Review of Donohue & Wichmann (2008): The typology of semantic alignment

Abstract

Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann (eds.). 2008. The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. xvi+465 pp. (ISBN 978 0 19 923838 5) Reviewed by Geoffrey Haig (University of Kiel)The book under review focuses on languages in which intransitive subjects are not treated uniformly in terms of their case and agreement configurations. Traditionally, such systems have been discussed under labels such as 'active/stative' , 'split-S' , 'fluid-S' , or 'split intransitivity' . However, the editors introduce the term 'semantic alignment' , and the scope of the book is actually much broader than would be implied by any of the traditional labels. The sheer breadth of data covered in the book renders detailed treatment of all contributions impossible; readers are referred to the excellent summaries of the individual chapters provided in Wichmann's overview contribution, which I will not duplicate here. Instead, I will focus on the chapters of more general interest, and relate the main points to the other contributions wherever possible.The volume consists of a well-balanced collection of papers on a typologically rich sample of languages, rounded off by a common reference section, and indices for subjects, authors, and languages. There are four parts to the book: an introductory section containing four contributions on theoretical and general typological issues (Part I), followed by case studies of individual languages and language groups, arranged geographically: Eurasia (Part II), The Pacific (Part III), and the Americas (Part IV). Søren Wichmann's contribution 'The study of semantic alignment: retrospect and state of the art' introduces the new terminology ('semantic alignment'), grounds the book in its research context, and summarizes the individual chapters. Wichmann briefly traces the two major strands in the history of research on active/stative alignment: First, the holistic typologies with their Humboldtian roots and their refinement through Sapir and the later more axiomatic formulation of Klimov and associates. Second, a more contingent view, according to which alignments are construction-specific and, in principle, independent of other parts of the grammar. While the strong version of the Klimovian holistic approach to active/stative alignment is largely debunked (6), Wichmann notes certain pervasive similarities across languages with this alignment, so a wholesale abandonment of the search for correlates of active/stative alignment is probably premature. This chapter blends clarity and brevity, providing a fine overview of a very complex set of issues.