Reviews Eriksen, Pal Kristian. On the Semanticsof the Russian CopularVerb'Byt". Meddeleleser, 84. Slavisk-BaltiskAvdeling, Universitetet i Oslo, 2000. vi + I30 pp. Notes. References. Priceunknown. THIS slim volume derives from a doctoral thesis so it is not surprisingthat a half of its pages are taken up with what are in effectpreliminariessuch as the perfective properties of byt',the copular as a vehicle for location and tense, and so on. We have no hints of 'semantic' in the narrow sense of the word until page 49 where the dual natureof the copular,referentialand existential, comes into focus. In a large numberof theworld'slanguagesit can show up as a strong form 'exist'. With or without an actual change of form it can be the 'copular',linkinga noun to an expressionof time or place; in this mode it can take the form of zero. There is nothing uniquely Russian in all this, or even Slavonicor Indo-European.Frompage 62 onwardswe arearegiven examples of existential byt'which is simply the other interpretationof the same form. There is no doubt that the verb byt'is awkward:it can be replaced, especially in negative contexts, by the verb 'have' in many Slavonic languages (e.g. Macedonian 'HeMa'); it has a future that conjugates as a present, a present that is defective with only 3rd person singular,a formal iterative (byvat') that does not allow a durativeor progressivereading (p. I2I). The authorhas put all possible forms in context and analysed the variety of meanings, citing authoritiesand comparingRussianwith otherlanguagesbut in the end he has to follow the many authoritiesnotably Chvany (Cambridge,MA, I975) who investigatedthe verb 'to be' on a universalscale and concluded that 'the true meaning of byt'is 'existence' and 'it has no semanticsof itsown' (p. I25). This search for the phantom copular is interestingenough but has yielded no new insights. Leamington Spa VERONICA Du FEU Sharapova, Elisabeth Marklund. Implicitand ExplicitNormin Contemporary RussianVerbal Stress.Studia Slavica Upsaliensia, 40. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis,Uppsala, 2000. 305 pp. Tables.Key. Bibliography.Appendices . Priceunknown. WORD stressin Russian, as in English, is free (it can fall on any syllableof a word) and mobile (it can change its position within a word or relatedwords). In both languages the position of the word stressand the effect it has on nonstressedsyllablesare coped with as part of the expertiseof the native speaker. But in Russian it is not so straightforward.There are areas of the lexicon where the speaker may choose the position for the stress. Only certain categories are liable to be affected: the masculine nominative and genitive pluralsof nouns, the past tense of verbs and the present tense of -it' verbs. In chapter one the author trawls through the dictionaries and the principal authorities to set the somewhat chaotic scene. Finally, she specificallystates REVIEWS 71 I that her goal is 'to investigate variation and norms in stress, not to find the reasonsfor this variation' (p. 35). In chapterstwo and three she discussesthe notion of norm and lists many examples of the non-normativity of so-called orthoepic works. On page 94 we get down to the multi-dimensional survey wherethe subjectswere askednot only to readthe stressedwordbut to express opinions: 'I say it likethat and I know that is right/and I thinkthat it is right/ but I knowit is not right';'I don't sayit likethat and I don't knowif it is right/ I thinkit is not right/I know it is not right'.The wordschosen forthisexercise were all verbs that are noted with alternative stresses in standard works. Altogether the surveyincluded 292 verbs. The IO9 subjectswere Moscovites born andbred.Their agesrangedbetween seventeen and sixtywith secondary education as a minimum. Appendices 4-7 give the reportedpercentageusage of stressescodified as normative; from these we are to conclude that over a half of the normative stressesare ignored. Hence the author's'implicit'norm and herconclusionthat 'thecodificationof Russianverbalstressisperfunctory and frequently does not reflect the actual norms. The explicit norm is in certain cases not perceived as the prestige variant. This discrepancy is most likely a result of subjectivism and conservatism, the hallmarks of Russian normativisation,which in their turn are partly linked to normative tradition and politics' (p. 252). The dictionary makers have a very...