Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I know that there is big debate behind the organizational principle behind Aristotle's ten categories. But, if we assume that his categories actually reflect major linguistic characteristics, how would a modern development of categories look like?
I'm curious how different is today's understanding of language compared to his and how much if any, would his categories be limited due to his limited understanding of language or Greek language.
It is a good question even if it seems to be inviting speculations rather than historical references. The obvious answer is that we cannot tell how Aristotle would proceed but there is a good exemple of what could be the central issue as it generated the s.c. linguitics wars. (and further a book with that title by Randy A. Harris, Oxf. 1995).
In 1958 Emile Benveniste published Categories de pensee et categories de langue (Jstor), a remarkable analysis how Aristotle took the grammar of his native language to be of metaphysical significance. The mistake was not irreparable as people already in the middle ages (e.g. R.Bacon) understood that it was just an instance of a more general universal grammar. The idea has been reworked in early modern times and it became rather popular with Chomsky's work, who was the commander in chief of one of the warring parties.
The other side was promoting generative semantics but at that time there was already a modern reworking of Aristotle by Joseph Greenberg in his Language Universals (1966). A less known contribution was made Polish linguists and Anna Wierzbicka, who emigrated to Australia, achieved some notoriety with her work on semantic primes or primitives. As the name suggest such entities cannot be defined in a non-circular way in language - but they are understood as they embody human experience. (The best known example seems to be "time" all attempts at whose definition turn out to be circular.)
So what would be Aristotle's view depends essentially on what would be the conception that distinguishes syntax from semantics and the arguments with which it is implemented.
Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias (On Interpretation), part of his Organon or logical works, is what today would probably be classified as grammar, linguistics, or even semiotics.
He discusses what a "name" is:
A name (Ὄνομα), then, is a vocal sound significant by convention, without time, no part of which is significant separately
And what a "verb" is:
The verb (Ῥῆμα) is that which signifies with time; no part of it signifies separately, and it is a sign of something said of something else.
