La déclinaison bicasuelle de l'ancien français By Lene Schøsler (review)

BOOK NOTICES 209 rectly Usted as 'dental', 12), the history of Latin (with numerous examples from inscriptions), and comparative linguistics, in addition to the topics already mentioned. It should therefore fulfill its practical goal: '... möglichst einfach in die Problematik der lateinischen Sprachwissenschaft einzuführen' (5). [John T. Jensen, University of Ottawa.] La déclinaison bicasuelle de l'ancien français. By Lene Sch0sler. (Études romanes de l'Université d'Odense, 19.) Odense, Denmark: University Press, 1984. Pp. 321. Kr. 120.00. The problem to be explained by S is the disappearance of the two-case declension system of Old French, a feature generally viewed as a direct descendant of the more complex Latin system. It persisted into the 14th century, when it disappeared completely for nouns and determiners (though it remains in the pronoun system of Modern French). S's analysis is based on the syntactic theories of L. Tesnière; thus it gives primary status to the verb in any sentence, with the nouns marked as actants (primary = subject , second = direct object etc.) The book is divided into nine chapters, preceded by an introduction and foUowed by an extensive bibliography, an index, and the printout of an analysis of the Charroi de Nîmes, an epic text used as a case study in the body ofCh. 2. The introduction defines the approach as purely syntactic, and discusses several problems arising from the textual nature of the data (both literary works and charters). In Ch. 1, the analysis is established: S isolates the various factors, both contextual and syntactic (impinging on univalent and plurivalent verbs), which would serve to differentiate the subject from the object of a sentence in a relatively free wordorder language. Ch. 2 continues the discussion in the context of the analysis of a single manuscript version ofa text. Ch. 3 returns to a large number of texts, studied one by one to examine the importance ofcase-marking in the syntax of Old French. Chs. 4-6 deal with certain syntactic features (the use ofdeclinable pronouns and word order) which have sometimes been ascribed a causal relationship to the case system and to its disappearance . S studies extensive data, both textby -text and chronologically, and demonstrates that no causal connection exists. Ch. 7 also has a negative goal: S demonstrates that other syntactic phenomena, cited in the literature as causing the disappearance of the case system, were present from the earliest attestations of Old French—whatever the degree of correctness of case use—and therefore must be eUminated from the study. Ch. 8 takes a dialectal and diachronic view of OF case; S establishes a definite movement from west to east in the disappearance of case-markings, as weU as some very interesting observations about the nature of Uterary and non-literary language across regions. In Ch. 9, S presents her own theory of case: a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for its disappearance is the fact that it is not ofprimary importance in distinguishing subject from object , and a catalyst to its demise is the disappearance of final s. She sees the crux of the problem in a hierarchy of grammatical categories in which case, because of its relative non-importance, is lost in order to maintain distinctions of number in the language at a time when the s is disappearing and thus causing communicative ambiguities in both these categories . The book was written as a dissertation, and reads as such. It is convincingly argued, and will certainly add to the literature on OF diachronic syntax. But reading through it means working through huge amounts ofdata which might have been better summarized when the dissertation was published as a book. S has not translated any Old French (or any Latin or German), which may make it difficult for non-specialist researchers . She also assumes a good knowledge of OF grammar, and does not present the case-markings themselves until Ch. 9. I would have liked to see some of S's sentences analysed at greater length to demonstrate some ofher more abstract points, and thus to make the case phenomena more explicit. As for S's quite convincing analysis, two questions might be raised: First...