- Email: [email protected]
Adverbs, vowels, and other objects of wonder
Lingua
SO ( 1980) 395--402
lishing Company
la
cCawley, erbs, vowels, and other objects of wonder. ress, Chic 1979. xi, 303 pp. $20.00. Reviewed by Frank H. Nuessel. Jr., Dept. of Modern Languages, Louisville, Louisville, KY 40208, U.S.A.
Univ. of Univ. of
blicati~~n of a second volume’ of collected works is a tribute to the recogalit) of McCawley‘s (henceforth M) contribution to linguistics. The present s different from his first antho!ogy in that it demon strates the author’s broad interests and competence. Furthermore, it covers a wider time span (19651977) than the first collect ion. y contains
24 chapters divided into four sections of approximately equal length. The divisions include phonology (seven papers), syntax and semantics (seven papers), the lexicon (five papers) and foundations of linguistics (five papers). The section on phonology contains seven essays. The first two chapters (‘Sapir’s phonologic Representation ‘, pp. 3--9 and ‘The Phonological Theory behind Whitney’s Smskrit Grammar’, pp. 10-l 9) derive from a course on the history of phonological theory taught by M at the University of Chicago in 1965. In the first paper, the author disputes the popular claim that Sapir was a precursor of generative phonology by pointing out that he lacked a universal phonetic theory and had no systematic classes of sounds in his framework. In the second essay, M notes that Whitney differed from contemporary theorists in his use of unanalyzed segments, certain untenable constraints on derivations and a lack of extrinsic ordering. The third chapter (‘The Rote of a Phonological Feature System in a Theory of Language’, pp 20-29) compares feature systems in two important treatises on phonetics, namely Jakobson, Fant and Haiie’s Preliminaries to Speech Analysis (acoustic phonetic framework, 1951) and Chomsky and Halie’s The Sound Pattern of English (articulatory phonetic framework, 1968) and the need of a feature interpretation component which would specify certain “ ideal values” (pp. 2 1, 29) for the realization of these features. The following chapter (‘Length and Voicing in Tiibatuiabal’, pp. 30-40) is a language-specific analysis of this Uto-Aztecan language of California. In it, M refines an analysis originally proposed by Swadesh and Voegelin (1939) by avoiding problems found in the original, for example, unpronounceable underlying segments and rule simplification. The next three chapters (‘Some Tonal Systems That Come Close to Being Pitch-Accent Systems but Don’t Quite Make It’, pp. 41-47, ‘A Note on Tom. in Tiv Conjugation’, pp. 48-52, and ‘Some Tonga Tone Rules’, pp. 53-67) ail deal with technical theoretical aspects of tonal languages such as the Bantu languages and various dialects of Japanese. Section ?I (chapters 8 to 14) treats syntax and semantics - the area in which M is currently most active and with which he is most closely identified.
395
The cditlxial features of this volume merit comment. This is not a cheap photootfset edition but a completely new typeset edition which, of course, accounts for its rcl;ttively high cost. M has included vab*ious changes in the original texts such as \t)listic iniprovcmcnts, introduc’tion 0‘ new examples where the original was tnapproprr;itc, e\;clu&?n of material duplicated in other chapters of this collection, ti comprehcnsi~e final bibliography (pp. 284.-297), and a useful indcjc (pp. 299-303). Most importtint, perhaps, is the inclusion of annotations in the Notes section (pp. 247 283) ;tnd set off bv- brackets to distinguish them from the original text. These contain commentdry cjn crrots, additional data, and notes on rnorc recent research In ;\ ptirtieular area. In wehing ;L pos\ihlc unifying theme, M $ttites that “If there is a single theme thai unites the t’r~~crqhc‘ontitined in this book. it is that there is more diversity in language and in \+*;\ys of looking at language than linguist\ l~.\\c generally recognized” (p. ix). While it is easy to agree \jrith this statement, OIIC idnnot help but feel that M is aware that the papers in thi$ collection reflect a I?-year period in which his interest shifted sharply from an early commitment to phonology to his present fascination with sytltilu and semantics. In this sense, his first seven essays seem out of place. Thus, the first collection of his published works is more representative of his present role as a noted syntact iciLlni4t’n~Llnticist. Nevcrt he&s;, the book is valuable because it brings toycthcr in ;t single vol~~mt: works which would be difficult to obtain either because they have been published in somewhat esoteric journals or costly to acquire because they appear in eupcnk
r: ft~.~t.sr,ilri/r~iil, symposium
proceedings
or collections.
M is clearly one of the ‘superstars 14 a persorlable and committed tlc,nacademic
intt‘rcbts.
of this generation for a variety of reasons. He individurtl who has an amazing range of scholarly and
t-ii\ linguistic
writings
arc3 incisive,
witty,
well-exemplified
and
IYKS M1T doctoral dissertation (published in 1968 as The Phorlologicul Cor~lpnrwtu ofu Grurntnar oj’Jqxwese by Mouton, The Hague) and his earlier collection of articles, M has, unfortunately, never written a comprehensive, unified monograph on his model of linguistic theory. All of his considerable and significant contributions deal with sundry subcomponents of grammar, for example, pithy.
Excludi,lg
his
Reviews
396
the base component of a transformational grammar, deep structure etc. Hopefully, M will soon devote himself to the task of writing a classic and exhaustive work on linguistic theory. Notes l The first volume of his collected essays was entitled Grammar and Meaning: Papers on Syntactic arui Sentantic Topics. However, the information on its publication is confusing. The original edition and the corrected edition are copyrighted by Taishukan Publishing Company (Tokyo, Japan) in 1973 and 1976 respectively. The title page states that it is published by Academic Press (a subsidiary of Harcourt, Rrace Jovanovich. Publishers), yet it is printed in Japan. 2 This article is a response to J.A. Fodor‘s (1972) critique of Donald Davidson (1967a. 1967 b). 3 This was originally a paper read at the annual meeting of the New York Linguistic Circie on March 13, 1965. References Chomsky, N., M. Halle, 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Davidson, D., 1967a. The logical form of action sentences. In: N. Rescher (ed.), The logic of decision and action, 81-95. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press. Davidson, D., 1967b. Truth and meaning. Synthbse 17, 304-323. Fillmore, C., 1971. Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description. In: C. Fillmore, D.T. Langendoen (eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics, 272-289. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Fodor, J.A., 1972. Troubles about actions. In: D. Davidson. G. Harman (eds.), C:c:a?tics of natural language. Dordrecht : Reidel. Jakobson, R., C.G.M. Fant, M. Halle, 1951. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. McCawley , J.D., l968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton. McCaw!ey, J.D., 1573. Grammar and meaning. Tokyo: Taishukan. McCawley, J.D., 1976. Grammar and meaning. New York: Academic Press. Swadesh, M., C.F. Voegelin, 1939. A problem in phonological alternations. Lg. 15, I-10
V.M. pirmunskij (ed.), crgativnaja konstrukcija ergative construction in languages of various
v jazykax razlienyx tipov [The types]. Nauka, Leningrad, 1967.
312 pp.
Rf:viewed by Ivan KalmBr, Toronto, Canada M5S 1AI.
Dept.
of Anthropology,
University
of Toronto,
In some languages the subject of a transitive clause is treated differently from that of the intransitive. In contrast to the intransitive clause where the subject is nomina-
SO ( 1980) 395--402
lishing Company
la
cCawley, erbs, vowels, and other objects of wonder. ress, Chic 1979. xi, 303 pp. $20.00. Reviewed by Frank H. Nuessel. Jr., Dept. of Modern Languages, Louisville, Louisville, KY 40208, U.S.A.
Univ. of Univ. of
blicati~~n of a second volume’ of collected works is a tribute to the recogalit) of McCawley‘s (henceforth M) contribution to linguistics. The present s different from his first antho!ogy in that it demon strates the author’s broad interests and competence. Furthermore, it covers a wider time span (19651977) than the first collect ion. y contains
24 chapters divided into four sections of approximately equal length. The divisions include phonology (seven papers), syntax and semantics (seven papers), the lexicon (five papers) and foundations of linguistics (five papers). The section on phonology contains seven essays. The first two chapters (‘Sapir’s phonologic Representation ‘, pp. 3--9 and ‘The Phonological Theory behind Whitney’s Smskrit Grammar’, pp. 10-l 9) derive from a course on the history of phonological theory taught by M at the University of Chicago in 1965. In the first paper, the author disputes the popular claim that Sapir was a precursor of generative phonology by pointing out that he lacked a universal phonetic theory and had no systematic classes of sounds in his framework. In the second essay, M notes that Whitney differed from contemporary theorists in his use of unanalyzed segments, certain untenable constraints on derivations and a lack of extrinsic ordering. The third chapter (‘The Rote of a Phonological Feature System in a Theory of Language’, pp 20-29) compares feature systems in two important treatises on phonetics, namely Jakobson, Fant and Haiie’s Preliminaries to Speech Analysis (acoustic phonetic framework, 1951) and Chomsky and Halie’s The Sound Pattern of English (articulatory phonetic framework, 1968) and the need of a feature interpretation component which would specify certain “ ideal values” (pp. 2 1, 29) for the realization of these features. The following chapter (‘Length and Voicing in Tiibatuiabal’, pp. 30-40) is a language-specific analysis of this Uto-Aztecan language of California. In it, M refines an analysis originally proposed by Swadesh and Voegelin (1939) by avoiding problems found in the original, for example, unpronounceable underlying segments and rule simplification. The next three chapters (‘Some Tonal Systems That Come Close to Being Pitch-Accent Systems but Don’t Quite Make It’, pp. 41-47, ‘A Note on Tom. in Tiv Conjugation’, pp. 48-52, and ‘Some Tonga Tone Rules’, pp. 53-67) ail deal with technical theoretical aspects of tonal languages such as the Bantu languages and various dialects of Japanese. Section ?I (chapters 8 to 14) treats syntax and semantics - the area in which M is currently most active and with which he is most closely identified.
395
The cditlxial features of this volume merit comment. This is not a cheap photootfset edition but a completely new typeset edition which, of course, accounts for its rcl;ttively high cost. M has included vab*ious changes in the original texts such as \t)listic iniprovcmcnts, introduc’tion 0‘ new examples where the original was tnapproprr;itc, e\;clu&?n of material duplicated in other chapters of this collection, ti comprehcnsi~e final bibliography (pp. 284.-297), and a useful indcjc (pp. 299-303). Most importtint, perhaps, is the inclusion of annotations in the Notes section (pp. 247 283) ;tnd set off bv- brackets to distinguish them from the original text. These contain commentdry cjn crrots, additional data, and notes on rnorc recent research In ;\ ptirtieular area. In wehing ;L pos\ihlc unifying theme, M $ttites that “If there is a single theme thai unites the t’r~~crqhc‘ontitined in this book. it is that there is more diversity in language and in \+*;\ys of looking at language than linguist\ l~.\\c generally recognized” (p. ix). While it is easy to agree \jrith this statement, OIIC idnnot help but feel that M is aware that the papers in thi$ collection reflect a I?-year period in which his interest shifted sharply from an early commitment to phonology to his present fascination with sytltilu and semantics. In this sense, his first seven essays seem out of place. Thus, the first collection of his published works is more representative of his present role as a noted syntact iciLlni4t’n~Llnticist. Nevcrt he&s;, the book is valuable because it brings toycthcr in ;t single vol~~mt: works which would be difficult to obtain either because they have been published in somewhat esoteric journals or costly to acquire because they appear in eupcnk
r: ft~.~t.sr,ilri/r~iil, symposium
proceedings
or collections.
M is clearly one of the ‘superstars 14 a persorlable and committed tlc,nacademic
intt‘rcbts.
of this generation for a variety of reasons. He individurtl who has an amazing range of scholarly and
t-ii\ linguistic
writings
arc3 incisive,
witty,
well-exemplified
and
IYKS M1T doctoral dissertation (published in 1968 as The Phorlologicul Cor~lpnrwtu ofu Grurntnar oj’Jqxwese by Mouton, The Hague) and his earlier collection of articles, M has, unfortunately, never written a comprehensive, unified monograph on his model of linguistic theory. All of his considerable and significant contributions deal with sundry subcomponents of grammar, for example, pithy.
Excludi,lg
his
Reviews
396
the base component of a transformational grammar, deep structure etc. Hopefully, M will soon devote himself to the task of writing a classic and exhaustive work on linguistic theory. Notes l The first volume of his collected essays was entitled Grammar and Meaning: Papers on Syntactic arui Sentantic Topics. However, the information on its publication is confusing. The original edition and the corrected edition are copyrighted by Taishukan Publishing Company (Tokyo, Japan) in 1973 and 1976 respectively. The title page states that it is published by Academic Press (a subsidiary of Harcourt, Rrace Jovanovich. Publishers), yet it is printed in Japan. 2 This article is a response to J.A. Fodor‘s (1972) critique of Donald Davidson (1967a. 1967 b). 3 This was originally a paper read at the annual meeting of the New York Linguistic Circie on March 13, 1965. References Chomsky, N., M. Halle, 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Davidson, D., 1967a. The logical form of action sentences. In: N. Rescher (ed.), The logic of decision and action, 81-95. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press. Davidson, D., 1967b. Truth and meaning. Synthbse 17, 304-323. Fillmore, C., 1971. Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description. In: C. Fillmore, D.T. Langendoen (eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics, 272-289. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Fodor, J.A., 1972. Troubles about actions. In: D. Davidson. G. Harman (eds.), C:c:a?tics of natural language. Dordrecht : Reidel. Jakobson, R., C.G.M. Fant, M. Halle, 1951. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. McCawley , J.D., l968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton. McCaw!ey, J.D., 1573. Grammar and meaning. Tokyo: Taishukan. McCawley, J.D., 1976. Grammar and meaning. New York: Academic Press. Swadesh, M., C.F. Voegelin, 1939. A problem in phonological alternations. Lg. 15, I-10
V.M. pirmunskij (ed.), crgativnaja konstrukcija ergative construction in languages of various
v jazykax razlienyx tipov [The types]. Nauka, Leningrad, 1967.
312 pp.
Rf:viewed by Ivan KalmBr, Toronto, Canada M5S 1AI.
Dept.
of Anthropology,
University
of Toronto,
In some languages the subject of a transitive clause is treated differently from that of the intransitive. In contrast to the intransitive clause where the subject is nomina-