In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK NOTICES 201 vowels of derive/derivation, prepare/preparation) have occupied an uncertain position in linguistics at least since Trubetzkoy raised the issue in 1929. Such alternations appear to be readily statable as phonological rules provided we allow such rules to refer to morphological properties. Should at least some such allomorphy (to use the term pretheoretically) be analyzed as phonology (such as the rule oftrisyllabic shortening or laxing, in the case of derive/derivation )! Or should an alternation which is partly dependent on morphological properties always be treated as part of morphology (either as part of the affixation process or as suppletion)? A workshop at the Universit é de Montréal in 1994 brought together linguists from a variety of persuasions over that issue, and this book is the result. Alan Ford and Rajendra Singh take the stand that all such alternations are properly treated as morphology , while Paul Kiparsky holds out for the negation (not the opposite) of this position, claiming that there is a class of morphologically conditioned alternations which is better treated as phonology (although he argues that the line between phonology and morphology is not quite where it is often drawn). Other linguists occupy positions in between: Wolfgang U. Dressler calls for a gradient approach (a given process may be describable at once as morphological and phonological). Joan Bybee takes a different intermediate position, namely that a process is either morphological or phonological but that the dividing line is somewhere between that of Ford and Singh on the one hand, and Kiparsky on the other, with the exact boundary influenced by the frequency of the relevant constructions to which a speaker was exposed during language learning. In other articles, Bernhard Hurch advocates distinguishing morphologically conditioned prosodie structure from segmental phonology, treating prosody instead as a method for making morphological distinctions. Richard Desrochers and Probal Dasgupta take up other issues such as phonological rules which appear to be sensitive to syntactic structure. As an example of edited conference proceedings, this book is superb. Not only do the invited papers appear (aside from a paper on diachrony by JeanYves Morin) but also prepared responses to most papers by invited commentators, prepared responses to those commentaries by the original authors, and finally nearly verbatim transcripts of the discussion from the floor! As an example of scholarly interaction leading to a consensus, the result is perhaps less satisfying. Kiparsky as a generativist and Dressier as a representative of the functional and semiotic schools occupy poles in their style of argumentation. Likewise, in the discussions from the floor, one feels that linguists of different backgrounds talk past each other. As one participant says (180), ? didn't understand the question , I don't understand the problem and I don't understand the answer either'. Exaggerated perhaps, but his comment underscores the difficulty of achieving an understanding, much less a consensus, among linguists from such different backgrounds. The volume is well edited; even that linguist's bane of erroneous cross-references to examples is limited to a few easily rectified cases in the discussion transcripts. [Michael Maxwell, Summer Institute of Linguistics.] A dictionary ofJapanese loanwords. By Toshie M. Evans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996. Pp. xiv, 230. This easy to read dictionary is actually a comprehensive collection of quotes from newspapers, magazines , and general interest books that demonstrate how Japanese loanwords are used in English. It is less academic and less imposing in appearance than several other dictionaries, which makes it more approachable . Evans, a reporter for a magazine for teachers of Japanese, has compiled definitions and etymologies for 778 entries, and exemplified them with at least three or four lengthy examples each. These examples can be intnguing, not only as examples of usage but also in their own right. Here is one for 'Godzilla', which has the following definition , etymology, and example (taken from eight lengthy examples): Godzilla [gàdzila] ?. a dinosaur-like movie monster. [( Gojira a movie monster. The story of Godzilla was first filmed in 1954.] . . . ' 'After getting the better of Mothra, King Ghidorah , the Smog Monster and Megalon, to name but a few, GODZILLA is to be put down. Toho Co. will lay the lizard to rest after his 22nd...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 201-202
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.