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

BOOK NOTICES 985 sues in linguistic theory, 21.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1982. Pp. xxv, 527. The 5th ICHL took place during the spring of 1981 in Galway, with the presentation of some 55 papers in five days. The present volume contains 47 of these papers, several followed by a report on at least some of the ensuing discussion . Also included (460-66) are E. C. Traugott 's 'Concluding remarks', an 'Index fontium et nominum' (467-507), an 'Index linguarum' (508-15), and an 'Index rerum' (516-27). Within the scope of a book notice, it is impossible to provide any real appreciation of the varied articles in the proceedings; some very general descriptive comments must suffice. The articles are arranged alphabetically by authors' names rather than by content. Paging through the volume is therefore a form of browsing through the various aproaches to historical linguistics , both theoretical and descriptive. Among the most theoretical items are articles on explanation in diachronics (M. Harris, Janda, Vizmuller) and the nature of sound change (Gvozdanovié, Mannheim & Newfield, Milroy). Among more recently popular directions taken by historians represented at the conference are interest in socio-historical linguistic theory (Romaine , Ureland), and more specifically in pidgins and creóles (Shepherd, Versteegh). A paper on the caesura in French (Verluyten) represents historical metrics, while one on sound change in Old Prussian involves the evidence of graphology (J. Levin). Most of the languages studied are in the IndoEuropean family—with, as usual, emphasis on Germanic (especially English) and Romance. Irish is of course given prominence at Galway. There is one paper on sound change in Polynesian languages (Harlow), one on Kartvelian ablaut and syntax (A. Harris), one on Sino-Korean (Baek), and one on Arabic structural change (Versteegh). Excepted from the strict alphabetical ordering are the last five papers in the volume, all devoted to the relationship between linguistics, (particularly historical linguistics) and philology . Some twenty pages of general discussion follow these articles, all leading to a re-affirmation of the importance of philology, but with some diversity in the uses of that word: textual edition, data from texts, 19th century linguistics . It seems appropriate that a gathering ofhistorical linguists—all of whom, I am sure, have been frustrated at some time by the lack of native speakers' judgments and tape recorders for 'their' period and/or language—should devote time to a discussion on the nature of written evidence, its analysis and interpretation. [Margaret E. Winters (Epro), Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.] Sanctius' theory of language: A contribution to the history of Renaissance linguistics. By Manuel Breva-Claramonte. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science, III: Studies in the history of linguistics, 27.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1983. Pp. vii, 294. As BC points out, Sanctius' Minerva (1587) 'emerged with renovated vigor from partial obscurity when rationalist trends, once again, became popular in linguistics' (241). For example, R. Lakoffs review in Lg. (1969) criticized Chomsky's Cartesian linguistics (1966) for failing to recognize the Port Royal grammarians' debt to S. BCs principal contribution here to the history of linguistics is his convincing argument that S's theory of language, with its emphasis on deep structure, is far more than a controversial reference point in the history of transformational grammar. BC acknowledges the Minerva as the work of a scholar who understood his linguistic heritage, from ancient and medieval sources to the works of his contemporaries ; of a grammarian who analysed the structure of language in impressive detail; and of a theorist who developed a philosophy oflanguage based on universal concepts and logical rules. The book consists of three parts: S's life and linguistic tradition, a synopsis of the Minerva, and S's linguistic theory. In Part One, BC presents a coherent biographical sketch of S as an intellectual—a professorofrhetoric, Greek, and Latin at Salamanca—who, for unknown reasons , was under the persistent scrutiny and harassment ofthe Inquisition throughout his life (in fact, he was denied honorable burial by it.) To provide the historical background of the Minerva , BC comments on the Graeco-Roman and medieval grammarians who influenced S, e.g. Aristotle, Plato, Thrax, Varro, Quintilian, Priscian , Thomas of Erfurt, and Roger Bacon. He...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 985-986
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.