It should be noted, however, that some authors are still constrained by a some- what ethnocentric mindset, which leads to biased positions in a few chapters, where authors try to elevate Western ideology and depreciate oriental values, or confirm one variation of discourses as represented by Taiwan or Hong Kong and downplay other variations as represented by Mainland China. As to the research methodology, content analysis serves as the predominant approach to speeches, interviews, and news items. While it is a most direct and convenient approach, the acclaimed ap- proach “discourse analysis” can in the future incorporate more sociofriendly lin- guistic theories as frameworks of analysis. It seems inevitable that a book like this—when read by people from Mainland China—will be bound to stimulate some complicated feelings due to the different discourses used in different parts of “Greater China.” In this sense, it is invaluable “original data” for future research in this area. With more efforts of the scholars in this promising field, it can be predicated that some more penetrating analysis will emerge in the near future. (Received 21 April 2010) Language in Society 40 (2011) doi:10.1017/S0047404511000741 YAEL MASCHLER, Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. Pp. xvi, 258. Hb. $143. Reviewed by ZOHAR LIVNAT Department of Hebrew and Semitic Languages Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel livnatz@mail.biu.ac.il Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers is in many respects the first work to present an updated sociolinguistic description of Israeli Hebrew talk-in-interaction. In this communicative-discursive study anchored in both de- tailed linguistic analysis and in-depth sociocultural investigation, Maschler ana- lyzes four carefully chosen discourse markers, shedding light on the essence of “interacting as an Israeli,” as well as on the structure and flow of interactional dis- course in general, on the grammaticization processes, and on the complex relations between language and culture as expressed in casual talk. In this excellent book, discourse markers are first investigated as a system. Maschler ’s approach is unique in that it is focused on the process of METALANGUA- GING (Becker 1988)—“using language in order to communicate about the process of using language” (1). Thus, she understands discourse markers to be linguistic elements employed to refer to the text itself (textual discourse markers), to the inter- action among its speakers (interpersonal discourse markers) or to the cognitive 652 Language in Society 40:5 (2011) ZOHAR LIVNAT