- Bibliography of Slavic linguistics: 2000–2014 ed. by Sijmen Tol and René Genis
The Bibliography of Slavic linguistics: 2000–2014 is a comprehensive guide to finding anything and everything ever published on a particular topic pertaining to Slavic linguistics within this fifteen-year period. Editors Sijmen Tol, coordinator of the Linguistic Bibliography project at Brill, and René Genis, Ekaterina Bobyleva, and Eline van der Veken, all members of the Linguistic Bibliography team, have ample experience in compiling bibliographies—experience that is displayed on every page of this work. With close to 68,000 entries, the Bibliography covers the Slavic languages from Common Slavic and Old Church Slavic to each of the standard modern languages, as well as less-commonly studied languages such as Kashubian, Pomeranian, Polabian, Sorbian, and Rusyn. Many of the standard languages are divided into works on old, middle, and modern varieties. The table of contents is initially sorted by language family, then individual language, and finally subdivided into individual fields of study, from general topics through the history of the language and historical linguistics, phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, semiotics, applied linguistics, stylistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, sociolinguistics, computational linguistics, corpus linguistics, translation studies, typology, and many more. This three-volume set of over 3,600 pages includes research conducted in over thirty publication languages, such as (but not limited to) Albanian, Dutch, English, Finnish, German, Modern Greek, Hungarian, and Japanese in addition to the Slavic languages.
The introduction by Marc L. Greenberg reviews the origins of the field of Slavic linguistics, through the multitude of changes that have occurred over the past couple of decades with increased accessibility to research and information. In the current post-Soviet context in which student enrollments and funding have dwindled, Greenberg paints a promising picture of future trajectories for research with the growth of Internet-based corpora, including a list of all Slavic national corpora, and searchable historical databases, including access to Birchbark letters, the Freising Folia, the Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij atlas, the Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov, and Vasmer’s Ètimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. This increased access to information is complemented by a number of conferences promoting international cooperation [End Page 399] and exchange of research, such as the Slavic Linguistics Society, Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, the International Workshop on Balto-Slavic Accentology, the Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Association, and the International Congress of Slavists, among others.1 Greenberg gives special attention to the Slavic Linguistics Society with its all-inclusive mission statement, noting the society’s diverse modes of research as well as its geographically diverse researchers. Greenberg also points to new prospects of research in cooperation with fields beyond Slavic linguistics, such as general linguistics, history, archaeology, and genomics, for the study of Slavic diachronic geolinguistics, mentioning the debate over whether the vast spread of the Slavic languages was due more to migration, more to the use of Slavic as a lingua franca, or a combination of the two. Greenberg is pragmatic about the future of the field, citing the separate Russian rating system of journals,2 and the evolving and increasingly important role of journal-impact factors and Hirsch-index measurements for our relatively small field and the limitations that these relationships create on Slavic linguistic scholarship internationally. However, he also recognizes the greater exchange of information and research through open-access publications, websites like Academia.edu, and various linguistically sophisticated blogs authored by scholars. This greater flow of research through digital access does not necessarily help scholars seeking tenure in an increasingly competitive job market, and it may not encourage institutions to broaden—or, sadly, even maintain—Slavic departments, but for scholarship in general the new access keeps the field vibrant and continually engaged. This is evidenced by the massive work under review.
A work of this magnitude if not carefully organized could have expanded to many more volumes than the present three. The Bibliography is meticulously organized and...