Morphology at the interfaces: Reduplication and noun incorporation in Uto-Aztecan. By Jason D. Haugen. (Linguistics today 117.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. Pp. xv, 257. ISBN 9789027255006. $165.
Reviewed by Alexandra Galani, University of Ioannina

Jason D. Haugen discusses reduplication, noun incorporation, and related derivational morphological phenomena based on comparative data from the Uto-Aztecan language family. The data aim to shed further light on issues related to the morphology-phonology interface (reduplication) and the morphology-syntax interface (noun incorporation). The theoretical claims are made within distributed morphology. H also discusses polysynthesis as a new parameter that contributes toward an analysis of the historical development of the Uto-Aztecan language family.

The book is divided into four parts (nine chapters) in addition to the preface (ix–x), the introduction (xi–xv), the references section (231–49), and the language (251–53) and subject indices (255–57).
Part 1, ‘Background’, consists of two chapters. In Ch. 1 (1–16), H offers information about the Uto-Aztecan language family classification and an overview of certain aspects related to word order, sentence structure, and subject and object clitics in Uto-Aztecan. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion on the origins of the Uto-Aztecan community. In Ch. 2 (17–32), accounts that are related to syntactic variation are presented before moving to a sketch of the principles of distributed morphology, which are adopted in this work in order to explain morphosyntactic reconstruction.

Part 2 (33–86) discusses prosodic morphology and consists of two chapters. In Ch. 3 (33–67), H explores reduplication patterns in comparative Uto-Aztecan data (Yaqui, Mayo, Guarijio, Nahuatl, Numic, Tepecano, and Tohono O’odham). He considers reduplicative morphemes to be prosodic pieces, and in Ch. 4 (69–86), he theoretically accounts for them within distributed morphology.

Part 3, ‘Derivational morphology’, consists of three chapters. In Ch. 5 (87–115), data on denominal verbs and noun incorporation into verb structures from Hopi are presented in order to support the view that noun incorporation and denominal verb formation should not be seen as two different kinds of morphological processes. This view is further supported in Ch. 6 (117–62) with data from Comanche, Cupeno, Hopi, Tohono O’oldam, Yaqui, and Nahuatl. In Ch. 7 (163–204), H theoretically accounts for the empirical data presented in Ch. 6. He takes a syntactic view on word formation where head-movement and merge are the main operations to apply.

Part 4, ‘Change in morphological type’, consists of two chapters. In Ch. 8 (205–27), H discusses the diachronic development of polysynthesis in Nahuatl. The book concludes in Ch. 9 (229–30) with an overview of the main points discussed in each chapter.

This is an interesting book on the interfaces of morphology with syntax and with phonology. The interested reader can easily follow the empirical data as well as the theoretical discussions. It nicely presents relevant literature reviews, and the author manages to connect comparative data with theoretical analyses from a diachronic and a synchronic point of view.

Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. By Karen Sullivan. (Constructional approaches to language 14.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2013. Pp.vii, 184. ISBN 9789027204363. $135 (Hb).
Reviewed by Zhen-qiang Fan, Zhejiang Gongshang University

Since the 1970s, more and more scholars have approached metaphor from a cognitive perspective. While stressing their conceptual nature, these researchers, in one way or another, neglect other aspects of metaphors. In recent years, many researchers investigating metaphor have started to adopt a discourse-based method, emphasizing the essential role of social and conversational context in processing, interpreting, recognizing, and appreciating metaphors. However, so far few have built a model which gives due attention to the workings of metaphoric language. Aiming to fill this gap, Karen Sullivan ‘integrates insights from Construction Grammar with those of Cognitive Grammar, Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Frame semantics, bringing these together into a new account of metaphoric language’ (4).

The book contains ten chapters, including an introduction and conclusion, a list of references, primary sources, and indices. The introduction, ‘Metaphoric language and metaphoric thought’ (1–16), critically evaluates existing studies on metaphoric language. It also presents the objectives and overview of the entire book. In Ch. 2, ‘Frames in metaphor and meaning’ (17–33), S introduces two important notions from cognitive linguistics (CL), frame theory in cognitive semantics and autonomy/dependence in cognitive grammar, adapting them to suit the analysis of metaphoric language. Ch. 3, ‘Frames and lexical choice in metaphor’ (35–48), demonstrates how frames evoked by a lexical item’s non-metaphorical senses can help to determine which items are chosen to express a given conceptual metaphor.

Ch. 4, ‘Frames in metonymic inferencing’ (49–61), illustrates the effectiveness of frames and constructions in distinguishing metaphor from other figurative language such as metonymy. It is argued that metonymic inferencing requires specific constructional contexts that allow for ambiguity while the constructions involved in metaphor are adopted in ways that avoid ambiguity and ensure a metaphoric interpretation.

The remaining chapters of the book (Chs. 5–9) offer a more detailed illustration of the new model proposed by analyzing a series of grammatical constructions. Ch. 5, ‘Two types of adjective construction in metaphor’(63–86), focuses on domain constructions and predicating modifier constructions, while Ch. 6, ‘Argument structure constructions in metaphor’(87–114), concentrates on argument structure constructions, such as resultatives, ditransitives, and uses of the copula. Ch. 7 scrutinizes ‘Metaphoric preposition phrases and closed-class items’ (115–30), and Ch. 8, ‘Repeated domain evocation and xyz constructions’ (131–48), investigates constructions which combine two or more of those from Chs. 5–7. Finally, Ch. 9, ‘Metaphoric constructions beyond the clause’(149–66), further examines some larger metaphor-evoking structures, including relative clauses and conditional constructions, as well as other complex structures such as parallelism and negation of the literal. Ch. 10, ‘Conclusion’ (167–72), presents the significance and limitations of the research.

This book shows the cross-fertilization among several existent theories within CL by creating a unified and coherent model that is capable of explaining both metaphoric and non-metaphoric language. The book should be of interest to anyone interested in CL and metaphor in particular. Future studies could consider extending the model to cover more metaphor-evoking constructions and analyze linguistic data from languages other than English.

Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. By Patrick Hanks. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2013. Pp. xv, 462. ISBN 9780262018579. $60 (Hb).
Reviewed by Zhen-qiang Fan, Zhejiang Gongshang University

Based on authentic word usage from large corpora and other texts, Patrick Hanks proposes a lexically based, corpus-driven, bottom-up theory of language called the theory of norms and exploitations (TNE), which is expected to help explain how words go together in collocation patterns and how people use words to convey meaning.

Ch.1 points out the need for a theory of norms and exploitations for the empirical analysis of meaning in language and presents the aims of the book. Ch. 2 takes a closer look at the various meanings of the term ‘word’. This chapter also explains the dynamic and infinite nature of the lexicon of a language and how new terms are constantly being created. Ch. 3 argues that words in isolation, instead of having meaning, only have meaning potential. Actual meanings only appear when people use words in specific context, whether verbal or situational.

Ch. 4 illustrates how Paul Grice’s conversational cooperation theory can help distinguish meaning-as-events and meaning potential. He distinguishes between ‘norms’ and ‘exploitations’: the former refers to patterns of ordinary usage in everyday language while the latter denotes the unusual and creative uses. Ch. 5 demonstrates the effectiveness of identifying normal complementation patterns by corpus analysis in terms of valency and lexical sets for determining a word’s meaning.

Ch. 6 addresses the issue of norms of usage change over time on the basis of large historical corpora. H emphasizes that when appreciating literary works from different periods, it is important to bear in mind the different norms of the time. Ch.7 discusses the alternation of three regular patterns of usage in language: lexical alternations, semantic-type alternations, and syntactic alternations.

Ch. 8 is concerned with exploitation, which is a dynamic mechanism used to create new meanings and to say old things in new ways. Moreover, exploitation is also one mechanism for bringing new senses to a word. Various types of exploitations are also introduced in this chapter. In Ch. 9, H analyzes a few examples of how creative writers have exploited lexical and other norms of the English language and created new ones.

Ch. 10 elaborates on how the normal, conventional patterns of meaning and use of a word constitute a complex meaning gestalt, and how such gestalt is exploited in various ways. Ch. 11 explains how TNE is related to the philosophy of language and anthropology, citing the works of
language philosophers like Aristotle, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hilary Putnam, and Paul Grice, and the ideas of anthropologists such as Bronisław Malinowski, Elenore Rosch, and Michael Tomasello. Ch. 12 discusses how TNE differs from other theories of language concerning the role of the lexicon, and finally, Ch. 13 summarizes the key notions of TNE, pointing out its theoretical significance and practical applications.

The book is of great interest for those who want to engage in empirical research in language-related areas such as cognitive linguistics, historical linguistics, computational linguistics, corpus linguistics, machine translation, and applied linguistics. It also has practical value for lexicographers, language teachers, and those involved in textbook compilation.

Morphology and language history: In honour of Harold Koch. Ed. by Claire Bowern, Bethwyn Evans, and Luisa Miceli. (Current issues in linguistic theory 298.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. Pp. x, 364. ISBN 9789027248145. $173 (Hb).
Reviewed by Alexandra Galani, University of Ioannina

Claire Bowern, Bethwyn Evans, and Luisa Miceli put together a collection of twenty-five papers which discuss the various methods used when studying historical morphology. Part 1(‘Genetic relatedness’) opens with Barry Alpher, Geoffrey O’Grady, and Claire Bowern, who bring evidence for the development of Western Torres Strait, whereas Peter Austin investigates the classification of Pinikura. Mark Donohue shows that bound pronominals can also be used as a classification criterion in West Papuan languages, and Margaret Sharpe explains that unsolved morphophonological phenomena prevent researchers from fully supporting the relatedness of Alawa, Mara, and Warndarang. Jane Simpson reconstructs pronominals in Warumungu and compares them to the corresponding forms in neighboring languages as evidence towards the language’s genetic position.

In Part 2 (‘Reconstruction’), Avery Andrews shows how one may use historical morphology to support synchronic morphological theories based on Greek data, whereas Jay H. Jasanoff discusses the reconstruction of the Ancient Greek verb σβέννυμι. Paul Black investigates the pronominal system in Pama-Nyungan languages, and William B. McGregor in his chapter, ‘The origin of noun classes in Worrorran languages’, supports language family classification. John Giacon examines verb specification morphemes in Gamilaraay not only to shed light on its historical development but also for the purposes of language revival. Mark Harvey looks into the origin of conjugational markers in Australian languages, while Luise Hercus and Stephen Morey offer a historical investigation of negatives in Southeastern Australian languages. H. Craig Melchert offers a semantic reconstruction of the adverb duwān in Hittite, and David Nash reconstructs monomorphemic verb roots in Warlpiri, whereas Phil Rose looks at tones in Oujiang Wu through modern acoustics. Grace Koch and Myfany Turpin investigate the language used in Central Australian Aboriginal songs and conclude that it shows a non-archaic behavior. Luisa Miceli compares two methods of reconstruction (inspectional versus comparative method) using data from Australian languages, and, finally, Paul Sidwell uses a bottom-up method of reconstruction to examine verbal morphology in Mon-Khmer.

In Part 3 (‘Processes of change’), Cathryn Donohue reaches generalizations about the morphological realization of case marking of four-place predicates in Old and New Basque, while Bethwyn Evans treats the development of plural in object marking in Marovo as a morphological zero affected by discourse patterns. Anthony J. Liddicoat and Timothy Jowan Curnow investigate the morphological development of the perfect in Jersey Norman French, and Patrick McConvell deals with the reconstruction of kinship affixation patterns in Pama-Nyungan languages. Kim Schulte investigates reconstruction of the plural morphology in Romanian, and following that, John Charles Smith discusses the refunctionalization of first-person plural inflection in Tiwi. Finally, Xiaonong Zhu examines the historical change of chain vowel raising in Chinese.

The book is well organized and coherent. It presents various techniques employed by researchers working on historical morphology. Its strongest advantage is that a wide range of crosslinguistic morphological phenomena, analyses, and theoretical questions are all addressed in a single book.

Mongolian. By Juha A. Janhunen. (London Oriental and African language library 19.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012. Pp. xv, 320. ISBN 9789027238207. $165 (Hb).
Reviewed by Mikael Thompson, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

Juha A. Janhunen has written a thorough study of spoken Mongolian. An introductory chapter (1–20) is followed by chapters on segmental structure (21–55), morpheme structure (57–93), nominal morphology (95–141), verbal morphology (143–84), phrasal syntax (185–222), clausal syntax (223–61), and complex sentences (263–89). The end matter includes the transcription of a folk tale (291–96), a short table of paradigms (297–99), an orthographic chart (301–303), a bibliography (305–11), and a grammatical index. (This reviewer read a preliminary version of the first three chapters and provided some data.) There is little to quibble with in any respect; two topics merit comment.

Mongolian is known among phonologists for its system of vowel harmony, which is usually presented as a front-back opposition with i front but transparent. In fact, due to vowel shifts, most Mongolian dialects are better analyzed as having ATR (advanced tongue root) or pharyngeal harmony in reflexes of modern Mongolian simple vowels, and conditioned fronting of former back vowels has left little phonetic basis to Mongolian vowel harmony (78–79). J treats the vowel system well, but his transcription, based on contemporary pronunciation, is counter-intuitive: digraphs indicate both quality and quantity (e.g. the short vowels ü, u, ö,and o, pronounced roughly [u], [o], [ɯ], and [ɔ], are transcribed u, ou, eu, and o; 34). Moreover, as it differs from the standard transcription and that adopted in Svantesson, Tsendina, Karlsson, and Franzén’s The phonology of Mongolian (Oxford University Press, 2005), this makes his data less accessible.

Morphologically, Mongolian is usually presented as having seven cases. In fact, the status of Mongolian case endings as inflectional endings distinct from derivational endings can be challenged. As Mongolian lacks productive agreement, cases must be defined by verbal and postpositional government, and by alternations in pronominal stems. These criteria do not entirely agree. In addition, some derivational suffixes can be productively added after certain case endings. On this point, J’s analysis could be sharpened: while J treats the suffix -x used to make the predicate form of the genitive and the attributive form of the dative-locative as a nominal case marker of sorts (114–17), it is also used to form the attributive of the instrumental, certain postpositions, and certain adverbial verb forms (e.g. tal-aar ‘with respect to’ < tal ‘side’, tölöö ‘for (beneficiary)’, and -tal4 ‘until’ all may take -x), and should better be treated as a derivational suffix indicating the government of a word form. In general, grammatical roles and functions in Mongolian need detailed re-examination; this book provides a good starting point.

Although Mongolian has been the subject of a significant body of research, a study summarizing and analyzing the language as a whole is needed. This book fills that need. The data are reliable, the coverage is comprehensive, and the treatment of unsettled questions is judicious. It is highly recommended to all Mongolists and will interest many other linguists.