Linguistic Society of America

Review
Reviewed Work(s): The Romance Languages: A Linguistic Introduction by Rebecca Posner
Review by: Jerry R. Craddock
Source: Language, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Sep., 1968), pp. 621-625
Published by: Linguistic Society of America
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/411727
Accessed: 25-09-2023 19:06 +00:00

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Language

This content downloaded from 128.220.159.213 on Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:06:18 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEWS 621

on
on numerous
numerous
philological
philological
points
points
of one of
of one
the best
of the
scholars
bestworking
scholars
in working
the field in th
today.

The Romance languages: a linguistic introduction. By REBECCA POSNER.

(Anchor books, 494.) Pp. xxii, 336. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and
Co., 1966.
Reviewed by JERRY R. CRADDOCK, University of California, Berkeley
Students about to begin a course in Romance linguistics have usually spent
some time in Romance language departments. They can be expected to handle
Bourciez' Elements (1946), Tagliavini's Origini (1959), or the Spanish transla-
tions of Lausberg's Romanische Sprachwissenschaft (1956-62) and Vidos' Ro-
maanse taalkunde (1956). If they become serious and wish to continue, their
advisors make it clear to them that the acquisition of a fluent reading knowledge
of German is a categorical imperative. Consequently, the lack of a first-rate
introductory manual in English poses no insurmountable obstacle. In fact, in-
structors sometimes relegate Elcock's uninspiring Romance languages (1960) to
the recommended reading list, with the tacit understanding that if the student
never quite finishes it, he will not be much worse off. Still, a real need exists, and
Dr. Posner, one of the most promising younger Romanists (see esp. her 1961
dissertation and a masterful series of review articles published in Romance
Philology since 1963), has attempted to meet it by writing an introduction to the
subject that both novice and specialist may find useful. After all, every scientific
discipline has the duty of making itself to some extent comprehensible to out-
siders, and, as far as possible, attractive to potential converts. Regrettably, P's
effort falls far short of her ambition.
The book has two main divisions: 'The common ground' (Chaps. II-III)
wrestles with the difficulties of defining the source of the Romance languages
(Proto-Romance vs. Vulgar Latin), and touches on the chief reasons for the
linguistic fragmentation of the Roman Empire; 'The modern languages' (Chaps.
IV-VII) compares the neo-Latin tongues both as to differences and resemblances.
This core is flanked by an introductory chapter slanted toward theoretical and
methodological considerations, and by an epilogue dealing with the rise of the
national standard languages as well as the vicissitudes of their less fortunate
brethren who failed to convert major isoglosses into political boundaries. A con-
cise bibliographical 'Post-Script' and indices bring up the rear.
In general, neither the organization nor the content is revolutionary. Because
of this, I feel the Preface (vii-x) should be taken with a few grains of salt. Its
belligerence clashes with the tone of the rest of the book; worse, P leads one to
expect much more by way of originality than she delivers. The 'orthodoxy' and
'outworn traditions' she rails at have long since been discredited and are not,
contrary to what one might gather from her vehemence, presented as current
doctrine in the best available manuals (Lausberg and Vidos).
P's development of background information is direct, to the point, and generally
uncontroversial. Major theories of contemporary Romanists are described with

This content downloaded from 128.220.159.213 on Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:06:18 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
622 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 44, NUMBER 3 (1968)

little comment, except to deprecate overstated claims of explanatory power. A

healthy skepticism pervades her point of view. P herself has not, so far as I can
see, attempted here any dramatic breakthrough. Her style is free of unnecessary
pedantry; technical jargon has been kept to a minimum (but n.b. chroneme 'a
unit of tense meaning', 188). She is occasionally chatty and not above a timely
dose of humor (174). But the reader is now and then struck by outlandish opin-
ions not referred to their source: 'In more modern times the pre-Roman Gaulish
language has its supporters [as the ancestor of French]' (27); or by really dubious
statements set down as the most ordinary matter of fact: '[Rumanian] can be
comprehended with little difficulty by an Italian or Spanish speaker' (12); 'Sar-
dinia was separated from the Roman Empire in the second half of the second
century A.D.' (40).
The best chapters are those dealing with morphology and syntax (V-VI);
those devoted to phonology and the lexicon (IV, VII) are among the weakest.
Diagrams and charts would have enhanced greatly the usefulness of Chap. IV
(in Chap. V, P gives several that are quite effective); they might have replaced
with small loss some of her 'General impressions' (98 if.) As it is, Latin-Romance
sound correspondences never stand out in sharp focus. Chap. VII is plagued by
questionable etymological information. A work of this sort should normally
include only safely established genetic equations. Her carelessness in this respect
may arise from her belief that 'the task of etymology [is] a genteel and entertain-
ing sport ...' (206). On the contrary, this at present rather neglected discipline is
nothing less than the foundation of diachronic linguistics. Without secure ety-
mologies, there is no basis for historical grammar. It is true that amateur etymo-
logical sleuths abound; but should one therefore slight a craft that has produced,
in the Romance sector, works second only to linguistic atlases in importance (i.e.,
Wartburg 1922-, Wagner 1957-64, Corominas 1954-57)?
The single most glaring defect of P's book lies in the sometimes embarrassingly
elementary blunders that mar its pages. It was written in Ghana; its embryo
stage may have been a syllabus for a course in Romance linguistics. The author
probably found herself bereft of the reference works we take for granted; but all
the more reason to delay publication and polish the rough spots by using the
resources of a European library. In its present form, The Romance languages will
doubtless share the fate of Elcock's introduction: recommended (but not too
highly) for outside reading.

The following detailed observations may assist in preparing a second edition. I mention
only such misprints as are liable to cause confusion. I omit page references to dictionaries;
if a given word occurs outside the alphabetical listing, I provide the entry where it may be
found.1

1 Two minor quibbles: The choice of - -+ instead of < > for historical relationship
seems unfortunate. The former have been appropriated for all time, one would guess, by
the generative grammarians, though I still use the arrows for derivational processes. Why
not call -Isc- in FIN-*TSC-O an 'interfix' since it separates morphemes, as opposed to the
'infix', e.g., -N- in TA-N-G-O vs. TE-TIG-!, TXC-TILIS, which produces a morphological dis-
continuity?

This content downloaded from 128.220.159.213 on Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:06:18 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEWS 623

Chaps. I-III: '[Eng.] romance (from Spanish, via French) for a tale of chivalry
(6): The English word reflects OFr. romanz (> roman 'novel') < ROMXNICE (lit.)
i.e., 'in the vulgar tongue', likewise the source of Sp. romance 'ballad' (Bloch-W
1964, Corominas 1961). Does this last form really have anything to do with t
term? The Praeneste inscription is not 'in Osco-Umbrian' (30), a circumstance wh
render it only indirectly relevant to the study of Latin. As Palmer (1954:60, m
certain resemblances to Oscan 'may be explained by the geographical position o
on the linguistic frontier between Latin and Oscan'. PLAUSTRUM 'plough' (31): re
cart'. 'Western Rumania' (44): read Romania (the Empire, not the modern nation, is
meant). Sp. clavija and Cat. clavilla generally mean 'peg, bolt', not 'ankle' (47), which is
Sp. tobillo, Cat. turmell; only certain Catalan dialects show the meaning 'ankle' (cf. Alcover
1930-62). Lat. MESPILUS, -i, designates the 'medlar tree', not its fruit (-UM or -A), and is
feminine, like most Latin names of trees (48). Why operate with *NESPILUS when NESPULA
'medlar (fruit)' is attested and matches perfectly most Romance offshoots (It. nespola etc.)?
In any case, the Romance forms have not changed gender, but have adjusted their endings
to fit the gender; note, however, Sp. nispero 'medlar (fruit and tree)' (see Andr6 1956:208,
219, and Geiger 1966:178). The title 'Racial factors (linguistics, not racialism)' (69) heads
a section dealing with the influence of subjacent and supervenient languages on the neo-
Latin tongues: Why not use a less ambiguous phrase like 'language contacts', following
Weinreich's (1953) terminology? On Map IV (70), read Messapic for 'Messaric'. 'Most
linguists think that present-day Basque... is a survival of [Iberian]' (73): Quite the op-
posite has been true for several decades (see Tovar 1959:38 ff.) Antiquated forms should be
clearly marked: thus for 'Spanish espuera' (85) read OSp. (Mod. espuela). The same observa-
tion applies to oblidar 'to forget' (217) vs. Mod. olvidar.
Chaps. IV-VI: The section 'Italian eight vowels versus Spanish six' (106) presents vowel
triangles containing seven and five phonemes, respectively. For 'Spanish ciel [Ojel]', read
cielo [0jelo]. Central and Southern Sardinian are notable, among other things, for not
palatalizing CL-, GL-. 'Sard. (ae' (119) < CLAUE belongs to North Logudorese (heavily
influenced by Peninsular dialects) and is thus irrelevant to the context; the authentic
reflex is krae (cf. Wagner). 'Portuguese Spanish' (122): read P. and S. 'Grammatical form
is felt somehow to be the hard-core of the language...' (126): Isn't the basis of the conten-
tion clear? The morphology is the most arbitrary linguistic subsystem, i.e., the farthest
removed from overt influences of culture and physiological limitations. I leave it to an-
thropological linguists to judge the following statement: 'The more sophisticated language
will be dressed in more complicated clothes than that of a primitive society...' (126).
'By the process of a good deal of historical juggling, the traditional linguist will demonstrate
that two apparently unlike forms (e.g. [It.] [amavo] and [Fr.] [s3eme]), with more or less the
same meaning, are in some sense the "same" ' (127): Linguists, traditional or otherwise,
can only affirm that OFr. [ameva] and OIt. [amava] directly reflect AMXBA(M), that the
modern forms have suffered specific analogical influences, and that the verb systems have
been restructured; why this should be called 'juggling' is beyond me (see p. 154 for a more
sensitive handling of the same problem). 'The fourth and fifth declensions (-X- and -E-
classes)' (131): read -u- and -E-. 'In Romance, the third declension virtually disappears'
(132): This is palpably untrue for Romance languages that maintain final vowels; for
instance, practically all Spanish nouns not ending in -a, -o in the singular, and there are
many, belong to a type that directly continues the Latin third declension: pan/panes
'bread', puente/puentes 'bridge' < PANE(M)/PXNES, PONTE(M)/PONTES. 'The [Rum.] -i
probably comes from dative singular of the Latin second declension' (139): read third decl.?
Sp. and Ptg. ser 'to be' come from SEDERE 'to sit', not ESS-*ERE (147). When is -T a first
person singular ending in Latin (148)? Sp. 'quereria' (194): read querria.
Chaps. VII-VIII: Omitting important steps from etymological equations may baffle the
student: ' "Jaw" = quijada derived from CAPSA "cask" ' (214) would be more digestible
as 'derived from an unattested primitive cognate with Ptg. queixo and Cat. queix "id." <
CAPS-*EU "cask-like" 4- CAPSA "cask" ' (Corominas 1961). Gal. lazo 'ice' is a deverbal noun

This content downloaded from 128.220.159.213 on Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:06:18 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
624 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 44, NUMBER 3 (1968)

from lazar 'to freeze' < GLACIARE, rather than an immediate descendant of GLACIES (216;
cf. Michaelis 1895:170). Sp. vaso 'drinking glass' reflects a by-form uIsuM derived from
uiA, uAisI 'vessel', but not directly the latter (230; cf. Georges 1951, Corominas 1961).
offends in other ways against etymological tidiness and too often includes sheer misinfor
mation: a star should be added to STANTICUS (+-[?] STXNS, -NTIS 'standing'), supposedly
the source of *STANCUS > It. stanco 'tired' (218; but cf. Battisti-Alessio 1950-57). Sp. buscar
'to search' is not a derivative of bosque 'wood' (225; cf. Corominas 1954-57). 'Spanish chico +
CICcuM = "membrane separating the grains of a pomegranate"' (229): cf. Corominas
1961, 's6lo indirectamente relacionado con el lat. CICCuM'. 'Italian bicchiere ["drinking
glass"] (from Greek)' (230): cf. Battisti-Alessio, 'antico prestito dal francese', borrowed
in turn, from Frank. *bikari (> Germ. Becher), whose ultimate source may be Byz. Gk
*bikdrion, dim. of bikos 'drinking bowl'; some readers may find P's description 'from Gree
a bit laconic. 'Spanish gafiar' (232): read ganar 'to win, earn' and delete it from the list o
Gmc. *waidanjan's Romance progeny (Corominas 1961). The source of It. duolo, Fr. deuil
Sp. duelo 'grief' is DOLUS, a late by-form of DOLOR 'id.' (cf. Georges, Walde-Hofmann 1938
56, Ernout-Meillet 1959, Corominas 1961 [s.v. doler], Bloch-Wartburg, and Battisti-Ales
sio); the homonymic Gk. loanword DOLUS 'fraud, deceit' (233) apparently has nothing t
do with the word-family in question. Sp. vianda 'victuals' (236) is borrowed from Fr. viand
'meat'; for an authentic Sp. offshoot of UIUENDA, cf. vivienda 'dwelling' (Corominas 1961,
s.v. vivo). The origin of Sp. mozo 'boy, youth' is unknown, but the etymon MUSTU 'new
wine' (> mosto 'must') is surely out of the question. A derivative, MUST-*EU 'like new
wine', has been proposed to account for mozo, but Corominas 1954-57 rejected it on goo
grounds. Lat. PERNA 'leg of pork, ham' is not 'from Greek' (237) but belongs to the inherite
Indo-European vocabulary (see Walde-Hofmann and Ernout-Meillet). Where did P fin
BORRA 'untidy lock of hair' (238), a form lacking in Georges, Walde-Hofmann, and Ernout
Meillet? Corominas 1954-57 mentions BURRAE 'trifles, nonsense' as a likely relative of Sp.
burla 'mockery'; It. burla, however, is probably borrowed from Spanish. For 'seismo' (282
read seseo 'the pronunciation of c, z [0] as s'.

REFERENCES

ALCOVER, A. M., and F. DE B. MOLL. 1930-62. Diccionari catala-valencia

de Mallorca.
ANDRA, J. 1956. Lexique des termes de botanique en latin. (]ftudes et commentaires, 23.)
Paris.
BATTISTI, C., and G. ALESSIO. 1950-57. Dizionario etimologico italiano. Florence.
BLOCH, 0., and W. VON WARTBJRG. 1964. Dictionnaire 6tymologique de la langue fran-
gaise. 4th ed. Paris.
BOuRCIEZ, ]P. 1946. tl6ments de linguistique romane. 4th ed., rev. by J. Bourciez. Paris.
COROMINAS, J. 1954-57. Diccionario critico etimol6gico de la lengua castellana. Madrid
and Bern.
-- . 1961. Breve diccionario etimol6gico de la lengua castellana. Madrid.
ELCOCK, W. D. 1960. The Romance languages. London.
ERNou'T, A., and A. MEILLET. 1959. Dictionnaire 6tymologique de la langue latine:
histoire des mots. 4th ed. Paris.
GEIGER, W. 1966. 'Fruit', 'fruit tree', and 'grove' in Spanish: a study in derivational
patterning. Romance Philology 20.176-86.
GEORGES, K. E. 1951. Ausfiihrliches lateinisch-deutsches Handw6rterbuch. 9th ed., rev.
by H. Georges. Basel.
LAUSBERG, H. 1956. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft. I: Einleitung und Vokalismus.
Berlin. (2d ed., 1963.)
. 1962. II: Konsonantismus. III (1-2): Formenlehre. Berlin.
-- . 1965. Linguistica romAnica. (Trans. of I-II by J. P6rez Riesco and E. Pascual
Rodriguez.) Madrid.
MICHAELIS DE VASCONCBLOS, C. 1895. Fragmentos etimol6gicos. Revista Lusitana
3.129-90.

This content downloaded from 128.220.159.213 on Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:06:18 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEWS 625

PALMER,
PALMER,L.L. R.R.
1954.
1954.
TheThe
LatinLatin
language.
language.
London.London.
POSNER,
POSNER,R.R. 1961.
1961.
Consonantal
Consonantal dissimilation
dissimilation
in the in
Romance
the Romance
languages.languages.
(Publications
(Publ
of
the
the Philological
PhilologicalSociety,
Society,19.) 19.)
Oxford.
Oxford.
.. 1963.
1963.Problems
Problems in in
Spanish
Spanish
diachronic
diachronic
phonology.
phonology.
RPh. 16.428-37.
RPh. 16.428-37.
-- .. 1964.
1964.Phonology
Phonology andandanalogy
analogy
in the
information
the formation
of the Romance
of the Romance
perfect. RPh.
perf
17.419-31.
- . 1966. Rumanian and Romance philology. RPh. 19.450-9.
. 1967. Positivism in historical linguistics. RPh. 20.321-31.
TAGLIAVINI, C. 1959. Le origini delle lingue neolatine: introduzione alla filologia romanza.
3d ed. Bologna.
TOVAR, A. 1959. El euskera y sus parientes. (Biblioteca vasca, 2.) Madrid.
VIDos, B. E. 1956. Handboek tot de romaanse taalkunde. 's-Hertogenbosch.
--. 1959. Manuale di linguistica romanza. Trans. by G. Francescato. (Biblioteca dell'
Archivum Romanicum, ser. 2, 28.) Florence.
. 1963. Manual de lingiistica romrnica. Trans. by F. de B. Moll. Madrid.
WAGNER, M. L. 1957-64. Dizionario etimologico sardo. Heidelberg.
WALDE, A., and J. B. HOFMANN. 1938-56. Lateinisches etymologisches Worterbuch. 3d
ed. Heidelberg.
WARTBURG, W. VON. 1922-. Franzosisches etymologisches W6rterbuch. Bonn.
WEINREICH, U. 1953. Languages in contact: findings and problems. (Publications of the
Linguistic Circle of New York, 1.) New York.

Linguistics in remedial English. By JOHN C. FISHER. (Janua linguarum, series

practica, 47.) Pp. 71. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. $4.00.
Reviewed by W. NELSON FRANCIS, Brown University
This book has very little to do with linguistics. Its concern is rather with
pedagogy, and in this area it substantiates the not entirely novel precept that
an effective method of teaching certain forms of language behavior is to identify
and isolate them and incorporate them in pattern practice drills. In substance,
the book is the report of an experiment conducted by the author in which he
first identified 280 'syntax and morphology errors' in 10,000 words of writing by
twenty-two college freshmen and then subjected the writers to drills in the
'correct' usage. Not unexpectedly, he found at the end of the sixteen-week term
that they made these 'errors' less frequently than before, or rather that they
made greater progress in successfully answering a test on English usage than
did a control group taught by other methods. Somewhat more significant than
the test is the fact that a group of his colleagues judged that a final sample of
writing by the students demonstrated that none of them was any longer in need
of 'remedial English' instruction, whereas only half the students of the control
group attained that happy condition. Readers of the book will have to decide
for themselves whether or not this reveals more about linguistic skill than it
does about instructors in freshman English in American colleges. Granted the
existing situation, however, no one can deny that the students in the experi-
mental group were better served than those in the control group.
For readers of this journal the book raises some questions of more than pass-
ing interest. Some of these questions the author is aware of and discusses, not
altogether adequately. The more important ones, however, are those that under-
lie the whole experiment and which the author either does not perceive or chooses

This content downloaded from 128.220.159.213 on Mon, 25 Sep 2023 19:06:18 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms