Reviewed by Reda A. H. Mahmoud, Minya University, Egypt

Intonation in the grammar of English is primarily concerned with English as an integrated system of four strata: meanings created by the language system, forms matched to those meanings by lexicogrammatical patterns, phonological patterning of these forms, and phonetic substance through which the phonological patterns are uttered and perceived. In terms of systemic functional theory, the authors deal with the intonation system of English as a patterning within the above four consistent strata to achieve three meanings: the textual meaning, interpersonal meaning, and ideational meaning. To describe the intonation system of English in terms of these strata, the book consists of three parts that examine: speech sounds as the phonetic/phonological resources that construct different meanings, the role of intonation in English in relation to textual, interpersonal, and ideational metafunctions, and real spoken texts.

Part 1 introduces different ways of thinking about speech sounds in physical, biological, engineering, and linguistic terms. It also discusses significant technical and experimental approaches to the description and analysis of speech sounds: analysis-through-resynthesis (the Institute for Perception approach), tone and break indices, metrical phonology, and optimality theory. Such modern computer-based techniques of analysis and representation provide accurate information about how intonation contributes to constructing different meanings. The processes in which sound represents meaning and meaning is perceived are presented step by step through graphs and recorded examples on an integrated CD with this book.

Part 2 clarifies how intonation contributes to textual, interpersonal, experiential, and logical meanings. It begins by providing the basic taxonomy of English intonation to show how tonality (the organization of discourse as a successivity of tone units) and tonicity (the organization of each tone unit around a particular point of prominence) create textual meaning. The systematic relation of the tone system with mood and modality systems is discussed to reveal a large network of potential interpersonal meanings. Intonation and the ideational metafunction focuses on experiential and logical components to argue that tone sequences construe logical meanings, while intonation plays no part in the realization of experiential meanings in English. Part 2 concludes with a detailed demonstration of how sound makes meaning through the full analysis of a microtext.

Part 3 to illustrates the four metafunctions of intonation on the semantic and the lexicogrammatical levels, followed by short audio texts with detailed commentary. It is a summary or a checklist of the principal systems of informational grammar and their realization by intonation.

Reviewed by Eitan Grossman, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

This erudite book is a critical historical survey of lexical semantic theories by one of the foremost scholars in the field. The book is divided into five main chapters, an introduction, and a concluding chapter. Each chapter gives a concise presentation of the main concerns, insights, and drawbacks of each tradition, as well as a resumé of further sources.

Ch. 1, ‘Historical-philological semantics’, deals with semantic change. It traces the emergence of this tradition from its origins in speculative etymology, rhetoric, and lexicography, to the pioneering figures of Bréal and Paul. G takes the classification of semantic changes as the hallmark of this tradition and emphasizes its enduring achievements, especially its descriptive and theoretical contributions.

Ch. 2, ‘Structuralist semantics’, is cast as a rejection of historical-philological semantics. The structuralist emphasis on systemic and synchronic aspects of meaning led to a shift from semasiology to onomasiology. The author describes the three main types of structuralist semantics: lexical field theory, componential analysis, and relational semantics. He identifies several problems of structuralist semantics: it downplayed semasiology, it did not do justice to the problem of demarcating linguistic knowledge from encyclopedic knowledge, and it lacked a principled approach to onomasiology.

Ch. 3 discusses generative semantics, which the author sees as continuing the methods of structuralist semantics, especially componential analysis, with a formalist descriptive apparatus (formal logic) and a mentalist conception of language. The chapter focuses on Katzian semantics, briefly treating formal and computational semantics.

Ch. 4, ‘Neostructuralist semantics’ continues structuralist ideas, but takes from generative semantics interests in formalization and in demarcating linguistic knowledge. This chapter, which deals mainly with componential and relational frameworks, is one of the best in the book, as it provides a detailed and critical overview of some of the most prominent theoretical frameworks current today.

The fifth—and longest—chapter is concerned with cognitive semantics, a ‘maximalist’ perspective that focuses on integrating meaning and cognition with semantics and pragmatics. G offers a detailed and illuminating account of the main pillars of cognitive semantics: the prototype model of category structure, the conceptual theory of metaphor and metonymy, idealized cognitive models and frame theory, and language change. He stresses the links between cognitive semantics and earlier traditions, but attributes to the former significant contributions to lexical semantics. The chapter ends with a discussion of where cognitive semantics could be improved.

The concluding chapter summarizes the main points of the book and discusses the interrelationships between the various traditions in a more nuanced way. For example, G describes cognitive semantics as a partial return to the psychological and encyclopedist concerns of the historical-philological tradition. The author’s historical analysis is one of the most enlightening parts of the book.

Theories of lexical semantics is remarkably well-written, well-organized, and highly useful book that succeeds admirably in providing a coherent framework for understanding the issues that connect and distinguish theories of lexical semantics.

Reviewed by Michael W. Morgan, Mumbai, India

Armenian is the only known representative of the Armenian branch of Indo-European. Classical Armenian (Grabar) is documented from the fifth century, and the modern language has two varieties, each with its own literary standard: Western (‘Turkish’) Armenian and Eastern Armenian, the official language of Armenia. Eastern Armenian is the subject of Jasmine Dum-Tragut’s comprehensive reference grammar.

The grammar consists of six chapters. Ch. 1, ‘Phonology’ (13–59), discusses phonotactics, orthography and pronunciation, alternations, and intonation. Armenian has tripartite plosive and affricate series: voiced, voiceless aspirated, and plain (in some dialects glottalized) voiceless, as in Kartvelian, Ossetic, and Kurmanji. Word stress patterns resemble West Oghuz Turkic.

Ch. 2 (60–310) details Armenian morphology. Structurally Armenian is closer to Turkic than Indo-European, with agglutinative noun morphology (stem+plural+case+definite article), possessive suffixes (used also to express agents of non-finite verb forms), and no gender. Armenian has several declension classes and five noun cases: nominative, dative, instrumental, ablative, and locative. In lieu of an accusative case, the dative is used for human and the nominative for non-human direct objects. As the genitive has merged with the dative except for pronouns, the dative has a wide range of adnominal and adverbial usages.

Verbs are classified by semantic, morphological, clause, aspect/Aktionsart, and diathesis type. Armenian has a number of tense-aspect and mood forms based on present and perfect-aorist stems, a rich system of eight non-finite forms, and analytical (participle plus auxiliary) tense forms. The aorist is the only synthetic tense in Armenian. Negation is by prefix.

Syntax is the topic of Ch. 3 (311–644). In addition to pro-drop and nominative case, the subject is also expressed by the dative in the typologically interesting partitive subject construction. Transitivization and detransitivization, simple and complex sentence patterns, and constituent order are discussed in considerable detail. The subsection ‘Special constructions’ (498–554) is of particular interest for typology, presenting a number of innovative syntactic constructions atypical of Indo-European languages.

Ch. 4 (645–82) treats word formation. Armenian has extensive series of productive prefixes and suffixes. It also makes extensive use of compounding and reduplication, including intensive adjectives with Turkic-like reduplication of initial CV with /p/ or /s/ in the coda. Abbreviations, including extremely productive acronyms, clippings, stump compounds, and hypocoristics, are also discussed.

The final two chapters deal with topics traditionally dealt with in pedagogical works. Punctuation is presented in Ch. 5 (683–716). In addition to the various punctuation marks placed at the end of clauses, Armenian also indicates intonation through question, stress, and exclamation marks on the appropriate word/syllable. The short final chapter, ‘Lexicon—Structured semantic fields’ (717–23), presents five semantically-related  lists of color terms, body parts, time expressions, numbers, and kinship terminology. This last is bifurcal-collateral and includes Turkish loans for maternal uncle’s wife and brother, presumably indicating inter-ethnic marriage.

Although this is a grammar of Standard Eastern Armenian, both written and colloquial, frequent reference is made to Classical Armenian and eastern dialectal forms. Copious illustrative examples from an extensive corpus of written and spoken material are found throughout, and all forms and examples are given in both Armenian script and transliteration.

Reviewed by Susan Meredith Burt, Illinois State University

This volume focuses on the sociopragmatics of choosing appropriate terms of address, both nominal and pronominal, in German, French, English, and Swedish. The authors’ team recruited and recorded focus groups of native speakers in several cities for each language, collected questionnaires, and conducted interviews with speakers and members of their social networks on choosing address terms in a variety of situations.

Ch. 1 provides basic information about the address term repertoire of each of the four languages. French, German, and Swedish all have two second person pronouns, a V (as in vous) and a T (as in tu) form; modern standard English dialects lack the distinction, but in common with the other three languages have first names, last names, titles (Doctor, Professor), and what the authors call honorifics, the Ms., Mrs., Miss, and Mr. equivalents. While French and German are somewhat similar in the distribution of T and V, Swedish is presented as more ‘radical’, having changed from ‘high formality’ in address to generalized use of T.

Ch. 2 reviews literature on address terms since 1960, the date of Roger Brown and Albert Gilman’s seminal paper that linked T with a ‘solidarity’ semantic and V with a ‘power’ semantic. Subsequent research has shown this to be somewhat oversimplified; even with only one second-person pronoun (disregarding regional thou and you-plural variants), English address terms offer a variety of choices, from endearments and familiarized first names (Susie), to title-plus-surname and nominal honorifics (Madam). In addition, each of the four languages has its own address form history. Finally, the chapter reviews address forms in terms of politeness, social distance, status or power, style, and identity.

Ch. 3 argues for the ‘need to search beyond static social variables to explain choice of address’ (37). Thus, V is the default address pronoun in French and German, but in Swedish T is expected and V is marked. The goal of the chapter is to explore motivations that prompt less-expected address pronouns and the methods used to move to a T relationship. The factors of age and status are explored for all four languages, and in a section on ‘perceived commonalities’ it is shown how similar backgrounds, interests, attitudes, or affinities can lead to T in French or German despite age or status differences, while perception of social distance or economic status difference can lead Swedish speakers to choose the marked V form.

Ch. 4 argues that address term choices are also a function of domains, and explore address for all four languages in the family, school, university, and workplace, in which issues of signaling social distance or inclusion are primary. In addition, the authors discuss the complexities of address term choice in service transactions, letters, and computer-mediated communication. Ch. 5 explores national variants, such as greater use of T in former East Germany, non-reciprocal address conventions at Viennese universities, use of V in Finland Swedish with younger addressees than in Sweden, and greater use of Sir and Madam in England than in Ireland.

The final chapter offers a model for address term choice designed to reflect the multidimensionality of address phenomena, and a discussion of sociopolitical factors (including language contact) that can change address systems of pluricentric languages. Although the organization of material by subtopic rather than by language is occasionally disconcerting, overall this volume will be of great interest and value to scholars in sociolinguistics, sociopragmatics, politeness, and relational practice.

Reviewed by Eitan Grossman, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

This thematic volume, a Festschrift for Peter Harder, deals with one of the liveliest questions in contemporary linguistics, the nature of the relationship between usage and structure. While the authors work in a variety of frameworks, most adopt a usage-based approach in some form; only one contribution is written from a generative point of view. The studies in this volume reflect the growing acknowledgment of an intermediate position in which structure emerges from usage, which in turn presupposes and is constrained by structure. A common thread is the rejection of the radical ‘emergent grammar’ position that generative critics often take as representative of usage-based approaches as a whole.

Part 1 deals with clausal complementation. Frederick Newmeyer argues that Sandra Thompson’s treatment of complement-taking predicates is untenable and that the facts support a Chomskyan conception of grammar. Arie Verhagen responds to Newmeyer, proposing that the Chomskyan principles of autonomy and abstractness can be explained by a usage-based approach. On the basis of discourse prominence, Kasper Boye distinguishes between raising verbs and auxiliaries.
Part 2 is devoted to the emergence of structure. Ronald Langacker proposes a dynamic conception of structure and critiques ‘emergent grammar’. Lars Heltoft re-integrates the notions of paradigm and paradigmatic structure into usage-based approaches, providing a welcome bridge between structuralist and functionalist thought. Talmy Givón asks ‘Where do simple clauses come from?’ from an ontogenetic and phylogenetic point of view. He proposes that there are two co-existing language processing modes, the ‘grammatical’ and ‘pre-grammatical’, and that multi-word verbal clauses evolved out of one-word non-verbal clauses through the pervasive mechanism of transferring information from context to code.

The papers in Part 3 are concerned with the relationships between structure, usage, and variation. Elisabeth Engberg and Mads Poulsen deal with variation in the agreement (‘trigger-happy agreement’) of predicate adjectives, based on a corpus-based study and a reading-time experiment. They conclude that deviations from subject agreement are probably production errors that might serve as starting points for sociolinguistically or functionally motivated language change.

Dick Geeraerts emphasizes Harder’s recognition of social variation as a contribution to the usage-based model. Based on a study of spoken Dutch, he argues for a variationist model of language, with networks of lectal systems replacing ‘the’ language. J. Lachlan Mackenzie reacts to Harder’s reservations about the integration of processing notions like incrementality into language structure in functional discourse grammar. Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen attempts to reconcile structure and usage. She argues that this can be done by replacing the Saussurean conception of the linguistic sign with a Peircean one, which has the advantage of accounting for variation (and thus language change) by incorporating a pragmatic dimension into the sign itself.

In the final essay, William Croft exposes ‘Ten unwarranted assumptions in syntactic argumentation’ that syntacticians would be better off without.

The editors and authors have done an outstanding job of making a coherent and focused thematic volume with many excellent papers. The book is a fitting tribute and a significant contribution to the ongoing debate about the interrelationship between usage and structure.

Reviewed by Mark J. Elson, University of Virginia

For purposes of review, it is convenient to divide the ten chapters of this book thematically into three groups: the structure and history of American English (including matters of usage); variation within it; and language policy in the United States, including American English as a second language. Although the treatment of language policy is satisfactory (if politicized), there is little attempt at an impartial discussion of language planning as such. The imposition of standard languages is a world-wide phenomenon; its occurrence in the United States requires contextualization, not to excuse or justify the imposition of English, but to make students aware of the phenomenon and its consequences more generally.

In contrast to the treatment of policy, that of structure, history, meaning/usage, and variation is weak, even for an introductory text. The inadequacy is twofold: too little detail and explanation, especially in linguistic theory, to enable the reader to advance to material treating the data in more detail; and too little attention to American English as such, particularly the structural attributes of the standard language, as opposed to other varieties of American English and other standard Englishes. Thus, the discussion of generative grammar (91–97), which the authors oppose to prescriptive and descriptive approaches, is too sparsely presented and out of date to be of pedagogical value. Moreover, very little of the treatment of the phonology, grammar, syntax, and to some extent the history of Standard American English (SAE) would not appear in a book on other standard Englishes. Nor does the authors’ general description of SAE (28–30; 91) succeed in clarifying the concept of standard language, its relationship to prescriptivism (84–86), or the status of SAE in American society. Instead, we find questionable claims like ‘SAE has become the expected norm for communications in a public forum, such as the government, education, or media’ (29); this might have been defensible as recently as a decade ago, but the chatty register adopted by the authors for their book itself demonstrates it is questionable now. Their reference to more than one variety of SAE (91) is also questionable.

Finally, the authors belabor the definition of American English only to avoid the obvious definition suitable for beginners, i.e. the English spoken natively in the United States and Canada, supplemented by important structural traits distinguishing American English from English spoken elsewhere. The historically based definition they propose (36) adds nothing useful or enlightening to the discussion. The details of adaptation over time that form the focus of the authors’ definition do not change the fact that no one doubts the existence of American English as a synchronically identifiable variety that therefore needs a synchronic definition.

In addition to weaknesses in content, those considering adoption of this book should also be aware of the existence of questionable phraseology throughout; e.g. ‘Sometimes American English vowel sounds include diphthongs’ (110), in which either ‘include’ is used for ‘are’ or ‘diphthongs’ is misused for ‘glides’. Such carelessness is especially regrettable for marring the clarity expected of an introductory textbook.

Reviewed by Louisa Buckingham, Sabanci University Writing Center, Turkey

This monograph investigates how Funktionsverbgefüge, commonly known as support verb constructions (SVC) in English (verb-noun combinations with a delexicalized verb), can be identified in electronic corpora by automatic language processing. The book is the product of Stefan Langer’s Habilitationsarbeit at the Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. Consisting of six chapters, the main body of L’s investigation is found in Chs. 3–4. In the introductory chapter, L outlines the importance of morphological, syntactic, and semantic characteristics of these constructions in the context of automatic language processing, and goes on to discuss the position of SVCs in machine translation as well as automatic text creation and retrieval.

Ch. 2 is dedicated to an overview of the variation in terminology used to refer to SVCs. For scholars with a general interest in this construction, L’s summary of the reasoning behind each of the terms used to refer to SVC is both useful and illuminating. He offers a coherent explanation for the differences in the conceptualization of closely related phenomena, specifically Funktionsverbgefüge, Stüzverbkonstruktion, complex predicates, and light verbs. His explanation of Funktionsverbgefüge and Stüzverbkonstruktion is of great importance for his analysis of SVC in the remaining sections of the book. He essentially distinguishes between two types of SVC; those with a nominal complement in accusative case and those with a prepositional phrase complement. L demonstrates these nominales Funktionsverbgefüge (e.g. Kritik üben ‘criticize’) and adverbiales Funktionsverbgefüge (e.g. in Beziehung stehen ‘either’) respectively.

In Ch. 3, L discusses the degree to which the extraction of SVC through statistical methods from electronic corpora is effective. He concludes that although such methods may be used to identify word combinations, they are unable to distinguish between different types of combinations, such as idioms, semi-formulaic expressions, and free combinations. Statistical methods are more equipped at eliminating semantically meaningless combinations than as an aid for the classification of word combinations. In light of this, the author examines the effectiveness of linguistic criteria to identify SVC in Ch. 4. The twenty-two test criteria he applies (only some of which are able to be used in automatic language processing) consist of the most common characteristics used to define SVC, focusing in turn on the nominal phrase, the support verb, and the degree of compositionality of the SVC.  L demonstrates their application on two SVCs: nominales Funktionsverbgefüge (Vorlesung halten) and adverbiales Funktionsverbgefüge (in Schwerigkeiten stecken). The author concludes that purely automated methods are not sufficient to identify SVCs and a manual analysis is still required. In the final chapter, the author briefly considers the analysis of SVCs from a frame semantic perspective.

The book is unusual for its breadth of treatment of SVCs. The author addresses general concerns, such as the validity of the concept of SVCs (the question has received some attention in recent publications in German), the methods used to investigate SVCs in corpora, and the relative difficulties involved in working with electronic corpora comprised of texts from the internet.  Additionally, L examines specific questions regarding SVC structure and how these combinations have been conceptualized in different languages. This work will appeal to students and scholars of syntax and phraseology, specifically those conducting research on SVCs in German and other languages.

Reviewed by Engin Arik, Purdue University

This volume consists of articles, a special section, interviews, and book reviews. The first section, ‘Articles’, consists of four papers written specifically for this volume. In ‘Serializing languages as satellite-framed: The case of Fon’ (1–29), Renée Lambert-Brétière argues that Fon is a satellite-framed language with respect to Leonard Talmy’s typology. In ‘English posture verbs: An experientially grounded approach’ (30–57), John Newman examines frequently found posture verbs in English, such as sit, stand, and lie. Mario Brdar focuses on linguistic forms for animals, trees, and wood(s) in Slavic languages to investigate metonymy avoidance strategies in ‘Metonymy-induced polysemy and the role of suffixation in its resolution in some Slavic languages’ (58–88). ‘Symbol and symptom: Routes from gesture to sign language’ (89–110) by Sherman Wilcox shows how the Italian gesture meaning ‘impossible’ is grammaticalized in Italian Sign Language.

The volume also has a ‘Special section: Constructing a second language’. There are seven articles in this section, starting with ‘Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section’ (111–39) by Nick C. Ellis and Teresa Cadierno, which summarizes the articles in this section. In ‘The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives’ (140–62), Ute Römer provides an overview of corpus linguistic research on the lexis-grammar interface. Stefan Th. Gries and Stefanie Wulff examine whether German speakers of English as a second language (L2) store gerund and infinitival complement constructions separately in ‘Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions’ (163–86). ‘Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy’ (188–221), written by Nick C. Ellis and Fernando Ferreira-Junior, investigates the effects of naturalistic L2 acquisition of type/token distributions in verb-argument constructions.

In ‘Reconstructing verb meaning in a second language: How English speakers of L2 Dutch talk and gesture about placement’ (221–44), Marianne Gullberg explores how English speakers of Dutch as a second language express placement events (e.g. English put versus Dutch leggen ‘lay’ and zetten ‘set’). Teresa Cadierno and Peter Robinson investigate the acquisition of L2 constructions in ‘Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalization patterns for describing motion events’ (245–76), with a particular focus on Danish and Japanese speakers learning English. This section concludes with the article, ‘Constructing a second language: Some final thoughts’ (277–90), by Ewa Dąbrowska. She investigates how cognitive linguistics can provide an appropriate model for second language research and can make larger contributions to both first language acquisition/learning and theoretical linguistics.

The volume includes two interviews. In ‘Meaning making: The bigger picture: An interview with Zoltán Kövecses’ (291–300), Réka Benczes interviews with Zoltán Kövecses to get his thoughts on the main topics of cognitive linguistics and personal story to become a cognitive linguist. In ‘A psycholinguist’s view on cognitive linguistics: An interview with Ray W. Gibbs’ (302–18),  Javier Valenzuela discusses Gibbs’ own thoughts about cognitive linguistics, advocating for empirical research to further explore the main topics. The volume also presents four book reviews.

In sum, this volume presents highly authentic overview articles and research papers as well as a wonderful special section on L2 and cognitive linguistics.

Reviewed by Esther Núñez Villanueva, Bangor University

Europe is reinforcing its defenses with a new tool: the national language. Language and culture tests are spreading across the European Union (EU) as the compulsory requirements to enter, reside in, or become a citizen of some of its countries are becoming stricter.

One of the problems surrounding language tests in Europe is that there is no pan-European consensus on the policies to govern their content and administration, which vary wildly from country to country. In contrast, this volume seeks a cross-national perspective, helping to identify the trends spreading through Europe. The editors discuss the goals of the volume and the current European political trends in their introductory chapter, Ch. 1 ‘Testing regime: Introducing cross-national perspectives on language, migration, and citizenship’ (1–14). In Ch. 2, ‘Fortress Europe? Language policy regimes for immigration and citizenship’ (15–44), Piet Van Avermaet’s comprehensive comparison of the different entry requirements highlights the striking differences in language level thresholds and the price of tests across EU member states.

Elana Shohamy argues that language tests for obtaining citizenship represent a discriminating and arbitrary strategy used by states to exert control over the composition of the population in Ch. 3 ‘Language tests for immigrants: Why language? Why tests? Why citizenship?’ (45–60). Ch. 4, ‘Language, migration and citizenship: A case study on testing regimes in the Netherlands’ (61–82), by Guus Extra and Massimiliano Spotti evaluates the three types of tests designed to attain admission, integration, and citizenship in the Netherlands, one of the strictest testing regimes in Europe. The authors then question the rationale and validity of the Dutch culture test after administering the test to native-born Dutch citizens.

Chs. 5–6 focus on the discourse analysis of political texts about immigration. In Ch. 5, ‘Being English, speaking English: Extension to English language testing legislation and the future of multicultural Britain’ (83–108), Adrian Blackledge discusses how the discourse about diversity and integration in Britain has started to associate the use of minority languages as a threat to social cohesion. Kristine Horner focuses on the vagueness of the concept of integration in the current politics of Luxembourg in Ch. 6, ‘Language, citizenship and Europeanization: Unpacking the discourse of integration’ (109–28). In both cases, it seems that integration is simultaneously understood as a common supra-identity at the EU-level and as a means of assimilating non-EU citizens.

Brigitta Busch, in Ch. 7 ‘Local actors in promoting multilingualism’ (129–52), analyzes the role of local institutions as unofficial language policy-makers when deciding their approach to a multilingual society. According to the author, institutions such as the Vienna public library can adapt inclusive language policies that foster social cohesion even when the political discourse is of an exclusive nature.

The concluding chapter by Tim McNamara, ‘Language tests and social policy: A commentary’ (153–64), is a thought-provoking commentary on the other contributions, relating them to second language teaching and testing in the context of immigration and citizenship.

There are serious ethical issues surrounding the use of language and culture tests for citizenship in relation to the nature, quality, and purpose of these assessments. Linguists and educational experts are urged to be aware of these issues and to promote a more realistic approach to second language learning, language tests, and citizenship requirements.

Reviewed by John Hewson, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Both this text and Hirtle’s earlier Lessons on the English verb (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007) originated with courses taught at Université Laval in Quebec City over several decades. The purpose of these courses, and the resources that developed from these classes was to give insight into the choices the English language offers, ‘not to describe usage but to describe what explains usage’ (xi).

Ch. 1, ‘What we are going to talk about and how’ (3–15), presents an emic versus etic approach, where the simple (i.e. monosemic) singular versus plural contrast of the underlying nominal system (examined in Chs. 3–7) produces many different surface (i.e. polysemic) kinds of singular and plural, with a certain amount of overlapping of the two (e.g. a crossroad, a crossroads, the enemy is/are approaching).

Gender is examined in Ch. 8, ‘Gender in the substantive’ (126–46). English has two simple underlying binary contrasts. The first is between the animate and inanimate genders. The second type of contrast distinguishes masculine from feminine. There is a straightforward usage of this system in English discourse, with some possibility for underlying categories to overlap on the surface.

Ch. 9, ‘The substantive’ (147–59), investigates how the substantive in English can be the support of an adjective or a verb, but has its own internal support. In this sense, the substantive in English differs from finite verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, as shown in the following syntagmas: substantive < verb < adverb and adverb > adjective > substantive.

Ch. 10, ‘The system of the articles’ (160–74), begins the discussion of the definite and indefinite articles as a binary pair. H argues in Ch. 11, ‘A vs. the in discourse’ (175–96) that the English articles are complementary in function. The indefinite article is introductory, while the definite article is anaphoric, referring back to the situational context of the speaker’s intended message.  Ch. 12 ‘Bare vs. articled –s substantives’ (197–213) and Ch. 13 ‘Bare vs. articled –ø substantives’ (214–33) deal extensively with article usage. H presents an analysis of the complex alternation of definite, indefinite, and zero articles with singular and plural nouns.

In Ch. 14 ‘Any as a quantifier’ (234–49) and Ch. 15 ‘Some and the system’ (250–69), any and some are dealt with as another binary pair. These quantifiers are members of a single binary contrast that involve partitive quantifiers. A variety of contrastive pairs can be found (e.g.  I didn’t buy any sugar/ I bought some sugar or, more subtle Didn’t we buy any/ some sugar?) that differ in their contextual message. Furthermore, unlike the articles which are always completive pronouns (requiring a N to form an NP), the partitives can be completive (e.g. any book) or suppletive (e.g. any of them) pronouns.

H examines the use of demonstratives in Ch. 16 ‘The demonstratives’ (270–91). This and that, in addition to being either completive or suppletive, may also be either singular or plural. In the operational system, this signifies a movement towards the here and now (e.g. a person approaching is typically this person, even at a distance); and that signifies a movement away (e.g. a person walking away is that person, even if close). The contextual effects of this distinction are examined and discussed at length. For example, this, like the indefinite article, is often introductory (e.g. I met this man), and that is anaphoric (e.g. That problem you mentioned…).

After a brief chapter on determiners as completive pronouns in Ch. 17, ‘Determiners as completive pronouns’ (292–301), Ch. 18, ‘-’s Phrase’ (302–15), investigates the English possessive -’s suffix and summarizes the problems with analyzing it as discussed by grammarians and others. H covers this in considerable detail.

Ch.19, ‘Suppletive pronouns as noun phrase’ (316–31), spends some time on the pronoun it, too often dismissed as an empty pronoun. Ch. 20, ‘Personal pronouns and the expression of gender’ (332–47), examines how nouns may have their own inherent gender, but that it is frequently overridden in the selection of the gender of the substituting personal pronoun.

Ch. 21 ‘The noun phrase and person’ (348–57) deals with the element of person as the linguistic element that enables the referential function of the NP. Ch. 22, entitled ‘Syntactic function’ (358–67), examines the varying roles of direct and indirect object, case forms, and prepositional phrases.

This book constitutes a comprehensive view of the noun phrase in English, with many interesting insights that are not only useful for teachers and learners of English as a second language but also challenging for grammarians and linguists who specialize in the English language.