180 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 74, NUMBER 1 (1998)

manicc Verb Second phenomenon

man phenomenon.Work
Working papers in
ngpapers n Scand
Scandinavian
nav ansyn ax 50
syntax 50.1-24.
1 24 Lund
Lund:Un
University
vers y
oof Lund Depar men oof L
Department Linguistics.
ngu s cs
RIZZI,LUIGI.1990. Re
RIZZILUIGI1990 Relativized
a v zed m n ma y Cambr
minimality. dge MA
Cambridge,MA: MIT Press
Press.

Ans van Kemenade

Vrijee Un
Vr Universiteit
vers e
men oof Eng
Department
Depar English
sh
de Boe
Boelelaan
e aan 1105
1081 HV Ams
Amsterdam
erdam
The Ne
Netherlands
her ands
[kemenade@let.vu.nl]
kemenade@ e vu n

cs Pr
Semantics:
Seman Primes
mes and un versa s By ANNAWIERZBICKA
universals. ANNAWIERZBICKA.x ord & New York
Oxford
O York: Ox
Oxford
ord
vers ty Press
University
Un Press. 1996 Pp. xxii, 500
1996. Pp 500. $105
$105.00.
00
Reviewed
Rev ewed by BERTPEETERS PEETERS,Un vers y oof Tasman
University Tasmaniaa
Anna W Wierzbicka's
erzb cka scon contribution
r bu ontoo semansemantics, cs too the
he exp ora onoof wha
exploration what she so ap aptlyy ca
callss
'the
he dazz
dazzling beautyy oof the
ngbeau he un verseoof mean
universe meaning' 233 has been and con
ng (233), continues
nues too be immense.
mmense
W has left e on the he seman
semanticc en erpr sean indelible
enterprise nde b e markwh
mark which ch genera onsoof linguists
generations ngu s s too come
will thankfully
w hank u yacknow edge Th
acknowledge. Thiss iss ye
yet ano
another
herco ec on oof her papers
collection papers, and aat the he time
me oof
writing
wr ng it was cclear
ear that
ha it wou
would d by no means be the he last.
as
Previously
Prev ous y unpub
unpublished ke Chs
shed(like Chs. 2 and 33, and un unlikeke aall the
he oothers),
hers ChCh. 1 ('Introduction',
In roduc on
33-34) presentss the
34 presen he newcomer too na natural
ura seman
semantics cs (which
wh ch iss how W W'ss theoretical
heore ca framework
ramework
has come too be known known) w withh the
he necessarybackground
necessary backgroundtoo tackle ack e thehe res
rest oof the
he book
book. When I
say 'previously
prev ous yunpub shed I mean 'in
unpublished', n this
h s format'.
orma Hav Having ng translated
rans a edexextracts
rac sfrom
romW W'ss ear
earlier
er
work into n o French for or an issue
ssue oof thehe journal
ourna Languefranfaise ran a se devo
devoteded too seman
semanticcpr primitives
m ves
(Peeters 1993), I recogn
Pee ers 1993 recognize ze large chunks of ma
arge chunkso material
er a inserted
nser edherehere wwithout
hou mamajororrewr ng Ch
rewriting. Ch.
1 dea
dealss w
withh the
he importance
mpor anceoof ana analyzing
yz ngmeanmeaning not by any oold
ngno d means bu but wwithh the
he he
helpp oof a
set oof seman
se semanticcpr m ves aall oof wh
primitives, whichch are lexical
ex ca ununiversals
versa s(although
a houghthe he oppos
oppositee iss no
not true)
rue
and presumab
presumablyyinnate
nna e concep
concepts; s it aalso
so dea
dealss wwithh ques
questionsonsoof syn
syntax e g the
ax (e.g. he comb
combinability
nab y
oof pr m ves the
primitives, he issue
ssue oof verb va valency,
ency eetc.).c Fur hermorethe
Furthermore, he readeriss prov
provided
dedw with h a shor
short
s ory oof na
history
h natural
ura seman
semanticc memetalanguage
a anguage(NSM) NSM and w withh an accoun
account oof how the he theory
heory has
come too dea deal wwith h phenomenasuch
phenomenasuch as po ysemy and aallolexy,
polysemy o exy too menmentiononbu
but a few.
ew On p p. 28
28,
W falls a s prey
prey, aafterer so many oothers,
hers too the he be
belief
e that
ha thehe phraseou
phrase ou toutou se tient
en iss too be found
ound
in n Saussure
Saussure.IIt isn't
sn (cf. g Pee
c ee.g. Peetersers 1985
1985, 1991a
1991a).
Ch. 2 ('A
Ch A survey oof seman
semanticcpr primitives',
m ves 35 35-111)
111 provprovides
des separa sections
separateesec ons dea
dealingng w with
h
oold d pr
primitives
m ves(i.e. e the
he list
s pu
put too the
he test
es in n Goddard
Goddard/Wierzbicka
W erzb cka11994)994 andnew
and new pr primitives
m ves(addedadded
in n the
he last
as coup
couplee oof years
years). The con continued
nuedexpans
expansion onoof the
he NSM iss too be appapplauded,
auded espec
especially
a y
nce it goes hand in
ssince n handw
hand with h ex
extensive
ens ve emp r ca researcha
empirical researchaimed med aat avo d ng the
avoiding he inclusion
nc us onoof
conceptss wh
concep whichch do no not mee
meet NSMNSM'ss rrigorous
gorous sstandards.
andards There iss no comprehens
comprehensive ve table
ab e oof
semanticcpr
seman primitives
m vesggiven ven anywherein n the
he vo ume I w
volume. will redressthat ha lack
ack be
below;
ow thehe descr
descriptors
p ors
in n the
he left
e cocolumn
umn are cover terms erms for or se
setss oof interrelated
n erre a edconcep
conceptss and are no not themselves
hemse ves par part
oof thehe me a anguage The new pr
metalanguage. primitives
m vesare are inn italic.
a c
substantives
subs an ves II, YOU
YOU, SOMEONE
SOMEONE,SOMETHINGSOMETHING,PEOPLE
determiners
de erm ners THIS, THE SAME
THIS SAME, OTHEROTHER,SOME
quantifiers
quan ers ONE, TWO
ONE TWO, MANY (MUCH), MUCH ALL
augmentor
augmen or MORE
mental
men a pred
predicates
ca es THINK, KNOW
THINK KNOW, WANT WANT, FEEL FEEL, SEE
SEE, HEAR
nonmental
nonmen a pred
predicates
ca es MOVE,THEREIS
MOVE THEREIS, (BE) BE ALIVE
speech and words SAY, WORD
SAY
actions
ac ons and even
eventss DO, HAPPEN
DO
evaluators
eva ua ors GOOD, BAD
GOOD
 REVIEWS 181

descriptors
descr p ors BIG, SMALL
BIG
time
me WHEN, BEFORE
WHEN AFTER,A LONGTIME
BEFORE, AFTER LONG TIME,A SHORT
TIME,NOW
TIME
space WHERE, UNDER
WHERE ABOVE, FAR
UNDER, ABOVE FAR, NEAR SIDE, IN
NEAR, SIDE IN-
SIDE, HERE
SIDE
onomyand taxonomy
partonomy
par axonomy PART (OF),
OF KIND (OF)
OF
metapredicates
me apred ca es CAN, VERY
NOT, CAN
NOT
interclausal
n erc ausa linkers
nkers BECAUSE, LIKE
IF, BECAUSE
IF
mag na on and poss
imagination possibility
b y IF ... WOULD
WOULD, MAYBE
The legitimacy
eg macy oof each pr m ve iss d
primitive discussed
scussed aat length.
eng h Persona
Personally, y I wou
would d have pre
preferred
erred
'IN'
IN too 'INSIDE'
INSIDE as a spacepr m ve(cf.
space primitive c Pee
Peetersers 1997 for or de
detailed
a edd discussion
scuss onbasedon
based on French
French).
The add addition onoof '(BE)
BE ALIVE
ALIVE' iss we welcome.
come Some time me agoago, inn a letter
e ertoo this
h s rev ewer the
reviewer, heFrench
French
lexicologist
ex co og s Jacque
Jacqueline nePPicoche
coche quer
querieded itss absence from rom the he me a anguage she w
metalanguage; will now feelee
vvindicated
nd ca edby this h s recen
recentinclusion.
nc us on Very interesting hroughou Ch
n eres ngthroughout Ch. 2 are the he frequent
requen re references
erences
too the
he literature
era ureon on chchild d language
anguageacqu s onin
acquisition n wh
which ch amp
ampleesuppor
supporting ngev
evidence
dence may be found ound
for
or the
he appropr a enessoof var
appropriateness various
ous inclusions
nc us ons and exc exclusions.
us ons
Because NSM iss a me a anguageand no
metalanguage not a me a ex con it has itss own un
metalexicon, universal
versa synsyntax,
ax
discussed
d scussed aat length
eng h in n Ch
Ch. 3 ('Universal grammar:The syn
Un versa grammar syntaxax oof un
universal
versa seman
semanticcpr primitives',
m ves
47 The var
112-47).
112 various
ousprprimitives den edin
m vesidentified n Ch
Ch. 2 aretakenakenup once aga again,n andtheirhe rcomb
combinato-
na o
rrial
a poss b es areexam
possibilities are examined nedand
and illustrated
us ra edby meanso
means of so so-called
ca ed 'canonical
canon ca sen sentences'
ences whwhichch
presumablyycan be sa
presumab saidd inn aall the
he languages
anguages oof the he wor
world d (e.g.
e g You
You/IId didd some
something bad, Th
h ngbad Thiss
h ng iss under
thing under/above
aboveaall thesehese oother
her things,
h ngs A At some time mebe before
orenownow I felt
e some
somethingh nggood
good, eetc.).
c
Some oof the he descr p orsused in
descriptors n Ch
Ch. 3 are d different
eren fromrom those
hose used in n Ch
Ch. 2 (andand reproduced
inn the
he table
ab e above
above):'DO,' HAPPEN and 'MOVE',
DO 'HAPPEN', MOVE for or instance,
ns ance aregrouped
are groupedtogether underthe
oge herunder he
descriptor
descr p or'actions,
ac ons evenevents, s and movemen
movement', whereas 'THERE THEREIS IS' and ('BE)BE ALIVE
ALIVE', prev previously
ous y
oge her w
grouped together with h 'MOVE'
MOVE under the he descr p or 'nonmental
descriptor nonmen a pred ca es now make up a
predicates',
egory oof their
category
ca he r own
own, ca calleded 'existence
ex s enceand
and life'.e The groupgrouping ngadop
adopted edinn Ch
Ch. 3 iss probab
probablyythe he
better
be er one
one, ssince
nce 'nonmental
nonmen a pred ca es iss ra
predicates' rather
hervague
vague as a label abe and m might suggest that
gh sugges ha there
here
are no further
ur herpred ca estoo follow-although
predicates o ow a hough there here are (cf.c 'DO',
DO 'HAPPEN',
HAPPEN 'SAY'). SAY
Ch. 4 ('Prototypes
Ch Pro o ypesand invariants',
nvar an s 148 69 rema
148-69) remains nsas
as de gh u a readnow
delightful read now as it was in n itss
g na format
original
or orma (published
pub shedin n 1990 underthe he titlee 'Prototypes
Pro o ypessave save'). W warnsaga
warnsagainst ns the
he wwide-
de
spread be beliefe that
ha the he cclassical
ass ca and the he pro o ype approachestoo ca
prototype categorization
egor za onare are mumutually
ua y
exclusive.
exc us ve She illustrates,
us ra esby by meanso
meansof an investigation
nves ga onoof the hemean
meaning ngoof the
hewordsboa
wordsboat, bachebachelor,or
congratulate,
congra ua eb bird,
rd lie, e mo
mother,
her furniture,
urn ure toy oy and game
game, how the he idea
dea oof pro o yp ca yhas been
prototypicality
sused and then
misused,
m hen uses co color
or terms,
erms words for or emo
emotions,ons as we well as the he words cup cup, unc
uncle,e bbird
rd
(again),
aga n tomato,
oma o cabbage
cabbage, app apple,e and cclimb
mb too show how the he no
notionon oof pro
prototype
o ypemaymay be pu put too
a bebettereruse
use. AAll in n aall, she dedefends
ends the
he thesis
hes s that
ha there
here iss a p ace in
place n seman
semanticcinvestigations
nves ga onsfor or
both
bo h approachesandthat ha no h ngiss too be ga
nothing ned qu e too the
gained-quite hecon
contrary-from
rary rom turning urn ngpro prototypes
o ypes
into
n o 'universal
un versa thought-saving
hough sav ngdev devices'
ces aallowing ngu s s too ge
ow ng linguists away with
get awayw h inaccurate
naccura ede definitions
n ons
and too lightly
gh y ca categorize
egor ze spec mens wh
specimens whichch do no not ma
match ch the
he de
definitions
n onsas as 'nonprototypical'.
nonpro o yp ca
Ch. 5 ('Semantic
Ch Seman cpr m vesand seman
primitives semanticcfields',
e ds 170170-83;83 firstrs pub shedin
published n 1992
1992) iss as ddisap-
sap
n ng as Ch
pointing
po Ch. 4 was en oyab e In it, W re
enjoyable. ec s vviews
rejects ews aattributed
r bu edtoo lexical
ex ca field e d theorists
heor s saat
large e g that
arge (e.g. ha the
he mean
meaning ng oof words depends en re y on every oother
entirely her word in n the
he lexicon),
ex con
without
w hou rea z ngthat
realizing ha hard
hardlyyanyone
anyone today acceptss the
oday accep he rad
radical
ca pos ons she so va
positions valiantly
an yaattempts
emp s
too underm
undermine. ne There iss no ev evidence
dence oof any rea real familiarity
am ar yw with h the
he vas
vast literature
era ureon on lexical
ex ca
fields
e ds (foror a recen
recent co collection
ec on oof papers on lexical ex ca fielde d theory,
heory see Lu Lutzeier
ze er 1993
1993). TrTrier
er and
Lehrerare the
Lehrerare he on
onlyy genu
genuine ne field
e d theorists
heor s smenmentioned
onedin n the
he text,
ex as though
houghno nothing
h ngnonoteworthy
ewor hy
had been wr writtenenbe
between
ween 1931 and 1974 1974, and aga again n aafter
er 1974
1974. IIt mus
must be sa said,
d though,
hough thatha W
iss no
not thehe on
onlyy wr
writer ertoo make this h s par
particular
cu arm mistake
s ake (cf.c Pee
Peeters
ers 1991b on Kovecses 1986 1986).
In Ch
Ch. 6 ('Semantics
Seman cs and "pr "primitive"
m ve" thought',
hough 184 210 first
184-210; rs pub
published
shed in n 1994
1994), W po points
ns
out that
ou ha thehe my
myth h oof 'primitive
pr m vethought',
hough accord
according ngtoo wh
whichch 'primitive
pr m vepeop people' e (i.e.
e non
non-Western
Wes ern
tribal
r ba soc e es are incapable
societies) ncapab eoof abs abstract
rac thinking,
h nk ng iss rear
rearingngitss ug
uglyy headaga
head again. n Abs
Abstract
rac thought
hough
typically
yp ca y requrequires conceptss such as IF
resconcep IF, BECAUSE
BECAUSE, SOMEONE SOMEONE, ALL ALL, KNOWKNOW, and THINK
182 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 74, NUMBER 1 (1998)

185 aall oof wh

(185), whichch are parpartoof the
he NSM
NSM. IIt iss shown that ha these
hese concep
conceptss are eeffectively
ec ve y lexicalized
ex ca zed
even in n the
he languages
anguages in n wh
whichch they
hey were prev previously hough no
ous y thought not too occur
occur; the he correspond
corresponding ng
wordsarepo
wordsare ysemous a fact
polysemous, ac no
not proper
properlyyunders
understood oodby those
hose who be believe
eve inn 'primitive
pr m vethought'.
hough
Po ysemy iss NOT pos
Polysemy postulated
u a edlightly, hough W approv
gh y though. approvinglyng yquo
quoteses FranzBoas
FranzBoas, who cclaimed a med in n
1938 thatha 'devices
dev ces too deve
developop genera
generalizedzedideas
deas are probab
probablyyaalways presentand [that]
ways presen ha theyhey are
used as soon as the he cucultural
ura needs compecompel the he na
natives
ves to
o form
orm them'
hem (210).
210 The argumenargumentiss that ha
no language
anguage iss incapable
ncapab e oof abs abstract
rac thought,
hough even though anguage users may no
hough language not ac ua y use
actually
their
he r language
anguage for or such purpose
purpose.
The ma main n argumen
argumentadvancedin n Ch
Ch. 7 ('Semantic
Seman ccomp ex y and the
complexity he ro
rolee oof os
ostension
ens on in n the
he
s on oof concep
acquisition
acqu concepts', s 211 33 first
211-33; rs pub shed in
published n 1991
1991) iss thatha 'thehe comp ex y oof a concep
complexity concept
can be vviewed ewed as the he d distance
s ance separa
separating ngit from
rom the he level
eve oof indefinables'
nde nab es (212). 212 Severa
Several types
ypes
oof concep
conceptss are then ooked aat, in
hen looked n an aattempt
emp too assess their he r comp
complexity;
ex y theyhey include
nc ude 'abstract'
abs rac
exemp ed by means oof words for
conceptss (exemplified
concep or emo
emotions),
ons 'relatively
re a ve yssimplemp e concre
concrete' e concep
conceptss
exemp ed by means oof words for
(exemplified or body par parts, partss oof the
s par he na
natural
ura env
environment,
ronmen temperature
empera ure
erms and the
terms, he concep
concept oof fire),re and 'cultural
cu ura and na natural
ura k kinds'
nds (such
such as bread and wa er In
water).
general, it appears that
genera ha absabstract
rac concep
conceptss are less ess comp
complex ex than
han concre
concretee ones (but bu farar more
complex
comp ex than
han traditional
rad ona lexicographers
ex cographerswou would d have us be eve In a final
believe). na sec on W argues
section,
that
ha thehe seman
semanticcrepresen
representationa onoof sensentences
encesmusmust proceed on a sstep-by-step
ep by s epbas basiss (one
one concep
concept
aat a time).
me There iss no such thing h ng as a gglobal paraphrase,even for
oba paraphrase or sen
sentences
ences as ssimple
mp e as W W'ss
own examp
examplee I aatee an appapple.e W does no not popointn ou
out that
ha her argumen
argumentdoes no not app
applyy too canon
canonical ca
sentences
sen ences that
ha cons
consist s oof seman
semanticc pr primitives
m veson y such sen
only; sentences,
ences presumab
presumably, y co
coincide
nc de w with h
their
he r paraphrases(in n wh
whichch case it may be awkwardto o use thehe term
ermparaphrasea
paraphrase at aall).
Having
Hav ng covered aall oof the he above (Part Par II, 'General
Genera issues',
ssues 11-233),233 W turns urnsher
her aattention
en ontoo
lexical
ex ca seman
semantics cs (Part
Par II II, 235 375 Chs
235-375; Chs. 88-12)12 and too the he seman
semantics cs oof grammar(Part Par IIIIII,
458 Chs
377-458;
377 Chs. 13 15 Par
13-15). Partss II and III are bes best seen as illustrations
us ra onsoof the he me
methodology
hodo ogypu put
forward
orwardin n Par
Part II. I wou
would d have we welcomed
comed the he oppor un ytoo d
opportunity discuss
scuss many po n s oof de
points detail
a in n
Chs. 88-15.
Chs 15 However
However, de detailed
a edcommen
commentss wou would d have requ
requiredredaa rev
review
ew much longer onger than
hanwaswas
possible.
poss b e I mus
must limit
m mysemyself too a list s oof chap
chapter es each followed
ertitles, o owed by a br brief
e synops
synopsis: s
'Against
Aga ns "aga "againstns de definitions"'
n ons" (Ch. Ch 88, 237 237-57):
57 MeanMeaning ng iss no
not indeterminate,
nde erm na e so so-called
ca ed
untranslatable
un rans a ab econcep
conceptss are fully u y dedefinable
nab eandand do have a seman semanticcinvariant.
nvar an
'Semantics
Seman csand and lexicography'
ex cography (Ch. Ch 99, 258 86 How seman
258-86): semanticcpr primitives
m vescan can be used as an
ns rumen too improve
instrument mprove lexicographical
ex cograph ca prac practice.ce
'The
The mean
meaning ngoof co
colour
our terms
ermsandand thehe un
universals
versa soof see
seeing'
ng (Ch.
Ch 10 10, 287
287-334):
334 A houghthere
Although here
are un universals
versa soof see ng there
seeing, hereareare no un universals
versa soof co colour.
our
'The
The seman
semantics cs oof na
natural
ura k kinds'
nds (Ch.Ch 11 11, 335 50 A d
335-50): discussion
scuss on oof how one m gh bes
might best
s ngu shbe
distinguish
d between
ween lexicon
ex con and encyc oped a be
encyclopedia, between
weenmean
meaning and knowledge-with
ngandknow edge w h illustra- us ra
tions
ons from
rom thehe vas
vast areao
area of na ura k
natural kind
nd terms.
erms
'Semantics
Seman csand and eethnobiology'
hnob o ogy (Ch. Ch 12 12, 351 75 On the
351-75): he use oof linguistic
ngu s c testses s and linguistic
ngu s c
evidence
ev dence in n the
he sstudy
udy oof human ca egor za onin
categorization n genera
general and eethnobiological
hnob o og ca ca categorization
egor za onin n
particular.
par cu ar
'Semantic
Seman c ru rules
es in n grammar
grammar'(Ch. Ch 13 13, 379
379-401):
401 Large par partss oof grammarare
grammarare sub subjected
ec ed too
semanticcru
seman rules
es wh
which ch are abso
absolutely
u e ypred
predictive
c vewh whilee sstill be
being
ng language-specific,
anguage spec c i.e. e no
not ununi-
versal.
versa
'A
A seman
semanticcbasbasiss for
or gramma
grammatical cadescr
description
p onandand typology:
ypo ogy Trans Transitivity
v yandre
and reflexives'
ex ves (Ch.Ch
14, 402
14 26 The use oof the
402-26): he same gramma
grammatical ca labels
abe s across languages
anguagesiss justified
us edon onlyy if prec
precisese
definitions
de n onsare areprov
provideddedwh whichch po n too d
point differences
erencesas as we
well as too a language-independent
anguage ndependenseman semanticc
core.
core
'Comparing
Compar nggramma grammatical ca ca
categories across languages:
egor esacross anguages The seman semantics csoof ev
evidentials'
den a s (Ch. Ch 15 15,
427-58):
427 58 A theoretical
heore ca demonsdemonstration,
ra onbu building
d ngon on emp r ca workdone
empirical work done by oothers, hers that
ha ununiversal
versa
semanticc pr
seman m ves are more use
primitives usefulu inn thehe sstudy
udy oof ev
evidentiality
den a y than han technical
echn ca labels
abe s such as
WITNESSED, INFERRED
WITNESSED INFERRED,INDIRECTe INDIRECTetc.) c
W'ss latest
W a es workbearsa
work bearsall the he ha
hallmarks
marksoof the he WWierzbickian
erzb ck anen enterprise.
erpr seThe The format-a
orma a co collec-
ec
tion
on oof mamainly
n y pub
published
shedpapers heavilyy rev
papers, heav revised
sed and upda
updated-is
ed s becom
becoming ng familiar
am ar (see see ee.g.
g
 REVIEWS 183

Wierzbicka
W erzb cka 1988
1988, 1991 1992); the
1991, 1992 he con en s in
contents, n sp
spitee oof the
he repe
repetitiveness broughtabou
venessbrough about by the
he
orma iss as exc
chosen format, excitingng as ever
ever, the
he sstyle
y e as sharpand w y the
witty, he argumen
argumentssas prec se and
precise
hough provok ngTh
thought-provoking. Thiss iss no
not too say that
ha one musmust agree w withh every h ngthat
everything ha iss be ng sa
being d as
said,
I think
h nk I have shown
shown. W cer a n y does no
certainly not expec
expect this h s from
rom anyone nc ud ng her cclosest
anyone, including oses
eagues her w
colleagues;
co ngness too re
willingness reflect
ec on herown
her own ach evemen s too adm
achievements, admiterrorsand
errorsand inaccuracies,
naccurac es
and too rev
revise
se ear
earlier
er assump
assumptions ons on the
he bas
basiss oof interminable
n erm nab ed discussions
scuss ons wwith
h linguists
ngu s s and
nonlinguists
non ke iss second too none
ngu s s aalike none.

REFERENCES
GODDARD,
GODDARD LIFFandANNA
CLIFF,
C and ANNAWIERZBICKA eds 1994
(eds.) 1994. Seman
Semanticcand
and lexical
ex ca un
universals:
versa s Theoryand emp empirical
r ca
nd ngs Ams
findings. Amsterdam:
erdam John Ben Benjamins.
am ns
KOVECSES,
KOVECSES ZOLTAN.
ZOLTAN 1986. Me
1986 aphorsoof anger
Metaphors anger,pr deand love:
pride ove A lexical
ex ca approachtoo thehesstructure
ruc ureoof concep
concepts.
s
Amsterdam:
Ams erdam John Ben Benjamins.
am ns
LUTZEIER,
LUTZEIER PETER
P ETER ROLF(ed.)ed 1993
1993. S ud en zur Wor
Studien Wortfeldtheorie/Studies
e d heor e S ud esnin lexical
ex ca field
e d theory.
heory TuTuiibingen:
b ngen
Niemeyer.
N emeyer
ERS BERT
PEETrERS.
PEET 1985. 'Tout
BERT. 1985 Tou ne se tient-il
en pas dans lee sys systeme?'
eme? Bedenk
Bedenkingen
ngenbbij de parad gma schesamen
paradigmatische samen-
hang van taalelementen.
aa e emen en Hande ngenvan de Kon
Handelingen nk keZu
Koninklijke Zuidnederlandse
dneder andseMaa schapp voorTaa
Maatschappij voor Taal- en
erkundeen Gesch
Letterkunde
Le Geschiedenis
eden s3939.141-56.
141 56
-- . 1991a
1991a. Encoreune
Encore une fois o s 'oui
ou tout
ou se tient'.
en H Historiographia
s or ograph aL ngu s ca 17
Linguistica 17.427-36.
427 36
1991b. Rev
. 1991b Reviewew oof Kovecses (1986).
1986 AusAustralian
ra anJourna
Journaloof L ngu s cs 11
Linguistics 11.229-32.
229 32
. 1993
1993. Les pr
primitifs
m sseman ques Langue francaise
semantiques. ranca se9898. Par
Paris:
s Larousse
Larousse.
. 1997
1997. The syn
syntaxax oof time
me and space pr m ves in
primitives n French
French. LanguageSc
LanguageSciences
ences 19
19.235-44.
235 44
erzb cka Anna
Wierzbicka,
W Anna. 1988
1988. The seman
semanticscsoof grammarAms
grammar.Amsterdam:erdam John Ben
Benjamins.
am ns
. 1991
1991. Cross
Cross-cultural
cu ura pragma
pragmatics.cs The seman
semanticscsoof humaninteraction.
n erac on Ber
Berlin:
n Mou
Moutononde
de Gruy
Gruyter.
er
. 1992
1992. Seman
Semantics,cs cu
culture
ureand
and cogn on Un
cognition: Universal
versa humanconcep
conceptss in
n cu
culture-specific
ure spec ccon
configurations.
gura ons
New York
York: Ox
Oxford
ord UnUniversity Press.
vers yPress
men oof Eng
Department
Depar sh and EuropeanLanguagesand
English EuropeanLanguagesand L
Literatures
era ures
vers yoof Tasman
University
Un Tasmaniaa
GPO Box 252
252-82
82
HobartTAS 7001
Hobar
Australia
Aus ra a
Pee ers@u
IBert.Peeters
IBer @utas.edu.au]
a edu au

Literacy,
L eracy emo on and au
emotion, authority:
hor y Read ng and wr
Reading ng on a Po
writing Polynesian
ynes an aatoll.
o By
NIKOBESNIER(Studies
NIKOBESNIER S ud es in
n the
he soc
social
a and cu
cultural
ura foundations
ounda ons oof language,
anguage 17
17). New
York: Cambr
York Cambridge
dge Un
University Press, 1995
vers y Press 1995. Pp xx, 234
Pp. xx 234. CCloth
o h $54
$54.95,
95 paper $19
$19.95.
95
Reviewed
Rev ewed by JAMESCOLLINSS
COLLINS,State
a e Un vers y oof New York
University York, A
Albany
bany
Thiss amb
Th ous we
ambitious, well wr written
enbook
book cha enges the
challenges he preva
prevailing
ng vview
ew oof literacy
eracy as a con
context-
ex
independent echno ogy oof the
ndependen 'technology he intellect',
n e ec presen
presentssdedetailed
a ed ana
analyses
yses oof read
reading
ngand
and wr
writing
ngon
on
the
he Po ynes anaatoll
Polynesian o oof Nuku
Nukulaelae
ae aeandargues
and arguesforor comp
complexly
ex y genderedliteracy
eracyprac
practices,
ces a letter
e er
ng that
writing
wr ha sstrikingly
r k ng y eelaborates
abora esemo on and a literate-based
emotion, era e basedre religious
g ous au
authority
hor ythatha iss bo
bothh
powerful
power u andcons
and constrained.
ra nedThe The eethnographic
hnograph candand linguistic
ngu s cmamaterials
er a sarecare
arecarefully
u ylaid
a d ou
out so that
ha
the
he readerwho
readerwho iss nonot a spec a s in
specialist n the
he language groupor the
anguagegroupor he reg
region can none
oncan nonetheless
he essfollow
o ow the
he
ys s The ana
analysis.
ana yses focus
analyses ocus on literacy eventss andprac
eracyeven and practices and are thus
cesand hus wr
written
eninn a typifying
yp y ng
ye w
sstyle, without
hou cclose
ose aattention
en on too var
variation
a onbu
but wwith h amp
amplee illustration
us ra on(see see Besn
Besnierer 1988 for
or a
quantitative
quan a veana ys s oof spoken
analysis spoken/written genre differences
wr engenred erences inn this
h s se
setting).
ng The Nuku
Nukulaelae
ae aepar
particu-
cu
lars
ars are aalways
ways con
contextualized
ex ua zedw withh re
reference
erencetoo reg
regional
ona literatures
era uresasas we
well as theoretical
heore ca litera-
era
tures
ures bear ngon ggiven
bearing ven argumen
argumentssandand con
controversies.
rovers es
The book consconsists
s s oof eeight
gh chap
chapters,
ers p us a pre
plus preface
ace ddiscussing
scuss ng transcription
ranscr p onconven
conventionsons and
orthography
or hography(for or there
here iss no sstandard
andardor orthography)
hography (xiii-xx)
x xx and an index ndex oof Tuva
Tuvaluanuanwords
words
226 7 in
(226-7), n add
addition
on too the
he usua
usual nonotes,
es re
references,
erences and genera
general index.
ndex Ch Ch. 11, 'Introduction',
In roduc on