Reviews for Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction to Theory and Method

The average rating for Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction to Theory and Method based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2007-10-15 00:00:00 santiago borbon As a graduate student of historical linguistics, I thought I had encountered every textbook and handbook of the subject around. I was surprised, however, to find this one. Anthony Fox's LINGUISTIC RECONSTRUCTION, published in 1996 in the series Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics, hasn't gained the popularity of other introductions like Lehmann's or Hock's, but that is a real shame as it is perhaps the most rigorous textbooks I know. Fox's textbook covers the usual ground of historical linguistics textbooks: the comparative method, internal reconstruction, language contacts, typology, and reconstruction of culture and society from lexicon. Examples are mainly drawn from the comparative study of the Indo-European languages, though Bantu and Austronesian material is also widely used. Like Lehmann in his THEORETICAL BASES OF INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUISTICS, Fox seems to believe that knowing the history of the field and its eminent personalities is just as important as knowing current vogues. However, Fox's book is special because of the author's honesty about the limitations of each of the various methods of linguistic reconstruction. For example, he explains that the view of the proto-language reconstruction by the comparative method differs from that by internal reconstruction, the first producing large phoneme inventories and the second a simpler inventory. A reasonable reconstruction can only be achieved by a combination of methods. Furthermore, out of all the textbooks for historical linguistics that I know, Fox is the only one that strongly warns the student to ensure that his arguments are not circular. The criticism of glottochronology here is also considerably more devastating than elsewhere. I would not, however, recommend the book for the complete newbie, as Fox's writing is extremely challenging. Better to enter the field with Campbell's excellent HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS: An Introduction. Nonetheless, I strongly recommend this book to all who want to refine their skills. I certainly feel that I am a better student after reading Fox's LINGUISTIC RECONSTRUCTION.

Review # 2 was written on 2013-06-22 00:00:00 Guy Johnston This is an excellent overview of methods in linguistic reconstruction. The great bulk of the text is given to lucid, robust descriptions of the comparative method & internal reconstruction. Shorter, later chapters introduce typological & quantitative methods (primarily lexicostatistics/glottochronology, which it treats as one thing), as well as implications of reconstructions for determining language relationships, proto-language-speakers homelands, & some details of proto-cultures. The book is cautious, & conscience of limitations of all methods, but thorough, presenting methods that have not won mainstream acceptance, but which have significant followings within professional linguistics. The writing should be accessible to a reader new to linguistics, but Fox does not forego important methodological detail (though in certain examples he notes simplification of language-historical detail for illustrational purposes). In addition to the overall bibliography, each chapter concludes with a list of recommended reading, arranged in historical order, & in some chapters broken down by sub-theme. Readers who are interested in the comparative method & internal reconstruction will probably want to read other works that have employed those methods, to see them in action, but they will not need additional instruction to understand how to implement the methods: One could conceivably competently use these methods on raw data after reading the book. Readers who are interested in typology & glottochronology are not likely to feel that they have adequate tools to employ those methods after reading Linguistic Reconstruction, & will need to follow the chapter bibliographies. It's worth noting that the book is from 1995. I don't know how dated that makes the content.