Page:IJAL vol 1.djvu/317

 NO. 4

��REVIEWS

��309

��advanced on this point than I have touched upon, but a review is not the proper place for a full discussion.

E. SAPIR.

RENWARD BRANDSTETTER. - Die Redupli- kation in den indianischen, indonesischen und indogermanischen Sprachen (Beilage zum Jahresbericht der Luzerner Kantons- schule) : 1917.

In this treatise the author gives a survey of those phenomena of reduplication which are found in each of the three groups of languages mentioned in the title. Types found in only one or two of these groups, however interest- ing they may be, are left out of consideration. Each type mentioned is represented by one example drawn from each of the three groups. When the author assures us that his examples are taken from the best texts we are, of course, quite willing to believe him ; but still we should have been much obliged to him if he had taken the trouble to mention his sources" in each separate case. Especially regarding the origin of his Indian examples some more information would not have been superfluous, since even an americanist can hardly be supposed to recognise these sources by intuition. The paper is purely descriptive throughout : it is an enumeration of parallels, and even the relations between forms and functions have hardly been taken notice of. So the reader who expects to learn something about the essential character of this interesting phenomenon will be sorely disap- pointed : what he does learn is that, even after Bra n dste tier's list of parallels from a great num- ber of linguistic stocks published in 1917, Pott's well-known book on reduplication, printed in 1862, remains our best starting-point for further inquiry. Evidently Brandstetter himself is not aware of this fact; at least he never shows that he is, though it is hardly to

��be supposed that the imposing array of data presented by that eminent scholar has not ma- terially facilitated his own investigations.

As Brandstetter's study practically contains neither new facts nor new ideas, the task of his reviewer is not a grateful one.

It might have been otherwise if the author had made an effort to penetrate a little deeper into his subject. That he has not done so is the more astonishing because some valuable pre- paratory work has already been done. Already Pott had perceived that the numerous and very divergent functions of reduplication (in its widest sense) may, all of them, be traced back to the same psychic motive. He speaks of " quantitative steigerung ", which, however, may lead to a qualitative change of meaning (Pott, Die Reduplikation, p. 22). About 45 years later the snme idea was much more tech- nically expressed by van Ginneken when he demonstrated that all reduplication is a mani- festation of psychic energy (Jac. van Ginneken, Principes de linguistique psychologique, see Index s. v. redoublements). Pott distinguished further between intensive and extensive " stei- gerung " : the former manifesting itself e. g. in reduplicated interjections, "lallworter", ono- matopoeia ; the latter in reduplicated plurals and distributive numerals. Thus far these two groups of Pott correspond to van Ginneken's general classification, which distinguishes bet- ween extrinsic and intrinsic energy ; but Pott's conception of the essential character of each group is rather superficial. As to this point van Ginneken'sargumentopensanew aspect. Accord- ing to him the difference between e. g. " lall- worter" and plurals consists in this that the psy- chic energy manifesting itself in the reduplica- tion in the former case originates from the emotional attitude of the speaker and in the latter case is stimulated by the meaning of the grammatical form itself. In his opinion the types of reduplication belonging to group I

�� �