Dietz's Schreibung und Lautung im mittelalterlichen Englisch (hereafter SL) is a hardbound monograph (17 × 25 cm) printed on high-quality paper. This book addresses the development of the Present-Day English graphemes which include <h> as their second component: <ch>, <gh>, <sh>, <th>, and <wh>. In addition to a short introductory chapter detailing the goals and methodology of the research, SL consists of ten chapters, the first of which provides an overview of the relationship between sound and spelling in medieval English. Chapters 2 through 9 are each devoted to a particular grapheme, with chapter 10 summarizing the data. A summary in English is provided (pp. 331—336). The end material of the book consists of extensive lists of primary (pp. 337—344) and secondary literature (pp. 334—364), an index of manuscripts referenced in SL, as well as a general index. The general index (pp. 373—74) is perhaps too cursory in searching through a book as densely packed with information as SL is. The deficiencies of the index, however, are more than compensated for in the exceedingly meticulous organization of a very complex topic, and in conjunction with the detailed table of contents, readers are likely to find the information with little difficulty.

Dietz' goal, one could say, seems paradoxical. Only through a systematic and detailed analysis of the minutiae of phonemic~graphemic correspondences in medieval English manuscripts, tied together with the spelling conventions in continental European languages, does he see a possible tackling of a problem as immense and large-scaled as the “Herausbildung eines neuen schriftsprachlichen Standard in der ±bergangszeit vom Mittel- zum früheren Neuenglischen” [the emergence of a new written standard language in the period of transition from Middle English to Early Modern English ] (p. 12). The data are presented in an organized fashion according to grapheme (per chapter) then to association between grapheme and phoneme. Subsequently the grapheme~phoneme associations are organized chronologically and geographically. For instance, the first chapter separates the usage of the grapheme <ch> first into chronological groupings (late Old English to early Middle English), and within each grouping differentiates between the phonemes represented, here /k/ and /tʃ/. Within each of these groupings, manuscripts attesting the grapheme in question are listed, alongside relevant information on the manuscripts' provenance. Within each manuscript citation, further, one is provided a number of concrete examples, sometimes sorted according to the various scribal hands within the manuscript. As a counterpoint to the detailed information on particular graphemic usage, each chapter is provided with a synopsis, which speaks to both the readers interested in big-picture issues, as well as the readers seeking very detailed notes on scribal usage.

The chapters on the graphemic combinations <ch>, <s(c)h>, and <gh> also branch out to examine the usages of the same in continental languages. Although limited mention is made of the influence of Irish spelling traditions on early Old English (pp. 17, 207, 305), one might expect Dietz to also address other contemporaneous Hiberno-British scribal practices, especially given the geographic proximity and overlap with the English fricative inventory. Treatment of non-English grapheme usage varies from chapter to chapter. Although the focus of the chapter on <ch> addresses English usage, French usage, as well as insular and continental Latin, the chapters on <gh>, <s(c)h>, and <th> encompass also continental Germanic languages, as well as occasional references to Italian regions. Naturally the chapter on the grapheme family related to <wh> (for instance, <quh>) is restricted primarily to insular usage. In the instance of <s(c)h>, comparative analysis between English, High German, Dutch, and Low German (pp. 199—201) is of particular interest, as all languages undergo similar phonological and graphemic changes in the development of PGmc. ⁺/sk/. A key point argued in Chapter 7 on the development of <qu(h)> and <qu> as /xw/, however, is that the use of <qu> antedates the Norman conquest and therefore need not be the result of French influence as others have claimed (pp. 267—269). Although no longer present in modern English spellings, the grapheme <yh> is the topic of Chapter 8. Depending on period and geography, this spelling combination functioned to represent either /j/ or /θ~Ð/ (where <y> descends from earlier <þ>).

SL demonstrates a greater complexity in the development of diacritical <h> than one might have imagined. Many of the spelling combinations involving diacritical <h> are found in the early and late Old English period, excepting perhaps <sh> and its variants (pp. 323—34). These then were subjected to a significant variety of preferences during the Middle English period, not only in terms of their geographic distribution, but also in their function. Many of these spelling conventions do not gain widespread usage until the late Middle English/Early Modern English period. While the demonstration of Anglo-Saxon usage of diacritical <h> indicates that not every later usage can be ascribed to Norman French influence, one must accept the tremendous influence present in continental spellings and the need to reflect a larger number of loanwords. The complexity of the interactions of graphemes and phonemes is affected not only by diachronic splits and mergers of particular sounds, and not only by competing graphemes from various sources. Dietz argues throughout that this interaction can only be understood in the context of sound change, graphemic preference, and the need to find unambiguous representations to avoid misreadings (p. 328). In this manner Dietz is quite successful in his implementation of “die von Vertretern des klassischen Strukturalismus begründete Graphemik” [ graphemic study as founded by the representatives of classical structuralism] (p. 14).

One aspect overlooked in this study, though one which arguably stands as a precondition, therefore perhaps outside the scope of this work, is the usage of diacritic <h> as a “silentÓ letter. A common player in early Irish texts, occasional player in Old English texts (one thinks of the contentious instance of “HunferþÓ in Beowulf), as well as hiatus and diphthong marker in Old High German, to say nothing of the ubiquitous role etymological spelling played in Romance languages, one critical aspect of the usage of <h> as diacritical marker is its role as non-entity beginning in late Latin. Moreover, the combination of a Latinate tradition of silent <h> interacts with languages such as English, which have a use for the graph <h> to mark a phonemic /h/. These two factors seem essential components of a diacritical <h> as the marker of phonemes with fricative qualities.

This work has the potential to be a study of lasting value. Despite modern negative connotations of “positivism,Ó SL demonstrates the need to examine large amounts of specific data in a positivistic fashion, resulting in a clearer picture of the development of English. Although the end material includes a summary in English, one must be familiar enough with German to make use of all that this volume has to offer. Scholarship in Old and Middle English is naturally dominated by English-language secondary literature; however, this volume is a good reminder of the important contribution made by philology of the German tradition.