Reviews 71

more than historical interest, providing, as it does, a good example of the kind of
semantic analysis that was being done in the early sixties.

Peter Lackowski
Bennir gton College, Vermont

References

Bach, E., 1968. Nouns and noun phrases. In: E. Bach and R.T. &~rms (eds.). Universals in
linguistic theory New York, Halt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chomsky, N., 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In: R.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenbaum (eds.),
Rsadlngs in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass., Glnn.
Fodor, J.A., 1961. Projection and paraphrase In semantics. Analysis 21.
Katz, J.J., 1961. A reply to ‘Projection and paraphrase in semantics’. Analysis 12.
McCawley, J.D., 1970. Where do noun phrases come from? In: R.A. Jecobs and P.S. Rosen-
baum @Is.), Readings in English transformational grammar. Walthrm, Mass., Ginn.
Quint, Willstd Van Orman. 1960. Word and object. New York, Wiley.

Dddng Thanh B’mh, A tagmemic comparison of the structure of English and

Vietnamese sentences. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 110. Mouton & Co.,
The Hague-Paris 1971.232 pp. Dfl68,-.

The volume under review is largely a semitagmemic description of Vietnamese

from the sentence level to the phrase level, following the system outlined for
English by Robert L. P Ilen.
The first chapter gives a valuable summary of studies io Vietnamese grammar
prior to about 1965 (including the dissertation but not the published version of
Thompson’s grammar). The second chapter gives a quick summary of Allen’s analy-
sis of English. The remaining four chapters are a careful description of Vietnamese
on the sentence, trunk, and predicatid levels, and other assorted bits.
The study is called tagmemic because it involves basically a hierarchical slot and
class analysis. This system of analysis was evolved independently from that of Pike,
and at the time of writing the author was unaware of the large majority of tag-
memic studies, and had absorbed little of their theoretical refinements and none of
their terminology. But the similarity of outlook is clear, hence the title. Binh
(following Allen) posits four levels: sentence, trunk, predicate cluster, predicate
nucleus. Below these are phrases and non-predicate clusters. Allen’s term ‘sector’
(he calls the system ‘sector analysis’) is quite close to the Pikean tagmeme.
Allen’s sentence, on first impression, looks little different from Pike’s clause, as
most of B’mh’s examples are one-clause sentences, but later references make room
for multi-clause sentences, so that the end result is fairly close to Pike’s sentence.
The trunk, predicate, and predicate nucleus levels would all be subsumed under
the clause level in a typical Pikean description. One reason is that Pike makes more
use of internal bracketing within a level than Allen does. A second major reason,
 Review

which has been largely ignored in tagmemic clause studies (but see Forster 196% is
the topic (subject) vs. comment (predicate) dichotomy. This dichotomy is the
~uison di%ra of the trunk Level, with the predicate levels attempting to readjust to a
non-binary approach. Binh (following Allen) has attempted to combine the topic-
comment and the clause-situation approaches into a single framework, resulting in
the subject (usually the actor) being separated from the rest of the clause compo
nents. Most tagmemic studies maintain cohesiveness by ignoring the topic-comment
factor. Some, like Forster, have analyzed topic-comment and clause-situation fac-
tors independently, as two non-congruent types of clause analysis. In my vitw,
both internal cohesiveness and faithfulness to the facts would be best maintained
by handling only clause-situation factors as directly relevant to the clause, and
treating the topic as part of the paragraph-level description (Thomas 197 1). Long-
acre (1970 : 786) considers the topic to belong to the sentence level, This would
eliminate Binh’s (Allen’s) trunk level.
Possibly the main strength and the main weakness of the book is its loose
attachment to theory. it is a weakness in that the slot vs. filler distinction is not
carefully maintained, resulting in what seems to be fuzziness in discussions of
clausids (clauses), trunks (main clauses), and included clausids (subordisate
clauses). It is a strength in that Binh describes Vietnamese as she sees and feels it,
no; bound by a priori theorizing.
This book comnmres well with both Thompson 1965 and Lism 1967-70.
Thompson includes phonology, and the general structure of his book is easier for
the unil litiated, but his handling of sentences and clauses is inferior to Binh’s largely
because of his theoretical predilections. Lien covers exactly the same subject as
Binh, contrasting English and Vietnamese grammar. LiBm’s theory (following
Longacre) is considerably advanced beyond Binh’s (Allen’s), and his careful follow-
ing ti.:.mgh the implications of his theory gives him a much more detailed contrast
between English and Vietnamese. And Liem gives prominence to the different
construction types (he describes, for example, 87 Vietnamese clause types), which
is passed over very lightly in Binh. Binh, however, is much easier to read than Liem,
and gives better listings of word classes than Liem.
Finally, a few minor quibbles. There is no cross-referencing between sections;
this lack is especially important in a tagmemic study. I accidentally stumbled onto
the discussion of noun clusters (noun phrases) in the chapter on the trunk level; I
would have expected it to be handled as a level lower than the predicate. Theoreti-
cal prominence is given to certain word classes being able to freely precede or
follow other constructions, but it is not mentioned that sometimes they can come
in the middle of the - bracketed - construction also. Sentence positions Y and 2 are
not given in the sentence formula; Longacre considers them to be part of the outer
periphery of the sentence, but I would consider them paragraph markers. I feel that
handling words like cdy ‘tree’ and suci ‘fruit’ (p. 12 1) as pre-determiners (classifiers)
rather than as main nouns would give a simpler analysis (cf. Hba 1957).
David Thomas
Summer Institute of Linguistics
University of North Dakota
Santa Ana, Calif., U.S.A.
 Reviews 79

References

Allen.R.A.. 1966. The verb system of present-day Ameri~~o English. The k ague, Mrxiton.
Allen, R.A.. ad. A modern grsmmar of mitten English. New York, MecMilian.
Forster, I., 1964. Dual structure of Dibsbuwon verbal clauses, Occarde Linguistic8 3.26-48.
Hba, N.D., 1957. Clauiflers 1~.Vttinamese , Word 13,321-343.
Liem. N.D., 1966-70. A cootrestive analysis of English end Vietnamese, 3 vols. Cnnberra.
AustreIien Netionel University.
Longacre, R.E.. 1970. Sentence structure es a statement cslculus , Language 46. 783-815.
Themes, D.. 1971. Chrau grammar. Honolulu. University of Hawaii Press.
Thompson, L.C., 1965. A Vietnamese grsmmar. Seattle, University elf Washington Press.