Imperative, subjunctive, and the desiderative-appellative space in Spanish

After defining the “enunciative scheme” (sentence type) as a communicative unit, the imperative is characterized as a morphologized modality of appellative kind used when the following conditions occur: appellative meaning, 2nd person, future tense and absence of negation. In Spanish, any variation of any of these requirements determines that the subjunctive is used. We reject the idea that the imperative is a variant of subjunctive specialized in appellative function and that both modes share a desiderative morpheme. Working in this way means attributing to a morphological category of the verb a property that actually corresponds to the enunciative schemes (sentence types). We propose to integrate the imperative and subjunctive in the framework of what we call the “desiderative-appellative space”. This “space” brings together various grammatical or grammaticalized means based on the imperative and the subjunctive. Semantically, it is organized around a component of desirability (action appears as desirable) that, by varying several factors, configures a route that goes from a center (the imperative) to a periphery (the expression of desire).

Liberating the Issue of Present Days. About the Foucaltian Critics of Inflationary Speeches on the Present as “Mass Society” and “Estatalized Space”

With this article we pretend to contribute, in a really modest way, to the liberation of a tenacious image of our society: which operates as an ideological basis of a group of current socio-political pseudocritics, with great success and diffusion. For this we will undertake the exposition and the analysis of the development group of Naissance de la biopolitique in which Foucault accomplishes the critic of all that number of inflationary speeches that represent our society like a “mass society” and a “estatalized space”. Facing these vague and disproportionate forms of consideration, the foucaltian critic, in its exquisite attention to what happens nowadays, it should reveal how our societies function as systems that optimize the difference –radically nominalists-, in which it is produced, beyond any phantasmatic of the oppressor and invasive estate, a regretion of the legal-estate structures that articulate the socio-politic groups, in benefit of the reconstitution and the social tissue as a communitarian network, suitable for the dynamics of market competence that characterise our enterprise societies. That will open to a new idea of the critic, and to a displacement of its object and objectives.