Utterance particles in Cantonese conversation By Kang Kwong Luke (review)

234 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 68, NUMBER 1 (1992) changes in the mechanisms and principles of binding theory and places his own work in historical context. The essay also emphasizes that Chomsky's approach to binding—despite many changes—has been remarkably stable over this period, focusing on the near complementarity of anaphors and pronominals and on the ways in which binding domains are defined by the notion of subjecthood. The other new article, dated 1986, discusses Principle C of the binding theory. L contrasts the disjoint reference of referring expressions in English with their counterparts in Thai and Vietnamese, showing that Principle C cannot be reduced to other mechanisms. He also proposes some revisions of binding theory here, noting that in all three languages referring expressions may not have pronouns as their antecedents. Moreover, epithets like the idiot and the SOB behave simultaneously like pronominals and like referring expressions, prompting L to propose a new feature system for nomináis that allows him to describe the behavior of epithets in terms of the generalization that 'a less referential expression may not bind a more referential one' (161). The other articles in the collection are The logical structure of reciprocal sentences in English ' (Fiengo & Lasnik, 1973), 'Complement object deletion' (Lasnik & Fiengo, 1976), 'Remarks on coreference' (1976), 'Disjoint references and wh-trace' (Friedin & Lasnik, 1981), 'On two recent treatments of disjoint reference' (1981), ? note on illicit NP movement' (1985), and ? note on anaphora and double objects' (Barss & Lasnik, 1986). Lasnik has been an important contributor to binding theory, and at just $19.95 for the paperback edition this book is a useful text for a seminar on anaphora and a nice addition to the bookshelf of any binding-theory aficionado. However, libraries with a full run of Linguistic Inquiry, Linguistic Analysis, The Journal of Linguistic Research, and Foundations of Language may want to think twice before investing $64.00 in the hardcover version. [Edwin Battistella, University of Alabama in Birmingham .] Utterance particles in Cantonese conversation . By Kang Kwong Luke. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series , 9.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins , 1990. Pp. v, 329. Particles have long been a mysterious and much-ignored topic of Chinese grammar. Luke's book, a published version of a 1988 University of York dissertation, puts the rich system of Cantonese utterance particles within a framework well suited to their study: conversational analysis (CA). The book consists of seven chapters. Ch. 1, 'Introduction: Utterance particles in Cantonese ' , is a review of the literature on Chinese particles, with some reference to particles in other languages. In Ch. 2, 'Conversation and Conversational Analysis', L discusses the methodology and the theoretical framework of his study. Chs. 3, 4, and 5 provide analyses of three Cantonese utterance particles through the CA framework: Ch. 3, The establishment of common ground in conversation: The utterance particle la' ; Ch. 4, The accomplishment ofendings in conversation: The utterance particle to'; and Ch. 5, 'Expectation and noteworthiness: The utterance particle wo'. Chs. 6 and 7 deal with theoretical issues. Ch. 6, 'Utterance particles as conversational objects ', puts the results of L's study in the larger context of the study of particles and discusses its theoretical implications. In Ch. 7, Towards a socially constituted linguistics', L attempts to reconcile CA with mainstream linguistics and sociology, arguing that CA is a bridge of sorts between the two fields. He seeks to justify a contextually based approach to the study of language . L's arguments appear overly defensive at times, until one realizes that CA has indeed had a difficult time finding a place. He argues for an empirical tradition that he says is lacking in linguistics, claiming that correlational linguistics 'was in danger of becoming a social adjunct to the theory of grammar' (301). Curiously, his rejection of other approaches to utterance particles seems to violate the spirit of openness that he advocates. Indeed, though, CA has a contribution to make to linguistic study, and L does a goodjob of showing us one place where that contribution can be made. My main complaints with L's book are technical . He uses the Yale romanization for Cantonese , familiar to learners of Cantonese but not widely known to others. Since the intended readership...