IEnglish Language
Identifieur interne : 001790 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001789; suivant : 001791IEnglish Language
Auteurs : Evelien Keizer ; Mohammed Albakry ; Jeroen Van De Weijer ; Bettelou Los ; Wim Van Der Wurff ; Beàta Gyuris ; Julie Coleman ; Edward Callary ; Lieselotte Anderwald ; Andrea Sand ; Camilla Vasquez ; Laura HidalgoSource :
- Year's Work in English Studies [ 0084-4144 ] ; 2007.
Abstract
This chapter has twelve sections: 1. General; 2. History of English Linguistics; 3. Phonetics and Phonology; 4. Morphology; 5. Syntax; 6. Semantics; 7. Lexicography, Lexicology and Lexical Semantics; 8. Onomastics; 9. Dialectology and Sociolinguistics; 10. New Englishes and Creolistics; 11. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis; 12. Stylistics. Section 1 is by Evelien Keizer; section 2 is by Mohammed Albakry; section 3 is by Jeroen van de Weijer; sections 4 and 5 are by Bettelou Los and Wim van der Wurff; section 6 is by Beàta Gyuris; section 7 is by Julie Coleman; section 8 is by Edward Callary; section 9 is by Lieselotte Anderwald; section 10 is by Andrea Sand; section 11 is by Camilla Vasquez; section 12 is by Laura Hidalgo.
Url:
DOI: 10.1093/ywes/mam001
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>IEnglish Language</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Keizer, Evelien" sort="Keizer, Evelien" uniqKey="Keizer E" first="Evelien" last="Keizer">Evelien Keizer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Amsterdam</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Albakry, Mohammed" sort="Albakry, Mohammed" uniqKey="Albakry M" first="Mohammed" last="Albakry">Mohammed Albakry</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Middle Tennessee State University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Van De Weijer, Jeroen" sort="Van De Weijer, Jeroen" uniqKey="Van De Weijer J" first="Jeroen" last="Van De Weijer">Jeroen Van De Weijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Leiden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Los, Bettelou" sort="Los, Bettelou" uniqKey="Los B" first="Bettelou" last="Los">Bettelou Los</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Radbound University, Nijmegen, Amsterdam</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Van Der Wurff, Wim" sort="Van Der Wurff, Wim" uniqKey="Van Der Wurff W" first="Wim" last="Van Der Wurff">Wim Van Der Wurff</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Gyuris, Beata" sort="Gyuris, Beata" uniqKey="Gyuris B" first="Beàta" last="Gyuris">Beàta Gyuris</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Hungarian Academy of Science</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Coleman, Julie" sort="Coleman, Julie" uniqKey="Coleman J" first="Julie" last="Coleman">Julie Coleman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Leicester</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Callary, Edward" sort="Callary, Edward" uniqKey="Callary E" first="Edward" last="Callary">Edward Callary</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Northern Illinois University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Anderwald, Lieselotte" sort="Anderwald, Lieselotte" uniqKey="Anderwald L" first="Lieselotte" last="Anderwald">Lieselotte Anderwald</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Sand, Andrea" sort="Sand, Andrea" uniqKey="Sand A" first="Andrea" last="Sand">Andrea Sand</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Hannover, Freiburg</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Vasquez, Camilla" sort="Vasquez, Camilla" uniqKey="Vasquez C" first="Camilla" last="Vasquez">Camilla Vasquez</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Northern Arizona University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Hidalgo, Laura" sort="Hidalgo, Laura" uniqKey="Hidalgo L" first="Laura" last="Hidalgo">Laura Hidalgo</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University Autonoma, Madrid</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993</idno><date when="2007" year="2007">2007</date><idno type="doi">10.1093/ywes/mam001</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001790</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001790</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">IEnglish Language</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Keizer, Evelien" sort="Keizer, Evelien" uniqKey="Keizer E" first="Evelien" last="Keizer">Evelien Keizer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Amsterdam</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Albakry, Mohammed" sort="Albakry, Mohammed" uniqKey="Albakry M" first="Mohammed" last="Albakry">Mohammed Albakry</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Middle Tennessee State University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Van De Weijer, Jeroen" sort="Van De Weijer, Jeroen" uniqKey="Van De Weijer J" first="Jeroen" last="Van De Weijer">Jeroen Van De Weijer</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Leiden</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Los, Bettelou" sort="Los, Bettelou" uniqKey="Los B" first="Bettelou" last="Los">Bettelou Los</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Radbound University, Nijmegen, Amsterdam</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Van Der Wurff, Wim" sort="Van Der Wurff, Wim" uniqKey="Van Der Wurff W" first="Wim" last="Van Der Wurff">Wim Van Der Wurff</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Gyuris, Beata" sort="Gyuris, Beata" uniqKey="Gyuris B" first="Beàta" last="Gyuris">Beàta Gyuris</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Hungarian Academy of Science</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Coleman, Julie" sort="Coleman, Julie" uniqKey="Coleman J" first="Julie" last="Coleman">Julie Coleman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Leicester</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Callary, Edward" sort="Callary, Edward" uniqKey="Callary E" first="Edward" last="Callary">Edward Callary</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Northern Illinois University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Anderwald, Lieselotte" sort="Anderwald, Lieselotte" uniqKey="Anderwald L" first="Lieselotte" last="Anderwald">Lieselotte Anderwald</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Sand, Andrea" sort="Sand, Andrea" uniqKey="Sand A" first="Andrea" last="Sand">Andrea Sand</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Hannover, Freiburg</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Vasquez, Camilla" sort="Vasquez, Camilla" uniqKey="Vasquez C" first="Camilla" last="Vasquez">Camilla Vasquez</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Northern Arizona University</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Hidalgo, Laura" sort="Hidalgo, Laura" uniqKey="Hidalgo L" first="Laura" last="Hidalgo">Laura Hidalgo</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University Autonoma, Madrid</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Year's Work in English Studies</title><idno type="ISSN">0084-4144</idno><idno type="eISSN">1471-6801</idno><imprint><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><date type="published" when="2007">2007</date><biblScope unit="volume">86</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="165">165</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0084-4144</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0084-4144</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">This chapter has twelve sections: 1. General; 2. History of English Linguistics; 3. Phonetics and Phonology; 4. Morphology; 5. Syntax; 6. Semantics; 7. Lexicography, Lexicology and Lexical Semantics; 8. Onomastics; 9. Dialectology and Sociolinguistics; 10. New Englishes and Creolistics; 11. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis; 12. Stylistics. Section 1 is by Evelien Keizer; section 2 is by Mohammed Albakry; section 3 is by Jeroen van de Weijer; sections 4 and 5 are by Bettelou Los and Wim van der Wurff; section 6 is by Beàta Gyuris; section 7 is by Julie Coleman; section 8 is by Edward Callary; section 9 is by Lieselotte Anderwald; section 10 is by Andrea Sand; section 11 is by Camilla Vasquez; section 12 is by Laura Hidalgo.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>oup</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Evelien Keizer</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Amsterdam</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Mohammed Albakry</name><affiliations><json:string>Middle Tennessee State University</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Jeroen Van De Weijer</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Leiden</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Bettelou Los</name><affiliations><json:string>Radbound University, Nijmegen, Amsterdam</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Wim Van Der Wurff</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Beàta Gyuris</name><affiliations><json:string>Hungarian Academy of Science</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Julie Coleman</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Leicester</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Edward Callary</name><affiliations><json:string>Northern Illinois University</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Lieselotte Anderwald</name><affiliations><json:string>Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Andrea Sand</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Hannover, Freiburg</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Camilla Vasquez</name><affiliations><json:string>Northern Arizona University</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Laura Hidalgo</name><affiliations><json:string>University Autonoma, Madrid</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><arkIstex>ark:/67375/HXZ-RQPZL5DP-V</arkIstex><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>This chapter has twelve sections: 1. General; 2. History of English Linguistics; 3. Phonetics and Phonology; 4. Morphology; 5. Syntax; 6. Semantics; 7. Lexicography, Lexicology and Lexical Semantics; 8. Onomastics; 9. Dialectology and Sociolinguistics; 10. New Englishes and Creolistics; 11. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis; 12. Stylistics. Section 1 is by Evelien Keizer; section 2 is by Mohammed Albakry; section 3 is by Jeroen van de Weijer; sections 4 and 5 are by Bettelou Los and Wim van der Wurff; section 6 is by Beàta Gyuris; section 7 is by Julie Coleman; section 8 is by Edward Callary; section 9 is by Lieselotte Anderwald; section 10 is by Andrea Sand; section 11 is by Camilla Vasquez; section 12 is by Laura Hidalgo.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.452</score><pdfWordCount>78321</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>484092</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>165</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>391 x 612 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>121</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>733</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>0</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>IEnglish Language</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>Year's Work in English Studies</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><issn><json:string>0084-4144</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1471-6801</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>ywes</json:string></publisherId><volume>86</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>1</first><last>165</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>Articles</value></json:item></subject></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>in the 16th and 17th Centuries</json:string><json:string>1950s</json:string><json:string>1992</json:string><json:string>1575</json:string><json:string>the 21st Century</json:string><json:string>1755</json:string><json:string>the twentieth centuries</json:string><json:string>1990s</json:string><json:string>the 16th century</json:string><json:string>the twentieth century</json:string><json:string>eighteenth centuries</json:string><json:string>sixteenth century</json:string><json:string>since the twentieth century</json:string><json:string>the Twentieth Century</json:string><json:string>the eleventh and fourteenth centuries</json:string><json:string>1993</json:string><json:string>in the sixteenth century</json:string><json:string>1960s</json:string><json:string>1850</json:string><json:string>in the thirteenth century</json:string><json:string>1850s</json:string><json:string>the nineteenth century</json:string><json:string>in the 17th century</json:string><json:string>1785</json:string><json:string>from the sixteenth century</json:string><json:string>2002</json:string><json:string>the 20th Century</json:string><json:string>1930s</json:string><json:string>twentieth century</json:string><json:string>1550</json:string><json:string>1779</json:string><json:string>2007</json:string><json:string>1851</json:string><json:string>in the twentieth century</json:string><json:string>1999</json:string><json:string>in the nineteenth century</json:string><json:string>nineteenth century</json:string><json:string>1970s</json:string><json:string>1950</json:string><json:string>1990</json:string><json:string>during the eighteenth century</json:string><json:string>1900s</json:string><json:string>2003</json:string><json:string>1960s and the end of the 1980s</json:string><json:string>from the sixteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth centuries</json:string><json:string>1500</json:string><json:string>1940s</json:string><json:string>from the eighteenth century</json:string><json:string>1881</json:string><json:string>before the eighteenth century</json:string><json:string>1949</json:string><json:string>in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries</json:string><json:string>1980</json:string><json:string>the eighteenth century</json:string><json:string>1980s</json:string><json:string>in the twenty-first century</json:string><json:string>2004</json:string><json:string>the Eighteenth Centuries</json:string><json:string>1996</json:string><json:string>1673</json:string><json:string>Throughout the thirteenth century</json:string><json:string>in the 18th Century</json:string><json:string>1760s</json:string></date><geogName><json:string>Humber River</json:string><json:string>Islands Englishes</json:string><json:string>Moolock Lake</json:string><json:string>Mississippi River</json:string><json:string>San</json:string><json:string>North Sea</json:string><json:string>Irish Sea</json:string><json:string>Hee Hee Creek</json:string><json:string>Skookum Creek</json:string><json:string>Tyee Creek</json:string><json:string>Estuary English</json:string></geogName><orgName><json:string>African American English</json:string><json:string>University of Birmingham</json:string><json:string>Ireland, Anne Barron and Klaus</json:string><json:string>UK Party Election Broadcasts</json:string><json:string>Solomon Islands Pidgin English and Standard English</json:string><json:string>American Indian Placenames</json:string><json:string>North American English</json:string><json:string>English Aspect and Voice Systems</json:string><json:string>North American Onomastics</json:string><json:string>US, GB</json:string><json:string>American English</json:string><json:string>University of Copenhagen</json:string><json:string>Jamaican Creole</json:string><json:string>US Dialects</json:string><json:string>Remaking Singapore for the New Age</json:string><json:string>Webster’s American Dictionary</json:string><json:string>US, James A</json:string><json:string>Colloquial Singapore English</json:string><json:string>Article Systems</json:string><json:string>American Personal Names</json:string><json:string>Biographies, Agency</json:string><json:string>Jamaican Creole, Hawaiian Pidgin</json:string><json:string>Scottish National Dictionaries</json:string><json:string>American Place-Names</json:string><json:string>US South</json:string><json:string>American Name Society</json:string><json:string>Functional Organization of Speech</json:string><json:string>Jamaican Literary Discourse</json:string><json:string>Interactional Organization of Uncertainty</json:string><json:string>Scottish National Dictionary</json:string><json:string>China and Hong Kong</json:string><json:string>US Undergraduates</json:string><json:string>Dominica, West Indies</json:string><json:string>American Placenames</json:string><json:string>Early American Lexicography</json:string><json:string>Machine-Learning Chatbot Systems</json:string><json:string>Singapore English</json:string><json:string>India, Ramanathan</json:string><json:string>Georgetown University</json:string><json:string>Maseno University</json:string><json:string>Early African American English</json:string><json:string>Narratology Research Group</json:string><json:string>American, Australian</json:string><json:string>English–American Speech Relationships</json:string><json:string>African-American English</json:string><json:string>University of Wisconsin</json:string><json:string>Singapore English Particle</json:string><json:string>Research on Personal Names</json:string><json:string>American Indian English</json:string><json:string>Common American Given Names</json:string><json:string>DAFN</json:string><json:string>US Social Security Administration</json:string><json:string>Surnames and American Trademark Law</json:string><json:string>National Rifle Association</json:string><json:string>North American Regional Vocabulary Survey</json:string><json:string>An International Handbook</json:string><json:string>African American English on Roanoke Island</json:string><json:string>New Zealand English</json:string><json:string>University of Chicago</json:string><json:string>BNC</json:string><json:string>Catholic University</json:string><json:string>Spoken New Zealand English</json:string><json:string>African American Slang</json:string><json:string>German and American English</json:string><json:string>British National Corpus</json:string><json:string>Ireland and England</json:string><json:string>American Family Names</json:string><json:string>University of South Dakota</json:string><json:string>Early African American Correspondence</json:string><json:string>African American Vernacular English and Wording</json:string><json:string>Asian American Youth</json:string><json:string>China English</json:string><json:string>Tanzania Revisited</json:string><json:string>US English</json:string><json:string>Tanzania and South Africa</json:string><json:string>University of Bristol</json:string><json:string>Open University</json:string><json:string>Canada, Charles Boberg</json:string><json:string>Hamburg University</json:string><json:string>Jamaican Dancehall</json:string><json:string>American Civil Way</json:string><json:string>Ireland, England</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>E. Annamalai</json:string><json:string>Kate Moore</json:string><json:string>Robert Daley</json:string><json:string>Lourdes Gonzalez</json:string><json:string>John Anderson</json:string><json:string>Sam Featherston</json:string><json:string>Tim Rohrer</json:string><json:string>Long Island</json:string><json:string>David B. Pisoni</json:string><json:string>Emiliano Guevara</json:string><json:string>Cornelia Tschichold</json:string><json:string>K. Grohmann</json:string><json:string>Tom Kindt</json:string><json:string>Demena Travis</json:string><json:string>Ad Neeleman</json:string><json:string>Thomas Bloor</json:string><json:string>Ishtla</json:string><json:string>Douglas Biber</json:string><json:string>Samuel Johnson</json:string><json:string>Bettina Migge</json:string><json:string>Xiao</json:string><json:string>Tuija</json:string><json:string>Paul Schaffner</json:string><json:string>Jonathan Raban</json:string><json:string>Meriel</json:string><json:string>Nicholas Ascher</json:string><json:string>Laure Vieu</json:string><json:string>Anita Zamora</json:string><json:string>Barbara H. Partee</json:string><json:string>Gillian Martin</json:string><json:string>Paul Kerswill</json:string><json:string>George L. Dillon</json:string><json:string>William J. Crawford</json:string><json:string>William Rothwell</json:string><json:string>Penelope Brown</json:string><json:string>Thomas Holtgraves</json:string><json:string>Stephen Balfour</json:string><json:string>Richard Morrison</json:string><json:string>Kristin Killie</json:string><json:string>Asher Shkedi</json:string><json:string>Miranda Stewart</json:string><json:string>Tania Kuteva</json:string><json:string>Charles Vandersee</json:string><json:string>Paul R. Frommer</json:string><json:string>Sampson</json:string><json:string>Mary Ann</json:string><json:string>Dorothy L. Cheney</json:string><json:string>Anthony Sweeting</json:string><json:string>Kay McCormick</json:string><json:string>Clare Painter</json:string><json:string>Herrmann</json:string><json:string>Yanna Popova</json:string><json:string>Peter W. Martin</json:string><json:string>Barbara Abbott</json:string><json:string>Jennifer Westerhaus</json:string><json:string>Pietroski</json:string><json:string>Barbara Davis</json:string><json:string>Alexander Bergs</json:string><json:string>K.W. Tan</json:string><json:string>James Joyce</json:string><json:string>Basil Hatim</json:string><json:string>Karen Corrigan</json:string><json:string>Rollason</json:string><json:string>Russell S. Tomlin</json:string><json:string>Hawley</json:string><json:string>Anastasios F. Christidis</json:string><json:string>Susanne Muhleisen</json:string><json:string>Elena Semino</json:string><json:string>Henrik Gottlieb</json:string><json:string>Jan-Ola Ostman</json:string><json:string>Wayne Booth</json:string><json:string>Cognitive</json:string><json:string>Martin Warren</json:string><json:string>Carlos Williams</json:string><json:string>John Algeo</json:string><json:string>Klaus-Uwe Panther</json:string><json:string>Brandt</json:string><json:string>Robert J. Stainton</json:string><json:string>Vasko</json:string><json:string>Anne Lise</json:string><json:string>Valerie Youssef</json:string><json:string>Alexandra Y. Evidentiality</json:string><json:string>Jaume Mateu</json:string><json:string>Monika Fludernik</json:string><json:string>Grant Smith</json:string><json:string>Kaufmann</json:string><json:string>Jesus Ramirez</json:string><json:string>Elizabeth C. Traugott</json:string><json:string>Perceptions</json:string><json:string>Joanna Gavins</json:string><json:string>Joseph Greenberg</json:string><json:string>Alex Louise</json:string><json:string>Geoff Hall</json:string><json:string>Alexandra Kallia</json:string><json:string>Gunilla Anderman</json:string><json:string>Jeroen Groenendijk</json:string><json:string>M. Lynne</json:string><json:string>Richard Coates</json:string><json:string>David Barner</json:string><json:string>An Afterword</json:string><json:string>David Micklethwait</json:string><json:string>John Keats</json:string><json:string>Anette Rosenbach</json:string><json:string>Angeliek</json:string><json:string>Herbert Clark</json:string><json:string>Unification</json:string><json:string>Matti Peikola</json:string><json:string>Barron</json:string><json:string>Claus Gnutzmann</json:string><json:string>Frauke</json:string><json:string>Roumyana</json:string><json:string>An Analysis</json:string><json:string>Robert I. Binnick</json:string><json:string>Paugh</json:string><json:string>Lukas Pietsch</json:string><json:string>Maria Jose</json:string><json:string>Renaat</json:string><json:string>Frederick Newmeyer</json:string><json:string>Susan Jones</json:string><json:string>Gregory N. Carlson</json:string><json:string>Stig Johansson</json:string><json:string>Cedric Boeckx</json:string><json:string>Peter</json:string><json:string>L. R. Horn</json:string><json:string>Diana Marinova</json:string><json:string>Elena Lieven</json:string><json:string>John Donne</json:string><json:string>Julian M. Pine</json:string><json:string>X. Langer</json:string><json:string>Ray Jennings</json:string><json:string>Jamal Ouhalla</json:string><json:string>Dirk Geeraerts</json:string><json:string>Jan Christoph</json:string><json:string>Gilles Fauconnier</json:string><json:string>Giulia Bencini</json:string><json:string>James Murray</json:string><json:string>A. Suresh</json:string><json:string>Angie Williams</json:string><json:string>Kazuko</json:string><json:string>Stephen Wechsler</json:string><json:string>Peter W. Culicover</json:string><json:string>Susan Coetzee-van Roy</json:string><json:string>Paul Heggarty</json:string><json:string>David W. Lightfoot</json:string><json:string>Kirsten Fudeman</json:string><json:string>Royal</json:string><json:string>David Adger</json:string><json:string>Michael Job</json:string><json:string>Time Window</json:string><json:string>Justine Coupland</json:string><json:string>Kathryn Bartlett</json:string><json:string>Hongyin</json:string><json:string>Daniel Grodner</json:string><json:string>Awareness</json:string><json:string>Harald Weilnbock</json:string><json:string>Johan van der Auwera</json:string><json:string>Tom Dalzell</json:string><json:string>Paul Warren</json:string><json:string>Nigel Fabb</json:string><json:string>Peter Hunt</json:string><json:string>John de Lillo</json:string><json:string>Penny Silva</json:string><json:string>Laure Ryan</json:string><json:string>Elizabeth</json:string><json:string>Hana Filip</json:string><json:string>Patrick Caudal</json:string><json:string>Edward Finnegan</json:string><json:string>Maggie Tallerman</json:string><json:string>Aguilar-Sanchez</json:string><json:string>Keith Williamson</json:string><json:string>Stephen Levinson</json:string><json:string>Noah Webster</json:string><json:string>Simon Keynes</json:string><json:string>Tom Werner</json:string><json:string>Kevin Lemoine</json:string><json:string>Salmons</json:string><json:string>Duane Watson</json:string><json:string>Petr Sgall</json:string><json:string>Uri Margolin</json:string><json:string>Steven Davis</json:string><json:string>A.K. Halliday</json:string><json:string>Mari C. Jones</json:string><json:string>Freda</json:string><json:string>Nicole Muller</json:string><json:string>B.F. Skinner</json:string><json:string>Alan Pince</json:string><json:string>Emily Dickinson</json:string><json:string>Liberia</json:string><json:string>Shackleton</json:string><json:string>Elisabeth Jennings</json:string><json:string>Max J. Cresswell</json:string><json:string>William Carleton</json:string><json:string>Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald</json:string><json:string>Joan Bybee</json:string><json:string>Joan Beal</json:string><json:string>Robert Phillipson</json:string><json:string>Sara Mills</json:string><json:string>Marc Authier</json:string><json:string>C. Boas</json:string><json:string>Edgar Schneider</json:string><json:string>Wiltshire</json:string><json:string>David Tuggy</json:string><json:string>X. Macaulay</json:string><json:string>James Cook</json:string><json:string>Edwin D. Lawson</json:string><json:string>Tennessee Williams</json:string><json:string>Werner Wolf</json:string><json:string>George Lakoff</json:string><json:string>Johnathan Culpeper</json:string><json:string>Reinhard Blutner</json:string><json:string>Stuart Campbell</json:string><json:string>James L.McClelland</json:string><json:string>D. Alan</json:string><json:string>Jerry R. Hobbs</json:string><json:string>Hugh Crago</json:string><json:string>Michael I. Posner</json:string><json:string>Gary Simes</json:string><json:string>Wilhelm Leibniz</json:string><json:string>Pauline Jacobson</json:string><json:string>Marco Haverkort</json:string><json:string>Laura Wright</json:string><json:string>Yiyoung Kim</json:string><json:string>Alan Cienki</json:string><json:string>Julie Coleman</json:string><json:string>Lucy Porter</json:string><json:string>Barbara Lalla</json:string><json:string>Ostman</json:string><json:string>Evans Davies</json:string><json:string>German Gottschalk</json:string><json:string>Margaret Maclagan</json:string><json:string>Nigel Armstrong</json:string><json:string>Judith Miguda</json:string><json:string>Sauerland</json:string><json:string>David R. Dowty</json:string><json:string>Steven G. McGafferty</json:string><json:string>Richard</json:string><json:string>Meredith Marra</json:string><json:string>Ronald Langacker</json:string><json:string>Paul Gee</json:string><json:string>Radford</json:string><json:string>Rebecca Sue</json:string><json:string>Helen Spencer-Oatey</json:string><json:string>Peter Huhn</json:string><json:string>Chris Christie</json:string><json:string>Paul Simpson</json:string><json:string>Paul Werth</json:string><json:string>Jennifer Saul</json:string><json:string>Jacques Weber</json:string><json:string>Alan Bennett</json:string><json:string>Bart Geurts</json:string><json:string>Kirsten Malmkjaer</json:string><json:string>John Dryden</json:string><json:string>Alfred Tarski</json:string><json:string>Yoko Iyeiri</json:string><json:string>Jack S. Damico</json:string><json:string>Emmanuel Schegloff</json:string><json:string>Thomas Ernst</json:string><json:string>Kurt Feyaerts</json:string><json:string>M. Jaszczolt</json:string><json:string>Sylvia Plath</json:string><json:string>John G. Newman</json:string><json:string>Zhonghua</json:string><json:string>Eric Atwell</json:string><json:string>John Dos</json:string><json:string>Reyes</json:string><json:string>Susan Gal</json:string><json:string>Thomas Ede</json:string><json:string>Anne-Line Graedler</json:string><json:string>U.S. Constitution</json:string><json:string>Claudia Maienborn</json:string><json:string>Stephanie Schnurr</json:string><json:string>Carol Reeves</json:string><json:string>Matsumoto</json:string><json:string>Ron Carter</json:string><json:string>Alec Marantz</json:string><json:string>Tanja Schmid</json:string><json:string>Karin Aijmer</json:string><json:string>Jeanette Winterson</json:string><json:string>Irena Bellert</json:string><json:string>Philip Larkin</json:string><json:string>David Bloome</json:string><json:string>Terence Patrick</json:string><json:string>Birgit Alber</json:string><json:string>Vivian de Klerk</json:string><json:string>Interpretation</json:string><json:string>Jennifer Coates</json:string><json:string>Nora Shuart-Faris</json:string><json:string>Al-Dabbagh</json:string><json:string>Sachiko Ide</json:string><json:string>Robert C. Stalnaker</json:string><json:string>Alice Deignan</json:string><json:string>Laurie A. Stowe</json:string><json:string>Walker</json:string><json:string>Brady Clark</json:string><json:string>Allan James</json:string><json:string>Mark Aronoff</json:string><json:string>Mark Steedman</json:string><json:string>Winnie Cheng</json:string><json:string>Leonard Talmy</json:string><json:string>Jeff Siegel</json:string><json:string>Charles Boberg</json:string><json:string>Jan Blommaert</json:string><json:string>Shaer</json:string><json:string>Bogdan Szymanek</json:string><json:string>Frederica Barbieri</json:string><json:string>Noam Chomsky</json:string><json:string>Joe Bray</json:string><json:string>Brian Clancy</json:string><json:string>John Locke</json:string><json:string>Timothy Osborne</json:string><json:string>John Stevens</json:string><json:string>Eva Espasa</json:string><json:string>Marc Richards</json:string><json:string>Kathleen Baynes</json:string><json:string>Guofang</json:string><json:string>Rubdy</json:string><json:string>Dorian Roehrs</json:string><json:string>Ann Williams</json:string><json:string>Kallia</json:string><json:string>Eleni Antonopoulou</json:string><json:string>Kim M. Isaac</json:string><json:string>Gitte Kristiansen</json:string><json:string>White</json:string><json:string>Simone Muller</json:string><json:string>Peter Rabinowitz</json:string><json:string>Joseph T. Farquharson</json:string><json:string>Thomas Henry</json:string><json:string>Sebastian Hoffmann</json:string><json:string>Roland Harweg</json:string><json:string>Patrick Murphy</json:string><json:string>Nicholas Faraclas</json:string><json:string>Bernard Share</json:string><json:string>System</json:string><json:string>Craig Hamilton</json:string><json:string>Jens Kiefer</json:string><json:string>Bunyi</json:string><json:string>Thomas J. Gasque</json:string><json:string>Edvard Vickers</json:string><json:string>Juan Uriagereka</json:string><json:string>Akiko Okamura</json:string><json:string>Etienne Wenger</json:string><json:string>Carol L. Tenny</json:string><json:string>George Tsoulas</json:string><json:string>Klaus P. Schneider</json:string><json:string>Kong Transition</json:string><json:string>Jan Cristoph</json:string><json:string>Edward Gobbel</json:string><json:string>Joanna Thornborrow</json:string><json:string>B. Asian</json:string><json:string>Peter Patrick</json:string><json:string>Sarah Hawkins</json:string><json:string>Celine Poudat</json:string><json:string>Dagmar Deuber</json:string><json:string>Stefan Th</json:string><json:string>Caroline Heycock</json:string><json:string>Languages</json:string><json:string>Christopher Rollason</json:string><json:string>Or Interaction</json:string><json:string>Nikolas Coupland</json:string><json:string>Teruhiko Fukaya</json:string><json:string>David Herman</json:string><json:string>Probable</json:string><json:string>Bertrand Russell</json:string><json:string>Norman Fairclough</json:string><json:string>Jennifer Smith</json:string><json:string>Geert</json:string><json:string>Anthony McEnery</json:string><json:string>Sally Yates</json:string><json:string>April McMahon</json:string><json:string>Patrick Hanks</json:string><json:string>Helena English</json:string><json:string>Peter Lasersohn</json:string><json:string>David Green</json:string><json:string>Lothar Peter</json:string><json:string>Reinhart</json:string><json:string>Christina Schmitt</json:string><json:string>Janet Holmes</json:string><json:string>Newmeyer</json:string><json:string>Louis Jolliet</json:string><json:string>James A. Walker</json:string><json:string>Appropriation</json:string><json:string>D.H. Lawrence</json:string><json:string>Rowicka</json:string><json:string>Although</json:string><json:string>Arnim von Stechow</json:string><json:string>Ruth Wajnryb</json:string><json:string>Lynda Mugglestone</json:string><json:string>Sali Tagliamonte</json:string><json:string>Guido Erreygers</json:string><json:string>M.G. Dareau</json:string><json:string>Gabriella</json:string><json:string>Li Wei</json:string><json:string>Kenneth Tucker</json:string><json:string>Cynthia Gordon</json:string><json:string>Michael T. Ullman</json:string><json:string>Willem Koopman</json:string><json:string>Sigrid Beck</json:string><json:string>Peter Hohenhaus</json:string><json:string>Peter MacNeilage</json:string><json:string>Eliza Ann</json:string><json:string>Susan Goldin-Meadow</json:string><json:string>John Kersey</json:string><json:string>Maria Rivera</json:string><json:string>Belen Soria</json:string><json:string>Stanley Lieberson</json:string><json:string>Hilary Hillier</json:string><json:string>Susan Pintzuk</json:string><json:string>Brita Warvik</json:string><json:string>Simon Elmes</json:string><json:string>Martin Hewings</json:string><json:string>Luis de Moscoso</json:string><json:string>Ellen Dodge</json:string><json:string>Brian McHale</json:string><json:string>M.I.M. Matthiessen</json:string><json:string>X. Ramanathan</json:string><json:string>Brian Street</json:string><json:string>Nils Langer</json:string><json:string>Gill Francis</json:string><json:string>Ann Wennerstrom</json:string><json:string>Seyda Ozcalis</json:string><json:string>Peter Stockwell</json:string><json:string>Judith Irvine</json:string><json:string>Benjamin Shaer</json:string><json:string>Winifred Davies</json:string><json:string>A.J. Interaction</json:string><json:string>Graham</json:string><json:string>Karen Zagona</json:string><json:string>Hanks</json:string><json:string>M.A.K. Halliday</json:string><json:string>Thomas Wasow</json:string><json:string>Kyoko Hirose</json:string><json:string>Bultinck</json:string><json:string>Sara Thomas</json:string><json:string>Per Aage</json:string><json:string>Roland Posner</json:string><json:string>Jose Luis</json:string><json:string>Arne Zettersten</json:string><json:string>Philadelphia</json:string><json:string>Van Herk</json:string><json:string>David Deterding</json:string><json:string>Richard Spalding</json:string><json:string>Andrea Sand</json:string><json:string>Nellie Chachibaia</json:string><json:string>Abu Shawar</json:string><json:string>Hubert Cuyckens</json:string><json:string>Barbieri</json:string><json:string>Caroline Coffin</json:string><json:string>Sheila Rowlands</json:string><json:string>Anita Naciscione</json:string><json:string>van Herk</json:string><json:string>Julian Barnes</json:string><json:string>Jan Servaes</json:string><json:string>Binchy</json:string><json:string>Jordi Pique-Angordans</json:string><json:string>Tom Roeper</json:string><json:string>Christopher Routledge</json:string><json:string>Matthew Walenski</json:string><json:string>Wagner</json:string><json:string>Tickoo</json:string><json:string>John Denham</json:string><json:string>Wim</json:string><json:string>Roger Kreuz</json:string><json:string>Andrew Spencer</json:string><json:string>Charles F. Meyer</json:string><json:string>Thomas Blount</json:string><json:string>Norman French</json:string><json:string>Jens Erik</json:string><json:string>Talmy</json:string><json:string>Paul Grice</json:string><json:string>My Version</json:string><json:string>Mirna Pit</json:string><json:string>Richard Watts</json:string><json:string>Hamida Demirdache</json:string><json:string>Ken Nakagawa</json:string><json:string>Lou</json:string><json:string>Irit Kupferberg</json:string><json:string>Ellen Thompson</json:string><json:string>Margie Probyn</json:string><json:string>Daniel Buring</json:string><json:string>Carter Hailey</json:string><json:string>Hudson</json:string><json:string>Jeannine Carpenter</json:string><json:string>Joseph Andrews</json:string><json:string>Josef Bayer</json:string><json:string>Andrea Sudbury</json:string><json:string>Christopher S. Butler</json:string><json:string>B. Kachru</json:string><json:string>X. Dent</json:string><json:string>V. M. Lieven</json:string><json:string>Jeannette Schaeffer</json:string><json:string>Elena Tognini-Bonelli</json:string><json:string>Camilla Vasquez</json:string><json:string>Knud Lambrecht</json:string><json:string>R. Harald</json:string><json:string>Nicole Taylor</json:string><json:string>Mirjam</json:string><json:string>Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig</json:string><json:string>Tim Fernando</json:string><json:string>Anna Wierzbicka</json:string><json:string>Ian Mason</json:string><json:string>Geoffrey K. Pullum</json:string><json:string>Sandra Harris</json:string><json:string>Kiki Nikiforidou</json:string><json:string>Blommaert</json:string><json:string>Jane Dawson</json:string><json:string>Tanya</json:string><json:string>Bernd Heine</json:string><json:string>Louise Cummins</json:string><json:string>Abel Boyer</json:string><json:string>Christiane Meierkord</json:string><json:string>Elizabeth Ann</json:string><json:string>Robert Cockroft</json:string><json:string>Norbert Hornstein</json:string><json:string>Andrew Goatly</json:string><json:string>Milton Keynes</json:string><json:string>Line Brandt</json:string><json:string>Peter Garrett</json:string><json:string>Risto Hiltunen</json:string><json:string>Scott Weinstein</json:string><json:string>Laurie Bauer</json:string><json:string>William A. Ladusaw</json:string><json:string>Paola Pietandrea</json:string><json:string>Michael Colenso</json:string><json:string>James Phelan</json:string><json:string>Media Discourses</json:string><json:string>Edward Callary</json:string><json:string>Anne McDermott</json:string><json:string>A.D.C. Simpson</json:string><json:string>Susan Butler</json:string><json:string>Charles Jones</json:string><json:string>Michael Stubbs</json:string><json:string>Randall Hendrick</json:string><json:string>Derek Edwards</json:string><json:string>Cleo Condoravdi</json:string><json:string>Irene Koshik</json:string><json:string>A.J. Wootton</json:string><json:string>Beverly S. Muhlhausler</json:string><json:string>Rupp</json:string><json:string>Charles</json:string><json:string>Donald E. Hardy</json:string><json:string>Michael Burke</json:string><json:string>Andrew Radford</json:string><json:string>Constantino Maeder</json:string><json:string>George Herbert</json:string><json:string>Ed Zoerner</json:string><json:string>Miriam Locher</json:string><json:string>Warner</json:string><json:string>Rolf H. Bremmer</json:string><json:string>Wolfgang Teubert</json:string><json:string>Manfred Kienpointner</json:string><json:string>W.N. Francis</json:string><json:string>German Pfannebecker</json:string><json:string>Franz Hundsnurscher</json:string><json:string>Carmen Rosa</json:string><json:string>Robert G. Shackleton</json:string><json:string>Pamela Roper</json:string><json:string>Francis Katamba</json:string><json:string>Robinson Crusoe</json:string><json:string>Bernd Kortmann</json:string><json:string>Peter Carey</json:string><json:string>German Freitag</json:string><json:string>Alan Munn</json:string><json:string>Sergio Scalise</json:string><json:string>Andrea Tyler</json:string><json:string>Ben Rampton</json:string><json:string>Valerie Fridland</json:string><json:string>Helena Halmari</json:string><json:string>Carole Hough</json:string><json:string>Jean Aitchison</json:string><json:string>Kay</json:string><json:string>Mike Bradstock</json:string><json:string>Frank Keller</json:string><json:string>Ana Christina</json:string><json:string>Cristina Larkin</json:string><json:string>Cormier</json:string><json:string>Daniel C. Strack</json:string><json:string>Brita Warwik</json:string><json:string>Janina Brutt</json:string><json:string>Davis Morris</json:string><json:string>Ruth Carroll</json:string><json:string>Jean Jacques</json:string><json:string>Kevin McCafferty</json:string><json:string>Jocks</json:string><json:string>David Keeble</json:string><json:string>Patrick McConvell</json:string><json:string>Henriette de Swart</json:string><json:string>Dan Sperber</json:string><json:string>Derek Attridge</json:string><json:string>Steven Jones</json:string><json:string>David Rudd</json:string><json:string>Wolfgang U. Dressler</json:string><json:string>Ingo</json:string><json:string>Ignasi Navarro-Ferrando</json:string><json:string>Michael Adams</json:string><json:string>Hazen</json:string><json:string>Christina Rossetti</json:string><json:string>Paul Foulkes</json:string><json:string>Dan Slobin</json:string><json:string>Hoey</json:string><json:string>David Lewis</json:string><json:string>Tanja Herrmann</json:string><json:string>Peter Snow</json:string><json:string>Daniel Vanderveken</json:string><json:string>Michael Tomasello</json:string><json:string>Katherine Flaster</json:string><json:string>Dianne Blakemore</json:string><json:string>Deirdre Wilson</json:string><json:string>Nicholas Hudson</json:string><json:string>Elbourne</json:string><json:string>Arcy</json:string><json:string>Nancy A. Ritter</json:string><json:string>Zhu</json:string><json:string>Bertus</json:string><json:string>Lauren Roussarie</json:string><json:string>Christopher Stray</json:string><json:string>Maria Teresa</json:string><json:string>X. Finnegan</json:string><json:string>Dilara Tepeli</json:string><json:string>A.N. Prior</json:string><json:string>Cynthia G. Clopper</json:string><json:string>Foley</json:string><json:string>Judy B. Bernstein</json:string><json:string>William B. Hamilton</json:string><json:string>Rosario Caballero</json:string><json:string>Jane Ann</json:string><json:string>Katherine Hymn</json:string><json:string>Leo Hickey</json:string><json:string>Christina M. Tortora</json:string><json:string>Ramesh Krishnamurthy</json:string><json:string>Goulding</json:string><json:string>Vivienne Fong</json:string><json:string>Hans Marchand</json:string><json:string>Annelise</json:string><json:string>John Searle</json:string><json:string>Pietsch</json:string><json:string>Robyn Carston</json:string><json:string>Daniel Schreier</json:string><json:string>Kong Corpus</json:string><json:string>Talbot</json:string><json:string>Manel Herat</json:string><json:string>Robert</json:string><json:string>Michael Benton</json:string><json:string>Ralf Schneider</json:string><json:string>Development</json:string><json:string>Claude Vandeloise</json:string><json:string>You Are</json:string><json:string>Debby Banham</json:string><json:string>Nadine Vermeylen</json:string><json:string>Gut</json:string><json:string>Peter Mark</json:string><json:string>Martha Moraa</json:string><json:string>Andrew Chesterman</json:string><json:string>Jeremy Munday</json:string><json:string>Hong Kingston</json:string><json:string>Joseph Salmons</json:string><json:string>Warren</json:string><json:string>Nicholas Asher</json:string><json:string>English</json:string><json:string>La Salle</json:string><json:string>Peter Rolf</json:string><json:string>Sankaran</json:string><json:string>Hartley</json:string><json:string>Terry Threadgold</json:string><json:string>Anna L. Theakston</json:string><json:string>Konrad Ehlich</json:string><json:string>Herman Melville</json:string><json:string>Marcel Thelen</json:string><json:string>Pattern Grammar</json:string><json:string>Charles Antaki</json:string><json:string>John Stone</json:string><json:string>Lynn</json:string><json:string>Diane Davies</json:string><json:string>Suzanne Romaine</json:string><json:string>Chris Roberts</json:string><json:string>Priya Hosali</json:string><json:string>Brian Agbayani</json:string><json:string>Alessandro Duranti</json:string><json:string>Jennifer Jenkins</json:string><json:string>Taeko</json:string><json:string>Stanley Dubinsky</json:string><json:string>Scott F. Kiesling</json:string><json:string>Angel Lopez-Garc</json:string><json:string>Nemoto</json:string><json:string>Fred Kniss</json:string><json:string>Herbert Igboanusi</json:string><json:string>VO Contrasts</json:string><json:string>Alex Del</json:string><json:string>Timothy C. Clausner</json:string><json:string>Frederick J. Possible</json:string><json:string>Judy Reilly</json:string><json:string>Gillian Ramchand</json:string><json:string>de Klerk</json:string><json:string>Kenneth Hyland</json:string><json:string>Richard Samson</json:string><json:string>Michael Hoey</json:string><json:string>Hanne PageVerhoeft</json:string><json:string>Wolfram</json:string><json:string>Speech</json:string><json:string>Anna Elizabeth</json:string><json:string>Paul Elbourne</json:string><json:string>Carol Myers-Scotton</json:string><json:string>Elena TogniniBonelli</json:string><json:string>Robin Lakoff</json:string><json:string>Rene Descartes</json:string><json:string>Bruce Fraser</json:string><json:string>Julia Bamford</json:string><json:string>Space Theory</json:string><json:string>Alan Bale</json:string><json:string>Langer</json:string><json:string>Mathew</json:string><json:string>Geoffrey Sampson</json:string><json:string>Susan Conrad</json:string><json:string>Mark Johnson</json:string><json:string>Ruth Berman</json:string><json:string>Martha Ann</json:string><json:string>Wilhelm Schernus</json:string><json:string>Zhiming</json:string><json:string>Dana Kovarsky</json:string><json:string>Mai Tungseth</json:string><json:string>Christiana Nord</json:string><json:string>Rebecca Smollett</json:string><json:string>Esther Romero</json:string><json:string>Paul M. Events</json:string><json:string>Kallen</json:string><json:string>Christina Tortora</json:string><json:string>Judith Duchan</json:string><json:string>Thrale</json:string><json:string>Shalom Lappin</json:string><json:string>Sachiko</json:string><json:string>Priscilla Bawcutt</json:string><json:string>Dictionary</json:string><json:string>Jeanne Fahnestock</json:string><json:string>Ruth Wodak</json:string><json:string>Angelika Kratzer</json:string><json:string>Don Chapman</json:string><json:string>Virginia Division</json:string><json:string>Michael J. Terry</json:string><json:string>Dagmar Haumann</json:string><json:string>Ariel Cohen</json:string><json:string>Janne Skaffari</json:string><json:string>Michael Toolan</json:string><json:string>Lyric Poetry</json:string><json:string>Frans Zwarts</json:string><json:string>Desmond Hurley</json:string><json:string>Holly</json:string><json:string>Kyratzis</json:string><json:string>Ann Hewings</json:string><json:string>Arthur Maling</json:string><json:string>Robert M. Seyfarth</json:string><json:string>Will Earn</json:string><json:string>Douglas Lightfoot</json:string><json:string>Ralph Waldo</json:string><json:string>Helen de Hoop</json:string><json:string>Ruqaiya</json:string><json:string>William Henry</json:string><json:string>Thomas Pyles</json:string><json:string>Margaret Rogers</json:string><json:string>Marika Schwaiger</json:string><json:string>Jim Martin</json:string><json:string>Margaret Ann</json:string><json:string>M.Y. Lin</json:string><json:string>McCafferty</json:string><json:string>Jennifer Hay</json:string><json:string>John Barwise</json:string><json:string>Anna-Brita Stenstrom</json:string><json:string>Martin Stokhof</json:string><json:string>Raymond Hickey</json:string><json:string>Karl Popper</json:string><json:string>Elisha Coles</json:string><json:string>Lee Cher-Leng</json:string><json:string>Mark Volpe</json:string><json:string>Burnouts</json:string><json:string>Lauri Karttunen</json:string><json:string>Robert Beard</json:string><json:string>Figueroa</json:string><json:string>Paul Kussmaul</json:string><json:string>Hella Rogiers</json:string><json:string>Peter McCagg</json:string><json:string>Steven Pinker</json:string><json:string>Lisa Reed</json:string><json:string>Dieter Kastovsky</json:string><json:string>Kent Bach</json:string><json:string>Ana Deumert</json:string><json:string>Steven Gross</json:string><json:string>Rosemarie Ostler</json:string><json:string>Alexei Solopov</json:string><json:string>Edwards</json:string><json:string>Edward Gibson</json:string><json:string>Laura Rupp</json:string><json:string>Linda L. Thornburg</json:string><json:string>Kong History</json:string><json:string>Robin Cooper</json:string><json:string>Abdullah Hassan</json:string><json:string>Christopher Potts</json:string><json:string>Semantic</json:string><json:string>Dor</json:string><json:string>Ken Tucker</json:string><json:string>Sylvain Loiseau</json:string><json:string>Alastair Pennycook</json:string><json:string>Nic Mhaolain</json:string><json:string>Akimoto</json:string><json:string>Adolphs</json:string><json:string>William Sayers</json:string><json:string>By</json:string><json:string>Daniele Klapproth</json:string><json:string>Marta Viada</json:string><json:string>Wendy K. Wilkins</json:string><json:string>H.C. Wyld</json:string><json:string>Johnson</json:string><json:string>Mark Ridley</json:string><json:string>Zhonghua Xiao</json:string><json:string>Wilhelm von Humboldt</json:string><json:string>Eva Hajicova</json:string><json:string>Carpenter</json:string><json:string>Friedrich Schleichermacher</json:string><json:string>George Henry</json:string><json:string>Lye</json:string><json:string>Mari Takada</json:string><json:string>Jane Mansbridge</json:string><json:string>Sheila Otto</json:string><json:string>Raffaella Folli</json:string><json:string>Sarah Ann</json:string><json:string>Martha Tennent</json:string><json:string>Oakley</json:string><json:string>Geoffrey Finch</json:string><json:string>John Henry</json:string><json:string>Edwin Battistella</json:string><json:string>Susan Cockroft</json:string><json:string>You Don</json:string><json:string>Robert McGivern</json:string><json:string>Robert McColl</json:string><json:string>Kara Ko</json:string><json:string>Brock-Utne</json:string><json:string>Olga Fischer</json:string><json:string>Francesca Bartrina</json:string><json:string>Hans C. Boas</json:string><json:string>Walter Benjamin</json:string><json:string>Rufus H. Gouws</json:string><json:string>David Kaplan</json:string><json:string>Britain</json:string><json:string>Ilse Wischer</json:string><json:string>Christine Robinson</json:string><json:string>Laura Hidalgo</json:string><json:string>M.S. Griffith</json:string><json:string>Collins</json:string><json:string>Paul Celan</json:string><json:string>An Application</json:string><json:string>Brendan S. Gillon</json:string><json:string>Henk Verkuyl</json:string><json:string>Ronald Macaulay</json:string><json:string>Barbara Dancygier</json:string><json:string>Johan Bos</json:string><json:string>Paul Luna</json:string><json:string>Wolf Rock</json:string><json:string>James Higginbotham</json:string><json:string>Howard Lasnik</json:string><json:string>Corpus</json:string><json:string>Wilhelm Geuder</json:string><json:string>Howard D. Weinbrot</json:string><json:string>P.T. Geach</json:string><json:string>Susan Hunston</json:string><json:string>Caroline F. Rowland</json:string><json:string>Greg Watson</json:string><json:string>William J. Herlofsky</json:string><json:string>Coates</json:string><json:string>Kurt Vonnegut</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Aberdeen</json:string><json:string>Lancashire</json:string><json:string>Puerto Rican</json:string><json:string>Carlisle</json:string><json:string>Cheshire</json:string><json:string>Miami</json:string><json:string>Singapore</json:string><json:string>Honolulu</json:string><json:string>Columbia</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Greece</json:string><json:string>United States</json:string><json:string>Halle</json:string><json:string>Blackburn</json:string><json:string>Papua New Guinea</json:string><json:string>Thailand</json:string><json:string>Sri Lanka</json:string><json:string>Australia</json:string><json:string>Bolton</json:string><json:string>Dominica</json:string><json:string>Newfoundland</json:string><json:string>Jamaican</json:string><json:string>Felicity</json:string><json:string>Milton Keynes</json:string><json:string>Tivoli</json:string><json:string>Brazil</json:string><json:string>Ayrshire</json:string><json:string>Barbados</json:string><json:string>Mendoza</json:string><json:string>Norway</json:string><json:string>Bangkok</json:string><json:string>Montreal</json:string><json:string>Hong Kong</json:string><json:string>Washington</json:string><json:string>Scotland</json:string><json:string>Lagos</json:string><json:string>Ethnicity</json:string><json:string>Richmond</json:string><json:string>Rhoticity</json:string><json:string>Canada</json:string><json:string>Nice</json:string><json:string>DC</json:string><json:string>Costa Rica</json:string><json:string>Martin</json:string><json:string>Helsinki</json:string><json:string>St Lucian</json:string><json:string>Honduras</json:string><json:string>Aston</json:string><json:string>American</json:string><json:string>Atelicity</json:string><json:string>Roman</json:string><json:string>Nottingham</json:string><json:string>The Bridge</json:string><json:string>Lincolnshire</json:string><json:string>Cambridgeshire</json:string><json:string>Watertown</json:string><json:string>Louvain-la-Neuve</json:string><json:string>India</json:string><json:string>LAOS</json:string><json:string>Puerto Rico</json:string><json:string>China</json:string><json:string>Belfast</json:string><json:string>Europe</json:string><json:string>Santiago Posteguillo</json:string><json:string>Japan</json:string><json:string>America</json:string><json:string>Wales</json:string><json:string>Nigeria</json:string><json:string>Baltimore</json:string><json:string>Czech Republic</json:string><json:string>South Africa</json:string><json:string>Liverpool</json:string><json:string>Senegal</json:string><json:string>Bergen</json:string><json:string>Sierra Leone</json:string><json:string>Dublin</json:string><json:string>Waterford</json:string><json:string>Glasgow</json:string><json:string>New Zealand</json:string><json:string>NE</json:string><json:string>Chicago</json:string><json:string>Britain</json:string><json:string>Vladimir</json:string><json:string>Yorkshire</json:string><json:string>New Englishes</json:string><json:string>York</json:string><json:string>New Cognitive</json:string><json:string>Bamberg</json:string><json:string>Ireland</json:string><json:string>Gap</json:string><json:string>European Union</json:string><json:string>Aberdeenshire</json:string><json:string>Iconicity</json:string><json:string>St. Lucia</json:string><json:string>Monotonicity</json:string><json:string>CAMBRIDGE</json:string><json:string>Chemnitz</json:string><json:string>Guadeloupe</json:string><json:string>Cleveland</json:string><json:string>Taipei</json:string><json:string>Ahmedabad</json:string><json:string>Worcester</json:string><json:string>Nairobi</json:string><json:string>Goldberg</json:string><json:string>Bedfordshire</json:string><json:string>Lincoln</json:string><json:string>Mackay</json:string><json:string>Kanazawa</json:string><json:string>St Jerome</json:string><json:string>Netherlands</json:string></placeName><ref_url><json:string>http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames</json:string></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>[1987, 2002]</json:string><json:string>[1975]</json:string><json:string>Cruse et al.</json:string><json:string>[1970]</json:string><json:string>[1869]</json:string><json:string>Annal 1137</json:string><json:string>Language and Linguistics 2003</json:string><json:string>Hornstein et al.</json:string><json:string>[1996]</json:string><json:string>[2002]</json:string><json:string>Kortmann et al.</json:string><json:string>[1967]</json:string><json:string>Nakamura et al.</json:string><json:string>Gottleib et al.</json:string><json:string>[1969, 1976]</json:string><json:string>Barner and Bale (2002)</json:string><json:string>[2001]</json:string><json:string>[1999]</json:string><json:string>[205]</json:string><json:string>[1994]</json:string><json:string>[1972, 1993]</json:string><json:string>[2000]</json:string><json:string>Delbecque et al.</json:string><json:string>[1998]</json:string><json:string>[1993]</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/HXZ-RQPZL5DP-V</json:string></ark><categories><wos></wos><scienceMetrix></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Arts and Humanities</json:string><json:string>3 - Literature and Literary Theory</json:string><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - Linguistics and Language</json:string><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Arts and Humanities</json:string><json:string>3 - Language and Linguistics</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>sciences humaines et sociales</json:string><json:string>linguistique</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2007</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1093/ywes/mam001</json:string></doi><id>79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">IEnglish Language</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">Oxford University Press</publisher><availability><licence><p>© The English Association; all rights reserved</p></licence><p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-GTWS0RDP-M">oup</p></availability><date>2007</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note><note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">IEnglish Language</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Evelien</forename><surname>Keizer</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Amsterdam</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Mohammed</forename><surname>Albakry</surname></persName><affiliation>Middle Tennessee State University</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Jeroen</forename><surname>Van De Weijer</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Leiden</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Bettelou</forename><surname>Los</surname></persName><affiliation>Radbound University, Nijmegen, Amsterdam</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Wim</forename><surname>Van Der Wurff</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0005"><persName><forename type="first">Beàta</forename><surname>Gyuris</surname></persName><affiliation>Hungarian Academy of Science</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0006"><persName><forename type="first">Julie</forename><surname>Coleman</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Leicester</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0007"><persName><forename type="first">Edward</forename><surname>Callary</surname></persName><affiliation>Northern Illinois University</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0008"><persName><forename type="first">Lieselotte</forename><surname>Anderwald</surname></persName><affiliation>Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0009"><persName><forename type="first">Andrea</forename><surname>Sand</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Hannover, Freiburg</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0010"><persName><forename type="first">Camilla</forename><surname>Vasquez</surname></persName><affiliation>Northern Arizona University</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0011"><persName><forename type="first">Laura</forename><surname>Hidalgo</surname></persName><affiliation>University Autonoma, Madrid</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/HXZ-RQPZL5DP-V</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1093/ywes/mam001</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Year's Work in English Studies</title><idno type="pISSN">0084-4144</idno><idno type="eISSN">1471-6801</idno><idno type="publisher-id">ywes</idno><idno type="PublisherID-hwp">ywes</idno><imprint><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><date type="published" when="2007"></date><biblScope unit="volume">86</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="165">165</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2007</date></creation><abstract><p>This chapter has twelve sections: 1. General; 2. History of English Linguistics; 3. Phonetics and Phonology; 4. Morphology; 5. Syntax; 6. Semantics; 7. Lexicography, Lexicology and Lexical Semantics; 8. Onomastics; 9. Dialectology and Sociolinguistics; 10. New Englishes and Creolistics; 11. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis; 12. Stylistics. Section 1 is by Evelien Keizer; section 2 is by Mohammed Albakry; section 3 is by Jeroen van de Weijer; sections 4 and 5 are by Bettelou Los and Wim van der Wurff; section 6 is by Beàta Gyuris; section 7 is by Julie Coleman; section 8 is by Edward Callary; section 9 is by Lieselotte Anderwald; section 10 is by Andrea Sand; section 11 is by Camilla Vasquez; section 12 is by Laura Hidalgo.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head></head><item><term>Articles</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2007">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus oup, element #text not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">ywes</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">ywes</journal-id>
<journal-title>Year's Work in English Studies</journal-title>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0084-4144</issn>
<issn pub-type="epub">1471-6801</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/ywes/mam001</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group>
<subject>Articles</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>I<break></break>English Language</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Keizer</surname><given-names>Evelien</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>University of Amsterdam</aff>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Albakry</surname><given-names>Mohammed</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>Middle Tennessee State University</aff>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Van De Weijer</surname><given-names>Jeroen</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>University of Leiden</aff>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Los</surname><given-names>Bettelou</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>Radbound University, Nijmegen, Amsterdam</aff>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Van Der Wurff</surname><given-names>Wim</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne</aff>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Gyuris</surname><given-names>Beàta</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>Hungarian Academy of Science</aff>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Coleman</surname><given-names>Julie</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>University of Leicester</aff>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Callary</surname><given-names>Edward</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>Northern Illinois University</aff>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Anderwald</surname><given-names>Lieselotte</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg</aff>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Sand</surname><given-names>Andrea</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>University of Hannover, Freiburg</aff>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Vasquez</surname><given-names>Camilla</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>Northern Arizona University</aff>
</contrib-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Hidalgo</surname><given-names>Laura</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff>University Autonoma, Madrid</aff>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub">
<year>2007</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>86</volume>
<issue>1</issue>
<fpage>1</fpage>
<lpage>165</lpage>
<copyright-statement>© The English Association; all rights reserved</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2007</copyright-year>
<abstract><p>This chapter has twelve sections: 1. General; 2. History of English Linguistics; 3. Phonetics and Phonology; 4. Morphology; 5. Syntax; 6. Semantics; 7. Lexicography, Lexicology and Lexical Semantics; 8. Onomastics; 9. Dialectology and Sociolinguistics; 10. New Englishes and Creolistics; 11. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis; 12. Stylistics. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC1">Section 1</xref> is by Evelien Keizer; <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC2">section 2</xref> is by Mohammed Albakry; <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC3">section 3</xref> is by Jeroen van de Weijer; <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC4">sections 4</xref> and <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC5">5</xref> are by Bettelou Los and Wim van der Wurff; <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC6">section 6</xref> is by Beàta Gyuris; <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC7">section 7</xref> is by Julie Coleman; <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC8">section 8</xref> is by Edward Callary; <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC9">section 9</xref> is by Lieselotte Anderwald; <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC10">section 10</xref> is by Andrea Sand; <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC11">section 11</xref> is by Camilla Vasquez; <xref ref-type="sec" rid="SEC12">section 12</xref> is by Laura Hidalgo.</p></abstract>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="SEC1"><title>1. General</title>
<p>Since the year 2005 saw no major publications in the field of general reference, we will turn directly to a major debate in theoretical linguistics: the question of the innateness of language. Geoffrey Sampson's <italic>The ‘Language Instinct’ Debate</italic> is an updated and expanded version of an earlier publication with the title <italic>Educating Eve</italic> [1997]. In the foreword, Paul Postal briefly summarizes the two positions in the debate: the ‘innateness position’, as advocated by Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker and their numerous followers, and the ‘cultural position’, passionately defended by Sampson. An agnostic on the issue himself, Postal expresses his concern about the fact that the debate is characterized by a disquieting asymmetry, in the sense that where the defenders of the cultural position do acknowledge the nativists’ arguments, the nativists refuse to respond seriously to criticism from the cultural camp. Even if one does not agree with Sampson's view, Postal continues, his book makes clear that, at the very least, the issue is far from closed.</p>
<p>Chapter 1, ‘Culture or Biology?’, introduces the main issue. From the very beginning, the author clearly defines his own stance in the debate, claiming that ‘the English language, and other languages, are institutions like country dancing or a game of cricket: cultural creations which individuals may learn during their lifetimes, but to which no one is innately disposed’ (p. 1). Sampson's main aim is to scrutinize and refute the arguments put forward by the nativists, and to show that there is a plausible (empiricist) alternative. He then gives an outline of the history of the debate, from Chomsky's revival, in the 1960s, of the ideas of early nativists like Plato and René Descartes, to the new wave in the 1990s, headed by linguists like Derek Bickerton, Ray Jackendoff and Steven Pinker. Sampson characterizes his own work as inspired by the ideas of John Locke and Karl Popper, in particular by Popper's picture of the infant as a guessing-and-testing organism.</p>
<p>Chapters 2 to 5 are meant to counter the main arguments of the nativists. Chapter 2 deals with writings of the ‘first wave’ of linguistic nativism, evaluating the evidence available at the time. Sampson responds to the original arguments for a language instinct—including speed of acquisition, critical age, poverty of the stimulus, universal grammar and species specificity—and counters them one by one (except for the ‘universal grammar’ argument, which is dealt with in chapter 5). Chapter 3, ‘How People Really Speak’, has been newly added to this edition. It deals with the same arguments, now drawing on recent data (from electronic corpora, the internet etc.) on the use of language in real life. Sampson points out that the original nativist arguments were largely based on introspection; use of authentic material, however, proves many of the nativist claims and predications to be false. In chapter 4, ‘The Debate Renewed’, Sampson responds to the arguments of the new wave of nativism, which emerged in the 1990s, as linguists, cognitive scientists and neuroscientists became increasingly interested in the biological evolution of language. Sampson first discusses Derek Bickerton's book <italic>Language and Species</italic> and its claim that language must have emerged suddenly (as a ‘sudden flip’) rather than evolving gradually out of a protolanguage. Next he addresses Ray Jackendoff's claim, put forward in <italic>Patterns in the Mind</italic>, that signed languages are as much under the control of the innate linguistic mechanism as spoken languages. After countering the arguments put forward by Bickerton and Jackendoff, Sampson turns to the main representative of the new wave, Steven Pinker, whose book <italic>The Language Instinct</italic> he discusses at considerable length, paying attention to both the old and the new evidence offered by Pinker. Chapter 5 is entirely devoted to the issue of language universals. Although many of the claims made by nativists about language universals can, according to Sampson, be shown to be wrong, there are indeed some basic properties that are shared by all languages. Although nativism offers an explanation for these universals, there is, Sampson claims, ‘a very different explanation available for these properties, which accounts for the facts much better than the hypothesis of innate knowledge would account for them’ (p. 138). The universality of tree structuring, for instance, is regarded by Sampson as ‘the hallmark of gradual evolution’, as it ‘tells us that languages are systems which human beings develop in the gradual, guess-and-test style by which, according to Karl Popper, all knowledge is brought into being’ (p. 141). Language evolution is then explained along the same lines, as ‘gradual evolutionary processes have a tendency to produce tree structures’ (p. 149). Sampson concludes that ‘there are some universal features in human languages, but what they mainly show is that human beings have to learn their mother tongue from scratch’ (p. 166)</p>
<p>In chapter 6, ‘The Creative Mind’, Sampson describes own his position in the debate as based on ‘the Popperian view of human nature, which sees the individual as making original though fallible conjectures and testing them against objective reality, as the common-sense, default view which most people would normally accept unless they had good evidence that it was wrong’ (p. 167). Although Popper may have been ambivalent on the subject of the creativity of the mind, Sampson believes that in the end Popper belongs with the philosophers of emergence, and that ‘[t]he Popper whose views harmonized with the early-twentieth-century emergentists, who believed that a man can use his brain “to create <italic>something new</italic>”, is the Popper we should follow on this topic’ (p. 186). In chapter 7 Sampson addresses the question of why nativism came to be embraced so completely, in such a short time, by so many influential thinkers. The answer, Sampson finds, is not easy to give—the popularity of nativism is likely to have been the result of a number of factors, including the political climate, the scientific climate, the expansion of the university system etc., while personalities and personal ambition may also have played a role. What is much more important, Sampson concludes, is that the alternative to nativism is gaining ground again.</p>
<p>The book is a good read; it is pleasantly written, in very informal style, accessible and entertaining. It is well organized, and complex arguments are well presented. Sampson's discussion of the issue is obviously not objective; he does, however, give a fair presentation of the nativist view and provides compelling arguments against it. As such, the book is indeed a valuable contribution to the language debate.</p>
<p>In <italic>The Grammar of Genes: How the Genetic Code Resembles the Linguistic Code</italic>, Ángel López-García is concerned with the evolution of language: how did language emerge, and why is it structured the way it is? The answer, according to López-García, is that language has a genetic basis and that the linguistic code (i.e. the universal properties of language) emerged from the genetic code. By way of evidence López-García describes a number of striking formal resemblances between the codes. He further stresses that this view is compatible with both the ‘inside-out’ view of the evolution of language (basically innateness) and the ‘outside-in’ view (the social or cultural position).</p>
<p>Chapter 1 briefly introduces the two opposing views on the origins of language: the ‘inside-out’ view, according to which language evolved within the brain, and which characterizes language as cognitive, individual, innate, structural, biological and modular; and the ‘outside-in’ view, which regards language as having its origin outside the brain and characterizes it as communicative, social, acquired, cultural, functional and as part of our general intelligence. López-García concludes that both views are right, but also incomplete: rather than two mutually exclusive views, what we have are two complementary perspectives.</p>
<p>Chapters 2 and 3 describe the two views in more detail. Chapter 2, dealing with the ‘inside-out’ view, tackles the question of how a system that has nothing in common with the organic world came to arise in the brain. Chapter 3 considers the ‘outside-in’ view of the evolution of language, according to which language is a social phenomenon which evolved independently from the brain. According to López-García, the two views are not irreconcilable: it may be that the origins of language are indeed social/communicative rather than biological, and that language became settled in the brain at a later stage, when both language and the brain were ready for it.</p>
<p>The rest of the book is concerned with the main question, i.e. what is the evolutionary nature of linguistic units: are they biological units or cultural units? This, in turn, raises other questions, such as ‘Did languages evolve like organisms?’ After all, both organisms and language evolved, and apparently in much the same way: both changed because of variation, both seem to result from natural selection, both are characterized by specialization processes etc. Moreover, there are striking parallels between the structure of genes and the structure of language, while even the methodology used by researchers is remarkably similar (use is made of the same kind of samples: fossils of a species and old texts). Thus, López-García concludes, biological evolution and linguistic evolution seem to be ‘homologous on a structural, methodological, causal, and functional basis at the same time’ (p. 39).</p>
<p>Chapter 4 introduces the main hypothesis of the study, namely that ‘language has been formally built in accordance with the genetic code itself, no matter whether it evolved outside-in or inside-out’ (p. 43). The author argues that rather than assuming that there is such a thing as the genes of language, it is more plausible to assume that the linguistic code is patterned after the genetic code. Chapter 5 is concerned with such questions as ‘How can syntax be so complex?’, ‘How did we get from protolanguage to the complex linguistic system we have now?’, and, more specifically, ‘How did head-modifier dependencies evolve, word order patterns, the interaction between semantic and syntactic information, the use of anaphora and ellipsis, etc.?’ Chapter 6 describes some earlier proposals comparing the linguistic code and genetic code (e.g. Mark Ridley [1985]; Roman Jakobson [1971]), none of which, according to López-García, sufficiently recognizes the differences between biological (or chemical) units and linguistic units. The chapter ends with a description of what the genetic code really looks like and how it works. Chapter 7 investigates the genetic background of the universal grammar of human language, looking at formal correspondences. One such correspondence is the arbitrariness of the link between form and meaning, while structural similarities between the genetic code and the syntactic code include the fact that both contain deletable units, both have phrase structure, and that both can be said to use the notion of categories. Chapter 8 describes some further formal parallels between genetic and linguistic code, discussing such specific notions as recursion, agreement, anaphora, empty categories and subjacency. Chapter 9 explores the formal similarities between larger units: linguistic texts and genomic strings, which are again found to be to a large extent analogous. Chapter 10 provides a summary of the similarities between syntax and the genetic code and returns to the question of how language emerged. López-García concludes that although language emerged as a product of culture, some aspects of syntax must have been pre-programmed and that this pre-programming may have taken place on the basis of the genetic code. In chapter 11, López-García concludes that the evolution of language must have been a gradual process with a break, again similar to the evolution of mankind.</p>
<p>Although the ideas presented in this study are undoubtedly interesting and original, it is difficult to assess the book's merits. First of all, to do so requires a thorough knowledge of both linguistics and genetics, which few readers will possess (even the author's use of linguistic notions is not always correct). Moreover, the reader's judgement is likely to be influenced by the way the ideas are presented, which leaves much to be desired. To start with, the book is badly organized: its main theme is introduced towards the end of chapter 3, many chapters do not have a proper introduction or conclusion, the information on the genetic code at the end of chapter 6 should have been given at an earlier stage, etc. Secondly, the numerous grammatical, idiomatic and stylistic errors interfere with the reading process.</p>
<p>A number of volumes appeared this year on specific theoretical issues. Of these, <italic>Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century</italic>, edited by Sophia Marmaridou, Kiki Nikiforidou and Eleni Antonopoulou, is, in terms of the theoretical frameworks represented, the most diverse. The main focus of the volume is the interaction between different levels of linguistic analysis (syntax, semantics, pragmatics) and the benefits of an interdisciplinary approach to linguistics. Rather than concentrating on the differences between the various approaches, which characterized much of twentieth-century linguistic research, the volume aims at bringing out a number of common trends and directions, which, the editors hope, will lead to more feedback and interaction among these approaches in the twenty-first century. The papers are united by two main features: they offer an alternative to the generative paradigm, and they explore the possibility of more interaction, both between the different linguistic levels and between different frameworks and disciplines.</p>
<p>The volume is divided into five parts, all provided with a separate introduction. In all, the volume contains sixteen papers, many of which deal with languages other than English (Modern Greek, Cypriot Greek and Spanish). In what follows, only those contributions dealing with general linguistic issues or drawing on English data will be discussed.</p>
<p>Part I, ‘Relaxing Level Boundaries’, addresses not only the question of how the linguistic different levels interact, but also of whether it is at all feasible to maintain sharp boundaries between these levels. In a contribution on conditional conjunctions, Eve Sweetser addresses the semantics-pragmatics boundaries, showing that constructions with different semantic compositions can be given the same interpretation, while in other instances, elements that are normally considered semantically incompatible may co-occur. In both cases, the influence of pragmatic context is essential; semantics and pragmatics, therefore, can only be fruitfully studied in combination, as argued in, for instance, Gricean pragmatics, Cognitive Linguistics, Construction Grammar, Relevance Theory and Mental Space Theory. In the next paper, Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda L. Thornburg, too, combine insights from Cognitive Linguistics and (Neo-)Gricean pragmatics. Their analysis of four speech-act constructions shows that in these constructions the relation between form and meaning is not arbitrary but pragmatically motivated. Part II, ‘Focusing on Level Interaction’, begins with a paper by Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt, which is also concerned with the semantics–pragmatics interface. Jaszczolt, however, argues in favour of a ‘default semantic’, according to which conversational default interpretations arise not in pragmatics but already in the domain of semantics.</p>
<p>Part III, ‘Drawing on Different Theories’, starts with a contribution by Michiel Leezenberg on impolite conversation in Greek tragedy. Leezenberg points out that actors in Greek tragedy often violate Grice's maxims and do not expect their interlocutors to conform to them either. He therefore proposes a practice-theory approach, which does not require linguistic practices to be (entirely) co-operative and which leaves ‘room for a notion of practice that is not logically or methodologically secondary to either structure or agency, but, on the contrary, may be constitutive of both’ (p. 192). Part III ends with a contribution by Svetlana Kurteš discussing the prospects of Contrastive Analysis, in particular its status with regard to such linguistic frameworks as Cognitive Linguistics, Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics. After a brief history of Contrastive Analysis, the cognitive/prototype approach to contrastive studies is exemplified by the application of two models of analysis to two sets of languages (Serbo-Croatian and English, and Spanish and English).</p>
<p>In part IV, ‘Exploring Field Interaction’, Anastasios F. Christidis first presents a historical overview of the nature of language in twentieth-century approaches. Whereas, according to Christidis, Generative Grammar represents the Cartesian tradition, there is no linguistic representative of Peirce's semiotic project, which, as ‘the antithesis of the Cartesian project’ (p. 299), could perhaps lead lay the foundation for a better understanding of the use of language an the workings of the human mind. In a paper on bilingualism, Joel Walters tries to build a bridge between psycholinguists and sociolinguists by proposing a sociopragmatic-psycholinguistic model to account for such bilingual phenomena as code-switching, interference and translation. Part VI ends with a contribution by Alexandra Kallia on the social and psychological modalities of politeness. Taking compliments as an example, Kallia shows that politeness must be analysed both as a social and as a psychological phenomenon: the former is covered by the politic form (unmarked in form and content), the latter by the polite form (marked in form, with unexpected content).</p>
<p>Part V, ‘Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Modularity’, contains a paper by Deirdre Wilson on the relation between pragmatics and more general mind-reading abilities. Wilson offers a modified (broader) modular view of the mind, in which pragmatics is seen as both modular and inferential; that is to say, pragmatics is regarded as a sub-module of a more general inferential mind-reading module, which accounts for its own specific principles and mechanisms.</p>
<p>Two volumes appeared in Benjamin's Constructional Approaches to Language series: <italic>Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots</italic>, edited by Mirjam Fried and Hans. C. Boas, and <italic>Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions</italic>, edited by Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried. The contributions to the first volume reflect how Construction Grammar (CxG) has developed out of a large number of different research interests (linguistic, cognitive, anthropological, philosophical, computational), ‘which, despite differences in methodology and focus, all share a commitment to giving grammatical constructions, defined as conventionalized associations between linguistic form and meaning/function, the status of the elementary building blocks of human language’ (p. 2). As this notion of construction is quite different from the traditional use of the term (as a descriptive label referring to complex linguistic expressions), one of the aims of the volume is to provide a clearer picture of what is meant by a construction in CxG and how it differs from its traditional use. The book is organized around three themes, reflecting three major concerns of CxG since its inception. The chapters in part I address the question of how to represent syntactic pattering in a framework that rejects the autonomy of syntax. Part II focuses on the relationship between grammatical structure and verb semantics. Part III addresses the problem of how to deal with language variation and change. In what follows, only those chapters will be discussed which make use of English data.</p>
<p>In part I, Paul Kay proposes a constructional approach to argument structure which, although sharing many of the basic insights of Adele Goldberg's [1995] approach, is argued to be more economical in its treatment of English ditransitive constructions in that (1) it posits only three maximal subconstructions (instead of Goldberg's six senses) and (2) it is less redundant as many of the differences in entailments follow directly from the semantics of the verbs. Using an HPSG-based representation, Kay discusses in some detail the three maximal subconstructions (the Direct Recipient, the Intended Recipient and the Modal Recipient construction). Kay also addresses the question of how to distinguish between arguments and adjuncts. Using caused-motion phenomena as an example, he argues for a distinction between added argument constructions, which simply extend the valence of the verb, and true semantic adjuncts, which modify the entire predication. Part I further contains contributions by Knud Lambrecht and Kevin Lemoine on definite null objects in (spoken) French, and by Kyoko Hirose Ohara on the relation between concessive clauses and relativization in Modern Japanese.</p>
<p>The first two chapters of part II can again be seen as responses to Goldberg's [1995] treatment of locative alternation constructions. Seizi Iwata's contribution discusses the relation between lexical and constructional meaning. More particularly, it examines the role of inherent verb semantics in determining which constructions a verb can combine with. Iwata concludes that although Goldberg's [1995] proposal is basically correct, a simple list of the participants’ semantic roles is not always enough, and that some alternations can only be accounted for by taking into consideration more specific meaning aspects of the verb as represented in lexical networks. Noriko Nemoto's contribution is also concerned with locative alternation. She sets out to show that Goldberg's account is too broad and cannot account for all the (sub)senses of a verb: although Goldberg's analysis can explain why the same argument structure is found with different verbs, it fails to explain why one and the same verb can occur with different argument structures. On the basis of detailed analysis of the verb <italic>to brush</italic>, Nemoto shows that the various uses of the same verb can be accounted for in a constructional approach using Frame Semantics as a descriptive and analytic tool. Part III ends with a contribution by Natsuko Tsujimura which proposes a constructional approach to mimetic verbs in Japanese.</p>
<p>In part III Ronald Langacker investigates the nature and extent of integration among the component elements of composite structures, and the role of this aspect of constructional meaning in grammaticalization. After a brief comparison of the theoretical positions of CxG and Cognitive Grammar, and a short introduction into the basic notions of Cognitive Grammar, Langacker discusses a number of examples (e.g. body-part nouns in French) to illustrate different degrees of conceptual integration. Langacker then proceeds to discuss the import of different degrees of conceptual integration for the process of grammaticalization, showing that the difference between <italic>do</italic> as a main verb and <italic>do</italic> as an auxiliary results from a difference in conceptual integration: in the case of the main verb <italic>do</italic>, there is considerable overlap between the verb and its complement; in the case of auxiliary <italic>do</italic>, this overlap is complete, thus giving the impression of <italic>do</italic> as a meaningless element. Part III includes two more papers: one by Jaakko Leino and Jan-Ola Östman on constructions and variability in Finnish and one by Toshio Ohori, offering a typological approach to reference tracking.</p>
<p>The second Benjamins volume, <italic>Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions</italic>, concentrates on two general requirements of CxG: (1) that it should have universal impact; and (2) that it should be consistent with what we know about cognition and social interaction. Although, as pointed out in the introduction, the cognitive dimension has been there from the beginning, the editors feel that in recent years it has become somewhat neglected. The purpose of the volume is to redress this neglect by ‘bring[ing] it back for informed discussion’ (p. 5).</p>
<p>The volume consists of two parts. The chapters in part I extend the original theory of CxG, as proposed by Charles Fillmore, in various directions. In chapter 2, Adele Goldberg argues that regular exceptions to the Argument Realization Principle are communicatively motivated and can be accounted for by assuming two constructions: the Implicit Theme Construction (motivated by the factors of semantic predictability and politeness) and the Deprofiled Object Construction (motivated by discourse prominence). In chapter 3, Laura A. Michaelis is concerned with coercion effects brought about by different kinds of implicit type shifting, involving nominal morphosyntax (e.g. <italic>Give me some</italic> <bold><italic>pillow</italic></bold>), verbal semantic structure (e.g. <italic>A gruff ‘police monk’</italic> <bold><italic>barks</italic></bold> <italic>them back to work</italic>) and aspectual morphosyntax (e.g. <bold><italic>She liked</italic></bold> <italic>him in a minute</italic>). Although these examples have coherent, consistent interpretations, they are difficult to deal with in modular models. Instead, Michaelis offers an account of implicit type-shifting drawing on the principles and mechanisms of CxG. She proposes a number of specific constructions (such as the Indefinite Determiner Construction, the Plural Construction and the Frame Adverbial Construction), which, in combination with the Override Principle, can deal with these sentences in a unified manner. In chapter 5, Jan-Ola Östman provides the outline of a CxG that can deal with discourse phenomena. Such a grammar requires a more holistic kind of frame than usually assumed (as already implied in Fillmore's work on Frame Semantics). Östman shows how the felicitousness of a sentence like <italic>Mother drowned baby</italic> is determined by the selection of a particular discourse frame (or discourse pattern): as headline this sentence is perfectly acceptable, while as an instance of family conversation it would be somewhat macabre. Part I further contains an article by Jaakko Leino on the Finnish permissive construction.</p>
<p>Part II shows how the notion of construction is used in other cognitively oriented theories of grammar. As pointed out by the editors, constructions are by no means the prerogative of CxG, but also form a basic component of various other linguistic models. Each of the four chapters in part II is devoted to one such model. In chapter 6, Benjamin K. Bergen and Nancy Chang present an Embodied Construction Grammar that is designed for integration in a simulation-based language understanding model, where it is meant to serve as a bridge between phonological and conceptual knowledge. Chapter 7, by Urpo Nikanna, discusses the treatment of constructions in Conceptual Semantics and proposes two sets of constructions to deal with instrumental elative constructions and ablative case adjuncts in Finnish. In chapter 8, Jasper W. Holmes and Richard Hudson show that Word Grammar (WG) shares almost all the general assumptions of CxG, but differs from it in its notation (WG uses network representations), its treatment of inheritance (WG allows multiple inheritance) and its treatment of sentence structure (WG is a dependency grammar, CxG a phrase-structure grammar). After presenting a WG analysis of the <italic>What's X doing Y?</italic> construction and of double objects, Holmes and Hudson conclude that CxG might benefit from some of the features of WG. In the final chapter, William Croft presents logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. Using data from a large number of languages (including English), Croft defends the view that ‘virtually all formal grammatical structure is language-specific and construction-specific’ (p. 309), and that there is no need for syntactic categories or syntactic relations. In this sense, Radical Construction Grammar can be seen as ‘the syntactic theory to end all syntactic theories’ (p. 310).</p>
<p>In <italic>From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemata in Cognitive Linguistics</italic>, editor Beate Hampe brings together sixteen papers on one of the fundamental concepts in Cognitive Linguistics: the image schema. In her introduction, Hampe lists some of the definitions provided in the groundbreaking work of Mark Johnson and George Lakoff in the late 1980s, according to which image schemas are experiential, preconceptual and highly schematic, internally structured and highly flexible, existing as continuous and analogue patterns beneath consciousness. Partly due to the fact that these initial definitions were not always consistent and remained rather sketchy, a number of divergent definitions have since then been proposed, representing different perspectives. The present collection of papers, written by prominent scholars from different backgrounds, testify to this plurality. At the same time, the papers emphasize the importance of the concept of image schema, both in linguistics and in related disciplines.</p>
<p>The volume consists of five parts. Part I, ‘Issues in Image Schematic Theory’, starts with a contribution by Mark Johnson, who addresses the problem of the bodily grounding of meaning. So far, Johnson explains, the focus has been on identifying structures of sensory-motor experience which can be used to understand abstract concepts and the possibility of abstract reasoning. However, in order to get from the bodily experience to abstract conceptualization, we also need to call upon disembodied mind, or pure reason. Image-schema have, as Johnson puts it, ‘non-dualistic mental-bodily reality’ (p. 23), which means that non-structural or qualitative (affect-laden and value-laden) experience also has to be taken into consideration. In ‘Image Schemas and Perception: Refining a Definition’, Joseph E. Grady takes a different approach. He proposes a more precise definition of image schemas, as ‘mental representations of <italic>fundamental units of sensory experience</italic>’ (p. 44). This delimitation of image schemas to representing only sensory/perceptual (physical) concepts is meant to reflect the special status these concepts have in human thought, as ‘organizing “anchors” of cognition’ (pp. 45–6). A direct consequence of this restriction is that other kinds of schema are needed to refer to non-sensory experience (e.g. scale, cycle, process, etc.), as well as to levels of conceptualization transcending the distinction between sensor and non-sensory content. To this purpose, Grady introduces what he calls ‘response schemas’ and ‘superschemas’, respectively. On this approach, the image schema for ‘up’ would correspond to a response schema ‘more’ and a superschema ‘scalar property’. In the next paper, Ellen Dodge and George Lakoff argue that to explain the origins of image schemas, we need to combine linguistic analysis with findings from neuroscience. Focusing on motion-related experiences, and starting from the assumption that linguistic structure is an expression of neural structure, they test the hypothesis that ‘some of the same neural structures that are active during motion experiences such as walking and running [are] also active when we imagine or talk about such experiences’ (p. 75). They conclude that there is indeed evidence to support this hypothesis, and that image schemas should, therefore, be viewed as neural circuits. The final contribution to part I is by Timothy C. Clausner, who points to two paradoxes in the notion of image schema. The first concerns the relation of image schemas to experience and reality: image schemas represent our experience about reality, but never reality itself—given this gap, how can we ever learn about reality? The second paradox concerns the relation of image schemas to cognitive semantic structure: on the one hand, image schemas help organize experience, which means they are basic, presupposed structures; on the other hand, image schemas are derived from perceptual experience and as such acquired. Using the <sc>container</sc> image schema as an example, Clausner concludes that only through a combination of theories and models can we develop the kind of superior cognitive semantics that can resolve these paradoxes.</p>
<p>The papers in part II, ‘Image Schemas in Mind and Brain’, provide further evidence of the embodied nature of image schemas. In the first paper, Raymond W. Gibbs addresses the issue of whether image schemas are enduring mental representations or whether they are to be regarded as emergent, temporary experiential gestalts, continually recreated and re-experienced during cognitive and perceptual activity. Detailed consideration of evidence from cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, psycholinguistics and neuroscience leads Gibbs to conclude that image schemas are created on the fly, a perspective which, he feels, reinforces the view of image schemas as psychologically real. Next, Jean M. Mandler addresses the question of how children learn language, and in particular how they come to master language-specific properties. Considering evidence on the expression and acquisition of spatial relations in Korean and English, Mandler concludes that many of the most fundamental concepts are already present in infancy, in the form of image schemas that have been conceptualized in the preverbal period. Part II ends with a paper by Tim Rohrer, providing recent evidence from the cognitive neurosciences which supports the idea that image schemas have a neural basis. Thus, experiments show that ‘our semantic understanding takes place via image schemata located in the same cortical areas which are already known to map sensori-motor activity’ (p. 186); in other words, ‘we understand an action sentence because we are subconsciously imagining performing the action’ (p. 172).</p>
<p>Part III, on the role of image schemas in spatial cognition and language, contains two contributions. In the first, Leonard Talmy proposes a comprehensive system of factors that play a role in the structure of the spatial schemas found across spoken languages. He concludes that such a system must consist of three parts: a componential part, consisting of a relatively closed, universally available inventory of fundamental spatial elements; a compositional part, where selected elements of this inventory combine in particular relationships to make up whole spatial schemas; and an augmentative part in which such schemas can be augmented or deformed. In the second paper, Paul D. Deane presents a detailed analysis of English <italic>over</italic> as the basis for a predictive model of polysemy. This model consists of a method of specifying prototypical meanings of prepositions, which, through the application of preference rules can account for a word's polysemy. Such a system, the author claims, not only allows for a closer relationship between the different meanings of a preposition, but is also compatible with neuro-psychological evidence on spatial image processing.</p>
<p>Part IV, ‘Image Schemas and Beyond: Expanded and Alternative Notions’, consists of three papers. First, Michael Kimmel reveals a number of ontological biases in prevalent cognitive-linguistic research (e.g. universal acquisition, maximal schematicity), which, according to Kimmel, ‘hamper a social-cultural view’. The author suggests a number of strategies to counter these biases, allowing for the cultural context to play a role in the acquisition of image schemas. In the next paper, Jordan Zlatev compares the concept of mimetic schemas—defined as dynamic, bodily, representational, specific, accessible to consciousness and pre-reflectively shared by members of a community—with that of image schemas. After comparing the two notions along six essential parameters (representation, accessibility to consciousness, level of abstractness, dynamicity, sensory modality and (inter)subjectivity), Zlatec concludes that the notion of image schema is highly polysemous, and that mimetic schemas may offer a promising alternative. Finally, Margarita Correa-Beningfield, Gitte Kristiansen, Ignasi Navarro-Ferrando and Claude Vandeloise evaluate the adequacy of the notion of image schema in the cross-cultural analysis of spatial cognition and language. They feel that the notion of complex primitives is better suited to describe certain semantic extensions as they are better equipped to deal with socially and functionally motivated aspects of meaning.</p>
<p>Part V presents four case studies. Using the <sc>containment</sc> schema as an example, Robert Dewell takes issue with the ‘standard view of cognition’, according to which concepts are ‘static and thing-like’ units (p. 388), arguing instead in favour of Johnson's original view of image schemas as ‘dynamic patterns’. Next, Yanna Popova examines the <sc>scale</sc> schema in relation to the lower perceptual modalities (touch and taste), using a linguistic case study of verbal synaesthesia (in the form of adjective–noun pairs such as <italic>sharp taste</italic>) to show that these lower modalities are particularly suited to provide the experiential grounding of <sc>scalarity</sc> in the construal of perceptual properties. In a paper on image schemas and gesture, Alan Cienki describes an experiment designed to find out whether image schemas can also be used to characterize gestures accompanying speech. The evidence suggests ‘that gestures provide easily accessible manifestations of image schemas’ (p. 435); in addition, it turns out that ‘gestures can depict, or invoke, different schemas than speech alone can’ (p. 436). In the last paper of the volume, Todd Oakley applies Talmy's [2000] system of force dynamics and event frames to two rhetorical texts. The analysis shows that force dynamics, and the event frames on which they rely, play a crucial role in producing strategic effects at the rhetorical level.</p>
<p><italic>Language in Use: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives on Language and Language Learning</italic>, edited by Andrea Tyler, Mari Takada, Yiyoung Kim and Diana Marinova, consists of a selection of papers presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics 2003, the aim of which was ‘to bring together research from various perspectives that emphasize the shared notions that the properties of language and the process of language learning crucially involve how language is used in context and how these patterns relate to cognition more generally’ (p. xi). Despite these shared assumptions, however, researchers in Cognitive Linguistics, discourse analysis and language acquisition all tend to remain within their own areas of enquiry, and often fail to recognize the interconnections between the various approaches. A further aim of the present volume was therefore to make these interconnections more transparent and to encourage researchers from different fields to work together.</p>
<p>The sixteen relatively short contributions are divided over three parts. Part I contains four papers on language processing and first language learning. In the first paper, Adele Goldberg and Giulia Bencini begin by reviewing the linguistic evidence for a constructional account of argument structure. They then proceed to present evidence from language comprehension, which suggests that comprehenders recognize the meaning of a construction (e.g. transitives, ditransitives, resultatives) independently of the contribution of the main verb. After presenting (psycholinguistic) evidence from language production, they conclude that since the parallel nature of Construction Grammar (which assumes that syntactic, semantic and phonological meaning is represented in parallel) is not inherently directional, it is compatible with both comprehension and production in processing. In the second paper Devin Casenhiser presents new evidence that homonyms are dispreferred in lexical acquisition. He presents two experiments which demonstrate that children disprefer learning new, unrelated meanings for a known word. Casenhiser regards this learning bias as a reflection of the communicative efficiency of language. In chapter 4, Amy Kyratzis uses a qualitative study of <italic>because</italic> to establish how it is used by preschool children to express solidarity or collaboration in peer interactions. She concludes that children seem to use <italic>because</italic> ‘to show validation of the partner, and its absence to convey disagreement with the partner as well as urgency’ (p. 60). Kyratzis also found that girls use <italic>because</italic> more often than boys, and explains this by the fact that girls use more validating justifications, whereas boys use justification more for opposition. Part I also contains a paper by Tomoko Matsui, Peter McCagg and Taeko Yamamoto on Japanese children's use of <italic>dotte</italic> (roughly ‘because’).</p>
<p>Part II, on ‘Issues in Second-Language Learning’, starts with a chapter by Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, who believes that the study of interlanguage pragmatics can benefit from being placed in the broader context of communicative competence. After investigating the intersection of pragmatic competence with other forms of communicative competence, Bardovi-Harlig concludes that ‘there is much to gain and nothing to lose by expanding the investigation of L2 pragmatic competence to include the areas shared by pragmatic competence and grammatical, discourse and strategic competence’ (p. 82). Part II continues with a contribution by Catherine Evans Davies, presenting a case study on the development of a cross-cultural friendship between two male students, one American the other Indian, as an illustration of the kind of naturalistic learning that classroom teachers hardly ever get a chance to observe, and which depends on the motivation and sense of identity of both participants. The author argues in favour of a ‘social interactional perspective’ as a means of interpreting current perspectives on second-language development and stresses the importance of an ethnographic perspective on language use in language teaching. In chapter 7, Susanne Niemeier presents a short overview of the key points of Applied Cognitive Linguistics (ACL), a new area in second language acquisition theory which applies insights from CL to language learning and teaching. The author stresses the holistic nature of ACL, which regards language as directly interacting with other mental capacities as well as with non-linguistic knowledge, and which regards language and culture as intertwined. More specifically, Niemeier's study of German students learning English prepositions confirms one of the most distinctive features of ACL, namely the assumption that lexis and grammar are not separated but governed by the same organizing and structuring principles. In chapter 8, Ana Christina DaSilva Iddings and Steven G. McGafferty emphasize the importance of language play in second-language development, drawing on a study of third-grade students who do not share a common language. Using L.S. Vygotsky's construct of zones of proximal development, they found evidence that in the language play episodes described in the study the desire to communicate created high levels of metalinguistic awareness and linguistic sophistication. In the final chapter of part II, Robin Cameron Scarcella and Cheryl Boyd Zimmerman investigate the role of cognates in L2 teaching in language production, particularly academic writing. They present two experiments comparing the use of Spanish–English cognates, in academic writing, by Spanish and Asian students of English. They found that L1 Spanish students used considerable fewer cognates than L1 Asian students. Although they stress that more research will be required, they conclude that lexical knowledge does not transfer effortlessly and that cognate knowledge may be more useful in L2 reading than in L2 writing.</p>
<p>Part III deals with ‘Discourse Resources and Meaning Construction’. In chapter 10, Ann Wennerstrom argues that just like lexicogrammatical structures, certain intonation patterns interact with cognitive processes and constructions. Drawing on a number of cognitive models (Herbert Clark's [1992] work on mutual knowledge and community membership, Gilles Fauconnier's [1985] Mental Space Theory and George Lakoff's [1987] theory of idealized cognitive models), Wennerstrom examines two main intonation patterns n English, which she refers to as the ‘contrast intonation’ and the ‘given intonation’. The author concludes that the prosodic analyses she proposes are compatible with all three models and that they may help to gain further insight into the cognitive processes and constructions involved. In chapter 11, Eniko Csomay provides a linguistic characterization of lexically coherent discourse units found in university classroom texts which differs from previous studies of this kind in that it uses quantitative measures for the analysis. Empirical methods were developed to identify the discourse units, which were analysed by means of a corpus-based analytical technique—an approach which, the author argues, can be applied to other instructional settings as well. The outcome of this particular study showed that discourse units sharing similar linguistic characteristics have similar communicative purposes, thus allowing for a classification of episode types (narrative, procedural and content-oriented). In chapter 12, Hansung Zhang Waring provides a Conversation Analysis investigation of some interesting ‘other-initiations’ of repair in graduate classroom discussion. What made these initiations interesting is the fact that, unlike most repair initiated by someone else than the speaker, they occur in delayed position. It turns out that these delayed repair initiations, though structurally similar to most other initiations, serve a different function: whereas normal repair initiations deal with problems in speaking, hearing and understanding, the repair initiations found by Waring are used to convey speaker stance (either affiliation, e.g. solving a heated argument, or disaffiliation, e.g. expressing disagreement). In the final chapter of part III, Kingkarn Thepkanjana and Satoshi Uehara offer a diachronic study of directional verbs in Thai as an instance of incipient grammaticalization.</p>
<p>The last part of the volume contains three papers on language and identity. In the first of these, Cynthia Gordon examines the construction of family identity in family discourse. More specifically, Gordon investigated examples of parent–child everyday conversation in which an expectant mother, her husband and their young daughter co-construct future hypothetical narratives that allow the child to rehearse the role of ‘big sister’. An analysis of four excerpts of conversation reveals the presence of features of all levels of identity work (imaginative, action, interpersonal and evaluative), which means that narrative positioning works not only in past but also in future narratives. In chapter 16, Rachel R. Reynolds outlines the linguistic repertoire of Nigerian Igbo speaking immigrants, largely professionals, living in the Chicago area. Due to the widespread distribution of the members of this group, they only speak Igbo during certain ‘key sites’ (such as official immigrant association meetings or social ritual gatherings), which means that children do not hear enough of the language to learn it with any fluency. This, in turn, means that future transmission of the language will depend on codification (e.g. in textbooks) and maintenance (by organizing courses). Part IV also contains a chapter by Aida Premilovac investigating the discourse of local identity in postwar Bosnia-Herzegovina.</p>
<p>It is now time to turn to a number of monographs on the English language. In <italic>Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions</italic>, Barbara Dancygier and Eve Sweetser aim to develop an analysis of conditional meaning and usage which ‘transcend[s] the boundaries of formally explicit categories such as <italic>if</italic>-sentences’ (p. xv), offering a unified treatment of conditionality in all its manifestations. Choosing a cognitive linguistic approach, they use of aspects Mental Spaces Theory (Fauconnier [1985], [1997]) and Construction Grammar to account for ‘the unique and pervasive cognitive patterns displayed in conditional’ (p. 5). Furthermore, the authors explicitly address the systematic correlations between form and meaning. Chapter 1 introduces the key concepts used in the analysis, the most important of which is that of a mental space. This notion can be compared to that of ‘possible world’, but, according to the authors, is broader than that in that it also refers to ‘a variety of non-world-like structures which can be connected and mapped onto other cognitive structures’ (p. 21). Their central claim is that every conditional construction ‘involves setting up a mental space … and requesting construal of something within that space’ (p. 18). These spaces themselves, however, can be very diverse, which accounts for the large diversity in conditional constructions. Thus there are ‘content spaces’, where the <italic>if</italic>-clause sets op a space and the main clause is used to predict an added aspect of the content of this mental space (e.g. <italic>If he loves her, he’ll type her thesis</italic>). The second type of space distinguished is the ‘speech-act space’. These do not typically involve prediction; instead a speaker sets up a discourse content and then ‘utters a speech act which is to be taken as effective in within that space’ (e.g. <italic>If I don't see you before Thursday, have a good Thanksgiving!</italic>). Yet another type of space is the ‘epistemic space’, which allows the speaker to build up a reasoning process in a conditional manner (as in <italic>If he typed her thesis, he loves her</italic>). Then there is the ‘metalinguistic space’, where the <italic>if</italic>-clause provides a metalinguistic comment on some formal aspect of the preceding utterance (e.g. <italic>The philosophy of life, if it could be defined by such a phrase, was beyond his grasp</italic>). Finally, there is the ‘meta-metaphorical space’ which is used to express a relationship between metaphorical mappings (as in <italic>If the beautiful Golden Gate is the thoroughbred of bridges, the Bay Bridge is the workhorse</italic>).</p>
<p>Other concepts, too, play an important role. One of these is predictions, often associated with canonical conditionals; another is causality, which is also often seen as part of the relationship between the clauses of a conditional construction. Different kinds of pragmatic contextual information are also taken into consideration (in particular presupposition), as well as formal features, such as the form of the verbs and the order between the clauses. Finally, the authors stress that a unified treatment of conditionals is only possible if we recognize that while some are compositional (e.g. the predicative ones), others are non-compositional (i.e. require the evocation of larger (often conventionalized) complex structures).</p>
<p>In chapter 2, the key concepts are applied to the most commonly used type of conditionals, those expressing alternative-based prediction (e.g. <italic>If it rains, they’ll cancel the picnic</italic>). In terms of Mental Space Theory, these conditionals express a relation between an <italic>if</italic>-space P and a situation Q which holds in P. As it turns out, the predictive use of space-building is associated with particular verb forms, the basic form being a backshifted simple present in the <italic>if</italic>-clause and <italic>will</italic>-future in the Q-clause. Predictive <italic>if</italic>-conjunctions are also characterized by non-positive epistemic stance (as opposed to <italic>when</italic> and <italic>since</italic>, which are positive-stance conjunctions), which may be reflected in the verb form (distancing through the use of past tense form).</p>
<p>Chapters 3 to 4 discuss the form and use of predictive <italic>if</italic>-conditionals in more detail. Chapter 3 considers the role of tense, which can be used to indicate different things. First, past tense forms can be used as markers of negative epistemic stance, creating epistemic distance (in hypothetical, irrealis/counterfactual uses), whereby different degrees of distancing can be distinguished (e.g. the use of the subjunctive to indicate a higher degree of epistemic distance). Tense, however, can also be used to indicate a shift in perspective. Chapter 4 is concerned with the use of future and present forms in predictive <italic>if</italic>-conditionals. It includes a discussion of the difference between <italic>will</italic>-futures and <italic>gonna</italic>-futures, of the use of <italic>will</italic> in the <italic>if</italic>-clause (‘positive-interest <italic>will</italic>’), and of conditionals with a present tense form in both protasis and apodosis (<italic>If I agree to work on it, Global signs the contract</italic>). Attention is also paid to some minor classes of conditionals, such as conditionals with generic meaning, those used as definitions, and specialized constructions with <italic>was to</italic>/<italic>were to</italic>, <italic>if not for</italic> and <italic>should</italic>.</p>
<p>Chapter 5 provides an analysis of non-predictive (non-alternative) conditionals. As it turns out, here, too, <italic>if</italic> functions as a ‘space-builder’, setting up/evoking a mental space with respect to which the main clause is understood. The various types are shown to differ with regard to their relation to prediction, inference and causality and the selection of verb forms. Chapters 6 to 9 are devoted to conditional constructions without (simple) <italic>if</italic>. Once again, these constructions are analysed and compared in terms of the parameters introduced (type of mental space, prediction, epistemic stance, causality, presupposition): chapter 6 discusses the function of <italic>then</italic> in conditionals, and its absence (in general) from <italic>even if</italic> (concessive) conditionals; chapter 7 is concerned with clause order and space building in clauses starting with <italic>if</italic>, <italic>because</italic>, <italic>unless</italic> and <italic>except if</italic>; chapter 8 deals with the expression of uniqueness and negative stance as expressed by <italic>only if</italic> and <italic>if only</italic>, <italic>wish</italic>-clauses and <italic>if that</italic> NEG constructions (<italic>If that isn't a weird model</italic>); and chapter 9 provides an analysis of co-ordinate constructions and conditional meaning (<italic>and</italic>-conjuncts and <italic>or</italic>-conjuncts). Chapter 10 presents the conclusions. Once more the authors stress the pervasive role of general mental space-building strategies in the interpretation of conditional, while drawing attention to the fact that the kind of cognitive connection involved is certainly not restricted to conditionals. The book is well organized and well written, in a pleasant and lucid style. The authors use a large number of interesting, largely authentic, examples. Particularly interesting is the discussion of the minor types of conditionals, as well as the authors’ attempt to fit these into the unified account they propose.</p>
<p>Julia Schlüter's <italic>Rhythmic Grammar: The Influence of Rhythm on Grammatical Variation and Change in English</italic> investigates the influence of rhythm on language variation and language change; a factor almost entirely ignored both in comprehensive grammars of English and in linguistic research. More specifically, it sets out to show that the tendency in English to avoid adjacent stresses has an effect on the distribution of alternative grammatical constructions. Chapter 1 describes the study's main topic, its overall aims and the approach taken. Schlüter explains that she will concentrate exclusively on the Principle of Rhythmic Alternation (PRA), as (allegedly) the most important phonological influence on grammar. Since the discussion focuses on the interaction between phonology and morphosyntax, it will be clear that Schlüter's argument is based on ‘a non-modular, non-autonomous and non-serial conception of grammar’ (p. 7). Moreover, as it deals with variation and change, the study is concerned with performance rather than competence. The account presented is a multifactorial one, according to which variation in language is the result of a number of competing (communicative) strategies. Although theoretical issues are discussed in considerable detail, the study is primarily empirical, its overall aim being ‘to show that if we take the rhythmic aspects of the [selected] phenomena into account, a generalization with a large explanatory potential can be formulated in terms of the Principle of Rhythmic Alternation’ (p. 10).</p>
<p>Chapter 2 introduces the PRA. Although, as Schlüter points out, the labels stress-timed and syllable-timed have to be applied with care, PDE is typically seen as a stress-timed language (although there is reason to believe that ME was syllable-timed). This means that in English ‘stressed and unstressed syllables tend to alternate at rhythmically ideal syllabic distances’ (Kager [1989]: 2; p. 18), reflected in the tendency to avoid sequences of stressed syllables (stress clashes) and long sequences of unstressed syllables (stress lapses). Moreover, Schlüter continues, there is evidence to suggest that the rhythmic alternation is a universal principle. Violations of the PRA can be resolved in a number of ways. Some of these are of a phonological nature, whereas other avoidance strategies are grammatical. It is the latter type that form the focus of Schlüter's study. The chapter ends with a brief overview of previous research on the subject, consisting mainly of philological studies from the first half of the twentieth century. As Schlüter points out, quantified empirical data are scarce, and so far no systematic attempt has been made to determine the influence of the PRA on grammar.</p>
<p>Chapter 3 is devoted to methodological issues. It introduces the corpora used in this study (on PDE, but also on ME and eModE) and weighs the advantages and disadvantages of the approach chosen. First, it might be objected that it is difficult to study the phonological influence on language by looking (almost exclusively) at written material. Secondly, there is always the possibility that texts from the earlier periods have been revised; moreover, they are not representative of the variety they are drawn from. Nevertheless, Schlüter believes that there are good reasons for choosing this methodology, as it provides a ‘firm and objective basis on which actual developments can be traced in the course of centuries’ (p. 49). The chapter ends with a description of the concordance software, search procedures and tests of statistical significance used.</p>
<p>Chapters 4 and 5 form the empirical part of the study. They present a total of twenty case studies, meant to exemplify the rhythmic influences on a variety of grammatical constructions, both at different synchronic stages and diachronically. Chapter 4 considers the effects of attributive structures, examining for instance the use of <italic>worse</italic> vs. <italic>worser</italic>, the distributional restrictions on A-adjectives (<italic>awake</italic>, <italic>asleep</italic> etc.), the mono- and disyllabic variants of past participles (e.g. <italic>drunk</italic> vs. <italic>drunken</italic>) and the difference between <italic>a quite</italic> and <italic>quite a</italic>. In the case of <italic>worse</italic>/<italic>worser</italic>, the outcome clearly suggests that its emergence in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries (before standardization caused the double comparative to disappear) can be ‘accounted for by functionally motivated tendencies enforcing system congruity, while its distribution is rhythmically motivated’ (p. 79), the second syllable of <italic>worser</italic> affording the possibility of avoiding a stress clash (as in <italic>a worser part</italic>). With the A-adjectives, the outcome is less conclusive; here the strong preference for these adjectives to be used in predicative position seems to result from an interaction between semantic factors (the meaning element of ‘transitory state’) and prosodic factors (the fact that the stress is on the second syllable main the unsuitable for prenominal position). Overall, however, the conclusion seems justified that in all these cases the rhythmic well-formedness of a construction contributes significantly to its grammaticality; other factors, such as the semantics of the construction, standardization tendencies, system congruity and stylistic differences, however, constantly interact with the PRA.</p>
<p>Chapter 5 offers the same type of analysis for verbal and adverbial structures, dealing with the negation of adverbs (e.g. the difference in acceptability between <italic>not surprisingly</italic> and *<italic>not credibly</italic>), the suffixation of adverbs (e.g. <italic>quick</italic> vs. <italic>quickly</italic>), the preference for bare infinitives or <italic>to</italic>-infinitives (<italic>dare</italic> vs. <italic>dare to</italic>) and the A-prefixation of -<italic>ing</italic> forms (<italic>going</italic> vs. <italic>a-going</italic>). Since the rhythmic make-up of these constructions is much more diverse, a more refined categorization scheme is required (extending beyond the binary classification as stressed–unstressed). Despite the heterogeneity of this group, Schlüter's findings suggest that here, too, ‘the Principle of Rhythmic Alternation exerts a quantifiable influence on the choice of grammatical variants and on the direction of linguistic change’ (p. 153), even though numerous other factors also play a role (iconicity, processing constraints, register and style etc.)</p>
<p>Chapter 6 considers the theoretical implications of the empirical findings. As her findings support the idea that different components of the grammar interact, Schlüter selects two theories allowing such interaction to find out to what extent they can accommodate her findings. The first theory is OT, which allows for the interaction of phonological constraints with syntactic/morphological constraints. Schlüter concludes that although it is possible to integrate the PRA as a soft constraint, the insistence in OT on a strict dominance hierarchy remains problematic. Moreover, standard OT cannot account for language development and change. The second theoretical approach selected, that of spreading activation models (or neural networks), seems more promising: its probabilistic nature allows for different factors (including phonological and functional ones) to co-determine grammatical variation, while it can also account for language change. The combination of the neuro-physiological facts offered by this type of research and the empirical findings of Schlüter's study may thus yield a theory that is descriptively and explanatorily adequate, as well as neurologically plausible. Chapter 7 presents a summary of the empirical findings of the study and the new theoretical insights these findings have generated. The chapter further indicates different avenues for further research. The book is a valuable and original contribution to the multifactorial approach in linguistic research, providing an excellent example of how to use corpora in research on syntactic variation and change. Its main points are well argued and the statistical findings are well presented and well explained.</p>
<p>In <italic>English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach</italic>, Michaela Mahlberg uses a corpus linguistic approach to define and characterize the particularly elusive class of English general nouns. In a short introduction, Mahlberg explains that in (reference) grammars these nouns have not received the attention they deserve (a noticeable exception being M.A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hassan [1976]). The study seeks to answer two questions: (1) whether it is possible to distinguish a group of nouns on the basis of their ‘general meaning’; (2) which corpus linguistic tools are needed to tackle such a question. The particular approach chosen is corpus-driven rather than corpus-based, i.e. rather than testing preconceived ideas about descriptive categories by looking at corpus data, such categories are derived from the observation of data.</p>
<p>Chapter 1 starts with a brief overview of earlier treatments of general nouns, touching upon the related issue of the borderline between open and closed classes, in particular between lexis and grammar. Mahlberg stresses that previous treatments define the cohesive function of general nouns predominantly in terms of grammatical properties (e.g. anaphoric reference), while lexical aspects and context tend to be ignored. The present study, on the other hand, is particularly concerned with the relation between lexis and text.</p>
<p>Chapter 2 expounds the corpus linguistic point of view. It addresses the question of how corpora can be used in a discussion of general nouns, discusses the relationship between theory and methodology, and emphasizes the need for a lexical approach to the description of English, focusing on co-selection patterns of words. The chapter also briefly describes three earlier lexical approaches to English grammar: John Sinclair's [1998] work on the ‘lexical item’, Susan Hunston and Jill Francis's [2000] Pattern Grammar and Michael Hoey's [2004] concept of ‘lexical priming’. Mahlberg further explains that a corpus-driven study requires the application of the ‘cyclical principle of minimal assumptions’. This approach allows researchers to start with a very general theoretical problem, which is to be reduced to a small number of minimal assumptions, which can be tested and adjusted after a preliminary analysis of corpus data. The present study starts with only two minimal assumptions: (1) general nouns are frequent nouns; (2) general nouns are characterized by local textual functions.</p>
<p>Chapter 3 deals with the methodological details of the minimal assumptions. It starts with a brief description of the corpora used (primarily the Bank of England Corpus), followed by some remarks on the role of frequency in corpus theoretical research. Since frequency is seen as a property of general nouns, twenty nouns were selected on the basis of their frequency (another requirement being that they be typical of general-purpose corpora). The actual analysis is based on a detailed examination of selected examples. Finally, concordances were used to provide the textual context needed to test the second minimal assumption.</p>
<p>Chapters 4 to 6 present the results of the corpus analysis, each chapter dealing with a particular group of words. Chapter 4, on ‘time nouns’ (<italic>time</italic>, <italic>times</italic>, <italic>year</italic>, <italic>years</italic> and <italic>day</italic>) brings out the similarities in meaning that become obvious by comparing examples. Thus it turns out that time nouns can be divided into eight functional groups, e.g. time orientation (<italic>all the time</italic>), measurement (<italic>7 years old</italic>) and investing time (<italic>devoting his time to</italic>); three of these groups are discussed in more detail. The analysis starts from the word, and compares the contexts in which it is found; this way a grammatical description is built up that is lexical in nature. An important conclusion is that the focus on functional similarities makes it impossible to define clear-cut categories of classification; at the same time, however, Mahlberg maintains that a lexical approach ‘suggests descriptive categories that may be better suited than syntactic descriptions to capture the functions of the nouns in the text’ (p. 63). Secondly, the functional groups illustrate local textual patterns; in the case of time nouns the local textual functions are also visible in a narrow context, which sometimes yields ‘idiomatic’ interpretations. Chapter 5 offers a treatment of ‘people nouns’ (<italic>man</italic>, <italic>woman</italic>, <italic>men</italic>, <italic>women</italic>, <italic>people</italic>, <italic>family</italic>). Here, however, the narrow contexts of these nouns are not sufficient for the characterization of local textual functions. This results in a two-step analysis, where the descriptive tool ‘person’ is introduced to link the narrow context to the textual context. Three ‘person types’ are distinguished: one for texts dealing with specific persons, whose name is given; one for texts dealing with specific persons, no name given; one for text dealing with a type, not an individual person. Eventually, people nouns are described at three levels: (1) the level of form/word class patterns; (2) person type level; (3) text level. Once again, the conclusion is that both the frequency and the textual functions of words are part of their meaning.</p>
<p>Chapter 6 is devoted to a description of ‘world nouns’ (<italic>world</italic>, <italic>way</italic>, <italic>life</italic>, <italic>part</italic>, <italic>end</italic>, <italic>place</italic>, <italic>things</italic>, <italic>business</italic> and <italic>thing</italic>). This group turns out to be far less homogeneous than time and people nouns. They do, however, share a number of evaluative and textual functions, which form the focus of the description. These functions, Mahlberg argues, are related to certain textual patterns; it is, therefore, their use in context that determines the descriptive category of these words.</p>
<p>Chapter 7 summarizes the results of the study, paying special attention to the relationship between the frequency assumption and the context assumption. The overall conclusion is that both frequency and local textual functions are part of the meaning of general nouns, as ‘the similarities between nouns in textual patterns indicate how criteria of frequency and criteria of context merge in the description of nouns’. As such, the relationship between quantitative and qualitative arguments is crucial. Finally, chapter 8 assesses the contribution the present study makes to the development of the corpus linguistic theory and makes suggestions for further research and applications. One of the general theoretical implications of the study is the need to link theory and methodology. More particularly, Mahlberg concludes that three factors are involved in the description of meaning: frequency, surface patterns and interpretation. Finally, Mahlberg believes that ‘corpus linguistics has the potential to initiate fundamentally new approaches to the description of language, and of grammar in particular’ (p. 190). This will, however, require a different conception of grammar, namely as a flexible system organized around lexical reference points.</p>
<p>The book is an interesting contribution to the problematic area of linguistic categorization and quite rightly emphasizes the advantages of a corpus-driven approach. Nevertheless, the methodology used in this study seems somewhat flawed: the idea is that minimal assumptions are tested against the corpus data; the first minimal assumption, that general nouns are frequent, can, however, not be tested, since the nouns to be examined were selected on the basis of frequency. Moreover, excluding possible candidates for general nouns status (e.g. <italic>creature</italic> or <italic>move</italic>, included in Halliday and Hassan's [1976] class of general nouns) simply because they appear less frequently seems rather arbitrary.</p>
<p>We will now turn to two collections of papers on translation theory and practice. In <italic>Training for the New Millennium</italic>, editor Martha Tennent has brought together twelve papers discussing important changes in translation practice and the principles underlying this practice. Although most chapters stress the importance of theory in the development of a more effective training for translators and interpreters, the main concern of this volume is with the practical need for a more innovative, less teacher-centred approach to the training of translators and interpreters—a need brought about by changing insights in communicative principles, as well as by technological developments. The book consists of four parts: part I sets the scene with two papers on the current state of translator and interpreter training; part II deals with pedagogical strategies in translation and interpreter training; part III discusses the relevance of theory for training programmes; and part IV forms the epilogue.</p>
<p>In her introduction the editor briefly discusses recent changes and major issues in the field of translation studies, indicating the contribution made by each chapter to the current debate. In the first chapter of part I, Margherita Ulrych presents the results of a survey conducted to investigate the state of the art in translator practices at universities and translator institutions, and assesses their ability to prepare prospective translators for the rapidly changing demands of their future working environments. She concludes that this can only be achieved through ‘a fully comprehensive formative approach to the teaching of translation and translator education’ (p. 22), which must not only cover the full breadth of skills and knowledge required of translators, but must also incorporate real-world criteria and allow for regular updates to accommodate changing requirements. In chapter 2, Helga Niska focuses on two types of professional interpreting that have emerged over the last half-century: conference interpreting and community interpreting. After presenting an overview of interpreting schools (according to region, field of training, organization, content of courses, etc.), Niska discusses the pedagogy and methodology of interpreter training and describes the possible impact on professional interpreting of new technology and of increased international migration of labour and refugees.</p>
<p>The five chapters in part II zoom in on the practical points of translator/interpreter training. In chapter 3, María González Davies draws attention to the fact that, although much has been written about the process and product of translation, relatively little has been written about class dynamics. Davies's contribution is an attempt to fill this gap by exploring alternatives to the traditional teacher- and writing-centred translation class. The approach she advocates evolves around teacher–student and student–student interaction, caters for the specific needs of individual students and simulates real-life situations. In chapter 4, Francesca Bartrina and Eva Espasa focus on the specific properties and requirements of audiovisual translation, which ‘cannot be considered as mere text-transfer, but as a multimedia activity’ (p. 97). The authors present outlines of courses on the translation of drama texts, dubbing and subtitling, respectively. These courses are designed to prepare trainees for their specific task, which requires an integration of translation and adaptation techniques, and which must include audiovisual and non-verbal aspects. In chapter 5, devoted to computer-assisted translation, Richard Samson gives a number of general recommendations for translation training programmes: programmes must be practical and varied; programmes must be cross-curricular; institutions must provide adequate staff training; and institutions must seek suitable commercial partnerships. The paper also has an appendix describing a sample project on subtitling and an inventory of further projects. Daniel Gile's chapter on teaching conference interpreting provides guidelines for organizations planning to develop a conference interpreter training programme. Gile outlines the contents of such a programme, stressing the importance of interpreting exercises and of distinguishing different learning stages (consecutive with/without notes, simultaneous interpreting) and discussing further aspects such as type of source speech, note-taking for consecutive interpreting and classroom practice. In chapter 7, Ann Corsellis is concerned with training interpreters to work in the public services, such as legal health, education, housing, environmental health and social services. The relatively new branch of Public Service Interpreting requires special skills and knowledge and, as such, specialized training. Corsellis highlights some essential aspects of a Public Service Interpreting training programme based on examples of good practice in the UK and other parts of the European Union. After stressing the need for a specific code of conduct to ensure impartiality, the author provides a detailed description of what such a training programme might look like.</p>
<p>The contributions in part III all start from the assumption that translation theory is relevant for the practice of translation. In chapter 8, Francesca Bartrina takes the view that every translator training programme ought to include a course on translation theory. The kind of course Bartrina has in mind starts with a discussion of what translation is (its relation to linguistics and literature, its history, its status—as process or product, as communicative event—and the role of technology) and further covers such areas as textuality and translation, translation as a cognitive process and translation as a cultural event. In chapter 9, Andrew Chesterman discusses the role of causes and effects (cognitive, situational/behavioural, socio-cultural) in Translation Studies. Since causality is a central concept in any empirical science, it should, Chesterman argues, also play a prominent role in Translation Studies. He thus advocates the use of an explicit causal model, both in research and in teaching. One of the advantages of adopting such a model is that it may remedy some current weaknesses in the methodology of translation research and training, in particular the lack of explicit hypotheses. Chesterman further emphasizes that such an approach might narrow the present gap in Translation Studies between the empiricists and hermeneuticists. Chapter 10, by Christiana Nord, emphasizes the need to train not only translators but also translation teachers. As it is, Nord points out, most translation trainers are translators without any training in translation pedagogy and little knowledge of teaching methodology. Training ‘functional translators’, however, requires both practical and theoretical knowledge. Using her own insights and experience, Nord discusses a number of practical aspects of translator training (the selection of learning material, teaching and learning methods, quality assessment), advocating an approach in which small portions of theory are applied to practice. In the final chapter of part III, Rosemary Arrojo sets out to examine to what extent and in what ways recent publications on translator training implicitly and explicitly treat translation as a profession. Arrojo analyses three representative coursebooks—Mona Baker's <italic>In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation</italic> [1992], Basil Hatim and Ian Mason's <italic>The Translator as Communicator</italic> [1997] and Paul Kussmaul's <italic>Training he Translator</italic> [1995]—all of which, she concludes, are still very much committed to ‘essentialism’: ‘a world view that relies on the possibility of forever stable meanings safely kept in language and texts which could transcend history and ideology, as well as the psychology of those involved in processing it’ (pp. 225–6). As a result, they do not look beyond their own discipline and fail to address the intimate relationship between translation, culture and ideology. Arrojo ends with a brief illustration of what a non-essentialist approach to translator training might look like.</p>
<p>In part IV, Michael Cronin reflects on the shortcomings of translation pedagogy and tries to find ways of redressing them. As Cronin points out, it is only quite recently that translation pedagogy is given the (theoretical) attention it deserves. Until well into the nineteenth century, translation was merely used ‘to teach language and punish deviance’ (p. 249), while in recent decades, too, translation theorists tended to neglect pedagogy. This led to a ‘pedagogical gap’ in translation teaching which is difficult to close, in particular now that the field of Translation Studies is expanding fast. The matter is further complicated by the fact that revolutionary changes have been taking place in the field of pedagogy itself. Cronin ends with some practical points of advice on the use of metalanguage in translation pedagogy, on the benefits of incorporating game and play and on need to foreground reading as a specific area of difficulty.</p>
<p>Another volume on translation that appeared this year is <italic>In and Out of English: For Better, For Worse?</italic>, edited by Gunilla Anderman and Margaret Rogers. The volume contains nineteen papers on a variety of themes, all related to the role of English as a global language. These themes are introduced and discussed in the introductory chapter by the editors, who point out that the role of English as a global lingua franca is by no means uncontroversial and has raised a number of widely discussed issues. Six of these are addressed in some detail and taken up in the various contributions.</p>
<p>The first issue, that of linguistic imperialism, is taken up by Stuart Campbell in chapter 2, which stresses the need to recognize that in translating from and into English there is no parity between the two languages. The second issue is that of language change and language use. Here the editors distinguish two major concerns: the concern of speakers of other (European) languages about the survival and uniqueness of their own language, and the concern of mother-tongue speakers that their native tongue is turning into a hybrid language. Both aspects are commented on in chapter 13, by Martin Gellerstam, who shows that the influence of English on Swedish is not restricted to words and expressions, but even affects sentence construction and the use of rhetorical devices. He further concludes that the fact that more and more non-native speakers translate into English may have an effect on the English language. The concern of mother-tongue speakers is also discussed by Emma Wagner (chapter 14), who argues that international English should not be regarded as a substandard variety but as a functionally specific variety of English. By far the largest number of contributions relate to concerns by speakers of other languages about the influence of English on the vocabulary and grammar of their own language. In chapter 3, Christopher Rollason discusses the growing use of Anglicisms in French, especially in the field of information technology; chapter 4, by Jeremy Munday, describes a similar situation for Spanish. In chapter 5, Maria Teresa Musachio describes the influence of English on the vocabulary, as well as on the textual and syntactic patterns of Italian economic texts, while in chapter 6 Polymina Tsagouria comments on the use of English in the Greek tourist industry. Chapter 7, by Władysław Chłopicki, is concerned with Polish; chapter 8, by Nellie Chachibaia and Michael Colenso, with Russian. Chapter 9, by Kate Moore and Krista Varantola, discusses the influence of English (in the form of lexical borrowing) on an unrelated language like Finnish. In chapter 10, Stephen Balfour describes the impact of English on the German lexicon, chapter 11, by Henrik Gottlieb, deals with Anglicisms in Danish, and in chapter 12 Stig Johansson and Anne-Line Graedler discuss the impact of English on the Norwegian vocabulary.</p>
<p>The third subject covered by the volume concerns the question whether, given the increasing demand for translation into English, non-native speakers should be allowed to do so. In this context, Stuart Campbell maintains that the requirement of the Nairobi Declaration 1976, according to which translators should only translate into their own mother tongue, is simply not realistic. In chapter 15, Beverley Adab, too, argues that this requirement is fast becoming unenforceable and impractical, and that we would do better to try and create circumstances which allow translators to translate into a second language to the best of their ability. In chapter 16, Marcel Thelen describes the situation in the Netherlands, where companies still strictly adhere to the mother-tongue principle. According to Thelen, however, there is no need to do so, as there are no native speakers of international English. Therefore, he concludes, translation schools should train students to translate into English as a non-native language. In chapter 17, Margaret Rogers presents a case study on native versus non-native speaker competence in German–English translation. Her conclusion is that translation into English by non-native speaker is acceptable for certain types of texts. In chapter 18, Gunilla Anderman considers the consequences of the fact that in literary translation English is the dominant language and that the trendsetting (social, cultural) norms are those of the Anglo-American tradition.</p>
<p>The next issue touched upon is that of language learning and teaching, as the globalization of English may also lead to a change in the linguistic needs of translators. Thelen, for instance, argues in favour of incorporating teaching translation into a broader discipline of general-subject, field-specific language studies, while Rollason suggests that in order to preserve the uniqueness of the French language, students should be taught to use Anglicisms, but in specific areas only. The fifth question addressed is ‘What is international English?’; this question is taken up by Campbell, Wagner, and Thelen, all of whom comment on the lack of a commonly accepted definition of standard international English and the consequences this has for translation and translation teaching. The final subject of the volume is the role of pragmalinguistics, i.e. the need to recognize that increasing cross-national communication also requires a greater understanding of social and cultural differences. In the last chapter of the volume, Anne Ife stresses the need for pragmatic competence, the need to be able to use language not only correctly, but also appropriately in different contexts.</p>
<p>This year also saw the publication of a number of textbooks on translation, two of which will be discussed here. Kirsten Malmkjaer's <italic>Linguistics and the Language of Translation</italic> is intended ‘for students of translation, languages and linguistics who would like to enhance their understanding of the relationships between translation studies and linguistics—of how linguistics can be applied to the creation, description and constructive criticism of translations’ (p. iv). As Malmkjaer points out, translators are doubly bound: by the original text as well as by the relationships between the languages and cultures involved. To deal with these problems creatively, translators need to be aware of what they are doing, which, in turn, requires a good understanding of the relevant linguistic notions. Chapter 1 describes the development of translation studies (in the west), from the Romans, via the writings of a number of important theorists (including Sir John Denham, Abraham Cowley, John Dryden, Alexander Pope, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Friedrich Schleichermacher, von Wilhelm von Humboldt and Walter Benjamin) to around the mid-twentieth century. Chapter 2 focuses on the development since then; it starts with James Holmes's mapping of the field of Translation Studies and discusses in some detail recent approaches to translation (linguistic, descriptive, functional and cultural). Chapter 3 is also of a theoretical nature, addressing the issue of linguistic, cultural or ontological relativism and the relationship between linguistic theory and translation theory. Chapters 4 to 8 constitute the applied part of the book: chapter 4 deals with sounds and rhythms in translation, chapter 5 with words and meaning in translation, chapter 6 with words in company, chapter 7 with the production of texts out of words, and chapter 8 briefly discusses the clause in translation. Each chapter ends with a section with exercises and points of discussion. Examples are taken from a variety of European languages, but most exercises can serve as a general basis for practising translation into English. The book is suitable for undergraduate and postgraduate students.</p>
<p>The aim of Nigel Armstrong's <italic>Translation, Linguistics, Culture: A French–English Handbook</italic> is primarily a practical one: to improve students’ translation skills by making them aware of the procedures used in translation. As such the book is useful both for advanced students of French who wish to develop their translation skills and for students of translation interested in the more general (linguistic and cultural) problems facing any translator. Armstrong, too, stresses the need for a theoretical background; the first two chapters of the book are devoted to some theoretical issues. Chapter 1 serves as a brief introduction to some of the linguistic bases of translation, beginning with Saussure's theory of language and from there moving on to the relation between language and culture (discussing the speech community, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, Linguistic Relativity etc.). Chapter 2 focuses on the central issue of the role of the translator in relation to text type and assumed readership. The following three chapters deal with the translation of structures of increasing complexity: chapter 3 is concerned with translation issues at word level, chapter 4 with words in combination, and chapter 5 with translation issues at the syntactic level. Chapter 6 approaches the issues and notions discussed so far from the perspective of different text types and translation procedures, dealing with such topics as literal translation, linguistic transposition, equivalence and pragmatic translation and gist translation. The final chapter presents a brief but useful discussion of such miscellaneous issues as the translation of humour and metaphor, coherence and cohesion, punctuation, and the annotated translation. Throughout chapters 3 to 7, the author provides many examples to illustrate the problems in question; the book does not contain any exercises.</p>
<p>Over the last ten years quite a number of introductions to cognitive linguistics have appeared, but <italic>Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction</italic>, by Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green, is by far the most comprehensive and the most detailed (it is also extremely bulky—over 800 pages). The book consists of twenty-three chapters divided over four parts, the last of which consist of only one short concluding chapter. Part I provides an overview of the Cognitive Linguistic enterprise: its aims, assumptions and commitments, and its position on such crucial issues as the function of language, universals and variation in language, language change and language acquisition. Part II is concerned with Cognitive Semantics; its various chapters address such topics as embodiment and conceptual structure (in particular the notion of image schema), frame semantics, categorization and idealized cognitive models, metaphor and metonymy, mental spaces and conceptual blending. Part III discusses a range of cognitive approaches to grammar: Leonard Talmy's Conceptual Structuring System Model, Ronald Langacker's Cognitive Grammar, various constructional approaches, as well as cognitive approaches to grammaticalization. Part III ends with a chapter placing the cognitive approaches to grammar in a wider context, comparing them to other frameworks (generative and functional-typological). Each chapter ends with a detailed further reading section and with a number of exercises. These exercises not only test students’ understanding of the material, but also challenge them to reflect on what they have read. The book is intended for undergraduate students at university level; however, although accessibly written, the range of subjects covered, the detailed discussions, and the complex and abstract nature of much of the material may make it more suitable for postgraduate students. As pointed out by the authors, it is also possible to concentrate on certain areas only. Thus, in their preface, the authors suggest three routes through the book, to be used for different types of courses.</p>
<p>I would like to end this general section by mentioning three reference books for students. Geoffrey Finch's <italic>Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics</italic> (second edition) is a practical guide providing the kind of information beginning students need to understand the larger themes and issues in linguistic theory. After a brief survey of linguistics (introducing its main components and tracing major developments from early history, via Saussure and Chomsky, to the present situation), chapter 2 is devoted to general terms and concepts, while chapters 3, 4 and 5 present key notions in the fields of phonetics and morphology, syntax, and semantics and pragmatics, respectively. The concluding chapter introduces the student to the main branches of linguistics (sociolinguistics, stylistics, psycholinguistics, comparative linguistics, computational, historical linguistics and applied linguistics). Each chapter consists of an introductory part, followed by a glossary. Apart from a reference section, the book also includes suggestions for further reading, organized according to subject area.</p>
<p>Much simpler—and shorter—is <italic>A Glossary of Applied Linguistics</italic>, composed by Alan Davies. It is the tenth in a series of glossaries published by Edinburgh University Press (and more are to follow), all written by well-known experts in the field. In the (very short) introduction, the author explains that since applied linguistics runs the risk of being a ‘science of everything’, the scope of the glossary needs to be constrained. Starting from the assumption that most students of applied linguistics are at some point involved in language teaching, this subdiscipline was chosen as the target of the glossary. Apart from concepts, the glossary also includes entries on institutions, courses, corpora and reports. The book ends with a short reading list.</p>
<p><italic>Key Thinkers in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language</italic>, edited by Siobhan Chapman and Christopher Routledge, gives an overview of the work of a large number of influential linguists and philosophers, as well as of several psychologists (e.g. B.F. Skinner), anthropologists (e.g. Joseph Greenberg), philosophers of science (e.g. Karl Popper), critical theorists (e.g. Jacques Derrida) and mathematicians (e.g. Alfred Tarski) who have played an important role in the development of linguistic theory. The book contains eighty entries on individual thinkers from antiquity to modern times, all representing the Western tradition of thought. Each entry begins with a short section indicating main areas of research and positions held. This is followed by a description of the subject's main writings and ideas on the subject of linguistics and an evaluation of his or her work and its influence; some biographical information is also included. The entries are cross-referenced, enabling the reader to build up a larger picture of who was influenced by whom. Due to the wide variety of disciplines represented and the encyclopaedic nature of the entries, the book will be of interest not only to students and scholars from many different backgrounds, but also to the general reader.</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC2"><title>2. History of English Linguistics</title>
<p>This section covers work in the history of English linguistics published in 2005, but perhaps it is appropriate to start this year's review by amending an oversight from last year. <italic>A History of Roget's Thesaurus</italic>: <italic>Origins, Development, and Design</italic> by Werner Hüllen is likely to be of interest to linguistic historiographers as well as semanticists and lexicographers. Through charting the course of a popular ‘dictionary’ written in the nineteenth century, Hüllen makes a thoughtful and well-documented case for the importance of Roget's [1852] <italic>Thesaurus</italic> in the subfield of semantics and the history of English linguistics in general. Hüllen asserts that as ‘a dictionary of synonyms’, Roget's <italic>Thesaurus</italic> is an outstanding work of English lexicography. The title of this informative and rather dense monograph, however, is somewhat deceptive since the coverage of the book is much broader than the narrow focus of the title might imply. In fact, besides the biographical chapter 2, ‘Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869)’, only the last chapter is devoted to analysing the <italic>Thesaurus</italic> itself. The book offers a comprehensive survey of the history and practice of lexicography which includes both bilingual and monolingual dictionaries, but the emphasis is particularly on lexical meaning and synonymy, an underdeveloped area of linguistic history. At the end of the book there is a useful appendix that provides facsimile reproductions of a number of pages from the <italic>Thesaurus</italic>, as well as an extensive bibliography.</p>
<p>In <italic>Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages</italic>, editors Nils Langer and Winifred Davies compiled a number of selected papers given at a conference with the same title at the University of Bristol in April 2003. The book is divided into five thematic sections: (1) ‘Historical Prescriptivism and Purism’; (2) ‘Nationhood and Purism’; (3) ‘Modern Society and Purism’; (4) ‘Folk Linguistics and Purism’; and (5) ‘Linguistics and Purism’. As the title indicates, the majority of the articles deal with the history of Germanic languages/dialects in general (English, Dutch, Flemish, German, Saxon, and Swiss-German); here, only those which bear on the history of English linguistics will be discussed. In their chapter ‘An Introduction to Linguistic Purism’, Langer and Davies note that the phenomenon of linguistic purism is a prominent instance of folk linguistics. Purism, they explain, is a desire to keep the language pure and rid it of foreign or undesirable elements. They summarize the historical situation of the English language and other Germanic languages by pointing out the strong connection between purism, standardization and prescriptivism. In her contribution ‘A Comparative Study of Linguistic Purism in the History of England and Germany’, Maria Geers points out the similarities and differences of linguistic purism in the two languages using evidence from the sixteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. She outlines the general characteristics of the phenomenon of purism and how it manifested itself in the linguistic history of England and Germany. The direction of puristic activity, Geers explains, could be divided into internal purism (neologisms, dialecticisms, archaisms, slang, etc.) and external purism (linguistic xenophobia of loanwords, foreign words, etc.). Both types of linguistic purism have manifested themselves at different stages in the development of English and German. The puristic activity in England and Germany is also found to be connected to the written form of the language and the rise of nationalistic feelings. In his article ‘Some Effects of Purist Ideologies on Historical Descriptions of English’, James Milroy is concerned with the effects that purist ideologies have had on the standard historical narrative of the language. Milroy, like Geers, divides purism into two different kinds: sanitary (i.e. eliminating corruptions and mistakes in usage similar to Cameron's (1995) notion of verbal hygiene) and genetic, which is identical to Geers xenophobic purism (i.e. a desire to show that language has not been hybridized by the effects of other languages). While the function of the former is to standardize the language, the latter's function, Milroy argues, is to legitimize it with a pure historical pedigree. The article illustrates that these two types of purism have shaped the authoritative histories of English such as Barnes's <italic>Early England and the Saxon English</italic> [1869] and the works of Henry Sweet and H.C. Wyld.</p>
<p>The personal letter, as is often the case, is a major source of data for historiographical language studies. In her ‘Eighteenth-Century English Letters: In Search of the Vernacular’ (<italic>LeF</italic> 21[2005] 113–46), Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade argues that the personal letter opens up a great opportunity for studying the vernacular language in eighteenth-century England. Because personal letters are spontaneously produced, they make it possible to study the most informal writing styles of historical individuals. In this theoretical paper, Tieken-Boon van Ostade presents a research model for the needs of sociolinguists interested in historical corpora of personal correspondence. Another more data-driven article by Tieken-Boon van Ostade is a case-study of the social network analysis approach to the language used by Robert Lowth. In ‘Of Social Networks and Linguistic Influence: The Language of Robert Lowth's and his Contemporaries’ (<italic>IJES</italic> 5[2005] 135–57), the author investigates possible usage similarities in the language of Robert Lowth and his correspondents. The results of her investigation suggest that Lowth's usage both influenced and was influenced by that of his network of correspondents. Tieken-Boon van Ostade concludes by stressing the need for a careful reassessment of the origin of Lowth's grammatical pronouncements before ascribing them to Lowth himself. <italic>Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503)</italic> by Alexander Bergs constitutes a good example of a book-length case-study applying Tieken-Boon van Ostade's observations on the possibilities of the historical personal letter as linguistic evidence and its importance in studying the ‘vernacular language’ (for a review of the actual sociolinguistic contents of the book, see section 9 of this chapter). Samuel Johnson [1709–84] is particularly in focus this year. In Anni Sairio's study ‘Sam of Streatham Park: A Linguistic Study of Dr. Johnson's Membership in the Thrale Family’ (<italic>EJES</italic> 9[2005] 21–35), Johnson's personal letters serve as a source of material for studying the casual language of his times. By applying social network theory, Sairio discusses Johnson's membership in the Thrale family circle as well as his correspondence with his stepdaughter Lucy Porter and Elizabeth Aston, a friend from his Lichfield circle. The paper focuses on the degree of linguistic involvement (as an indicator of emotional closeness) revealed in Johnson's personal letters to his correspondents. This involvement is manifested in evidential verbs, degree adverbs and first- and second-person singular pronouns. Sairio's research suggests that Mrs Thrale was perhaps not Johnson's most significant network contact, as Johnson's letters to her reveal less involvement than his letters to her husband, or to either Lucy Porter or Elizabeth Aston. Samuel Johnson is also the subject of a special issue of the <italic>International Journal of Lexicography</italic> (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005]). This issue marks a significant lexicographic anniversary in the history of English linguistics: the passing of 250 years since the publication of Johnson's <italic>Dictionary of the English Language</italic> in 1755. The papers included in this special issue all situate the <italic>Dictionary</italic> in the historical context of its time. Many of them emphasize that Johnson was not the first to compile an English dictionary. He was, however, the first to base his definitions on actual examples and copious use of illustrative quotations. Another innovative and influential aspect of Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic>, stressed in all the articles, is the quality and discrimination of his definitions. These innovations thus explain the enduring influence of Johnson on later lexicographic practices. The articles are discussed in section 7 of this chapter.</p>
<p>Finally, 2005 saw the publication of an electronic version of Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic>. <italic>A Dictionary of the English Language</italic> [1755/2005] is based on a copy of the <italic>Dictionary</italic> which belonged to Johnson's personal physician, Dr Richard Warren. Besides the preface, this electronic version also includes a reproduction of Johnson's ‘Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language’ [1747]. This inexpensive electronic edition gives us the complete record of the three volumes with full-colour photographic facsimiles. One can easily navigate the text to search for definitions provided that one enters Johnson's spelling of the word. The main drawback, however, is that Johnson's quotations are not searchable.</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC3"><title>3. Phonetics and Phonology</title>
<p>One of the great phonologists of the twentieth century, Morris Halle, has remained an active researcher and an important source of inspiration in the field until the present day. In the article ‘Palatalization/Velar Softening: What It Is and What It Tells Us about the Nature of Language’ (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 23–41) he discusses the process of ‘velar softening’, a palatalization process which is operative in English (and many other languages) and which is responsible for such alternations as [k]∼[s] in pairs like <italic>electri</italic>[k]<italic>∼electri</italic>[s]<italic>ity</italic>. The exact representation of this process, in which a velar shifts to coronal place of articulation under the influence of a front-high or higher-mid vowel has stirred up considerable debate in the past decades. While Halle's article is warmly recommended as a well-written and historically well-underpinned defence of splitting up segments into smaller-sized units, this particular proposal to account for the palatalization—assigning a coronal feature to front vowels—is not particularly new or enlightening, for instance because it does not explain why front vowels do not have a similar effect on labial consonants.</p>
<p>With respect to varieties of English, Paul Warren, ‘Issues in the Study of Intonation in Language Varieties’ (<italic>LSp</italic> 48[2005] 345–58), discusses some key issues in the cross-linguistic study of intonation with particular reference to recent research on the intonation of NZE. The same author provides a welcome and thorough investigation of generational differences in intonation patterns in New Zealand in ‘Patterns of Late Rising in New Zealand English: Intonational Variation or Intonational Change?’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 209–30), showing that the younger speakers may be shifting to a different system to make the distinction between questions and statements. In an important article on the origin of linking and intrusive /r/, Jennifer Hay and Andrea Sudbury, ‘How Rhoticity Became /r/-Sandhi’ (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 799–823), examine the gradual loss of postvocalic /r/in New Zealand and the concomitant emergence of /r/ -sandhi, providing evidence how the diachronic development resulted in a new synchronic rule system.</p>
<p><italic>American Speech</italic> reports on interesting phonological aspects of two varieties of AmE: Wisconsin English, which still shows some remnants of the once prevalent use of German in its treatment of word-final obstruents and also bears on phonological change as a result of language contact (Thomas Purnell, Joseph Salmons and Dilara Tepeli, ‘German Substrate Effects in Wisconsin English: Evidence for Final Fortition’ (<italic>AS</italic> 80[2005] 135–64)), and Tivoli Majors, ‘Low Back Vowel Merger in Missouri Speech: Acoustic Description and Explanation’ (<italic>AS</italic> 80[2005] 165–79), which explores the sound change which is responsible for the merger of the vowels in the word <italic>cot</italic> and <italic>caught</italic>, which is spreading rapidly throughout the United States but which are kept apart in St Louis. Also in the US, James A. Walker, ‘The <italic>Ain't</italic> Constraint: Not-Contraction in Early African American English’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 1–17), reports on <italic>not</italic>-contraction in different varieties of early AAE, while articulatory and kinematic aspects of flapping are considered by Teruhiko Fukaya and Dani Byrd, ‘An Articulatory Examination of Word-Final Flapping at Phrase Edges and Interiors’ (<italic>JIPA</italic> 35[2005] 45–58), especially with respect to the role played by different prosodic boundaries. Another boundary phenomenon, that of glottalization, is explored by Marie K. Huffman in ‘Segmental and Prosodic Effects on Coda Glottalization’ (<italic>JPhon</italic> 33[2005] 335–62).</p>
<p>Further north, Charles Boberg, ‘The Canadian Shift in Montreal’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 133–54), argues that the current view of the ‘Canadian vowel shift’ should be modified, at least for Montreal English, in that the three front vowels in this language appear to be involved in a retraction process, rather than a chain shift. In the same journal, Alex D’Arcy, ‘The Development of Linguistic Constraints: Phonological Innovations in St. John's English’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 327–55), reports on the fate of the vowels in a community in Newfoundland, paying particular attention to different generations of speakers, enabling him to chart change in progress, which in this case consists of levelling towards standard CanE.</p>
<p>In Britain, phonetic evidence bearing on the formant frequencies of RP monophthongs is brought forward by Sarah Hawkins and Jonathan Midgley, ‘Formant Frequencies of RP Monophthongs in Four Age Groups of Speakers’ (<italic>JIPA</italic> 35[2005] 183–99). It turned out that groups of speakers were surprisingly similar, with the exception of the front vowels in the youngest speakers, who tended to lower the lower and lower-mid front vowels and fronted the high and higher-mid back vowels. Finally, an important article on child-directed speech in Tyneside, England, is that by Paul Foulkes, Gerard J. Docherty and Dominic Watt, ‘Phonological Variation in Child-Directed Speech’ (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 177–206), where the authors investigate differences in speech directed to children from that directed to adults. One finding was that child-directed speech contained more standard variants than inter-adult speech. More surprising, perhaps, is that speech directed to girls was also more standard than speech directed to boys, even more so at earlier age levels.</p>
<p>Two articles on the historical phonology of English should be mentioned. An account of i-umlaut in OE is offered by John Anderson, ‘Old English i-Umlaut (For the Umpteenth Time)’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005], 195–227), which, as the title suggests, will continue to stir up debate. Anderson shows that a framework that is not based on binary distinctive features, but rather on monovalent ‘elements’ (also assumed by Halle in the article mentioned above), which may be present in segments with greater or lesser preponderance, is helpful in explaining various generalizations. Daniel Schreier, ‘On the Loss of Preaspiration in Early Middle English’ (<italic>TPS</italic> 103[2005] 99–112), contributes an article on the loss of [h] in words like *<italic>hnecce</italic>, ‘neck’, *<italic>hlēapan</italic>, ‘leap’, or *<italic>hræfn</italic>, ‘raven’ in early ME, here referred to as ‘pre-aspiration’. With the exception of/hw-/, which survives in contemporary varieties, pre-aspirated variants were lost between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries. The author argues that this constituted an ongoing change in English, in which language contact with Norman French acted as a catalyst.</p>
<p>Two textbooks on phonology came out: <italic>Introducing Phonology</italic> by David Odden and <italic>Cognitive Phonology in Construction Grammar: Analytic Tools for Students of English</italic> by Riita Välimaa-Blum. The first of these is a standard-type textbook with a wealth of exercises, many of which come from the author's own work on African languages. This is a highly recommended book for a thorough introductory course to phonology, especially because of the thoughtful discussion of the principles and practice of phonological analysis and the exercises. On the down side, chapters on stress and syllable structure are sorely lacking. The textbook by Välimaa-Blum arouses great curiosity: how will phonology fit into Cognitive Linguistics and, in particular, Construction Grammar? Although this textbook does a good job in introducing the basic concepts in phonology and provides many points for further thinking about the role of phonology in language and cognition in general, the proposal to use the ‘schemata’ of Construction Grammar are less explanatory and less attractive than ‘ordinary’ phonological rules. Bringing out the beauty of sound systems, and the precision with which rule systems work, is better served by Odden's book.</p>
<p>Finally, Saundra K. Wright, Jennifer Hay and Tessa Bent, ‘Ladies First? Phonology, Frequency, and the Naming Conspiracy’ (<italic>Linguistics</italic> 43[2005] 531–61), contribute to the fascinating study of binomials, i.e. pairs of words that often occur together. They show that in pairs of names, male names often precede female names (e.g. ‘Romeo and Juliet’). There are a number of factors contributing to this fact, some of which are phonological (e.g. choice of vowel, and the length and stress pattern of the individual words) and some of which are not. For example, it turns out that the most frequent name tends to come first, and since male names are apparently more frequent than female ones, the overwhelming tendency is to place male names before female ones.</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC4"><title>4. Morphology</title>
<p>Francis Katamba's textbook <italic>English Words</italic> has seen a second edition, with a more explicit title: <italic>English Words: Structure, History, Usage</italic>. The eleven chapters have been organized somewhat differently, in four parts: ‘The Nature and Internal Structure of Words’, which contains basic morphology; ‘Words in a Wider Context’, which looks at the interfaces of morphology and the other linguistic levels; ‘A Changing, Expanding Lexicon’, which looks at the historical sources of English words (the Germanic base and the layers of borrowings from Scandinavian and French, but also from languages like Latin, Italian, or Indian), new word formations including those inspired by recent technological advances, such as mobile phone and internet technologies, and the debate on English orthography. The final part, ‘Modelling the Mental Lexicon’, contains an expanded psycholinguistic section, which includes discussion of the modelling of speech recognition/production and of what disorders like aphasia can teach us about the organization of the mental lexicon. Every chapter ends with a set of exercises. This is an excellent introduction to an important linguistic area.</p>
<p>If, after reading Katamba's book, the student is still wondering <italic>What Is Morphology?</italic>, they can turn to the book with this title by Mark Aronoff and Kirsten Fudeman. It provides a full, clear and attractive introduction to the main concepts and issues in morphology, such as morphemes, words vs. lexemes, item-and-arrangement and item-and-process approaches to word formation, prosodic morphology, primary and secondary affixes, compositionality, the semantics of derivation, inflectional types, syncretism, grammatical function change, productivity, and many more. Examples come from a wide range of languages, including many from English but also (quite prominently in each chapter) Kujamaat Jóola, a language of Senegal with quite complex but very regular morphology, to which a separate short introduction is provided. Each of the eight chapters comes with a set of varied and doable exercises and there is a ten-page glossary at the back.</p>
<p>Some of the same material is covered in another new introduction to morphology, Geert Booij's <italic>The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology</italic>. It has chapters on basic notions, morphological analysis, derivation, compounding, inflection, inflectional systems, the morphology–phonology interface, morphology–syntax interactions, morphology and semantics, morphology and psycholinguistics, and morphology and language change. Each chapter has questions (answers are given in a key) and suggestions for further reading. Examples also come from many languages, with Dutch being particularly well represented because of its many interesting morphological properties. This is a solid work, which nevertheless moves along at a brisk pace and points at many further issues that could be fruitfully studied in follow-up work. Like the two books just reviewed, we can thoroughly recommend this work.</p>
<p>A more advanced work, which nevertheless aims to cover a wide field comprehensively, is the <italic>Handbook of Word-Formation</italic> edited by Pavol Štekauer and Rochelle Lieber. Its aim, as stated in the editors’ preface, is to provide a presentation of the state of the art of word-formation work done since the 1960s, viewed from a variety of perspectives, written by experts who have made real contributions to the development of the field, and with a certain bias towards English word formation (not only in terms of theoretical analysis but also in terms of empirical developments over the last few decades). The seventeen chapters that follow come close to achieving this ambitious ideal. Thus, there is Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy contributing ‘Basic Terminology’, Ellen M. Kaisse on ‘Word-Formation and Phonology’, Gregory Stump on ‘Word-Formation and Inflectional Morphology’, Andrew Spencer on ‘Word-Formation and Syntax’, Dieter Kastovsky on ‘Hans Marchand and the Marchandeans’, Tom Roeper on ‘Chomsky's <italic>Remarks</italic> and the Transformationalist Hypothesis’, Sergio Scalise and Emiliano Guevara on ‘The Lexicalist Approach to Word-Formation and the Notion of the Lexicon’, Robert Beard and Mark Volpe on ‘Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology’, Pavol Štekauer on ‘Onomasiological Approach to Word-Formation’, David Tuggy on ‘Cognitive Approach to Word-Formation’, Wolfgang U. Dressler on ‘Word-Formation in Natural Morphology’, Peter Ackema and Ad Neeleman on ‘Word-Formation in Optimality Theory’, Laurie Bauer on ‘Productivity: Theories’, Franz Rainer on ‘Constraints on Productivity’, Peter Hohenhaus on ‘Lexicalization and Institutionalization’, Rochelle Lieber on ‘English Word-Formation Processes’, and Bogdan Szymanek on ‘The Latest Trends in English Word-Formation’. Anyone who reads through this work will be able to call themselves an expert on English word formation and its analysis.</p>
<p>A few separate articles address issues in word formation this year. In ‘Semantic Change in Word Formation’ (<italic>Linguistics</italic> 43[2005] 415–41), Franz Rainer investigates change in meaning of derivational affixes. In itself, this is a well-established phenomenon but the mechanisms underlying it have not received much attention. Rainer argues that, apart from semantic change and subsequent reanalysis operating on existing words, innovations can also be due to ‘approximation’, where an affix is used in a new sense through the operation of metaphor or metonymy. Examples in English are <italic>cis-Elizabethan</italic> (‘post-Elizabethan’, with a shift from spatial to temporal meaning) and <italic>telephonitis</italic> (with a shift from ‘disease’ to ‘excessive tendency’). Neither of these, Rainer argues, can be due to reinterpretation of <italic>cis</italic>- or -<italic>itis</italic> in an existing word; the new meaning came into being only when the new word was created. David Barner and Alan Bale, in ‘No Nouns, No Verbs? A Rejoinder to Panagiotidis’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 1169–79), propose ways in which a non-lexicalist, category-less grammar might deal with the varying conversion abilities of roots, as instantiated by the contrast between <italic>winter</italic> and <italic>fall</italic> in <italic>Next year John will winter in Honolulu and ??fall in New York</italic>. Phoevos Panagiotidis offers a rejoinder to their proposal in ‘Against Category-Less Roots in Syntax and Word Learning: Objections to Barner and Bale (2002)’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 1181–94).</p>
<p>Moving on to matters inflectional, it is usually thought that regular and irregular verbs in English (and other languages) differ in form but not semantics. Unlike in the case of irregular noun plurals, it has proven virtually impossible to isolate any set of verbal meanings, however defined, that has more irregulars than regulars. One suggestion has been that irregulars tend to have resultative rather than process meanings (see <italic>YWES</italic> 74[1996] 46), but a different avenue is explored by R. Harald Baayen and Fermín Moscoso del Prado Martín in ‘Semantic Density and Past-Tense Formation in Three Germanic Languages’ (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 666–98), which argues for a very subtle semantic difference between the two sets. Using data of various types and providing detailed statistical analysis, they find that irregular verbs in English, Dutch and German differ from regulars in various respects, including (1) having more meanings (as established by the number of independently established sets of roughly synonymous verbs that they occur in); (2) sharing more meanings with each other (as established by the number of synonym sets that contain several irregular verbs); (3) more often having telic meaning (as evidenced by their greater preference for the auxiliary ‘be’ rather than ‘have’ in German and Dutch perfects); (4) occurring in more argument alternation classes; and (5) being more frequent in the past tense. Their conclusion is that irregulars have greater semantic density than regulars and they argue that it is this distinction rather than anything else that leads to the different brain activation patterns in processing the two classes that neuro-imaging data have shown.</p>
<p>This may also be an appropriate place to mention Christopher Beedham's <italic>Language and Meaning: The Structural Creation of Reality</italic>. Although it is true to its title in being concerned with large issues in the language-mind-meaning-matter debate that go beyond the remit of this section, one of the case studies that Beedham presents has to do with the question whether irregular verbs in English (also German and Russian) share some element of meaning that sets them apart from regular verbs. The results of a partial analysis that he has carried out suggest that they may do: comparing the VC and CV sequences occurring in regular and irregular verbs, he has found that the two verb groups tend to have different preferences and that the VC sequences frequent in irregular verbs are also frequent in the group of grammatical items in English (i.e. prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, contracted forms, etc., rather than nouns or adjectives). Beedham takes these results to support his general contention that a difference in form signals a difference in meaning since meaning is created by form. Although it is not so clear that the evidence is very strong at this point and might not uncharitably be reinterpreted as simply another difference in form between regulars and irregulars, the results are certainly intriguing. Another case-study that Beedham includes concerns the meaning of the passive. On the basis of the non-passivizability of verbs like <italic>have</italic>, <italic>lack</italic>, <italic>contain</italic>, <italic>resemble</italic>, and <italic>suit</italic>, Beedham suggests that passive is not a voice which derives in any meaningful sense from an underlying active counterpart, but an aspect. To be precise, it expresses a state resulting from an action. Only telic verbs fit this kind of meaning and that is why <italic>have</italic>, <italic>lack</italic>, etc. are non-passivizable (and also resist being used in a resultative perfect). In both cases, the heuristic principle that guides him is that of lexical exceptions, i.e. the idea that exceptions to a generalization, constituting a difference in formal possibilities, always signal (or create) some corresponding difference in meaning.</p>
<p>Historical word formation is the topic of Yoshinobu Niwa's ‘An Explanation of <italic>To</italic>(-) Compounding in Old English Based on the Cumulative Tendency’ (in Fisiak, ed., <italic>Studies in English Historical Linguistics and Philology: A Festschrift for Akio Oizumi</italic>, pp. 355–74). His main point is that <italic>to</italic> is often joined to or accompanied by an element that is (partly) synonymous, as in e.g. <italic>into</italic>. Don Chapman and Royal Skousen in ‘Analogical Modeling and Morphological Change: The Case of the Adjectival Negative Prefix in English’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 333–57) test Skousen's Analogical Modelling (AM) by investigating the distribution of the adjectival negative prefix (<italic>in</italic>-, <italic>un</italic>-, <italic>dis</italic>- etc.) in the ME and eModE portions of the Helsinki corpus. When asked to predict which adjectives take which prefixes in a particular period on the basis of their behaviour in the previous period, AM makes the right predictions about 90 per cent of the time. Less easily segmentable is ‘The Problem of the English <italic>dribble</italic>, <italic>drivel</italic>, <italic>drizzle</italic> and <italic>trickle</italic>: The Role of Semantics in Etymology’ (<italic>Anglia</italic> 123[2005] 191–203), in which William Rothwell investigates the history of these closely related frequentatives. In ‘<italic>Col-Blak</italic> and <italic>Snow-Whit</italic>: Chaucer's Noun-Adjective Compounds’ (in Fisiak, ed., pp. 37–49), Don Chapman argues that Chaucer used this type of compound mainly for stylistic effect, achieved by selecting items expressing comparison.</p>
<p>Historical inflectional issues are addressed in John G. Newman's study ‘Contrasting Patterns of <italic>s</italic>-Plural Attachment to <italic>N</italic>-Stem Neuters in Middle English’ (in Fisiak, ed., pp. 343–53). Newman notes that the word <italic>eye</italic> kept its original plural marker -<italic>n</italic> for several centuries after the apparently similar word <italic>ear</italic> had gone over to the use of -<italic>s</italic>. The reason, he suggests, lies in frequency: the plural form of <italic>eye</italic> was more frequent than that of <italic>ear</italic> and would therefore be shielded to some extent from analogical change. In an inflectional study of interest to both historical linguists and literary scholars, Ad Putter examines ‘Weak <italic>e</italic> and the Metre of Richard Spalding's <italic>Alliterative Katherine Hymn</italic>’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 250[2005] 288–92), providing metrical evidence that final -<italic>e</italic> in inflections was already lost by the time this text was written (<italic>c</italic>.1400). However, Judith A Jefferson and Ad Putter, investigating ‘The Distribution of Infinitives in -<italic>e</italic> and -<italic>en</italic> in Some Middle English Alliterative Poems’ (<italic>MÆ</italic> 74[2005] 221–47), find that in the seven late ME texts studied, final -<italic>en</italic> is less common (except pre-vocalically) and final -<italic>e</italic> is usually syllabic. It therefore appears that the infinitival inflectional marker was more resistant to loss than other markers. Robert McColl Millar offers ‘After Jones: Some Thoughts on the Final Collapse of the Grammatical Gender System in English’ (in Fisiak, ed., pp. 293–306). After reviewing Charles Jones's idea that the initial change was one from gender to case marking, McColl Millar proposes that this intermediate system broke down as a result of the importation of too many unaccommodatable loan words. The history of ‘Plural <italic>Be</italic>’ is advanced as an example of ‘Life after Degrammaticalisation’ by Laura Wright (in Lindquist and Mair, eds., <italic>Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English</italic>, pp. 211–26). Using a corpus of early modern court minutes, she identifies a route by which southern ME plural <italic>be</italic> escaped replacement in eModE by northern <italic>are</italic> (and therefore complete loss of any grammatical function): <italic>be</italic>, perhaps especially in subjunctive contexts, became a (low) sociolinguistic marker, which was exported by some of the speakers in the court minutes that were taken to Virginia; once there, finite <italic>be</italic> evolved into a feature of general black, southern and lower-class American speech.</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC5"><title>5. Syntax</title>
<sec id="SEC5.1"><title>(a) Modern English</title>
<p>There are several regular textbooks this year. <italic>A Student's Introduction to English Grammar</italic> by Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum is based on their <italic>Cambridge Grammar of the English Language</italic> [2002]. After two introductory chapters, there are chapters on ‘Verbs’, ‘Tense and Mood’; ‘Clause Structure’, ‘Complements, and Adjuncts’; ‘Nouns and Noun Phrases’; ‘Adjectives and Adverbs’; ‘Prepositions and Preposition Phrases’; ‘Negation and Related Phenomena’; ‘Clause Type: Asking, Exclaiming, and Directing’; ‘Subordination and Content Clauses’; ‘Relative Clauses’; ‘Grade and Comparison’; ‘Non-Finite Clauses and Clauses without Verbs’; ‘Coordination and More’; ‘Information Packaging in the Clause’; and ‘Morphology: Words and Lexemes’. Every chapter has a set of exercises, and there is a glossary at the back. In this greatly abridged offshoot of the <italic>Cambridge Grammar</italic>, there is little room for the linguistic commentary which, set apart from the main text by a smaller font and shading, is such a prominent feature of the larger <italic>Grammar</italic>. The small font and blue shading used in the <italic>Student's Introduction</italic> is instead reserved for ‘prescriptive grammar notes’ that tersely dispose of misguided notions of correctness: the ban on using <italic>can</italic> as a deontic modal, on preposition stranding, on <italic>which</italic> referring to non-personal nouns etc. But in their linguistic argumentation and labelling of linguistic concepts, both books are completely parallel.</p>
<p>Similar parallelism is found between Andrew Radford's textbooks, <italic>Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English</italic>, and its abridged version, <italic>English Syntax: An Introduction</italic>. The shorter version concentrates on the basics and is aimed at students taking syntax as a minor rather than a major course, and is about two-thirds of the length. Both books aim to provide (1) an introduction to recent work in syntactic theory and (2) a description of key phenomena in the English language. The organization of chapters is essentially the same in both books, and the exercises (with model answers and helpful hints) are also much the same. After an introductory chapter on UG, the language faculty and parameter setting, two chapters follow on the basics of grammatical analysis: ‘Words’, on categories, and ‘Structure’, on phrase structure and syntactic relations. The following chapters focus on core areas of generative theory: null constituents, head movement, <italic>wh</italic>-movement, and A-movement. The final three chapters discuss more recent concerns in the theory, and they are significantly longer in the long version: ‘Agreement, Case and Movement’, ‘Split Projections’, and ‘Phases’. Because of the parallel organization of both books, students might in fact find it helpful to tackle the short version of each chapter first, and then, once they have digested that material, work through the longer version. There is an extensive glossary of technical terms.</p>
<p>Less formally minded readers can turn to the third edition of Michael A.K. Halliday's <italic>An Introduction to Functional Grammar</italic>, revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. At nearly 700 pages, it provides a full account of all the various strands of grammatical analysis that go into a functional understanding of sentences and texts. The ten chapters deal with the overall architecture of language (starting with specimen texts for analysis but swiftly moving on to the concepts of axis, stratification, instantiation and metafunction); the basics of a functional grammar (the main grammatical concepts); the clause as message (containing a theme and a rheme, as well as given and new information); the clause as exchange (showing mood, polarity and modality); the clause as representation (featuring various types of transitivity); groups and phrases (nominal, verbal, adverbial, prepositional); the clause complex (created through expansion or projection); group and phrase complexes; cohesion and discourse; and metaphorical modes of expression. No doubt some of the material is now explained and illustrated more fully and somewhat greater theoretical precision is achieved in this new edition. But we feel the book has lost some of its charm in the process. Gone are many of the nursery rhymes illustrating the various functional points in the first two editions, and in have come more system networks, which are things with many virtues but being delightful is not one of them. As a result, the book has turned into a serious tome (though a very instructive one, we hasten to add).</p>
<p>A lighter introduction to systemic functional grammar, and one exploring its applicability to corpus data, is <italic>Applying English Grammar: Corpus and Functional Approaches</italic>, edited by Caroline Coffin, Ann Hewings and Kieran O’Halloran. This book, for use in an Open University undergraduate course on grammar in context, has fifteen chapters (eight of them having appeared elsewhere before), arranged in three parts. The first part introduces corpus linguistics and systemic functional grammar. It has chapters by Elena Tognini-Bonelli on ‘Working with Corpora: Issues and Insights’, Ronald Carter on ‘Grammar and Spoken English’, Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad on ‘Corpus-Based Comparisons of Registers’, Jim Martin on ‘Grammatical Structure: What Do We Mean?’ and M.A.K. Halliday on ‘Some Grammatical Problems in Scientific English’. Part II contains functional and corpus case-studies: Ann Hewings and Martin Hewings, ‘Impersonalizing Stance: A Study of Anticipatory “It” in Student and Published Academic Writing’; Hilary Hillier, ‘Researching the Grammar of a “Literary” Text’; Ann Hewings and Caroline Coffin, ‘Grammar in the Construction of Online Discussion Messages’; Clare Painter, ‘The Development of Language as a Resource for Learning’; and Gill Francis and Annelise Kramer-Dahl, ‘Grammar in the Construction of Medical Case Histories’. Part III (less relevant to this section) presents functional/corpus studies in critical discourse analysis. Students are guided through the book by means of a brief general introduction, separate introductions to each part, and a fifteen-page glossary. Altogether, the book is a valuable resource for teachers working in the functional model.</p>
<p>Another such resource, now available in a somewhat updated second edition, is Thomas Bloor and Meriel Bloor's <italic>The Functional Analysis of English</italic>. A useful pedagogical tool, it provides a crystal-clear account of the Hallidayan framework. Its twelve chapters, most of them containing not only annotated suggestions for further study but also varied exercises, deal with the importance of meaning in grammatical analysis; grammatical labels; clause structure; information structure; grammar and text; transitivity; the structure of the nominal group; embedded clauses; expanded clauses; projection; applications of functional analysis; and, very usefully, historical perspectives on functional concerns. The book has been tried and tested in university courses and it indeed looks like an eminently teachable undergraduate text.</p>
<p>There is a fourth edition of Edward Finnegan's <italic>Language: Its Structure and Use</italic>, a very user-friendly introduction to linguistics in fifteen chapters. After an introductory chapter, ‘Language and Linguistics’, which now includes a section on political and social aspects of language, the material is presented under three main headings: ‘Language Structures’, which covers morphology, phonetics, phonology, syntax, semantics, language universals and language typology, ‘Language Use’, which covers information structure and pragmatics, speech acts and conversation, registers and styles, dialects and writing, and ‘Language Change, Language Development, and Language Acquisition’. An excellent feature of the book is that the issues central to each chapter are introduced right at the beginning by three or four ‘puzzlers’, like: ‘Your nerdy friend Ned expresses annoyance that the grammar checker in his word processor objects to nearly every passive sentence he writes. […] Ned claims the checker assumes that all passives are bad and wonders what you think. Well?’ (p. 145). Discussions of the puzzlers follow at the end of the chapter. Exercises are organized in three sections: exercises based on English, exercises based on languages other than English and exercises for educators and future teachers. The indexes at the back include one on internet sites and one on videos. There is also a glossary of terms. <italic>Looking @t Languages: A Workbook in Elementary Linguistics</italic> by Paul R. Frommer and Edward Finnegan can be used as a companion piece, but will also stand on its own, or accompany other introductions to linguistics. The exercises are organized into ten chapters: ‘Morphology’, ‘Phonetics’, ‘Phonology’, ‘Syntax’, ‘Semantics’, ‘Pragmatics’, ‘Register’, ‘Dialect’, ‘Writing’, and ‘Historical and Comparative Linguistics. There is a glossary of terms, and accompanying audio files and other material is now available on a dedicated website.</p>
<p>For absolute beginners in syntax, we have the second edition of Nigel Fabb's <italic>Sentence Structure</italic>. After a general overview of phrases, there are chapters concentrating on the noun phrase (chapter 2), the adjective phrase, adverb phrase and preposition phrase (chapter 3), the verb, the verb phrase and the auxiliaries (chapter 4), the simple sentence and its tree structure (chapter 5), on the internal organization of the NP (chapter 6), on root sentences and subordinate clauses (chapter 7), and NP- and <italic>wh</italic>-movement (chapter 8). A notable feature of this book is its terseness: it concentrates on the basics. At the back of the book there are suggestions for doing small-scale projects on syntax, as well as a small corpus of sample sentences from languages like Cantonese, Madi, Malay and Tamil, which provides some hands-on experience of how the concepts presented in the book ‘work’ in languages other than English. Providing such hands-on experience is also very much the aim of our next excellent textbook, the second edition of Maggie Tallerman's <italic>Understanding Syntax</italic>, which introduces the major concepts in syntactic theory by contrasting the syntax of a wide variety of languages. After an introductory chapter, ‘What Is Syntax?’, chapters follow on lexical and grammatical categories, clause types, phrasal structure, sentence structure, how to identify constituents, processes that change grammatical relations (passives, anti-passives, applicatives and causatives) and <italic>wh</italic>-constructions. The approach is cross-linguistic and theoretically informed; the emphasis is on syntactic concepts and how they are studied in linguistics rather than on parsing and tree-drawing.</p>
<p>A big question, the role of linguistics within the cognitive sciences, is addressed in a special triple issue of <italic>LingRev</italic> (22:ii–iv[2005]). Like earlier <italic>LingRev</italic> special issues (e.g. the poverty-of-stimulus argument one in 2002; see <italic>YWES</italic> 80[2001] 30), a wide range of viewpoints and data are examined. Beyond thoroughly recommending this seventeen-paper, 350-page spread to the reader's attention, all we can do here is list the contributors and their titles (which in most cases give a fair indication of the type of concern and approach found in the article): Nancy A. Ritter, ‘On the Status of Linguistics as a Cognitive Science’; Dorothy L. Cheney and Robert M. Seyfarth, ‘Constraints and Preadaptations in the Earliest Stages of Language Evolution’; Peter MacNeilage and Barbara Davis, ‘Functional Organization of Speech across the Life Span: A Critique of Generative Phonology’; Michael Tomasello, ‘Beyond Formalities: The Case of Language Acquisition’; Susan Goldin-Meadow, ‘What Language Creation in the Manual Modality Tells us about the Foundations of Language’; Peter W. Culicover, ‘Linguistics, Cognitive Science, and All That Jazz’; Steven Gross, ‘The Nature of Semantics: On Jackendoff's Arguments’; Wendy K. Wilkins, ‘Anatomy Matters’; Philip Lieberman, ‘The Pied Piper of Cambridge’ (Mass., that is); Kathleen Baynes and Michael S. Gazzaniga, ‘Lateralization of Language: Toward a Biologically Based Model of Language’; Matthew Walenski and Michael T. Ullman, ‘The Science of Language’; Andriy Myachykov, Russell S. Tomlin and Michael I. Posner, ‘Attention and Empirical Studies of Grammar’; Fernanda Ferreira, ‘Psycholinguistics, Formal Grammars, and Cognitive Science’; Joan Bybee and James L.McClelland, ‘Alternatives to the Combinatorial Paradigm of Linguistic Theory Based on Domain General Principles of Human Cognition’; Adele E. Goldberg and Alex Del Giudice, ‘Subject-Auxiliary Inversion: A Natural Category’; Alec Marantz, ‘Generative Linguistics within the Cognitive Neuroscience of Language’; and, finally, Cedric Boeckx and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, ‘Language as a Natural Object? Linguistics as a Natural Science’. This is also a good place to mention Noam Chomsky's ‘Three Factors in Language Design’ (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 1–22), a historical sketch of generative thinking on the nature of the language faculty, its interaction with experience and with principles holding more widely (e.g. of computational efficiency). The paper traces the development of the biolinguistic enterprise through the last fifty years, highlighting the main points of progress and ending with a fairly technical exposition of some of the concerns of recent minimalist approaches to language.</p>
<p>Another big question, whether mental grammars incorporate any kind of usage-related information, receives attention in a discussion section of <italic>Language</italic> (81[2005] 207–36). The view that they do not was argued in Frederick Newmeyer's ‘Grammar is Grammar and Usage is Usage’ (<italic>Language</italic> 79[2003] 682–707). Dissent is this year expressed by Brady Clark, in ‘On Stochastic Grammar’ (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 207–17), which emphasizes the importance of facts like the evident frequency differences between registers and discusses several developments of the Labovian-type variable rule, interpreted as a mental construct, to account for these. Further dissent comes from Ritva Laury and Tsuyoshi Ono in ‘Data is Data and Model is Model: You Don't Discard the Data that Doesn't Fit your Model!’(<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 218–25), which points at various phenomena investigated in the functional analysis of texts that undermine Newmeyer's views and at several defects in Newmeyer's interpretation of functional studies. Charles F. Meyer and Hongyin Tao's ‘Response to Newmeyer's “Grammar is Grammar and Usage is Usage” ’ (<italic>Language</italic> (812005] 226–8) highlights the dangers of reliance on introspective data and holds up the study of corpus data as a solution to this problem. This particular discussion is closed (for the time being) by Frederick Newmeyer's own ‘A Reply to the Critiques of “Grammar is Grammar and Usage is Usage” ’ (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 229–36), in which the author allows himself to stand corrected in some places, expresses puzzlement at misinterpretation of his views in others, and in yet others argues for the incoherence or unhelpfulness of alternative views.</p>
<p>Further thoughts by Newmeyer on the relation between grammar and usage can be found in his book <italic>Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology</italic>. It could be said that he here explores the limits of formal grammar, in the sense that he is interested in the question whether grammars, viewed as language-specific mental constructs, can account for linguistic variety. He compares generative accounts of language variation with functional approaches (including processing accounts) and concludes that grammars should not aim to account for variation since the work can be done by functional factors that are operative anyway. However, he also argues against the idea that specific formal features of a language can be explained by direct reference to functional factors, saying that this would raise intractable issues because of the indeterminacy of functional factors. Thus, different—and even opposing—functional explanations can often be invoked for one and the same phenomenon; wherever there is variation, the functional factors can apparently go two ways, promoting variant A or variant B; and there are also clearly anti-functional and function-neutral phenomena in language. Instead, what Newmeyer proposes is that functional factors make themselves felt through large-scale patterns of cross-linguistic typological distribution and through tendencies in language change. He discusses several examples of the latter phenomenon from this perspective, showing a healthy optimism about work in this area (asserting, for example, that finding a functional motivation for the historical introduction of <italic>do</italic>-support is ‘far easier’ than finding one for its presence in PDE, p. 183).</p>
<p>Various articles also address general issues in language. José M. Musacchio in ‘The Ineffability of Qualia and the Word-Anchoring Problem’ (<italic>LangS</italic> 27[2005] 403–35) links neural hardwiring in the brain required for various cognitive functions to the acquisition of the lexicon, or more generally, language. Laurie A. Stowe, Marco Haverkort and Frans Zwarts in ‘Rethinking the Neurological Basis of Language’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 997–1042) explain how neuro-imaging evidence forces a revision of a number of the standard interpretations of neuro-psychological data and has implications for the concept of linguistic modularity. John M. Anderson in ‘The Non-Autonomy of Syntax’ (<italic>FoL</italic> 39[2005] 223–50) argues that, contrary to Chomskyan tradition, the basic distribution of syntactic categories must be explained on the basis of the properties of the prototypical use of semantically prototypical members of the category. This means that syntax is semantically ‘grounded’. Christophe Parisse in ‘New Perspectives on Language Development and the Innateness of Grammatical Knowledge’ (<italic>LangS</italic> 27[2005] 383–401) argues that the acquisition of spoken language is a non-computational, non-conscious, item-based, frequency-based and usage-based process. Principle-and-rule-governed, algebraic structures and processes are only relevant to the acquisition of conscious written or formal spoken language. Jeffrey Hershfield in ‘Rule Following and the Background’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 269–80) argues that John Searle's view of language as a rule-governed activity cannot be reconciled with his rejection of cognitivist approaches (like Chomsky's) that posit unconscious rule-following as the causal basis of linguistic competence. Both see the study of language as a proper part of the study of the mind-brain; both see language as a rule-governed phenomenon where rules are causally explanatory; and both develop theories of rules having universal (or nearly universal) scope. Lloyd Humberstone in ‘Geach's Categorial Grammar’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 281–317) notes that P.T. Geach, who is represented in the Categorial Grammar literature as having made a particular ‘type change’ proposal (along the lines of the idea that any expression in the category of sentence modifiers also falls within the category of predicate modifiers), in fact proposed something very different.</p>
<p>A topic addressed in several papers is the status of evidence used in many formal analyses. Thomas Wasow and Jennifer Arnold in ‘Intuitions in Linguistic Argumentation’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 1481–96) argue that the over-reliance on introspective intuitions of well-formedness as a primary source of data coupled with the lack of a rigorous methodology in data collecting casts doubt on the empirical basis of a great deal of syntactic theorizing. Similar issues are addressed by Antonella Sorace and Frank Keller in ‘Gradience in Linguistic Data’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 1497–1524). They argue that data on degrees of grammaticality in syntax are theoretically relevant (as evidence for different types of constraints, ‘hard’ and ‘soft’) and should be elicited experimentally in order to be reliable. That this is eminently feasible is shown by Sam Featherston, who uses techniques of magnitude estimation of well-formedness (see <italic>YWES</italic> 77[1999] 25–6) to tackle ‘Universals and Grammaticality: <italic>Wh</italic>-Constraints in German and English’ (<italic>Linguistics</italic> 43[2005] 667–711). He considers data involving the superiority constraint and the phenomenon of discourse linking (together responsible for the contrast between *<italic>John knows what who saw</italic> and <italic>Mary asked which book which man read</italic>), and shows that their supposed absence from German is disproved by the magnitude data. Emily M. Bender in ‘On the Boundaries of Linguistic Competence: Matched-Guise Experiments as Evidence of Knowledge of Grammar’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 1579–98) offers a methodology for discovering whether speakers have knowledge of the non-categorical grammatical constraints which are evident in the distribution of sociolinguistic variables.</p>
<p>Reflections on corpus work are triggered by the occasion of the <italic>International Journal of Corpus Linguistics</italic> shifting from half-yearly to quarterly publication mode. The event is marked by a number of papers reflecting on what has been achieved not only in the ten years of the journal's existence, but in the half-century since the arrival of electronic corpora. Wolfgang Teubert opens the discussion with twenty-five theses stated in ‘My Version of Corpus Linguistics’ (<italic>IJCL</italic> 10[2005] 1–13). To give the flavour, here is thesis number 21: ‘Natural language is the only codification system in which the functions of its elements are determined not by ascription from outside but by discourse-internal negotiation.’ Geoffrey Sampson in ‘Quantifying the Shift towards Empirical Methods’ (<italic>IJCL</italic> 10[2005] 15–36) has classified publications as ‘evidence-based’ or ‘intuition-based’. The dips and peaks in the resulting graph chart the wavering fortunes of empirically based linguistics. Amy B. M. Tsui in ‘ESL Teachers’ Questions and Corpus Evidence’ (<italic>IJCL</italic> 10[2005] 335–56) reports on a study of how corpus evidence helped to formulate answers to some thousand questions sent in by ESL teachers to a dedicated website, and raised awareness of linguistic patterns and usage. Fitting naturally with these corpus contributions is a useful overview article by Stig Johansson, ‘Corpus Linguistics—Past, Present, Future: A View from Oslo’ (in Nakamura, Inoue and Tabata, eds., <italic>English Corpora under Japanese Eyes</italic>, pp. 3–24). It sketches the development and expansion of corpus work on English, from the language corpora B.C. (using a term coined by W.N. Francis) of the <italic>OED</italic>, the <italic>English Dialect Dictionary</italic> and the Survey of English Dialects, via the Survey of English Usage on to Brown and later the LOB corpus, the ICAME archive and from there to the modern mega-corpora, with a corresponding increase in the type and amount of work done.</p>
<p>Steven Jones and M. Lynne Murphy in ‘Using Corpora to Investigate Antonym Acquisition’ (<italic>IJCL</italic> 10[2005] 401–22) discovered that Ancillary Antonomy, in which an established pair of antonyms generates a second, parallel contrast (<italic>Milk is good for you but gum is bad for you</italic>), is found to be more common in children's speech than other types of antonymy, in spite of its greater complexity. Lynn E. Grant in ‘Frequency of “Core Idioms” in the British National Corpus (BNC)’ (<italic>IJCL</italic> 10[2005] 429–51) identifies 103 core idioms on the basis of idiom dictionaries. A search in the BNC revealed that none of them occurs frequently enough to merit inclusion in the 5,000 most frequent words of English. Bayan Abu Shawar and Eric Atwell in ‘Using Corpora in Machine-Learning Chatbot Systems’ (<italic>IJCL</italic> 10[2005] 489–516) present a program for natural conversation that learns from corpora. Mike Thelwall in ‘Creating and Using Web Corpora’ (<italic>IJCL</italic> 10[2005] 517–41) discusses the problems of using the Web as a corpus with commercial search engines and presents results from a personal Web crawler crawling through websites. Stefan Th. Gries, Beate Hampe and Doris Schönefeld in ‘Converging Evidence: Bringing Together Experimental and Corpus Data on the Association of Verbs and Constructions’ (<italic>CogLing</italic> 16[2005] 635–76) compare the predictive power of frequency data with a particular corpus-based approach with respect to a sentence-completion experiment involving the argument structure of verbs, and conclude that the latter, ‘collexeme analysis’, is a superior predictor.</p>
<p>Work within the generative tradition continues to be well represented. We have already discussed Andrew Radford's new textbook (and its abridged version) above. Also in the Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics series there is <italic>Understanding Minimalism</italic>, by Norbert Hornstein, Jairo Nunes and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. This too is a clear and accessible work which will take the student to a good understanding of what minimalism is all about. However, the intended readership is different from Radford's book: where Radford writes for students with no significant prior exposure to generative theory, Hornstein et al. write for those with a good working knowledge of government-binding theory and a desire to learn about the minimalist approach to the facts. As a result, this book has a strong comparative bent—not only in its exploration of GB vs. minimalist analyses but also in its inclusion of data from a wide variety of languages. It has chapters on the motivation underlying the minimalist project, on the architecture of the grammar, on theta domains, case domains, movement, phrase structure, linearization, binding theory, interpretability and checking, and derivational economy. Exercises can be found spread out across each chapter except the first.</p>
<p>Another major player in the generative textbook market will no doubt be Howard Lasnik and Juan Uriagereka's <italic>A Course in Minimalist Syntax: Foundations and Prospects</italic>, written with Cedric Boeckx. More discursive—though no less useful for that—than the other books, it presupposes an even firmer grasp of government-binding theory and takes the reader along on the minimalist journey, a journey with several general guidelines about ways of thinking but as yet few established results along the way, let alone a clear point of destination. The books has chapters on minimalist expectations, the shift from empirically driven to minimalist analyses, economy of derivations, economy of representations, last resort and movement, LF processes, and roles, cycles and binding. In the overall approach, readers will recognize the shared intellectual style of the two authors, who probe and weigh options, extend and contract principles, and consistently aim for analytic simplicity, with particular strengths in issues of economy of movement, binding and spell-out phenomena. We would expect all three of these substantial guides to minimalism (and also Radford's abridged version) to become popular textbooks, the choice between them being determined by the prior level of student knowledge and the exact place in the programme of the relevant course or module. In view of the intellectual challenge of the entire minimalist enterprise, the best course of action might actually be to read all four books, in the order: small Radford, big Radford, Hornstein–Nunes–Grohmann, Lasnik–Uriagereka.</p>
<p><italic>Binding Theory</italic> by Daniel Büring is a comprehensive textbook on a single topic, the syntax and semantics of binding. It is meant to fill the gap between introductory syntax textbooks and the primary research literature. The first six chapters—‘The ABC of Binding Theory’, ‘Interpreting Indexed Structures’, ‘Domains and Orientation’, ‘Binding versus Co-Reference’, ‘Other Cases of Semantic Binding’ and ‘The Coreference Rule’—build on each other; the remaining chapters—‘Descriptive Pronouns and Individual Concepts’, ‘Semantic Binding and c-Command’, ‘Plurals’, ‘Reciprocals’, ‘Exempt Anaphora and Reflexivity’, and ‘Binding and Movement’—can be accessed independently of each other. Within each chapter, more advanced material is clearly demarcated from the basics, and can be skipped without compromising understanding of the later chapters. There are exercises at the end of the earlier chapters. The primary language analysed is English, though there are also data from other languages.</p>
<p>In a separate article, ‘Bound to Bind’ (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 259–74), Daniel Büring considers binding problems posed by sentences like <italic>Every man is afraid that only HE voted for him</italic>, which can express the fear, ‘nobody else voted for me’, but not the fear, ‘nobody else voted for himself’. Drawing on earlier work by Danny Fox and Tanya Reinhart, Büring proposes a unified explanation and explores its consequences. An issue bearing ‘On the Acquisition of Principle B’ is discussed by Paul Elbourne (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 333–65). The question is whether children have binding principle B for sentences with quantified antecedents, referential antecedents, both, or neither. A widespread idea is that the principle only works in the case of quantified antecedents (not only for children but quite generally), but Elbourne shows that child language studies apparently supporting this view can be interpreted differently, and that other studies show children not obeying principle B at all. Eros Corazza in ‘On Epithets qua Attributive Anaphors’ (<italic>JL</italic> 41[2005] 1–32) proposes a multiple-proposition theory in which the epithet <italic>the idiot</italic> in <italic>Jon<sub>i</sub> promised to come but the idiot<sub>i</sub> missed the train</italic> must be understood as an attributive anaphor.</p>
<p>Formal properties of structures and structure-building operations are scrutinized in several contributions. In ‘Beyond the Constituent: A Dependency Grammar Analysis of Chains’ (<italic>FoL</italic> 39[2005] 251–97), Timothy Osborne introduces a unit of syntax, the ‘chain’, that offers a way of analysing syntactic strings as a unit at some level although they do not qualify as constituents under standard assumptions, such as analytic verb complexes (<italic>will read</italic>), idiom fragments (<italic>send to the doghouse</italic>) and subject–verb complexes elided under identity (<italic>What should we do?</italic>—(<italic>One should</italic>) <italic>Keep an open mind</italic>). Mark de Vries in ‘Merge: Properties and Boundaries’ (<italic>LIN</italic> 22[2005] 219–30) discusses the desirability (or otherwise) of two structures which the structure-building operation ‘Merge’ seems to allow: material freely ‘remerging’ into another projection altogether (‘interarboreal movement’) or heads being dominated by more than one parent. Brian Agbayani and Ed Zoerner in ‘A Parallel Movement Solution to Puzzles of Discontinuous Ellipses’ (<italic>FoL</italic> 39[2005] 299–318) argue for a parallel movement analysis of Left-Peripheral Ellipsis (<italic>We often eat parsnips on Monday, and kale on Tuesday</italic>) where strings are elided that are not constituents. Hubert Haider in ‘How to Turn German into Icelandic—and Derive the OV–VO Contrasts’ (<italic>JCGL</italic> 8[2005] 1–53) argues that taking VO as a universal underlying order, and hence also as the underlying order for German, raises more problems than it solves. Taking OV as underlying, many differences between OV and VO languages fall out automatically. Janet Dean Fodor and William Gregory Sakas in ‘The Subset Principle in Syntax: Costs of Compliance’ (<italic>JL</italic> 41[2005] 513–69) outline ways in which the basic incompatibility between incremental learning and the Subset Principle as principles in the acquisition of syntax might be reconciled. All, however, appear to carry severe costs in terms of computational load, learning speed or memory resources.</p>
<p>Phenomena involving the functional domain are examined in the papers in <italic>The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories</italic>, edited by Marcel den Dikken and Christina M. Tortora. That functional issues have been found to play a role in a wide range of phenomena is reflected in the diverse nature of the topics covered in this book. Nevertheless, this is not a collection of tenuously connected pieces. In their introduction, ‘The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories’, the editors expertly draw together the contributions, which between them cover phenomena related to C, I and D, to use these convenient shorthand labels. Moreover, the papers are all principally concerned with facts from Germanic languages and they all take on board micro-parametric comparative considerations. Jan-Wouter Zwart views ‘Verb Second as a Function of Merge’; data come mainly from Dutch, but the resulting model (in which verb-second is due not to Move but to Merge, reinterpreted as the creation of a dependency, and in which exceptional cases of verb-first and verb-third can also be accounted for) invites application to the history of English, where the standard movement analysis of verb-second has faced persistent problems due to the existence of exceptions. Application to English is also tempting in the case of the results reported by Ute Bohnacker in ‘Nonnative Acquisition of Verb Second: On the Empirical Underpinnings of Universal L2 Claims’. She finds that Swedes learning German get verb-second right nearly all the time, except for those of them who have (some) L2 English—they sometimes produce faulty verb-third sentences. It thus appears that verb-second is very learnable for L2 learners, which is a relevant fact to the recently resurgent interest in the role of language contact in medieval English syntactic changes. Josef Bayer, Tanja Schmid and Markus Bader look at ‘Clause Union and Clausal Position’, investigating the relation between position and functional make-up of complement clauses. Marc Richards and Theresa Biberauer have worked to good effect on ‘Explaining <italic>Expl</italic>’, proposing a new analysis of expletives, whereby they can only be merged in SpecvP. The variability associated with them (across the Germanic languages, synchronically as well as diachronically) is shown to be reducible to variability in methods of satisfying the EPP feature. Issues in reflexives are investigated in Marika Lekakou's ‘Reflexives in Contexts of Reduced Valency’, focusing on the (non-)argument status of reflexives, mainly in Dutch and German middles. Guido Vanden Wyngaerd presents an analysis of ‘Simple Tense’, accounting for the well-known restrictions on the use of the simple tense in English by requiring the event to be contained within the speech time interval. The theoretical tools are simple and neo-Reichenbachian, with the relation between speech time and reference time being a matter of tense, while reference time relates to event time through aspect. Marit Julien considers ‘Possessor Licensing, Definiteness and Case in Scandinavian’. Finally, Dorian Roehrs argues that ‘Pronouns are Determiners After All’, providing evidence that constructions like <italic>us linguists</italic> have <italic>us</italic> in D position (having moved there from a lower functional head).</p>
<p>Within the minimalist framework, what used to be well-established findings can easily turn into doubtful and even misguided pronouncements. This is what, in ‘Merge and Move: <italic>Wh</italic>-Dependencies Revisited’ (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 161–93), David Adger and Gillian Ramchand argue is also the case for A-bar phenomena. Developing various criteria to distinguish movement from base-generation plus the operation of Agree, they suggest that relatives and questions—previously standardly analysed as involving <italic>wh</italic>-movement—can have base-generation of the <italic>wh</italic>-element in CP-initial position. A language where this is the case is Scottish Gaelic, which therefore contrasts with English, which does have movement. Chris Barker in ‘Remark on Jacobson 1999: Crossover as a Local Constraint’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 447–72) claims that the cross-over constraint, the standard explanation of which is in terms of long-distance LF movement and co-indexation, can in fact be formulated in terms of a local relationship following Pauline Jacobson's variable-free framework.</p>
<p>Uli Sauerland argues that ‘DP is Not a Scope Island’ (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 303–14). As is well known, in inverse linking constructions like <italic>Tom read</italic> [<sub>QP</sub> <italic>one book by</italic> [<sub>QP</sub> <italic>every linguist</italic>]], the lower QP can take scope over the higher one, which is usually accounted for by having the lower QP undergo quantifier raising up to the DP but not higher. Using data from sentences with three quantifiers (and explicitly noting that their study ‘requires great care’, p. 304), Sauerland shows that the facts necessitate allowing quantifier raising out of DP. ‘Quantificational Arguments in Temporal Adjunct Clauses’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 541–97) by Ron Artstein argues that the fact that, in a sentence like <italic>Few secretaries cried after each executive resigned</italic>, the NP <italic>each executive</italic> takes scope above <italic>few secretaries</italic>, in an apparent violation of locality restrictions, is the result of local operations.</p>
<p>Issues in the formal analysis of focus come up in Christopher S. Butler's ‘Focusing on Focus: A Comparison of Functional Grammar, Role and Reference Grammar and Systemic Functional Grammar’ (<italic>LangS</italic> 27[2005] 585–618), which examines how realizations of focus in prosody, syntactic structure and special morphemes are classified in each approach. Vieri Samek-Lodovici in ‘Prosody-Syntax Interaction in the Expression of Focus’ (<italic>NL<</italic> 23[2005] 687–755) argues for an OT solution for the potential conflict between syntax and prosody in dealing with new information focus.</p>
<p>Annabell Cormack and Neil Smith kick off a special issue of <italic>Lingua</italic> on co-ordination with ‘What is Coordination?’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 395–418), which argues that co-ordination phenomena are the result of an unresolved ambivalence between a ‘head initial’ and a ‘head final’ asymmetric conjunction structure, with the effect that there are parallel representations. John R. te Velde in ‘Unifying Prosody and Syntax for Right- and Left-Edge Coordinate Ellipsis’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 483–502) proposes a unified account of right- and left-edge co-ordinate ellipsis in a derivational model of grammar that refers to both prosody and syntax. Robert D. Borsley in ‘Against ConjP’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 461–82) argues that co-ordinate structures should not be analysed as Conjunction Phrases because the distribution of co-ordinate structures, co-ordinate structures containing more than two conjuncts and co-ordinate structures in which the conjuncts are words, pose serious problems for such an analysis. Ronnie Cann, Ruth Kempson, Lutz Marten and Masayuki Otsuka in ‘Right Node Raising, Coordination and the Dynamics of Language Processing’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 503–25) investigate Right Node Raising as in <italic>Syntax students dislike, or at least barely tolerate, 4 h exams</italic> in the context of the framework of Dynamic Syntax. Dianne Blakemore and Robyn Carston in ‘The Pragmatics of Sentential Coordination with <italic>and</italic>’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 569–89) look at two types of these co-ordinations: one which plays an argumentational role and one that expresses an attitude of surprise/disquiet at the co-occurrence of two states of affairs. Nicholas Ascher and Laure Vieu in ‘Subordinating and Coordinating Discourse Relations’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 591–610) provide linguistic tests to clarify which discourse relations are subordinating and which are co-ordinating, with some relations being classified as subordinating or co-ordinating by default. Jean-Christophe Verstraete in ‘Two Types of Coordination in Clause Combining’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 611–26) argues for a constructional approach to the analysis of co-ordination in English. Restrictions in illocution type for the second member of the co-ordinate construction correlate with other features, like subject ellipsis. George Rebuschi in ‘Generalizing the Antisymmetric Analysis of Coordination to Nominal Modification’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 445–59) argues that a linking morpheme that intervenes between an N(P) and its adjectival, prepositional or relative modifier is reflected in the semantics by an operator conjoining the properties denoted. It is analysed as a functional element heading a conjunctive phrase. Janne Bondi Johannessen in ‘The Syntax of Correlative Adverbs’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 419–43) looks at the status of words like <italic>either</italic>, <italic>both</italic> and <italic>neither</italic>, and concludes that they are focus particles. Constituent order in co-ordinate DPs like <italic>Romeo and Juliet</italic> and <italic>Samson and Delilah</italic> is examined by Saundra K. Wright, Jennifer Hay and Tessa Bent in ‘Ladies First? Phonology, Frequency, and the Naming Conspiracy’ (<italic>Linguistics</italic> 43[2005] 531–61); for a review of this see section 3 above.</p>
<p>We have arrived at the NP/DP. In a data-rich and well-argued paper, Evelien Keizer examines ‘The Discourse Function of Close Appositions’ (<italic>Neophil</italic> 89[2005] 447–67). She shows that DPs like <italic>my friend John</italic> and <italic>the poet Burns</italic> can be categorized as fulfilling functionally identifying, descriptionally identifying, introductory or contrastive functions. She explores the connections between these various discourse functions and the formal types into which appositions can be divided and shows that it is context that determines why one of the formal types rather than another will be chosen. Ash Asudeh in ‘Relational Nouns, Pronouns, and Resumption’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 375–446) asks why it is impossible for bound implicit arguments of relational nouns to be resumptive, and offers a solution in terms of the resource logic ‘linear logic’ that underlies Glue Semantics. Nino B. Cocchiarella in ‘Denoting Concepts, Reference, and the Logic of Names, Classes as Many, Groups, and Plural’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 135–79) reconstructs Bertrand Russell's ideas of denoting concepts and classes as ‘many’ in the framework of conceptual realism. The difference between that framework and Russell's ideas is that in conceptual realism, names, as well as predicates, can be nominalized and allowed to occur as ‘singular terms’, i.e. as arguments of predicates.</p>
<p>Definiteness and the role of DP structure in triggering different scope possibilities is discussed by Yoad Winter in ‘On Some Problems of (In)Definiteness within Flexible Semantics’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 767–86). Artemis Alexiadou in ‘Possessors and (In)Definiteness’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 787–819) argues that possessive constructions across languages do not show uniform behaviour with respect to (in)definiteness but are subject to several language-specific constraints. Alan Munn and Christina Schmitt continue the discussion with ‘Number and Indefinites’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 821–55), in which they look at the use of articles in predication constructions. They note that English and Romance vary consistently in their need for overt Number: unlike English, Brazilian Portuguese allows bare singulars to appear in argument positions with relatively few restrictions. Giuseppe Longobardi in ‘Toward a Unified Grammar of Reference’ (<italic>ZSpr</italic> 24[2005] 5–44) proposes a more general interpretation of the functional head D than just definiteness; it is the syntactic position responsible for the human fundamental linguistic ability of referring to individuals. Jeannette Schaeffer and Lisa Matthewson have compared children acquiring St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish) and English in ‘Grammar and Pragmatics in the Acquisition of Article Systems’ (<italic>NL<</italic> 23[2005] 53–101) and argue that their findings support the Strong Continuity Hypothesis, according to which children obey all principles of Universal Grammar and set parameters as soon as the relevant input is available. Lisa Matthewson in ‘On the Absence of Tense on Determiners’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 1697–1735) argues against Martina Wiltschko's [2003] proposal that there are languages with interpretable T features on D.</p>
<p>Genitives feature in a handful of contributions. They provide interesting clues to general issues in Anette Rosenbach's ‘Animacy versus Weight as Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English’ (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 613–44). Using corpus data and the results from an experimental study (in which subjects were asked to choose between's-phrases and <italic>of</italic>-phrases in authentic passages of text), she found that—in spite of the fact that animacy tends to correlate with weight (animate NPs tend to be shorter than inanimate ones)—the two cannot be collapsed since they function as separate factors in determining genitive variation. Liesbet Heyvaert, Hella Rogiers and Nadine Vermeylen in ‘Pronominal Determiners in Gerundive Nominalization: A “Case” Study’ (<italic>ES</italic> 86[2005] 71–88) investigate the factors triggering selection of the genitive over the oblique in gerundive nominalizations (<italic>my posing the question</italic> versus <italic>me posing the question</italic>) in the COBUILD Corpus, which turn out to be register (formal) and function (subject). In ‘Two Types of Possessive Forms in English’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 1221–42), Judy B. Bernstein and Christina Tortora argue that possessive pronouns (<italic>his</italic>, <italic>your</italic>) are morphologically complex, with -<italic>s</italic> and -<italic>r</italic> corresponding to the copular forms <italic>is</italic> and <italic>are</italic>. The -<italic>s</italic> in <italic>Mary's</italic>, however, corresponds to the third person singular inflection and is a singular number marker.</p>
<p>Adjectives turn up in Yoad Winter's ‘Cross-Categorial Restrictions on Measure Phrase Modification’, which argues that constraints on adjectives like <italic>ten metres wide/*narrow/deep/*shallow; five years old/*young/long/*short</italic> follow directly from their different scale structures. Some adjectives, like <italic>dental</italic> in <italic>dental decay</italic> (as opposed to <italic>tooth decay</italic>) are semantically unadjectival as they do not describe a property of the noun. Heinz J. Giegerich in ‘Associative Adjectives in English and the Lexicon–Syntax Interface’ (<italic>JL</italic> 41[2005] 571–91) argues that some of these adjective–noun constructions originate simultaneously in the lexicon and in the syntax, which means that lexicon and syntax overlap. ‘ “Discontinuous” APs in English’ (<italic>Linguistics</italic> 43[2005] 563–610) are examined by José Luis González Escribano. He considers cases like <italic>a fat man around the waist</italic> and <italic>a similar car to mine</italic>, arguing that they can involve either raising of the adjective head from post-nominal position, stranding the rest of the AP, or base generation of the two parts of the AP in surface position. Full analyses for both options are provided. The second option is allowed only if the post-nominal part is a modifier (as in, the author argues, <italic>an easy man to please</italic>). The variable judgements that some cases evoke can be attributed to fuzziness of the modifier-complement distinction. The register distribution of adjectives is investigated in ‘A Corpus-Driven Identification of Distinctive Words: “Tabloid Adjectives” and “Broadsheet Adjectives” in the <italic>Bank of English</italic>’ by Satoko Takami (in Nakamura et al., eds., pp. 115–35). Two groups of adjectives are identified and further analysis shows that they differ in several respects, with the tabloid adjectives tending to be short, colloquial and often emotive in meaning.</p>
<p>On the topic of subjects, Miriam Taverniers in ‘Subjecthood and the Notion of Instantiation’ (<italic>LangS</italic> 27[2005] 651–78) reviews the different perspectives from which this grammatical function has been defined and described in a number of theories. Verb–subject agreement in the sequence <italic>there is/are</italic> is the topic of William J. Crawford's ‘Verb Agreement and Disagreement: A Corpus Investigation of Concord Variation in Existential <italic>There</italic> + <italic>Be</italic> Constructions’ (<italic>JEngL</italic> 33[2005] 35–61). His conclusion is that <italic>there's</italic> has become an un-analysed chunk or formulaic sequence of language. Further views on this topic can be found in Francis Austin's ‘Points Of Modern English Usage LXXXI’ (<italic>ES</italic> 86[2005] 269–81), who discusses the comments sent in about this usage, and also the use of <italic>like</italic>/<italic>as</italic>/<italic>as if</italic>/<italic>as though</italic> and the mysterious <italic>it</italic> in <italic>leg it</italic>, <italic>cool it</italic>, <italic>lord it</italic>. In ‘Constraints on Nonstandard -<italic>s</italic> in Expletive <italic>There</italic> Sentences: A Generative–Variationist Perspective’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 255–88), Laura Rupp identifies a subtle but systematic pattern of variation between the absence or presence of non-standard -<italic>s</italic> in <italic>there</italic>-constructions in a Midlands variety of English (UK). Her account demonstrates that syntactic variation research requires a grounding in both formal theory and variationist methodology. Alison Henry in ‘Non-Standard Dialects and Linguistic Data’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 1599–1617) looks at cases in Belfast English like <italic>The eggs is/are cracked</italic> in which plural subjects sometimes occur with a seemingly singular verb, with a discussion of reliable methods for eliciting grammaticality judgements from linguistically naive native speakers. In a more formally oriented contribution, Jamal Ouhalla argues in ‘Agreement Features, Agreement and Antiagreement’ (<italic>NL<</italic> 23[2005] 655–86) that verb–subject agreement is essentially a mechanism of categorization by computation, with deletion of the nominal agreement feature from the verb and related functional heads and the verbal agreement feature from the subject.</p>
<p>This brings us to the verbal categories of tense, mood/modality, aspect and auxiliaries. A detailed and interesting analysis of the TMA system of English as compared with Spanish is offered by Elizabeth Cowper in ‘The Geometry of Interpretable Features: INFL in English and Spanish’ (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 10–46). Adopting the minimalist framework and elements of distributed morphology, she makes crucial use of ideas from feature geometry and semantic contrast. The result incorporates well-known distinctions within the TMA categories, but—partly because of the systematic use of entailment relations—draws them together in a very lean and economical model. Anna L. Theakston, Elena V. M. Lieven, Julian M. Pine and Caroline F. Rowland in ‘The Acquisition of Auxiliary Syntax: BE and HAVE’ (<italic>CogLing</italic> 16[2005] 247–77) argue that that there is no account that fully explains the patterns of auxiliary use and omission found in acquisition, and propose a constructivist approach instead. Sali Tagliamonte considers ‘<italic>Have to</italic>, <italic>Gotta</italic>, <italic>Must</italic>: Grammaticalization, Variation and Specialization in English Deontic Modality’ (in Lindquist and Mair, eds., pp. 33–55). Against the background of the general historical shift in deontics from <italic>must</italic> to <italic>have to</italic> to <italic>have got to</italic> and subsequently <italic>got to</italic> and <italic>gotta</italic>, she presents data from the modern York English Corpus which show that, in this variety, epistemic <italic>must</italic> is robust, but in the deontic field it is <italic>have to</italic> and <italic>have got to</italic> that are most frequent. Their continuing prominence—and the rarity of <italic>got to</italic>—may be due to their pattern of specialization, with <italic>have to</italic> favouring non-punctual verbs and <italic>have got to</italic> favouring generic subjects (although these regularities seem to be weakening among young speakers). Grammaticalization processes operating on items with the deontic meaning of ‘ability’ are the topic of Karin Aijmer's ‘The Semantic Path from Modality to Aspect: <italic>Be able to</italic> in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective’ (in Lindquist and Mair, eds., pp. 57–78). Using data from a corpus of English–Swedish translations, she notes that <italic>be able to</italic> sometimes appears to express the aspectual meaning of ‘completed event’, a development that she explains through the routinization of pragmatic inferencing.</p>
<p>André Hantson in ‘The English Perfect and the Anti-Perfect <italic>Used to</italic> Viewed from a Comparative Perspective’ (<italic>ES</italic> 86[2005] 245–68) argues that the habit meaning of <italic>used to</italic> has receded: <italic>used to</italic> is now used as a compound tense expressing a disconnection between the past and present. He is seconded in this by Robert I. Binnick, who, in ‘The Markers of Habitual Aspect in English’ (<italic>JEngL</italic> 33[2005] 339–69), argues that <italic>used to</italic> functions as a kind of anti-present-perfect, and that the only marker of habituality in English is <italic>will</italic>/<italic>would</italic>. Heiko Narrog in ‘On Defining Modality Again’ (<italic>LangS</italic> 27[2005] 165–92) argues that the most fruitful cross-linguistically oriented definition of modality is one based on the concept of factuality rather than on speakers’ attitudes and opinions. In ‘Modality, Mood and Change of Modal Meanings: A New Perspective’ (<italic>CogLing</italic> 16[2005] 677–731), the same author proposes a two-dimensional model (volitivity and event-orientation versus speaker-orientation) of modality which can account for unidirectional meaning changes, including the unexpected change from epistemic to deontic. Renaat Declerck and Susan Reed in ‘What is Modal about <italic>I thought that</italic> … ?’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 311–32) explain how a non-modal use of the past tense of <italic>think</italic> can lead to modal interpretations: suspended factuality (implicating present counterfactuality) of the complement clause (<italic>I thought you weren't married</italic>) or discourse tentativeness (<italic>I thought you might lend me your camera</italic>).</p>
<p>A special class of objects of transitive verbs is examined in ‘Patterns with Transitive Verb and Reflexive in English and their Counterparts in Japanese: A Bilingual Pattern Grammar Approach’ by Makoto Shimizu and Masaki Murata (in Nakamura et al., eds., pp. 71–91). They find that reflexive objects tend not to be translated as such into Japanese, where various other patterns are preferred, the choice depending on the verb group in question. Veerle van Geenhoven and Louise McNally in ‘On the Property Analysis of Opaque Complements’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 885–914) discuss the well-known phenomenon that English verbs of absence like <italic>look for</italic> combine with an indefinite NP to produce two readings. <italic>Marta is looking for a toy</italic> may mean either that Marta would be happy if she found just any toy, or, on the other reading, only if she found a particular toy (see also section 6 below).</p>
<p>On the topic of ditransitive complementation, Joybrato Mukherjee's <italic>English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-Based Model</italic> offers a corpus-based overview of verbs of transfer (like <italic>give</italic>, <italic>tell</italic> (the ‘typical ditransitive verbs’), <italic>show</italic>, <italic>ask</italic>, <italic>send</italic>, <italic>offer</italic> (the ‘habitual ditransitive verbs’, and verbs like <italic>afford</italic>, <italic>throw</italic> and others (the ‘peripheral ditransitive verbs’). End-weight appears to be relevant for the relative positions of direct and indirect object: the NP-<italic>to</italic> NP order tends to prevail if the indirect object is heavy: <italic>You give the hours to those that are going to be regulars</italic>. Short passives (i.e. without <italic>by</italic>-phrases) prevail if the agent's identity is irrelevant or recoverable from the context: <italic>You’ve been given the answers already</italic>. The third group of verbs, outside the ‘core’ group, turned out to be extremely interesting, not only because of its unexpected membership but also because new members are apparently licensed by specific, creative strategies, e.g. metaphorical extension. Creativeness and routinization can in fact be regarded as opposite poles of a gradient scale on which each use can be plotted. The value of corpus work showed itself particularly in what it revealed of co-selectional trends: linguistic routines built of patterns that are often found together and reveal something about the principles and factors behind the workings of syntax. Syntactic slots are not as ‘open’ as is generally thought but are constrained by various kinds of lexical, textual, pragmatic and semantic principles of pattern selection. The book also offers a helpful discussion on the differences between corpus-based versus corpus-driven approaches and provides a starting point for the view that corpus linguistics is a discipline in its own right.</p>
<p>More on three-place predicates can be found in John Newman's ‘Three-Place Predicates: A Cognitive-Linguistic Perspective’ (<italic>LangS</italic> 27[2005] 145–63), which proposes a cognitive account to investigate the literal, figurative, and grammaticalized uses of three-place predicates like <italic>give</italic>, <italic>show</italic>, <italic>tell</italic>, and <italic>put</italic>. Edward Göbbel's ‘Focus in Double Object Constructions’ (<italic>Linguistics</italic> 43[2005] 237–74) uses—in a methodologically novel manner—accentual data to argue against any analysis making the direct or indirect object a syntactic adjunct. Seizi Iwata in ‘Locative Alternation and Two Levels of Meaning’ (<italic>CogLing</italic> 16[2005] 355–407) argues persuasively that it is the semantic compatibility of the core meaning of the verb with a particular activity that predicts whether it will allow the alternation. A spraying scene can be construed either as a putting activity (<italic>Bob sprayed paint onto the wall</italic>) or as a covering activity (<italic>Bob sprayed the wall with paint</italic>).</p>
<p>Last year we missed the article ‘The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions’ by Adele E. Goldberg and Ray Jackendoff (<italic>Language</italic> 80[2004] 532–68). It puts forward the idea that resultative constructions are not uniform in their syntax or semantics but that instead there exist several different types, varying in their degree of generality. Resultatives are based on general principles regulating their argument linking, aspectual structure and temporal meaning, but there are also small or even idiosyncratic subclasses. Altogether, the authors take the facts to favour the constructional view of language. The article has this year inspired Hans C. Boas to write ‘Determining the Productivity of Resultatives: A Reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff’ (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 448–64), in which he casts doubt on the possibility of formulating any generalizations about resultatives at all, arguing instead in favour of his own earlier (corpus-based) work on the topic, which put greater emphasis on the idiosyncratic nature of the phenomena. A further reaction is Stephen Wechsler's ‘Weighing in on Scales: A Reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff’ (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 465–73), which focuses on the proper way to characterize restrictions on the use of adjectives in resultatives (with Wechsler insisting this can be done on the basis of their scalar structure). All this then leads to ‘The End Result(ative)’ by Adele E. Goldberg and Ray Jackendoff (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 474–7), in which Boas's further idiosyncrasies and Wechsler's finer detail are welcomed, but the authors argue that Boas's and Wechsler's accounts face the danger of under- and over-generalization respectively.</p>
<p>In ‘Arguing our Way to the Direct Object Restriction on English Resultatives’ (<italic>JCGL</italic> 8[2005] 55–82), Jaume Mateu reinstates this restriction by demonstrating that sentences like <italic>John danced mazurkas across the room</italic>, which have been argued to be counterexamples, require a different analysis altogether. Complex predicates are also much to the fore in Joost Zwarts's ‘Prepositional Aspect and the Algebra of Paths’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 739–79), which demonstrates that what distinguishes telic PPs (<italic>to the house</italic>) from atelic PPs (<italic>towards the house</italic>), taken as denoting sets of paths, is their algebraic structure: atelic PPs are cumulative, closed under the operation of concatenation, telic PPs are not. Şeyda Özçalişkan, ‘Metaphor Meets Typology: Ways of Moving Metaphorically in English and Turkish’ (<italic>CogLing</italic> 16[2005] 207–46), confirms that the typological split observed by e.g. Leonard Talmy [1985] and Dan Slobin [1996] with respect to the expression of manner of motion in a language is also valid for the expression of metaphorical motion, as in <italic>Infant mortality has plummeted</italic>.</p>
<p>Somewhere after the verb comes the particle, that unruly type of little word that has tried to defy decent analysis for so long now. This year, the problems are set out and a possible solution is advanced by Patrick Farrell in ‘English Verb-Preposition Constructions: Constituency and Order’ (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 96–137). Treating particles as intransitive prepositions and hiving off literally interpretable items like <italic>to go in</italic>, he argues that the popular small clause analysis of particles is wrong (because, for one thing, the supposed small clause in several ways does not behave as one single constituent). He proposes instead that particle verbs should be viewed as lexemes that can have alternative argument structures, being used either as compound verbs (<italic>turn on the lights</italic>) or discontinuous verbs (<italic>turn the lights on</italic>). Various kinds of empirical data are addressed, including word-order alternations and possibilities of word formation (e.g. <italic>re-swear in</italic>, <italic>unmessupable</italic>), for all of which detailed analyses are proposed (the object pronoun facts, for example, are argued to result from the affixal status of the pronouns). In ‘When <italic>Down</italic> is not Bad, and <italic>Up</italic> not Good Enough: A Usage-Based Assessment of the Plus-Minus Parameter in Image-Schema Theory’ (<italic>CogLing</italic> 16[2005] 81–112), Beate Hampe shows on the basis of a corpus study that ‘redundant’ particles, i.e. particles that do not make a semantic contribution to the meaning of a phrasal verb (<italic>finish off</italic>, <italic>slow up</italic>), do not conform to the ‘primitive’ evaluative meanings assigned to such particles in Cognitive Linguistics. Although English particles share many characteristics with their Dutch and German counterparts, they are unique in that can appear before and after the object (<italic>The boys drank up the beer</italic> versus <italic>The boys drank the beer up</italic>). In ‘The Optimal Placement of <italic>Up</italic> and <italic>Ab</italic>: A Comparison’ (<italic>JCGL</italic> 8[2005] 185–224), Nicole Dehé offers an OT explanation for this phenomenon.</p>
<p>Another riotous class of elements is that of adverbials. Their behaviour is closely monitored in <italic>Adverbials: The Interplay between Meaning, Context, and Syntactic Structure</italic>, edited by Jennifer R. Austin, Stefan Engelberg and Gisa Rauh. The editors also provide an extensive and helpful introduction (‘Current Issues in the Syntax and Semantics of Adverbials’), in which they discuss issues relating to adverbials’ position, phrase structure, semantic classification, stacking, mirror ordering, discourse connections, and categorial status. Most of the papers that follow in the volume concentrate on English data. In ‘Circumstantial Adverbs and Aspect’, David Adger and George Tsoulas analyse locative and -<italic>ly</italic> manner adverbs as specifiers inside the verb phrase, allowing them to capture certain interactions between such adverbs and the nature of the clausal agent and the aspect of the verb. Eva Engels goes for ‘Optimizing Adverb Placement in Gap Constructions’; she notes that adverbs are variably (un)grammatical in front of gaps (as in <italic>does he really? e</italic> vs. *<italic>I don't know how happy he was really e</italic>) and proposes an optimality account for the facts. Thomas Ernst, a old adverb-hand, considers ‘Domain Adverbs and the Syntax of Adjuncts’, suggesting that these words (e.g. <italic>politically</italic>, <italic>financially</italic>) adjoin freely to various positions in the clause and are interpreted by means of a semantic rule, rather than moving because of some feature that needs to be checked, as in other accounts. This general approach to adverbs is also adopted in Karin Pittner's ‘Where Syntax and Semantics Meet’, even though its focus is on ‘Adverbial Positions in the German Middle Field’. Pittner considers the fact that the various adverb classes appear in reverse order postverbally, in both German and English, which she attributes to a different direction of scope calculation (right to left). Wilhelm Geuder contributes ‘Depictives and Transparent Adverbs’, in which he investigates the similarities and differences between sentences like <italic>He left angry</italic> vs. <italic>He left angrily</italic>. Internally more complex adverbials of the types <italic>so</italic>/<italic>less clumsily</italic> are the topic of Dagmar Haumann's ‘Degree Phrases versus Quantifier Phrases in Prenominal and Preverbal Positions: A Hybrid Explanation for Some Distributional Asymmetries’. The asymmetries (as in <italic>a less</italic>/*<italic>so strange idea</italic>) are fully described and an account of them is proposed where preverbal position is incompatible with a result clause and prenominal position requires an adjective with predicate status. Benjamin Shaer's ‘Left/Right Contrasts among English Temporal Adverbials’ is concerned with differences in interpretation between initial adverbials as in <italic>At 3 o’clock the bomb didn't explode</italic> and final ones as in <italic>The bomb didn't explode at 3 o’clock</italic>. The exact nature of the interpretative differences is examined. Shaer suggests that initial adverbs can be syntactically detached from their host sentence, which explains why they are not restricted to the ‘higher’ interpretations. One of their functions is also to provide discourse linking with the preceding context.</p>
<p>Hans Broekhuis in ‘Locative Inversion in English’ (<italic>LIN</italic> 22[2005] 49–60) updates an earlier account of inversion as in <italic>Down the hill rolled the baby carriage</italic> in terms of the Minimalist Program; because Small Clause subjects and predicates share the same (abstract) agreement features, the EPP-feature on I can be checked by either. Jutta M. Hartmann in ‘Why There Is(n't) <italic>Wh</italic>-Movement in <italic>there</italic>-Constructions’ (<italic>LIN</italic> 22[2005] 87–98) argues that <italic>there</italic> <italic>+</italic> <italic>is/was</italic> should receive a different analysis than <italic>there</italic> + unaccusative verb-constructions; the latter pattern with the copular and locative inversion construction.</p>
<p>Various issues in clausal complementation have been investigated this year. Two of these, by Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 289–309) and Frederica Barbieri (<italic>JEngL</italic> 33[2005] 222–56) will be discussed below in section 9. Daniel Dor, in ‘Toward a Semantic Account of <italic>that</italic>-Deletion in English’ (<italic>Linguistics</italic> 43[2005] 345–82), presents an analysis whereby <italic>that</italic>-deletion is not merely subject to syntactic restrictions. On the basis of corpus data and grammaticality judgements by native speakers, Dor suggests that <italic>that</italic> can be deleted only in case a truth claim is made for the proposition in its clause. Zeki Hamawand in ‘The Construal of Salience in Atemporal Complement Clauses in English’ (<italic>LangS</italic> 27[2005] 193–213) argues that the selection of a bare infinitive as in <italic>She made them go</italic> or a <italic>to</italic>-infinitive as in <italic>She forced them to go</italic> depends on whether the speaker wants to give initial salience to the complement clause or to the complement clause subject. In ‘HELP or HELP <italic>to</italic>: What Do Corpora Have to Say?’ (<italic>ES</italic> 86[2005] 161–87), Anthony McEnery and Zhonghua Xiao identify diachronic trends as well as factors that favour selection of <italic>to</italic> over zero.</p>
<p>Infinitival complement clauses come in for close scrutiny in <italic>The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation</italic> by William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky. Raising constructions, as in <italic>Barnett seemed to understand the formula</italic> (Subject-to-Subject Raising) and <italic>Barnett believed the doctor to have examined Tilman</italic> (Subject-to-Object Raising) involve <italic>to</italic>-infinitives with subjects at the deepest levels of the derivation: <italic>Barnett</italic> is thematically the agent of <italic>understand</italic> and <italic>have examined</italic> although it ends up as the grammatical subject or object of the higher verb. Control structures, as in <italic>Barnett tried to understand the formula</italic> and <italic>Barnett persuaded the doctor to examine Tilman</italic>, involve <italic>to</italic>-infinitives that do not have overt subjects at the deepest level of the derivation (<italic>Barnett</italic> is the agent and the grammatical subject of the higher verb), although we automatically infer that the subject <italic>Barnett</italic> is the agent of <italic>understand</italic> (so ‘Subject Control’) and the object <italic>the doctor</italic> is the agent of <italic>have examined</italic> (so ‘Object Control’). Raising and Control, more specifically the contrast between Subject-to-Object Raising and Object Control—superficially similar in word order but very different in interpretation—have been central concerns of generative syntax since its earliest beginnings, a benchmark for every new version of the theory. This means that the various analyses of Raising and Control through the decades clearly show the key assumptions of generative theory at crucial stages. This excellent textbook takes the student through these stages, from the Standard Theory to the Minimalist Program, with its chapters incorporating key readings from the literature, showing how theoretical models may drive the perception of data, and how data may force a rethinking of theoretical models.</p>
<p>Chris Collins proposes ‘A Smuggling Approach to Raising in English’ (<italic>LingI</italic> 36 [2005] 289–98) in order to account for the grammaticality of sentences like <italic>John seemed to Mary to be nice</italic>, in spite of the apparent violation of economy that they exhibit (since <italic>Mary</italic> should block raising of <italic>John</italic>). His solution is to raise not only <italic>John</italic> but a (remnant) VP containing <italic>John</italic>, which will not be blocked. A detailed minimalist derivation of the sentence is proposed and discussion is provided of some of the implications of allowing smugglings like this. As is well known, sentences with an indirect object do not have a corresponding ECM version, i.e. there are no sentences like *<italic>John persuaded Bill</italic> [<italic>Mary to leave</italic>]. If you are wondering why there is such ‘A Gap in the ECM Paradigm’, Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein have an explanation for you (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 437–41): the DP <italic>Mary</italic> would have to raise into the matrix clause to check its case but the intervening DP <italic>Bill</italic> will trigger a violation of relativized minimality. Ash Asudeh in ‘Control and Semantic Resource Sensitivity’ (<italic>JL</italic> 41[2005] 465–511) discusses how the various formal theories measure up in their ability to present a unified account of control relations for non-finite and finite structures, and proposes a unified account of his own.</p>
<p>Gunther Kaltenböck in ‘<italic>It</italic>-Extraposition in English’ (<italic>IJCL</italic> 10[2005] 119–59) concludes on the basis of a search in the International Corpus of English (ICE) that there are two types: Given Complement Extraposition and New Complement Extraposition, each with its own distribution and communicative function. Mayumi Nishibu presents the ‘Definite Notional Subject in Existential <italic>there</italic>-Constructions: A Quantitative Study’ (in Nakamura et al., eds., pp. 49–69). Examples violating the definiteness restriction (i.e. sentences like <italic>There is the dog in the room</italic>) turn out to make up around 5 per cent of all <italic>there</italic>-existentials in the British National Corpus. The author discusses the various properties that such examples show, syntactically, semantically and in terms of discourse status.</p>
<p>Yoshio Ueno contributes ‘A Note on the Structure of Predicate Phrase + <italic>Be</italic> + <italic>That</italic>-CP’ (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 155–60), in which the author examines sentences like <italic>More likely is that …</italic> and <italic>Of particular interest here is that</italic> … —the existence of which had previously been denied. A comparison is made with sentences having a final DP (<italic>Requiring further investigation, however, is the link between</italic> …) and it is pointed out that this type of inversion tends to require the fronted predicate to be (partly) old information. Surprisingly given its publication in <italic>LingI</italic>, Ueno follows up his brief descriptive remarks with the observation that, ‘[a]s for how to derive the DP-type and the CP-type, I cannot think of any non-ad hoc way’ (p. 160) and then closes the squib. The construction <italic>X is to be V-ed</italic> receives attention in Uchida Mitsumi and Yanagi Tomohiro's ‘<italic>What is to be done about it?</italic> A Parallel Corpus Study of “Copula and Infinitive” Constructions in English and French’ (in Nakamura et al., eds., pp. 7–48). It turns out the construction is more frequent in English than in French, which the authors attribute to its somewhat awkward form in French (with an active infinitive expressing passive meaning), coupled with various restrictions that the French construction shows, such as its dispreference for non-human subjects.</p>
<p>Adverbial clauses are represented in a book and two further articles. Causal clauses come in for scrutiny in Mirna Pit's <italic>How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective: Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French</italic>. She proposes, mainly on the basis of corpus data, that the choice between different causative subordinators depends on the degree of subjectivity of the primary participant around whom the causal relation is centred. Pit's data mainly come from Dutch, German and French, but the same distinctions also exist in English, as for example in <italic>They left because it was late</italic> compared with <italic>They left because I did not see them any more</italic>. Pit takes into account a great deal of earlier literature on different types of causation and her study invites further systematic research also on the causal connectives of English and their precise history. From a descriptive point of view, one of the prominent characteristics of adverbial clauses is their variable positioning, occurring in either sentence-initial or final position. Holger Diessel has investigated the ‘Competing Motivations for the Ordering of Main and Adverbial Clauses’ (<italic>Linguistics</italic> 43[2005] 449–70). He shows that finite adverbial clauses in data from conversational discourse, fiction, and scientific writing occur in the overall less frequent (about one-third) initial position in the following ranking: conditional > temporal > causal. He proposes that processing factors favour final position but that separate discourse and semantic factors can lead to initial position. Stefan Kaufmann in ‘Conditional Predictions: A Probabilistic Account’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 181–231) argues that enriching existing models with an explicit representation of causal dependencies might lead to a unified probabilistic account of indicative and counterfactual conditionals.</p>
<p>Relative clauses remain a staple food for linguists. Thomas Hoffmann in ‘Variable vs. Categorical Effects: Preposition Pied Piping and Stranding in British English Relative Clauses’ (<italic>JEngL</italic> 33[2005] 257–97) concludes on the basis of a search in the British component of the International Corpus of English that syntactic function of the PP, level of formality, type of phrase in which the PP is contained, and the restrictiveness of the relative clause all play a role in the selection of pied-piping over stranding. In ‘Reading Relative Clauses in English’ (<italic>CogLing</italic> 16[2005] 313–53), Edward Gibson, Timothy Desmet, Daniel Grodner, Duane Watson and Kara Ko investigate the comprehension complexity of singly embedded relative clauses and conclude that complexity effects are best explained by information-flow and processing considerations. Peter C. Gordon and Randall Hendrick consider ‘Relativization, Ergativity, and Corpus Frequency’ (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 456–63). They set out to evaluate the following two hypotheses: relativization frequencies will follow the well-known Comrie–Keenan accessibility hierarchy, or they will follow an ergative pattern, with object and intransitive subject pairing together against transitive subjects (here, confusingly, called the AH—the absolutive hypothesis), in line with an information-packaging tendency. The authors examine data from several English corpora, finding results that do not unambiguously support or exclude either hypothesis, and discussing various additional factors that may have influenced the frequencies. A structural aspect of relativization is addressed in Barbara Citko's ‘On the Nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge’ (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 475–96). The empirical data involve simultaneous (across-the-board) <italic>wh</italic>-movement from two co-ordinate clauses, as in <italic>What did John recommend and Mary read?</italic> Several properties of such sentences (the matching effects they show, where the <italic>wh</italic>-element has to satisfy the case requirements of both verbs; the absence of covert <italic>wh</italic>-movement; and the absence of multiple <italic>wh</italic>-fronting) are explained by recognizing the existence of a new operation on tree structures, combining properties of Move and Merge (insertion).</p>
<p>More on relative clauses is found in J.-Marc Authier and Lisa Reed's ‘The Diverse Nature of Noninterrogative <italic>Wh</italic>’ (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 635–47). Considering data from restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, they consider the question whether antecedents always raise out of the relative clause, whether the <italic>wh</italic>-element undergoes movement and whether there is always a predication relation. Their conclusion, as suggested by their title, is that no universal claims can be made in this area. Ronnie Cann, Tami Kaplan and Ruth Kempson in ‘Data at the Grammar–Pragmatics Interface: The Case of Resumptive Pronouns in English’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 1551–77) propose a treatment of relative clauses and anaphora from which the use of resumptive pronouns in English emerges as a natural consequence. They argue that the unacceptability of such pronouns in neutral contexts for native speakers follows from pragmatic effects, explicable from a Relevance Theoretic perspective. Marcel den Dikken in ‘A Comment on the Topic of Topic-Comment’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 691–710) proposes an integrated topic-comment approach to a subtype of specificational pseudo-clefts and three constructions generally classified as relative clause constructions: ‘subject contact relatives’ in dialects of English, ‘V2 relatives’ in Dutch and German, and extra-posed relative clauses. Marcel den Dikken also addresses a topic relatively seldom explored, the structure of comparative correlative constructions of the type, <italic>The more we said, the angrier he got</italic>, in ‘Comparative Correlatives Comparatively’ (<italic>LingI</italic> 36[2005] 497–532). Using data from many different languages (including Old English), he proposes that the first clause in such a construction is a relative clause, adjoined to the second clause.</p>
<p>On questions there are Ewa Dąbrowska and Elena Lieven with ‘Towards a Lexically Specific Grammar of Children's Question Constructions’ (<italic>CogLing</italic> 6[2005] 437–74). They argue that the acquisition of question formation does not require any hardwired knowledge of structure. Maribel Romero in ‘Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 687–737) argues, on the basis of an investigation into NPs in concealed questions like <italic>John knows Bill's telephone number</italic> or specificational sentences like <italic>The number of planets is nine</italic> (versus predicational sentences like <italic>The number of planets is large</italic>) that there is a unified semantic analysis of epistemic <italic>know</italic> and specificational <italic>be</italic>. Finally, Gordon Tucker in ‘Extending the Lexicogrammar: Towards a More Comprehensive Account of Extraclausal, Partially Clausal and Non-Clausal Expressions in Spoken Discourse’ (<italic>LangS</italic> 27[2005] 679–709) proposes a systemic functional grammar approach to clause prefaces and tags, independent, non-clausal expressions, and formulaic speech act realizations.</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC5.2"><title>(b) Early Syntax</title>
<p>Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva explore the intersection between two fascinating phenomena in their book <italic>Language Contact and Grammatical Change</italic>. Mainstream thinking on language contact has long held the view that vocabulary and phonology can easily be affected by language contact, but that syntax is relatively immune to restructuring under such conditions. More recent studies have demonstrated that language contact can affect any part of a language, including syntax, although linguistic transfer in that domain is significantly constrained. The first chapter sets out to identify precisely the phenomenon the book focuses on: not transfer of both meaning and form, which is in fact ‘borrowing’, nor ‘convergence’, which is too broad a term because it usually denotes a host of very different phenomena, but ‘grammatical replication’, in which one language—the ‘replica’ language—imports grammatical meanings (not grammatical forms) from another language—the ‘model’ language—in situations of intense language contact. An example is the case of Tariana in north-western Brazil, whose speakers have started to use its own interrogative pronouns as relative markers, on the model of Portuguese. Such ‘grammatical replication’ often follows well-known grammaticalization patterns, and the hypothesis that such grammaticalization processes can be triggered by language contact is a central concern of the book. Identifying language contact as a factor in individual cases is difficult, given the existence of genetic relationships, and universals of human conceptualization and grammaticalization. If the change in question is an unusual one, the chances that we are dealing with contact-triggered grammaticalization increase. Chapter 2 deals with the initial phases of the grammaticalization process. Chapter 3 homes in on the conceptual framework, and introduces cases of ‘restructuring’: grammatical replications that are not instances of grammaticalization. An example is word-order change. Restructuring may itself be the result of grammatical replication: the new relative markers in Tariana also led to a new ordering of predicate and complement. Chapter 4 discusses the implications that such changes have for the typological profile of the receiving languages. Chapter 5 introduces the notion of a grammaticalization area (cf. linguistic area). Chapter 6 discusses some limitations of the approach and makes suggestions for further work. The data are drawn from languages from all major regions of the world. This is an interesting work that integrates internal and external explanations of language change.</p>
<p>Also on the general topic of change, Laurel J. Brinton and Elizabeth C. Traugott have written <italic>Lexicalization and Language Change</italic>. The authors view lexicalization as (the outcome of) a historical process and are interested in particular in the relation between lexicalization and grammaticalization. After reviewing general ideas about the nature of the lexicon, there are chapters surveying the widely different definitions and conceptualizations of lexicalization in the literature; comparing the concept with grammaticalization; providing an integrated definition of lexicalization; offering case studies from the history of English (involving developments of present participles such as <italic>during</italic>, <italic>concerning</italic> and <italic>piping</italic> (as in <italic>piping hot</italic>); phrasal and prepositional verbs; complex predicates such as <italic>make a promise</italic>, <italic>take a look</italic>; the adverbial marker -<italic>ly</italic>; and discourse markers), determining where they should be positioned in the lexicalization-grammaticalization area; and summarizing the results and suggesting avenues for further work. The authors propose that lexicalization involves items that are syntactic or morphological constructs coming to function as single contentful forms with semantic and phonological properties no longer fully derivable from their original component parts. This seems an entirely sensible proposal, which has the effect of clearing away many cases that do not fit the definition and that instead involve a host of other processes. This work thus forms a welcome attempt to bring some order and discipline to labelling practices in the study of historical change. A further contribution to this field is Douglas Lightfoot's ‘Can the Lexicalization/Grammaticalization Distinction be Reconciled?’ (<italic>SLang</italic> 29[2005] 583–615). Lightfoot provides an affirmative answer to this question by using <italic>gestalt</italic> notions of parts, wholes, similarity and continuity. Terttu Nevalainen examines ‘Three Perspectives on Grammaticalization: Lexico-Grammar, Corpora and Historical Sociolinguistics’ (in Lindquist and Mair, eds., pp. 1–32), discussing the kinds of insights and problems each of these three perspectives leads to and, as a case study, offering data and analysis of the historical development of the down-toning adverbs <italic>pretty</italic> (common after around 1640) and <italic>fairly</italic> (frequent only after around 1900).</p>
<p>There are new editions of two textbooks on the history of English. Anyone wanting to be introduced to this topic in less than 135 pages and nevertheless expecting to both learn something and be entertained can safely turn to the second edition of Jonathan Culpeper's Language Workbook on the <italic>History of English</italic>. The book has been overhauled though not made over. It still assumes no prior knowledge of linguistics but a willingness to be interested in topics as diverse as place names, the pronunciation of <italic>tongue</italic> in Liverpool, new words in the language, the growing popularity of apostrophe -<italic>s</italic> in unexpected contexts, Prince Charles's views on English English as compared with American English, and the way <italic>bureau</italic> has changed in meaning from ‘coarse woollen cloth’ to ‘agency’. In eleven short chapters and seven appendices, the reader is introduced to the early history of English, methods of investigating change, changes in spelling and sounds, word borrowing, the creation of new lexis, semantic change, grammatical change, the history of dialects, standardization, the spread of English around the world, the structure of <italic>OED</italic> entries, the IE family, the use of phonetic symbols, several short historical texts, useful internet resources and more traditional printed materials on the topic. All in all, the book provides a whirlwind tour of some of the highlights of English historical linguistics.</p>
<p>A slower and more detailed tour is also available, in the form of a fifth edition of John Algeo and Thomas Pyles's classic, <italic>The Origins and Development of the English Language</italic>. As John Algeo points out in the preface, the book's division into chapters and its strong emphasis on description rather than theoretical analysis have not been altered. After three introductory chapters (on the nature of language, pronunciation and phonetics, and the history of writing/spelling), the central chapters deal with pre-OE, OE, ME, eModE sounds, eModE grammar, and late ModE, each describing the main social and historical events and the linguistic developments. The final three chapters deal with lexical meaning and change, lexical innovation, and lexical borrowing. All the chapters have plenty of examples, often in the form of lists and/or tables, and they contain some (short) text passages. The book remains a mine of information, though most of it is presented lightly enough.</p>
<p>A new textbook is Ishtla Singh's <italic>The History of English: A Student's Guide</italic>. It follows the conventional pattern, with an introductory chapter on types of change (in sounds, lexis, semantics, morphology and syntax) and then five chapters, on pre-OE, OE, ME, eModE and ModE, respectively. Each chapter also has some study questions (enough to spend most of a seminar hour on). But such a bald summary fails to bring out the fresh perspective that the author takes in many places in the book. Thus, the first chapter deals at length with theories of the origin of quotative <italic>like</italic>; chapter 2 considers in detail the Gimbutas–Renfrew debate about the PIE homeland as well as the recent work on super-proto-families; chapter 3 has eight pages on the relation between grammatical gender and gender roles in Anglo-Saxon society; chapter 4 takes a prolonged and informed look at the ME creolization debate; chapter 5 has a section on the early history of English on Barbados; and chapter 6 discusses nineteenth- and twentieth-century developments focusing on English in Singapore (for these last chapters see also section 9). Throughout, the discussion is up to date and informed without being pedantic. This is a fine addition to the history-of-the-language teaching materials.</p>
<p>Another fine addition, for a period previously rather thinly covered, is Joan Beal's <italic>English in Modern Times: 1700–1945</italic>. In its eight accessible and clear chapters, the book first introduces the reader to English and its sociopolitical-economic environment during the Late ModE period; it then takes up the topic of vocabulary development, its forms and motivations and reactions to it; next it deals with the rise of dictionary-making, culminating in the <italic>OED</italic>; it then moves on to the somewhat more technical topic of syntactic change, discusses the rise of grammar writing and the models and theories informing this activity, deals with the main phonological changes in the period, describes the slow movement towards the emergence of a standard pronunciation leading to the establishment of RP, and in the final chapter deals with regional varieties of English, inside Britain and outside Europe (in America and Australia, mainly). The overall approach is sociohistorical, which makes eminent sense given the relative fullness of the social record for this period, but no attempt is made to impose this outlook as a straitjacket on facts for which it seems less appropriate, either inherently or through lack of detailed data. Where previously the late ModE period as a whole was only covered in volume 4 of the <italic>Cambridge History of the English Language</italic> (but in the kind of detail and at the kind of price that make it less usable as a textbook), Beal's book now makes available a one-volume, balanced and up-to-date account of the period.</p>
<p>For OE, Paul G. Remley, Carole P. Biggam, Debby Banham, Mark Blackburn, Carole Hough, Simon Keynes and Rebecca Rushforth provide a ‘Bibliography for 2004’ (<italic>AES</italic> 34[2005] 263–366), meant to ‘include all books, articles and signicant [<italic>sic</italic>] reviews published in any branch of Anglo-Saxon studies during 2004’ (p. 263). Section 2b includes items on OE syntax and morphology, providing a quite comprehensive and most useful list. That syntactic variability can be used as a tool in the dating of ME texts is demonstrated by Satoru Tsukamoto in ‘Syntactic Chronology: Dating Text in the History of English’ (in Nakamura et al., eds., pp. 169–84). Using a set of criteria including the presence/nature of non-argument NPs, <italic>wh</italic>-words, untensed auxiliaries and negation, the estimates generated fall within a fifty-year band of deviation for two-thirds of the texts tested. Elena Afros in ‘Syntactic Variation in <italic>Riddles 30A</italic> and <italic>30B</italic>’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 250[2005] 2–5) investigates problematic lines in these OE riddles where the interpretation hinges on whether <italic>þonne</italic> and <italic>þær</italic> are used as adverbs or conjunctions. The same author discusses syntactic ambiguity as a deliberate device more fully in ‘Linguistic Ambiguities in Some Exeter Book <italic>Riddles</italic>’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 250[2005] 431–7).</p>
<p>Coming to elements of the NP/DP, Ilse Wischer's ‘On the Function of <italic>Se</italic>/<italic>Seo</italic>/<italic>þæt</italic> in Old English’ (in Fisiak, ed., pp. 451–68) addresses the question whether these forms are demonstratives or definite articles. Using various criteria to decide, she finds that most tokens of <italic>se</italic> and <italic>seo</italic> function as an article, while <italic>þæt</italic> is still demonstrative in half of all cases examined. As Wischer points out, grammaticalization from demonstrative to article is commonplace; what her paper makes clear is that this process was already far advanced in Old English.</p>
<p>Laurel Brinton examines ‘Subject Clitics in English: A Case of Degrammaticalization?’ (in Lindquist and Mair, eds., pp. 227–56). She argues that the development from <italic>hastow</italic> etc. to <italic>hast thou</italic> etc. around 1500, sometimes held up as an example of degrammaticalization from clitic to independent pronoun, should not be so interpreted. Instead, she views the change as one of replacement of one variant by another one (<italic>hast thou</italic>), which had remained in existence alongside it. The motivation for the change is not grammatical-semantic in nature but phonological, involving the loss of a sandhi rule assimilating dental fricatives to preceding dental stops. Fujio Nakamura considers the ‘Concurrence of Animate/Human Subject and the Passival Progressive’ (in Fisiak, ed., pp. 307–26), wondering whether it is indeed true that, in the period 1500–1900, sentences like <italic>She was taking to account</italic> are rare or non-existent. The answer suggested by a corpus of texts is that they are less rare than they have been made out to be. Marianne Hundt adds further to our understanding of the development of the English verbal system in ‘The Passival and the Progressive Passive: A Case Study of Layering in the English Aspect and Voice Systems’ (in Lindquist and Mair, eds., pp. 79–120). Using data from the ARCHER corpus (spanning the entire period 1650–1990) she traces the evolution of the forms <italic>The house is building</italic> and <italic>The house is being built</italic>. Her main conclusions are that the former pattern has not (yet) disappeared and that most of the theories that have been put forward to explain the origins of the latter fail to be supported by the corpus evidence. In the same volume (pp. 121–50), Christian Mair contributes ‘Corpus Linguistics and Grammaticalisation Theory: Statistics, Frequencies, and Beyond’. He examines developments in frequency of several grammaticalized verbs (<italic>going to</italic>, <italic>start</italic>, <italic>help</italic>, <italic>see</italic> and <italic>suppose</italic>) in the <italic>OED</italic> quotation database, and suggests that the absolute increase in frequency often associated with grammaticalization need not be concurrent with or immediately subsequent to the grammaticalization but can be delayed. What changes at the time of grammaticalization is the relative frequency of variants of the construction, with a dominant pattern crowding out others.</p>
<p>Yoko Iyeiri's ‘Decline of Multiple Negation in Middle English: The Case of Caxton's <italic>Reynard the Fox</italic>’ (in Fisiak, ed., pp. 121–37) confirms that this decline took place long before the eighteenth century: like other texts of the period, <italic>Reynard</italic> contains multiple negation only as a minority pattern (<italic>c</italic>.15 per cent of all cases, to be precise). Meiko Matsumoto looks at instances of e.g. <italic>have a cold</italic> versus <italic>take a cold</italic> in ‘The Historical Development and Functional Characteristics of Composite Predicates with <italic>Have</italic> and <italic>Take</italic> in English’ (<italic>ES</italic> 86[2005] 439–56) and concludes that the selection of <italic>have</italic> or <italic>take</italic> depends on an active/passive contrast in meaning (now receding) and a state/event distinction.</p>
<p>Kristin Killie has traced ‘The Development of Stative Adverbs in English’ (in Fisiak, ed., pp. 157–73) and finds that the frequency of forms like <italic>flatly</italic>, <italic>hotly</italic>, <italic>redly</italic> etc. has increased more than twentyfold since 1500. This is attributed to the increasing strength of ‘adverbialization’, as shown in the general increase in -<italic>ly</italic> adverbs. Rolf H. Bremmer and Stephen Laker in ‘Earliest Middle English <italic>Ne</italic> “Than” ’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 250[2005] 163–4) argue that the instances of <italic>ne</italic> for ‘than’ found in southern ME texts are not scribal errors but a genuine syntactic dialect feature. M.S. Griffith examines ‘Verses Quite Like <italic>Cwen to Gebeddan</italic> in <italic>The Metres of Boethius</italic>’ (<italic>AES</italic> 34[2005] 145–76). Noting the metrical peculiarity of the phrase as it occurs in <italic>Beowulf</italic>, he turns to the <italic>Metres</italic> (and other OE texts) in search of parallel constructions and finds that the pattern has a rhetorical function of highlighting contrast. He does not offer a syntactic analysis, but provides in the appendix a collection of PPs arranged by metrical type that would provide useful material for more detailed syntactic study of OE PPs, a topic still somewhat neglected in the literature. The history of the preposition and adverb <italic>beside</italic>(<italic>s</italic>) is addressed in Matti Rissanen's ‘Grammaticalisation from Side to Side: On the Development of <italic>Beside</italic>(<italic>s</italic>)’ (in Lindquist and Mair, eds., pp. 151–70). Using various historical and modern corpora, the author shows how <italic>beside</italic> developed from being a PP with only concrete meaning in OE (‘by the side [of the body]’) to functioning as an adverb, a preposition and also—for a while—as a subordinator, exhibiting a much wider array of senses, including highly abstract ones, in ME and eModE. He suggests that part of the development may have been triggered by reanalysis of <italic>there beside</italic> (cf. OE/ME <italic>therin</italic> etc.) and <italic>him beside</italic> (cf. OE <italic>him on hande</italic> etc.). The development of (as yet) less fully grammaticalized prepositional units is studied by Sebastian Hoffmann, who asks, ‘Are Low-Frequency Complex Prepositions Grammaticalized? On the Limits of Corpus Data—and the Importance of Intuition’ (in Lindquist and Mair, eds., 171–210). Although the relevant items, such as <italic>on pain of</italic> and <italic>at war with</italic>, are highly infrequent in texts, Hoffmann is nevertheless able to show that they exhibit certain signs of grammaticalization, which he attributes to their salience in any context where a certain meaning needs to be expressed (yielding a relative frequency effect) and to the existence of many reinforcing exemplars (such as the very frequent <italic>in view of</italic> and <italic>in front of</italic>). Minoji Akimoto writes ‘On the Grammaticalization of the Parenthetical “I’m Afraid” ’ (in Fisiak, ed., pp. 1–10). Examples of the expression drawn from the <italic>OED</italic> CD-ROM show that from the sixteenth century onwards it becomes increasingly fixed and acquires modal meaning.</p>
<p><italic>The Rise of the</italic> To-<italic>Infinitive</italic> by Bettelou Los describes the emergence and spread of the <italic>to</italic>-infinitive in the history of English. The three main ideas it presents are (1) that the greatest expansion of the <italic>to</italic>-infinitive in early ME is not due to competition with the infinitive without <italic>to</italic> (the so-called ‘bare’ infinitive) but to competition with the finite subjunctive clause; the evidence for this is quantitative (from a comparison of corpora from the various periods) and qualitative (from a comparison of two parallel manuscripts); (2) that the <italic>to</italic>-infinitive, although undoubtedly a prepositional phrase in origin, is fully clausal already in OE; <italic>to</italic>-infinitival clauses with stranded prepositions, as in <italic>he wæpn gegrap mid to campienne</italic> ‘he grabbed a weapon to fight with’ show that they must already have contained a CP-layer; and (3) that the recategorization of PP to clause was triggered by a reinterpretation of the derivational morphology it contained as inflection. The chapters follow the chronological emergence of the <italic>to</italic>-infinitive in various functions. The distribution of the <italic>to</italic>-infinitive at first mirrored that of the <italic>to</italic>-PP. As such it occurred not only as purpose adjunct but also as <sc>goal</sc>-argument after conative verbs (with meanings like ‘try’) and verbs of persuading and urging (chapter 3). It was here in direct competition with the subjunctive clause which could also appear in these functions, and at some point it must have been reanalysed as a non-finite alternative to the subjunctive clause. This reanalysis probably accounts for the fact that we begin to see <italic>to</italic>-infinitives appearing as <sc>theme</sc>-argument of verbs with meanings of ‘intend’ (chapter 4), verbs of commanding and permitting (chapter 5), and verbs of promising (chapter 6). Later chapters consider ME developments, including the rise of ECM-constructions as in <italic>He believed John to be lying</italic>, the degrammaticalization of <italic>to</italic> from verbal clitic to a free form, and the strange case of the disappearance of the ultra-indefinite <italic>man</italic> ‘one’, which is argued to be a side-effect of finite subjunctive clauses, with <italic>man</italic> as their overt subject being ousted by <italic>to</italic>-infinitives with non-overt PRO subjects. More historical work on <italic>to</italic>-infinitives appears in Hendrik De Smet and Hubert Cuyckens's ‘Pragmatic Strengthening and the Meaning of Complement Constructions: The Case of <italic>Like</italic> and <italic>Love</italic> with the <italic>to</italic>-Infinitive’ (<italic>JEngL</italic> 33[2005] 3–34), which shows that ‘<italic>like</italic>/<italic>love</italic> + <italic>to</italic>-infinitive’ has developed aspectual and epistemic uses that can no longer be explained as a result of the interaction between the meaning of the verbs and the meaning of the <italic>to</italic>-infinitive. They arise as speaker-based conversational implicatures in particular discourse contexts.</p>
<p>Several items consider word-order issues. Ohkado Masayuki's ‘On Object Fronting in Old English’ (in Fisiak, ed., pp. 239–53) is concerned with the pragmatics of this process. Four different functions are postulated for fronted objects in Ælfric's <italic>Catholic Homilies</italic>. Willem Koopman has worked on ‘Subordinate Clauses with VS Order in Old English’ (in Fisiak, ed., pp. 175–89). His findings are that they are not common and that most of the attested cases feature impersonal or passive verbs, for which it would be possible to argue that the subject remains inside the VP. Altogether, therefore, the data do not provide much support for the idea of productive use of verb-second in subordinate clauses. Ohkado Masayuki also writes ‘On Verb Movement in Old English Subordinate Clauses’ (in Nakamura et al., eds., pp. 151–68) but considers SV rather than VS cases. He finds that, across texts, the frequency of SVO order in finite subordinates correlates well with the frequency of SVO in non-finite subordinates. This means that the data are not due to any process akin to verb-second but to the process responsible for the occurrence of OV versus VO order. Javier Pérez-Guerra sheds new light on the eModE consolidations of strategies to compensate for the changes in information structure after the demise of verb-second in English in ‘Word Order After the Loss of the Verb-Second Constraint or the Importance of Early Modern English in the Fixation of Syntactic and Informative (Un-)Markedness’ (<italic>ES</italic> 86[2005] 342–69). In ‘Some Aspects of Word Order in Seventeenth-Century English’ (<italic>ES</italic> 86[2005] 511–35), Bjørg Bækken charts the consolidation of the XSV order and the corresponding decline of XVS.</p>
<p>Ann Taylor and Wim van der Wurff have edited a special issue of <italic>English Language and Linguistics</italic> on aspects of OV and VO order in the history of English. Many contributions conclude that OV must have been a possible underlying order in OE. Theresa Biberauer and Ian Roberts in ‘Changing EPP Parameters in the History of English: Accounting for Variation and Change’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 5–46) argue that there was a parametric change in ME in that there was change in the size of the constituent that moved to a higher position (VP raising to SpecvP and vP raising to SpecTP): instead of pied-piping an entire VP along with the object or subject, just the object or subject is moved. Exactly the opposite is argued by Jan-Wouter Zwart in ‘A Comparative Approach to Syntactic Change in the History of English’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 157–79): in OE, constituents moved individually, whereas it is in PDE that we find movement of larger constituents. The author relates the emergence of a zero reflexive and the development of <italic>have</italic> as the exclusive perfect auxiliary to this shift from individual to collective movement. Willem Koopman in ‘Transitional Syntax: Postverbal Pronouns and Particles in Old English’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 47–62) shows that the rate of personal pronoun objects and particles following non-finite verbs is high enough to confirm that base VO order was a genuine option in OE; these orders show an increase in later OE. Thomas McFadden in ‘OV–VO in English and the Role of Case Marking in Word Order’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 63–82) shows that the evidence for a direct link between rich morphological case and overt object movement is problematic. If we want to tie in the loss of case morphology to the loss of OV orders in English, we first need a coherent theory of the syntax–morphology interface. Mike Moerenhout and Wim van der Wurff in ‘Object–Verb Order in Early Sixteenth-Century English Prose: An Exploratory Study’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 83–114) show that object–verb order, in the restricted contexts of an auxiliary and a quantified or negated object, and in topicalization structures, continues to be attested in English prose until 1550. In ‘Arguments against a Universal Base: Evidence from Old English’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 115–38) Susan Pintzuk argues that a uniform VO analysis of the base order of OE cannot be maintained, primarily because certain processes and word orders are permitted in Aux–V structures which are not permitted in V–Aux structures, and vice versa, a state of affairs that can only be solved by stipulations in a uniform VO analysis. Ann Taylor in ‘Prosodic Evidence for Incipient VO Order in Old English’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 139–56) has found that VO sequences are more frequently separated by a line-break in the metrical texts she investigated than OV sequences, although the rate at which this happens decreases over time. If these line-breaks point to VO sequences being mainly derived by postposition, a decrease in their frequency might indicate that VO sequences increasingly reflect base, and nor derived, orders.</p></sec></sec>
<sec id="SEC6"><title>6. Semantics</title>
<p><italic>Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect</italic>, edited by Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, is a Festschrift dedicated to Barbara H. Partee, one of the most influential personalities of contemporary linguistics, who has had a central role in shaping the direction of research within formal semantics in the last thirty years, and, as believed by many, in actually establishing the field of formal semantics as one of the major branches of theoretical linguistics. Although the aim of the volume was to honour this extraordinary personality, the individual contributions are highly original pieces of semantic scholarship by leading authorities of the field on topics to which Barbara H. Partee herself has made significant contributions and which therefore deserve serious attention independently of the occasion they were written for. Sandro Zucchi (‘The Present Mode’) offers an analysis of the present tense that explains why it can be used both for talking about the utterance time and for talking about past events, the latter use normally referred to as the <italic>historical present</italic>. Dorit Abusch (‘Causatives and Mixed Aspectual Type’) investigates the causatives of change-of-state verbs, as in <italic>The technician changed the image for two minutes</italic>, which, as their modifiability with <italic>for</italic>-adverbials shows, can also have activity readings in addition to their accomplishment readings. Barbara Abbott (‘Proper Names and Language’) takes a critical look at the metalinguistic approach to proper names advocated, for example, by François Recanati [1993] and Kent Bach [1987, 2002], according to which proper names have a self-referential aspect and are seen as not being part of language proper. Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof (‘Why Compositionality?’) investigate the role of the principle of compositionality, one of the central background assumptions in formal semantics, which relates to the relationship between syntax and semantics. Still on the topic of compositionality, Emmon Bach (‘Is Word-Formation Compositional?’) provides a new argument for the claim that the semantics of syntax and grammar proper is fundamentally different from the semantics of word-formation. Several papers address the interpretation of indefinites. Angelika Kratzer's study (‘Indefinites and the Operators They Depend On: From Japanese to Salish’) investigates indefinite constructions, which have been argued in dynamic semantic theories to have no quantificational force on their own, from a typological perspective. She argues that there is a type among them that shows no quantificational variability (illustrated by German <italic>irgendein</italic>) and claims that this latter fact is the result of a mechanism she refers to as ‘indefinite concord’. Gennaro Chierchia (‘Definites, Locality, and Intentional Identity’) offers an analysis of some of the classical problems related to the interpretations of DPs in their various uses, which is rooted in Barbara H. Partee's [1986] theory, according to which there are particular type-shifting operators by means of which the interpretations of predicative and argument DPs can be transformed into each other. Laurence R. Horn (‘Airport’86 Revisited: Toward a Unified Indefinite <italic>Any</italic>’) argues for the possibility of a unified indefinite analysis of negative polarity <italic>any</italic> and free choice <italic>any</italic> that was originally sketched by Barbara H. Partee in a 1986 squib, while Hana Filip (‘Measures and Indefinites’) investigates the semantic properties of Slavic verbal prefixes that enforce a non-specific indefinite interpretation of particular nominal arguments. Arnim von Stechow and Thomas Ede Zimmermann (‘A Problem for a Compositional Treatment of <italic>De Re</italic> Attitudes’) reconsider the issue of what the status of the complement of a propositional attitude verb is and argue that it is both a proposition and a sentence. The last two papers of the volume address issues related to the information structure of the sentence: Eva Hajičová and Petr Sgall (‘The Position of Information Structure in the Core of Language’) study the issue of how an account of the topic-focus articulation of the sentence is to be integrated into language description, whereas Mats Rooth (‘Topic Accents on Quantifiers’) examines the interaction of quantificational structure and information structure.</p>
<p>At this point, we give a somewhat belated acknowledgement to the collection <italic>Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings</italic> from 2002, edited by Paul Portner and Barbara H. Partee, which contains seminal articles that determined the early development of the field from the period between the end of the 1960s and the end of the 1980s on NP semantics (by Richard Montague, Greg N. Carlson, Jon Barwise and Robin Cooper, and Godehard Link), on philosophical pragmatics (by Robert C. Stalnaker, and David Lewis), on dynamic semantics (by David Lewis, Hans Kamp, and Irene Heim), on the semantics of the inflectional/auxiliary system (by David R. Dowty, Angelika Kratzer, and Emmon Bach), on conjunction and type-shifting (by Barbara H. Partee and Mats Rooth, and Barbara H. Partee), on questions (by Lauri Karttunen, and Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof), and on negative polarity (by William A. Ladusaw).</p>
<p><italic>The Logic of Conventional Implicatures</italic>, by Christopher Potts, which I consider one of the highlights of 2005, presents an ingenious new theory for describing the semantic interpretation of sentences that are said to contain ‘conventional implicatures’ (CIs). The phrase itself was coined in H. Paul Grice's [1975] influential work, in order to have a cover term for a class of expressions that seem to share some properties with those that give rise to ‘conversational implicatures’ in his view, which are pragmatic inferences derivable from the co-operative principle and the maxims of conversation. Potts shows that Grice's comments about the nature of CIs can be distilled into the following abstract characterization, which indicates that CIs belong to the realm of semantics proper: CIs are part of the conventional meaning of words; they are commitments, and thus give rise to entailments; these commitments are made by the speaker of the utterance ‘by virtue of the meaning of’ the words he chooses; and CIs are logically and compositionally independent of what is ‘said’, i.e. independent of the at-issue entailments. Potts, carefully studying the above criteria, argues that they fit two classes of natural language expressions. The first category includes ‘supplemental expressions’, such as <italic>as</italic>-parentheticals (<italic>Ames was, <underline>as the press reported</underline>, a successful spy</italic>), supplementary relatives (<italic>Ames, <underline>who stole from the FBI</underline>, is now behind bars</italic>), nominal appositives (<italic>Ames, <underline>a former spy</underline>, is now behind bars</italic>), topic-oriented adverbs (<italic><underline>Cleverly/Wisely</underline>, Beck started his descent</italic>), and speaker-oriented adverbs (<italic><underline>Unfortunately/Luckily</underline>, Beck survived the descent</italic>). The second one contains expressives, like expressive attributive adjectives (<italic>Ed refuses to look after Sheila's <underline>damn</underline> dog</italic>) and epithets (<italic>Right after Chuck agreed to help out, <underline>the jerk</underline> boarded a plane for Tahiti</italic>). The central aim of the work, besides providing a definition of conventional implicatures, and setting them apart from other types of meanings (presuppositions, at-issue entailments and conversational implicatures) is to derive the properties of CIs with the tools of formal semantics. The author solves the task by defining a multi-dimensional semantic translation language into which sentences containing the types of expressions listed above can be translated in such a way that their contributions to the at-issue meaning and to the CI meaning are sufficiently kept apart.</p>
<p><italic>Optimal Communication</italic>, by Reinhard Blutner, Helen de Hoop and Petra Hendriks, is an accessible and self-contained introduction to the general aims and assumptions of Optimality Theory (OT), founded by Alan Pince and Paul Smolensky in 1993, and to Bidirectional OT, its newest branch focusing on natural language interpretation, written by pioneers in the latter field. OT views grammar as consisting of a ranked set of violable and possibly conflicting constraints, where a constraint can be violated in order to satisfy a stronger constraint. The individual constraints select particular elements from a set of input candidates; thus, a set of ranked constraints leads to the selection of one optimal candidate from the input set. Languages are assumed to share the same constraints; cross-linguistic variation as to which candidate from the same input set is considered optimal is due to differences in the ordering of the constraints across languages. The introductory chapter of the book outlines the motivations for an OT-based approach to grammar, its basic concepts, history, and the key features of an OT approach to phonology, syntax and semantics. The second chapter, ‘Recoverability’, discusses OT syntax, which is concerned with finding the optimal form to express a particular meaning, and thus takes the speaker's perspective. The approach is illustrated with theories of movement and deletion. Chapter 3, ‘Compositionality’, discusses the OT approach to semantics, which is concerned with finding the optimal interpretation for a particular form, and thus takes the hearer's perspective. Here issues concerning the interpretation of quantified but incomplete or anaphoric expressions are provided as illustration. It is pointed out that unidirectional syntactic and semantic analyses of the same phenomenon do not always give parallel results: if one inputs a particular interpretation to a syntactic analysis, takes the optimal form associated with it and inputs the latter to a semantic analysis, it is not always possible to retrieve the original interpretation. These problems are avoided if optimalization takes place over form-meaning pairs, which constitutes the main invention of Bidirectional OT, discussed in chapter 5, where the theory's approach to iconicity, blocking, as well as the formalization of Grice's maxims of conversation are also shown. The remaining two chapters are concerned with issues pertaining to language acquisition and some foundational issues concerning OT’s view of cognition.</p>
<p>Paul M. Pietroski's monograph <italic>Events and Semantic Architecture</italic> argues for the view that the semantic interpretation of all complex expressions in natural language can be given in terms of a generalized conjunction. The theory views each complex expression as a concatenation of two simpler expressions; atomic expressions are interpreted as monadic predicates and therefore each complex expression is interpreted as a conjunction of predicates. The proposal is justified, according to the author, on the basis of the intuition that the sentence <italic>Pat hugged Chris quickly</italic> means that <italic>there was something such that is was done by Pat</italic> and <italic>it was a hugging</italic> and <italic>it happened to Chris</italic> and <italic>it was quick</italic> (p. 1). This ‘Conjunctivist’ approach challenges the dominant paradigm of present-day formal semantics, according to which concatenation signifies function-application: the interpretation of a complex expression is the result of applying the interpretation of one of the concatenated elements, viewed as a function, to the interpretation of the other element, viewed as the argument of the function. Pietroski reviews how the interpretations of various types of complex expressions are derived within the Conjunctivist approach, and compares them to their derivations in the framework of the Functionist theories. The overview starts from the simple cases involving the combination of a predicate with one or two names and sentential connectives (chapter 1), then proceeds to domains where the superiority of the Conjunctivist treatment is particularly apparent according to the author: structures involving quantification and plural arguments (chapter 2), and next to those containing causal verbs and speech-act verbs with sentential complements (chapter 3). In addition, the book provides a detailed overview of the desiderata for linguistic theories, which makes it highly accessible even to beginners.</p>
<p><italic>Representation and Inference for Natural Language: A First Course in Computational Semantics</italic>, by Patrick Blackburn and Johan Bos, is the first textbook devoted to the relatively new field of computational semantics that can contribute, according to the authors, to the study of the interaction of various semantic and pragmatic phenomena of the kind that traditional formal semanticists have studied in isolation so far. The discipline itself is primarily concerned with using computers to build model-theoretic representations that are normally assigned in formal semantics to the sentences of natural language in an algorithmic way, as initiated by the work of Richard Montague, and with using these representations to draw (logical) inferences, i.e. to make implicit information explicit. The book, whose main aim is to develop a ‘working toolkit for computational semantics’ (p. xvi), can be used both with students of linguistics who have a modest computational background and with students of computer science having no previous knowledge of semantics or linguistics at all, although familiarity with the programming language Prolog is presupposed.</p>
<p><italic>A Theory of Ellipsis</italic>, by Marjorie J. McShane, is a piece of work within the field of ‘descriptive computational linguistics’, according to the author. This means that the emphasis is on providing an exhaustive linguistic description of elliptical constructions across languages in rule-oriented terms that could satisfy the needs that arise in the course of developing computer programs devoted to ellipsis resolution, although the author is not concerned here with how to turn the descriptions into actual natural language processing applications. The book is based on naturally occurring data from English, Russian and Polish, that is, languages with widely different possibilities for ellipsis. It provides a ‘parameter-and-value’-oriented description methodology that can be used for describing ellipsis phenomena in other languages as well. The ellipsis types discussed in the book, classified according to the type of strategy involved in recovering them and according to the category of the elided constituent, are the following: syntactic ellipsis with an accessible syntactic antecedent (object ellipsis with various types of antecedents, subject ellipsis, head noun ellipsis, gapping, stripping, sluicing, VP-ellipsis, the ellipsis of conjunctions, relative pronouns, prepositions, and of conditional, reciprocal and reflexive particles), syntactic ellipsis with no syntactically accessible antecedent (ellipsis of objects due to clause modality, of objects with generalized human referent, and of objects in a series of actions, Multilicensor Verbal Ellipsis, the ellipsis of conjunctions, relative pronouns, and of subjects with a generalized-human referent), semantic ellipsis, i.e. the ellipsis of meaningful elements that involves no syntactic gap (unexpressed agents in passives, agentive impersonals, unexpressed experiencers and possessors, and unexpressed arguments in derived nominals), unexpressed morphemes (haplology, morpheme ellipsis, and morpheme loss during incorporation), and language strategies (dialogue strategies, sentence fragments, nominal sentences, unagentive impersonals).</p>
<p><italic>Semantics: A Reader</italic>, edited by Steven Davis and Brendan S. Gillon, is a fine collection of classic and brand-new papers that intend to give an overview of issues that the discipline of semantics is concerned with, and of important research projects that address particular issues on the semantic agenda. The main selection criteria were how interesting the results produced by the relevant theories are, and whether the proposals are laid out precisely enough to enable evaluation, that is, whether they make it clear what counts as evidence for or against them. According to the editors, these criteria were satisfied primarily by papers in formal semantics, although studies addressing lexical semantics and relevance theory also got a place in the collection. The first part of the volume contains detailed introductory essays by the editors on ‘Linguistics and Philosophy’, ‘Linguistics and Logic’, ‘Theories of Reference and Theories of Meaning’, ‘Internalist and Externalist Semantic Theories’, ‘Semantics and Context’, as well as an appendix outlining the most important set-theoretic concepts made reference to. The rest of the book is a collection of individual papers, arranged into four parts. The papers of part II, ‘Background’, address one of the most important methodological principles in semantics, ‘The Principle of Semantic Compositionality’ (by Francis Jeffry Pelletier), and the question of the indeterminacy of meaning (‘Ambiguity, Indeterminacy, Deixis and Vagueness, Evidence and Theory’, by Brendan S. Gillon, written for the purpose of the collection). Part III, ‘Approaches’, contains some classic papers discussing the tasks of semantic theory, and dominant proposals as to how to solve these tasks, by David Lewis (‘General Semantics’), Donald Davidson (‘Truth and Meaning’), Hans Kamp (‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’), Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin Stokhof (‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’), Jon Barwise and John Perry (‘Situations and Attitudes’), Ray Jackendoff (‘What Is a Concept, that a Person May Grasp It?’), and Gilles Fauconnier (‘Mental Spaces, Language Modalities, and Conceptual Integration’). The articles in part IV are concerned with interpretations of particular constituents or structural configurations such as lexical items (by James Pustejovsky), count and mass nouns (by Brendan S. Gillon), proper names (by Tyler Burge), pronouns (by Gareth Evans and by James Higginbotham), quantificational expressions (by John Barwise and Robin Cooper, and by David Lewis), tenses (by Hans Reichenbach, and by Barbara Hall Partee), adjectives (by Hans Kamp), prepositions (by Max J. Cresswell), adverbs (by Irena Bellert, and by Richmond Thomason and Robert C. Stalnaker), connectives (by Roland Posner, Gerald Gazdar, Ray Jennings), interrogatives (by James Higginbotham), speech acts (by Daniel Vanderveken), and action predicates (by Donald Davidson). The last part contains papers discussing the contribution of the context to interpretation, by David Kaplan, Scott Weinstein, David Lewis, Robyn Carston, and Robert J. Stainton.</p>
<p>Chris Fox and Shalom Lappin's <italic>Foundations of Intensional Semantics</italic> is a highly technical revision of Richard Montague's semantic framework. Revision number one concerns the requirement of distinguishing the meanings of logically equivalent expressions without giving up a possible worlds approach to modality. This task is achieved by introducing a specialized identity relation. The second revision is aimed at achieving greater flexibility in the way the meanings of linguistic expressions are combined with each other. Here the authors plead for the existence of variable categories, or ‘types’, as they are called here. Thirdly, Fox and Lappin deal with the formal complexity of their theory. The motivation for this comes from the more remote goal of developing a computationally tractable way of assigning meanings to linguistic expressions. The crucial move towards achieving this goal is to disallow—at the relevant level of analysis—quantification over anything other than individual variables, i.e. variables ranging over ‘simple’ entities. This is known as restricting the theory to a ‘first-order’ logic like standard predicate logic. Despite its demanding formal nature, the book is clearly written and the more abstract concepts are properly introduced by explicit definitions in transparent standard notations.</p>
<p>A large proportion of edited volumes and monographs, as well as of journal articles, is devoted to the investigation of tense and aspect in natural languages. <italic>The Language of Time: A Reader</italic>, edited by Inderjeet Mani, James Pustejovsky, and Robert Gaizauskas, is a reference manual collecting fundamental classic and contemporary papers in artificial intelligence, computational linguistics and formal semantics with immediate relevance to the creation of natural language processing systems that can extract temporal meaning from documents in various languages. The collection is intended to help the dissemination of relevant results achieved within the three fields listed above and thus promote co-operation between their representatives. The volume is divided into four parts, each provided with an informative introduction to the particular area by the editors which not only summarizes the results of the individual papers but gives a characterization of the most important milestones in the general development of the field. Part I, ‘Tense, Aspect, and Event Structure’, contains classic papers on the semantics of tense and aspect in natural languages by Zeno Vendler, James Pustejovsky, Emmon Bach, Hans Reichenbach, A.N. Prior, and Marc Moens and Mark Steedman, as well as papers discussing computational models based on the latter. Part II, ‘Temporal Reasoning’, includes works on temporal reasoning, a central area of artificial intelligence research. Part III, ‘Temporal Structure of Discourse’, contains papers discussing how inferences about the temporal structure of discourse can be derived on the basis of linguistic and world knowledge. Finally, part IV, ‘Temporal Annotation’, examines the construction of text corpora in which the temporal information has been explicitly annotated.</p>
<p><italic>Time in Natural Language: Syntactic Interfaces with Semantics and Discourse</italic>, by Ellen Thompson, argues that a large number of facts characterizing the temporal interpretation of sentences can be explained by assuming, on the one hand, a Reichenbachian account of the meaning of tenses in English according to which tenses signal a particular way of ordering three points on the time axis—the Event time, the Reference time, and the Speech time—and by assuming, on the other hand, that the expressions characterizing these time points are located in different syntactic positions within the phrase. Thompson views the Event time as a semantic feature associated with the head of VP, the Speech time as a feature associated with the head of TP, and the Reference time as a feature associated with the head of AspP. She shows that the approach according to which temporal modifiers of various categories have to be adjoined to the projection associated with the time they are supposed to specify can explain a wide range of data from English, including the relation between the syntactic positions of temporal adverbials, adjunct clauses, gerundive relatives and their interpretations within a sentence, the temporal relations between independent sentences in a discourse mediated by the temporal adverb <italic>then</italic>, the source of telic readings of event predicates, and the semantic properties of aspectual verbs.</p>
<p>Martin Trautwein, <italic>The Time Window of Language: The Interaction between Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Knowledge in the Temporal Interpretation of German and English Texts</italic> is an ambitious work that aims to formally integrate the following sources of temporal information in texts into one system: the lexical semantics of verb-argument structures and adverb-like modifiers; the compositional rules merging the temporal and aspectual information of constituents into complex semantic units; the system of tense and aspect; the information structure of discourses; temporal reference within discourse; the structure of text and discourse; knowledge about text genres and text planning; the non-linguistic representation of implicit and explicit context; our everyday knowledge about time and temporal structure; and relevant rules of common-sense reasoning.</p>
<p>Three edited volumes of new research papers, written by overlapping sets of contributors on the closely related topics of tense and aspect across languages deserve particular attention: <italic>Aspectual Inquiries</italic>, edited by Paula Kempchinsky and Roumyana Slabakova, <italic>Perspectives on Aspect</italic>, edited by Henk Verkuyl, Henriette de Swart and Angeliek van Hout, and <italic>Crosslinguistic Views on Tense, Aspect and Modality</italic>, edited by Bart Hollebrandse, Angeliek van Hout and Co Vet. The introduction to Kempchinsky and Slabakova's book emphasizes a distinction between two notions of aspect that are often intermingled: ‘lexical’ or ‘situation aspect’ (‘inner aspect’ according to Henk Verkuyl [1972, 1993], also referred to as <italic>Aktionsart</italic>) is essentially a property of predicates and is to be captured in terms of the distinction between telicity and atelicity, whereas ‘sentential’ or ‘viewpoint aspect’ (‘outer aspect’ in Verkuyl) is a property of sentences, with the relevant distinctions being boundedness and unboundedness. In the contributions to this collection, aspectual issues are investigated from three perspectives. Part I is concerned with the interactions between the structure of the clause and its relationship to lexical aspect, and contains contributions by Elizabeth Ritter and Sara Thomas Rosen, Hagit Borer, Lisa Demena Travis, Raffaella Folli and Heidi Harley, Christina Schmitt and Mai Tungseth. Part II examines the interactions between aspect, tense and discourse, with papers by Karen Zagona, Hamida Demirdache and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, Carlota S. Smith, Patrick Caudal, and Patrick Caudal and Lauren Roussarie. The last part of the book investigates the acquisition of aspect by child and adult learners. <italic>Perspectives on Aspect</italic> takes a more directly semantic point of view. In the introduction, the editors provide a useful survey of the development of aspect research within formal semantics and of the burning issues of the present day. Particular attention should be devoted to Rebecca Smollett's ‘Quantized Direct Objects Don't Delimit After All’, which argues against the thesis (advocated by Carol L. Tenny [1994]) that the combination of verbs of a certain class (so-called ‘measuring-out verbs’) with quantized direct objects always yields VPs with a delimited reading. Veerle van Geenhoven, ‘Atelicity, Pluractionality, and Adverbial Quantification’, proposes a unified, interval-based analysis of atelicity, inherent in such diverse phenomena as frequentative, continuative, and gradual aspect, activities and states, imperfective aspect and frequency adverbs. Christopher Piñón, ‘Adverbs of Completion in an Event Semantics’, analyses adverbs such as <italic>completely</italic>, <italic>partly</italic> and <italic>half</italic>, which are used to describe to what extent a given situation type is realized. Michael J. Terry, ‘The Past Perfective and Present Perfect in African-American English’, investigates the source of the ambiguity of simple V-<italic>ed</italic> sentences in AAE, such as <italic>John ate the rutabagas</italic>, which can either be interpreted the way <italic>John ate the rutabagas</italic> or the way <italic>John has eaten the rutabagas</italic> are interpreted in Standard AmE. Vivienne Fong, ‘Unmarked <italic>Already</italic>: Aspectual Expressions in Two Varieties of English’ looks at a different dialect of English, and investigates the interpretation of the aspectual marker <italic>already</italic> in Colloquial Singapore English, which can appear in a much wider range of contexts in this dialect than in Standard English. The third volume, <italic>Crosslinguistic Views on Tense, Aspect and Modality</italic>, extends the scope of investigation by including studies on modality as well. These include Renaat Declerck's study on ‘The Relation Between Temporal and Modal Uses of Indicative Verb Forms’, and Tom Werner's paper on ‘The Temporal Interpretation of Some Modal Sentences in English (Involving a Future/Epistemic Alternation)’. Further papers worth attention include Bart Hollebrandse's study, ‘Sequence of Tense: New Insights from Cross-Linguistic Comparisons’, which proposes a four-way classification of languages based on how they express temporal simultaneity between events described in matrix and embedded clauses; Patrick Caudal's ‘Degree Scales and Aspect’, which investigates the interaction between scalar expressions and aspect; Henk Verkuyl's cross-linguistic study on ‘How (In-)Sensitive is Tense to Aspectual Information?’, and Zhonghua Xiao and Anthony McEnery's proposal for a two-level system of deriving situation aspect based on extensive corpus study, in ‘Situation Aspect: A Two-Level Approach’.</p>
<p>Several journal articles address questions related to aspect as well. Joost Zwarts, ‘Prepositional Aspect and the Algebra of Paths’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 739–79), investigates the semantics of directional expressions from the perspective of aspect. He distinguishes between telic PPs (<italic>to the house</italic>) and atelic ones (<italic>towards the house</italic>), both denoting sets of paths, in terms of their algebraic structure: atelic PPs are cumulative, closed under the operation of concatenation, but telic PPs are not. This leads to a compositional account of how PPs contribute to the aspect of a sentence, which also contributes to our understanding of the lexical semantics of prepositions since nominal distinctions, like singular, plural, mass and count and verbal classes (semelfactives and degree achievements) are also argued to have their prepositional counterparts. A related set of data is looked at in ‘Spatial and Temporal Boundedness in English Motion Events’, a descriptive study by Bert Cappelle and Renaat Decleck (<italic>JPrag</italic> 37[2005] 889–917) on how the semantic properties of particular subconstituents of English directed motion constructions, such as <italic>They walked around the city</italic>, influence whether the motion event is conceptualized as <italic>bounded</italic>, i.e. as having a terminal point. Sigrid Beck, ‘There and Back Again: A Semantic Analysis’ (<italic>JSem</italic> 22[2005] 3–51), takes a cross-linguistic survey of the interpretations that decomposition adverbs like <italic>again</italic> permit, distinguishing between two different types of predicates that are combined with <italic>again</italic>: lexical accomplishments like <italic>open the door</italic> and combinations of a motion verb with a directional PP, like <italic>walk to the summit</italic>, the latter being possible only if the language has resultative constructions. She argues that in these languages the PP functions as a result phrase. In ‘The Aspectual System of Singapore English and the Systemic Substratist Explanation’ (<italic>JL</italic> 41[2005] 237–67), Bao Zhiming looks at the aspectual system of the contact language Singapore English, with Chinese being its main substrate language and English its lexical-source language, and argues that it is essentially the Chinese system filtered through the morphosyntax of English.</p>
<p>Staying within the domain of verb semantics, one issue of <italic>Theoretical Linguistics</italic> contains the target article ‘On the Limits of the Davidsonian Approach: The Case of Copula Sentences’ (<italic>TL</italic> 31[2005] 275–316) by Claudia Maienborn, and commentaries on it by Johannes Dölling, Stefan Engelberg, James Higginbotham, Gillian Ramchand and Susan Rothstein. Maienborn's paper claims that the extension of the approach proposed by Donald Davidson [1967] (according to which there are event(uality) arguments associated with each action verb) to predicates of all sorts runs into difficulties in the case of statives. The discussion here concentrates on copula sentences, showing that they fail all eventuality tests and in this respect pattern with stative verbs like <italic>know</italic>, <italic>hate</italic> and <italic>resemble</italic>, thus markedly differing from state verbs such as <italic>stand</italic>, <italic>sit</italic> and <italic>sleep</italic>. The author proposes an analysis of copular expressions (which is extendable to stative verbs as well), in which the copula introduces a referential argument for a ‘temporally bound property exemplification’, which she refers to as ‘Kimian state’, since it is based on relevant proposals by Jaegwon Kim [1969, 1976], which she implements in a framework within Discourse Representation Theory.</p>
<p>Issues 2 and 3 of the <italic>Journal of Semantics</italic> were devoted to papers on ‘Modality and Temporality’, edited by Cleo Condoravdi and Stefan Kaufmann. Makoto Kanazawa, Stefan Kaufmann, and Stanley Peters, ‘On the Lumping Semantics of Counterfactuals’ (<italic>JSem</italic> 22[2005] 129–52), take a second look at the truth conditions proposed by Angelika Kratzer's ‘lumping semantics’ for counterfactuals [1989], and claim that the truth conditions proposed by this theory for counterfactuals are not only different but also inferior to those proposed by earlier versions of an approach called ‘premise semantics’. In ‘Making Counterfactual Assumptions’ (<italic>JSem</italic> 22[2005] 159–80), Frank Veltman proposes an update semantics for counterfactual conditionals. Jerry R. Hobbs, ‘Toward a Useful Concept of Causality for Lexical Semantics’ (<italic>JSem</italic> 22[2005] 181–209), argues for a distinction between the notion of a ‘causal complex’ and that of ‘cause’, which can lead to a more precise characterization of some of the properties of causality, e.g. transitivity. Whereas causal complexes can be reasoned about monotonically, they can rarely be completely explicated. Causes, however, constitute the bulk of our causal knowledge but must be reasoned about defeasibly. Tim Fernando's ‘Schedules in a Temporal Interpretation of Modals’ (<italic>JSem</italic> 22[2005] 211–29) analyses eventualities and worlds uniformly as schedules of certain descriptions of eventuality types, and provides a reformulation of the temporal interpretation of modals in Cleo Condoravdi [2002]. In ‘Conditional Truth and Future Reference’ (<italic>JSem</italic> 22[2005] 231–80), Stefan Kaufmann proposes a compositional model-theoretic account of the way the interpretations of indicative conditionals are determined and constrained by the temporal and modal expressions in their constituents, and claims that the tenses in both the antecedent and the consequent of an indicative conditional are interpreted in the same way as they are interpreted in isolation. Robert van Rooij, ‘A Modal Analysis of Presuppositions and Modal Subordination’ (<italic>JSem</italic> 22[2005] 281–305), provides a two-dimensional analysis of presupposition and modal subordination.</p>
<p>Still on the topic of modality, <italic>Epistemic Modality: Functional Properties and the Italian System</italic>, by Paola Pietandrea, provides, in addition to its language-specific discussions, a functionalist overview of how the notion of epistemic modality has been characterized in the literature, setting it apart from deontic modality, mood and illocutionary force, reality status, and evidentiality, at the same time providing a typological overview of the various ways of expressing notions of epistemic modality in natural languages. In ‘What Is Modal about <italic>I thought that … ?</italic>’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 311–32), Renaat Declerck and Susan Reed investigate how some non-modal tense forms, like the one in the title, can give rise to modal interpretations (for more information see section 5(a)). Mandy Simons, ‘Dividing Things Up: The Semantics of <italic>Or</italic> and the Modal/<italic>Or</italic> Interaction’ (<italic>NLS</italic> 13[2005] 271–316) and Bart Geurts, ‘Entertaining Alternatives: Disjunctions as Modals’ (<italic>NLS</italic> 13[2005] 383–410), offer alternative formal frameworks for the interpretation of the connective <italic>or</italic>, based on data concerning its interaction with modals, which present serious problems for standard theories that treat <italic>or</italic> as a Boolean connective equivalent to set union. The problematic data addressed in the papers include sentences like <italic>Jane may sing or she may dance</italic>, and <italic>Jane may sing and dance</italic>, both of which have two readings, since <italic>or</italic> can equally take wide or narrow scope with respect to the modal.</p>
<p>This leads us to studies on co-ordination. A special issue of <italic>Lingua</italic> is devoted to the investigation of the syntactic properties of co-ordinate structures (sentential, phrasal, lexical) and their interpretation. For a semanticist, the most relevant papers in the collection are the one by Ron Arstein, ‘Coordination of Parts of Words’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 259–393), which provides a semantic analysis of constructions involving word-part co-ordination like <italic>ortho and periodontists</italic>, and the one by Nicholas Asher and Laure Vieu, ‘Subordinating and Coordinating Discourse Relations’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[205] 591–610), which argues that there are two types of discourse relations having to do with the hierarchical structure of the discourse that can hold between sentences of a discourse, the subordinating and the co-ordinating ones, and offers some tests for distinguishing between the two. Carla Umbach, ‘Contrast and Information Structure: A Focus-Based Analysis of <italic>But</italic>’ (<italic>Linguistics</italic> 43[2005] 207–32), proposes an analysis of the many uses of the English contrastive connective <italic>but</italic> by claiming that the connective indicates a contrast between the information structure of the conjuncts it connects.</p>
<p>We turn now to nominal semantics. Another special issue of <italic>Lingua</italic>, edited by Roberto Zamparelli, is devoted to the syntax and semantics of indefiniteness. In ‘The Structure of (In)Definiteness’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 915–36), the editor himself comments upon some core research topics within the area, such as the syntax-semantics of bare nouns, the issue of specificity, and the sources of property-denotations for arguments, including a brief summary of relevant previous research. Veerle van Geenhoven and Luise McNally's paper in the collection, ‘On the Property Analysis of Opaque Complements’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 885–914), proposes an account of the so-called opaque readings of indefinite complements of verbs of absence (as in the reading of the sentence <italic>Max wants a book for Christmas</italic> where Max would be satisfied with any book for Christmas) that treats these indefinites as a special case of verbs taking property-denoting arguments (see also section 5(a) above). Ariel Cohen's ‘More than Bare Existence: An Implicature of Existential Bare Plurals’ (<italic>JSem</italic> 22[2005] 389–400) proposes that the implicature introduced by bare plurals, according to which the set they denote is suitable for some purpose, is sufficient to account for the quasi-universal interpretation of these constituents.</p>
<p>Ron Arstein, ‘Quantificational Arguments in Temporal Adjunct Clauses’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 541–97), analyses sentences where quantificational arguments in temporal adjunct clauses appear to take wide scope outside of the adjunct clause, as in <italic>Few secretaries cried after each executive resigned</italic>, where the quantificational NP <italic>each executive</italic> is allowed to take scope over <italic>few secretaries</italic>. Arstein argues that the above scope relation is predicted if the adjunct clause is a temporal generalized quantifier that takes scope over the main clause, whereas within the adjunct clause, the quantificational argument takes scope over the implicit determiner that forms the temporal generalized quantifier. Still on the topic of quantification, in ‘Monotonicity and Processing Load’ (<italic>JSem</italic> 22[2005] 97–117), Bart Geurts and Frans van der Slik discuss various experiments aiming to find out what factors influence the processing of quantified sentences.</p>
<p>António Branco, ‘Anaphoric Constraints and Dualities in the Semantics of Nominals’ (<italic>JLLI</italic> 14[2005] 149–71), argues that the grammatical constraints on anaphoric binding, i.e. the binding principles, that are observed to form a classical square of oppositions, can be viewed as expressing one of four phase quantifiers over entities in the universe of grammatical representations, the so-called reference markers, arranged on the basis of the grammatical obliqueness order of their clauses. These four quantifiers can then be organized in a square of logical duality. The results indicate that the duality of quantificational vs. referential nominals is less strict and more articulated than has been assumed. In ‘Non-Redundancy: Towards the Semantic Reinterpretation of Binding Theory’ (<italic>NLS</italic> 13[2005] 1–92), Philippe Schlenker makes a proposal as to how to let some binding-theoretic principles (Condition C, Condition B, Condition A, and Weak and Strong Crossover) follow not from syntax, as is standardly assumed, but from the interpretative procedure itself.</p>
<p>Ash Asudeh, ‘Relational Nouns, Pronouns, and Resumption’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 375–446), puts forth a variable-free analysis of the so-called bound-variable readings of relational nouns like <italic>neighbour</italic>, <italic>mother</italic> and <italic>rumour</italic> in Glue Semantics, within a Lexical Functional Grammar architecture, which treats their relational arguments as semantic arguments absent from the syntax, thus allowing bound readings of relational nouns but preventing them from taking antecedents. This explains why sentences like <italic>Every suburbanite who Mary knows that a neighbour got arrested vanished</italic> are well formed, as opposed to their counterparts with bound pronouns, as in *<italic>Every suburbanite who Mary knows that he got arrested vanished</italic>.</p>
<p>Caroline Heycock and Roberto Zamparelli provide a theory of the syntax–semantics interface within the DP in ‘Friends and Colleagues: Plurality, Coordination and the Structure of DP’ (<italic>NLS</italic> 13[2005] 201–70) that can account for the various interpretations of conjoined NPs, including their ‘joint readings’, as in <italic>My friend and colleague is writing a paper</italic>, and the ‘split’ readings, as in <italic>This man and woman are in love</italic>. In ‘Part Structures in Situations: The Semantics of <italic>Individual</italic> and <italic>Whole</italic>’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 599–641), Friederike Moltmann argues that the adnominal and adverbial uses of the modifiers in the title are derived by having different occurrences of part structure modifiers evaluated relative to different types of situations (in the sense of partial specifications of objects with properties) so that the information content of such situations will determine the way the content of the modifiers is to be understood. In ‘Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 687–737), Maribel Romero investigates the properties of NPs with a concealed question interpretation (as in <italic>John knows Bill's telephone number</italic>) and as subjects of specificational sentences (<italic>The number of planets is nine</italic>), and argues that they are due to the fact that these NPs occur in a configuration where they are directly or indirectly arguments of intensional verbs (epistemic <italic>know</italic> and specificational <italic>be</italic>), which receive essentially the same analysis. ‘What's in Two Names?’ (<italic>JSem</italic> 22[2005] 53–96), by Thomas Ede Zimmermann, compares a semantic and a pragmatic analysis of the problem pointed out by Jennifer Saul [1997] that co-referential names sometimes defy substitution <italic>salva veritate</italic>, as in <italic>Clark Kent went into the phone booth, and Superman came out</italic> and <italic>I never made it to Karl-Marx-Stadt, but I visited Chemnitz last year.</italic></p>
<p>We round off with some further studies on various other topics. The monograph <italic>Modularity in Language: Constructional and Categorial Mismatch in Syntax and Semantics</italic> by Etsuyo Yuasa, which goes back to a 1998 University of Chicago dissertation, is an attempt at solving various famous problems in form-to-function mapping, most of them stemming from the domain of clause combining. The author argues that instead of allowing non-standard additions to syntactic or semantic representations, grammars of natural language contain non-standard, or ‘incongruous’, associations of otherwise standard representations. Thus, to take one example, relative clauses come in two varieties: one associates a subordinate syntax with a modifying semantics (congruous association: restrictive relatives), the other combines the same subordinate syntax with the semantics of a main clause as independent statement (incongruous association: non-restrictive relatives). Theoretical background for this study is a combination of modular ‘autolexical grammar’ by Jerrold Sadock and construction grammar. Unfortunately, the author's rather programmatic ambitions are not always matched by analytical depth or perspicuity, especially when it comes to handling already established tools from formal syntax and semantics. Equally a certain lack of editorial care led to some regrettable errors of the copy-and-paste kind.</p>
<p>The grammatical expression of information source such as visual perception, hearsay, or inference is the subject of <italic>Evidentiality</italic> by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. Apart from providing an impressive typological survey of evidentiality systems in the world's languages, this monograph is devoted to an in-depth characterization of that category in various dimensions, including semantics, pragmatics and discourse effects, historical origin, and cognitive impact. Methodologically, this study emphasizes description and inductive generalization over ‘assumptions’, citing Franz Boas as one of its inspirational sources. With its numerous carefully glossed example sentences and its various summarizing tables, Aikhenvald's book opens up a fascinating aspect of natural language grammar to future systematic enquiry.</p>
<p>In ‘Context-Sensitive Truth-Theoretic Accounts of Semantic Competence’ (<italic>M&Lang</italic> 20[2005] 68–102), Steven Gross reconsiders the criticism often voiced against truth-theoretic accounts of semantic competence, according to which, although representing sources of context-sensitivity by variables has the appearance of representing the cognized constraints on semantic value context-insensitively, the latter procedure is insufficient for accommodating all context-sensitivity. Yoad Winter, ‘Cross-Categorial Restrictions of Measure Phrase Modification’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 233–67), investigates the interpretation of spatial and temporal Measure Phrases such as <italic>ten metres</italic> or <italic>five years</italic>. Peter Lasersohn's ‘Predicates of Personal Taste’ (<italic>Ling&P</italic> 28[2005] 643–86) argues that sentences containing predicates of personal taste are not completely objective since their truth values vary from person to person, although this variation does not involve a variation in semantic content. The author presents a semantics that accounts for the data by introducing an individual index (analogous to world and time indices), and by treating the pragmatic context as supplying a particular value for this index.</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC7"><title>7. Lexicography, Lexicology, and Lexical Semantics</title>
<p>There were some interesting publications in the field of lexicology during this year. In <italic>Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language</italic>, Michael Hoey argues against the view that words merely slot into grammatical structures; he suggests rather that grammatical structures arise from words and their collocations. These probably never take the form of a complete and coherent grammar. Words and also phrases (by nesting) become associated with their collocations to the extent that their users and recipients are primed to expect them. These primings can be either productive or receptive, transitory or (semi-)permanent. Hoey argues that they move out from collocation to semantic association, and provides the example sentence: <sc>small place</sc> is a <sc>number-time-journey</sc>—(by <sc>vehicle</sc>)—from <sc>larger place</sc> (p.18). He gives the following examples: ‘In winter Hammerfest is a thirty-hour ride by bus from Oslo …’ (p. 5), ‘The village is a four-hour drive from London’ (p. 18), ‘Ntyobeye is a two-hour ride by four-wheel drive vehicle from the vast refugee camp at Ngara’ (p. 18). Using the <italic>Guardian</italic> online corpus, Hoey finds that collocations are also grammatically primed (colligation). For instance, <italic>in winter</italic> tends to occur in present tense clauses, while <italic>in the winter</italic> is more usually found in clauses in the past tense. In seeking to demonstrate that words are also textually primed, Hoey provides statistical evidence to support his three hypotheses: that words (or nested combinations) ‘may be primed positively or negatively to participate in cohesive chains of different and distinctive types’; that they ‘may be primed to occur (or to avoid occurring) in specific types of semantic relation’ and finally that they ‘may be primed to occur (or to avoid occurring) at the beginning or end of independently recognised discourse units’ (p. 115). Throughout the text, Hoey emphasizes that such primings are, to some extent, personal. He concludes with a discussion of the implications of his findings for EFL learners. In ‘Collocation, Colligation and Encoding Dictionaries. Part 1: Lexicological Aspects’ (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005] 409–43), Siepmann argues that ‘long-distance’ collocation and collocation between semantic features demand more attention from lexicographers.</p>
<p>The following are chronologically ordered contributions to historical lexicology. Carole Hough poses the question ‘Old English *<italic>Dunnoc</italic> ‘hedge-sparrow’: A Ghost Word?’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 52[2005] 11–13), and concludes that there is no evidence to support the existence of an OE form of the ME <italic>donoke.</italic> In ‘Play-Shields, Play-Ships and Play-Places in Old English’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 52[2005] 153–5), Hough emphasizes the usefulness of place-name evidence in interpreting rare vocabulary. Alfred Bammesburger considers ‘<italic>Freo</italic> “Woman” in <italic>Genesis</italic>, Line 457a’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 52[2005] 282–4), and concludes that this hapax legomenon is probably a transposition from the Old Saxon original text. In ‘Orm's <italic>Wikenn</italic> and Compounds with -<italic>wican</italic> in Annal 1137 of the <italic>Peterborough Chronicle</italic>’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 52[2005] 10–11), Derek Britton suggests that two apparently unconnected forms are actually related, especially given the geographical origins of the two MSS. William Sayers provides a detailed and informative account of the meanings and cognates of <italic>bulwark</italic> in ‘Middle English and Scots <italic>Bulwerk</italic> and Some Continental Reflexes’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 52[2005] 164–70). Jane Dawson's ‘ “There is nothing like a good gossip”: Baptism, Kinship and Alliance in Early Modern Scotland’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., <italic>Perspectives on the Older Scottish Tongue</italic>, pp. 38–47) explores the connotations of the term <italic>gossip</italic> in Scotland in the late sixteenth century. Gotti's ‘The Evolution of English Canting Lexicography in the 16th and 17th Centuries’ (in Gottleib, Morgensen, and Zettersten, eds., <italic>Symposium on Lexicography XI. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Lexicography May 2–4, 2002 at the University of Copenhagen</italic>, pp. 249–59) uses dictionary evidence to determine the meaning of <italic>cant</italic> at different periods. Richard Coates considers ‘The Origin of <italic>Roddon</italic>’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 52[2005] 170–2), a dialect and geographers’ term for ‘a raised bank in the East Anglian Fens’. He argues that the local spelling offers a clue as to the term's origins in ME. Anthony McEnery and Zhonghua Xiao use British and American corpora to investigate ‘<italic>HELP</italic> or <italic>HELP to</italic>: What Do Corpora Have To Say?’ (<italic>ES</italic> 86[2005] 161–87). They find that AmE prefers bare infinitives after <italic>help</italic> more than British, but that this usage is becoming more frequent in both varieties. Mike Bradstock explores New Zealand fishing terms in ‘Some Southern Sea Lore’ (<italic>NZWords</italic> 9[2005] 1–3) and Peter Crisp discusses terms for by-products and waste in ‘Leavings’ (<italic>NZWords</italic> 9[2005] 3–4). Desmond Hurley's ‘Poozle and Poozling—A Continuing Story’ (<italic>NZWords</italic> 9[2005] 5), an account of work towards finding an etymology, provides a demonstration that documenting one form of English requires a knowledge of all the others.</p>
<p>The following publications deal with particular areas of vocabulary and their dictionaries. Christopher Stray's <italic>Contributions towards a Glossary of the Glynne Language by George William, Lord Lyttelton</italic> is a reprint of Lyttelton's glossary of his family language, first published in 1851. Stray sees such family language as particularly characteristic of middle-class families during the Victorian era, with children of different ages educated together by a governess. Because boys in these families tended to be sent away to school, this is unusual in being a documented example of female linguistic innovation. Although only the language of the Lyttelton family is presented here, Stray's introduction is an insightful account of other families’ linguistic idiosyncrasies during the period. It is an interesting subject, but a dictionary of a single family's language would hold little interest if it were not for the eminence of this particular family (one of the sisters married Gladstone) and for its parody of the countless dialect dictionaries of the period. However it is read, the entry for <italic>daundering</italic> illustrates the strangeness of this type of family life: ‘This seems to be an arbitrary perversion, in a single letter, of the English <italic>maundering</italic>, with which it coincides in sense. It is frequently used by Lady Lyttelton of her husband, upon his making any demonstrations of affection towards his children’ (p. 5).</p>
<p>Gary Simes's ‘Gay Slang Lexicography: A Brief History and a Commentary on the First Two Gay Glossaries’ (<italic>Dictionaries</italic> 26[2005] 1–159) is a substantial account of a modern lexicographic tradition, combined with an account of dictionary bowdlerism. Simes's citations provide ample material for future <italic>OED</italic> entries. Confusingly, the introduction and glossary have separate bibliographies. Geart van der Meer's ‘On Taboo and Slang in English Pedagogical Lexicography’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 381–90) considers the difficulty that pedagogical dictionaries have in keeping the terms ‘slang’ and ‘taboo’ apart and revisits the question of whether slang is a useful label for lexicographers. Katherine Connor Martin considers ‘Gender Aspects of Lexicographic Labeling’ (<italic>Dictionaries</italic> 26[2005] 160–73). She explores the coverage of terms for menstruation in <italic>OED2, HDAS</italic> and <italic>DARE</italic> and finds that the label ‘euphemism’ is, in some respects, used as the feminine equivalent of ‘slang’.</p>
<p>Edwin Battistella's <italic>Bad Language: Are Some Words Better than Others?</italic> is written for a non-scholarly audience, although it might be useful as a pre-course book for undergraduates. Battistella divides his discussion into chapters on bad writing, bad grammar, bad words, bad citizens, and bad accents. Books on this subject tend to adopt polarized positions, and while it is clear which end of the spectrum Battistella occupies, he writes in a style that would not automatically alienate those who initially disagreed with him. Its main interest for me was that it gave an American perspective on prescriptive attitudes towards language, with different motivations and stigmas than in Britain. The chapter on ‘bad citizens’ included an interesting account of the move away from and then back towards sign language in the education of deaf children. Ruth Wajnryb's <italic>C U Next Tuesday: A Good Look at Bad Language</italic> is a more scholarly account, but still written for a popular audience. She argues that tabooed terms in English have been unduly neglected by scholars, who are themselves influenced by the social pressures that make the words unacceptable in certain contexts. She divides swearing into the cathartic, the abusive, and the social, and ranges across British, American, Australian and occasionally other Englishes, drawing useful parallels between them. Some individual chapters focus on a single word, providing a historical background but also looking at psychological, neurological, anthropological, and sociolinguistic factors and drawing in earlier studies where relevant. Other chapters concentrate on particular aspects of swearing, such as its gender distribution or the use of euphemisms in avoidance of swearing. In her epilogue, she divides prejudice against swearing into three camps: those who argue that it is unimportant, those who see it as a sign of the times, and those who are really expressing class prejudice. She closes with a discussion of the language of racial prejudice and argues that its new-found offensiveness demonstrates the effectiveness of political correctness. Dominique Enright's <italic>In Other Words</italic> is a popular account of euphemism, arranged into the following chapters: ‘To Do with Religion and Superstition’, ‘To Do with Death, Dying and Killing’, ‘To Do with the “Naughty Bits” ’, ‘To Do with the “Powder Room” ’, ‘To Do with Commerce, Industry and Estate Agents’, ‘To Do with Politics, Espionage and Warfare’, ‘To Do with Mind, Body and Everyday Life’. It provides an interesting selection of terms, but is unlikely to be of much use to the academic reader. Susie Dent's <italic>Fanboys and Overdogs. The Language Report</italic> is an accessibly written account of neologisms from 2005. It provides an insight into notable events and social trends as well as language change. Oddly, there is a chapter on lexicography, inserted on the pretext of the anniversary of Samuel Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic>. There is also a comparison between the new words of 2005 and those of 1905, a brief history of political slogans, and a chapter on the language of cosmetics. This padding probably makes the book interesting to a non-specialist audience, but I found it irritating. Rosemarie Ostler's <italic>Dewdroppers, Waldos, and Slackers: A Decade-by-Decade Guide to the Vanishing Vocabulary of the Twentieth Century</italic> was first published in 2003, but has been reissued as a paperback this year. It is in much the same mould as Tom Dalzell's <italic>Flappers 2 Rappers</italic>, in that it gives a lexical insight into cultural trends. It also, inevitably, uses many of the same sources. This is a readable book for a popular audience.</p>
<p>Of interest to the field of lexical semantics, Bert Bultinck's <italic>Numerous Meanings: The Meaning of English Cardinals and the Legacy of Paul Grice</italic> explores L. R. Horn's postulation of the dual meaning of numerals to mean ‘exactly x’, but also ‘at least x’. For example, Horn argued that the question ‘Does John have three children?’ could be met with the apparently contradictory responses ‘Yes, (in fact) he has four’ and ‘No, he has four’. Bultinck finds that corpus analysis does not support the ‘at least’ sense in this context in everyday use. In fact, he argues that the conventional meaning of numerals is unambiguous. His analysis, using the British National Corpus (BNC) concentrates on <italic>two</italic> as representative of numerals from one to nineteen. He also considers <italic>zero</italic> as a special case. The meaning of the terms is analysed in relation to their grammatical and syntactical properties (summarized here from pp. 112, 155):</p>
<p><table-wrap id="T1" position="anchor">
<table frame="hsides">
<thead align="left">
<tr>
<th></th>
<th>adnominal use</th>
<th>pronominal use</th>
<th>nominal use</th>
<th>used in a counting sequence</th>
<th>other uses</th>
</tr></thead>
<tbody align="left">
<tr>
<td><italic>zero</italic></td>
<td>36.2%</td>
<td>62.8%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><italic>two</italic></td>
<td>76.6%</td>
<td>11.6%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
</tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></p>
<p>Bultinck finds that in most of the utterances he surveyed, <italic>two</italic> could be classed as having an ‘absolute value’ meaning or an ‘exactly n’ meaning. However, all the ‘exactly n’ uses can be analysed as qualifications of the ‘absolute value’ meaning. He concludes: ‘Grice seems to sacrifice firm intuitions concerning the conventional meanings of these items in order to be able to bridge the gap between the way in which logic uses logical operators and the ways in which alleged natural language counterparts of this operators function’ (p. 303). In ‘Absolute Disasters: The Problems of Layering’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp.1–15), Jean Aitchison considers views about meaning change that have persisted despite developments in the field of semantics. She argues that polysemy, or layering, is the norm, and looks at the words for catastrophic events in the BNC for her evidence.</p>
<p>This year saw several articles on etymology. Andrew Breeze supports the <italic>OED</italic> etymology for ‘<italic>Puffin</italic>, a Loanword from Cornish’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 52[2005] 172–3), in defiance of later authorities. In ‘Scones, <italic>The Oxford English Dictionary</italic>, and the Celtic Element in English Vocabulary’ (<italic>N&Q</italic> 52[2005] 447–50), William Sayers disagrees with the putative Germanic etymology given for <italic>scone</italic>, and argues that Celtic etymologies are underrepresented in the <italic>OED</italic>. Donald E. Meek presents the evidence for a Gaelic origin for Scots <italic>scail</italic> ‘to scatter; spread’ in ‘The Spread of a Word: <italic>Scail</italic> in Scots and <italic>Sgaoil</italic> in Gaelic’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., pp. 84–111). Brian Cooper's ‘Lexical Reflections Inspired by Slavonic *<italic>Bogŭ</italic>: English <italic>Bogey</italic> from a Slavonic Root’ (<italic>TPS</italic> 103[2005] 73–97) argues that <italic>bogey</italic> and its related forms are either cognate with or borrowed from German forms. Related Celtic terms are loans from English rather than vice versa. Richard Boyle presents ‘A Brief History of Sri Lankan English (<italic>OED News</italic> 2:xxiv[2005] 1–3) and looks at some of the Ceylonese words adopted into wider use.</p>
<p>Moving on to lexicography, T.P. Dolan's ‘The Compilation of a Dictionary of Hiberno-English’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 207–15) describes work on an ongoing project which aims to produce a national dictionary for the people of Ireland (see also section 9 for a review of the dictionary, actually published in 2004). Hiroaki Otani's ‘Investigating Intercollocations—Towards an Archaeology of Text’ (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005] 1–24) presents a study of the collocations networks of the verb <italic>conceal</italic>, based on the BNC. Rosamund Moon considers ‘Dictionaries and Metaphor, Metaphor and Dictionaries’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 391–9), with particular reference to the <italic>Macmillan English Dictionary</italic>, for which she uses the already comfortably occupied dictionary acronym <italic>MED</italic>. In ‘Genre Analysis and the Elaboration of Glossaries’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 417–25), Maria José Pereira de Oliveira describes the compilation of a glossary of terms used in ‘meat technology’. Andrejs Veisbergs looks at ‘Ideology in Dictionaries—Definitions of Political Terms’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 537–47), and finds that dictionaries are still far from objective. Rufus H. Gouws's ‘Multiple Niching’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 261–75) looks at one device by which dictionary-makers save space, and asks whether the cost to the dictionary-user is justifiable. Gisela Harras and Kristel Proost discuss ‘The Lemmatisation of Idioms’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 277–91) with reference to dictionaries of German, English, and Dutch. Włodzimierz Sobkowiak considers the representation of pronunciations in dictionaries in ‘Lexicographic Phonetics or Phonetic Lexicography?’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 511–19). In ‘Cyberlexicography in LSP: New Aspects of Components and Structures in the Dictionary’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 337–50), Anne Lise Laursen and Grete Duvå consider the strengths and weaknesses of existing paper and electronic dictionaries. Henrik Køhler Simonsen argues for ‘User Involvement in Corporate LSP Intranet Lexicography’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 489–509). For more information on some Irish English dictionaries, see section 9.</p>
<p>There were several papers on encyclopaedic material in dictionaries this year, grouped together here for convenience. Jack Lynch discusses the extra-lexical material in ‘Johnson's Encyclopedia’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., <italic>Anniversary Essays on Johnson's</italic> Dictionary, pp. 129–46). He finds that Johnson's dictionary is more encyclopaedic than its predecessors, not least because of his use of encyclopaedias as sources for definitions and citations. Many of the longer encyclopaedic entries were trimmed in the fourth edition. In a further exploration of the encyclopaedic properties of the dictionary, John Stone considers ‘The Law, the Alphabet, and Samuel Johnson’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 147–59). Laurie Bauer further discusses ‘The Illusory Distinction between Lexical and Encyclopedic Information’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 111–15) but this time with reference to contemporary dictionaries. John Considine picks up the same issue in ‘ “Our Dictionaries Err in Redundancy”: The Problem of Encyclopedism, Past, Present, and Future’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 195–205).</p>
<p>Several papers showed how dictionaries can be used as research tools in various academic disciplines. Alexander Fenton's ‘ “Wyne confortative”: Wine in Scotland from the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., pp. 48–60), Iseabail Macleod's ‘Cereal Terms in the <italic>DOST</italic> Record’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., pp. 73–83), A.D.C. Simpson's ‘Interpreting Scots Measurement Terms: A Cautionary Tale’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., pp. 139–52), and Bruce Walker's ‘The Use of the Scottish National Dictionaries in the Study of Traditional Construction’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., pp. 153–78) all illustrate the application of <italic>DOST</italic> (<italic>Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue</italic>) to historical research. Priscilla Bawcutt explores its use in literary research in ‘<italic>DOST</italic> and the Literary Scholar’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., pp. 5–17). A.D.M. Forte's ‘Law and Lexicography: <italic>DOST</italic> and Late Medieval and Early Modern Scottish Shipping Law’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., pp. 61–72) and W.D.H. Sellar's ‘Was it Murder? John Comyn of Badenoch and William, Earl of Douglas’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., pp. 132–8) both consider the value of dictionaries, particularly <italic>DOST</italic>, in the interpretation of legal language. The same subject is mentioned in ‘Johnson vs. Webster in re the U.S. Constitution’ (anonymously published in <italic>DSNA</italic> 29:i[2005] 5).</p>
<p>Historical dictionary research was dominated by Johnson this year, but one publication marginally pre-dates that in its focus. In ‘The Reception of Abel Boyer's <italic>Royal Dictionary</italic> in the 18th Century’ (<italic>Dictionaries</italic> 26[2005] 174–93), Monique C. Cormier finds that early reviewers relied on the dictionary's preface for their material and assessment. Contemporary and later lexicographers were more searching in their analysis. Lynch and McDermott's <italic>Anniversary Essays on Johnson's</italic> Dictionary aims not only to provide an account of current research but also ‘to disturb some received ideas about the <italic>Dictionary</italic> and to suggest new avenues for research’ (p. i). The introduction argues that there are, in effect, two dictionaries: the familiar one we know through the preface and a limited range of entries, and an unfamiliar one that scholars are only beginning to explore in detail. The volume brings together papers from many eminent scholars in the field and is successful in presenting opposing views and engaging in debate between them. Although bibliographic details are provided in endnotes, neither the papers nor the volume as a whole has a bibliography, which will disappoint future researchers in the field.</p>
<p>The June 2005 issue of the <italic>International Journal of Lexicography</italic> was also devoted to papers on Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic>, and I will discuss these two collections of papers on Johnson together. Paul J. Korshin's paper, ‘The Mythology of Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic>’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 10–23) looks at the invention and elaboration of stories about Johnson and his work, many of which circulated in various forms during his lifetime, while others emerged in the forty years following his death. Ian Lancashire explores how relationships between lexicographers, printer-publishers, and dictionary patrons worked in ‘Dictionaries and Power from Palgrave to Johnson’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 24–41). He argues that Chesterfield's ‘neglect’ was no more than a lexicographer could expect from his patron, whose main role was to impress the reading public into buying the dictionary. Johnson rejected his patron, and also downplayed the contribution of his publisher, in order to emphasize his own authority and to reject aristocratic notions of correctness. Ian Lancashire's ‘Johnson and Seventeenth-Century English Glossators’ (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005] 156–71) considers Johnson's debt to and use of earlier dictionary sources, particularly those by Thomas Blount, Edward Phillips, Elisha Coles, and John Kersey. In ‘What Johnson's Illustrative Quotations Illustrate: Language and Viewpoint in the <italic>Dictionary</italic>’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 42–60), Howard D. Weinbrot considers the motivations underlying Johnson's choice of citations and scholars’ interpretations of those choices. He concludes that the dictionary's political and theological biases have been overstated. Nicholas Hudson's ‘Reassessing the Political Context of the <italic>Dictionary</italic>: Johnson and the “Broad-Bottom” Opposition’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 61–76) explores political debates contemporary with the dictionary and traces the development of Johnson's own political thought, particularly with reference to the ‘Broad-Bottom’ movement. This emphasized the importance of supporting men of merit regardless of factional concerns. Although only the aristocracy had the power and influence to provide such support, this was felt to be more democratic than the Whig alternative. Robert DeMaria discusses ‘Johnson's Extempore History and Grammar of the English Language’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 77–91) and emphasizes the desultory nature of his method. The preliminary materials appear to have been hastily composed using unchecked memory and books close to hand. Linda C. Mitchell's ‘Johnson among the Early Modern Grammarians’ (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005] 203–16) explores the transfer of linguistic authority from grammarians to lexicographers during the eighteenth century. Geoff Barnbrook looks at ‘Usage Notes in Johnson's Dictionary’ (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005] 189–201) and considers his influence on the development of monolingual English dictionaries in this respect. He begins with a useful review of earlier dictionaries and concludes that Johnson's provision of ‘explicit and detailed commentary on usage … represents a significant development from previous approaches to lexicography’ (p. 200). Barnbrook's ‘Johnson the Prescriptivist? The Case for the Prosecution’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 92–112) is counterbalanced by Anne McDermott's ‘Johnson the Prescriptivist? The Case for the Defense’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 113–28). Barnbrook presents a statistical analysis of usage labels in entries from the first and the fourth editions and finds that about 24 per cent of labels in each edition are prescriptive. He further compares Johnson's assessment with the Helsinki Corpus and with the works of Alexander Pope, and does not find sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Johnson's prescriptions were out of line with contemporary usage. McDermott argues that Johnson's aim was to reflect linguistic usage of his time, but particularly those words that had stood the test of time, rather than to impose arbitrary judgements upon it. Anne McDermott discusses ‘Johnson's Definitions of Technical Terms and the Absence of Illustrations’ (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005] 173–87) in light of the tendency to include illustrations for technical terms in earlier dictionaries. She concludes that Johnson had little interest in such terms and little sense that it was important for his readers to understand them. Noel Osselton finds that ‘Hyphenated Compounds in Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic>’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 160–74) occur mainly towards the beginning of the alphabet, and sets out eight different methods by which such compounds are presented. Towards the end of the alphabet, Johnson was representing these compounds in citations rather than in the word-list. Paul Luna explores ‘The Typographic Design of Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic>’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 175–97) and compares the design of various editions. He places these in their contemporary contexts and identifies features of the typography of Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic> that went on to become standard. Catherine Dille similarly considers various editions in ‘The <italic>Dictionary</italic> in Abstract: Johnson's Abridgements of <italic>The Dictionary of the English Language</italic> for the Common Reader’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 198–211). She observes that despite scholarly concentration on the first and fourth folio editions, the two-volume octavo edition was the one most used by Johnson's contemporaries. In abridging his work for a wider readership, Johnson excised the citations (but not the names of his authorities), the usage labels, some obscure Latinate terms, and much obsolete and figurative language. Dille finds that a few changes made in the octavo edition eventually found their way into revisions of the folio text. R. Carter Hailey considers ‘Hidden Quarto Editions of Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic>’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 228–39): those based on Johnson's sixth edition of 1785. These contain corrections as well as misprints, but were not promoted as improved copies. Allen Reddick writes on ‘Revision and the Limits of Collaboration: Hands and Texts in Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic>’ (in Lynch and McDermott, eds., pp. 212–27). He finds that although the amanuenses were clearly given considerable freedom to find additional material, Johnson frequently chose to delete it or edit it severely. He particularly deleted material dealing with regional variation. In ‘Johnson and the <italic>OED</italic>’ (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005] 231–42), Penny Silva argues that Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic> was a resource rather than a model for James Murray and his co-editors, though the debt is greater in earlier volumes while the <italic>OED</italic> was developing its own defining style. In the revision currently taking place for <italic>OED</italic>3, all citations marked ‘(J.)’ are to be checked for accuracy, spelling and date. Patrick Hanks's ‘Johnson and Modern Lexicography’ (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005] 243–66) demonstrates that Johnson ‘addressed most of the central issues in linguistics, language teaching, and the philosophy of language, even though … these subjects did not exist’ (p. 243). In ‘A Curious Cross-Reference in Webster's <italic>American Dictionary</italic>’ (<italic>Dictionaries</italic> 26[2005] 194–205), David Micklethwait examines correspondence between Noah Webster's son William and his publishers, the Merriams, regarding the insertion of a cross-reference to a previously deleted entry. He concludes that the Merriams were implicated in the London publication of Joseph E. Worcester's dictionary under Webster's name. In ‘Johnson's Influence on Webster and Worcester in Early American Lexicography’ (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005] 217–29), Sidney I. Landau concentrates particularly on the treatment of phrasal verbs. He concludes that while Webster and Worcester each owed a heavy debt to Johnson's <italic>Dictionary</italic>, Webster's use of it was both more innovative and more influential.</p>
<p>The <italic>OED</italic> continues to inspire publications with a variety of purposes. Lynda Mugglestone's <italic>The Hidden History of the Oxford English Dictionary</italic> is an account of the production of the dictionary based, in part, on previously neglected letters and annotated proofs. The story of the <italic>OED</italic> has been told before, but Mugglestone's account emphasizes ‘how fragile its continued existence at times seemed’ (p. 25). With the Delegates of the Press on one side and the editors on the dictionary on the other, there was considerable tension between commercial and scholarly concerns. Henry Bradley, brought in as co-editor precisely in order to move the production of the dictionary on, came to agree with Murray's more methodical and thorough approach. This included extensive revision at the proof stage which sometimes meant that Murray entirely rewrote Bradley's definitions, thus further delaying the progress of the dictionary. Annotations on proofs tended to add material rather than delete it, but it is apparent that quotations from the popular press and other disreputable sources were more likely to be culled than their canonical literary counterparts. In light of contemporary concerns, it is interesting to observe that Murray sought to word the definitions of denominational names in ways that would not cause offence, though the obscuration and evasion found in sexual definitions are more obviously characteristic of their time. Mugglestone provides a detailed account of types of words excised from the proofs, including the obscene and the non-naturalized. She demonstrates that Murray resisted pressure to omit scientific terms, though there is more evidence of selectivity from the letter ‘F’ on. Despite the descriptive nature of the dictionary, Murray submitted to much prescriptive rewriting of the ‘General Explanations’ and also the title. Some usage labels and spellings were similarly the product of compromise between apparently incompatible views. Although the Delegates became less dictatorial as the dictionary progressed, the ageing and death of contributors and editors, combined with the effects of the First World War, moved completion ever further away. Getting through the alphabet was never seen as the end of the process, however. A ‘pigeon-hole of Supplementary matter’ (Murray, quoted on p. 202) held material omitted from the first edition or amended on the advice of correspondents. Mugglestone also gives a brief account of editorial practice in the supplements and editions issued since Murray's death. Peter Gilliver describes the work of one of the longest-serving assistants on the first edition of the <italic>OED</italic> in ‘The Interests of Arthur Maling: Esperanto, Chocolate, and Biplanes in Braille’ (<italic>OED News</italic> 2:xxxii[2005] 2–4). Pamela Roper Wagner describes her work for the <italic>OED</italic> in ‘Tracking Down <italic>Tofu</italic>: Library Research in the US’ (<italic>OED News</italic> 2:xxxiii[2005] 1–3); Alan Hartley does the same, but in a different role, in ‘Reading for the <italic>OED</italic>’ (<italic>OED News</italic> 2:xxxiii[2005] 4–5). Anne Whear presents her own ‘Memories of the Oxford English Dictionaries, 1972–2005’ (<italic>OED News</italic> 2:xxxiv[2005] 3–4). Meraud Grant Ferguson gives an account of ‘The Contribution of Women to the <italic>OED</italic>’ (<italic>OED News</italic> 2:xxv[2005] 1–4). Peter Gilliver's ‘Materials and Methodologies for the New <italic>Oxford English Dictionary</italic>’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 241–8) describes the practicalities of updating and revising the dictionary for online use. Christopher Goulding finds a 1744 citation pre-dating the <italic>OED</italic>’s first example of <italic>avalanche</italic> by twenty-one years (<italic>N&Q</italic> 52[2005] 18–19). In an English translation of a French text, Goulding finds an earlier citation for <italic>robot</italic> ‘a person whose work is entirely mechanical’, preceding the <italic>OED</italic> first citation by 126 years (<italic>N&Q</italic> 52[2005] 380–1).</p>
<p>Kay and Mackay's <italic>Perspectives on the Older Scottish Tongue</italic>, already cited above, is a celebration of the completion of the <italic>Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue</italic>. It provides examples of how scholars in various fields have used the material available in the dictionary to further their research. Scots is a development of the Northumbrian dialect of OE, supplemented by borrowings from Latin, Norse, French, Gaelic, English and Dutch, and first recorded in Barbour's <italic>Brut</italic> (<italic>c</italic>.1375). In ‘The History and Development of <italic>DOST</italic>’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., pp. 18–37), M.G. Dareau provides an account of the origins and editorial policies of the dictionary. She divides its development into four periods: 1919–48, when the influence of the <italic>OED</italic> was felt through the editorship of William Craigie; 1948–81, which saw Adam Aitkin take over as editor during a period of financial uncertainty; 1981–94, which saw new sources of funding sought as the dictionary's publisher and university backers losing patience with its slow progress and ever-increasing size; 1994–2001, which saw effective uses of new technologies and management structures in the final push towards the dictionary's completion. <italic>DOST</italic> and the <italic>Scottish National Dictionary</italic> are now both available online, and it is hoped that they will eventually be integrated into a single <italic>Dictionary of the Scots Language.</italic> The first appendix to the volume provides biographical information about <italic>DOST</italic>’s editors, as well as some photographs. Paul Schaffner's ‘<italic>DOST</italic> and <italic>MED</italic> and the Virtues of Sibling Rivalry’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., pp. 119–31) explores the relationships, differences, and boundaries between the two dictionaries. Keith Williamson explores the relationship between <italic>DOST</italic> and the ‘Linguistic Atlas of Older Scots’, currently in preparation, in ‘<italic>DOST</italic> and LAOS: a Caledonian Symbiosis?’ (in Kay and Mackay, eds., pp. 179–98).</p>
<p>The following are publications on learners’ dictionaries from this year. Hai Xu's ‘Treatment of Deictic Expressions in Example Sentences in English Learners’ Dictionaries’ (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005] 289–311) examines dictionaries’ use of citations containing expressions that bind them to their original context, such as pronouns, demonstratives, and adverbs of time. While these are a crucial part of normal communication, they can make citations difficult to interpret out of context. In ‘A Peek into what Today's Language Learners as Researchers Actually Do’ (<italic>IJL</italic> 18[2005] 335–55), Ana Frankenberg-Garcia explores how advanced language learners combine various paper and digital resources. She finds that these learners preferred bilingual support that did not require too much independent analysis. Tadeusz Piotrowski describes the compilation of ‘An English–Polish Dictionary for Polish Teenagers: A Dictionary by a Non-Native for Non-Natives’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 443–52). Santiago Posteguillo Gómez and Jordi Piqué-Angordans discuss ‘Computer Terminology: Developing an Active Bilingual English–Spanish Dictionary’ (in Gottleib et al., eds., pp. 453–73).</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC8"><title>8. Onomastics</title>
<p>This section is dedicated to the memory of William Bright, onomast, linguist, gentleman, who died on 15 October 2006.</p>
<p>Books on onomastics seem to run in cycles: 2004 was an exceptional year with a number of significant publications; the year under review is just the opposite; I am aware of only a single book with an onomastic theme published in 2005, and even this is not is not a ‘scholarly’ book in the strictest sense of the word. The book is <italic>Indian Placenames in America</italic>, volume 2: <italic>Mountains, Canyons, Rivers, Lakes, Creeks, Forests, and Other Natural Features</italic>, compiled by Sandy Nestor. This is a companion volume to the author's <italic>Indian Placenames in America</italic>, volume 1: <italic>Cities, Towns and Villages</italic> [2003]. While this is not a scholarly book <italic>per se</italic>—it is more a compilation than original scholarship—it appears to be informed and to have been compiled from usually reliable sources. The organization of the natural features is by state rather than alphabetically, and individual entries contain the name followed by the county in which the feature is located, and an explanation of the name. The bibliography—also arranged by state—is substantial and includes the primary items of which I am aware. These are followed by an index (alphabetical). While (and this makes the third time I have said this) <italic>Indian Placenames in America</italic> is not a scholarly book, I would recommend it for general readers: it is authoritative and the entries are well written and include a great deal of historical and social information in addition to the origin and derivation of the name. It serves a valuable purpose as a bridge between often arcane academic publication and the public at large. It may even bring a larger audience to onomastics.</p>
<sec id="SEC8.1"><title>(a) Onomastic Theory</title>
<p>Onomastics has rarely concerned itself with theory and 2005 saw the publication of a paltry three articles dealing primarily with the theory, practice, and methodology of the discipline. Several others tangentially related to theory (notably those of Evans, Tucker, and Lieberson and Lynn) are discussed in the section on personal names below.</p>
<p>Robert M. Rennick has written on the methodology of place-name research on several occasions. In ‘How to Study Placenames’ (<italic>Names</italic> 53[2005] 291–308), he covers much the same ground as he did in the introduction to his <italic>Kentucky Place Names</italic> (UPKen [1984]), but elaborates a number of points and includes a useful typology of place-name types (pardon the redundancy). According to Rennick, an entry in a place-name report should be accompanied by at least the following information: the official (or current) spelling of the name; the local pronunciation; the type of feature (e.g. populated place, waterway, post office, etc.); the location; the date the name was applied; the status of the name (official, local, alternative, etc.); the historical circumstances surrounding the naming (source of name, namer, events which may have influenced the choice of the name); and any previous name(s) the feature may have borne. The classification of geographic names has long been a thorny issue for toponymists, most of whom have happily defaulted to George R. Stewart's pioneering effort published in the introduction to his <italic>American Place-Names</italic> (OUP [1970]). Rennick is to be commended for calling attention to some of the shortcomings of Stewart's scheme and for suggesting the following modifications. For Rennick, names can be categorized as those deriving from personal names (commemoratives, such as Washington, DC and Lincoln, NE); those that are taken from other places or features (transfers such as Aurora, NY to Aurora, IL); those that are descriptive, such as Rocky Mount, NC and Long Island, NY; those that are drawn from historical events, such as Iuka, IL, named for the American Civil Way battle of Iuka, MS; those that are subjective (about which Rennick wisely notes ‘reveal more about the namers than about the places or features named’ (p. 300), such as Hope, OK; those which are mistakes, as when a postal official in Washington ‘corrected’ the spelling of Mosco, KS (named for Luis de Moscoso, an officer in Coronado's expedition in the sixteenth century); those which have multiple possible origins; and the ever present, ever nettlesome but very necessary category ‘unknown’. Rennick has provided a great deal of material for discussion and raised several important theoretical and methodological issues.</p>
<p>The second article dealing with what we might call ‘background’ or preliminaries to onomastic research (again concerning toponymy) is Alexei Solopov's ‘The Imperial Context of Place-Names in Roman Britain’ (<italic>JEPNS</italic> 37[2005] 5–18), an article with a great deal to say regarding how we go about toponymic research and the kinds of information that count in the resolution of the origin(s) and history of toponyms. Solopov asserts ‘[t]oponyms can be studied not only from the point of view of their outer structure, i.e. morphology and word-formation … but also from the point of view of their inner structure, i.e. semantics, through analysis of the meaning of place-names themselves or of the morphemes from which they are formed’ (p. 5). Furthermore, semantics itself can be approached from two directions: the semasiological (from word to meaning) and the onomasiological (from meaning to word). These approaches complement one another. Solopov then proceeds to develop the notion of the etymology of a word (or name) and the motivation for its application, using the derivation of English <italic>pen</italic> from Latin <italic>penna</italic> ‘feather’ as an example, pointing out that the etymology is threadbare until we know the motivation for the word, the fact that feathers (‘quills’) were used as writing instruments for centuries until they were replaced by metal ‘pens’, then by fountain pens, themselves superseded by modern Biros, Bics, and the like. A valid observation but I do have trouble with the choice of the word ‘motivation’ as it is used here (although I admit I am hard put to come up with a better one). ‘Motivation’ often equates with ‘reason’ or ‘rationale’, suggesting deliberate thought when, if truth be told, we can never objectively determine the reason(s) why a particular word or name was chosen; we can never get inside the namer's head, and we can never, even in the presence of first-hand accounts, be certain whether the namer is being serious, ironic, had a lapse of memory, or just made a mistake, intending one thing for another. Why, in the case of <italic>penna</italic>, did not the namer choose a word or collocation meaning ‘ink dispenser’, ‘writing implement’ or the like? In any case, I take Solopov's point and I think he has articulated an important issue in toponymic research. He goes on to make two additional important points: first, that the motivation for a particular name (there's that troublesome word again) may be retained long after the original name has been replaced, often by calquing (e.g. Bath in England); and second, how names function in an onomastic hierarchy. This is an interesting point and one which I have rarely seen addressed. Solopov presents a hierarchy of Roman populated places with their accompanying naming pointers, with the most important element—cities—at the top, followed by towns and stations, and lastly villages, estates, and villas. Cities tend to have names in the feminine singular (determined by their status—stated or implied—as <italic>colonia</italic>); towns are most commonly named in the neuter singular; and stations usually with the overt marker <italic>statio</italic>. The markers of the fourth category are difficult to determine due to a general lack of evidence. Solopov makes clear that his discussions are more preliminary than polished, more suggestive than solidified, and they should be taken as tentative. There is a great deal of grist here for the onomastic mill and Solopov has made a number of suggestions which deserve consideration and further exploration.</p>
<p>It took me four readings of Alexander Beider's ‘Scientific Approach to Etymology of Surnames’ (<italic>Names</italic> 53[2005] 79–126) to realize that there is a lot less here than meets the eye. Beider has an international reputation in onomastics, known especially for his outstanding work in Jewish surnames, and it is disappointing on several levels to find such a bland, obvious article which offers little that is new—or even interesting. Beider strives to put surname etymology on a ‘scientific’ footing (read ‘objective’), which would, he claims, go far in reversing the ‘law [<italic>sic</italic>] status of that branch of onomastics in scholarly circles’ (p. 83). It is unclear to me how this can be ‘scientific’, since, by Beider's own admission, ‘an etymology suggested for any surname is no more than a hypothesis that cannot be formally proven’ (p. 85). What Beider has to offer is little more than we already know and regularly utilize when we approach the etymology of surnames, namely: the ‘what’ question, ‘What word or words were the direct basis for the surname?’ (p. 86); the ‘why’ question, the ‘reasons for the choice of source words’ (p. 91) (and here Beider undermines his own argument once again by claiming that ‘[t]his question … forces a researcher to exit from the linguistic context to enter another, supplementary, domain, a richer one, prompting for more imagination and therefore a more fascinating one, but invariably more subjective and consequently more easily exposed to accusations of not being scientific’ (p. 92)—how introducing subjectivity into the process will lead to onomastics’ being more scientific is beyond me); the ‘how’ question, how the surname was created from its etymon or etema, e.g. affixation, shortening, inversion, and the like; in other words, more of the typical processes of general word formation exclusive of semantic shifts. Other desiderata would include the ‘who’ question, who chose the surname; and the ‘where’ and ‘when’ questions, where and when the surname first appeared. I will say on Beider's behalf that he draws from a wealth of information and uses his vast knowledge of European surnames for pertinent illustrations. It is unfortunate that the concepts they illustrate are so banal. A further problem with this article is the appalling lack of text editing and the fact that no care at all was given to the formatting. Beider, a Russian by birth, is not a native speaker of English, and the editor of the journal did him (and onomastics) a grave disservice. A few of the more jarring examples not often found in professional publications: ‘Northern America’ for ‘North America’ (pp. 88–9), ‘the task of onomastician [<italic>sic</italic>] to the discovery of source words’ (p. 92), ‘theses results’ for ‘these results’ (p. 93) ‘Scottland’ for ‘Scotland’, and ‘invertion’ for ‘inversion’ (p. 104). Beider's arguments were difficult enough to follow as they were; they are almost impossible with the (unnecessary and embarrassing) textual errors.</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC8.2"><title>(b) Geographic Names</title>
<p>The following three summaries are of articles published in the long-delayed volume 38 of <italic>Onoma</italic>, the Journal of the International Council of Onomastic Sciences, a special issue on ‘North American Onomastics’, edited by Thomas J. Gasque, emeritus professor at the University of South Dakota and a past editor of <italic>NAMES, the Journal of the American Name Society</italic>.</p>
<p>In ‘American Indian Placenames in the United States’ (<italic>Onoma</italic> 38[2003] 15–38), William Bright lays out through a series of case studies some of the findings, problems, and extensions of current research in Native American onomastics. He uses examples of Sauk (Sac) to show that many place-name variants, of different spellings and from apparently diverse sources, may be, in fact, simply doublets, borrowed from different sources or at different times. Thus, Sauk, Osakis, Ozaukee, Saco, and other forms are all from Algonquian */<italic>sa</italic>:<italic>k</italic>-/‘outlet’. Bright offers alternative explanations for the derivation of <italic>Arizona</italic>: from O’odham <italic>ali şonag</italic> ‘many small springs’ or from Basque <italic>aritz ona-k</italic> ‘good oaks’. Bright is quite right when he says that two aspects of toponyms—street names and other odonyms, and the pronunciation of place names—are too often ignored in place-name studies. He proceeds to give a list of street names in Denver, Colorado, with names relating to Native Americans, in alphabetical order from Acoma through Inca, Navajo and Seneca to Yuma and Zuni. Bright offers three reasons for the paucity of information on pronunciation found in many (I would say most) place-name dictionaries: that many investigators, particularly historians and geographers feel uncomfortable with an ‘academic’ phonetic alphabet such as the IPA; the sheer variability in the pronunciation of many place names, raising the significant issue of which one(s) to include (his example is <italic>Oregon</italic>, where several pronunciations are regularly found); and, third and most compelling, the linguistic insecurity, even embarrassment, which overtakes a speaker when a stranger asks about language, especially about pronunciation. I have found, however, through frustrating personal experience, that Bright's solution, namely face-to-face interviews, is subject to the same frustrations and is as unreliable as questionnaires or using written materials. To my way of thinking the only satisfying and valid solution is to use sociolinguistic techniques and treat the pronunciation of a given name as a linguistic variable. This approach is unworkable, of course, demanding more time, experience, and finances than can be expended by most onomasts. Pronunciation continues to be the soft spot of place-name studies.</p>
<p>Michael McCafferty's cleverly titled ‘On Wisconsin: The Derivation and Referent of an Old Puzzle in American Placenames’ (<italic>Onoma</italic> 38[2003] 39–56) offers a modern interpretation of a place name which has long vexed American onomasts. (The title cleverly plays on the lexical ambiguity of ‘On Wisconsin’, which can be taken quite literally as used in scholarly studies meaning simply the subject of the essay, but ‘On Wisconsin’ is also the name of the University of Wisconsin's fight song and an unofficial university motto, where it means ‘forward, advance’.) It was first recorded by Marquette in 1673 as <italic>Meskousing</italic>, from the Miami-Illinois language, and a short time later recorded as <italic>Miskonsing</italic> by Louis Jolliet, who with Marquette led the historic expedition down the Mississippi River. McCafferty notes that the only significant difference between Jolliet's recording and the next later one, by La Salle as <italic>Ouisconsing</italic>, is the initial consonant. McCafferty then argues that the change from [m] to [w] was due to La Salle, who copied Jolliet's recording as a cursive capital M, which he (La Salle) later mistook as <italic>Ou</italic>, phonetically [w]. In La Salle's own writings, the spellings <italic>Misconsing</italic> and <italic>Ouisconsing</italic> alternate. While it is impossible to reproduce the French cursive capital M here, imagine if you will the letter , with the bottom arm ligatured to a script , something like a digraph, with the downstroke of the continuing in a upsweep pattern. It was La Salle's form, rather than Marquette's or Jolliet's, which was copied by later writers and cartographers, especially by the royal hydrographer, Jean-Baptist Louis Franquelin, of considerable influence in seventeenth-century French North America. McCafferty concludes with a Miami-Illinois morphological analysis of Wisconsin, phonemically <italic>meeskohsinki</italic> ‘it lies red’, likely referring to the red sandstone bluffs along the Wisconsin River in the Wisconsin Dells area.</p>
<p>Proceeding from the observation that pidgins have a considerably higher rate of transfer of place names than do the individual languages of which they are comprised, Grant Smith (<italic>Onoma</italic> 38[2003] 57–74) investigates several hundred place names in the state of Washington which are (or were, if displaced) derived from the pidgin known as Chinook Jargon, the trade language used through much of the Pacific Northwest and named from the Native American people, the Chinook, who lived near the mouth of the Columbia River. Names considered include Skookum Creek (<<italic>skookum</italic> ‘powerful’), Hee Hee Creek (<<italic>hee hee</italic> ‘funny’), Moolock Lake (<<italic>moolock</italic> ‘elk’), Muckamuck Mountain (<<italic>muckamuck</italic> ‘food’), Siwash Slough (<<italic>siwash</italic> ‘savage, wild’), Tyee Creek (<<italic>tyee</italic> ‘chief, boss’), and Wawa Point (<<italic>wawa</italic> ‘talk’). Smith relates his observation to what he calls the ‘sticking power’ of names taken from the Jargon rather than from individual Native American languages.</p>
<p>Captain James Cook [1728–79] is best known for his explorations in the south Pacific, especially in the Sandwich Islands, where he was killed by native Hawaiians in 1779. However, in earlier years Cook was celebrated for his surveying and charting of south-eastern Canada, especially in and around Newfoundland in the 1760s. William B. Hamilton's ‘Echoes in the Northern Latitudes: Captain James Cook, 1757 to 1767’ (<italic>OnCan</italic> 87[2005] 33–42) surveys Cook's early life and his cartographic work with particular attention to his onomastic activities. Cook was assiduous regarding naming and went to great lengths to discover the existing names of geographic features; if none could be found he was ready to assign names of his own devising. Hamilton categorizes the names given by Cook into descriptives (Eclipse Island, where Cook watched a total eclipse of the sun; Sops Arm, ‘sop’ being an Old English word for a black rock); commemoratives (Hawkes Point, for Lord Hawke, at the time First Lord of the Admiralty, Palliser Point, for Sir Hugh Palliser, Governor of Newfoundland); transfers from England (Humber River; Mewstone Rock); and commemoratives for ships of the Royal Navy, the <italic>Lark</italic> and the <italic>Guernsey</italic> being memorialized in Lark Harbour, and Guernsey Cove.</p>
<p>Richard Coates (<italic>JEPNS</italic> 37[2005] 33–4) offers a source for the heretofore unknown root of the name <italic>Kirmington</italic>. Coates suggests an origin in Brythonic (of which a reflex is Welsh <italic>crynen</italic> ‘cone, stack’). The hypothesized OE name *Cirnen-tūn was then rebuilt on the familiar -<italic>ing</italic>-<italic>tūn</italic> model. Coates attributes the change of [n] to [m] to a scribe's miscounting the number of minims in . In the same issue Coates has several short entries on individual names and a longer essay on ‘The Antiquity of Moggerhanger, Bedfordshire’ (<italic>JEPNS</italic> 37[2005] 48–51).</p>
<p>The etymology of Wolf Rock, some ten miles off Land's End, is treated by Andrew Breeze (<italic>JEPNS</italic> 37[2005] 59–60). Popular (folk) etymologies claim that the rock is so named because of the ‘continued and melancholy howling’ (p. 59) made by the waves breaking around it, or that the prominence itself is shaped like the head of a wolf. Breeze dismisses these and more serious etymologies and suggests an origin in Cornish from a word meaning ‘bill, beak’, cognate with Welsh <italic>gwlf</italic> and Breton <italic>goulff</italic>.</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC8.3"><title>(c) Personal Names</title>
<p>Edwin D. Lawson continues his compilations of sources related to personal names and naming, which to date have resulted in the two standard bibliographies on the subject: <italic>Personal Names and Naming</italic> (Greenwood Press [1987]) and <italic>More Names and Naming</italic> (Greenwood Press [1995]). In ‘Research on Personal Names in North America, 1990–2003: an Annotated Bibliography’ (<italic>Onoma</italic> 38[2003] 87–118), Lawson lists, categorizes, and annotates some 160 items, emphasizing more scholarly items rather than the proliferation of popular books on baby names and articles in magazines and newspapers. The majority of the entries appear in the section ‘Ethnic/Cultural Groups;’ these range from ‘African’ through ‘Chinese’ and ‘Inuit’ to ‘Ukrainian’. Particularly welcome categories, since these items are often difficult to locate, are ‘Structure of Names’, ‘Sound and Emotion in Names’, ‘Population Structure’, and ‘Dictionaries’.</p>
<p>Patrick W. Hanks's ‘Americanization of European Family Names in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’ (<italic>Onoma</italic> 38[2003] 119–54) is required reading for anyone interested in the changes which have taken place in family names in North America due to contact between European languages and the English of North America. Using examples drawn from his magisterial <italic>Dictionary of American Family Names</italic> (OUP [2003]), Hanks has written an extremely informative article concerning the major changes undergone by European family names in their transportation to North America. The section dealing with French names is most detailed, but the article contains useful discussions of Huguenot, Dutch, German, Irish, Scottish, Norwegian, and Swedish names. Hanks illustrates such phenomena as phonetic adaptation (Dutch Jansen > Johnson; German Pfannebecker > Pennypacker); translation (French Vertefeuille > Greenleaf, Swedish Eklöf > Oakleaf); the omnipresent folk etymology (German Ehrgott > Airgood; Dutch Updegraff > Upthegrove); as well as miscellaneous changes such as German Gottschalk > Cutshaw. This article is a masterful introduction to the kinds of changes family names undergo when they are transplanted to a new linguistic environment.</p>
<p>Ken Tucker's ‘Analysis of the Forenames and Surnames of England and Wales Listed in the UK 1881 Census Data’ (<italic>Onoma</italic> 38[2003] 181–216) is an overview of the frequencies and distributions of personal names as they appeared in England and Wales in 1881. The most popular female forenames (given names) were Mary, Elizabeth, Ann, Sarah, Jane, Ellen, Eliza, Alice, Annie, and Emma. For males: William, John, Thomas, George, James, Henry, Charles, Joseph, Robert, and Edward. Even the most cursory glance is enough to show that over the past 125 years at least (and probably for much longer), names for males have formed a more stable set than those for females and, with few exceptions, the most common names for males in 1881 were pretty much the same as they are today. But the case is quite different for female names. Tucker adds a category often overlooked, that of forename combinations; some names just seem to fit together better than others. In 1881, ‘Ann’ was far and away the most popular of the ‘second forenames’ with Mary Ann, Sarah Ann, Elizabeth Ann, Jane Ann, Mary Anne, Eliza Ann, Margaret Ann, Martha Ann, and Alice Ann making up nine of the fifteen most popular combinations. For males, Henry served a similar function, with William Henry, John Henry, George Henry, Thomas Henry, James Henry, and Charles Henry among the thirteen most popular combinations. Rounding out his investigation, Tucker notes that the ten most popular surnames were Smith, Jones, Williams, Taylor, Brown, Davies, Evans, Thomas, Roberts, and Wilson. Tucker proceeds to give a statistical analysis of name frequencies and their distributions, all nicely graphed, a discussion of some of the problems of dealing with possible unisex names, and a long appendix of anomalies in the census data and their probable causes. This is an important article since it sets out the parameters for a statistical analysis of a large corpus of names and provides a valuable reference point for future studies. However, it is not for the uninitiated; the terminology is difficult for beginning onomasts and the figures take some care; they are far from self-explanatory. Tucker assumes a great deal of background on the part of readers. Less difficult accounts which I would recommend to readers new to the subject are Tucker's articles ‘Distribution of Forenames, Surnames, and Forename-Surname Pairs in the United States’ (<italic>Names</italic> 49[2001] 69–96) and ‘Distribution of Forenames, Surnames, and Forename-Surname Pairs in Canada’ (<italic>Names</italic> 50[2002] 105–32). His more detailed analysis of the 1881 UK census data can be found in ‘The Forenames and Surnames from the GB Electoral Roll Compared with those from the UK 1881 Census’ (<italic>Nomina</italic> 27[2004] 5–40).</p>
<p>In ‘Common American Given Names of the Twentieth Century: A Preliminary Analysis by Decades’ (<italic>Onoma</italic> 38[2003] 217–34), Cleveland Kent Evans, arguably the world's leading expert on naming trends, notes that until recently there was little reliable information on the first names given to children on a countrywide basis, a situation which has now been remedied in large part by the US Social Security Administration. Since about 1980 all children born in the US have been required by law to have a social security number (and thus be registered in the social security database) effectively from birth. The information on given names is available through the Social Security Administration website <<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames">http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames</ext-link>>. Evans analysed given name frequencies from a randomly drawn 5 per cent sample of all native-born Americans registered with Social Security in the ten decades of the twentieth century. Evans presents a number of preliminary observations gathered from the sample, including the fact that, beginning in the 1900s and extending to the 1950s, the more popular names accounted for an ever-increasing share of all names; then in the last half of the century that began to change until the 1990s. To take but one example, the fifty most popular names for girls in the 1900s comprised slightly less than 50 per cent of all names; this rose to nearly 54 per cent in the 1940s, and decreased over each succeeding decade to where, in the 1990s, the fifty most popular names comprised less than 38 per cent of all names. Boys’ names followed the same general pattern. Thus, as Evans points out, the middle decades of the twentieth century were more conformist than the decades at either end of the century, particularly the 1990s, where for the first time in the twentieth century the fifty most popular boys’ names accounted for less than 50 per cent of the total and the fifty most popular girls’ names accounted for less than 40 per cent. I agree with Evans's explanation that a significant part of the pattern can be accounted for by the ever-increasing availability of first-name information beginning in the 1980s which accelerated a pattern already in progress, which allowed parents access to currently popular names and allowed them to choose a truly distinctive name for their children whereas previously parents may have chosen a name thinking it was unusual when in reality it was more common than they thought. Of particular significance is Evans's observation that the data from the Social Security Administration clearly demonstrates that names formerly identified as ‘Catholic’ had become general by the 1940s and 1950s with the growing popularity of names such as Michael, Kevin, Patrick, and Brian. This assimilation of formerly ‘Catholic’ names was characteristic of girls’ names as well, with the generalization of Barbara and Joan, and later with Shannon, Erin, Kaitlyn, and Kelly. Charts showing the ‘top fifty’ (fifty-one actually) boys’ and girls’ names by decade are given along with ancillary information such as whether or not the name is new to the top fifty. This is a valuable article introducing an invaluable archive of onomastic information.</p>
<p>In ‘Popularity as a Taste: An Application to the Naming Process’ (<italic>Onoma</italic> 38[2003] 235–76), Stanley Lieberson and Freda B. Lynn first note two remarkable and far-reaching shifts in naming practices in western Europe and North America which began about 1850, accelerated through the twentieth century and show no signs of abating. The first is an increasing change in the individual names given to children (the turnover rate), from traditional names to names chosen largely because of fashion and taste. It is noted as well that while the engines driving this change have yet to be identified, they perhaps have to do with one or more of the larger changes in Western society which themselves began at about this time, such as industrialization, widespread literacy and urbanization, all of which preceded what are usually given as the causes of not only societal change but the change to ‘trendy’ or ‘fashionable’ names, for example the increasing access to such media as radio, motion pictures, and television. The authors, in fact, go so far as to say that ‘there is no reason to view these media changes as central causes [of the change in naming]’ (p. 235). The second trend during this period is what the authors call the ‘concentration factor’, progressing from a time when a few names accounted for a considerable portion of all names to a current point where the more popular names are given to fewer and fewer children. In England from the mid-sixteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth century, three boys’ names (William, John, and Thomas) and three girls’ names (Elizabeth, Mary, and Anne) accounted for about 50 per cent of all boys’ and girls’ names, respectively. In 1850 the single most popular girls’ name in the latter half of the eighteenth century was given to twenty-five of every hundred newborn girls; by contrast in 1990 the figure had dropped to an astounding four per hundred. In the United States naming followed the same trend, but at a different level: in 1880 one of the top ten most popular girls’ names was given to 25 per cent of all newborn girls, while by 2000 it was less than 10 per cent. The authors then consider—and dismiss—three commonly held beliefs often proffered to explain these facts: increasing urbanization, increasing cultural diversity of the population, and presence of ever-increasing means of publicizing information concerning the popularity of certain names at any given time, especially lists of names such as those now supplied by the Social Security Administration (see above) and their dissemination through the ubiquity of the internet. Similarly, they dismiss any increase (or presumably decrease) in the rate of name turnover as a contributing factor. This brings Lieberson and Lynn to offer a theory which Lieberson has been articulating in part for most of the past decade, namely that ‘popularity itself [is] a taste that is affected by collective forces, rather than … a simple product of external events’. In particular, ‘the popularity of a name (or other tastes …) affects its level of appeal or antipathy to the person making the choice’ (pp. 257–8). In other words, some portion of the population will be attracted to a given name simply because it is popular; others will be attracted to a name which is ‘somewhat’ popular, and so forth. The analogy is with clothing fashions, where some people find an item attractive largely because it is popular while others are put off for the same reason. As the authors note, the appeal of a given level of popularity varies within the population; the appeal of a name will be altered as its popularity changes; and the distribution of tastes for given levels of popularity may change from time to time. Popularity theory operates, the authors claim, ‘such that although many names decline or increase [over time], the outcome is a strong tendency for [the] old distribution to be replaced by other names of comparable popularity’ (pp. 266–7). As an analogy the authors offer: ‘Visualize a mass of pedestrians at a busy downtown intersection. The traffic lights change over and over again, but through a sequence the proportion of pedestrians making a right turn at the corner, or making a left turn, or crossing straight ahead [is] more or less constant. Yet the specific subjects are continuously changing’ (p. 268). This theory is more fully elaborated in Lieberson's book, entitled appropriately <italic>A Matter of Taste</italic> (YaleUP [2000]), which is required reading for anyone seriously interested in the mechanisms which drive societal rather than personal choices. This article, like those of Tucker and Evans above, is an important contribution to a rapidly evolving theory of names which is elevating onomastics from the name-list-making dilettantes with too much time on their hands to a serious endeavour which is rapidly coming to grips with the abstract systems which govern naming in society.</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC8.4"><title>(d) Literary Onomastics</title>
<p>In a long, disjointed, windy, and often redundant article in which he cites himself sixteen times, Leonard R.N. Ashley claims to survey the state of literary onomastic studies in the United States (<italic>Onoma</italic> 38[2003] 279–304). Rather than a survey, however, this is in fact a general apology for literary onomastics, an attack from the defensive side. True, as Ashley mentions on several occasions, the study of names in literature is largely seen as less valuable and in fact the least defensible aspect of onomastics, certainly less valuable than toponymy or the study of personal names. After criticizing Markey and others for claiming that literary onomastics is ‘unscientific’, Ashley inexplicably plays directly into the hands of his critics. After claiming that literary onomastics ‘is often practiced with the rigor of science and the warmth of art’ (p. 284), he claims that ‘it’—in this case the ‘most credible names for Catholics, Protestants and Jews in a poor Baltimore neighborhood in 1950’ and by extrapolation a great deal of the choice of names in literature—‘may be simply a matter of what you can get away with’ (p. 285). And again, ‘writers of fiction [need to know more than] what names are current. [T]hey need to understand what the true meaning of a name is perceived to be. This is not a matter of etymology, if it ever was’ (p. 284). And yet he is quick to point out the etymological appropriateness of <italic>Amanda</italic> ‘to be loved’ in Tennessee Williams's <italic>The Glass Menagerie</italic>, a fact missed, Ashley claims, by ‘some onomastic critics’ (p. 294). Hardly a ringing defence of the rigour of literary onomastics. Ashley was one of the leading figures in the annual Conference on Literary Onomastics (the term was coined in the 1970s by Grace Alvarez-Altman) and frequently published in its journal. He has seen the world of literary onomastics (and literary criticism as he knows it) upended in the past half-century; thus this article is largely a polemic against, among other things, the downplaying of literary onomastics by the American Name Society; modern critics who ‘ride their hobby horses of post-Marxist, postcolonial, postmodern or body/gender/disability or whatever’ and ‘don't want to fiddle with supposedly minor, aesthetic matters such as word choice or name choice’ (p. 292); schools of criticism which emphasize the reader's ‘decoding’ the text rather than searching for the author's intention; students who seem more interested in a certificate than an education and the schools which not only make this possible but actively promote it; and the papers which purportedly deal with literary onomastics but are more rightly literary criticism. These are often presented at the American Name Society sessions at the Modern Language Association, and, says Ashley, had they been better would have been accepted for presentation at legitimate literary sessions instead. For me the redeeming grace of this article lies in Ashley's impish delight in wordplay and the characteristic Ashleyesque turns of phrase. On toponymists outnumbering literary onomasts at professional meetings: ‘Preaching to the choir is bad enough; preaching on The Odyssey or Othello or Old Mortality or Omoo to scholars of the place names of Ohio or Oregon is futile’ (p. 298). On toponymists as taxonomists: ‘Toponymists have been efficient hunters and gatherers, but … they have too seldom learned to cook’ (p. 281). On de-emphasizing literary onomastics in favour of more ‘scientific’ onomastic studies: ‘[S]cience is always somewhat wrong, being based on what facts are available at any given time … great literature is forever right, dealing in universals’ (p. 283). On verisimilitude in fiction: if done right, ‘everyone will believe parts of the Midwest are warrens of Babbitts’ (p. 286). Ashley does make several valid points concerning what a legitimate literary onomastics would look like, but they are too often lost among the excessive and wandering verbiage.</p>
<p>Following Ashley's rambling, unfocused article, the late Charles Vandersee, in Title? (<italic>Onoma</italic> 38[2003], ??), offers a model account of one aspect of the use of names in literature—how they offer insights into the national character and national cultural traits—by looking at intertextuality (the relationships between one text and others which consider or reconsider aspects of that text and which serve to inform its reading) and ‘stranding’, which Vandersee defines as ‘the intertwining of threads to make a strong and interesting rope or fabric’ (p. 306). Vandersee looks at two names—‘Whitman’ and ‘Proteus’—as contributing to the invoking of national character in Ralph Ellison's <italic>Invisible Man</italic>, Kurt Vonnegut's <italic>Player Piano</italic>, and Maxine Hong Kingston's <italic>Tripmaster Monkey</italic>. In <italic>Invisible Man</italic>, the poet Walt Whitman goes unnamed but his influence pervades the novel. Ellison himself was named Ralph Waldo Ellison (for Ralph Waldo Emerson, the Transcendentalist essayist and poet, and a contemporary of Whitman). In fact the male protagonist of <italic>Invisible Man</italic>, shortly after he arrived in New York, was propositioned by a young man named Emerson. Further strands: in the novel Ellison refers to a roadhouse called the Golden Day, a reference to Lewis Mumford's book of that name about the efflorescence of literature in New England in the Emerson–Whitman era, and several times mentions the Club Calamus, a meeting place for writers, artists and others frequently on the fringes of society. (The Calamus poems of Whitman were both condemned and praised for their homoerotic themes.) Turning to Maxine Hong Kingston's <italic>Tripmaster Monkey</italic>, Vandersee finds at least three strands in the name Wittman Ah Sing: first the name Wittman (Whitman) itself; second, the character Ah Sin in poet and short story writer Bret Harte's poem ‘Plain Language from Truthful Jane’, a caricature of California Chinese culture; and third, the meaningless prefix Ah, which, according to Kingston, is a vacuous syllable which goes before anyone's name. Meaningless? Perhaps. But according to Vandersee, ‘[c]onveniently, the Ah also instantiates even more firmly Walt Whitman, surely reminding most readers of the opening of “Song of Myself”: “I celebrate myself and [ah] sing myself” ’ (p. 311). Vandersee claims that each of these three strands brings to the fore a crucial element of the American experience: a unbridled bard (Whitman himself); a resister of cultural stereotypes; or a Chinese American identity. Vandersee's discussion of the name Proteus, as found in Vonnegut, Ellison, and John Dos Passos's <italic>The 42nd Parallel</italic>, although detailed, is not nearly as convincing as that considered above, although the essay is recommended for those interested in the use of names in literature beyond the obvious associations of historical, mythological, or otherwise cultural icons.</p>
<p>In ‘The Kinship of <italic>Jack</italic>: II, Pet-Forms of Middle English Personal Names with the Suffixes -<italic>cok</italic> and -<italic>cus</italic>’ (<italic>Nomina</italic> 28[2005] 5–42), Peter McClure offers a follow-up on an earlier article in which he claimed that the -<italic>ke</italic> suffix of <italic>Jakke</italic> was one of a group of Flemish or Franco-Flemish hypocoristic suffixes which were introduced into England after the Norman Conquest. In the current essay McClure considers the suffixes -<italic>cok</italic> and -<italic>cus</italic>, the latter apparently previously unrecognized as a hypocoristic formative. Lines of argument such as the fact that -<italic>cok</italic> (as in Adcock, Hancock, and Wilcock) occurs overwhelmingly with names from the Continent rather than English names, McClure argues that -<italic>coc</italic> was likely modelled on the existing hypocoristic -<italic>kin</italic>. McClure hypothesizes that -<italic>kin</italic> was reanalysed as the double suffix -<italic>k</italic>-<italic>in</italic> and -<italic>coc</italic> was created by substituting the OE (or possibly Low German) suffix -<italic>oc</italic>. McClure's argument is strengthened by the apparent parallel structure of -<italic>cus</italic>, a double diminutive consisting of -<italic>k</italic> plus -<italic>us</italic>, the latter attested by early ME times as a hypocoristic normally attached to women's names originating in OE or Old Scandinavian. Thus, according to McClure, -<italic>kin</italic> provided the model for both -<italic>coc</italic> and -<italic>cus</italic>. This is a model article, thoroughly researched, tightly argued, and interestingly presented.</p>
<p>Davis Morris (<italic>Nomina</italic> 28[2005] 43–54) tracks the rise of Christian names in England in the thirteenth century by using as his chief resource the Inquisitions Post Mortem, the records made of the properties of those who received land holdings directly from the king, during the reigns of Henry III, Edward I, and Edward II. The tenants thus comprise a reasonably homogenous group. Throughout the thirteenth century the most common names were remarkably consistent: John, William, Robert, Thomas, Roger, and Richard swapped positions with one another but remained the top six names. However, when the total number of names was considered, the number of religious names increased from period to period; from just under 30 per cent at the beginning of the century to over 40 per cent half-way through to nearly 50 per cent at century's end.</p>
<p>John and Sheila Rowlands, in ‘The Transition from Patronymic Names to Settled Surnames in Wales’ (<italic>Nomina</italic> 28[2005] 55–68), use a large-scale investigation of wills made in Wales to trace the evolution of patronymics to, in their words, ‘settled surnames’. In some parts of Wales surnames had largely replaced patronymics by 1600 but patronymics lingered in other parts until the mid-nineteenth century. And, as we might expect, there was considerable variation throughout Wales, both geographically and socially, with surnames coming earlier to the more heavily populated areas. The Rowlands include a fine contour map, something of considerable value in onomastics but rarely found.</p>
<p><italic>The Dictionary of American Family Names</italic>, (<italic>DAFN</italic>) edited by Patrick Hanks and published in 2003, brought a new paradigm to the organization of personal name research. <italic>DAFN</italic> introduced the technique of casting light on the possible origins of surnames through the given names (forenames) which co-occurred with them. The origin(s) of the given names provided a first approximation of the likely source(s) of the surnames with which they were paired. In <italic>DAFN</italic> the given names were assigned to one or more CEL (cultural, ethnic or language) groups and then forwarded to experts for etymologies. This was the first time such a technique had been applied on anything approaching this scale, and it is no overstatement to say that it revolutionized how we approach surname etymology. However, outside of the prefatory material in <italic>DAFN</italic>, there has been little discussion of the specifics of the methodology, its general applicability, its degree of success, and its needed revisions. Ken Tucker, who along with Hanks developed the notion of the CEL group, considers these issues in ‘The Cultural-Ethnic-Language Group Technique as Used in the <italic>Dictionary of American Family Names</italic> (<italic>DAFN</italic>)’ (<italic>OnCan</italic> 87[2005] 71–84). After some general background Tucker notes that <italic>DAFN</italic>’s more than 70,000 entries include the most common 4 per cent of surnames, making up about 85 per cent of the American population (these are telephone subscribers with a hundred or more entries per surname). Hanks and Tucker identified forty-four CEL groups (e.g., Indian, Muslim, Scandinavian, Jewish, biblical Jewish). More than 40 per cent of surnames were assigned to one or more CELs. Each surname was then assigned a confidence level derived from the CEL or CELs with which it was associated, for example, in the case of the surname <italic>Sandal</italic>: Scandinavian 16 per cent; Indian 7 per cent; Jewish 4 per cent. (It needs to be pointed out that these percentages do not refer to actual percentages of given names but to the confidence level associated with each CEL: 7 per cent of the forenames were not Indian but there is a 7 per cent confidence level that the surname is Indian.) This name, then, likely has at least four distinct sources: English, Scandinavian, Indian, and Jewish. As Hanks notes, the Indian origin of this multicultural name would have been missed had such associated forenames as Raj and Rashmi not pointed in that direction. As to the success rate of the CEL technique, Tucker suggests that this is as high as 94 per cent, if the ‘unexplained’ entries are excluded (there are nearly 2,000 of these), and as low as 88 per cent if the ‘unexplained’ entries are included, but in either case this is a remarkably solid figure, proving that the CEL technique is an extremely valuable and accurate device. Tucker closes his essay by noting that the CEL identification of forenames and the cut-off of the confidence levels (Hanks decided that any confidence level of 4 per cent or greater was worthy of further consideration) is an ongoing process, but that the same type of methodology is now being used in other areas and applied to different kinds of issues such as those of British healthcare agencies which are using CEL group information to identify minority ethnic groups for specific health initiatives. (For further information and discussion of use of forename CELs in <italic>DAFN</italic>, see D. Kenneth Tucker, ‘A Diagnostic Database of American Personal Names’ (<italic>Names</italic> 48[2000] 59–69).)</p>
<p>Continuing his investigation into the names of days of the week, Michael Falk, in ‘Sunday's Child: Sonntag and Other Surnames Based on the Days of the Week’ (<italic>OnCan</italic> 87[2005] 85–97), notes that, unlike the situation in some parts of Africa where all seven day names are in general use as personal names (e.g. <italic>Kofi</italic> ‘born on Friday’), in the European naming tradition, some of the day names are much more common than others, for instance German <italic>Freitag</italic> ‘Friday’ is at least a hundred times more frequent than <italic>Donnerstag</italic> ‘Thursday’. Falk considers day name-based surnames (which developed from given names or nicknames) in various European languages representing the Germanic, Romance, and Slavic families. In English Monday and Friday have been surnames since the late Middle Ages and Sunday is common as well, although rare in the United Kingdom. Friday, of course, is the name of Robinson Crusoe's fictional companion in Daniel Defoe's novel <italic>Robinson Crusoe</italic>. Saturday occurs occasionally in North America; Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday are rare as surnames but occur sporadically. And there is a considerable variation in the set of surnames. According to the <italic>Dictionary of American Family Names</italic>, there are 1,170 telephone subscribers in the United States surnamed Sunday, 1,567 surnamed Monday; and 2,285 surnamed Friday; these figures are nearly identical to those Falk obtained from the website . In German (whether in Europe or North America), the same general situation prevails: Son(n)tag, Montag, and Freitag are common with Son(n)abend (Samstag) also represented, but Di(e)nstag, Mit(t)woch, and Don(n)erstag are rare. The Dutch distribution is also nearly identical: Zondag (Sondagh, Son(n)tag), Maandag, and Vrijdag (Vrydag) are common with a smattering of Zaterdag (Zaturday, Saterdag), while Dinsdag, Woensdag, and Donderdag do not occur. The situation in Italian is obviously of the same general pattern but with a few differences. Saturday and Sunday surnames are overwhelmingly common, Monday and Tuesday are distant seconds, followed by a few Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. The major differences in the Italian distributions are the lack of a substantial number of Friday surnames and the relative frequency of Saturday surnames. In the Slavic family, Polish surnames follow the now familiar pattern: names based on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday are common; the others far less so, but with an unexpectedly high figure for Wednesday. In sum, surnames based on the beginning and ending of the week (Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday) are common while those in the middle are rare, often non-existent. Falk's explanation for the observed pattern is, I believe, essentially correct. He argues that Saturday and Sunday are ‘culturally marked’ as the weekend; Friday and Monday are remarkable as the day before the weekend and the day after, respectively, and it was similar in centuries past when surnames became customary: ‘Friday was marked by partial fasting, Sunday was marked by cessation of labour and church attendance, Saturday was marked as the day preceding Sunday, while Monday was the go-back-to-your-duties day …’ (p. 95).</p> </sec>
<sec id="SEC8.5"><title>(e) Other Aspects of Onomastics</title>
<p>In ‘Corporate Biography: Name and Narrative in an Ohio Sample of Family-Named Businesses’ (<italic>Onoma</italic> 38[2003] 327–46), an essay dealing more with register than with onomastics <italic>per se</italic>, Christine De Vinne looks at nine Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the state of Ohio which carry the name(s) of their founder(s). She identifies a sub-genre of biography, which she calls ‘corporate biography’, wherein a corporation—usually through its public relations department—presents itself as a continuation of the noble virtues of its founder and a worthy claimant to the founder's name. Specifically, these business histories (mini-biographies of founder and corporation) share a number of structural and rhetorical characteristics: they include the origin of the company (usually considered a crucial episode in the life of the founder); details of the founder's commendable and exemplary personal values (which implicitly transfer to the company itself); and a brief subsequent history of the company, including the succession of officers, many of whom are descendants of the founder and who thus carry the same name and (again implicitly) continue the laudable traditions established by the founder. Stylistically, these short texts ‘adopt modified documentation, a condensed format, and a heroic, often didactic, tone’ (p. 332). De Vinne sees the onomastic component of corporate biography as ‘a model of name adaptation in the cross-over from person to business, signature to logo’ (p. 343) and ‘[b]y focusing on [the] name in its shift from index of person to index of business, corporate biography offers insight into a specific institution's ethos’ (p. 344).</p>
<p>The subject of a recent spate of books is ‘branding’, the choice of trade names and names for commercial products. The topic of names and their ‘trademarkability’ is the subject of ‘Surnames and American Trademark Law’ by Michael Adams and Jennifer Westerhaus Adams, a linguist and a lawyer, respectively (<italic>Names</italic> 53[2005] 259–73). The Adamses survey the current legal status of surnames as trademarks and note at the outset an obvious contradiction, namely that surnames themselves are highly discouraged as trademarks yet many are at the same time given trademark status and thus protection under the law. In general, surnames can be protected as trademarks only when they cease to be ‘primarily merely surnames’ (p. 260). This occurs most often when a surname takes on a generally accepted secondary meaning; that is, if the public perceives the surname to be no longer merely a designator of persons but identifies it with the products or services of a particular vendor (e.g. a family named McDonald versus McDonald's of restaurant chain fame). But the law in this instance, as in many others, is not as clear and the outcomes not as predictable as one would like. Although the degree to which a surname has acquired secondary status is relatively easy to determine through survey evidence, whether a surname is ‘primarily merely a surname’ is more difficult. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has set out five factors which it claims are relevant to such a determination: the popularity of the surname (the rarer the name the greater the chance of its being granted trademark status); whether or not the name is the surname of one of the applicants; whether the surname has indeed acquired a secondary meaning; whether the name has the structure and pronunciation of a surname; and the ‘style’ of the item (lettering and the like). Several of these factors (in particular item four) are so subjective that it is no wonder there is so little predictability in so many trademark decisions. The authors’ intent is to survey the current state of affairs so they have little to offer to clear up the current state of confusion other than to say that both the legal establishment and those seeking trademark status should do everything possible to avoid using unaltered surnames as trademarks. This is a relevant article but one which is quite difficult to read because of the dense, often opaque legal language, the absence of good text editing, and the lack of examples.</p>
<p>A largely overlooked aspect of onomastics is the naming of voluntary organizations and institutions. One facet of this practice—the naming of religious assemblies—is addressed in Paul D. Numrich and Fred Kniss's article ‘Immigrant Congregational Names in Chicago: Religious and Civic Considerations’ (<italic>Names</italic> 53[2005] 275–92). Numrich and Kniss look at the names of more than a hundred immigrant congregations, focusing on Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist in the greater Chicago area. As the authors state, they use ‘name analysis as an entrée to understanding the religious identities and civic relationships of immigrant congregations’ (p. 276). After noting that a congregation's name is its public persona, the authors look at the frequency of religious terms in the name of a congregation; the denomination or lineage terms; generic religious terms; the use of English terms; terms of location; and national or ethnic terms. They conclude first that the name chosen almost always identifies this as a religious association, and second ‘that we can determine from an immigrant congregation's name … whether [it] represents a particular denomination or lineage within its larger religious tradition’ (p. 287). This identity, however, is not spread evenly; it is more important to Hindu congregations, who are much more likely to advertise their lineage through their name than are Buddhists or Muslims, who use more generic religious terms. Finally, the name of a congregation where English terms prevail and where national or ethnic terms are minimal appears to be more open than others to engagement with the larger society.</p>
<p>The names of minibus taxis in South Africa is the subject of an article by Bertie Neethling (<italic>Names</italic> 53[2005] 3–19). Neethling notes that names of the hundreds of taxis that operate in South African cities fall into six general categories: aspects of the vehicle itself, such as ‘White Stallion’, ‘Red for Danger’, and ‘Isiphekepheke’ (Xhosa for a fast-moving object); characteristics of the taxi's owner or driver, such as Mdala ‘he is old’; identification, such as Umzamo Waba Thembu (‘an effort of the Thembu people’), through which the owner identifies himself as a Thembu, ‘Boss of the Road’, and ‘The Red R Kelly’, commemorating the singer-songwriter R Kelly; positive values, such as ‘New Horizon’ and ‘Umhlobo’ (Xhosa for ‘friend’); religious affiliation, such as ‘Jesus is Coming’ and ‘Redeemer’; and a miscellaneous category, which includes such names as ‘Who's Next’ and ‘Toe Roer Jou’ (Afrikaans for ‘let's move’). An interesting aspect of the names collected by Neethling is that they occur primary in Xhosa and English (only occasionally in Afrikaans), at times with a blending of the languages, as in ‘Amakhosi for Life’, showing allegiance to the Kaizer Chiefs (known as ‘Amakhosi’), a popular South African soccer team.</p></sec></sec>
<sec id="SEC9"><title>9. Dialectology and Sociolinguistics</title>
<p>Starting our overview of publications in the fields of sociolinguistics and dialectology for 2005, we begin with general publications. An outstanding introduction this year comes from Florian Coulmas. His advanced textbook <italic>Sociolinguistics: The Study of Speakers’ Choices</italic> takes a wide view of sociolinguistics, dividing the field into ‘Micro-Choices’ in the first part (discussing social stratification, gender, age, as well as politeness), and ‘Macro-Choices’ in the second (introducing concepts such as code-switching, diglossia/bilingualism, language spread and shift, language planning, and language and identity). Coulmas looks beyond English, and indeed Western, societies, and makes many important points relativizing much standard sociolinguistic practice, for example pointing out that (Western) sociolinguistic ‘methods and theories grew out of a particular tradition and are unlikely to be unaffected by it’ (p. 20). The prose is clear and thoughtful, and highly informative also for advanced students. Coulmas presents many new Japanese data, and also studies from the rest of the world as illustration. Every chapter is followed by discussion questions which might be used by students for sophisticated research topics. Coulmas's book is thus an excellent and highly welcome addition to the field.</p>
<p>More introductory in nature is Diane Davies's <italic>Varieties of Modern English: An Introduction</italic>. In three chapters, Davies briefly discusses the basics of sociolinguistics (variation and the group, variation and the individual, linguistic levels, history of modern English), before she proceeds to ‘English from a Global Perspective’, discussing AmE and its dialects, South Asian English and English in Japan in Kachru's circle model; ‘Ethnicity and Varieties of English’, featuring pidgins and creoles, AAVE and Chicano English; ‘Gender, Sexuality and English’ about generic meanings, gender theories and gay/lesbian/transgender discourses; moving from spontaneous speech to e-mail and text messaging in ‘Speech, Writing and the New Media’; dealing with ‘English in Context’ on register differences; ‘English and Power’ on the language of politicians and media English, before finally looking at ‘The Future of English as an International Language’, where she also discusses possible threats to English (i.e. resulting from negative attitudes, explicitly mentioning Al Qaida). This book is thus very up to date, if a little superficial (since it is short), but it has many activities that students will be able to relate to.</p>
<p>A curiously titled collection of essays is edited by Martin J. Ball: <italic>Clinical Sociolinguistics</italic>. The book is divided into two parts, a general introduction to sociolinguistic research and more specialized contributions on ‘clinical sociolinguistics’ proper. The more general part covers the usual sociolinguistic categories, and the individual papers might be useful providing (rather brief) introductory reading also outside the clinical context. Thus David Britain and Kazuko Matsumoto report on ‘Language, Communities, Networks and Practices’, Margaret Maclagan introduces ‘Regional and Social Variation’, Jacqueline Guendouzi presents ‘Language and Gender’, John Edwards writes on ‘Bilingualism and Multilingualism’, Nicole Müller and Martin J. Ball discuss ‘Code-Switching and Diglossia’, and Jack S. Damico, Nina Simmons-Mackie and Holly Hawley report on ‘Language and Power’. ‘Language and Culture’ is the topic of Nicole Taylor and Norma Mendoza-Denton, Walt Wolfram writes (once more) on ‘African American English’, Dominic Watt and Jennifer Smith deal with ‘Language Change’, Humphrey Tonkin presents ‘Language Planning’, and the final contribution is a chapter by Dennis R. Preston and Gregory C. Robinson on ‘Dialect Perception and Attitudes to Variation’. These chapters present no new information, but give accurate introductions to the topic at hand with a brief list of further reading. The second part of this book is more specialist, but therefore perhaps more interesting, examining clinical disorders in the context of variationist linguistic input, discussing for example the problem of ‘Assessing Language in Children Who Speak a Nonmainstream Dialect of English’ (by Janna B. Oetting) or ‘Childhood Bilingualism: Distinguishing Difference from Disorder’ (Li Wei, Nick Miller, Barbara Dodd and Zhu Hua), ‘Speech Perception, Hearing Impairment and Linguistic Variation’ (Cynthia G. Clopper and David B. Pisoni), ‘Aphasia in Multilingual Populations’ (Martin R. Gitterman), and ‘Managing Linguistic Diversity in the Clinic: Interpreters in Speech-Language Pathology’ (Kim M. Isaac). In its emphasis on variable linguistic data in the context of clinical disorders, this collection stands out as highly commendable.</p>
<p>In its winter issue, the <italic>Journal of Sociolinguistics</italic> features a dialogue on ‘Communities of Practice in Sociolinguistics’ (<italic>JSoc</italic> 9:iv[2005]). Bethany Davies starts off the discussion with her article on ‘Communities of Practice: Legitimacy not Choice’ (<italic>JSoc</italic> 9[2005] 557–81), re-evaluating data on adolescents’ speech (among others, Eckert's Belten High data). Davies points out that in sociolinguistic communities of practice (CoPs), participants do not have open access to the CoP; instead, entry has to be sanctioned from within the hierarchy. Davies also claims that, while CoPs might give us insights into linguistic practice at the very local level, ‘it must not be forgotten that sociolinguistic theory needs models of macro-levels of society as much as it needs models applicable to micro-levels’ (p. 576), as well as a theory of interaction of these two. Penelope Eckert and Étienne Wenger respond to this in ‘What Is the Role of Power in Sociolinguistic Variation?’ (<italic>JSoc</italic> 9[2005] 582–9), taking issue with Davies's implicit claim that power is organized hierarchically in a linear way. Eckert and Wenger argue that ‘competence is not static’, and that ‘those at the top are obliged to assert their place at the top by continually reaffirming their right to establish those terms’ (p. 585). Also, in different CoPs, hierarchy structures may be quite different, as a comparison of Jocks and Burnouts shows. They warn us that ‘introducing a construct [like power] into a theory requires care because whatever is built into a theory can no longer be questioned’ (p. 588). James Paul Gee extends Eckert and Wenger's point in ‘Meaning Making, Communities of Practice, and Analytical Toolkits’ (<italic>JSoc</italic> 9[2005] 590–4) and claims that, just as with power, ‘it is not always clear what features are best taken as definitive of a COP and which are best left as matters of variation across different COPs’ (p. 590). Rounding off the discussion, Miriam Meyerhoff in ‘Biographies, Agency and Power’ (<italic>JSoc</italic> 9[2005] 595–601) cautions researchers not to simply jump on the bandwagon of a trendy new term, and states that ‘maybe we also need to be reminded of its limits’ (p. 597)—something Davies's article clearly does.</p>
<p>Adam Jaworski and Justine Coupland deal with an under-discussed feature of gossip in ‘Othering in Gossip: “You go out you have a laugh and you can pull yeah okay but like … ” ’ (<italic>LSoc</italic> 34[2005] 667–94). They argue that if (derogatory) gossiping ‘allows participants jointly to accomplish group solidarity and to strengthen group identity’, as is generally accepted, ‘it does so by specific processes of “othering” whereby the protagonist in the gossip-story (the gossipee), is subjected to imposition of a borderline or liminal identity’ (p. 671). ‘Othering’ here means that a person (or a group of people) ‘is denied a clearly defined status’ (p. 672) and instead classified as ‘deviant’, abnormal’ etc. This is achieved through (pejorative) evaluation, stereotyping, caricature, derision, or silencing. Interestingly, the gossiper can also put him- or herself into this liminal position, ‘othering the self’ with the in-group, then sanctioning—mild—transgressions.</p>
<p>Jenny Cheshire discusses the problem of ‘Syntactic Variation and Spoken Language’ (in Cornips and Corrigan, eds., <italic>Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social</italic>, pp. 81–106), claiming that (unplanned) spoken language is characterized by a high proportion of prefabricated expressions on the one hand, and by pervasive affective meanings on the other. Cheshire argues that a ‘discourse-oriented analysis is a necessary complement to the analysis of syntactic variation’ (p. 82), calling for more rigorous theories to be applied to discover the structures of the spoken language. In the same volume (pp. 109–22), Alison Henry makes a case for ‘Idiolectal Variation and Syntactic Theory’ from a generative perspective, arguing that a principled elicitation of grammaticality judgements from a range of speakers constitutes a valid method of collecting data. Henry exemplifies this with a discussion of concord (or non-concord) phenomena with expletive <italic>there</italic> in speakers from Northern Ireland, finding that ‘the same factor which favours agreement in one speaker can disfavour it in another’ (p. 118), which leads her to postulate a multiplicity of possible grammars. She expands her point in ‘Non-Standard Dialects and Linguistic Data’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 1599–1617), comparing her elicitation method with data culled from a corpus, this time illustrating it with singular concord in Belfast English.</p>
<p>The postulation of possible grammars provides a good link to a more strictly dialectological topic, which is discussed by Peter Auer in ‘Europe's Sociolinguistic Unity, or: A Typology of European Dialect/Standard Constellations’ (in Delbecque, van der Auwera and Geeraerts, eds., <italic>Perspectives on Variation: Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative</italic>, pp. 7–42). Despite appearances of enormously diverse dialect-standard constellations in Europe, Auer argues that it is possible to find ‘a uniform description of the European sociolinguistic repertoires’ (p. 7), drawing up a typology that also links the four stages historically. Type A has a (mainly) written standard and (mainly) spoken dialects, type B develops a strict separation of a standard that is only written and dialects that are only spoken (diglossia), type C is characterized by the fact that the standard begins to be spoken (typically by the intelligentsia) so that intermediate forms (e.g. regiolects) can develop—Auer calls this <italic>diaglossia</italic>—and finally in type D the dialectal ‘base’ is lost completely, leaving only a (written) standard with mildly regional (spoken) variants. Auer calls for theoretical models that ‘sufficiently integrate these dynamics’ (p. 32) and take into account the (widespread) European situation of systems in contact: ‘It is only for this last stage of repertoire development, i.e. Type D (dialect loss), that the variational [<italic>sc</italic>. variationist?] paradigm seems to be suited’ (p. 32).</p>
<p>Paul Heggarty, April McMahon and Robert McMahon deal with the topic of dialectometry in their article ‘From Phonetic Similarity to Dialect Classification: A Principled Approach’ (in Delbecque et al., eds., pp. 43–91). The authors propose to measure phonetic similarity based on speakers’ knowledge of phonetics, at the same time cautioning that ‘quantification cannot simply be a matter of measuring and counting a set of features; it also has to be about establishing the relative significance of those features’ (p. 50), in contrast to the ‘edit distance’ (or Levenshtein distance) applied by John Nerbonne (e.g. [1999]).</p>
<p>Toni Rietveld and Roeland van Hout introduce a very basic topic, <italic>Statistics in Language Research: Analysis of Variance</italic>, on which there are still too few introductory texts. Rietveld and van Hout discuss sampling (one sample vs. two samples), introduce the reader to the principles of analysis of variance, multi-factorial designs, discuss violations of assumptions and unbalanced designs, repeated measures designs (including alternative estimation procedures), and finally also look at alternatives to analysis of variance. Every chapter has a range of exercises (with a welcome key to exercises at the end of the book). However, this book does get technical very quickly so that it does not seem quite suited to the absolute beginner who might be easily scared off by too many mathematical formulae.</p>
<p>Questions of gender feature in several publications. Janet Holmes examines ‘Power and Discourse at Work: Is Gender Relevant?’ (in Lazar, ed., <italic>Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse</italic>, pp. 31–60) and finds that ‘gender issues and gender stereotypes are often just below the surface in social interaction’ (p. 56), even though many women managers act (and speak) like their male colleagues most of the time. However, there seems to come a time when ‘a woman who does power too overtly … is perceived as too obviously contesting the status quo’ (p. 56), forcing her to rely on less stereotypically ‘masculine’ strategies. Mary Talbot in ‘Choosing to Refuse to be a Victim: “Power Feminism” and the Intertextuality of Victimhood and Choice’ (in Lazar ed., pp. 167–80), shows how the NRA (National Rifle Association, not usually known as the key promoter of feminist issues) has (mis)appropriated the feminist discourse of ‘pro-choice’ and ‘refusing to be a victim’ in its search for a new support base among women. Talbot shows that the NRA does this by ‘prey[ing] on women's legitimate fears in order to tap into a new potential market’ (p. 177)—Talbot concludes that ‘it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that [the NRA’s] feminist pose is a profoundly hypocritical one’ (p. 177). On a more lexicographic tack, Jane Mansbridge and Katherine Flaster investigate the terms ‘<italic>Male Chauvinist</italic>, <italic>Feminist</italic>, <italic>Sexist</italic>, and <italic>Sexual Harassment</italic>: Different Trajectories in Feminist Linguistic Innovation’ (<italic>AS</italic> 80[2005] 256–79) in the <italic>New York Times</italic> since the 1850s. <italic>Male chauvinist</italic> shows the pattern of a trendy innovation (with a sudden rise in frequency in the late 1960s, and a slow decline), while the other terms, once introduced (or reintroduced), seem to have more staying power. Briefly, we should mention the second edition of Deborah Cameron's <italic>Feminism and Linguistic Theory</italic>. Although this actually dates back to 1992, the text seems to have been transferred to digital publishing recently (with no changes) and is therefore available again more widely.</p>
<p>The language of men plays a larger role than in previous years. Scott Fabius Kiesling discusses ‘Homosocial Desire in Men's Talk: Balancing and Re-Creating Cultural Discourses of Masculinity’ (<italic>LSoc</italic> 34[2005] 695–726)—<italic>homosocial</italic> (as opposed to <italic>homosexual</italic>) here referring to men forming friendships and creating closeness in a heterosexual environment. This is inherently paradoxical as men are expected to form male solidarity but without desiring each other physically. Kiesling argues that this aim is achieved through (linguistic and social) indirectness, as ‘men must present their emotional intimacy as clearly nonsexual’ (p. 711). Paul Baker investigates the <italic>Public Discourses of Gay Men</italic>, presenting evidence from such diverse settings as the House of Lords debate on gay male law reform (chapter 2), gay discourse in the British tabloid press (chapter 3), in the American sitcom <italic>Will and Grace</italic> (chapter 4), in personal advertisements in <italic>Gay Time</italic> (chapter 5), in homosexual erotic narratives (chapter 6) and in sexual health publications (chapter 7). Baker concludes that there is no one dominant discourse of homosexuality, ‘rather there are a number of related yet conflicting discourses’ (p. 220); among other things, the definition of <italic>gay</italic> is contested (behaviour or identity—identity of one person or a community?—or desire?). An undercurrent that is evident in all texts, however, is homophobia albeit in a more subtle form than in previous centuries. Finally, the gay consumer (with a larger disposable income and fewer responsibilities than the average heterosexual man—sometimes called the <italic>pink pound</italic>) has recently been commercialized, promoting the image of the muscular, masculine man as an ‘aspirational ideal’ (p. 226).</p>
<p>The history of English (and historical variation) is dealt with in two introductory textbooks this year. Jonathan Culpeper's second edition of the <italic>History of English</italic> (first edition 1997) refreshingly proceeds by topics of diachronic study (it has chapters on ‘Borrowing Words’, ‘Changing Meanings’, and two chapters on grammatical change), and also has a chapter each on ‘Dialects in British English’ as well as ‘World Englishes’. Especially the dialect chapter may make interesting introductory reading for dialect students as it traces dialect features back to historical sources. Culpeper's rather short <italic>History of English</italic> is also graphically attractive, with set-off chapter summaries and exercises, and various appendices including some original texts, internet resources and (some) answers to the exercises. Ishtla Singh's <italic>The History of English: A Student's Guide</italic> is perhaps more traditional in that it proceeds by diachronic periods, with nothing more than the occasional conjugational table breaking up the text. The last period dealt with is ‘Modern English, 1700 Onwards’, a chapter that discusses the rise of prescriptivism and also includes a discussion of Singlish (in Singapore, never far from prescriptivism either). In contrast to Culpeper above, Singh does not explicitly deal with British dialects in the context of this (much longer) book. Despite the (near)-identical titles the books thus serve very different purposes.</p>
<p>Going beyond the purely introductory, Mari C. Jones and Ishtla Singh also concern themselves with <italic>Exploring Language Change</italic>. This book deals with ‘Internally Motivated Change’, ‘Externally Motivated Change’, ‘Language Birth’ and ‘Language Death’, ‘Language Planning and Revitalization’, ‘Language Revival’, and finally ‘Language Invention’. Examples come from many languages, widening the scope of Culpeper's <italic>History of English</italic> considerably, and going into much more depth in the discussion of the individual phenomena. Particularly relevant to English studies are their discussions of the Great Vowel Shift (internally motivated) and of changes in ME (externally motivated), a case-study of Scots (as an example of language birth), but also of east Sutherland Gaelic or Welsh (under the heading of language death), of Cornish (language revival) as well as the discussion of language policy in the USA. Like Singh's <italic>History of English</italic> discussed above, this volume is very text-centred and would therefore have to be supplied with a number of additional teaching materials for use in the classroom, but seems to be very useful as a basic textbook for any class on language change that likes to look beyond the narrow confines of the English language.</p>
<p>One of the first monographs in historical sociolinguistics comes from Alexander Bergs, who investigates <italic>Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503)</italic>. This very careful study applies the Milroys’ concept of social networks to a group of writers (the Paston family) historically removed, greatly extending the criteria on which network scores are calculated. Thus Bergs investigates the role of gender, education, literacy, places of living, frequency of travel, the number of offices and contacts for their contribution to the number of ties inside the network, its density and multiplexity. He then proceeds to analyse three grammatical variables in detail, in particular the development of personal pronouns—<italic>hem</italic> vs. <italic>them</italic> and <italic>ye</italic> vs. <italic>you</italic>—relativization, and the ‘light verb construction’ (i.e. <italic>take a walk</italic> instead of <italic>walk</italic>). After a careful discussion of the extra- and intralinguistic contexts of these phenomena in the individual chapters, which, however, on their own cannot explain most phenomena, the concluding chapter looks at the results from the network perspective. Only when the individual generations are analysed do interesting correlations emerge: the network strength scores ‘can give an idea of whose overall life mode … is more advantageous for changes and whose life mode rather points towards stability and maintenance’ (p. 262). Bergs concludes convincingly that, although the social network characteristics do not determine linguistic behaviour in the strict sense, they seem to be strong factors in the choice of linguistic variants.</p>
<p>Two more historically oriented articles will round off this part of the section. Helena Raumolin-Brunberg contributes a study based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence in her investigation of ‘The Diffusion of Subject <italic>you</italic>: A Case Study in Historical Sociolinguistics’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 55–73). She finds that subject <italic>you</italic> (at the expense of <italic>ye</italic>) was a change from below, originating in the middle classes, and was promoted by women. Anthony Warner tries to answer the question ‘Why DO Dove: Evidence for Register Variation in Early Modern English Negatives’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 257–80), proposing sociolinguistic factors. Based on Ellegård's database, Warner finds that after 1575 there is less <italic>do</italic> in negative declaratives in higher registers, while before 1575 <italic>do</italic> was not directly linked to the oral-literate scale. Warner also discovers age-grading, again only after 1575, where the younger the writers are, the more they use <italic>do</italic>, concluding that ‘in the 17th century we have a dramatic reversal of the scales for register variation, coupled, importantly, with the introduction of age-grading’ (p. 271). The development in negative questions is consistent with this claim, to which Warner adds the contributing factor of negative contraction—‘the reduced variants [were seen] as less appropriate for such [careful] styles’ (p. 277). There is thus evidence that ‘the decline of DO NOT in the last part of the 16th century is a stylistic matter’ (p. 278).</p>
<p>Moving away from historical sociolinguistics to present-day dialectology, dialects in all of Great Britain are the topic of Simon Elmes's <italic>Talking for Britain: A Journey through the Nation's Dialects</italic>, which takes us from the south-west of England to the north (and Northern Ireland). This book, accompanying a BBC radio 4 series, is obviously written for the layperson who, like the author himself, is fascinated with ‘the powerful emotional connection between how we speak and where we live’ (p. viii). Elmes concentrates mainly on lexical differences, which are presented in titbits from interviews and other anecdotes. Each chapter finishes with a local glossary. While this book is entertaining as a side-read, it probably does more to perpetuate current linguistic and non-linguistic stereotypes (Cornish speech ‘has long been tarred with the brush of rural slowness’ (p. 7), ‘hard graft and hard lives are the story of the Midlands’ (p. 106), and in Northern Ireland the humour ‘combines the charm of the south with a sharp blast of northern toughness’ (p. 366)) than discussing their origin and dispelling them. Take this book for what it is: entertainment, no more.</p>
<p>When we turn to English in Ireland, mention must be made of several dictionary publications this year (and, indeed, two from last year). Starting with last year's <italic>A Dictionary of Hiberno-English</italic> by Terence Patrick Dolan, this is the revised and expanded edition (first edition 1998). All entries contain the pronunciation—a great help especially for the many Gaelic terms—linguistic classification, semantic description and many examples, most of them carefully attributed to (literary or non-literary) sources, much in the spirit of a ‘proper’ dictionary. Dolan even includes morphosyntactic features like <italic>amn't</italic> (‘H[iberno]E[nglish] uses the inversion of “I am” in negative first-person questions instead of S[tandard]E[nglish] “aren't I?” ’) and co-ordinating <italic>and</italic> (‘[t]his word has a much wider range of uses in HE than in SE, because in Irish the conjunction <italic>agus</italic> (and) commonly functions as a subordinating adverbial conjunction … followed by a pronoun and a non-finite part of the verb or an infinitive. This feature converts to HE in such idioms as “She came in and I dressing” ’, p. 7), making this dictionary highly commendable in its range as well as depth of coverage. Pure lexis is the topic of <italic>Slanguage: A Dictionary of Irish Slang and Colloquial English in Ireland</italic>, edited by Bernard Share. The alphabetical entries are again carefully edited, also indicating parts of speech (helpful e.g. in the entry <italic>bucket</italic>—a verb) and also contain many quotations. Usually, it will not do to pick out individual items in a dictionary, but a phrase this reviewer found particularly useful around lunchtime in her office is the following idiom: ‘I could eat a farmer's arse’ (not surprisingly, an expression of acute hunger), which can be extended by ‘through a hedge’ or softened to ‘I could eat a baby's bottom’. The next time you stumble across <italic>eccer</italic> in Roddy Doyle's novels or cannot make out the meaning of <italic>cog</italic> (a verb), <italic>Slanguage</italic> (or, indeed, the <italic>Dictionary</italic>) should leave no questions unanswered. A much shorter publication than either is <italic>A Glossary of Irish Slang and Unconventional Language</italic> by Diarmaid Ó Muirithe, covering roughly the same terrain as Share above, but in a much more informal and relaxed way. Ó Muirithe tells anecdotes (‘Máire Nic Mhaoláin … has sent me many's the good word from Co. Down in her time’ (p. 33), ‘Not far from the town of Dungarvan in Co. Waterford I recently heard a strange word’ (p. 87)), admits to his ignorance in places (‘Origin? I haven't a clue’), and unashamedly evaluates his sources and materials, talking about ‘good’ or ‘interesting’ words or ‘extraordinary’ expressions. This reviewer's advice: use Share and Dolan for work, Ó Muirithe for pleasure.</p>
<p>Raymond Hickey has contributed a monograph on <italic>Dublin English: Evolution and Change</italic>, based on his recent research in the Irish capital (and, in fact, beyond). The book is an explication of his claim that fashionable Dublin English is currently undergoing the ‘Dublin vowel shift’, characterized by a retraction of diphthongs with a low or back starting point (<italic>time, boy</italic>) and a raising of all low back vowels. Hickey argues persuasively that this shift originated in lower-middle-class speakers’ desire to ‘dissociate’ themselves from the very local (lower-class) Dublin English, and cannot be motivated as convergence with RP, which is also supported by attitude studies. On the contrary, Hickey stresses again and again that ‘there may well be parallels with either American or British English … however, these would appear to be coincidental and for each parallel, there are internal reasons within the existing forms of Dublin English which can account adequately for their occurrence’ (p. 79). This new variety of Dublin English seems to have started in the 1990s and has been spreading to all younger speakers since. Hickey also moves beyond phonology and tries to describe the morphology, syntax and lexis of Dublin English, mostly, however, based on anecdotes and qualitative language samples. In the second part, he links the features under discussion to their history, where this is documented in various written sources, from poetry or plays to personal letters. Again, this second section of the book is not quantitative in outlook or methodology, but might constitute an interesting first step towards a more rigorous study of some of these phenomena. The book is accompanied by an extensive collection of materials on CD-ROM, so readers can convince themselves of Hickey's acute observational powers, or even conduct their own research.</p>
<p>Continuing in Ireland, Anne Barron and Klaus P. Schneider have edited <italic>The Pragmatics of Irish English</italic>, focusing on Irish English ‘in the private sphere’ (five contributions), ‘in the official sphere’ (four contributions) and ‘in the public sphere’ (three contributions), while Raymond Hickey gives an overall overview of ‘Irish English in the Context of Previous Research’, i.e. in non-pragmatic areas. This is a standard overview of Irish English history, phonology, grammar and overall sociolinguistic situation no better and no worse than overviews by the same author in other years. Jeffrey Kallen then moves to more pragmatic matters in his discussion of ‘Silence and Mitigation in Irish English Discourse’ on the basis of ICE-Ireland—a welcome change in database, as this topic so far has been based on anecdotes. Kallen finds both a ‘tolerance for silence in the sense of absence of speech’ (p. 66), but also more indirect methods of expression, such as the use of <italic>I’d say</italic> instead of <italic>I say</italic>, or <italic>you know</italic> instead of <italic>I mean</italic>. Klaus P. Schneider looks at forms like ‘<italic>No problem, you’re welcome, anytime</italic>: Responding to Thanks in Ireland, England and the USA’, comparing answers to a questionnaire-based elicitation task from these three countries. Schneider finds that his Irish respondents use more supportive constructions and that Irish English responses to thanks are overall more varied. Anne Barron deals with a complementary topic, ‘Offering in Ireland and England’, again based on questionnaires. Not surprisingly, she finds that only Irish English speakers use offers with <italic>will</italic> (<italic>Will I take you to the hospital?</italic>), a well-known shibboleth of this variety, but does not discuss the status of <italic>will</italic> in this construction (is it really still volitional?). Similarly to Kallen above, Barron finds that speakers of Irish English tend to use more mitigation than their English English counterparts. Brian Clancy discusses ‘<italic>You’re fat. you’ll eat them all</italic>: Politeness Strategies in Family Discourse’, finding evidence of positive but not negative politeness, which he links to the fact that inside a family, a more direct style is preferred. However, since Clancy does not compare his data with other varieties, it is not clear how his paper contributes to our understanding of the pragmatics of <italic>Irish</italic> English. Moving to the official sphere, Fiona Farr investigates ‘Relational Strategies in the Discourse of Professional Performance Review in an Irish Academic Environment: The Case of Language Teacher Education’, unfortunately based on only anecdotal evidence. Gillian Martin asks: ‘Indirectness in Irish–English Business Negotiation: A Legacy of Colonialism?’, where she interprets the preference for indirectness as an approach of conflict resolution that ‘resonate[s] with aspects of the “postcolonial” personality’ (p. 260). Finally, James Binchy demands: ‘<italic>Three forty two so please</italic>: Politeness for Sale in Southern-Irish Service Encounters’. In data from Limerick, Binchy finds that ‘the use of <italic>please</italic> differs according to the relationship of the participants’ (p. 332), as it occurs less with acquaintances, while <italic>so</italic> acts as a mitigator.</p>
<p>Moving to Scotland, Marina Dossena in <italic>Scotticisms in Grammar and Vocabulary</italic> discusses the historical evolution of this variety between Anglicization and preserving its own identity, paying particular attention to language attitudes. After long periods of prescriptivism, the use of Scots in poetry and literature from the eighteenth century onwards, sometimes called the ‘vernacular revival’ (which might be a misnomer) also brought about a change in perception, resulting ultimately in Scots being seen as a ‘respectable’ scholarly subject since the twentieth century. Nevertheless speakers today are still ambivalent, as Dossena points out, since ‘on the one hand there is distinct awareness of the ancient historical roots of this language … on the other, the pervasiveness of English prevents many speakers from realising that Scots is not just a dialect used in informal contexts, but a variety [with] expressive potentiality … in a wider range of uses’ (p. 152).</p>
<p>The Scottish region discussed the most this year must surely be the north-east, the area around Aberdeen, where ‘the Doric’ or Buchan is spoken. Alexander Fenton provides a collection of <italic>Buchan Words and Ways</italic>. Despite the title, this is not a traditional dictionary, but a collection of extended anecdotes, partly written in this north-eastern Scottish dialect, with an appended glossary of nine pages for the non-initiated. Morphosyntactic variation in the small fishing village of Buckie (Aberdeenshire) is explored by David Adger and Jennifer Smith in ‘Variation and the Minimalist Program’ (in Cornips and Corrigan, eds., pp. 149–78). The authors discuss <italic>was/were</italic> alternation and absence of <italic>do</italic> in negative declaratives (e.g. <italic>They</italic> Ø <italic>na</italic> [=not] <italic>lose trade</italic>) and ask: ‘How can a formal … system of grammar account for the possibility of … variation?’ (p. 160), especially the problem of categoricity vs. variability? Not surprisingly (given the title), they find that (elements of) the Minimalist programme can in fact deal with these problems quite well ‘reducing the orderly patterns of variation … to the lexical choice by an individual speaker of functional elements with particular feature specifications’ (p. 173). Also on the subject of north-east Scotland, Danielle A.V. Löw-Wiebach deals with <italic>Language Attitudes and Language Use in Pitmedden (Aberdeenshire)</italic>, a small village on the outskirts of Aberdeen that has profited immensely from the (North Sea) oil boom. Löw-Wiebach has collected both qualitative and quantitative data with the help of questionnaires and tries to link data on attitudes with the knowledge of local words. She finds that the influx of new inhabitants seems to have increased the local pride in ‘Scottishness’ and the local dialect, which is ‘perceived through common stereotypes of rural, melodious speech, and is highlighted … as a marker of identity and in-group solidarity’ (p. 339). However, Standard English (‘speaking proper’) is seen as a requirement of getting on in the world. Despite the generally positive attitude to local speech, many lexical items in the dialect are in fact being lost, although at least some local words are widespread even among non-natives. Not surprisingly, knowledge of traditional dialect words is concentrated in elderly male natives. Finally, turning to another variety of present-day Scots, Ronald Macaulay has collected some of his (more or less) recent studies on Glaswegian and Ayrshire into <italic>Talk That Counts: Age, Gender, and Social Class Differences in Discourse</italic>. Based on corpora of <italic>c</italic>.160,000 words in total of tape-recorded materials, Macaulay investigates discourse features such as <italic>oh</italic> and <italic>well</italic> (chapter 6), <italic>you know</italic>, <italic>I mean</italic> (adults’ features) and <italic>like</italic> (the old favourite of adolescents’ studies) (chapter 7). <italic>Like</italic> comes out as a feature mainly of middle-class boys and girls in Glasgow. In his chapters on ‘Syntactic Variation’ (chs. 8–11), Macaulay investigates co-ordination vs. subordination, the use of modals, adverbs, articles and pronouns. While most features show no discernible class differentiation (contra Bernstein), one of the most striking results is the fact that middle-class speakers use significantly more adverbs and adjectives (not just the uncommon ones) than working-class speakers. Nevertheless, in sum, Macaulay concludes that ‘despite important differences in education, income, and place of residence, the Glasgow speakers use language for the most part in very similar ways’ (p. 157).</p>
<p>Combining research from four communities on the Irish Sea, Sali Tagliamonte and Jennifer Smith present ‘<italic>No Momentary Fancy!</italic> The <italic>Zero</italic> “Complementizer” in English Dialects’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 289–309)—a feature of English that has been on the rise since at least ME, and characterizes informal speech in particular. Tagliamonte and Smith argue that in their dialect data, the use of zero (instead of <italic>that</italic>) is conditioned by the grammaticalization of the matrix clause (<italic>I think</italic>, <italic>I mean</italic> etc.) on the one hand, and by the relative complexity of the complement clause on the other hand, with the frequent collocation <italic>I think</italic> leading the way in this change. The same authors together with Helen Lawrence claim, on the basis of the same database, that there is ‘No Taming the Vernacular! Insights from the Relatives in Northern Britain’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 75–112). They investigate the relative pronoun system in Lowland Scots, Northern Ireland and north-west England, finding very few <italic>wh</italic>-forms but a predominance of <italic>that</italic> instead. They further argue that these northern dialects have simply ‘steadfastly resisted’ the incorporation of <italic>wh</italic>-pronouns into their inventory. In a comparison first with other British dialects and then with English dialects world-wide, they also find that zero-relatives in subject position are virtually restricted to existentials, clefts, and possessives (i.e. <italic>there's nobody</italic> Ø <italic>has admitted it</italic>) in all varieties. Jenny Cheshire looks at another syntactic/pragmatic variable, discourse-new NPs, in ‘Syntactic Variation and Beyond: Gender and Social Class Variation in the Use of Discourse-New Markers’ (<italic>JSoc</italic> 9[2005] 479–508). Cheshire investigates these items introducing new referents in adolescents’ speech from Hull, Milton Keynes and Reading and finds social and gender stratification only when she takes into account other phenomena (fulfilling the same function), in particular bare NPs. Here, working-class female adolescents use the highest proportion. Cheshire also cautions sociolinguists that ‘it is not necessarily helpful to consider syntactic variation as if it were a similar phenomenon to phonetic and phonological variation’ (p. 503).</p>
<p>Moving to the north of England more specifically, Sali Tagliamonte and Rosalind Temple light up ‘New Perspectives on an Ol’ Variable: (t,d) in British English’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 281–302), more precisely in York English. The authors find that while the phonetic context is an important factor, in contrast to earlier studies (based on American varieties), the morphemic status of the deleted segments does not seem to play a role. Laura Rupp and Hanne Page-Verhoeft investigate ‘Pragmatic and Historical Aspects of Definite Article Reduction [DAR] in Northern English Dialects’ (<italic>EWW</italic> 26[2005] 325–46), rather than phonetic aspects (which are usually foregrounded), and find that aspects of givenness/familiarity and perhaps of nearness play a role. Thus, speakers reduce the definite article more frequently if the referent is in their immediate environment, if it was just mentioned in the conversation or if it is known to the hearer. The authors speculate that DAR emerged in the contact situation with Scandinavian when the distal demonstrative paradigm was eroded, and that northern dialects ‘use the full and reduced articles <italic>the</italic> and <italic>t</italic>’ as the non-demonstrative counterparts of <italic>that</italic> and <italic>this</italic>, respectively’ (p. 344).</p>
<p>Lukas Pietsch has contributed a book-length study on <italic>Variable Grammars: Verbal Agreement in Northern Dialects of English</italic>, dealing in particular with the so-called Northern Subject Rule (NSR). Pietsch traces this interesting construction (verbs take <italic>-s</italic> agreement unless directly adjacent to a personal pronoun subject) historically to late ME and the breakdown of the old concord system(s)—in other words, to language-internal developments (rather than language contact). From a variety of sources (among them the SED, unpublished fieldworker notebooks, the dialect corpus FRED and various atlases), Pietsch finds competition between different variable agreement systems in traditional English dialects, but the core geographical area of the NSR in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire seems to have been remarkably stable since late ME. In Northern Ireland, on the other hand, it is the area south of the core Ulster Scots area that shows the most NSR usage, ‘contrary to the view that sees the NSR as a feature historically most closely linked to Scots’ (p. 133). A shorter version of this dissertation can also be found in Bernd Kortmann, Lukas Pietsch, Tanja Herrmann and Susanne Wagner, <italic>A Comparative Grammar of English Dialects</italic> (pp. 125–209), helpfully situating this project in the context of other studies based on the same, or similar, materials (for the studies by Susanne Wagner and Tanja Herrmann please see below).</p>
<p>The English Midlands feature in two publications this year, one being Laura Rupp's ‘Constraints on Nonstandard -<italic>s</italic> in Expletive <italic>there</italic> Sentences: A Generative-Variationist Perspective’ (<italic>ELL</italic> 9[2005] 255–88). Data from Burntwood (West Midlands) show that non-standard <italic>-s</italic> is disfavoured in sententially negative and interrogative environments, which Rupp tentatively characterizes as invariant. She also calls for an integration of empirical and theoretical approaches: ‘In order to fully understand the complexity of syntactic variation, therefore, variationist and generative, as well as historical, perspectives are best considered together’ (pp. 285–6). Tanja Herrmann discusses ‘Relative Clauses in English Dialects of the British Isles’ (in Kortmann et al., pp. 21–123), despite the title concentrating mostly on East Anglia and the Midlands. Herrmann finds that relative <italic>what</italic>, radiating out from its heartland East Anglia, is ‘on the rise … as a supra-regional non-standard relative marker’ (p. 59), while the relative marker <italic>as</italic> is a recessive feature of traditional dialect speakers (especially in the Midlands), these days only used in restrictive syntactic environments. In fact, Herrmann claims that ‘<italic>what</italic> seems to be driving <italic>as</italic> out’ (p. 59). Herrmann also finds that <italic>wh</italic>-pronouns are in general very scarce, supporting Tagliamonte, Smith and Lawrence's more restricted findings above, that resumptive pronouns are used for clarification in complex constructions, and that zero subject clauses (e.g. <italic>there's the father</italic> Ø <italic>was a cook</italic>) are generally legitimate; indeed zero is ‘rehabilitated as a primary relative clause formation strategy’ (p. 95).</p>
<p>Anna-Liisa Vasko discusses <italic>UP CAMBRIDGE. Prepositional Locative Expressions in Dialect Speech: A Corpus-Based Study of the Cambridgeshire Dialect</italic>, based on the Cambridgeshire dialect corpus of around 200,000 words from twenty-eight localities collected by herself in the 1970s. Although Cambridgeshire dialect is generally held to be not very different from Standard English, Vasko finds that, so far, Cambridgeshire ‘has been more or less a blank spot on the linguistic map’ (p. 36). In terms of locative expressions, Vasko also looks at non-expressed prepositions, probably the most interesting part of her study, and finds that ‘zero usually occurs in expressions of positive motion’ (p. 247) where the context makes the intended meaning clear (e.g. <italic>She had to go</italic> Ø <italic>Cambridge</italic>). Besides non-expression, Vasko also finds variation (different use from Standard English)—in particular, her Cambridgeshire informants do not make a distinction between <italic>in</italic> and <italic>into</italic>, and the use of <italic>down</italic> vs. <italic>up</italic> is not related to verticality, but perhaps to importance (thus <italic>up Cambridge</italic>). Close to Cambridgeshire, David Britain discusses the topic of dialect diffusion in ‘Innovation Diffusion: “Estuary English” and Local Dialect Differentiation: The Survival of Fenland English’ (<italic>Linguistics</italic> 43[2005] 995–1022), where he cautions researchers against uncritically taking over (old) concepts of economic geography. Rather, his investigation of <sc>th</sc>-fronting, <sc>l</sc>-vocalization, and labiodental /r/as well as of /u:/-fronting (as in <sc>goose</sc>), <sc>foot</sc>-lowering, (ou)-fronting (as in <sc>know</sc>), (/∧/)-fronting (as in <sc>cup</sc>) and (ai)-backing/monophthongization (e.g. <sc>price</sc>) in adolescents from three Fenland localities shows that while undoubtedly extensive diffusion is taking place, the three communities ‘retain other local and regional forms which differentiate them from the southeast and from each other’ (p. 1017). Britain also observes phenomena such as interdialect formation, simplification, and reallocation. As an example of extreme dialect mixing in the south-east, Britain explicitly mentions the new town of Milton Keynes at the core of the (fuzzy) linguistic south-east, and this is expanded on in Paul Kerswill and Ann Williams's article ‘New Towns and Koineization: Linguistic and Social Correlates’ in the same volume (<italic>Linguistics</italic> 43[2005] 1023–48). The authors claim that the older children are promoters in dialect levelling, and that new towns are hotbeds of koneization, claiming that ‘in Milton Keynes, these regional changes are accelerated’ (p. 1035).</p>
<p>A more traditional feature of south-western dialects is the topic of Susanne Wagner in ‘Gender in English Pronouns: Southwest England’ (in Kortmann et al., pp. 211–367), where she investigates gendered pronouns, especially the masculine forms, employed to indicate a mass-count distinction, e.g. <italic>the loaf of bread—he</italic> vs. <italic>the bread—it</italic> across the south-west of England. Wagner finds that the south-west has moved from a once obligatory system to one where the use of <italic>he</italic> in these contexts is now optional; ‘the traditional system is slowly dying out’ (p. 350), as traditional dialect speakers’ systems are invaded by a more pragmatically determined spoken standard (where gendered pronouns can indicate emotionality, among other things).</p>
<p>Robert G. Shackleton Jr. pursues the question of the American English founder dialects in ‘English–American Speech Relationships: A Quantitative Approach’ (<italic>JEngL</italic> 33[2005] 99–160), introducing dialectometric procedures to measure seventy-two American and fifty-nine British English speakers’ distance from each other (the data come from dialect atlas projects from the 1930s and 1940s). In particular, he uses cluster analysis, distribution analysis, distance measures, principal component analysis and multiple regression analysis. Shackleton finds that ‘American regions tend to share a larger number of variants with the East and West Midlands than with other regions’ (p. 132). From a comparison of variants shared by speakers, Shackleton concludes that ‘the American speech forms fall squarely into the family of southern English speech varieties’ (p. 136). A measure of linguistic distance shows that ‘the American southerners are roughly as close to the English westerners as they are to the easterners’ (p. 140). Principle component analysis extracts conservative western (Midlands) English features that do not seem to have spread to America on the one hand, and south-eastern English forms on the other, which are positively correlated with features of American English. More precisely, ‘the American southerners show greater affinity with western speakers and less affinity with eastern speakers than do Massachusetts speakers’ (p. 153), a conclusion that is also supported by multiple regression analysis. Shackleton concludes that ‘The relative uniformity of American speech may stem in part from the dominance of immigrants from southeastern England’ (p. 154).</p>
<p>Moving across to Canada, Charles Boberg introduces the questionnaire-based ‘North American Regional Vocabulary Survey: New Variables and Methods in the Study of North American English’ (<italic>AS</italic> 80[2005] 22–60), which enables him to distinguish six Canadian dialect areas on the basis of (modern) lexical items including items from modern technology or popular culture. ‘Based on the 44 items studied here, Montreal appears to be the most lexically distinct region in Canada’ (p. 36), much of the difference being due to French influence (and indeed to regional isolation). Western Ontario seems to form a transition zone. Areas of continuous settlement (without geographical or cultural borders), on the other hand, ‘do not support clear lexical divisions’ (p. 41). Boberg also finds that, overall, ‘Canada's regions have much more in common lexically with each other than any of them does with the United States’ (p. 52). Boberg also investigates a phonetic variable in ‘The Canadian Shift in Montreal’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 133–54). As opposed to the Northern Cities Shift, the Canadian Shift involves a retraction of /æ/. Detailed acoustic analyses suggest that, rather than a chain shift, this shift involves the parallel retraction of the three front vowels: rather than lowering, /ı/and /ε/ are centralizing. Age-grading indicates that we are in fact dealing with a change in progress. Moving to Newfoundland, Alex D’Arcy also discusses /æ/-retraction and lowering (as well as (aw)-fronting) in ‘The Development of Linguistic Constraints: Phonological Innovations in St. John's English’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 327–55), where we can observe levelling towards Canadian English. D’Arcy finds that ‘adolescents are significantly more advanced than are their preadolescent peers in the use of these variants’ (p. 349), suggesting that the locus of change may lie in adolescence (rather than earlier).</p>
<p>A more general study on US English is presented by Sali Tagliamonte and Chris Roberts, ‘So Weird; So Cool; So Innovative: The Use of Intensifiers in the Television Series <italic>Friends</italic>’ (<italic>AS</italic> 80[2005] 280–300). They argue that the ‘once primary intensifier in North America, <italic>really</italic>, is being usurped by <italic>so</italic>’ (p. 280) in <italic>Friends</italic> between 1994 and 2000, mirroring developments in the ‘real world’—this result also leads them to claim that ‘media language does reflect what is going on in language’ (p. 296). Another all-time favourite is the subject of Federica Barbieri in ‘Quotative Use in American English: A Corpus-Based, Cross-Register Comparison’ (<italic>JEngL</italic> 33[2005] 222–56), broadening the study from sociolinguistic interviews to include ‘casual conversation, university service encounters and workplace conversation, university students’ study groups, and academic office hour consultations’ (p. 222). Barbieri finds that in past tense contexts, <italic>say</italic> is still the most frequent quotative across all registers. In present tense contexts, <italic>be like</italic> and <italic>go</italic> are more frequent. In contrast to earlier studies, Barbieri finds that <italic>be like</italic> is most frequent with the first person singular (in these cases mostly reporting inner speech), while for <italic>go</italic>, the third person singular still dominates.</p>
<p>Thomas Purnell, Dilara Tepeli and Joseph Salmons find ‘German Substrate Effects in Wisconsin English: Evidence for Final Fortition’ (<italic>AS</italic> 80[2005] 135–64), German being well-known for final (obstruent) devoicing. Reflexes of this are stereotypically linked to (monolingual) Upper Midwestern English, but have never been systematically examined. The authors find that older speakers from the town of Watertown, Wisconsin, only utilize some of the multiple cues that indicate word-final voiced obstruents in American English (e.g. <italic>bad</italic> vs. <italic>bat</italic>), namely vowel duration and increased glottal pulsing ratio, whereas they do not alter the F<sub>0</sub> and F<sub>1</sub> frequencies (of the preceding vowels). These speakers therefore seem to ‘fall partway between German and American English’ (p. 149). Interestingly, this does not greatly affect the correct perception of these consonants as voiced. Laura C. Hartley reports on a map drawing and attitude study in ‘The Consequences of Conflicting Stereotypes: Bostonian Perceptions of US Dialects’ (<italic>AS</italic> 80[2005] 388–405), the conflicting stereotypes being, on the one hand, the educated elite (connected to Harvard), and, on the other, working-class (Italian and Irish) descendants of immigrants. Both stereotypes coexist in Bostonians, which is mirrored in Hartley's results: although Bostonians rate their speech highest for correctness and pleasantness (indicating a high degree of linguistic security), they do not set their speech apart from other New England states (indicating linguistic insecurity). Moving to Ohio, Robin Dodsworth presents ‘Attribute Networking: A Technique For Modeling Social Perceptions’ (<italic>JSoc</italic> 9[2005] 225–53), a new technique where ‘a tie between two nodes indicates the perceived co-occurrence of the two characteristics that those nodes represent’ (p. 227) resulting in a model of the community's perceived social structure. Interestingly, central attributes (in these cases, place of residence and community involvement) correlate with linguistic data (l-vocalization and the realization of <italic>the</italic>).</p>
<p>We next turn west to Washington to a little-studied ethnic variety. Grażyna J. Rowicka reports on ‘American Indian English: The Quinault Case’ (<italic>EWW</italic> 26[2005] 301–24), where only (bilingual) speakers in her longitudinal study recorded in the 1960s show some substratal influence in phonology and morphosyntax. Present-day (monolingual) speakers seem to conform to General American patterns, but replace voiceless stops with glottal stops, which, according to Rowicka, might be an indication of a general American Indian English emerging.</p>
<p>The US South is comparatively well studied again this year. Michael Montgomery traces the ‘Voices of my Ancestors: A Personal Search for the Language of the Scotch-Irish’ (<italic>AS</italic> 80[2005] 341–65), reflecting in a very personal way on his previous research on this subject. Montgomery discusses in particular the ‘methodological challenge’ (of finding written records of vernacular speakers) and his linguistic results, namely the contribution that Scotch-Irish speakers have made to American English: a ‘modest Ulster contribution to American pronunciation and an extensive one to American grammar’ (p. 353). Tivoli Majors investigates the ‘Low Back Vowel Merger in Missouri Speech: Acoustic Description and Explanation’ (<italic>AS</italic> 80[2005] 165–79), finding that the <italic>cot–caught</italic> merger has spread to Missouri, only leaving out St Louis. An acoustic analysis shows that the ‘overall spectral shapes’ of these two vowels are very similar; this could be a reason for the rapid spread of the merger. On a similar topic, Kirk Hazen finds ‘Mergers in the Mountains: West Virginia Division and Unification’ (<italic>EWW</italic> 26[2005] 199–221), describing not only the <italic>cot–caught</italic> merger (generally a northern or western phenomenon, but cf. Majors's study above), but also the front lax merger (<italic>pen–pin</italic>), a southern phenomenon. He suggests that ‘West Virginians are developing increased unity through their shared language variation patterns’ (p. 221).</p>
<p>Valerie Fridland, Roger Kreuz and Kathryn Bartlett are ‘Making Sense of Variation: Pleasantness and Education Ratings of Southern Vowel Variants’ (<italic>AS</italic> 80[2005] 366–87). Informants from Memphis, Tennessee were able to correctly identify Southern shifted vowels as Southern, at the same time assigning them lower education ratings the more ‘Southern’ they sounded.</p>
<p>Early AAE is the subject of a couple of publications. James A. Walker discusses ‘The <italic>Ain't</italic> Constraint: <italic>Not</italic>-Contraction in Early African American English’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 1–17). Based on data from two diaspora communities, African Nova Scotian English and Samaná English, and the Ex-Slave-Recordings, Walker argues—against a creole-origin position—that <italic>not</italic>-contraction and <italic>ain't</italic> follow the same constraints across these three communities, pointing to a shared origin of these varieties. With Gerard Van Herk, the same author also asks ‘S Marks the Spot? Regional Variation and Early African American Correspondence’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 113–31), coming to a similar conclusion. Based on letters by semi-literate ex-slaves from Liberia, van Herk and Walker find that ‘despite differences in overall rates across regions, the linguistic conditioning largely remains constant’ (p. 113), again pointing to a shared history of these (varieties of) early AAE. Linking early AAE with present-day AAVE, Jeannine Carpenter examines ‘The Invisible Community of the Lost Colony: African American English on Roanoke Island’ in the Outer Banks (North Carolina) (<italic>AS</italic> 80[2005] 227–55). Drawing on data from four generations of AAVE speakers, Carpenter is able to show for six morphosyntactic features (<italic>was</italic>/<italic>were</italic>-levelling, copula absence, 3sg <italic>-s</italic> absence, 3pl -<italic>s</italic>, stative locative <italic>to</italic>) that ‘the overall trajectory of change … indicates movement toward a more ethnically marked variety … regional distinctiveness is receding’ (p. 241). Data for the phonological variable of <italic>r</italic>-lessness seem to move in the opposite direction, while consonant-cluster reduction also shows alignment with AAVE. Carpenter finds that individual variation is considerable, and that the factor of ‘community involvement’ is crucial, echoing Dodsworth's findings above. Expanding on the role of the individual vs. the group, Jeannine Carpenter and Sarah Hilliard discuss ‘Shifting Parameters of Individual and Group Variation: African American English on Roanoke Island’ (<italic>JEngL</italic> 33[2005] 161–84). The authors look in particular at speakers’ mobility, community involvement, and their status as an insider/‘oddball’ (aspirer, interloper, or an outsider) and find that ‘over the generations, the outsider dialect of Gen[eration] III became the internal norm for Gen[eration] IV, with a movement away from the regional or unmarked forms and toward a more ethnolinguistically determined community dialect’ (pp. 180–1), stressing that ‘the symbolic role of AAE may shift across generations based on demographic and community identity factors’ (p. 181). Finally, on an ethnic group so far not much discussed, Angela Reyes finds ‘Appropriation of African American Slang by Asian American Youth’ (<italic>JSoc</italic> 9[2005] 509–32), in particular of the terms <italic>aite</italic> (‘alright’) and <italic>na mean</italic> (‘know what I mean?’), echoing Rampton's concept of crossing below. In her speakers from Philadelphia, Reyes finds processes of racialization, appropriation and authentication contributing to the speakers’ construction of identity, and claims that ‘many Asian Americans use AAVE features to lay claim to participation in an urban youth style’ (p. 511), i.e. to portray themselves as being ‘urban, hip, cool, tough’ (p. 520), but also to exclude other, more middle-class (Asian American) speakers. To end this overview, we must mention the second edition (reprint, really) of Ben Rampton's <italic>Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents</italic> (first edition 1995). In contrast to the first edition, this book contains a slightly fuller description of the town and neighbourhood, but otherwise it remains unchanged. The main merit of this second edition is thus to bring the important concept of ‘crossing’ and its basic text into wider circulation again.</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC10"><title>10. New Englishes and Creolistics</title>
<p>A large number of publications this year were concerned with the globalization of English and its implications for education. The volume <italic>Decolonisation, Globalisation: Language-in-Education Policy and Practice</italic>, edited by Angel M.Y. Lin and Peter W. Martin, provides a critical stance towards the costs and benefits of implementing English-medium education world-wide. General issues are addressed in the editors’ introduction ‘From a Critical Deconstruction Paradigm to a Critical Construction Paradigm: An Introduction to Decolonisation, Globalisation and Language-in-Education Policy and Practice’ (pp. 1–19) and A. Suresh Canagarajah's ‘Accommodating Tension in Language-in-Education Policies: An Afterword’ (pp. 194–201). Individual chapters dealing with specific countries will be discussed in the appropriate sections below.</p>
<p>The volume on <italic>The Globalisation of English and the English Language Classroom</italic>, edited by Claus Gnutzmann and Frauke Intemann, contains papers from a conference held in 2003. While a number of contributions are of a more pedagogic nature, many will also be of interest to those working on World Englishes (papers on specific varieties will be dealt with below). Frauke Intemann analyses a very specialized variety of global English, namely ‘ “Taipei Ground, Confirm your Last Transmission Was in English … ?”—An Analysis of Aviation English as a World Language’ (pp. 71–88), comparing formal aviation English to what is actually spoken in communications between tower and cockpit. Christiane Meierkord examines ‘Interactions across Englishes and their Lexicon’ (pp. 89–104) on the basis of conversational data from ESL and EFL speakers from a large variety of sociolinguistic backgrounds, showing that input from ESL varieties is limited in an international context and that few phrasal verbs and idioms occur, which makes the lexicon appear reduced and culturally neutral. Allan James's discussion of ‘The Challenges of the Lingua Franca: English in the World and Types of Variety’ (pp. 133–44) is concerned with the question whether ELF varieties can be considered ‘legitimate’ varieties of English. Along similar lines, Jennifer Jenkins deals with ‘Teaching Pronunciation for English as a Lingua Franca: A Sociopolitical Perspective’ (pp. 145–58), also addressing issues of legitimacy with regard to non-native teaching models, which would, for example, not aim at teaching /θ/ or /∂/ to ELF students. Finally, Barbara Seidlhofer requests a shift in research from ENL to ESL and ELF varieties in her contribution on ‘Standard Future or Half-Baked Quackery? Descriptive and Pedagogic Bearings on the Globalisation of English’ (pp. 159–73) as an adequate response to the global use of English.</p>
<p>Tom McArthur looks at ‘Chinese, English, Spanish—and the Rest’ (<italic>EnT</italic> 21:iii[2005] 55–61), discussing the ‘communicative ecology’ of the languages of the world and pointing out the special status of English as opposed to the other major languages. Abdullah Al-Dabbagh reports on ‘Globalism and the Universal Language’ (<italic>EnT</italic> 21:ii[2005] 3–12), comparing the present status of English to universal language projects such as Esperanto or Basic English. Ross Smith lists all the disadvantages of English as a world language in ‘Global English: Gift or Curse’ (<italic>EnT</italic> 21:ii[2005] 56–62), concluding that English is actually a poor candidate for a global lingua franca and predicting the rise of Mandarin Chinese in the future.</p>
<p>The question of the linguistic ownership of English as a global language is linked to the debate about the ‘native speaker’. Stephanie Lindemann conducted a study to find out ‘Who Speaks “Broken English”? US Undergraduates’ Perceptions of Non-Native English’ (<italic>IJAL</italic> 15[2005] 187–212) based on the methodology of perceptual dialectology or folk linguistics. In a map-labelling and country-rating task, she found that students tended to evaluate those varieties spoken by large immigrant communities (East Asian and Latin American) most negatively while West European varieties received surprisingly positive ratings. The most important distinctive feature was nevertheless that between ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ English. It is therefore unlikely that the subjects of Lindemann's study would agree with Carmen Acevedo Butcher's arguments in ‘The Case Against the “Native Speaker” ’ (<italic>EnT</italic> 21:ii[2005] 13–24), outlining the history of the term and possible replacements in the light of the global use of English. Svenja Adolphs writes on ‘ “I don't think I should learn all this”—A Longitudinal View of Attitudes towards “Native Speaker” English’ (in Gnutzmann and Intemann, eds., pp. 119–31), presenting results from a one-year study of foreign students in Nottingham, whose perceptions of what constitutes ‘native speaker English’ and the desirability thereof changed considerably over the course of their study towards a more pragmatic goal of mutual intelligibility. Simone Müller provides empirical evidence for differences between native and non-native speakers of English. Her study on <italic>Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native English Discourse</italic> provides a corpus-based account of the varying functions of the markers <italic>so</italic>, <italic>well</italic>, <italic>like</italic> and <italic>you know</italic> in the speech of American and German speakers of English. Although the title of Müller's book is somewhat misleading as the non-native speakers represented in her study all speak the same L1, the main results—that both groups used all four discourse markers under analysis, but with varying frequencies and functions—could possibly be generalized for other groups of L1 and L2 speakers of English. More research is definitely needed in the field of intercultural pragmatics.</p>
<p>The state of the art in the study of World Englishes is summarized in Kingsley Bolton's contribution on ‘Where WE Stands: Approaches, Issues, and Debate in World Englishes’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 69–83), which also includes a brief history of the field. Margie Berns focuses on ‘Expanding on the Expanding Circle: Where Do WE Go from Here?’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 85–93), analysing previous research on varieties spoken in the expanding circle and proposing topics for further research. Sanzo Sakai and James F. D’Angelo develop ‘A Vision for World Englishes in the Expanding Circle’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 323–7) based on their experience in Japan. Richard Morrison and Mathew White propose various approaches for ‘Nurturing Global Listeners: Increasing Familiarity and Appreciation for World Englishes’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 361–70) by asserting the Expanding Circle students’ ownership of English, by developing pride in their own variety (i.e. Japanese English) and by exposing them to a large number of other varieties inside and outside the classroom. Asha Tickoo discusses different strategies of ‘Text Building, Language Learning and the Emergence of Local Varieties of English’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 21–38) based on two essays written by learners with Cantonese as their L1. It remains to be shown whether the incremental text-building strategy displayed in such a small sample really is indicative of a local norm or whether it could also be found in other Expanding Circle varieties.</p>
<p>A new textbook on <italic>Varieties of Modern English: An Introduction</italic> by Diane Davies (cf. also section 9 of this chapter) also includes chapters on ‘English as a Global Perspective’ (chapter 4) and ‘The Future of English as an International Language’ (chapter 10). Although written in a reader-friendly style and supplemented with exercises and suggestions for further reading for each chapter, the treatment of World Englishes unfortunately leaves much to be desired. Kachru's three concentric circles are exemplified by one single variety for each: American English (Inner Circle), South Asian English (Outer Circle) and Japanese English (Expanding Circle). The chapter would have profited not only from the inclusion of more recent work on Asian Englishes, but also from the discussion of several varieties per category to stress the inherent variation within each ‘circle’.</p>
<p>To round off this section on World Englishes in general, I would like to introduce Daniel Schreier's ambitious treatment of <italic>Consonant Change in English Worldwide: Synchrony Meets Diachrony</italic>, which attempts to account for historical change and synchronic variation with regard to initial (e.g. <italic>kn-</italic> or <italic>hr-</italic>) and final (e.g. -<italic>st</italic> or -<italic>ld</italic>) consonant clusters (CCs) in English by approaching the subject matters from various angles, such as phonological theory, typology, psycholinguistics, variationist linguistics or contact linguistics. With regard to initial CC-reduction, Schreier provides a corpus-based analysis of the loss of various CCs in earlier stages of British English, his own research on the ongoing change from /hw-/ to /w-/ in NZE (cf. <italic>YWES</italic> 84[2005] 89) and Birgit Alber and Ingo Plag's findings on onset CCs with/s/as the first element in Sranan (cf. <italic>YWES</italic> 82[2003] 89). The discussion of final CC reduction is the focus of the volume. Schreier supplements the analysis of his data from NZE (both Maori and Pakeha), Tristan da Cunha English and St Helena English (cf. <italic>YWES</italic> 83[2004] 82, 84[2005] 90–1) with previous research on a large number of varieties, ranging from York English (Tagliamonte and Temple [2005], see section 9 above) to mesolectal Jamaican Creole (Peter Patrick [1999], cf. <italic>YWES</italic> 80[2001] 89). The author's sweeping conclusions with regard to language-internal and external factors as well as variety-specific variation with regard to CCs are marred by some methodological problems. For example, Schreier does not distinguish between CC-reduction and final -d/t-deletion and bases his conclusions on various sets of data which are completely different with regard to number of speakers, speech style and number of tokens analysed. With regard to ESL and EFL varieties, Schreier is unaware of a large body of research, classifies SingE as an EFL variety (p. 188) and contradicts himself with regard to the status of epenthesis in ESL varieties (p. 190 vs. p. 221). Despite its shortcomings, the book provides interesting insights into the complex area of phonotactics in various varieties of English around the world and should inspire further research in this field.</p>
<p>We will begin the survey of the individual varieties with those from the southern hemisphere. NZE phonology and suprasegmentals continue to attract scholarly attention. Jennifer Hay and Andrea Sudbury use the ONZE data to shed light on ‘How Rhoticity Became /r/-Sandhi’ (<italic>Language</italic> 81[2005] 799–823), i.e. the emergence of linking /r/ and intrusive /r/, showing that there is a strong correlation between the decline of rhoticity in early NZE and the emergence of /r/-sandhi and that there are stable conditioning factors for the various subphenomena. Paul Warren reports on ‘Patterns of Late Rising in New Zealand English: Intonational Variation or Intonational Change?’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 209–30) on the basis of observational and experimental data, showing differences in terms of rise onset and function between younger and middle-aged speakers. The results from this study are presented in the larger context of NZE intonation research in Paul Warren's survey paper on ‘Issues in the Study of Intonation in Language Varieties’ (<italic>L&S</italic> 48[2005] 345–58).</p>
<p>Janet Holmes provides a comprehensive account of ‘Using Māori English in New Zealand’ (<italic>IJSL</italic> 172[2005] 91–115) by summarizing previous research on Maori English phonology, syntax, lexico-semantics and pragmatics and providing original research on speech functions, such as narratives or humour on the basis of data from the Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English. Using data from the Language in the Workplace Project Corpus, Janet Holmes also analyses ‘Leadership Talk: How Do Leaders “Do Mentoring” and Is Gender Relevant?’ (<italic>JPrag</italic> 37[2005] 91–115), identifying different mentoring strategies and showing that more masculine or feminine strategies are used by men and women alike.</p>
<p>Moving on to AusE, we find Scott F. Kiesling's report on ‘Variation, Stance and Style: Word-final -<italic>er</italic>, High Rising Tone, and Ethnicity in Australian English’ (<italic>EWW</italic> 26[2005] 1–42). Based on interview data, Kiesling confirms that there is a new pronunciation of word-final <italic>-er</italic> in polysyllabic words, which combines a more open, back vowel with extended vowel length and high rising tone. This style is on the one hand indicative of ethnic differences between non-Anglo (especially Greek) and Anglo speakers, but also used to express speaker stance. Peter Collins's analysis of ‘The Modals and Quasi-Modals of Obligation and Necessity in Australian English and Other Englishes’ (<italic>EWW</italic> 26[2005] 249–73) combines corpus evidence (mainly from ICE subcorpora) and questionnaire material to show that all four varieties under analysis (AUS, NZ, US, GB) pattern differently with regard to modal use and that, for example, <italic>ought to</italic> is extremely unpopular in AusE while <italic>had better</italic> enjoys the highest frequency in spoken AusE. Peter Collins also provides a brief overview of the specific development of the AusE lexicon in his contribution on ‘English in Australia’ (in Cruse, Hundsnurscher, Job and Lutzeier, eds., <italic>Lexikologie—Lexicology: An International Handbook on the Nature and Structure of Words and Vocabularies</italic>, pp. 1267–9). The transition from the southern hemisphere to Asia is undertaken by Susan Butler, who reports on ‘Lexicography and World Englishes from Australia to Asia’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 533–46), outlining the genesis and success of the <italic>Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English</italic> and providing examples of lexical Australianisms, followed by a report of the efforts to branch out into the Asian markets which have encountered much opposition especially in the education sector.</p>
<p>With regard to English in Asia, we welcome the publication of Braj B. Kachru's <italic>Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon</italic> which combines a lifetime of research on Asian English with recent developments and debates into a rich tapestry depicting many aspects of the uses and functions of English in Asia. Kachru is not so much concerned with the linguistic features of Asian English (fewer than ten pages are devoted to their discussion), but rather with a detailed analysis of the sociolinguistic status of English, with ongoing debates about the advantages and disadvantages of English in Asia, linguistic ideology, and possible future developments. Kachru's book is by far the most comprehensive treatment of the subject matter and a very valuable contribution to the field, despite some repetitiveness and unnecessary parts, such as the lengthy response to Jennifer Jenkins's criticism (cf. <italic>YWES</italic> 84[2005] 86) of the concentric circles model (pp. 211–20).</p>
<p>Of the individual Asian Englishes, it is again Singapore that receives most scholarly attention. David Deterding examines ‘Emergent Patterns in the Vowels of Singapore English’ (<italic>EWW</italic> 26[2005] 179–97) based on the acoustic analysis of reading data, and comes to the conclusion that even in the speech of educated Singaporeans, distinctive vowel patterns can be found which are often lexically conditioned, e.g. different vowels in <italic>pure</italic> vs. <italic>poor</italic>. Jock Wong provides answers to ‘Why You So Singlish <italic>One</italic>? A Semantic and Cultural Interpretation of the Singapore English Particle <italic>One</italic>’ (<italic>LSoc</italic> 34[2005] 239–75) by comparing culturally conditioned discourses of Singaporean and Anglo-English speakers within Anna Wierzbicka's semantic framework. Bao Zhiming reports on ‘The Aspectual System of Singapore English (SingE) and the Systemic Substratist Explanation’ (<italic>JLing</italic> 41[2005] 237–67), comparing the aspectual markers and categories of Mandarin Chinese and SingE. He concludes that SingE parallels those categories in Mandarin Chinese which are also present in the lexifier, English. Along similar lines, Bao Zhiming and Lye Hui Min analyse ‘Systemic Transfer, Topic Prominence, and the Bare Conditional in Singapore English’ (<italic>JPCL</italic> 20[2005] 269–91) showing that bare conditional clauses without <italic>if</italic> occur in SingE because it mirrors the strategy of topic prominence found in the Chinese dialects spoken there. Lionel Wee looks at ‘Intra-Language Discrimination and Linguistic Human Rights: The Case of Singlish’ (<italic>AL</italic> 26[2005] 48–69), discussing Singapore's prohibitive language policy vis-à-vis its colloquial variety of English, also called Singlish, within the framework of linguistic human rights. Rani Rubdy reports on ‘Remaking Singapore for the New Age: Official Ideology and the Realities of Practice in Language-in-Education’ (in Lin and Martin, eds., pp. 55–73), discussing changes in educational policy and government campaigns such as the Speak Mandarin Campaign or the Speak Good English Movement and their effects with regard to the country's minority languages.</p>
<p>Language policy in neighbouring Malaysia is also addressed, for example by Peter K.W. Tan's article, ‘The Medium-of-Instruction Debate in Malaysia: English as a Malaysian Language?’ (<italic>LPLP</italic> 29[2005] 47–66), discussing the media reactions following the Malaysian government's announcement of fully bilingual education in Malay and English as of 2003. Tan places this debate in the context of Edgar Schneider's model for the New Englishes (Schneider [2003], cf. <italic>YWES</italic> 84[2003] 88f.), which he finds lacking in the case of Malaysia. Peter Martin looks at the implementation of the 2003 language-in-education policy by means of ‘ “Safe” Language Practices in Two Rural Schools in Malaysia: Tensions between Policy and Practice’ (in Lin and Martin, eds., pp. 74–97). On the basis of two transcripts of primary school English lessons Martin describes different strategies used by teachers with regard to supplementing English with Malay and local languages to facilitate learning. Finally, the historical dimension of language policy in Malaysia is the topic of Abdullah Hassan's article ‘Language Planning in Malaysia: The First Hundred Years’ (<italic>EnT</italic> 21:iv[2005] 3–12).</p>
<p>Publications on Hong Kong are mainly concerned with Critical Discourse Analysis in the widest sense. A case in point is the volume edited by Shi-xu, Manfred Kienpointner and Jan Servaes, <italic>Read the Cultural Other: Forms of Otherness in the Discourses of Hong Kong's Decolonization</italic>, which is geared toward representing the non-Western discourses which are often ignored in the academic context. Part I of the book thus contains several programmatic chapters, such as Shi-xu's ‘The Study of Non-Western Discourse’, or Denis McQuail's ‘Communication Theory and the Western Bias’. Part II is concerned with ‘The Discursive Dominance of the West’, as in Jan Servaes and Sankaran's ‘Reporting the Hong Kong Transition: A Comparative Analysis of News Coverage in Europe and Asia’, or Shi-xu and Manfred Kienpointner's ‘The Contest over Hong Kong: Revealing the Power Practices of the Western Media’. Most interesting to those interested in the New Englishes is part III, which looks at ‘Complexity, Diversity and Otherness of Non-Western Discourse’, as in Shi-xu's ‘Unfamiliar Voices from the Other: Exploring Forms of Otherness in the Media Discourses of China and Hong Kong’, Lee Cher-Leng's ‘Media and Metaphor: Exploring the Rhetoric in China's and Hong Kong's Public Discourses’, Hong Cheng and Guofang Wan's ‘Identity and Interactive Hypermedia: A Discourse Analysis of Web Diaries’, or Lawrence Wang-chi Wong's ‘Narrating Hong Kong History: A Critical Study of Mainland China's Historical Discourse’. Along similar lines, Anthony Sweeting and Edvard Vickers contemplate ‘On Colonizing “Colonialism”: The Discourses of the History of English in Hong Kong’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 113–30), critically analysing previous studies on the topic and contrasting them with opposing views.</p>
<p>Mee-Ling Lai studies ‘Language Attitudes of the First Postcolonial Generation in Hong Kong Secondary Schools’ (<italic>LSoc</italic> 34[2005] 363–88) on the basis of a questionnaire survey. She found that the majority of students are emotionally attached to Cantonese, but view English as indispensable for their career and social advancement. Putonghua is viewed rather critically, but the author maintains that this may change in the future for pragmatic reasons. Angel M.Y. Lin provides ‘Critical Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Language-in-Education Policy and Practice in Postcolonial Contexts: The Case of Hong Kong’ (in Lin and Martin, eds., pp. 38–54), in which she discusses the problematic aspects of the English-dominated education system in Hong Kong. Finally, Winnie Cheng and Martin Warren analyse ‘//↑<underline>CAN</underline> I help you//: The Use of <italic>Rise</italic> and <italic>Rise-Fall</italic> Tones in the Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English’ (<italic>IJCL</italic> 10[2005] 85–107), especially in contexts of asserting dominance and control. They show that the use of these tones is most frequent in discourse types such as business meetings or academic supervisions, where power relations tend to be most important, and that there are no differences between the Hong Kong English speakers and the native speakers of English in the corpus.</p>
<p>Two articles address English in China. Hu Xiaoqiong positions ‘China English, at Home and in the World’ (<italic>EnT</italic> 21:iii[2005] 27–38) on the basis of a questionnaire survey among English teachers at several Chinese universities, which—in contrast to previous studies—revealed relatively strong support for a Chinese variety of English. Jian Yang presents ‘Lexical Innovations in China English’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 425–36) as found in English-language newspapers, distinguishing between loanwords, such as <italic>baozi</italic> ‘a filled steamed bun’, nonce-loans, such as <italic>nianhua</italic> ‘Spring Festival paintings’, and loan translations, such as <italic>foreign expert</italic> ‘a foreign professional or academic whose airfare is paid’.</p>
<p>Moving on to South Asia, we encounter a number of publications dealing with English in India. Vaidehi Ramanathan considers <italic>The English–Vernacular Divide: Postcolonial Language Politics and Practice</italic> especially with regard to the education system on the basis of an in-depth study of the differences between English-medium and Gujarati-medium colleges in Ahmedabad. After a brief historical introduction on language policy and the relationship between language and social class in India, Ramanathan concentrates on the divergent pedagogical tools and practices of the different institutions under analysis and points out the problems faced by graduates of Gujarati-medium schools in tertiary education and the socioeconomic issues associated with the linguistic gulf between English-medium and Gujarati-medium education. E. Annamalai also discusses ‘Nation-Building in a Globalised World: Language Choice and Education in India’ (in Lin and Martin, eds., pp. 20–37), starting with a historical overview of education in the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial period. Annamalai proceeds with a discussion of the present three-language formula in education and concludes by stating that the dichotomy between English and the vernacular languages central to Ramanathan's book also presents an obstacle to nation-building. Mahendra K. Verma looks at ‘English as an Economic Investment: Who Will Earn the Dividends?’ (in Gnutzmann and Intemann, eds., pp. 41–54), reporting the results of a questionnaire-based study on language attitudes in India and discussing language-in-education policy. According to Verma, English in India has lost its colonial stigma and has become an economic commodity exploited by those who have access to it.</p>
<p>Devyani Sharma examines ‘Dialect Stabilization and Speaker Awareness in Non-Native Varieties of English’ (<italic>JSoc</italic> 9[2005] 194–224) on the basis of interview data from Indian English (IndE) speakers who moved to California as adults and have different L1s (Hindi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Kannada). By contrasting the subjects’ different exposure to and use of English, Sharma concludes that IndE features such as zero past-tense marking, zero copula, lacking subject–verb agreement and article use are due to varying proficiency levels rather than an emergent local norm. In a second step, Sharma contrasted the use of three consonantal features of AmE with the speakers’ attitudes towards the two varieties, showing that higher frequencies of AmE features correlate to a positive evaluation of the variety and the ability to adapt, while others are more ambivalent in their attitudes. Interestingly, subjects treated phonological and syntactic features differently and expressed strong emphasis on ‘correct grammar’ (pp. 215–19). One of the features studied by Sharma is also taken up by Asha Tickoo in her work on ‘The Selective Marking of Past Tense: Insights from Indian Learners of English’ (<italic>IJAL</italic> 15[2005] 364–78) at the low intermediary level. Tickoo found that the selective marking of past tense is not caused by the lexico-semantics of the verb but rather by foregrounding techniques which may be tied to the narrative organizational practices of the students’ L1.</p>
<p>Two articles are concerned with specific varieties of IndE. Caroline R. Wiltshire reports on ‘The “Indian English” of Tibeto-Burman Language Speakers’ (<italic>EWW</italic> 26[2005] 275–300) which is remarkably different from the General IndE mainly influenced by Indo-Aryan or Dravidian languages. For example, Tibeto-Burman speakers of English lack the retroflex consonants of General IndE, but show final obstruent devoicing, rhoticity, consonant cluster reduction and a reduction of vowel contrasts. Priya Hosali introduces ‘Butler English’ (<italic>EnT</italic> 21:i[2005] 34–9), a simplified code used by domestic servants, which appears to have remained stable over a long period of time.</p>
<p>Manel Herat examines ‘BE Variation in Sri Lankan English’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 181–208), coming to the conclusion that instances of zero copula in Sri Lankan English are in line with findings from other contact varieties of English, such as AAVE or SingE, which are conditioned by various types of complements and phonological form, but that there is a generally large degree of compliance to standard English grammatical norms. A. Suresh Canagarajah uses the situation in Sri Lanka to illustrate ‘Dilemmas in Planning English/Vernacular Relations in Post-Colonial Communities’ (<italic>JSoc</italic> 9[2005] 418–47) by discussing the strategies of promoting Tamil in the north and east of Sri Lanka by a Tamil nationalist government and contrasting them with examples of actual language use in which code-switching and code-mixing abound.</p>
<p>Joseph A. Foley reports on ‘English in … Thailand’ (<italic>RELC</italic> 36[2005] 223–34), presenting a survey of educational policy past and present and sketching the sociolinguistic profile of English in Thailand. Foley stresses the importance of adjusting the teaching of English to Thai culture and Buddhism so as to develop intercultural competence. This is exemplified in Pimyupa Watkhaolarm's article ‘Think in Thai, Write in English: <italic>Thainess</italic> in Thai English Literature’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 145–58) on the basis of two novels from 1949 and 1996 respectively, identifying different linguistic strategies such as hybridization, reduplication, borrowing or translated sayings and metaphors. Finally for this section, Wong Soon Fen introduces ‘English in Myanmar’ (<italic>RELC</italic> 36[2005] 93–104), surveying its development from the colonial period to the present day and its present status in the education system and elsewhere, showing an increased importance recently as Myanmar engages more in international relations.</p>
<p>With regard to English in Africa, Birgit Brock-Utne has written a general summary of ‘Language-in-Education Policies and Practices in Africa with a Special Focus on Tanzania and South Africa: Insights from Research in Progress’ (in Lin and Martin, eds., pp. 173–93), painting a dire picture of the detrimental effects of English-medium instruction in African schools as there is usually no or too little proper English language instruction. Looking at the situation in South Africa specifically, Margie Probyn discusses ‘Language and the Struggle to Learn: The Intersection of Classroom Realities, Language Policy, and Neocolonial and Globalisation Discourses in South African Schools’ (in Lin and Martin, eds., pp. 153–72), providing an overview of language-in-education policy in South Africa past and present and presenting examples of actual language use in schools, which tends to favour English over the local languages. Janina Brutt-Griffler addresses the question ‘ “Who Do You Think You Are, Where Do You Think You Are?”: Language Policy and the Political Economy of English in South Africa’ (in Gnutzmann and Intemann, eds., pp. 27–39) within Robert Phillipson's framework of linguistic imperialism.</p>
<p>Turning to individual varieties of SAE, Susan Coetzee-van Roy and Bertus van Rooy look at ‘South African English: Labels, Comprehensibility and Status’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 1–19), addressing current practices of labelling the subvarieties of SAE and presenting the results of a labelling task which indicates that while participants prefer the term ‘South African English’ for all varieties, they do not shy away from labels involving race, such as ‘Black South African English’ or ‘White Man English’. Rajend Meshtrie is ‘Assessing Representations of South African Indian English in Writing: An Application of Variation Theory’ (<italic>LVC</italic> 17[2005] 303–26) on the basis of three novels written between 1946 and 2001 by comparing them to sociolinguistic interview data. The analysis reveals that the different authors make use of different variables to varying degrees to achieve their literary aims, such as parody, but are generally not in line with the results from the naturally occurring data. Ana Deumert describes ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being Bilingual: English–Afrikaans Language Contact in South Africa’ (<italic>LangS</italic> 27[2005] 113–35) by reanalysing data from Kay McCormick (cf. <italic>YWES</italic> 84[2003] 95) in terms of language mixing and bilingual convergence.</p>
<p>With regard to SAE phonology, Rajend Meshtrie is in favour of ‘Putting Back the Horse Before the Cart: The “Spelling Form” Fallacy in Second Language Acquisition Studies, with Special Reference to the Treatment of Unstressed Vowels in Black South African English’ (<italic>EWW</italic> 26[2005] 127–51), claiming that replacements of schwa by full vowels which are often regarded as an interference of the orthographic form are in fact mappings onto an expected vowel quality or the speakers’ L1 phonology. Martina Häcker reports on ‘Linking [h] and the Variation between Linking /r/ and Glottal Onsets in South African English’ (in Spurr and Tschichold, eds., <italic>The Space of English</italic>, pp. 207–26), a feature often found in the speech of Afrikaans-L1 speakers in word-internal hiatus position, as in <italic>cre</italic>[h]<italic>ate</italic>, identifying possible sources of this feature in historical representations of Cockney English and arguing that it is only the quality of the /h/ which is due to Afrikaans influence.</p>
<p>Vivian de Klerk has worked extensively on adverbs and discourse markers in her corpus of spoken Xhosa English. In her study on ‘Expressing Levels of Intensity in Xhosa English’ (<italic>EWW</italic> 26[2005] 77–95) she found that speakers of Xhosa English use intensifiers and downtoners less than speakers of NZE and also draw on a smaller range of lexical items. With regard to ‘The Use of <italic>Actually</italic> in spoken Xhosa English: A Corpus Study’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 275–88), de Klerk shows that Xhosa English speakers have different functions for this form than L1 speakers, as they mainly use it as a discourse modifier to prepare the listener for unexpected information. Along similar lines, de Klerk looks at ‘The Procedural Meanings of <italic>well</italic> in a Corpus of Xhosa English’ (<italic>JPrag</italic> 37[2005] 1183–1205), which is used similarly by speakers of Xhosa English and NZE but occurs less frequently in the L2 variety.</p>
<p>With regard to English in West Africa, we find a number of publications dealing with Nigerian English. Herbert Igboanusi and Lothar Peter look at <italic>Languages in Competition: The Struggle for Supremacy Among Nigeria's Major Languages, English and Pidgin</italic> on the basis of a questionnaire survey of language use and attitudes in five Nigerian states. In the first part of the book, the authors provide a concise summary of the sociolinguistic profile of the five most important languages in the country, namely English, pidgin, Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo. In the second part, they discuss the findings of their survey in more detail. It is shown that while Hausa continues to acquire new speakers and uses, the other indigenous languages are gradually being replaced by pidgin (especially in informal contexts) and English (especially in formal contexts and as a written language). While Igboanusi and Peter do not embrace an ‘English is a killer language’ stance along the lines of Alastair Pennycook [1994] or Robert Phillipson and Tove Skuttnab-Kangas [1996], they nevertheless point out the threat of the continued spread of Hausa, English and pidgin to Nigeria's many smaller languages and offer some possible solutions in terms of language planning, especially with regard to the education system. Ulrike Gut reports on ‘Nigerian English Prosody’ (<italic>EWW</italic> 26[2005] 153–77), comparing reading styles and semi-spontaneous speech samples from Nigerian English, British English, Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba to determine possible influence from the major L1s. She found that Nigerian English patterns between BrE and the Nigerian tone languages in many respects, while its speech rhythm is distinct from both BrE and the African languages under analysis. Finally, Grace Ebunlola Adamo takes up the issue of ‘Globalization, Terrorism, and the English Language in Nigeria’ (<italic>EnT</italic> 84:iv[2005] 21–6), depicting the use of English in Nigeria as a result of imperialism—presently in the guise of globalization—and ‘linguistic terrorism’ and calling for a common indigenous language to counter this development. The negative impact of insistence on standard English in a West African context is exemplified in Katrijn Maryns's study on ‘Monolingual Language Ideologies and Code Choice in the Belgian Asylum Procedure’ (<italic>L&C</italic> 25[2005] 299–314), in which she discusses the communicative problems experienced by a Krio-dominant asylum seeker from Sierra Leone who is forced by the authorities to relate her case in English, a code only partially accessible to the speaker.</p>
<p>With regard to English in East Africa, Jan Blommaert's conclusions about ‘Situating Language Rights: English and Swahili in Tanzania Revisited’ (<italic>JSoc</italic> 9[2005] 390–417) are diametrically opposed to Adamo's claims concerning Nigeria. Based on an in-depth ethnographic study, Blommaert found that English is by no means simply a tool of oppression or inequality, but rather a part of a complex sociolinguistic situation in which both Swahili and English have acquired local meanings. Martha Moraa Michieka's survey of ‘English in Kenya: A Sociolinguistic Profile’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 173–86) provides information on the present status and functions of this variety, including a section based on previous research on the ambivalent attitudes towards English. Grace W. Bunyi reports on ‘Language Classroom Practices in Kenya’ (in Lin and Martin, eds., pp. 131–52), which involve linguistic routines, choral response by the students and code-switching by the teachers, which are all interpreted as being caused by inadequate teacher training. Judith Miguda-Attyang looks at the ‘Use of Discourse Markers in Undergraduate Writing’ (<italic>IndJAL</italic> 31[2005] 109–22) of third-year students at Maseno University in Kenya, focusing on overt signalling of clause relations.</p>
<p>Moving on to the Caribbean, there is some up-to-date information on the use of ‘English in Puerto Rico’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 227–37) by Edelmira L. Nickels outlining the political, educational, literary and sociolinguistic contexts of English in this predominantly Spanish-speaking country. The effect of Spanish–English language contact in Puerto Rico is summarized in Ileana Cortés, Jesus Ramirez, Maria Rivera, Marta Viada and Joan Fayer's study of English loanwords in Puerto Rican Spanish: ‘Dame un hamburger plain con ketchup y papitas’ (<italic>EnT</italic> 21:ii[2005] 35–42). Jorge Aguilar-Sánchez reports on another predominantly Spanish-speaking country in the Caribbean: ‘English in Costa Rica’ (<italic>WEn</italic> 24[2005] 161–72), documenting the increased use of English due to changes in the economy (especially tourism), the education system and the media. This development is also changing the perceptions of the native variety of English spoken by the majority of Afro-Caribbeans in the country, Limonese Creole English.</p>
<p>Two articles are concerned with the effects of language shift to English on formerly French creole-speaking islands in the Caribbean. Paul B. Garrett studies ‘What a Language Is Good For: Language Socialization, Language Shift, and the Persistence of Code-Specific Genres in St. Lucia’ (<italic>LSoc</italic> 34[2005] 327–61), showing that while St Lucian parents encourage their children to acquire the local variety of English, they explicitly teach them to curse (trade verbal insults) in Kwéyòl as this cultural practice is linked to this particular variety. Similarly, Amy L. Paugh reports on ‘Multilingual Play: Children's Code-Switching, Role Play and Agency in Dominica, West Indies’ (<italic>LSoc</italic> 34[2005] 63–86), proving that Dominican children brought up to speak English only use the sanctioned code of Patwa, the Dominican French-based creole, to act out authoritative adult roles in peer play. Paugh concludes that the positive traits associated with Patwa during such role play may prevent a complete shift from Patwa to English in rural Dominica.</p>
<p>A volume edited by Susanne Mühleisen and Bettina Migge on <italic>Politeness and Face in Caribbean Creoles</italic> provides a transition from Caribbean English to creolistics, as some contributions also deal with the standard varieties of English, e.g. Valerie Youssef's developmental study ‘ “May I have the Bilna?” The Development of Face-Saving in Young Trinidadian Children’, based on observational data from four children growing up with different types of Trinidadian English and creole. In their introduction, the editors introduce the theoretical background of politeness research in pragmatics and previous anthropological research on the Caribbean. The contributions are grouped into three categories: Part I, on ‘Performing Rudeness and Face Maintenance’, includes Peter Snow's study of ‘The Use of “Bad” Language as a Politeness Strategy in a Panamanian Creole Village’, where so-called ‘Obscene’ assessment is used as a co-operative device in conversations, and a comparative study of ‘Ritualized Insults and the African Diaspora: <italic>Sounding</italic> in African American Vernacular English and <italic>Wording</italic> in Nigerian Pidgin’, in which Nicholas Faraclas, Lourdes Gonzalez, Migdalia Medina and Wendell Villanueva Reyes compare data from AAVE and Nigerian Pidgin with ritual insults in Turkish, concluding that AAVE and Nigerian Pidgin display many similarities because of a shared West African background. Esther Figueroa reports on ‘Rude Sounds—Kiss Teeth and Negotiation of the Public Sphere’, discussing the pragmatics (negative affect, moral positioning) of a pan-Caribbean paralinguistic feature called <italic>kiss teeth</italic> in the western Caribbean, which is quite variable in form but always involves an ingressive airstream and some labio-dental closure, on the basis of mainly literary data. Joseph T. Farquharson examines ‘<italic>Faiya-bon</italic>: The Socio-Pragmatics of Homophobia in Jamaican (Dancehall) Culture’, using the verb <italic>faiya-bon</italic> ‘to burn in fire’ as a cover term for varied expressions of homophobic attitudes expressed in the construction of a heterosexual male identity by Jamaican Dancehall artists as threats towards homosexuals. Part II deals with ‘Face Attention and the Public and Private Self’, as in Bettina Migge's account of ‘Greeting and Social Change’ in the Eastern Maroon community in Surinam and French Guiana, where urban social norms are gradually replacing the complex Maroon system of politeness. Similarly, Janina Fenigsen looks at ‘Meaningful Routines: Meaning-Making and the Face Value of Barbadian Greetings’ on the basis of ethnographic data from the Barbadian village of Arawak Hill. She looks at greeting routines such as <italic>calling-up</italic>, but also at the function of register shifts and clashes with community norms. Susanne Mühleisen presents a survey of ‘Forms of Address in English-Lexicon Creoles: The Presentation of Selves and Others in the Caribbean Context’, in which she summarizes the historical development of some typically Caribbean forms of address, such as kinship terms (e.g. <italic>auntie</italic>), title + first name (e.g. <italic>Miss Lou</italic>) and the distinction between singular and plural second-person pronouns. Somewhat unrelated to the other papers, Jack Sidnell looks at ‘Advice in an Indo-Guyanese Village and the Interactional Organization of Uncertainty’ on the basis of extensive conversational data, showing different strategies of soliciting and blocking advice in Guyanese Creole (see also the review of his book-length publication in the section on Atlantic creoles below). The third part on ‘Socialization and Face Development’ includes Valerie Youssef's paper mentioned above and Alex Louise Tessonneau's contribution on ‘Learning Respect in Guadeloupe: Greetings and Politeness Rituals’, in which she discusses the importance of greetings in this French-lexicon creole and strategies of teaching children the norms of polite linguistic behaviour.</p>
<p>John H. McWhorter has published an anthology of thirteen previously published articles in revised form to synthesize his arguments on <italic>Defining Creole</italic> as a synchronically recognizable group of languages, which, for example, exhibit fewer grammatical over-specifications than older languages, do not possess non-compositional derivational morphology and employ contrastive tone. The collection contains all typological arguments used by McWhorter to define his notion of the ‘creole prototype’, as well as a number of papers concerned with related topics, such as the status of English as a contact language within the Germanic language family in chapter 11, ‘What Happened to English?’, or the creole origins of AAVE in chapter 13, ‘Strange Bedfellows: Recovering the Origins of Black English’, in which McWhorter attacks the dialectologist position. McWhorter has made every effort to fashion a consistent whole of his previous research, by supplementing it with new bibliographic references and data, abridging and elaborating previous work and sometimes even altering the argumentation to represent his present point of view. So while the book does not contain original research, it is a valuable contribution to one of the ongoing debates in the field, as it is a very articulate statement of McWhorter's controversial position on the issue of creole exceptionalism (cf. e.g. <italic>YWES</italic> 77[1998] 99; 78[1999] 118; 79[2000] 102; 80[2001] 90; 81[2002] 87; 82[2003] 86).</p>
<p>One of McWhorter's major opponents in the controversy, Michel de Graff, has also published his position on the issue again, calling it the ‘Linguists’ Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Creole Exceptionalism’ (<italic>LSoc</italic> 34[2005] 533–91) and maintaining that any attempt to classify creoles as a special group within the world's languages amounts to a racist degradation of their speakers. De Graff, instead, argues in favour of promoting creoles to fully institutionalized status, as illustrated in Jeff Siegel's column on ‘Applied Creolistics Revisited’ (<italic>JPCL</italic> 20[2005] 293–323), which covers the use of pidgins and creoles in education, public awareness programmes and scholarly research.</p>
<p>Publications concerned with the features of creoles in general can be regarded as supporting creole exceptionalism unless the features described do not differ from those found in other languages. Suzanne Romaine underlines the special position of pidgins and creoles in her contribution on ‘Lexical Structure in Pidgins and Creoles’ (in Cruse et al., eds., pp. 1092–5). Bernd Heine reanalyses previously published research ‘On Reflexive Forms in Creoles’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 201–57) to interpret the data within the framework of grammaticalization theory, an approach which is severely criticized in David W. Lightfoot's response ‘Learning from Creoles’ (<italic>Lingua</italic> 115[2005] 197–9) as he accuses Heine of not contributing any new insights to the study of creoles in general and to the controversial issues of creole origins and creole exceptionalism.</p>
<p>Finally in this section on general creolistics, we find two papers on the cultural context of creoles. Jeff Siegel's column on ‘Creolization Outside Creolistics’ (<italic>JPCL</italic> 20[2005] 141–67) provides an interesting survey on research on socio-cultural creolization in disciplines such as anthropology, history or literary studies and their possible implications for linguistic creolistics. Susanne Mühleisen has guest-edited a special volume of <italic>JPCL</italic> (20:i[2005]) on ‘Creole Language in Creole Literatures: Status and Standardization’. Her introduction (<italic>JPCL</italic> 20[2005] 1–14) deals with general issues of creoles as written languages, such as codification, standardization or orthography. The two papers dealing with English-lexicon creoles (Jamaican Creole, Hawaiian Pidgin) will be reviewed in the relevant sections below.</p>
<p>With regard to the Atlantic creoles, we welcome the publication of two book-length studies. Dagmar Deuber's in-depth study of <italic>Nigerian Pidgin in Lagos: Language Contact, Variation and Change in an African Urban Setting</italic> can be regarded as an illustration of the processes discussed by Igboanusi and Peter with regard to the changing roles of English and pidgin in Nigeria (see above). After giving an introduction to theoretical issues of language contact and linguistic variation, Deuber provides a detailed sociolinguistic profile of Nigerian Pidgin, including aspects of language variation. The core of the study is the analysis of a corpus of educated Nigerian Pidgin in face-to-face interaction (interviews, discussions and conversations) and broadcast speech (news, advice and drama) in terms of its linguistic features, but also with regard to borrowing and code-switching into English. A questionnaire survey rates the acceptability of the various texts in terms of ‘good pidgin’, which reveals that the opposing strategies of ‘anglicization’ (i.e. the incorporation of English linguistic material) and ‘pidginization’ (i.e. circumlocutions in pidgin) are ideally balanced in texts with highest acceptability ratings. The analysis is supplemented with data from less educated speakers, which reveals that the differentiation of educated and uneducated Nigerian Pidgin solely along the lines of the presence or absence of certain grammatical features is not feasible. A further chapter on language planning and standardization issues incorporates the results of a second questionnaire survey on the discussion regarding a national/official language other than English in Nigeria. The results of the survey suggest a change in attitude towards Nigerian Pidgin, which makes it at least a realistic candidate, but the overwhelming majority of respondents still favour English as the official language. In her final chapter Deuber stresses the theoretical implications of her analysis, which could not support the existence of an English–pidgin continuum in Nigeria, which had been previously claimed. There is however, a large degree of register variation, for example between face-to-face conversations and news broadcasts, which need to be acknowledged in future efforts towards standardization or further institutionalization. The book is accompanied by a CD which includes all transcribed texts, speaker information and several sound files to illustrate the different text types under analysis. It is thus the most thorough and comprehensive treatment of the features, status and functions of urban Nigerian Pidgin available to date.</p>
<p>Jack Sidnell presents, in <italic>Talk and Practical Epistemology: The Social Life of Knowledge in a Caribbean Community</italic>, the Indo-Guyanese village of Callander. Applying a conversation-analytic (CA) approach, described in great detail in the appendix, to a large number of recorded conversations, Sidnell describes social routines for distributing knowledge, strategies for distinguishing facts from speculation or beliefs, for expressing uncertainty, soliciting, giving and blocking advice, gate-keeping, interacting with infants and children, as well as jointly remembering local history. Sidnell combines ethnographic fieldwork with CA methodology to arrive at a very fine-grained analysis of his data, which are based on a well-informed philosophical model of epistemology. His book provides excellent reading for anyone interested in how talk constitutes reality, not only in a small rural Guyanese community but also in other close-knit social groups.</p>
<p>James Essegbey compares ‘The Basic Locative Construction in Gbe Languages and Surinamese Creoles’ (<italic>JPCL</italic> 20[2005] 229–67) with those found in Dutch, the official language of Surinam, coming to the conclusion that a strong substrate influence can be identified with regard to this feature, while some differences between Sranan and Saramaccan and the various Gbe languages under analysis are attributable to an influence from Dutch and creole innovation. Ross Graham reports on ‘Partial Creolization, Restructuring and Convergence in Bay Islands Englishes’ (<italic>EWW</italic> 26[2005] 43–76), varieties of English spoken as L1 on the Bay Islands off the coast of Honduras. Unlike previous research, which mainly examined the speech of white speakers, Graham also recorded a larger group of black speakers who displayed relatively high frequencies of typical creole features, which led him to conclude that a focused basilect is only absent because of continued convergence between the two ethnolects, which affects individual speakers differently. To round off the discussion of the Atlantic creoles, I would like to mention Barbara Lalla's historical analysis of ‘Creole and Respec’ in the Development of Jamaican Literary Discourse’ (<italic>JPCL</italic> 20[2005] 53–84) in which she traces the integral role of Jamaican Creole in the emergence of literary discourse in the Anglophone Caribbean as well as the role of creole linguistics in shaping the ideological metadiscourse associated with it.</p>
<p>Moving on to the Pacific creoles, we welcome the publication of Rebecca Sue Jenkins's book-length study of <italic>Language Contact and Composite Structure in New Ireland</italic>, eastern Papua New Guinea. The first chapters are devoted to a sketch of the ‘Linguistic Situation in Papua New Guinea’ and the discussion of various language-contact phenomena, such as code-switching, borrowing or language shift. Using Carol Myers-Scotton's Matrix Language Theory, Abstract Levels and 4-M Models (cf. Myers-Scotton [2002] in <italic>YWES</italic> 83[2004] 76) Jenkins analyses ethnographic data from the Austronesian language Tigak and the lingua franca Tok Pisin, coming to the conclusion that Tok Pisin is strongly influenced by the grammatical structures of Austronesian languages like Tigak, but that Tigak in turn also shows some influence from Tok Pisin, which in turn is subject to convergence with English, which is also spoken by educated Papua New Guineans. Jenkins's book is an excellent introduction to the complex linguistic situation in Papua New Guinea in general and New Ireland in particular, and provides a wealth of information which enables the reader to compare the structural features of Tok Pisin and Tigak, as well as some other Austronesian languages in the appendix, first hand.</p>
<p>Suzanne Romaine provides an extensive study of ‘Orthographic Practices in the Standardization of Pidgins and Creoles: Pidgin in Hawai’i as Anti-Language and Anti-Standard’ (<italic>JPCL</italic> 20[2005] 101–40) based on the quantitative analysis of a recent translation of the New Testament into Hawai’ian Pidgin English. Patrick McConvell and Felicity Meakins introduce ‘Gurindji Kriol: A Mixed Language Emerges from Code-Switching’ (<italic>AuJL</italic> 25[2005] 9–30), a mixed code drawing on northern Australian Kriol and Gurindji, a local Aboriginal language. After outlining the main features of Gurindji Kriol, the authors argue convincingly that this new mixed code arose out of extended code-switching among the adult population in the 1970s and that socio-historical circumstances prevented a complete language shift to Kriol. Finally, Beverly S. Mühlhäusler and Peter Mühlhäusler report on ‘Simple English in the South Seas Evangelical Mission: Social Context and Linguistic Attributes’ (<italic>LPLP</italic> 29[2005] 1–30), contrasting the missionaries’ attempt to devise and implement a variety of English structurally between Solomon Islands Pidgin English and Standard English with Ogden's <italic>Basic English</italic>.</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC11"><title>11. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis</title>
<p>A number of works on pragmatics appeared in 2005. In <italic>Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective</italic>, Louise Cummins demonstrates the multidisciplinary character of this field of study. She argues not only that central issues in pragmatics—especially implicature and inference—represent areas of enquiry for disciplines such as linguistics, philosophy and cognitive psychology, but that pragmatics as a field of study should also be open to influence from disciplines such as language pathology and artificial intelligence. While Cummins devotes some chapters to exploring such relationships (e.g. chapter 8, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Pragmatics’; chapter 9, ‘Language Pathology and Pragmatics’), and others to critiquing the work of Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson (chapter 4, ‘Relevance Theory’), still other chapters, such as chapter 6 ‘Argumentation and Fallacies of Reasoning’ and chapter 7, ‘Habermas and Pragmatics’, reveal Cummins's primarily philosophical orientation. Advancing several interesting arguments, Cummins's book offers fascinating reading for scholars of pragmatics.</p>
<p><italic>Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice</italic>, edited by Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich, is, in fact, a second edition of a collection of papers on politeness that was originally published in 1992. In his forty-seven-page introduction (the only revision to the first edition), Watts explores—from a present-day-perspective—a number of the underlying themes and points of convergence of the thirteen papers in the collection, which share a perspective of problematizing, or explicitly critiquing, various aspects of ‘canonical’ theories of politeness (Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson's, in particular). Watts argues that the continued relevance of these issues to research in linguistic politeness merits a second edition of this volume, and while the necessity of a second edition of these collected papers remains a matter of opinion, Watts's new [2005] introduction represents critical reading for scholars working in this area. Among the topics he addresses are: defining linguistic politeness more precisely before tackling issues of universality, problems related to cultural and historic relativity, his own work on ‘politic’ versus polite linguistic behaviour, and the social versus individual nature of politeness—all of which inform Watts's postmodernist conceptualization of politeness. In contrast, the actual collected papers themselves are quite variable in the appeal, utility, or relevance they will have for contemporary scholars working in pragmatics.</p>
<p><italic>Politeness in Europe</italic>, a volume edited by Leo Hickey and Miranda Stewart, is a collection of papers which examines the topic of linguistic politeness in Europe. Each chapter in this collection focuses on a specific country: ‘Politeness in Norway’, ‘Politeness in Greece’, ‘Politeness in the Czech Republic’, etc. Hickey and Stewart's introductory chapter serves as a concise overview of the topics covered, and also provides a discussion of the primary theoretical positions adopted by the contributors to the collection as well as several of the well-known criticisms of those positions. Two of the twenty-two chapters, Miranda Stewart's ‘Politeness in English’ and Jeffrey L. Kallen's ‘Politeness in Ireland’, are more relevant here (the remaining chapters offer accounts of linguistic politeness in languages other than English). In ‘Politeness in Ireland’, Kallen draws on multiple data sources (ethnographic studies, dialect studies, and the Irish component of the ICE—the International Corpus of English) to illustrate how linguistic politeness in Irish English is characterized by a variety of negative politeness strategies (such as understatement, hedges, minimization, and conventional pessimism) as well as positive politeness strategies (reciprocity, common ground, in-group identity markers—the use of Irish lexical items, and conventional optimism) (for another pragmatic study on Irish English by this author, see section 9 above). Stewart's chapter, in contrast, draws on a narrower range of data (i.e. written feedback provided by monitors to tutors) to explore a certain type of archetypical British politeness. Her analysis focuses on the uses of hedging, deictic anchorage, and non-conventional indirectness.</p>
<p>Another collection of papers that examines a broad range of linguistic politeness topics from a variety of cultural perspectives is <italic>Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness</italic>, edited by Robin Lakoff and Sachiko Ide. The contributions in this volume represent some of the work presented at the International Symposium on Linguistic Politeness held in Bangkok in 1999. Consequently, most of the studies included are either language-specific (e.g. ‘The Significance of “Face” and Politeness in Social Interaction as Revealed through Thai “Face” Idioms’) or contrastive (‘Forms of Address in Irish and Swedish’) in nature. Of more general interest to students and scholars of pragmatics are the individual chapters by Robin Lakoff and Bruce Fraser—originally delivered as plenary papers at the symposium—which address the changing perceptions of politeness in the US and which discuss problems with Brown and Levinson's model, respectively.</p>
<p>The final pragmatics title reviewed this year is A.J. Wootton's <italic>Interaction and Development of Mind</italic>. Wootton's case-study of speech-act development in a young child is well written and compelling. Focusing on the emergence of various requestive forms in his daughter's actions and speech over a two-year period (from 12 months to 3 years), Wootton not only documents pragmatic development, but also demonstrates how the child gradually comes to understand and take account of sequentiality and prior interaction in formulating her requests. Indeed, Wootton's close analyses of numerous excerpts of the child's requests illustrate the child's awareness of ‘the significance of the local sequential context in which the request is embedded’ (p. 178), and therefore calls into question previous work which may have over-emphasized the notion of ‘scripts’ in accounting for how children come to understand social actions.</p>
<p>Three books on narrative were published this year. <italic>The Sociolinguistics of Narrative</italic>, edited by Joanna Thornborrow and Jennifer Coates, represents an important contribution to the field of study concerned with narrative and identity. The editors argue for the centrality of narrative to ‘the fabric of social interaction’ (p. 1) in a wide range of social contexts. This collection of thirteen chapters represents the most recent work (both theoretical and analytic) in narrative, focusing especially on identity, culture, and performance. Rather than conceptual groupings of chapters around particular topics, the editors’ introductory essay identifies a number of cross-cutting themes that run through many of the chapters. These themes include narrative form (e.g. structural components and narrative boundaries), narrative function (including narrative and social identity, and the notion of performance/performativity in narrative), as well as methodological issues (e.g. different research designs, analytic perspectives, and even transcription techniques/conventions). Of particular note are those chapters concentrating on gender and narrative (Jennifer Coates's ‘Masculinity, Collaborative Narration and the Heterosexual Couple’, and Nikolas Coupland, Peter Garrett and Angie Williams's ‘Narrative Demands, Cultural Performance, and Evaluation: Teenage Boys’ Stories for their Age Peers’), as well as those whose focus is on narratives in institutional settings (Janet Holmes and Meredith Marra's ‘Narrative Construction of Professional Identity in the Workplace’, and Sandra Harris's ‘Telling Stories and Giving Evidence: The Hybridization of Narrative and Non-Narrative Modes of Discourse in a Sexual Assault Trial’). One other chapter that is certain to be of interest to scholars of narrative offers a more theoretical discussion about identity and narrative (Terry Threadgold's ‘Performing Theories of Narrative: Theorizing Narrative Performance’). The second book on narrative is Danièle Klapproth's monograph, <italic>Narrative as Social Practice</italic>. In it, Klapproth compares Australian Aboriginal narratives with Western–Anglo narratives. Of particular interest are chapters 3 and 4, which present her theoretical framework which is informed by structural as well as cognitive approaches to the study of narrative. The third book, Asher Shkedi's <italic>Multiple Case Narrative: A Qualitative Approach to Studying Multiple Populations</italic> is a methodological text, which presents a specific approach to narrative enquiry. Shkedi's text is written from the perspective of an educational researcher; nevertheless, the theoretical background on differences between quantitative (positivist) and qualitative (constructivist) approaches to research are clearly written and will be accessible to a wide and diverse audience of readers. Furthermore, the more practical guidelines presented in the second half of the book may be of interest to qualitative researchers in social science disciplines as well as to educational researchers.</p>
<p>Shifting now from research on narratives to the study of institutional discourse, the volume <italic>Diagnosis as Cultural Practice</italic>, edited by Judith Duchan Felson and Dana Kovarsky, offers a diverse collection of thirteen papers written from many disciplinary perspectives (e.g. speech pathology, medical education, anthropology, health communication), all of which demonstrate the pervasiveness of diagnostic practices in Western culture. Among the themes highlighted in this volume is the socially constructed nature of diagnosis, and the idea that diagnoses are constructed by experts as well as by lay people. The papers are organized in three thematic sections. The first section, ‘Experiencing Diagnosis’, includes papers which focus on the subjective experiences of individuals as they interact with others and how they redefine themselves as a result of a diagnostic event in their lives. The second section, ‘Doing Diagnosis’, concentrates instead on interactional practices associated with diagnosis, including, for example, analyses of doctor–patient interaction, the process of problem formulation, and the role of affect and emotion in diagnosis. The third section, ‘Reasoning Diagnostically’, extends the use of ‘diagnosis’ metaphorically, and includes papers which demonstrate ‘how diagnostic thinking can extend to situations that are not ordinarily thought of as involving diagnoses’ (p. 2), such as one study which illustrates how diagnostic logic can be invoked to interpret letters of recommendation.</p>
<p>Another work that focuses on institutional discourse, Irit Kupferberg and David Green's monograph, <italic>Troubled Talk: Metaphorical Negotiation in Problem Discourse</italic>, is an ambitious attempt to analyse the discourse of ‘troubled selves’ in three different domains: calls to radio programmes, calls to emergency hotlines which provide counselling by volunteer para-professionals, and asynchronous cyber-interactions. One of the authors’ primary purposes in this work seems to be the illustration of how, in discussing their problems, individuals rely on a number of different tropes or metaphors which function as evaluative devices and which often imbue problem narratives with a sense of coherence. Kupferberg and Green's data are fascinating, and they provide some interesting analyses of specific excerpts. Unfortunately, however, the overall quality of their book suffers from several limitations/shortcomings. These include under-elaboration and lack of precision in describing their data thoroughly and accurately (i.e. discussion of relevant similarities and differences of the three genres analysed, the cultural specificity of the discursive interactions themselves: excerpts are English translations of Hebrew originals—an important fact that is barely mentioned), sections that are marked by somewhat diffuse organization (i.e. lack of cohesion among different sections of their text—or the precise point of a particular analytic passage is not explicit), as well as more minor inconsistencies related to editing and referencing.</p>
<p>To those readers familiar with Jan Blommaert's work, the critical perspective found in his most recent publication, <italic>Discourse</italic>, will come as no surprise. This book is not—as its deceptively simple title suggests—a general introduction to discourse analysis, but rather a masterful and compelling work which emphasizes the complex relationships between language, power, and inequality. One of Blommaert's goals in this text is to bridge two different approaches to the analysis of discourse which happen to share a number of concerns (Blommaert himself describes their agendas as ‘partially overlapping’ and as sharing ‘a lot of untapped sources of mutual inspiration’, p. 9), but which do not very often reference one another: that of (American) linguistic anthropologists (e.g. Michael Silverstein, Susan Gal, Judith Irvine) and that of those scholars working in the (European) tradition of critical discourse analysis, or CDA (e.g. Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, Teun van Dijk, etc). Blommaert's book is commendable for its clear and accessible prose, which elucidates (via careful explanation and exemplification) complex notions such as ‘orders of indexicality’, and ‘layered simultaneity’, which are essential to understanding how discursive and semiotic resources function to make meaning across various locations in a globalized world. Perhaps most satisfying is the way in which Blommaert carefully balances theoretical discussions with relevant empirical data; each functions to support the other. Each of Blommaert's chapters centres around a particular theme (e.g. chapter 3, ‘Text and Context’, chapter 7, ‘Ideology’, chapter 8, ‘Identity’) and therefore each chapter presents a relatively self-contained discussion of a specific topic; however, reading the text in its entirety demonstrates just how interconnected those topics are.</p>
<p>Another publication that provides a satisfying balance of theory and analysis is <italic>Discourse Analysis and the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy Events: A Microethnographic Perspective</italic> by David Bloome, Stephanie Power Carter, Beth Morton Christian, Sheila Otto, and Nora Shuart-Faris. In focusing their analysis of classroom discourse on interactions which centre on literacy events, the authors’ purpose is to bridge ‘microethnographic’ methods with New Literacy scholarship. The book begins with a foreword by Brian Street, is followed by an introductory overview, and is subsequently divided into five chapters. The first chapter introduces major constructs and provides a historical context for the interdisciplinary methodological approach the authors have selected (i.e. an eclectic approach that draws on ethnomethodology, linguistic anthropology, ethnography of communication, narrative and poetics, etc.). The chapters which follow are organized around particular topics, or—in the authors’ words—‘research agendas’, which are related to classroom discourse and literacy events: chapter 2 describes literacy events as cultural action, chapter 3 focuses instead on the social construction of identities during classroom literacy events, and chapter 4 examines the enactment of power relations in classroom discourse. Finally, chapter 5 situates, or locates, the previous analyses within the field of literacy studies. One of the most impressive features of this work is the very close, detailed and careful analysis of classroom interactions; in several instances, an excerpt of the same classroom event is presented in two or three different formats (i.e. as a line-by-line transcript, as a ‘storytelling map’, organized by ‘interactional units’, with/without non-verbal behaviour), each of which provides the analysts, as well as the reader, with new perspectives and insights into these important instructional moments.</p>
<p><italic>Strategies in Academic Discourse</italic>, edited by Elena Tognini-Bonelli and Gabriella del Lungo Camiciotti is a collection of thirteen chapters, most of which examine some aspect of evaluation in a variety of corpora of (mostly written) academic genres. Only one chapter is concerned with a spoken genre (Julia Bamford's, which looks at prediction in academic lectures); the remaining chapters examine genres such as book reviews (Ute Römer, Lorean Suárez-Tejerina), philosophical writings (Céline Poudat and Sylvain Loiseau), and scientific papers (Akiko Okamura). In addition to the empirical contributions, two additional chapters (one by John Sinclair and the other by Wolfgang Teubert) offer interesting theoretical perspectives on the relationship between texts and evaluation.</p>
<p>The next work focuses on even smaller units of meaning: combinations of words in spoken discourse. <italic>English Collocation Studies: The OSTI Report</italic>, edited by Ramesh Krishnamurthy, John Sinclair, Susan Jones and Robert Daley, represents the first-time publication of a report originally written in the 1970s by a number of researchers (John Sinclair and others) involved in the Collins COBUILD project. The OSTI report not only describes some of the earliest empirical research on collocation, but also documents some of the earliest use of computers and statistical measures for linguistics research as well as describes the compilation of the first computerized corpus of speech. In addition to presenting the original report itself, this edition includes a fascinating recent interview with John Sinclair conducted by Wolfgang Teubert, in which Sinclair discusses the development of corpus linguistics and evaluates the contributions of the OSTI report from a present-day perspective. Another publication that focuses on data found in spoken corpora is Simone Müller's <italic>Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native English Discourse</italic> (for a review see section 10).</p>
<p>This year, three edited collections include discussions of a variety of spoken and written genres of discourse. The first of these, <italic>Language</italic>, <italic>Communication and the Economy</italic>, edited by Guido Erreygers and Geert Jacobs, brings together a number of papers which examine the interface of discourse and economics from a variety of methodological perspectives. Of particular note is Deborah Cameron's contribution, ‘Communication and Commodification: Global Economic Change in Sociolinguistic Perspective’, which explores connections between language and identity in several contemporary employment contexts. Next, <italic>Persuasion Across Genres</italic>, edited by Helena Halmari and Tuija Virtanen, is a collection of nine empirical studies which examine persuasion in different institutional domains (e.g. business meetings, legal discussions) and in different text types (e.g. political speeches, editorials). Finally, <italic>Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past</italic>, edited by Janne Skaffari, Matti Peikola, Ruth Carroll, Risto Hiltunen and Brita Warwik, appears to be the only title from this year concerned with pragmatics and analyses of discourse from a diachronic or historical perspective. This edited volume includes a number of chapters organized around five major themes: discourse in the public sphere, science and academia, letters and literature, discourse and pragmatics, and language contact and discourse.</p>
<p>Turning now to written discourse specifically, in his monograph <italic>Metadiscourse</italic>, author Kenneth Hyland argues that, as the link between text and context, the main function of metadiscourse is to manage social relationships between writers and readers. In the first section, ‘What Is Metadiscourse?’, Hyland walks the reader through a number of existing models and taxonomies of metadiscourse, exploring the strengths and limitations of each, before arriving at his own model. Central to Hyland's model is the position that metadiscourse and propositional content are, in fact, inseparable—a departure from many existing models. Breaking down previous distinctions between textual and interpersonal functions, Hyland speaks instead of the interactive and interactional dimensions of metadiscourse. Building and expanding on previous work on the topic, Hyland's model of metadiscourse is theoretically rich and explicit enough to be very useful for discourse analysts who work with written texts. The second section of Hyland's book concentrates on ‘Metadiscourse in Practice’, focusing on examples of relationships between metadiscourse and rhetoric, genre, culture, and community. In these chapters, Hyland draws on his own research as well as on studies conducted by other scholars to provide clear illustrations of the topics under consideration. The final section, ‘Issues and Implications’, explores classroom implications (i.e. how knowledge of metadiscourse can be of value to teachers and students of writing) and points to areas for further research. Yunxia Zhu's <italic>Written Communication Across Cultures</italic> takes a comparative approach (i.e. English and Chinese) to the analysis of three types of business genre: sales letters, sales invitations and faxes. Zhu's monograph also concludes with an interesting discussion of teaching implications.</p>
<p>This year saw the publication of a new journal focusing on one area of pragmatics: the <italic>Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, and Culture</italic>. Following the inaugural editorial by editor-in-chief Chris Christie, the first issue featured articles on the following topics: politeness theory and relational work (Miriam Locher and Richard Watts), impoliteness (Johnathan Culpeper), social and cognitive psychology and politeness (Thomas Holtgraves), the relationship between face, perceptions of rapport and politeness (Helen Spencer-Oatey) and politeness in the workplace (Janet Holmes and Stephanie Schnurr). The second issue from 2005 included articles by Robin Lakoff, ‘The Politics of Nice’ (<italic>JPolR</italic> 1[2005] 173–92), which examines politeness in public and group—as opposed to dyadic—contexts, and Sara Mills, who explores the interactional construction of ‘Gender and Impoliteness’ (<italic>JPolR</italic> 1[2005] 263–80).</p>
<p>Special issues of <italic>Journal of Pragmatics</italic> included issue number 2, ‘Developing Discourse Stance across Adolescence’, edited by Ruth Berman. Papers in this special issue are part of a cross-linguistic project and include six language-specific studies (e.g. French, Icelandic, Hebrew), one of which examines the development of stance in English in both narrative and expository texts written by students ranging in age from grade school to university: Judy Reilly, Anita Zamora, and Robert McGivern's ‘Acquiring Perspective in English: The Development of Stance’ (<italic>JPrag</italic> 37[2005] 185–208). Other special issues include issue number 3 on ‘Conversational Code-Switching’ edited by Li Wei, and issue number 11, dedicated to ‘Approaches to Spoken Interaction’ edited by Karin Aijmer and Anna-Brita Stenström; the latter features a number of papers that examine various discourse features and phenomena by looking at spoken corpora. Additionally, three ‘focus-on’ issues centred on various ways of marking discourse (issue number 8), the relationship between discourse and metadiscourse (issue number 9), and ‘essential’ questions in pragmatics (issue number 12).</p>
<p>A special issue of <italic>Discourse Studies</italic> (number 4) brings together a number of papers that were presented at a symposium on ‘Theories and Models of Language and Culture’ held at UCLA in 2004. The papers, which highlight the intersection of language, culture and interaction, were contributed by a number of notable scholars including Stephen Levinson, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Alessandro Duranti. Finally, other interesting articles which appeared in <italic>Discourse Studies</italic> this year include more on narrative in institutional discourse from Janet Holmes, ‘Storytelling at Work: A Complex Discursive Resource for Integrating Personal, Professional, and Social Identities’ (<italic>DisS</italic> 7[2005] 671–700), as well as papers by conversation analysts such as Irene Koshik, ‘Alternative Questions Used in Conversation Repair’ (<italic>DisS</italic> 7[2005] 193–211), Derek Edwards, ‘Moaning, Whinging and Laughing: The Subjective Side of Complaints’ (<italic>DisS</italic> 7[2005] 5–29), and Charles Antaki and colleagues, ‘Diagnostic Formulations in Psychotherapy’ (<italic>DisS</italic> 7[2005] 627–47).</p></sec>
<sec id="SEC12"><title>12. Stylistics</title>
<p>The publications in stylistics of 2005 show not only that it is an extremely productive area of research, but also that this field of study is an arena for constantly evolving theoretical debates and for practical applications of both new ideas and old ones at the interface between linguistic and literary studies. As in previous years, we can still observe a strong tendency towards interdisciplinarity and a renewed interest in social and cultural issues surrounding the production, creation, reception and interpretation of texts. A welcome tendency is the publication of monographs on specific topics arising from papers presented at conferences and the collection of articles on specific topics in special issues of various journals, ranging from stylistics proper to interdisciplinary discussions on the link between stylistics and creativity and narrative theory.</p>
<p>Good examples of the state of the art in stylistics research are Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Michael Toolan, eds., <italic>The Writer's Craft, the Culture's Technology</italic> and the last issue of <italic>Style</italic> of 2004, guest-edited by Craig Hamilton. The volume edited by Caldas-Coulthard and Toolan inaugurates the new series of PALA papers and comprises a selection of papers presented at their Twenty-Second International Conference, held at the University of Birmingham in April 2002. The contributions address the main topic discussed at the conference, namely, the interaction between linguistic creativity and a culture's technological resources. The articles selected display a variety of approaches to stylistic analysis and offer an accurate picture of the main trends of present-day stylistic analysis, presented in the volume in four parts. Part I includes four articles which discuss various aspects of discourses found and used on the internet, from the merging of image and text (George L. Dillon), to academic web pages (Carmen Rosa Cladas-Coulthard), internet book reviews (Rosario Caballero), and an analysis of Jeanette Winterson's <italic>The PowerBook</italic> (Ulf Cronquist). Part II, on textual and technological transitions, is perhaps the most heterogeneous section, and includes contributions which explore crossing or cross-over phenomena in a variety of texts, including a cognitive approach to multi-modal discourse (Anita Naciscione), a study on transgressional narratives of lesbian women (Anna Elizabeth Balocco), a rereading of Wordsworth's ‘Daffodils’ (Ken Nakagawa), a study on deixis and story schemata in Herman Melville's <italic>Moby-Dick</italic> (Robert Cockroft), a study on translational stylistics (Mirjana Bonacic) and a pedagogical study on the comparison between a standard textbook format and an illustrated comic-book format of a literary text (Marika Schwaiger). Part III, on changing cultures of report, focuses on explorations of the language of reporting and of representing the words of others, and includes studies on contemporary newspapers (Geoff Hall), television documentaries (Susan Hunston) and eighteenth-century fiction (Joe Bray). The volume is completed by a fourth section on corpus-enabled stylistics, with three essays which show the advantages of using corpus tools for the analysis of literary and non-literary texts (Donald E. Hardy, Michi Siina and Masahiro Hori).</p>
<p>The last issue of <italic>Style</italic> [2004], with a preface by Craig Hamilton as guest editor (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 404–9), is a further good example of the present state of stylistics as a discipline. Hamilton presents an overview of the present situation of stylistic analysis, arguing against criticisms from literary theorists and reception theorists such as Stanley Fish in order to defend the current state of health of the discipline. He also contributes with an article on ‘Toward a Cognitive Rhetoric of Imagism’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 468–90), in which he makes use of a cognitive stylistic approach to the analysis of figurative language in poetry and shows, more specifically, how such language serves to shape the rhetoric of imagism. The application of corpus tools to stylistic analysis is the focus of two articles. Donald E. Hardy's ‘Collocational Analysis as a Stylistic Discovery Procedure: The Case of Flannery O’Connor's <italic>Eyes</italic>’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 410–27) shows the benefits of quantitative methods of analysis for the identification of collocations by means of the word ‘eyes’ in Flannery O’Connor's fiction, comparing it to occurrences in other corpora of fiction. Elena Semino continues with her work on speech and thought presentation in narrative, and in ‘Representing Character's Speech and Thought in Narrative Fiction: A Study of <italic>England, England</italic>, by Julian Barnes’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 428–51), she provides a further illustration of how corpus tools combined with rigorous qualitative analysis can be used to gain insight into the features of discourse representation in narrative fiction, with particular attention to the way in which the reader's empathy towards characters is connected to specific choices in the narrative discourse. It is good to see there is at least one article on drama, a traditionally neglected area of study in stylistic analysis, and that cognitive stylistics has let its influence be felt here too. Thus Yanna Popova, in ‘ “Little is left to tell”: Beckett's Theatre of Mind <italic>Ohio Impromptu</italic>, and the New Cognitive Turn in Analyzing Drama’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 452–67), proposes a cognitive approach to the analysis of Beckett's <italic>Ohio Impromptu</italic>, taking into account verbal and non-verbal aspects as well as the complex relation between actors and audience. Also welcome is the article on pedagogical stylistics by Michael Burke entitled ‘Cognitive Stylistics in the Classroom’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 491–510). The author presents the results of an interesting empirical study of the use of two relevant books on cognitive stylistics in his classroom, together with suggestions on how to combine and improve the teaching of more traditional linguistic-based stylistic analysis and the more recent cognitive dimension of classroom teaching practice.</p>
<p>Two further publications in 2005 illustrate the tendency towards interdiciplinarity and the ongoing interest in exploring new genres: Marc Robson and Peter Stockwell's <italic>Language in Theory: A Resource Book for Students</italic>, and Carol Reeves's <italic>The Language of Science</italic>. The first volume, which is not strictly speaking a book on stylistics, is no doubt extremely useful both for teachers and students of stylistics, as it presents in an accessible, reader-friendly style complex theoretical concepts of linguistic and literary theory and provides extensive practice in text analysis. Indeed, it is clear from the general approach that the typical methodology of stylistic analysis permeates the volume and becomes particularly significant in the last sections of each unit, which focus on cognition, creativity and figures of speech. Another fact which makes this volume interesting is that it shows the present tendency in linguistic studies, including stylistic analysis, towards a focus on contextual and social aspects surrounding communicative events. Like the other volumes in the Routledge English Introduction Language series, this book is divided into four sections which complement each other and expand on the same themes, which are developed with increasing complexity throughout the volume. Thus, sections A and B, respectively, provide an introduction to and further discussion of the basic theoretical concepts that are discussed and analysed in the volume, namely, gender, race, language and society, performative language, cognition, creativity, and figures of speech. Section C is a hands-on practical section with a variety of activities for the analysis of texts and for further discussion, and Section D includes a relevant selection of further readings. No doubt, this volume will be useful for students of linguistics who wish to have a better understanding of concepts in literary theory, and, conversely, for students of literary theory who wish to use a linguistic approach to literary texts, as the authors point out in the introduction to the volume.</p>
<p>Turning now to Carol Reeves's <italic>The Language of Science</italic>, in the Routledge Intertext series, this is a good example of the broadening interests of stylistic analysis. Like other books in the series, it provides definitions of theoretical concepts followed by practical sections and a glossary of scientific terms. As the author explains in the introduction, the book is both about specialized scientific language and about popularized discourses on science addressed to the general public. The approach followed throughout is particularly appealing, as the analysis of scientific discourse is geared towards the interests of social communities. Thus, the author argues for a concept of science as inherently social, not just the work of gifted individuals, and stresses the collaborative nature of scientific work. The goals of scientific language and terminology are analysed in unit 1, metaphor in science in unit 2, the grammar of scientific discourse in unit 3, patterns in scientific discourse that signal speculation as well as certainty in unit 4, scientific discourse, rhetoric and persuasion in unit 5, science and culture in unit 6 and science and society in unit 7, with particular attention to translation in science. This volume will no doubt arouse the curiosity of readers interested in learning more about the workings of language in society and of readers interested in finding out more about the peculiarities of scientific discourse. Since the publications on the language of scientific discourse are not very numerous, it is worth mentioning Graham Low's article ‘Explaining Evolution: The Use of Animacy in an Example of Semi-Formal Science Writing’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 129–48), which explores the role of the animacy metaphor in a scientific article and offers insights on specific discourse and rhetorical effects which are the result of the clustering of metaphors at specific points of the text and the relations between the clusters.</p>
<p>Readers interested in the expanding field of children's literature will be glad to hear that Peter Hunt's engaging <italic>Understanding Children's Literature</italic> has seen its second edition in 2005. This new edition presents a thorough revision of most of its chapters and the inclusion of four new ones on theoretical issues (David Rudd), understanding reading and literacy (Sally Yates), what the authors tell us (Peter Hunt), and biblio-therapy and psychology (Hugh Crago). The classical chapters on analysing texts from a linguistic stylistic viewpoint (John Stevens) and on reader-response criticism (Michael Benton) are no doubt still attractive for readers of stylistics.</p>
<p>The interest in the analysis of the relation between style and sociocultural aspects of language variation is rapidly expanding, and has given rise to the production of various articles. Within this field, there is an area that focuses on the expression of language and ideology and its manifestation in political discourse and discourse about politics. Among these, readers of stylistics will be interested in Martin Montgomery's ‘The Discourse of <italic>War</italic> after 9/11’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 149–80), in which he author analyses the way in which the word ‘war’ has become the dominant term to respond to the events of 9/11 by discussing its presence in a selection of texts, including speeches of politicians, interviews, and newspaper headlines in the aftermath of the attacks. Two studies of style as sociological variation will appeal to readers interested in dialectal variation. In ‘Changes in the Dialect of Livingston’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 181–93), Christine Robinson investigates language change in the new town of Livingston, Scotland, by comparing the dialect of some of the original residents of Livingston with the speech of 11- and 15-year-olds brought up there. Kevin McCafferty, in ‘William Carleton between Irish and English: Using Literary Dialect to Study Language Contact and Change’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 339–62), examines two linguistic features of the Irish English literary dialect of William Carleton.</p>
<p>Cognitive stylistics and corpus stylistics are now well-established trends of research and constitute perhaps the mainstream of stylistics interests. The second issue of the <italic>European Journal of English Studies</italic> (<italic>EJES</italic> 9:ii[2005]), with Michael Toolan and Jean Jacques Weber as guest editors, is a monograph on ‘The Cognitive Turn: Papers in Cognitive Literary Studies’. In the introduction (<italic>EJES</italic> 9[2005] 107–15), the editors of the volume point out what are the most recent developments in the now firmly established field of cognitive linguistics, in which particular emphasis is placed on the dynamic dimension of meaning construal as a cognitive process, the creation of complex novel blends in discourse, and the attention to sociocultural aspects of understanding and interpretation. This issue is thus an attractive selection of articles which address the following three topics: developments in blending theory, addressing assumptions of cognitive criticism, and recent work in the field. It opens with two articles on blending theory. In ‘Cognitive Poetics and Imagery’ (<italic>EJES</italic> 9[2005] 117–30), Line Brandt and Per Aage Brandt suggest a combination of cognitive semantics and plain literary reading in order to account for poetic imagery and the way it arises while reading, while Jean Jacques Weber's ‘Cognitive Poetics and Literary Criticism: Types of Resolution in the Condition-of-England Novel’ (<italic>EJES</italic> 9[2005] 131–41) analyses four types of endings in condition-of-England novels from the perspective of the four main types of integration networks in blending. In ‘Texture and Identification’ (<italic>EJES</italic> 9[2005] 143–53), Peter Stockwell argues that there is a divergence between the concerns of professional readers of literature and natural readers, and proposes a method drawing on cognitive poetics and stylistics in order to account for emotional aspects of identification in the reading of a poem. Laura Hidalgo Downing in ‘Reading Coover's Quenby and Ola, Carl and Swede: An Empirical Study on Reference and Story Interpretation’ (<italic>EJES</italic> 9[2005] 155–68), carries out an empirical study on how a short story by Coover is processed and interpreted by students of English as a foreign language, focusing on reference assignment and frame knowledge evocation. Margarete Rubik, in ‘Provocative and Unforgettable: Peter Carey's Short Fiction—A Cognitive Approach’ (<italic>EJES</italic> 9[2005] 169–84), explores the use of metalepsis in Peter Carey's short fiction by analysing the cognitive schemata and scripts that the reader is invited to evoke in order to make sense of the story. Michael Burke in ‘How Cognition Can Augment Stylistic Analysis’ (<italic>EJES</italic> 9[2005] 185–95) argues that stylistic and cognitive approaches to literature, rather than competing, are complementary approaches, and shows the benefits of a combined analysis by revising a stylistic analysis of a poem from a cognitive perspective. Ralf Schneider (<italic>EJES</italic> 9[2005] 197–208) applies concepts of cognitive psychology to discuss some of the procedural differences between reading print and hypertext narratives.</p>
<p>The first issue of <italic>Style</italic> this year is a special volume on metonymy, a topic which has so far received insufficient attention, everyone being more concerned with metaphor, the star in the cognitive linguistics universe. It is thus rewarding to see that an interest is now developing in the study of metonymy and its complex relation to metaphor. In the introduction, ‘Metonymy Goes Cognitive-Linguistic’ (<italic>Style</italic> 39[2005] 1–10), Gerard Steen explains that the focus of the issue is the interaction between metaphor and metonymy in language. It presents some developments within the cognitive linguistic approach to metonymy and style in a broad sense. Kurt Feyaerts and Geert Brone in ‘Expressivity and Metonymic Inferencing: Stylistic Variation in Nonliterary Language Use’ (<italic>Style</italic> 39[2005] 12–36) approach the relation between metonymy, expressivity and creativity. More specifically, they explore the concept of optimal innovation by analysing metaphorical mappings and blending conceptualizations in relation to metonymic construal, in order to explore how metonymy contributes to the manifestation of expressivity in everyday language contexts. The relations and interactions between metonymy and metaphor are addressed in two contributions: Daniel C. Strack's ‘Who Are the Bridge-Builders? Metaphor Metonymy and the Architecture of the Empire’ (<italic>Style</italic> 39[2005] 37–54) examines how bridge-building is used as a metaphorical expression of imperialism in Rudyard Kipling's short story ‘The Bridge Builders’, while Alice Deignan, ‘A Corpus Linguistic Perspective on the Relationship between Metonymy and Metaphor’ (<italic>Style</italic> 39[2005] 72–91), applies corpus tools to the analysis of the interrelation between metonymy and metaphor, by examining data from the Book of English corpus.</p>
<p>Other issues of <italic>JLS</italic>, <italic>Style</italic> and <italic>L&L</italic> also include a good selection of contributions on cognitive stylistics, covering studies on blending, text world theory, metaphor, humour, mind style, pragmatic factors and reading as process, among others. Blending theory is no doubt giving rise to some exciting and attractive applications to the analysis of literary and non-literary texts. For example, Margaret H. Freeman in ‘The Poem as a Complex Blend: Conceptual Mappings of Metaphor in Sylvia Plath's “The Applicant” ’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 25–44) offers an interesting rereading of Plath's poem by exploring the way in which blending theory as an alternative to other cognitive theories such as metaphor, schema theory and possible worlds, can shed light on the interpretation process of the poem. Barbara Dancygier's ‘Blending and Narrative Viewpoint: Jonathan Raban's Travels Through Mental Spaces’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 99–127) is another interesting example of how blending theory can be applied to the analysis of travel narratives, by focusing on the relation between the choice of blending strategies and the allocation of narrative viewpoint.</p>
<p>Humour is approached by Seana Coulson in ‘Extemporaneous Blending: Conceptual Integration in Humorous Discourse from Radio Talk’ (<italic>Style</italic> 39[2005] 107–22), which provides an original application of conceptual integration theory in order to analyse blends arising in humorous discourse in exchanges from a radio talk. Humour is also the topic of Michael Toolan's ‘Joke Shop Names’ (<italic>JLS</italic> 34[2005] 165–79), which is an entertaining exploration into the nature of humorous shop names as instances of individual linguistic creativity and a reflection on how naming expresses aspects of cultural and social, in addition to personal, identity. Cristina Larkin Galiñanes in ‘Funny Fiction; or, Jokes and their Relation to the Humorous Novel’ (<italic>PoT</italic> 26[2005] 79–111) incorporates notions from relevance theory into the incongruity-resolution model of humour in order to account for how humour arises in extended texts such as novels. Both this article and Jean Jacques Weber's ‘From “Bad” to “Worse”: Pragmatic Scales and the (De)Construction of Cultural Models’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 45–63) are interesting examples of the cross-breeding between cognitive linguistics and pragmatics, showing a further possible path for future explorations. Jean Jacques Weber addresses what he describes as a neglected topic in cognitive stylistics, that is, the way in which pragmatic scales set up links between the reader's cognitive representation of events and situations. Esther Romero and Belén Soria's ‘Cognitive Metaphor Theory Revisited’ (<italic>JLS</italic> 34[2005] 1–20) also shows a further successful attempt to combine cognitive theory, specifically metaphor theory, with pragmatic analysis so as to analyse metaphoric verbal utterances. More strictly within the scope of pragmatic analysis is David Keeble's ‘Interpretive Representation: A Relevance Theoretic Analysis of the Opening Paragraph of Carlisle's <italic>Chartism</italic>’ (<italic>JLS</italic> 34[2005] 41–59), a study on how relevance theory may contribute to the analysis of the opening paragraph of Carlysle's <italic>Chartism</italic>, as an illustration of Carlyle's style. Text-world theory is discussed by Joanna Gavins in ‘(Re)thinking Modality: A Text-World Perspective’ (<italic>JLS</italic> 34[2005] 79–93), in which she provides a thought-provoking and enlightening revision of the dimension of modality in Paul Werth's [1999] (see <italic>YWES</italic> 80[1999] xx) text-world model by incorporating useful insights from Paul Simpson's [1993] framework of modality in narrative (see <italic>YWES</italic> 74[1993] 69). Cognition as reading process is addressed by two contributions. Emily P. Beall in ‘ “As reading as if”: Harryette Mullen's “Cognitive Similes” ’ (<italic>JLS</italic> 34[2005] 125–37), analyses the process of defamiliarization in Harryette Mullen's writing as a process in which not only the subject matter is manipulated, but, more crucially, the reading process itself. Carroll Clarkson in ‘Embodying “You”: Levinas and a Question of the Second Person’ (<italic>JLS</italic> 34[2005] 95–105), explores the relation between the ethical dimension of literature and the reading process, and provides illustrations from Paul Celan's poetry.</p>
<p>Also within the scope of cognitive stylistics is the publication of the volume <italic>Outside-In–Inside-Out. Iconicity in Language and Literature 4</italic>, edited by Constantino Maeder, Olga Fischer and William J. Herlofsky. The volume is a selection of articles arising from papers presented at the Fourth Symposium on Iconicity in Language and Literature, which took place at the Catholic University of Louvain in Louvain-la-Neuve in March 2003. It opens with an introduction by the editors, who explain the intriguing title, which itself iconically represents the two possible relations and directions between the mind and the outside world as they are manifested in the various approaches to iconicity followed in the volume. The editors stress the multidisciplinary nature of the study of iconicity and its close relation to the expression of cultural values. Indeed, the volume includes contributions which explore the phenomenon of iconicity in diverse languages and cultures. The volume is divided into five sections; part I deals with theoretical issues, part II with negative or inverted iconicity, part III with iconicity and sound, part IV with iconicity and structure and part V with iconicity and narrative. The volume will be of interest to specialists in English studies interested in the cognitive dimension of linguistic analysis, more specifically in the phenomenon of iconicity as an approach that aims to bridge the gap between language and literature. One particularly attractive dimension of the volume is the attention played to multi-modal discourses, with contributions which explore the language of photography, painting and music, among others. Scholars of English and stylisticians will be particularly interested to read those articles which deal with general aspects of the theory of iconicity and those which more specifically deal with aspects of the English language or English literary texts.</p>
<p>Quantitative studies of literary texts clearly show that, far from presenting a merely mechanistic view of the texts limited to the counting of frequencies of certain linguistic features, they are extremely useful for the sometimes very laborious identification of linguistic features which are important from a qualitative perspective. Thus Michael Stubbs's ‘Conrad in the Computer: Examples of Quantitative Stylistic Methods’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 5–24) is not just an excellent example of how corpus tools can be applied to the interpretation of key themes in Conrad's <italic>Heart of Darkness</italic> but is also a useful illustration of why this method of stylistic analysis is effective and deserves attention in its own right. Michael Pearce in ‘Informalization in UK Party Election Broadcasts 1966–97’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 65–90) applies a novel quantitative method of analysis to assess the extent to which UK party election broadcasts became progressively more informal and personal during the period 1966–97.</p>
<p>Some of the most thought-provoking and challenging publications this year have to do with the topics of creativity, rhetoric and narrative theory and narratology, old themes which have undergone a refreshing process of revision, re-evaluation and rebirth during recent decades. With regard to creativity, the year 2005 has witnessed the publication of a monograph by Rob Pope and a very stimulating debate on creativity in the last issue of <italic>Language and Literature</italic>. This debate was opened by Pope in his review article ‘The Return of Creativity: Common, Singular and Otherwise’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 376–89) on Ronald Carter's <italic>Language and Creativity</italic> and Derek Attridge's <italic>The Singularity of Literature</italic>, both published in 2004. His review, together with the responses by Ron Carter and Derek Attridge, are invaluable readings for stylisticians who wish to be initiated into the complexities of creativity in theory and in practice, especially as an illustration of new ways in which the relation between language and literature and its relation to social contexts can be understood. A further illustration of creativity being in the limelight is the fact that Marc Robson and Peter Stockwell's <italic>Language in Theory</italic>, which is reviewed above, includes a section on creativity. Rob Pope's study on <italic>Creativity: Theory, History, Practice</italic> is an ambitious and impressive project, which approaches the concept of creativity from a variety of angles providing an in-depth overview of the most significant historical, cultural and philosophical developments together with insights into its relevance for the understanding of literary creativity. The author questions traditional approaches to creativity based on the Romantic conception of the artist as an individual genius and explores the phenomenon of creativity as an often emergent activity which takes place in a sociocultural setting and typically involves joint or co-operative work. A particularly attractive dimension of this work is the discussion of the concept of creativity in settings other than that of artistic creation, from science to marketing and advertising. The book is divided into four parts and eight chapters, followed by a section on further reading by topic. Part I argues for a revision of the concept of creativity by criticizing traditional approaches and present-day exploitations of the concept in the marketing and advertising industries. Part II is concerned with the definition of creativity from different perspectives, historical in chapter 2, theoretical in chapter 3, and at the interface between artistic and scientific cultures in chapter 4. Part III provides a historical and cross-cultural overview of myths of creation and views of creativity. Chapter 5 explores retellings of ancient creation myths and chapter 6 looks at scientific accounts of the beginning of the universe and of life. Part IV is practical in nature and provides a critical approach to a selection of texts from different periods covering a variety of genres, literary and non-literary. Chapter 7 focuses on literary creativity, while chapter 8 provides further suggestions for creative practice in various modes and discourses, from leaflets to the performing arts to computer games.</p>
<p>The renewal of the interest in rhetoric over the last decades and its relation to stylistics is the focus of <italic>Language and Literature</italic> (14:iii[2005]) which is devoted to the theme ‘Rhetoric and Beyond’ and includes five articles which address both theoretical and applied issues on this topic. In the preface (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 211–14), Craig Hamilton explains that the motivation for this issue is the persistent significance of rhetoric in the study of the language of literature and of other types of discourse, while at the same time he draws attention to the relations between rhetoric and stylistics and other theoretical fields of study, especially cognitive linguistics. In ‘Rhetorical Stylistics’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 215–30) Jeanne Fahnestock discusses the differences between rhetorical stylistics and contemporary literary stylistics by adopting a historical approach to the development of the two disciplines. Peter Verdonk in ‘Painting, Poetry, Parallelism: Ekphrasis, Stylistics and Cognitive Poetics’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 215–30) also discusses the relation between rhetoric and stylistics, more precisely cognitive stylistics, by analysing ekphrasis—a subgenre of poetry which addresses existing or imaginary works of art—in a poem of William Carlos Williams. Robert Cockroft in ‘Who Talks Whose Language? George Herbert and the Reader's World’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 245–58) combines notions from rhetoric and cognitive stylistics in order to explore how Herbert's persuasive use of emotion positions the reader within a series of mental worlds. Lynette Hunter, in ‘Echolocation, Figuration and Tellings: Rhetorical Strategies in <italic>Romeo and Juliet</italic>’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 259–78) analyses three different rhetorical strategies used in this play and discusses what they imply about how language communicates. In ‘A Cognitive Rhetoric of Poetry and Emily Dickinson’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 279–94), Craig Hamilton analyses figurative language in three poems by Emily Dickinson and discusses how it functions persuasively in cognitive terms. In ‘Implied Narratives of Medical Practice in Learning-for-Doing Texts: A Simulation Semantics Approach to Rhetorical Analysis’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 295–310), Todd Oakley applies conceptual blending theory to show how persuasion works in a genre of print advertisements. Concerning publications on rhetoric, Robert Cockroft and Susan Cockroft's <italic>Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric</italic>, is worth mentioning. A second, revised, edition has been published that includes a new chapter on ‘Practising Persuasion’. This new edition will be greatly appreciated by readers interested in this topic, as it provides an invaluable introduction to rhetoric, the art of persuasion and its relation to style.</p>
<p>Narrative theory has always been a popular subject of research in stylistics, but it is clear that this year has been particularly productive; this no doubt reflects the impact of what is now known as ‘the narrative turn’. This productivity is an indication of the changes which narrative theory and narratology are undergoing at present, and more specifically of the tendency to go beyond the analysis of literary discourse and embrace a progressively broader variety of discourses as its objects of study. Within this panorama, <italic>The Oxford Companion to Narrative Theory</italic>, edited by James Phelan and Peter Rabinowitz, provides an excellent overview of the state of the art in narrative theory, including classical approaches based on the structuralist tradition, the more polemical issues and the more recent developments. The volume is divided into six parts and includes thirty-five contributions from well-known scholars, such as David Herman, Wayne Booth, Brian McHale, Marie Laure Ryan and Monika Fludernik, among others. In their introduction the editors bring to the fore the pervasive presence of narrative in all forms of linguistic and semiotic expression and its power both in giving shape to our experience and in the self-reflective activity of telling about and interpreting other discourses. The volume continues with a ‘Prologue’ which, as the editors say, is a provocation which opens up more questions than it settles. It includes three articles which introduce the subject by presenting competing and complementary accounts of the development of narrative theory and its history. Part I includes contributions which address some of the most controversial issues that have been present as an undertow of narrative theory over recent decades and remain central to its movement, such as the concepts of implied author and narrator (un)reliability. Part II includes contributions with suggestions for revisions and innovations in approaches to narrative. Part III deals with narrative form and its relationship to history, politics and ethics, and part IV focuses on the new developments in narrative theory applied to the analysis of various discourses, such as the law, medicine, and the arts, including painting, music and film. The volume closes with an ‘Epilogue’ with two articles on the future of research in narrative theory, paying particular attention to the influence of the new technologies on the modification of the conception of narrative as an interactive and non-linear activity, adapted to the medium of the internet. This volume is no doubt obligatory reading both for scholars interested in the more classical lines of research in narrative theory and narratology and for those interested in the more recent applications of narrative theory to discourses other than literature and in non-conventional mediums.</p>
<p>Researchers in narratology will be familiar with the publications of German scholars on this topic. Worth mentioning here is the volume edited by Jan Cristoph Meister and the <italic>Style</italic> issue devoted to this topic. Meister's <italic>Narratology Beyond Literary Criticism</italic> is a collection of essays arising from papers presented at the Second International Colloquium held by the Narratology Research Group at Hamburg University in 2003. This volume further illustrates the multi-disciplinary and multi-medial nature of narratology as a current field of study. The volume opens with an introduction by Jan Christoph Meister, Tom Kindt and Wilhelm Schernus entitled ‘Narratology Beyond Literary Criticism: Mediality—Disciplinarity’, in which the authors briefly revise the history of narratology in order to focus on the current situation of the discipline and make some suggestions towards a definition of narratology as a field of study. Contributions include an article by Marie Laure Ryan on narrative analysis in the light of the new media, and approaches to the analysis of narrative representation both in literature and in new genres, such as computer games (Britta Neitzel), music (Douglass Seaton), therapeutic discourse (Harald Weilnböck) and child and adolescent identities in narrative discourse (Michael Bamberg). Two articles present quantitative approaches to the study of narrative, one of which develops a formula for the measurement of narrativity (Vyacheslav Yevseyev), and the other of which is a corpus-based study of motion events in stories (David Herman).</p>
<p>The fall issue of <italic>Style</italic> 2004 is devoted to German narratology, and complements the preceding issue of this journal on the same topic. Both issues are of interest to stylisticians because of the revision of key concepts of narratology with illustrations from the analysis of literary works in English and an extensive bibliography on the topic. Perhaps the most interesting contribution is Uri Margolin's ‘Coda: The Next Generation’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 376–87), in which the author provides an overview of the main trends of study in present-day German narratology with particular attention to English studies, namely, the formal or structuralist tradition, the possible worlds or semantic tradition and the functional-pragmatic tradition, and also stresses the interesting aspects of exploring connections of narrative with contextual and cultural dimensions. Three articles address the questions of the definition, delimitation and functions of fictionality. The first of these three questions is discussed by Klaus W. Hempfer in ‘Some Problems Concerning a Theory of Fiction(ality)’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 302–24), while Werner Wolf, in ‘Aesthetic Illusion as an Effect of Fiction’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 325–51), revises the concept of fictionality as aesthetic illusion, establishing connections with other concepts such as recentring. More specifically, Roland Harweg, ‘Are Fielding's <italic>Pamela</italic> and Richardson's <italic>Shamela</italic> One and the Same Person? A Contribution to the Number of Fictive Worlds’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2005] 290–302), discusses the problem of the referentiality of fictional entities across fictive worlds. The volume is completed by two further articles: the question of the definition of a new literary genre is addressed by Ansgar Nünning in ‘Where Historiographic Metafiction and Narratology Meet: Towards an Applied Cultural Narratology’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 352–75), while Wilhelm Füger in ‘Limits of the Narrator's Knowledge in Fielding's <italic>Joseph Andrews</italic>: A Contribution of Negated Knowledge in Fiction’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 278–89) discusses the apparent contradiction between the presence of an omniscient narrator and the admission of the limits of the narrator's knowledge in Fielding's fiction.</p>
<p><italic>L&L</italic>, <italic>Style</italic> and <italic>PoT</italic> include further contributions on classical topics in narratology. David Herman in ‘Genette Meets Vygotsky: Narrative Embedding and Distributed Intelligence’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 357–80) discusses the reasons for the persistence of embedded narrative framing and provides a cognitive account of the effectiveness of such framing in different storytelling situations. In ‘Repetition in Free Indirect Style: A Dialogue of Minds?’(<italic>Style</italic> 39[2005] 123–36) Violeta Sotirova explores the difficult theme of repetition in narrative and sheds light on the complex functions of this discourse feature when it co-occurs with free indirect speech. Robert Kohn in ‘Parody, Heteroglossia and Chronotope in John de Lillo's <italic>Great Jones Street</italic>’ (<italic>Style</italic> 39[2005] 206–16) explores the heteroglossic nature of John de Lillo's novel in order to put forward the argument that it has a parodic nature, albeit serious rather than comical. Theo Damsteegt in ‘The Present Tense and Internal Focalization of Awareness’ (<italic>PoT</italic> 26:i[2005] 40–78) explores how the present tense contributes to the expression of internal focalization, and, more specifically, how it indicates situations that are emotionally significant for a character. The perspective of the reader is considered by Amit Marcus in ‘The Self-Deceptive and the Other-Deceptive Narrating Character: The Case of <italic>Lolita</italic>’ (<italic>Style</italic> 39[2005] 187–205), in which he discusses the controversial theme of narrator unreliability and proposes a novel approach to the notion of unreliability in Vladimir Nabokov's <italic>Lolita</italic>.</p>
<p>Two examples of the application of narrative theory to the analysis of new genres are Peter Hühn and Jens Kiefer's <italic>The Narratological Analysis of Lyric Poetry. Studies in English Poetry from the 16th to the 20th Century</italic>, and Joanna Thornborrow and Jennifer Coates's <italic>The Sociolinguistics of Narrative</italic>. The authors of <italic>The Narratological Analysis of Lyric Poetry</italic> argue that the studies collected in this volume illustrate how the analytical methods and concepts of narratology can be applied to the analysis and interpretation of various poems. Special attention is paid throughout the volume to the analysis of the presence of narrative features in poetry, such as sequentiality and focalization. The contributions discuss this proposal by studying a selection of poems from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries, from Shakespeare, John Donne, John Keats, Christina Rossetti and Robert Browning, to D.H. Lawrence, Philip Larkin and Peter Reading. Turning now to <italic>The Sociolinguistics of Narrative</italic>, which is also reviewed in section 11 above, this volume is a collection of articles which provides an excellent example of the new approach to the study of narrative as a socio-cultural phenomenon. As such, the study of narrative is closely linked to the analysis of aspects of context, such as the expression of identity, the collaborative nature of storytelling in informal conversation and the presence and function of narrative in contexts such as the law, medicine and the media. This volume will be useful for readers in stylistics who are interested in exploring the connections between the linguistic analysis of texts and the sociocultural context in which they are produced.</p>
<p>Further publications on narrative may be found in issues of <italic>JLS</italic> and of <italic>L&L</italic>. Donald E. Hardy, in ‘A Stylistic Typology of Narrative Gaps: Knowledge Gapping in Flannery O’Connor's Fiction’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 363–75), continues with his study of stylistic features of Flannery O’Connor's fiction by examining an elusive and challenging aspect of narrative: the types and functions of narrative gaps. Dan McIntyre in ‘Logic, Reality and Mind Style in Alan Bennett's <italic>The Lady in the Van</italic>’ (<italic>JLS</italic> 34[2005] 21–40) approaches the notion of mind style from a new perspective, which involves analysing a character's abnormal logical thought processes and how these are reflected stylistically. In ‘Interpreting Marked Order Narration: The Case of James Joyce's “Evelyne” ’ (<italic>JLS</italic> 34[2005] 107–24), Terence Patrick Murphy discusses the concept of ‘I’ narration as marked order narration by examining James Joyce's ‘Evelyne’.</p>
<p>Further publications on poetry and lyrics include diverse approaches to the stylistic analysis of poems and a study of blues lyrics by Greg Watson. Watson, in ‘The Bedroom Blues: Love and Lust in the Lyrics of Early Female Blues Artists’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 331–56), explores the extent to which female blues artists explicitly address aspects of love and sexuality in their lyrics. Andrew Goatly's article ‘An Analysis of Elisabeth Jennings's “One Flesh”: Poem as Product and Process’ (<italic>JLS</italic> 34[2005] 139–63), is a good example of how two traditional trends in the literary analysis of texts—Jacobsonian stylistic analysis of text as product and reader response—can be combined in order to provide a complex picture of how foregrounding arises as a cognitive process signalled by linguistic cues when reading the literary text. Derek Attridge's ‘Keats and Beats, or What Can We Say about Rhythm?’ Le Rythme dans les littératures de language anglaise', published in Imaginaires <italic>Imaginaires: Revue du Centre de Recherche sur l'Imaginaire, l'Identite et l'Interpretation dans les litteratures de langue anglaises</italic> (99–116), explores the concept of the beat and its relevance to studies of rhythm, and provides illustrations by analysing Keats's odes. Debra San in ‘Hiatus of Subject and Verb in Poetic Language’ (<italic>Style</italic> 39[2005] 137–52) points out that the occurrence of hiatus between subject and verb in literature is very frequent, and provides numerous examples of the effects created by this feature, especially in poetry. In ‘Stress Felt, Stroke Dealt: The Spondee, the Text and the Reader’ (<italic>Style</italic> 39:ii[2005] 153–73), Catherine Addison addresses the polemical issue of whether the spondee is a possible rhythmic unit is English, and argues in favour of this proposal by showing that it is a particularly expressive form that emphasizes the emotional and prosodic stresses of the text.</p>
<p>The year 2005 witnessed at least three high-quality review articles on stylistics which are worth reading for the detailed critical overviews they provide of topics of special relevance. Such is the case with regard to Jean Jacques Weber's essay on ‘A New Paradigm for Literary Studies; or, the Teething Troubles of Cognitive Poetics’ (<italic>Style</italic> 38[2004] 515–23), on the current state of research in cognitive stylistics, and Michael Toolan's ‘Is There a Genericness that Shapes our Minds?’ (<italic>JLS</italic> 34[2005] 61–8) on the concepts of storyness and story closure. Joanna Gavins is the author of the ‘Year's Work of Stylistics 2004: Old Dogs, New Tricks’ (<italic>L&L</italic> 14[2005] 397–408), an excellent review of relevant works published in stylistics in 2003, providing an overview of the main trends of development in the field, and a personal and critical review of linguistic approaches to literary and non-literary texts.</p></sec>
</body>
<back>
<ref-list><title>Books Reviewed</title>
<ref id="B1"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Aikhenvald</surname><given-names>Alexandra Y.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Evidentiality</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>xxvii + 452</fpage><comment>£70 ISBN 0 1992 6388 4</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B2"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Algeo</surname><given-names>John</given-names></name><name><surname>Pyles</surname><given-names>Thomas</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Origins and Development of the English Language</source><year>2005</year><edition>5th</edition><publisher-name>Thomson</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 370</fpage><comment>£27.99 ISBN 9 7801 5507 0554</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B3"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Anderman</surname><given-names>Gunilla</given-names></name><name><surname>Rogers</surname><given-names>Margaret</given-names></name></person-group><source>In and Out of English: For Better, For Worse?</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Multilingual</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 303</fpage><comment>pb £24.95 ($44.95) ISBN 1 8535 9787 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B4"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Armstrong</surname><given-names>Nigel.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Translation, Linguistics, Culture: A French–English Handbook</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Multilingual</publisher-name><fpage>x + 218</fpage><comment>hb £59.95 ($109.95) ISBN 1 8535 9806 2, pb £24.95 ($44.95) ISBN 1 8535 9805 4</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B5"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Aronoff</surname><given-names>Mark</given-names></name><name><surname>Fudeman</surname><given-names>Kirsten</given-names></name></person-group><source>What Is Morphology?</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Blackwell</publisher-name><fpage>xviii + 257</fpage><comment>hb £50 ISBN 0 6312 0318 4, pb £6.99 ISBN 0 6312 0319 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B6"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Austin</surname><given-names>Jennifer R.,</given-names></name><name><surname>Engelberg</surname><given-names>Stefan</given-names></name><name><surname>Rauh</surname><given-names>Gisa</given-names></name></person-group><source>Adverbials: The Interplay between Meaning, Context, and Syntactic Structure</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>ix + 343</fpage><comment>$162 ISBN 1 5881 1546 1, €135 ISBN 9 0272 2794 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B7"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Baker</surname><given-names>Paul.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Public Discourses of Gay Men</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name><fpage>ix + 266</fpage><comment>£75 ISBN 9 7804 1534 9737</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B8"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Ball</surname><given-names>Martin J.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Clinical Sociolinguistics</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Blackwell</publisher-name><fpage>xx + 335</fpage><comment>hb £60 ISBN 1 4051 1249 2, pb £19.99 ISBN 1 4051 1250 5</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B9"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Barron</surname><given-names>Anne</given-names></name><name><surname>Schneider</surname><given-names>Klaus P.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Pragmatics of Irish English</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Mouton</publisher-name><fpage>vi + 408</fpage><comment>€108 ISBN 3 1101 8469 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B10"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Battistella</surname><given-names>Edwin L.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Bad Language: Are Some Words Better Than Others?</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>x + 230</fpage><comment>£17.99 ISBN 0 1951 7248 5</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B11"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Beal</surname><given-names>Joan C.</given-names></name></person-group><source>English in Modern Times</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>Hodder Arnold</publisher-name><fpage>xvi + 264</fpage><comment>pb £16.99 ISBN 0 3407 6117 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B12"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Beedham</surname><given-names>Christopher.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Language and Meaning: The Structural Creation of Reality</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 225. $138 (€115) ISBN 9 0272 1564 2</fpage></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B13"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bergs</surname><given-names>Alexander.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503)</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Mouton</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 318</fpage><comment>€88 ISBN 3 1101 8310 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B14"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Blackburn</surname><given-names>Patrick</given-names></name><name><surname>Bos</surname><given-names>Johan</given-names></name></person-group><source>Representation and Inference for Natural Languages: A First Course in Computational Semantics</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CSLI</publisher-name><fpage>xxv + 350</fpage><comment>pb £21, $30 ISBN 1 5758 6496 7</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B15"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Blommaert</surname><given-names>Jan.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Discourse: A Critical Introduction</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>xiii + 314</fpage><comment>pb $34.99 ISBN 9 7805 2153 5311</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B16"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bloome</surname><given-names>David</given-names></name><name><surname>Carter</surname><given-names>Stephanie Power</given-names></name><name><surname>Christian</surname><given-names>Beth Morton</given-names></name><name><surname>Otto</surname><given-names>Sheila</given-names></name><name><surname>Shuart-Faris</surname><given-names>Nora</given-names></name></person-group><source>Discourse Analysis and the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy Events: A Microethnographic Perspective</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Erlbaum</publisher-name><fpage>xxii + 263</fpage><comment>pb $34.50 ISBN 0 8058 5320 0</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B17"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bloor</surname><given-names>Thomas</given-names></name><name><surname>Bloor</surname><given-names>Meriel</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Functional Analysis of English</source><year>2004</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>Hodder Arnold</publisher-name><fpage>xv + 315</fpage><comment>pb £14.99 ISBN 0 3408 0680 X</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B18"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Blutner</surname><given-names>Reinhard</given-names></name><name><surname>de Hoop</surname><given-names>Helen</given-names></name><name><surname>Hendriks</surname><given-names>Petra</given-names></name></person-group><source>Optimal Communication</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CSLI</publisher-name><fpage>x + 181</fpage><comment>hb $70 ISBN 1 5758 6513 0, pb £17.50 ($27.50) ISBN 1 5758 6514 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B19"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Booij</surname><given-names>Geert.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>xiii + 308</fpage><comment>£60 ISBN 0 1992 8042 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B20"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Brinton</surname><given-names>Laurel J.,</given-names></name><name><surname>Traugott.</surname><given-names>Elizabeth C.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Lexicalization and Language Change</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 207</fpage><comment>hb £45 ISBN 0 5218 3310 8, pb £19.99 ISBN 0 5215 4063 1</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B21"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bultinck</surname><given-names>Bert.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Numerous Meanings: The Meaning of English Cardinals and the Legacy of Paul Grice</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Elsevier</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 327</fpage><comment>£62.99 ISBN 0 0804 4557 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B22"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Büring</surname><given-names>Daniel.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Binding Theory</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>xi + 281</fpage><comment>hb £40 ISBN 0 5218 1280 1, pb £18.99 ISBN 0 5210 1222 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B23"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Caldas-Coulthard</surname><given-names>Carmen Rosa</given-names></name><name><surname>Toolan</surname><given-names>Michael</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Writer's Craft, the Culture's Technology. PALA Papers 1</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Rodopi</publisher-name><fpage>xxiii + 261</fpage><comment>pb €57 ISBN 9 0420 1936 0</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B24"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Cameron</surname><given-names>Deborah.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Feminism and Linguistic Theory.</source><year>1992</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>Palgrave Macmillan</publisher-name><fpage>x + 247</fpage><comment>pb £24.99 ISBN 0 3335 5889 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B25"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Carlson</surname><given-names>Gregory N.,</given-names></name><name><surname>Pelletier</surname><given-names>Francis Jeffry</given-names></name></person-group><source>Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CSLI</publisher-name><fpage>xix + 350</fpage><comment>hb $75 ISBN 1 5758 6503 3, pb $30 ISBN 1 5758 6504 1</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B26"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Chapman</surname><given-names>Siobhan</given-names></name><name><surname>Routledge</surname><given-names>Christopher</given-names></name></person-group><source>Key Thinkers in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>EdinUP</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 282</fpage><comment>pb £16.99 ISBN 0 7486 1758 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B27"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Cockcroft</surname><given-names>Robert</given-names></name><name><surname>Cockroft</surname><given-names>Susan</given-names></name></person-group><source>Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric</source><year>2005</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>Palgrave/Macmillan</publisher-name><fpage>xiii + 258</fpage><comment>ISBN 1 4039 2182 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B28"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Coffin</surname><given-names>Caroline</given-names></name><name><surname>Hewings</surname><given-names>Ann</given-names></name><name><surname>O’Halloran</surname><given-names>Kieran</given-names></name></person-group><source>Applying English Grammar: Corpus and Functional Approaches</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>Hodder Arnold</publisher-name><fpage>xxiii + 311</fpage><comment>pb £16.99 ISBN 0 3408 8514 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B29"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Cornips</surname><given-names>Leonie</given-names></name><name><surname>Corrigan</surname><given-names>Karen</given-names></name></person-group><source>Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>vi + 309</fpage><comment>€120 ISBN 9 0272 4779 X, $144 ISBN 1 5881 1640 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B30"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Coulmas</surname><given-names>Florian.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Sociolinguistics: The Study of Speakers’ Choices</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 263</fpage><comment>hb £40 ($75) ISBN 0 52158 3606 9, pb £17.99 ($29.99) ISBN 0 5215 4393 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B31"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Cruse</surname><given-names>D. Alan</given-names></name><name><surname>Hundsnurscher</surname><given-names>Franz</given-names></name><name><surname>Job</surname><given-names>Michael</given-names></name><name><surname>Lutzeier</surname><given-names>Peter Rolf</given-names></name></person-group><source>Lexikologie—Lexicology: An International Handbook on the Nature and Structure of Words and Vocabularies</source><year>2005</year><volume>2</volume><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>xvi + 1002</fpage><comment>€398 ($557.20) ISBN 9 7831 1017 1471</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B32"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Culpeper</surname><given-names>Jonathan.</given-names></name></person-group><source>History of English</source><year>2005</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>Language Workbooks. Routledge</publisher-name><fpage>x + 134</fpage><comment>hb £45 ISBN 0 4153 4783 3, pb £13.99 ISBN 0 4153 4184 1</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B33"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Cummings</surname><given-names>Louise.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 336</fpage><comment>pb $42.95 ISBN 0 8058 5543 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B34"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Dancygier</surname><given-names>Barbara</given-names></name><name><surname>Sweetser</surname><given-names>Eve</given-names></name></person-group><source>Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>xviii + 295</fpage><comment>£55 ISBN 0 5218 4468 1</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B35"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Davies</surname><given-names>Alan.</given-names></name></person-group><source>A Glossary of Applied Linguistics</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>EdinUP</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 142</fpage><comment>pb £8.99 ISBN 0 7486 1854 6</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B36"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Davies</surname><given-names>Diane.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Varieties of Modern English: An Introduction</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Longman</publisher-name><fpage>184</fpage><comment>pb£21.99 ISBN 9 7805 8236 9962</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B37"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Davies</surname><given-names>William D.,</given-names></name><name><surname>Dubinsky</surname><given-names>Stanley</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>Blackwell</publisher-name><fpage>xi + 383</fpage><comment>hb £65 ISBN 0 6312 3301 6, pb £23.99 ISBN 0 6312 3302 4</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B38"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Davis</surname><given-names>Steven</given-names></name><name><surname>Gillon</surname><given-names>Brendan S.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Semantics: A Reader</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 921</fpage><comment>hb £52 ISBN 0 1951 3697 7, pb £26.99 ISBN 0 1951 3698 5</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B39"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Delbecque</surname><given-names>Nicole</given-names></name><name><surname>van der Auwera</surname><given-names>Johan</given-names></name><name><surname>Geeraerts</surname><given-names>Dirk</given-names></name></person-group><source>Perspectives on Variation: Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Mouton</publisher-name><fpage>vi + 345</fpage><comment>€118 ISBN 3 1101 8284 X</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B40"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Dent</surname><given-names>Susie.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Fanboys and Overdogs: The Language Report</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>x + 163</fpage><comment>£10.99 ISBN 0 1928 0676 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B41"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Deuber</surname><given-names>Dagmar.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Nigerian Pidgin in Lagos: Language Contact, Variation and Change in an African Urban Setting</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Battlebridge</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 274</fpage><comment>pb £25 ISBN 1 9032 9210 7</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B42"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Dikken</surname><given-names>Marcel den</given-names></name><name><surname>Tortora</surname><given-names>Christina M.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>vii + 292</fpage><comment>$144 (€120) ISBN 9 0272 2802 7</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B43"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Dolan</surname><given-names>Terence Patrick.</given-names></name></person-group><source>A Dictionary of Hiberno-English</source><year>2004</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>G&M</publisher-name><fpage>xxix + 277</fpage><comment>pb £9.99 ISBN 0 7171 4039 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B44"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Dossena</surname><given-names>Marina.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Scotticisms in Grammar and Vocabulary</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Donald</publisher-name><fpage>ix + 178</fpage><comment>pb £20 ISBN 0 8597 6605 5</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B45"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Elmes</surname><given-names>Simon.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Talking for Britain: A Journey through the Nation's Dialects</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Penguin</publisher-name><fpage>xvii + 333</fpage><comment>£14.99 ISBN 0 1405 1562 3</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B46"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Enright</surname><given-names>Dominique.</given-names></name></person-group><source>In Other Words: The Meanings and Memoirs of Euphemisms</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>O’Mara</publisher-name><fpage>160</fpage><comment>£9.99 ISBN 1 8431 7144 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B47"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Erreygers</surname><given-names>Guido</given-names></name><name><surname>Jacobs</surname><given-names>Geert</given-names></name></person-group><source>Language,Communication and the Economy</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 239</fpage><comment>$144 ISBN 9 0272 2706 3</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B48"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Evans</surname><given-names>Vyvyan</given-names></name><name><surname>Green</surname><given-names>Melanie</given-names></name></person-group><source>Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>EdinUP</publisher-name><comment>hb £60 ISBN 0 7486 1831 7, pb £18.99 ISBN 0 7486 1832 5</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B49"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Fabb</surname><given-names>Nigel.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Sentence Structure</source><year>2005</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 122</fpage><comment>pb £13.99 ISBN 0 4153 4182 5</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B50"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Felson Duchan</surname><given-names>Judith</given-names></name><name><surname>Kovarsky</surname><given-names>Dana</given-names></name></person-group><source>Diagnosis as Cultural Practice</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>x + 307</fpage><comment>$94 ISBN 9 7831 1018 4662</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B51"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Fenton</surname><given-names>Alexander.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Buchan Words and Ways</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Birlinn</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 152</fpage><comment>pb £22 ISBN 1 8415 8399 5</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B52"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Finch</surname><given-names>Geoffrey.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics</source><year>2005</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>Palgrave</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 249</fpage><comment>pb £12.99 ISBN 1 4039 3391 X</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B53"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Finnegan</surname><given-names>Edward.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Language: Its Structure and Use</source><year>2004</year><edition>4th</edition><publisher-name>Thomson</publisher-name><fpage>xxvii + 607</fpage><comment>pb £29.99 ISBN 9 7808 3840 7943</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B54"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Fisiak</surname><given-names>Jacek</given-names></name></person-group><source>Studies in English Historical Linguistics and Philology: A Festschrift for Akio Oizumi</source><year>2002</year><publisher-name>Lang</publisher-name><fpage>xxviii + 497</fpage><comment>pb €66. ISBN 3 6313 8617 6</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B55"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Fox</surname><given-names>Chris</given-names></name><name><surname>Lappin</surname><given-names>Shalom</given-names></name></person-group><source>Foundations of Intensional Semantics</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Blackwell</publisher-name><fpage>xvi + 192</fpage><comment>hb £55 ISBN 0 6312 3375 X, pb £19.99 ISBN 0 6312 3376 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B56"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Fried</surname><given-names>Mirjam</given-names></name><name><surname>Boas</surname><given-names>Hans C.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 246</fpage><comment>€115 ($138) ISBN 978 90 272 1824 7</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B57"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Frommer</surname><given-names>Paul R.,</given-names></name><name><surname>Finnegan</surname><given-names>Edward</given-names></name></person-group><source>Looking @ t Languages: A Workbook in Elementary Linguistics</source><year>2004</year><edition>3rd</edition><publisher-name>Thomson</publisher-name><fpage>x + 374</fpage><comment>pb £17.99 ISBN 9 7808 3840 7950</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B58"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Gnutzmann</surname><given-names>Claus</given-names></name><name><surname>Intemann</surname><given-names>Frauke</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Globalisation of English and the English Language Classroom</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Narr</publisher-name><fpage>287</fpage><comment>pb€48 ISBN 3 8233 6136 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B59"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Gottleib</surname><given-names>Henrik</given-names></name><name><surname>Mogensen</surname><given-names>Jens Erik</given-names></name><name><surname>Zettersten</surname><given-names>Arne</given-names></name></person-group><source>Symposium on Lexicography XI: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Lexicography May 2–4, 2002 at the University of Copenhagen</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Niemeyer</publisher-name><fpage>xxii + 555</fpage><comment>pb €164. ISBN 3 4843 9115 4</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B60"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Halliday</surname><given-names>Michael A.K.,</given-names></name><name><surname>Matthiessen.</surname><given-names>Christian M.I.M.</given-names></name></person-group><source>An Introduction to Functional Grammar</source><year>2004</year><edition>3rd</edition><publisher-name>Hodder Arnold</publisher-name><fpage>x + 689</fpage><comment>pb £29.99 ISBN 0 3407 6167 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B61"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Halmari</surname><given-names>Helena</given-names></name><name><surname>Virtanen</surname><given-names>Tuija</given-names></name></person-group><source>Persuasion Across Genres</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>x + 257</fpage><comment>$132 ISBN 1 5881 1588 7</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B62"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Hampe</surname><given-names>Beate</given-names></name></person-group><source>From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>xi + 485</fpage><comment>€98 ($132.30) ISBN 9 7831 1018 3115</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B63"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Heine</surname><given-names>Bernd</given-names></name><name><surname>Kuteva</surname><given-names>Tania</given-names></name></person-group><source>Language Contact and Grammatical Change</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>xvii + 308</fpage><comment>hb £40 ISBN 0 5218 4574 2, pb £19.99 ISBN 0 5216 0828 7</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B64"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Hickey</surname><given-names>Leo</given-names></name><name><surname>Stewart</surname><given-names>Miranda</given-names></name></person-group><source>Politeness in Europe</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Multilingual Matters</publisher-name><fpage>xi + 334</fpage><comment>pb $59.95. ISBN 1 8535 9737 6</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B65"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hickey</surname><given-names>Raymond.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Dublin English: Evolution and Change</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>x + 270</fpage><comment>€120 ($144) ISBN 9 0272 4895</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B66"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hoey</surname><given-names>Michael.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 202</fpage><comment>hb £60, pb £18.99 ISBN 0 4153 2863 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B67"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hollebrandse</surname><given-names>Bart</given-names></name><name><surname>van Hout</surname><given-names>Angeliek</given-names></name><name><surname>Vet</surname><given-names>Co</given-names></name></person-group><source>Crosslinguistic Views on Tense, Aspect and Modality: Cahiers Chronos 13</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Rodopi</publisher-name><fpage>vii + 259</fpage><comment>pb €54 ($73) ISBN 9 0420 1754 6</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B68"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hornstein</surname><given-names>Norbert</given-names></name><name><surname>Nunes</surname><given-names>Jairo</given-names></name><name><surname>Grohmann</surname><given-names>Kleanthes</given-names></name></person-group><source>Understanding Minimalism</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>xvi + 405</fpage><comment>pb £19.99. ISBN 0 5215 3194 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B69"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Huddleston</surname><given-names>Rodney</given-names></name><name><surname>Pullum.</surname><given-names>Geoffrey K.</given-names></name></person-group><source>A Student's Introduction to English Grammar</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 312</fpage><comment>hb £40 ISBN 0 5218 4837 7, pb £14.99 ISBN 0 5216 1288 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B70"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hühn</surname><given-names>Peter</given-names></name><name><surname>Kiefer</surname><given-names>Jens</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Narratological Analysis of Lyric Poetry: Studies in English Poetry from the 16th to the 20th Century</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 259</fpage><comment>€98 ISBN 3 1101 8407 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B71"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hüllen</surname><given-names>Werner.</given-names></name></person-group><source>A History of Roget's Thesaurus: Origins, Development, and Design</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>ix + 410</fpage><comment>£86.50 ISBN 0 1992 5472 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B72"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Hunt</surname><given-names>Peter</given-names></name></person-group><source>Understanding Children's Literature</source><year>2005</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name><fpage>x + 225</fpage><comment>$96 ISBN 0 4153 7547 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B73"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hyland</surname><given-names>Kenneth.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Metadiscourse</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Continuum</publisher-name><fpage>x + 230</fpage><comment>pb $50 ISBN 9 7808 2647 6111</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B74"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Igboanusi</surname><given-names>Herbert</given-names></name><name><surname>Peter</surname><given-names>Lothar</given-names></name></person-group><source>Languages in Competition: The Struggle for Supremacy Among Nigeria's Major Languages, English and Pidgin</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Lang</publisher-name><fpage>x + 182</fpage><comment>€39 ISBN 3 6315 2720 9, 0 8204 7318 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B75"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jenkins</surname><given-names>Rebecca Sue.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Language Contact and Composite Structures in New Ireland</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>SIL</publisher-name><fpage>xxi + 253</fpage><comment>pb $24.95 ISBN 1 5567 1156 5</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B76"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jones</surname><given-names>Mari C.,</given-names></name><name><surname>Singh</surname><given-names>Ishtla</given-names></name></person-group><source>Exploring Language Change</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 213</fpage><comment>hb £60 ISBN 9780 4153 1774 6, pb £18.99 ISBN 9 7804 1531 7754</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B77"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kachru</surname><given-names>Braj B.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>HongKongUP</publisher-name><fpage>xix + 333</fpage><comment>hb $59.90 ISBN 9 6220 9665 4, pb $27.95 ISBN 9 6220 9666 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B78"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Katamba</surname><given-names>Francis.</given-names></name></person-group><source>English Words: Structure, History, Usage</source><year>2005</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name><fpage>xx + 322</fpage><comment>hb £65 ISBN 0 4152 9892 X, pb £20.99 ISBN 0 4152 9893 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B79"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Kay</surname><given-names>Christian J.,</given-names></name><name><surname>Mackay</surname><given-names>Margaret</given-names></name></person-group><source>Perspectives on the Older Scottish Tongue</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>EUP</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 230</fpage><comment>£25 ISBN 0 7486 2281 0</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B80"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Kempchinsky</surname><given-names>Paula</given-names></name><name><surname>Slabakova</surname><given-names>Roumyana</given-names></name></person-group><source>Aspectual Inquiries</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Springer</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 460</fpage><comment>€151.94 ISBN 1 4020 3032 0, e-book ISBN 1 4020 3033 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B81"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Klapproth</surname><given-names>Danièle.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Narrative as Social Practice</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>xiii + 456</fpage><comment>$88 ISBN 9 7831 1018 1364</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B82"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kortmann</surname><given-names>Bernd</given-names></name><name><surname>Pietsch</surname><given-names>Lukas</given-names></name><name><surname>Herrmann</surname><given-names>Tanja</given-names></name><name><surname>Wagner</surname><given-names>Susanne</given-names></name></person-group><source>A Comparative Grammar of English Dialects</source><year>2005</year><fpage>??</fpage><comment>£? ISBN?</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B83"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Krishnamurthy</surname><given-names>Ramesh</given-names></name><name><surname>Sinclair</surname><given-names>John</given-names></name><name><surname>Jones</surname><given-names>Susan</given-names></name><name><surname>Daley</surname><given-names>Robert</given-names></name></person-group><source>English Collocation Studies: The OSTI Report</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Continuum</publisher-name><fpage>xxix + 208</fpage><comment>pb £25 ISBN 9 7808 2647 4896</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B84"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kupferberg</surname><given-names>Irit</given-names></name><name><surname>Green</surname><given-names>David</given-names></name></person-group><source>Troubled Talk: Metaphorical Negotiation in Problem Discourse</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>iii + 222</fpage><comment>$84 ISBN 9 7831 1018 4150</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B85"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Lakoff</surname><given-names>Robin</given-names></name><name><surname>Ido</surname><given-names>Sachiko</given-names></name></person-group><source>Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 339</fpage><comment>$144 ISBN 9 0272 5382 X</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B86"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Langer</surname><given-names>Nils</given-names></name><name><surname>Davies</surname><given-names>Winifred,</given-names></name></person-group><source>Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Gruyter</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 374</fpage><comment>$137.20 ISBN 3 1101 8337 4</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B87"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lasnik</surname><given-names>Howard</given-names></name><name><surname>Uriagereka</surname><given-names>Juan</given-names></name><name><surname>Boeckx</surname><given-names>Cedric</given-names></name></person-group><source>A Course in Minimalist Syntax: Foundations and Prospects</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Blackwell</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 299</fpage><comment>hb £55 ISBN 0 6311 9987 X, pb £19 ISBN 0 6311 9988 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B88"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Lazar</surname><given-names>Michelle M.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Palgrave Macmillan</publisher-name><fpage>x + 260</fpage><comment>£50 ISBN 1 4039 4185 0</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B89"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Lin</surname><given-names>Angel M.Y.,</given-names></name><name><surname>Martin</surname><given-names>Peter W.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Decolonisation, Globalisation: Language-in-Education Policy and Practice</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MlM</publisher-name><fpage>xix + 204</fpage><comment>hb £49.95 ($89.95) ISBN 1 8535 9825 9, pb £19.95 ($39.95) ISBN 1 8535 9824 0</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B90"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Lindquist</surname><given-names>Hans</given-names></name><name><surname>Mair</surname><given-names>Christian</given-names></name></person-group><source>Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 264</fpage><comment>$114 ISBN 1 5881 1523 2, €95 ISBN 9 0272 2284 3</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B91"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>López-García</surname><given-names>Ángel.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Grammar of Genes: How the Genetic Code Resembles the Linguistic Code</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Lang</publisher-name><fpage>182</fpage><comment>pb 24.80 (€35.50) ISBN 9 7830 3910 6547</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B92"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Los</surname><given-names>Bettelou.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Rise of the to-Infinitive</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>xv + 335</fpage><comment>£50 ISBN 0 1992 7476 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B93"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Löw-Wiebach</surname><given-names>Danielle A.V.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Language Attitudes and Language Use in Pitmedden (Aberdeenshire)</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Lang</publisher-name><fpage>376</fpage><comment>€56.50 ISBN 3 6315 4318 2</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B94"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Lynch</surname><given-names>Jack</given-names></name><name><surname>McDermott</surname><given-names>Anne</given-names></name></person-group><source>Anniversary Essays on Johnson's Dictionary</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 245</fpage><comment>£45 ISBN 0 5218 4844 X</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B95"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Macaulay</surname><given-names>Ronald.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Talk That Counts: Age, Gender, and Social Class Differences in Discourse</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>x + 225</fpage><comment>hb £45 ISBN 0 1951 7681 3, pb £23.99 ISBN 0 1951 7382 1</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B96"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Maeder</surname><given-names>Constantino</given-names></name><name><surname>Fischer</surname><given-names>Olga</given-names></name><name><surname>Herlofsky</surname><given-names>William J.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Outside-In–Inside-Out: Iconicity in Language and Literature 4</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>x + 427</fpage><comment>€145 ISBN 9 0272 3225 0</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B97"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Mahlberg</surname><given-names>Michaela.</given-names></name></person-group><source>English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>x + 206</fpage><comment>hb €99 ($119) ISBN 9 7890 2722 2916</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B98"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Malmkjaer</surname><given-names>Kirsten.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Linguistics and the Language of Translation</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>EdinUP</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 208</fpage><comment>pb £19.99 ISBN 0 7486 2956 7</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B99"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Mani</surname><given-names>Inderjeet</given-names></name><name><surname>Pustejovsky</surname><given-names>James</given-names></name><name><surname>Gaizauskas</surname><given-names>Robert</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Language of Time: A Reader</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 588</fpage><comment>hb £125 ISBN 0 1992 6853 3, pb £29.99 ISBN 0 1992 6854 1</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B100"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Marmaridou</surname><given-names>Sophia</given-names></name><name><surname>Nikiforidou</surname><given-names>Kiki</given-names></name><name><surname>Antonopoulou</surname><given-names>Eleni</given-names></name></person-group><source>Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 436</fpage><comment>€98 ($137.20) ISBN 9 7831 1018 3641</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B101"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>McShane</surname><given-names>Marjorie J.</given-names></name></person-group><source>A Theory of Ellipsis</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 257</fpage><comment>£45 ISBN 0 1951 7692 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B102"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>McWhorter</surname><given-names>John H.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Defining Creole</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>444</fpage><comment>hb $90 ISBN 0 1951 6670 1, pb $49.95 (£29.99) ISBN 0 1951 6669 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B103"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Meister</surname><given-names>Jan Christoph.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Narratology Beyond Literary Criticism</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Gruyter</publisher-name><fpage>xvi + 297</fpage><comment>€98 ISBN 3 1101 8352 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B104"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Mugglestone</surname><given-names>Lynda.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Hidden History of the Oxford English Dictionary</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>YaleUP</publisher-name><fpage>xxvi + 273</fpage><comment>£19.95 ISBN 0 3001 0699 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B105"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Mühleisen</surname><given-names>Susanne</given-names></name><name><surname>Migge</surname><given-names>Bettina</given-names></name></person-group><source>Politeness and Face in Caribbean Creoles</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>vi + 293</fpage><comment>€125 ($150) ISBN 9 7890 2724 8947</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B106"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Mukherjee</surname><given-names>Joybrato.</given-names></name></person-group><source>English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-Based Model</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Rodopi</publisher-name><fpage>vii + 295</fpage><comment>€65 ISBN 9 0420 1934 4</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B107"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Müller</surname><given-names>Simone.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native English Discourse</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>xviii + 290</fpage><comment>€115 ($138) ISBN 9 0272 5381 1</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B108"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Nakamura</surname><given-names>Junsaku</given-names></name><name><surname>Inoue</surname><given-names>Nagayuki</given-names></name><name><surname>Tabata</surname><given-names>Tomoji</given-names></name></person-group><source>English Corpora under Japanese Eyes</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>Rodopi</publisher-name><fpage>xi + 249</fpage><comment>€55 ISBN 9 0420 1882 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B109"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nestor</surname><given-names>Sandy.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Indian Placenames in America</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>McFarland</publisher-name><fpage>213</fpage><comment>$45 ISBN 0 7864 1983 0</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B110"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Newmeyer</surname><given-names>Frederick J.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Language Typology</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>x + 278</fpage><comment>hb £65 ISBN 9 7801 9927 4338, pb £22.99 ISBN 9 7801 9927 4345</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B111"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>ÓMuirithe</surname><given-names>Diarmaid.</given-names></name></person-group><source>A Glossary of Irish Slang and Unconventional Language</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>G&M</publisher-name><fpage>144</fpage><comment>pb 0 7171 3728 7</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B112"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Odden</surname><given-names>David.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Introducing Phonology</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 348</fpage><comment>pb £17.99 ISBN 9 7805 2153 4046</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B113"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ostler</surname><given-names>Rosemarie.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Dewdroppers, Waldos, and Slackers: A Decade-by-Decade Guide to the Vanishing Vocabulary of the Twentieth Century</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>xvi + 237</fpage><comment>pb £7.85 ISBN 0 1951 8254 5</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B114"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Östman</surname><given-names>Jan-Ola</given-names></name><name><surname>Fried</surname><given-names>Mirjam</given-names></name></person-group><source>Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 325</fpage><comment>€115 ($138) ISBN 9 7890 2721 8230</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B115"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Phelan</surname><given-names>James</given-names></name><name><surname>Rabinowitz</surname><given-names>Peter</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Oxford Companion to Narrative Theory</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Blackwell</publisher-name><comment>pp. i–xvii. £95 ISBN 9 7814 0511 4769</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B116"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pietandrea</surname><given-names>Paola.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Epistemic Modality: Functional Properties and the Italian System</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 232</fpage><comment>€105 ISBN 9 0272 3084 6, $126 ISBN 9 0272 3084 6</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B117"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pietroski</surname><given-names>Paul M.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Events and Semantic Architecture</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>vi + 267</fpage><comment>£45 ISBN 0 1992 4430 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B118"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pietsch</surname><given-names>Lukas.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Variable Grammars: Verbal Agreement in Northern Dialects of English</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Niemeyer</publisher-name><fpage>ix + 217</fpage><comment>pb €74 ISBN 3 4843 0496 0</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B119"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pit</surname><given-names>Mirna.</given-names></name></person-group><source>How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective: Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French</source><year>2003</year><publisher-name>Rodopi</publisher-name><fpage>vi + 360</fpage><comment>pb €70 ISBN 9 0420 0856 3</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B120"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pope</surname><given-names>Rob.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Creativity: Theory, History, Practice</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name><fpage>xviii + 302</fpage><comment>€120 ISBN 9 7804 1534 9154</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B121"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Portner</surname><given-names>Paul</given-names></name><name><surname>Partee</surname><given-names>Barbara H.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings</source><year>2002</year><publisher-name>Blackwell</publisher-name><fpage>x + 486</fpage><comment>hb £65 ISBN 0 6312 1541 7, pb £22.99 ISBN 0 6312 1542 5</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B122"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Potts</surname><given-names>Christopher.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Logic of Conventional Implicatures</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>OUP</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 246</fpage><comment>hb £55 ISBN 0 1992 7382 0, pb £22.99 ISBN 0 1992 7383 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B123"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Radford</surname><given-names>Andrew.</given-names></name></person-group><source>English Syntax: An Introduction</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>396</fpage><comment>hb £45 ISBN 0 5218 3499 6, pb. £17.99 ISBN 0 5215 4275 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B124"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Radford</surname><given-names>Andrew.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English</source><year>2004</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>xiii + 512</fpage><comment>hb £55 ISBN 0 5218 3497 X, pb £19.99 ISBN 0 5215 4274 X</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B125"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ramanathan</surname><given-names>Vaidehi.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The English–Vernacular Divide: Post Colonial Language Politics and Practice</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MlM</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 143</fpage><comment>hb £44.95 ($79.95) ISBN 1 8535 9770 8, pb £17.95 ($29.95) ISBN 1 8535 9769 4</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B126"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Rampton</surname><given-names>Ben.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents</source><year>2005</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>St Jerome</publisher-name><fpage>363</fpage><comment>pb £21.99, ISBN 1 9006 5077 0</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B127"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Reeves</surname><given-names>Carol.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Language of Science</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 131</fpage><comment>£45 ISBN 0 4153 4635 5</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B128"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Rietveld</surname><given-names>Toni</given-names></name><name><surname>van Hout</surname><given-names>Roeland</given-names></name></person-group><source>Statistics in Language Research: Analysis of Variance</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Mouton</publisher-name><fpage>viii + 265</fpage><comment>hb €98 ISBN 3 1101 8580 6, pb €24.95 ISBN 3 1101 8581 4</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B129"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Robson</surname><given-names>Marc</given-names></name><name><surname>Stockwell</surname><given-names>Peter</given-names></name></person-group><source>Language in Theory: A Resource Book for Students</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name><fpage>xvii + 176</fpage><comment>€90 ISBN 0 4153 2049 6</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B130"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sampson</surname><given-names>Geoffrey.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The ‘Language Instinct’ Debate</source><year>2005</year><edition>rev.</edition><publisher-name>Continuum</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 224</fpage><comment>hb £75 ISBN 0 8264 7384 9, pb £19.99 ISBN 0 8264 7385 7</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B131"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Schlüter</surname><given-names>Julia.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Rhythmic Grammar: The Influence of Rhythm on Grammatical Variation and Change in English</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>xi + 393</fpage><comment>€98 ($132.30) ISBN 9 7831 1018 6079</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B132"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Schreier</surname><given-names>Daniel.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Consonant Change in English Worldwide: Synchrony Meets Diachrony</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Palgrave</publisher-name><fpage>xvi + 248</fpage><comment>£50 ISBN 9 7814 0399 8248</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B133"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Share</surname><given-names>Bernard.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Slanguage: A Dictionary of Irish Slang and Colloquial English in Ireland</source><year>2005</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>G&M</publisher-name><fpage>xvii + 365</fpage><comment>pb £11.99 ISBN 0 7171 3959 X</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B134"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Shi-xu</surname><given-names>Manfred Kienpointner</given-names></name><name><surname>Servaes</surname><given-names>Jan</given-names></name></person-group><source>Read the Cultural Other: Forms of Otherness in the Discourses of Hong Kong's Decolonization</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>ix + 244</fpage><comment>€32.95 ($32.95) ISBN 3 1101 8268 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B135"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Shkedi</surname><given-names>Asher.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Multiple Case Narrative: A Qualitative Approach to Studying Multiple Populations</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>xvi + 210</fpage><comment>$119 ISBN 9 7890 2722 6471</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B136"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sidnell</surname><given-names>Jack.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Talk and Practical Epistemology: The Social Life of Knowledge in a Caribbean Community</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>xx + 255</fpage><comment>€115 ($138) ISBN 9 0272 5385 4</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B137"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Singh</surname><given-names>Ishtla.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The History of English: A Student's Guide</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Hodder Arnold</publisher-name><fpage>xiii + 226</fpage><comment>pb £14.99 ISBN 0 3408 0695 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B138"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Skaffari</surname><given-names>Janne</given-names></name><name><surname>Peikola</surname><given-names>Matti</given-names></name><name><surname>Carroll</surname><given-names>Ruth</given-names></name><name><surname>Hiltunen</surname><given-names>Risto</given-names></name><name><surname>Warvik</surname><given-names>Brita</given-names></name></person-group><source>Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>x + 418</fpage><comment>$150 ISBN 1 5881 1626 3</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B139"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Spurr</surname><given-names>David</given-names></name><name><surname>Tschichold</surname><given-names>Cornelia</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Space of English</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Narr</publisher-name><fpage>322</fpage><comment>€58 ISBN 9 7838 2336 1220</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B140"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Štekauer</surname><given-names>Pavol</given-names></name><name><surname>Lieber</surname><given-names>Rochelle</given-names></name></person-group><source>Handbook of Word-Formation</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Springer</publisher-name><fpage>xviii + 466</fpage><comment>€189 ISBN 1 4020 3595 0</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B141"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Stray</surname><given-names>Christopher</given-names></name></person-group><source>Contributions towards a Glossary of the Glynne Language by George William, Lord Lyttelton</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Cambridge Scholars Press</publisher-name><fpage>lvi + 101</fpage><comment>£29.99 ISBN 1 9043 0352 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B142"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tallerman</surname><given-names>Maggie.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Understanding Syntax</source><year>2005</year><edition>2nd</edition><publisher-name>Hodder Arnold</publisher-name><fpage>xix + 266</fpage><comment>pb £16.99 ISBN 0 3408 1032 7</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B143"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Tennent</surname><given-names>Martha</given-names></name></person-group><source>Training for the New Millennium</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>xxvi + 276</fpage><comment>€105 ($126) ISBN 9 7890 2721 6663</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B144"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Thompson</surname><given-names>Ellen.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Time in Natural Language: Syntactic Interfaces with Semantics and Discourse</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>xv + 224</fpage><comment>€78 ISBN 3 1101 8414 1</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B145"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Thornborrow</surname><given-names>Joanna</given-names></name><name><surname>Coates</surname><given-names>Jennifer</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Sociolinguistics of Narrative</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>vi + 300</fpage><comment>$126 ISBN 9 7890 2722 6464</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B146"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Tognini-Bonelli</surname><given-names>Elena</given-names></name><name><surname>Camiciotti</surname><given-names>Gabriella del Lungo</given-names></name></person-group><source>Strategies in Academic Discourse</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 212</fpage><comment>$126 ISBN 9 7890 2722 2909</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B147"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Trautwein</surname><given-names>Martin.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Time Window of Language: The Interaction between Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Knowledge in the Temporal Interpretation of German and English Texts</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>xx + 387</fpage><comment>€98 ISBN 3 1101 8213 0</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B148"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Tyler</surname><given-names>Andrea E.,</given-names></name><name><surname>Takada</surname><given-names>Mari</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>Yiyoung</given-names></name><name><surname>Marinova</surname><given-names>Diana</given-names></name></person-group><source>Language in Use: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives on Language and Language learning</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>UGeoP</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 223</fpage><comment>pb $44.95 ISBN 9 7815 8901 0444</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B149"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Välimaa-Blum</surname><given-names>Riita.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Cognitive Phonology in Construction Grammar: Analytic Tools for Students of English</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>xi + 271</fpage><comment>pb € 32.95 ISBN 9 7831 1018 6861</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B150"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Vasko</surname><given-names>Anna-Liisa.</given-names></name></person-group><source>UP CAMBRIDGE: Prepositional Locative Expressions in Dialect Speech: A Corpus-Based Study of the Cambridgeshire Dialect</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>SNH</publisher-name><fpage>xvi + 340</fpage><comment>pb €43 ISBN 9 5190 4021 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B151"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Verkuyl</surname><given-names>Henk</given-names></name><name><surname>de Swart</surname><given-names>Henriette</given-names></name><name><surname>van Hout</surname><given-names>Angeliek</given-names></name></person-group><source>Perspectives on Aspect</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Springer</publisher-name><fpage>ix + 267</fpage><comment>€105.93 ISBN 1 4020 3230 7, e-book ISBN 1 4020 3232 3</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B152"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wajnryb</surname><given-names>Ruth.</given-names></name></person-group><source>C U Next Tuesday: A Good Look at Bad Language</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Aurum</publisher-name><fpage>xiv + 210</fpage><comment>£14.99 ISBN 1 8451 3092 8</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B153"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Watts</surname><given-names>Richard</given-names></name><name><surname>Ide</surname><given-names>Sachiko</given-names></name><name><surname>Ehlich</surname><given-names>Konrad</given-names></name></person-group><source>Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>xlvii + 404</fpage><comment>$132.30 ISBN 9 7831 1018 5492</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B154"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wootton</surname><given-names>A.J.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Interaction and Development of Mind</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>CUP</publisher-name><fpage>x + 220</fpage><comment>pb $34.99 ISBN 9 7805 2102 2668</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B155"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yuasa</surname><given-names>Etsuyo.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Modularity in Language: Constructional and Categorial Mismatch in Syntax and Semantics</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>MGruyter</publisher-name><fpage>xii + 209</fpage><comment>€88 ISBN 3 1101 8309 9</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
<ref id="B156"><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhu</surname><given-names>Yunxia.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Written Communication Across Cultures</source><year>2005</year><publisher-name>Benjamins</publisher-name><fpage>ix + 215</fpage><comment>$126 ISBN 9 0272 5384 6</comment></nlm-citation></ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>IEnglish Language</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>IEnglish Language</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Evelien</namePart><namePart type="family">Keizer</namePart><affiliation>University of Amsterdam</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Mohammed</namePart><namePart type="family">Albakry</namePart><affiliation>Middle Tennessee State University</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jeroen</namePart><namePart type="family">Van De Weijer</namePart><affiliation>University of Leiden</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Bettelou</namePart><namePart type="family">Los</namePart><affiliation>Radbound University, Nijmegen, Amsterdam</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Wim</namePart><namePart type="family">Van Der Wurff</namePart><affiliation>University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Beàta</namePart><namePart type="family">Gyuris</namePart><affiliation>Hungarian Academy of Science</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Julie</namePart><namePart type="family">Coleman</namePart><affiliation>University of Leicester</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Edward</namePart><namePart type="family">Callary</namePart><affiliation>Northern Illinois University</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Lieselotte</namePart><namePart type="family">Anderwald</namePart><affiliation>Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Andrea</namePart><namePart type="family">Sand</namePart><affiliation>University of Hannover, Freiburg</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Camilla</namePart><namePart type="family">Vasquez</namePart><affiliation>Northern Arizona University</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Laura</namePart><namePart type="family">Hidalgo</namePart><affiliation>University Autonoma, Madrid</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2007</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2007</copyrightDate></originInfo><abstract>This chapter has twelve sections: 1. General; 2. History of English Linguistics; 3. Phonetics and Phonology; 4. Morphology; 5. Syntax; 6. Semantics; 7. Lexicography, Lexicology and Lexical Semantics; 8. Onomastics; 9. Dialectology and Sociolinguistics; 10. New Englishes and Creolistics; 11. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis; 12. Stylistics. Section 1 is by Evelien Keizer; section 2 is by Mohammed Albakry; section 3 is by Jeroen van de Weijer; sections 4 and 5 are by Bettelou Los and Wim van der Wurff; section 6 is by Beàta Gyuris; section 7 is by Julie Coleman; section 8 is by Edward Callary; section 9 is by Lieselotte Anderwald; section 10 is by Andrea Sand; section 11 is by Camilla Vasquez; section 12 is by Laura Hidalgo.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Year's Work in English Studies</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><subject><topic>Articles</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0084-4144</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1471-6801</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">ywes</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">ywes</identifier><part><date>2007</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>86</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>1</start><end>165</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1093/ywes/mam001</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© The English Association; all rights reserved</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-GTWS0RDP-M">oup</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>© The English Association; all rights reserved</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><covers><json:item><extension>tiff</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>image/tiff</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993/covers/tiff</uri></json:item></covers><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Musique/explor/MusiqueCeltiqueV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001790 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001790 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Musique
|area= MusiqueCeltiqueV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:79C8DF812E7B2677772653CB1B56B30E187F7993
|texte= IEnglish Language
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.38. |  |