Abstract
Kibrik begins his book in a self-deprecating manner. He writes, ‘It is actually embarrassing that the preparation of this monologue has taken so long, even though the time was shared with other projects. But better late than never’ (p. xxvi). I did not think much of this sentence when first reading the book; but when revisiting it to write this review, I was shocked. How could anyone feel embarrassment about an elaborate, adventurous, and original study that spans an intimidating 681 pages in total? The heft of the book is not what makes it intimidating. Instead, it is the breadth and depth of what is being covered that kept this reader’s mind spinning with new insights across the volume’s entirety. Kibrik never belabors his points or spends too long in the same territory, allowing the book to constantly advance its ideas.
As the name implies, the volume proposes many new ideas about the connections between cognitive processes and linguistic diversity in practices of referencing, or using language to refer to something. In the case of this book, references to people are examined (although Kibrik suggests the ideas in the book probably apply to places and time, among other things). The referencing found here is not to be confused with the interpretivist approaches to person-referencing practices enacted by scholars such as Donal Carbaugh or Harvey Sacks; rather, Kibrik firmly (and thoroughly) grounds his ideas in a cognitive approach that draws from cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience, among others. Because my own work is often centered in a dialogic cultural studies paradigm, I was worried about following the arguments and analysis made in the text. Fortunately, Kibrik’s lucid writing style articulates his oftentimes sophisticated ideas in ways that will make the book accessible to those who are new to the paradigms he uses.
In fact, before he begins his primary arguments he spends Part I of the book carefully explaining the term reference and its associated typologies. He then combines both typological considerations (that examine referential forms via cross-linguistic diversity) and cognitive aspects (that assume units of discourse match to cognitive processes) to theorize about a process he calls referential choice. Referential choice involves linguistic options available to a person as well as how he or she selects from those options to make discourse. The remainder of the book explores this process of referential choice. Multiple discourse samples – representing many different languages and mostly captured from naturally occurring talk – are used as sites of inquiry.
Part II of the book (Chapters 3 to 7) examines how reduced referential devices function. Specifically, Kibrik explores how two kinds of pronouns and zero reference words are used in multiple language systems. His analysis is deep and nuanced, and the discourse examples used to demonstrate his contentions – especially when comparing and contrasting across cultures – are well supported. These strengths also apply to Part III (Chapters 8 and 9), where a typology of referential aids is presented. Referential aids, or words that help to distinguish at least two referents, assist with diminishing referential conflict, or confusion as to what or whom a referent is referring. This is then tied into the ideas lingering from the previous section’s exploration of referential devices. At the close of Part III, readers will likely feel a great understanding of the possibilities for reference across multiple languages.
Part IV (Chapters 10 to 14) then moves from description of what is available and into considerations of how people choose referents made in discourse. The transition from a highly linguistic approach to a cognitive one provides for a definite change of tone in the book; and although the explanations of psychology and neuroscience-oriented concepts seem less assured than explanations of linguistics found earlier in the book, it would appear that this uncertainty comes from a spirit of wondering what it could all mean rather than from a sense of confusion. Kibrik draws from contemporary understandings of working memory and activation to hypothesize and test (using English and Russian) what he calls a cognitive multi-factorial (CMF) approach to referential choice. This portion of the book stands as the most ambitious; and though Kibrik himself acknowledges CMF as ‘an embryonic stage of a future fine-grained linguistic typology in the domain of discourse reference’ (p. 498), he has opened doors for others who want to consider how language options and choice work together. His articulations of where this research may go next – including studies involving ‘a comparison of the sets of activation factors relevant in particular languages’ – appear promising (p. 499).
The book winds down with a brief Part V (Chapter 15) that explores how nonverbal practices come into play, and Kibrik advocates that deeper, holistic considerations of discourse, inclusive of verbal and nonverbal elements, is in order. Just as other chapters are filled with appropriate discursive exemplars and analysis to illustrate Kibrik’s arguments, this chapter includes clear photographs of gestures. A brief conclusion is also offered in Part VI (Chapter 16) that lays out many other ideas for future explorations of reference in discourse, and it is evident Kibrik is inviting others to join him in his exploring. A protocol is even included at the close of the volume that can guide work for those who seek to engage future research engaging referential systems for linguistic grammars.
Beyond the research and theorizing presented, Kibrik’s text also stands as a testament to how an enduring career can lead to fantastic insights and innovation. Not only does the volume offer an extensive literature review of one form of referencing, but it also contributes many new ideas about how referencing decisions are made. Kibrik may be embarrassed that it took him this long to finish the book; but we should all be so fortunate as to produce a monograph that is as carefully constructed and intellectually adventurous as his.