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

996 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 60, NUMBER 4 (1984) in a perspective which goes beyond recent developments '. Chap. 1 reviews early contributions by Reisig, and comments by Haase and Heerdegen. Chap. 2 rather unfairly compares Darmesteter and Bréal, while Chap. 3 summarizes Saussure's contribution to semantics, particularly emphasizing the associative relations. Chap. 4 briefly discusses worn, nom Meidet through Carnoy and Stern; Chap. 5 reviews Ogden & Richard's work, but excludes it from semantics proper. Chap. 6 returns to Carnoy and Stern, to decide in favor of the latter. Chaps. 7-8 outline field theory, and discuss Trier, Ipsen, Porzig, Wartburg , and Weisgerber in connection with componential analysis and lexical semantics. Chap. 9 considers the problem of meaning as seen by Bloomfield, referring to Hockett and Bloomfield 's discussion of Paul and Wundt. In Chap. 10, Firth's position is extensively reviewed. Chaps. 11-12 stand apart from the body of the book, in that they deal with Hallig, Wartburg, and Matoré—lexicologists, rather than semanticists . In Chap. 13, Nida's important contribution is appreciatively reviewed; Chap. 14 discusses Guiraud's work in etymology with equal favor. In Chap. 15, componential analysis is critically examined; and Chap. 16, one of the best in the book, summarizes Joos' contribution . Chap. 17 is more concerned with phonological /semantic isomorphism than with Jean Dubois' contribution, which is dismissed on weak grounds after a partial critique. In Chap. 18, U. Weinreich's seminal work is examined very favorably, but not conclusively, since Weinreich's important contribution to the study of idioms is omitted. Chap. 19 concludes the book by evoking the interpretive/generative polemic in semantics, with considerable space being given to Gruber's work as typical of the tabula-rasa approach ofsome recent tendencies. G's valuable work is marred by several shortcomings , the most striking probably being his attribution of the model for semic analysis to a review by Slakta, whereas it was developed in the 60's by Pottier (219). Next is the number of figures who are absent (Vendryès, Nyrop, De Mauro, Coseriu, Greimas, Pottier, Benveniste, Bierwisch, Heger) or quasi-absent (quoted but deserving better treatment: Katz & Fodor, BaIdinger , Lyons, Hjelmslev, Bally, Ullmann). Minor flaws include a tendency to get caught up in side issues, by paying excessive attention to style or seeing alleged contradictions (62, 119, 136, 141 , 226) which in fact result from miscomprehensions or mistranslations (143, 161, 164). A revised edition (including 'critical' in the title) should clearly state why so many determining contributions were left out, and should include an update on recent research. But even as it stands, G's history should prove useful—especially through its numerous quotations, which invite further inquiry into the history of linguistic semantics. [Jean-Claude Choul, University ofRegina, Saskatchewan.] Situation et signification. By Ivan Fonagy. (Pragmatics and beyond, 3:1.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1982. Pp. 161. F is known as a pioneer in the study of prosody and its interface with discourse. As a native speaker of Hungarian whose active research career is in France, he has often taken special note of the problems which bilinguals have with the situated pragmatics of their nonnative languages. In the articles collected here, he presents a contrastive analysis of conversational patterns based on a broad corpus of French, Hungarian, Italian, English, and Japanese data. Taking into consideration the overlap as well as disjunction of expressions across these widely differing languages, F is well placed to determine the quasi-universals of the prosodies, the semantics, and the cliché patterns of unrelated languages. The themes which F treats include those generally discussed, and others besides: clichés, metaphrases etc. Even when F's broad reading interests do not appear to cover all eventualities , his thought patterns converge with those of innovative researchers in this field: e.g., under 'Lieux communs', he discusses formulating place (cf. the work of Schegloff). American readers will be impressed by F's acquaintance with a broad cross-section of European and American literature, and his apparent ability to incorporate material from all these perspectives into his own argument. We can learn not only from F's work itself, but from the broad gamut of articles he cites from differing...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 996-997
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.