Prague linguistic circle papers: Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague, new series Vol. 1. Ed. by Eva Haлčová, Miroslav Červenka, Oldřich Leška, and Petr Sgall; Vol. 2. Ed. by Eva Haлčová, Oldřich Leška, Petr Sgall, and Zdena Skoumalová (review)

194 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 74, NUMBER 1 (1998) erature in dialects and minority languages: Max and Moritz in Scots' (220-45). Many of the articles display the concerns of applied linguistics or language planning. For example, one goal proposed in the first article (37) is the description of regional English dialects and creóles so that teachers may be able to discern errors in second language (or dialect) acquisition ofthe standard variety from local usage. The third article is a detailed examination of word-formation processes in a range of English varieties. Article 5 is a fairly exhaustive report of dictionaries of world Englishes. Article 6 is a good look at 135 Irish-derived lexical items in ten dictionaries of English (mostly American and British); the author also makes an excellent case for the creation ofa dictionary ofIrish English (186-90). The final article brings up many relevant points regarding interlanguage and dialect translations of texts. There are relatively few typographical errors in the book. However, several points of confusion still manage to arise. For example, one cannot speak of the USA as such until after 1776; before this date, this North American territory was one of several English colonies (cf. p. 15). Also, I am unable to understand how UsE (United States English) (57) and AmE (American English) (59) are different from each other; that is, these two varieties, which are referenced within the same article, appear to have the same referent. Regarding usage, the author employs the terms 'Irishmen' (188) and 'Englishmen' (226) as if they were synonyms for all speakers of a language or for persons associated with a specific ethnicity or geographical territory. Furthermore, I am unclear why some varieties of English are labeled 'deficient' (124). Also, what does 'dictionary-worthy ' (51) mean precisely? And why are innovations in Tok Pisin labeled as 'clumsy paraphrases' (fn. 19, p. 53)? It seems to me that this book would have been better served if such expressions had been removed or at least made clear. The collection is indexed according to name and topic (269-76), which is a welcome feature. The references are divided between two subsections, called 'Dictionaries' (246-52) and 'General' (253-68). However, the usefulness of such a distinction is lost on me (except that the former subsection is an excellent resource ofpublished dictionaries ofEnglish varieties ). For example, I had to look up many references twice because I was uncertain under which heading a particular entry fell. G writes (33), the 'linguist is certainly not some kind of language referee who can make grammatical deviance from a foreign norm acceptable, i.e. turn the "mistakes" of a prescriptive tradition into permissible alternatives on the grounds that they are the consequences of necessary adaptation' . I know that as a researcher gathering data on an English-derived creóle variety which native speakers themselves often referred to as 'di bad inglish', I sometimes felt this role of referee had been uncomfortably thrust upon me by the speech community. However, the differences between standard varieties ofEnglish and regional varieties (creóle or otherwise) may perhaps best be seen as adaptations and innovations within the context oflanguage change. Thus, from this point of 'mistakes' or adaptations, speakers may begin sowing the seeds of natural and common diachronic change. [Michael Aceto, University of Puerto Rico.] Prague linguistic circle papers. Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague, new series. Vol. 1. Ed. by Eva Hajicová, Miroslav Cervenka, Oldrich Leska, and Petr Sgall. Amsterdam & Philadelphia : John Benjamins, 1995. Pp. x, 336. Vol. 2. Ed. by Eva Hajicová, Oldrich Leska, Petr Sgall, and Zdena Skoumalov á. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1996. Pp. viii, 346. These are the two initial volumes of the new, third series of the Prague Travaux. The first series, eight volumes of Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague (1929-1939), was brought to an end by World War II; the second, Travaux linguistiques de Prague (1964-1971), encompassed only four volumes when it was strangled by the political authorities. The list of contributors to this new series is quite international: Besides 21 from the Czech Republic, there are 16 from other countries—Austria, France, Germany, Israel, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Slovenia , Switzerland, Russia, United...