Acta Orientalia 46. (1992-1993)
2-3. szám - Critica - György Hazai (ed.): Handbuch der türkischen Sprachwissenschaft (Henryk Jankowski)
CRITICA fically, Lees contrasts phonological rules with structural and transformational rules, whereas phonological and phonetic rules are placed indistinctly on a more surface level. In my opinion, it is this indefiniteness that is vague in Lees’ system, so Kramsky could have commented on it with an appropriate criticism. The contributor correctly demonstrated that Lees dealt with phonology in the section of morphophonemics and with phonetics in the phonology section. Furthermore, he is correct in observing that instead of (q k) the representation with the symbols (к к’) is more plausible. Regretfully, Krâmskÿ neglects Selen’s book (1979), which probably for the first time in Turkish Turcology makes use of experimental measurements and provides a complex analysis of the whole phonetic inventory. One cannot find such works as Clements, Sezer (1982) and numerous contributions by Demirezen alike. My next remark concerns Krâmskÿ’s approach to vowel harmony, which unlike my own and Johanson’s understanding, is interpreted traditionally as phonetic change. In reality, it is easy to prove that vowel harmony has nothing to do with phonetic change, as nothing changes. Vowel harmony is a rule that imposes constraints on the quality of vowels in morphemes suffixed to the stem, so it exceeds not only syllabic, but also morphemic boundaxles. In addition, knowledge of the volume edited by Vago (1980) would be desirable. Concerning stress and intonation, Krâmskÿ’s discussion is fairly satisfactory. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that remarkable progress was made in this field after the completion of the reviewed paper, see Sebüktekin (1986), Underhill (1988). Of the earlier studies, perhaps those by Konrot (1981) and Sezer (1983) could be added. 10. The subsequent lines cover the lexicography study by Stein (pp. 335-370). The paper deals with works published after 1928. This is a very helpful survey of what was done in the last period of the history of Turkish lexicography. Unlike Tietze, Stein arranged his paper in a simple and quite practical way. He first evaluates the large dictionary production, then lists all the items in a bibliography to whioh references are clearly made. The arrangement of the study is as follows: first there is a brief introduction with references to the most important dictionaries in Arabic script, then monolingual, i.e. explanatory, synonym, spelling, terminological (these are largely quoted by Brendemoen below), and historical and dialect dictionaries (pp. 336-345). Next there are bilingual dictionaries, (pp. 345- 360), which take up most space in the outline. On the top of the bibliography, there is a short list of secondary literature on the lexicography. Like most of the other papers, Stein ignores the Japanese literature, in this case the dictionary by Ozawa 1966. Some critical notes concerning the subgrouping of dictionaries by Stein are to be found in Stachowski’s review article. (Stachowski 1990: 248-9.) 11. Hfebi&k’s paper, ‘Quantitative studies’ (pp. 371-387), along with those by Doerfer, Johanson, Stein, Tryjarski and Brendemoen, is one of the best contributions to the volume. The contributor delivers a good survey of the history of subject. He stresses that quantitative analyses were started by general and typological linguists interested in Turkish, and not Turcologists (p. 377). However, Turcologists soon demonstrated an interest in quantitative analysis and description. Among them, Kramskÿ, Kumbaraci, Cikaidze and Doerfer are mentioned. Hfebiöek’s ingenious observations and his critical remarks on his own first fruits (p. 381), are very instructive and vivid. In the following, there are some examples of application of quantitative studies: 1. counting frequency of lexical units; 2. receiving data on grammatical elements and their correlation (p. 380); 3. analysis of syntactic relations (p. 382); 4. looking up the exploitation of phonemes, allophones and the relationship between Acta Orient, Hung. XL VI, 1992193