La selva del lenguaje. Introducción a un diccionario de los sentimientos

Moral assessment: 
Type: Thought
Nothing inappropriate.
Requires prior general knowledge of the subject.
Readers with knowledgeable about the subject matter.
Contains doctrinal errors of some importance.
Whilst not being explicitly against the faith, the general approach or its main points are ambiguous or opposed to the Church’s teachings.
Incompatible with Catholic doctrine.

The journey or path to which Marina invites the reader of this work, “The Jungle of Language” does honor to the title. It is not at all linear. It weaves in and out through different disciplines and currents of thought that have studied language or that are related to it: phenomenology, analytical philosophy, semiotics, pragmatism, sociolinguistics, structuralism, constructivism, hermeneutics, neurolinguistics, cognitive psychology, child psychology, psychiatry, cultural anthropology, mathematics. All these references are documented by an arsenal of bibliographical information in which the author seems to include a personal touch, adding to the notes what he calls a “bibliographic tango” where the work of some of the very many intellectuals he has cited are duly praised or criticized. He makes a notable effort to make the complexity of the book entertaining, with a pretty good combination of science and rhetoric. Another praiseworthy characteristic is the courage with which the author takes on some deep topics and criticizes positions that have enjoyed an almost universal prestige, such as relativism. In spite of some deficiencies (such as some rather unclear assertions about the objective character of truth or of evolutionism), on the whole, he offers some sharp linguistic analyses of human feelings, a very broad bibliography, well-pondered criticisms of erroneous positions that are usually found in this area, and interesting perspectives based on his confidence in the human capacities to know and to create. There is one unfortunate passage, on pages 45-46, using words which are grammatically incorrect and written in such a way that, at first glance, it is difficult to know what is being described. M.M.F. (2007)