Noun phrases in creole languages: A multi-faceted approach. Edited by Marlyse Baptista and Jacqueline Guéron. (Creole Language Library, 31.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2007. Pp. 493. Hardcover EUR 125.00 / US 188.00. [To order, visit http://www.benjamins.com] Reviewed by Anand Syea (University of Westminster) Tis volume grew out of a symposium on the syntax and semantics of NPs/DPs in creole languages at the University of Paris III in April 2000. Te book brings together a number of descriptive and theoretical papers on the distribution, struc- ture and interpretation of NPs (including bare NPs) in creoles based on Portu- guese, Spanish, French, English, and Dutch; one paper focuses on a semi-creole (African American English). Noun phrases in creole languages comprises ffeen contributions plus a com- prehensive introduction with summaries of each article, an overview of relevant theories, and two chapters at the end, one synthesizing properties of NPs across the creoles discussed, the other highlighting issues raised. Tese contributions are arranged under nine diferent parts (the introduction being Part I). Tis volume adds to our understanding of the syntax and semantics of NPs in creole languages and establishes a clear and fruitful link between creole linguistics and theoretical linguistics. NPs in creole and non-creole languages raise interesting questions with re- gards to their distribution, internal structure and interpretation. Te study of bare NPs in particular, also central to the volume under review, has been of interest to theoretical linguists since Carlson (1977). What is clear from contributions made here is that recent theoretical discussions of the syntax and semantics interface are directly relevant to the analysis of creole NPs. Te overview of theories in the introduction, brief though it is, is therefore much welcomed. Part II contains papers on NPs in Portuguese-based creoles. Te frst, by Né- lia Alexandre and Tjerk Hagemeijer (A&H), discusses (non)bare NPs in Santome and argues that they are structurally DPs without NumP. Number is claimed to be parasitic on defniteness. Nouns with indefnite ua (‘a/an’) are interpreted as singular while those with defnite inen (‘the’) are plural. Inen, interestingly, is gen- erally restricted to [+human] nouns, suggesting therefore a complex interaction not only between defniteness and number but also defniteness and animacy. A&H also examine properties of se, which they argue expresses specifcity. Te au- thors propose that NPs with se should project SpP (specifcity phrase) inside a DP. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 24:1 (2009), 193–198. doi 10.1075/jpcl.24.1.17sye issn 0920–904 / e-issn 159–970 © John Benjamins Publishing Company