Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen By Klaus J. Kohler (review)

234 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 57, NUMBER 1 (1981) and Joan Maling's general proposals on Gapping and Conjunction Reduction. Bach's (1971) revised hypothesis regarding word order is examined , showing why Bach rejected his earlier position on SOV order in favor ofSVO. Indirect questions are discussed and a very superficial look at historical linguistics is taken,just enough to establish VSO as a respectable alternative. VSO is compared to SOV and SVO in the final chapter, which covers Passive, There-Insertion (es gibt), Subject and Negative Raising, Dative constructions and more. B does a good job throughout the book of postulating possible derivations of SOV- and SVO-based sentences which are then compared in detail with VSO derivations. B shows that the VSO base, in conjunction with the prefield concept, is able to account for German sentences more easily than either SOV or SVO bases. The book concludes that, based on the evidence examined, VSO is a viable and perhaps preferable alternative to SOV and SVO. [Karen Hunold, Berkeley.] Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. By Klaus J. Kohler. (Grundlagen der Germanistik, 20.) Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1977. Pp. 251. DM25.00. Kohler's book, completed in 1975, discusses these topics in successive chapters: the subject matter of phonetics in general; the problem of a standard German language; descriptive categories for phonetics; the basis of phonology; types and uses of symbol systems; and a systematic phonetic description of German, including suprasegmentals. The last chapter comprises about one-third of the total book. K bases his exposition on empirical data, rather than on the transcriptions of standard pronouncing dictionaries such as Duden and Siebs. The variety of German investigated is labeled 'dialect-neutral', based on north German pronunciation. Data are obtained from several recent projects in both East and West Germany , aimed at obtaining a representative sample of spoken German from various stylistic levels. In this respect, K's treatment represents a welcome 'deviation' from other accounts of standard German phonology. Phonetics and phonology are discussed as one, and here K's work represents a contribution to 'concrete phonology': 'Phonetic substance and phonological structure are not in opposition, but stand in a reciprocal relation to one another' (11). The trappings of generative phonology, in all its manifestations, are dismissed as 'paper phonology'. K defends the biuniqueness condition of American structuralism , but without retaining its heuristic procedures . For K, a phonological description should capture just the regularities of production and reception in a language, and this means that the phonological level should be as close to the 'surface' as possible. Procedurally, the linguist moves from one partial analysis to the next with constant 'post-editing', the goal being to posit the minimal number of segments with maximum generalization. K's commitment to the biuniqueness condition, and his rejection of morphophonemics in the investigation ofphoneticsphonology , has several consequences for the analysis of German: thus all syllable-final obstruents on the phonetic level are related to voiceless phonemes. The final consonant in Bund is ItI. Again, the basic vowel opposition is length rather than tenseness. K justifies this view in part by asserting that short tense vowels in unstressed syllables are a fiction ofnormative dictionaries. Hence tense vowels alone are long—except when subject to phonotactic shortening, as in the rapid pronunciation of certain weakly-stressed forms. As a whole, K's book is well-written, with a minimum of arcane symbols and terminology. One oddity is his use of 'low' for vowels like /i u/ and 'high' for IaI, with no explanation. K's last section on 'sentence phonetics' doesjustice to his commitment to empirical speech data as the basis of investigation; it gives a comprehensive overview of assimilation, elision, and length reduction which few studies of German have undertaken. [Wilbur A. Benware, University of California, Davis.] Tempus og tidsreferanse: Tidsdeiksis i norsk. By Kjell Ivar Vannebo. Oslo: Novus, 1979. Pp. 563. Kr. 122.00. This comprehensive account of the linguistic expression of time reference in Norwegian builds on previous descriptions of Norwegian tense, on recent work on tense in closely related languages (especially English and German), and on original work by the author. 'Tense' is in- ...