- Email: [email protected]
Etudes Romanes 42 Linguistica Testuale Comparativa
Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
Book review
Etudes Romanes 42 Linguistica Testuale Comparativa Gunver Skytte, Francesco Sabatini (Eds.); Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen, 1999, 388 pages The study of linguistic units wider than the sentence (texts) has a long and wellestablished tradition. Linguists have investigated the conditions of coherence and cohesion which are internal to individual textual units, the organisation of information within texts and the relation between text and context. Moreover, texts have been classified in terms of the functions of discourse (Jakobson, 1963) and according to cognitive criteria (Werlich, 1975). On the other hand, the comparative analysis of the structure of texts in different languages has received much less attention, despite its relevance to the study of language acquisition, second language teaching and learning, literary analysis, to mention only a few domains. Skytte and Sabatini’s Linguistica Testuale Comparativa (henceforth LTC) is a rare exception to this trend and thus deserves commendation. The volume consists of 20 papers, which were presented at the Conference of the Italian Society of Linguistics held in Copenhagen on 5–7 February 1998. A number of these contributions report on research conducted by scholars of the Copenhagen Business School, within a project financed by the Statens Humanistiske Forskningsra˚d, and by scholars of the University of Copenhagen (cf. Skytte et al., 1999). The scope, methodology and objectives of the research in question are illustrated in Skytte’s contribution to LTC (‘Presentazione di una ricerca di linguistica testuale comparativa’). The principal focus of the project is the comparative analysis of written and oral narratives in Danish and Italian. The story-retelling technique is adopted; the subjects are asked to provide a narrative based on their viewing of audioless sequences of film.1 Skytte’s article is an objective and reliable presentation of the project, and does not omit a lucid examination of its limitations. One difficulty that this kind of work is bound to encounter concerns the very definition of the task. Differences in the linguistic (above all lexical) forms available in Danish and Italian to describe the task to the subjects participating in the project may affect their perception of the type of
1
The main character, Mr Bean, is known to some of the Danish subjects participating in the project, but virtually unknown to the Italian subjects.
1896
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
macrostructure (narration, description, etc.) which they are being asked to produce. In turn, macro-acts such as ‘narrating’, ‘interpreting’, ‘describing’ and ‘informing’ are characterised by specific linguistic choices. In spite of this and other difficulties, the results of the project are very encouraging. Two kinds of features appear to distinguish consistently the Danish texts from the Italian ones. While the former rely on the use of parataxis and are more homogeneous on the diamesic axis,2 the Italian narratives display a wider array of hypotactic structures and a more striking variation at the diamesic level. Skytte’s cautious mention of different traditions in the educational systems of Denmark and Italy is cogent. The role of oral presentations in the school curricula of the two different countries may result in discrepancies in the style of the oral production of Italian and Danish subjects, respectively. I shall first discuss the papers which describe aspects of the Copenhagen project. Jensen (‘Clause combining in danese e in italiano’) investigates clause combining in the Italian and Danish narratives. In Danish the paratactic pattern V(erb)+og+V is recurrent. Interestingly, the two parts are sometimes related in terms of tense, cause, or purpose. Hence the linking can be assumed to connect a conceptual nucleus and a satellite, rather than two nuclei or two satellites. The most frequent Italian counterpart of this pattern turns out to be the gerund. This result sheds new light on the role of morphosyntactic parataxis (V+og+V) in Danish. Accordingly, it can be argued that comparative work provides a new perspective on the grammar of individual languages as well as revealing the typological differences between languages. Korzen (‘Sintassi anaforica, deverbalizzazione e relazioni retoriche. Uno studio comparativo italo-danese’) focuses on the organisation of information in the narratives. Topic switch is signalled by so-called ‘marked anaphors’. In Danish marked anaphors are more frequent than in Italian. This amounts to more frequent changes of topic in the Danish narratives than in the Italian ones. According to Korzen, the recurrent use of the gerund, infinitival sentences, participial absolutes and nominalisations contributes to topic consistency in Italian. Jansen and Strudsholm (‘Costrutti fasali e la loro funzione testuale’) examine the use of ‘phasal’ periphrases.3 Perhaps the most significant result of their work is the contrast between the oral and written domains. By far the vast majority of phasal periphrases relate to the preparation and beginning of processes. As for the conclusion of processes, this tends to be marked explicitly in the oral narratives but not in the written ones. This finding is consistent across languages. The contributions of the Copenhagen group provide interesting data on the structuring of texts in (at least) two languages and on the possible causes of the divergence observed. On the one hand, the typological differences between the languages under examination affect the way that texts are structured (see Korzen’s insights on the role of hypotaxis in Italian). On the other hand, external factors can also affect the structuring of texts.4 The rhetorical tradition of the Italian 2
‘Diamesic variation’ is variation between the written and the oral domains. Cf. Berruto (1993a,b). The term ‘fasale’ is due to Bertinetto (1991) and refers to periphrases indicating a phase of the process denoted by the main verb. 4 The term ‘external’ is my own and is used to refer to aspects of the cultural or situational context to which texts belong. 3
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
1897
educational system may well explain some of the features which are peculiar to the Italian oral narratives. Chini (‘Processi di testualizzazione in italiano L1 e L2: aspetti della coesione e gerarchizzazione di testi narrativi’) also adopts the technique of story-retelling. Her work, however, focuses on the production of oral narratives by non-native speakers of Italian and German. By comparison with the German texts, the Italian ones exhibit more extensive use of subordination, and hence greater grammatical cohesion. While the Italian texts produced by non-natives do not show significant use of hypotaxis, they are nonetheless characterised by considerable occurrence of relative clauses. Although modest, this result is interesting, in view of the fact that external factors like schooling do not influence non-native speakers. On the other hand, German non-native speakers of Italian tend to specify the subject in contexts in which an overt subject is not necessary or indeed grammatical. According to Chini, this result might support the Chomskian hypothesis that the default option for the pro-drop parameter is negative, although Chini also suggests that the need for explicitness in the interlanguage of learners could be the crucial factor. In fairness, the latter hypothesis seems more plausible. On the other hand, the excessive use of an overt subject could simply be the manifestation of interference from German. Lo Duca’s paper (‘Testi narrativi in apprendenti l’italiano come L2: resoconto di una ricerca in corso’) is the presentation of research on the production of written narratives by non-native speakers of Italian. The focus is on methodological issues, since the results of the research were not yet available when the article was written. Coirier et al.’s (1996) cognitive-psychological method of textual analysis is the theoretical foundation of the research of the Copenhagen team. Coirier’s contribution to LTC (‘Les types de texte: une approche de psychologie cognitive’) illustrates the ‘typological-functional’ approach, in which the cognitive component plays a central role. Different textual types are assumed to require different cognitive treatment according to their function (narrative, descriptive, argumentative, informative). The production and recognition of texts hinges on the acquisition of cognitive representations, which include knowledge of the structure—properties and components—of each textual type, as well as its communicative aims. Sabatini (‘‘‘Rigidita`-esplicitezza’’ vs. ‘‘elasticita`-implicitezza’’: possibili parametri massimi per una tipologia dei testi’) provides another perspective on the notion of ‘text’ and proposes a novel classificatory criterion. Sabatini’s principal claim is that the purely cognitive approach does not account for a crucial component in the production of texts: the communicative pact (sic) between emitter and receiver. This amounts to the degree of freedom granted to the latter.5 Sabatini’s typology distinguishes between three broad classes: A—maximally binding (scientific texts, normative texts and instructions); B—medially binding (explanatory, argumentative and
5 Cf. Conte (1988: 80) on coherence a parte subiecti: the text can be seen as a series of instructions for the interpreter.
1898
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
informative texts); C—minimally binding (artistic texts). Abundant and convincing evidence from an Italian written corpus shows that type A is characterised by the explicit mention of all the arguments required by the semantics of the predicates. Explicitness provides the maximal constraint on the interpretation of this kind of text. Other evidence is adduced from the use of punctuation and conjunctions. Sabatini suggests diachronic and crosslinguistic analysis as possible test-beds for his methodology, since the degree of explicitness of individual text types could perhaps vary across languages and cultures. In addition to the oral narratives, a variety of textual types is discussed in LTC: literary and historical prose, newspaper and magazine articles, and adverts. Dardano (‘Sequenze testuali nella narrativa degli anni Novanta’) analyses the literary prose of three Italian authors: Antonio Tabucchi, Alessandro Baricco, Daniele Del Giudice. While literary critics have pointed out elsewhere the tendency for modern Italian narrative to encompass elements from a wide range of registers, Dardano points out here the tendency towards the merging of sequences representing different textual types. Arguably, this results in the lack of a specific narrative type in modern Italian. Dardano also stresses the importance of the context, in particular the influence of the mass media (newspapers, cinema, Internet, e-mail, etc.) on the style of the mentioned authors. At first glance, the results of Dardano’s analysis might seem to undermine the classificatory attempts of others (cf. Sabatini’s paper in this volume), given that features from a variety of textual types merge at the level of macrostructure, as is the case with written narrative. On the other hand, however, there are recurring features (and themes) in the narratives analysed by Dardano. Accordingly, Dardano’s work virtually defines a new type, modern Italian narrative, thus setting it apart from tradition. Metzeltin and Kratschmer (‘Un discorso antiegemonico: La Philosophie de l’Histoire di Voltaire. Per un analisi del discorso storico’) analyse Voltaire’s Philosophie de l’Histoire, the introduction of the Essai sur les moeurs et l’esprit. Voltaire’s style as a historian and anthropologist is claimed to be predominantly argumentative: irony, inductive reasoning and syllogism are pervasive. The text is examined in the context of its ‘inter-text’, the essay, and its ‘anti-text’, Bossuet’s Discours sur l’histoire universelle. Metzeltin and Kratschmer’s textual analysis reveals that, in Voltaire’s Philosophie, two antonymous semantic domains (isosemie antonimiche) are contrasted: philosophy, reason, documented truth, history, etc. against priests, pedants (pe´dants), superstition, revelation, prodigy, etc. Petralli, Polito and Held deal with textual types which are found in the massmedia. Petralli (‘Testi sulla globalizzazione. Osservazioni su articoli comparabili in cinque lingue, tratti da dieci quotidiani’) provides a brief history of the lexemes for ‘globalisation’ in 10 mainstream newspapers in five languages. Polito’s contribution (‘Il discorso pubblicitario. Appunti per uno studio contrastivo’) is a crosslinguistic and crosscultural analysis of the structure of advertisements. Although the Danish and Italian texts under investigation advertise the same product (beer), predictably the messages which they convey differ considerably due to the ideological and cultural contexts to which the adverts are addressed. Held’s paper (‘Il titolo come strumento giornalistico: Strutture, funzioni e modalita` di un tipo di testo esemplificate
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
1899
sulle forme del riuso linguistico in chiave comparativa’) is a study of titles in a corpus of Italian, French and Austrian magazines. Particular attention is given to socalled allusive titles, where well-known catch phrases from cinema, music and literature elicit culturally bound references. The remaining contributions analyse in some depth a number of pragmatic structures of texts. The lack of crosslinguistic equivalence is pointed out in a few of the contributions. Bazzanella’s study (‘Corrispondenze funzionali di well in italiano: analisi di un testo letterario e problemi generali’) is a case in point. Bazzanella examines the Italian counterparts of the English discourse marker ‘well’ on the basis of the contrastive analysis of Ivy Compton Burnett’s Brothers and Sisters and its Italian translation by A. Micchettoni. The difficulties involved in the translation of discourse markers depend on the semantic bleaching of adverbials, such as ‘well’, which have non-propositional value when used as discourse markers. In a large number of cases (39%) the discourse marker ‘well’ is left out in the Italian translation; only in 11.5% of cases is it translated with the Italian synonym of the adverb ‘well’ (bene). Bazzanella’s work is particularly interesting in a diachronic perspective. Historical research provides a rationale for at least some paths of development of discourse markers from adverbials (Traugott and Dasher, 2002). Data such as Bazzanella’s, suggesting that crosslinguistic correspondences are rare in synchrony, are a helpful reminder of the non-deterministic nature of linguistic change. Rossari’s and Nølke’s papers analyse pragmatic connectives. Rossari (‘La porte´e se´mantique des connecteurs pragmatiques de contraste. Le cas de au contraire et de par contre’) shows convincingly that the study of pragmatic connectives should consider three levels of discourse: the illocutionary level, propositional attitude and propositional content. The French connectives au contraire and par contre contrast in terms of their ‘semantic scope’ (porte´e se´mantique); the scope of par contre is propositional attitude, that of au contraire is propositional content. Nølke (‘Utilise donc altsa˚!- Altsa˚ brug dog donc! E´tudes comparatives de connecteurs et le re´seau contrastif franc¸ais-danois’) discusses the problem of defining crosslinguistic equivalence: apparently equivalent linguistic forms (e.g. French mais and Danish men) can produce different pragmatic inferences in different languages. Nølke devises the method of the ‘contrastive network’ (re´seau contrastif) for comparative analysis. The network consists of three tiers. The first one exhibits the form under investigation (in this case French donc). The second tier lists the most immediate equivalents of this form in a second language (in this case Danish). Lastly, in the third tier one finds the closest counterparts in the first language of the forms listed in the second tier. One of Nølke’s networks exhibits a remarkable result: a shift from causation to tense in the successive translations of donc into Danish and then again into French (ib.: 50). Conversational inference is usually assumed to work in the opposite direction (post hoc ergo propter hoc), which makes this finding particularly noteworthy. Manzotti (‘Alternative’) argues against the existing accounts of disjunctive forms like Italian o. Grammarians usually consider ‘or’ to be exclusive, while traditional logic regards ‘or’ as principally inclusive, and only marginally exclusive. Manzotti rejects both views and claims that disjunctions introduce ‘alternatives’ or the choice between opposed (though not necessarily complementary) hypotheses. Accordingly,
1900
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
disjunctions are in the domain of modality.6 On a par with the modal notion ‘possibility’, the opposition of possibilities is claimed to be a scalar notion. Different disjunctions (o, oppure, (o) altrimenti, (o) invece, (o) magari, etc.) correspond to different degrees on the scale, and convincing evidence is provided in the paper in support of this claim. Altrimenti represents a high (perhaps the highest) degree on the scale, introducing a relationship of counterfactuality between mutually exclusive options. Manzotti’s work provides a new and promising perspective on the study of disjunction, drawing on the scalar approach to modality, which has a long-standing and illustrious tradition (cf. among others Von Wright, 1951; van der Auwera, 1996). Guil (‘Proformas alusivas en lengua oral’) studies allusive pro-forms such as Castilian y tal, Italian e cosı`, and addresses a number of sociolinguistic questions: whether and to what degree such forms are peculiar to the oral domain, whether allusive pro-forms are typically found in the speech of certain classes of speakers, but not others, etc. Interestingly, the forms under investigation appear to be more frequent in the oral registers of Castilian than in Italian. Ferrari’s paper (‘L’extra-posizione a destra in italiano, con osservazioni sul francese’) is a contrastive analysis of right extra-position in Italian and French, with greater emphasis on the former language. Ferrari proposes a distinction between two types: (i) active topic—comment, with appendix and (ii) comment—topic. Ferrari’s analysis of type (i) contrasts with a more traditional view on right extra-position, which identifies the topic with the dislocated element. Prosodic and morphosyntactic evidence suggests that the right extra-posed constituent is deemphasised and functions as an appendix to the topic. The latter is normally activated by a pronoun, which precedes the comment. Type (ii) inverts the normal arrangement of information and thus confers communicative dynamism7 to the topic. Ferrari proposes that right extra-position of heavy subject NPs could be explained in these terms, contrary to other accounts of the phenomenon. Ferrari further suggests that the origin of right extra-position of the subject in Italian questions and exclamations could be analysed along the same lines: a radically new and challenging hypothesis. Following Conte (1988), Bersani Berselli (‘Referenti testuali, specificita` e disambiguazion’) rejects Karttunen’s view of discourse referents and points out that anaphora is too powerful a tool to be used as a test in the identification of discourse referents. In fact, anaphors allow for non-specific antecedents. Bersani Berselli addresses the problem of indefinite NPs which are ambiguous in terms of reference (e.g. Mary wants to marry a rich man), and tries to ascertain some of the conditions for the interpretation of such NPs. Some languages differentiate morphosyntactically between a specific and a non-specific reading. In this sense Romance differs from Germanic (cf. Spanish Busco a un empleado que habla-hable ingle´s). Where there is ambiguity (cf. the English example above) the interpretation relies on the 6 Cf. Conte ‘‘La modalita` e`, infatti, una delle categorie linguistiche per le quali la delimitazione tra semantica e pragmatica piu` si rivela controversa e interessante’’ (1994: 139). 7 Communicative dynamism is the extent to which an element contributes to communication.
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
1901
context, whether textual or situational. The emitter judges the task of the receiver, and it can be assumed that both collaborate in choosing a default reading. As suggested by the length of this review, there is much food for thought in LTC. It is an extremely dense and varied volume, which explores an impressive number of issues in (comparative) textual analysis. LTC will no doubt appeal to those who are engaged in the study of the organisation of texts and the relation between text and context. In addition, it can be recommended to literary critics and language teachers. Literary critics will find testimony in LTC of the important role which expertise in linguistics can play in the understanding of literature (historiography, etc.). In turn, language teachers are often faced with the difficult task of explaining that entirely grammatical structures may nonetheless sound awkward or unacceptable to native ears. Traditional manuals of second language teaching do not usually mention such matters. If they do, the reasons underlying these apparent mysteries of language are not sought. Comparative work of the kind illustrated in LTC can provide the right tools to tackle some such questions and should, therefore, be encouraged and made known. Moreover, a number of papers in LTC stimulate critical thinking on traditional grammatical notions such as parataxis and hypotaxis. The more that comparative work is carried out, the deeper will be our understanding of the function of specific grammatical constructions in the organisation of information. Before the conclusion, a word of warning is in order. A few of the contributions in LTC discuss the external factors which may be held responsible for discrepancies in the organisation of texts in different languages. As I pointed out above, in the majority of cases such suggestions are both cautious and grounded on fact. On the other hand, the discrepancies in question should not be ascribed to cliche´s and received knowledge on peoples and nations, the latter ideas being unsubstantiated by fact and hence entirely subjective (an example of this is found in Held, p. 187). Clearly, such statements are unmotivated and do not further our knowledge of linguistics or of the socio-cultural context in which texts are produced. Original analyses and unconventional and promising ideas are abundant in LTC. It has only been possible to mention a few in the present review. The volume also contributes to the development of some central issues of Maria Elisabeth Conte’s thought and work. It is to her memory that LTC is dedicated and to her that it is undeniably indebted.8 8
I enclose hereafter a brief list of errata. P. 13: Bronckart (1985) should be Bronckart et al. (1985) (cf. p. 33). P. 58: Gex (1956) is missing in the bibliography. P. 82: Footnote 39 should be 38. P. 88: Mondadori, D’Agostino (1987) should be Mondadori, D’Agostino (1997) (cf. p. 58). P. 97: Jansen (en prensa) is missing in the bibliography. P. 109: Kroon should follow Jucker. P. 119: Ducrot (1996) should be Ducrot (1995) (cf. p. 140). Pp. 144, 145, 163: References to Diewald should be la quale, la studiosa, etc. P. 166: Manzotti (1991) is missing in the bibliography. P. 207: Stubbs (1996) should be Stubbs (1997) (cf. p. 212). P. 227: Van den Bosch should be Van den Bossche (cf. p. 228). Pp. 257–259: Footnotes 9 and 10 are inverted. P. 260: Footnote 6 has no reference in the text. P. 270: Matthiessen, Thompson (1988) is missing in the bibliography. P. 294: There are inconsistencies in the sums in the table. P. 341: Reference to Renzi (a cura di) should be Salvi, Giampaolo, 1988. La frase semplice. In: L. Renzi and G. Salvi (eds) Grande grammatica di consultazione. Vol. I. Bologna: il Mulino, pp. 29–113. P. 373: Skytte et al. (in stampa) should be Skytte et al. (1999) (cf. p. 388).
1902
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
References Berruto, Gaetano, 1993a. Le varieta` del repertorio. In: Sobrero, A. (Ed.), Introduzione All’italiano Contemporaneo. La Variazione e gli usi. Laterza, Roma-Bari, pp. 3–36. Berruto, G., 1993b. Varieta` diatopiche, diafasiche, diastratiche. In: Sobrero, A. (Ed.), Introduzione all’Italiano Contemporaneo. La Variazione e gli Usi. Laterza, Roma-Bari, pp. 37–92. Bertinetto, P.-M., 1991. Le perifrasi verbali. In: Renzi, L., Salvi, G. (Eds.), Grande Grammatica di Consultazione. Vol II. il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 129–161. Coirier, Pierre., Gaonac’h, Daniel, Passerault, Jean-Michael, 1996. Psycholinguistique Textuelle. Approche Cognitive de la Compre´hension et de la Production des Textes. Armand Colin, Paris. Conte, Maria Elisabeth, 1988. Condizioni di Coerenza. Ricerche di Linguistica Testuale. La Nuova Italia, Firenze. Conte, Maria Elisabeth, 1994. Modalita` tra semantica e pragmatica. In: Negri, M., Poli, D. (Eds.), La Semantica in Prospettiva Diacronica e Sincronica. Atti del Convegno della Societa` Italiana di Glottologia. Giardini, Pisa, pp. 139–151. Jakobson, Roman, 1963. Essais de Linguistique Ge´ne´rale. Editions de Minuit, Paris. Skytte, Gunver, Korzen, Iørn, Polito, Paola, Strudsholm, Erling, 1999. Tekststrukturering pa˚ Italiensk og Dansk. Resultater af en Komparativ Undersøgelse/Strutturazione Testuale in Italiano e in Danese. Risultati di una indagine comparativa. Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen. Traugott, Elizabeth C., Dasher, Richard B., 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. van der Auwera, Johan, 1996. Modality: the three-layered scalar square. Journal of Semantics 13, 181– 195. von Wright, Henrik, 1951. An Essay in Modal Logic. North Holland, Amsterdam. Werlich, Egon, 1975. Typologie der Texte. Entwurf eines Textlinguistischen Modells zur Grundlegung einer Textgrammatik. Quelle & Meyer, Heidelberg. Dr Delia Bentley is a Research Associate in the Department of Linguistics of the University of Manchester (GB). She works on a project on the historical morphosyntax of some European languages (Archaism and Innovation in the Linguistic History of Europe), which is financed by the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The main focus of her work is Italo-Romance, in particular Italian, Sicilian and Sardinian. In addition, Dr. Bentley has an interest in the interface between discourse, semantics and morphosyntax, and she has conducted research on modality, split intransitivity and definiteness.
Delia Bentley University of Manchester Department of Linguistics Manchester, UK E-mail address: [email protected] 0378-2166/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. PII: S0378-2166(02)00055-3
Book review
Etudes Romanes 42 Linguistica Testuale Comparativa Gunver Skytte, Francesco Sabatini (Eds.); Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen, 1999, 388 pages The study of linguistic units wider than the sentence (texts) has a long and wellestablished tradition. Linguists have investigated the conditions of coherence and cohesion which are internal to individual textual units, the organisation of information within texts and the relation between text and context. Moreover, texts have been classified in terms of the functions of discourse (Jakobson, 1963) and according to cognitive criteria (Werlich, 1975). On the other hand, the comparative analysis of the structure of texts in different languages has received much less attention, despite its relevance to the study of language acquisition, second language teaching and learning, literary analysis, to mention only a few domains. Skytte and Sabatini’s Linguistica Testuale Comparativa (henceforth LTC) is a rare exception to this trend and thus deserves commendation. The volume consists of 20 papers, which were presented at the Conference of the Italian Society of Linguistics held in Copenhagen on 5–7 February 1998. A number of these contributions report on research conducted by scholars of the Copenhagen Business School, within a project financed by the Statens Humanistiske Forskningsra˚d, and by scholars of the University of Copenhagen (cf. Skytte et al., 1999). The scope, methodology and objectives of the research in question are illustrated in Skytte’s contribution to LTC (‘Presentazione di una ricerca di linguistica testuale comparativa’). The principal focus of the project is the comparative analysis of written and oral narratives in Danish and Italian. The story-retelling technique is adopted; the subjects are asked to provide a narrative based on their viewing of audioless sequences of film.1 Skytte’s article is an objective and reliable presentation of the project, and does not omit a lucid examination of its limitations. One difficulty that this kind of work is bound to encounter concerns the very definition of the task. Differences in the linguistic (above all lexical) forms available in Danish and Italian to describe the task to the subjects participating in the project may affect their perception of the type of
1
The main character, Mr Bean, is known to some of the Danish subjects participating in the project, but virtually unknown to the Italian subjects.
1896
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
macrostructure (narration, description, etc.) which they are being asked to produce. In turn, macro-acts such as ‘narrating’, ‘interpreting’, ‘describing’ and ‘informing’ are characterised by specific linguistic choices. In spite of this and other difficulties, the results of the project are very encouraging. Two kinds of features appear to distinguish consistently the Danish texts from the Italian ones. While the former rely on the use of parataxis and are more homogeneous on the diamesic axis,2 the Italian narratives display a wider array of hypotactic structures and a more striking variation at the diamesic level. Skytte’s cautious mention of different traditions in the educational systems of Denmark and Italy is cogent. The role of oral presentations in the school curricula of the two different countries may result in discrepancies in the style of the oral production of Italian and Danish subjects, respectively. I shall first discuss the papers which describe aspects of the Copenhagen project. Jensen (‘Clause combining in danese e in italiano’) investigates clause combining in the Italian and Danish narratives. In Danish the paratactic pattern V(erb)+og+V is recurrent. Interestingly, the two parts are sometimes related in terms of tense, cause, or purpose. Hence the linking can be assumed to connect a conceptual nucleus and a satellite, rather than two nuclei or two satellites. The most frequent Italian counterpart of this pattern turns out to be the gerund. This result sheds new light on the role of morphosyntactic parataxis (V+og+V) in Danish. Accordingly, it can be argued that comparative work provides a new perspective on the grammar of individual languages as well as revealing the typological differences between languages. Korzen (‘Sintassi anaforica, deverbalizzazione e relazioni retoriche. Uno studio comparativo italo-danese’) focuses on the organisation of information in the narratives. Topic switch is signalled by so-called ‘marked anaphors’. In Danish marked anaphors are more frequent than in Italian. This amounts to more frequent changes of topic in the Danish narratives than in the Italian ones. According to Korzen, the recurrent use of the gerund, infinitival sentences, participial absolutes and nominalisations contributes to topic consistency in Italian. Jansen and Strudsholm (‘Costrutti fasali e la loro funzione testuale’) examine the use of ‘phasal’ periphrases.3 Perhaps the most significant result of their work is the contrast between the oral and written domains. By far the vast majority of phasal periphrases relate to the preparation and beginning of processes. As for the conclusion of processes, this tends to be marked explicitly in the oral narratives but not in the written ones. This finding is consistent across languages. The contributions of the Copenhagen group provide interesting data on the structuring of texts in (at least) two languages and on the possible causes of the divergence observed. On the one hand, the typological differences between the languages under examination affect the way that texts are structured (see Korzen’s insights on the role of hypotaxis in Italian). On the other hand, external factors can also affect the structuring of texts.4 The rhetorical tradition of the Italian 2
‘Diamesic variation’ is variation between the written and the oral domains. Cf. Berruto (1993a,b). The term ‘fasale’ is due to Bertinetto (1991) and refers to periphrases indicating a phase of the process denoted by the main verb. 4 The term ‘external’ is my own and is used to refer to aspects of the cultural or situational context to which texts belong. 3
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
1897
educational system may well explain some of the features which are peculiar to the Italian oral narratives. Chini (‘Processi di testualizzazione in italiano L1 e L2: aspetti della coesione e gerarchizzazione di testi narrativi’) also adopts the technique of story-retelling. Her work, however, focuses on the production of oral narratives by non-native speakers of Italian and German. By comparison with the German texts, the Italian ones exhibit more extensive use of subordination, and hence greater grammatical cohesion. While the Italian texts produced by non-natives do not show significant use of hypotaxis, they are nonetheless characterised by considerable occurrence of relative clauses. Although modest, this result is interesting, in view of the fact that external factors like schooling do not influence non-native speakers. On the other hand, German non-native speakers of Italian tend to specify the subject in contexts in which an overt subject is not necessary or indeed grammatical. According to Chini, this result might support the Chomskian hypothesis that the default option for the pro-drop parameter is negative, although Chini also suggests that the need for explicitness in the interlanguage of learners could be the crucial factor. In fairness, the latter hypothesis seems more plausible. On the other hand, the excessive use of an overt subject could simply be the manifestation of interference from German. Lo Duca’s paper (‘Testi narrativi in apprendenti l’italiano come L2: resoconto di una ricerca in corso’) is the presentation of research on the production of written narratives by non-native speakers of Italian. The focus is on methodological issues, since the results of the research were not yet available when the article was written. Coirier et al.’s (1996) cognitive-psychological method of textual analysis is the theoretical foundation of the research of the Copenhagen team. Coirier’s contribution to LTC (‘Les types de texte: une approche de psychologie cognitive’) illustrates the ‘typological-functional’ approach, in which the cognitive component plays a central role. Different textual types are assumed to require different cognitive treatment according to their function (narrative, descriptive, argumentative, informative). The production and recognition of texts hinges on the acquisition of cognitive representations, which include knowledge of the structure—properties and components—of each textual type, as well as its communicative aims. Sabatini (‘‘‘Rigidita`-esplicitezza’’ vs. ‘‘elasticita`-implicitezza’’: possibili parametri massimi per una tipologia dei testi’) provides another perspective on the notion of ‘text’ and proposes a novel classificatory criterion. Sabatini’s principal claim is that the purely cognitive approach does not account for a crucial component in the production of texts: the communicative pact (sic) between emitter and receiver. This amounts to the degree of freedom granted to the latter.5 Sabatini’s typology distinguishes between three broad classes: A—maximally binding (scientific texts, normative texts and instructions); B—medially binding (explanatory, argumentative and
5 Cf. Conte (1988: 80) on coherence a parte subiecti: the text can be seen as a series of instructions for the interpreter.
1898
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
informative texts); C—minimally binding (artistic texts). Abundant and convincing evidence from an Italian written corpus shows that type A is characterised by the explicit mention of all the arguments required by the semantics of the predicates. Explicitness provides the maximal constraint on the interpretation of this kind of text. Other evidence is adduced from the use of punctuation and conjunctions. Sabatini suggests diachronic and crosslinguistic analysis as possible test-beds for his methodology, since the degree of explicitness of individual text types could perhaps vary across languages and cultures. In addition to the oral narratives, a variety of textual types is discussed in LTC: literary and historical prose, newspaper and magazine articles, and adverts. Dardano (‘Sequenze testuali nella narrativa degli anni Novanta’) analyses the literary prose of three Italian authors: Antonio Tabucchi, Alessandro Baricco, Daniele Del Giudice. While literary critics have pointed out elsewhere the tendency for modern Italian narrative to encompass elements from a wide range of registers, Dardano points out here the tendency towards the merging of sequences representing different textual types. Arguably, this results in the lack of a specific narrative type in modern Italian. Dardano also stresses the importance of the context, in particular the influence of the mass media (newspapers, cinema, Internet, e-mail, etc.) on the style of the mentioned authors. At first glance, the results of Dardano’s analysis might seem to undermine the classificatory attempts of others (cf. Sabatini’s paper in this volume), given that features from a variety of textual types merge at the level of macrostructure, as is the case with written narrative. On the other hand, however, there are recurring features (and themes) in the narratives analysed by Dardano. Accordingly, Dardano’s work virtually defines a new type, modern Italian narrative, thus setting it apart from tradition. Metzeltin and Kratschmer (‘Un discorso antiegemonico: La Philosophie de l’Histoire di Voltaire. Per un analisi del discorso storico’) analyse Voltaire’s Philosophie de l’Histoire, the introduction of the Essai sur les moeurs et l’esprit. Voltaire’s style as a historian and anthropologist is claimed to be predominantly argumentative: irony, inductive reasoning and syllogism are pervasive. The text is examined in the context of its ‘inter-text’, the essay, and its ‘anti-text’, Bossuet’s Discours sur l’histoire universelle. Metzeltin and Kratschmer’s textual analysis reveals that, in Voltaire’s Philosophie, two antonymous semantic domains (isosemie antonimiche) are contrasted: philosophy, reason, documented truth, history, etc. against priests, pedants (pe´dants), superstition, revelation, prodigy, etc. Petralli, Polito and Held deal with textual types which are found in the massmedia. Petralli (‘Testi sulla globalizzazione. Osservazioni su articoli comparabili in cinque lingue, tratti da dieci quotidiani’) provides a brief history of the lexemes for ‘globalisation’ in 10 mainstream newspapers in five languages. Polito’s contribution (‘Il discorso pubblicitario. Appunti per uno studio contrastivo’) is a crosslinguistic and crosscultural analysis of the structure of advertisements. Although the Danish and Italian texts under investigation advertise the same product (beer), predictably the messages which they convey differ considerably due to the ideological and cultural contexts to which the adverts are addressed. Held’s paper (‘Il titolo come strumento giornalistico: Strutture, funzioni e modalita` di un tipo di testo esemplificate
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
1899
sulle forme del riuso linguistico in chiave comparativa’) is a study of titles in a corpus of Italian, French and Austrian magazines. Particular attention is given to socalled allusive titles, where well-known catch phrases from cinema, music and literature elicit culturally bound references. The remaining contributions analyse in some depth a number of pragmatic structures of texts. The lack of crosslinguistic equivalence is pointed out in a few of the contributions. Bazzanella’s study (‘Corrispondenze funzionali di well in italiano: analisi di un testo letterario e problemi generali’) is a case in point. Bazzanella examines the Italian counterparts of the English discourse marker ‘well’ on the basis of the contrastive analysis of Ivy Compton Burnett’s Brothers and Sisters and its Italian translation by A. Micchettoni. The difficulties involved in the translation of discourse markers depend on the semantic bleaching of adverbials, such as ‘well’, which have non-propositional value when used as discourse markers. In a large number of cases (39%) the discourse marker ‘well’ is left out in the Italian translation; only in 11.5% of cases is it translated with the Italian synonym of the adverb ‘well’ (bene). Bazzanella’s work is particularly interesting in a diachronic perspective. Historical research provides a rationale for at least some paths of development of discourse markers from adverbials (Traugott and Dasher, 2002). Data such as Bazzanella’s, suggesting that crosslinguistic correspondences are rare in synchrony, are a helpful reminder of the non-deterministic nature of linguistic change. Rossari’s and Nølke’s papers analyse pragmatic connectives. Rossari (‘La porte´e se´mantique des connecteurs pragmatiques de contraste. Le cas de au contraire et de par contre’) shows convincingly that the study of pragmatic connectives should consider three levels of discourse: the illocutionary level, propositional attitude and propositional content. The French connectives au contraire and par contre contrast in terms of their ‘semantic scope’ (porte´e se´mantique); the scope of par contre is propositional attitude, that of au contraire is propositional content. Nølke (‘Utilise donc altsa˚!- Altsa˚ brug dog donc! E´tudes comparatives de connecteurs et le re´seau contrastif franc¸ais-danois’) discusses the problem of defining crosslinguistic equivalence: apparently equivalent linguistic forms (e.g. French mais and Danish men) can produce different pragmatic inferences in different languages. Nølke devises the method of the ‘contrastive network’ (re´seau contrastif) for comparative analysis. The network consists of three tiers. The first one exhibits the form under investigation (in this case French donc). The second tier lists the most immediate equivalents of this form in a second language (in this case Danish). Lastly, in the third tier one finds the closest counterparts in the first language of the forms listed in the second tier. One of Nølke’s networks exhibits a remarkable result: a shift from causation to tense in the successive translations of donc into Danish and then again into French (ib.: 50). Conversational inference is usually assumed to work in the opposite direction (post hoc ergo propter hoc), which makes this finding particularly noteworthy. Manzotti (‘Alternative’) argues against the existing accounts of disjunctive forms like Italian o. Grammarians usually consider ‘or’ to be exclusive, while traditional logic regards ‘or’ as principally inclusive, and only marginally exclusive. Manzotti rejects both views and claims that disjunctions introduce ‘alternatives’ or the choice between opposed (though not necessarily complementary) hypotheses. Accordingly,
1900
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
disjunctions are in the domain of modality.6 On a par with the modal notion ‘possibility’, the opposition of possibilities is claimed to be a scalar notion. Different disjunctions (o, oppure, (o) altrimenti, (o) invece, (o) magari, etc.) correspond to different degrees on the scale, and convincing evidence is provided in the paper in support of this claim. Altrimenti represents a high (perhaps the highest) degree on the scale, introducing a relationship of counterfactuality between mutually exclusive options. Manzotti’s work provides a new and promising perspective on the study of disjunction, drawing on the scalar approach to modality, which has a long-standing and illustrious tradition (cf. among others Von Wright, 1951; van der Auwera, 1996). Guil (‘Proformas alusivas en lengua oral’) studies allusive pro-forms such as Castilian y tal, Italian e cosı`, and addresses a number of sociolinguistic questions: whether and to what degree such forms are peculiar to the oral domain, whether allusive pro-forms are typically found in the speech of certain classes of speakers, but not others, etc. Interestingly, the forms under investigation appear to be more frequent in the oral registers of Castilian than in Italian. Ferrari’s paper (‘L’extra-posizione a destra in italiano, con osservazioni sul francese’) is a contrastive analysis of right extra-position in Italian and French, with greater emphasis on the former language. Ferrari proposes a distinction between two types: (i) active topic—comment, with appendix and (ii) comment—topic. Ferrari’s analysis of type (i) contrasts with a more traditional view on right extra-position, which identifies the topic with the dislocated element. Prosodic and morphosyntactic evidence suggests that the right extra-posed constituent is deemphasised and functions as an appendix to the topic. The latter is normally activated by a pronoun, which precedes the comment. Type (ii) inverts the normal arrangement of information and thus confers communicative dynamism7 to the topic. Ferrari proposes that right extra-position of heavy subject NPs could be explained in these terms, contrary to other accounts of the phenomenon. Ferrari further suggests that the origin of right extra-position of the subject in Italian questions and exclamations could be analysed along the same lines: a radically new and challenging hypothesis. Following Conte (1988), Bersani Berselli (‘Referenti testuali, specificita` e disambiguazion’) rejects Karttunen’s view of discourse referents and points out that anaphora is too powerful a tool to be used as a test in the identification of discourse referents. In fact, anaphors allow for non-specific antecedents. Bersani Berselli addresses the problem of indefinite NPs which are ambiguous in terms of reference (e.g. Mary wants to marry a rich man), and tries to ascertain some of the conditions for the interpretation of such NPs. Some languages differentiate morphosyntactically between a specific and a non-specific reading. In this sense Romance differs from Germanic (cf. Spanish Busco a un empleado que habla-hable ingle´s). Where there is ambiguity (cf. the English example above) the interpretation relies on the 6 Cf. Conte ‘‘La modalita` e`, infatti, una delle categorie linguistiche per le quali la delimitazione tra semantica e pragmatica piu` si rivela controversa e interessante’’ (1994: 139). 7 Communicative dynamism is the extent to which an element contributes to communication.
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
1901
context, whether textual or situational. The emitter judges the task of the receiver, and it can be assumed that both collaborate in choosing a default reading. As suggested by the length of this review, there is much food for thought in LTC. It is an extremely dense and varied volume, which explores an impressive number of issues in (comparative) textual analysis. LTC will no doubt appeal to those who are engaged in the study of the organisation of texts and the relation between text and context. In addition, it can be recommended to literary critics and language teachers. Literary critics will find testimony in LTC of the important role which expertise in linguistics can play in the understanding of literature (historiography, etc.). In turn, language teachers are often faced with the difficult task of explaining that entirely grammatical structures may nonetheless sound awkward or unacceptable to native ears. Traditional manuals of second language teaching do not usually mention such matters. If they do, the reasons underlying these apparent mysteries of language are not sought. Comparative work of the kind illustrated in LTC can provide the right tools to tackle some such questions and should, therefore, be encouraged and made known. Moreover, a number of papers in LTC stimulate critical thinking on traditional grammatical notions such as parataxis and hypotaxis. The more that comparative work is carried out, the deeper will be our understanding of the function of specific grammatical constructions in the organisation of information. Before the conclusion, a word of warning is in order. A few of the contributions in LTC discuss the external factors which may be held responsible for discrepancies in the organisation of texts in different languages. As I pointed out above, in the majority of cases such suggestions are both cautious and grounded on fact. On the other hand, the discrepancies in question should not be ascribed to cliche´s and received knowledge on peoples and nations, the latter ideas being unsubstantiated by fact and hence entirely subjective (an example of this is found in Held, p. 187). Clearly, such statements are unmotivated and do not further our knowledge of linguistics or of the socio-cultural context in which texts are produced. Original analyses and unconventional and promising ideas are abundant in LTC. It has only been possible to mention a few in the present review. The volume also contributes to the development of some central issues of Maria Elisabeth Conte’s thought and work. It is to her memory that LTC is dedicated and to her that it is undeniably indebted.8 8
I enclose hereafter a brief list of errata. P. 13: Bronckart (1985) should be Bronckart et al. (1985) (cf. p. 33). P. 58: Gex (1956) is missing in the bibliography. P. 82: Footnote 39 should be 38. P. 88: Mondadori, D’Agostino (1987) should be Mondadori, D’Agostino (1997) (cf. p. 58). P. 97: Jansen (en prensa) is missing in the bibliography. P. 109: Kroon should follow Jucker. P. 119: Ducrot (1996) should be Ducrot (1995) (cf. p. 140). Pp. 144, 145, 163: References to Diewald should be la quale, la studiosa, etc. P. 166: Manzotti (1991) is missing in the bibliography. P. 207: Stubbs (1996) should be Stubbs (1997) (cf. p. 212). P. 227: Van den Bosch should be Van den Bossche (cf. p. 228). Pp. 257–259: Footnotes 9 and 10 are inverted. P. 260: Footnote 6 has no reference in the text. P. 270: Matthiessen, Thompson (1988) is missing in the bibliography. P. 294: There are inconsistencies in the sums in the table. P. 341: Reference to Renzi (a cura di) should be Salvi, Giampaolo, 1988. La frase semplice. In: L. Renzi and G. Salvi (eds) Grande grammatica di consultazione. Vol. I. Bologna: il Mulino, pp. 29–113. P. 373: Skytte et al. (in stampa) should be Skytte et al. (1999) (cf. p. 388).
1902
Book review / Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002) 1895–1902
References Berruto, Gaetano, 1993a. Le varieta` del repertorio. In: Sobrero, A. (Ed.), Introduzione All’italiano Contemporaneo. La Variazione e gli usi. Laterza, Roma-Bari, pp. 3–36. Berruto, G., 1993b. Varieta` diatopiche, diafasiche, diastratiche. In: Sobrero, A. (Ed.), Introduzione all’Italiano Contemporaneo. La Variazione e gli Usi. Laterza, Roma-Bari, pp. 37–92. Bertinetto, P.-M., 1991. Le perifrasi verbali. In: Renzi, L., Salvi, G. (Eds.), Grande Grammatica di Consultazione. Vol II. il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 129–161. Coirier, Pierre., Gaonac’h, Daniel, Passerault, Jean-Michael, 1996. Psycholinguistique Textuelle. Approche Cognitive de la Compre´hension et de la Production des Textes. Armand Colin, Paris. Conte, Maria Elisabeth, 1988. Condizioni di Coerenza. Ricerche di Linguistica Testuale. La Nuova Italia, Firenze. Conte, Maria Elisabeth, 1994. Modalita` tra semantica e pragmatica. In: Negri, M., Poli, D. (Eds.), La Semantica in Prospettiva Diacronica e Sincronica. Atti del Convegno della Societa` Italiana di Glottologia. Giardini, Pisa, pp. 139–151. Jakobson, Roman, 1963. Essais de Linguistique Ge´ne´rale. Editions de Minuit, Paris. Skytte, Gunver, Korzen, Iørn, Polito, Paola, Strudsholm, Erling, 1999. Tekststrukturering pa˚ Italiensk og Dansk. Resultater af en Komparativ Undersøgelse/Strutturazione Testuale in Italiano e in Danese. Risultati di una indagine comparativa. Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen. Traugott, Elizabeth C., Dasher, Richard B., 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. van der Auwera, Johan, 1996. Modality: the three-layered scalar square. Journal of Semantics 13, 181– 195. von Wright, Henrik, 1951. An Essay in Modal Logic. North Holland, Amsterdam. Werlich, Egon, 1975. Typologie der Texte. Entwurf eines Textlinguistischen Modells zur Grundlegung einer Textgrammatik. Quelle & Meyer, Heidelberg. Dr Delia Bentley is a Research Associate in the Department of Linguistics of the University of Manchester (GB). She works on a project on the historical morphosyntax of some European languages (Archaism and Innovation in the Linguistic History of Europe), which is financed by the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The main focus of her work is Italo-Romance, in particular Italian, Sicilian and Sardinian. In addition, Dr. Bentley has an interest in the interface between discourse, semantics and morphosyntax, and she has conducted research on modality, split intransitivity and definiteness.
Delia Bentley University of Manchester Department of Linguistics Manchester, UK E-mail address: [email protected] 0378-2166/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. PII: S0378-2166(02)00055-3