Reviewed by Elly van Gelderen, Arizona State University

Lamaholot is a Central Malayo-Polynesian language spoken on several islands of Eastern Indonesia. It is a language with fascinating agreement marking and this grammar is excellent: good descriptions and great glosses.

Lamaholot has over thirty dialects, and some of these have grammars, dictionaries, or both. The Lewoingu variety, however, has never been described before. Typologists as well as morpho-syntacticians will find this book very interesting. The book fills a gap since we have relatively few grammars of languages of eastern Indonesia.

The unmarked word order is subject-verb-object. Pro-drop is not typical in Lamaholot even though the verb has many subject and object markers. Depending on the verb, subject agreement is indicated by prefixes and/or suffixes. Subject pronouns are similar in form to the affixes, suggesting a historical change from pronoun to agreement marker.

There are no transitivity markers on verbs and many verbs can be either transitive or intransitive. Verbs used intransitively may have a suffix, but not verbs used transitively. This is also true for non-inherently reflexive verbs, such as gasik ‘count’, buka ‘open’, and pupu ‘gather’. The authors mention two accounts for the restriction on intransitive verbs. One is that historically there was object marking on verbs and that the suffix on an intransitive verb is a remnant of that object marker. Another is that there are a limited set of optional object markers and that there is only one suffix position on the verb, reserved for objects in the case of transitives.

Apart from the agreement markers that appear on many parts of speech (adjectives, adverbs, numerals, one preposition, and the coordinate conjunction), Lamaholot is fairly analytic. There are serial verbs, periphrastic causatives, auxiliaries, demonstratives, and prepositions. The last chapters of the book discuss questions, clefts, relatives, resumptive pronouns, and reflexives, building on some generative work. A well-glossed text is included. In short, this is an excellent book accessible to a wide audience.

Reviewed by Elly van Gelderen, Arizona State University

Newar is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken mainly in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal but also outside that area. The variety of Newar spoken in the village of Dolakha, referred to as Dolakha Newar or Dolokhae, is mutually unintelligible with the Kathmandu varieties. This book is the result of twenty years of work and that shows in the amazing depth of analysis and typological insight.

Carol Genetti’s introduction discusses the position of Newar within the Tibeto-Burman language family, its dialects and history, and its position as a national language vis a vis Nepali, the official language. Despite its changed status, there are many concerns about the viability of Newar in an increasingly global culture (12).

Dolakhae is verb-final (with an unmarked subject-object-verb order), with postpositions, ergative/absolutive case marking, and an intriguing system of embedding. The terminology used is as theory-neutral as possible (26) even if the framework is functional-typological. The data were gathered mainly from five trilingual (English, Dolakha Newar, and Nepali) speakers and through recorded narratives, conversations, and songs.

Chs. 2 and 3 cover the segmental phonetics, phonology, and prosody of Dolakhae. Chs. 4 and 5 analyze nouns and pronouns. Nouns are marked by clitics for number, case, and individuation/extension. Case is marked primarily through ergative and dative case on nominal heads (absolutive being unmarked) and NP-internally through genitive and allative. G argues in detail and convincingly that the plural is in between an affix and clitic (97), and that case is between clitic and postposition (103). Extension and individuation are marked either through clitics (as in the case of nouns) or through particles. This is discussed more extensively in Ch. 10.

Chs. 6 through 9 describe verbs, adjectivals, quantifiers, and adverbials. Ch. 11 is a short chapter on the structure of the NP and Ch. 12 on clause types. Here, copular, verbless, intransitives, dative-experiencers, transitive clauses, and ditransitive clauses are discussed. Chs. 13 and 14 cover grammatical relations and word order. Causatives (using a suffix -ker), non-declaratives (e.g. the sentence-final interrogative -ra), reflexives, negation (using a verbal affix -ma), and comparison are discussed in Ch. 15. Tense and aspect are reviewed in Ch. 16.

Data on embedding are provided in Chs. 17 through 21. Nominalizations, typical of Tibeto-Burman, create dependent clauses to become nominal modifiers and complements. Verbal complements are sometimes used in non-embedded constructions, possibly to mark focus (401). There is a limited use of infinitives. However, the ‘most important [is the] participial construction’ (428), more correctly labeled as converb. G claims that there are no constraints on this construction apart from ordering, and considers the lack of constraints on e.g. the scopes of negation, anaphora, and control to be noteworthy (446). The appendices provide lists of affixes, words, and a glossed text.

In conclusion, this is a very rich grammar, helpful and accessible to a wide range of readers, full of examples with very useful glosses.

Reviewed by Elly van Gelderen, Arizona State University

Warihío is a Uto-Aztecan language of the Taracahitic branch of Sonoran. Rolando Félix Armendáriz has done extensive field work on one dialect of Warihío, River Warihío, and the related Yaqui.

The grammar consists of a short sketch of the sound system (5–13), the word classes (14–40), the noun phrase (41–47), relative clauses (48–52), the simple sentence (53–105), negatives (106–11), voice and valency (112–50), complex sentences (151–81), and a typological perspective (182–89). There are uncountable example sentences with excellent glosses but no glossed full text. The book is couched in a (mild) functionalist framework.

Of particular interest is the fact that the language has no case marking on arguments (nouns and pronouns) and has a relatively free word order. Most non-core argument roles are marked by postpositions. In ambiguous sentences with more than one participant, however, the Agent comes first (79), and the subject may be marked on the verb.

The subject is marked as either a free noun or pronoun, as in neé umá-re tapaná ‘I ran yesterday’ (62), or as a clitic on the verb, as in yau-rú=ne tapaná ‘I danced yesterday’ (78). As in other Uto-Aztecan languages, these clitic and pronoun forms seem to be related, with the clitic a more grammaticalized form. As the answer to a question in which the first person would be the new information, the free pronoun is chosen as in the first example so as to come first in general focus, whereas the clitic in the second example would not be licit.

Non-subject pronouns are free, except for one bound first person singular form (29; 76), and typically occur before the verb. There are interesting differences with Yaqui in that the third person object pronouns can be dependent forms (Lilián Guerrero, The structure and function on Yaqui complementation, Munich: LINCOM Europa, 2006) but not first and second person.

Many other suffixes occur, to indicate mood, tense and aspect, valency, and embedding, as well as purposive and desiderative. In the conclusion, there is a short discussion of the relationship between culture and language (188–89) in which the small size of the typical Warihío community is linked to the lack of participant marking. I would have liked more evidence of this since it seems to shape A’s description, e.g. in emphasizing the free word order and lack of argument role marking.

Reviewed by Sarah Turner, University of Waterloo

In this book on the history of Russian, Ian Press offers sample responses to questions set in undergraduate examinations at the University of London in the 1960s and in 1970. Whereas A history of the Russian language and its speakers (Munich: LINCOM Europa, 2007) gave a broad overview of the development of Russian, this volume focuses on specific topics central to that subject. Some questions are formulated in general terms (e.g. ‘Write notes on the relationship to Common Slavonic of the nominal declension in Modern Russian’), while others ask for commentaries on particular words of linguistic interest.

The topics are arranged into four subsections: ‘General topics’ (3–30), which include sections on borrowings and the role of Church Slavonic, ‘Phonology’ (31–58), ‘Morphology’ (59– 77), which includes some discussion of syntax, and ‘Dialects’ (78–87). The responses take the form of ordered notes, intended, as P states in his introduction, as ‘a guideline to data of the sort the answer might include’ (1). The text is rich in examples from modern and pre-modern Russian, as well as from other languages where relevant. The discursive parts of the responses hint at the linguistic controversies that lie behind some of the material presented, but presumably in keeping with his conception of his target audience, P generally does not explain or explore them at any length. An engaged student who has not had the benefit of a lecture or seminar on a particular subject may regret the absence of references to works where a fuller account of the issue can be found.

The nature of the project means that repetition of the same material in response to different questions is inevitable, and sometimes this repetition is welcome when points that are treated cursorily in one section are expanded upon elsewhere. P retains the informal writing style of his 2007 book. Although at first sight this approach makes his book more accessible than the average book in the field, as in his earlier work, there are instances when the clarity of the exposition is compromised.

The appendices on the sounds and forms of Russian (89–104) repeat in a systematized manner much of the information contained in the phonology and morphology sections, offering in addition a more extensive overview of Old Church Slavonic (104–24) than is available from the main text of the book.

The bibliography (125–29) lists many major studies of the history of the language, as well as important works on a wide range of more specific topics. It will be a valuable resource to any student in the field, and particularly to one who is already able to read scholarly writing in Russian. P’s book as a whole will be a helpful revision aid for the well-prepared student.

Reviewed by Tommi Leung, United Arab Emirates University

The blurb on the back cover states that the pursuit of linguistic universals ‘is a fundamental goal of linguistic research’. This volume attempts to ‘bring[s] together a team of leading experts to show how different linguistic theories have approached this challenge’ (i). The eight chapters are written by experts in the areas of typology, syntax, phonetics, morphology, semantics, and language change, with the purpose of suggesting how diverse approaches toward language can finally hinge on the universals of language. Ricardo Mairal and Juana Gil introduce the chapters by summarizing the chronology of the entanglement between the formal and functional approaches to universals, within and outside the realm of linguistic study.

In ‘Linguistic typology’ (46–66), Kees Hengeeveld discusses the contribution of typology to linguistic universals. In this view universals state restrictions on cross-linguistic variations that typology studies. H focuses primarily on how implicational hierarchies, a major achievement in the functional approach to linguistics, are exemplified in phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics.

Cedric Boeckx presents a standard formalist approach to language universals in his chapter, ‘Universals in a generative setting’ (67–79), arguing that linguistic universals follow from the general principles underlying the language acquisition device posited in Chomskyan generative grammar. The grammatical invariance exhibited by natural languages and speakers’ competence in structural dependency in the absence of primary linguistic data support the view that syntactic knowledge is largely innate.

Ian Maddieson’s chapter, ‘In search of universals’ (80–100), takes a phonetic approach to linguistic universals. The author draws a number of samples and statistics from the UCLA Phonetic Segmental Inventory Database completed in 1984 to claim that phonetic and phonological universals stem from the interaction between mechanical (i.e. physical limits on articulatory gestures) and ecological (i.e. selection within the range of possibilities of articulation) factors.

In ‘Morphological universals’ (101–29), Andrew Spencer argues strongly against the possibility of morphological universals, primarily because the concept of the morpheme is merely a crude approximation: the formatives and operations that constitute a morphological theory, such as morphemes, lexemes, derivation, and inflection, are largely ill-defined and thus only language-specific notions of word-hood are possible.

Bernard Comrie stresses the value of linguistic research from a typological point of view in his chapter ‘Syntactic typology’ (130–54). Through a typological survey of relative clause constructions in various European languages, he points out that linguists need to justify linguistic hypotheses across a good sample of languages, most genetically and areally unrelated. While typologists do not need to follow generativists in producing a highly abstract analysis serving to describe counterexamples, they certainly need to go beyond mere observation and strive for a more general and adequate account of linguistic variation.

‘Some universals of verb semantics’ (155–178) by Robert D. Van Valin elaborates a fundamental set of Aktionart distinctions informing the verb systems of all languages and a system of semantic representation to capture these distinctions, which he then tests against a wide range of languages.

In sharp contrast to previous sections, Joan Bybee concludes the volume with ‘Language change and universals’ (179–194) by arguing that the true universals of language are the de facto mechanisms of change that create synchronic patterns, an idea originated in Joseph Greenberg’s diachronic typology. She criticizes the generative approach to universals, in particular the innateness of grammar, as precluding the possibility of further explanation.

Reviewed by Karen Steffen Chung, National Taiwan University

Quechua has an estimated ten million speakers scattered across Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, and Chile. Perhaps the most representative point of contention is how to design an orthographic system that will aid in the literacy development of Quechua speakers. In developing an orthography for Quechua, one of the issues that arises is how many vowels should be given a separate symbol: three /a, i, u/ or five /a, e, i, o, u/. Exposition of the thinking behind each side of the argument is one of the main attractions of this book since similar issues appear with many other languages.

One factor to consider when making this choice is that Quechua is not a single language but a collection of diverse dialects. Some claim that [e] and [o] are only allophones of /i/ and /u/ and should not be assigned separate symbols. W, however, demonstrates that all five vowels do in fact exist as separate phonemes in some varieties of Quechua, further pointing out that the rarity of /e/ and /o/ is related to the merging of /q/ and /k/ in some dialects. W challenges the appropriateness of using a deep orthography which incorporates a number of etymological and morphophonemic forms (as is the case with the three vowel scheme) and would thus be accessible to only a small élite. Using a more phonemic orthography would impose less of a processing burden on new learners. Many Quechua speakers are already not very supportive of learning to write their lower-prestige home language, believing that it can hinder learning to read in Spanish, the prestige language. Use of a deep orthography would make literacy education all the more arduous and unpopular.

From this perspective, W develops his main argument in which he advocates the adoption of a Spanish-based orthography for Quechua. This involves, for example, choosing ‘j’ over ‘h’. Although the Quechua sound is not a fricative, Quechua speakers know that ‘h’ is silent in Spanish. Therefore, by using the familiar ‘j’, Quechua speakers can arrive at the Quechua sound [h] more intuitively, thus lightening their learning burden.

The book also explores the question of whether there could be a monolithic variety of Quechua, and concludes that recognition of dialect differences in the orthography must come before people can aspire to a unified and standardized written form of Quechua. Potential learners would be unable to identify with an artificial or composite variety of Quechua and would only be further discouraged from learning it. This argument is actually another aspect of the deep orthography question.

Quoting the Spanish proverb, Lo perfecto es el enemigo del bueno ‘Perfect is the enemy of good’, W supports lexical borrowing over coinage. Purism, he claims, can in fact accelerate language death.

One worthwhile message that can be taken from this book is that pragmatism should come before ideology. Cultures and languages, including minority and endangered ones, can win in the process. Although this book appears at first glance to be a highly esoteric one with a limited potential readership, it is a strong candidate for use in a general linguistics class or any number of specialized courses, such as ones on writing systems, phonemic transcription, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, bilingual education, language planning, or even an English composition course stressing argumentation.

Reviewed by Karen Steffen Chung, National Taiwan University

This book is an edited collection of papers presented at an Autumn 2002 conference held at the University of Bremen that asked the question, ‘How can language cope with color and smell?’ It contains thirteen unnumbered chapters, with the first serving as an overview of the entire volume. It is a groundbreaking work in that while quite a bit has been written on color, little attention has thus far been paid in linguistics to the language of scents and odors.

Some papers in this collection focus on the particular relationship between language and smells. One possible explanation for why this relationship tends to be ignored is because smells are analyzed directly by the brain’s limbic system before being processed by the neocortex, especially in the right hemisphere (7). In the chapter titled ‘Odor memory: The unique nature of a memory system’(155–65), Gesualdo M. Zucco explains how this input is then saved directly as emotional memories, which unlike linguistic memories do not seem to deteriorate at all over time. Perhaps then it is not surprising that there tend to be few standardized, precise adjectives to describe smells. Peter Holz in ‘Cognition, olfaction and linguistic creativity: Linguistic synesthesia as poetic device in cologne advertisement’ (185–202) writes that one can refer to smells hedonistically (e.g. pleasant), iconically (e.g. it smells like peppermint), indexically (e.g. it smells burnt), or metaphorically (e.g. your perfume smells hot). Scent descriptions must often rely heavily on linguistic synesthesia and poetic means (e.g. fresh, flowery, spicy). This poverty of a vocabulary of olfaction seems to be nearly universal in human languages, something Volker Heeschen verified in ‘Attractiveness and adornment: Reference to colors and smells in Papuan speech communities’ (85–111).

Some papers in this collection address more general issues relating to how colors are perceived.. Wolfgang Wildgen in ‘Color, smell, and language: The semiotic nature of perception and language’ (19–34) describes the differences between experts and non-experts in perceiving and describing color. ‘How can language cope with color? Functional aspects of the nervous system’ (35–60) by Manfred Fahle examines the phenomenon of perception constancy: how colors are perceived to be the same despite appearing very different in changing light. Martina Plümacher analyzes how the relational ordering of colors according to hue, brightness, and saturation enables speakers to differentiate colors and shades linguistically in ‘Color perception, color description and metaphor’ (61–84). Andrea Graumann’s chapter, ‘Color names and dynamic imagery’ (129–40), examines color naming in automobile advertising. More specifically, she points out how complex names such as imola red enhance a product’s allure through potent mental associations, in this case with Formula One racing. In ‘Color terms between elegance and beauty: The verbalization of color with textiles and cosmetics’ (113–28), Siegfried Wyler finds that textiles and cosmetics are seldom described as red or yellow. Instead, color names tend to be taken from objects in the external world, e.g. light pistachio and Café Latte. Susanne Niemeier in ‘From blue stockings to blue movies: Color metonymies in English’ (141–54) notes the importance in foreign language learning of understanding color metonymies and other meaning extensions, such as blue moon and blue murder. In her paper ‘From psychophysics to semiophysics: Categories as acts of meaning. A case study from olfaction and audition, back to colors’ (167–84), Danièle Dubois attempts to establish linguistic categories of color and olfaction. Yoshikata Shibuya, Hajime Nozawa, and Toshiyuki Kanamaru construct a physiological and psychological model of synesthetic expressions such as warm color in ‘Understanding synesthetic expressions: Vision and olfaction with the physiological = psychological model’ (203–26). Finally, Tatiana V. Chernigovskaya and Viktor V. Arshavsky in ‘Olfactory and visual processing and verbalization: Cross-cultural and neurosemiotic dimensions’ (227–38) discuss the neurological basis for olfactory and visual preferences governing human behavior, and contrast right- and left-hemispheric sensory processing.

English is not the native language of any of the contributors to this volume, so the writing is dotted with foreign-sounding turns of phrase such as ‘on one side…on the other side’ (57), in addition to a number of minor typographical errors that hopefully will be eliminated from the next edition. For readers with a particular interest in linguistic descriptions of color and smell, this volume is a worthy reference.

Reviewed by Marián Sloboda, Charles University, Prague

Receptive multilingualism is sometimes known by other names, such as polyglot discourse, semicommunication, or passive bilingualism. In this volume, receptive multilingualism refers to both (i) a type of communication in which speakers of different—but usually closely related— languages use their own languages and are able to understand each other more or less well, and (ii) the ability to understand another language without being able to use it for speaking or writing.

It is not surprising that this volume is edited by Europeans. The language policy of the European Union supports the development of receptive linguistic skills as a means of respecting and preserving linguistic diversity while remaining a coherent community. In this vein, several contributors mention receptive multilingualism in Germanic, Romance, or Slavic languages as an alternative to using English as a lingua franca. Moreover, research into receptive multilingualism has had a long tradition in Europe, especially in the Scandinavian countries in which mutually intelligible Germanic languages have been widely used for centuries.

An asset of this volume is that it examines receptive multilingualism on five dimensions: (i) its historical aspects (two contributions), (ii) its roles as a discursive or communicative phenomenon (six contributions), (iii) the testing of mutual understanding in closely related languages (two contributions), (iv) analyses of linguistic and cognitive preconditions for written receptive multilingualism (three contributions), and (v) didactic aspects (one contribution as well as parts of several others).

One shortcoming of this volume is that its focus may be too broad: the relevance of two papers is not entirely clear. Nicole Baumgarten and Juliane House’s ‘Speaker stances in native and non-native English conversation: I + verb constructions’ is only indirectly related to receptive multilingualism. It lists types of I plus verb constructions in English conversations by native and nonnative speakers of English. Rosita Schjerve–Rindler and Eva Vetter deal with multilingualism in the Habsburg Empire in ‘Linguistic diversity in Habsburg Austria as a model for modern European language policy’. They explicitly note their lack of information on receptive multilingualism in the Habsburg Empire. Although an interesting chapter in itself, it is unclear why this paper is part of this volume. Nevertheless, many of the other contributions provide rich insight into the multifaceted phenomenon of receptive multilingualism.

This volume highlights the relevance of receptive multilingualism for language policy and learning. Despite its title, the contributors limit their discussion to Germanic languages and German-French communication in Switzerland, although receptive multilingualism has also been observed in Romance, Slavic, and some South African (e.g. Nguni) languages. However, the methods and results presented here are generalizable to other language groups.

Reviewed by Taras Shmiher, Ivan Franko National University, Ukraine

The Annual review of cognitive linguistics has been published under the patronage of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association since 2003. The fourth collection contains eight articles, two interviews, and one review.

On the basis of an in-depth analysis of eleven functionalist, cognitive, and constructionist models, Francisco Gonzálvez-García and Christopher S. Butler, ‘Mapping functional-cognitive space’ (39–96), attempt to clarify the ontological correlation between functionalism and cognitivism. In ‘Introspection and cognitive linguistics: Should we trust our own intuitions?’ (135–51), Raymond W. Gibbs verifies how introspective analyses of language and thought reflect the ways ordinary people think and use language.

In Honesto Herrera-Soler’s ‘Conceptual metaphor in press headlines on globalisation’ (1–20), conceptual metaphors and metonymies of the globalization discourse are explored in headlines of Spanish and British newspapers. Marisol Velasco-Sacristán and Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera, ‘Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume’ (217–52), concentrate on nonverbal manifestations of metaphors, uncovering the covert communication of advertising.

In ‘Constructions with get: How to get the picture without getting confused’ (21–37), Stéphanie Bonnefille shows how language and action are interrelated and to what extent syntax is constrained by kinesthetic scenarios and force dynamics. Cristiano Broccias, ‘The construal of simultaneity in English with special reference to as-clauses’ (97–133), focuses on as-clauses (in contrast to while-clauses), investigating how simultaneity between two events—a main clause event and a subordinate clause event—is encoded in English.

Seana Coulson and Esther Pascual, ‘For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending’ (153–81), study how framing in situated persuasive discourse interacts with conceptual integration (i.e. blending) on the samples of prenatal and postmortem blends in pro-life rhetoric and judicial argumentation. Teresa Cadierno and Lucas Ruiz’s ‘Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition’ (183–216) discusses the methods of researching how adult language learners express motion events in a foreign language. They hypothesize that the influence of the native-tongue thinking for speaking patterns might be stronger at the initial and intermediate stages but gradually disappears as the acquisition process advances.

Each paper contains its own rich bibliography. The volume also contains interviews in which Leonard Talmy (questioned by Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano) and John Taylor (questioned by Nick Ascroft) discuss controversial ideas of cognitive linguistics. Finally, Joseph Hilferty’s review of Teresa Vallès’s monograph ‘La creativitat lèxica en un model basat en l’ús (Una aproximació cognitiva a la neologia i la productivitat)’  (Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia Montserrat, 2004) closes the book.

Reviewed by Taras Shmiher, Ivan Franko National University, Ukraine

This contribution to translation criticism describes a systematic and objective approach to the contrastive analysis of source and target texts. Leaving aside the translator’s competence, method, and system, the author focuses on the assessment of translation quality. Stated in Ch. 1, the main objective of this study is to establish a broad and flexible model of evaluation and assessment criteria that allows for slight modifications in each specific case to account for a variety of texts and their characteristics.

Ch. 2 discusses the ontological fundamentals of translation criticism, such as contacts with language- and literature-oriented disciplines and the principles of a macroevaluation of a translation as a whole. A model of analysis and evaluation should include four phases: (i) a study of the target text; (ii) a study of the source text; (iii) comparing and contrasting the texts; and (iv) the evaluation, which should implement criteria to assess the texts from an objective viewpoint. Comparative stylistics provides criteria for uncovering shifts and deviations that are obligatory (i.e. rule-governed or influenced by the target-text culture) or nonobligatory (i.e. norm-governed or decided by a translator). The evaluation is intended to define the degree of necessity of these deviations on the structural (i.e microtextual) and sequential (i.e macrotextual) levels. The approach to resolve the dichotomy between the subjectivity of judgement and the need for objectivity includes the principle that axiological criteria must be formulated empirically in the analysis of a particular text, covering all its characteristics. The author suggests that the assessment of literary texts should be grounded on the consideration of their text-types, functions, historical factors, coherence, and cohesion as well as the purpose, acceptability, and intertextuality of target texts.

Ch. 3 focuses on the corpus selection and examination. The study covers seventeen translations of the Spanish picaresque novel El Lazarillo de Tormes, published from the sixteenth through the twenty-first century. Particular attention is paid to the first English translation by David Rowland in 1586. Translation shifts or units for analysis are summarized in ten categories: expansion, reduction, modulation, calque, adaptation, transposition, paronomasia (puns), antithesis, idioms and sayings, and mistakes.

Ch. 4 is dedicated to the analysis of Rowland’s translation following the elaborated scheme. Ch. 5 summarizes this translation with elements of statistical analysis and theoretical interpretation. The author also exemplifies the development of translation practice and norms from the sixteenth through the twenty-first century through the comparison of other English translations of El Lazarillo de Tormes.

This book closes with references and two appendices (footnotes from Rowland’s translation and graphical statistical schemes). It will be a good resource for those interested in translation criticism.