Quarterly 62: 648–63.10.1017/S0009838812000225Search in Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 1994. Vagueness. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
