The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology By Carson T. Schütze (review)

366LANGUAGE, VOLUME 74, NUMBER 2 (1998) the repressive measures (i.e., made efforts to emigrate at an early time). (4) Among university faculty, examples of practical solidarity with the persecuted Jews or public declarations against antisemitism (in the early days, when this was still possible) were frighteningly rare' (52). It is remarkable that there existed—so M reports (55)—'a Central-Association of German citizens of Jewish faith' which was nationalistic, patriotic, harboring even a profascist wing, and which, arguing from racism, excluded from its ranks the Eastern Jews, or Ostjuden, (who had migrated from Poland in large numbers at the end of World War I), thus implicitly countenancing their expulsion. On the other side, Jewish fundamentalists 'fought against assimilation and affirmed the particularity ofthe Jewish race as against the Aryan race' (55)—a conviction in quasi acquiescence of Nazi racist dogma. Of course, the Nazi regime could not tolerate the democratic idea of Lernfreiheit and Lehrfreiheit , freedom to learn and freedom to teach. Once the subject, the manner, and the aim of education were controlled by the Nazi machinery in Germany and Austria, the result could not but be, in M's terms, politicization and provincialization of linguistics, especially since during the war academe was cut off from the rest of the world. M does not agree with the view that the drain of scholars through emigration led to the Enthauptung, or decapitation, of German linguistics (see Ch. 7, 'The professional consequences of persecution and emigration', 92-108). But surely Germany and Austria did suffer losses, a conclusion one cannot escape as one contemplates the activity and success of the emigrants in their countries of exile. Still, it would be unfair to ignore the way linguists in former Nazi countries, after the war, quite rapidly caught up with world scholarship. Indeed, I venture to suggest that, owing at least in part to the eclipse between 1933 and 1945, German and Austrian linguistics has preserved many worthwhile and valid features of traditional linguistics and philology of the prewar era. Ch. 6, 'The lands of immigration' (82-91), distinguishes six phases of migration (pre-1933, 1933-35, 1935-37, 1938-39, 1940-45, post-1945) and records the host countries together with the number of refugees each received. As one would expect, the US harbored the largest number, 91, of whom 66 arrived after 1945, some after interim sojourns elsewhere. But between 1945 and 1960, 30 returned to Germany and Austria (91). The second, 'biobibliographical' part of the book (160-288) is given over to biographical sketches of236 linguists who were in various ways and degrees affectedby theNazi regime, encompassing both those who emigrated (the 177 already mentioned) and those who did not (59). Their names are catalogued in Appendix 3(151-4). However, only62such sketches found space in Volume I; theremaining 174, M hopes, will appearintheprojectedVolumeII. Thepieces are ofunequal length, ranging from under two to over six pages. This unevenness is due in part to the varying accessibility ofrecords; but M admits that his personal preferences play a role (22)—shaped, one may assume, in some measure by the degree of prominence of each linguist. No fewer than 27 pages (112-38) are given over to the bibliography of sources consulted by M on various aspects of his work. It is obvious that the load of labor carried by M was crushing even if he was aided by assistants. In the 'Epilogue' (108-10) M writes that his book 'attempts to fulfill the duty of the chronicler, the obligation vis-à-vis fellow linguists who through persecution and exile were impeded in realizing their full scientific evolution. Even after fifty years, this obligation is not yet completely redeemed' (108). All linguists must be grateful to M for having taken upon himself, with such highminded purpose, so heavy a burden. 1050 Wall Street Ann Arbor, MI 48105 [mcsparra@umich.edu] The empirical base oflinguistics: Grammaticalityjudgments and linguistic methodology . By Carson T. Schütze. Chicago & London: University ofChicago Press, 1996. Pp. xv, 237. Reviewed by Benji Wald, University of California, Los Angeles The purpose of this informative and constructive critique of linguistic methodology is to develop carefully controlled psycholinguistic experimentation as one avenue...