Woleaian reference grammar By Ho-Min Sohn, with the assistance of Anthony F. Tawerilmang, and: Palauan reference grammar By Lewis S. Josephs, with the assistance of Masa-aki Emesiochel, Masaharu Tmodrang, and Helen Wilson (review)

REVIEWS733 operating in both possible directions (e.g. PPN *n > Hawaiian /n/, PPN *n > Colloquial Samoan /?/). Schuhmacher notes the existence of such cases, but seems not to appreciate the difficulty they present for the theorist. 20. The format of the volume is photo-offset (from typescript), but superb editing has eliminated the disadvantages commonly associated with that format: it is intelligently and attractively arranged, and extraordinarily free oftypographical errors. Thereis an indexto languages and languagegroups (linguisticand geographic) referred to in the text. REFERENCES Chapín, Paul G. 1974. Proto-Polynesian *ai. Journal of the Polynesian Society 83.259-307. Dempwolff, Otto. 1922. Über Entstehung sekundärer Tonhöhen in einer Südseesprache . Vox 57-62. ------. 1934, 1937, 1938. Vergleichende Lautlehre des austronesischen Wortschatzes. 3 vols. Berlin: Reimer. Dyen, Isidore. 1965. A lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian languages. (IJAL, Memoir 19.) Baltimore. Foley, James. 1970. Phonological distinctive features. Folia Lingüistica 4.87-92. Hohepa, Patrick. 1969. The accusative-to-ergative drift in Polynesian languages. Journal of the Polynesian Society 78.295-329. Pawley, Andrew. 1966. Polynesian languages: a subgrouping based on shared innovations in morphology. Journal of the Polynesian Society 75.39-64. ------. 1967. The relationships of Polynesian outlier languages. Journal of the Polynesian Society 76.259-296. ------. 1972. On the internal relationships of Eastern Oceanic languages. Honolulu: Bishop Museum. [Received 2 August 1977.] Woleaian reference grammar. By Ho-min Sohn, with the assistance of Anthony F. Tawerilmang. (Pali language texts: Micronesia.) Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1975. Pp. xii, 316. $11.00. Palauan reference grammar. By Lewis S. Josephs, with the assistance of Masa-aki Emesiochel, Masaharu Tmodrang, and Helen Wilson. (Pali language texts: Micronesia.) Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1975. Pp. xviii, 556. $9.00. Reviewed by Sandra Chung, University of California, San Diego These two works are fair representatives of the Micronesian volumes recently published by the University of Hawaii. Like most ofthe others, they were written at the University of Hawaii as part of a government-sponsored project to describe the languages of Micronesia. The languages with which they deal are geographically close, but differ considerably in linguistic structure. Sohn's grammar describes Woleaian, a Nuclear Micronesian language which is spoken, with dialectal variation, in the western Caroline Islands southeast of Yap. (Sohn actually limits himself to the dialect spoken on Woleai Atoll, a group of islands whose present population is less than 600.) Josephs' grammar describes Palauan, a language spoken by some 12,000 people in the Palau Islands and in a community on Guam. Like Chamorro, 734LANGUAGE, VOLUME 54, NUMBER 3 (1978) it appears to be more closely related to Philippine languages than to the other languages of Micronesia, and is usually classified as Western Austronesian (Bender 1971). Both grammars were written by linguists with the assistance of native language consultants, and they are intended to serve a dual purpose: to describe these languages for general linguists and, at the same time, to introduce native speakers of Woleaian and Palauan who are not linguists to the structure of their own language. This is not an easy task. While books directed toward linguists may well be useful to the general public, and vice versa, there is no particular reason to suppose that the needs of the two audiences will coincide. Further, it may not always be obvious, e.g. to the linguists, what the needs of the other audience are. This means that, for a grammar to address both linguists and native speakers while still preserving its integrity as a book, a certain amount of compromise and guesswork is inevitable. As I do not speak either of the languages in question, my perspective on these works is necessarily limited to that of the general linguist. Viewed from this perspective , Sohn and Josephs appear to have taken rather different approaches to the task ofwriting for linguists and non-linguists, and their success is in correspondingly different areas. Sohn's grammar of Woleaian seems directed more toward the non-technical reader. It is organized like a traditional grammar, with chapters devoted to speech sounds, orthography, word classification, word formation, sentence patterns etc. Throughout, its focus is on the structure of the clause and its parts; complex sentences...