Les Dénominations du visage en français et dans les autres langues romanes. Étude sémantiqueet onomasiologique by Jean RensonReview by: A. H. DiverresThe Modern Language Review, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Jul., 1968), pp. 700-701Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3722244 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 17:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Modern Language Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.46 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:39:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

provided are sometimes baffling. For example, it is said to be a 'degre de significa- tion' (p. 7). But since we have not previously been told that semantics recognizes degrees of meaning, nor what these degrees are, the concept of degre de signification does not help much. A key example is, however, provided. Curiously, it comes not from French but from Latin, and is the superlative form of the adjective :fortissimus. Matters are then made worse by the author's supplying two translations offortis- simus, namely 'courageux a un tres haut degre' and 'courageux au plus haut degre', which he apparently regards as meaning the same thing. After this, the reader is left to his own devices.

Similar vagueness characterizes the discussion of many points throughout these essays. Is magnifique the equivalent, as Professor Porteau claims, of tres beau? He qualifies his statement with the words 'avec des nuances'. But if the expressions have different nuances, it becomes all the more important to know exactly in what sense it is claimed that they are equivalent. Radicalement, we are told, is in every respect an exact synonym of tout a fait - as is also infiniment. But if this is so, do we not need some explanation of the fact that one says radicalementfaux rather than infiniment faux, but infiniment souhaitable rather than radicalement souhaitable? Again, is it true that 'un trait commun at tous nos adverbes est qu'en prenant la fonction d'intensifs ils se vident de leur sens etymologique' ? To assess this claim one needs to know exactly how 'intensive function' is defined, and also 'etymological mean- ing'. But no definitions are forthcoming. Much of what is said about the meanings of French words seems to presuppose some theory of synonymy (the term synonym is of frequent occurrence) but no account is given of what synonyms are taken to be.

The two great authorities for Professor Porteau are Breal and Brunot. In study- ing meanings we are trying to relate something called the signe to what are variously referred to as 'pensees' or 'idees'. An idee appears to be different from a notion concrete, although how is not made clear. How we determine what the pensee is in any particular case is not made clear either: presumably some people - e.g. dictionary compilers? -simply happen to know such things and can make authoritative pronouncements. There are frequent allusions, particularly in the second essay, to mental processes, which apparently vary systematically from one language-community to another. How they are accessible to observation and description is not stated. In short, one would not recommend an undergraduate to read these pronouncements on semantics unless one wanted him to be thoroughly confused about the subject. This is not to say that the book does not contain some suggestive remarks which, developed with a modicum of clarity and rigour, could have formed the basis for a worthwhile publication. HA

ROY HARRIS OXFORD

Les Denominations du visage enfranfais et dans les autres langues romanes. Etude semantique et onomasiologique. By JEAN RENSON. (Bibliotheque de la Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Universite de Liege, I62) Paris: Les Belles Lettres. I962. 2 vols (numbered consecutively). 738 pp. 40 N.F.

Of recent enquiries into particular semantic fields in Romance languages few have been so wide in scope as this one into the designations of the face. The whole of M. Renson's work is not of equal merit. The author makes it clear that Part vi is nothing more than an expression of intent, but why include it at all since it contains no more than a few remarks of a most cursory kind ? Some are even inaccurate. What he says about the French terms in English will serve as an illustration. Figure, we are told (p. 656), is used in the sense of'visage'; no mention is made of cheer as a designation for face, though it is so attested from the thirteenth to the end of the

provided are sometimes baffling. For example, it is said to be a 'degre de significa- tion' (p. 7). But since we have not previously been told that semantics recognizes degrees of meaning, nor what these degrees are, the concept of degre de signification does not help much. A key example is, however, provided. Curiously, it comes not from French but from Latin, and is the superlative form of the adjective :fortissimus. Matters are then made worse by the author's supplying two translations offortis- simus, namely 'courageux a un tres haut degre' and 'courageux au plus haut degre', which he apparently regards as meaning the same thing. After this, the reader is left to his own devices.

Similar vagueness characterizes the discussion of many points throughout these essays. Is magnifique the equivalent, as Professor Porteau claims, of tres beau? He qualifies his statement with the words 'avec des nuances'. But if the expressions have different nuances, it becomes all the more important to know exactly in what sense it is claimed that they are equivalent. Radicalement, we are told, is in every respect an exact synonym of tout a fait - as is also infiniment. But if this is so, do we not need some explanation of the fact that one says radicalementfaux rather than infiniment faux, but infiniment souhaitable rather than radicalement souhaitable? Again, is it true that 'un trait commun at tous nos adverbes est qu'en prenant la fonction d'intensifs ils se vident de leur sens etymologique' ? To assess this claim one needs to know exactly how 'intensive function' is defined, and also 'etymological mean- ing'. But no definitions are forthcoming. Much of what is said about the meanings of French words seems to presuppose some theory of synonymy (the term synonym is of frequent occurrence) but no account is given of what synonyms are taken to be.

The two great authorities for Professor Porteau are Breal and Brunot. In study- ing meanings we are trying to relate something called the signe to what are variously referred to as 'pensees' or 'idees'. An idee appears to be different from a notion concrete, although how is not made clear. How we determine what the pensee is in any particular case is not made clear either: presumably some people - e.g. dictionary compilers? -simply happen to know such things and can make authoritative pronouncements. There are frequent allusions, particularly in the second essay, to mental processes, which apparently vary systematically from one language-community to another. How they are accessible to observation and description is not stated. In short, one would not recommend an undergraduate to read these pronouncements on semantics unless one wanted him to be thoroughly confused about the subject. This is not to say that the book does not contain some suggestive remarks which, developed with a modicum of clarity and rigour, could have formed the basis for a worthwhile publication. HA

ROY HARRIS OXFORD

Les Denominations du visage enfranfais et dans les autres langues romanes. Etude semantique et onomasiologique. By JEAN RENSON. (Bibliotheque de la Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Universite de Liege, I62) Paris: Les Belles Lettres. I962. 2 vols (numbered consecutively). 738 pp. 40 N.F.

Of recent enquiries into particular semantic fields in Romance languages few have been so wide in scope as this one into the designations of the face. The whole of M. Renson's work is not of equal merit. The author makes it clear that Part vi is nothing more than an expression of intent, but why include it at all since it contains no more than a few remarks of a most cursory kind ? Some are even inaccurate. What he says about the French terms in English will serve as an illustration. Figure, we are told (p. 656), is used in the sense of'visage'; no mention is made of cheer as a designation for face, though it is so attested from the thirteenth to the end of the

Reviews Reviews 700 700

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.46 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:39:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

sixteenth century. The thoroughness of the study of the semantic field in Romance languages other than French varies considerably, as the following summary of the documentation makes clear. M. Renson bases his findings in 'Langue d'Oc' on an examination of standard dictionaries, modern dialectal glossaries and sixty-six texts, twenty-eight of which are in verse, the majority medieval, though Mistral's Mireio is among them. Less thoroughly documented are the studies of the field in Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese since they are based on a total of forty-two texts dating from the middle ages to the present day, in addition to standard dic- tionaries. In the case of Rheto-Romance and Rumanian, dictionaries alone have been consulted. Nevertheless, M. Renson has important observations to make about the terms in all these languages.

The idea of this work came from a course of lectures on the appellations of 'face' in Old French delivered by Professor Delbouille after the war. That the study of the terms in French should form by far the most detailed and valuable part of the book is therefore not surprising. Documentation is very extensive, 523 texts ranging from La Cantilene de Sainte Eulalie to Bonjour Tristesse having been examined. In- evitably, it is essentially a study of the terms in literary French, but, in addition, a serious attempt has been made to investigate the appellations used in everyday speech, dialect, slang, and technical jargon. The earliest attested occurrence of each term is traced, its semantic development sketched, figurative as well as con- crete senses being given. Whole chapters are devoted to the commonest designations, chere, vis, visage, face, vout, viaire, fafon, figure, and mine. The author's approach is diachronic, except when he studies dialects. Here he has sought to describe the use of terms during the past century in the dialects of France, French-speaking Switzer- land, and Wallonia. The geographic distribution of each designation is illustrated by a map.

In his onomasiological study, M. Renson enquires into the varying fortunes of the terms in the different Romance languages, using maps to show more graphically the distribution of the principal ones throughout 'Romania'. French again has pride of place, however. Extensive use has been made of statistical tables; one in colour (opposite p. 668) illustrates the popularity of the appellations in literary French from the twelfth to the twentieth century. After almost ousting all other terms in the seventeenth, visage retreated before figure in the eighteenth and nineteenth (and also to some small extent before face), but it has succeeded in recovering much lost ground in the twentieth and is once again the most extensively used term.

This book will be highly useful to those interested in the nomenclature of the face in all Romance languages. On the terms employed in French, it is a most impressive piece ofscholarship and is likely to remain the standard work for a long time.

ABERDEEN A. H. DIVERRES

Les quinze signes du jugement dernier: Poeme anonyme de la fin du XIIe ou du debut du XIIIe siecle. Publie d'apres tous les manuscrits connus avec introduction, notes et glossaire par ERIK VON KRAEMER. (Commentationes Humanarum Lit- terarum. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 38 (2), 1966) Helsinki. I966. 09 pp. 8 Sw.Kr.

This short text (432 lines in the version under review) is best known in the form in which it is preserved in the Tours manuscript immediately following the Mystere d'Adam. M. Aebischer included it (as Karl Grass had done before him) in his edition of the Adam in I963. This, however, is but one of twenty-two extant versions, though fortunately one of the more reliable ones. Mr von Kraemer has now

sixteenth century. The thoroughness of the study of the semantic field in Romance languages other than French varies considerably, as the following summary of the documentation makes clear. M. Renson bases his findings in 'Langue d'Oc' on an examination of standard dictionaries, modern dialectal glossaries and sixty-six texts, twenty-eight of which are in verse, the majority medieval, though Mistral's Mireio is among them. Less thoroughly documented are the studies of the field in Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese since they are based on a total of forty-two texts dating from the middle ages to the present day, in addition to standard dic- tionaries. In the case of Rheto-Romance and Rumanian, dictionaries alone have been consulted. Nevertheless, M. Renson has important observations to make about the terms in all these languages.

The idea of this work came from a course of lectures on the appellations of 'face' in Old French delivered by Professor Delbouille after the war. That the study of the terms in French should form by far the most detailed and valuable part of the book is therefore not surprising. Documentation is very extensive, 523 texts ranging from La Cantilene de Sainte Eulalie to Bonjour Tristesse having been examined. In- evitably, it is essentially a study of the terms in literary French, but, in addition, a serious attempt has been made to investigate the appellations used in everyday speech, dialect, slang, and technical jargon. The earliest attested occurrence of each term is traced, its semantic development sketched, figurative as well as con- crete senses being given. Whole chapters are devoted to the commonest designations, chere, vis, visage, face, vout, viaire, fafon, figure, and mine. The author's approach is diachronic, except when he studies dialects. Here he has sought to describe the use of terms during the past century in the dialects of France, French-speaking Switzer- land, and Wallonia. The geographic distribution of each designation is illustrated by a map.

In his onomasiological study, M. Renson enquires into the varying fortunes of the terms in the different Romance languages, using maps to show more graphically the distribution of the principal ones throughout 'Romania'. French again has pride of place, however. Extensive use has been made of statistical tables; one in colour (opposite p. 668) illustrates the popularity of the appellations in literary French from the twelfth to the twentieth century. After almost ousting all other terms in the seventeenth, visage retreated before figure in the eighteenth and nineteenth (and also to some small extent before face), but it has succeeded in recovering much lost ground in the twentieth and is once again the most extensively used term.

This book will be highly useful to those interested in the nomenclature of the face in all Romance languages. On the terms employed in French, it is a most impressive piece ofscholarship and is likely to remain the standard work for a long time.

ABERDEEN A. H. DIVERRES

Les quinze signes du jugement dernier: Poeme anonyme de la fin du XIIe ou du debut du XIIIe siecle. Publie d'apres tous les manuscrits connus avec introduction, notes et glossaire par ERIK VON KRAEMER. (Commentationes Humanarum Lit- terarum. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 38 (2), 1966) Helsinki. I966. 09 pp. 8 Sw.Kr.

This short text (432 lines in the version under review) is best known in the form in which it is preserved in the Tours manuscript immediately following the Mystere d'Adam. M. Aebischer included it (as Karl Grass had done before him) in his edition of the Adam in I963. This, however, is but one of twenty-two extant versions, though fortunately one of the more reliable ones. Mr von Kraemer has now

Reviews Reviews 70I 70I

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.46 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:39:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions