Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For our explanation of Husserl’s concept of intersubjectivity, we have based our argument on Husserl (2002).

  2. This anthropomorphic model is the most commonly used basis for the conceptualization of spatial relations in the world’s languages (Kövecses 2005: 79–82). Nevertheless, Heine (1995) points out that there are a few languages in which a zoomorphic model is employed. In these languages, it is the animal body (a horizontally positioned body supported by four legs) that serves as the basis for conceptualizing spatial relations. Nevertheless, this cannot be considered an argument against the primacy of the outline of the human body in the conceptualization of spatial relationships, considering that one basic prerequisite for the zoomorphic model is the conceptualization of the animal body starting from the human body (cf, for example, Ojutkangas 2000).

  3. Thus, for example, the differentiation between MĒNSA (nominative), MĒNSĂM (acusative) and MĒNSĀ (dative) gave way to MENSA (and subsequently mesa), as the homonimous form for the three cases (Cf. Penny 1993: 114–115).

  4. “Stronger resourse” means here a linguistic element that signals in a less ambiguous and consequently more effective manner that a determined element of the disccourse has the function of an indirect object.

  5. By ‘locative directive telic dislocation of an object’ is to be understood a displacement of an object caused intentionally by an agent, in such a way that the object ceases to be situated at its current locale, and situates itself in a place intended by the agent.

  6. Here we have abstracted from the metaphoric changes that this presupposes. In regard to this, see Huelva Unternbäumen (2015).

  7. Likewise, it is important to point out that to a large degree, preposition A maintains in present-day Spanish its original functions of proximity and telic motion.

  8. As is well known, this process of grammaticalization is not exclusive to the Spanish language. Rather, it has occurred in many other languages, for example most of the romance languages, and in English (prepositional syntagma introduced by ‘to’).

  9. The element al is the contraction of the preposition a and the article el.

  10. The arguments of a verb are the required elements for its grammatical utilization. Thus for example, a transitive verb such as comer has as its subject (agent) direct object (what is eaten) as arguments. Therefore, in a sentence like Juan come pizza (Juan eats pizza), the arguments of a verb are the required elements for its grammatical usage. Thus, for example a transitive verb like comer has its subject (agent) and direct object (what is eaten). Therefore, a sentence like Juan como pizza is grammatically complete. Together with these required elements, the sentence may include modifiers that add some additional information: Juan come pizza todos los martes en su pizzería favorita (Juan eats pizza every Tuesday at his favorite pizzaria).

  11. In Linguistics, ‘patient’ is the participant of a situation upon whom an action is carried out.

References

  • 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.

  • Baños Baños, J.M. (2009). Dativo”, en Sintaxis del latín clásico, in J. M. Baños Baños (Coord.), Madrid: Liceus, 185–208.

  • Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Company Company, Concepción. (2001). Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization: Spanish as a special kind of primary object language. Studies in Language, 25(1), 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Company Company, Concepción. (2002). Grammaticalization and category weakness. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 201–217). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Costelo, P. (2012). Layers in Husserl’s Phenomemology. On Meaning and Intersubjectivity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csordas, T. J. (2008). Intersubjectivity and Intercorporeality. Subjectivity, 22, 110–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: an enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6, 485–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Folgar, C. (1993). Diacronía de los objetos directo e indirecto. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S. (2012). Phenomenology. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S. (2013). Coordinación y creación de sentido en la atención conjunta y la atención conjunta. Ciencias Cognitivas, 3, 223–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • García de Diego, V. (1951/1970). Gramática histórica española, Madrid: Gredos.

  • García-Miguel, J. M. (1995). Transitividad y complementación preposicional en español. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hanssen, F. (1913). Gramática histórica de la lengua castellana. Halle: Max Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heine, B., Ulrike, C., & Hunemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huelva Unternbäumen, E. (2013). Intersubjetividad y gramática. Aspectos de una gramática fenomenológica. Frankfurt am Main / New York / Oxford: Peter Lang.

  • Huelva Unternbäumen, E. (2015). From primary metaphors to the complex semantic pole of grammatical constructions. Language and Cognition, 7, 68–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, E. (2002). Konstitution der Intersubjektivität. In K. Held (Ed.), Phänomenologie der Lebenswelt. Ausgewählte Texte II (pp. 166–219). Stuttgart: Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture. Universality and Variation. Cambridge: CUP.

  • Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapesa, R. (1964). Los casos latinos: restos sintácticos y sustitutos en español. BRAE, XLIV, 57–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, C. (2002). Thoughts on grammaticalization. Erfurt: ASSIDUE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Lübke, W. (1890–1906). Grammaire des langues romanes, vol. 3 (Syntaxe). (From: http://archive.org/details/grammairedesla03meye).

  • Ojutkangas, K. (2000). Grammaticalization of body-part nouns in Finnish and Estonian. Virittäjä, 104(2), 2–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penny, R. (1993). Gramática histórica del español. Madrid: Ariel.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Real Academia Española-Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Libros.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Zlatev, J. (2008a). Intersubjectivity, mimetic schemas and the emergence of language. Intellectica, 46–47, 123–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Brasilia, Brasilia, DF, Brazil

    Enrique Huelva Unternbäumen

Authors
  1. Enrique Huelva Unternbäumen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrique Huelva Unternbäumen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Unternbäumen, E.H. The codification of intersubjectivity in the diachronic change AD locative > A(D) indirect object in Spanish. Phenom Cogn Sci 16, 107–131 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-015-9443-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-015-9443-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation