Linguistics for Non-Linguists by Frank Parker

Frank Parker and Sheila Embleton

Citation: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84, 1574 (1988); doi: 10.1121/1.396569
View online: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.396569
View Table of Contents: https://asa.scitation.org/toc/jas/84/4
Published by the Acoustical Society of America

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Directional Hearing edited by William A. Yost and George Gourevitch

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84, 1575 (1988); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.396570
BOOK REVIEWS
Robert T. Beyer
Departmentof Physics,BrownUniversity,Providence,Rhode Island02912
The opinionsexpressedare those of the individualreviewersand are not necessarily
endorsedby the Editor/a/Boardof thisJournal.
Editorial Policy:/f there/sa negativereview,the authorof the book w/i/begivena chanceto
respondto the review/n thissect/onof the Journaland the reviewerw/i/be
allowedto respondto the author'scomments.[See "BookReviewsEditor's
Note, "J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 81, 1651 (May 1987).]
Linguistics for Non-Linguists
Frank Parker
College-Hill,Boston,1986.
ix-t-2391•p.Price$19.50.
As isobviousfrom the title, thisbookisintendedto "providespecialists
in fieldsneighboring linguisticswith a basicintroductionto the principles
and methodsof linguistictheory" (p. 10). Despitethe few minor reserva-
tions,whichI will expressbelow,Parkerhasdonean excellentjob with an
extremelytrickytask.He hasfurnishednonlinguists with a useful,accurate,
and readablesynopsis of the field;the bookcan standequallywell on its
own, asthe only linguistics bookthat the nonlinguistmayeverread,or in
the roleof ap•ritif, to whetthe appetitefor further,moremeatyreadingin
linguistics.
A listof thechaptertitlessuffices
to giveanideaof thegroundcovered:
"Introduction," "Pragmatics,""Semantics,""Syntax," "Morphology,"
"Phonology,""LanguageVariation,""LanguageAcquisition,""The Neu-
rologyof Language,"and"Conclusion." Linguistsfamiliarwith introduc-
tory textsandcoursesin linguistics,whetherintendedfor linguistsor non-
linguists,
will bestruckimmediately bytheunusualchapterorder.The vast
majorityof textsbeginwith phoneticsand phonology,graduallyworking
"up" (asthemetaphorgoes)throughmorphology andsyntaxto semantics
and pragmatics,concludingwith an assortmentof "noneore"areasand
areasborderingontootherdisciplines. Parkerhaschoseninsteadto work
"down," and his approachis completelysuccessful. He thusavoidsbegin-
ningwith a barrageof phoneticterminology, whichwoulddauntall but the
mostdeterminednonlinguist. My ownexperience in teachingintroductory
linguisticscourses (whereI usuallybeginwithmorphology•starting in the
"middle,"asit were) hasshownme the practicalwisdomof startingwith
anythingbutphonology. Something elsethatwill strikelinguistsrightaway
from the list of chaptertitlesis the omissionof certaintopics,in particular
historicallinguistics or languagechange,secondlanguageacquisition, writ-
ingsystems, psycholinguistics, andpossibly animalcommunication. Parker
isawareof theseomissions, andgivesthereasons(p. 3): Theywoulddetract
froma primaryfocuson linguistictheory;onceonehasa solidgroundingin
the coreareas,the otherareascanbemasteredeasily;andthe noneoreareas
of "mostimportanceto the greatestnumberof neighboringfields" [viz.,
languagevariation, (first) languageacquisition,neurologyof language]
havebeenincluded.In fact, at slightlyover 30 pageseach,thesenoneore
chaptersreceivemorespacethanthecorechapters,whicheachgetslightly
under20--a paradox,givenParker'sexplanations of the other omissions
and his emphasison the core. In generalthough,Parker is right (even
thoughasa historicallinguistI suffersomeemotionaltwingesat seeingmy
subdiscipline left out); however,the samecannotbe saidfor secondlan-
guageacquisition,which is clearlya neighboringfield with a very great
demandfor knowledgeaboutlinguistics.Literary scholars,althoughmen-
tionedin the targetaudienceon p. 1, will alsofeelleft out;this,however,is
invariablythe case,exceptfor thosebooksspecificallydesignedfor the
"linguisticsand literature"market.
Eachchapterfollowsessentially thesamepattern.Parkerbeginswitha
brief definition (or delimitation) of the subfield and a half dozen or so
elementaryobservations, whichthenprovidea linkingthreadfor the entire
chapter.The bodyof the chapteris a development of the maintheoretical
resultsfor the subfield,duringthe courseof whicheachof the elementary
observationsreceivesa principledexplanation.Each chapterconcludes
with a brief summary,exercises for which answersare provided(making
1574 d. Acoust. Soc. Am. 8.4(4), Oct. 1988 0001-4966/88/101574-02500.80
thebookverysuitablefor self-study),andshortbut extremelywell-chosen
listsof primaryandsecondary readingwith annotations(again,perfectfor
a self-studyintroduction).One small irritation is that Parker endsevery
chapterwith essentially the sameparagraph,remindingthe readerthat
thereis moreto the subdiscipline than what is coveredin the chapter,but
that, with exposureto the basicideas,onecannow go on to the readings
listedat theendof thechapter,andthat oneshouldcheckone'sunderstand-
ingby tryingthe exercises; the pointsmadeareself-evident, andthe space
couldhavebeenbetterusedfor somethingelse.
The book is essentiallyerror-free,with respectto both contentand
typography.For the benefitof thosenonlinguists who decideto readthe
book,the contentproblemsthat I detectedare listedhere. In discussing
binarysemanticfeatures,Parker statesthat "this methodallowsus ... to
characterizethe sensesof a potentiallyinfiniteset of wordswith a finite
numberof semanticfeatures,"(p. 31); this is false,becausen binaryfea-
turescanonly differentiate2" words.A scientistbroughtup on Venn dia-
gramsin settheoryis likely to be confused by the diagramsrepresenting
hyponymy(p. 34); here,the superordinate pig is represented asa smaller
boxwithinthe largerboxfor the hyponymsow.A Venndiagramwouldbe
the reverse,sincesowsarea subsetof pigs.Parker'sdiagramsimplyshows
that sowhas someaddedmeaningcomponentsthat pig doesnot have.
"Spread"isusedratherthanthemoreusual"unrounded"in thephonology
chapter(p. 87 if), and/v/is givenas "low" rather than "(lower) mid"
vowel;thereisa typographical errorsubstituting"right" for "left" on p. 88.
"Some
speakers
of English
perceive
thefinalconsonant
in garage
as/[/,
whileothersperceiveit as/j/" (p. 93) is misleading; it is not a questionof
perception, but of differentphonemesbeingusedby differentspeakers. "Re-
leased"is usedtwiceon p. 94 for "unaspirated"; the explanation("there is
nopuffof air followingtherelease")clearlybeliesthis,asdoestheexample
stem,whichcontainsa released,unaspirated/t/, in contrastto the previous
example(Tim), which containsa released,aspirated/t/. It is not true to
statethat the second/t/in tatterisalwaysthe alveolarflap/r/(p. 96); the
flap realizationdependson dialectand style.The mostseriousproblemin
thebookis an almosttotal lack of non-Englishdata (the only references to
other languagesare an exerciseon p. 80, a statementthat "differentlan-
guageshavedifferentsetsof phonemes"with a fewexampleson pp. 93-94,
and a statementon p. 149that the principlesof first languageacquisition
coveredheretypicallyapplyto otherlanguages aswell). I hastento point
out that Parker is not the only author of an introductionwho could be
faultedin thisway, andtherearecogentreasons for at leastseverelylimiting
theamountof non-Englishdata (e.g.,spaceconsiderations; mostprinciples
canbeexplainedjust aswell with onelanguageaswith anyother;Englishis
the only languageknownto everypotentialreader). But part of Parker's
purposein this bookis to conveysomethingof the flavorof linguisticsto
nonlinguists, andthat simplycannotbedonewithoutsomecross-linguistic
comparisonand somenon-Englishdata.
One of the mostvexingproblemsfacingthe authorof any textbookin
linguistics today,but particularlythe authorof an introductorybook,isthe
questionof "how muchtheory"and "whichtheory."No answerwill satisfy
everybody,andthe debatesoverthesequestions canbecomeratheracrimo-
nious.To my mind,Parkerhasachievedjust the rightbalanceherein terms
of, first,the amountof theoryand,second,the typeof theory.With respect
to the first question,any shift towardsmoretheory (and lessdata) would
makelinguisticslookasthoughit had little to do with languageand moreto
do with gameplaying,whichwould inducefrustrationfor the nonlinguist
audience,while any shift towardsmore data (and lesstheory) would not be
an accuraterepresentation of modernlinguistics.As for the secondques-
@ 1988 Acoustical Society of America 1574