- Email: [email protected]
Linguistica I: Satzsemantische komponenten und relationen im text
Reviews
261
dated; this ‘family’ should be broken up into Congo-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan (p. 176). If Bantu is to be listed as an extra family (p. 177), then its affiliation to Niger-Congo should be clearly indicated. The family called Khoin should be spelled Khoisan (p. 177). Finally, the native languages of the Americas are not listed according to language families, but are lumped together under three headings, ‘Nordamerikanische Indianersprachen’, ‘mexikanische und zentralamerikanische Eingeborenensprachen’, and ‘siidamerikanische Eingeborenensprachen’, with the natural consequence that languages belonging to the same family appear under different headings. Furthermore, Punutisch should be spelled Penutisch (Penutian). Brevity often entails simplification, but not necessarily faultiness. One suspects that this is a typical example of ‘book-making’ : not the outcome of serious research, but a hastily and sloppily compiled ‘omnium gatherum’. The book may have its merits in that it calls attention to certain trends in modern typology. Whether it serves its purpose as an introduction to general linguistic typology is doubtful.
FrantiSek DaneS, Dieter Viehweger (eds.), Linguistica I: Sutzsemantische Komponenten und Relationen im Text. Ceskoslovenska akademie v&d - Gustav pro jazyk Eesky, Prague, 1981. iv + 162 pp. Reviewed by: Peter Paul, Dept. of Linguistics, Monash University, 3168, Australia, 1.
This 162-page paper-back volume, according to its preface, contains the majority of papers (as well as some major points of discussion) presented at a workshop held in October 1980. They are published under the title Linguistica I in what one assumes is planned to be a (perhaps irregularly published) series of similar collections of linguistic papers. The meeting, whose theme is echoed by the subtitle of this publication, had been organized in co-operation between the Gustav pro jazyk Pesky of the Czecho-Slovak Academy of Science and the Central Institute for Linguistics of its counterpart in the German Democratic Republic and focussed on the following topics: 1. the structure of discourse meaning; 2. functional perspective (the communicative structure of the sentence) and the semantic structure of the sentence and of the text; 3. context-conditioned realisations of propositional structures; 4. ellipsis and semantic incompleteness of texts.
268
Reviews
The papers of three of the seven Czech contributors are in English, the remaining papers, including those of the five German contributors, are in German. Because of the range of topics and number of papers contained in this collection, it would not be possible to review all of its contributions adequately. Those singled out for comment deal more specifically with the influence of the context on the realization of a sentence and with the relations of dynamic semantics in the text; they reflect the reviewer’s own interest. However, the papers not discussed in detail here are no less noteworthy; they include several studies bearing on the principles of text cohesion and on different approaches to the study of texts.
Given the leading position occupied by Czech linguists in the development of the notions of functional sentence perspective and of the dynamics of the semantic structure in the utterance, it is hardly surprising that the biggest section of this collection should be that dealing with this field of linguistic study. In this section we find four papers dealing with different aspects of ‘dynamic semantics’ (i.e. with the meaning aspects of an utterance in communication) as opposed to ‘static semantics’ (i.e. aspects of linguistic meaning that are not subject to the additional influences of the context and situation of its use; in other words mainly aspects of ‘dictionary meaning’). The first three of these papers centre largely around the notion of greater or lesser degrees of communicative dynamism (CD). According to Uhliiova (‘On functional sentence perspective and semantics’), the notion of communicative dynamism assumes, that it is possible to arrange sentence elements on the basis of their semantic content one after another into a “context-independent semantic scale of communicative dynamism”. This is based on their ability to ‘push forward’ the content of the communication (or to contribute to the further development of the communicated information) (p. 52). Firbas (‘A note on static semantics and dynamic semantics’) is especially interested in defining those functions within dynamic semantics, that can serve as the basic units to which differing degrees of communicative dynamism are tied. Those functions form certain configurations which represent the functional level of a sentence structure, its dynamic semantics, in contradistinction to its static semantic level on the one hand, and its syntactic structure on the other. Thus, regardless of whether it is used in reply to (1) or to (2) sentence (3) does not change its (static) meaning, but certain elements within it fultil different functions in the ‘flow of communication’ (p. 78): (1) Who came into the room? (2) What about Peter then? (3) Peter came into the room.
Reviews
269
In reply to (l), Peter is presented as “the most important piece of information”, in reply to (2) it is into the room. In a similar way, the other elements in (3) fulfil different functions in reponse to whether their context is (1) or (2). Accordingly, (3) is seen as representing two different “scales of dynamic semantic functions” @. 79). ‘Contiguration’ might have been a more felicitous term than ‘scale’, as Firbas refers not merely to the degrees of communicative dynamism represented by the various elements of a sentence, but to the configurations of function units (such as ‘scene/setting’, ‘bearer of quality’ etc.) that carry those differing degrees of CD. Turning to the finer detail of those configurations, Firbas notes that such configurations (‘scales’) can sometimes be further expanded and/or partially combined. The fact that (3) was presented in different contexts, in order to illustrate the different functions a given element can fulfil in terms of dynamic semantics, obviously must not be taken to imply that the definition of these functions is context-dependent. Quite the opposite is the case: “In principle, the scales reflect functions performed by underivable elements” (p. 80).
(context-independent)
Thus - and this is one of the reasons why the term of ‘dynamic’ semantics was chosen for these phenomena - the scales of communicative dynamism are subject to change under the influence of communicative factors. To specify a minimal configuration which at the same time is its most abstract representation, Firbas introduces the notion of ‘archiscale’. He is however quick to point out that such configurations “are not word order concepts” (p. 81). He then briefly discusses the functions the sentence constituents can perform in the course of the development of the communication, listing in turn grammatical subject, finite verb, subject complement, object, object complement, adverbial element. As subject complement and object complement have been quite differently defined, one must regret that Firbas has not provided sufficient syntactic information or, failing that, an actual example to identify these structures.’ In his conclusion Firbas reminds his readers of the important role context-dependence or context-independence plays in determining the’ functions of the semantic content in the development of the communication (p. 84f). Uhlikova, in her discussion of the notion of a scale of communicative dynamism, goes one step further by exploring how these functions of dynamic semantics relate to word order and to functional sentence perspective. Taking a number of examples sharing the same type of functional sentence perspective, but otherwise semantically different, she discusses the features of ‘scenic’ sentences, i.e. sentences that refer to the scene/setting of an event. The actual sentences (somewhat confusingly set out in a continuous line in the paper) are :
270
Reviews
snih (4) Napadl [It] has fallen snow (5) Piijeli host6 [They] have arrived guests (6) Do mistnosti vtoupil nejaky Elovek Into room [he] came some man (7) ze &X2 se vyrabi papir From wood [it] is made paper (8) Loni na podzim umiel stary pan Vokurka Last autumn [he] died old Mr. Vokurka Uhliiova notes that this type of utterance thematizes the settings; these may be optional or obligatory. They have been italicized in the examples above. On the other hand, the grammatical subject has the highest degree of CD. In examples (4) and (5) above, where there is no setting, the sentence cannot be clearly divided into theme and rheme (p. 58). In contradistinction to these ‘scenic’ sentences, sentences that are based on a ‘bearer of quality’-‘quality’ relation always have a clear theme-rheme nexus. Looking at more complex sentences, Uhliiova, while not introducing the notion of ‘archiscale’, nevertheless has to deal with various aspects linked to such a combination of the two configurations mentioned earlier. She concludes that, certain syntactico-semantic categories, such as ‘subject/quality bearer’, as well as ‘setting’, can function as ‘themes’, even where they do not convey information that is new to a particular discourse and where they are thus “underivable from the immediately preceding context” (p. 61). This is in contrast to other categories (e.g. “various verbal complements [and/or] specifications”) which only exceptionally function as thematic elements. Nor is there an inevitable correlation between the linear sequencing of elements in a sentence and their degree of communicative dynamism, a point made somewhat differently by Firbas when he pointed to the importance of the distinction between context-dependence and context-independence. Pasch (‘Die Konzeption der “kommunikativen Dynamik” (CD) von SHtzen und die Grammatiktheorie’) focuses on an approach to the study of communicative dynamism which interprets differences in word order and in the placing of the intonation centre in context-dependent sentences as being indicative of differing degrees of communicative dynamism. She rejects this reasoning as circular. In her opinion such an interpretation is based on an unwarranted extension of the situation observed in context-dependent sentences to the formulation of rules to be applied to all sentences, and therefore to context-independent ones as well. Instead of this approach she suggests an alternative solution based on the distinction between context-independent and context-dependent sentences, whereby only the latter are assigned an interpretation in terms of functional sentence perspective (FSP).
Reviews
271
The final paper in this group, while obviously sharing some of the basic assumptions of the others, concentrates more specifically on the functions (in terms of dynamic semantics) of the intonation centre in an utterance. To investigate different aspects of the interplay between information focus and the position of the intonation centre, DaneS (‘Eine Bemerkung zur Intonation im Textaufbau’) studies the use of the additive/focusing adjunct such in German. (That he assumes these remarks to apply equally to other languages is shown by his mentioning that such in German corresponds roughly to also; too, as well in English, to taktltaky; tei in Czech and to rbwniei in Polish; the paper itself is in German.) What obviously attracts the author to examine closely the use of au&, as a representative of a whole set of ‘focusing’ particles (his reference to Quirk et al. 1973 should read para. 8.13f.) are the following points (cf. p. 88): 1. such is found in sentences that recapitulate the semantic structure (though not the entire semantic content) of the preceding (part of the) sentence (the actual German term used is vorangehender Satz; however this appears to refer to the same notion as Vordersutz, the term used in the subsequent discussion); 2. the au&-sentence consists of two parts: (a) the part which recapitulates part of the semantic structure of the preceding (part of the) sentence (information that is old, given, situationally present) and (b) the second part corresponding structurally to the remaining portion of the preceding (part of the) sentence, but adding semantically new information. The variable sentence part, signalled by such, adds a new semantic component to the stable part of the preceding (part of the) sentence (p. 89). (9) Karli Carl (10) Karli Carl (11) Karli Carl (12) Karli Carl
hat has hat has hat has hat has
ein Haus a house einen Wagen
a car such einen Wagen also a car ein Huus und (such) einen Wagen a house
and (also)
a car
(9) represents the preceding (part of the) sentence, (11) a sentence with the additive/ focusing adjunct: ‘Karl hat’ is the stable part (given information), while ‘ein Haus’ and ‘einen Wagen’ are the alternative specifications of the variable part (new information); (12) contains both these alternatives in a coordinative construction, thus making the phenomenon of addition explicit. Referring to German examples of this kind, Dane5 studies closely the function of such, noting that it can be used either before the focal element (‘Neue Information, Fokus’), e.g. in (11) where the intonation centre is Wagen, or after the focal element. In the latter case we may be dealing with the influence of certain functional sentence perspective phenomena. Nevertheless, the focal part of the sentence may include given information.
272
(13) Karl hat AUCH einen Wagen. ‘Carl too has a car.’ (14) AUCH KBrl hat einen Wagen. ‘Even Carl has a car.’
Reviews
(= 4)2 (= 5)
In these last two examples the underlying assumption is that other people are not the only ones to possess a car, but that Carl has one too. While in (13) ‘Karl’ is the theme (the sentence could be paraphrased by ‘As for Carl, he too has a car’), (14) represents a case of reversed (‘subjective’ according to Mathesius), thematic sequence, with ‘a car’ being the theme. (This sentence could be used in reply to a question of the type ‘And who else has a car?‘). In fact, given the context suggested by Dane& (14a) would probably be a more normal reply in German (if our interpretation of his (5’) is correct: cf. also the comments on pp. 274-75 below): (14a) Karl hat such einen Wagen.
(= 5’)
As the position of the intonation centre in the various examples is crucial to the argument of this paper, the correct interpretation of the intonation pattern is of paramount importance. On the assumption that we interpret the examples correctly, it appears that several of the examples quoted are, in view of the intonation shown, at best marginal (e.g. 3a, 3c’, 3’d; also 2(iv) on p. 94). In the case of example 3a, the ambiguity of einen (which may mean either ‘one’ or ‘a’) is probably a complicating factor and a clearer indication that the ring is ‘situationally present’ (cf. Pasch, p. 640 would make the placing of the intonation centre on verkaufl more acceptable, e.g. (15) Karl hat AUCH zwei Ringe/den Ring fir seine Tochter gekauft. ‘Carl even went as far as buying two rings/the ring for his daughter.’ Of course it must be admitted that examples 3a to 3c in reply to the questions (a’) to (c’) are of very. low likelihood of occurrence, being considered pedantically over-explicit in normal discourse, and they are therefore difficult to assess accurately (cf. p. 91).
3. While Dane5 studied the interrelation between the communicative structure of the sentence and the position of the intonation centre in au&-sentences, with their partial repetition of the preceding semantic structure, Nekvapil, in one of the papers that make up the third section of this volume, takes a close look at another case of context-conditioned realisation of the utterance, namely that of the context-conditioned re-interpretation of utterances.
Reviews
273
In his paper ‘Zur Re-interpretation der Satzstrukturen im Text (Einige Bemerkungen)‘, Nekvapil notes that, regardless of whether and how the hearer has to analyze an utterance, once that utterance has come to its conclusion by a pause and an utterance-final intonation (‘Konklusivkadenz’), the particular analysis in progress has reached its limits and any subsequent analysis can only be based on an interpretation of such an utterance as a semantico-syntactic whole. However, that finality may be called into question by an intonationally independent addition to that utterance. Such an addition then leads to a re-interpretation of the original utterance. Cf. (16) vs. (18) where the addition of the adverbial in (18) significantly alters the communicative importance of the original predicate, as can be seen from (17) : (16) John read her letter. (17) John read her letter, without joy. (18) John read her letter. Without joy. Re-interpretation is not restricted to cases of the type just mentioned. It also occurs as the result of partial structural parallelism between two sentences that are only distinguished by (a late occurring) morphological difference or by the eventual contradiction of one of several earlier possible interpretations. From a closer study of some examples of cases of re-interpretation, Nekvapil concludes that utterance-final intonation is a very important pointer to the organization of a text and provides a means of delimiting elementary text units.
In the final section of this collection we find three papers which deal with what is ‘left unsaid’ in an utterance; the precise aspects they discuss differ very widely. In one of the papers. ‘On syntactical ellipsis’, Hlavsa points out the greater variety of these phenomena in Czech as opposed to German or English (p. 119). Taking Grochowski’s question ‘Does the phenomenon of ellipsis exist?’ (cf. Grochowski 1978) as his starting point, Hlavsa strives to find a Tmethodological definition’ of ellipsis which in the first instance leads him to make a distinction between accidental omission, rule-motivated omission and a sentence-based vs. a text-based definition of ellipsis. To the extent to which ellipsis is a phenomenon linked to the “manifestation of sentence patterns” in the structuring of discourse, Hlavsa supports the suggestion that the analysis of ellipsis be incorporated into the discussion of “the phenomena of [the] topic-focus partition of [the] utterance” @I. 128).
214
Reviews
5.
The other papers included in the collection are three on text structure, one on context-conditioned realization of propositional structures and two on semantic incompleteness in texts: D. Viehweger, ‘Zur Sequenzierung von Sprachhandlungsfolgen’; E. Agricola, ‘Erkundungen zur Makrostruktur narrativer Texte’; J. Hoffmannov& ‘Zur Beziehung der Begriffe Textthema - Rahmen - Vertextungsmuster - Texthandlung (kommunikative Handlung)‘; J. Korensky, ‘Zum Problem der kontextbedingten Realisierung der Propositionsstrukturen’; I. Zimmermann, ‘Uberlegungen zum Wesen von Kondensation und Ellipse’; B. Bar&chat,- ‘Zum sprachlichen Ausdruck von Aufforderungen im eigentlichen Sinne’.
6. Regrettably, a considerable number of typographical errors mar this book.3 Though they do not, as a rule, interfere with the understanding of the text, they could be confusing where they occur in a paper written in a language of which the reader only has a reading knowledge. Two exceptions need to be mentioned. In Firbas’ paper we find, in the bottom paragraph of p. 80, both derivable and underivable elements described’ as being “context-independent”; from the context it is obvious that only the underivable ones belong to this category and that the derivable pnes are in fact ‘context-dependent’. The second case involves pp. 92-93 of the paper by DaneS, examples (4) (5) and (5 ) (sic ! This is presumably meant to be (5’)). Here the omission of the accent results in the intonation centre not being indicated. A close reading of the accompanying discussion suggests that the examples in question (cf. also (13) to (14a) above) should read as follows: (19) Karl hat A&H einen Wagen (20) AUCH Karl hat einen Wagen (21) Karl hat AUCH einen Wagen
(= 4) (= 5) (= 5’)
Obviously, non-native speakers are to be congratulated for writing in a language not theirs; however one would have wished that the editors had seen to it that some of the very obvious structural errors had been eliminated, as these at times inhibit understanding the finer points of the arguments put forward by those authors. In fact, the number of instances where the definite article has been omitted, both in English and in German, suggests that the ‘translation’ has not been worked through by someone sufficiently fluent in the language in question to be able to correct these omissions. Anybody not conversant with Czech will regret the (obviously accidental) omission
Reviews
of a translation/gloss glosses added)
for the examples in the middle paragraph
275
of p. 123, viz. (with
(22) (NebojiS se ?) Nebojim. NEG-are afraid [2nd sg.] REFLEXIVE NEG-am afraid ‘Are you afraid? - I’m not afraid.’ (23) (Se1 do kina?) gel. bys go [PARTICIPLE] be [CONDITIONAL, 2nd sg.] to cinema go [PARTICIPLE ‘Would you (like to) come to the cinema?’ ‘Yes.’ More regrettable, in view of the one and a half dozen sentences quoted in support of her arguments, is the apparently deliberate omission by Zimmermann of a translation/gloss for the Russian examples in her paper. We offer these rather extensive comments in the hope that they will prove to be constructive and help to improve any further issue of the series and we sincerely hope that shortcomings in the presentation of the present volume will not detract from the intrinsic interest of the papers contained in this collection.
’ While Vachek (1970) lacks any entry under complement, object (complement), or subject (complement), or their French or German equivalents, Hartmann and Stork (1972) list two somewhat conflicting definitions under complement; these obviously represent different terminological traditions. A separate entry for subject complement indicates this to be another term for predicate complement or predicate nominative (e.g. It’s quite a job!). Finally, Palmatier (1972) though listing complement, object, object complement, subject, subject complement, cannot provide an unambiguous definition either, referring as he does to the terminology of several generations of Transformational Grammar. Cf. also Helbig (1971), where we find on p. 43 : “3. I then appointed P. ,.. secrerary . . . (= Object complement)“. 2 The numbers in brackets refer to the original numbering of the examples. 3 The German equivalent of words like ‘lets’, ‘foot’ etc. were, in most papers, spelled with a ‘3’, in an obvious effort to imitate the special German symbol used in these words (8). Regrettably, similar unnecessary typographical contortions are not infrequently resorted to outside the non German-speaking countries (capital B and the Greek letter 8 being frequent stand-ins), although it is accepted practice to replace that let& by ss if the special symbol is not available.
References Grochowski, M. D., 1978. Czy zjawisko elipsy istnieje? In : M. R. Mayenowa (ed.), Tekst. Jczyk. Poetika, 73-85. Wroclaw: Zbior studiow. Hartmann, R. R. K., F. C. Stork, 1972. Dictionary of language and linguistics. London : Applied Science Publishers.
Reviea,s
276
Helbig,
Gerhard,
1971.
C. Fries.
In:
guarum,
series
maior
Robert
A.,
Palmatier,
Probleme
Die
methodische
Konzeption
der Sprachwissenschaft: 118. The Hague: 1972. A glossary
der
Beitrige
Sprachbeschreibung zur Linguistik,
bei
3655.
Charles
Janua
Lin-
Mouton. for
English
transformat,ional
grammar.
New
York:
Meredith. Quirk,
Randolph,
English. Vachek,
S. Greenbaum,
London Josef,
G. Leech,
J. Svartvik,
1973.
A grammar
of contemporary
: Longman.
1970. Dictionnaire
linguistique
de I’icole
de Prague.
Utrecht
: Spectrum.
The ftiture in thought and language: diachronic evidence from 36. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England, 1982. xii + 218 pp. $39.50. Reviewed by: Frank Nuessel, Dept. of Classical and Modern Languages, Univ. of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
Suzanne
Fleischman,
Romance. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics,
Futurity as a concept in natural languages (in this book the allusion is to the western Romance languages primarily, with selected typological exemplification from a variety of Indo-European languages) is by no means the simple homogeneous temporal paradigm that many linguists of differing methodological and theoretical backgrounds have claimed it to be. Rather, the ‘future’ is a complex grammatical, ontological and cognitive category, which, until now, has received incomplete attention. The present study synthesizes the relatively large corpus of existing research and succeeds in shedding new light on the fundamental issues and problems involved. Fleischman (henceforth F.) devotes a considerable, yet necessary, amount of space (introduction and chapters 1 and 2) to definition, explanation, exemplification and theory. Consequently, a significant portion of this review will be concerned with the initial portion of the book. In her prefatory statement, F. says that “the aim of this book is to explore the nature of future as a mental construct and as a category of universal grammar” (p. xi). In addition, several provocative questions are raised, namely, “what are the strategies used by selected languages to map this portion of cognitive substance onto grammar, and how do these evolve over time? Are there predictable patterns in the diachronic development of futures which may obtain for all languages in which ‘future’ is an established category of the grammar” @. xi)? The major portion of this study is devoted to providing answers to these questions and ancillary topics. In her introduction (pp. l-6), F. states the specific objectives her investigation which are enumerated in (1). These are (p. 4) : (la) to examine the globa apparatus for future reference in Romance in synchronic as we11 as diachronic perspective, and from the complementary standpoints of form and function:
261
dated; this ‘family’ should be broken up into Congo-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan (p. 176). If Bantu is to be listed as an extra family (p. 177), then its affiliation to Niger-Congo should be clearly indicated. The family called Khoin should be spelled Khoisan (p. 177). Finally, the native languages of the Americas are not listed according to language families, but are lumped together under three headings, ‘Nordamerikanische Indianersprachen’, ‘mexikanische und zentralamerikanische Eingeborenensprachen’, and ‘siidamerikanische Eingeborenensprachen’, with the natural consequence that languages belonging to the same family appear under different headings. Furthermore, Punutisch should be spelled Penutisch (Penutian). Brevity often entails simplification, but not necessarily faultiness. One suspects that this is a typical example of ‘book-making’ : not the outcome of serious research, but a hastily and sloppily compiled ‘omnium gatherum’. The book may have its merits in that it calls attention to certain trends in modern typology. Whether it serves its purpose as an introduction to general linguistic typology is doubtful.
FrantiSek DaneS, Dieter Viehweger (eds.), Linguistica I: Sutzsemantische Komponenten und Relationen im Text. Ceskoslovenska akademie v&d - Gustav pro jazyk Eesky, Prague, 1981. iv + 162 pp. Reviewed by: Peter Paul, Dept. of Linguistics, Monash University, 3168, Australia, 1.
This 162-page paper-back volume, according to its preface, contains the majority of papers (as well as some major points of discussion) presented at a workshop held in October 1980. They are published under the title Linguistica I in what one assumes is planned to be a (perhaps irregularly published) series of similar collections of linguistic papers. The meeting, whose theme is echoed by the subtitle of this publication, had been organized in co-operation between the Gustav pro jazyk Pesky of the Czecho-Slovak Academy of Science and the Central Institute for Linguistics of its counterpart in the German Democratic Republic and focussed on the following topics: 1. the structure of discourse meaning; 2. functional perspective (the communicative structure of the sentence) and the semantic structure of the sentence and of the text; 3. context-conditioned realisations of propositional structures; 4. ellipsis and semantic incompleteness of texts.
268
Reviews
The papers of three of the seven Czech contributors are in English, the remaining papers, including those of the five German contributors, are in German. Because of the range of topics and number of papers contained in this collection, it would not be possible to review all of its contributions adequately. Those singled out for comment deal more specifically with the influence of the context on the realization of a sentence and with the relations of dynamic semantics in the text; they reflect the reviewer’s own interest. However, the papers not discussed in detail here are no less noteworthy; they include several studies bearing on the principles of text cohesion and on different approaches to the study of texts.
Given the leading position occupied by Czech linguists in the development of the notions of functional sentence perspective and of the dynamics of the semantic structure in the utterance, it is hardly surprising that the biggest section of this collection should be that dealing with this field of linguistic study. In this section we find four papers dealing with different aspects of ‘dynamic semantics’ (i.e. with the meaning aspects of an utterance in communication) as opposed to ‘static semantics’ (i.e. aspects of linguistic meaning that are not subject to the additional influences of the context and situation of its use; in other words mainly aspects of ‘dictionary meaning’). The first three of these papers centre largely around the notion of greater or lesser degrees of communicative dynamism (CD). According to Uhliiova (‘On functional sentence perspective and semantics’), the notion of communicative dynamism assumes, that it is possible to arrange sentence elements on the basis of their semantic content one after another into a “context-independent semantic scale of communicative dynamism”. This is based on their ability to ‘push forward’ the content of the communication (or to contribute to the further development of the communicated information) (p. 52). Firbas (‘A note on static semantics and dynamic semantics’) is especially interested in defining those functions within dynamic semantics, that can serve as the basic units to which differing degrees of communicative dynamism are tied. Those functions form certain configurations which represent the functional level of a sentence structure, its dynamic semantics, in contradistinction to its static semantic level on the one hand, and its syntactic structure on the other. Thus, regardless of whether it is used in reply to (1) or to (2) sentence (3) does not change its (static) meaning, but certain elements within it fultil different functions in the ‘flow of communication’ (p. 78): (1) Who came into the room? (2) What about Peter then? (3) Peter came into the room.
Reviews
269
In reply to (l), Peter is presented as “the most important piece of information”, in reply to (2) it is into the room. In a similar way, the other elements in (3) fulfil different functions in reponse to whether their context is (1) or (2). Accordingly, (3) is seen as representing two different “scales of dynamic semantic functions” @. 79). ‘Contiguration’ might have been a more felicitous term than ‘scale’, as Firbas refers not merely to the degrees of communicative dynamism represented by the various elements of a sentence, but to the configurations of function units (such as ‘scene/setting’, ‘bearer of quality’ etc.) that carry those differing degrees of CD. Turning to the finer detail of those configurations, Firbas notes that such configurations (‘scales’) can sometimes be further expanded and/or partially combined. The fact that (3) was presented in different contexts, in order to illustrate the different functions a given element can fulfil in terms of dynamic semantics, obviously must not be taken to imply that the definition of these functions is context-dependent. Quite the opposite is the case: “In principle, the scales reflect functions performed by underivable elements” (p. 80).
(context-independent)
Thus - and this is one of the reasons why the term of ‘dynamic’ semantics was chosen for these phenomena - the scales of communicative dynamism are subject to change under the influence of communicative factors. To specify a minimal configuration which at the same time is its most abstract representation, Firbas introduces the notion of ‘archiscale’. He is however quick to point out that such configurations “are not word order concepts” (p. 81). He then briefly discusses the functions the sentence constituents can perform in the course of the development of the communication, listing in turn grammatical subject, finite verb, subject complement, object, object complement, adverbial element. As subject complement and object complement have been quite differently defined, one must regret that Firbas has not provided sufficient syntactic information or, failing that, an actual example to identify these structures.’ In his conclusion Firbas reminds his readers of the important role context-dependence or context-independence plays in determining the’ functions of the semantic content in the development of the communication (p. 84f). Uhlikova, in her discussion of the notion of a scale of communicative dynamism, goes one step further by exploring how these functions of dynamic semantics relate to word order and to functional sentence perspective. Taking a number of examples sharing the same type of functional sentence perspective, but otherwise semantically different, she discusses the features of ‘scenic’ sentences, i.e. sentences that refer to the scene/setting of an event. The actual sentences (somewhat confusingly set out in a continuous line in the paper) are :
270
Reviews
snih (4) Napadl [It] has fallen snow (5) Piijeli host6 [They] have arrived guests (6) Do mistnosti vtoupil nejaky Elovek Into room [he] came some man (7) ze &X2 se vyrabi papir From wood [it] is made paper (8) Loni na podzim umiel stary pan Vokurka Last autumn [he] died old Mr. Vokurka Uhliiova notes that this type of utterance thematizes the settings; these may be optional or obligatory. They have been italicized in the examples above. On the other hand, the grammatical subject has the highest degree of CD. In examples (4) and (5) above, where there is no setting, the sentence cannot be clearly divided into theme and rheme (p. 58). In contradistinction to these ‘scenic’ sentences, sentences that are based on a ‘bearer of quality’-‘quality’ relation always have a clear theme-rheme nexus. Looking at more complex sentences, Uhliiova, while not introducing the notion of ‘archiscale’, nevertheless has to deal with various aspects linked to such a combination of the two configurations mentioned earlier. She concludes that, certain syntactico-semantic categories, such as ‘subject/quality bearer’, as well as ‘setting’, can function as ‘themes’, even where they do not convey information that is new to a particular discourse and where they are thus “underivable from the immediately preceding context” (p. 61). This is in contrast to other categories (e.g. “various verbal complements [and/or] specifications”) which only exceptionally function as thematic elements. Nor is there an inevitable correlation between the linear sequencing of elements in a sentence and their degree of communicative dynamism, a point made somewhat differently by Firbas when he pointed to the importance of the distinction between context-dependence and context-independence. Pasch (‘Die Konzeption der “kommunikativen Dynamik” (CD) von SHtzen und die Grammatiktheorie’) focuses on an approach to the study of communicative dynamism which interprets differences in word order and in the placing of the intonation centre in context-dependent sentences as being indicative of differing degrees of communicative dynamism. She rejects this reasoning as circular. In her opinion such an interpretation is based on an unwarranted extension of the situation observed in context-dependent sentences to the formulation of rules to be applied to all sentences, and therefore to context-independent ones as well. Instead of this approach she suggests an alternative solution based on the distinction between context-independent and context-dependent sentences, whereby only the latter are assigned an interpretation in terms of functional sentence perspective (FSP).
Reviews
271
The final paper in this group, while obviously sharing some of the basic assumptions of the others, concentrates more specifically on the functions (in terms of dynamic semantics) of the intonation centre in an utterance. To investigate different aspects of the interplay between information focus and the position of the intonation centre, DaneS (‘Eine Bemerkung zur Intonation im Textaufbau’) studies the use of the additive/focusing adjunct such in German. (That he assumes these remarks to apply equally to other languages is shown by his mentioning that such in German corresponds roughly to also; too, as well in English, to taktltaky; tei in Czech and to rbwniei in Polish; the paper itself is in German.) What obviously attracts the author to examine closely the use of au&, as a representative of a whole set of ‘focusing’ particles (his reference to Quirk et al. 1973 should read para. 8.13f.) are the following points (cf. p. 88): 1. such is found in sentences that recapitulate the semantic structure (though not the entire semantic content) of the preceding (part of the) sentence (the actual German term used is vorangehender Satz; however this appears to refer to the same notion as Vordersutz, the term used in the subsequent discussion); 2. the au&-sentence consists of two parts: (a) the part which recapitulates part of the semantic structure of the preceding (part of the) sentence (information that is old, given, situationally present) and (b) the second part corresponding structurally to the remaining portion of the preceding (part of the) sentence, but adding semantically new information. The variable sentence part, signalled by such, adds a new semantic component to the stable part of the preceding (part of the) sentence (p. 89). (9) Karli Carl (10) Karli Carl (11) Karli Carl (12) Karli Carl
hat has hat has hat has hat has
ein Haus a house einen Wagen
a car such einen Wagen also a car ein Huus und (such) einen Wagen a house
and (also)
a car
(9) represents the preceding (part of the) sentence, (11) a sentence with the additive/ focusing adjunct: ‘Karl hat’ is the stable part (given information), while ‘ein Haus’ and ‘einen Wagen’ are the alternative specifications of the variable part (new information); (12) contains both these alternatives in a coordinative construction, thus making the phenomenon of addition explicit. Referring to German examples of this kind, Dane5 studies closely the function of such, noting that it can be used either before the focal element (‘Neue Information, Fokus’), e.g. in (11) where the intonation centre is Wagen, or after the focal element. In the latter case we may be dealing with the influence of certain functional sentence perspective phenomena. Nevertheless, the focal part of the sentence may include given information.
272
(13) Karl hat AUCH einen Wagen. ‘Carl too has a car.’ (14) AUCH KBrl hat einen Wagen. ‘Even Carl has a car.’
Reviews
(= 4)2 (= 5)
In these last two examples the underlying assumption is that other people are not the only ones to possess a car, but that Carl has one too. While in (13) ‘Karl’ is the theme (the sentence could be paraphrased by ‘As for Carl, he too has a car’), (14) represents a case of reversed (‘subjective’ according to Mathesius), thematic sequence, with ‘a car’ being the theme. (This sentence could be used in reply to a question of the type ‘And who else has a car?‘). In fact, given the context suggested by Dane& (14a) would probably be a more normal reply in German (if our interpretation of his (5’) is correct: cf. also the comments on pp. 274-75 below): (14a) Karl hat such einen Wagen.
(= 5’)
As the position of the intonation centre in the various examples is crucial to the argument of this paper, the correct interpretation of the intonation pattern is of paramount importance. On the assumption that we interpret the examples correctly, it appears that several of the examples quoted are, in view of the intonation shown, at best marginal (e.g. 3a, 3c’, 3’d; also 2(iv) on p. 94). In the case of example 3a, the ambiguity of einen (which may mean either ‘one’ or ‘a’) is probably a complicating factor and a clearer indication that the ring is ‘situationally present’ (cf. Pasch, p. 640 would make the placing of the intonation centre on verkaufl more acceptable, e.g. (15) Karl hat AUCH zwei Ringe/den Ring fir seine Tochter gekauft. ‘Carl even went as far as buying two rings/the ring for his daughter.’ Of course it must be admitted that examples 3a to 3c in reply to the questions (a’) to (c’) are of very. low likelihood of occurrence, being considered pedantically over-explicit in normal discourse, and they are therefore difficult to assess accurately (cf. p. 91).
3. While Dane5 studied the interrelation between the communicative structure of the sentence and the position of the intonation centre in au&-sentences, with their partial repetition of the preceding semantic structure, Nekvapil, in one of the papers that make up the third section of this volume, takes a close look at another case of context-conditioned realisation of the utterance, namely that of the context-conditioned re-interpretation of utterances.
Reviews
273
In his paper ‘Zur Re-interpretation der Satzstrukturen im Text (Einige Bemerkungen)‘, Nekvapil notes that, regardless of whether and how the hearer has to analyze an utterance, once that utterance has come to its conclusion by a pause and an utterance-final intonation (‘Konklusivkadenz’), the particular analysis in progress has reached its limits and any subsequent analysis can only be based on an interpretation of such an utterance as a semantico-syntactic whole. However, that finality may be called into question by an intonationally independent addition to that utterance. Such an addition then leads to a re-interpretation of the original utterance. Cf. (16) vs. (18) where the addition of the adverbial in (18) significantly alters the communicative importance of the original predicate, as can be seen from (17) : (16) John read her letter. (17) John read her letter, without joy. (18) John read her letter. Without joy. Re-interpretation is not restricted to cases of the type just mentioned. It also occurs as the result of partial structural parallelism between two sentences that are only distinguished by (a late occurring) morphological difference or by the eventual contradiction of one of several earlier possible interpretations. From a closer study of some examples of cases of re-interpretation, Nekvapil concludes that utterance-final intonation is a very important pointer to the organization of a text and provides a means of delimiting elementary text units.
In the final section of this collection we find three papers which deal with what is ‘left unsaid’ in an utterance; the precise aspects they discuss differ very widely. In one of the papers. ‘On syntactical ellipsis’, Hlavsa points out the greater variety of these phenomena in Czech as opposed to German or English (p. 119). Taking Grochowski’s question ‘Does the phenomenon of ellipsis exist?’ (cf. Grochowski 1978) as his starting point, Hlavsa strives to find a Tmethodological definition’ of ellipsis which in the first instance leads him to make a distinction between accidental omission, rule-motivated omission and a sentence-based vs. a text-based definition of ellipsis. To the extent to which ellipsis is a phenomenon linked to the “manifestation of sentence patterns” in the structuring of discourse, Hlavsa supports the suggestion that the analysis of ellipsis be incorporated into the discussion of “the phenomena of [the] topic-focus partition of [the] utterance” @I. 128).
214
Reviews
5.
The other papers included in the collection are three on text structure, one on context-conditioned realization of propositional structures and two on semantic incompleteness in texts: D. Viehweger, ‘Zur Sequenzierung von Sprachhandlungsfolgen’; E. Agricola, ‘Erkundungen zur Makrostruktur narrativer Texte’; J. Hoffmannov& ‘Zur Beziehung der Begriffe Textthema - Rahmen - Vertextungsmuster - Texthandlung (kommunikative Handlung)‘; J. Korensky, ‘Zum Problem der kontextbedingten Realisierung der Propositionsstrukturen’; I. Zimmermann, ‘Uberlegungen zum Wesen von Kondensation und Ellipse’; B. Bar&chat,- ‘Zum sprachlichen Ausdruck von Aufforderungen im eigentlichen Sinne’.
6. Regrettably, a considerable number of typographical errors mar this book.3 Though they do not, as a rule, interfere with the understanding of the text, they could be confusing where they occur in a paper written in a language of which the reader only has a reading knowledge. Two exceptions need to be mentioned. In Firbas’ paper we find, in the bottom paragraph of p. 80, both derivable and underivable elements described’ as being “context-independent”; from the context it is obvious that only the underivable ones belong to this category and that the derivable pnes are in fact ‘context-dependent’. The second case involves pp. 92-93 of the paper by DaneS, examples (4) (5) and (5 ) (sic ! This is presumably meant to be (5’)). Here the omission of the accent results in the intonation centre not being indicated. A close reading of the accompanying discussion suggests that the examples in question (cf. also (13) to (14a) above) should read as follows: (19) Karl hat A&H einen Wagen (20) AUCH Karl hat einen Wagen (21) Karl hat AUCH einen Wagen
(= 4) (= 5) (= 5’)
Obviously, non-native speakers are to be congratulated for writing in a language not theirs; however one would have wished that the editors had seen to it that some of the very obvious structural errors had been eliminated, as these at times inhibit understanding the finer points of the arguments put forward by those authors. In fact, the number of instances where the definite article has been omitted, both in English and in German, suggests that the ‘translation’ has not been worked through by someone sufficiently fluent in the language in question to be able to correct these omissions. Anybody not conversant with Czech will regret the (obviously accidental) omission
Reviews
of a translation/gloss glosses added)
for the examples in the middle paragraph
275
of p. 123, viz. (with
(22) (NebojiS se ?) Nebojim. NEG-are afraid [2nd sg.] REFLEXIVE NEG-am afraid ‘Are you afraid? - I’m not afraid.’ (23) (Se1 do kina?) gel. bys go [PARTICIPLE] be [CONDITIONAL, 2nd sg.] to cinema go [PARTICIPLE ‘Would you (like to) come to the cinema?’ ‘Yes.’ More regrettable, in view of the one and a half dozen sentences quoted in support of her arguments, is the apparently deliberate omission by Zimmermann of a translation/gloss for the Russian examples in her paper. We offer these rather extensive comments in the hope that they will prove to be constructive and help to improve any further issue of the series and we sincerely hope that shortcomings in the presentation of the present volume will not detract from the intrinsic interest of the papers contained in this collection.
’ While Vachek (1970) lacks any entry under complement, object (complement), or subject (complement), or their French or German equivalents, Hartmann and Stork (1972) list two somewhat conflicting definitions under complement; these obviously represent different terminological traditions. A separate entry for subject complement indicates this to be another term for predicate complement or predicate nominative (e.g. It’s quite a job!). Finally, Palmatier (1972) though listing complement, object, object complement, subject, subject complement, cannot provide an unambiguous definition either, referring as he does to the terminology of several generations of Transformational Grammar. Cf. also Helbig (1971), where we find on p. 43 : “3. I then appointed P. ,.. secrerary . . . (= Object complement)“. 2 The numbers in brackets refer to the original numbering of the examples. 3 The German equivalent of words like ‘lets’, ‘foot’ etc. were, in most papers, spelled with a ‘3’, in an obvious effort to imitate the special German symbol used in these words (8). Regrettably, similar unnecessary typographical contortions are not infrequently resorted to outside the non German-speaking countries (capital B and the Greek letter 8 being frequent stand-ins), although it is accepted practice to replace that let& by ss if the special symbol is not available.
References Grochowski, M. D., 1978. Czy zjawisko elipsy istnieje? In : M. R. Mayenowa (ed.), Tekst. Jczyk. Poetika, 73-85. Wroclaw: Zbior studiow. Hartmann, R. R. K., F. C. Stork, 1972. Dictionary of language and linguistics. London : Applied Science Publishers.
Reviea,s
276
Helbig,
Gerhard,
1971.
C. Fries.
In:
guarum,
series
maior
Robert
A.,
Palmatier,
Probleme
Die
methodische
Konzeption
der Sprachwissenschaft: 118. The Hague: 1972. A glossary
der
Beitrige
Sprachbeschreibung zur Linguistik,
bei
3655.
Charles
Janua
Lin-
Mouton. for
English
transformat,ional
grammar.
New
York:
Meredith. Quirk,
Randolph,
English. Vachek,
S. Greenbaum,
London Josef,
G. Leech,
J. Svartvik,
1973.
A grammar
of contemporary
: Longman.
1970. Dictionnaire
linguistique
de I’icole
de Prague.
Utrecht
: Spectrum.
The ftiture in thought and language: diachronic evidence from 36. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England, 1982. xii + 218 pp. $39.50. Reviewed by: Frank Nuessel, Dept. of Classical and Modern Languages, Univ. of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
Suzanne
Fleischman,
Romance. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics,
Futurity as a concept in natural languages (in this book the allusion is to the western Romance languages primarily, with selected typological exemplification from a variety of Indo-European languages) is by no means the simple homogeneous temporal paradigm that many linguists of differing methodological and theoretical backgrounds have claimed it to be. Rather, the ‘future’ is a complex grammatical, ontological and cognitive category, which, until now, has received incomplete attention. The present study synthesizes the relatively large corpus of existing research and succeeds in shedding new light on the fundamental issues and problems involved. Fleischman (henceforth F.) devotes a considerable, yet necessary, amount of space (introduction and chapters 1 and 2) to definition, explanation, exemplification and theory. Consequently, a significant portion of this review will be concerned with the initial portion of the book. In her prefatory statement, F. says that “the aim of this book is to explore the nature of future as a mental construct and as a category of universal grammar” (p. xi). In addition, several provocative questions are raised, namely, “what are the strategies used by selected languages to map this portion of cognitive substance onto grammar, and how do these evolve over time? Are there predictable patterns in the diachronic development of futures which may obtain for all languages in which ‘future’ is an established category of the grammar” @. xi)? The major portion of this study is devoted to providing answers to these questions and ancillary topics. In her introduction (pp. l-6), F. states the specific objectives her investigation which are enumerated in (1). These are (p. 4) : (la) to examine the globa apparatus for future reference in Romance in synchronic as we11 as diachronic perspective, and from the complementary standpoints of form and function: