Bilingualism is a mainstay of current sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic research, and it has successfully migrated from the narrow concerns of “applied linguistics” to the very core of theoretical linguistic debate and argumentation. Research on bilinguals at both the societal and individual levels is now contributing to a deeper understanding of the place of language in human interaction and cognition. By its very nature, the study of bilingualism requires that researchers become involved with speakers at the level of communication, often in field situations that require subtle sociological and psychological insights relating to language choice and language switching as speakers attempt to establish personal and group identity.

It will probably surprise few researchers that bilingualism and multilingualism were standard features of many ancient societies. What may come as a surprise to many, however, is that the topic of bilingualism in ancient societies has attracted the attention of scholars for generations (Schuchardt started out as a Latinist), as specialists explored the data of bilingual texts as a means of gaining insight into linguistic structure and history. Furthermore, in recent years modern sociolinguistic concepts and analytical techniques have been put to effective use to explore the effects of linguistic pluralism on ancient societies, which in turn has added to the massive database on bilingual societies and the speakers who inhabit them. Bringing together the two utterly opposite fields of classical philology and sociolinguistics seems an unlikely undertaking, especially when one considers the interactive fieldwork or experimental conditions that underlie current research paradigms in the field of bilingual research. But such work can be and increasingly has been carried out, often by Indo-Europeanists trained in dialectology and sociolinguistic principles, such as Neumann & Untermann 1980, Campanile, Cardona & Lazzeroni 1988, or Dunkel 2000; or by classical philologists who have mastered the methods and approaches of sociolinguistic theory, such as Flobert 1992 or Biville 1998. Much of this recent activity is represented in a volume which in many ways can be considered a companion to the one under review, the collection of Adams, Janse & Swain 2002.

Now comes Adams's Bilingualism and the Latin language (BLL), a book that can only be described in superlatives for its depth, sophistication, and detail. BLL is an undertaking carried out on a scale never even hinted at by the most dedicated workers in the field of ancient bilingualism, the first truly comprehensive and systematic attempt to deal with an entire ancient period (the Roman era, down to about the 4th century CE). It is arranged essentially into two parts: Broadly, chaps. 1–4 cover theoretical and methodological issues; chaps. 5–8 report on specific locales and situations; and chap. 9 presents conclusions. The work covers an amazingly large number of languages and contact situations, including data from and about Oscan, Umbrian, Venetic, Messapic, Etruscan, Gaulish, Punic, Libyan, Berber, Aramaic, Hebrew, Germanic, “Hispanic,” Egyptian, Getic, Sarmatian, Thracian, and, especially and prominently, Greek. Discussions range from the micro-analysis of inscriptions, a multifaceted discussion of code-switching in inscriptions and texts (including a lengthy discussion of code-switching in Cicero's letters), issues of solidarity, identity, language choice, and language and power. There is a detailed treatment of borrowing, with case studies from many of the abovementioned languages brought in to illustrate points of interest. The discussion of borrowing is particularly instructive, not only for its sociolinguistic and societal dimensions but also for the elaborate treatment of the effects of borrowing on the structural core of the recipient language. Adams goes into great technical detail on accentual and other phonetic features that have been transferred from language to language, as well as morphology, syntax, and the more easily handled features of vocabulary. The morphological and syntactic discussions are particularly welcome because they tackle some traditional chestnuts of Greek/Latin contact changes which are given an extensive airing, such as gender exchanges, case usage, various substitutions of both inflectional and derivational morphology, and other structural matters. One general point worth remembering about Greek/Latin bilingualism is that while Romans displayed a fascination with Greek throughout history, and while it was not uncommon to find Romans who were trained in Greek and spoke it reasonably well, it was the rare Greek who bothered to learn Latin. The intellectual and cultural prestige of Greece was a far more powerful sociolinguistic force than was the military power of the Romans. Greek always played a special part in Roman cultural life, to the point that it was even used as an official language in the Eastern Empire. Adams notes (p. 545) that the Romans did not make an aggressive attempt to impose their language in any part of the Empire, which is to say that there was no official language policy for conquered lands. What seemed to happen is that, in most cases, Latin simply won out by default owing to the practical circumstances of administration and military domination; but Greek enjoyed a special status not shared, for example, by Oscan, Umbrian, or Gaulish.

The second half of the book begins with a wide-ranging chapter on Latin in Egypt, drawing on the numerous inscriptional, textual, and other materials that attest to Latin/Greek community bilingualism (there is no systematic evidence for Latin/Egyptian bilingualism). Egyptian played a limited role in Roman life in Egypt, but Greek played a significant one, in particular in the army, which is discussed in detail (599–622). There is a chapter on patterns of bilingualism on the Greek island of Delos from the 2nd century BCE as revealed by a variety of inscriptional materials; and a chapter on Gaulish/Latin commercial bilingualism at La Graufesenque, a Latin-Gallic pottery production center where some bilingual inscriptions have been uncovered, which Adams analyzes in terms of bilingual code-switching.

Adams next takes up the matter of “The Latin of a learner” by discussing the extant materials of two native Greek speakers, one translating Greek fables, the other writing letters home, each in their nonnative Latin tongue. Adams parses out features of bilingualism and interference from Greek in the words of each writer, carefully distinguishing bilingual interference from simple vulgar or improperly learned Latin. He concludes the book with a thematic summary which discusses such issues as identity (a major theme throughout the volume), language death, the effects of slavery as an institutional force in the spread of bilingualism (Romans kept slaves of many nationalities), literacy, and features of “Hellenized” Latin, especially among the upper classes of Roman society.

Bilingualism and the Latin Language is a dense technical document, not for the casual reader or the traditionally trained sociolinguist or psycholinguist with a curiosity about the ancient world. For them, Adams, Janse & Swain 2002 will prove a better choice, though the reader committed to learning about Latin bilingualism specifically might be able to wade through the first four chapters of BLL. To illustrate, Greek linguistic material, which is abundant throughout the volume, is printed in the Greek alphabet, and the scores of complicated literary and epigraphical examples from Greek and Latin are not only left untranslated but are discussed in terms that only a classicist or classically trained linguist can appreciate. Furthermore, non-Greek inscriptions are cited using traditional conventions such as bold roman type for material written in non-Latin alphabets (e.g., Etruscan or Oscan), dots under uncertain letters, and other specialist epigraphical practices. So unless the reader has the benefit of extensive training not only in the Greek and Latin languages but also in epigraphy and classical history and culture, much of this book will prove impenetrable. For the classical philologist or the linguist specializing in classical languages, who are its real audience, the book will prove invaluable, and worth all the considerable effort it will take to read and digest it. It is bound to become the standard by which any work on the topic of bilingualism in the ancient world will be judged: exhaustive, theoretically current, philologically exacting, and methodologically rigorous – a landmark publication.