International Encyclopedia of Linguistics

Field: Arts and Humanities (Social Sciences)

Reviewed by: International Encyclopedia of Linguistics Laurence M. Porter Frawley, William J., editor. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 4 vols. The first edition of the International Encyclopedia, also in four volumes, appeared in 1992. Both editions offer extensive bibliographies for the longer entries, and are far more authoritative, ambitious, and comprehensive than their competitors in English. Description rather than historiography or statistics predominates. The encyclopedia's inventory of the world's thousands of languages and the estimated number of speakers of each is an amazing collective achievement, although the information given concerning the individual major languages and language groups is usually too selective and cursory to aid SLA (second language acquisition), or literary and cultural studies. Well-known scholars have contributed most of the articles—generally well written, clear, and jargon-free. British scholarship, especially the productions of Cambridge University Press, predominates. Figures from the literary critic's pantheon—Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Habermas, Heidegger, Kant, Lyotard—are mentioned only in passing. However, many American literary critics will feel at home when [End Page 139]encountering varied, reasonably ample discussions of Saussure, the Prague School, Peirce, Speech Act theory, Lewis, and the like (although only deceased scholars receive individual entries). Since the editors sensibly assumed that few will read the entire work, considerable repetition has been allowed. Grice's maxims, for example, are reproduced in their entirety at least three times, and the pronunciation of vowels by residents of Nantucket is discussed at least as often. Authors of individual entries were encouraged to provide examples for the layperson, but compliance was uneven. After a somewhat languid updating from 1992 to 2003, most articles remain unchanged, except, at times, for two or three additions to their bibliographies, and, often, a short paragraph skimming over recent developments. But one finds many new topics. The editor, moreover, has helpfully reconceptualized the arrangement of the entries, regrouping many under topics more general and cohesive than before. The extensive glossary of the first edition has unfortunately been sacrificed to the demands of economy (the new set costs $395), but the excellent index remains. Several key topics with potential for inspiring cross-cultural studies have been treated in a perfunctory, arid way (e.g., "Translation and Interpretation," 4:381-85). To acquire background on linguistics as a discipline, however, literary and cultural critics can benefit particularly from "Agreement" 1: 51-57; "Diglossia" 1: 435-38; "Linguistic Relativity" 2: 459-66; "Linguistics and Literature" 2: 466-503; "Modality" 3: 71-73; "Philosophy of Language" 3: 268-98; "Power and Language" 3: 376-79; "Pragmatics and Contextual Semantics" 3: 379-98; "Register and Style" 3: 454-59; "Semantics" and "Semiotics" 4: 1-29; "Social Variation" and "Sociolinguistics" 4: 85-106; "Text" 4: 227-39; and "Writing and Written Language" 4: 380-99. In what follows, I would like to depart from traditional book review format, in order to explore two questions: 1) Which linguistic concepts demarcated by the Encyclopediacan be fruitfully applied to literary criticism? and 2) Where in the Encyclopediamight literary critics find leads for developing their own ideas? In exploring these questions, I have included a few examples of my own, beyond those found in the Encyclopedia. Where, then, might literary and cultural critics look for ideas? The philosophy of language conventionally distinguishes semantics(how language encodes information) from pragmatics(how language users communicate information; 3:268 and passim). Overall, pragmatics offers more resources for the literary critic, although rhetoric—and, more [End Page 140]generally, any discussion of language as "expressive"—sit uncomfortably on the boundary between semantics and pragmatics. To attract attention, any message must combine the given and the new, presenting them in that order (contextualization [background] followed by defamiliarization [a report of the novel element]). Traditional linguists emphasize structure; writers and speakers emphasize creativity. Most linguists provisionally assume in the user of language a flawless communicative competence, a perfect memory, an effortless performance, and complete comprehensionby the receiver of the message, whereas many creative writers emphasize their struggles to find, organize, and express ideas, and authors since the mid-nineteenth century depict characters' difficulties in understanding others and in expressing themselves. In order...