BOOK NOTICES 207 sure's concept ofmotivation should not be associated with words but rather with cotext and context. Everything is relative in language, and the systematic character of language does not lie in separate phonemic, lexical, grammatical, and textual systems. In fact the systematic and universal features of language are made up by the human capabilities of thinking and experiencing. Speakers are able to use a limited number of signs to express highly complicated ideas, and they can decode expressions in very complex situations. To do this requires applying the basic principle of language and language description—the idea of economy. This elementary principle of human behavior can be seen when a speaker tries to avoid unnecessary redundancy and when simpler ways of pronunciation are preferred to more difficult ones. In addition language economy can be seen on the deeper level of reinterpreting linguistic units new to a certain speaker. This gives sense to an utterance since under the principle ofeconomy, a speaker must assume that no text is uttered without meaning. As a result of new expressions and new interpretations produced by the principle ofeconomic use, language might change over time. Considering language change again, D emphasizes how the individual reflects about language. For the individual the main goal of language and speaking is to impart and to decode sense or meaning. D rejects the idea of the 'invisible hand phenomenon' as well as the concept of teleology in language change. Again he links the systematic character of language to the speaker's purposeful acts rather than to the whole speech community or to language as an abstract system. In short, D questions the traditional structuralist conception of system in language. He emphasizes the systematic cognitive behavior of each individual that uses the relative means of language. In order to support his opinion D illustrates his ideas with many detailed examples mainly taken from German, English, and French. [Dieter Aichele, Fachhochschule Neubrandenburg.] The Oxford English-Hebrew Dictionary. Ed. by N. S. Doniach and A. Kahane. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Pp. xxiii, 1091. The late N. S. Doniach (d. 16 April 1994), the chief editor ofthis dictionary, is well known to Semitologists for editing the excellent Oxford EnglishArabic dictionary ofcurrent usage (1972). The introduction by Professor A. Kahane explains D's goal of using various styles of modern Hebrew in this volume, including colloquial language and slang. From abacus to Zulu, this dictionary, happily, has it all! It even has the f-word with many of its most common idiomatic usages, such as '__ up' and '__ off!' (351). The tome's particularly noteworthy features include up-to-date terminology ofall sorts, such as that dealing with computers. However, some inconsistencies can be found. 'Software' is written as toxna with a vav (883), but it is spelled without a vav (using a kamats katan) under 'hardware' (400). And curiously, the name of the vowel kamats is written kamatz, yet the vowel chataf kamats is spelled differently on the very next line (ix). AU Hebrew words are given in their fully vocalized or pointed forms, including dagesh, which is said to have the phonetic value 'stress mark', a puzzling statement (ix). Phonological matters on the whole, however, have been handled well. It was a wise decision for the editors to give preference to a word's modern pronunciation if it differs from its traditional pointing (xxiii). Along these lines, I wanted to check the vocalization and pronunciation of the irregular Classical Hebrew plural for bayit 'house'—battiim or (bottiim); to my surprise, however, it was not given (426). British English has been chosen as the norm of this dictionary, a reasonable and expected decision by Oxford University Press. An American has little difficulty getting used to British spellings such as 'programme'; however, 'program' is also listed, but with the stipulation, 'US and Comput.' (724). However, it may be difficult at first for an American to appreciate 'farther' and 'father' transcribed exactly the same. There are a few discrepancies to report. American English 'buggy' is given as eglat-tinok (114), but 'pram' lists only eglat-tinokot, its plural (708), whereas the more formal 'perambulator' (called 'formal ' by the editors) lists...