Yearbook of morphology (review)

152LANGUAGE, VOLUME 66, NUMBER 1 (1990) been inadequate; for example, in Ch. 6 there are references to discussions in a nonexistent seventh chapter, as well as references to examples which have apparently been left out. But my reaction is far from completely negative. In fact, I consider this book to be the best GB treatment of Old English that I have seen. For all the factual errors, this book is still more grounded in fact and detail than many recent publications in the area, which often depend entirely on examples taken from secondary sources. At least K has done some of her own textual investigation. K has made it clear that we cannot ignore the difference between nouns and pronouns when we talk about OE word order, which many investigators (including myself) have done in the past. The clitic hypothesis offers an interesting avenue of exploration. Although I don't believe in the system that Kemenade has constructed, it is no small achievement. I hope she will go on to apply her considerable talent to a careful investigation of those constructions which seem to pose serious challenges to the idea that all OE word orders can be derived from a V-final base order, and also to the question of whether such a sharp distinction between main and subordinate clause orders is really appropriate for Old English. REFERENCES Allen, Cynthia. 1977. Topics in diachronic English syntax. [Published in 1980, New York: Garland Press.] -----. 1980. Movement and deletion in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 11.261-323. Kayne, Richard. 1981. ECP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12.93-135. Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris. Linguistics, Arts[Received 22 August 1989.] Australian National University Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia Yearbook of morphology. Edited by Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle. Dordrecht : Foris, 1988. Pp. iii, 326. Cloth $42.00, paper $24.00. Reviewed by Michael Hammond, University ofArizona It has become a truism that morphology is a rapidly developing field in linguistics these days. This volume, the first in an annual series, addresses the need for ajournai devoted exclusively to morphology by serving as a precursor to such ajournai. It includes twelve relatively short articles, one longish 'review article', four 'book reviews', and fifteen 'book notices' (roughly analogous to what appears in this journal). The large number of papers and reviews is undoubtedly an attempt to showcase a number of different contributions in order to encourage future submissions. The editors' manifesto appears in the preface: 'It is the aim of the Yearbook ofmorphology to support and enforce this revival of morphology. We will try to do so by publishing original research, state-of-the-art papers, substantial book reviews, and book notices. Our hope is that in this way the reader will get a representative overview of current developments and results in the area of morphology.' REVIEWS153 B&vM go on to point out that morphology is only a 'relatively autonomous discipline' and that it therefore cannot be studied in isolation. This, they maintain , is reflected in the selection of papers and will be reflected in future volumes . The papers in the current volume cover a wide range of topics by a diverse group of scholars, including some major figures in the field. In 'Head operations and strata in reduplication: A linear treatment', Mark Aronoff argues for an analysis of the overapplication phenomenon in terms of head operations, as proposed in Hoeksema 1984. 'Overapplication' refers to cases where a stem appears to undergo, for example, préfixai reduplication after (and internal to) prefixation, e.g. Tagalog/?«.Yw/ 'a cut' : pa-mu:tul 'that used for cutting', but pa-mu-mu:tul 'a cutting in quantity'. The nasalization induced by the prefix shows that prefixation precedes reduplication. Head operations are proposed by Hoeksema (1984) to deal with various sorts of bracketing paradoxes. For example, the plural ofpostman notionally applies to the whole word, but looks as if it were formally applied only to the head man: postmen, *postmans. If mu:tul is the head of pa-mu:tul, reduplication can be conceived of as a head operation in Tagalog. Aronoff's paper is interesting, and it successfully argues against various alternative analyses. One can level several...