Journal of Pragmatics 38 (2006) 1105–1110 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
Book review Aproximaciones Cognoscitivo-funcionales al Espan˜ol (Foro Hispa´nico 23) Nicole Delbecque (Ed.), Rodopi, Amsterdam, 2003, 137 pages, s40 This is the 23rd volume of the Flemish and Dutch Hispanic Journal Foro Hispa´nico (FH). A journal published every semester and devoted to the diffusion of Hispanic language, culture, and literature. Each number of the FH focuses on a specific research area, the ‘Studies’ section. In the present case, all papers are organized around the title of cognitive-functional approaches to Spanish. Each volume also includes a section called ‘Analysis’, a critical review of poetic works, and another section for ‘Book notices’. In this review, we will only focus on the ‘Studies’ section. This is a collection of eight chapters plus a short introductory chapter by the editor, Nicole Delbecque. As Delbecque states, the volume aims at bringing together studies on Spanish from cognitive and functional perspectives. ‘Cognitive’ in the sense of cognitive linguistics, a framework based on our own experience and conceptualization of the world (Fauconnier, 1985, 1997; Goldberg, 1995; Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Langacker, 1987, 1991; Talmy, 2000). ‘Functional’ because our conceptualization of the world, our cognitive categories are not understood as static, but dynamic, always constrained by the context and discourse situation in which they are employed (Givo´n, 1979, 1984, 1995; Haiman, 1985; Shibatani and Thompson, 1996). The papers included in the volume deal with different linguistic issues (e.g., conceptual integration, subjectivization, discourse viewpoint, prototypicality), but all share the common goal of shedding some light on how Spanish conceptualizes the world, and how these cognitive structures are the basis for the construction of meaning in this language. The first paper is by Elisa Benavent Paya´ (‘ Por que´ contamos nuestras historias cotidianas en estilo directo?’). The author establishes the main differences between direct and indirect speech in Spanish, with special attention to those cases introduced by the verb decir ‘say, tell’. Benavent Paya´ proposes that in indirect speech, there is (i) more focus on the content of the message, and (ii) a unified perspective, i.e. that of the speaker, who transmits an objective exchange of information. In direct speech, on the other hand, there is (i) a maximal conceptual distance between the events cited in the quotation and in the introductory expression; (ii) more focus on the exact reproduction of the message, and (iii) a decoupled perspective with respect to the speaker, who transmits not only an exchange of information about a given situation, but also his own involvement in such a situation. ?
0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.001
1106
Book review
In ‘Subjetivizacio´n, predicaciones de anclaje y los modales espan˜oles’, Bert Cornillie analyses three modal verbs in Spanish, poder ‘can’, deber ‘must’, and tener que ‘have to’, from the point of view of subjectification (Langacker, 1990, 1991). Based on Langacker’s characterization of modal verbs in English as grounding predications, the author proposes that Spanish modal verbs belong to a special class of verbs. Although they cannot be considered grounding predications per se, since they do have inflection, they can be taken as a special type of grounding predication on the basis of the infinitive criterion. According to this author, models such as that of Langacker’s face three major problems. First, the group of modal verbs is very numerous and diverse. As a consequence, it is not possible to characterize this class on the basis of the morpho-syntactical features of the verbal category; each verb must be analyzed one by one. Second, grounding predication is understood in absolute terms. In Spanish, epistemic modality in poder and deber is much more restrictive with respect to the use of infinitive than any other modality. Third, generalizations about grounding predications do not apply to all languages in the same way. Langacker’s analysis of English and its application to German is not valid for Spanish. In this language, the profiling is never absent in such constructions, but there is gradation among them. Susana S. Ferna´ndez’s contribution (‘Un acercamiento a la voz pasiva en espan˜ol desde una perspectiva cognitiva y del ana´lisis del discurso’) focuses on the passive voice in Spanish, both the reflexive passive with se and the periphrastic passive. In the first section, the author offers a brief overview of the main issues covered by previous accounts of this construction and points out several problems that traditional approaches have faced and left unsolved. As a solution, she proposes a ‘multi-model’ approach that benefits from different theoretical frameworks. The cognitive model helps to understand the different conceptualizations involved in each construction. The functional-typological model contributes cross-linguistic data to confirm the existence of the same communicative functions in other languages. Grammaticalization theory explains why two different constructions may end up fulfilling the same function. Discourse analysis accounts for the functions of these passive constructions in language. Lene Fogsgaard, in her paper ‘Las clases de palabras’, compares and summarizes how two different theoretical approaches—formal and cognitive—account for the so-called ‘word classes’. In formal approaches, word classes are categorized on the basis of their formal morphological structure and syntactic distribution. The author suggests that this type of classification gives rise to several problems: (i) not all word classes are present in each language, (ii) not all members of a given class share the same properties, and (iii) there are languages whose words do not fit in either of the words classes. In cognitive approaches, word classes are considered conceptual structures, and their formal morphological structure is only treated as a vehicle for conceptual content. Based on the latter, the author gives a brief sketch of some of the main traditional word classes: noun, verb, adjective, adverb and preposition. In the next article, ‘Integracio´n sema´ntica en las construciones causativas reflexivas del espan˜ol’, Jose´ M. Garcı´a-Miguel focuses on the Spanish reflexive causative construction, which consists of the pronominal form of the verb hacer ‘make, do’ or dejar ‘let, allow’ followed by an infinitive and its arguments. As the author points out, this construction has been quite problematic for lexicalist theories, since it shows a number of syntactical and semantic properties that cannot be directly drawn from the properties of the lexical items
Book review
1107
involved. Based on Langacker’s (1987) Cognitive Grammar and Goldberg’s (1995) Construction Grammar, Garcı´a-Miguel proposes as a solution to integrate the schematic meanings of the main construction components, i.e. se as middle voice marker, force dynamic schemas of the verbs hacer and dejar, the lexical meaning of the infinitive verb. The global meaning of the construction then arises from the dynamic integration between lexical and grammatical meanings. Each element is interpreted in relation with the other elements of the construction and adapts its meaning to the rest. Mikkel Hollænder Jensen’s contribution (‘Expresiones impersonales y espacios mentales’) examines how meaning is built in linguistic impersonal constructions. Based on the theory of conceptual integration (Fauconnier and Turner, 1996, 2002; Maldonado, 1999) and exploiting pragmatic factors such as enunciation, the author sets out to discover the meaning of the second singular person in impersonal sentences. After a brief review of these constructions from the point of view of descriptive grammar, on the one hand, and pragmatics, on the other, the author concludes that impersonal constructions show a clear morphological subject, but without its prototypical reference, which is cancelled; instead, the subject obtains its meaning in the enunciation itself, that is, by means of the real communicative situation. It is thanks to this enunciation and its schematic application that the second singular person can be recognized and identified. In the following paper, ‘Dos construcciones idioma´ticas basadas en el esquema [nombre + adverbio]: Calle arriba y boca abajo’, Yuko Morimoto and Marı´a Victoria Pavo´n Lucero focus on two Spanish constructions formed by a directional locative adverb preceded by a noun without determiner. From a formal point of view, these two constructions are exactly the same, but from a semantic one, they can be interpreted in two different ways: as spatio-directional expressions or as manner expressions. The authors propose to regard them as idiomatic constructions, in the sense of construction grammar (cf. Goldberg, 1995; Fillmore et al., 1988), and argue that both share the same syntactic schema and the same positional meaning. The difference lies in the fact the positional meaning in the former refers to a trajectory, and in the latter, to the way in which an object is positioned. Therefore, these two constructions are to be understood not as independent constructions, but as two sub-cases of a more schematic construction. In the last paper (‘La base discursive de la oracio´n compuesta: Sobre las categorı´as conectivas’), Johan Pedersen investigates the discourse basis of complex sentences, especially those introduced by aunque ‘although’. Rejecting the traditional view which holds that in complex sentences, the primitive units of analysis are universal semantic and syntactic categories, Pedersen argues that the discourse basis of complex sentences is built on a conceptual connection; such a connection consists of a complex integration of lexical information, as well as schematic information. In the case of aunque, the difficult distinction between coordinating aunque and subordinating aunque is solved if their differences are analyzed in terms of Langacker’s (1987) prominence in the concessive construction. The author further argues that the traditional grammatical tests used as the main argument in favor of the universal character of this complex sentences are ambiguous, and therefore, they should be treated just as ‘grammatical restrictions’, systematically distributed in each sub-construction. All in all, this issue is a worthy piece of research, coherent with the thematic proposed by the editor, namely, cognitive and functional approaches to Spanish, and useful for those
1108
Book review
linguists working with or interested in the Spanish language. Some of the papers offer indeed a fresh look at old linguistic issues, like passive voice, modal verbs, causative constructions, impersonal expressions and so on, that have always been considered ‘problematic’ areas for traditional approaches, either because there were many exceptions to the rules governing these structures (see Ferna´ndez’s paper), or because it was impossible to offer a coherent explanation (see Garcı´a-Miguel’s article). Although these papers are not meant to be the ‘definitive’ answer or solution to such questions, as many authors recognize, they open new interesting paths for future investigation. Another asset of this volume is that many papers have really integrated both types of approaches, the cognitive and the functional, and therefore, we find interesting contributions, where authors make use of mechanisms and tools from different linguistic schools. An excellent example of this ‘multi-framework’ approach is Ferna´ndez’s analysis of the passive, where she integrates four different models: cognitive, functional-typological, grammaticalization, and discursive. This is a point that I would like to stress out because I think it is very beneficial for linguistics to try to integrate aspects from different schools or models. Finally, the benefit of focusing on Spanish is double. On the one hand, it helps to understand Spanish cognitive structures a little bit better, and it expands the application of cognitive and functional approaches to other areas in Spanish linguistics, perhaps less studied until very recently from these perspectives. The spreading of these theoretical models in Spanish-speaking countries has been quick and extremely successful.1 However, this ‘success’ is much more evident in areas such as (lexical) semantics— especially the analysis and application of metaphor, and to a lesser extent metonymy— than in syntax, grammar, and morphology. So this volume is a valuable step towards redressing that balance. On the other hand, it is beneficial because it puts to the test some of the main functional and cognitive mechanisms and theoretical tenets, sometimes developed on the basis of English. Their usefulness and adequacy for explaining the same phenomena in other language, i.e. Spanish, provides further empirical support for these theories. On the less positive side, the insufficient use of empirical data in some papers to support their theoretical claims has to be criticized. Although some of the authors have included enough data, often taken from corpora (e.g., Benavent Paya´, Cornillie, Garcı´a-Miguel, Morimoto and Pavo´n Lucero), others offer far too few examples (e.g., Fogsgaard, Hollænder Jensen, Pedersen). As a result, these papers become obscure, dull, and—most importantly—they fall short of one of the main tenets in both functional and cognitive approaches, namely, grounding theoretical premises in real data. Another shortcoming is the variable quality of the contributions, as is typical of collections of this sort. There are some high quality papers where the author gives a thorough introduction to the linguistic problem at stake, offers a good analysis, and supports his/her conclusions with empirical data. Others, however, take only the first step, and limit themselves to a contrastive state of 1 This is attested by the publication of different books and manuals (cf. Cifuentes Honrubia, 1994; Cuenca and Hilferty, 1999; Martı´n Morillas and Pe´rez Rull, 1998; Rivano, 1997; Ruiz de Mendoza, 1999, the Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, just to name a few) and the organization of several conferences (Biannual Conference of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference in Logron˜o, Spain).
Book review
1109
the art, which, despite its undeniable usefulness, does not seem to be sufficient for a journal like the Foro Hispa´nico. Nevertheless, the present collection of papers is definitely worth reading, and therefore, I recommend the volume to (a) functional and cognitive linguists, who will see how some of the main theoretical tools in these frameworks pass the test in Spanish, (b) Spanish linguists and grammarians, who will realize that some ‘impossible’ puzzles are indeed solvable, and (c) linguists working in pragmatics, who will understand how grammatical issues can be (sometimes uniquely) solved if one takes into account discourse information.
References Cifuentes Honrubia, Jose Luis, 1994. Grama´tica Cognitiva: Fundamentos Crı´ticos. Eudema, Madrid. Cuenca, Marı´a Josep, Hilferty, Joe, 1999. Introduccio´n a la Lingu¨´ıstica Cognitiva. Ariel, Barcelona. Fauconnier, Gilles, 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Constructions in Natural Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Fauconnier, Gilles, 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fauconnier, Gilles, Turner, Mark, 1996. Blending as a central process in grammar. In: Goldberg, A. (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. CLSI, Stanford, pp. 113–130. Fauconnier, Gilles, Turner, Mark, 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books, New York. Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul, O’Connor, Mary Catherine, 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64, 501–538. Givo´n, Talmy, 1979. On Understanding Grammar. Academic Press, New York. Givo´n, Talmy, 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Givo´n, Talmy, 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Goldberg, Adele, 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago University Press, Chicago. Haiman, John (Ed.), 1985. Iconicity in Syntax. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Lakoff, George, 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago University Press, Chicago. Lakoff, George, Johnson, Mark, 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago University Press, Chicago. Langacker, Ronald W., 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Langacker, Ronald W., 1990. Subjectivisation. Cognitive Linguistics 1, 5–38. Langacker, Ronald W., 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Maldonado, Ricardo, 1999. Espacios Mentales y la Interpretacio´n del se Impersonal. Anuario de Letras 205–227 Special Issue. Martı´n Morillas, Jose´ Manuel, Pe´rez Rull, Carmelo, 1998. Sema´ntica Cognitiva Intercultural. Granada Lingvistica and Me´todo Ediciones, Granada. Rivano, Emilio, 1997. Meta´fora y Lingu¨´ıstica Cognitiva. Bravo y Allende Editores, Santiago, Chile. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J., 1999. Introduccio´n a la Teorı´a Cognitiva de la Metonimia. Granada Lingvistica, Granada. Shibatani, Masayoshi, Thompson, Sandra A. (Eds.),1996. Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Talmy, Leonard, 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Iraide Ibarretxe-Antun˜ano (PhD Edinburgh, 1999) is currently a lecturer in Linguistics at the University of Zaragoza, Spain. She is especially interested in issues related to cross-linguistic polysemy, constructions, semantic
1110
Book review
change, semantic typology, sound symbolism, metaphor and metonymy. She has published articles on these issues in a wide variety of journals (LACUS Forum 1999, Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2003-1, Cognitive Linguistics 2004-15, Revista de Lingu¨´ıstica Espan˜ola 2005, Belgian Journal of Linguistics 2005) and edited books (Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, John Benjamins, 1999; Relating Events in Narrative, LEA, 2004; Cognitive Linguistics Investigations across Languages, Fields, and Philosophical Boundaries, John Benjamins, 2005).
Iraide Ibarretxe Antun˜ano Departamento de Lingu¨´ıstica General e Hispa´nica Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain E-mail address:
[email protected]
