- Email: [email protected]
Meaning and form
REVIEWS
268
specific stages and strategies in the acquisition processes. He also claims that Ll interference has only a marginal influence on naturalistic L2 acquisition of syntactic structures. He emphasizes that, contrary to transformational-generative assumptions, children take account of surface structures rather than deep structures in L2 acquisition. There also seems to be evidence for fixed developmental sequences and repetitive orders of acquisition whereby children do not master certain rules once and for all, but have to reacquire them in new structural domains. Despite some principal shortcomings and possible minor flaws this book should prove to be a valuable contribution to the study of second language acquisition and to language acquisition theory in general and to the firmer scientific foundation necessary for foreign language teaching. Philipps-Universitat Marburg Fachbereich 10: Neuere Fremdsprachen Am Krummbogen 28 D-3550 Marburg Federal Republic of Germany
und Literaturen
Rtidiger Zimmermann Elmar J. Mans
REFERENCES CORDER, S.P., ‘The significance of learners’ errors’, IRAL, 5, 1967, pp. 162-169. HUANG, J., A Chinese child’s acquisition of English syntax. M. A. Thesis UCLA, 1971. RAVEM, R., ‘Language acquisition in a second language environment’, ZRAL, 6, 1968, pp. 175-185. RAVEM, R., ‘The development of wh-questions in first and second language learners’, University of Essex Language Centre, Occasional Papers, 8, 1970, pp. 16-4 1. RAVEM, R., Second language acquisition. Dissertation Essex, 1974. WODE, H., ‘Nattirliche Zweitsprachigkeit: Probleme, Aufgaben, Perspektiven’, Linguistische Berichte, 32, 1974, pp. 15-36.
BOLINGER, Dwight, Meaning and Form. London and New York: Longman, 1977, xii + 212 pp., f6.50 (English Language Series No. 11) This book is both entertaining and of practical interest. It treats seven topics which are central to English grammar. What keeps these topics together is a double aim. At short range, Bolinger wants to attack the view that certain grammatical items have either been denied any meaning at all or have been classed as suppletive forms, i.e. as variants of other forms. At long range, the book takes aim at another view, namely that two words or two constructions that are different in form can be identical in meaning, i.e. have the same deep structure. There is an interesting chapter on not any and no, which have often been regarded as identical in meaning. Not any is a leftshifted and no a rightshifted form. This is seen if we take the sentence ‘I want you not to see anyone.’ as a starting-point. On the one hand, we get ‘I don’t want you to see anyone.’ (leftshifting) and, on the other, ‘1 want you to see no one.’ (rightshifting). The leftshifted form is associated with new information and the rightshifted
REVIEWS
269
with old. In a narrative context all the information is likely to be new. Accordingly, one would expect not any rather than no in such a context. This explains why we have ‘1 went for a drive but I didn’t bump into any fellow from my own outfit so 1 gave up and came back to barracks.’ rather than *‘I went for a drive but I bumped into no fellow . . . .’ . In the chapter on there, Bolinger’s main contention is that unstressed fhere (i.e. existential there) in sentences like ‘There was nobody around’ and ‘There comes a time when you’ve got to take a stand’ is an extension of locative there. Existential there is semantically connected with locative there in that it ‘brings something into awareness’ (92-3). What is particularly interesting here, I think, is the relevance of the verb to the presence or absence of there. This is illustrated by the following gradient: (1) Out of nowhere (there) appeared a mysterious figure. (2) ? Down the mountain there leaped and thundered a foaming stream. (3) *Out there flew a funny bird. Sentences (2) and (3) become normal if there is left out. From Bolinger’s discussion of these and similar examples, there seems to be some justification for saying that ‘the more vividly on the stage an action is, the less appropriate there becomes’ (95). Bolinger also discusses verbs like believe, know, suspect and think, which may be followed either by an infinitive or by a that-clause. He asserts that ‘according to the usual notions’ (no reference given) such constructions as ‘1 believe John to be a man of integrity.’ and ‘1 believe that John is a man of integrity’ are paraphrases of each other and do not differ in deep structure (125). Bolinger seems to ignore that a distinction between the two constructions has been made both in traditional grammar (Schibsbye, 1970,30-6) and, in greater detail, by Borkin, (1973). Both of these also take into account the deletion of to be, so that we get a three-fold distinction. Borkin shows that not only are different verbs constructed differently but that the same verb may belong to different semantic categoties (factive - nonfactive, perceptive - cognitive) and hence sometimes take the one construction, sometimes the other. In the last two chapters, Bolinger treats the relationship between the imperative and the infinitive. Via a rather elaborate discussion of forms that can be interpreted as either the one or the other (e.g. write in ‘What should I do?’ - ‘Write that letter’.) and by appealing to the formal identity of the imperative and the infinitive, the author concludes that the infinitive ‘is a general hypothetical that includes the imperative as its most frequent manifestation’ (178). Bolinger’s conclusion brings us back to one of his main purposes for writing the book: to show that each form in a language has a basic meaning, a constant, of which there may occur variants due to context, intonation, etc. It is of course possible, as Bolinger does, to show that one use of word at one extreme of the gradient is related to the use at the other extreme. However, we may then ask ourselves how far apart, semantically speaking, the two extremes must be for us to say that we have to do with two different meanings. This question, important though it is, is not answered by Bolinger. Those who are familiar with Bolinger’s earlier books have learnt to appreciate his linguistic imaginativeness and his talent for discovering subtle nuances. The grammarian should, according to him, ‘sit down and assidously concoct sentences to the limit of his capacity, to try to see everything that CAN be done with the resources of his language’ (153). There is of
270
REVIEWS
course the danger that the grammarian is carried away by his inventiveness. Bolinger has not always escaped that danger. This has been shown by reviewers of other books by him (see Huddleston, 1975, & Johansson, 1975). This weakness also affects the volume under review. I have picked out some twenty sentences at various places in the book and submitted them to three native speakers (one of whom from the U.S.A.). By way of example, the following four sentences are OK according to Bolinger but wrong according to my informants: ‘Do you want that one either?’ (28), ‘There were spirited away quite a number of very valuable jewels.’ (103), ‘You are deceived to think that.’ (143‘) and ‘That looks like an ice-plant, isn’t it (154). Conversely, of the following three sentences, Bolinger has queried the first two and starred the third; my informants regard all three as OK: ‘It’s too hard to read - there’s no lamp anywhere around here.’ (55), ‘It was unnecessary of Mary to say that.’ (138) and ‘Do stay two hours.’ (193). In conclusion, this is an interesting book which should be read with some caution. Lars Hermeren
Department of English University of Lund Helgonabacken 14 S-223 62 Lund Sweden REFERENCES
BORKIN, Ann, ‘To be and not to be’, Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 13-15, 1973, Chicago, 1973, pp. 44-56. HUDDLESTON, Rodney, Review of Degree Words by Dwight Bolinger, The Hague: Mouton, 1972, (Janua linguarum, series maior, 53) and That’s That by Dwight Bolinger, The Hague: Mouton, 1972, (Janua linguarum, series minor, 155), Journal of Linguistics, 11, 1975, pp. 316-9. JOHNANSSON, Stig, Review of The Phrasal Verb in English by Dwight Bolinger, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1971, Linguistics, 152, 1975, pp. 78-90. SCHIBSBYE, Knud, A Modern English Grammar, London: Oxford University Press, 1970,2nd ed.
COURTMAN-DAVIES, Mary, Your Deaf Child’s Speech and Language. London: The Bodley Head Ltd, 1979,319 pp. f7.50 Net In U.K. only Parents of handicapped children often feel profoundly grieved and resentful. Some, especially mothers, feel deep guilt over ‘not even being able to make a baby properly’. Mary Courtman-Davies urges parents not to be ashamed of such feelings: they are perfectly natural. In fact, grief openly acknowledged is far better than an attempt to deny the extent of the child’s disability. The important thing is to face reality. That is what puts parents on the road to finding help. Help for parents of hearing-impaired children abounds in this book. In Chapter 1 parents learn what can be expected of a normal child during the early months and years, and what there is in a hearing child’s experience that gives him his start on language development. By the age of five, a hearing child has had approximately 5,000 hours of practice in listening to
268
specific stages and strategies in the acquisition processes. He also claims that Ll interference has only a marginal influence on naturalistic L2 acquisition of syntactic structures. He emphasizes that, contrary to transformational-generative assumptions, children take account of surface structures rather than deep structures in L2 acquisition. There also seems to be evidence for fixed developmental sequences and repetitive orders of acquisition whereby children do not master certain rules once and for all, but have to reacquire them in new structural domains. Despite some principal shortcomings and possible minor flaws this book should prove to be a valuable contribution to the study of second language acquisition and to language acquisition theory in general and to the firmer scientific foundation necessary for foreign language teaching. Philipps-Universitat Marburg Fachbereich 10: Neuere Fremdsprachen Am Krummbogen 28 D-3550 Marburg Federal Republic of Germany
und Literaturen
Rtidiger Zimmermann Elmar J. Mans
REFERENCES CORDER, S.P., ‘The significance of learners’ errors’, IRAL, 5, 1967, pp. 162-169. HUANG, J., A Chinese child’s acquisition of English syntax. M. A. Thesis UCLA, 1971. RAVEM, R., ‘Language acquisition in a second language environment’, ZRAL, 6, 1968, pp. 175-185. RAVEM, R., ‘The development of wh-questions in first and second language learners’, University of Essex Language Centre, Occasional Papers, 8, 1970, pp. 16-4 1. RAVEM, R., Second language acquisition. Dissertation Essex, 1974. WODE, H., ‘Nattirliche Zweitsprachigkeit: Probleme, Aufgaben, Perspektiven’, Linguistische Berichte, 32, 1974, pp. 15-36.
BOLINGER, Dwight, Meaning and Form. London and New York: Longman, 1977, xii + 212 pp., f6.50 (English Language Series No. 11) This book is both entertaining and of practical interest. It treats seven topics which are central to English grammar. What keeps these topics together is a double aim. At short range, Bolinger wants to attack the view that certain grammatical items have either been denied any meaning at all or have been classed as suppletive forms, i.e. as variants of other forms. At long range, the book takes aim at another view, namely that two words or two constructions that are different in form can be identical in meaning, i.e. have the same deep structure. There is an interesting chapter on not any and no, which have often been regarded as identical in meaning. Not any is a leftshifted and no a rightshifted form. This is seen if we take the sentence ‘I want you not to see anyone.’ as a starting-point. On the one hand, we get ‘I don’t want you to see anyone.’ (leftshifting) and, on the other, ‘1 want you to see no one.’ (rightshifting). The leftshifted form is associated with new information and the rightshifted
REVIEWS
269
with old. In a narrative context all the information is likely to be new. Accordingly, one would expect not any rather than no in such a context. This explains why we have ‘1 went for a drive but I didn’t bump into any fellow from my own outfit so 1 gave up and came back to barracks.’ rather than *‘I went for a drive but I bumped into no fellow . . . .’ . In the chapter on there, Bolinger’s main contention is that unstressed fhere (i.e. existential there) in sentences like ‘There was nobody around’ and ‘There comes a time when you’ve got to take a stand’ is an extension of locative there. Existential there is semantically connected with locative there in that it ‘brings something into awareness’ (92-3). What is particularly interesting here, I think, is the relevance of the verb to the presence or absence of there. This is illustrated by the following gradient: (1) Out of nowhere (there) appeared a mysterious figure. (2) ? Down the mountain there leaped and thundered a foaming stream. (3) *Out there flew a funny bird. Sentences (2) and (3) become normal if there is left out. From Bolinger’s discussion of these and similar examples, there seems to be some justification for saying that ‘the more vividly on the stage an action is, the less appropriate there becomes’ (95). Bolinger also discusses verbs like believe, know, suspect and think, which may be followed either by an infinitive or by a that-clause. He asserts that ‘according to the usual notions’ (no reference given) such constructions as ‘1 believe John to be a man of integrity.’ and ‘1 believe that John is a man of integrity’ are paraphrases of each other and do not differ in deep structure (125). Bolinger seems to ignore that a distinction between the two constructions has been made both in traditional grammar (Schibsbye, 1970,30-6) and, in greater detail, by Borkin, (1973). Both of these also take into account the deletion of to be, so that we get a three-fold distinction. Borkin shows that not only are different verbs constructed differently but that the same verb may belong to different semantic categoties (factive - nonfactive, perceptive - cognitive) and hence sometimes take the one construction, sometimes the other. In the last two chapters, Bolinger treats the relationship between the imperative and the infinitive. Via a rather elaborate discussion of forms that can be interpreted as either the one or the other (e.g. write in ‘What should I do?’ - ‘Write that letter’.) and by appealing to the formal identity of the imperative and the infinitive, the author concludes that the infinitive ‘is a general hypothetical that includes the imperative as its most frequent manifestation’ (178). Bolinger’s conclusion brings us back to one of his main purposes for writing the book: to show that each form in a language has a basic meaning, a constant, of which there may occur variants due to context, intonation, etc. It is of course possible, as Bolinger does, to show that one use of word at one extreme of the gradient is related to the use at the other extreme. However, we may then ask ourselves how far apart, semantically speaking, the two extremes must be for us to say that we have to do with two different meanings. This question, important though it is, is not answered by Bolinger. Those who are familiar with Bolinger’s earlier books have learnt to appreciate his linguistic imaginativeness and his talent for discovering subtle nuances. The grammarian should, according to him, ‘sit down and assidously concoct sentences to the limit of his capacity, to try to see everything that CAN be done with the resources of his language’ (153). There is of
270
REVIEWS
course the danger that the grammarian is carried away by his inventiveness. Bolinger has not always escaped that danger. This has been shown by reviewers of other books by him (see Huddleston, 1975, & Johansson, 1975). This weakness also affects the volume under review. I have picked out some twenty sentences at various places in the book and submitted them to three native speakers (one of whom from the U.S.A.). By way of example, the following four sentences are OK according to Bolinger but wrong according to my informants: ‘Do you want that one either?’ (28), ‘There were spirited away quite a number of very valuable jewels.’ (103), ‘You are deceived to think that.’ (143‘) and ‘That looks like an ice-plant, isn’t it (154). Conversely, of the following three sentences, Bolinger has queried the first two and starred the third; my informants regard all three as OK: ‘It’s too hard to read - there’s no lamp anywhere around here.’ (55), ‘It was unnecessary of Mary to say that.’ (138) and ‘Do stay two hours.’ (193). In conclusion, this is an interesting book which should be read with some caution. Lars Hermeren
Department of English University of Lund Helgonabacken 14 S-223 62 Lund Sweden REFERENCES
BORKIN, Ann, ‘To be and not to be’, Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 13-15, 1973, Chicago, 1973, pp. 44-56. HUDDLESTON, Rodney, Review of Degree Words by Dwight Bolinger, The Hague: Mouton, 1972, (Janua linguarum, series maior, 53) and That’s That by Dwight Bolinger, The Hague: Mouton, 1972, (Janua linguarum, series minor, 155), Journal of Linguistics, 11, 1975, pp. 316-9. JOHNANSSON, Stig, Review of The Phrasal Verb in English by Dwight Bolinger, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1971, Linguistics, 152, 1975, pp. 78-90. SCHIBSBYE, Knud, A Modern English Grammar, London: Oxford University Press, 1970,2nd ed.
COURTMAN-DAVIES, Mary, Your Deaf Child’s Speech and Language. London: The Bodley Head Ltd, 1979,319 pp. f7.50 Net In U.K. only Parents of handicapped children often feel profoundly grieved and resentful. Some, especially mothers, feel deep guilt over ‘not even being able to make a baby properly’. Mary Courtman-Davies urges parents not to be ashamed of such feelings: they are perfectly natural. In fact, grief openly acknowledged is far better than an attempt to deny the extent of the child’s disability. The important thing is to face reality. That is what puts parents on the road to finding help. Help for parents of hearing-impaired children abounds in this book. In Chapter 1 parents learn what can be expected of a normal child during the early months and years, and what there is in a hearing child’s experience that gives him his start on language development. By the age of five, a hearing child has had approximately 5,000 hours of practice in listening to