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

REVIEWS159 papers on the phonological side of morphology. And third, the papers focus a great deal on the topic of heads in morphology; but heads are only a small part of what is going on in morphology today. In sum, this volume addresses an important and growing area of linguistics. It should be read by all who are interested in following the developments in morphological theory. REFERENCES Baker, Mark. 1985. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Cambridge , MA: MIT dissertation. [Published: Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.] Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge , MA: MIT Press. Halle, Morris. 1989. On abstract morphemes and their treatment. Paper presented at the Second Annual Arizona Phonology Conference, University ofArizona, Tucson. Hoeksema, Jacob. 1984. Categorial morphology. University of Groningen dissertation. Groningen: van Denderen. (New York: Garland, 1985.) Ulrich, Charles Howard. 1986. Choctaw morphophonology. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation. van Marle, Jaap. 1988. Betekenis als factor bij produktiviteitsverandering. (lets over de deverbale categorieën op -lijk en -haar.) Spektator 17.341-59. Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions 'lexically related' and 'head of a word'. Linguistic Inquiry 12.245-74. Zubizarreta, Maria L. 1985. The relation between morphophonology and morphosyntax : The case of Romance causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 16.247-90. Department of Linguistics[Received 15 August 1989.] University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 The politics of linguistics. By Frederick J. Newmeyer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986 (paper 1988). Pp. 171. Cloth $23.95, paper $9.95. Reviewed by Talbot J. Taylor, College of William & Mary* As befits a book of this title written by the current Secretary of the LSA, The Politics ofLinguistics will be (indeed already is) highly controversial. The author takes as his topic what he views as the three major approaches to the study of language—humanistic, sociological, and autonomous—and offers a brief history of and commentary on their competition in the intellectual politics of academic linguistics. Adding to the interest and controversial character of the book is the fact that its author is already well known as the main apologist (and, some would say, propagandist) for the dominant school within the autonomous approach: generativist linguistics. In this context The Politics of Linguistics easily lends itselfto a political reading as an attempt by the dominant group in the profession to rewrite the history of its ascent to institutional power and, in so doing, to set the guidelines for all future debate. The opening chapter, 'The study of language' (3-14), presents the three ori- * I thank Paul Hopper, Deborah Schiffrin, and John Joseph for their comments on this review. The opinions expressed are my own. 160LANGUAGE, VOLUME 66, NUMBER 1 (1990) entations in the modern study of language: humanism, sociologism, and autonomism . The next three chapters ('The rise of autonomous linguistics', 1528 ; 'Structural linguistics', 29-62; 'The Chomskyan revolution', 63-98) trace the rise of the autonomous approach with its culmination in contemporary generativism. The last two chapters ('The opposition to autonomous linguistics ', 99-126, and 'Some thoughts on the autonomy controversy', 127-50) discuss objections that have been raised to autonomism by humanists and sociolinguists and, in reply, offer criticism of these nonautonomist perspectives. Behind this rhetorical combination of history and polemic, the book's political goals are easily discernible: namely, (1)by presenting a cheering and conciliatory narration of the rise of autonomism to institutional power, with its culmination in the current reign of generativism , to reassure recalcitrant structuralists, descriptivists, comparativists , and even generative semanticists that, regardless of the criticism they have received from generativists in the past, their autonomist roots are now acknowledged; (2)to defend autonomous linguistics from humanistic and sociological criticism and, in so doing, to demonstrate the weaknesses of humanistic or sociological explanations of language structure; (3)to offer humanists and sociolinguists terms of peace on the grounds that the three approaches need not necessarily be seen as in opposition: '... there is nothing essentially incompatible about the different orientations to language ' (150); (4)to accomplish all of this in a style and at a level of technical sophistication that is easily accessible to undergraduates and nonlinguists alike, thus ensuring that those who have no direct...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 159-162
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.