The language of 1984: Orwell's English and ours By Whitney French Bolton (review)

214 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 1 (1986) sponse'), and F ('foUow up') are moves in the exchange. A typical Q/R exchange would then be: A: Q how did you get down to WlNDLEBURY B: R how oh by train A: F by train yes Moves are defined in terms of their pragmatic/ interactive function in the discourse; thus one ofthe moves performed by Q is [EUcit]. Moves, in turn, are realized by acts, such as (confirm) and (assent). The initial decision as to the number of moves (eleven) and acts (forty), the operational distinction between them, and the actual classification of utterances in the corpus is a subjective matter; and while S has tried to make explicit the basis for these decisions, she has not always succeeded. The definition of Q, R, and F themselves is likewise problematic. Thus S offers this 'preliminary ' definition of Q and R (p. 1): 'Given that the speakers A and B cooperate, a question (Q) is any utterance by A that may elicit a response (R) from B; R is consequently an utterance elicited by Q.' This, of course, is not the sort of definition which one can use to identify a Q, since not aU Q's are foUowed by an R. In addition , as S points out (24), there are circularity problems with such a definition, as weU as difficulties in determining whether the utterance foUowing Q was meant to be an answer. FinaUy, S leaves the definition as it stands, but offers discussions of 'features of Q and R'—i.e. helpful guidelines in terms offunction, lexis, syntax, and intonation, to the identification of Q's and R's; none of these, however, is criterial. The lack of an adequate definition for the object of investigation is the most unsatisfying aspect of this book. However, assuming that reasonable identifications have been made (at least for the clear cases), S does achieve her goal of providing an exhaustive description of the many ways in which Q's and R's function in conversation. For example, Q's can be acts which serve as requests for action ('have you got a pen?'), requests for clarification ('whIch new signs?'), and requests for permission ('may I read your message?'), among others; while R's can react, repeat, clarify, disclaim and so on. S discusses in detail a range ofother phenomena —e.g. the Unking, chaining, and embedding of Q/R exchanges with each other, types of exchange openings, frequencies ofQ and R forms, preparatory questions, moves which help B to answer Q, tags and prompters, and WH-question use. Among her findings, S offers such conclusions as tíiese: yes is used alone 58% ofthe time, but no is used alone only 21% of the time. The latter is typicaUy amplified or qualified (223), showing that speakers typicaUy feel a need to justify a no response. The study strongly reveals people's tendency to cooperate in conversations : 86% of aU Q's received an answer classified as either (comply) or (imply), and only 4% were responded to by an answer classified as (evade) or (disclaim). Because of the many symboüc and abbreviatory conventions associated with S's analytical framework, her book is not highly readable; the good index helps, however. On balance, for an in-depth empirical analysis of an elusive but highly recurrent conversational interaction pattern , S's book represents a brave and largely successful effort. [Sandra A. Thompson, UCLA.] The language of 1984: Orwell's English and ours. By Whitney French Bolton. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1984. Pp. 252. $19.95. B's intent is to focus on changes in English since World War II, looking at 'changes in the vocabulary, forms, ... pronunciation, ... in attitudes towards the language, ... in its study, teaching, and even legislation and Utigation about EngUsh' (11). Recognizing that this is too much for one book, B has chosen to hmit his field (in a curious but timely way) by 'taking George Orwell as its starting point, concentrating on changes in English and the attitudes towards it as they diverge from his'. B is not concerned with whether any of O's predictions about language have been fulfilled...