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

458LANGUAGE, VOLUME 76, NUMBER 2 (2000) Like many reviews, this one focuses all too briefly on what the reviewer sees as some of the shortcomings of this volume. But it is hard to distill a lifetime's work into a relatively compact work, and Sz is to be admired for what he has produced. As an introduction into IE linguistics and as a ready reference for the more seasoned, this is a highly valuable volume which, as with all volumes of this type, one will want to supplement to some degree. REFERENCES Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Durie, Mark, and Malcolm Ross (eds.) 1996. The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in sound change. New York: Oxford University Press. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V., and Vjaceslav V. Ivanov. 1995. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. 2 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Gasiorowski, Piotr. 1997. Long syllabic consonants in proto-Indo-European. Linguistic reconstruction and typology, ed. by Tacek Fisiak, 89-101. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Katz, Joshua T. 1998. Topics in Indo-European personal pronouns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation. Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986. Indogermanische Grammatik i/2, Lautlehre. Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen . Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Ringe, Don. 1998. Some consequences of a new proposal for subgrouping the IE family. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 24S, Special session on Indo-European subgrouping and internal relations, ed. by Benjamin K. Bergen, Madelaine C. Plauché, and Ashlee C. Bailey, 32-46. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. -----; Tandy Warnow; Ann Taylor; Alexander Michailov; and Libby Levison. 1998. Computational cladistics and the position of Tocharian. The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age people of Eastern Central Asia: Archeology, migration and nomadism, linguistics, ed. by Victor Mair. 391-414. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man/Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Watkins, Calvert. 1962. Indo-European origins of the Celtic verb: The sigmatic aorist. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Department of English Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112 [] The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. By Sandra Chung. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pp. xii, 423. Reviewed by Susan Steele, University of Connecticut If one didn't know the name of the author of this book, a single reading would make it possible to guess. This book has the attributes that we have come to expect from Sandra Chung's work and to appreciate for the relative rarity of their confluence. It isn't simply the language under investigation that would give her away—although the depth of our knowledge of Chamorro can be attributed largely to her extended commitment to its analysis. (See Chung 1982, 1983, 1990.) More diagnostic is the combination of sensitivity to theoretical trends and an ability to make the properties of an 'exotic' language relevant to theoretical discussion, combined with a finelyhoned sense of what theoretical modifications and extensions will be viewed as acceptable reengineering , rather than as demolition, by those committed to the theory in question. The first chapter introduces the book's central thesis: agreement involves two distinct and irreducible relations—feature compatibility or 'the relation that lies behind the informal observation that in English "the subject and the verb agree in person and number" ' (1) and the associate relation or 'the relation that holds between heads and their specifiers, and heads and their projec- REVIEWS459 tions, in constituent structure' (1). The second, because it 'plays a far more substantial role in the licensing of syntactic structure' (1), is the focus of this book, approached through a detailed analysis of Chamorro within a principles and parameters framework. Put somewhat more baldly, morphology and syntax are distinct phenomena, neither necessarily reflecting the other. But, although both contribute to the phenomenon of agreement, the latter is where the fundamental regularities of language reside. The first paragraph of the second chapter is most explicit in regard to the theoretical primacy of syntax—and, thus, of the associate relation. 'The discussion is intended to highlight the range of possible hypotheses that come into play if one takes the morphosyntax of a language...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 458-460
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.