Book Reviews: Getting Computers to Talk like You and Me: DISCOURSE CONTEXT, FOCUS, AND SEMANTICS

From the aspect of divisions, it is shown that Division I is quite unlike Divisions II and III. In Division I were included most of J and P, and in Division III most of E. E appears for the first time in Division II, and from there it has approximately the same share as J. Division II is gradually and increasingly individualized, and fully human true-life portraits appear in Division III, while Division I has a quasi-mythical nature. In Phase II, the aim was to let the features arrange themselves into groups of themselves, as it were, without any preconceptions. Five analysis methods were applied, and cluster analysis yielded a most interesting picture of interrelations among the text samples (figures 3.11, 3.12, pp. 136-7). The first cluster comprised samples of Text P. The second cluster comprised most of the N samples outside P. The third cluster encompassed all the H and D samples, regardless of their E or J origin. The authors write explicitly (p. 186): "This adds force . to the impression that the Jahwist and the Elohist were each other's alter ego". The other analyses supported this finding. Lexical richness and lexical concentration were separately examined, yielding results in three different ranges of vocabulary for N,H,D (Fig. 4.3) arid J,E,P (Fig. 4.4). Here, too, P is unlike the other groups. After the statistical analysis the authors consider it justified that N,H,D should be distinct. It is doubtful, to their mind, whether J,E,P should be ascribed to three different sources. They summarize this issue as follows: "While solely on these grounds this [documentary] hypothesis cannot be rejected out of hand, such serious doubts regarding its validity have arisen that neither can it any longer be accepted as unreservedly as it has been hitherto. " (p. 214) Rabin in his contribution is not surprised that the sources of discourse have been found so distinctive. Indeed, modern linguistics tends to take into account various extra-linguistic (psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic) factors that yield distinct linguistic patterns in dialogue, narration, etc. Narrative is known to differ from direct speech in various linguistic elements, such as use of pronouns, verb tenses, and demonstratives. It is, then, little wonder that Deity should use an elevated style, full of rhetorical elements on the one hand, and complete and complex sentences on the other, as found in Genesis. He suggests examining the Book according to discourse analysis techniques and the comparison of results. Talmon warns the reader against the spell of modern technological aids, since another computer-aided study of a part of Genesis by a French scholar has yielded different results. He notes that N predominates all over the text of Genesis, with 53% of Division III, 56% of Division II, and 74% of Division I. H increases from 5 % in Division I to 34% in Division II and 4 7 % in Division III. D, however, decreases from 21% in Division I to 10% in Division II and complete absence in Division III. This internal consistency leads him to suggest that N may have used pre-existing Canaanite or generally known Mesopotamian material. Talmon stresses that the kind of text analysis as applied in this book is really a literary analysis, which fits well with modern trends of Bible scholarship. Belonging to the linguists' part of the expected reading public (which according to the writers includes "Bible scholars, linguists, statisticians, and probably computer people"), I find this book interestin[~ to study. The starting point of the documentary hypothesis is concisely and clearly summarized. The statistical methods of each phase are clearly described, and are illustrated by tables, figures, and appendices. The findings appear at the end of each statistical analysis, with a brief summary of the results (without the numbers). It may be noted that there is no list of references, and references to the literature appear as footnotes. Appendices are said to be four in number, but only three exist, although "appendices 3 and 4" comprise various sub-sections. There is also a printing mismatch of the number of counted words between the text (p. 192) and table 4.1 (p. 193) and exhibit 4.1 (p. 129). The results of this study make us hope this is not the last word on the subject (see "Suggestions for further investigation and two examples" pp. 187-189, and "Interim Postscript" pp. 216-217). Subsequent studies, perhaps with more details of the linguistic features proper, are to be awaited.