Rechtschreibwörterbücher im Test: Subjektive Einschätzungen, Benutzungserfolge und alternative Konzepte By Gerhard Augst, Volker Bunse, Andrea Höppner, Roswitha Rusert, Sebastian Schmidt, and Frank-Martin Sunkel (review)

BOOK NOTICES 223 differences between sentences with respect to the placement of adverbs reduce to independently-motivated movement operations in the language. A argues that adverbs may also be licensed via incorporation into a verbal head. Ch. 6 illustrates this option using MG adverb incorporation (AI), as in ferete kala vs kaloferete 'he behaves well'. A concludes that AI is a syntactic movement operation and not lexical compounding. The trigger for the movement is the lack of structural complexity of the adverb . AI licenses the deficient element under the assumption that elements lacking internal structure must universally shift to the left. Ch. 7 investigates various often-cited parallels between adverbs and adjectives. A argues that they belong to a single category because they are subject to similar ordering restrictions and licensing requirements . At the same time, differences that exist between them are a consequence of distinct structures and movement options in clauses vs nomináis. By adopting a rather restrictive set of theoretical assumptions and investigating their consequences m a fairly well defined empirical domain, A is able to give a unified and predictive syntax for adverbs. The book will be of particular interest to syntacticians interested in antisymmetry or MG clause structure. [Eric Potsdam, Yale University.] Rechtschreibwörterbücher im Test: Subjektive Einschätzungen, Benutzungserfolge und alternative Konzepte. By Gerhard Äugst, Volker Bunse, Andrea Höppner, Roswitha Rusert, Sebastian Schmidt, and Frank-Martin Sunkel. (Lexicographica series major 78.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1997. Pp. 256. This book is the first in a series of studies exploring the history, systematics, and pragmatics of the spelling dictionary, conducted as part of a four-year team research project at the universities of Rostock and Siegen and the Institut für deutsche Sprache in Mannheim , Germany. The present empirical study focuses on two questions: to what extent are prototypical users successful in finding specific information in spelling dictionaries? And, based on the results, how can spelling dictionaries be improved? To answer these questions, the study is divided into two parts: part A, a comparison of three German spelling dictionaries, examines the subjective opinions of dictionary users and their success in solving five test problems by consulting a dictionary. First, 60 secretaries and 30 teachers were interviewed about their experiences with and attitudes towards spelling dictionaries and randomly given one of the tested dictionaries. (1) Duden (Duden-Rechtschreibung , 20th edn., ed. by Dudenredaktion. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien, Zurich, 1991), (2) Deutsches Wörterbuch (DW) (Mannheim & Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, 1990), and (3) Neues deutsches Wörterbuch (NDW) (by Isolde Steiner, Cologne: Lingen, n.d.). After a short familiarization period, the informants were asked to take systematic notes about their dictionary use for four weeks. The results show that the most frequently looked-up items involve sound-letter relations of technical and foreign terms, (non)capitalization, and separate or one-word spelling ('Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung'). The results of the spelling and punctuation test, presented extensively in graphs and tables, show that only slightly more than halfofthe five problems were solved successfully, with the Duden being the most helpful, followed by the DW and then the NDW. Dictionary users encountered significantly more problems when relying on the sections explaining spelling and punctuation rules than when looking up the lexical entry directly. Thus, part B of the study addresses to what extent the form of rule presentations influences the user success rate. Three different rule presentation forms for comma placement were tested: the unchanged Duden version (D), an alphabetical version ordered by terms such as indirect speech (A), and a systematic version based on syntactic functions (S). Each version was used either alone or in combination with a dictionary of specific comma-relevant lexical entries, in particular, conjunctions and pronouns. Again, the informants, 132 students of business vocational schools and 30 university students, were asked for their opinions and to solve six comma-related problems. While no optimum version was found, the alphabetical and systematic versions with comma-relevant lists of words proved the most useful. Based on these results, Part C concludes with fourteen proposals for improving spelling dictionaries by changing the presentation of both dictionary entries and spelling and punctuation rules. All in all, this well-organized...