Advertisement

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 107–131 | Cite as

The codification of intersubjectivity in the diachronic change AD locative > A(D) indirect object in Spanish

  • Enrique Huelva Unternbäumen
Article

Abstract

The principal aim of this paper is to analyze the relationship between intersubjectivity and grammar. We argue that intersubjectivity represents, on the one hand, a prerequisite for the development of language as a symbolic system, and therefore also for the development of grammar. Furthermore, we attempt to show that language, and especially grammar, codify intersubjectivity. That is to say, grammatical constructions represent the intersubjective interactions that situated agents maintain in different pragmatic contects. We call this phenomenon the meta-representational capacity of language. Our main object of analysis is the development of the ditransitive construction (give something to someone - dar algo a alguien) in the Spanish language. The evolution of this construction makes it clear that there is an important correlation between the degree of complexity of the codified intersubjective interaction and grammatically obligatory nature and the prominence of the grammatical construction that codifies it: the greater the complexity, the greater its obligatoriness, and vice versa.

Keywords

Intersubjectivity Grammar Meta-representational capacity Intersubjective concept formation 

References

  1. Allen, J.H. & Greenough J.B.. (1888-1903/2001). New Latin grammar for schools and colleges, J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kitteredge, A. A. Howard y B. L. D’ooge (Eds.), actualized by Anne Mahoney, Newburyport: Fows Publishing and R. Pullins.Google Scholar
  2. Baños Baños, J.M. (2009). Dativo”, en Sintaxis del latín clásico, in J. M. Baños Baños (Coord.), Madrid: Liceus, 185–208.Google Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Company Company, Concepción. (2001). Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization: Spanish as a special kind of primary object language. Studies in Language, 25(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Company Company, Concepción. (2002). Grammaticalization and category weakness. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 201–217). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Company Company, Concepción. (2003). Transitivity and grammaticalization of object. The struggle of direct and indirect object in Spanish. In G. Fiorentino (Ed.), Romance objects. Transitivity in Romance languages (pp. 217–260). Berlín-Nueva York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Company Company, Concepción. (2006). El objeto indirecto. In Company Company, Concepción (Ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua Española. Primera parte: La frase verbal (pp. 477–572). México: DF, FCE, UNAM.Google Scholar
  8. Company Company, Concepción. (2014). La preposición A. In Company Company, Concepción (Ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua Española. Tercera parte: Adverbios, preposiciones y conjunciones. Relaciones interoracionales (pp. 1195–1339). México: DF, FCE, UNAM.Google Scholar
  9. Costelo, P. (2012). Layers in Husserl’s Phenomemology. On Meaning and Intersubjectivity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  10. Csordas, T. J. (2008). Intersubjectivity and Intercorporeality. Subjectivity, 22, 110–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: an enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6, 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Depraz, N. (2001). The Husserlian Theory os Intersubjectivity as Alterology: Emergent Theories and Wisdom Traditions in the Light of Genetic Phenomenology. In E. Thompson (Ed.), Between Ourselves. Second-person issues in the study of consciousness (pp. 169–178). Charlottesville: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Folgar, C. (1993). Diacronía de los objetos directo e indirecto. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
  14. Gallagher, S. (2008). Understanding others: Embodied Social Cognition. In P. Calvo & A. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Science. An Embodied Approach (pp. 437–452). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallagher, S. (2012). Phenomenology. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallagher, S. (2013). Coordinación y creación de sentido en la atención conjunta y la atención conjunta. Ciencias Cognitivas, 3, 223–245.Google Scholar
  17. García de Diego, V. (1951/1970). Gramática histórica española, Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
  18. García-Miguel, J. M. (1995). Transitividad y complementación preposicional en español. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
  19. García-Miguel, J. (2006). Los complementos locativos. In C. Company (Ed.), Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Primera parte: La frase verbal (pp. 1251–1336). México: DF, FCE, UNAM.Google Scholar
  20. Hanssen, F. (1913). Gramática histórica de la lengua castellana. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  21. Heine, B. (1995). Conceptual grammaticalization and prediction. In J. Taylor & R. McLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 119–135). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  23. Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heine, B., Ulrike, C., & Hunemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Huelva Unternbäumen, E. (2013). Intersubjetividad y gramática. Aspectos de una gramática fenomenológica. Frankfurt am Main / New York / Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  26. Huelva Unternbäumen, E. (2015). From primary metaphors to the complex semantic pole of grammatical constructions. Language and Cognition, 7, 68–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Husserl, E. (2002). Konstitution der Intersubjektivität. In K. Held (Ed.), Phänomenologie der Lebenswelt. Ausgewählte Texte II (pp. 166–219). Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  28. Hutto, D. (2008). First communication: Mimetic sharing without theory of mind. In J. Zlatev, T. P. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity (pp. 245–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Itkonen, E. (2008). The central role of normativity in language and linguistics. In J. Zlatev, T. P. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity (pp. 279–305). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture. Universality and Variation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  31. Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lapesa, R. (1964). Los casos latinos: restos sintácticos y sustitutos en español. BRAE, XLIV, 57–105.Google Scholar
  33. Lehmann, C. (2002). Thoughts on grammaticalization. Erfurt: ASSIDUE.Google Scholar
  34. Meyer-Lübke, W. (1890–1906). Grammaire des langues romanes, vol. 3 (Syntaxe). (From: http://archive.org/details/grammairedesla03meye).
  35. Ojutkangas, K. (2000). Grammaticalization of body-part nouns in Finnish and Estonian. Virittäjä, 104(2), 2–22.Google Scholar
  36. Penny, R. (1993). Gramática histórica del español. Madrid: Ariel.Google Scholar
  37. Pika, S. (2008). What is the nature of the gestural communication of great apes? In J. Zlatev, T. P. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity (pp. 165–186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Real Academia Española-Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Libros.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, J. R. (1997). Double object constructions in Zulu. In J. Newman (Ed.), The linguistics of giving (pp. 67–96). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tomasello, M., Call, J. (2006). Do chimpanzees know what others see – or only what they are looking at? In S. Hurley, M. Nudds (Eds.). Rational Animals? Oxford University Press, 371–384.Google Scholar
  42. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–691.Google Scholar
  43. Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: a description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech (pp. 321–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Trevarthen, C. (1980). The foundations of intersubjectivity. In D. Olson (Ed.), The Social Foundations of Language and Thought (pp. 216–242). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  45. Trevarthen, C. (1998). The concept and foundations of infant intersubjectivity. In S. Bråten (Ed.), Intersubjective Communication and Emotion in early Ontogeny (pp. 15–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Zlatev, J. (2008a). Intersubjectivity, mimetic schemas and the emergence of language. Intellectica, 46–47, 123–152.Google Scholar
  47. Zlatev, J. (2008b). The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In J. Zlatev, T. P. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity (pp. 215–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BrasiliaBrasiliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations