Pragmatics: An Annotated Bibliography (Library and Information Sources in Linguistics)

PRAGMATICS

AMSTERDAM STUDIES I N THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE

E. F. K. KOERNER, General Editor

Series V - LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SOURCES IN LINGUISTICS

Published under the auspices of the LINGUISTICS DOCUMENTATION CENTRE INFORMATHÈQUE DE LINGUISTIQUE Morisset Library / Faculty of Arts University of Ottawa

Volume 4

Jef Verschueren Pragmatics: An annotated bibliography

PRAGMATICS A N ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

JEF VERSCHUEREN University of California, Berkeley and Belgian National Science Foundation

AMSTERDAM / JOHN BENJAMINS B.V. 1978

©Copyright 1978 ֊ John Benjamins B.V. ISBN 90 272 0991 x / 90 272 0995 2 No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

PREFACE

Linguists who are dissatisfied with the attainments of their scholar­ ly discipline should at least find some consolation in the fact that its development mirrors the dialectic processes of the human mind. Thus, the heyday of Chomskyan transformational grammar - an attempt to capture the essence of language without reference to extra-linguistic reality was followed by a renewed interest in the relation between language and the functions it serves, culminating in the claim that even the opera­ tion of simple syntactic rules cannot be described adequately without taking those functions and features of the context into account. This insight developed among 'angry young linguists' in the late I960's and was initially used to tackle problems within the transformational paradigm. Supported by two decades of work in 'ordinary language phi­ losophy' , the new field of investigation mushroomed into an immense and chaotic body of knowledge, called 'linguistic pragmatics'. Its rapid growth and its lack of surveyability form the motivation for this bibliography. But from the same two properties it follows that this preface can be little more than a series of excuses for a number of de­ ficiencies of the present work. And as the French say, "Qui s'excuse s'accuse". The scope of the bibliography is extremely wide. It lists publica­ tions on speech act theory, presupposition, implicature, and frame ana­ lysis, as well as a large number of topics which can hardly be placed under any of these headings. The selection reflects the following de­ finition of pragmatics: The study (i) of the use and extra-linguistic function(s) of language, and (ii) of the relation between such uses or functions and the structure of language (on any level of structure: sound, word, sentence), i.e. the contextual appropriateness conditions on the use of language. Needless to say, the points of contact with other types of linguistic research are numerous. But in most cases the definition allows for a principled decision. For example, the defini­ tion does not include the whole field of sociolinguistics: most types

V

PRAGMATICS

of sociolinguistic research deal with features of language as influenced by the social status of the user of the language - not by the use as such. Such investigations are not entered into the bibliography. On the other hand, some issues in sociolinguistics, e.g. studies of codeswitching, are concerned with the way in which the use of language de­ termines certain linguistic choices. Such investigations are taken up. Also the boundary between pragmatics and semantics is a fuzzy one. For one thing, some scholars would rather regard speech act theory as part of semantics. The distinction becomes even more imprecise in the field of presuppositions, which is commonly divided into semantic (or logic­ al) and pragmatic (or contextual) presuppositions. But since at least some scholars hold the belief - as I do myself - that the existence of purely semantic, context-independent presuppositions is a myth, the bi­ bliography is intended to cover the whole field. And here is my first excuse (or self-accusation): in making the decisions that I was forced to make, I have probably failed to avoid doing some authors an injustice by excluding their work, while burdening some users of this bibliography with material they would prefer not to bother about. The bibliography does not only cover purely theoretical works, but also includes applications of pragmatic theory in theories of language teaching, studies of language acquisition, discourse analysis, literary studies, etc. Also, works dealing only partly with pragmatics were listed, provided the pragmatic aspect seemed important enough. Given the wide scope and the rapid growth of the discipline, one should not be surprised to find that the bibliography is incomplete, though it lists over 1500 publications. It is incomplete in several respects. First, it covers only fairly recent literature, concentrating mainly on the past ten years; as a result, even the 'founding father', Charles Morris, escaped from my bibliographical greediness. Second, only publications in English, French, German and Dutch are listed. Third, I am aware of the existence of literally hundreds of relatively recent publications which are absent from the list, simply because I did not have the opportunity - or the will - to get hold of them. In this case, however, a promise counterbalances my excuse: annual supple­ ments will be published in the JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS (the last issue of each volume, beginning in 1978). Those supplements will not only cover the new publications of the year; they will also serve a remedial function in that they are intended to systematically fill the gaps left in the present bibliography. Because it is impossible to keep track of all publications alone, and since I am limited in that I can only read the four languages mentioned, the supplements will no longer be a oneman job, but will be the result of team-work. This is no doubt the place to thank Jacob Mey and the other editors of the JOURNAL OF PRAG­ MATICS for their willingness to reserve pages for the bibliography in their journal, as well as the following people who have already agreed to co-operate on the supplements: Ad Fooien (for The Netherlands), Ranko Bugarski and Svenka Savic (for Yugoslavia), Areta Voroniuc (Ru-

VI

PREFACE

mania), Wiesław Oleksy (Poland), Anne-Marie,Diller (France), David Holdcroft (Great Britain), Reinhard Meyer-Hermann (West Germany), and Viggo Sørensen (Denmark). Thanks to these people, the pragmatics bibliography has a fair chance of becoming complete. The annotations are of different kinds: sometimes they simply para­ phrase the topic, the main theme of the text; sometimes they pick out the main claim made in the text; sometimes they only mention the in­ tention or the purpose of the author. Only two rules were followed: first, I always mentioned what seemed most relevant in each indivi­ dual case; and second, the annotations are never evaluations. The user of the bibliography should also keep in mind that there is hardly any correlation between the length of the annotation and the importance of the work in question. No annotations are provided in the following cases: (i) for collections of essays as a whole (which are listed separately with cross-references to the relevant essays they contain, except if - for one reason or another - I did not yet get the opportu­ nity to look through the complete collection); (ii) for most reviews; (iii) for texts with a title providing sufficient information (except, if the title is in German or in Frenćh, in which case - unlike for Dutch - no translation is provided, a very brief annotation, which is not much more than a free translation of the title, may be present). Needless to say, the annotations to partly non-pragmatic texts bear only on their pragmatic aspects. To augment the usefulness of the bibliography, which is arranged alphabetically, two indexes are attached. One is a subject index, the other a language index. They are intended to reflect the major topics of the publications in the alphabetical list; if, for instance, a cer­ tain text has only a brief section of speech acts, it is not likely to be listed under 'speech act' in the index. No doubt, there will be flaws in the attempt to maintain the delicate balance between giving sufficient information and losing oneself in details. My excuse: the balance is really delicate. Though the subject index does not only contain pragmatic notions, it goes without saying that the non-pragmatic notions are only present in so far as their treatment in the publica­ tions in question illuminates pragmatic issues. In the language index, each index word is followed by a list of the publications on the lan­ guage in question, excluding those written in that same language. Many people contributed to the growth of this bibliography by pro­ viding relevant information and/or material. The list would be too long if I wanted to thank each of them individually. A bibliography is no personal achievement of an individual; it is an inventory of public property - and should be treated as one. Therefore, everybody should feel free to send suggestions, information about old and new publi­ cations, warnings about mistakes in the bibliographical data and in­ accuracies in the annotations, etc. My address: (before July 1, 1978) 2732 Hillegass Avenue Apt. 1, Berkeley, California 94705, U.S.A.; (after July 1, 1978) Departement Germaanse, Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium.

VII

PRAGMATICS

Special thanks are due to . Ғ. . Koerner, the editor of the series in which this work is published. Not only was it his idea for me to make the bibliography, but without his practical guidance it would never have become reality. Further, I want to thank Ann Verhaert, who did most of the work on the index, and John Searle for encouraging the project. Finally, thanks are due to Indiana University Linguistics Club, which distributed my earlier non-annotated bibliography of speech act theory (most of which has been incorporated into the present work), and to the Belgian National Science Foundation for granting me the research fellowship which is my present source of support.

Berkeley, California

Jef Verschueren

25 October 1977

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS V

Preface List of Abbreviations

XI

Annotated Bibliography

1

Subject Index

247

Language Index

269

*****

IX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AfrLR

AL ALH AmA Analysis AnL ANTWP APFG ҺҒ APhQ APIL ArchL ArchPh ARSS ASeL AusJPh BLI BSSS

CC CCog

African Language Review. The African Language Yearbook of Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, in association with the African Studies Program of Indiana University. London. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. International Journal of General Linguistics. Copenhagen. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Budapest. American Anthropologist. Journal of the American An­ thropological Association. Washington, D.C. Analysis. Oxford. Anthropological Linguistics. Bloomington, Indiana. Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte en Psychologie. Assen. Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar. Amsterdam. Acta Philosophica Fennica. Amsterdam. American Philosophical Quarterly. Oxford. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics. Antwerpen. Archivum Linguisticum. A Review of Comparative Philo­ logy and General Linguistics. London. Archives de Philosophie. Paris. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales. Paris. Acta Semiotica et Linguistica. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. Canberra. Beiträge zur Linguistik und Informationsverarbeitung. München & Wien. Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Berkeley, Ca­ lifornia. Communication and Cognition. Gent Communicatie en Cognitie. Gent.

XI

PRAGMATICS

Centrum

CILL CJL CJPh CLex CLTA

DD DF Dialogue DQR DSp DU

ELA Erkenntnis ES ESAfr FdL FL FLSS FoL

GL Glossa GPTL HandVIFC HeyJ

Centrum. Working Papers of the Minnesota Centre for Advanced Studies in Language, Style, and Literary Theory. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Cahiers de I' institut de linguistique de Louvain. Louvain. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics. La Revue Cana­ dienne de Linguistique. Toronto. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. Edmonton, Alberta. Cahiers de Lexicologie. Revue Internationale de Lexi­ cologie et de Lexicographie. Paris. Cahiers de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée. Buca­ rest. Diskussion Deutsch. Zeitschrift für Deutschlehrer aller Schulformen in Ausbildung und Praxis. Frankfurt. Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Leipzig. Dialogue. Canadian Philosophical Review - Revue Cana­ dienne de Philosophie. Montreal. Dutch Quarterly Review of Anglo-American Letters. Assen. Deutsche Sprache. Zeitschrift für Theorie, Analyse und Dokumentation. München. Der Deutschunterricht. Beiträge zu seiner Praxis und wissenschaftlichen Grundlegung. Stuttgart. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée. Paris. Erkenntnis. An International Journal of Analytic Phi­ losophy. Leipzig. English Studies. A Journal of English Language and Literature. Amsterdam. English Studies in Africa. Johannesburg. Forum der Letteren. 's-Gravenhage. Foundations of Language. International Journal of Lan­ guage and Philosophy. Dordrecht. Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series. Dordrecht. Folia Linguistica. Acta Societatis Linguisticae Euro­ paeae. The Hague. General Linguistics. University Park, Pennsylvania. Glossa. An International Journal of Linguistics. Burnaby, British Columbia. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics. Gothenburg. Handelingen van het ...e Vlaams Filologencongres. Leuven. Heythrop Journal. Oxford.

XII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IJAL IJPs In/Out Inquiry IPK IRAL

ISPh ItL ITL

IULC JAAC JChL JL JLS JoP JPh JPhL JPsyR JVLVB

International Journal of American Linguistics. Balti­ more, Maryland. International Journal of Psycholinguistics. The Hague. In/Out. Journal of the Philosophy Department, Uni­ versity of California, Berkeley. Inquiry. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy and the Social Sciences. Oslo. Institut für Phonetik und Kommunikationsforschung der Universität Bonn. IRAL. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik in der Spracherziehung. Heidel­ berg. International Studies in Philosophy. Binghamton, New York. Italian Linguistics. Lisse. ITL. Tijdschrift van het Instituut voor Toegepaste Linguïstiek, Leuven. Review of the Institute of Applied Linguistics, Louvain. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Bloomington. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Baltimore, Maryland. Journal of Child Language. London. Journal of Linguistics. London. Journal of Literary Semantics. The Hague. Journal of Pragmatics. An Interdisciplinary Quarterly of Language Studies. Amsterdam. The Journal of Philosophy. New York. Journal of Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. New York. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. New York.

KLit

Kritikon Litterarum. Internazionale Rezensionszeit­ schrift für Romanistik, Slavistik, Anglistik/Ame­ rikanistik und für Linguistik. Darmstadt.

LA LAB

Logique et Analyse. Leuven. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte. Mitteilungsblatt der Sektion theoretische und angewandte Sprachwissen­ schaft der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig. Linguistic Analysis. New York. Langages. Paris. Linguistica Antverpiensia. Antwerpen. Linguistics and Philosophy. An International Journal. Dordrecht.

LAn Langages LAnt LaPh

XIII

PRAGMATICS

LaS LB Lektos LEPh LBer LD LFr Lg LGR LH LiLi LIn Lingua

Linguistics Linguistique LiS Listener LL L&S LSA LSci MassR MaW Mind Monist Month MPL Mu

NLH Nous

Language and Style. An International Journal. Carbondale, Illinois. Leuvense Bijdragen. Tijdschrift voor Germaanse Filo­ logie. Leuven. Lektos. Interdisciplinary Working Papers in Language Sciences. Louisville, Kentucky. Les Etudes Philosophiques. Paris. Linguistische Berichte. Braunschweig. Linguistik und Didaktik. München. Langue Française. Paris. Language. Journal of the Linguistic Society of America. Baltimore, Maryland. Logical Grammar Reports. Gothenburg. Le Langage et l'Homme. Bruxelles. LiLi. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Lin­ guistik. Frankfurt am Main. Linguistic Inquiry. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics Revue Internationale de Linguistique Generale. Amster­ dam. Linguistics. An International Review. The Hague. La Linguistique. Revue Internationale de Linguistique Generale. Paris. Language in Society. London. Listener. London. Language Learning. A Journal of Applied Linguistics. Ann Arbor. Language and Speech. Teddington. Linguistic Society of America. Language Sciences. Bloomington, Indiana. The Massachusetts Review. Amherst. Man and World. Pittsburgh. Mind. A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy. Oxford. The Monist. An International Quarterly Journal of General Philosophical Inquiry. La Salle, Illinois. The Month. London. Münchener Papiere zur Linguistik. München. Muttersprache. Zeitschrift zur Pflege und Erforschung der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim. New Literary History. A Journal of Theory and Inter­ pretation. Charlottesville, Virginia. Nous. Nihil philpsophici a nobis alienum putamus. Bloomington, Indiana.

XIV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

NSch NYRB

The New Scholasticism. A Quarterly Review of Philo­ sophy. Baltimore. The New York Review of Books. New York.

OxM

The Oxford Magazine. Oxford.

PAS PASS

PPR PzL

Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. London. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume. London. Proceedings of the British Academy. London. Proceedings of the ...th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, California. Papers from the ...th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, Illinois. The Personalist. A Quarterly Review of Philosophy, Re­ ligion and Literature. Los Angeles. Philosophia. Philosophical Quarterly of Israel. Jeru­ salem. Philosophica. Gent. Philosophy. The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. London. Philosophical Books. A Quarterly Review. Leicester. Philosophical Quarterly. Iowa City. The Philosophical Review. Ithaca, New York. Philosophy and Rhetoric. University Park, Pennsylvania. Philosophical Studies. An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition. Dordrecht. Philosophy of Science. Journal of the Philosophy of Science Association. East Lansing, Michigan. Proceedings of the ...th International Congress of Linguists. Actes du ...e Congrès International des Linguistes. Papers in Linguistics. Edmonton, Alberta. Pragmatics Microfiche. Poetics,. International Review for the Theory of Lite­ rature. The Hague. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Buffalo. Papiere zur Linguistik. München.

Ratio RIPh RLanR RPhL

Ratio. Oxford. Revue Internationale de Philosophie. Bruxelles. Revue des Langues Romanes. Montpellier. Revue Philosophique de Louvain. Louvain.

SAfrL

Studies in African Linguistics. Published by the Depart­ ment of Linguistics and the Center for African Studies. The University of California, Los Angeles.

 PBLS PCLS Personalist Philosophia Philosophica Philosophy Һ PhQ PhR ҺRh PhS PhSc PICL

PIL PM Poetics

XV

PRAGMATICS

SBL Sciences SdG Semantikos Semiotica

SémL SGGand SJSOPIL Spektator SpT STZ Synthese

Theoria ThL TLGand

Salzburger Beiträge zur Linguistik. Tübingen. Sciences. Paris. Sprache der Gegenwart. Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache in Mannheim. Semantikos. Homo Hornini Lupus. Paris. Semiotica. Revue publiée par 1'Association Interna­ tionale de Sémiotique / Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies. The Hague. Sémiotique et Litterature. Studia Germanica Gandensia. Gent. San Jose State Occasional Papers in Linguistics. San Jose, California. Spektator. Tijdschrift voor Neerlandistiek. Amsterdam. Speech Teacher. Speech Association of America. Sprache im Technischen Zeitalter. Stuttgart. Synthese. An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht.

TLS TsF

Theoria. A Swedish Journal of Philosophy. Lund. Theoretical Linguistics. Berlin. Travaux de Linguistique. Publications du service de linguistique française de l'état à Gand. Gent. The Times Literary Supplement. London. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie. Leuven.

UTQ

University of Toronto Quarterly. Toronto.

WPLOS WPLU

Working Papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University. Working Papers on Language Universals. Stanford, Cali­ fornia. Wirkendes Wort. Deutsches Sprachschaffen in Lehre und Leben. Düsseldorf.

WW

YPIL

York Papers in Linguistics. York.

ZGL ZPhon

Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik. Berlin. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung. Berlin.

XVI

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY A Aarts, F. G. A. M. 1973

Review of P. L. Garvin (ed.) 1970. DQR 3.135-38.

1976a Review of J. M. Sinclair and R. M. Coulthard 1975. DQR 6.154-57. 1976b Review of G. Leech 1974. ES 57:2.155-59. Abbott, Barbara 1976 "In defense of certain scopes". PCLS 12.1-12. An example of what pragmatics cannot do. A. presents evidence against a feature analysis of opacity as well as against a treatment based only on pragmatic factors. The alternative: a scope analysis. Abraham, Werner 1971 "Stil, Pragmatik und Abweichungsgrammatik". In A. von Stechow (ed.) 1971, 1-13. Literary style is approached in terma of deviations from (prag­ matically interpreted) norms. Five types of deviation are illustrated and their relation to grammatically correct structures is described. 1972

"Zu John Robert Ross 'Über deklarative Sätze™. In W. Abraham and R. I. Binnick (eds.) 1972, 279-84. Review of J. R. Ross 1970.

1975a A Linguistic Approach to Metaphor. Lisse: P. De Ridder, 54 pp. Basic thesis: among the possible associations or meaning compo­ nents that verify the proper use of a lexeme, only those are conditions for the normal use of the lexeme, that have top priority; metaphors are explained on the basis of a reordering of those components such that associations of low priority in the meaning analysis gain prominence. (Reviewed by: W. J. Hutchins 1976.)

2

PRAGMATICS

Abraham, Werner 1975b "Zur Linguistik der Metapher". Poetics 4:2/3.133-72. Abraham, Werner and Robert I. Binnick (eds.) 1972 Generative Semantik. (= Linguistische Forschungen 11.) Frank­ furt am Main: Athenäum, xviii, 313 pp. See: W. Abraham 1972; M. L. Geis and A. M. Zwicky 1971; L. R. Horn 1969; L. Karttunen 1970b; D. Wunderlich 1972c. Abraham, Werner and Kurt Braunmüller 1971 "Stil, Metapher und Pragmatik". Lingua 28:1/2.1-47. A. & B.'s main claim is that style is a function of pragma­ tic variables (the main pragmatic components being the speaker and the addressee, each with their own expectations and pre­ suppositions) . This point of view determines their approach to metaphor. Acton, H. B. 1962 Review of J. L. Austin 1961. Listener 67.353. Ader, Dorothea, Karl-Dieter Bunting, Wolfgang Eichler, Peter Kohrs and Axel Kress 1974 "Sprechakte als Unterrichtsgegenstand: Ein Vorschlag für die Sekundarstufe I". LBer 30.77-84. A proposal to incorporate the insights of speech act theory in language teaching. Ader, Dorothea, Karl-Dieter Bunting, Wolfgang Eichler and Axel Kress 1976 "Didaktik und Linguistik: Bemerkungen zum Lernbereich 'Reflexion über Sprache und Kommunikation' und seine Behandlung im Schul­ buch". LD 25.27-36. Remarks on the subject 'reflections on language and communica­ tion' and its place within the teaching of German. Adlung, Gerhard 1975 "'Aufforderungen'". DD 24-368-79. A contribution to the discussion on the role of pragmatics in language teaching, and to the analysis of discourse in the classroom (with special reference to requests). Aguirre, Manuel 1976 "Factuality and modality". APIL 8. A generative semantic analysis of implicative verbs, leading to the hypothesis of a V-Fact node in the deep structure of assertions in English. The analysis is extended to the historical approach to language and applied to the issue of modality. This leads to the formulation of a theory of 'generative historical semantics'.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

3

Akhmanova, Olga 1974 Review of E. Benveniste 1966. Linguistics 134.94-105. 1976

Review of C. Lyas (ed.) 1971. Linguistics 179.110-17.

Akmajian, Adrian 1973 "The role of focus in the interpretation of anaphoric ex­ pressions". In S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.) 1973, 215-26. The possible interpretations of anaphoric expressions are said to be constrained by the fact that anaphoric clauses are assigned presuppositions of the antecedent clause and no others. Aldrich, Virgil  1964 "Do linguistic acts make me tired ?". PhS 14.40-44. 1966

"Telling, acknowledging and asserting". Analysis 27.53-56. An analysis of the cases in which it is impossible to.tell somebody else what he already knows.

Alenskas, Lucias See: Rodgon, M. M. et al. Allen, J. P. B. and H. G. Widdowson 1974 "Teaching the communicative use of English". IRAL 12:1.1-21. On the possibilities of teaching the rules of communicative competence . Allwood, Jens 1972 "Negation and the strength of presuppositions, or, There is more to speaking than words". LGR 2. The paper has two purposes: (i) to consider how presuppositions fit into communication in general in order to try to explain why there are presuppositions at all; (ii) to account for how the actual meaning of negative statements is determined (in view of the importance of the notion of negation for the precise de­ termination of presuppositions). Some comments are made on the logical consequences of presupposition failure. 1974

"Intensity, pitch, duration and focus". LGR 11. The primary acoustic correlate to the semantic phenomenon of focus is said to be an increased duration.

1976

Linguistic Communication as Action and Cooperation: A Study in Pragmatics. (= Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 2.) Department of Linguistics, University of Goteborg, x, 257 pp. An attempt to construct an integrated theory of pragmatics, culminating in a revision of the distinction between syntax,

4

PRAGMATICS semantics and pragmatics.

Alston, William P. 1963 "Meaning and use". PhQ 13.107-24. Reprinted in J. F. Rosenberg and  Travis (eds.) 1971, 403-19, and in G. H. R. Parkinson (ed.) 1968, 141-65. An attempt at elucidating a suitable sense for 'use' and indi­ cating the way in which meaning can be understood as a function of use in this sense. 1964a Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, xiv, 113 pp. A study of meaning, including a chapter on meaning and use, in which the phenomenon of illocutionary force is investigated. 1964b "Linguistic acts". APhQ 1.138-46. German translation in M. Schirn (ed.) 1974, 54-73. A philosophical analysis of linguistic acts (corresponding more or less with Austin's 'illocutionary acts', as distinct from locution and perlocution). 1970

Review of J. R. Searle 1969. PhQ 20:78.172-79.

Ambrose, A. 1963 "Austin's 'Philosophical Papers'". Philosophy 38.201-16. Review of J. L. Austin 1961. Anderson, Stephen R. 1971 "On the linguistic status of the performative-constative dis­ tinction". IULC. Review of J. R. Ross 1970. A. claims that the phenomena which Ross tries to explain in terms of the performative hypothesis are not in general amenable to explanation in syntactic terms and that they have no relation to the performative-constative distinction. Moreover, he contends that generalizations which are otherwise well motivated have to be abandoned if the per­ formative hypothesis is accepted. Anderson, Stephen R. and Paul Kiparsky (eds.) 1973 A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, xv, 485 pp. See: A. Akmajian 1973; B. Fraser 1973. Andersson, Lars-Gunnar 1973 "Presuppositional structures in temporal clauses". LGR 4. An attempt to show that the notion of logical presupposition is insufficient for the description of temporal clauses in English.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

5

Andreev, N. D. and L. R. Zinder 1964 "On the notions of the speech act, speech, speech probability, and language". Linguistics 4.5-13. Andrzejewski, B. W. 1968 "Reflections on the nature and social function of Somali proverbs". AfrLR 7.74-85. Anscombre, Jean-Claude 1975 "Il était une fois une princesse aussi belle que bonne: Compa­ raison, argumentation et illocutoire". Semantikos 1:1.1-28. An examination of comparison in French (especially 'aussi ... que') from the point of view of argumentation, presupposition and illocutionary force. (Continued in J.-C. Anscombre 1976.) 1976

"Il était une fois une princesse aussi belle que bonne II". Semantikos 1:2.1-26. Continuation of J.-C. Anscombre 1975.

Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot 1976 "L'argumentation dans la langue". Langages 42.5-27. A reformulation of D.'s theory of argumentative ladders (pro­ posed in 0. Ducrot 1973), and an attempt to formulate its re­ lations with presuppositional analysis. Antal, L. 1961 "Sign, meaning, context". Lingua 10:2.211-19. A. argues that only the morpheme is a sign, the phoneme being part of a sign and every larger linguistic unit being a sign combination. The paper also touches on a question of the nature of meaning, viz. in how far meaning is dependent on context. Antinucci, Francesco and Domenico Parisi 1971 "On English modal verbs". PCLS 7.28-39. An attempt to analyse the modal verbs 'must', 'may', 'have to', 'can', 'will' and 'shall' by means of lexical decomposition in terms of a small set of semantic units. Antley, Kenneth 1974 "McCawley's theory of selectional restriction". FL 11:2.257-72. McCawley's view of selectional restriction as a constraint on the possible messages one can convey in language (see J. D. McCawley 1968a and 1968b) is criticised. Apeltauer, Ernst 1977 "Drohen". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 187-98.

6

PRAGMATICS The relation between the constitutive rules for the act of threatening and its verbal utterance forms is described. A. re­ gards threatening as a complex act composed of an act of re­ questing and an act of announcing an action.

Apostel, Leo 1970 "The pragmatics of natural languages". CCog 7.171-203. After defining the terms 'pragmatics' and 'natural language', A. discusses the pragmatic developments of taxonomic and transformational grammars. 1971

"Further remarks on the pragmatics of natural languages". In Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.) 1971, 1-34. If pragmatics is defined as the study of the relations between signs and their users, then the development of pragmatics re­ quires a clear definition of a producer and a receiver of oral or written language. A. tries to fulfil that demand. In doing so, he has to develop a typology of the physical and social contexts of use, which any speaker or hearer takes into account in producing and understanding speech acts.

1972

"Illocutionary forces and the logic of change". Mind 81.208-24. A. suggests that a combination of action logic (Von Wright) and assertion logic (N. Rescher) is necessary, though perhaps not sufficient, to formalize the main distinctions drawn by J. L. Austin in 'How to Do Things with Words'.

Appel, R. See: Geest, T. van der et al. Åqvist, Lennart 1965 A New Approach to the Logical Theory of Interrogatives. Universi­ ty of Uppsala dissertation. Å. combines an imperative logic (with the imperative operator 'Let it be the case that') and an epistemic logic (with the epistemic operator 'I know that') to account for interrogatives, so that a question like "Is linguistic philosophy still alive ?" can be analysed as "Let it (turn out to) be. the case that either I know that linguistic philosophy is still alive or I know that linguistic philosophy is not alive any longer". To abbreviate this formula, question-forming operators are intro­ duced. The text contains a chapter on the presuppositions of questions . 1967

"Semantic and pragmatic characterizability of linguistic usage". Synthese 17.281-91.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

7

Åqvist, Lennar t 1976 "Formal semantics for verb tenses as analyzed by Reichenbach". In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) 1976, 229-36. Å. argues that it is possible to revive and rehabilitate H. Reichenbach's (pragmatic-semantic) analysis of verb tenses in terms of a three-point structure within the framework of current tense logic. Arbini, Ronald 1967 "How to be unfair to first-person statement-introducing utter­ ances". FL 3:3.234-56.. A. claims that utterances of the form "I state that ..." are not genuinely performative because they are essentially true or false; he argues that Austin's characterization of these utterances is mistaken and "that this error persists to the detriment of his more general theory of the classification of utterances and forces of utterances". Ardal, Páll S. 1968 "And that's a promise". PhQ 18.225-37. 1976

"Promises and reliance". Dialogue 15:1.54-61.

Arutjunova, N. D. 1975 "Problems of syntax and semantics in the works of Charles Fillmore". Linguistics 150.5-14. Asbach-Schnitker, Brigitte 1975 "Zur Wiedergabe Deutscher Satzpartikel im Englischen". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1975, 303-18. A contrastive study of the German word 'eben' and the ways to express its meaning in English, designed to describe the commu­ nicative function of sentence particles. They can partially de­ termine the illocutionary force of an utterance. Atlas, Jay David 1975a "Presupposition: A semantico-pragmatic account". PM 1:4.D13. A. argues that a correct account of the semantics of sentences containing existential presuppositions, involves both the se­ mantic notion of generality and the pragmatic notion of in­ formativeness. 1975b "Frege's polymorphous concept of presupposition and its role in a theory of meaning". Semantikos 1:1.29-44. It is suggested that the study of presupposition forms a bridge between two parts of the theory of meaning, viz. the theory of truth and the theory of use.

PRAGMATICS

8

Attal, P. 1976 "L'acte d'assertion". Semantikos 1:3.1-12. An attempt to improve Searle's speech act analysis of assertion. Aune, Bruce 1967 "Statements and propositions". Nous 1.215-29. Austin, John Langshaw 1946 "Other minds". PASS 20.148-87. Reprinted in J. L. Austin 1970a, 76-116. An attempt to characterize knowledge and belief, especially about what is going on in other people's minds. A. concludes that believing in other persons is an essential part of the act of communicating. In his exposition, A. deals with numerous conditions on speech acts. 1950

"Truth". PASS 24.111-28. Reprinted in J. L. Austin 1970a, 11733. German translation in M. Schirn (ed.) 1974, 162-79. A. describes truth as a property of statements instead of a property of sentences. (Reviewed by: P. F. Strawson 1950b and 1966; J. M. 0. Wheatley 1969.)

1953

"How to talk: Some simple ways". PAS 53.227-47. Reprinted in J. L. Austin 1970a, 134-53. French translation in Langages 2. 65-84. A. constructs a simplified speech situation which allows him to distinguish several types of assertion (in particular, identi­ fying, instancing and stating) on the basis of two parameters which he calls 'direction of fit' and 'onus of match'. (Reviewed by: J. W. R. Cox 1955.)

1956

"Ifs and cans".  42.109-32. Reprinted in J. L. Austin 1970a, 205-32. A philosophical discussion of 'if' and 'can' which leads A. to considerations about speech acts and even presuppositions (though these terms are not used). (Reviewed in: D. F. Pears 1973; P. H. Nowell-Smith 1960; I. Thalberg 1969; J.  D'Alessio 1972; R. J. Fogelin 1972.)

1957

"A plea for excuses". PAS 42.1-30. Reprinted in C. Lyas (ed.) 1971, 79-101, and in J. L. Austin 1970a, 175-204. A.'s reflections on the phenomena involved in excuses are pre­ ceded by a plea for the kind of investigation he is undertaking (in which the main points are: we might reach a better under-

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

9

standing of what 'doing an action' means by studying cases in which there has been some abnormality or failure, which the word 'excuse' indicates; and since words are tools that have served people for ages, concentrating on 'ordinary language' will probably teach us more than abstract thinking). (Reviewed by: C. G. New 1966.) 1958

"Pretending". PASS 32.261-78. Reprinted in J. L. Austin 1970a, 253-71. A. refutes the belief that there is an absolute boundary be­ tween pretence and reality, even though, as he shows, pretend­ ing is restricted by limits that must not be overstepped.

1961

Philosophical Papers. Ed. by J. 0. Urmson and G. J. Warnock. London: Oxford University Press. This is an earlier, less complete version of J. L. Austin 1970a. (Reviewed by: H. B. Acton 1962; A. Ambrose 1963; H. A. Bedau 1965; N. J. P. Brown 1962; R. Brown 1962; R. M. Chisholm 1964; G. Deledalle 1965; M. Fairbanks 1964; J. Wheatley 1963; A. R. White 1962.)

1962

How to Do Things with Words. The William James lectures de­ livered at Harvard University in 1955, ed. by J. 0. Urmson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vii, 167 pp. (Second edition, 1975, ed. by J. 0. Urmson and Marina Sbisà. Cambridge, Massa­ chusetts: Harvard University Press, viii, 169 pp.) Lecture 4 reprinted in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 43-53. Lectures 8, 9 and 11 reprinted in J. F. Rosenberg and C. Travis (eds.) 1971, 560-79. After a lengthy discussion of the distinction between constative utterances (in which something is 'said', and which can be said to be 'true' or 'false') and performative utterances (in which something is 'done' in or by saying something, and which can be said to be 'happy' or 'unhappy'), A. concludes that it is use­ less since (i) constatives can also be said to be happy or un­ happy, and (ii) performatives can, in a certain sense, also be described as true or false, and (iii) all utterances consist of saying something and doing something in or by saying it. Then A. proposes a framework in terms of which all 'speech acts' can be described (i.e. constatives as well as performatives). He distinguishes three components in every utterance: I. the 'locutionary act', or the act 'of' saying something, which consists in the following three subcomponents: (a) a phonetic act, which is simply the act of uttering sounds; (b) a phatic act, which is the act of uttering words and constructions belonging to and

10

PRAGMATICS as belonging to a grammar and a vocabulary; (c) a rhetic act, which is the act of pronouncing a certain pheme with a parti­ cular meaning, i.e. a sense and a reference. II. The 'illocutionary act', the act performed 'in' saying something, or the act of pronouncing a certain locution with a particular force. III. The 'perlocutionary act', the act performed 'by' saying something, i.e. the production of certain consequential effects. Finally, A. proposes a taxonomy of illocutionary forces (by way of classifying performative verbs, which stand for those forces). The following five classes are distinguished: (i) 'verdictives', consisting in the delivering of a finding, official or unofficial; (ii) 'exercitives', the giving of a decision in favour of or against a certain course of action; (iii) 'commissives, the point of which is to commit the speak­ er to a certain course of action; (iv) 'behabitives', reactions to other people's behaviour and fortunes;(v) 'expositives', the expounding of views. Some examples: (i) assess, rate, grade; (ii) excommunicate, sentence; (iii) promise; (iv) congratulate; (v) distinguish, explain. (Reviewed by: H. A. Bedau 1965; M. Black 1963; R. Brown 1963; K. Burke 1975; W. Cerf 1964 and 1966; F. Copleston 1963; J. A. Dinneen 1972; L. Griffiths 1969; W. E. Kennick 1963; B. Mayo 1956; K. R. Pahel 1969; A. C. Pertridge 1963; K. Sayre 1963; F. E. Sparshatt 1963; (Unsigned) 1962 and 1963; Z. Vendler 1967a; J. Wheatley 1963; A. R. White 1963.) 1963

"Performative-constative". In . E. Caton (ed.) 1963, 22-54. Reprinted in J. R. Searle (ed.) 1971, 13-22. (This paper is a translation from a French text read at a conference at Royaumont in March 1958, and published in 'Cahiers de Royaumont, Philosophie No. IV, La Philosophie Analytique', Editions de Minuit, 1962.) A. explains why the distinction constative-performative has to be replaced by a more general theory in terms of which both types of utterances can be described. (This is the first half of J. L. Austin 1962 in a nutshell.)

1966

"Three ways of spilling ink". A lecture of December 1958, re­ constructed by L. W. Forguson. PhR 75.427-40. Reprinted in J. L. Austin 1970a, 272-87, and in J. H. Gill (ed.) 1968, 64-80. A. tries to explain the distinction between actions done 'intentionally', 'deliberately' and 'on purpose'. (Related to J. L. Austin 1957.)

1970a Philosophical Papers. Edited by J.O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock. London: Oxford University Press, vii, 290 pp.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

11

Enlarged version of J. L. Austin 1961. See: J. L. Austin 1946, 1950, 1953, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1966, and 1970b. 1970b "Performative utterances". Unscripted talk delivered in the Third Programme of the B.B.C. in 1956. In J. L. Austin 1970a, 233-52. A. explains why the distinction between statements and per­ formative utterances fails. (About the same topic as J. L. Austin 1963; see also J. L. Austin 1962.) Authier, Jacqueline, Daniele Clement and André Meunier 1975 Review (in French) of M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (eds.) 1969. Linguistique 11:2.153-56. Auwera, Johan Van der 1975a "Semantic and pragmatic presupposition". APIL 2. A hypothesis on the relation between semantic and pragmatic presupposition is put forward, which is then applied to the analysis of 'only', factive verbs and verbs of judging. 1975b "Reference and pragmatics". To appear in F. Coppieters and D. L. Goyvaerts (eds.), Functional Studies in Language and Literature. Gent: Story Scientia. A. argues that reference is to be studied as an essential as­ pect of a pragmatic theory. 1976

Review (in Dutch) of P. A. M. Seuren 1975. ITL 33.73-82.

1977a Inleiding tot de linguistische pragmatiek [Introduction to linguistic pragmatics}. To be published in Leuven by Acco. Linguistic pragmatics is defined as an approach to language from the point of view of the expression of 'beliefs' (in a very wide sense of the word). With the notion of 'belief' as a basic tool, a reinterpretation is offered for speech acts, implicature, semantic and pragmatic presupposition, and focus. Two striking claims: (i) there are only three basic speech acts, viz. statements, questions and commands; (ii) logic should be treated as part of linguistic pragmatics. 1977b "Irrefutable meaning". Preprint of the Stanford Student Con­ ference in Philosophy, April 1977. Search for a type of meaning such that if  attributed that type of meaning to A's linguistic act, it would be impossible for  to be wrong.

12

PRAGMATICS

1977c "Pragmatic presupposition: Shared beliefs in a theory of irre­ futable meaning". To appear in Syntax and Semantics. Elaboration of the view on pragmatic presupposition expressed in J. Van der Auwera 1977a: one pragmatically presupposes that p if one speaks as if one wants to speak as if one be­ lieves that the hearer acts as if he wants to listen as if he believes that one speaks as if one wants to speak as if one believes that p. 1977d "An inquiry concerning human misunderstanding". In/Out 1.15-18. Short discussion of the ways in which people can misunderstand each other, based on A.'s theory of irrefutable meaning. 1977e "Logic 'hooked' on natural language". Paper presented at the California Linguistics Association Conference, Fresno, April 1977. A comparison between the logical concept of implication and the natural language conditional 'if ... then'. It is conclu­ ded that logic is only a limited description of natural lan­ guages. Instead of deciding, as a consequence, that logic is not about natural language at all, A. argues that logic should be extended to make it fit to cope with natural lan­ guage (especially its pragmatic aspects) . 1977f "Notes on 'ordinary' and 'ideal' language". To appear in APIL. Rewritten version of J. Van der Auwera 1977b and 1977e. A compa­ rison between the irrefutable meaning approach and the Gricean theory of meaning is attached. Axelsen, Diana Elna 1969 A Theory of Linguistic Force and Its Application to Language in Poetry. Stanford University Ph.D. dissertation. After a clarification of the concept of 'linguistic force', viewed both as the syntactical element of mood and the features defining categories of speech acts, A. expresses the belief that the indicative mood is basic (because only sentences in this mood can be used to express truth conditions for any sen­ tence) , the interrogative and imperative being transformations. This view of the role of the indicative mood is used to formu­ late truth conditions to clarify the semantics of language in poetry. Ayres, Glenn 1974 "I daresay!". LIn 5:3.454-56. A. presents counterexamples, containing the word 'daresay', to J. P. Thome's 1972 claim that non-restrictive relative clauses differ from restricted ones in having their own performative verb associated with them.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

13

Bach, Emmon and Robert T. Harms (eds.) 1968 Universals in Linguistic Theory. London/New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, ix, 210 pp. See: J. D. McCawley 1968b. (Reviewed by: R. C

Dougherty 1970.)

Bacvarov, Janko 1974 "Concerning the peculiarities of the Bulgarian grammatical system from the point of view of the functional sentence per­ spective". In F. Danes (ed.) 1974, 185-88. According to ., Bulgarian differs from the other Slavonic languages and displays characteristics typical of the analy­ tical type in combining the means of functional sentence per­ spective with the morphological expression of the category of definiteness. Badura, Bernhard 1972 "Kommunikative Kompetenz, Dialoghermeneutik und Interaktion". In . Badura and K. Gloy (eds.) 1972, 246-64. A sketch of a theory of communicative competence, dialogue hermeneutics and interaction. Badura, Bernhard and Klaus Gloy (eds.) 1972 Soziologie der Kommunikation: Eine Textauswahl zur Einführung. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 352 pp. See: B. Badura 1972. Baier, K. See: Toulmin, S.E. and K. Baier. Bailey, Charles-James N. See: Shuy, R. W. and C.-J. N. Bailey (eds.). Bailey, Lee Ann and Lenora A. Timm 1976 "More on women's - and men's - expletives". AnL 18.438-49. Investigation of the belief that women are less likely than men to express strong emotions with strong expletives. Bailey, Richard W. 1974 Review of S. Chatman (ed.) 1971. FL 11:1.115-39.

14

PRAGMATICS

Baker, C. L. 1970a "Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme". FL 6:2.197-219. Revision of Katz and Postal's generative-transformational description of questions. See also: R. W. Langacker 1974. 1970b "Problems of polarity in counterfactuals". In J. M. Sadock and A. L. Vanek (eds.) 1970, 1-15. . suggests that an adequate account of the polarity reversal in sentences like "There isn't anyone in this camp who wouldn't rather be in Montpelier" (compare with "* He wouldn't rather be in Montpelier") does not require reference to the notion of entailment but to the notion of presupposition. Baker, Charlotte 1975a "This is just a first approximation, but ...". PCLS 11.37-47. "But"-prefaces such as "I don't want to nitpick, but ...", "This is just a first approximation, but ...", are described as signals of forthcoming violations of maxims of conversation or rules of politeness. Their function is to control or pre­ vent a possible negative response on the part of the addressee. (See also: C. Baker 1975b.) 1975b "Butterfinger 'Buts'". SJSOPIL 1.18-24. A discussion of response-controlling "but"-prefaces. (See also:  Baker 1975a.) Bakos, F. 1975 Review of G. 0. Nagy 1973. ALH 25:1/2.217-22. Bald, Wolf-Dietrich See: Sprengel, K. et al. (eds.). Ballmer, Thomas T. 1972a "Einführung und Kontrolle von Diskurswelten". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 183-206. Reprinted with discussion notes in M. Rüttenauer (ed.) 1974, 185-225. . argues that language is not only restricted by the structure of the world, but that it also provides the means with which people tackle everyday problems in society. One of those means, reference, is further considered; it is shown what can happen if it is not used properly. Presupposition is discussed as a related topic. B. attempts to explain how information can be added correctly to a hearer's already existing world of know­ ledge: the speaker has to define a focus by means of presuppo­ sition and he has to say something about that focused element.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

15

1972b "Gründe für eine formale Pragmatik". In K. Hyldgaard-Jensen (ed.) 1972, 266-84. Suggestions for the construction of a formal generative prag­ matics. Barbault, M. C. See: Ducrot, 0. 1973. Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua 1954 "Indexicai expressions". Mind 63.359-79. Reprinted in Y. BarHillel 1970a, 69-81. German translation in S. J. Schmidt (ed.) 1974, 166-86. B.-H. argues that indexicai expressions (e.g. sentence-types like "It is raining" or "I'm hungry", which can be used to make different statements because of propositional differences depending on the context, as opposed to sentence-types like "Ice floats on water" which always express the same proposition) show that sentences do not only consist of syntactic and se­ mantic relations, but of pragmatic relations as well. 1960

"On lalic implication and the cogito". PhS 11.23-25. Reprinted in Y. Bar-Hillel 1970a, 98-99. Review of H.-N. Castaneda 1957. (Reviewed by: H.-N. Castaneda 1961.)

1963

"Can indexicai sentences stand in logical relations ?". PhS 14.87-90. Reprinted in Y. Bar-Hillel 1970a, 112-15. Reply to H.-N. Castaneda 1961.

1969

"Argumentation in natural language". Akten des XIV. Internatio­ nalen Kongresses für Philosophie, II.3-6. Wien: Herder. Re­ printed in Y. Bar-Hillel 1970a, 202-5. Random remarks on the treatment of the logical aspects of pragmatic languages, of which natural languages are a subset.

1970a Aspects of Language: Essays and Lectures on Philosophy of Language, Linguistic Philosophy and Methodology of Linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 381 pp. See: Y. Bar-Hillel 1954, 1960, 1963, 1969 and 1970b. (Reviewed by: G. Harman 1973; G. Sampson 1973.) 1970b "Argumentation in pragmatic languages". In Y. Bar-Hillel 1970a, 206-21. B. expresses the belief that the irrationality in the usual approaches to argumentation in natural languages is due to the

16

PRAGMATICS insufficient understanding of the essentially pragmatic cha­ racter of those languages, i.e. their essential dependence on linguistic co-text and extra-linguistic context.

1970c "Communication and argumentation in pragmatic languages". Lin­ guaggi nella società e nella technica, 269-84. Milano: Edizioni di Communità. Expanded version of Y. Bar-Hillel 1970b. 1971

"Out of the pragmatic wastebasket". LIn 2:3.401-7. B.-H. discusses some cases in which he feels that erroneous attempts have been made to force a clearly pragmatic matter into a syntactico-semantic straitjacket.

1973

"On Habermas' hermeneutic philosophy of language". Synthese 26:1.1-12. Critical discussion of J. Habermas 1971.

Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (ed.) 1971 Pragmatics of Natural Languages. (= Synthese Library 41.) Dordrecht: Reidei, vii, 231 pp. See: L. Apostel 1971; L. J. Cohen 1971a; D. Harrah 1971; A. Kasher 1971; H.-H. Lieb 1971; R. L. Martin 1971; H. Schnelle 1971. (Reviewed by: N. B. Cocchiarella 1974.) Barkowski, Hans, Ulrike Harnish and Sigrid Krumm 1976 "Sprachhandlungstheorie und 'Deutsch für ausländische Arbei­ ter'". LBer 45.42-54. The authors approach the problem of determining which types of speech acts are relevant for the purpose of teaching German to foreign labourers in Germany. A lot of attention is paid to the real communicative needs of these people. Bar-Lev, Zev 1975 "Presupposition as a semantic constituent". Glossa 9:2.123-38. On the assumption that sentences consist of two constituents, a presupposition and an assertion, B.-L. (i) reduces the pro­ jection problem for presuppositions to a well-known property of presuppositions, (ii) systematizes intersentential rela­ tions dependent on presupposition and negation, and (iii) ana­ lyzes certain syntactic structures and lexical items in terms of these relations.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

17

Baron, Dennis E. 1975 "Role structure and the language of literature". JLS 4.43-51. The role structure of literary discourse, i.e. the set of ele­ ments involved in the act of framing, the fictional speech act, is said to be significantly different from that of ordinary discourse: whereas the role structure of ordinary communica­ tion only involves a speaker, a message and an audience, that of literary discourse is more complex, involving at least a speaker, persona, narration and audience. B. also claims that while the sentences of literature do not have their 'normal' illocutionary force, the literary performative (e.g. 'I write') seems to have a kind of perlocutionary force. Barry, Roberta 1975 "Topic in Chinese: An overlap of meaning, grammar, and discourse function". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. Topic is said to have the function of specifying the universe of discourse of its comment. In that way it portant in the grammatical structure of the sentence as in the structuring of the discourse. The argument ly based on Chinese examples.

relevant is im­ as well is main­

Bartsch, Renate 1975 "Topik-Fokus-Struktur und kategoriale Syntax". In V. Ehrich and P. Finke (eds.) 1975, 85-99. Considerations on topic, focus and categorial syntax, with particular reference to the views expressed in P. Sgall, E. Hajicová and E. Benešová 1973. Baskett, Glen, D. and Roy 0. Freedle 1974 "Aspects of language pragmatics and the social perception of lying". JPsyR 3:2.117-31. Report of two experiments showing that the pragmatic aspect of degrees of belief which leads to acceptance or rejection of the information in verbal utterances is in some cases in­ timately related to certain social perceptions such as the arousal of suspicion that a 'lie' has been told. Bates, Elizabeth 1974 "Acquisition of pragmatic competence". JChL 1:2.277-81. Note on the acquisition of 'pragmatic' structures by Italian children. 1975a "The development of converstaional skill in 2, 3 and 4 yearolds". PM 1:6.B12. 1975b "Performatives: From gesture to the first word". Paper read at the Third International Child Language Symposium, September 1975, London.

18

PRAGMATICS

1976

Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, xiv, 375 pp. B. discusses the child's acquisition of pragmatics (i.e. the performative use of sentences, presuppositions and rules of conversation) in the sensorimotor period, the preoperational period and the concrete operational period. In other words, pragmatic development is related to Piaget's model of cognitive development.

Bauman, Richard 1975 "Verbal art as performance". AmA 77:2.290-311. Instead of focusing on texts in the study of verbal art, B. proposes to approach verbal art as performance. The pattern­ ing of performance in genres, acts, roles and events, and the emergent quality of performance, manifested in text, event and social structure, are discussed. Baumert, Michael 1976 "Der theoretische Status der yes/no-Frage". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 144-52. On the theoretical status of yes-no questions. 1977

"Classification of English question-answer structures". JoP 1:1.85-92. A typology of question-answer structures is developed in which each it em can be classified in a multidimensional way, according to its contextual use, its form, and its meaning (i.e. the learning objectives of the questions and the appropriateness and truth-value of the answers).

Bayer, Klaus 1973 "Verteilung und Funktion der sogenannten Parenthese in Texten gesprochener Sprache". DSp 1:1.64-115. A functional approach to parenthesis in spoken language. 1976

"Plädoyer für eine situationstheoretische Pragmatik". ZGL 4:2. 179-89. B. criticises speech act theory because of the difficulties that arise if one wants to use it as an instrument to analyse conversations. He proposes an alternative theory, called 'situationstheoretische Pragmatik', in which the concept 'situation' is central.

Bazell, C. E., J. C. Catford, M.A.K. Halliday and R.H. Robins (eds.) 1966 In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longman, xi, 500 pp.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

19

See: J. Ellis 1966; B. B. Kachru 1966; J. Lyons 1966; A. Mcintosh 1966. (Reviewed by: D.T. Langendoen 1969; F. W. Householder 1968.) Beardsley, Monroe C. 1973 "The concept of literature". In F. Brady, J. Palmer and M. Price (eds.) 1973, Literary Theory and Structure: Essays in Honor of William K. Wimsatt, 23-39. New Haven: Yale University Press . Speech act theory is applied to the definition of literature. Becker, Alton L. 1975 "A linguistic image of nature: The Burmese numerative classi­ fier system". Linguistics 165.109-21. The Burmese classifier system is said to be coherent because it is based on a single semantic dimension, deixis. It is also said to map nature and to express precisely where one is placing oneself and what one is talking about: it establishes in the surface structure the universe of discourse of a speech act, within a culturally shared image of nature. Bedau, Hugo A. 1965 "J. L. Austin's philosophical writings". Mind 74.252. Beeh, Volker 1975 "Zur Wahrheitsfunktionalität von Sätzen und Sprechakten". ZGL 3.40-48. Thesis: the attempt to assume that all speech acts contain a proposition is bound to fail as long as the notion of proposi­ tion is tacitly connected with a truth function and a Fregean 'idea'. Beeman, William 0. 1976 "Status, style and strategy in Iranian interaction". AnL 18. 305-22. Behn, M., K. Boie, G. Pohl, G. Saha and H. Schäfer 1973 Review (in German) of U. Maas and D. Wunderlich 1972. LBer 27. 45-49.

20

PRAGMATICS

Belle, W. van 1973 "Modale en performatieve werkwoorden" [Modal and performative verbs] . Spektator 3:4.264-88. What differentiates two different speech acts with the same proposition is called their 'modal constituent'. B. investi­ gates two of the linguistic devices to indicate this 'modali­ ty', viz. modal verbs and performative verbs. Bellert, Irena 1973 "On various solutions of the problem of presuppositions". In J. S. Petöfi and H. Rieser (eds.) 1973, 79-95. The paper is intended as a contribution to the analysis of semantic relations in natural texts. Various views on pre­ supposition are reviewed (especially those held by Frege, Strawson and Austin). 1974

"On inferences and interpretation of natural language sentences" ThL 1:3.215-31. B. discusses the calculus of inferences of a complex sentence from the inferences attributable to its constituent parts. The calculus of presuppositions is claimed to constitute part of the general calculus of inferences.

Belnap, Nuel D. 1963 An Analysis of Questions: Preliminary Report. System Develop­ ment Corporation, Santa Monica, California. (Reviewed by: C. L. Hamblin 1964.) 1966

"Questions, answers and presuppositions". JPh 63:20.609-11.

1969

"Questions: Their presuppositions, and how they can fail to arise"; In K. Lambert (ed.) 1969, The Logical Way of Doing Things, 23-37. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Benes, Eduard 1967 "Über zwei Aspekte der funktionalen Satzperspektive". PICL 10:2.1021-26. . discusses the following two aspects of functional sentence perspective: the thematic structure of a sentence and the em­ bedding of an utterance in a context. 1973

"Thema-Rhema-Gliederung und Textlinguistik". In H. Sitta and . Brinker (eds.) 1973, 42-62. Reflections on the role of the theme-rheme distinction in textlinguistics.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

21

Benešová, Eva See: Sgall, P. et al. Bennett, Adrian 1976 "Strategies and counterstrategies in the use of yes-no questions in discourse". PBLS 2.36-47. The main function of yes-no questions in conversation is, according to ., to get the hearer to make a commitment on the basis of which the speaker can then go on to carry a plan to a successful conclusion. Bennett, Michael 1977 "A response to Karttunen on questions". LaPh 1:2.279-300. Review of L. Karttunen 1977. Bentele, Gunter 1976 Review of B. Schlieben-Lange 1975. ZGL 4:3.371-76. Benveniste, Emile 1966 Problèmes de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Gallimard, 356 pp. Wide-ranging discussion of problems in general linguistics. A number of sections show the influence of British analytical philosophy, especially speech act theory; in one of those, B. proposes a class of 'delocutive verbs', i.e. verbs deriving from locutions (e.g. Latin 'salutare', English 'to okay'). (Reviewed by: 0. Akhmanova 1974; W. P. Lehmann 1968.) 1970a "Structure de la langue et structure de la société". Linguaggi nella società e nella tecnica, 17-28. Milano: Edizioni di Communità. B. explains how he views the relation between the structure of language and the structure of society: it is not to be found at the historical level, but at a more profound one. He presents the analysis of language as a way to analyse society. 1970b "L'appareil formel de 1'énonciation". Langages 17.12-18. Uttering a sentence is described as putting into operation an individual act of using language. Berg, Wolfgang 1976 "Ironie". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 247-54. . approaches irony from the point of view of the linguist who tries to formulate rules for it.

22

PRAGMATICS

Berlin, Sir Isaiah 1973 "Austin and the early beginnings of Oxford philosophy". In Sir I. Berlin et al. 1973, 1-16. A historical perspective on Austin's philosophy. Berlin, Sir Isaiah et al. 1973 Essays on J. L. Austin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vii, 190 pp. See: Sir I. Berlin 1973; L. W. Forguson 1973; D. F. Pears 1973; G. Pitcher 1973; J. R. Searle 1968; P. F. Strawson 1973; G. J. Warnock 1973a and 1973b. (Reviewed by: M. Glouberman 1975.) Bernstein, Basil (ed.) 1973 Class, Codes and Control, Volume 2: Applied Studies towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, xvi, 377 pp. See: M. A. K. Halliday

1973a.

Berriman, William 1973 Review of M. Furberg 1963. Dialogue 12:1.159-61. Betten, Anne Marie 1975 "Konversationsanalyse und Pragmalinguistik". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1975, 387-401. A brief overview of work in discourse analysis and some reflect­ ions on the actual and potential contributions of linguistic pragmatics . 1976a "Ellipsen, Anakoluthe und Parenthesen: Fälle für Grammatik, Stilistik, Sprechakttheorie oder Konversationsanalyse ?". DSp 4:3.207-30. B. argues that the appropriate framework with which to approach cases of ellipsis, anacoluthon and parenthesis is a 'dialogue grammar' (which she presents as part of an 'interaction grammar'). The paper contains an overview of different approaches as well. 1976b "Zur Sequenzierung von Sprechakten: Das Problem der Einheiten­ bildung in längeren Texten". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 279-89. Critical discussion of the criteria used by various scholars to isolate individual speech acts occurring in continuous discourse.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1977

23

"Sammelrezension: Erforschung gesprochener deutscher Standard­ sprache". To appear in DSp. An elaborate overview of work on spoken standard German (with a separate section on studies influenced by linguistic prag­ matics .

Bhat, D. N. S. 1975 "A semantic constraint underlying the NEG-Raising rule". PIL 8:1/2.125-31. Neg-Raising is said to be the result of a semantic merger be­ tween sentences like "I don't think it is bitter" and "I think it isn't bitter" (the first one of which is not the ne­ gation of a thought but can be simply paraphrased by means of the second), which itself is made possible by the following constraint on speech in general: it is not possible to deny the thought one is expressing while expressing it. Bhatia, Tej K. 1974 "The coexisting answering systems and the role of presupposition: implications and expectations in Hindi simplex yes/no questions" PCLS 10.47-61. B. tries to account for the Hindi question-answering system and to demonstrate that a negativized yes-no question plays an im­ portant role in eliciting three types of answering systems. Further, B. shows that instead of a logical notion of presuppo­ sition, a pragmatic one is needed to capture the properties and to account for the appropriateness of negativized yes-no questions . Bickerton, Derek 1969 "Prolegomena to a linguistic theory of metaphor". FL 5:1.34-52. An attempt to grasp the 'process of metaphorical invention'. B. argues that any theory of natural languages which does not take metaphor into account, will be inadequate to explain how such languages function. He sketches a view of language within which an adequate linguistic theory of metaphor might be possi­ ble. (Reviewed by: R. J. Matthews 1971.) 1975a "Two levels of logical presupposition". PCLS 11.48-59. B. argues that distinguishing two levels of logical presuppo­ sition, viz. existential presupposition (i.e. the presupposit­ ion of the existence of a person or object, as in "John called") and sentential presupposition (i.e. the presupposition of the occurrence of an action or event, as in "Fred's driving annoys Mary"), yields insights into linguistic phenomena like pronominalization, determiners and quantifiers.

24

PRAGMATICS

1975b "Some assertions about presuppositions about pronominalization". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 24-35. B. suggests that coreferential pronominalization, whether 'for­ ward' or 'backward', can be explained in terms of a single principle if one takes into account the phenomena of presuppo­ sition, sentence stress and intersentential anaphora. 1975c "Reference in natural semantax". PM 1:1.D1. B. argues that the semantic categories of existential pre­ supposition, assertion and hypothesis, do not only underlie articles, but any item determining the reference of a noun phrase, including numerical and non-numerical quantifiers. Therefore it is suggested that quantifiers are no atomic pre­ dicates but can be decomposed into various constituents. Bickmann, Hans-Jürgen and Ulrich Schmitz 1976 "Sprachliches Handeln und Methoden der Textanalyse". ZGL 4:3. 350-55. Report of the papers read in the linguistic sections about speech acts and text analysis, at the 'Germanisten'-meeting in Düsseldorf, April 4 to 7, 1976. Bielefeld, Renate 1976 "Komplexität und Kommunikationssituation". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1976, 315-28. A plea for an approach to language acquisition which relates it to communicative functions and which regards it as the acqui­ sition of a culture. Bierwisch, Manfred and Karl Erich Heidolph (eds.) 1969 Progress in Linguistics: A Collection of Papers. (= Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 43.) The Hague: Mouton, 344 pp. See: F. Kiefer 1969; P. Kiparsky and C. Kiparsky 1969. (Reviewed by: J. Authier, Daniele Clement and André Meunier 1975; M. Ronat 1974.) Bigelow, John C. 1975 "Contexts and quotation I, II". LBer 38.1-21 and LBer 39.1-21. Outline of a formalized theory of pragmatics, a 'quotational analysis' of context-dependence in language. 1976

"Meaning and evidence". Dialogue 15:2.203-25. B. proposes an alternative to the theories of the notion 'intention' is central (e.g. H. P. R. Searle's theories of meaning). B. contends meaning can be analyzed with reference to the

meaning in which Grice's and J. that acts of concept of mean-

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

25

ing as evidence instead of meaning as intending. 1977

Review of K. Gunderson (ed.) 1975. LaPh 1:2.301-4.

Binnick, Robert I. 1972 "'Will' and 'be going to' II". PCLS 8.3-9. The distinction between 'will' and 'be going to' is discussed as a case in which lexical insertion depends in part on dis­ course presuppositions. (Reviewed by: A. Brisau 1977.) 1973

Review of  J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.) 1971. GL 13:3.162-76.

1976

Review of J. McH. Sinclair and R. M. Coulthard 1975. Lingua 39:4.366-68.

Binnick, Robert I. See also: Abraham, W. and R. I. Binnick (eds.) Black, Max 1952 "Definition, presupposition, and assertion". PhR 61.532-50. 1962a "Presupposition and implication". In M. Black 1962b, 48-63, and in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 55-70. An investigation of the relation between the two title-con­ cepts, with special reference to the Strawson-Russell contro­ versy. 1962b Models and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, xi, 267 pp. See: M. Black 1962a. 1963

"Austin on performatives". Philosophy 38.217-26. Reprinted in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 401-11, and in M. Black 1970, 209-21. Review of J. L. Austin 1962. B. mainly expresses doubts about the usefulness of Austin's approach.

1968

The Labyrinth of Language. London: Pall Mall Press, vii, 178 pp. A general essay in the philosophy of language, including a chapter on the uses of language, which also briefly touches upon the problem of speech acts. (Reviewed by: G. Öhlschlager 1976.)

26 1970

PRAGMATICS Margins of Precision: Essays in Logic and Language. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, viii, 277 pp. See: M. Black 1963.

Black, Max (ed.) 1965 Philosophy in America. London: Allen and Unwin, 307 pp. See: J. R. Searle 1965. Blakenship, J. 1970 Review of J. R. Searle 1969. SpT 19:1.85. Boadi, L. A. 1974 "Focus-marking in Akan". Linguistics 140.5-57. An examination of the syntactic processes used to mark focus, and of the form and meaning of the resulting sentences. Bober, Ellen S. 1975 Review of J. W. Oller and J. C. Richards 1973. LL 25:2.385-89. Boër, Steven E. and William G. Lycan 1976 "The myth of semantic presupposition". IULC. B. and L. argue (i) that the thesis that there are semantic presuppositions is false, i.e. the thesis that certain sorts of sentences carry certain quasi-logical implications distinct from and yet closely related to ordinary entailments; (ii) that the methodological corollary of this thesis, i. e. the fact that grammars operating with a 'natural logic' must com­ plicate their semantic theories by adding formal apparatus to account for semantic oddities arising when presuppositions fail, is without support; (iii) that the cases of semantic presupposition do not form a natural kind. The standpoint from which the criticism is brought forward is congenial to genera­ tive semantics and the performative analysis. Bogdan, Radu J. and Ilkka Niiniluoto (eds.) 1973 Logic, Language, and Probability. Dordrecht: Reidel, x, 323 pp. See: S. Isard and  K. Szaniawski 1973.

Longuet-Higgins 1973; A. Kasher 1973b;

Bohnert, H. 1945 "The semiotic status of commands". PhSc 12:4.305-15. Boie,K. See: Behn, M. et al. Bolinger, Dwight 1973a "Truth is a linguistic question". Lg 49:3.539-50.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

27

A study of concealed forms of lying through presuppositions, jargonesque terms, etc. B. expresses the belief that truth is the most fundamental of all questions of appropriateness in language. 1973b "Objective and subjective: sentences without performatives". LIn 4:3.414-17. Squib on the question of whether sentences without an explicit performative contain underlying performatives. Bonati, Peter 1975 "Pragmalinguistik und Deutschunterricht". WW 25:1.1-12. Suggestions on how to incorporate the insights of linguistic pragmatics into the practice of language teaching. Boom, Holger Van den 1976 "Fast schon populär". LBer 41.61-64. Review of H. J. Schneider 1975. Borkin, Ann 1971 "Polarity items in questions". PCLS 7.53-62. An examination of polarity-sensitive items (like 'anything' etc.) in questions, leads B. to the conclusion that any com­ plete and explanatory account of these phenomena must take the attitudes and assumptions of the speaker into account. 1972

"Clipping away at meaning". PCLS 8.10-21. B. investigates hedged sentences like "I don't CRAVE ciga­ rettes" in contexts in which the speaker realizes that the verb he is using is not completely appropriate for the situ­ ation; she suggests certain parallels between negation with contrastive stress and negation of sublexical parts of se­ mantic structures in such sentences.

Bouveresse, Jacques 1971 "Langage ordinaire et philosophie". Langages 21.35-70. General discussion of problems in ordinary language philoso­ phy. 1974

Interview with Herman Parret. In H. Parret 1974, 301-403. . answers questions on recent trends in linguistics, with reference to the other interviews in the book.

Boyd, Julian and J. P. Thorne 1969 "The semantics of modal verbs". JL 5.57-74. French translation in Langages 34.103-21.

28

PRAGMATICS A semantic analysis of the modal verbs 'will', 'shall', 'should', 'must', 'may', 'can', 'might' and 'could', to which the notion of a speech act is central.

Brame, Michael K. 1967 "Evidence for performatives from Arabic". Unpublished M.I.T. paper. Brame, Michael K. See also: Hust, J. R. and M. K. Brame. Braunmüller, Kurt 1973 "Pragmatische Variablen und Referenzbeziehungen in einem Ba­ sismodell". In A. P. ten Cate and P. Jordens (eds.) 1973, 33-44. . proposes a model for the base component of a grammar in which the sentence is divided in a proposition and a set of pragmatic variables; semantic deep structures are derived from the base structures by means of reference rules. Braunmüller, Kurt See also: Abraham, W. and K. Braunmüller. Braunroth, Manfred, Gemot Seyfert, Karsten Siegel and Fritz Vahle 1976 "Pragmatik und Textanalyse - vier verschiedene Ansätze". DD 29.258-86. Four different approaches to the pragmatic analysis of lan­ guage and texts are considered: (i) Jürgen Habermas' approach; (ii) Austin's speech act theory and Grice's theory of conver­ sational implicature; (iii) the linguistic pragmatics of D. Wunderlich and U. Maas in Western Germany; (iv) the speech activity theory of Wilhelm Schmidt and Hanna Harnisch in East Germany. Breckenridge, Janet and Auli Hakulinen 1976 "Cycle and after". PCLS 12: Parasession on Diachronic Syntax. 50-68. One of the conclusions that B. and H. draw from some syntactic changes in Finnish is that historical changes seem to leave discourse functions untouched (which provides for a strong argument for the use of functional notions in syntax). Breitborde, Lawrence B. 1975 "Communicating insults and compliments in Jacaltec". AnL 17. 381-403.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

29

Breitenstein, Sabine See: Jäger, S. et al. Brekle, Herbert Ernst 1972 Semantik: Eine Einführung in die sprachwissenschaftliche Be­ deutungslehre. München: W. Fink, 144 pp. A general introduction in semantics. The relation between semantics and pragmatics is dealt with explicitly. Pragmatics is presented as a necessary widening of the scope of linguistic semantics . Brekle, Herbert Ernst and Philip Luelsdorff 1975 "Notes on Chomsky's extended standard version". FL 12:3.367-82. Review of N. Chomsky 1972. Brennenstuhl, Waltraud 1975 Handlungstheorie und Handlungslogik. Kronberg: Scriptor. 1977

"Are speech acts really actions ?". Ms. Main point: if one takes 'control' as a criterion for an action, then speech acts are no real actions on the part of the speaker if the happy performance of a speech act is to include the hearer's understanding of the meaning and force of the utter­ ance, since that is partly controlled by properties of the hearer and restricted by conventions.

Brennenstuhl, Waltraud and Krystyna Wachowicz 1976 "On the pragmatics of control". PBLS 2.396-405. B. and W. introduce the notion of 'control' to explain the fact that non-human subjects take only non-volitional verbs in mor­ phological causatives while human subjects occur with both volitional and non-volitional verbs. Breuer, Dieter 1972 "Vorüberlegungen zu einer pragmatischen Textanalyse". WW 22:1. 1-23. Outline of a pragmatic theory of text analysis. 1974

Einführung in die pragmatische Texttheorie. München: W. Fink, 248 pp. Introduction to a pragmatic approach to the linguistic study of texts .

Breuer, William F. See: Schweller, . G. et al.

30

PRAGMATICS

Brinker, Klaus 1973 "Zum Textbegriff in der heutigen Linguistik". In H. Sitta and K. Brinker (eds.) 1973, 9-41. An overview of linguistic approaches to the notion 'text', including (or even culminating in) the contribution of lin­ guistic pragmatics (especially speech act theory). Brinker, Klaus See also: Sitta, H. and K. Brinker (eds.). Br inkman, H. J. 1974 "De ongeloofwaardigheid van tekstgrammatika" [ The incredibi­ lity of text grammar] . FdL 15:3.213-32. Review of T. A. van Dijk 1972. . expresses his disbelief in the possibility of a text grammar. (Reviewed by: T. A. van Dijk 1974b.) Brinkmann, Hennig 1973 "Information und Realisierung: Zum Zusammenhang zwischen Mo­ dalität und Kommunikation". In H. Sitta and K. Brinker (eds.) 1973 , 130-59. . distinguishes two aims of communication, viz. (i) informing the hearer and (ii) making the hearer act (i.e. 'realization'), which can be intertwined in conversation. Modality is defined as the value of an utterance for communication. Different types of modality are said to be distinguishable on the basis of the opposition information/realization. Brisau, A. 1977 "Conditioned and non-conditioned future in English and Nether­ lands". In Y. Putseys (ed.) 1977, 51-69. Review of R. I. Binnick 1972, based on contrastive Dutch-English data. Broadie, Alexander 1972 "Imperatives". Mind 81.179-90. Instead of going into imperative logic immediately, B. address­ es the methodologically prior question of what an imperative is. One of the questions that come up is whether an imperative is a type of sentence or a type of speech act. Brondeel, Herman 1977 "The non-application of the sequence of tenses after past em­ bedding verbs in English and Dutch 'that'-clauses in terms of the speaker's commitment to the truth of the statement". In Y. Putseys (ed.) 1977, 70-86. Review of R. Costa 1972a, based on contrastive Dutch-English data.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

31

Brown, Norman J. P. 1962 Review of J. L. Austin 1961. Dialogue 1.205-7. 1977

"The philosophical basis of illocutionary taxonomy". Paper presented at the 12th International Congress of Linguists, in the Working Group on Speech Acts, Vienna 1977. Critical discussion of J. R. Searle 1976a. The main point is that Searle's notion of 'illocutionary point', one of the pillars of his classification, involves a confusion of the illocutionary and the perlocutionary. B. proposes the notion of 'entitlement' to describe speech acts.

Brown, Robert 1962 Review of J. L. Austin 1961. AusJPh 40.347-65. 1963

Review of J. L. Austin 1962 and M. Furberg 1963. AusJPh 41. 417-24.

Browne, Wayles 1972 Review of Ö. Dahl 1969. FL 8:4.584-87. Browne, Wayles and Bartolo Vattuone 1975 "Theme-rheme structure and Zenéyze clitics". LIn 6:1.136-40. Bruce, D. J. 1968 "Effects of context upon intelligibility of heard speech". In R.  Oldfield and J.  Marshall (eds.) 1968, 123-31. Report of an experimental study. Brück, Reinhold and Eckhard Kendziorra 1972 "Einige Anmerkungen zum Begriff der Regel bei Searle". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 115-22. A discussion of Searle's conception of the conventions and constitutive rules of speech acts. Bruder, Mary Newton 1974 MMC Developing Communicative Competence in English as a Second Language. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Center for International Studies, xviii, 461 pp. A handbook of American English for beginning and intermediate learners. The goal is to develop communicative competence. B.'s method is a step-by-step approach whereby a student practices a particular structure first through mechani­ cal pattern practice drill, second through more meaningful drills, and last of all through communicative exercises, conversations and situations. (Reviewed by: A. L. Hagiwara 1975.)

32

PRAGMATICS

Bruner, Jerome S. 1975 "The ontogenis of speech acts". JChL 2:1.1-19. B. adopts a speech act approach to the transition from prelinguistic to linguistic communication. The structure of language is regarded as non-arbitrary: it is said to reflect attention structures and action structures. Bruton, C. J. See: Candlin, 

N. et al.

Bruxelles, S., 0. Ducrot, E. Fouquier, J. Gouaze, G. dos Reis Nunes and A. Remis 1976 "MAIS occupe-toi d'Amélie". ARSS 6.47-62. An analysis of the use of 'mais' in the play "Occupe-toi d'Amélie", taking into account the context, the intentions of the interlocutors,their judgements about the situation and their attitudes toward each other in view of that situation. Bublitz, Wolfram 1977 "Deutsch 'aber' als Konjunktion und als Modalpartikel". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 199-209. . argues that there is a relationship between 'aber' as a conjunction (as in "Fritz wohnt in der Burbekstrasse, aber Dankwart nicht") and 'aber' as a modal particle (as in "Oh, DU hast aber einen Bart"). In the course of the discussion, B. makes use of the notion of 'pragmatic universe of discourse'. Bühler, Hans (ed.) 1973 Funk-Kolleg Sprache: Eine Einführung in die moderne Linguistik, Band II. (= Funk-Kolleg 13.) Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 346 pp. See: U. Maas 1973a and 1973b; D. Wunderlich 1973c. Bünting, Karl-Dieter See: Ader, D. et al. Bünting, Karl-Dieter and Detlef C. Kochan 1973 Linguistik und Deutschunterricht. Kronberg: Scriptor, viii, 243 pp. Contains a chapter on the relationship between the notion of communicative competence and language teaching. Burch, Robert W. 1973

"Cohen, Austin and meaning". Ratio 15:1.117-24. Review of L. J. Cohen 1964. (Reviewed by: L. J. Cohen 1973.)

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

33

Burke, Kenneth 1975 "Words as deeds". Centrum 3:2.147-68. Review of J. L. Austin 1962 (second edition). Burkholder, L. 1976 Review of C. Landesman 1972. JPh 73:2.51-55. Butler, Milton Chadwick 1977 "Grammaticalization of topical elements in Middle English". PBLS 3.626-36. In accordance with the view that languages changing from SOV to SVO pass through a stage of pragmatic syntax (in which the discourse topic tends to occupy the initial position in a sentence) B. argues that in Middle English certain non-subjects are topical, certain properties are subject and not topic properties, and the topical non-subjects become subjects by acquiring those properties, i.e. that topical elements were converted into subjects (i.e. were grammaticalized). Byarushengo, Ernest Rugwa and Sarah Tenenbaum 1976 "Agreement and word order: A case for pragmatics in Haya". PBLS 2.89-95. Though Haya has an apparently free word order (which is made possible by the presence of agreement markers in the verbal complex), it turns out to have one basic structure: S-V-IODO. The possible syntactic variations are all determined by pragmatic factors (the separation between old and new inform­ ation being the motivation): emphasis, topicalization, focusing and/or afterthought.

 Cameron, J. R. 1970 "Sentence-meaning and speech acts". PhQ 20:78.97-117. Campbell, B. G. 1974 Review of J. R. Searle 1969. GL 14:4.220-38. 1975

"Toward a workable taxonomy of illocutionary forces, and its application to works of imaginative literature". LaS 8:1.3-20.

Campbell, Robin and Roger Wales 1970 "The study of language acquisition". In J. Lyons (ed.) 1970, 242-60. According to C. and W., Chomsky's distinction between compe­ tence and performance will have to be revised in order to enlarge the knowledge of language acquisition. The revision

34

PRAGMATICS referred to is the introduction of the concept 'communicative competence', i.e. the ability to produce and understand utterances in a way appropriate to the context in which they are made.

Candlin, Christopher N. 1972 "Sociolinguistics and communicative language teaching". ITL 16.37-44. . On the need for realistic contexts or situations for language teaching. Candlin, Christopher N., Jonathan H. Leather and Clive J. Bruton 1976 "Doctors in casualty: Applying communicative competence to components of specialist course design". IRAL 14:3.245-72. The authors trie to characterize the language used between doctors and victims of an accident. Cantrall, William R. 1971 "Comparison and presupposition". LIn 2:4.573-75. Carey, Toni Vogel 1975 "How to confuse commitment with obligation". JPh 72:10.276-84. C. describes the view that (a) "m undertakes an obligation to do A" unambiguously implies (b) "m has an obligation to do A which he takes upon himself to fulfil" and that, a fortiori, it unambiguously implies (c) "m has an obligation to do A", as the commitment-obligation fallacy. Carkeet, David 1974 Review of E. 

Traugott 1972. LSci 33.25-27.

Carl, Wolfgang and Rolf P. Horstmann 1972 "Knowing and claiming: A modified performative interpretation of the expression 'I know that p'".Ratio 14:2.155-71. Carnap, R. 1956 "On some concepts of pragmatics". Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, 248-50. Chicago: Uni­ versity of Chicago Press. The concepts of 'intension', 'belief', 'utterance', and 'assertion' are adduced as some of the basic concepts for a framework of theoretical pragmatics. Cassell, Eric J., Lucienne Skopek and Bruce Fraser 1976 "A preliminary model for the examination of doctor-patient communication". LSci 43.10-13.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

35

Castaneda, Hector-Neri 1957

"Some nonformal 'logical' relations". PhS 8.89-92. On, amongst other things, pragmatic implication. (Reviewed by: Y. Bar-Hillel 1960.)

1961

"Professor Bar-Hillel on nonformal implications and phe­ nomenalism". PhS 12.85-90. Reply to Y. Bar-Hillel 1960. (Reviewed by: Y. Bar-Hillel 1963.)

1967

"Actions, imperatives, and obligations". PAS 68.25-48. A phenomenological investigation of agentless deontic assert­ ions like "Every car ought to be licensed", i.e. assertions to the effect that certain agents ought to do certain acts, or that certain acts are obligatory, permitted, forbidden, right or wrong for certain persons. The investigation reveals relationships between actions, imperatives and deontic assertions. Those relationships are then used to examine entailments between imperatives and entailments between deontic assertions .

Cate, Abraham P. ten and Peter Jordens (eds.) 1973 Linguistische Perspektiven: Referate des VII. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Nijmegen, 26.-30. September 1972. (=Linguistische Arbeiten 5.) Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 320 pp. See: K. Braunmüller 1973; R. Dirven 1973; K. H. Ebert 1973a; G. Hindelang 1973. Catford, J. C See: Bazell, 

E..et al. (eds.).

Caton, Charles E. 1971 "Overview". In D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 3-13. A brief overview of the diverse trends in the philosophy of language, including theories of presupposition and speech acts. Caton, Charles E. (ed.) 1963 Philosophy and Ordinary Language. Urbana: University of Illi­ nois Press, xii, 246 pp. See: J. L. Austin 1963; G. Ryle 1953a; P. F. Strawson 1950a; S. E. Toulmin and K. Baier 1952; J. 0. Urmson 1952. Cattell, Ray 1973 "Negative transportation and tag questions". Lg 49:3.612-39. Critical discussion of R. Lakoff 1969.

36

PRAGMATICS

Cavell, Stanley 1958 "Must we mean what we say ?". Inquiry 1.172-212. Reprinted in C. Lyas (ed.) 1971, 131-65. Critical discussion of B. Mates' criticism of 'ordinary language philosophy': Mates' arguments are said to be on the whole irrelevant to the concerns of the ordinary language philoso­ phers; to show this, C. has to say something about what he takes to be the significance of proceeding, in one's philo­ sophising, from what one ordinarily says and means. 1965

"Austin at criticism". PhR 74.204-19. Reprinted in J. H. Gill (ed.) 1968, 81-101, and in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 59-75. General criticism of Austin's philosophical method.

Cerf, Walter 1964 "How to do things with words". Mind 73.1-26. Critical discussion of J. L. Austin's 1962 theory of speech acts . 1966

Review of J. L. Austin 1962. Mind 75.262-85. Reprinted in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 351-79.

Chafe, Wallace L. 1974 Interview with Herman Parret. In H. Parret 1974, 1-25. . answers questions on his own work and recent developments in linguistics. 1976

"Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view". In  N. Li (ed.) 1976, 25-55. The purpose of the paper is to sort out the cognitive consi­ derations involved in the phenomena described with the labels theme, emphasis, focus and the ones mentioned in the title. C. attempts to account for the phenomena by speaking of the va­ rious 'statuses' a noun may have. The statuses under consider­ ation (unlike, e.g. a noun's case status) are independent of the content of utterances, but they have to do with the way in which the content is transmitted: they have to do with the speaker's assessment of how the addressee is able to process what he is saying against the background of a certain context.

Chambers, J. K. 1973 "Remarks on topicalization in child language". FL 9:3.442-46. Review of J. S. Gruber 1967. Chatman, Seymour (ed.) 1971 Literary Style: A Symposium. London: Oxford University Press, xv, 427 pp.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

37

See: R. Ohmann 1971. (Reviewed by: R. W. Bailey 1974; R. Fowler 1974; E. A. Levenston 1975.) 1973

Approaches to Poetics. New York: Columbia University Press, xii, 184 pp. See: R. Ohmann 1973.

Cherry, Colin (ed.) 1974 Pragmatic Aspects of Human Communication. (= Theory and Deci­ sion Library: An International Series in the Philosophy and Methodology of the Social and Behavioral Sciences 4.) Dor­ drecht: Reidel, ix, 178 pp. See: A. V. Cicourel 1974; S. Marcus 1974; J. C. Marshall and R. J. Wales 1974. Chisholm, Roderick M. 1964 "Austin's philosophical papers". Mind 73.1-26. Reprinted in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 101-26. Review of J. L. Austin 1961. 1966

Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, x, 117 pp. The book contains a brief section on the problem of perform­ ative utterances, which is linked to the problem of knowledge.

Chisholm, Roderick M. and Thomas D. Feehan 1977 "The intent to deceive". JPh 74:3.143-59. Detailed analysis of what it is to 'intend to deceive' and what it is to 'lie'. Chiu, Rosaline K. 1973 "Measuring register characteristics". IRAL 11:1.51-68. Report of a Canadian research project for the description of registers in order to be able to teach the correct use of registers to advanced pupils. Chomsky, Noam 1972 Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton, 207 pp. Whereas before he had related meaning to deep structure only, C. now argues that some aspects of meaning are related to sur­ face structure phenomena. One of the semantic notions that crop up is 'presupposition'. (Reviewed by: H. E. Brekle and P. Luelsdorff 1975; G. Sampson 1975.)

PRAGMATICS

38 1974

Interview with Herman Parret. In H. Parret 1974, 27-54. . answers questions on his own work and recent developments in linguistics.

1975

Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books, 269 pp. The reason for the presence of C.'s book'in this bibliography is his attack on the inclusion of pragmatic factors in a grammar, or rather, his defense against attacks from the pragmatics - in particular, speech act - camp. (See pp. 5377.) (Reviewed by: J. R. Searle 1976b.)

Chvany, Catherine V. 1973 "On the role of presuppositions in Russian existential sen­ tences". PCLS 9.68-77. At least one syntactic rule is shown to be sensitive to a 'presupposition of existence' (which ought not to be confused with a pragmatic notion of definiteness: while definite noun phrases refer to presupposed existents, not all noun phrases with a presupposed existent are definite; while definite noun phrases are often topics of sentences, topic-comment or­ ganization is independent of definite items). Cicourel, Aaron V. 1974 "Interviewing and memory". In 

Cherry (ed.) 1974, 51-82.

. examines information processing problems associated with answering questions during medical history interviewing; the character of the answers is linked to the use of questionnaires with fixed-choice responses. Cinque, Guglielmo 1976 "Appropriateness conditions for the use of passives and impersonals in Italian". ItL 1.11-31. C. investigate the pragmatic conditions that favour, for Italian, the use of the passive construction over the active and the so-called impersonal ones. The discussion is certred around the notions of given vs. new information, and topic. Clair, Robert St. 1974 Review of P. P. Giglioli (ed.) 1972. LSci 32.29-30. Clark, Eve 1970 "Locationals: A study of the relations between 'existential', 'locative', and 'possessive' constructions". WPLU 3.L1-L37. The systematic relations of these constructions (with respect to word order, the verbs used, and the locative features) are

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

39

accounted for by two universal 'discourse' rules which predict the differences between the constructions. Clark, Herbert H. 1972 "Difficulties people have in answering the question 'Where is it ?'". JVLVB 11.265-77. 1973

"Comprehension and the given-new contract". Ms. Psychological evidence is adduced for the following claim: certain processes in comprehension are a consequence of the assumption that people are cooperative in conversation, in particular that they adhere to the 'given-new contract', i.e. the agreement that the speaker constructs his sentences according to his judgement about what the listener does and does not know.

Clark, John See: Jackson, M. and J. Clark. Clark, Michael 1971 "Description and speech acts". JPh 68:13.400-5. 1977

"Communication and meaning: Some reflections on Chomsky". Ms. Though he does not try to justify all the details of Grice's account of meaning in terms of the utterer's communicative intentions, C. defends it against Chomsky's 1975 arguments against it, which are dismissed as too hasty.

Clark, R. 1975 "Some even simpler ways to talk". Paper read at the 3rd Inter­ national Child Language Symposium, September 1975, London. Clarke, D. S., Jr. 1970 "Meaning, force and rhetorical affect". JPh 67:20.828-29. Clayre, Iain F. C. S. 1973 "A preliminary note on focus and emphasis in Melanau - a language of coastal Sarawak". Lingua 31:213.237-69. C. reviews focus as seen in the literature about the Phi­ lippine languages and describes the focal organization of the Melanau clause. Attention is drawn to the way in which emphasis is handled as a feature distinct from focus. Clément, Daniele See: Authier, J., D. Clement and A. Meunier. Clyne, M. G. 1967 "Switching between language systems". PICL 10:1.343-49.

40

PRAGMATICS An investigation of the causes of code-switching among GermanEnglish bilinguals and monolingual speakers of English in Australia .

Cocchiarella, Nino B. 1974 Review of Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.) 1971. LSci 33.27-35. Cogen, Cathy 1974 "Not a one". BSSS l.II-l - II-10. C. argues that 'not a one' (e.g. in "He didn't ask us one question, not a one"), like other expressions of the same sort such as 'not a wink', etc., are syntactically and semantically derivable from full sentences containing 'even', preserving the presuppositions in question. Further it is argued that the derivation of such constructions requires the adoption of 'amalgams' into a theory of grammar. Cogen, Cathy and Leora Herrmann 1975 "Interactions of the expression 'Let's just say' with the Gricean maxims of conversation". PBLS 1.60-68. The expression 'Let's just say' is described as an explicit marker indicating that in the following stretch of speech a violation of the maxims of conversation is going to occur, and that the violation is meaningful. Cohen, David 1971 On the Linguistic Representation of Presuppositions. Universi­ ty of Texas, Austin, Ph.D. dissertation. On the basis of evidence from phenomena involving tense and aspect in English as well as certain syntactic distinctions arising in complement constructions, C. argues that it is justified to treat presupposition in a grammar. A number of hypotheses about the form of the representation of presuppo­ sitions, are formulated. Complex sentences with factive verbs in their matrix clause are assigned an underlying represent­ ation with the presupposed complement sentence to the left of the matrix and dominated by the abstract performative sentence "We (inclusive) ASSUME that S". 1973

"On the mis-representation of presuppositions". Glossa 7:1.2138. . argues that two recent analyses purportedly dealing with complex sentence presuppositions, are in fact dealing with complex sentence entailments.

Cohen, L. Jonathan 1964 "Do illocutionary forces exist ?". PhQ 14:55.118-37. Reprinted in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 420-44, and in J. F. Rosenberg and  Travis (eds.) 1971, 580-99.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

41

C. tries to prove the inaccuracy of Austin's statement that locutions thave a 'meaning' whereas illocutions have a 'force', on the assumption that illocutionary force is also an aspect of meaning . (Reviewed by: M. Furberg 1969; R. W. Burch 1973.) 1969

Review of N. Rescher 1966. FL 5:1.135-37.

1970

"Searle's theory of speech acts". PhR 79:4.545-57.

1971a "Some remarks on Grice's. views about the logical particles of natural language". In Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.) 1971, 50-68. . criticises Grice's 'conversationalist hypothesis' about logical particles of natural language, according to which those particles (e.g. not, and, if ...then) do not diverge in meaning or function from the corresponding formal-logical symbols and the possible appearance of diverging from truthfunctionality is due to the presumptions with which natural language utterances are understood. C's alternative: the 'se­ mantical hypothesis' according to which occurrences of the particles sometimes do and sometimes do not differ in meaning from the formal-logical counterparts, but according to which both kinds of occurrences should be explained within a seman­ tical theory of natural language, without recourse to a theory of conversational presumptions. 1971b Review of Z. Vendler 1967b. FL 7:1.125-30. 1973

"The non-existence of illocutionary forces: A reply to Mr. Burch". Ratio 15:1.125-31. Reply to R. W. Burch 1973.

1974

"Speech acts". Current Trends in Linguistics 12.173-208. A brief overview of the main issues in speech act theory, Austin's account, Strawson's and Searle's modifications of that account, followed by some considerations on how the study of speech acts should be undertaken.

Cohen, Ted 1973 "Illocutions and perlocutions". FL 9.492-503. . claims that the notion of a perlocution needs some disdinctions not drawn by Austin, and that these distinctions will make it clear that at least some perlocutions are in­ timately enough related to illocutions to deserve as much philosophical attention. He distinguishes between direct and indirect perlocutions; the indirect ones are always unassociated whereas the direct ones can be either unassociated or associated (i.e. associated with the illocution in question).

42

PRAGMATICS Perlocutions of the direct associated type are said to be relevant to the theory of speech acts. 1975

"Figurative speech and figurative acts". JPh 72:19.669-84. The aim of the paper is to relate metaphors (considered as kinds of sentences) to other elements constituting whole speech acts.

1976

"Notes on metaphor". JAAC 34:3.249-59. Critical discussion of the thesis that in metaphor the meaning of at least one term has changed and that a metaphor taken literally is false.

Cole, Léo R. 1975 "Linguistic context in relation to the organisation and .61-70. function of visual elements". ELA The title-issue is raised in view of some problems of theore­ tical analysis and of practical pedagogical applications. Cole, Peter 1974a "Hebrew tense and the performative analysis". PCLS 10.73-89. C. discusses properties of the Hebrew tense system to show that superficial main clauses are, in underlying structure, commanded by a higher clause, and that the verb of the higher clause is performative. The paper also contains some notes on the relevance of these facts in determining the role of pragmatics in language. 1974b "Conversational implicature and syntactic rules". In R. W. Shuy and C.-J. N. Bailey (eds.) 1974, 104-19. . examines a class of sentences (viz. 'let's'-sentences) which appear to be excellent candidates for a Gricean ana­ lysis (in terms of conversational implicature), but he shows that such an analysis would be incorrect, which suggests some problems for the applicability of the Gricean approach. 1975a "The synchronic and diachronic status of conversational im­ plicature". In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 257-88. Criticism of D. Gordon and G. Lakoff 1971. C. claims that language learners assume the conveyed meaning of a sentence to be its logical structure unless there is syntactic or morphological evidence to the contrary. He supports his ar­ gument by considering the English construction 'let's' and its Hebrew equivalent.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

43

1975b "Referential opacity, attributiveness, and the performative hypothesis". PCLS 11.672-86. C. claims that two allegedly independent ambiguities of definite descriptions, viz. referentiality-attributiveness and trans­ parency-opacity, are in fact one single ambiguity viewed from two perspectives, and that they can be unified on the basis of the performative hypothesis and the relative scope analysis. Cole, Peter and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.) 1975 Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, xv, 406 pp. See: P. Cole 1975a; A. Davison 1975a; B. Fraser 1975a; R. T. Garner 1975; D. Gordon and G. Lakoff 1971; G. M. Green 1973; H. P. Grice 1975; J. L. Morgan 1975a; J. R. Ross 1975a; J. M. Sadock 1975; S. F. Schmerling 1975; J. R. Searle 1975a; D.W. Stampe 1975; R.A. Wright 1975.) (Reviewed by: G. Leech 1977.) Coleman, Linda 1975 "The case of the vanishing presupposition". PBLS 1.78-89. C. contends that a verb, instead of having one constant pre­ supposition, has a chain of hierarchically ordered presuppo­ sitions (e.g. for 'manage': try - difficulty - unlikeli­ hood) . These presuppositions are called 'vanishing' because the hearer, in trying to understand an utterance, moves down the hierarchy and eliminates possibilities until he arrives at the appropriate one. Vanishing presuppositions are present­ ed as a special case of progressively extended frames. Comrie, Bernard 1975 Review of R. S. Jackendoff 1972. Linguistics 160.71-83. 1976

"Linguistic politeness axes: speaker-addressee, speakerreferent, speaker-bystander". PM 1:7.A3. Many languages are said to require an overt distinction among the three forms of politeness mentioned in the title. The re­ lation between politeness phenomena and the performative hy­ pothesis is discussed.

Cook, Philip Harold 1973 Theme, Rheme, and Focus as Grammatical Universals. University of Southern California Ph.D. dissertation. After defining the notions theme, rheme, topic, comment and focus,  suggests that the underlying logical structure of every assertive sentence in a connected discourse identifies what that sentence is about, that some other part asserts something about this element, and that these are distinguished

PRAGMATICS

44

somehow in deep structure. Only noun phrases can be in focus and can be realized in surface structure as theme. Every assertive sentence is said to pragmatically presuppose its appropriateness to the discourse; the term that expresses this presupposition is the theme. These and other claims are illustrated with examples from English and Tagalog. Cooper, David E. 1972 "Meaning and illocutions". APhQ 9:1.69-77.  shows that four quite distinct answers to the question "Can the meaning of sentences and words be explained by re­ ference to illocutionary acts ?" are not inconsistent with each other. 1973

Philosophy and the Nature of Language. (= Longman Linguistics Library 14.) London: Longman, xi, 222 pp. An overview of current problems in the philosophy of language and linguistic philosophy. C. tries to show how philosophical discussions of aspects of language have influenced approaches or answers to traditional philosophical problems. The follow­ ing topics are brought forward: meaning, reference and predi­ cation, language and culture, language and innate knowledge, truth, synonymy, and speech acts. (Reviewed by: R. M. Harnish 1976; Z. Vendler 1975.)

1974a Presupposition. (= Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 203.) The Hague: Mouton, 130 pp. First C. presents the paradigm cases of presupposition, i.e. the cases that were adduced in the early discussion of the con­ cept. After introducing later examples, he remarks that most of them do not fit the paradigm. The following dilemma arises: do we have to hold a 'family resemblance view' of presupposition which includes all the non-paradigmatic cases but which makes the concept so vague as to make it useless in logico-linguistic theory, or do we have to hold an 'austere view' which bans all the non-paradigmatic cases ? C. argues that one can take up all the examples if one approaches presupposition from the theory of speech acts: presuppositions are some of the necessa­ ry conditions for the performance of speech acts. 1974b "Do SR's paraphrase sentences ?". FL 11:4.571-74. . claims that semantic representations of a sentence, which contain a representation of its presuppositions or its illocu­ tionary force, cannot be paraphrases of that sentence. Cooper, William E. and John Robert Ross 1975 "World order". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functional ism. 63-111.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

45

A study of the principles underlying 'freezes', i.e. combina­ tions of words with a fixed order (e.g. 'bigger and better' and not '* better and bigger'). C. and R. show that (i) the semantic reasons for the given order are more important than the phonological ones, (ii) there are functional constraints such as 'ease of processing' for speech perception, and (iii) the constraints are related to man's view of himself in the world . Copleston, F. 1963 Review of J. L. Austin 1962. HeyJ 177-78. Coppalle, X., P. Charron, A. Mouquet, and A. M. Sato 1976 "La prise de parole en classe, l'acte de parole et la situation de communication". LFr 32.79-95. On discourse in the classroom. Cornulier, Benoît de 1974 "A non-existent performative argument". FL 11:3.413-14. Comment on P. M. Postal 1972a. 1975

"La notion d'auto-interprétation". ELA 19.52-82. . suggests that explicit performatives should be regarded as auto-referential assertions interpreting themselves and subject to a rule the effect of which is that they find them­ selves verified by themselves. That rule leads . to a redefi­ nition of the field of explicit performatives in terms of the concept of self-interpretation.

Corum, Claudia 1974 "Adverbs ... long and tangled roots". PCLS 10.90-102. C. shows that evaluative adverbs (such as 'clearly', 'presumably', 'surprisingly') do not only share syntactic properties but also have a common function: they are one of several linguistic means by which a speaker introduces a comment into the total speech act. The pragmatic factors associated with their usage have to be represented as part of their meaning, which is possible if one accepts the performative hypothesis. 1975a "Basques, particles, and babytalk: A case for pragmatics". PELS 1.90-99. C. offers data about Basque particles and expressive palatali­ zation in Basque, which can be shown to be dependent on context. 1975b "A pragmatic analysis of parenthetic adjuncts". PCLS 11.133-41.

PRAGMATICS

46

The main purpose of the paper is to show that the rules go­ verning parenthetic adjuncts (i.e. factive sentential adverbs like 'regrettably', modal sentential adverbs such as 'obvious­ ly', adverbial phrases like 'of course', parentheticals like 'I think', rhetorical tag questions, and some non-restrictive relative clauses) cannot be explained without referring to pragmatic factors. 1976

A Performative Analysis of Parenthetic Adjuncts. University of Chicago Ph.D. dissertation.

Costa, Rachel 1972a "The sequence of tenses in that-clauses". PCLS 8.41-51. Amongst other things, C. argues that the present is used in the complement to express presupposition of its present re­ levance, whereas the past is used when that relevance is firmly anchored in the past and not to be identified with the speaker . (Reviewed by: H. Brondeel 1977.) 1972b "Let's solve let's". PIL 5.141-45. 1975a "A functional solution for illogical reflexives in Italian". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 112-25. C. describes Italian 'illogical reflexives' (e.g. "I fatti SI sanno già" = the facts are already known) as agentless passives and formulates functional constraints on their use. 1975b "Causative 'have' constructions and their theoretical impli­ cations". SJSOPIL 1.33-44. A semantic and pragmatic approach to causative 'have' con­ structions, presented as an alternative to the generative semantics approach. Coulthard, R. M. See: Sinclair, J. McH. and R. M. Coulthard. Coursil, Jacques 1975 "Pratiques discursives et actes illocutionnaires (La pratique du reproche)". ELA 19.83-95. A reexamination of illocutionary force in terms of 'discourse practices' ('pratiques discursives'), with particular reference to acts of reproaching. Cox, J. W. Roxbee 1955 "Fitting and matching: A note on Professor Austin's 'How to talk'". Analysis 16.6-11. Review of J. L. Austin 1953.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1966

47

Review of M. Furberg 1963. PhQ 16:62.80-81.

Creider, Chet 1976 "Thematization in Luo". PM 1:7.B14. C. suggests that the organization of conversation may have explanatory import for grammatical processes in natural lan­ guages. The example is thematization in Luo, a Nilo-Saharan language spoken in Kenya. Cross, Toni 1975 "Motherese: Its association with rate of syntactic acquisition in young children". PM 1:5.B1. It is suggested that it is the closeness of the semantic re­ lationship between the child's and the mother's utterances that facilitates the child's discovery of the appropriate linguistic expressions for his semantic intention (especially when mothers expand and semantically extend their children's utterances) . Crouch, Isabel See: Dubois, B. L. and I. Crouch 1975. Cutler, Anne 1974 "On saying what you mean without meaning what you say". PCLS 10.117-27. On irony. One of the characteristics C. adduces: an ironic utterance must, in the context in which it is produced, ex­ press on its literal meaning a desirable state of affairs.

D

Dahl, Deborah A. See: Schweller, . G. et al. Dahl, Östen 1969 Topic and Comment: A Study in Russian and General Transform­ ational Grammar. (= Slavica Gothoburgensia 4.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, iii, 53 pp. An attempt to demonstrate the usefulness of some recent pro­ posals in transformational theory by applying them to a new problem area intertwining with grammatical and semantic phe­ nomena such as free and fixed word order, presupposition, dis­ course structure, phrase accent and emphasis. (Reviewed by: W. Browne 1972; J. Firbas and K. Pala 1971.)

PRAGMATICS

48 1972

Review of G. Lakoff 1970b. GPTL 10. Reprinted in KLit 2 (1973). 250-63. D. argues, amongst other things, that meaning postulates are superfluous because they are deducible by normal rules of in­ ference from truth definitions.

1973

"Presuppositions and propositions". In J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 409-19. D. argues that presupposition is a relation between proposi­ tions rather than between sentences.

1974

"Topic-comment structure in a generative grammar with a seman­ tic base". In F. Danes (ed.) 1974, 75-80. Arguments are adduced for the claims that topic-comment struc­ ture is nor merely a surface phenomenon but has to be account­ ed for in the semantic representation of the sentence, and that the topic-comment structure reflects some fundamental aspects of the logical form of a sentence.

D'Alessio, J.  1972 "Austin on Nowell-Smith's conditional analyses of 'could have' and 'can'". Mind 81.260-64. Critique of J. L. Austin 1956. v . František Danes, František 1970 "One instance of Prague school methodology: Functional analy­ sis of utterance and text". In P.L. Garvin (ed.) 1970, 132-46. 1974

"Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text". In F. Danes (ed.) 1974, 106-28. D. argues that a coherent text could be described in terms of an underlying thematic progression and a rhematic sequence of semantic relations obtaining between the particular rhemes. In other words, though the grammar of texts should not be reduced to functional sentence perspective, the theme-rheme structure (normally placed at the level of the clause) can be generalized to texts.

Danes, František et al. 1974 "Zur Terminologie der FSP". In F. Danes (ed.) 1974, 217-22. On the terminology of functional sentence perspective. Danes, František (ed.) 1974 Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. (= Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 147.) The Eague: Mouton, 222 pp. See: J. Bacvarov 1974; Ö. Dahl 1974; F. Danes 1974; F. Danes

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY et J. P. L.

49

al. 1974; L. Dezsö and G. Szépe 1974; W. Dressler 1974; Filipec 1974; J. Firbas 1974; M. A. K. Halliday 1974a; Novák 1974; K. Pala 1974; P. Sgall 1974; A. Svoboda 1974; Uhlířová 1974.

(Reviewed by: G. Helbig 1976.) Danielsson, Sven 1965 "Definitions of 'performative'". Theoria 31.20-31. Search for a suitable explicit definition of the term 'per­ formative' . Many proposed definitions are discussed along the way. Davidson, Donald and Gilbert Harman (eds.) 1972 Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, x, 769 pp. See: C. J. Fillmore 1972; G. Lakoff 1970b; R. Montague 1970; R. C. Stalnaker 1970. (Reviewed by: A. Leist 1974.) Davis, Steven 1964 "'I know' as an explicit performative". Theoria 30.157-65. D. argues, contrary to Austin, that 'I know' is no explicit performative . 1968

Illocutionary Acts and Transformational Grammar. University of Illinois Ph.D. dissertation.

Davison, Alice 1970 "Causal adverbs and performative verbs". PCLS 6.190-201. Conditions on the use of the causal adverbs 'since', 'as', 'because', 'if' and 'so' are formulated in terms of perform­ ative verbs, illocutionary force and presuppositions. 1972

Performative Verbs, Adverbs and Felicity Conditions: An Inquiry into the Nature of Performative Verbs. University of Chicago Ph.D. dissertation.

1973

"Words for things people do with words". PCLS 9.114-22. A discussion of felicity conditions with respect to perform­ ative and descriptive uses of performative verbs. It is shown that descriptions of both successful and unsuccessful acts are subject to felicity conditions.

1974a "Indirect speech acts: Do they form a single uniform class of utterances ?". Ms.

PRAGMATICS

50

1974b "What causes speech acts ?". Paper read at the 1974 Summer Meeting of the LSA and at the 1977 International Congress of Linguists (in the Working Group on Speech Acts). D. argues that felicity conditions on speech acts have to be distinguished from the institutional conventions and the motivation for using them. The distinction is said to be supported by syntactic differences. She argues that felicity conditions are part of the semantic representation of per­ formative verbs, whereas the other conventions are not. The latter are said to be subject to arbitrary change over time, whereas the former change slowly if at all. 1975a "Indirect speech acts and what to do with them". In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 143-85. D. reviews some approaches to indirect speech acts (especial­ ly D. Gordon and G. Lakoff 1971) and points out their in­ adequacies. She proposes that some structure is needed which combines the structure of an illocutionary act with a structure expressing emotional attitudes of the speaker toward the act, in order to explain indirect speech acts. The proposal is not further elaborated. 1975b "Parasitic speech acts". SJSOPIL 1.45-55. A discussion of the real and apparent exceptions to the follow­ ing two principles: speech acts cannot be freely embedded and retain their illocutionary force; a speech act consisting of an independent utterance (i.e. preceded and followed by silence) has only one illocutionary force even if it is not clear what the force is. The exceptions are shown to be quite systematic. 1977

"Negative scope and rules of conversation: Evidence from an OV language". To appear in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. Nev/ York: Academic Press. D. shows how in Hindi-Urdu, which does not overtly mark an in­ definite noun phrase or adverb ivrhen it is in the scope of a ne­ gative (whereas such overt marking does exist in English: any, nobody, etc.), the interaction between the syntactic devices available and the Gricean principles of conversation as well as some semantic universals, prevents ambiguity from arising in those cases.

Davison, J. R. 1972 "Contextual constraints on reason adverbials". Linguistics 94. 5-20. D. argues that purely syntactic representations of underlying structures do not only have to undergo revisions in the light of semantic constraints, but also in the light of contextual constraints. The example: reason adverbials such as 'because'.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

51

de Cornulier, Benoît See: Cornulier, Benoît de Deledalle, G. 1965 Review of J. L. Austin 1961. LEPh 20.523-24. Dengel, Peter and Ulrich Scheck 1977 "Linguistische Aspekte des Verkaufsgesprächs". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 211-20. On defining and pragmatically analyzing commercial conversa­ tions . Dennis, James See: Keller-Cohen, D. and J. Dennis. Depresie, J. See: Ducrot, 0. 1973. Devin, Judith See: Sacks, J. and J. Devin. Dezső', László and Görgy Szépe 1974 "Two problems of topic-comment". In F. Danes (ed.), 1974, 81-86. Thoughts on the universal character and the genesis of topiccomment rules. Dieckmann, Walther and Gisela Schulz 1972 "Analyse von Kommunikationssituationen als Gegenstand im Schulunterricht: Bericht über ein Lehr- und Forschungsprojekt". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 404-13. Report of a research project concerning the possibility of in­ troducing the analysis of communication situations as an ob­ ject for study in schools (especially in the scope of the course German). Dijk, Teun A. van 1972 Some Aspects of Text Grammars: A Study in Theoretical Lin­ guistics and Poetics. (= Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 63.) The Hague: Mouton, xi, 375 pp. D. proposes a text grammar based on the generative transform­ ational model of linguistics. He attaches a chapter on the pragmatics of texts. (Reviewed by: H. J. Brinkman 1974; J. G. Kooij 1973; R. E. Longacre 1976.)

52

PRAGMATICS

1973

"Text grammar and text logic". In J. S. Petöfi and H. Rieser (eds.) 1973, 17-78. The author investigates some of the logical properties of texts. Amongst other things, he makes presupposition a wellformedness condition for texts: a sentence of a text is de­ rivable only if its presuppositions have been previously de­ rived.

1974a "Text grammar and text logic". In M. Rüttenauer (ed.) 1974, 83-173. Preprint of T. A. van Dijk 1973. (Reviewed by: H. Rieser 1974.) 1974b "De noodzaak van (kon-)tekst-grammatika's" [The necessity of (con)text grammars]. FdL 15:3.233-43. Review of H. J. Brinkman 1974. 1976

"Pragmatics and poetics". In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) 1976, 23-57. D. argues that an adequate account of many literary phenomena (e.g. the relations between the author, the 'narrator' and the presented persons and events of a story; the tense structure of novels; presuppositional and implicational structures of literary discourse; the speech act status of literary utter­ ances; etc.) should be given in terms of an explicit pragmatic theory of natural language.

Dijk, Teun A. van (ed.) 1976 Pragmatics of Language and Literature. Amsterdam: North-Holland, x, 236 pp. See: L. Åqvist 1976; T. A. van Dijk 1976; D. Harrah 1976; N. Kasher and A. Kasher 1976; I. Kummer and W. Kummer 1976; S.-Y. Kuroda 1976b; S. R. Levin 1976; S. J. Schmidt 1976; K. Verdaasdonk et al. 1976.) Dik, S. C. 1967 Review of J. Vachek 1966. Lingua 18.80-89. Dinneen, John A. 1972 "What Austin does with words". PPR 32:4.514-23. Dirven, René 1968 "M. A. K. Halliday's theoretical and descriptive linguistic categories". LH 7.60-71 and LH 8.157-68. Description of Halliday's work up to .. A. K. Halliday 1967-8. 1973

"A performative approach to German 'sicher' and Dutch 'zeker'". In A. P. ten Cate and P. Jordens (eds.) 1973, 220-29.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

53

A distributional description of German 'sicher' and Dutch 'zeker', contrasted with their English equivalents, and an attempt to explain some of the observed facts in terms of the performative hypothesis. Dittkrist, Jörg 1976 "Probleme der Textlinguistik". LD 26.113-21. Overview of some problems in textlinguistics (both text gram­ mar and text pragmatics). Dittmann, Jürgen 1975 "Wissenschaftstheoretische Prolegomena zu einer kommunikationsorientierten Sprachtheorie". DSp 3:1.1-20. Theoretical preliminaries to a communication oriented linguistics. Dixon, R. M. W. 1964 "On formal and contextual meaning". ALH 14.23-46. A discussion - in the neo-Firthian tradition - of some inter­ relations between 'formal meaning' (i.e. the meaning of a piece of language with respect to its internal patterning) and 'contextual meaning' (i.e. its meaning with respect to the correspondences that can be set up between its internal patternings and relevant non-linguistic patterns in its general situation). Dobnig-Jülch, Edeltraud 1975 "Über Eigennamenkompetenz: Beobachtungen zum Eigennamengebrauch als Grundlage neuer Eigennamenbeschreibungen". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1975, 403-16. D.-J. regards the 'proper name competence' as part of communi­ cative competence and offers a short outline of what its des­ cription would look like. Donnelian, Keith S. 1966 "Reference and definite descriptions". PhR 75.281-304. Re­ printed in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 100-14, and in J. F. Rosenberg and C. Travis (eds.) 1971, 195-211, and in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 71-95. D. distinguishes nonreferential or attributive uses of defi­ nite descriptions (e.g. 'Smith's murderer' in "Smith's murderer is insane" uttered by somebody who comes upon Smith's body and wants to deduce something about the murderer from the brutal manner of the killing) from referential uses (e.g. 'Smith's murderer' in the same sentence, but now uttered in court to refer to Jones who has been charged with the murder). D. claims that the truth value of what is said is affected differently, depending on the use of the definite description, if the presupposition that something should fit the description

PRAGMATICS

54

fails; moreover, it is said that when a speaker uses a definite description referentially, he may have stated something true or false even if nothing fits the description. Dore, John 1973 Review of D. C 1974

Freeman (ed.) 1970. GL 13:2.118-23.

"A pragmatic description of early language development". JPsyR 3:4.343-50. The speech act is proposed as the unit of analysis for studying the pragmatics of early child language. A study of children's uses of single-word utterances is reported, and the data are analysed in terms of 'primitive speech acts'.

1975

"Holophrases, speech acts and language universals". JChL 2:1. 21-40. Arguments for and against viewing the child's initial one-word utterances as 'holophrases' are reviewed. Both sides of the controversy are said to mistakenly assume the centrality of the notion 'sentence'; D. argues that the problem can be solved by taking 'speech act' as the central notion. Communicative functions, referring expressions and predicating expressions are proposed as language universals.

1977

Review of M. A. K. Halliday 1975. LiS 6:1.114-18.

Dormagen, Herbert 1976 "Sprechtätigkeit und Gesellschaft". LBer 43.77-85. Abbreviated text of a lecture (Bremen, February 2, 1976) on the relationship between speech activity and society. dos Reis Nunes, G. See: Reis Nunes, G. dos Dougherty, Ray, . 1970 Review of E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.) 1968. FL 6:4.505-61. Downes, William 1977 "The imperative and pragmatics". JL 13:1.77-97. Account of the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of imperative constructions in English, with special attention for their illocutionary act potential. Three possible linguistic analyses of the imperative are examined: the surface structure analysis, the deep structure analysis and the performative analysis. It is argued that the surface structure analysis is to be pre­ ferred . Drachman, Gaberell 1975 "The syntax of casual speech". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1975, 273-95.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

55

D. shows that the acceptability of certain aspects of the syn­ tax of casual speech (which is divided into four groups: structure-destruction, structure-confusing, rescue-operations and structure-simplification) is related to either conversa­ tional expectations or perceptual problems. Drachman, Gaberel1 (ed.) 1975 SBL 1: Akten der 1. Salzburger Frühlingstagung für Linguistik. Tübingen: G. Narr, ix, 440 pp. See: B. Asbach-Schnitker 1975; A. Betten 1975; E. Dobnig-Jülch 1975; G. Drachman 1975; H.-W. Eroms 1975; R. Müller 1975; 0. Panagl 1975; P. Weingartner 1975. 1976

SBL 2: Akten des 1. Salzburger Kolloquiums über Kindersprache. Tübingen: G. Narr, 395 pp. See: R. Bielefeld 1976; K. Lindner and D. Zaefferer 1976; E. Oksaar 1976; S. Savić 1976; G. W. Shugar 1976a; U. Weber 1976; H. Wode 1976.

Dressler, Wolfgang 1972 Einführung in die Textlinguistik. (= Konzepte der Sprach und Literaturwissenschaft 13.) Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, viii, 135 pp. An introduction to text linguistics, with a separate chapter on text pragmatics. (Reviewed by: U. L. Figge 1975; H. Rieser 1975.) 1974

"Funktionelle Satzperspektive und Texttheorie". In F. Danes (ed.) 1974, 87-105. The author argues that within functional sentence perspective a lot of work remains to be done, and that its application to textlinguistics is virtually non-existent.

Droste, F. G. 1973 "Presupposition, truth and grammaticality". CC 6:2.25-36. D. asks whether and to what extent presupposition, truth and grammaticality, and their interrelations, have any bearing on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. He claims that, as soon as one recognizes that deviance does not only depend on the 'uni­ versal mechanism' of grammaticality but on personal expe­ rience, the speaker's attitude etc. as well, the thesis of linguistic relativity becomes less refutable than transforma­ tional grammarians used to think. Dubois, Betty Lou and Isabel Crouch 1975 "The question of tag questions in women's speech: They don't really use more of them, do they ? " . LiS 4:3.289-94. Critical discussion of R. Lakoff 1973c. In particular, the

56

PRAGMATICS authors draw attention to a certain social context in which men did, but women did not, use tag questions (which casts doubt on Lakoff's claim that women use tag questions more often, to avoid commitment).

Dubsky, Josef 1972 "The Prague conception of functional style". In V. Fried (ed.) 1972, 112-27. Ducrot, Oswald 1969a "Les actes de langage". Sciences 60.8-13. The theory of .speech acts is shown to undermine Saussure's distinction between 'langue' and 'parole'. 1969b "Presupposes et sous-entendus". LFr (Décembre).30-43. German translation in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 241-60. On presupposition and allusion. 1970

"Les indéfinis et 1'énonciation". Langages 17.91-111. D. argues that making use of the notion 'utterance', i.e. an act of using language, is not justified in the description of indefinite expressions.

1972

Dire et ne pas dire: Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann, 283 pp. D. presents a general theory of presupposition. He discusses the historical development of the notion, the act of presuppo­ sing, the place of presupposition in linguistic theory, its relation with implication and supposition, definite descript­ ions and existential presuppositions.

Ducrot, Oswald (with the cooperation of M. C. Barbault and J. Depresie) 1973 La preuve et le dire. Paris: Mame, 290 pp. A series of essays representing a logical approach to language and discourse. (Among many other logical relations, presuppo­ sition is discussed.) (Partially reviewed by: J.-C. Anscombre and 0. Ducrot 1976. Reviewed by: M. Francard 1975.) Ducrot, Oswald 1975 "Je trouve que". Semantikos 1:1.63-88. A semantic-pragmatic analysis of the expression 'je trouve que...' Ducrot, Oswald See also: Anscombre, J.-C. and 0. Ducrot; Bruxelles, S. et al.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

57

Ducrot, Oswald and Tzvetan Todorov 1972 Dictionnaire Encyclopédique des Sciences du Langage. Paris: Seuil, 470 pp. In this encyclopaedia of the sciences of language, D. and T. discuss various pragmatic notions under headings such as "Sociolinguistique", "Philosophie du langage", "Langage et action", and several others. Duhm, Dieter See: Jäger, S. et al. Durand, Jacques and David Robinson 1974 "Introduction". Langages 34.3-10. Overview of linguistic work in Great Britain in the sixties. Durrant, R. G. 1963 "Promising". AusJPh 41.44-56. D. contends that there is one basic condition on promises: they involve men co-operating in pursuit of mutually agreed and so­ cially approved ends.

E

Ebert, Karen H. 1973a "Präsuppositionen im Sprechakt". In A. P. ten Cate and P. Jor­ dens (eds.) 1973, 45-60. Also in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 421-40. On the role of logical presupposition and pragmatic presupposi­ tion (which E. divides into weak and strong pragmatic presuppo­ sition) in speech acts. She claims that conditions on the use of words (e.g. the fact that the use of 'herself' requires that the person talked about is female) and selection res­ trictions are rules of language which are independent from speech acts. The intention of the paper is to restore some order to the use of the notion 'presupposition'. 1973b "Functions of relative clauses in reference acts". LBer 23.1-11. An attempt is made to explain why some relative clauses are necessary whereas others are free (i.e. the same distinction as between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses) and what function necessary relative clauses have in communication. Edwards, A. D. 1976 "Speech codes and speech variants: Social class and task differences in children's speech". JChL 3:2.247-65. Report of the analysis of the speech of children in socially

PRAGMATICS

58

contrasted groups, across a range of communicative tasks. Class differences are shown to be less important than task variation. Edwards, Paul (ed.) 1967 The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Vol. 1-8. New York: Macmillan and The Free Press, li, 439 + 529 + 504 + 571 + 553 + 521 + 545 + 544 pp. See: J. Hartnack 1967; D. Kalish 1967; A. Stroll 1967; J. 0. Urmson 1967. Eggs, Ekkehard 1974 "Zum Universalitätsanspruch der Sprechakttheorie". LiLi 4:14. 31-64. About speech act theorists' claims to universality. 1976

"Täuschen: Eine semantisch-pragmatische Analyse". LD 28.315-26. A semantic-pragmatic analysis of deceiving.

Egli, Urs 1971 "Zweiwertigkeit und Präsupposition". LBer 13.74-78. E. argues that if one accepts the existence of presuppositions, a two-valued logic is no longer adequate. Ehlich, Konrad 1972 "Thesen zur Sprechakttheorie". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 122-26. Illocutionary acts are defined as largely conventionalized and standardized forms of social practices. Ehlich, Konrad and Karin Martens 1972 "Sprechhandlungstheorie und double-bind". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 377-403. Application of speech act theory to the study of schizophrenic discourse (specifically the phenomenon of double-bind). Ehlich, Konrad and Jochen Rehbein 1972a "Erwarten". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 99-115. A discussion of the constitutive role of expectations in speech acts. Expectations are said to be action presuppositions: in isolation from the actions for which they are presuppositions, they are pointless. 1972b "Zur Konstitution pragmatischer Einheiten in einer Institution: Das Speiserestaurant". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 209-54. Analysis of speech activity in a restaurant.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

59

1972c "Einige Interrelationen von Modalverben". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 318-40. An analysis of the modal verbs 'mögen', 'wollen', 'sollen', 'müssen', 'dürfen', 'nicht brauchen, 'können' and 'werden'. The objects of modal verbs are said to be certain modalities of a 'decision'. The verbs are classified according to the aspect of such a decision situation that is verbalized. Ehret, Rudolf and Jürgen Walther 1977 "Rhetorische Strategien und Redetechniken". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 221-31. A linguistic approach to rhetorical strategies and techniques. The intention is to show what linguistics can contribute to the study of rhetorical processes. Ehrich, Veronika 1975 "Pragmatische Restriktionen der Bedeutung von graduierbaren Adjektiven und Vergleichssätzen". In V. Ehrich and P. Finke (eds.) 1975, 141-53. E. argues (i) that gradable adjectives can be subclassified on the basis of the implications of sentences in which they are used in the comparative form; (ii) that the implications of such sentences are partly determined by pragmatic factors; (iii) that those pragmatic determinants have to be specified with reference to both the lexical and the categorial mean­ ing of the adjectives in question. Ehrich, Veronika and Peter Finke (eds.) 1975 Beiträge zur Grammatik und Pragmatik. (= Skripten Linguistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 12.) Kronberg: Scriptor, ix, 276 pp. See: R. Bartsch 1975; V. Ehrich 1975; D. Franck 1975; G. Hindelang 1975; L. Huth 1975; H. Parret 1975; G. Todt and . Guhl 1975b. Ehrich, Veronika and Gunter Saile 1972 "Über nicht-direkte Sprechakte". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 255-87. Non-direct speech acts are contrasted with explicit per­ formatives: non-direct speech acts using explicit performative formulae and non-direct speech acts which cannot possibly use explicit performative formulae are considered. Three des­ criptive schemes for non-direct speech acts are proposed: one for indirect speech acts (defined as follows: an indirect speech act SA2 is part of a direct speech act SAl and can be interpreted as the intended one if SAl thematizes under certain contextual circumstances one of the constitutive prer suppositions of the direct performance of SA2), one for im-

60

PRAGMATICS plicit speech acts (defined as follows: and implicit speech act SA2 is part of a direct speech act SAl and can be inter­ preted as the intended one if the propositional component p of an explicit form of SA2 is a presupposition of SAl and if p is not questioned by a direct performance of SAl), and one for implicative propositions (comparable to Grice's implicature). Some thoughts about the social function of non-direct speech acts are attached.

Eichler, Wolfgang 1974 Sprachdidaktik Deutsch: Ein kommunikationswissenschaftliches und linguistisches Konzept. München: W. Fink, 289 pp. A general discussion of language teaching, incorporating nu­ merous pragmatic concepts. Eichler, Wolfgang See also: Ader, D. et al. Elliott, Dale E. 1974 "Toward a grammar of exclamations". FL 11:2.231-46. An attempt to show that questions and exclamations are dis­ tinct constructions, despite the many surface similarities. Ellis, Jeffrey 1966 "On contextual meaning". In . E. Bazell et al. (eds.) 1966, 79-95. A tentative approach to the problems involved in the task of establishing categories to relate linguistic form to the 'context of situation'. Engelen, Bernhard 1973 "Überlegungen zu Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik der Redewie­ dergabe". SdG 24.46-60. Enkvist, Nils Erik 1977 Review of J. S. Petöfi and H. Rieser (eds.) 1973. Linguistics 188.81-88. Eroms, Hans-Werner 1975 "Subjektwahl und Konversen". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1975, 319-33. A discussion of subject choice in terms of the contrasts topiccomment and given-new. Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 1970 "Discourse agreement: How children answer questions". In J. R. Hayes (ed.) 1970, 79-107. A psycholinguistic investigation.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1973

61

Language Acquisition and Communicative Choice. Stanford: Stan­ ford University Press, xiv, 383 pp. A collection of essays on bilingualism, language acquisition, and sociolinguistics (in which E.-T.'s primary interest is the description of communicative competence. (Reviewed by: P. Fletcher 1976; H. Giles 1974; E. Oksaar 1974; G. W. Shugar 1976b.)

1976

"Is Sybil there ? The structure of some American English di­ rectives". LiS 5:1.25-66. E.-T. argues that except for hints and questions not mentioning what is desired, directives do not require inference from a prior literal interpretation. Instead, where knowledge of obli­ gations and prohibitions is shared, simple interpretation rules suffice, allowing prompt understanding.

F

Faerch, Claus 1975 "Deictic NPs and generative pragmatics". FL 13:3.319-48. An attempt to show the fruitfulness, within a generative seman­ tics model (generating 'pragmatico-semantico-syntactic' struc­ tures), of Lyons' proposal to make deixis 'the source of refer­ ence' by marking definite expressions in deep structure by the symbol D which could then appear as a demonstrative, a personal pronoun or a definite article. Fairbanks, Matthew 1964 Review of J. L. Austin 1961. NSch 38.125-28. Faiss, Klaus 1975 Review of J. M. Sadock and A. L. Vanek (eds.) 1970. Linguistics 163.54-57. Fairclough, Norman 1973 "Relative clauses and performative verbs". LIn 4:4.526-31. Critical discussion of J. P. Thorne 1972. Fann, K. T. (ed.) 1969 Symposium on J. L. Austin. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, xii, 486 pp. See: M. Black 1963; S. Cavell 1965; W. Cerf 1966; R. M. Chisholm 1964; L. J. Cohen 1964; L. W. Forguson 1966 and 1967; M. Fur­ berg 1969; S. Hampshire 1960; . G. New 1966; P. H. Nowell-Smith 1960; D. F. Pears 1962; J. R. Searle 1966a; P. F. Strawson

PRAGMATICS

62

1964a; I. Thalberg 1969; J. 0. Urmson 1967 ; J. 0. Urmson and G. Warnock 1961; J. 0. Urmson, W. V. 0. Quine and S. Hampshire 1969; G. J. Warnock 1963; J. M. 0. Wheatley 1969; A. R. White 1967. (Reviewed by: A. R. White 1970.) Fauconnier, Gilles 1975a "Polarity and the scale principle". PCLS 11.188-99. F. shows that standard 'polarity items' (i.e. words or phrases the occurrence of which is restricted by the affirmative or ne­ gative nature of the sentences in which they occur) form only a subgroup of a larger set of similar phenomena. Examples are logically polarized superlatives and contextually polarized 'even'-phrases. To explain these phenomena, the 'scale prin­ ciple' is introduced. 1975b "Pragmatic scales and logical structure". LIn 6:3.353-75. The scale principle is introduced to provide a uniform account of the properties of 'any' and quantifying superlatives. F. concludes that 'logical' properties of sentences, such quanti­ fication and scope, are not necessarily presented in a logical form; instead, several factors, some of them pragmatic, may be at work to produce logical effects and scope differences. Faulconer, Barbara A. See: Potter, M. C. et al. Feldman, Carol Fleisher 1974 "Pragmatic features of natural language". PCLS 10.151-60. F. explores the non-explicit ways which speakers of English have at their disposal to indicate their attitudes toward the content of a proposition. Felix, Sascha 1975

"Concerning 'Topicalization in child language'". FL 13:1.41-55. Review of J. S. Gruber 1967. (Reviewed by J. S. Gruber 1975b.)

Ferb, Thomas E. See: Martin, J. E. and T. E. Ferb. Ferguson, Charles A. 1976 "The structure and use of politeness formulas". LiS 5:2.137-51. The use of interpersonal verbal routines such as greetings and thanks is examined as a universal phenomenon of human languages. Some differing patterns of structure and use are shown with examples from Arabic, English and other languages.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

63

Fidelholtz, James L. 1974 "On the non-context-freeness of natural languages, with some comments on the competence/performance distinction". IULC. Figge, U. L. 1975 Review of W. Dressler 1972. Lingua 35:3/4.393-98. Filipec, Josef 1974 "Zur Frage der funktionalen Satzperspektive im dramatischen Text". In F. Danes' (ed.) 1974, 129-41. An attempt to show that the theme-rheme structure is one of the relevant structural elements of a dramatic literary text. Fillmore, Charles J. 1969a "Types of lexical information". In F. Kiefer (ed.) 1969, 109-37. Reprinted in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 370-92. An overview of the various types of information that have to be provided for each lexical item in the lexical component of an adequate grammar. One of these types is information about the presuppositions of a word, i.e. about the conditions that have to be satisfied before the sentence in which it occurs can be used for the performance of a certain speech act. 1969b "Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description". PIL 1:1.91-117. Reprinted in . J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.) 1971, 272-89, and in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (ed.) 1973, 261-83. French translation in Langages 17.56-72. F. shows that the notion of 'presupposition' (defined as the conditions that have to be satisfied for an utterance to be used as a statement, question, etc.) is extremely helpful to analyse the meaning of lexical items. He illustrates this claim by presenting an analysis for verbs of judging such as 'accuse', 'blame', etc . (Reviewed by: D. Willems 1972.) 1970

"The grammar of HITTING and BREAKING". In R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.) 1970, 120-33. F. explores the conditions determining the appropriate use of the verbs 'hit' and 'break'. (Reviewed by: C. Ruhl 1972.)

1971

"Entailment rules in a semantic theory". In J. F. Rosenberg and C. Travis (eds.) 1971, 533-48. F. sketches a semantic theory with two components. One compo­ nent would assign interpretations to the members of a certain subset of sentences of the language. The other one would pro-

64

PRAGMATICS vide 'entailment rules' for interpreting the remaining sen­ tences in terms of the sentences interpreted by the first component. (The notion of entailment is closely related to the notion of presupposition.)

1972

"Subjects, speakers, and roles". In D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.) 1972, 1-24. Random discussion of a variety of topics in linguistics (in­ cluding conditions on speech acts, presuppositions'", etc.).

1974a "The future of semantics". BSSS l.IV-1 - IV-38. F. suggests that approaches is to an understanding understand texts

one way of evaluating semantic theories and find out to what extent they are relevant to of the process by which people interpret or in their language.

1974b "Pragmatics and the description of discourse". BSSS l.V-1 - V-21. Syntax is defined as the study of linguistic form, semantics as the study of the relation between those forms and the functions (including illocutionary force) they can serve, and pragmatics as the study of the relations between forms, functions and the contexts or settings in which those forms can have the functions in question. F. defends and illustrates an approach to discourse analysis in which the pragmatic con­ ditions of different types of discourse are described and in which the correlating forms of those functions are identified. 1975a "An alternative to checklist theories of meaning". PBLS 1.12331. The concepts of 'prototype' and 'frame' are introduced. They are linked together in the definition of a frame: a frame is any system of linguistic choices associated with prototypical instances of scenes (where a 'scene' can be any coherent segment of human experience). The two concepts, linked together in that way, can help us account for very divergent linguistic phenomena, e.g. the production and comprehension of discourse, a child's acquisition of word meaning, the meaning of a lexical item (where they enable us to leave a checklist theory of mean­ ing behind), etc. 1975b "Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis 1971". IULC. After a lecture on the sentence "May we come in ?" and two on non-deictic conceptions of space and time, F. presents a dis­ cussion of deixis proper and 'deictic motion verbs' (e.g. coming and going); the discussion involves nearly every prag­ matic notion imaginable.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

65

Fillmore, Charles J. and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.) 1971 Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, viii, 299 pp. See:  J. Fillmore 1969b; R. Garner 1971a; E. L. Keenan 1971; G. Lakoff 1971b; R. Lakoff 1971; D. T. Langendoen and H. B. Savin 1971; A. M. Zwicky 1971. (Reviewed by: R. I. Binnick 1973; R. Harris 1976; D. Lightfoot 1973b; J. Sherzer 1973.) Findlay, J. N. 1961 "Use, usage and meaning". PASS 35.231-42. Reprinted in G. H. R. Parkinson (ed.) 1968, 116-27. Review of G. Ryle 1961. Fingarette, Herbert 1967 "Performatives". APhQ 4:1.39-48. F. contends that the notion of a performative utterance, as originally conceived (as contrasted with constatives), was a distinct and sound one. Finke, Peter See: Ehrich, V. and P. Finke (eds.) Finnegan, Ruth H. 1976 Review of J. M. Sadock 1974. LiS 5:2.234-40. Firbas, Jan 1967 "On the interplay of means of functional sentence perspective". PICL 10:2.740-45. F. expresses the belief that the function of language in the act of communication can be understood better of one inquires consistently into the laws determining the distribution of degrees of communicative dynamism over linguistic elements capable of carrying such dynamism. 1972

"On the interplay of prosodic and non-prosodic means of functional sentence perspective". In V. Fried (ed.) 1972, 77-94. A note on the teaching of English intonation.

1974

"Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective". In F. Danes (ed.) 1974, 11-37.

Firbas, Jan and Karel Pala 1971 Review of ö. Dahl 1969. JL 7:1.91-101. Fish, Stanley 1975 "Speech-act

theory, literary criticism, and 'Coriolanus'".

66

PRAGMATICS Centrum 3:2.107-11. F. argues that speech act theory is not a rhetoric, nor a psy­ chology, that it does not yield a theory of narrative or style, and that it cannot distinguish between fiction and nonfiction. Yet it can be used to analyse 'Coriolanus', simply because that is essentially a play about speech acts (i.e. another descript­ ion of speech acts).

Fish, Stanley, E. D. Hirsch, Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Martin Steinmann 1975 "Discussion". Centrum 3:2.125-46. Discussion of S. Fish 1975, E. D. Hirsch 1975, B. H. Smith 1975 and M. Steinmann 1975. Fisiak, Jacek 1968 Review of J. Vachek (ed.) 1964. FL 4.203-7. Flader, Dieter 1972 "Pragmatische Aspekte von Werbeslogans". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 341-76. Analysis of pragmatic aspects of advertising slogans. Fletcher, Paul 1976 Review of S. Ervin-Tripp 1973. CJL 21:2.199-205. Flew, A. G. N. 1956 "Philosophy and language". In A. G. N. Flew (ed.) 1956, Essays in Conceptual Analysis, 1-20. London: Macmillan. Reprinted in C. Lyas (ed.) 1971, 61-73. F. attacks a number of 'popular misconceptions' about the re­ lation between philosophy and language, especially those having to do with the use and usage of language. Fogelin, Robert J. 1972 "Austinian ifs". Mind 81.578-80. Partial review of J. L. Austin 1956. Forguson, L. W. 1966 "In pursuit of performatives". Philosophy 41.341-47. Reprinted in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 412-19. F. argues that attempts to amend Austin's notion of a per­ formative utterance, especially those made in M. Black 1963 and R. M. Chisholm 1964, are based on a misunderstanding of Austin's reasons for abandoning it. 1967

"La philosophie de l'action de J. L. Austin". ArchPh 30:1.3660. Translated and reprinted as "Austin's philosophy of action" in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 127-47.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

67

Thoughts about Austin's view of the relationship between the study of language and the study of action. With a section on speech acts . 1973

"Locutionary and illocutionary acts". In Sir I. Berlin et al. 1973, 160-85. Review of J. R. Searle 1968. F. disagrees with Searle's aban­ doning the distinction between locutionary and illocutionary acts .

Forman, Donald 1974a "Uses of declarative sentences". BSSS l.VI-1 - VI-53. The traditional analysis of declaratives as being used to give information, is said not to be altogether wrong. Declaratives are all basically representatives; informatives are a major ca­ tegory of representatives; and most declarative indirect speech acts are informative. But the point of a declarative does not have to be to inform. F. gives felicity conditions for different types of declaratives, but he suggests that an adequate description might have to incorporate sequencing rules instead of conditions on single sentences only. 1974b "The speaker knows best principle: Or why some complicated facts about indirect speech acts are really obvious facts about questions and declaratives". PCLS 10.162-77. The idea that one can indirectly perform a speech act by asserting or questioning a relevant condition, in conjunction with the principle that a speaker may question only a hearerproposition and may assert only a speaker-proposition (in other words, that speakers usually ask questions about things that their addressees know about, and that they make assertions about things that they themselves know about), is adduced to explain a large set of indirect speech acts. Fotion, N. 1971 "Master speech acts". PhQ 21:84.232-43. For the concept of a 'master speech act', see: N. Fotion 1977. 1977

"Speech activity and language use". Paper read at the 12th In­ ternational Congress of Linguists (in the Working Group on Speech Acts), Vienna 1977. Forthcoming in Philosophia. F. claims that speech act theory, as such, cannot account for all aspects of language use, because a stretch of discourse is not just a concatenation of separate speech acts. Therefore he proposes a speech activity theory which does not only make use of the notion 'speech act', but which relies heavily on the notion 'context' (in a very general sense), the distinction between controlling and controlled speech and the concept of 'master speech act'. The controlling parts of discourse are

68

PRAGMATICS constituted by master speech acts (such as "Let me tell you what happened to me yesterday") which indicate (or 'control') the type of discourse to be expected.

Fouquier, E. See: Bruxelles, S. et al. Fowler, R. 1974 Review of S. Chatman (ed.) 1971. Lingua 33:4.397-99. Fraassen, Bas C. van 1968 "Presupposition, implication, and self-reference". JPh 65:5. 136-52. Reprinted in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 97-116. An attempt to explicate the semantic relation of presupposition among sentences, the distinction between presupposition and implication, and the relation between presupposition and truth. Then the distinctions made are used in the discussion of cer­ tain paradoxes of self-reference (e.g. the paradox of the liar). 1977

"The only necessity is verbal necessity". JPh 74:2.71-85. An account of necessity in terms of formal pragmatics.

Francard, Michel 1975 Review (in French) of 0. Ducrot 1973. CILL 3:1.84-87. Franck, Dorothea 1973 "Zur Problematik der Präsuppositionsdiskussion". In J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 11-41. A historical and thematic overview of the discussion about presupposition. 1975

"Zur Analyse indirekter Sprechakte". In V. Ehrich and P. Finke (eds.) 1975, 219-31. An attempt to define indirect speech acts, to describe the way in which they can be analysed, and to specify their commu­ nicative functions.

Franck, Dorothea See also: Petöfi, J. S. and D. Franck (eds.); Trömel-Ploetz, S. and D. Franck. Frankenberg, Hartwig 1977 "Verbale Interaktion als Interferenz von praktischen Schlüssen Gezeigt am Beispiel einer Vorwurf-Rechtfertigungs-Interaktion". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 23342.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

69

F. argues that it is possible to reconstruct the relationships between speech acts in sequence by formulating them as prac­ tical conclusions. F.'s example is a case of reproach-justi­ fication interaction. Fraser, Bruce 1973 "On accounting for illocutionary forces". In S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.) 1973, 287-307. F. sketches a framework to account for the ability of native speakers to associate the possible standard uses or forces of a sentence with the sentence itself (e.g. to explain how a speaker knows that "John may leave now" normally counts as a prediction, the giving of permission, etc. but not normally as a plea, a request for information, etc.). F. considers both the role of sentence meaning and the role of context in determining force. 1974a "An examination of the performative analysis". PIL 7:1-2.1-40. F. claims that there is no sufficient evidence for adopting the performative analysis in syntax (which claims that every sentence has the underlying form 'Illocutionary Force Marker Propositional Content Marker'). 1974b "An analysis of vernacular performative verbs". IULC. Reprint­ ed in R. W. Shuy and C.-J. N. Bailey (eds.) 1974, 139-58. F. proposes the following eight classes of speech acts (and performative verbs): (i) acts of asserting, e.g. asserting, admitting; (ii) acts of evaluating, e.g. analysing, calculating; (iii) acts reflecting attitude, e.g. thanking, congratulating; (iv) acts of stipulating, e.g. defining, stipulating; (v) acts of requesting, e.g. requesting, asking; (vi) acts of suggest­ ing, e.g. suggesting, imploring; (vii) acts of legitimizing, e.g. allowing, authorizing; (viii) acts of committing, e.g. assuring, promising. 1974c Review of J. R. Searle 1969. FL 11.433-46. 1975a "Hedged performatives". In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 187-210. An attempt to formulate conversational principles to account for hedged performatives (i.e. sentences like "I can promise you that we will be there on time" and "I must advise you to remain quiet" in which a performative verb is combined with a modal or semi-modal). The paper also contains a taxonomy of illocutionary acts. 1975b "Warning and threatening". Centrum 3:2.169-80.

70

PRAGMATICS

Fraser, Bruce See also: Cassell, E. J. et al. Freedle, Roy 0. See: Baskett, G. D. and R. 0. Freedle. Freeman, Cecilia 1976 "A pragmatic analysis of tenseless 'why'-questions". PCLS 12. 208-19. F. adduces evidence against a number of proposals to describe tenseless 'why'-questions (such as "Why paint your house pur­ ple ?") in terms of some kind of deletion rule. She offers an alternative, in which the notion of 'implicature' is cen­ tral. Freeman, Donald C. (ed.) 1970 Linguistics and Literary Style. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, x, 491 pp. See: J. Mukarovsky 1964; J. Sp encer and M. J. Gregory 1970. (Reviewed by: J. Dore 1973.) French, Peter A., Theodore E. Uehling and Howard K. Wettstein (eds.) 1977 Midwest Studies in Philosophy II: Studies in the Philosophy of Language. Morris: University of Minnesota Press, 285 pp. See: D. Shwayder 1977; J. 0. Urmson 1977. Frenz, Hans-Georg See: Zaefferer, D. and H.-G. Frenz. Frese, Jürgen 1967 "Sprechen als Metapher für Handeln". In H. G. Gadamer (ed.) 1967, 45-55. Reprinted in S. J. Schmidt (ed.) 1974, 52-62. F. proposes to replace the term 'sentence' with the term 'speech act' and to investigate speech acts with reference to three di­ mensions: context, intentions and 'group'. He regards the ana­ lysis of linguistic action as a model for the analysis of action as such. Fried, V. (ed.) 1972 The Prague School of Linguistics and Language Teaching. Lon­ don: Oxford University Press, 242 pp. See: J. Dubsky 1972; J. Firbas 1972; K. Kozevnikova 1972; J. Pytelka 1972; J. Vachek 1972. (Reviewed by: C. Mendelius 1975.)

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

71

Friedman, Lynn A. 1976 "The manifestation of subject, object, and topic in the Ame­ rican Sign Language". In C. N. Li (ed.) 1976, 125-48. F. attempts to refute some claims with respect to word order in ASL (= American Sign Language), to describe the discourse situation and its relation to the question of word order, and to relate this description to the nature of topic in ASL. Fritz, Gerd and Franz Hundsnurscher 1975 "Sprechaktsequenzen". DU 27:2.81-103. An attempt to describe the possibilities of applying speech act theory, broadened to the study of linguistic interaction (or speech act sequences), in language teaching. Furberg, Mats 1963 Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts: A Main Theme in J. L. Aus­ tin's Philosophy. (= Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Go­ thenburg Studies in Philosophy 1.) Göteborg: Elanders Bok­ tryckeri Aktiebolag. Reprinted with revisions in 1971 as 'Say­ ing and Meaning: A Main Theme in J. L. Austin's Philosophy'. Oxford: B. Blackwell, xvi, 299 pp. A critical study of most of the themes of J. L. Austin's philosophy of language. (Reviewed by: T. Nordenstam 1966; W. Berriman 1973; R. Brown 1963; J. W. R. Cox 1966; J. R. Searle 1966b; A. R. White 1965.) 1969

"Meaning and illocutionary force". In K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 445-68. Review of L. J. Cohen 1964. F. contends that an unorthodox reinterpretation of Austin's doctrine of illocutionary force could withstand Cohen's criticism.

G

Gabbay, Dov M. See: Kasher, A. and D. M. Gabbay. Gabriel, Gottfried 1971 "Kennzeichnung und Präsupposition". LBer 15.27-31. Attempt to define the concepts 'definite description' and 'presupposition' in order to make it possible to incorporate them into a semantic theory.

72

PRAGMATICS

Gadamer, H. G. (ed.) 1967 Das Problem der Sprache. München: W. Fink, 566 pp. See: J. Frese 1967. Gale, R. M. 1970 "Do performative utterances have any constative function ?". JPh 67.117-21. 1971

"The fictive use of language". Philosophy 46:178.324-40.

Galliot, Jean Le See: Lecointre, S. and J. Le Galliot. Garner, Richard T. 1968 "Utterances and acts in the philosophy of J. L. Austin". Nous 2.209-27. G. argues that Austin uses the word 'utterance' in at least two distinct ways and he proposes some terminological dis­ tinctions, viz. between utterance acts, utterance objects, sentence acts, sentence objects, illocutionary acts, illocu­ tionary objects and between types and tokens (a distinction to be applied to all the foregoing terms). He also discusses Austin's abandonment of the performative-constative distinct­ ion and his conception of a statement. 1971a "'Presupposition' in philosophy and linguistics". In . J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.) 1971, 22-42. An overview of the ways in which the term 'presupposition has been used in philosophy and linguistics. G. comes to the con­ clusion that several radically different concepts of presuppo­ sition exist, which it is only dangerous to lump together. 1971b "Some doubts about illocutionary negation". Analysis 31.106-12. According to G. there are no sufficient reasons to regard sentence negation as in "I do not promise to come" or "I don't say that the cat is on the mat" as a kind of negation at the illocutionary act level (instead of the level of the proposition), 1975

"'Meaning'". In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 305-61. A general discussion of the meaning of 'meaning', especially of what G. calls the 'basic' meaning formula, viz. the formula of the type "'Feu' means fire".

Garrod, Simon and Anthony Sanford 1976 "Anaphora: A problem in text comprehension". PM 2:3. El. Report of some experiments concerning the reader's interpret­ ation of anaphoric relations. The results are accounted for

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

73

by means of a frame analysis model, which is contrasted with a given-new model, in terms of the role of context in sen­ tence comprehension. Garvey, Catherine 1975 "Requests and responses in children's speech". JChL 2:1.41-63. An investigation of children's ability to convey and respond to direct and indirect requests for action. Garvin, Paul L. 1967 "The role of function in linguistic theory". PICL 10:1.287-91. G. attacks the Chomskyan tradition of deductive grammar and suggests that an adequate theory of language has to be based on the recognition of the importance of function in the inter­ pretation of linguistic phenomena. Garvin, Paul L. (ed.) 1964 A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, xi, 163 pp. See: B. Havránek 1964; J. Mukarovský 1964. (Reviewed by: J. Vachek 1965.) 1970

Method and Theory in Linguistics. (= Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 40.) The Hague: Mouton, 336 pp. See: F. Danes 1970. (Reviewed by: F. G. A. M. Aarts 1973.)

Gazdar, Gerald J. M. 1976a Formal Pragmatics for Natural Language Implicature, Presuppo­ sition and Logical Form. University of Reading Ph.D. disser­ tation. G. tries to answer the question as to which aspects of the meaning of natural language utterances can be described with­ in a truth-conditional semantics and which aspects should be described within a formal pragmatic theory. It is argued that no truth-conditional account of illocutionary force, impli­ cature or presupposition can be adequate. Most of the thesis is devoted to the construction of a formal pragmatic theory for those aspects of meaning. G. claims that such a theory can reduce the amount of syntactic and semantic apparatus needed to describe natural language. That claim is illustrated with reference to phenomena such as negation, conditionals and coordination. 1976b "On performative sentences". Semantikos 1:3.37-62. G. argues that the performative hypothesis is seriously inadequate.

PRAGMATICS

74

Gazdar, Gerald J. M. See also: Keenan, E. L. and G. J. M. Gazdar. Geach, Peter T. 1950 "Russell's theory of descriptions". Analysis 10.84-88. 1965

"Assertion". PhR 74:4.449-65. Reprinted in J. F. Rosenberg and  Travis (eds.) 1971, 250-61. G. contrasts the Fregean view that a proposition may occur in discourse now asserted, now unasserted, and yet be recognizably the same proposition, with a number of erroneous theories of assertion. Further, he concentrates on the philosophical problems caused by the failure to see Frege's point.

Geerts, W. and L. Melis 1976 "Remarques sur le traitement des modalités en linguistique". Langages 43.108-15. Remarks on the treatment of modality in linguistics. A syntac­ tic, semantic and performative hypothesis are distinguished. Geest, T. van der, R. Gerstel, R. Appel and . . Tervoort 1973 The Child's Communicative Competence. The Hague: Mouton, 130 pp. (Reviewed by: J. Průcha 1976.) Geis, Michael L. and Arnold M. Zwicky 1971 "On invited inferences". LIn 2:4.561-66. German version in W. Abraham and R. I. Binnick (eds.) 1972, 236-42. Genova, A. . 1975 "Speech acts and illocutionary opacity". FL 13:2.237-49. Review of R. M. Hare 1970 and G. J. Warnock 1971. Gensler, Orin 1977 "Non-syntactic antecedents and frame semantics". PBLS 3.321-34. It is wrong to assume that anaphors (such as 'it', 'that', 'this') must have syntactic antecedents. Non-syntactic anaphors, i.e. anaphors with non-syntactic antecedents are very common in spoken language. Such cases can be accounted for by means of a frame semantics: anaphors can be considered as pointing back into a discourse frame. A strong claim: all antecedents are non-syntactic, which is not to say that they cannot be syn­ tactic as well, in which case they are syntactic and non-syn­ tactic simultaneously. Gerstel, R. See: Geest, T. van der et al.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

75

Gerstenkorn, Alfred 1976 Das "Modal"-System im heutigen Deutsch. (= Münchner Germanis­ tische Beiträge 16.) München: W. Fink, 426 pp. On the modal system of present-day German. First a pragmatic model is presented. G. offers some basic illocutionary acts from which the others can be derived. The performative hypo­ thesis is proved correct. Then the pragmatic model is applied to the modal system of German. 1977

"Partikeln in einem pragmatischen Sprachmodell". Paper read at the Kolloquium Deutsche Sprachpartikeln, Berlin 1977. The pragmatic model worked out in A. Gerstenkorn 1976 is applied to the study of particles such as 'ja', 'sicher', 'doch', 'leider', etc.

Ghosh, Samir . 1972 "Toward a grammar of greetings". PICL 11:1.545-59. An attempt to find some universal aspects of people's greeting behaviour . Giese, Heinz W. 1977 "Zur Entwicklung der Sprechhandlungsfähigkeit des Kindes: Vor­ überlegungen zu einem Projekt II". PzL 15.139-49. Outline of a project to study the development of speech act competence in children. See also: M. Giesecke and K. Martens 1977. Giesecke, Michael and Karin Martens 1977 "Zur Entwicklung der Sprechhandlungsfähigkeit des Kindes: Vor­ überlegungen zu einem Projekt I". PzL 15.120-38. Outline of a project to study the development of speech act competence in children. See also: H. W. Giese 1977. Giglioli, Pier Paolo (ed.) 1972 Language and Social Context: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 399 pp. See: J. R. Searle 1965. (Reviewed by: R. St. Clair 1974.) Giles, Howard 1974 Review of S. Ervin-Tripp 1973. LiS 3:1.145-46. Gill, Jerry H. (ed.) 1968 Philosophy Today No. 1.

London: Collier-Macmillan, ix, 278 pp.

See: J. L. Austin 1966; S. Cavell 1965.

76

PRAGMATICS

Ginet, Carl See: McConnell-Ginet, S. and C. Ginet. Givon, Talmy 1975 "Negation in language: Pragmatics, function, ontology". WPLU 18. 59-116. Also in PM 1:2.A2. Though there is a strictly logical aspect to negation, there is also a huge pragmatic component that cannot be predicted from the logic: negatives in natural language are shown to be presuppositionally marked (presupposing an error on the part of the hearer) in that they are uttered in a context in which.the corresponding affirmatives (which only presuppose the hearer's ignorance) have already been discussed or in which the speaker assumes the hearer's belief in the corresponding affirmatives. The ontology of negation in language is said to be grounded in the perceptual principle of figure-ground. 1976

"Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement". In . N. Li (ed.) 1976, 149-88. G. argues (i) that grammatical agreement, which is usually identified with subject-verb agreement, is fundamentally a topic-verb agreement, and (ii) that agreement and pronominalization are fundamentally one and the same phenomenon.

Glouberman, M. 1975 Review of Sir I. Berlin et al. 1973. Philosophia 5:3.328-34. Gloy, Klaus See: Badura, B. and K. Gloy (eds.). Gochet, Paul 1965 "Performatif et force illocutionnaire". LA 8.155-72. A defense of Austin's theory of illocutionary force against the criticisms by L. J. Cohen and M. Furberg, and an attempt to show its philosophical importance. Goebel, Gerhard 1974 "Bemerkungen zu Topic und Comment in einigen Gedichten Baudelaires und zur pragmatischen Struktur poetischer Texte". LiLi 4:14.65-90. G. examines some poems by Baudelaire in order to show the re­ levance of the topic-comment articulation for the study of stretches of language longer than a sentence and to reveal the pragmatic structure of poetical texts (including reference, predication, illocutionary force and perlocutionary effect). Goeppert, Sebastian 1974 "Pragmalinguistische Ansätze in Psychotherapien und Psychoana-

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

77

lysen". LBer 31.31-40. On the use of linguistic pragmatics for psychotherapy. Goffman, Erving 1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row, ix, 586 pp. 'Frame analysis' is the examination of the organization of experience in terms of the basic instruments by means of which people make sense of the surrounding reality, which G. calls 'frames'. G. distinguishes 'primary frameworks' (i.e. frames that give meaning to otherwise meaningless aspects of a scene) from their transformations, viz. 'keyings' (which give a differ­ ent meaning to an already meaningful event) and 'fabrications' (which are created to give somebody a false impression about the real meaning of an event). Special attention is drawn to the theatre as an ideal example of the possible complications. There is also a special chapter on the 'frame analysis of talk'. 1976

"Replies and responses". LiS 5:3.257-313. An examination of conversational dialogue. Some arguments are presented for dialogic analysis, as well as some of its failings. This critical view is applied to the notion of a 'reply'.

Goldman, Susan R. See: Perfetti, . A. and S. R. Goldman. Goody, Esther 1976 "Towards an ethnographic theory of questions". PM 2:2.A2. The social roles of participants are said to form a crucial part of the context which disambiguates utterances (which are ambiguous because of the lack of correspondence between lin­ guistic form and illocutionary force) . It is shown that quest­ ions, with their requirement for specific responses, carry status implications which closely tie usage to social role. G. illustrates these ideas by considering the actual use of the syntactic question form in an African tribal society. Goossens, Louis 1973 "English in advertising revisited". HandVlFC 29.183-88. A comparison of five models to describe varieties of English. G. argues that the category of (extralinguistic) 'function' offers a dimension for linguistic investigation which promises to be rewarding. 1977

"Complements of 'significant'class predicates: The semantics of 'for'-complements in the light of their Dutch counterparts". In Y. Putseys (ed.) 1977, 101-12. Review of A. K. Spears 1973, based on contrastive Dutch-English

78

PRAGMATICS data.

Goral, Don 1974 "How adverbs can be unbelievably strange". BSSS l.XIII-1 XIII-12. A discussion of the syntactic behaviour of adverbs such as 'uncomfortably', 'seriously', etc., which are grouped together as adverbs relating to emotional states, perceptual states or physical states of animate beings. It is demonstrated that their syntax cannot be treated without considering the inter­ action with semantic and pragmatic phenomena. Goralčíková, Alla See: Spall, P. et al. Gordon, David and George Lakoff 1971 "Conversational postulates". PCLS 7.63-84. Reprinted in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 83-106. French translation in Langages 30.32-55. Conditions on how to obtain indirect speech acts (e.g. the conditions that one can convey a request by asserting a speak­ er-based sincerity condition such as the speaker's desire to get something done, or by questioning a hearer-based sincerity condition such as the hearer's ability to do what the speaker wants him to do) are formalized as conversational postulates to be incorporated in a natural logic. Then the need for con­ versational postulates and transderivational constraints to account for some rules of grammar, is demonstrated. (Reviewed by: J. L. Morgan 1977.) Gouaze, J. See: Bruxelles, S. et al. Grabner-Haider, Anton 1973 Semiotik und Theologie: Religiöse Rede zwischen analytischer und hermeneutischer Philosophie. München: Kösel, 230 pp. On the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of religious language. Grabski, Michael 1974 "Sprechakte als Aspekte des Kontextes". LGR 14. G. proposes to regard speech acts, or the rules constituting speech acts, as aspects of the context of sentences. (The approach is formalized.) Grady, Michael 1974 "Generative semantics, presupposition, and deep structure 'be'" Linguistics 131.5-10. It is argued that a generative semantic interpretation of lo-

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

79

cative prepositional phrases must see them as re-nominalizations of an underlying stative-patient relationship ex­ pressed in terms of a deep-level existential 'be', which would also account for one type of presupposition. Grant, C. K. 1958 "Pragmatic implication". Philosophy 33:127.303-24. Green, Georgia M. 1970a Review of R. T. Lakoff 1968. Lg 46:1.149-67. 1970b "Whimperatives: Schizophrenic speech acts". Ms. 1972 1973

Review of F. Kiefer (ed.) 1969. Lg 48:3.667-77. "How to get people to do things with words: The question of whimperatives". In R. W. Shuy (ed.) 1973, 51-81. Reprinted as "How to get people to do things with words: The whimperative question" in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 107-41. A discussion of four approaches to i.e. the problem of how to account tences with the form of a question door please ?") can be interpreted imperative.

1974

the problem of whimperatives, for the fact that some sen­ (e.g. "Will you close the as having the force of an

"The function of form and the form of function". PCLS 10.186-97. G. demonstrates that the acceptability of certain syntactic constructions depends not on the syntactic environment, but on the communicative intent of the speaker (i.e. on what he intends to implicate).

1975

"Nonsense and refernce; Or, the conversational use of proverbs". PCLS 11.226-39. A study of the syntactic restrictions on the use of proverbs and clichés, showing that their behaviour cannot be explained without reference to pragmatic principles and the conversation in which they are used.

1976

"Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses". Lg 52:2.382-97. An attempt to show that a complex interaction of syntactic forms with semantic and pragmatic functions has to be taken in­ to account in order to formulate the conditions under which certain syntactic constructions, which are usually thought to be restricted to main clauses, can occur in subordinate clauses as well. (An example of such a construction is Negative Adverb Preposing as in "Never before have prices been so high", " Nixon regrets that never before have prices been so high" and "I knew that never before had prices been so high".) Basic-

80

PRAGMATICS ally, the use of such constructions in subordinate clauses is said to be related to a speaker's desire to be understood as committed to the truth of the subordinate clause.

Greenbaum, Sidney 1977 "Contextual influence on acceptability judgements". Linguistics 187.5-11. It is argued that acceptability judgements are relative rather than absolute: they are influenced by context, sometimes even when a sentence is judged in isolation (in which case a context is often imagined). Greenspan, P. S. 1975 "Conditional oughts and hypothetical imperatives". JPh 72:10. 259-76. Sentences like "He ought to run before breakfast if he wants to live up to the ideal of physical fitness" and "He ought to run before breakfast if he promises to" are said to express conditional oughts'. G. argues that such oughts can only be detached from their condition if there is the presently unalterable fact of that condition's fulfilment and only while enough time remains to fulfil the ought. Gregory, Michael J. 1967 "Aspects of varieties differentiation". JL 3:2.177-98. A framework for discussing language varieties. The concepts of 'situation' and 'context' are central. 1976

Review of M. A. K. Halliday 1973b. CJL 21:2.196-99.

Gregory, Michael J. See also: Spencer, J. and M. J. Gregory. Greimas, Algirdas J. 1974 Interview with Herman Parret. In H. Parret 1974, 55-79. G. answers questions about his own work and recent developments in linguistics. Grewendorf, Günther 1972 "Sprache ohne Kontext: Zur Kritik der performativen Analyse". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 144-82. Some attempts to incorporate the illocutionary character of utterances into a generative analysis of sentences, especially the performative hypothesis, are criticised for losing sight of the distinction between sentences and utterances: the illocutionary force of an utterance depends on its context, and the illocutionary force assigned to a sentence in its deep struc" ture cannot exhaust its illocutionary act potential.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1976

81

"Haben explizit performative Aüsserungen einen Wahrheitswert ?". Ms. G. argues that there are no plausible arguments in favour of the thesis that explicit performative utterances have a truth value.

1977a "Präsuppositionen bei disjunktiven Fragen". Ms. On the presuppositions of disjunctive questions (such as "Did Brutus kill Caesar or did Cassius ?"). 1977b "Explizit performative Aüsserungen und Feststellungen". Paper read (in English) at the 12th International Congress of Lin­ guists (in the Working Group on Speech Acts), Vienna 1977. G. presents an argument against the thesis that explicit per­ formative utterances are completely 'normal' statements in or­ der to show that there is a plausible argument against the thesis that explicit performative utterances have a truth value. Grice, H. Paul 1957 "Meaning". PhR 66.377-88. Reprinted in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 53-59, and in J. F. Rosenberg and C. Travis (eds.) 1971, 436-44. G. makes a distinction between natural meaning (as in "Those spots mean measles") and non-natural meaning (as in "That re­ mark, 'Smith couldn't get on without his trouble and strife', meant that Smith found his wife indispensable"). Non-natural meaning (meaning NN ) is roughly defined as follows: A meant N N something by X if A intended the utterance of X to produce some effect in an audience by means of the recognition of this intention. (Reviewed by: P. Ziff 1967.) 1967

Logic and Conversation. Ms. Text of G.'s William James Lectures, delivered at Harvard University in 1967. To be published by Harvard University Press. The issues that are most relevant for our purposes were published in H. P. Grice 1975.

1968

"Utterer's meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning". FL 4. 1-18. Reprinted in J. R. Searle (ed.) 1971, 54-70. Modification and further elaboration of G.'s 1957 account of meaning. The utterer's meaning is described as 'occasion' mean­ ing, whereas sentence-meaning and word-meaning (which are fur­ ther characterized in terms of the notions structured/unstruc­ tured and complete/non-complete) are regarded as 'timeless'.

1969

"Utterer's meaning and intention". PhR 78.147-77.

82

PRAGMATICS

1975

"Logic and conversation". In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 41-58. A small portion of H. P. Grice 1967. G. frames the term 'im­ plicative' to cover meanings that are implied, suggested, meant, etc. but not 'said' in what he calls the favoured sense of that word. 'Conventional implicatures' are said to be derivable from the conventional meaning of words (e.g. "He is an English­ man; he is, therefore, brave" conventionally implicates that being brave is a consequence of being an Englishman, be­ cause of the presence of 'therefore'). A subclass of non-con­ ventional implicatures, viz. 'conversational implicatures' are implicated meanings that can be worked out by the hearer on the basis of a set of 'maxims of conversation'. G. lists maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner. There is one supermaxim, the 'Cooperative Principle', i.e. "Make your conversational con­ tribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged". (E.g. "There is a garage around the corner" conversationally implicates - if uttered in answer to "I am out of petrol" - that the garage is open and has petrol to sell, because otherwise the utterance would be uncooperative.) G. even tries to explain phenomena such as irony and metaphor in such terms .

Griffiths, L. 1969 "The logic of Austin's locutionary subdivision". Theoria 35:3. 204-14. Grimm, H. 1975 "Verbalization of intentions and modifications in speech acts as a function of negative feedback loops". Paper read at the 3rd International Child Language Symposium, London, September 1975. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof 1975 "Modality and conversational information". ThL 2:1/2.61-112. It is argued that for the analysis of the meaning of modal ex­ pressions in English, besides the notion of possible world the pragmatic notion of conversational information has to be in­ troduced, and besides truth functions also correctness con­ ditions have to be formulated. (Reviewed by: J. Newman 1976.) 1976

"Some aspects of the semantics and pragmatics of performative sentences". APFG 1: Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium on Montague Grammar and Related Topics, 61-94.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

83

The paper is devoted to a redefinition of the term 'performa­ tive sentence' in order to incorporate it into a logical grammar, more specifically Montague Grammar. The central claim is that the distinction between performative and nonperformative sentences and between performative and non-per­ formative verbs does not have to be looked for at a syntac­ tic or semantic level, but at the level of pragmatics. (G. and S. only regard Austin's 'explicit performatives' as performative sentences.) Grossmann, R. 1960 "Propositional attitudes". PhQ 10.301-12. Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1967 "Topicalization in child language". FL 3.37-65. Reprinted in D. A. Reibel and S. A. Schane (eds.) 1969, 422-47. G. argues that the nouns appearing to be used as subjects of subject-predicate constructions in the language of a child acquiring English, actually act as the topics of topic-comment constructions . (Reviewed by: J. K. Chambers 1973; S. Felix 1975.) 1975a "Performative-constative transition in child language develop­ ment". FL 12:4.513-27. On the transition from utterances of a simple performative type to those of a constative type. 1975b "'Topicalization' revisited". FL 13:1.57-72. Reply to S. Felix 1975. Guhl, Bernd 1972 "Einige Fälle des Berichtens und der Bewertung von Illokutiven Akten". In K. Hyldgaard-Jensen (ed.) 1972, 76-90. An investigation of declarative sentences which report and/or evaluate illocutionary acts. Guhl, Bernd See also: Todt, G. and B. Guhl. Guhl, Bernd and Christoph Schwarze 1974 "Zur semantischen Analyse persuasiver Texte". PzL 6.34-72. A description of persuasive texts as an illustration of a method of semantic analysis which integrates semantic structure with pragmatic function. Guinee, Luc 1977 "A typology of performative verbs: Problems and perspectives". University of Antwerp (UIA) licence dissertation.

84

PRAGMATICS An attempt to refine some earlier typologies of performative verbs .

Gülich, Elisabeth and Wolfgang Raibie (eds.) 1972 Textsorten: Differenzierungskriterien aus linguistischer Sicht. (= Athenäum-Skripten Linguistik 5.) Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum. A book of discussions on textlinguistics (including text prag­ matics) with as participants T. A. van Dijk, J. Ihwe, J. S. Petöfi, . Rieser, W. Kummer, S. J. Schmidt, E. Güttgemans, W. Dressler, . Sandig, G. Brettschneider, G. Wienold, H. Weinrich, W.-D. Stempel and R. Posner. Gumperz, John J. 1972 "The communicative competence of bilinguals: Some hypotheses and suggestions for research". LiS 1:1.143-54. Report on research in progress. 1975

"Code-switching in conversation". PM 1:4.A2. Examples of code-switching taken from natural conversations in Austria, the Urban United States and India, lead G. to a dis­ tinction between situational and metaphorical switching.

Gundel, Jeanette K. 1977 "Role of topic and comment in linguistic theory". IULC. After some previous approaches to topic and comment have been introduced and have been shown to be inadequate, G. discusses left dislocation, right dislocation and some specific problems in Russian syntax in order to present her own ideas. The theo­ retical framework in which G. works is transformational grammar, particularly generative semantics, with a lot of influence from speech act theory. Gunderson, Keith (ed.) 1975 Language, Mind, and Knowledge. (= Minnesota Studies in the Phi­ losophy of Science 7.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press . See: J. R. Searle 1976a. (Reviewed by: J. 

Bigelow 1977.)

Gunter, Richard 1966 "On the placement of accent in dialogue: A feature of context grammar". JL 2:2.159-79. Gutknecht, Christoph 1971 "Präsupposition als ein Kriterium für Grammatikalität von Sätzen". LBer 15.32-39. On presupposition as a criterion for the grammaticality of sen­ tences .

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

85

Haarman, Harald 1975 "Sprachtypologie - Pragmatik - Kommunikationswissenschaft". FoL 8:1/4.111-33. On the relation between pragmatics, language typology, and communication science. Habel, Christopher 1976 "Unpolite asterisk". LBer 46.82-83. Comment on J. Hurford 1975. The author argues that the valua­ tion of a sentence (e.g. as polite-impolite) depends on many pragmatic factors (which he wants to describe in a 'valuation grammar'). Haberland, Hartmut and Jacob L. Mey 1977 "Editorial: Linguistics and pragmatics". JoP 1:1.1-12. H. and M., the editors of the 'Journal of Pragmatics', out­ line their views of linguistic pragmatics, which is described from the perspective of the concrete practice of language (i.e. with regard to the actual use and users of language) and the concrete practice of linguistics (again use and users), and characterized as the study of the conditions governing the use of language. Habermas, Jürgen 1971 "Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz". In J. Habermas and N. Luhmann 1971, 101-41. H. defines the domain of a theory of communicative competence: it has to explain the type of achievements that a speaker in­ tends to obtain by means of 'pragmatic universals' when trans­ forming a sentence into an utterance. Amongst other things, H. proposes four universal classes of speech acts: 'Kommunikativa' (including say, utter, speak, ask, answer, agree, quote, etc.), 'Konstativa' (e.g. state, describe, inform, tell, remark, etc.), 'Repräsentativa' (e.g. reveal, delude, etc.), and 'Regulativa' (e.g. order, request, promise, excuse, advise, warn, etc.). An additional class of 'institutional' speech acts (e.g. greet, congratulate, thank, marry, baptize, etc.) is said not to belong to the pragmatic universals. (Reviewed by: Y. Bar-Hillel 1973; S. Strasser 1972; G. Zifonun 1975.) Habermas, Jürgen and Niklas Luhmann 1971 Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie - Was leistet die Systemforschung ? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 405 pp.

86

PRAGMATICS See: J. Habermas 1971. (Reviewed by: G. Zifonun 1975.)

Hackman, Dorothea J. 1977 "Patterns in purported speech acts". JoP

1:2.143-54.

An examination of utterances intended by a foreign speaker to be speech acts, but which are unsuccessful. The mistakes are described and categorized, and the following areas of possible failure in the purported speech act pattern are identified: focus, semantic redundance, prosody and listener expectation. Haefele, Josef 1974 "Fragekompetenz". ZGL 2:2.171-205. A description of 'question competence'. Notions from speech act theory, as well as the notion 'presupposition' are used. Haft-van Rees, Agnes 1974 "Register". Spektator 3:6.433-46. Critical discussion (in Dutch) of some American and British work on 'register' (especially by Halliday, Davies, Gregory, Gumperz and Fishman). Hagiwara, Anne L. 1975 Review of M. N. Bruder 1974. LL 25:1.185-88. Haiman, John 1976 "Presuppositions in Hua". PCLS 12.258-70. H. points out that there is a contradiction between Whorf's hypotheses that (i) the structure of language determines the structure of thought, and that (ii) there are in all languages covert grammatical categories that are not less important than the overt categories. He observes that in English, where the notion of presupposition is a covert category, it plays a purely grammatical role whereas it does not in Hua, though that language marks presupposition morphologically. According to H., the data, which confirm Whorf's second hypothesis, un­ dermine the first one. Hajicova, Eva 1973 "Meaning, presupposition, and allegation". In W. Klein and A. v. Stechow (eds.) 1973, 160-72. Presuppositions are said to be connected with the morphemic structure (or semantic features such as 'factive' etc.) or with an element belonging to the contextually bound segment of the sentence; an allegation is entailed only by a sentence where the element determining it is not in the scope of ne­ gation; meaning proper (i.e. assertion) consists in the re­ lationship between what is talked about and what is said a-

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

87

bout it. Hajicová, Eva See also: Sgall, P. et al. Hajicová, Eva and Petr Sgall 1975 "Topic and focus in transformational grammar". PIL 8:1/2.3-58. A discussion of the way in which topic (theme) and focus (comment, rheme) have been treated in transformational grammar, followed by the proposal of a new framework and a presentation of the way in which it could settle some of the major points of debate between interpretive and generative semantics. Hakulinen, Auli See: Breckenridge, J. and A. Hakulinen. Halliday, M. A. K. 1967-8 "Notes on transitivity and theme in English". JL 3:1.37-81 (Part I ) ; JL 3:2.199-244 (Part II); JL 4:2.179-215 (Part III). In Part I some observations are made about transitivity; Part II deals with 'theme', which is used as a general term for all those choices involving the distribution of information in the clause; in Part III transitivity is reconsidered in the light of what has been said about theme. The approach is 'systemic', i.e. the grammar takes the form of a series of 'system net­ works', in which each of those networks represents the choices associated with a given constituent type (e.g. clause, NP). 1970a "Language structure and language function". In J. Lyons (ed.) 1970, 140-65. H. believes that "the nature of language is closely related to the demands that we make on it, the functions it has to serve". In this article he briefly discusses that relationship. He distinguishes three functions of language: (i) the 'ideational function', which is usually referred to as the expression of 'content' or 'cognitive meaning' (under this heading he dis­ cusses 'transitivity', i.e. the expression of processes and of the participants and circumstances associated with them; here he makes use of a number of notions from case grammar); (ii) the 'interpersonal' function, i.e. the expression of communi­ cation roles such as questioner, respondent etc. (in which connection H. treats the linguistic notion of 'mood'); (iii) the 'textual' function, i.e. the linking of utterances to each other and to the situation (here H. makes use of the concepts 'theme', 'rheme', 'given information', 'new information'). 1970b "Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English". FL 6.322-61.

PRAGMATICS

88

Topics such as modality, mood and the distinction between given and new information (and theme vs. rheme) are dealt with in terms of a general functional theory of language (as worked out in M. A. K. Halliday 1970a and 1973). This strengthens H.'s hypothesis that diversity in linguistic forms corresponds to distinctions needed for functional reasons. 1973a "The functional basis of language". In B. Bernstein (ed.) 1973, 343-66. Reprinted in M. A. K. Halliday 1973b, 22-47. French translation in Langages 34.54-73. Outline of a functional approach to language. H. expresses the belief that the uses or functions of language have influenced the shape of linguistic forms. 1973b Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: E. Arnold, 143 pp. A collection of five essays centered around two themes, viz. the uses of language and the way in which language functions determine language form. The functional concepts used are about the same as those in H.'s earlier papers. In the fifth essay H. applies his functional method of linguistic analysis to William Golding's novel 'The Inheritors'. (Reviewed by: M. Gregory 1976; E. 0. Keenan 1975c; H. C. Wekker 1974.) 1974a "The place of 'Functional Sentence Perspective' in the system of linguistic description". In F. Danes (ed.) 1974, 43-53. Whereas 'functional theories of language' are concerned with the functions of language, 'functional sentence perspective' is said to deal with one of those, viz. the text-creating function. This fact, together with the fact that functions of language are reflected in the language system, determines the place of functional sentence perspective in the system of lin­ guistic description. 1974b Interview with Herman Parret. In H. Parret 1974, 81-120. . answers questions about his own work and recent developments in linguistics. 1975

Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Lan­ guage. London: E. Arnold, 164 pp. H. offers a functional perspective on language acquisition. As the title suggests, he regards the language learning process as a matter of learning how to use language, i.e. how to commu­ nicate meanings . (Reviewed by: J. Dore 1977.)

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1976

89

"Anti-languages". AmA 78:3.570-84. An anti-language is a language used in an anti-society, which is a society set up within another society as a conscious al­ ternative to it. H. claims that the study of such anti-lan­ guages offers further insights into the relation between lan­ guage and social structure and into the way in which text functions in the realization of social contexts.

Halliday, . . . See also: Bazeli, . E. et al. (eds.); G. R. Kress (ed.) 1976. Halliday, Μ. Α. Κ., Angus Mcintosh and Peter Strevens 1964 The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Long­ man, xv, 322 pp. General discussion of the relation between language teaching and linguistics, including a chapter on 'the users and uses of language' in which the concept 'register' is introduced. (Reviewed by: D. M. van Willigen 1968; P. G. Wingard 1965.) Halvorsen, Per-Kristian 1976 "Syntax and semantics of cleft-sentences". PCLS 12.271-86. H. makes use of a Montague-framework, revised in terms of the notion 'conventional implicature', to give a syntactic and se­ mantic analysis of cleft-sentences. Hamblin, C. L. 1958 "Questions". AusJPh 36:3.159-68. An attempt to describe questions as logical entities (instead of reducing them to statements of some sort) . 1963

"Questions aren't statements". PhSc 30.62-63.

1964

Review of D. Harrah 1963. AusJPh 42.146-51.

1973

"Questions in Montague English". FL 10:1.41-53. Η. argues that most kinds of English questions can be incorpo­ rated into Montague's theory of a formal language.

Hampshire, Stuart 1960 "In memoriam: J. L. Austin". PAS 60.1-14. Reprinted as "J. L. Austin, 1911-1960" in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 33-46. 1965

"J. L. Austin and philosophy". JPh 62.511-13. (= Abstract of Hampshire's contribution to J. 0. Urmson, W. V. 0. Quine and S. Hampshire 1969.)

PRAGMATICS

90

Hansell, Mark 1977 "Language in the workplace: The tobacco farm". PBLS 3.488-97. A description of the jargon and rules of linguistic communi­ cation on a tobacco farm. Harder, Peter and Christian Kock 1976 The Theory of Presupposition Failure. (= Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague 17.) Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 72 pp. H. and K. define presuppositions as the conditions that must be satisfied for the communicative function of an utterance to come about (excluding conditions that must hold for an utter­ ance to come about at all, e.g. the condition that there should not be any physical impediments to communication). The communicative function of an utterance is defined as that part of the intended function of the utterance which is explicitly linguistically indicated. (This definition serves to exclude illocutionary forces from their scope of investigation.) A 'condition' of the type mentioned is said to be 'satisfied' if it belongs to the background assumptions of both the speak­ er and the hearer. Consequently, presuppositions are mainly a matter of beliefs. This leads H. and K. to rely heavily on S. R. Schiffer's 1972 notion of 'mutual knowledge' in con­ structing their descriptive apparatus for presupposition. That descriptive apparatus is then used to define cases of presuppo­ sition failure, i.e. speech events in which a certain condition does not belong to the background assumptions of either the speaker or the hearer, or in which the speaker or the hearer assumes that it does not belong to the other's background assumptions, etc. (Reviewed by: J. Verschueren 1977b.) Hare, R. M. 1952 The Language of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vi, 202 pp. Essays on the imperative mood, 'good' and 'ought'. 1970

"Meaning and speech acts". PhR 79:1.3-24. H. rejects some of the criticisms adduced against the claim that 'good' in "That's a good movie" gives the sentence the character of a recommendation in an appropriate context, and that saying this is to say something about the meaning of the word 'good' . (Reviewed by: A. C. Genova 1975; G. J. Warnock 1971.)

1971

Practical Inferences. London: Macmillan.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

91

Harman, Gilbert H. 1968 "Three levels of meaning". JPh 65.590-602. Reprinted in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 66-75. H. distinguishes three levels of meaning corresponding to the use of language (i) in thinking, (ii) in communication, and (iii) in certain institutions, rituals or practices of a group of speakers. He situates the study of speech acts at the third level. 1973

Review of Y. -Hillel 1970a. Synthese 26:1.150-52.

1977

Review of J. M. E. Moravcsik (ed.) 1974. Linguistics 185.84-85.

Harman, Gilbert See also: Davidson, D. and G. Harman (eds.). Harms, Robert T. See: Bach, E. and R. T. Harms (eds.). Harnish, Robert M. 1975 "The argument from 'lurk'". LIn 6:1.145-54. The data in the argument from 'lurk', i.e. one of Ross's argu­ ments in favour of the performative hypothesis, are explained by means of an alternative proposal consisting of a fairly special sort of interplay among syntax, semantics and prag­ matics . (Reviewed by: N. Sobin 1976.) 1976a "A projection problem for speech acts". PM 2:1.A3. Assigning semantic properties and relations to expressions in language L in accordance with the principle of compositionality (i.e. the semantics of complex expressions is determined by the syntax and semantics of its constituents) can solve the 'projection problem' for L. H. claims that within a Searlean speech act theory, such properties and relations cannot be assigned below the level of the phrase, and assigning such properties and relations will not satisfy the compositionality constraint unless one invokes ad hoc and unrevealing compli­ cations of the system. 1976b Review of D. E. Cooper 1973. Lingua 39:3.241-44. Harnish, Ulrike See: Barkowski, H. et al. Harrah, David 1961 "A logic of questions and answers". PhSc 28.40-46. A logic of questions and answers can be reduced to a logic of

92

PRAGMATICS assertions if 'whether' questions are identified with true ex­ clusive disjunctions and 'which' questions with true exist­ ential quantifications. Communication: A Logical Model. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, ix, 118 pp. An attempt to build a formal logical model of how a rational person asks questions, receives messages and evaluates the messages as answers to his questions. (Reviewed by: C. L. Hamblin 1964.) "Formal message theory". In Y. -Hillel (ed.) 1971, 68-83. Outline of a formal theory within which it would be possible to describe the communicative force, the pragmatic content, etc. of formal messages, i.e. instances of the formal sort of communication used in large organizations. "Formal message theory and non-formal discourse". In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) 1976, 59-76. . asks the question what kinds of discourse can be adequately described by means of formal message theory, the primary goal of which was to describe the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of formal messages (see: D. Harrah 1971).

Harras, Gisela 1976 "Keller's 'Handlungen verstehen' verstehen". ZGL 4:2.200-12. Review of R. Keller 1976a. Harries, Helga 1972a Cleft Sentences, Questions and Presupposition-Sharing. Univer­ sity of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. 1972b "The role of cleft sentences in the formation of questions and answers: Some evidence from German". PCLS 8.124-38. An attempt to show that all wh-questions and their answers have underlying pseudo-cleft constructions reducible to superficial­ ly simple sentences, and that relating clefted questions and answers with their non-clefted counterparts in that way, it is possible to account for the fact that they contain identical presuppositions and assertions reflected in identical stress patterns, and for the (non)acceptability of a given answer to a given question. Harris, James F. 1976 "A new look at Austin's linguistic phenomenology". PPR 36:3. 384-90. H. discusses the problem of how 'jumps' from linguistic evi­ dence to general philosophical conclusions can be justified.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

93

Austin's answer: if one considers language from the point of view of speech act analysis, there is no jump necessary because of the unity of action (reality) and language. Harris, Roy 1976 "Early generative semantics". JLS 5:2.78-90. Review of C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.) 1971. Harrison, J. 1962 "Knowing and promising". Mind 71.443-57. Hartmann, Claudia 1977 "Implizite Aüsserungen im Rahmen einer historisch-pragmatischen Analyse". LBer 48.47-56. A presuppositional speech act analysis of indirect speech acts. It is shown that the distinction between illocutionary and perlocutionary acts is important for a historically interpreted pragmatics . Hartmann, Dietrich 1973 "Begrüssungen und Begrüssungsrituale: Überlegungen zu Verwen­ dungsweisen sprachlicher Symbolik in kommunikativen Handlungsmustern". ZGL 1:2.133-62. A description of acts of greeting as rituals. Hartmann, Peter 1965 "Zur anthropologischen Fundierung der Sprache". Symbolae Lin­ guisticae in Honorem Georgii Kurylowicz, 110-19. Wroclaw. Re­ printed in S. J. Schmidt (ed.) 1974, 11-20. H. very briefly traces the history of the idea that language has to be approached as a form of human behaviour. Then he con­ centrates mainly on the work by Wittgenstein and Pike. 1974

Interview with Herman Parret. In H. Parret 1974, 121-50. H. answers questions about his own work and recent trends in the study of language.

Hartnack, Justus 1963 "The performatory use of sentences". Theoria 29.137-46. Criticism of I. Hedenius 1963. 1967

"Performative utterances". In P. Edwards (ed.) 1967 Vol.6, 9092.

1968

"The concept of act and behavior". MaW 2.267-77. An outline of the differences between act and behaviour. Lan-

PRAGMATICS

94

guage is classified as an act. 1972

Language and Philosophy. (= Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 157.) The Hague: Mouton, 140 pp. Philosophical discussions on the relation of language with be­ haviour, intentions, consciousness, thinking, perception, sensations, existence, the speaker, acts and morals. (Reviewed by: . 

1975

Potts 1975.)

"Some discrepancies between language and facts". KLit 4.66-70. Some cases in which one cannot say that which in fact is the case, are discussed. Concepts such as presupposition and illocutionary act are used to tackle the problem.

Harweg, Roland 1974 "Retardierte Fragen: Ein Beitrag zur Pragmatik und Textologie der Fragesätze". Linguistics 134.9-19. On the conditions of use of German questions with 'eigentlich', which are described as 'overdue questions' because in general they could have been asked earlier than the point in time at which they are actually asked. Hass, Wilbur A. 1971 "Truth-functional and communicational bases for prescriptive discourse". PCLS 7.112-19. Hathaway, Luise Hertrich 1977 "Some aspects of semantic change in a speech community". PBLS 3. 498-505. H. describes the way in which the development of social dialects and the pragmatics of style shifting caused (semantic) language change in Imst, Austria. Hausser, Roland R. 1973 "Presuppositions and quantifiers". PCLS 9.192-204. An attempt to find out which types of noun phrases induce existential presuppositions. 1976

"Presuppositions in Montague grammar". ThL 3:3.245-80. Problem: how to construct a formal grammar of natural language which can compute all relevant presuppositions of any of its sentences .

Haverkate, Henk 1972 "The performative analysis of the Spanish imperative". CLex 21. 67-74.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

95

An application of Ross' performative hypothesis to Spanish im­ peratives. H. attacks the view of traditional grammar that the imperative mood has only two authentic forms, the affixes of which show person and number agreement with the pronouns 'tú' and 'vosotros' in affirmative sentences. 1976

"Pragmatic and linguistic aspects of the prepositional infini­ tive in Spanish". Lingua 40:2/3.223-45. It is argued that prepositional infinitive constructions with imperative force such as iA trabajar! ('Go to work') belong to the class of impositive speech acts, a subclass of directive speech acts, and that their force is more emphatic than that of the normal imperative.

Havránek, Bohuslav 1964 "The functional differentiation of the standard language". In P. L. Garvin (ed.) 1964, 3-16. On the way in which the use of linguistic devices is deter­ mined by the purpose of the utterance, the function of the act of speech. Hawkins, John A. 1975 "The pragmatics of definiteness". PM 1:3.C2. The 'location theory' of definiteness is proposed: the use of the definite article acts as an instruction to the hearer to locate the referent of the noun phrase within one of a number of sets of objects which are pragmatically defined by different types of shared knowledge and the situation of utterance. 1976

"On explaining some ungrammatical sequences of article + modi­ fier in English". PCLS 12.287-301. The behaviour of article + modifier sequences (e.g. the grammaticality of "The prettiest girl at the party was Sue" and the ungrammaticality of "* A prettiest girl at the party was Sue") is explained on the basis of the presuppositions of the modifier.

1977

"The pragmatics of definiteness, I and II". LBer 47.1-27 and LBer 48.1-27. A detailed investigation of the pragmatic factors which deter­ mine the appropriateness of definite article usage (specific­ ally of the non-generic uses of the definite article in English). In general, it is shown that when using a definite article, the speaker appeals to knowledge which he assumes his hearer to share.

Hawkinson, A. and L. Hyman 1975 "Hierarchies of natural topic in Shona". SAfrL 5.147-70.

PRAGMATICS

96

Rayes, John R. (ed.) 1970 Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: J. Wiley and Sons, x, 370 pp. See: S. Ervin-Tripp 1970. Hebel, Franz 1975 "Was tun wir, wenn wir sprechen ?". DD 23.252-62. An attempt to answer the question as to the sense in which one can talk about speaking as social action. (Reviewed by: U. Maas 1976.) 1976

"Duplik". DD 27.91-94. Reply to U. Maas 1976.

Hedenius, Ingemar 1963 "Performatives". Theoria 29.115-36. H. offers a definition of performative sentences and a model for the logical analyses of such sentences. Part of the defini­ tion is the claim that performatives are true or false and that they are meta-sentences and reflexive sentences. (Reviewed by: J. Hartnack 1963.) Heeschen, Volker 1976 "Überlegungen zum Begriff 'sprachliches Handeln™. ZGL 4:3. 273-301. H. argues that speech act theory ('Sprechhandlungstheorie') as practised by U. Maas and D. Wunderlich is still too close to the study of an abstract linguistic competence in the Chomskyan sense. To show how the treatment of language as an activity could be improved, he presents an overview of the pragmatic notions in the work by B. Malinowski, K. L. Pike, D. H. Hymes, and in the speech activity theory ('Sprechtätigkeitstheorie') offered by A. A. Leont'ev. Heidolph, Karl Erich See: Bierwisch, M. and K. E. Heidolph (eds.). Heinämäki, Orvokki 1972 "Before". PCLS 8.139-51. In reply to Lakoff's 1970b proposal that there are two differ­ ent 'before'-words, one with positive and one with negative presuppositions, H. suggests that there is only one 'before' and that the context determines whether the before-clause or its negation is understood to be a valid inference (e.g. whether 'before Sue punched anyone' presupposes that she did or did not punch anyone).

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

97

Helbig, Gerhard 1976 Review (in German) of Ғ. Danes (ed.) 1974. DF 13:5.301-3. Helke, Michael 1974 "Regarding the projection problem for presuppositions". Lin­ guistics 133.39-41. H. attacks the claim that the presuppositions and assertions of complex sentences with embedded constituent sentences are de­ termined by amalgamating the presuppositions and assertions of the matrix sentences with the assertions, though not the pre­ suppositions, of the constituent sentences. (See: D. T. Langendoen and H. B. Savin 1971.) Heller, Karin See: Meid, W. and . Heller (eds.). Helmer, John 1972 "Metaphor". Linguistics 88.5-14. Whereas metaphor is often described as rule-breaking use of language, H. emphasizes the fact that the metaphorical use of language is itself governed by many rules, i.e. that certain (situational) conditions have to be fulfilled for it. Henne, Helmut 1975 Sprachpragmatik: Nachschrift einer Vorlesung. (= Reihe Germa­ nistische Linguistik 3.) Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, viii, 120 pp. General introduction in linguistic pragmatics, with particular reference to speech act theory. Heringer, H. J. 1974 Praktische Semantik. Stuttgart. (Reviewed by: H. Opalka 1976.) Heringer, James T. 1969 "Indefinite noun phrases and referential opacity". PCLS 5.89-97. H. argues that the distinction between specific and non-speci­ fic indefinite noun phrases boils down to a distinction between those noun phrases which carry a presupposition of 'existence' of a referent and those which do not. The evidence comes from their behaviour in referentially opaque contexts. 1972

"Some grammatical correlates of felicity conditions and pre­ suppositions". WPLOS 11.iv-110.

Heringer, James and Marjorie Wolontis 1972 "Focus in Finnish". PCLS 8.152-61. An examination of focussing processes in Finnish leads H. and W. to the conclusion that an interpretive explanation is not

PRAGMATICS

98 adequate.

Herrmann, Leora 1975 "On 'in that'". PBLS 1.189-95. 'In that' clauses domain over which sick in that he's shown to interact

are said to function as hedges, limiting the an assertion is held to be true (e.g. "He's unable to cope with reality"). They are with context, as well as with ot-her variables.

Herrmann, Leora See also: Cogen, . and Լ. Herrmann. Herzberger, Hans G. 1975 "Presuppositional policies". Philosophia 5:3.243-68. An attempt at formulating a formal semantic theory of pre­ supposition. Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. . 1974 "Das sprachliche Register". DSp 2:4.269-86. On the notion of 'register' in British linguistics and its re­ levance for applied linguistics. Higgins, E. Tory 1976 "Effects of presupposition on deductive reasoning". JVLVB 15:4. 419-30. Report of an experiment. 1977

"The varying presuppositional nature of comparatives". JPsyR 6:3. 203-22. Report of an investigation of the presuppositional nature of different types of comparatives on the basis of subjects' judgements concerning the synonymity of pairs of comparative statements and the acceptability of single comparative state­ ments .

Hindelang, Götz 1973 "Ein Ansatz zur Formalisierung von Sprechakten". In A. P. ten Cate and P. Jordens (eds.) 1973, 61-74. An attempt to construct a theory in which communicative compe­ tence (including the ability to perform speech acts) as well as a purely grammatical competence can be formalized. 1975

"Äusserungskommentierende Gesprächsformeln". In V. Ehrich and P. Finke (eds.) 1975, 253-63. On the role of comments such as 'offen gesagt', 'im Ernst', etc. in speech acts.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1976

99

"Aufforderungen und Handlungsabsprachen". In . Weber and . Weydt (eds.) 1976, 327-36. . tries to explain requests on the basis of their function within a wider communicative network (consisting of a set of 'action agreements'), instead of as isolated communicative acts .

1977

"Jemanden um Rat fragen". ZGL 5:1.34-44. An analysis of acts of asking for advice.

Hinds, John 1975a "Passives, pronouns, and themes and rhemes". Glossa 9:1.79-106. Kuno's direct discourse analysis is rejected, after which it is argued that (i) the concepts of theme and rheme have relevance to Kuno's data and lots of other data as well, and that (ii) transformations may not. apply in the same sentence to achieve antagonistic purposes in terms of the theme-theme distinction (i.e. if one transformation applies to indicate that a certain element is the theme, no other transformation may be used to indicate that it is the rheme). 1975b "Aspects of conversational analysis". Linguistics 149.25-40. A discussion about topic shift, change in performative verb, speaker shift, deictic demonstratives, discourse ambiguities and the addition of new speakers to a conversation. Hintikka, Jaakko 1969 "Semantics for propositional attitudes". In J. Davis (ed.) 1969, Philosophical Logic, 21-45. Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted in A. Marras (ed.) 1972, 429-57, and in J. M. E. Moravcsik (ed.) 1974, 142-64. Main thrust of the paper: propositions about the world are per­ meated throughout with conceptual assumptions about different possible worlds or states of affairs. 1976a "Language-games". ҺҒ 28:1/3.105-25. A discussion of Wittgenstein's notion of language game and its position in relation to the other main themes of his thought. 1976b "The semantics of questions and the questions of semantics". APhF 28:4.1-200. Main claims: instead of traditional formal logic, game theory provides an appropriate model for the semantical description of questions; questions of language use cannot be excluded from semantics .

100

PRAGMATICS

Hiorth, Finngeir 1976 Review of P. F. Strawson 1971. FL 14:3.441-47. Hirsch, David H. 1976 "Speech acts or fluid language". JLS 5:1.15-30. A 'literary' analysis of J. R. Searle 1969, concentrating on metaphorical language, analogies, and even narrative technique, with the intention to invalidate Searle's basic hypothesis that speaking a language is engaging in a rule-governed form of behaviour. Hirsch, E. D. 1975 "What's the use of speech-act theory ?". Centrum 3:2.121-24. H. points out some strengths and limitations of Austin's theory. Hirsch, E. D. See also: Fish, S. et al. Hirst, D. J. 1974 "Intonation and context". Linguistics 141.5-16. H. claims that it is possible to elaborate a theory of intona­ tion which takes into account the fact that the intonation con­ tour of a sentence cannot be predicted without knowing the con­ text in which it occurs, without accepting Chomsky's own revi­ sion of his standard theory (i.e. without abandoning the belief that meaning can be completely determined by the deep structure of a sentence). Hiz, Henry 1962 "Questions and answers". JPh 59.253-65. Hoffmann, L. 1975 "Neuere Theorieansätze auf dem Gebiet der Soziolinguistik". HandVIFC 30.23-29. A plea for 'sociopragmatics' (i.e. for regarding language be­ haviour as a type of activity governed by intentions, conventions, and presuppositions). Hofmann, T. Ron 1976 "Varieties of meaning". LSci 39.6-18. A taxonomy of different types of meaning, including illocutionary meaning, conversational implications, etc. Holborow, Les 1972 Review of J. R. Searle 1969. Mind 81.458-68.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

101

Holdcroft, David 1964 "Meaning and illocutionary acts". Ratio 6.128-43. Reprinted in G. H. R. Parkinson (ed.) 1968, 166-81. . contends that it is very doubtful whether the theory of illocutionary acts can be used to explain the meaning of all or most words unless some semantic information is used in such a way that the fact that it is used makes the claim in question totally uninteresting. 1974

"Doubts about the locutionary-illocutionary distinction". ISPh. 3-16. Critical discussion of J. R. Searle 1968.

1976

"Forms of indirect communication: An outline". PhRh 9:3.147-61. An attempt to refine the notion of indirect communication by distinguishing a number of its forms (e.g. hinting, insinu­ ating, irony, etc.) which have some interesting features in common and which can profitably be discussed together.

1977

"Assertive acts, context, and evidence". Paper read at the 12th International Congress of Linguists (in the Working Group on Speech Acts), Vienna 1977. An account of 'assertive illocutionary acts' such as asserting, reporting, and characterizing, in terms of the beliefs the speaker intends his audience to have, as determined by the con­ text. Illocutionary force is distinguished from illocutionary acts: an utterance is permitted to have a certain illocutionary force even though no illocutionary act has been performed.

Hollis, Martin 1968 Review of L. B. Salomon 1966. FL 4.448-50. Holly, Werner 1976 "Selbst- und Partnereinschätzungen in Gesprächen". In . Weber and . Weydt (eds.) 1976, 175-86. On the 'contact' aspect of conversation: how people perceive themselves and one's partner in conversation, and how that perception structures conversation. Homberger, Dietrich 1975 "Aspekte eines pragmatisch orientierten Sprachunterricht". DD 23.232-52. Aspects of a pragmatic orientation in language teaching. Hope, Edward R. 1973 "Non-syntactic constraints on Lisu noun phrase order". FL 10:1. 79-109.

102

PRAGMATICS . claims that noun phrases in Lisu are ordered according to whether they function as topic or focus of the sentence.

Horálek, Karel 1965 "Sprachfunktion und funktionelle Stilistik". Linguistics 14. 14-22. On functions of language and functional stylistics. Horn, Laurence R. 1969 "A presuppositional analysis of 'only' and 'even'". PCLS 5. 98-107. German translation in W. Abraham and R. I. Binnick (eds.) 1972, 221-35. H. formalizes Austin's distinction between presupposition and entailment before embarking on the task mentioned in the title. 1970

"Ain't it hard (anymore)". PCLS 6.318-27. On the grammatical behaviour (and the presuppositions) of paired-polarity time adverbs such as 'yet/already', 'anymore/ still', 'until/before'.

1971

"Negative transportation: Unsafe at any speed ?". PCLS 7.12033. The relationship between Neg-raising and 'even', as well as the negative polarity items 'bother' and 'care' in their use with 'for'-'to' complementizers, is investigated. The notion 'presupposition' is made use of.

1972

On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. University of California, Los Angeles, Ph.D. dissertation. An investigation of the nature of some logical and sub-logical (conversational) relations such as presupposition and entail­ ment. Special attention is directed at the role of conversa­ tional implicature in determining the upper bound on scalar predicates (such as quantifiers and modals). Logical and sublogical relations are compared. The relationships between im­ plicature and invited inference are investigated; a third cate­ gory, 'forced inference', is introduced in this opposition.

1973

"Greek Grice: A brief survey of proto-conversational rules in the history of logic". PCLS 9.205-14. H. shows that the treatment of modal concepts (especially 'possible' and 'possible not') and quantificational concepts (especially 'some' and 'some not') from Aristotle to De Mor­ gan, anticipates the correct analysis of these relations by means of conversational rules.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1975

103

"Neg-raising predicates: Toward an explanation". PCLS 11.279-94. Neg-raising is shown to be a fundamental syntactico-semanticopragmatic process, present in different language families and occurring with 'distinct but systematically related' classes of predicates.

Hornby, Peter A. 1971 "The role of topic-comment in the recall of cleft and pseudocleft sentences". PCLS 7.445-53. H. shows that at least two aspects of sentence structure, viz. the topic-comment distinction and presupposition, are stored in memory independantly of the particular surface structure of the sentence in question. 1974

"Surface structure and presupposition". JVLVB 13:5.530-38. Report of some experiments to measure the frequency of per­ ceptual errors as a function of differential presupposition in descriptive sentences.

Horstmann, Rolf P. See: Carl, W. and R. P. Horstmann. Householder, Fred W. 1968 Review of C. E. Bazeli et al. (eds.) 1966. Lingua 20:1.58-84. Houston, J. 1970 "Truth valuation of explicit performatives". PhQ 20:78.139-49. Huber, Joseph See: Jäger, S. et al. Hüb1er, Axel 1976 "Syntaktiko-semantische Pragmatik". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 367-77. Sketch of a pragmatically based grammar which formulates a sys­ tem of rules for generating well-formed illocutionary acts. 1977

"Analyse und alles über 'and all' und alles: Zu kompletivformeln in umgangssprachlichen Äusserungen". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 243-54. H. offers a classification of intensifiers like 'and all', 'or anything' and 'just', and discusses the conditions for their use in conversation in terms of conversational postulates and implicatures.

104

PRAGMATICS

Huddleston, Rodney 1973 "Embedded performatives". LIn 4:4.539-41. On some exceptions to the constraint prohibiting a verb from having a performative interpretation if it is embedded as the complement of another verb. Hudson, Richard A. 1975 "The meaning of questions". Lg 51:1.1-31. Yes-no questions differ from the corresponding declarative sen­ tences not only pragmatically but also semantically. H. tries to keep a clear distinction between syntactic, semantic and pragmatic analyses: one can isolate a small number of syntactic and semantic categories, but there is a virtually unlimited number of illocutionary forces due to the interaction of these categories with the total situation. Huisman, Roberta D. 1973 "Angaataha narrative discourse". Linguistics 110.29-42. The paper discusses the hierarchical structure of Angaataha narrative discourse and the distinction it marks between pri­ mary and secondary events, as well as the following topics: participant identification, setting, information focus and re­ petition. Hull, Robert D. 1975 "A semantics for superficial and embedded questions in natural language". In E. L. Keenan (ed.) 1975, 35-45. Building on the semantics of direct questions and answers, worked out in E. L. Keenan and R. D. Hull 1973, H. proposes a formal semantics for elementary embedded or indirect questions such as "John knows which student Mary invited". They are treat­ ed in terms of the semantics for the corresponding direct questions, i.e. as questions embedded in complex declarative sentences. Hull, Robert D. See also: Keenan, E. L. and R. D. Hull. Humann, Paul 1975 "Pragmatik und Sprachunterricht: Theoretische Überlegungen und Unterrichtsbeispiele". DD 23.213-32. Theoretical considerations and some illustrations concerning the role of pragmatics in language teaching.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

105

Hundsnurscher, Franz 1975 "Semantik der Fragen". ZGL 3:1.1-14. An overview of the semantic approaches to questions in tradi­ tional grammar, transformational grammar, generative semantics and speech act theory. Hungerland, J. 1960 "Contextual implication". Inquiry 4.211-58. Huntley, Martin 1976 "Presupposition and implicature". Semantikos 1:2.67-88. H. argues that in dealing with presupposition one is dealing with preconditions for communication. He claims that the notions of presupposition and implicature ought to be carefully distin­ guished. Hurford, James R. 1975 "A polite surface structure constraint". LIn 6:1.166-67. The surface constraint making "I and my wife are easy to please" unacceptable, is said to be due to a convention of politeness. (Commented on by: C. Habel 1976.) Hust, Joel R. and Michael K. Brame 1976

"Jackendoff on interpretive semantics". LAn 2:3.243-77. Review of R. S. Jackendoff. 1972.

Hutchins, W. J. 1976 Review of W. Abraham 1975a. Lingua 38:3/4.359-62. Hutchinson, Larry G. 1971 "Presupposition and belief-inferences". PCLS 7.134-41. H. proposes to describe presupposition as a subset of a speaker's beliefs which can be inferred on the basis of what he says, when he says it, and to whom he says it. Huth, Lutz 1975 "Behauptungen als Sprechhandlungen?". In V. Ehrich and P. Finke (eds.) 1975, 201-17. A speech act analysis of statements. Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl (ed.) 1972 Linguistik 1971: Referate des 6. Linguistischen Kolloquiums 11.14. August 1971 in Kopenhagen. (= Athenäum-Skripten Linguistik 1.) Frankfurt: Athenäum, 379 pp.

106

PRAGMATICS

See: T. Ballmer 1972b; B. Guhl 1972; R. Posner 1972b; C. Rohrer 1972. Hyman, Larry M. See: Hawkinson, A. and L. Hyman. Hyman, Larry M. and Karl E. Zimmer 1976 "Embedded topic in French". In C. N. Li (ed.) 1976, 189-211. A discussion of natural topics (the concept 'natural topic' is intended to reflect universal tendencies in what speakers are likely to talk about) which are embedded one level down in French causative constructions, with special reference to word order, person and definiteness as strategies for encoding topical in­ formation.

I Roberto "Über die Beziehungen zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik: Konver­ sationspos tuiate auf dem Gebiet der Konditionalität und Imperativität". FoL 10:3/4.223-48. On grammatical and pragmatic aspects of imperative conditionals such as "Arbeite und du wirst bezahlt". As for the pragmatic side of the question, the notions 'conversational postulate' and 'presupposition' are central. Ickler, Nancy 1977 "Topicalization and relativization in Old Russian". PBLS 3.65669. It is argued that the topic-comment structure, which is marked in Modern Russian by word order etc., is also relevant to a description of Old Russian, and that one source for relative clauses in Old Russian is a construction in which topics were fronted and marked under certain discourse conditions by the particle 'ze'. Ikranagara, Kay 1975 "Lexical particles in Betawi". Linguistics 165.93-108. I. shows that the meaning of a number of particles in Betawi may be described in terms of the feelings of the speaker and violations of conversational postulates. They are also shown to have implications for politeness.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

107

Immler, Manfred 1973 "Versuch einer integrierten Theorie von Bedeutung, Referenz, Kompetenz und Performanz". PzL 5.89-115. An attempt to construct an integrated theory of meaning, refer­ ence, competence and performance. The notion of 'presupposition' is accounted for as well. Isard, Stephen 1975 "Changing the context". In E. L. Keenan (ed.) 1975, 287-96. Context is not only important as a background against which a sentence is uttered; utterances also change the context and become part of it. This aspect of the interaction between utterance and context is further elaborated with reference to pronouns, demonstratives, incomplete utterances and speech acts. Isard, Stephen and Christopher Longuet-Higgins 1973 "Modal tic-tac-toe". In R. J. Bogdan and I. Niiniluoto (eds.) 1973, 189-95. I. and L.-H. show that it is impossible to give a satisfactory account of the use of English entirely in terms of any concept that can be called 'truth', because the appropriateness of a natural utterance depends on the states of the speaker and the hearer (i.e. presuppositions, context, etc.).

J

Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Massa­ chusetts: M.I.T. Press, xii, 398 pp. A plea for interpretive semantics. The book contains a separate chapter on focus and presupposition. (Reviewed by: B. Comrie 1975; J. R. Hust and M. K. Brame 1976; M. .  1975; M. S. Rosenberg 1975c.) Jackson, Margret and John Clark 1974 "Illocutionary force in linguistic theory". LBer 32.37-44. J. and C. argue that the illocutionary force of an utterance can only be determined within a particular context, and that it is beyond the conception of grammar to take into account features of utterances that are not discernible from the utterances alone (i.e. grammar should be context-independent).

108

PRAGMATICS

Jacobs, Roderick A. and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.) 1970 Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Massa­ chusetts : Ginn and Company, x, 277 pp. See: 

J. Fillmore 1970; J. R. Ross 1970.

(Reviewed by: P. H. Matthews 1972.) Jacobsen, Klaus H. 1971 "How to make the distinction between constative and performative utterances". PhQ 21:85.357-60. Jäger, Siegfried 1975 "Thesen zur Kritik einer linguistischen Pragmatik". LBer 36.5053. Fourteen brief theses criticizing the present approach to lin­ guistic pragmatics (as represented by D. Wunderlich). Jäger, Siegfried, Dieter Duhm, Joseph Huber and Sabine Breitenstein 1972 "'Die Kleine hat in die Hose geschissen'- Ein Beitrag zur Theo­ rie und Praxis von Sprechakten". LiLi 2:7.47-72. Text of a discussion on a brief dialogue containing some inter­ esting (indirect) speech acts. Jäger, Siegfried and Raimund Küchler 1975 "Sein - Bewusstsein - Sprechen". DD 23.288-306. An attempt to clarify the marxist view of language as social action. Jakobovits, Leon A. See: Steinberg, D. D. and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.). Jakobson, Roman 1964 "Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics". In T. A. Sebeok (ed.) 1964, 350-77. First, J. distinguishes the following functions of language: the 'referential' function, i.e. the orientation towards the context of utterance; the 'emotive' function, i.e. focus on the speaker; the 'conative' function, i.e. focus on the addressee; the 'phatic' function, i.e. focus on the contact between speak­ er and addressee; the 'metalingual' function, focusing on the code used; the 'poetic' function, i.e. focus on the message for its own sake. In the rest of the paper J. concentrates on the poetic function. Jankowski, Wayne See: Rodgon, M. M. et al.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

109

Jefferson, G., H. Sacks and E. Schegloff 1976 "Some notes on laughing together". PM 1:8.A2. The phenomenon of laughing together is considered as an object interesting in its own right and as an accessory to the solu­ tion of a range of interactional problems. Joas, Hans and Anton Leist 1971 "Performative Tiefenstruktur und interaktionistischer Rollen­ begriff: Ein Ansatz zu einer soziolinguistischen Pragmatik". MPL 1.31-54. J. and L. propose a theory of pragmatics closely related to Habermas' theory of communicative competence. They open per­ spectives for the combination of linguistic theory with the theory of roles; they stress the relevance of this combination for sociolinguístics. Jociċ, Mirjana See: Saviċ, S. and M. Jociċ. Jones, A. D. 1964 "Performance and promise". PhQ 14.97-117. Jonz, Jon G. 1975 "Situated address in the United States marine corps". AnL 17.6877. Investigation of the factors determining the choice of a term of address in the U.S. marine corps. Jordens, Peter See: Cate, A. P. ten and P. Jordens (eds.) Joseph, Brian 1976 "Envy: A functional analysis". LIn 7:3.503-8. An analysis of the verb 'envy' in which the notion of 'empathy focus1 is central. Justus, Carol 1976 "Relativization and topicalization in Hittite". In . N. Li (ed.) 1976, 213-45. J. shows that in Hittite, though that language often codifies the subject-verb relationship, the semantic organizational prin­ ciple based on topic prominence is primary in a way that it is not in subject prominent languages like English.

110

PRAGMATICS



, Michael . 1975 Review of R. S. Jackendoff 1972. LSci 36.23-31. Kachru, Braj B. 1966 "Indian English: A study in contextualization". In C. E. Bazeli et al. (eds.) 1966, 255-87. Kachru, Braj . et al. (eds.) 1973 Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Ka­ hane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 933 pp. See: R. Lakoff 1973b. Kading, D. 1971 "How promising obligates". PhS 22:4.57-60. Kalish, Donald 1967 "Semantics". In P. Edwards. (ed.) 1967 Vol. 7, 348-58. A description of the distinction between syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Kambartel, Friedrich 1976 "Symbolic acts: Remarks on the foundations of a pragmatic theo­ ry of language". In G. Ryle (ed.) 1976, Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, 70-85. Stocksfield. K. develops a theory of symbolic acts (defined as follows : an act has a symbolic use if its performance is by tacit or expli­ cit agreement restricted to certain situations or connected with certain pragmatic consequences, i.e. the performance or forbear­ ance of other acts, and thereby is to be understood now just as an actualization of this agreement) which he then applies to the discussion of some types of speech acts, as dealt with by Austin and Searle. 1977

"Zu den Grundlagen einer pragmatischen Theorie der Sprache: Zwei Studien". Ms. The second part is to be published in K. Lorenz (ed.), Konstruktionen versus Positionen. Berlin: De Gruyter. The first one of these studies on the foundations of a pragmatic theory of language is the German version of F. Kambartel 1976. The second study contains remarks on the pragmatic and argument­ ative foundations of logic.

Kanngiesser, Siegfried 1972 "Untersuchungen zur Kompetenztheorie und zum sprachlichen Han-

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

111

dein". LiLi 2:7.13-45. . investigates the notion 'competence1 as one of the factors underlying a speaker's ability to perform speech acts. 1973

"Aspekte zur Semantik und Pragmatik". LBer 24.1-28. With reference to the general problem of defining the concept of a grammar, K. tries to give a precise formulation of what is meant with a theory of speech acts and a semantics in the sense of model theory.

Karoly, S. 1963 "Kinds of sentences examined from the point of view of function and form". ALH 13:3.225-55. Karttunen, Frances 1975 "Functional constraints in Finnish syntax". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 232-43. Six Finnish clitic particles, though their uses seem to be very diverse at first sight, are shown to have one basic meaning or function each. Moreover it is shown that their use is governed by the same kind of constraints that govern left-movement for emphasis . Karttunen, Lauri 1970a "On the semantics of complement sentences". PCLS 6.328-39. K. assumes that there is a distinction between the semantic re­ presentation of a sentence, consisting of a proposition and a number of presuppositions, and the set of implications derivable from it by general rules of inference. He argues that there are at least seven classes of verbs taking complement sentences: factives (e.g. 'realize'), counterfactives (e.g. 'pretend'), im­ plicative verbs (e.g. 'manage'), negative implicatives (e.g. 'fail'), only-if verbs (e.g. 'be able'), if-verbs (e.g. 'force'), negative if-verbs (e.g. 'prevent'). 1970b "The logic of English predicate complement constructions". Ms. German translation in W. Abraham and R. I. Binnick (eds.) 1972, 243-75. French translation in Langages 30.56-80. The topic indicated in the title is studied with reference to the following seven classes of verbs: factives, implicatives, negative implicatives, if-verbs, negative if-verbs, only-ifverbs, negative only-if-verbs. 1971a "Implicative verbs". Lg 47:2.340-58. Reprinted in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 285-313.

112

PRAGMATICS

. argues that implicative verbs, like factives, involve pre­ suppositions, though in a different way: an implicative verb such as 'manage' carries a presupposition that it represents a necessary and sufficient condition for the truth of its com­ plement sentence. The speaker's being committed to the truth of the complement sentence or not, depends on the main sen­ tence (i.e. on the presence of negation, modals, and on the illocutionary force). 1971b "Counterfactual conditionals". LIn 2:4.566-69. K. argues that counterfactual conditionals do not presuppose the negation of both the antecedent and the consequent. 1971c "Some observations on factivity". PIL 4:1.55-69. . argues (і) that it is wrong to think of presupposition as something that can be neatly separated from the main sentence; (ii) that the main verb does not alone determine whether the complement is presupposed to be true: mood and the type of complement are also important; (iii) that the class of factive verbs is less uniform than is usually believed. 1973

"Presuppositions of compound sentences".LIn4:2.169-93. A discussion of the 'projection problem' of presuppositions. The idea that the presuppositions of a complex sentence can be defined as the logical sum of the presuppositions of its constituent sentences plus those of the main clause itself, is refuted. An instrument K. constructs for his argumentation is this threefold distinction in the set of predicates: 'plugs' (predicates blocking off all the presuppositions of the comple­ ment sentence; e.g. 'accuse' in "Sheila accuses Harry of beat­ ing his wife"), 'holes' (predicates which let all the pre­ suppositions of the complement sentence become presuppositions of the matrix sentence; e.g. 'surprise' in "It surprised Mary that Fred had stopped beating his wife"); and 'filters' (pre­ dicates - in the logical sense - which, under certain condi­ tions, cancel some of the presuppositions of the complement; e.g. 'if...then' as in "If baldness is hereditary, then all of Jack's children are bald" and "If Jack has children, then all of Jack's children are bald").

1974a "Until". PCLS 10.284-97. A discussion (in terms of implicature, entailment, presupposition) of the differences between the durative and inchoative meanings of sentences with 'until' (e.g. "The princess didn't sleep until 9").

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

113

1974b "Presupposition and linguistic context". ThL 1:1/2.181-94. Given that the presuppositions of a sentence determine the class of contexts in which the sentence could be felicitously uttered, complex sentences present a problem, the so-called projection problem. To eliminate this problem, K. defines the 'satisfaction of presuppositions' in such a way that it becomes unnecessary to have an explicit method for assigning presuppositions to compound sentences; the theory of presuppositions becomes a theory of constraints on successive contexts in a fully expli­ cit discourse. 1977

"Syntax and semantics of questions". LaPh 1:1.3-44. K. proposes a Montague grammar for questions. (Reviewed by: M. Bennett 1977.)

Karttunen, Lauri and Stanley Peters 1975 "Conventional implicature in Montague grammar". PBLS 1.266-78. K. and P. propose to treat most cases of pragmatic presupposition as cases of conventional implicature. They try to show how the import of conventional implicatures for the felicity of utter­ ances can be explained. To formalize their account of conven­ tional implicature they use the framework for linguistic des­ cription developed by Montague. 1976

"What indirect questions conventionally implicate". PCLS 12.35168. K. and P. express the belief that the presuppositions of quest­ ions and those of declarative sentences are different phenome­ na. They propose to use the notion 'conventional implicature1 in a Montague-based model-theoretic description of indirect questions (such as "whether or not it is raining" in "John knows whether or not it is raining"). They suggest that this treatment can be extended to direct questions.

1977

"Requiem for presupposition". PBLS 3.360-71. First, K. and P. give an overview of different phenomena (pre­ conditions on the smooth functioning of communicative acts) which have generally been regarded as presuppositions. Then they briefly discuss semantic and pragmatic presupposition, i.e. two proposals about what it is for a proposition to be presupposed by a sentence. They come to the conclusion that all the differ­ ent cases of presupposition they mentioned do not constitute one single phenomenon: some should be treated as particularized

114

PRAGMATICS

conversational implicatures, others as generalized conversa­ tional implicatures, others as conventional implicatures and still others as preparatory conditions on illocutionary acts. They abandon the notion 'presupposition'. Kasher, Asa 1971 "A step toward a theory of linguistic performance". In Y. BarHillel (ed.) 1971, 84-93. Inscriptions, utterances and sentences are defined. K. argues that this trichotomy should be promoted to be one of the pillars of the theory of linguistic performance. See also A. Kasher 1972. 1972

"Sentences and utterances reconsidered". FL 8:3.313-45. On sentences, utterances and inscriptions. See also A. Kasher 1971.

1973a "Logical forms in context: Presuppositions and other precon­ ditions". Monist 57:3.371-95. In order to explain how context-dependency can be expressed in the language of logical forms, K. investigates appropriate ways for representing presuppositions and other preconditions in natural logic. 1973b "Worlds, games and pragmemes: A unified theory of speech acts". In R. J. Bogdan and I. Niiniluoto (eds.) 1973, 201-7. An attempt to show that a unified theory of speech acts can be built in terms of formal semantics (in which model theory, the mathematical theory of possible worlds, plays a central role) and formal pragmatics (in which game theory, the mathematical theory of preference and decision, is central). 1974

"Mood implicatures: A logical way of doing generative pragmatics". ThL 1.6-37. K. criticizes various approaches to the problem of non-indicative sentences and presents a characterization of moods in terms of preference-implicatures.

1975a "The proper treatment of Montague grammars in natural logic and linguistics". ThL 2:1/2.133-45. Parts of the paper are explicitly devoted to pragmatics. 1975b "Pragmatic representations and language-games : Beyond intensions and extensions". In J. Hintikka (ed.) 1975, Rudolf Carnap: Logic­ al Empiricist, 271-92. Dordrecht: Reidel.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

115

K. shows that in order to describe natural language, one needs more than intensions and extensions; further, he shows that the pragmatic aspects of certain phenomena can be treated with­ in Hintikka's theory of language games. K. proposes a consti­ tutive rule of use for indefinite expressions. 1976a "Conversational maxims and rationality". In A. Kasher (ed.) 1976, 197-216. . argues that human argumentation cannot be translated complete­ ly into formal logical languages : there can be no full under­ standing of the phenomena if one does not recognize the exist­ ence of non-logical relations between possible points of de­ parture of arguments and their points of termination. In parti­ cular, K. refers to relations of implicature. Grice's conver­ sational principles are explained in terms of rationality prin­ ciples. 1976b "Logical rationalism: On degrees of adequacy for semantics of natural languages". Philosophica 18:2.139-57. K. specifies the goals of semantic theories and distinguishes between elementary and explanatory adequacy. Though primarily on semantics, parts of the paper apply to pragmatics as well. 1976c "Three notes on the performative analysis". In P. Cole (ed.) 1976, Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics, 183-91. Amsterdam: North-Holland. K. shows a semantic creak in the underlying abstract performative representation of declaratives and a syntactic crack in the rule of performative deletion. and he suggests that an amended version of the performative analysis should be put in pragmatic terms. 1977

"What is a theory of use ?". JoP 1:2.105-20. An attempt to formulate adequacy conditions for a pragmatic theory, which is defined as the specification and explanation of the human competence to use linguistic means to effect stan­ dard purposes. Two key concepts are linguistic appropriateness and linguistic institutions. Theories of implicature and lan­ guage games are shown to fit the newly outlined framework.

Kasher, Asa (ed.) 1976 Language in Focus: Foundations, Methods and Systems. Essays in Memory of Y. -Hillel. (= Synthese Library 89, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 43.) Dordrecht: Reidel, xxviii, 679 pp. See: A. Kasher 1976a; H.-H. Lieb 1976; R. S. Stalnaker 1975; D. Wunderlich 1976b.

116

PRAGMATICS

Kasher, Asa and Dov M. Gabbay 1976 "On the semantics and pragmatics of specific and non-specific indefinite expressions, I . ThL 3:1/2.145-90. G. and K. discuss current linguistic and logical theories of specific and non-specific indefinite expressions. Then they formulate their own approach in terms of 'possible-worldsand-possible-contexts-of-utterance-semantics' and of Hintikka's language games. Kasher, Naomi and Asa Kasher 1976 "Speech acts, contexts and valuable ambiguities". In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) 1976, 77-81. The function of a poem is said to be to evoke reconstruction of interesting possible speech acts: to understand a poem is to construct for it an appropriate context of utterance. Kasper, Walter 1976 "Gemeinsames Wissen: Zu einem wissensorientierten Wahrheits­ begriff". ZGL 4:1.17-25. Review of R. Keller 1975a. Kästle, Oswald 1972 "Sprache und Herrschaft". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 127-42. Claim: the goals of linguistics have to be defined with refer­ ence to the struggle against power structures ('Herrschaftsverhältnisse') in society in order to make it possible to break repressive ideologies and norms. Katz, Jerrold J. 1968 "The logic of questions". In B. van Rootselaar and J. F. Staal (eds.) 1968, Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science III, 463-93. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 1972

Semantic Theory. New York: Harper and Row, xxviii, 464 pp. A general discussion of problems in semantics, including pre­ suppositions, speech acts, the logic of questions, etc.

1973

"On defining 'presupposition'".LIn4:2.256-60. K. shows that current notions of presupposition are too simple.

Katz, Jerrold J. and D. Terence Langendoen 1976 "Pragmatics and presupposition". Lg 52:1.1-17. K. and L. claim that a purely semantic account of presupposi­ tion in natural language can be adequate and that contextual

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

117

accounts of the notion are unnecessary. Moreover, they contend that the arguments in favour of a contextual notion of presuppo­ sition are based on a fundamental confusion about the relation­ ship between grammar and pragmatics. Kearsley, Greg P. 1976 "Questions and question asking in verbal discourse: A crossdisciplinary review". JPsyR 5:4.355-75. A discussion of the linguistic, psychological and social as­ pects of questions and question asking. Earlier research is re­ viewed and suggestions are made for further investigations. Keenan, Edward L. 1971 "Two kinds of presupposition in natural language". In C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.) 1971, 44-52. . draws a distinction between logical presupposition (defined as follows: a sentence S logically presupposes a sentence S' in case S logically implies S' and the negation of S , ~ S , also logically implies S'; i.e. the truth of S' is a necessary con­ dition on the truth or falsity of S) and pragmatic presupposi­ tion (defined as follows: an utterance of a sentence pragma­ tically presupposes that its context is appropriate; i.e. con­ textual appropriateness conditions are pragmatic presuppositions). Keenan, Edward L. (ed.) 1975 Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Papers from a colloquium sponsored by the King's College Research Centre, Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, xiii, 475 pp. See: R. D. Hull 1975; S. Isard 1975; G. Lakoff 1974b; J. Lyons 1975; P. Sgall 1975a; T. Vennemann 1975; Y. Wilks 1975. Keenan, Edward L. and Gerald J. M. Gazdar 1975 Review of R. W. Shuy (ed.) 1973. LiS 4:3.377-84. Keenan, Edward L. and Robert D. Hull 1973a "The logical presuppositions of questions and answers". In J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 441-66. . and H. propose a formal semantics for questions and answers which enables them to explain in what sense a question like "Did it surprise the professors that every student passed ?" carries a presupposition like "Every student passed". The question-answer relation is treated as a new sort of logical relation. It is shown that the presuppositions of questions are definable in terms of the presuppositions of the questionanswer pairs, which are said to carry truth values so that the old definition of presupposition (in terms of truth values) obtains.

118

PRAGMATICS

1973b "The logical syntax of direct and indirect questions". In C. Corum et al. (eds.) 1973, You Take the High Node and I'11 Take the Low Node, 348-71. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Keenan, Elinor Ochs 1974 "Conversational competence in children". JChL 1:2.163-83. K. argues that young children, contrary to Piaget's view, are able to attend one another's utterances and to sustain a co­ herent dialogue over a number of turns. 1975a "Again & again: The pragmatics of repetition in child language". PM 1:5.A3. An account of the communicative roles of repetition in a child's discourse. The purpose of the paper is to clarify the issue of imitation, which was obscured by the fact that earlier research­ ers had always defined it as a formal relationship between two utterances without taking speaker-hearer relationships into account. K. argues that through repetition, a child learns about speech acts, topic-comment constructions, etc. 1975b "Making it last: Repetition in children's discourse". PBLS 1. 279-94. An investigation of the communicative function of repetition in children's speech. The final hypothesis is that cross-utterance repetition anticipates the syntactic marking of old information and that its importance diminishes as soon as syntactic devices for topicalization emerge in the speech of the child. 1975c Review of M. A. K. Halliday 1973b. LiS 4:2.247-53. 1976

"The universality of conversational postulates". LiS 5:1.67-80. Grice's theory of conversational maxims and implicatures is examined in the light of the Malagasy language and ways of speaking. It is shown that the Gricean analysis retains use­ fulness, but careful ethnological comparison is needed, due to some subtle cultural differences.

Keenan, Elinor Ochs and Ewan Klein 1975 "Coherency in children's discourse". JPsyR 4:4.365-80. K. and K. claim that, contrary to the assumptions of many re­ searchers, children are able to use the context to construct a coherent conversation. Keenan, Elinor Ochs and Bambi B. Schieffelin 1976 "Topic as a discourse notion: A study of topic in the conversa-

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

119

tions of children and adults". In C. N. Li (ed.) 1976, 335-84. . and S. address the issue of how topics are initiated, sus­ tained, and dropped in natural discourse. In their opinion, topic is not a simple NP but a proposition. Keller, Rudi 1975a Wahrheit und Kollektives Wissen: Zum Begriff der Präsupposition. Düsseldorf. The concepts of truth and common (or mutual) knowledge are ex­ plored in order to understand the phenomenon of presupposition. (Reviewed by: W. Kasper 1976.) 1975b "Zur Theorie metaphorischen Sprachgebrauchs: Ein Beitrag zur Semantik von Pragmatik". ZGL 3:1.48-62. K. argues that an adequate theory of metaphorical uses of language is necessarily a pragmatic theory. The pragmatics of an utterance is defined as the study of those types of knowledge that are necessary to understand what the speaker meant with what he said. The notion of conversational implicature is said to open hopeful perspectives on the theory of metaphor. (Reviewed by: J. Nieraad 1975.) 1976a "Handlungen verstehen". ZGL 4:1.1-16. A tentative analysis of the act of communication, which is, according to K., essentially directed at 'understanding'. K. claims that a speaker and a hearer, in order to achieve the un­ derstanding they are after, have to know or understand a lot about each other already. Every act of communication is designed to add something to a pre-existing common understanding. (Reviewed by: G. Harras 1976; D. Wunderlich 1976a.) 1976b "Eine Antwort an Dieter Wunderlich". ZGL 4:2.190-99. Reply to D. Wunderlich 1976a. Keller, Rudi and Thomas Kotschi 1977 "Diskussion über 'Präsupposition'". DSp 5:1.56-59. R. Keller reviews Kotschi's 1976 definition of presupposition. Kotschi replies. Keller-Cohen, Deborah and James Dennis 1975 "The acquisition of conversational competence". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 260-70.

120

PRAGMATICS

An investigation of the way in which children adapt their speech in conversation, more specifically in a conversation between a native adult and a non-native child. Kempson, Ruth M. 1975 Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 15.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, xi, 235. According to K. semantics represents meaning exclusively in terms of truth conditions, whereas pragmatics is based on the notion of conversational implicature. Presupposition is claimed to be an unnecessary notion since it can be either reduced to entailment or to conversational implicature; in the first case it belongs to semantics, in the second case to pragmatics. (Reviewed by: D. Lightfoot 1976; G. Sampson 1977.) Kendziorra, Eckhard 1976 "Sequenzierung von Sprechakten". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 357-66. Speech act sequences are described as strategies for solving conflicts of interpretation and for creating patterns of inter­ action. (Reviewed by: J. Meibauer 1977.) Kendziorra, Eckhard See also: Brück, R. and E. Kendziorra. Kennick, W. E. 1963 Review of Austin's Books. MassR 4.793-98. Kern, Peter . 1977 "Institutionelle Sprachhandlungen: Möglichkeiten einer funktio­ nalen Sprachbetrachtung auf der Mittelstufe". DU 29:1.74-90. Outline of a program to teach institutional speech acts. Kern, Rudolf 1975 Review of H. Sitta and K. Brinker (eds.) 1973. ITL 28.49-61. Kess, Joseph F. 1975 "On the semantics of focus". AnL 17.353-62. On focus in the Philippine languages. Kiefer, Ferenc 1969 "On the problem of word order". In M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (eds.) 1969, 127-42.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

121

K. argues that even in languages with so-called free word order (e.g. Hungarian), word order is far from free, being determined by such factors as emphasis and the topic-comment articulation. 1976

Review of T. Schiebe 1975. ALH 26:1/2.231-41.

1977

Review of J. S. Petöfi and H. Rieser (eds.) 1973. JoP 1:2.17792.

Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.) 1969 Studies in Syntax and Semantics. (= FLSS 10.) Dordrecht: Reidel, ix, 242 pp. See: 

J. Fillmore 1969a; S.-Y. Kuroda 1969; P. Sgall 1969.

(Reviewed by: G. M. Green 1972; W. Kühlwein 1975; F. J. Newmeyer 1971.) Kiparsky, Paul See: Anderson, S. R. and P. Kiparsky (eds.). Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky 1969 "Fact". In M. Bierwisch and K. Heidolph (eds.) 1970, 143-73. Reprinted in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 345-69, and in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 315-54. . and . contend that there are two types of predicates, viz. factives and non-factives. Predicates like 'significant' and 'regret' (as in "It is significant that he has been found guilty" and "I regret that it is raining") are said to be factives because they presuppose that what is expressed in the sub­ sequent that-clauses is a fact, which is not the case with predicates like 'likely' and 'suppose' (as in "It is likely that he has been found guilty" and "I suppose that it is rain­ ing") which are therefore called non-factives. (Reviewed by: M. Reis 1974.) Kirkwood, Henry W. 1969 "Aspects of word order and its communicative function in English and German". JL 5:1.85-107. Kirsner, Robert S. 1976 "On the subjectless 'pseudo-passive' in standard Dutch and the semantics of background agents". In C. N. Li (ed.) 1976, 385-415. . argues that, like the 'true' Dutch passive, the 'pseudopassive' (e.g. "Er wordt gefloten") explicitly asserts that the agent is non-focussed or backgrounded. Further, K. investigates the semantic, pragmatic and stylistic consequences of this backgrounding.

122

PRAGMATICS

Kirsner, Robert S. and Sandra A. Thompson 1976 "The role of pragmatic inference in semantics: A study of sens­ ory verb complements in English". Glossa 10:2.200-40. . and T. distinguish between the meaning of a linguistic form and the message it communicates, the latter being richer be­ cause of the language user's ability to draw conclusions from incomplete information. Many putative properties of sensory verb complements are shown to be pragmatic inferences from knowledge of or assumptions about the nature of the event re­ ferred to with the complement, and from the semantic opposit­ ions between the particular meanings signaled in any given case and the other meanings available. Kirstein, Boni 1975 "Toward a situational grammar". LBer 39.28-38. Sketchy outline of a 'situational grammar' and its implications for language teaching. Klein, Ewan 1975 "Two sorts of factive predicate". PM 1:1.B5. '

Emotive factives' such as 'regret' are distinguished from 'cognitive factives' such as 'discover'. The two categories are analysed in terms of the underlying predicates 'believe' and 'know', respectively, and related to Hintikka's semantics for propositional attitudes. Klein, Ewan See also: Keenan, E. 0. and E. Klein. Klein, Flora 1975 "Pragmatic constraints on distribution: The Spanish subjunct­ ive". PCLS 11.353-65. A single generalization is proposed to explain the distribution­ al and semantic facts associated with difference in mood in Spanish: the indicative is said to signal 'assertion' of the occurrence expressed by the verb, whereas the subjunctive sig­ nals 'non-assertion'. Klein, Wolfgang and Arnim von Stechow (eds.) 1973 Functional Generative Grammar in Prague. (= Forschungen, Lin­ guistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 2.) Kronberg: Scriptor, xxx, 432 pp. See: E. Hajicova 1973; P. Sgall and E. Hajicová 1973.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

123

Klein, Wolfgang and Dieter Wunderlich (eds.) 1971 Aspekte der Soziolinguistik. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 334 pp. See: D. Wunderlich 1971b. Klinke, Wolfgang 1976 "'Wie heisst die Antwort auf diese Frage ?' Zum Status von Fragen und Antworten in einer Sprechakttheorie". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 123-32. On the status of questions and answers in speech act theory. Klockow, Reinhard 1976 "Gänsefüsschen-Semantik: Eine Ergänzung zu Lakoff's 'Hedges'". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 235-45. Review of G. Lakoff 1972b. Knappe, Karl-Bernhard 1976 "Rhetorik und Pragmatik ? Überlegungen zur sprachwissenschaft­ lichen Rhetorik". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 255-65. An approach to rhetoric from the point of view of speech act theory. Koch, Swantje and Luise F. Pusch 1976 "Bestätigen und antworten mit dem Satzwort 'allerdings'". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 153-61. . and P. distinguish two basic functions of the sentence par­ ticle 'allerdings', one of them related to 'ja', the other to 'aber'. Kochan, Detlef . See: Bunting, K.-D. and D. C. Kochan. Kock, Christian See: Harder, P. and C. Kock. Köck, Wolfram K. 1973 "Time and text: Towards an adequate heuristics". In J. S. Petöfi and H. Rieser (eds.) 1973, 113-204. An attempt to demonstrate what is involved in a heuristics aim­ ing at regularities in the temporal aspects of texts as lin­ guistic objects. Amongst many other things, K. argues that the acceptability of a discourse has to be illuminated sufficiently before its grammaticality can be profitably studied, and that acceptability can only be characterized within an appropriate functional model of language.

124

PRAGMATICS

Kohrs, Peter See: Ader, D. et al. Kolenda, Konstantin 1971 "Speech acts and truth". PhRh 4:4.230-41. K. shows how difficult it is, even for speech act theorists, to break away from the dominance of the truth-falsity dimen­ sion. Further, he investigates how the question of truth is connected with some types of speech acts. Finally, he dis­ cusses some other dimensions of assessment which enter into the understanding of speech acts. 1972

"Searle's 'institutional facts'". Personalist 53:2.188-92. . argues that the attempt to derive an 'ought' from an 'is' is misguided.

Koller, Alice 1970 Review of J. R. Searle 1969. Lg 46:1.217-27. König, E. 1974 "The semantic structure of time prepositions in English". FL 11:4.551-63. An examination of the semantics of time prepositions from the point of view of the belief that a semantic representation of a sentence is not adequate unless it accounts for the logical implications, presuppositions, etc. of this sentence. Kooij , J. G. 1972 "Presuppositie, topic, en de plaats van het indirekt objekt" [Presupposition, topic, and the position of the indirect ob­ ject]. Spektator 2:5.261-70. K. argues that the position of direct and indirect object in Dutch sentences is partly determined by presupposition and topic 1973

Review (in Dutch) of T. A. van Dijk 1972. FdL 14:3.207-15.

Kopperschmidt, Josef 1973 Allgemeine Rhetorik: Einführung in die Theorie der Persuasiven Kommunikation. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 216 pp. . makes extensive use of insights gained from speech act theo­ ry in his attempt to describe rhetorical behaviour, in parti­ cular 'persuasive speech acts' and 'persuasive communication'. 1975

"'Pro und Contra' im Fernsehen". DU 27:2.42-62. On the function of rhetoric in language teaching.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

125

Kotschi, Thomas 1976 "Negation und Implikation: Bemerkungen zum Begriff der Präsupposition als semantischer und pragmatischer Kategorie". DSp 4:2.97-119. K. accepts the distinction between semantic and pragmatic pre­ supposition and proceeds to define the concept of semantic presupposition, reviewing some objections against the negation test. (Reviewed by: R. Keller and T. Kotschi 1977.) Kotschi, Thomas See also: Keller, R. and T. Kotschi. Kottke, Ekkehard W. 1972 "Performatives of disjunctive predicates". Lingua 28:4.329-47. The contradiction in the meaning of 'or ' , which separates mu­ tually exclusive items as well as equivalent items, is said to have survived because there was an implicit understanding of how to solve the lexical ambiguity in a given context. K. pro­ poses that the essentially disjunctive character of 'or' is maintained when it distinguishes equivalent items by raising it into a disjunction of two different performatives in deep structure. Koževniková, Kveta 1972 "The language of literature and foreign language teaching". In V. Fried (ed.) 1972, 196-210. Literary language is approached from the functional point of view of the Prague school of linguistics, and some applications to foreign language teaching are proposed. Kramer, Cheris 1975 "Sex-related differences in address systems". AnL 17.198-210. Kreidler, Charles W. 1975 Review of E. 

Traugott 1972. FL 12:3.429-38.

Kress, Axel See: Ader, D. et al. Kress, G. R. (ed.) 1976 Halliday: System and Function in Language. London: Oxford Uni­ versity Press, xxi, 250 pp. A collection of fourteen papers by Halliday (difficult to find elsewhere) representing his functional approach to language;

126

PRAGMATICS

some theoretical papers are followed by applications to pheno­ mena such as theme, modality and intonation. Krumm, Sigrid See: Barkowski, H. et al. Küchler, Raimund See: Jäger, S. and R. Küchler. Kühlwein, Wolfgang 1968

Review of L. . Salomon 1966. Linguistics 39.115-21.

1975

Review of F. Kiefer (ed.) 1969. IRAL 13:2.170-73.

Kummer, Ingrid and Werner Kummer 1976 "Logic of action and the structure of practical arguments". In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) 1976, 83-105. The authors use the logic of action to analyse practical argu­ ments by Robespierre and Lenin. Kummer, Werner 1968 "Sprechsituation, Satztyp und Aussagecharakter". BLI 14.48-68. On speech situation, sentence type and utterance type (speech act type). 1972

"Sprechsituation, Aussagesystem und die Erzählsituation des Ro­ mans: Ein Beitrag zu einer Theorie der Kommunikationsspiele". LiLi 2:5.83-105. An attempt to bridge the gap between linguistics and poetics. K. argues that the concept of 'communication game' can be de­ rived from the notion 'speech situation'.

1973

"Pragmatic implication". In J. S. Petöfi and H. Rieser (eds.) 1973, 96-112. . argues that the notions of 'purported belief' and 'purported knowledge' can be reduced to Hintikka's notions of 'doxastic implication' and 'epistemic implication', from which he de­ velops the concept 'pragmatic implication'. K. suggests that the concept of pragmatic implication can serve as an explication of the notion 'pragmatic presupposition' and that it should be one of the basic terms in a pragmatic language.

1975

Grundlagen der Texttheorie: Zur Handlungstheoretischen Be­ gründung einer Sprachwissenschaft. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Ro­ wohlt.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

127

Kuno, Susumu 1972 "Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English''.LIn3:3.269-320. K. shows that the notions of theme, contrast, old and new in­ formation, which play a decisive role in Japanese syntax, do so for English as well. 1975

"Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 276-336. An attempt to show that a wide variety of linguistic phenome­ na (e.g. pronominalization, backward subject deletion, relativization, etc.) are primarily controlled by non-syntactic factors. Three functional perspectives are offered: function­ al sentence perspective, the direct-discourse analysis per­ spective and the empathy perspective.

1976

"Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy — A reexamination of relativization phenomena". In  N. Li (ed.) 1976, 419-44. . argues that J. R. Ross's purely syntactic approach to re­ lativization should be replaced by a functional approach, a basic thematic contraint being that a relative clause should be a statement about the head noun; the speaker's attitude towards the participants in the event or state described both in the relative clause and in the matrix clause is shown to be another important factor determining the grammaticality of sentences with relative clauses.

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1969 "Remarks on selecţional restrictions and presuppositions". In F. Kiefer (ed.) 1969, 138-67. French translation in Langages 14.52-80. . reviews McCawley's belief that selecţional restrictions are only aspects of the general phenomenon of presupposition and that selecţional features do not exist as syntactic features. The author attempts to formalize some aspects of semantic presupposition within syntax and to reinterpret Chomskyan selecţional features as a special type of such rules of pre­ supposition. 1974

"Geach and Katz on presupposition". FL 12:2.177-99. Comments on the views on presupposition expressed in P. T. Geach 1950 and J. J. Katz 1972.

1976a "Headless relative clauses in modern Japanese and the relevancy condition". PBLS 2.269-79.

128

PRAGMATICS

. 's main claim is that for Japanese 'headless' relative clauses to be acceptable, the 'relevancy condition' must be satisfied, i.e. it must be interpreted pragmatically in such a way as to be directly relevant to the pragmatic content of its matrix clause. 1976b "Reflections on the foundations of narrative theory". In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) 1976, 107-140. . examines the communicational theory of narration from a linguistic point of view.

Լ

Lakoff, George 1970a "Natural logic and lexical decomposition". PCLS 6.340-63. (A chapter from G. Lakoff 1970b.) 1970b "Linguistics and natural logic". Synthese 22.151-271. Reprinted in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.) 1972, 545-665. It is argued that a generative grammar of a natural language should not only generate grammatical sentences of that language but should also relate them to their logical forms in terms of a 'natural logic', i.e. a logic for natural language, capable of expressing all concepts that can be expressed in natural language. Presuppositions, speech acts, and many other aspects of language are discussed in this context. (Reviewed by: 0. Dahl 1972; D. F. Stalker 1973.) 1971a "Presupposition and relative well-formedness". In D. D. Stein­ berg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 329-40. Լ. claims that one cannot talk about the grammaticality, the well- or ill-formedness of sentences, in isolation. Instead sentences, which all carry presuppositions about the nature of the world, can be said to be well-formed only relative to those presuppositions. 1971b "The role of deduction in grammar". In C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.) 1971, 62-70. Reprinted in J. S. Petöfi and

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

129

D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 355-64. The main point of the paper is that the general principles governing the grammaticality of certain sentences relative to certain presuppositions, can only be stated in terms of de­ ductions from those presuppositions.

1972a "Performative antinomies". FL 8:4.569-72. Լ. suggests that to make sense of performative antinomies such as "Don't obey this order" or "I warn you that I won't carry out this threat" one must extend the assignment of truth values to the assignment of felicity values to sentences. 1972b "Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts". PCLS 8.183-228. Reprinted in JPhL 2:4.458-508. This study of 'hedges' and 'fuzzy concepts' shows that in na­ tural language truth is a matter of degree, not an absolute, and that semantics is not independent of pragmatics. (Reviewed by: R. Klockow 1976.) 1974a "Syntactic amalgams". BSSS l.IX-1 - IX-24. Also in PCLS 10.32144. L. shows that there are cases of sentences in English, e.g. "John invited YOU'LL NEVER GUESS HOW MANY PEOPLE to his party", which require a treatment in terms of syntactic amalgams, i.e. as sentences which incorporate lexical material that does not correspond to anything in the logical structure of the sentence but seems to have been copied in from other derivations under certain semantic and pragmatic conditions. 1974b "Pragmatics in natural logic". BSSS l.X-1 - X-46. Reprinted in E. L. Keenan (ed.) 1975, 253-86. Լ. adduces semantic-pragmatic evidence for a uniform performative analysis. Given that uniform performative analysis, the goals of natural logic and the need for global transderivational grammars, he claims (i) that the treatment of indexicals in na­ tural language does not require that additional coordinates for speaker, hearer, time and place of utterance be added to points of reference, and (ii) that there is no need for an additional pragmatic theory to account for speech acts and conversational implicature. 1974c "Notes on what it would take to understand how one adverb works". BSSS l.XII-1 - XII-17.

130

PRAGMATICS

Լ. substantiates the claim that the study of one element of na­ tural language necessarily involves considerations of a great many other elements, by presenting some complexities involved in the attempt to understand how the adverb 'slowly' works. 1974d "Interview with Herman Parret". BSSS l.XI-1 - XI-44. Reprinted in H. Parret 1974, 151-78. Amongst other things, this is a plea for expanding the domain of linguistics to include things such as human reasoning, con­ text, social interaction, discourse types, etc. Lakoff, George See also: Gordon, D. and G. Lakoff. Lakoff, Robin T. 1968 Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. (= Research Mono­ graph 49.) Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, xiii, 240 pp. L. proposes, amongst many other things, the use of abstract verbs to cope with Latin complementation. This proposal is re­ lated to the performative analysis. (Reviewed by: G. M. Green 1970a.) 1969

"A syntactic argument for negative transportation". PCLS 5.14047. L. adduces evidence for the existence of a rule of negative transportation, the presence of an abstract performative verb, and the syntactic cycle. (Reviewed by: R. Cattell 1973.)

1971

"If's, and's, and but's about conjunction". In C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.) 1971, 114-49. The main points of the exposition are: (i) For all conjunction, a common topic is necessary; if it is not overtly present, it must be possible to deduce it from the presuppositions. (ii) There is a hierarchy of naturalness of the presuppositions and deductions; the more widespread or natural the presupposition, the more likely it is that the conjunction itself will be accepted by the hearer, (iii) Coordinate conjunctions have symmetric and asymmetric uses; in an asymmetric conjunction, the first element is presupposed in order for the second to be true.

1972a "The pragmatics of modality". PCLS 8.229-46. L.'s main point is that the choice of modals (both root modals

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

131

and epistemic modals) can be partly explained in terms of prag­ matic considerations. (Reviewed by: J. Verschueren 1977a.) 1972b "Language in context". Lg 48:4.907-27. L. argues that in order to predict correctly the applicability of many grammatical rules, one has to refer to assumptions about the context of the utterance and to other assumptions made by the participants in the discourse. This contrasts with the traditional goal of transformational grammar which was to make such predictions on the basis of syntactic environment alone. 1973a "The logic of politeness; or, Minding your P's and Q's". PCLS 9.292-305. L. argues that there are basically two rules of pragmatic com­ petence, viz. "Be clear" and "Be polite", and that Grice's maxims of conversation specify only the first one, though when there is a conflict between clarity and politeness in conversation, the latter usually wins. Further, she contends that the maxims of conversation are in fact subcases of one of her rules of politeness, viz. "Don't impose". Finally, she says that the basic form of the rules of politeness is universal, though their relative importance is subject to ' dialectal' variation. 1973b "Questionable answers and answerable questions". In B. B. Kachru et al. (eds.) 1973, 453-67. Inquiry into the appropriateness conditions on asking and answering questions. A special case study is made of the use of the interjections 'why' and 'well'. 1973c "Language and woman's place". LiS 2:1.45-80. Reprinted in R. Lakoff 1975 , 3-50. A description of 'woman's language' and the way in which one speaks differently of women than of men. The existing discre­ pancies are said to be harmful to women's self-image and the image people in general form of women's character and abili­ ties. (Reviewed by: B. L. Dubois and I. Crouch 1975; H. Semiloff 1977.) 1974a "Pluralism in linguistics". BSSS l.XIV-1 - XIV-36. A plea for going into areas of linguistic research which were neglected during the transformational era.

132

PRAGMATICS

1974b "Why women are ladies". BSSS l.XV-1 - XV-45. Reprinted in R. Lakoff 1975 , 51-83. L. argues that the kinds of 'politeness' used by, of and to women are oppressive. 1974c "What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics & perform­ atives". BSSS l.XVI-1 - XVI-55. L. suggests that there are fuzzy pragmatic rules: rules of pragmatic competence, rules of politeness, rules of conversa­ tion are applicable to different degrees in different con­ texts and they interact in varied ways; the distinction be­ tween real and conventional politeness, hesitancy, etc. also occurs in degrees ; there are dialectal differences in the rules of politeness. 1974d "Remarks on 'this' and 'that'". BSSS l.XVII-1 - XVII-12. Also in PCLS 10.345-56. A discussion of the uses of the demonstrative pronouns 'this' and 'that'. L. distinguishes three uses: spatio-temporal deixis, discourse deixis and emotional deixis. 1974e "Linguistic theory and the real world". BSSS l.XVIII-1 - XVIII-53. Reprinted in LL 25:2.309-38. L. argues that linguistics, if it wants to be adequate or inter­ esting, has to come to grips with real-world phenomena such as the intent and effect of communication, questions of morality, problems of second-language learning, language pathology, stylistics, advertising, propaganda, etc. 1975

Language and Woman's Place. New York, Harper and Row, 85 pp. See: R. Lakoff 1973c and 1974b. (Reviewed by: L. A. Timm 1976.)

Landesman, Charles 1972 Discourse and Its Presuppositions. New Haven: Yale University Press, ix, 161 pp. An attempt to develop a framework for understanding the nature of meaning. First L. argues for a psychologistic or mentalistic use theory of meaning (i.e. 'intention' is one of the key con­ cepts, though L. does not lose sight of conventions either) in which the notion 'performative' is central: human action and its psychological conditions are basic constituents of the framework in question. Then some objections against this ar-

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

133

gument are discussed and several implications are made expli­ cit. One of those implications is the view that linguistic actions, like all actions, are universals: they are objective and repeatable aspects of a public world. (Reviewed by: L. Burkholder 1976.) Landwehr, Jürgen and Wolfgang Settekorn 1973

"Lesen als Sprechakt ?". LiLi 3:9/10.33-51. On the pragmatic aspects of literary communication.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1974 "The question of Q". FL 11:1.1-37. Լ. argues that no convincing argument has yet been offered to justify the postulation of a segmental Q (performative or non-performative) for the description of English questions. See also: C. L. Baker 1970a. 1975

"Functional stratigraphy". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 351-97. In general, this paper is a plea for naturalness in grammar, or, put differently, for the belief that (i) grammar cannot be studied in isolation from semantic, contextual, lexical, metaphorical, functional and stylistic considerations, (ii) synchronic work cannot ignore diachronic, crosslinguistic and acquisitional phenomena, (iii) linguistics cannot study formal universals to the exclusion of substantive universals. In particular, it is claimed that four (and perhaps more) strata can be distinguished in the semantic representation of any simple sentence: the performative stratum, the tenseaspect-modality stratum, the existential stratum and the ob­ jective content stratum.

Langendoen, D. Terence 1969 Review of C. E. Bazeli et al. (eds.) 1966. FL 5:3.391-408. 1971

"Presupposition and assertion in the semantic analysis of nouns and verbs in English". In D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 341-44. It is argued that the distinction between presupposition and assertion, which is appropriate for the semantic analysis of verbs, is inappropriate for the analysis of nouns.

Langendoen, D. Terence See also: Fillmore,  and D. T. Langendoen.

J. and D. T. Langendoen (eds.); Katz, J. J.

134

PRAGMATICS

Langendoen, D. Terence and Harris . Savin 1971 "The projection problem for presuppositions". In C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.) 1971, 54-60. Reprinted in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 365-71. The projection problem for presuppositions is the problem of how the presupposition and assertion of a complex sentence (e.g. "John stopped accusing Mary of beating her husband") are related to the presuppositions and assertions of. the clauses it contains. L. and S. propose the following pro­ jection principle for presuppositions: presuppositions of a subordinate clause do not amalgamate either with presuppo­ sitions or assertions of higher clauses; rather, they stand as presuppositions of the complex sentence in which they occur. Lanigan, Richard L. 1977 Speech Act Phenomenology. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, viii, 137 pp. A critical examination of speech act theory, especially Austin's, Searle's and Grice's versions. By applying speech act theory to an investigation of the concept of 'communication' L. intends to reveal its limitations. He argues that the anti­ nomy between the nature and function of language (i.e. be­ tween meaning and the activity of speaking) inherent in the concept of communication, is not resolved by speech act theory; its conceptual distinctions (i.e. locutions, illocutions, perlocutions) are said to be empty as an explanation of communi­ cation. Therefore, L. proposes an alternative to its method of 'analysis', viz. a phenomenological approach, to specify the concept 'communication'. Larkin, Don and Michael H. O'Malley 1973 "Declarative sentences and the rule-of-conversation hypothesis". PCLS 9.306-19. L. and 0. adduce examples to refute the claim that informative declaratives are characteristic of a 'normal' conversation or that declaratives are 'normally' used to inform. They claim that the previous attempts to formulate 'rules of conversation' clearly did not result from a serious examination of real con­ versations. Lawler, John M. 1971 "'Any' questions ?". PCLS 7.163-73. Amongst other things, L. adduces evidence for the claim that the occurrence of polarity items in questions depends upon the answer expected, which is clearly dependent on the presupposi­ tions of the question. 1973

"Tracking the generic toad". PCLS 9.320-31.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

135

An attempt to cope with universal generics such as "My pet toad eats flies", departing from the presuppositional analysis of similar sentences containing 'only' and 'always'. (Reviewed by: Y. Putseys 1977.) 1975

"Elliptical conditionals and/or hyperbolic imperatives: Some remarks on the inherent inadequacy of derivations". PCLS 11. 371-82. On the basis of elliptical conditionals (e.g. "Open the window and I'll kill you") and hyperbolic imperatives (e.g. "Open the window or I'll kill you") L. argues that a theory of language to which the concept of 'derivation' is central, is wrong. He also proposes a number of principles that should be met by any theory of language.

Leather, J. H. See: Candlin, 

N. et al.

Lecointre, Simone and Jean Le Galliot 1973 "Le je(u) de l'énonciation". Langages 31.64-79. An investigation of the use of the first person singular in literary discourse. The concept of illocutionary force is used continuously. Lee, Chungmin 1973a "Presuppositions of existence of theme for verbs of change (in Korean and English)". FL 9:3.384-88. 1973b "May I talk about 'embedded performatives'".LIn4:4.545-46. Squib on sentences like "May I offer my congratulations", "I must warn you that...", etc. 1973c "The performative analysis of 'Why not V ?'". LSci 25.39-41. 1975

"Embedded performatives". Lg 51:1.105-8. There are two types of modal deference expressions which may be superordinate to performative verbs in English: one may ask permission to perform the act or the speaker may express his frame of mind in performing the act. L. argues that these have no illocutionary force of their own: an utterance cannot constitute an intended illocutionary act if there is a conflict in the speaker's pragmatic presupposition between the addresseeauthority and the speaker-authority.

Lee, Hong Bae 1970 A Study of Korean Syntax: Performatives, Complementation, Nega-

136

PRAGMATICS

tion and Causation. Brown University Ph.D. dissertation. Lee, Hong Bae and Edward R. Maxwell 1970 "Performatives in Korean". PCLS 6.363-79. By studying four types of performative sentences in Korean, viz. declaratives, interrogatives, imperatives and propositives, Լ. and M. adduce syntactic evidence for the performative hy­ pothesis. Leech, Geoffrey 1974 Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, xii, 386 pp. A general overview and discussion of problems in semantics, in­ cluding topics such as the functions of language, presupposi­ tion and speech acts. (Reviewed by: F. G. A. M. Aarts 1976b.) 1977

Review of J. M. Sadock 1974 and P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975. JL 13:1.133-45.

Le Galliot, Jean See: Galliot, Jean Le. Lehman, Christina 1977 "On the function and the use of stress in discourse". PBLS 3. 566-76. L. argues that the importance of context for stress assignment has not been studied adequately because usually only the in­ fluence of the sentence preceding the sentence in which stress has to be assigned, has been considered. One ought to study stress assignment and stress use within discourses. Lehmann, Dorothea 1976 Untersuchungen zur Bezeichnung der Sprechaktreferenz im Englischen. (= Forum Linguisticum 8.) Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 281 pp. Lexical items denoting speech act reference (especially speech act verbs) are assigned the following semantic representation: "A' says' x' to B'" (which is a speech act reference within the speech act "A says x to B"). This parameter is said to es­ tablish the semantic class of the terms of speech act refer­ ence and the criteria for differentiation within that class. Lehmann, W. P. 1968 Review of E. Benveniste 1966. Lg 44:1.91-96.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1976

137

"From topic to subject in Indo-European". In C. N. Li (ed.) 1976, 445-56. Լ. argues that a development from topic-prominent to subjectprominent languages took place in Indo-European.

Lehrer, Adrienne 1975 "Interpreting certain adverbs: Semantics or pragmatics ?". JL 11:2.239-48. By examining a small class of adverbs, L. tries to show that the line between semantics and pragmatics is not sharp, and that no non-arbitrary line can be drawn. Leist, Anton 1972 "Zur Intentionalität von Sprechhandlungen". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 59-98. After a discussion of some recent insights gained in generative grammar (mainly concerning presupposition), which are relevant for linguistic pragmatics, L. tracks the notion of 'intention­ ality' in some sociological theories of human interaction and in Austin's speech act theory. Finally, L. attempts to define ' intentionality' in such a way as to make it useful for lin­ guistic pragmatics. 1974

"Zur Semantik 'natürlicher ' Sprachen". ZGL 2:3.328-42. Review of D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.) 1972.

Leist, Anton See also: Joas, H. and A. Leist. Lemmon, E. J. 1966 "Sentences, statements and propositions". In B. Williams and A. Montefiore (eds.) 1966, 87-107. Reprinted in J. F. Rosenberg and C. Travis (eds.) 1971, 233-50. Review of P. F. Strawson 1950a. L. claims that Strawson's criticism of Russell rests on a misunderstanding. Leonard, Henry S. 1959 "Interrogatives, imperatives, truth, falsity and lies". PhS 26. 172-86. L. claims that (i) interrogatives and imperatives, just like declaratives, may be classified as true or false, (ii) decla­ ratives, interrogatives and imperatives can be said to be honest or dishonest, (iii) whether an utterance is honest or dishonest is logically independent of its truth or falsity.

138

PRAGMATICS

Leonardi, Paolo 1976 "Framing meaning". Ms. L. argues that many contemporary theories of meaning are valuable for 'semantic reconstruction', but that they fail as 'semantic construction theories'. He indicates some steps to­ wards semantic construction, e.g. frame semantics. Lerner, J. 1975 "The commentation test: Application and limitations". FL 12:3. 383-96. Review of R. Posner 1972. Leuninger, Helen 1977 "Bestimmt die kommunikative Funktion von Äusserungen ihre Struktur ? Zur Kontroverse zwischen Chomsky und Searle". PzL 13/14.143-67. Review of J. R. Searle 1972 and 1976b. Problem: does communi­ cative function determine the structure of utterances ? L.!s answer: No. Levenston, Edward A. 1975

Review of S. Chatman (ed.) 1971. IRAL 13:1.75-84.

1976

"Metaphor, speech act and grammatical form". Poetics 5:4.373-82.

Review of D. Mack 1975. Levin, Samuel R. 1976 "Concerning what kind of speech act a poem is". In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) 1976, 141-60. Levinsohn, Stephen H. 1975 "Functional sentence perspective in Inga". JL 11:1.13-37. An attempt to show that the order of elements and the position of certain enclitics in the Inga sentence can be accounted for by the principles of functional sentence perspective. Lewkowicz, Nancy Kennedy 1971 "Topic-comment and relative clause in Arabic". Lg 47:4.810-25. Three recent analyses of Arabic topic-comment sentences as well as the possibility of topic-comment sentences being embedded as relative clauses, are examined. Li, Charles N. 1975 "Miss-a-little: An unexpected case of ambiguity (S or ~ S ) " .

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

139

SJSOPIL 1.136-42. It is rare for a construction to be ambiguous with two complete­ ly opposite readings (viz. S and ~S). How can such an unexpect­ ed type of ambiguity function in speech ? Using an example from Mandarin Chinese, L. gives this answer: the discourse context in which the construction means S can be expected to be differ­ ent from the discourse context in which it means ~ S . Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1976 Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, xiii, 594 pp. See: W. L. Chafe 1976; L. A. Friedman 1976; T. Givon 1976; L. M. Hyman and K. E. Zimmer 1976; . Justus 1976; E. 0. Keenan and . . Schieffelin 1976; R. S. Kirsner 1976; S. Kuno 1976; W. P. Lehmann 1976; . N. Li and S. A. Thompson 1976; P. Schachter 1976; A. Schwartz 1976. Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson 1976 "Subject and topic: A new typology of language". In C. N. Li (ed.) 1976, 457-89. Լ. and T. propose a typology of language based on the gramma­ tical relations subject-predicate and topic-comment. Liberman, Mark 1973 "Alternatives". PCLS 9.346-55. Using L. Karttunen's 1973 notion of 'filtering', L. tries to solve the projection problem for presuppositions, with special reference to sentences in which alternatives are given (as in "Perhaps John has no children, but perhaps his children are away on vacation"). Liberman, Mark and Ivan Sag 1974 "Prosodic form and discourse function". PCLS 10.416-27. On the discourse functions (related to presuppositions, illocutionary force, etc.) of intonation. Lieb, Hans-Heinrich 1971 "On subdividing semiotic". In Y. -Hillel (ed.) 1971, 94-119. Revision of the subdivision of semiotic into syntax, semantics and pragmatics (as well as some other subdivisions). 1975

"Universals of language: Quandaries and prospects". FL 12:4. 471-511. In addition to the Naive View of universals (i.e. universal is

140

PRAGMATICS

what is common to all languages) and the Semantic View of uni­ versals (i.e. universal is anything that is necessarily common to all languages because of the meaning of the term 'language' ), the author proposes the Pragmatic View (i.e. universal, rela­ tive to a person at a certain time, is anything that any theory of language must attribute to all languages according to that person at that time). It is argued that the former two do not, but the latter may solve some basic problems concerning lin­ guistic universals. 1976

"On relating pragmatics, linguistics, and non-semiotic disci­ plines". In A. Kasher (ed.) 1976, 217-49.

Lightfoot, David 1973a "Présuppositions dans la grammaire transformationelle". Lingua 31:2/3.177-99. Լ. examines some relations between logic and language in order to find out what 'presupposition' is. He concludes that the current definitions (in certain models of transformational grammar) are inadequate. 1973b Review of C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.) 1971. CJL 18:1.49-62. 1976

Review of R. M. Kempson 1975 and D. Wilson 1975a. JL 12:2. 324-35.

Limber, John 1976 "Unravelling competence, performance and pragmatics in the speech of young children". JChL 3:3.309-18. Problem: Is the lack of complex subject NPs in children's speech a competence deficit, a performance problem, or a re­ flection of pragmatic factors ? It is suggested that pragmatics may account for the distribution of clauses in their speech. Linde, Charlotte 1976 "Constraints on the ordering of if-clauses". PBLS 2.280-85. An attempt to formulate contextual constraints on the relative ordering of an if-clause and its main clause. The main prin­ ciple she proposes: the reported order of events will mirror the actual order. Lindenfeld, Jacqueline 1977 "Communicative patterns at French markets". To appear in Semio­ tica. A study of conversational implicatures, especially those arising from a flouting of the maxim of relation ('Be relevant')

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

141

in two samples of non-economic discourse at French open air markets. Lindner, Katrin and Dietmar Zaefferer 1976 "Zur sprachlichen Handlungsfähigkeit 4-6 järiger Kinder: Ent­ wurf einer empirischen Untersuchung". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1976, 329-42. Design of an empirical investigation of the speech ability of children between 4 and 6 years old. Linsky, Leonard 1972 Review of J. R. Searle 1969. IJAL 38:1.58-62. Lipka, Leonhard 1976a "Topicalization, case grammar, and lexical decomposition in English". ArchL 7:2.118-41. L. claims that topicalization is at work in both the formation of sentences and of complex lexical items, and that linguistic theory must take the communicative function of language into account. 1976b "Funktionale Satzperspektive und kommunikative Gliederung im Englischen". LD 28.273-81. Reflections on theme, word order, subject, the passive and in­ tonation from the point of view of functional sentence per­ spective. Some didactic conclusions are drawn. Littlewood, William T. 1975

"Role-performance and language-teaching". IRAL 13:3.199-208. On playing roles as a method in language teaching.

Llewelyn, John E. 1964 "What is a question ?". AusJPh 42.69-85. L. attacks the view that questions can be 'analysed away'. He claims that there are some jobs done by question sentences which could not be done without such sentences, and that the grammatical interrogative mood is not redundant but signals a logical or pragmatic interrogative mood. Lockwood, David G. 1971 Review of P. Sgall et al. 1969. Lg 47:3.691-700. Loetscher, Andreas 1973 "On the role of nonrestrictive relative clauses in discourse". PCLS 9.356-68.

142

PRAGMATICS

Doubt is cast on the belief that non-restrictive relative clauses arise from independent sentences and, hence, have their own performative verb (as suggested in J. P. Thorne 1972) , because on the basis of that hypothesis one cannot ex­ plain why one would utter a non-restrictive relative clause instead of an independent sentence. Theréfore L. tries to characterize the function of non-restrictive relative clauses in discourse. Löffler, Heinrich 1975 "Die sprachliche Ironie - Ein Problem der pragmatischen Text­ analyse". DSp 3:2.120-30. On irony as a problem for pragmatic text analysis. Longacre, Robert E. 1976 Review of T. A. van Dijk 1972. JL 12:1.169-74. Longuet-Higgins, Christopher See: Isard, S. and . Longuet-Higgins. Lorenz, Kuno 1976 "Words and sentences: A pragmatic approach to the introduction of syntactic categories". CC 9:3/4.341-46. Luelsdorff, Philip See: Brekle, H. E. and P. Luelsdorff. Luhmann, Niklas See: Habermas, J. and N. Luhmann. Luria, A. R. 1959 "The directive function of speech in development and dissolu­ tion". Word 15.341-52 and 453-64. Reprinted in R.  Oldfield and J.  Marshall (eds.) 1968, 70-81 and 353-65. L. discusses the development of the directive function of speech in early childhood and its dissolution in pathological states of the brain. The discussion is based on a number of pertinent experiments. Lütjen, Hans Peter 1973 "Zur kommunikativen Kompetenz in der Fremdsprache". IRAL 11:1. 81-91. Note on the importance of communicative competence in foreign language teaching. Lyas, Colin (ed.) 1971 Philosophy and Linguistics. London: Macmillan, 332 pp.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

143

See: J. L. Austin 1957; S. Cavell 1958; A. G. N. Flew 1956; B. Mates 1958; C. G. New 1966; G. Ryle 1953b and 1961. (Reviewed by: 0. Akhmanova 1976.) Lycan, William G. See: Boër, S. E. and W. G. Lycan. Lycan, William G. and George F. Schumm 1975 "Toward a theory of question-begging". Paper read at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division, December 28, 1975. Abstract in JPh 72:17.580. L. and S. argue that if one takes a context-dependent notion of begging the question, then any charge of begging can success­ fully be turned aside by anyone with some logical ingenuity. This problem is solved if one accepts a context-free account of begging the question. Lyons, John 1966 "Firth's theory of 'meaning'". In C. E. Bazeli et al. (eds.) 1966, 288-302. Critical examination of Firth's contextual theory of meaning (especially the concept 'context of situation'). 1975

"Deixis as the source of reference". In E. L. Keenan (ed.) 1975, 61-83. On the child's acquisition of the grammar of referring ex­ pressions. It is argued that the grammatical structure and in­ terpretation of referring expressions (except proper names) can be accounted for on the basis of a prior understanding of the deictic function of demonstrative pronouns and adverbs in concrete situations. Moreover, L. claims that the presupposi­ tions of existence and uniqueness commonly associated with the use of the definite article, derive from general conditions on deictic reference.

Lyons, John (ed.) 1970 New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 367 pp. See: R. Campbell and R. Wales 1970; M. A. K. Halliday 1970a.

M Maas, Utz 1971 "Grammatische Kategorien und Sprechsituation". In A. von Stechow

144

PRAGMATICS

(ed.) 1971, 152-61. On grammatical categories and speech situation. M. defines 'categories ' as the conditions on the possibility of communi­ cation: they guarantee that the conversation partner can in­ terpret an utterance (even in the way the speaker intends). M. also calls them illocutionary categories (consisting of illocutionary acts and characterizations of what is said, such as 'here', 'now', 'you'). 1972a "Ein Problem der Fragelogik: Sind zurückgewiesene Präsuppositionen Antworten ?". LBer 19.69-73. M. claims that negating a presupposition of a question is not an answer to the question. 1972b "Grammatik und Handlungstheorie". In U. Maas and D. Wunderlich 1972, 189-306. An overview of some different types of speech act, with consider ations on the relationships between grammar and speech acts. 1972c "Semantik für Sprechakte". Arbeitspapier 19 (Universität Köln, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft). The task of semantics is said to be the formulation of condi­ tions on speech acts. 1972d "Sprechen und Handeln - zum Stand der gegenwärtigen Sprachtheo­ rie". STZ 41.1-20. Speech act theory is contrasted with other contemporary lin­ guistic theories. The paper is a plea for the unity between speech and action. 1972e "Subjekt, Präsuppositionen, mein Freund Falk und das Ungeheuer von Loch Ness". Linguistics 93.44-69. M. shows (i) that it is very difficult to define the notion 'subject' in a syntactic theory, and (ii) that the pragmatic distinction between theme and rheme is a good candidate for a universal category, signalling the presuppositions connected with an utterance. 1973a "Sprachliches Handeln I: Auffordern, Fragen, Behaupten". In H. Bühler (ed.) 1973, 144-57. An analysis of requests, questions and statements. 1973b "Sprachliches Handeln II: Argumentation". In H. Bühler (ed.)

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

145

A speech act approach to argumentation. 1976

"Was tun wir, wenn wir Sprachunterricht machen ?". DD 27.84-90. Review of F. Hebel 1975. (Reviewed by: F. Hebel 1976.)

Maas, Utz and Dieter Wunderlich 1972 Pragmatik und Sprachliches Handeln. (= Athenäum-Skripten Lin­ guistik 2.) Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum Verlag, viii, 306 pp. Contains a criticism of the "Funkkolleg 'Sprache'", to which they attach U. Maas 1972b and D. Wunderlich 1972b (i.e. their own contributions to the 'Funkkolleg'). Some random notes on pragmatics by D. Wunderlich, viz. his "Mannheimer Notizen zur Pragmatik", as well as comments by U. Maas, viz. "Notizen zu den Notizen", are added. (Reviewed by: M. Behn et al. 1973.) Mack, Dorothy 1975 "Metaphoring as speech act: Some happiness conditions for explicit similes and simple metaphors". Poetics 4:2/3.221-56. (Reviewed by: E. A. Levenston 1976.) MacKay, Alfred F. 1966 Speech Acts. University of North Carolina Ph.D. dissertation. 1967

"Illocutionary forces". JPh 64.740-41. Thesis: Strawson's and Searle's attempts to explicate illo­ cutionary force in terms of Grice's theory of meaning are mis­ guided.

1972

"Professor Grice's theory of meaning". Mind 81.57-66.

Maingueneau, Dominique 1976 Initiation aux Méthodes de l'Analyse du Discours: Problèmes et Perspectives. Paris: Hachette, 192 pp. An introduction to discourse analysis, containing a chapter on 'utterances', which includes a section on speech acts. Makino, Seiichi 1976 "Can a single sentence have more than one empathy focus ? — A case study from Japanese". PCLS 12.476-85. M. adduces evidence from Japanese for the claim that, in a

146

PRAGMATICS

single sentence, there can be more than one focus of empathy (i.e. the speaker can take the side of more than one of the participants of the event or action he describes). Makkai, Adam 1971 "Degrees of nonsense, or transformation, stratification, and the contextual adjustability principle". PCLS 7.479-92. A review of current practices in linguistics leads M. to the proposal of a 'pragmatic-ecological' grammar, incorporating a 'contextual adjustability principle'. Mandel, Mark 1974 "When things don't happen". BSSS l.XIX-1 - XIX-3. Squib about the problems involved in sentences like "When Margo didn't arrive I called the police": one has to refer to someone's expectation to determine the time of 'when not A'. Manor, Ruth 1976 "An analysis of a speech". ThL 3:1/2.125-43. A speech is analysed as an ordered set of speech acts used to express commitments to propositions. The notions 'conditional assertion', pragmatic presupposition and speech act, are used in the analysis. Manser, Anthony 1976 Review of S. R. Schiffer 1972. JLS 5:1.44-45. Marcellesi,  1974 "Néologie et fonctions du langage". Langages 36.95-102. Reflections on neologism and the functions of language. Marcus , Solomon 1974 "Fifty-two oppositions between scientific and poetic communi­ cation". In  Cherry (ed.) 1974, 83-96. Marras, Ausonio (ed.) 1972 Intentionality, Mind, and Language. Urbana: University of Illi­ nois Press, viii, 527 pp. See: J. Hintikka 1969. Marshall, John C. See: Oldfield, R. 

and J. C. Marshall (eds.).

Marshall, John C. and Roger J. Wales 1974 "Pragmatics as biology or culture". In  1-13.

Cherry (ed.) 1974,

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

147

M. and W. discuss (i) C. Morris' tripartite definition of pragmatics (origin, uses, and effects of signs) in the context of the biological prerequisites of language and the organiza­ tion of language learning; (ii) the structure of animal and human communication systems in relation to brain specialization for the representation of different aspects of experience and cognition. Martens, Karin 1974 Sprachliche Kommunikation in der Familie. Kronberg: Scriptor, iii, 288 pp. An application of speech act theory to the study of language in the family. Martens , Karin See also: Ehlich, K. and K. Martens; Giesecke, M. and K. Martens. Martin, James E. and Thomas E. Ferb 1973 "Contextual factors in preferred adjective ordering". Lingua 32:1/2.75-81. M. and F. examine and criticize the view that preferred ad­ jective ordering in English is entirely a function of context and that in cases where the context is not sufficiently speci­ fied, adjectives are ordered in terms of the 'most usual or frequent context' of the adjectives in question. Martin, John N. 1975 "Karttunen on possibility".LIn6:2.339-41. With reference to L. Karttunen 1971c, M. argues that the infer­ ence from 'possible A' to B, if A presupposes B, is just like that from A to  when A presupposes B, and that this can be generalized to other modal contexts. Martin, Robert L. 1971 "Some thoughts on the formal approach to the philosophy of lan­ guage". In Y. -Hillel (ed.) 1971, 120-44. M. argues (і) that the current accounts of the nature of the formal approach that hope to show its fruitlessness for the study of natural language, are misguided, and (ii) that some recent developments in the formal approach should be very suggestive to those who adopt other approaches. (One of the notions touched upon is 'presupposition'.) Martin, R. M. 1959 Toward a Systematic Pragmatics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, xv, 107 pp.

148

PRAGMATICS

An early formal logical model for the study of pragmatic as­ pects of language. Martinet, André 1974 Interview with Herman Parret. In H. Parret 1974, 222-47. M. answers questions on his own work and recent trends in lin­ guistics. Mates, Benson 1958 "On the verification of statements about ordinary language". Inquiry 1.161-71. Reprinted in C. Lyas (ed.) 1971, 121-30. This paper is concerned with some difficulties in the work of 'ordinary language' philosophers, especially the problem of how their statements about the use of language can be verified. (Reviewed by: S. Cavell 1958.) 1973

"Descriptions and reference". FL 10:3.409-18. M. argues that Russell's theory of descriptions has not been re­ futed by Strawson's and his followers' observations, which are in fact observations on the pragmatics of a class of sentences that overlaps with but does not include the class dealt with by Russell.

Matragos, Georg 1974 "Beispiele für pragmatische Ansätze im Grammatikunterricht der Mittelstufe". DU 26:2.95-111. M. offers examples of a pragmatic approach to language teaching. Matthews, P. H. 1972 Review of R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.) 1970. JL 8:1. 125-36. 1976

Review of J. M. Sadock 1974. GL 16:4.236-42.

Matthews, Robert J. 1971 "Concerning a 'linguistic theory' of metaphor". FL 7:3.413-25. Review of D. Bickerton 1969. M. argues that Bickerton fails to establish necessary and sufficient conditions for distin­ guishing metaphor from non-metaphor and that Bickerton's theo­ ry fails to confront the problem of how metaphors are inter­ preted or understood. (Reviewed by: J. T. Price 1974.) 1974

Review of D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

149

Linguistics 125.90-99. 1975

"Recognizing and understanding indirect speech acts". Paper read at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division, December 28, 1975. Abstract in JPh 72:17.580-81. M. argues that Searle's account of indirect speech acts is in­ complete because it does not explain how a hearer recognizes and understands them. Then he goes on to give such an explana­ tion in terms of conversational implicature. Finally, he dis­ cusses one class of indirect speech acts, viz. 'implicit speech acts'.

Maxwell, Edward R. See: Lee, H. B. and E. R. Maxwell. Mayo, Bernard 1963 Review of J. L. Austin 1962. Һ 3.4-6. McCawley, James D. 1968a "Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar". FL 4.243-69. The issue of presupposition is touched upon in passing in connection with the lexicon and selection restrictions. 1968b "The role of semantics in a grammar". In E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.) 1968. 124-69. General discussion of the title-topic. One of the minor issues is the role of presuppositions, which are compared with se­ lection restrictions. 1974a "Remarks on the lexicography of performative verbs". In J. Murphy, A. Rogers and R. Wall (eds.) 1974, Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions, and Con­ versational Implicatures. Washington, D. C : Center for Applied Linguistics. Criticism of Austin's classification of illocutionary forces (in J. L. Austin 1962). M. proposes an alternative taxonomy. Two striking characteristics of M.'s approach: (i) he does not only regard the first person simple present indicative active form of performative verbs as performative uses of those verbs, but also uses in the passive, with 'would like to ' , ' would', 'will', and 'let me ' ; (ii) he ends up with a two­ fold distinction that corresponds closely with Austin's dis­ tinction - rejected by Austin himself - between 'constatives' and 'performatives'.

150

PRAGMATICS

1974b Interview with Herman Parret. In H. Parret 1974, 250-77. M. answers questions about his own work and recent develop­ ments in linguistics. McClure, Erica and Jim Wentz 1975 "Functions of code switching among Mexican-American children". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 421-32. M. and W. claim that, just as among adults, children's code switching is not random, but related to situation, role rela­ tionship and style. McConnell-Ginet, Sally and Carl Ginet 1976 Review of Z. Vendler 1972. PhR 85:2.216-24. With special attention to Vendler's treatment of performative verbs and utterances. Mclntire, Marina L. 1972 "Terms of address in an academic setting". AnL 14.286-91. Investigation of the factors determining the choice of a term of address in the academic world. Mcintosh, Angus 1966 "Predictive statements". In C. E. Bazeli et al. (eds.) 1966, 303-20. A discussion of the problems of choice involved in making pre­ dictive statements of the type "It is going to rain" (in which there is no assessment of probability like in "It may rain"). The notion 'context of situation' is taken into account. Mcintosh, Angus See also: Halliday, M. A. K. et al. McLean, Alan C. 1973 "Modes of address in Nepali". ArchL 4.89-102. An investigation of the factors determining the choice from the four-term system of address in Nepali (such as power and soli­ darity) . McNeill, David 1976 "Some effects of context on utterances". PCLS 12: Parasession on Diachronic Syntax. 205-20. M. introduces a psychological approach to the organization of speech and the influence of context on it. He discusses the incorporation of the external context, the generation, by lin-

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

151

guistic means, of an internal context, and the restrictions on both. Meditch, Andrea 1975 "The development of sex-specific speech patterns in young child­ ren". AnL 17.421-33. Meeus, Baudewijn 1975 "Functional differentiation in language behaviour patterns: An overview of the manifest factors in literature". ITL 27.3355. Meibauer, Jörg 1977 "Sprechaktsequenzen: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion von Obligati­ onsansatz und Problemlösungsansatz bei Kendziorra (1976)". PzL 13/14.168-94. Review of E. Kendziorra 1976. Meid, Wolfgang and Karin Heller (eds.) 1976 Textlinguistik und Semantik: Akten der 4. Arbeitstagung Osterreichischer Linguisten, Innsbruck, 6. bis 8. Dezember 1975. (= Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 17.) Innsbruck: H. Kowatsh, 283 pp. See: K. Sornig 1976. Meier, Georg F. 1969 "Wirksamkeit der Sprache (Einige theoretische und methodisch­ praktische Grundfragen zur Wirksamkeit der Sprache im Kommu­ nikationsprozess)". ZPhon 22.474-92. Reprinted in S. J. Schmidt (ed.) 1974, 63-83. M. rejects the distinction between semantics and pragmatics and proposes not to use the multiply ambiguous term 'prag­ matics' at all. In order to cope with the functioning of language (i.e. to construct a 'functional linguistics') he suggests that levels of linguistic analysis such as grammar, lexicon and stylistics should be subordinated to semantic theory. He offers an elaborated communication model. He con­ cludes with some methodological considerations. Melis, L. See: Geerts, W. and Լ. Melis. Melka-Teichroew, J. 1975 "Language in context with politeness". HandVlFC 30.153-63. A critique of R. Lakoff's account of politeness rules. M. ar­ gues that politeness cuts across all the aspects of language use that are primarily determined by social factors.

152

PRAGMATICS

Mendelius, Cezary 1975 Review of V. Fried (ed.) 1972. Linguistics 159.73-78. Merritt, Marilyn 1976 "On questions following questions in service encounters". LiS 5:3.315-57. It is argued that the customer-request—server-response se­ quence in service encounters often does not adhere to the question-answer pattern but is a question-question sequence. Different question-question patterns, related to the prag­ matic interpretation of the customer-request as a request for information or a request for service, are distinguished. Metzing, Dieter W. 1975 Formen Kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Argumentationsanalyse. (= IPK-Forschungsberichte 25.) Hamburg: . Buske, viii, 155 pp. An approach to the analysis of argumentation in natural language from the point of view of two of the devices to link utterances to each other: (i) inference and presupposition, which are des­ cribed in terms of formal logic (i.e. 'Argumentationsanalyse I'); (ii) speech acts, described in terms of rules of behaviour (i.e. ' Argumentationsanalyse II'). Meunier, André See: Authier, J., D. Clément and A. Meunier. Mey, Jacob Լ. 1972 "Some practical aspects of a theory of linguistic performance". PICL 11:2.111-23. An attempt to answer the following questions: What does lin­ guistic performance do ? What place does it have in a theory of communication ? What are the practical implications of such a theory in connection with actual language use ? How is all this relevant to problems of linguistically underprivileged groups ? 1977

Review of B. Schlieben-Lange 1975. JoP 1:1.99-104.

Mey, Jacob L. See also: Haberland, H. and J. L. Mey. Meyer, Meinert A. 1976 "Sprechen als Handeln: Von Wittgensteins Sprachspielen zu einer sprachlichen Handlungstheorie". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 317-26. Starting from Wittgenstein's theory of language games, M. tries to sketch a theory of linguistic action.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

153

Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard 1976 "Direkter und indirekter Sprechakt". DSp 4:1.1-19. A critical overview of some investigations of the problem of direct and indirect speech acts. M. concludes that the two concepts are not very well established. Possible solutions for the remaining problems are sketched. Mganga, J. D. See: Whiteley, W. H. and J. D. Mganga. Micheli, Gillian 1974 "'Obviously I concede ...'; Performatives and sentence adverbs". PCLS 10.436-45. M. argues that -ly adverbs in performative utterances do not constitute counterevidence to the performative analysis, be­ cause evidence concerning their behaviour indicates that they must be analysed differently from sentence adverbials in nonperformative sentences, and that they originate in structures in which the source of the adverb is not a predicate dominating the performative verb. 1976

"Indicating the truth of propositions: A pragmatic function of sentence adverbs". PCLS 12.495-505. The author tries to show that the interpretation of sentence adverbs, more specifically modal adverbs such as 'obviously', 'clearly', 'certainly', ' probably', etc., depends crucially on pragmatic considerations, especially the speaker's beliefs about the availability to the hearer of evidence from which his assertion follows as a conclusion.

Miller, Helen 1973 "Thematization in Mamanwa". Linguistics 110.55-73. Thematization in Mamanwa discourse is shown to involve the com­ plex interrelation of all levels of the grammatical hierarchy above the phrase. Mittwoch, Anita 1976 "Grammar and illocutionary force". Lingua 40:1.21-42. M. argues (i) that some conditions of non-matching sentence types are not a matter of syntax but of illocutionary force, and (ii) that a grammar needs a separate pragmatic component though it must interlock with the syntactic-semantic compo­ nents . Mohan, Bernard A. 1974 "Principles, postulates, politeness". PCLS 10.446-59.

154

PRAGMATICS

Though M. agrees with the fact that some kind of conversational postulates is needed to derive conversational implicatures, he argues that an account must show in addition (i) that the lin­ guistic expression Լ which entails the conversational implicature  given conversational postulates CP, is dissonant with a conversational maxim CM; (ii) that  resolves this dissonance; (iii) that conveying rather than saying  is justified, usually by a second implicature R which is accounted for in terms of non-conversational maxim M; (iv) that CP and CM systematize some aspect of pretheoretical intuitions about conversation as rational action. Hence, Grice's outline of a pragmatic theory of linguistic communication needs further elaboration. Montague, Richard 1970 "Pragmatics and intensional logic". Synthese 22:1/2.68-94. Re­ printed in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.) 1972, 142-68. Ger­ man translation in S. J. Schmidt (ed.) 1974, 187-211. An attempt to grasp aspects of the context-dependence of lan­ guage in a logical system. The 'pragmatic language' that M. builds up is an extended predicate logic which contains ex­ pressions (especially intensional operators) the interpretation of which also depends on the context of use (e.g. 'necessari­ ly' , 'I', 'here', 'now', etc.). Montague, Roger 1969 "Presupposing". PhQ 19.98-110. Reprinted in J. S. Petőfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 117-36. M. discusses the relation between presupposition and entailment, with special reference to Strawson's views and G. Nerlich 1965. Montefiore, A. 1967 "The meaning of 'good' and the act of commendation". PhQ 17:67. 115-29. Montefiore, A. See also: Williams, B. and A. Montefiore (eds.). Moravcsik, J. M. E. (ed.) 1974 Logic and Philosophy for Linguists: A Book of Readings. The Hague: Mouton, 347 pp. See: J. Hintikka 1969. (Reviewed by: G. Harman 1977.) Morgan, Jerry L. 1969 "On the treatment of presupposition in transformational grammar" PCLS 5.167-77. Reprinted in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 373-87.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

155

M. explores some aspects of the phenomena of presupposition in order to determine how presuppositions should be treated in a theory of grammar intended to give an account of meaning. Con­ clusion: presupposition ought to be represented as the comple­ ment of an abstract performative verb of presupposing.. Revised in J. L. Morgan 1973. 1970

"On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion". PCLS 6. 380-89. Phenomena of coreference (i.e. conditions on the use of EquiNP deletion) are explained in terms of presupposition; the simple 'criterion of identity' for the application of the rule is shown to be inadequate.

1973

"How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all ?". PCLS 9.410-27. M. refutes his own 1969 claim that the presuppositions of a sentence ought to be represented as complements of an abstract performative verb of presupposing conjoined to the left of the sentence.

1975a "Some interactions of syntax and pragmatics". In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 289-303. M. claims that it is impossible to hold the following two assumptions simultaneously: (i) grammar is pragmatically trans­ parent, i.e. the principles involved in the derivation do not obscure properties having crucial pragmatic consequences; (ii) the principles of the pragmatic component are grammar-free, i.e. they have to do with the content of sentences but are in­ dependent of the form. 1975b "Some remarks on the nature of sentences". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 433-49. M. attacks the view that sentences are abstract formal objects, which he claims to be present not only in Chomskyan linguistics but also in generative semantics and some of the work by the Prague functionalists and by Halliday. The alternative he pro­ poses is a view of a sentence as an event, an act or a sequence of related acts, in which intentions play a crucial role. In his discussion, M. refers in particular to problems arising in connection with relative clauses and definite descriptions. 1977

"Conversational postulates revisited". Lg 53:2.277-84. Reviewing D. Gordon and G. Lakoff 1971, M. argues (i) that their term 'postulate' is misleading, (ii) that their concept

156

PRAGMATICS

of conversational implicature as a case of entailment is mis­ taken, (iii) that their view of the interaction of conversa­ tional implicature and syntactic rules is based on an incorrect analysis. Morgan, Jerry L. See also: Cole, P. and J. L. Morgan (eds.)· Morin, Yves . and Michael H. O'Malley 1969 "Multi-rooted vines in semantic representation". PCLS 5.178-85. M. and 0. argue that a single connected tree headed by a per­ formative is not the best semantic representation for sentences with sentential predicates. Instead, multi-rooted vines (dis­ connected trees with indices) are proposed as an alternative structure. Such structures also appear to underlie presuppo­ sitions. Mukarovský, Jan 1964 "Standard language and poetic language". In P. L. Garvin (ed.) 1964, 17-30. Reprinted in D. C Freeman (ed.) 1970, 40-56. The concept of 'foregrounding' is posited as central to a functional definition of poetic language. Muller, Richard M. 1977 "Kommunikative Kompetenz und Arbitrarität - Pragmalinguistische Irrwege der Fremdsprachendidaktik". LD 29.63-77. Some dangers in the pragmatic approach to language teaching are pointed out. To distinguish structural from pragmatic aspects of language, M. recommends the criterion of 'arbitrariness ' . Müller, Robert 1975 "Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um die Wortfeldtheorie". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1975, 227-38. A critique of Fillmore's account of verbs of judging. Muraki, Masatake 1970 "Presupposition and pseudo-clefting". PCLS 6.390-99. A primitive two-place predicate 'is presupposed for' is intro­ duced to explain phenomena of pseudo-clefting (as in sentences such as "The one who hit Mary was John"). 1972

"Discourse presupposition". PIL 5:2.300-20. An investigation of 'discourse presuppositions', i.e. pre­ suppositions that are presupposed by the discourse, i.e. by both the speaker and the addressee on the basis of what has

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

157

been said or implied in the preceding part of the discourse. 1974

"Presupposition in cyclic lexical insertion". FL 11:2.187-214. A discussion of predicate raising and some related rules that are necessary for the insertion of lexical items that carry presuppositions.

Nagy, Gábor . 1973 Abriss einer funktionellen Semantik. (= Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 137.) The Hague: Mouton, 124 pp. Sketch of a 'functional semantics', i.e. a theory to describe the function of meaningful linguistic elements in actual speech, in speech acts. N. approaches the problem from the lexicological point of view. (Reviewed by: F. Bakos 1975.) Napoli, Donna Jo and Marina Nespor 1976 "Negatives in comparatives". Lg 52:4.811-38. In many Italian comparative sentences the negative element 'non' appears, as in "Maria è più intelligente di quanto non sia Carlo" as opposed to "Maria è più intelligente di quanto è Carlo" (both meaning "M is more intelligent than C"). If 'non' is present, the speaker is said to presuppose that his state­ ment contradicts someone else's belief or his own previously held belief. N. and N. argue that the data can be accounted for in terms of a presupposition-free model of syntax. Nebesky, Ladislaw See: Sgall, P. et al. Nerlich, G. 1965 "Presupposition and entailment". APhQ 2.33-42. Reprinted in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 137-57. N. argues that the Strawsonian doctrine of presupposition oscillates between two quite distinct and incompatible po­ sitions (viz. describing presupposition as a necessary con­ dition for a statement to have a truth value, or as a necessa­ ry condition of the speaker's making a statement), the first of which may be plausible but does not sustain the belief that a new logical relation has been discovered, and the second of which is false.

PRAGMATICS

158

Nespor, Marina See: Napoli, D. J. and M. Nespor. New, C. G. 1966 "A plea for linguistics". Mind 75.368-84. Reprinted in C. Lyas (ed.) 1971, 102-18, and in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 148-65. Criticism of Austin's linguistic philosophy (focused on J. L. Austin 1957). N. examines Austin's aims and methods and con­ cludes that the aims are unreliable. Newman, John 1976 "Remarks on 'modality and conversational information'". ThL 3:3. 281-86. Review of J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof 1975. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1971 Review of F. Kiefer (ed.) 1969. Lingua 27:1.93-97. Nieraad, Jürgen 1975 "Anmerkungen zu: Rudi Keller, Zur Theorie metaphorischen Sprachgebrauchs". ZGL 3:1.63-66. Review of R. Keller 1975b. Nierlich, Edmund 1973 "Pragmatik in

die Literaturwissenschaft ?". LiLi 3:9/10.9-32.

On the possible importance of linguistic pragmatics for the study of literature. Niiniluoto, Ilkka See: Bogdan, R. J. and I. Niiniluoto (eds.). Nordenstam, Tore 1966

"On Austin's theory of speech-acts". Mind 75.141-43. Review of M. Furberg 1963.

Norrick, Neal R. 1976 "The two kinds of factive presuppositions". LBer 46.84-89. N. argues that, though all presuppositions have to be des­ cribed as conversational implicatures in context, in the des­ cription in a grammar a distinction has to be made between the factive presuppositions of cognitive predicates (e.g. know, realize) and those of non-cognitive predicates (e.g. regret). He claims that the latter are purely logical presuppositions, whereas the former are speaker presuppositions.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

159

Novak, Pavel 1974 "Remarks on devices of functional sentence perspective". In F. Danes' (ed.) 1974, 175-78. N. warns against too hasty proposals of universals within functional sentence perspective. He shows how divergent the devices for the expression of the theme-rheme distinction in different languages can be. Noweli-Smith, P. H. 1960 "Ifs and cans". Theoria 26.85-101. Reprinted in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 166-81. Review of J. L. Austin 1956. 1962

"Contextual implication and ethical theory". PASS 36.1-18.

1967

"Acts and locutions". In W. H. Capitan and D. D. Merrill (eds.) 1967, Art, Mind and Religion, 11-28. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Nuchelmans, Gabriël 1962 "Austin's term 'performative'". ANTWP 54.154-72. 1967

"Taaldaden" [Speech acts] . FdL 8.-208-23. Reprinted in G. Nuchelmans 1976, 111-28. N. traces the history of the notion of a speech act from Prota­ goras to J. L. Austin. He concludes that the concept is ex­ tremely rich and will require collaboration between different scholarly disciplines in order to be described sensibly.

1971

Overzicht van de Analytische Wijsbegeerte [Overview of Analytic Philosophy]. (= Aula-boeken 405.) Utrecht/Antwerpen: Het Spec­ trum, 251 pp. An overview of analytic philosophy, situating the theories of language proposed by Wittgenstein and Austin in their proper historical context.

1974

"Taalwetenschap en wijsbegeerte" [Linguistics and philosophy] . Controversen in de Taal- en Literatuurwetenschap [Controversies in the Study of Language and Literature] , 85-100. Wassenaar: Servire. On the relationship between linguistics and philosophy. N. dis­ tinguishes three areas of contact: the philosophy of language (including speech act theory), linguistic philosophy, and the philosophy of linguistics.

160

1976

PRAGMATICS

Wijsbegeerte en Taal: Twaalf Studies [Philosophy and Language: Twelve Studies]. Meppel: Boom, 192 pp. This collection of essays by N. contains numerous references to speech act theory. Also G. Nuchelmans 1967 is reprinted in it. (Reviewed by: P. A. M. Seuren 1977.)

Nunberg, Geoffrey 1974 "Syntactic relations in types and tokens". PCLS 10.492-503. N. claims that the pragmatic approach to syntax should be applied consistently, as a prior principle of analysis (not just as an alternative when grammar becomes complicated): the grammar should be limited to only those lexical and grammatic­ al features which are necessary to interpretation and could not be derived by strategies of inference; in other words, one should predicate of the type only those features necessari­ ly present in all tokens. Nunberg, Geoffrey and Chiahua Pan 1975 "Inferring quantification in generic sentences". PCLS 11.412-22. N. and P. show that the notion 'generic' does not have to be taken up in semantic representation, because the generic use of articles can be contextually inferred on the basis of the same properties that account for the non-generic uses.

0

Offir, Carole E. 1973 "Recognition memory for presuppositions of relative clause sen­ tences". JVLVB 12:6.636-43. Report of an experimental investigation. Oh, Choon-Kyu 1974a "Presupposition and the applicability of rules". Linguistics 138.63-71. 0. proposes global constraints for grammar which represent the speaker's presuppositions on which the obligatoriness or optionality of a rule depends. 1974b "More on degree of factivity". PCLS 10.517-27. In re-examining L. Karttunen's 1971c distinction between full factives and semi-factives, 0. stresses the pragmaticity of

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

161

presupposition. Full factives are further divided into positive factives (e.g. 'regret', which expresses the speaker's belief that the complement is true) and negative factives (e.g. 'pre­ tend1 , which expresses the speaker's belief that the comple­ ment is not true). In the case of semi-factives (e.g. 'discover'՝ it is argued that the speaker cannot have any positive belief that the complement is false, though he may positively believe that it is true or be neutral as to its truth. In the case of non-factives (e.g. 'believe', 'conclude') the speaker has no positive belief as to the truth of the complement. 1974c "Presupposition and meaning change by transformational rules". In R. W. Shuy and C.-J. N. Bailey (eds.) 1974, 1-11. An attempt to answer the question whether there is a justifiable division between 'basic meaning', retained throughout the application of transformational rules, and 'non-basic meaning', added through the application of transformations. O'Hair, S. G. 1967 "Performatives and sentences verifiable by their use". Synthese 17:3.299-303. öhlschläger, Günther 1976 Review of M. Black 1968. ZGL 4:1.84-92. The review is in German, and based on the German text of Black's book. Ohmann, Richard 1970 "Speech acts and the definition of literature". PhRh 4:1.1-19. A literary work is defined as a discourse whose sentences lack the illocutionary forces that would normally attach to them. Its illocutionary force is mimetic, i.e. a literary work purportedly imitates a series of speech acts. 1971

"Speech, action, and style". In S. Chatman (ed.) 1971, 241-59. 0. proposes to use speech act theory as a framework for the study of literary style.

1972

"Speech, literature, and the space between". NLH 4:1.47-63.

1973

"Literature as act". In S. Chatman (ed.) 1973, 81-107. 0. uses speech act theory to conceptualize the dynamic aspect of literature.

162

PRAGMATICS

Oksaar, Els 1974 Review of S. M. Ervin-Tripp 1973. JChL 1:2.307-17. 1976

"Prinzipielles zur Entwicklung der linguistischen und der kommunikativen Kompetenz im Vorschulalter". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1976, 383-91. Methodological considerations about the study of the acqui­ sition of linguistic and communicative competence. The notion 'communicative act' is taken as the necessary point of depart­ ure.

Oldfield, R.  1968

and J. C. Marshall (eds.)

Language: Selected Readings. Harmondworth: Penguin Books, 392 pp. See: D. J. Bruce 1968; A. R. Luria 1959; P. C. Wason 1965.

Oliver, Marion M. and Joan Rubin 1975 "The use of expletives by some American women". AnL 17.191-97. 0. and R. attempt to show that R. Lakoff's 1973c claim that stronger expletives are reserved for men and the weaker ones for women, is exaggerated and that many other factors in­ fluence the use of expletives. Oller, John W. 1972 "On the relation between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics". Linguistics 83.43-55. German translation in S. J. Schmidt (ed.) 1974, 132-47. An attempt to define syntax, semantics and pragmatics: syntax studies the sequencing of linguistic elements; semantics studies the choice of elements of a certain type; pragmatics studies the interaction between the speaker's knowledge of the world and the syntactic and semantic dimensions. 0. claims that approaching language as a medium for communication requires an integrated theory of syntax, semantics and pragmatics; i.e. pragmatics is not just an appendix to the grammar. 1975

"Pragmatic mappings". Lingua 35:3/4.333-44. 0. expresses the belief that the pragmatic mappings of lin­ guistic units onto extralinguistic contexts form the crucial data in linguistic theory, because without those data it is impossible to explain the processes of producing, understanding and acquiring language.

Oller, John W. and Jack C. Richards (eds.) 1973 Focus on the Learner: Pragmatic Perspectives for the Language Teacher. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House, vii, 306 pp.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

163

(Reviewed by: E. S. Bober 1975.) Olsen, Christopher 1967 "Austin's worries about 'I state that...'". Mind 76:301.111-14. 0. contends that if the distinction between performatives and constatives breaks down, then it is not because 'I state that...' is equally performative and constative. According to 0., Austin blurred the distinction between acts of stating (like "I state that he did not do it") and acts of making a statement (like "He did not do it"). O'Malley, Michael H. See: Larkin, D. and M. H. O'Malley; Morin, Y. C. and M. H. O'Malley. O'Neill, . . 1972 "Conventions and illocutionary force". PhQ 22:88.215-33. Oomen, Ursula 1975 "Kommunikative Funktionen und grammatische Strukturen Englischer Fragesätze". FoL 7:1/2.44-59. On the communicative functions and grammatical forms of English interrogatives. Some applications for language teaching are suggested. Oosten, Jeanne Van 1975 "WHEN, ONCE and AS SOON AS". SJSOPIL 1.172-82. A study of the conditions of use of these three temporal con­ junctions. Opalka, Hubertus 1976 "Zum handlungstheoretischen Ansatz der 'Praktischen Semantik', oder, Mit 'Handlungstheorie' macht man noch keine Handlungs­ theorie". ZGL 4:3.310-20. Review of H. J. Heringer 1974. 1977

"Zum Verhältnis von Intonation und Abtönungspartikeln". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 255-65. On the pragmatic function of toning down particles such as 'noch' (as in "Wie hiess er noch ?") and their relation to intonation.

Osgood, Charles E. 1971 "Where do sentences come from ?". In D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 497-529.

164

PRAGMATICS

0. makes use of the notion 'presupposition' in trying to answer the title-question. (The approach is psycholinguistic.) Őztek, Piyale Cőmert See: Tannen, D. and P. C. Oztek.

 Pahel, K. R. 1969 Review of J. L. Austin 1962. Mind 78:311.433-36. Pala, Karel 1974 "Semantic classes of verbs and FSP". In F. Danes (ed.) 1974, 196-207. The purpose of the paper is to describe the apparatus of the predicate expressions, to use it for some basic types of functional sentence perspective (FSP) , and to show some re­ lations between semantic classes of Czech verbs described by means of the apparatus of predicate expressions and functional sentence perspective. Pala, Karel See also: Firbas, J. and K. Pala. Panagi, Oswald 1975 "Präsuppositionen und die Syntax der lateinischen Komparation". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1975, 361-75. A hypothesis is put forward to explain the difference between the two Latin comparison structures (the case construction and the particle construction) in terms of presuppositions: the case construction (x adj-comparative y-ablative) presupposes that y possesses the quality expressed by the adjective to a significant extent. Parkinson, G. H. R. (ed.) 1968 The Theory of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 188 pp. See: W. P. Alston 1963; J. N. Findley 1961; D. Holdcroft 1964; D. S. Shwayder 1960; G. Ryle 1961; P. F. Strawson 1950a. Parret, Herman 1974 Discussing Language: Dialogues with Wallace L. Chafe, Noam Chomsky, Algirdas J. Greimas, M. A. K. Halliday, Peter Hartmann, George Lakoff, Sydney M. Lamb, André Martinet, James McCawley, Sebastian . Šaumjan, and Jacques Bouveresse. (= Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 93.) The Hague: Mouton, ix, 428 pp.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

165

See: J. Bouveresse 1974; W. L. Chafe 1974; N. Chomsky 1974; A. J. Greimas 1974; M. A. K. Halliday 1974b; P. Hartmann 1974; A. Martinet 1974; G. Lakoff 1974d; J. D. McCawley 1974b. 1975a "La grammaire devant les intentions". In V. Ehrich and P. Finke (eds.) 1975, 187-200. On the question of what intentions certain grammars propose to capture and of what is specific to a grammar which purports to be able to capture intentionality. 1975b "Indépendance et interdépendance de la forme et de la fonction du langage". RPhL 73.56-78. An attempt to answer the question whether the form and function of language are independent or interdependent. 1976a "Principes de la déduction pragmatique". RIPh 30.486-510. P. distinguishes four types of pragmatic regularities, which are defined in terms of the parameters surface/deep, arbitrary/ universal and constitutive/determining: distributive pragmatic rules, implicative pragmatic rules, conditions of satisfaction, and principles of pragmatic deduction. He concentrates on the principles of pragmatic deduction and divides them into the principles of manifestation, generativity, veracity, reciproci­ ty, coordination, cooperation, rationality, charity and huma­ nity. 1976b "La pragmatique des modalités". Langages 43.47-63. On the pragmatics of modality. 1976c "Conventional implications and conversational implicatures". In D. Holdcroft (ed.) 1976, Proceedings of the Warwick Conference in the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. tries to situate Grice's conventional and conversational implicatures in his framework for pragmatic representation (see H. Parret 1976a). He compares and reformulates the two types of implicature. 1977a "Elements d'une analyse philosophique de la manipulation". To appear in Langages 11. P. rejects a praxeological definition of manipulation because it does not take intentions into account, as well as a speech act definition, which he claims to be tautological. Instead, he proposes a definition based on principles of pragmatic deduct­ ion. The manipulatory intention is said to be no supplementary intention of a discourse unit, but rather it can be character-

166

PRAGMATICS

ized in terms of the absence of intentions which are otherwise present. 1977b "A note on pragmatic universals of language". To be published in H. Seiler (ed.) 1977, Proceedings of the Research Conference on Language Universals. Universität Köln. An inquiry into the universality of the principles of pragmatic deduction. 1977c "Illocutionary force representations". To appear in ASeL. An evaluation of the alternative representations of illocution­ ary force proposed by generative semanticists, with respect to fundamental points of discussion in analytic philosophy con­ cerning the relation of illocutionary force to meaning, propositional content and truth value of speech acts. 1977d "Les paralogismes de 1'énonciation". To appear in C. Perelman (ed.), Philosophie et Langage. Bruxelles: Université de Bruxelles. P. argues that in fact the 'linguistique d'énonciation1 ('lin­ guistics of the utterance') is a theory of certain properties of discourse. Pears, David F. 1962 "An original philosopher". TLS February 9, 1962. Reprinted in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 49-58. Description of Austin's philosophy in general. 1966

"Wittgenstein and Austin". In B. Williams and A. Montefiore (eds.) 1966, 17-39. P. compares Wittgenstein's and Austin's answers to the question of how something as superficial as the study of language could lead to the solution of any of the profound problems of philo­ sophy .

1973

"Ifs and cans". In Sir I. Berlin et al. 1973, 90-140. Mainly a review of J. L. Austin 1956, and criticism of some other work on 'if' and 'can'.

Peetz, Vera 1975 "Ifs, hooks and illocutionary acts". Analysis 36:1.13-17. P. investigates 'ifs' in the context of various types of illo­ cutionary acts to find out whether any of these correspond to material implication.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

167

Pelc, Jerzy 1971 Studies in Functional Logical Semiotics of Natural Language. (= Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 90.) The Hague: Mouton, 238 pp. After a general outline of a functional approach to the logical semiotics of natural language, the theory is applied to. the study of meaning (which is described as an instrument), proper names, nominal expressions and literary fiction, and metaphors. Peng, Fred . . 1974 "Communicative distance". LSci 31.32-38. The relevance of the notion 'communicative distance' is tested with respect to a set of empirical data related to Japanese. It is suggested that various kinds of linguistic mechanisms can create and indicate varying communicative distances more suitable for the users of such mechanisms in a one- or two-way communication, regardless of whether the communication takes place in a monolingual or bilingual situation. Percival, Keith 1968 "The notion of usage in Vaugelas and in the Port Royal Grammar". PCLS 4.165-76. Perfetti, Charles A. and Susan R. Goldman 1975 "Discourse functions of thematization and topicalization". JPsyR 4:3.257-71. Thematization and topicalization are conceptualized as related discourse functions which influence sentence processes. Two ex­ periments are reported. Perju-Liiceanu, Aurora 1975 Review of W. P. Robinson 1972. Linguistics 153.87-92. Perret, Delphine 1970 "Les appellatifs: Analyse lexicale et actes de parole". Langages 17.112-18. Discussion of the problems emerging from the lexical analysis of appellatives (such as personal pronouns and proper names) and from the analysis of the speech acts which they make it possible to perform. 1974a "Les verbes 'pouvoir' et Vouloir' dans les énoncés de pro­ position". LFr 21.106-21. An analysis (based on insights in conversational postulates and presuppositions) of the verbs 'pouvoir' and 'vouloir' in proposals.

168

PRAGMATICS

1974b "The sincerity conditions of speech acts and their suspension". Ms. A discussion of cases of linguistic communication (e.g. irony) in which sincerity conditions on speech acts are suspended, i.e. ignored in such a way that this non-observance can be re­ cognized by the hearer. 1976

"On irony". PM 1:7.D3. Some aspects of irony are studied in the framework of speech act theory: P. considers ironic implicatures resulting from the violation of the felicity conditions of speech acts, in which case the irony is said to take the form of an indirect speech act.

Pertridge, A. C. 1963 Review of J. L. Austin 1962. ESAfr 5.105. Peters, Stanley See: Karttunen, Լ. and S. Peters. Peterson, Thomas H. 1969 "A case for the declarative performative verb : Dependent and independent conjunction in Moore and English". PCLS 5.421-28. P. argues that the performative hypothesis can account for the distinction between dependent conjunction (i.e. the con­ junction of sentences that are connected, e.g. in a sequential dependence) and independent conjunction in Moore: dependent conjunction is analyzed as conjunction between sentences with­ in the complement of a single performative verb, whereas inde­ pendent conjunction is treated as the conjunction between per­ formative sentences, each with its own complement. A similar distinction is said to exist in English. Petiot, Geneviève 1977 "Registres de langue et manuels scolaires". LFr 33.68-78. On the notion of 'register' and its importance for language teaching. Petöfi, János, S. 1976 "A frame for FRAMES (A few remarks on the methodology of semantically guided text processing)". PBLS 2.319-29. P. proposes a theoretical framework (frame), called 'text structure - world structure theory', designed to account for people's understanding of texts in terms of FRAMEs (i.e. re­ presentations of commonsense knowledge necessary to under­ stand a standard situation).

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

169

Petöfi, Janos S. and Dorothea Franck (eds.) 1973 Präsuppositionen in Philosophie und Linguistik ֊ Presuppositions in Philosophy and Linguistics. (= Linguistische Forschungen 7.) Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum Verlag, 606 pp. See: J. L. Austin 1962; M. Black 1962a; ö. Dahl 1973; K. S. Donnellan 1966; 0. Ducrot 1969b; K. H. Ebert 1973a; C. J. Fillmore 1969b; .  van Fraassen 1968; D. Franck 1973; Լ. Karttunen 1971a; E. Լ. Keenan and R. D. Hull 1973a; P. Kiparsky and C. Kiparsky 1969; G. Lakoff 1971b; D. T. Langen֊ doen and H. B. Savin 1971; Roger Montague 1969; J. L. Morgan 1969; G. Nerlich 1965; J. S. Petöfi and H. Rieser 1973; J. R. Searle 1969; W. Seilars 1954; R. C. Stalnaker 1970; P. F. Strawson 1950a; D. Wunderlich 1973a. Petöfi, János S. and Hannes Rieser 1973 '''Präsuppositionen' und 'Folgerungen' in der Text grammatik". In J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 485-593. On the use of the notions presupposition and inference ('Fol­ gerung') in text grammar. Petőfi, János S. and Hannes Rieser (eds.) 1973 Studies in Text Grammar. (= FLSS 19.) Dordrecht: Reidel, xii, 348 pp. See: I. Bellert 1973; T. A. van Dijk 1973; W. . Köck 1973; W. Kummer 1973. (Reviewed by: N. E. Enkvist 1977; F. Kiefer 1977.) Pike, Kenneth L. 1967 Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. (= Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 24.) The Hague: Mouton, 762 pp. (German translation of some passages: K. L. Pike 1974.) 1974

"Sprache und Verhalten". In S. J. Schmidt (ed.) 1974, 21-51. Consists in a number of passages translated from K. L. Pike 1967.

Pisarkowa, Krystyna 1976 "Zur Einordnung der performativen Verben". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 163-72. Sketch of a method to classify performative verbs. Pitcher, George Willard 1957 Illocutionary Acts: An Analysis of Knowledge in Terms of Human Acts. Harvard University Ph.D. dissertation.

170 1973

PRAGMATICS

"Austin: A personal memoir". In Sir I. Berlin et al. 1973, 1729.

Pohl, G. See: Behn, M. et al. Polak, Dieter, Klaus Joachim Robach and Hans-Dieter Sander 1977 Semantische Untersuchungen zu den Performativen Verben des Deutschen. (= LBer Papier 49.) Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 60 pp. A semantic study of German performative verbs. Posner, Roland 1972a Theorie des Kommentierens: Eine Grundlagenstudie zur Semantik und Pragmatik. (= Linguistische Forschungen 9.) Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, x, 224 pp. A syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and text linguistic description of acts of commenting. (Reviewed by: J. Lerner 1975.) 1972b "Die kommentierung als Testverfahren in der semantischen und pragmatischen Satzanalyse". In K. Hyldgaard-Jensen (ed.) 1972, 320-34. On the use of commenting (e.g. "Dass es regnet, ist schade" is a comment on "Es regnet") as a testing procedure in the seman­ tic and pragmatic analysis of sentences. Postal, Paul M. 1972a "An invisible performative argument". FL 9:2.242-45. On a problem of coreference. (Commented on by: B. de Cornulier 1974.) 1972b "A few factive facts". LIn 3:3.396-400. P. points out some strange properties of emotive and evaluative factive complements (occurring with 'bad' , 'to resent', 'wonder­ ful1 , etc.). Potter, Mary C., Virginia V. Valian and Barbara A. Faulconer 1977 "Representation of a sentence and its pragmatic implications: Verbal, imagistic, or abstract ?". JVLVB 16:1.1-12. The authors argue that the meaning of a sentence is not repre­ sented through words or images but in an abstract conceptual format, and that this abstract representation, used in computing

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

171

the pragmatic implications of the sentence, is directly access­ ible from either verbal or pictorial stimuli. Potts, Timothy C. 1975 Review of J. Hartnack 1972. FL 12:3.455-57. Price, J. T. 1974 "Linguistic competence and metaphorical use". FL 11:2.253-56. Review of R. J. Matthews 1971. Pride, J. B. 1973 "An approach to the (socio-)linguistics of commands and re­ quests in English". ArchL 4.51-74. It is argued that the choice between the recurrent structural variables of commands and requests is not random, but at least partly determined by cultural, social, interpersonal and many other factors distinguishable from linguistic structure itself. 1974

"The deficit-difference controversy". ArchL 5.35-46. The controversy under discussion is the following: should one view non-standard English as deficient or just as different ? Negation is discussed to throw some light on the problem. P. stresses the fundamental importance of speech acts and speech questions to the question.

1976

"Speech act diversity". ArchL 7:1.66-89. P. argues that the language user rarely requests, apologizes, etc. singly, unambiguously, and in simple conformity with con­ ventionally prescribed norms of rational behaviour. Speech acts are normally extremely varied and multiple. P. provides an outline of how to describe this diversity, in terms of com­ ponents such as 'doing', 'causing', 'intending', etc., and per­ spectives such as 'rights', 'obligations', 'abilities', etc.

Prince, Ellen F. 1976 "The syntax and semantics of Neg-Raising, with evidence from French". Lg 52:2.404-26. Neg-Raising, illustrated with English and French examples (e.g. as applied in "I don't think that Hilda is a genius" as opposed to "I think that Hilda is a genius"), is interpreted as a hedging device. It is said to be applicable only in sentences containing a kind of pseudo-performative, which itself functions like a hedge.

172

PRAGMATICS

Procházka, Oldřich and Petr Sgall 1977 Review (in German) of . Schnelle 1973. Linguistics 186.93-98. Průcha, Jan 1972 "Psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics - Separate or inte­ grated ?". Linguistics 89.9-23. P. suggests that the separate development of psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics might be replaced by an integrated study combining both psycholinguistic (i.e. individual) and socio­ linguistic (i.e. social and contextual) aspects of the function­ ing of language. The theory of 'functional stylistics' is said to provide the linguistic prerequisites for a postulated 'psycho-socio-linguistics'. 1973

"Verbal communication in the classroom - A case for applied psycholinguistics". Linguistics 112.23-38. An attempt to outline certain basic problems of language and verbal communication in school conditions, for which there is no solution so far but which are topical from the viewpoint of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and educational prac­ tice.

1976

Review of T. van der Geest et al. 1973. JChL 3:1.135-37.

Pusch, Luise F. See: Koch, S. and L. F. Pusch. Putseys, Yvan 1977 "Ambiguity in English and Netherlandic universal generics". In Y. Putseys (ed.) 1977, 14-42. Review of J. Lawler 1973, based on contrastive Dutch-English data. Putseys, Yvan (ed.) 1977 Aspects of English and Netherlandic Grammar. (= Contrastive Analysis Series 3.) Leuven: Acco, x, 118 pp. See: A. Brisau 1977; H. Brondeel 1977; L. Goossens 1977; Y. Putseys 1977; J. Verschueren 1977a. Pütz, Hans-Henning 1977 "Strukturelle und pragmatische Sprachbetrachtung: Entwurf einer Unterrichtsreihe im Leistungskursbereich 'Reflexion über Sprache'". DU 29:3.83-99. P. argues that both structural and pragmatic aspects of language should be concentrated on in a course 'Reflections on language'.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

173

Pyle, Charles 1976 "Soft facts". Problems in Linguistic Metatheory: 1976 Confer­ ence Proceedings, 159-82. Department of Linguistics, Michigan State University. P. argues that much of linguistic argumentation (even in pho­ nology, but especially in semantics and pragmatics) is based on 'soft facts*, as opposed to 'hard facts'. He claims that there are no objections against that, because the essence of linguistic communication cannot be characterized differently (since, e.g., what hearers do is transforming physical signals, i.e. hard facts, into beliefs, feelings, concepts, symbols, i.e. soft facts). But he warns against the error of confusing the two (e.g. by arguing against a soft claim on the basis of hard evidence, etc.). Pytelka, Josef 1972 "The Prague School and studies in the language of commerce". In V. Fried (ed.) 1972, 211-23. On the functional approach of the Prague School to the lan­ guage of commerce, and its relevance for language teaching.

Q Quine, Willard Van Orman 1960 Word and Object. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, xv, 294 pp. An essentially non-pragmatic essay in the philosophy of lan­ guage. But the book contains some considerations about truthvalue gaps, interesting for the study of presupposition. 1965

"J. L. Austin: Comment". JPh 62.509-10. (= Abstract of Quine's contribution to J. 0. Urmson, W. V. 0. Quine and S. Hampshire 1969.)

1966

"Quantifiers and propositional attitudes". The Ways of Paradox, 183-94. New York: Random House.

R Radhakrishnan, R. 1972 "A note on a contextual grammar of semantics: The Tamil tra­ dition". AnL 14.14-18.

174

PRAGMATICS

Discussion of the parts on 'contextual grammar' in the earliest extant of Tamil grammar (second century A.D.). Radnitzky, Gerard A. 1962 "Performatives and descriptions". Inquiry 5.12-45. Raff1er Engel, Walburga von 1972 "Language in context: Situationally conditioned style change in black speakers". PICL 11:1.757-63. Raibie, Wolfgang See: Gülich, E. and W. Raibie (eds.). Ramge, Hans 1973 Spracherwerb: Grundzüge der Sprachentwicklung des Kindes, (= Germanistische Arbeitshefte 14.) Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, x, 110 pp. R. investigates language acquisition, concentrating not only on the development of phonology, morphology, syntax and se­ mantics, but also on the acquisition of a competence to per­ form speech acts. 1977

"Language acquisition as the acquisition of speech act compe­ tence". JoP 1:2.155-64. 'Symbolic role-taking' in child language is discussed and evaluated on the basis of speech variants, imitation, selfcorrection and training, and explication and variation with reference to the others' perspective.

Ransdell, J. 1971 "Constitutive rules and speech-act analysis". JPh 68:13.385-400. Raphael, D. D. 1956 "Linguistic performances and descriptive meaning". Mind 65. 516-21. R. argues that the descriptive meaning of 'know', 'true', 'good', etc. has to be distinguished from the linguistic per­ formances for which those words can be used. Raskin, Victor 1975 Review of D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971. FL 13:3.457-66. Rath, Rainer 1975 "'Doch' - Eine Studie zur Syntax und zur kommunikativen Funk­ tion einer Partikel". DSp 3:3.222-42. On the syntax and the communicative function of the German particle 'doch'.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

Reeder, Ken 1975 "On young children's discrimination of illocutionary force". PM 1:5.D8. Question: at what stage in language acquisition do children begin to interpret the pragmatic intent of situated utterances appropriately ? Rehbein, Jochen 1972 "Entschuldigungen und Rechtfertigungen: Zur Sequenzierung von kommunikativen Handlungen". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 288-317. A description of excuses and justifications as speech acts with strong sequencing conventions. Rehbein, Jochen See also: Ehlich, K. and J. Rehbein. Reibel, David A. and Sanford A. Schane (eds.) 1969 Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, xii, 481 pp. See: J. S. Gruber 1967. Reier, David 1977 "Interview with Prof. John Searle". In/Out 1.7-14. Reinhardt, L. R. 1967 "Propositions and speech acts". Mind 76:302.166-83. Reis, Marga 1973 "Entanglement of factives". Lin 4:2.261-71. Critical discussion of D. Wilson 1972. Main point: factives need a presuppositional analysis since the entailment analysis proposed by Wilson fails. 1974a "Präsuppositionen in Philosophie und Linguistik". DSp 2:4.287304. Review of J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973. 1974b "Further and's and but's about conjunction". PCLS 10.539-50. Re-examining L. Karttunen's 1973 filtering conditions for 'and', R. maintains (i) that there is no filtering asymmetry between the conjuncts of a coordinate structure, and (ii) that it is sometimes not sufficient and sometimes not necessary that C, in order to be filtered out, stands to the relevant conjunct in the relation of semantic entailment.

176

PRAGMATICS

1974c "Assertion, Negation und 'Fact': Anmerkungen zu P.& . Kiparsky (1971): Kapitel 2". PzL 6.73-89. Partial review of P. Kiparsky and C. Kiparsky 1969. Reis Nunes, G. dos See: Bruxelles, S. et al. Rentsch, H. 1976 "Inhärenzprobleme und Modusdetermination im modernen Schrift­ französisch". LBer 46.31-46. After a brief presentation of different descriptions of the French subjunctive, the author argues that a generative treat­ ment can only be adequate if pragmatic notions are used, e.g. features like 'reportative' and concepts such as hypersentence and super-hypersentence. Rescher, Nicholas 1966 The Logic of Commands. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, xii, 147 pp. (Reviewed by: L. J. Cohen 1969.) Richards, Barry 1971

"Searle on meaning and speech acts". FL 7.519-38. Review of J. R. Searle 1969.

Richards, I. A. 1972 "Functions of and factors in language". JLS 1.25-40. Critical examination of the framework of the functions of lan­ guage offered in R. Jakobson 1964. Richards, Jack C. See: Oller, J. W. and J. 

Richards (eds.).

Riddle, Elizabeth 1975 "Some pragmatic conditions on complementizer choice". PCLS 11. 467-74. The choice between infinitival complements and 'that'-comple­ ments is explained in terms of the closeness or relationship between the speaker and the predication of the complement. That relationship is revealed through the parameters of control, subjectivity, attitude and authority. 1976a "What they say about 'say'''. PM 2:1.Dl.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

177

Evidence is adduced for the existence of only one verb 'say'. Its behaviour is accounted for pragmatically. 1976b "A new look at sequence of tenses". PM 2:3.A13. It is argued that sequence-of-tenses rules are pragmatic rules which select underlying embedded tenses, so that every instance of an embedded tense must be pragmatically motivated and that true optionality and arbitrary gaps in the system cannot exist. Rieser, Hannes 1974 "Einige methodologische Fragen zu T. A. van Dijks Paper 'Text grammar and text logic™. In M. Rüttenauer (ed.) 1974, 174. Methodological considerations about T. A. van Dijk 1974a. 1975

Review of W. Dressier 1972. FL 12:3.445-50.

Rieser, Hannes See also: Petöfi, J. S. and H. Rieser. Rivero, María-Luisa 1971 "Mood and presupposition in Spanish". FL 7:3.305-36. Some Spanish verbs admit both indicative and subjunctive com­ plements: indicative complements carry a positive presupposi­ tion about the truth of the complement, whereas the subjuctive implies a neutral attitude. R. argues that these presupposi­ tions have to be reflected in the underlying structure of the complement. (Similar presuppositions are carried by indicative and subjunctive restrictive relative clauses.) 1972

"Remarks on operators and modalities". FL 9:2.209-41. R. suggests that operators such as performatives, modal verbs and modal adverbials, quantifiers, the conditional 'if', and tenses are best regarded as relational elements in a Phrase Marker. The assumption that there is a separate operator or modality node, is rejected.

Robach, Klaus Joachim See: Polak, D. et al. Robins, R. H. 1952 "A problem in the statement of meanings". Lingua 3:2.121-37. R. argues that Bloomfield's approach to the statement of mean­ ing (with respect to the universal class of words relating to feelings and states of mind) is too remote from the every­ day use of language. He suggests that the notion 'context of situation' provides a more satisfactory method.

178

PRAGMATICS

Robins, R. H. See also: Bazeli, . E. et al. (eds.). Robinson, David See: Durand, J. and D. Robinson. Robinson, W. P. 1972 Language and Social Behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 223 pp. Contains several chapters describing and classifying very di­ vergent functions of language. (Reviewed by: A. Perju-Liiceanu 1975.) Roche, Maurice 1973 Phenomenology, Language and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, x, 361 pp. Contains a chapter on 'conceptual analysis1, including a dis­ cussion of Wittgenstein's and Austin's philosophies. Rodgon, Maris Monitz, Wayne Jankowski and Lucias Alenskas 1977 "A multi-functional approach to single-word usage". JChL 4:1. 23-43. An analysis of the single-word productions of children, re­ vealing developmental changes in the salience of the three types of aspects of language (i.e. cognitive, communicative, and structural-linguistic), and individual differences in functional styles of language acquisition. Rohrer,  1972 "Kann man mit Montagues System die Präsupposition erfassen ?". In . Hyldgaard-Jensen (ed.) 1972, 1-19. On how to integrate presupposition in a Montague grammar. 1973

"Le système de Montague et les présuppositions". Langages 30. 111-24. R. considers how one could treat presuppositions within a Mon­ tague grammar.

Ronat, Mitsou 1974 Review of M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (eds.) 1969. Linguist­ ics 124.94-103. Rosenbaum, Harvey 1975 "Some steps in the acquisition of factive and implicative sen­ tences". PBLS 1.475-85.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

The report of an experimental investigation of the way in which children learn to cope with factive and implicative sentences. Rosenbaum, Peter S. See: Jacobs, R. A. and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.). Rosenberg, Jay F. and Charles Travis (eds.) 1971 Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, viii, 645 pp. See: W. P. Alston 1963; J. L. Austin 1962; L. J. Cohen 1964; K. S. Donnelian 1966; . J. Fillmore 1971; P. Geach 1965; H. P. Grice 1957; E. J. Lemmon 1966; J. R. Searle 1965; J. R. Searle 1968; P. F. Strawson 1950a; P. F. Strawson 1964a; . Travis 1971; F. Waismann 1965b; P. Ziff 1967. Rosenberg, Marc S. 1975a "Factives that aren't so". PCLS 11.475-86. Two issues: (i) the distinction between full and semi-factives is rejected because a) it can be reduced to a distinction in terms of pragmatic factors such as emotivity, b) complement choice is as crucial to presupposition as the semantic features of the verbal predicates, c) the sentence structures adduced to defend the distinction yield different results for the same verbs; (ii) pragmatic principles interacting with the meaning of certain predicates form a better explanation for the factivity of certain verbs than the inherent logical properties of these verbs. 1975b "Why negation would wreak havoc with counterfactive verbs, if there were any". PIL 8:1/2.101-25. Whereas a factive verb presupposes the truth of its complement, whether the verb is negated or not, a paradigm counterfactive verb would presuppose the falsity of its complement, whether negated or not. R. argues that, though some verbs presuppose the falsity of their complement if used in an affirmative sen­ tence (e.g 'pretend' in "John is pretending that he forgot to send that telegram"), such paradigm counterfactives cannot exist. 1975c "Generative vs. interpretive semantics". FL 12:4.561-82. Review of R. S. Jackendoff 1972. Rosengren, Inger 1975 Review of D. Wunderlich 1974. ZGL 3:3.349-57. Rosenthal, David M. 1976 Review of Z. Vendler 1972. JPh 73:9.240-52.

180

PRAGMATICS

Ross, John Robert 1970 "On declarative sentences". In R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.) 1970, 222-72. R. formulates the performative hypothesis : every sentence con­ tains in its deep structure a performative verb as the highest verb; this is not only true of the class of performative utter­ ances but also of the constatives, though in the latter case the verb is more likely to be deleted in the derivational process. (Reviewed by: S. R. Anderson 1971; W. Abraham 1972.) 1975

"Where to do things with words". In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 233-56. An attempt to formulate the conditions under which sentences like "I want you to hand over your valuables" and "Could you hand over your valuables" can get the force of a request.

Ross, Robert N. 1975 "Ellipsis and the structure of expectation". SJSOPIL 1.183-91. An account of the way in which the structure of expectations is relied on to fill the gaps of what is not explicitly said in the process of telling a story and in discourse in general. Roth, Volkbert M. 1971

"Sprachtheorie als Handlungswissenschaft". LBer 12.78-79. A set of brief theses on linguistic theory as a theory of action.

Rubin, Joan See: Oliver, M. M. and J. Rubin Rucktäschel, Annamaria 1973 "Elemente eines kommunikativen Sprachunterrichts". In J. Kolbe (ed.) 1973, Neue Ansichten einer Kunftigen Germanistik, 226-43. München: Carl Hanser. R. emphasizes the importance of augmenting the communication skills of children by means of language teaching, especially in view of the linguistic selection criteria of schools by which children speaking a dialect are disadvantaged. Ruhl,  1972 "'The grammar of hitting and breaking' revisited". Glossa 6:2. 147-54. Review of  J. Fillmore 1970. R. argues that Fillmore's ana­ lysis can be strengthened if anaphoric processes are more ge­ nerally defined, the re-definition involving an equation of the

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

181

notion 'grammatical well-formedness' with the concept 'coherence of discourse'. Rüttenauer, Martin (ed.) 1974 Textlinguistik und Pragmatik: Beiträge zum Konstanzer Text­ linguistik - Kolloquium 1972. (= Papiere zur Textlinguistik 3.) Hamburg: H. Buske, ix, 265. See: T. T. Ballmer 1972a; T. A. van Dijk 1974; . Rieser 1974. Ryan, Alan 1967

"Austin: Faire des chos.es avec des mots". ArchPh 30.20-35. An introductory description of Austin's philosophy of language.

Ryle, Gilbert 1953a "Ordinary language". PhR 62.167-86. Reprinted in C. E. Caton (ed.) 1963, 108-27. On the relation between ordinary language and philosophy (with a lengthy discussion of the meaning of the words 'use' and 'usage'). 1953b "Use and usage". PhR 62. Reprinted in C. Lyas (ed.) 1971, 4553. Reflections on the expressions 'use' (i.e. a way of operating with something) and 'usage' (i.e. a custom, practice, fashion, etc.). R. argues that knowing the meaning of a word or phrase is like knowing a body of unwritten rules to use the word or phrase correctly in an unlimited variety of different settings. 1961

"Use, usage and meaning". PASS 35.223-30. Reprinted in C. Lyas (ed.) 1971, 54-60, and in G. H. R. Parkinson (ed.) 1968, 109-16. (Reviewed by: J. N. Findlay 1961.)

S Sachs, Jacqueline and Judith Devin 1976 "Young children's use of age-appropriate speech styles in social interaction and role-playing". JChL 3:1.81-98. Sacks, Harvey 1976a "On formulating context". PM 1:7.F5. The following issues are discussed: When and why do participants formulate the contexts in which they find themselves ? Is it legitimate to assign a name to the context when participants do

182

PRAGMATICS

not do so ? etc. S. criticizes current views of 'indexicalsł . 1976b "On getting the floor". PM 1:8.Dll. On the conversational function of utterances such as "I heard a good joke". 1976c "Paradoxes, pre-sequences and pronouns". PM 1:8.E6. Three issues: (i) the conversational use of paradoxes such as 'the liar'; (ii) some sequential phenomena consequent upon the use of 'pre-sequences'; (iii) the referential use of pronouns. 1976d "Tying techniques". PM 2:1.Fll. On the use of 'tying terms' (such as pronouns and pro-verbs) which tie utterances to other utterances. Sacks, Harvey See also: Jefferson, G. et al. Sadock, Jerrold M. 1969a "Super-hypersentences". PIL 1:1.1-15. S. compares his own theory of hypersentences with Ross' per­ formative hypothesis, and concludes that neither is entirely adequate. Some of the problems can only be explained by pos­ tulating super-hypersentences, i.e. entirely abstract struct­ ures dominating the highest surface performatives. 1969b "Hypersentences". PIL 1:2.283-70. In order to cope with the performativity of utterances, S. pos­ tulates hypersentences, similar to the higher performative clause in Ross' performative hypothesis. The arguments are different from Ross' , and the theory is worked out in detail. 1970

"Whimperatives". In J. M. Sadock and A. L. Vanek (eds.) 1970, 223-38. Whimperatives are sentences such as "Won't you give me a drink ?", with the form of a question, but the force of an imperative. S. adduces four sets of data which lead to the conclusion that such sentences are closely related syntactically as well as semantically with true imperatives. Therefore, an imperative sentence is assigned to those sentences in their deep representation.

1971

"Queclaratives". PCLS 7.223-31.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

183

Queclaratives are sentences with the surface form of questions but with the semantic value of declaratives. S. attempts to show that such subtle aspects of language use sometimes have a grammatical effect and sometimes do not. If they do, they have to be treated as part of the meaning, the deep structure, of the sentences in question. 1972

"Speech act idioms". PCLS 8.329-39. An attempt to develop a set of criteria capable of telling whether there is any meaning difference that attaches to mul­ tiple speech act significances (as in "Nobody will believe that you speak Sogdian", which can be an assertion, a warning or a prediction).

1974

Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, xi, 168 pp. S. adduces evidence for the performative hypothesis, and tries to account for embedded performatives, indirect speech acts, the distinction between use and meaning, and some 'covert illocutionary acts' in English. (Reviewed by: R. H. Finnegan 1976; G. Leech 1977; P. H. Matthews 1976; J. R. Searle 1976b.)

1975

"The soft, interpretive underbelly of generative semantics". In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 383-96. S. proposes a relation of 'involvement' between a sentence spo­ ken in context and a proposition, and he tries to explain what it means for a sentence in context to involve a proposition.

1976

"Methodological problems in linguistic pragmatics". Problems in Linguistic Metatheory: 1976 Conference Proceedings, 1-27. Department of Linguistics, Michigan State University. S. argues that there is no decent pragmatic methodology. For one thing, there is disagreement already about what is part of semantic content and what is not. Further, there are no suf­ ficient tests to find out whether an implicature is conversa­ tional or not. Moreover, of Grice's characteristics of conver­ sational implicature, 'nondetachability' is not necessary, 'cancellability' maybe is, and only 'calculability' clearly is ne­ cessary, but then in a trivial sense.

1977a "Truth and approximations". PBLS 3.430-39. S. addresses problems of the following type: why is "Sam is approximately six feet tall" a worse approximation of the truth if Sam is 5'8" tall than "That cockroach is approximately six

184

PRAGMATICS

feet tall" if the cockroach is in reality 5'8" tall ? He claims that a pragmatic account is more explanatory than an account in terms of fuzzy semantics. It seems to be the conversational purpose of an estimate that essentially determines how close to the truth it must be to be a 'good' estimate. 1977b "Almost". Ms. To answer the question of how 'almost P' comes to convey 'not P' , S. argues that 'almost P' (instead of meaning 'not P' or presupposing 'not P') conversationally implicates 'not P'. 1977c "Modus brevis: The truncated argument". To appear in PCLS 13. Cases of 'modus brevis' (i.e. natural language arguments in which some steps are not mentioned explicitly) are investi­ gated. The conclusion is that a system very like classical logic governs the distribution of conventional indicators of modus brevis. S. suggests that the whole of English could be treated in a classical way and that the apparent discrepancies could be explained in terms of a theory of language use as proposed by Grice. Sadock, Jerrold M. and Anthony L. Vanek (eds.) 1970 Studies Presented to Robert B. Lees by His Students. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc., xvii, 312 pp. See: C. L. Baker 1970; J. M. Sadock 1970; M. Saltarelli 1970. (Reviewed by: K. Faiss 1975.) Sag, Ivan A. 1975 "The intonational disambiguation of indirect speech acts". PCLS 11.487-97. S. suggests that there are ways to disambiguate direct vs. in­ direct uses of questions, though the disambiguation is not complete: some intonation contours can force a literal inter­ pretation, but no intonation contour can force an indirect interpretation. Sag, Ivan A. See also: Liberman, M. and I. Sag. Saha, G. See: Behn, M. et al. Saile, Günter See: Ehrich, V. and G. Saile.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

Salomon, Louis B. 1966 Semantics and Common Sense. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win­ ston, ix, 180 pp. Introduction to semantics, dealing with topics such as deno­ tation, connotation, ambiguity, vagueness, euphemism, taboo, etc. S. assigns five main functions to language: the inform­ ative or cognitive, interrogative, imperative, expressive and evocative functions, each of which are dealt with separately. (Reviewed by: M. Hollis 1968; W. Kühlwein 1968.) Saltarelli, Mario 1970 "Focus on focus: Propositional generative grammar". In J. M. Sadock and A. L. Vanek (eds.) 1970, 239-54. S. argues (і) that there is a wide range of intuitive relations among sentences which are exclusively identified by an under­ lying concept of 'focus', and (ii) that a theory of generative grammar that best characterizes that concept of 'focus' must rely on an underlying system of 'propositions'. Such a 'propositional grammar' is outlined. Samek, Robert 1965 "Performative utterances and the concept of contract". AusJPh 43.196-201. Sampson, Geoffrey 1971 "Pragmatic self-verification and performatives". FL 7:2.300-2. Though S. believes that performatives have no 'constative' con­ tent, he criticizes R. M. Gale's 1970 attempt to prove that. 1973

Review of Y. -Hillel 1970a. JLS 2.101-5.

1975

Review of N. Chomsky 1972. JLS 4.103-9.

1977

Review of R. M. Kempson 1975. JLS 6:1.51-52.

Sander, Hans-Dieter See: Polak, D. et al. Sandig, Barbara 1973 "Beispiele pragmalinguistischer Textanalyse (Wahlaufruf, fami­ liäres Gespräch, Zeitungsnachricht)". DU 25:1.5-23. Examples of the pragmatic analysis of texts: election manifesto, informal conversation, newspaper report. 1974

"Sprache und Norm, Sprachnorm, Sprachhandlungsnorm". DU 26:2. 29-38.

186

PRAGMATICS

On linguistic norms, especially speech act norms, which are said to be linked to social groupings. Illustrations are taken from the running commentary to a soccer game. Sanford, Anthony See: Garrod, S. and A. Sanford. Savic, Svenka 1975a "Aspects of adult-child communication: The problem of question acquisition". JChL 2:2.251-60. The child's acquisition of questions is approached by studying cases of direct adult-child communication. 1975b "Children's strategies in answering adult' s questions". To appear in N. Waterson and C. Snow (eds.), The Development of Communication: Social and Pragmatic Factors in Language Acqui­ sition. London: J. Wiley and Sons. Report of an attempt to find out how children proceed when they have to answer a question which they do not yet completely un­ derstand. 1975c "Quelques fonctions des questions posées par les adultes aux jeunes enfants". Ms. On some of the functions of questions which children are asked by adults. 1976

"The functioning in twin language in adult-child communication (Preliminary observations on Serbocroatian material)". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1976, 303-14. The communication of twins with adults is shown to be different from (i.e. more complex than) the communication of a single child with an adult.

1977

Language Development in Twins and Non-Twins. University of Beograd, Yougoslavia, Ph.D. dissertation. S. reconsiders the fact that the language development of twins is slower than that of non-twins. It is argued that twins and non-twins simply take different routes to arrive at the same end: twins are said to acquire communicative competence earlier than grammatical competence.

Savic, Svenka and Mirjana Jocic 1975 "Some features of dialogue between twins". IJPs 4.33-51. S. and J. show (i) that during their dialogue with each other, twins do not use any special language unintelligible to those

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

187

around them, and (ii) that the 'telegraphic style1 they use assumes the knowledge of a more complex deep structure which is not realized verbally because of the twin-situation and the context. Savignon, Sandra 1975 "Lecture on communicative competence". Lektos 1:1.87-99. On the relevance of the notion 'communicative competence' to language teaching. Savigny, Eike von 1975 "Meaning by means of meaning ? By no means!". Erkenntnis 9:1. 139-43. S. argues that intention, rather than determining the meaning insofar as convention doesn't, determines the meaning of an utterance where it is appointed this role by convention. 1976

"Die Pragmatik ald Ebene der Überprüfung von Bedeutungshypo­ thesen". LBer 43.1-11. S. tries to answer the question of how to prove or disprove hypotheses about the meaning of sentences or utterances without having to rely on the intuitions of native speakers. This can be done by empirically investigating their use. The author illustrates her point by adducing the 'non-verbal language of German motorists' (in which she distinguishes illocutionary roles, propositions and references) as a simple example.

Savin, Harris B. See: Langendoen, D. T. and H. B. Savin. Sayre, K. 1963 Review of J. L. Austin 1962. PhS 41.179-87. Sayward, Charles 1974 "The received distinction between pragmatics, semantics, and syntax". FL 11:1.97-104. S. argues that the traditional distinction between syntax, semantics and pragmatics is defective in various respects. 1975

"Pragmatics and indexicality". PM 1:4.D5. S. claims that indexicality is not a feature with which one can capture the distinction between semantics and pragmatics (though that is sometimes attempted: semantics is conceived as the quest for a truth definition of languages without indexicai expressions, and pragmatics for languages with indexicai ex­ pressions) .

PRAGMATICS

188

Schachter, Paul 1973 "Focus and relativization". Lg 49:1.19-46. S. argues that the formal similarities of focus constructions and restrictive relative clauses in many languages are due to the fact that both constructions involve the promotion of ma­ terial from an embedded into a matrix sentence, which may be correlated with the semantic process of foregrounding. 1976

"The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above ?". In C. N. Li (ed.) 1976, 491-518. S. presents arguments for and against the subjecthood of three different classes of sentence constituents in the Philippine languages, viz. topic, actor and actor-topic. He concludes that all three share the properties commonly associated with subjects.

Schäfer, H. See: Behn, M. et al. Schane, Sanford Α. See: Reibel, D. A. and S. A. Schane (eds.). Scheck, Ulrich See: Dengel, P. and U. Scheck. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1976 "On some questions and ambiguities in conversation". PM 2:2.D8. S. studies the case in which a question is ambiguous, not as a result of the removal of disambiguating conversational context, but rather as a result of the presence of the conversational matrix itself. Schegloff, Emanuel A. See also: Jefferson, G. et al. Scherfer, Peter 19 76 "Über funktionale Varietäten des Französischen". LBer 46.1-16. Functional varieties of language are defined as bundles of linguistic features ('registers') the occurrence of which is determined by non-linguistic factors ('utterance constellations1). The central concept that S. handles on the level of 'utterance constellations' is the relationship between speaker and hearer (which can be ceremonial, formal politeness, obligations, free collaboration, goodwill, friendship, confidence). Each of those seven types of relationship corresponds with a register. A further description of those registers is given in terms of their morphological, lexical, syntactic and pragmatic features.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

(On the pragmatic level S. borrows notions from speech act theory.) Schiebe, Traugott 1975 Über Präsuppositionen Zusammengesetzter Sätze im Deutschen. (=. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis 17.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. (Reviewed by: F. Kiefer 1976.) Schieffelin, Bambi . See: Keenan, E. 0. and . . Schieffelin. Schiffer, Stephen R. 1972 Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, x, 170 pp. An attempt to construct a coherent theory of meaning, based on Grice's distinction between speaker-meaning and utterancemeaning. Within the realm of speaker-meaning, S. introduces the notion of 'mutual knowledge', the body of knowledge shared by speaker and hearer. Separate chapters deal with the relation between speaker-meaning and speech acts, and between utterancemeaning and convention. (Reviewed by: A. Manser 1976.) Schirn, Matthias 1974 "Einleitung des Herausgebers". In M. Schirn (ed.) 1974, 11-32. S. discusses the notions of speech act, existence and truth as the main themes of analytical philosophy. Schirn, Matthias (ed.) 1974 Sprachhandlung - Existenz - Wahrheit: Hauptthemen der Spracha­ nalytischen Philosophie. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 229 pp. See: W. P. Alston 1964b; J. L. Austin 1950; M. Schirn 1974; J. R. Searle 1965; P. F. Strawson 1950b and 1964a. Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte 1974 "Perlokution: Eine Skizze". STZ 52.319-34. An attempt to incorporate an account of perlocutionary acts into the framework of pragmatics. Some types of perlocutionary acts are discussed with reference to Habermas's 1971 classes of speech acts. 1975

Linguistische Pragmatik. (= Urban-Taschenbücher 198.) Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 148 pp.

190

PRAGMATICS

An introduction to linguistic pragmatics. The history of prag­ matics is traced through American pragmatism, logical empiri­ cism, ordinary language philosophy, the philosophies of K.-O. Apel and J. Habermas to Marxist theories, the social sciences and transformational grammar. Then an overview is given of the tasks and achievements of pragmatics as a universal theory and as an empirical enterprise. Finally, the relationship of pragmatics with semantics, textlinguistics, sociolinguistics and language teaching is touched upon. (Reviewed by: G. Bentele 1976; J. L. Mey 1977.) 1976a "Für eine historische Analyse von Sprechakten". In . Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 113-19. S.-L. claims that there are no universal speech acts: all speech acts reflect properties of the historical setting in which they occur. She sketches an outline of an investigation to be undertaken to prove her thesis. 1976b "Perlokution und Konvention". In . Gloy and G. Presch (eds.) 1976, Sprachnormen III: Kommunikationsorientierte LinguistikSprachdidaktik (= Reihe 'Problemata', Band 48), 58-66. Stutt­ gart: Frommann-Holzboog. whereas for Austin perlocutionary acts were a matter of effects of speech acts, which is the cause of their being neglected afterwards, S.-L. argues that perlocutions are conventional - at least to a certain extent - and can therefore be described in a meaningful way. 1977

"Sprechakte und nicht-verbale Zeichenhandlungen". Ms. S. tries to answer the question of what relations there are be­ tween speech acts and non-verbal signs, what types of speech acts can be translated into non-verbal signs, and what types of Searlean rules determine whether a speech act can be so translated.

Schmerling, Susan F. 1971 "Presupposition and the notion of normal stress". PCLS 7.242-53. S. attacks the view of phonological rules as interpretive rules which operate in a cyclical fashion analogous to the operation of semantic interpretation rules (as proposed by Katz and Postal), by adducing examples of stress placement related to presupposi­ tions which show the inadequacy of the view. 1975

"Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation". In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 211-31.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

The conjunction in the sentence "Harry stood up and objected to the proposal" is said to be asymmetric because that sen­ tence is not equivalent to "Harry objected to the proposal and stood up". Considerations of this phenomenon appear to support Grice's thesis that such sentences are interpreted on the basis of the conversational principle that we talk about events in the order in which they occurred; but it turns out that not all cases can be explained on the basis of that principle. Schmidt, Richard W. 1974 "The functional development of language in a child of two-anda-half years". L&S 17:4.358-68. Halliday's 1975 functional model of language acquisition is applied to the speech of a child of 30 months old. It is shown that at this stage the child's language of control is very rich. Schmidt, Siegfried J. 1969 Bedeutung und Begriff: Zur Fundierung einer Sprachphilosophischen Semantik. (= Wissenschaftstheorie und Philosophie 3.) Braunschweig: F. Vieweg und Sohn, 176 pp. This book is on semantics rather than pragmatics, but in the chapter on 'Typologie von Bedeutungstheorien' Austin's speech act theory is discussed amongst other theories of meaning. 1971

"Das 'kommunikative Handlungsspiel' als Kategorie der Wirklich­ keitskonstitution". In K. G. Schweisthal (ed.) 1971, 215-27. Reprinted in S. J. Schmidt (ed.) 1974, 103-17. S. discusses the notions 'meaning' and 'concept' from the view­ point of language as a system of communication that is realized in the form of 'communication games'. The discussion starts from the idea that 'reality' is only accessible to people in an already interpreted and linguistically transformed form.

1973

Texttheorie: Probleme einer Linguistik der Sprachlichen Kommu­ nikation. München: W. Fink, 184 pp. General overview of problems in the description of texts, i.e. instances of linguistic communication. The point of view is mainly pragmatic (based on notions such as speech act, lan­ guage game, communicative action game, presupposition, etc.). (Reviewed by: W. Voigt 1975.)

1976

"Towards a pragmatic interpretation of 'fictionality'". In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) 1976, 161-78.

Schmidt, Siegfried J. (ed.) 1974 Pragmatik I: Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Erforschung der

192

PRAGMATICS

Sprachlichen Kommunikation. München: W. Fink, 211 pp.

(=. Kritische Information 11.)

See: Y. Bar-Hillel 1954; J. Frese 1967; P. Hartmann 1965; G. F. Meier 1969; R. Montague 1970; J. W. Oller 1972; K. L. Pike 1 9 7 4 ; S. J. Schmidt 1971; J. R. Searle 1965; T. Slama-Cazacu 1970; R. C. Stalnaker 1970. Schmidt-Knaebel, Susanne 1976 "Syntakto-semantische und pragmatische Aspekte des Sprechver­ haltens bei schizophrenen Probanden". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 207-19. On syntactic-semantic and pragmatic aspects of schizophrenic discourse. Schmitz, Ulrich See: Bickmann, H.-J. and U. Schmitz. Schneider, Hans Julius 1975 Pragmatik als Basis von Semantik und Syntax. Frankfurt am Main: Suhramp. (Reviewed by: H. van den Boom 1976.) Schnelle, Helmut 1970 "Pragmatics in natural languages". LBer 10.49-51. Report of a symposium on pragmatics. 1971

"Language communication with children - Toward a theory of language use". In Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.) 1971, 173-93. The main argument in favour of abstracting from the context and from the communicative nature of language use in linguistics is that a complete account would require encyclopaedic know­ ledge. S. argues that this argument holds for completely d e ­ veloped languages but not for restricted languages. Therefore he singles out child language as a field of investigation in view of a theory of language use.

1973

Sprachphilosophie und Linguistik: Prinzipien der Sprachanalyse a priori und a posteriori. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 329 pp. General study of problems in the philosophy of language and linguistics, with a final chapter on speech acts. (Reviewed by: 0. Procházka and P. Sgall 1977.)

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

193

Schnitzer, Marc L. 1971 "Presupposition, entailment, and Russell's theory of descriptions". FL 7:2.297-99. S. reviews L. R. Horn's distinction between presupposition and entailment in the light of Russell's theory of descriptions. Schödel, Siegfried (ed.) 1972

Linguistik. München: Bayerischer Schulbuch-Verlag, 194 pp. See: D. Wunderlich 1969 and 1970.

Schreiber, Peter A. 1972 "Style disjuncts and the performative analysis". LIn 3:3.321-47. Style disjuncts (i.e. surface adverbials like 'frankly' in "Frankly, Merlin is a genius") are said to derive from manner adverbs which, in turn, derive from a higher predicate (more precisely, an adjective). According to S. this adverb analysis provides indirect support for the performative hypothesis, which in turn provides a framework in which a number of general­ izations can be captured about the distribution and interpret­ ation of style disjuncts. Schüle, Klaus 1976a Sprechhandlungstheorie und Sprechtätigkeitstheorie. (= LBer Papier 48.) Wiesbaden: Vieweg Verlag, 55 pp. Though speech act theory ('Sprechhandlungstheorie') is the most advanced part of the study of language with respect to the role that language plays in reality, it is criticised for not yet being advanced enough in that respect: its method is a purely logical (or intuitive) analysis; it ignores the histo­ rical dimension of reality (in the Marxist sense); it ignores the cognitive psychological basis and the social use of lan­ guage. S. proposes a 'speech activity theory' ('Sprechtätig­ keitstheorie') that would avoid all those shortcomings. 1976b "Die zerstückelte Sprechtätigkeitstheorie: Notiz zu Axel Vielaus fremdsprachlichem Unterrichtsmodell". LBer 41.58-60. Review of: Axel Vielau, 1975, "Ausbildung fremdsprachlicher Be­ griffe: Ein Unterrichtsmodell auf Basis der Interiorisierungstheorie Galparins". LBer 37.77-91. (S. argues that Vielau fails to take the principles of 'speech activity theory' into account.) Replied to by A. Vielau 1976. 1976c "Die fremdsprachendidaktische Reichweite der Sprechtätigkeits­ theorie, Oder: Die Dialektik zwischen Anpassung und Aufklärung". LD 27.190-209.

194

PRAGMATICS

On the relevance of speech activity theory for the teaching of foreign languages. Schulz, Gisela See: Dieckmann, W. and G. Schulz. Schumm, George F. See: Lycan, W. G. and G. F. Schumm. Schwartz, Arthur 1976 "On the universality of subject: The Ilocano case". In C. N. Li (ed.) 1976, 519-43. S. argues that focus in Ilocano is subject. Schwarz, David S. 1976 "Notes from the pragmatic wastebasket: On a Gricean explanation of the preferred interpretation of negative sentences". PM 2:1. E4. S. argues preferred sentences pragmatic 1977

that D. Wilson's 1975 pragmatic explanation of the presuppositional interpretation of negative factive is inadequate in certain respects. An alternative explanation is offered.

"On pragmatic presupposition". LaPh 1:2.247-57. S. argues that the notions of semantic and pragmatic presupposi­ tion describe two distinct types of phenomena, so that valid counterexamples to a particular theory of semantic presupposi­ tion cannot be covered by a theory of pragmatic presupposition.

Schwarze, Christoph See: Guhl, . and C. Schwarze. Schwayder, David S. 1960 "Uses of language and uses of words". Theoria 26.31-43. Reprint­ ed in G. H. R. Parkinson (ed.) 1968, 128-40. S. defines a 'use of language' as a category of language acts (corresponding to the notion of illocutionary force). In per­ forming a language act, the speaker conforms to conventions according to which the occurrence of expressions used by him indicates that particular conditions must obtain if the act is to succeed. A 'use of a word' is defined as any package of con­ ditions which can thus be indicated by the use of some express­ ion. This theory is applied to a problem of Frege. 1977

"A semantics of utterance". In P. A. French et al. (eds.) 1977, 104-19.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

S. proposes a theory of semantics to describe utterances as actions. In an appendix the theory is applied, by way of illustration, to cases such as accepting, refusing, asking questions, telling, etc. Schweisthal, K. G. (ed.) 1971 Grammatik, Kybernetik, Kommunikation: Festschrift für A. Hoppe. Bonn: F. Dümmler, 230 pp. See: S. J. Schmidt 1971. Schweller, Kenneth G., William F. Brewer and Deborah A. Dahl 1976 "Memory for illocutionary forces and perlocutionary effects of utterances". JVLVB 15:3.325-37. Report of some experiments. Searle, John R. 1962 "Meaning and speech acts". PhR 71:4.423-32. On the relevance of the attempt to capture (part of) the meaning of a word (e.g. 'good', 'true') by observing the speech acts for the performance of which they can be used. 1965

"What is a speech act ?". In M. Black (ed.) 1965, 221-39. Re­ printed in J. R. Searle (ed.) 1971, 39-53, in J. F. Rosenberg and C. Travis (eds.) 1971, 614-28, and in P. P. Giglioli (ed.) 1972, 136-54. German translation in S. J. Schmidt (ed.) 1974, 84-102, and in M. Schirn (ed.) 1974, 33-53. According to S. illocutionary acts, which he regards as the minimal units of linguistic communication, are performed in accordance with constitutive rules (as opposed to regulative ones). Illocutionary acts contain propositions (consisting of a certain reference and a certain predication). The meaning of a speech act is determined by intentions and conventions. S. illustrates how the necessary and sufficient conditions and the rules for the performance of a certain speech act can be formulated (taking into account the foregoing considerations about the nature of illocutionary acts). His example is the act of promising.

1966a "Assertions and aberrations". In B. Williams and A. Montefiore (eds.) 1966, 44-54. Reprinted in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 205-18. S. reviews Austin's (1957) thesis 'no modification without aberration', which means that expressions such as 'voluntarily' and 'intentionally', used to modify descriptions of actions, can only be used if these actions are in some sense aberrant. S. reformulates Austin's slogan as 'no remark without remarkableness' which can be regarded as a basic condition on

196

PRAGMATICS

assertions: it is not relevant to say about an action that it was done voluntarily unless one assumes that it could have been different. (Reviewed by: A. R. White 1967.) 1966b Review of M. Furberg 1963. PhR 75.389-91. 1967

"Theory of human communication and the philosophy of language: Some remarks". In F. E. X. Dance (ed.), Human Communication Theory, 116-29. New York: Holt. German translation in R. Wiggershaus (ed.) 1975, Sprachanalyse und Soziologie, 301-18. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

1968

"Austin on locutionary and illocutionary acts". PhR 77:4.405-24. Reprinted in Sir I. Berlin et al. 1973, 141-59, and in J. F. Rosenberg and  Travis (eds.) 1971, 262-75. S. replaces Austin's distinction between locutionary acts (in­ cluding phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts) and illocutionary acts by a distinction between phonetic acts, phatic acts, propositional acts (i.e. reference and predication) and illocu­ tionary acts. (Reviewed by: L. W. Forguson 1973; D. Holdcroft 1974.)

1969

Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 203 pp. Section on proper names re­ printed in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 159-71. S. distinguishes utterance acts, propositional acts (reference and predication) and illocutionary acts (e.g. promising, questioning, etc.), which can all be present in a single total speech act. He offers a method for formulating rules for the performance of illocutionary acts and the acts of referring and predicating. The insights gained in that way are applied to the following philosophical problems : the na­ turalistic fallacy fallacy, the speech act fallacy, the assert­ ion fallacy, the theory of descriptions, proper names, and how to derive 'ought' from 'is'. (Reviewed by: W. P. Alston 1970; J. Blakenship 1970; B. G. Campbell 1974; L. J. Cohen 1970; B. Fraser 1974; D. H. Hirsch 1976; Լ. Holborow 1972; Α. Koller 1970; Լ. Linsky 1972; . Richards 1971; . Siertsema 1973.)

1971

"The problem of proper names". In D. D. Steinberg and L. Α. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 134-41. Reprinted portion of J. R. Searle 1969. An attempt to clarify

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

197

the distinction between proper names and definite descriptions or to answer the question "Do proper names have senses ?" in the light of the rules S. formulated for acts of referring, especially the rule that for the successful performance of an act of reference in the utterance of an expression, either the expression must be an identifying description or the speaker must be able to produce an identifying description on demand (i.e. the principle of identification). 1972

"Chomsky's revolution in linguistics". NYRB 18:12.16-24. S. criticizes the interpretive semantics associated with transformational grammar, because its account of meaning is either circular or inadequate. He contends that a speech act theory, describing meaning in terms of rules and in terms of the speaker's intentions, avoids both circularity and inade­ quacy .

1974

"Meaning, communication and representation". Ms. Instead of assuming, as he and many others did before, that meaning has to be analysed in terms of communication, S. assumes in this paper that communication is derived from meaning. He describes meaning as an intentional and conventional repre­ sentation of a state of affairs. All representations are made in a particular illocutionary mode.

1975a "Indirect speech acts". In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) 1975, 59-82. Indirect speech acts are analysed as double illocutionary acts : the primary illocutionary act (i.e. the ultimately intended one) and the secondary act (i.e. the one by means of which the primary force is indirectly obtained). Nothing is added to the original sentence meaning, but there is an additional speaker meaning. The possibility of using some sentences as indirect speech acts (while others cannot be used like that) is ex­ plained in terms of their obvious relation to the conditions governing the ultimately intended (i.e. primary) speech act. For instance, a positive answer to "Can you reach the salt ?" (or a situation in which that question can be answered positive­ ly) would fulfil one of the preparatory conditions for making a request to pass the salt: in order to make a request, the speaker must assume that the hearer can comply with the request. 1975b "The logical status of fictional discourse". NLH 6:2.319-32. An exploration, based on speech act theory, of the difference between fictional and serious utterances.

198

PRAGMATICS

1976a "A classification of illocutionary acts". LiS 5:1.1-23. Under the title "A taxonomy of illocutionary acts" in K. Gunderson (ed.) 1975, 344-69. S. does not want to provide a classification of illocutionary or performative verbs, but of illocutionary acts. He distin­ guishes , mainly on the basis of his speech act analysis in J. R. Searle 1969, twelve dimensions along which speech acts or illocutionary acts can differ. Then he points out weaknesses in Austin's 1962 taxonomy and proposes an alternative one. He distinguishes five classes of illocutionary acts: represent­ atives, the point of which is to represent a state of affairs (e.g. to state, to describe); directives, the point of which is to make the hearer do something (e.g. to command); commissives, by means of which the speaker commits himself to doing something (e.g. to promise); expressives, the point of which is to express a psychological state (e.g. to congratu­ late); declarations, which are used to bring something about in the world (e.g. to declare war). Finally, S. shows how the basic illocutionary types he distinguished are realized in the syntax of a natural language such as English. (Reviewed by: N. J. Brown 1977.) 1976b "The rules of the language game". TLS 3,887 (September 10). 1118-20. Review of N. Chomsky 1975. Main points of criticism: (і)  scientist proposing autonomous syntax is certainly not more 'neutral' than a linguist or philosopher approaching language from the point of view of communication; (ii) Chomsky's main argument for the innateness of a 'universal grammar', viz. the fact that the rules of language (i.e. the rules that HE proposes) cannot possibly be conscious because of their com­ plexity, sounds absurd; (iii) Chomsky mistakenly presents em­ piricism and rationalism as rival learning theories, whereas in fact they are epistemological theories; (iv) it is not clear what theory of 'meaning' Chomsky adheres to. With res­ pect to (i) and (ii), counterproposals - from the point of view of speech act theory - are presented. 1976c Review of J. M. Sadock 1974. Lg 52:4.966-71. S.'s criticism is focused both on the performative hypothesis adhered to by Sadock (which S. describes as implausible, though a natural outcome of the transformational paradigm of lin­ guistics) and on his treatment of indirect speech acts as idioms with (at least) two different deep structures. 1976d "Intentionality and the use of language". Ms.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

In the first part of the paper S. uses speech acts as a model to explain intentionality and to show that it is a phenomenon totally different from intensionality, even though sentences which specify intentional states are themselves intensional. Afterwards he makes use of the notion of intentionality to explain speech acts : intentionality is claimed to provide the foundation for linguistic acts; this is an attempt to ground some of the criteria S. used in his classification or taxonomy of illocutionary acts. 1976e "Pictorial representation". Ms. The practice of pictorial representation is explained in terms of 'intentions' and 'resemblance'. Different forms of pictorial representation are distinguished and compared with different types of speech acts. Though linguistic and pictorial repre­ sentations have much in common (e.g. reference; predication; assertive, expressive, commissive illocutionary force; even quantifiers, negation, binary connectives) they are separated by the fact that pictures can only represent by way of the possibility of visual resemblance. Searle, John R. (ed.) 1971 The Philosophy of Language. London: Oxford University Press, 149 pp. See: J. L. Austin 1963; J. R. Searle 1965; P. F. Strawson 1964a. Searle, John R. See also: D. Reier 1977. Sebeok, T. A. (ed.) 1964 Style in Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, xvii, 470 pp. See: R. Jakobson 1964. Sellars, Wilfried 1954 "Presupposing". PhR 63.197-215. Reprinted in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 173-91. S. examines Strawson's account of definite descriptions. He con­ cludes that his critique of earlier accounts is more successful than his own analysis and that both the success of the critique and the weakness of the alternative follow from the cluster of ideas embodied in his notion of presupposition. Semiloff, Holly 1977 Review of R. Lakoff 1975. LSci 44.34-38.

200

PRAGMATICS

Sesonske, Alexander 1965 "Performatives". JPh 62.459-68. Settekorn, Wolfgang See: Landwehr, J. and W. Settekorn. Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1975 Tussen Taal en Denken: Een Bijdrage tot de Empirische Funde­ ringen van de Semantiek [Between Language and Thought: A Con­ tribution to the Empirical Foundations of Semantics]. Utrecht: Oosthoek, Scheltema & Holkema, xxii, 345 pp. The book contains a long chapter on presupposition. A brief history of the notion is followed by S.'s main claim (and some applications): there is no need for a presuppositional logic; instead one has to distinguish between logical form (which does not depend on the context) and semantic form (which in­ cludes elements that are only interpretable if certain con­ textual presuppositions are satisfied). (Reviewed by: J. Van der Auwera 1976.) 1977

Review (in Dutch) of G. Nuchelmans 1976. FdL 18:1.57-60.

Seyfert, Gernot See: Braunroth, M. et al. Sgall, Petr 1969 "L'ordre des mots et la sémantique". In F. Kiefer (ed.) 1969, 231-40. On the theme-rheme structure and its influence on word order. 1972

"Fillmore's mysteries and topic vs. comment". JL 8:2.283-88. An attempt to formulate the constraints governing the (un)grammaticality of the following sentences: "Every oak develop­ ed out of an acorn", "An oak developed out of every acorn", "*An acorn developed into every oak".

1974

"Zur Stellung der Thema-Rhema-Gliederung in der Sprachbeschrei­ bung". In F. Danes (ed.) 1974, 54-74. S. claims that the theme-rheme distinction should find a place in every linguistic description which pretends to grasp the system of language as a whole. The author then goes on to define the place of the distinction in a linguistic description.

1975a "Conditions of the use of sentences and a semantic representation of topic and focus". In E. L. Keenan (ed.) 1975, 297-312.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

After reviewing some pragmatic notions, S. argues that Chomsky's use of the term 'presupposition' is misleading and that his 'range of permissible focus' is determined by the hierarchy of communicative dynamism of the sentence. Further, it is ar­ gued that a semantically-based generative description without global constraints and semantically relevant transformations is possible. 1975b "Focus and the question test". FoL 7:3/4. 301-5. Hypotheses about focus placement can be tested operationally by considering the set of questions which can be appropriate­ ly answered by the given sentence. Sgall, Petr See also: Hajičová, E. and P. Sgall; Procházka, 0. and P. Sgall. Sgall, Petr and Eva Hajičova 1973 "A functional generative description". In W. Klein and A. von Stechow (eds.) 1973, 1-52. S. and H. sketch a framework for generative description in­ corporating functional concepts such as topic-comment, etc. Sgall, Petr, Eva Hajicová and Eva Benešová 1973 Topic, Focus and Generative Semantics. (= Forschungen Lin­ guistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1.) Kronberg: Scriptor, 327 pp. An attempt to incorporate the topic-comment articulation in a generative grammar without global constraints and without se­ mantically relevant transformations. One of the conclusions is that apart from the meaning proper and the presuppositions of a sentence, there is a third semantic unit, viz. 'alle­ gation1 (implied by the positive sentence, while neither it nor its negation is entailed by the corresponding negative sentence). (Reviewed by: D. Weiss 1975.) Sgall, Petr, Ladislav Nebeský, Alla Goralcíkova and Eva Hajičová 1969 A Functional Approach to Syntax in Generative Description of Language. New York: American Elsevier, viii, 122 pp. The approach is mainly mathematical. The book includes a brief section on functional sentence perspective. (Reviewed by: D. G. Lockwood 1971.) Shalom, A. 1966 "L. Wittgenstein, du langage comme image au langage comme outil". Langages 2.96-107.

202

PRAGMATICS

On Wittgenstein's development from his view of language as an image to his view of language as a tool. Shank, Roger C. and Yorick Wilks 1974 "The goals of linguistic theory revisited". Lingua 34:4.301-26. S. and W. argue (i) that the goals of generative linguistic theory were well defined but misguided because of the avoidance of the problem of performance; (ii) that the goals of gene­ rative semantics were not well defined and that its looking to logic to find what linguistics did not offer, was mis­ taken; and (iii) that instead a number of basic human compe­ tencies - in the field of language understanding in context ought to be introduced, which cannot be described within the dominant paradigm. Shanon, Benny 1976 "On the two kinds of presuppositions in natural language". FL 14:2.247-49. S. argues that there are sentences in which the logical and pragmatic presuppositions are not the same, so that not any semantic presupposition is also a pragmatic one. Shatz, Marilyn 1975 "The comprehension of indirect directives: Can two-year-olds shut the door ?". PM 1:5.C3. The paper investigates the young child's ability to respond appropriately to the intended, as opposed to the literal, meaning of indirect requests for action: two-year-olds are said to be able to respond appropriately. Sheintuch, Gloria 1975 "Some pragmatic conditions on the application of NEG-movement". PM 1:7.B2. S. claims that Neg-Raising and Neg-Lowering have opposite contextual distributions with respect to factors such as cer­ tainty/uncertainty of the speaker, control/lack of control on the part of the matrix subject, remote/direct involvement on the part of the speaker. Sheintuch, Gloria and Kathleen Wise 1976 "On the pragmatic unity of the rules of Neg-Raising and NegAttraction". PCLS 12.548-57. Neg-Raising and Neg-Attraction are shown to be functionally related in that the outputs of the two rules bear opposite values of the same set of pragmatic factors (viz. the set surety/uncertainty on the part of the speaker, control/lack

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

of control on the part of the matrix subject over the state of affairs in the complement clause, and indirect/direct percept­ ion by the speaker of the state of affairs in the complement clause). Shell, Olive A. 1975 "Cashibo modals and the performative analysis". FL 13:2.177-99. Higher performative verbs are postulated as a part of the logic­ al structure of the Cashibo language. Main evidence: the occurrence of two modals, 'ka' and 'isa/is' in independent declarative clauses. The hypothesis is said to apply to im­ peratives and interrogatives as well, which also get SAY in their logical structure, which means that the performative re­ fers to the 'speech act itself', not to its illocutionary force. Shenaut, Greg 1975 "Valves: Plumbing the presuppositional depths (or, What's a plug like you doing in a hole like that ?)". PCLS 11.498-513. It is shown that there are differences in the degree of con­ tradiction that results from conjoining some sentence and the negation of some presupposition of the sentence. From that it is concluded that the relations 'presupposes' and 'is the ne­ gation of' are nondiscrete. Sherzer, Joel 1973 Review of C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.) 1971. LiS 2:2.269-89. Shetter, W. Z. 1966 Review of P. A. Verburg 1952. FL 2.187-89. Shugar, Grace Wales 1976a "Text-constructing with an adult: A form of child activity during early language acquisition". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1976, 343-56. S. suggests that the basic linguistic operations that a child learns to master (i.e. substitution and conjunction) can be used successfully only with the help of an internal represent­ ation of 'abstract' situations, which enable the child to cope with states of affairs or 'real' situations. 1976b Review of S. M. Ervin-Tripp 1973. Linguistics 168.87-92. Shuy, Roger W. (ed.) 1973 Some New Directions in Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: George­ town University Press, vii, 149 pp. See: G. M. Green 1973.

204

PRAGMATICS

(Reviewed by: E. L. Keenan and G. J. M. Gazdar 1975.) Shuy, Roger W. and Charles-James N. Bailey (eds.) 1974 Towards Tomorrow's Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, ix, 351 pp. See: P. Cole 1974; B. Fraser 1974b; C.-K. Oh 1974c; M. Steinmann 1974. Siegel, Karsten See: Braunroth, M. et al. Siegert, Folker 1977 "Argumentationsanalyse". In . Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 267-75. Critical discussion of some recent approaches to argumentation (which, according to S., cannot be regarded as a separate type of text), e.g. J. Koppersschmidt 1973. Siegler, Frederick A. 1966 "Lying". APhQ 3:2.128-36. A discussion of the connections between six features of a typical act of lying and a number of locutions used to refer to acts of lying. The features are: the liar must (i) say something, (ii) intend to deceive, (iii) say something which is false, (iv) say something which he knows to be false, (v) believe that what he says is false, (vi) communicate. The locutions include "A was lying", "A was telling a lie", etc. Siertsema, Berthe 1972 "De linguïstische status van J. L. Austin's 'performatives1 en hun verwanten" [The linguistic status of J. L. Austin's ' p e r ­ formatives1 and their relatives]. FdL 13:1.11-31. A critical examination of the linguistic status of performatives, especially of the performative hypothesis. 1973

Review of J. R. Searle 1969. Linguistics 105.114-21.

Sinclair, J. McH. and R. M. Coulthard 1975 Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press, iv, 163 pp. After a brief overview of the literature on discourse structure, language functions and classroom interaction, S. and  present a system to analyse classroom conversations between teachers and pupils. Their system of analysis is partly inspired by the theory of speech acts. After offering a set of analysed speech acts, S. and C. elaborate on further prospects in discourse

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

analysis, especially with respect to doctor/patient interviews, media discussions, committee meetings and one-to-one radio interviews; here they also make use of the concept of presuppo­ sition. (Reviewed by: F. G. A. M. Aarts 1976a; R. I. Binnick 1976.) Singer, M. G. 1971 "The pragmatic use of language and the will to believe". APhQ 8:1.24-34. Sitta, Horst and Klaus Brinker (eds.) 1973 Studien zur Texttheorie und zur Deutschen Grammatik; Festgabe für Hans Glinz zum 60. Geburtstag. (= SdG 30.) Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann, 287 pp. See: E. BeneŠ 1973; . Brinker 1973; . Brinkmann 1973; . Switalla 1973. (Reviewed by: R. Kern 1975.) Skinner, Q. 1970 "Conventions and the understanding of speech acts". PhQ 20:78. 118-38. 1971

"On performing and explaining linguistic actions". PhQ 21:82. 1-21.

Skladanek, Barbara 1975 "The function of context in compound stress assignment". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 481-98. S. shows that, without the assumption of a preceding context, two and three-word compounds tend to be stressed according to Chomsky and Halle1s Compound Stress Rule. But if a context is introduced, stress placement changes and can sometimes be ex­ plained in terms of the intended contextual effects. (The paper reports an experimental study.) Skopek, Lucienne See: Cassell, E. J. et al. Slakta, Denis 1971 "L'acte de Memander' dans les 'Cahiers de Doléances'". LFr 9. 58-73. An analysis of acts of asking (with verbs like 'demander', 'exiger', 'prier', 'réclamer', requérir', 'solliciter', 'supplier') in some 'Cahiers de Doléances' from 1789.

206 1974

PRAGMATICS

"Essai pour Austin". LFr 21.90-105. According to S., situating speech act theory at the point where the theory of language and the theory of action meet, leads to a dead end because it requires the philosophical notion of a 'subject person' (with intentions, will, sincerity, etc.). S. does not propose to follow a different road, but to define a different theoretical position.

1975

"L'ordre du texte". ELA 19.30-42. S. reviews some important works on the question of word order, and redefines the problem in terms of the distinction between theme and rheme. In terms of that distinction he shows that one cannot decide on the problem of word order without reflecting upon the question of 'text order'.

Slama-Cazacu, Tatiana 1970 "The power and limits of the social context of language behaviou CLTA.31-41. German translation in S. J. Schmidt (ed.) 1974, 118-31. S.-C. makes a distinction between total, implicit, explicit, verbal and extra-linguistic context and reflects on the rela­ tionships between them. Then she considers the extent (i.e. power and limits) of the influence of context on language be­ haviour. 1973

"Is a 'socio-psycholinguistics' necessary ?". Linguistics 112. 93-104. Referring to J. Průcha 1972, S. argues that a true psycholinguistics should necessarily be a socio-psycholinguistics, be­ cause it has to take into account the use of language by the concrete individual in his own social context and the real si­ tuation of communication.

Sloman, Aaron 1969 "Transformations of illocutionary acts". Analysis 30:2.56-59. Smith, Barbara Herrnstein 1975 "Actions, fictions, and the ethics of interpretation". Centrum 3:2.117-20. On the distinction between natural and fictive discourse. Smith, Barbara Herrnstein See also: Fish, S. et al. Snow, Catherine 1975 "The development of conversation between mothers and babies".

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

PM 1:6.A2. Reprinted in JChL 4:1.1-22. It is suggested that mothers operate within a 'conversational mode' when talking to babies, and attempt to maximize the child's participation in the conversation. Moreover, the changes in the mother's speech are said to reflect the child's growing ability to function as conversational partners. Sobin, Nicholas 1976

"Pragmatics of lurking". LIn 7:4.726-28. Reply to R. M. Harnish 1975.

Sørensen, Viggo 1976 "Textuality - A pragmatic approach". In F. Karlsson (ed.) 1976, Papers from the 3rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 381-91. Turku. Starting from the view of the pragmatic nature of a text, S. proposes some tools for text analysis. Texts are not described as sequences of speech acts, but as hierarchies of speech acts. Sornig, Karl 1976 "Zum Sprechakt 'Widersprechen', am Beispiel parodistischer Ge­ gentexte". In W. Meid and K. Heller (eds.) 1976, 131-57. An attempt to treat parody as a speech act. According to S., parody is not constituted by some kind of formal structuring, but by the illocutionary intention of the author; in particular, S. views parodies as forms of commenting, more precisely as forms of the speech act of contradicting. Sparshatt, F. E. 1963 Review of J. L. Austin 1962. UTQ 33.104-7. Spears, A. K. 1973 "Complements of 'significant'-class predicates: A study in the semantics of complementation". PCLS 9.627-38. Semantic differences are found between the for-complements and the indicative complements of predicates of the class 'signi­ ficant' , 'surprising', 'odd', etc. The notion of presupposition is used in the discussion. (Reviewed by: L. Goossens 1977.) Spencer, John and Michael J. Gregory 1970 "An approach to the study of style". In D. C 1970, 73-95.

Freeman (ed.)

208

PRAGMATICS

S. and G. argue that literary language, like ordinary language, should be considered in terms of the 'context of situation'. Sprengel, Konrad, Wolf-Dietrich Bald and Heinz Werner Viethen (eds.) 1977 Semantik und Pragmatik: Akten des 11. Linguistischen Kollo­ quiums, Aachen 1976, Band 2. (= Linguistische Arbeiten 50.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, viii, 333 pp. See: E. Apeltauer 1977; W. Bublitz 1977; P. Dengei and U. Scheck 1977; R. Ehret and J. Walther 1977; H. Frankenberg 1977; A. Hübler 1977; H. Opalka 1977; F. Siegert 1977; W. Vandeweghe 1977; R. Wimmer 1977; R. Wonneberger 1977; D. Zaefferer and. H.-G. Frenz 1977; W. Zillig 1977; A. Zuluaga 1977. Staal, J. F. 1965 "Context-sensitive rules in Panini". FL 1.63-72. Examples are given of Panini rules which apply only within certain contexts. 1970

"Performatives and token-reflexives". LIn 1:3.373-81. A squib on Ross' performative hypothesis, with special refer­ ence to relative clauses.

Stalker, Douglas F. 1973 "Some problems with Lakoff?s natural logic". FL 10:4.527-44. Review of G. Lakoff 1970b, with special reference to what Lakoff formulates concerning the notions of logical form and illocutionary force. Stalnaker, Robert  1970 "Pragmatics". Synthese 22.1/2.272-89. Reprinted in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.) 1972, 380-97, and in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 389-408. German translation in S. J. Schmidt (ed.) 1974, 148-65. S. defines semantics as the study of propositions and their relations to possible worlds, whereas he characterizes pragmatics as the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are performed. He assigns two tasks to pragmatics: (i) to de­ fine interesting types of speech acts and speech products; (ii) to characterize speech contexts that co-determine what pro­ positions can be expressed by a given sentence. According to S., 'presuppositions' are the most important aspects of a con­ text. S. claims that 'reference' can only be described pragma­ tically. 1973

"Presuppositions". JPhL 2:4.447-57.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

S. tentatively defines the notion of pragmatic presupposition, suggesting that this notion might yield explanations of lin­ guistic phenomena which are more natural than those given in terms of a semantic notion of presupposition. S. proposes to separate the problem of presupposition from the problem of truth value. 1975

"Indicative conditionals". Philosophia 5:3.269-86. Reprinted in A. Kasher (ed.) 1976, 179-96. Within a formal framework set up with semantic concepts such as content and entailment, and with pragmatic concepts such as assertion and reasonable inference, S. sketches a semantic ana­ lysis of conditionals and defends some principles relating con­ ditional sentences to the contexts in which they are used.

Stampe, Dennis W. 1975 "Meaning and truth in the theory of speech acts". In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds,) 1975. 1-39. Central problems: What determines the illocutionary force of an utterance, and how does the intended illocutionary force determine what one may say in the attempt to bring it about ? Issues like the role of illocutionary-force-indicating-devices, the performative hypothesis, and the truth value of perform­ atives are dealt with. 1976

"Making promises". Ms.

Stanley, Julia P. 1975 "Passive motivation". FL 13:1.25-39. An attempt to formulate the functions and consequences of the passive and to draw attention to its implications in certain contexts . Stassen, L. and T. Walraven 1972 Inleiding in de Deskriptieve Taalkunde II: De Theorievorming in de Transformationeel-Generatieve Grammatika 1965-1971 [introduction to Descriptive Linguistics II: Theory Formation in Transformational Generative Grammar 1965-1971]. Ms. Insti­ tuut Algemene Taalwetenschap, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. This second part of an introductory course in linguistics (par­ ticularly transformational grammar) contains a chapter on pragmatics (pp. 149-60) and a section of a different chapter deals with presupposition (pp. 141-48). Stechow, Arnim von (ed.) 1971 Beiträge zur Generativen Grammatik : Referate des 5. Linguis­ tischen Kolloquiums, Regensburg 1970. (r Schriften zur Lin-

210

PRAGMATICS

guistik.3.) Braunschweig: Vieweg, 295 pp. See: W. Abraham 1971; U. Maas 1971. Stechow, Arnim von See also: Klein, W. and A. von Stechow (eds.). Steffensen, M. 1975 "Questions and answers: The development of responses to 'Wh-?'". Paper read at the 3rd International Child Language Symposium, September 1975, London. Steinberg, Danny D. and Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971 Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, x, 603 pp. See:  E. Caton 1971; . S. Donnellan 1966; C. J. Fillmore 1969a; H. P. Grice 1957; G. H. Harman 1968; P. Kiparsky and C. Kiparsky 1969; G. Lakoff 1971a; D. T. Langendoen 1971;  E. Osgood 1971; J. R. Searle 1971; P. F. Strawson 1964b; P. Ziff 1967. (Reviewed by: R. J. Matthews 1974; V. Raskin 1975; R. 0. U. Strauch 1977.) Steinmann, Martin 1974 "On McCawley on propositions and noun phrases". In R. W. Shuy and C.-J. N. Bailey (eds.) 1974, 65-71. S. claims that if a noun phrase is the subject of an exist­ ential sentence, it is not a 'genuine' noun phrase, because, if an utterance of a sentence is to count as an illocutionary act, then every 'genuine' noun phrase in it must have a refer­ ent. 1975

"Perlocutionary acts and the interpretation of literature". Centrum 3:2.112-16. Central problem: what does a reader do when interpreting a literary text ? (According to S., perlocutionary acts are not rule- governed. )

1976

"Rule competences and rhetorical competences". PCLS 12.610-16. S. distinguishes between grammatical competence, speech-act competence, genre competence, and rhetorical competence.

Steinmann, Martin See also: Fish, S. et al.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

Stepanov, J. S. 1974 "Some burning issues of contemporary semiotics". Linguistics 141.53-65. On the distinction between syntax, semantics and pragmatics, and the interrelation between the three. Steube, Anita 1974 "Funktionalstilistische Differenzierung der Sprache". LAB 10. On the functional differentiation of language. Stich, Alexander 1973 "Persuasive style: Its relation to technical and artistic styles". JLS 2.65-77. In the tradition of Czech functional stylistics (which dis­ tinguishes three functional styles, the colloquial, technic­ al and artistic, corresponding with the communicative, technic­ al and aesthetic functions of language) S. studies a fourth functional style, viz. the publicist or persuasive functional style, and he argues that it really forms a separate category. Stokhof, Martin See: Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof. Strasser, S. 1972 "De dialoog als bakermat van de waarheid: Kritische beschouwing­ en naar aanleiding van Habermas' 'Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz™ [Dialogue as the nursery of truth: Critical re­ flections on Habermas' 'Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz1] . TsF 34:2.323-47. Review of J. Habermas 1971. Strauch, R. 0. U. 1977 Review of D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971. YPIL 7.207-17. Strawson, Peter Frederick 1950a "On referring". Mind 59:235.320-44. Reprinted in J. F. Rosen­ berg and . Travis (eds.) 1971, 175-95, in . . Caton (ed.) 1963, 162-93, in J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 193-220, in P. F. Strawson 1971, 1-27, and in G. H. R. Parkinson (ed.) 1968, 61-85. S. attacks Russell's view that the sentence "The King of France is wise" is false if uttered at a time when there is no King of France. S.'s position: if somebody uses the definite des­ cription 'the King of France' in a uniquely referring way, then

212

PRAGMATICS

the presumption (presupposition) is that he thinks that there is some individual of the kind described and that the context will sufficiently determine which one he has in mind; thus the use of 'the' in that way implies (but does not assert) that the individual referred to exists; if an utterance fails to satisfy that existential condition, then it has no truth value at all. (Reviewed by: E. J. Lemmon 1966.) 1950b "Truth". PASS 24. German translation in M. Schirn (ed.) 1974, 180-206. Review of J. L. Austin 1950. 1952

Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen. Amongst many other things, the ideas expressed in P. F. Strawson 1950a are further elaborated.

1954

"Reply to Mr. Sellars". PhR 63.216-31. Reply to W. Sellars 1954.

1964a "Intention and convention in speech acts". PhR 73:4.439-60. Re­ printed in J. R. Searle (ed.) 1971, 23-38, in J. F. Rosenberg and C. Travis (eds.) 1971, 599-614, in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 380-400, and in P. F. Strawson 1971, 149-69. German translation in M. Schirn (ed.) 1974, 74-96. S. questions Austin's belief that the force of speech acts is essentially conventional. He shows that there is a class of speech acts that cannot be said to be backed by conventions (other than purely linguistic ones). He claims that, instead of conventions, intentions (a Gricean notion which he adopts and adapts) typically underlie the performance of speech acts: in some cases the effectiveness of those intentions is guaran­ teed by conventions, but in other cases the effectiveness is not guaranteed at all. 1964b "Identifying reference and truth-values". Theoria 30.96-118. Reprinted in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 86-99, and in P. F. Strawson 1971, 75-95. A revision of the truth-value gap theory about cases of radical reference failure, which holds that whenever the thing or per­ son referred to by means of an identifying reference (such as 'the King of France1) does not exist, the sentence in which the referring expression is used has no truth value at all. S. claims that the theory holds for some cases but not for others. E.g. reference failure with respect to 'the King of France' in a

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

description of what the King of France is like is a case re­ latively favourable to the theory; but reference failure with respect to 'the local swimming-pool' in a description of how Jones spent the morning is unfavourable to the truth-value gap theory because the sentence "Jones spent the morning at the local swimming-pool" is false rather than truth-valueless if there is no local swimming-pool. 1965

"Truth: A reconsideration of Austin's views". PhQ 15:61.289-301. Reprinted in P. F. Strawson 1971, 234-49. Review of J. L. Austin 1950. (Reviewed by: J. M. 0. Wheatley 1969.)

1970

"Phrase et acte de parole". Langages 17.19-33. S. examines the question of how the context of an utterance affects what one says, what one wants to say, or what one does when uttering the sentence in question.

1971

Logico-Linguistic Papers. London: Methuen & Co, viii, 249 pp. See: P. F. Strawson 1950a, 1964a, 1964b, 1965. (Reviewed by: F. Hiorth 1976.)

1973

"Austin and 'locutionary meaning'". In Sir I. Berlin et al. 1973, 46-68. S. discusses several possible interpretations of Austin's 'locutionary meaning', for all of which evidence and counterevidence can be found in Austin 1962. Then he makes a compromise proposal to the effect that every sentence should be analysed along the lines of the formula "X issues the ... (that ...) with the force of a ..." where the first blank stands for a type of locutionary meaning (e.g. proposition, imperative), the second a specific locutionary content (e.g. that S is P; that Z [person] is to Y [act] ) and the third a kind of illocutionary force. Finally, S. presents some objections that Austin might have adduced and claims that they are no valid objections.

Strevens, Peter See: Halliday, M. A. K. et al. Stroll, Avrum 1967 "Presupposing". In P. Edwards (ed.) 1967 Vol. 6, 446-49. Brief description and comparison of the notions of presupposi­ tion and contextual implication.

214

PRAGMATICS

Sugathapala De Silva, M. W. 1976 "Verbal aspects of politeness expression in Sinhalese with reference to asking, telling, requesting and ordering". AnL 18. 360-70. Suhor, Charles 1975 "The fictive mode as a higher performative". PIL 8:3/4.365-74. S. proposes a higher performative I RECITE THUSLY for the fic­ tive mode of discourse. It is contrasted or in combination with higher performatives for message-bearing utterances. Svoboda, Ales 1974 "On two communicative dynamisms". In F. Danes (ed.) 1974, 38-42. An attempt to define one of the basic concepts of functional sentence perspective, viz. 'communicative dynamism'. The con­ cept is related to the contextual dependence of a sentence. Switalla, Bernd 1973 "Zu handlungslogischen Implikationen linguistischer Aussagen". In H. Sitta and K. Brinker (eds.) 1973, 160-91. Reflections on the pragmatic implications (of the presupposi­ tion and 'conditions on speech acts' types) of utterances. S. argues that not even propositions can be adequately described without referring to them. Szabó, Zoltán 1976 Review of G. W. Turner 1973. Linguistics 169.92-94. Szaniawski, Klemens 1973 "Questions and their pragmatic value". In R. J. Bogdan and I. Niiniluoto (eds.) 1973, 121-23. An approach in terms of a theory of probability. Szépe, Görgy See: Dezső, L. and G. Szépe.

 Talmy, Leonard 1975a "Figure and ground in complex sentences". PBLS 1.419-30. Also in WPLU 17.65-75. A search for constraints on what can become 'figure' (i.e. a moving or conceptually movable object, the particular value of the path or site of which is regarded as the salient issue

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

215

of the utterance; e.g. 'the pen' in "The pen lay on the table") or 'ground' (i.e. the reference point with respect to which the figure's path or site is characterized; e.g. 'the table' in the same sentence) in complex sentences. 1975b "Copy-clefting". WPLU 17.77-107. A syntactic and semantic study of copy-cleft sentences such as "It was raining, so we stayed home" (as opposed to "We stayed home because it was raining"): copy-clefting is a generalized version of the topicalization process for nominals. Tanaka, Ronald 1972 "Action and meaning in literary theory". JLS 1.41-56. T. suggests that the notions of action and utterance-meaning are central to a definition of literature. He discusses the notion utterance-meaning, Grice's explanation of meaning in terms of intention and Searle's notion of speech acts, and their relevance to a theory of literature. 1973

"The concept of irony: Theory and practice". JLS 2.43-56. The model of utterance-meaning presented in R. Tanaka 1972 is extended to cover the literary convention of irony.

1974

"A new model in the analysis of literary texts". JLS 3.23-55. T. investigates the relationship between theories of mind and literary interpretation and explores the implications of the linguistic concept of presupposition.

Tannen, Deborah F. 1975 "Communication mix and mixup or How linguistics can ruin a marriage". SJSOPIL 1.205-11. A discussion of how different strategies with respect to the rules of politeness and the maxims of conversation can cause misunderstandings. The illustrations are taken from husband-wife conversations. 1977

"Well what did you expect ?". PBLS 3.506-15. A thoroughly illustrated discussion of how expectations help to shape the telling of a story.

Tannen, Deborah F. and Piyale Cőmert Őztek 1977 "Health to our mouths: Formulaic expressions in Turkish and Greek". PBLS 3.516-34.

216

PRAGMATICS

A comparison between Turkish and Greek formulaic expressions, i.e. fixed expressions which are inseparably linked to a use in a specific context. It is meant to support the view that meaning in conversation is deduced from what is known about the context and from conventionalized interpretations rather than from a semantic analysis of the words uttered. Taylor, C. V. 1975 "A schema for the contextual study of language". Linguistics 164.45-61. An attempt to explain what is meant by the term 'context' in linguistics, i.e. to identify certain features of the overall conditions under which a language event takes place. ten Cate, Abraham P. See: Cate, Abraham P. ten Tenenbaum, Sarah See: Byarushengo, E. R. and S. Tenenbaum. Tervoort, Bernard T. et al. 1972 Psycholinguïstiek. (- Aula 481.) Utrecht/Antwerpen: Het Spectrum, 201 pp. Contains a chapter on the use of language as a (social) activity. Tervoort, Bernard T. See also: Geest, T. van der et al. Teyssier, Jacques 1974 "La grammaire de 1'interrogation et ses présupposés". RLanR 80. 7-56. Thalberg, Irving 1969 "Austin on abilities". In . . Fann (ed.) 1969, 182-204. Review of J. Լ. Austin 1956, with special emphasis on Austin's view of human abilities. Thau, Stewart 1971 "Illocutionary breakdowns". Mind 80.270-75. T. attempts to answer the question of what types of infelici­ ties of speech acts are failures to perform illocutionary acts. 1972

"The distinction between rhetic and illocutionary acts". Mind 32:6.177-83.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

217

Thelander, Mats 1976 "Code-switching or code-mixing ?". Linguistics 183.103-23. A study of code-switching in a small Swedish community. A com­ promise between a macrolinguistic and a microlinguistic approach is proposed. Thomason,.Richmond H. 1974 "Where pragmatics fits in". Ms. An attempt to describe the conditions that matics should meet. (For one thing, though presupposition and topic are discussed, T. theory of pragmatics should concentrate on

a theory of prag­ phenomena like proposes that a implicature.)

Thompson, Henry and James Wright 1975 "Speaker alignment and embedded performatives". PBLS 1.438-44. An attempt to formulate the conditions under which performative verbs can be embedded in expressions of emotional states, while retaining their performative force (e.g. 'I regret to inform you . ..', 'I'm pleased to announce . . . ' ) . T. and W. introduce the notion of 'speaker alignment': expressions of emotional states have a positive or negative alignment; performatives have a neutral, favourable, favourable-but or unfavourable alignment. According to their 'speaker alignment principle', a performative can only be embedded in an expression of emotion­ al state if the alignments of both are consistent in context. Thompson, Sandra A. See: Kirsner, R. S. and S. A. Thompson; Li, C. N. and S. A. Thompson. Thorne, James Peter 1972 "On non-restrictive relative clauses". LIn 3:4.552-56. Referring back to J. F. Staal 1970, T. offers five arguments in favour of the hypothesis that there are two performative verbs in the underlying structure of a sentence containing a nonrestrictive relative clause and only one in the case of a sen­ tence with a restrictive relative clause. (Reviewed by: N. Fairclough 1973; G. Ayres 1974.) Thümmel, Wolf 1976 "Performatiefparafrase- of zinsradicaal-methode bij de beschrij­ ving van ja-nee-vraagzinnen in het Nederlands en in het Duits" [Performative analysis or sentence radical method in the des­ cription of yes/no questions in Dutch and in German]. FoL 10:3/4. 249-62. T. adduces arguments to refute both the sentence radical method

218

PRAGMATICS

(dividing yes/no questions into a modal element and a sentence radical) and the performative analysis of yes/no questions in Dutch and in German. Tillmann, H. G. 1967 "Kommunikative Situation und semantisches System". PICL 10:2. 349-53. Remarks on the relationship between meaning and communicative situation. Timm, Lenora A. 1976 Review of R. Lakoff 1975. Lingua 39:3.244-52. Timm. Lenora A. See also: Bailey, L. A. and L. A. Timm. Todd, William 1972 "Basic sentences". FL 8:1.97-112. A sentence is said to be basic only if every language must contain sentences of that sort; i.e. a basic sentence must fulfil a linguistic function that has to be fulfilled for there to be a language at all. Three kinds of basic sentences are con­ sidered: those that are basic from the point of view of learning a first language; those deriving from the concept of presuppo­ sition; and those which are grammatically simple. Todorov, Tzvetan 1970a "Freud sur 1'énonciation". Langages 17.34-41. Summary of what Freud said about utterances, i.e. acts of using language. 1970b "Problèmes de 1'énonciation". Langages 17.3-11. Brief overview of problems in approaching utterances , i.e. language in use (e.g. problems of discourse analysis, speech acts , presuppositions). Todorov, Tzvetan See also: Ducrot, 0. and T. Todorov. Todt, G. and . Guhl 1975 "Zur Explikation des Präsuppositionsbegriff". LBer 35.25-37. An attempt to explicate the notion 'presupposition' within a theory of linguistic semantics which makes use of the basic concepts of modern logic. T. and G. try to show that there is no reason to give up two-valued logic.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

1975b "Präsuppositionen als logische Folgerungen". In V. Ehrich and P. Finke (eds.) 1975, 171-86. Presuppositions are described as logical implications. Toulmin, S. E. and . Baier 1952 "On describing". Mind 61.13-38. Reprinted in . . Caton (ed.) 1963, 194-219. T. and . trie to explain what it means to 'describe' by means of language. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1972 A History of English Syntax: A Transformational Approach to the History of English Sentence Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, viii, 216 pp. T. makes use of a simplified taxonomy of speech acts in her sketch of the history of English syntax. (Reviewed by  1973

W. Kreidler 1975; D. Carkeet 1974.)

"Generative semantics and the concept of literary discourse". JLS 2.5-22. According to Τ., the view of literature following from gene­ rative semantics is that of a special kind of discourse, with its own appropriateness conditions, overlapping with other kinds of discourse with their own appropriateness conditions.

Travis, Ann 1975 "Pushing forms and meanings around: On the non-standard inter­ pretation of surface structures". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 512-26. Speakers of a language are forced to 'push form and meaning around' because they have to express an infinite number of meaning variations with a limited repertory of language structures. As a result, we find in every language both 'stan­ dard' uses of certain forms (e.g. declarative use of a state­ ment form) and 'non-standard' uses (e.g. question use of a statement form, i.e. indirect speech acts, etc.). T. believes that the standard uses can be described transformationally, whereas the non-standard uses cannot. Travis , Charles 1971 "A generative theory of illocutions". In J. F. Rosenberg and  Travis (eds.) 1971, 629-45. An attempt to incorporate the illocutionary force of utterances

220

PRAGMATICS

in a set of phrase structure rules. It is T.'s intention to increase our insight into speech acts by applying the formalism of generative grammar (i.e. a theory which, with finite means, provides a description for each member of a nonfinite set of things). Travis, Charles See also: Rosenberg, J. F. and C. Travis (eds.). Trömel-Ploetz, Senta and Dorothea Franck 19 77 "I'm dead: A linguistic analysis of paradoxical techniques in psychotherapy". JoP 1:2.121-42. On paradoxical responses given by psychotherapists to certain utterances of patients in which they exhibit their symptoms. (These responses are said to be paradoxical because they accept the symptom and thus contradict our expectations for normal reactions in conversation.) Tsao, Feng-fu 1976 "'Expectation' in Chinese: A functional analysis of two adverbs". PBLS 2.360-74. From an analysis of the use of two adverbs in Chinese (viz. 'cai' and 'dao'), T. concludes (і) that it would be impossible to study their meaning and use if one wanted to stick to a sentence grammar, (ii) that the distinction between propositional content and implicature is arbitrary, (iii) that the pragmatic notion of 'expectation' may be very important for syntax and semantics. Turner, G. W. 1973 Stylistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 256 pp. Includes separate chapters on the role of context in the use of language, register, and the functions of language. (Reviewed by Z. Szabo 1976.) Turner, Roy 19 75 "Speech act theory and natural language use". PM 1:1.A3. Speech act theory as currently formulated, is said to fail to cope with such properties of natural language use as the sequencing of conversational units, etc. Tymister, Hans Josef 19 73 "Ansätze zu einer pragmatischen Analyse von Unterrichtsdialogen". DSp 1:2.81-99. Preliminaries to a pragmatic analysis of dialogues in school teach

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

Uehling, Theodore E. See: French, P. A. et al. (eds.). Uhlířová, Ludmila 1974 "On the role of statistics in the investigation of FSP". In F. Daneš (ed.) 1974, 208-16. The reason why statistics can play a role in the investigation of functional sentence perspective (FSP): no syntactic element shows different communicative functions with the same probabi­ lity; no syntactic element will be the theme of an utterance as often as it is the transition or the rheme. The possible directions for statistical research are indicated and U. ela­ borates on adverbials as an example. Ulshöfer, Robert 1974 "Die Theorie der Schreibakte und die Typologie der Kommunika­ tionsmuster oder Stilformen". DU 26:1.6-15. Some thoughts about the relationship between speech acts and acts of writing, and about text types. U. draws some conclu­ sions for language teaching. 1977

"Funktionaler Grammatikunterricht: Überlegungen zu einem vor­ dringlichen Untersuchungs- und Arbeitsprogramm". DU 29:1.5-20. Outline of a research program concerning a functional approach to language teaching.

Umbach, Horst 1976 "Konkurrenz von lexikalischer und pragmatischer Bedeutung im individualsprachlichen Wörterbuch". DSp 4:1.41-50. On the respective roles of lexical and pragmatic meaning in lexicography. Ungeheuer, Gerold 1974 "Kommunikatіonssemantik: Skizze eines Problemfeldes". ZGL 2:1. 1-24. Sketch of a theory of 'communication semantics'. (Unsigned) 1962 Review of J. L. Austin 1962. TLS (September 21, 1962).743. (Unsigned) 1963 Review of J. L. Austin 1962. Month 29 (February 1963).120.

222

PRAGMATICS

Ure, Jean N. 1967 "A comparative study of registers: The distribution of colour words in Romanian and English". PICL 10:1.733-45. U. claims that with respect to colour terms, Romanian and English make the same register distinction on the parameters of 'field', 'mode' and 'situational involvement', but not on the parameters of 'demand-creating' and 'formality'. Urmson, J. 0. 1952 "Parenthetical verbs". Mind 61.480-96. Reprinted in . . Caton (ed.) 1963, 220-40. An investigation of the function of parenthetic verbs such as 'know', 'believe', 'deduce', 'regret', 'suppose', 'guess', 'expect', 'admit', 'predict'. They are said to help the under­ standing and assessment of what is said rather than being part of what is said. 1960

"J. L. Austin, Obituary". Analysis 21.121-22.

1965

"J. L. Austin". JPh 62.499-508. (- Urmson's contribution to J. 0. Urmson, W. V. 0. Quine and S. Hampshire 1969.)

1967

"John Langshaw Austin". In P. Edwards (ed.) 1967 Vol. 1, 211-15. Reprinted as "Austin's philosophy" in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 22-32. Brief discussion of Austin's aims, methods, and work.

1977

"Performative utterances". In P. A. French et al. (eds.) 1977, 120-27. U. argues that the doctrine of performatives as stated and cri­ ticized in J. L. Austin 1962, 1963 and 1970b, is rather differ­ ent from his original conception of the theory, which was largely satisfactory and not subsumable under the theory of illocutionary forces.

Urmson, J. 0., Willard Van Orman Quine and Stuart Hampshire 1969 "A symposium on Austin's method". In K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 76-97. See also: J. 0. Urmson 1965; W. V. 0. Quine 1965; S. Hampshire 1965. Urmson, J. 0. and G. J. Warnock 1961 "J. L. Austin". Mind 70.256. Reprinted in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 46-48.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

Uyeno, T. 1971 A Study of Japanese Modality: A Performative Analysis of Sen­ tence Particles. University of Michigan Ph.D. dissertation.

V Vachek, Josef 1965 Review of P. Լ. Garvin (ed.) 1964. Linguistics 16.103-6. 1966

The Linguistic School of Prague: An Introduction to Its Theory and Practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, viii, 184 pp. (Reviewed by: S. C. Dik 1967.)

1972

"The linguistic theory of the Prague school". In V. Fried (ed.) 1972, 11-28.

Vachek, Josef (ed.) 1964 A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 485 pp. (Reviewed by: J. Fisiak 1968.) Vahle, Fritz See: Braunroth, M. et al. Valdes Villanueva, Luis Ml. 1977 "Meaning, illocutionary force and illocutionary act". Ms. V. defends Austin's original distinction between the three notions mentioned in the title, though he introduces some modifications and tries to eliminate some obscurities. Valian, Virginia V. See: Potter, M. C. et al. Valin, Robert D. Van 1975a "A pragmatic analysis of German 'doch'". University of Cali­ fornia, Berkeley, M. A. thesis. (Partly published as R. D. Van Valin 1975b.) A discussion of the appropriateness conditions for the use of 'doch' in German leads V. to the conclusion that this is one of the phenomena with which a sentence grammar cannot cope. 1975b "German 'Doch': The basic phenomena". PCLS 11.625-37. (A chapter from Van Valin 1975a.)

PRAGMATICS

224

van Belle, W. See: Belle, W. van Vandamme, F. J. 1973 "Aristotle and the Strawsonian presuppositions". CC 6:3/4.16368. Strawson's notion of presupposition is linked to Aristotle's contrary opposition, privative-positive opposition "and affirm­ ative-negative opposition. Van den Boom, Holger See: Boom, Holger Van den Van der Auwera, Johan See: Auwera, Johan Van der van der Geest, T. See: Geest, T. van der Vandeweghe, Willy 1975 "Kommentatieve en performatieve werkwoorden" [Commentative and performative verbs] . SGGand 16. Abbreviated text in HandVlFC 30.96-97. A comparison between commentative verbs (which V. says to be indirect indicators or modifiers of the illocutionary force of an utterance; e.g. 'think', 'suppose', 'want', etc.) and per­ formative verbs. 1977

"Fragen und ihre Funktionen: Versuch einer Typologie auf prag­ matischer Basis". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viet­ tien (eds.) 1977, 277-86. An attempt to construct a typology of questions on a pragmatic basis.

van Dijk, Teun Α. See: Dijk, Teun A. van Vanek, Anthony Լ. See: Sadock, J. M. and A. L. Vanek (eds.). van Fraassen, Bas C. See: Fraassen, Bas C. van Van Oosten, Jeanne See: Oosten, Jeanne Van Van V a l i n , R o b e r t D. S e e : V a l i n , R o b e r t D. Van

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

Van Wersch, J. See: Wersch, J. van van Willigen, Daam M. See: Willigen, Daam M. van Vattuone, Bartolo See: Browne, W. and . Vattuone. Vendler, Zeno 1967a Review of J. L. Austin 1962. FL 3.303-10. 1967b Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, xii, 204 pp. Seven essays in analytic philosophy, relying heavily on Austin's methodology and partly on the ideas of transformational lin­ guistics. Some of the topics dealt with are: singular terms; quantifiers; verbs and times; facts and events; etc. (Reviewed by: L. J. Cohen 1971b.) 1970

"Les performatifs en perspective". Langages 17.73-90. Critical discussion of Austin's definition of the class of per­ formative verbs and of his classification of illocutionary forces.

1972

Res Cogitans: An Essay in Rational Psychology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, viii, 225 pp. This book on the relationship between speech and thought, word and concept, etc., makes use of and contributes substantially to speech act theory. Amongst other things, it contains a re­ vision of Austin's classification of performative verbs or illocutionary forces. (Reviewed by: S. McConnell-Ginet and C. Ginet 1976; D. M. Rosen­ thal 1976; J. van Wersch 1976.)

1975

Review of D. E. Cooper 1973. FL 13:2.295-96.

Vennemann, Theo 1975 "Topics, sentence accent, ellipsis: A proposal for their formal treatment". In E. L. Keenan (ed.) 1975, 313-28. V. proposes a system of pragmato-semantic notation in which discourse sentences with identical truth conditions but differ­ ent topic-comment structure, different sentence accent, or different degrees of verbal explicitness receive different se­ mantic representations.

226

PRAGMATICS

Verburg, P. Α. 1952 Taal en Functionaliteit: Een Historisch-Critische Studie over de Opvattingen aangaande de Functies der Taal vanaf de Prae֊ Humanistische Philologie van Orleans tot de Rationalistische Linguïstiek van Bopp [Language and Functionality: A HistoricalCritical Study about the Ideas concerning the Functions of Lan­ guage from the Prae-Humanistic Philology of Orleans to Bopp's Rationalistic Linguistics]. Wageningen: H. Veenman & Zonen, xvi, 490 pp. (Reviewed by: W. Ζ. Shetter 1966.) Verdaasdonk, Hugo et al. 1976 "Concepts of acceptance and the basis of a theory of texts". In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) 1976, 179-227. V. proposes a pragmatically based analysis of the notion 'text', in which the concept of acceptance (introduced in R. M. Martin 1959) would be central since the most basic operation a reader can be said to perform, is that of accepting (or rejecting) sentences in a text. Verhagen, Arie 1976 Het Principe der Uitdrukbaarheid: Over de Verhouding tussen Zinsbetekenis en Taaldaden [The Principle of Expressibility: On the Relation between Sentence Meaning and Speech Acts]. University of Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit) dissertation. Verkuyl, H. J. et al. 1973 Transformationele Taalkunde [Transformational Linguistics] . (֊Aula 509.) Utrecht/Antwerpen: Het Spectrum, 368 pp. An introduction to transformational linguistics, with a long final chapter on the relationship between linguistics and philosophy (containing considerations about performatives and presuppositions). Verma, Shivendra K. 1974 "The semantics of 'caahiye'". FL 12:1.127-36. Halliday's and J. Boyd and J. P. Thorne's 1969 notions of mo­ dality are applied to 'caahiye' constructions in Hindi, the underlying semantic structure of which is supposed to be "I think it obligative for someone or something to undergo the effect of an action in a particular way". 1975

"Code-switching: Hindi-English". ITL 28.35-48.

1976

"Remarks on thematization". ArchL 7:2.142-51. On the communicative function of word order.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

Verschueren, Jef 1975a "A tentative model for functional semantics". HandVlFC 30.141-48. V. distinguishes three levels of language functions (i.e. speech acts, minimal texts, texts) for all of which a typology can be given and for which inter-level relationships can be formulated. This model of 'functional semantics' can be used to analyse texts. 1975b "Towards a functional semantics". To appear in F. Coppieters and D. L. Goyvaerts (eds.), Functional Studies in Language and Literature. Gent: Story Scientia. Further elaborated version of J. Verschueren 1975a. 1975c "Lexical decomposition, perlocutions, and meaning postulates". PIL 8:3/4.347-64. It is argued that (i) a coherent speech act theory enables us to frame lexical decomposition fomulae for performative verbs; (ii) the attempt to do so shows that the notion of perlocutionary effects is central in the description of speech acts; (iii) it is necessary to redefine 'perlocution' in terms of the speaker's intentions; (iv) the lexical decomposition formulae for performative verbs can be re-interpreted as meaning postu­ lates belonging to 'natural logic'. 1976

"An alternative to prototype rules". PBLS 2.386-95. V. claims that positing universal prototypes for syntactic phe­ nomena in terms of functions is virtually impossible. Most functional approaches to syntax are said to be from-form-tofunction approaches, which, because of the arbitrariness of linguistic forms, are not very helpful for universal grammar. Because functions are more likely to be universal, a fromfunction-to-form approach is offered as an alternative and an illustration is given of how such an approach could be relevant for the study of the syntax of a single language as well.

1977a "The pragmatics of modality revisited by a Dutch uncle". In Y. Putseys (ed.) 1977, 87-98. Review of R. Lakoff 1972a, based on contrastive Dutch-English data. 1977b The Analysis of Speech Act Verbs: Theoretical Preliminaries. IULC. After some observations about the grammatical behaviour of speech act verbs (i.e. verbs used to describe speech acts) and some reflections on the relevance of studying them, a formula

228

PRAGMATICS

is presented in terms of which all speech act verbs can be des­ cribed. V. expresses the belief that every speech act type is associated with a perlocutionary effect that is typically in­ tended by the person performing an act of that type. The text closes with a chapter on how to account for the non-typical cases. 1977c "Reflections on presupposition failure: A contribution to an integrated theory of pragmatics". To appear in JoP 2:1. An 'integrated theory of pragmatics' is defined as the study of the appropriateness conditions on the use of natural lan­ guage. In search of such a theory, P. Harder and C. Kock 1976 is subjected to a detailed investigation. Its theoretical apparatus is shown to contain some of the elements needed for the foundation of a unified description of presupposition, speech acts and implicature, provided some of its weaknesses are eliminated. The main weakness is Harder and Kock's con­ scious but harmful reduction of the concepts of communicative function and presupposition, which prevents them from seeing the unity (though not identity) of the three phenomena mentioned. Vielau, Axel 1976 "Was heisst 'Interiorisierung' beim Fremdsprachenlernen ? - Re­ plik". LBer 45.65-69. Reply to . Schüle 1976b. Viethen, Heinz Werner See: Sprengel, K. et al. (eds.). Vlach, Frank 1974 "Factives and negatives". BSSS l.XXI-1 - XXI-11. A discussion of the conditions which determine why "*John is taller than he regrets" and "*John is taller than Bill isn't" are unacceptable whereas there is nothing wrong with "Chicago is the only place where Babe Ruth didn't hit a home run" and "Tijuana is where I regret that I drank the water". Voigt, W. 1975 Review of S. J. Schmidt 1973. ALH 25:3/4.470-75. von Raffler Engel, Walburga See: Raffler Engel, Walburga von von Savigny, Eike See: Savigny, Eike von von Stechow, Arnim See: Stechow, Arnim von

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

von Ziegesaar, D. See: Ziegesaar, D. von Vorlat, Emma 1976 "Are persuaders well hidden ? On language in advertising". LB 65:3.291-310. Advertising is described as a case of persuasive language which presents itself as informative and as a speech act in which an advertiser makes use of certain lexical and grammatic­ al choices to reach a consumer or addressee. These choices are said to be determined by his own status and that of his audience. Voroniuc, Areta 1977a "Contribution to the theory of speech acts". To appear in FoL 11:1/2. It is argued that speech act theory should be extended to the description of utterances which are not 'normal' or meant literally. With this idea in mind, a corpus of English data is examined with respect to the performative hypothesis, the syntactic sentence types, the lexical items, the direct and indirect speech acts used. 1977b Prosodic Features and Speech Acts: Meaning and the Intonational Contours of the English Imperative. Ms. On the basis of Searle's conditions and rules for speech acts (and concentrating mainly on lexis and intonation as illocutionary force indicating devices) V. investigates a corpus of recorded imperative sentences in order to detect the semantic (speech act) varieties of the English imperative. Vroman, William V. 1975 "Portuguese latent passives". PCLS 11.638-48. The notion 'pragmatic presupposition' is used to explain the well-formedness conditions on Portuguese latent passives (i.e. passives in which the auxiliary is not expressed in the sur­ face form).

w Wachowicz, Krystyna See: Brennenstuhl, W. and . Wachowicz.

230

PRAGMATICS

Wagner, Klaus R. 1977 "Sprechstrategie-Illokution versus Sprechakt-Illokution: Sprecherstrategien als Sprechaktsequenzen". DSp 5:2.126-40. An attempt to define and segment speaker strategies with the help of speech act theory. In other words, speaker strategies are described as sequences of speech acts. Waismann, F. 1965a The Principles of Linguistic Philosophy. London: Macmillan, xii, 422 pp. A collection of papers (edited by R. Harré), containing, amongst other things, F. Waismann 1965b, 1965c and 1965d. 1965b "Meaning". In F. Waismann 1965a, 153-62. Reprinted in J. F. Rosenberg and  Travis (eds.) 1971, 395-402. W. supports Wittgenstein's criticism of the ideational theory of meaning and his view of meaning as use. 1965c "Problems of communication". In F. Waismann 1965a, 240-68. Amongst other problems of communication, the following one is discussed: What sort of experience is presupposed by mutual understanding ? 1965d "Towards a logic of questions". In F. Waismann 1965a, 387-417. Wales, Roger J. See: Campbell, R. and R. Wales; Marshall, J. 

and R. J. Wales.

Walker, Jeremy D. B. 1969 "Statements and performatives". APhQ 6:3.217-25. W. argues that Austin's 1962 attempts to blur the distinction between performative and constative utterances fail. Wallace, K. R. 1970 "Speech act and unit of conversation". PhRh 3:3.174-81. Walraven, Theo 1975 Taalgebruik en Taalwetenschap: Inleiding in het Onderzoek van Verbale Kommunikatie [Language Use and Linguistics: Introduct­ ion to the Investigation of Verbal Communication]. Assen/Am­ sterdam: Van Gorcum, 160 pp. An introduction to the linguistic study of verbal communication, this book contains a separate chapter on pragmatics, viewed as the study of communicative competence, the ability to perform speech acts.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

231

Walraven, Theo See also: Stassen, L. and T. Walraven. Walther, Jürgen 1976 "Zur Logik von Frage und Antwort". In H. Weber and H. Weydt (eds.) 1976, 133-41. On the logic of questions and answers. Walther, Jürgen See also: Ehret, R. and J. Walther. Warnock, G. J. 1960 "A remarkable philosopher". Listener 7.616-17. 1963

"John Langshaw Austin 1911-1960".  49.345-63. Reprinted as "John Langshaw Austin: A biographical sketch" in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 3-21.

1967 "J. L. Austin". ArchPh 30:1.5-19. 1971

"Hare on meaning and speech acts". PhR 80.80-84. Review of R. M. Hare 1970. (Reviewed by: A. C. Genova 1975.)

1973a "Saturday mornings". In Sir I. Berlin et al. 1973, 31-45. Memories of Saturday morning discussion sessions with Austin, containing some interesting observations about Austin's phi­ losophical thought. 1973b "Some types of performative utterance". In Sir I. Berlin et al. 1973, 69-89. Main point: though there is a sense in which all utterances can be said to be 'performative' (i.e. they are all doing some­ thing in addition to saying something), there are two subclasses which have also been called 'performative' to contrast them with other utterances, viz. (i) those which by 'convention' (over and above what the words uttered conventionally mean) constitute doing something, and (ii) those which are 'expli­ citly' performative (i.e. with a performative verb in the first person singular present indicative active). All these uses of the term 'performative' are legitimate, but as a result the term is confusing. Warnock, G. J. See also: Urmson, J. 0. and G. J. Warnock 1961.

232

PRAGMATICS

Wason, P. C. 1965 "The contexts of plausible denial". JVLVB 4.7-11. Reprinted in R.C. Oldfield and J.  Marshall (eds.) 1968, 246-53. W. reports experimental investigations into the way in which pragmatic factors in language affect the reaction time to negative statements. Watson, Rod 1975 "Interactional uses of pronouns". PM 1:3.A3. W. argues that pronoun selection and use is characteristically effected with reference to social-interactional conventions. Watt, W. C. 1974 "Mentalism in linguistics, II". Glossa 8:1.3-40. Discussion of a case where direct psycholinguistic evidence appears to weigh in favour of a model of the mental grammar, viz. an 'abstract performative grammar', rather than any model that 'autonomous linguistics' might construct. Weber, Heinrich and Harald Weydt (eds.) 1976 Akten des 10. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Tübingen 1975, Band 1: Sprachtheorie und Pragmatik. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, viii, 398 pp. See: M. Baumert 1976; W. Berg 1976; A. M. Betten 1976b; G. Hindelang 1976; A. Hübler 1976; W. Holly 1976; E. Kendziorra 1976; W. Klinke 1976; R. Klockow 1976; .-. Knappe 1976; S. Koch and Լ. F. Pusch 1976; M. A. Meyer 1976; Κ. Pisarkowa 1976; . Schlieben-Lange 1976a; S. Schmidt-Knaebel 1976; J. Walther 1976. Weber, Ursula 1976 "Probleme der Interpretation und Bewertung sprachlicher Äusser­ ungen". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1976, 357-69. The difficulties emerging when trying to detect pragmatically determined modes of interpreting utterances, are discussed. W. uses the phenomenon of 'sympathetic circularity' (a term used by Basil Bernstein to characterize dialogues in which not much new information is given but which are sustained by slightly modified repetitions of previous remarks) as an example. Weingartner, Paul 1975 "R. Montagues Pragmatik". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1975, 429-40. A short introduction to Montague's pragmatics.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

233

Weiser, Ann 1974 "Deliberate ambiguity". PCLS 10.723-31. W.'s investigation of some instances of the conversational practice of 'deliberate ambiguity1 (i.e. cases in which.a sen­ tence is uttered with two acts in mind) casts doubt on the usefulness of the performative hypothesis for pragmatics: the problem is that the performative hypothesis arose from a con­ cern with syntax within a particular theoretical paradigm; by studying pragmatics one should not just be widening one's area of investigation, but taking an entirely different point of view on language. 1975

"How to not answer a question: Purposive devices in conversa­ tional strategy". PCLS 11. 649-60. W. makes a distinction between 'communicative devices' (i.e. a speaker intends his utterance to accomplish a purpose by means of the addressee's recognition that the speaker intends his utterance to accomplish that purpose) and 'conversational strategems' (i.e. the speaker intends his utterance to accom­ plish a purpose by some other means). She concentrates on the latter in a discussion of how to avoid answering a question.

Weiss, Daniel 1975 "Topic und ein seltsamer Comment". LBer 36.24-36. Review of P. Sgall, E. Hajičová and E. Benešová 1973. Wekker, . . 1974 Review of Μ. Α. Κ. Halliday 1973b (and two other books). DQR 4. 81-84. Wentz, Jim See: McClure, E. and J. Wentz. Wersch, J. van 1976 Review of Z. Vendler 1972. FL 14:3.459-61. Werth, Paul 1976 "Focus-pocus". PM 2:3.F. A discourse-grammar is proposed which assigns emphasis in terms of three operations which are governed by the coherency re­ quirements for the discourse, viz. focus, contrast, and reduct­ ion. These operations are said to make it possible to eliminate most of the movement-rules of standard sentence-grammars. Wertsch, James V. 1974 "Simply speaking". PCLS 10.732-41.

234

PRAGMATICS

W. examines one of the reasons why adults find it necessary to simplify their speech for children, viz. the child's limited ability to utilize contextual information. West, Anne 1973 "The semantics of focus in Amganad Ifugao". Linguistics 110. 98-121. Wettstein, Howard K. See: French, P. A. et al. (eds.). Weydt, Harald 1972 "L'interdépendance entre le contexte et le sens d'un syntagme". PICL 11:1.653-59. On the relationship between the context and the meaning of a linguistic expression (as in the case of the ambiguous phrase 'the shooting of the hunters'). Weydt, Harald See also: Weber, H. and H. Weydt (eds.). Wheatley, Jon M. 0. 1963

"How Austin does things with words". Dialogue 2:3.337-45. Critical notice about J. L. Austin 1961 and 1962.

1969

"Austin on truth". In K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 226-39. Review of J. L. Austin 1950, P. F. Strawson 1965, and other papers on truth by P. F. Strawson.

White, Alan R. 1962

Review of J. L. Austin 1961.  3.

1963

Review of J. L. Austin 1962. Analysis 23 (Suppl.).58-64.

1965 1967

Review of M. Furberg 1963. Mind 74.131-35. "Mentioning the unmentionable". Analysis 27:4.113-18. Re­ printed in K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969, 219-25. Review of J. R. Searle 1966a. W. argues that both Austin's thesis and Searle's thesis are two valid but quite distinct interpretations of 'mentioning the unmentionable': Searle's is a pragmatic objection to mentioning what is not worth men­ tioning; Austin's is a logical objection to mentioning what cannot be mentioned.

1970

Review of K. T. Fann (ed.) 1969. PhQ 20:78.181-82.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

White, Ronald V. 1974 "Communicative competence, registers, and second language teaching". IRAL 12:2.127-41. Certain strategies to teach the use of registers, as well as criteria to distinguish registers, are discussed. Whiteley, W. H. and J. D. Mganga 1969 "Focus and entailment: Further problems of transitivity in Swahili". AfrLR 8.108-25. The authors, one of which (W.) proposed a verbal classifica­ tion of Swahili based on the relations between sentences and their possible entailments, come to the conclusion that an additional feature, viz. 'focus' or !marking', plays an im­ portant role in the sentence/entailment framework. Widdowson, H. G. See: Allen, J. P. B. and H. G. Widdowson. Wierzbicka, Anna 1975 "Topic, focus, and deep structure". PIL 8:1/2.59-87. W. claims that the element in focus in a sentence is always a deep structure constituent. A focus pattern is said to be 'neutral' if the part in focus corresponds to a full sentence in deep structure (e.g. "John kissed Mary" as a statement about John is its neutral form, because the element in focus, 'kissed Mary', is derived from a full sentence 'x kissed Mary'); it is 'marked1 in all other cases. This is taken as evidence for the belief that surface structure is not semantically relevant and that deep structure and semantic representation are the same thing. Wilkinson, Robert 1970 "Factive complements and action complements". PCLS 6.425-44. W. investigates the possibility of analyzing the factive com­ plements and adjectives like 'wise', 'kind', etc. by assigning an underlying head noun 'act' (e.g. 'the act of your leaving was wise') instead of 'fact'. Wilks, Yorick 1975 "Preference semantics". In E. L. Keenan (ed.) 1975, 329-48. Instead of adopting the derivational paradigm of transformation­ al grammar and generative semantics, which tries to determine the well-formedness of sentences, W. proposes a 'preference semantics', i.e. a set of formal procedures for representing the meaning structure of natural language with a view to em­ bodying that structure within a system that can be said to

236

PRAGMATICS

understand. 1976

"Frames, scripts, stories and fantasies". PM 2:3.B12. Two claims about natural language comprehension made by those in Artificial Intelligence who appeal to 'frame structures1, are compared with an alternative and simpler hypothesis in terms of inference rules.

Wilks, Yorick See also: Shank, R. C

and Y. Wilks.

Willems , Dominique 1972 "Syntaxe et sémantique du français: Les verbes de jugement. A propos de Ch. J. Fillmore, 'Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description'". TLGand 3.187-97. Review of . J. Fillmore 1969b. Williams, Bernard A. 0. 1962 "J. Լ. Austin's philosophy".  (December 6, 1962). 115-17. Williams, . and A. Montefiore (eds.) 1966 British Analytical Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, v, 346 pp. See: E. J. Lemmon 1966; D. Pears 1966; J. R. Searle 1966a. Willigen, Daam M. van 1968 Review of M. A. K. Halliday, A. Mcintosh and P. Strevens 1964. FL 4.208-10. Wilson, Deirdre 1972 "Presuppositions on factives". LIn 3:3.405-10. W. argues that, whereas entailment is an important notion for semantics because it is on the basis of entailment relations between sentences (e.g. "My pet is a vixen" and "My pet is a fox") that semantic features on lexical items are set up, this is not the case for logical presupposition. (Reviewed by: M. Reis 1973.) 1975a Presuppositions and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. London: Academic Press, xiii, 161 pp. The general purpose of the book is to show that presuppositional analysis has no place in semantics. In particular, W. argues (i) that many aspects of meaning treated as presuppositional can be better coped with if they are viewed as entailments ;

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

(ii) that many facts treated as semantic should be handled within pragmatics, but that the treatment of presuppositions as conditions for appropriate use encounters serious diffi­ culties; (iii) that neither truth-conditional analysis nor presuppositional analysis can cope with some facts. W.'s conclusion: presuppositional analysis is best seen as an approach to the theory of preferred interpretations ; so-called presuppositional facts have little relation to a properly con­ ceived semantic analysis. (Reviewed by: D. Lightfoot 1976.) 1975b "Presupposition, assertion, and lexical items". LIn 6:1.95-114. An attempt to show that analyses based on the presuppositionassertion distinction as at present conceived, are grossly in­ adequate for purposes of semantic description. Wimmer, Rainer 1977 "Einige Thesen zur Unterscheidung von Semantik und Pragmatik". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 165-74. Two theses on the distinction between semantics and pragmatics, from the point of view of the sociology and the philosophy of science. Windross, M. 1968 "Question types". LAnt 2.495-500. Wingard, P. G. 1965 Review of M. A. K. Halliday et al. 1964. JL 1:2.187-90. Wirth, Jessica R. 1975 "On the explanation of invited inferences". Glossa 9:1.36-52. The problem of determining the conditions under which a sen­ tence 'invites' an inference, is reduced to the more general problem of determining the conditions under which an ambiguous sentence is disambiguated. 1977a "Discourse grammars and conversational principles". To appear in T. Perry (ed.), Evidence and Argumentation in Linguistics. Berlin: W. De Gruyter & Co. W. argues that both a grammar of discourse and a theory of con­ versation (using Gricean principles of conversation) are necessa­ ry, because each can explain certain linguistic facts which cannot be accounted for by the other.

238

PRAGMATICS

1977b "On the necessity of discourse grammars". To appear in Centrum. (Part of J. R. Wirth 1977a.) It is argued that conversational principles (of a Gricean sort), though necessary, are not sufficient to account for certain facts about discourse, and that grammars of discourse are necessary.· 1977c "Presupposition, belief-inferences, and factive predicates". Ms. W. suggests that an explanation along the lines of Gricean con­ versational principles can be given for why it can be inferred that the speaker believes the complement of factive predicates and for why it cannot be inferred that the speaker believes the complement of non-factive predicates. Wise, Kathleen See: Sheintuch, G. and K. Wise. Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1953 Philosophische Untersuchungen. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Present­ ly available edition: 1971, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 370 pp. English translation: 1972, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, viii, 250 pp. W. rejects his former belief that a unifying essence underlies the endless variety of kinds of uses of language. For those uses of language, he introduces the notion 'language games' ('Sprachspiele') to indicate that language is essentially part of people's activities, a form of life. To explain why a word can be used to refer to a diversity of things, he creates the term 'family resemblance', thus indicating that the reason for it is not the presence of some common feature but of a network of overlapping and criss-crossing similarities. He proposes the same kind of analysis for philosophical terms such as 'knowledge' 'proposition', 'memory', 'intention', 'thought', 'rule', 'belief' Wittwer, J. 1975 "Réflexions sur les fonctions du langage". LH 27.3-16. General discussion of the functions of language. Wode, Henning 1976 "Der Erwerb von Fragestrukturen in der Kindersprache". In G. Drachman (ed.) 1976, 101-12. On the acquisition of question structures by children. Wolf, Werner 1975 "Zur Semantik und Pragmatik des Futurs im heutigen Deutsch". DSp 3:1.59-85. On the semantics and pragmatics of the future tense in contem­ porary German.

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

Wolff, Gerhart 1973 "Sprechakte im sozialen Kontext". DU 25:6.19-49. A discussion of the locutionary, propositional, illocutionary and perlocutionary aspects of speech acts in relation to the social context (i.e. with reference to social conditions and consequences). The author draws some conclusions for language teaching. 1977

"Der Kommunikationsbegriff in der Sprachdidaktik: Kritische Be­ merkungen zu einem modischen Denkmodell". DU 29:1.21-40. On the notion of communication and its relevance to language teaching.

Wolontis, Marjorie See: Heringer, J. and M. Wolontis. Wonneberger, Reinhard 1977 "Relokution, negativer Sprechakt und wo der Römerbrief anfangt". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 28795. A consideration of the beginning of Paul's letter to the Ro­ mans, leads W. to the introduction of the notion of 'relocution' as a fourth aspect of the speech act (i.e. the possibi­ lity for the hearer to (re)assess the rules and circumstances which brought the speech act about) and to a discussion of negative speech acts such as "Ich schäme mich des Evangeliums nicht" (which have ussually been called cases of litotes in stylistics). Wright, G. H. von 1962 "On promises". Theoria 28:3.277-97. Wright, James 1974 "Be that way". BSSS l.XXII-1 - XXII-10. Also in PCLS 10.750-59. W. shows that the constructions 'be that way' and 'be the same way' as in "Harry's excitable, and John's the same way" behave like anaphors subject to pragmatic conditions on their wellformedness. Wright, James See also: Thompson, H. and J. Wright. Wright, Maxwell 1965 "'I know' and performative utterances". AusJPh 43.35-47. Wright, Richard A. 1975 "Meaningnn and conversational implicature". In P. Cole and J. L.

240

PRAGMATICS

Morgan (eds.) 1975, 363-82. W. contends that Grice's notion of non-natural meaning (Meaningnnn) is confused and incorrect if applied to non-lin­ guistic communication acts. He proposes a revised notion of meaning nn and argues that conversational implicature is based on it. Wunderlich, Dieter 1969 "Unterrichten als Dialog". STZ 32.263-87. Reprinted in an abbreviated form under the title "Linguistik und Pädagogik" in S. Schödel (ed.) 1972, 139-55. Teaching is analysed as a type of linguistic activity, a dia­ logue . 1970

"Die Rolle der Pragmatik in der Linguistik". DU 22:4.5-41. Partly reprinted in S. Schödel (ed.) 1972, 73-78, under the title "Pragmatik als der umfassendste Aspekt der Linguistik".

1971a "Pragmatik, Sprechsituation, Deixis". LiLi 1:1/2.153-90. The pragmatic context of a particular utterance is restricted to the particular speech situation with which that utterance is connected (i.e. conceptual presuppositions based on experience, communicative relations existing before the speech situation, are excluded). W. argues that some syntactic features can only be explained if such a speech situation is taken into account. His main example is deixis. 1971b "Zum Status der Soziolinguistik". In W. Klein and D. Wunderlich (eds.) 1971, 309-34. A discussion of the present state of sociolinguistics, to which a plea for a pragmatic approach is attached. 1972a "Zur Konventionalität von Sprechhandlungen". In D. Wunderlich (ed.) 1972, 11-58. Speech acts are said to be conventional (i) in that there are conventional grammatical ways to indicate a type of speech act ; (ii) in that a number of conditions have to be satisfied in or­ der to perform a speech act happily; (iii) in that there are certain compulsive patterns of behaviour that follow the per­ formance of speech acts; (iv) in that they belong to the regular procedures of certain institutions. A historical overview of the growth of the idea of the conventionality of speech acts is added (with reference to Wittgenstein, Austin, Strawson, Searle, Cohen and Grice).

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

1972b "Sprechakte". In U. Maas and D. Wunderlich 1972, 69-188. A general introduction to problems of reference and speech acts, with considerations on reported speech added. 1972c "Pragmatik, Sprechsituation, Deixis". In W. Abraham and R. I. Binnick (eds.) 1972, 285-313. French translation in Langages 26.34-58. Abbreviated version of D. Wunderlich 1971. 1973a "Präsuppositionen in der Linguistik". In J. S. Petöfi and D. Franck (eds.) 1973, 467-84. 1973b "Probleme einer linguistischen Pragmatik". PzL 4.1-19. On some problems with the relation between the grammatical form and the communicative function of utterances. 1973c "Sprechakte".

In H. Bühler (ed.) 1973, 113-23.

General introduction to speech act theory. 1974

Grundlagen der Linguistik. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 432 pp. A general introduction in linguistics, including a chapter on speech act theory and occasional references to other pragmatic concepts. (Reviewed by: I. Rosengren 1975.)

1975

"Lernziel Kommunikation". DD 23.263-77. Considerations about the pragmatic tendency in language teaching.

1976a "Kommentar zu R. Keller: Handlungen verstehen". ZGL 4:1.26-28. Review of R. Keller 1976a (replied to by R. Keller 1976b). 1976b "Towards an integrated theory of grammatical and pragmatical meaning". In A. Kasher (ed.) 1976, 251-77. 1977

"Assertions, conditional speech acts, and practical inferences". JoP 1:1.13-46. The convention that the speaker, in making an assertion, tries to say only what is true, is said to follow from the condition that a speaker must be ready to defend his assertion. After distinguishing theoretical from practical argumentation, practical argumentation is described in terms of the notion 'practical inference', which uses as its cognitive premise an assert-

242

PRAGMATICS

ion which can be expressed in the form of a 'Conditional speech act' (such as warnings, threats, pieces of advice, extortions, negotiations, offers and proposals). Wunderlich, Dieter (ed.) 1972 Linguistische Pragmatik. (=· Schwerpunkte Linguistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 12.) Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum Verlag, 413 pp. See: T. Ballmer 1972a; R. Brück and E. Kendziorra 1972; W. Dieckmann and G. Schulz 1972; K. Ehlich 1972; K. Ehlich and K. Martens 1972; K. Ehlich and J. Rehbein 1972a, 1972b, 1972c; V. Ehrich and G. Saile 1972; D. Flader 1972; G. Grewendorf 1972; 0. Kästle 1972; A. Leist 1972; J. Rehbein 1972; D. Wunderlich 1972a. Wunderlich, Dieter See also: Klein, W. and D. Wunderlich (eds.); Maas, U. and D. Wunderlich.

Y Yamanashi, Masa-aki 1972 "Lexical decomposition and implied proposition". PCLS 8.388-401. Y. expresses the belief that with the help of the lexical decomposition of surface verbs, it is possible to make a more significant generalization about the semantics of sentential predicates than the one made in L. Karttunen 1970a. 1974

"On minding your p's and q's in Japanese: A case study from honorifics". PCLS 10.760-71. Y. examines a number of basic types of speech levels in Japanese involved in the interaction between sentences and their social settings (i.e. 'honorifics').

Yngve, Victor H. 1969 "On achieving agreement in linguistics". PCLS 5.455-62. A plea for a type of linguistics trying to describe how people use language to communicate, with as a central concept the notion 'mental state1 or 'state of mind'. 1970

"On getting a word in edgewise". PCLS 6.567-78. A description of 'taking turns' in a conversation, within the framework of a linguistic theory based on the concept 'state of mind' (which contains all the relevant contextual inform-

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

243

ation that a language user needs when performing communicative acts). 1975

"Toward a human linguistics". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 540-55. An attempt to give a foundation for linguistics which would enable it to confront all communicative phenomena.

Ζ

Zaefferer, Dietmar See: Lindner, K. and D. Zaefferer. Zaefferer, Dietmar and Hans-Georg Frenz 1977 "Kindliches Sprechhandeln in relevanten Situationen: Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 297-307. Report of an empirical investigation of children's ability to perform speech acts. Zavarin, Valentina 1977 "Frame analysis of schizophrenic discourse". PBLS 3.545-58. An attempt to indicate the linguistic concepts relevant to the analysis of schizophrenic discourse. Ziegesaar, Detlef von 1975 "Sprachfunktionen und Sprechakte im Fremdsprachenunterricht". LBer 36.84-95. Speech act theory is compared with a number of theories of lin­ guistic functions. The conclusion is that a number of functions of language, which have to be taken into account in language teaching, are not covered by speech act theory. 1976a "Die kognitive Sprachfunktion im Fremdsprachenunterricht". LBer 41.65-76. Reflections on how foreign language teaching could be designed to stimulate the cognitive function of language. (At the same time, this paper is a criticism of the approaches to language teaching which only take the interactional functions of lan­ guage into account.) 1976b "Pragma- und textlinguistische Untersuchungsmethoden zur di­ rekten Rede im Englischen". LD 26.122-29.

244

PRAGMATICS

On pragmatic and textlinguistic approaches to indirect speech in English. 1977

"Die expressive Sprachfunktion im Fremdsprachenunterricht der Sekundarstufe I: Neuorientierung im Bereich der Textdidaktik". LBer 48.72-92. On the expressive functions of language and language teaching.

Ziegesar, Detlef von See: Ziegesaar, Detlef von Ziff, Paul 1967 "On H. P. Grice's account of meaning". Analysis 28.1-8. Reprinted in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.) 1971, 60-65, and in J. F. Rosenberg and C. Travis (eds.) 1971, 444-50. Review of H. P. Grice 1957. Zifonun, Gisela 1975 "Eine Kritik der 'Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz'". LBer 35.57-70. Review of J. Habermas and N. Luhmann 1971 and in particular J. Habermas 1971. Zillig, Werner 1977 "Bewerten und Bewertungsdialog". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 309-17. On acts of judging and dialogues in which such acts occur. Zimmer, Karl E. See: Hyman, L. and K. E. Zimmer. Zinder, L. R. See: Andreev, N. D. and L. R. Zinder. Ziv, Yael 1975 "On the relevance of content to the form-function correlation (An examination of extraposed relative clauses)". PCLS 11: Parasession on Functionalism. 568-79. Z. contends that the communicative functions of restrictive relative clauses are determined by the process of relative clause extraposition (i.e. Form) and certain semantic-pragmatic properties of the propositions in both the main clause and the relative clause (i.e. Content).

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

245

Zuber, Ryszard 1972a Structure Presuppositionnelle du Langage. (= Document de linguistique quantitative 17.) Paris: Dunod, 120 pp. A study of presuppositions in logic, presuppositions in linguistics and presuppositional ambiguity. 1972b "Transformations et présuppositions". PICL 11:2.221-28. Z. argues that the set of presuppositions associated with a phrase is not the same as the set of presuppositions associated with it after it has been modified by means of a transformation. In that sense, transformations are said not to be meaning-preserving. 1973a "Quelques problèmes de logique et langage". Langages 30.3-19. Overview of some problems with the logic of language (e.g. presupposition, presuppositional ambiguity, modality, performatives, etc.). 1973b "Remarks on markedness and presupposition". LBer 26.1-6. Z. argues that in the opposition marked-unmarked (as applied in semantic analysis) the marked term carries one more presupposition than the unmarked one. 1975

"A propos du statut sémantique de la proposition". ELA 19.43-51. A discussion of the semantic status of the proposition. Amongst other problems, Z. discusses the distinction between non-analytic and analytic phrases. He considers analytic phrases as presupposing themselves, so that they don't assert anything, don't have the property of always being true, are never false, but don't make sense; therefore, they are usually used metaphorically.

1977a "On meaning categories". To appear in LBer. An attempt to justify the claim that various types of semantic readings or different meaning categories can be attributed to sentences of any natural language. The notion of presupposition is said to be a very useful tool in the analysis of meaning categories: it is basic in the distinction between various categories. 1977b "Note on sign transparency and performatives". To appear in Semiotica. The 'sign transparency principle1 (deriving from the inten-

246

PRAGMATICS

tionality of psychic acts) runs as follows: signs do not attract attention to themselves but direct it to extra-sign reality. Z. argues that there are some linguistic expressions which prove the principle to be wrong. His examples are explicit performatives : since a performative sentence creates the event it describes , it is not possible to be interested in the event without being interested in the sign symbolizing it. 1977c "Interprétation des phrases analytiques et contradictoires". To appear in SémL. Analytic sentences (i.e. sentences which presuppose themselves) and contradictory sentences (i.e. sentences which are the negation of an analytic sentence) are said to have a non-trivial interpretation when embedded in a sentence with a verb expressing a propositional attitude, and when they have a metaphorical interpretation. In both cases the notion of semantic assertion plays an essential role in the interpretation of the sentences ; the metaphoric reading is due only to the assertion and not to the presupposition of lexical items. Zuluaga, Alberto 1977 "Pragmatisch fixierte Ausdrücke". In K. Sprengel, W.-D. Bald and H. W. Viethen (eds.) 1977, 319-29. On pragmatically fixed expressions (i.e. formulaic expressions). Zwicky, Arnold M. 1971 "On reported speech". In C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds.) 1971, 72-77. Ζ. claims that in order to judge whether a sentence (with 'say', 'tell', etc.) is an adequate report of another sentence, one needs a distinction between meaning (i.e. what is asserted, asked, etc.), presuppositions (i.e. the conditions on the cor­ rect use of the sentence), message (i.e. what might be con­ veyed by the sentence even though it may be unrelated to its meaning), and inferences (which can be deduced from sentences). Zwicky, Arnold M. See also: Geis, M. L. and A. M. Zwicky.

SUBJECT INDEX

'ABER': Bublitz 77. ACCENT: See EMPHASIS. ACCEPT: Schwayder 77. ACCEPTABILITY: Greenbaum 77. ACCEPTANCE: Verdaasdonk 76. ACKNOWLEDGE: Aldrich 66. ACQUISITION OF LANGUAGE: See LANGUAGE ACQUISITION. ACT, COVERT ILLOCUTIONARY: Holdcroft 77; Sadock 74. ACT, ILLOCUTIONARY: Alston 64a, 64b; Anscombre 75, 76; Austin 62; T. Cohen 73; D. A. Cooper 72; Coursil 75; Davis 68; Downes 77; Ducrot 69a; Eggs 74; Ehlich 72; Forguson 73; Furberg 63; Gerstenkorn 76; Guhl 72; C. Hartmann 77; Hartnack 75; Holdcroft 64, 74; Karttunen & Peters 77; Landesman 72; Lanigan 77; Maas 71; McConnell-Ginet & Ginet 76; Ohmann 73; Peetz 75; Pitcher 57; Rosenthal 76; Schlieben-Lange 75; Searle 65, 66b, 68, 69, 76a, 76d; Sloman 69; Steinmann 74; Strawson 64a; Thau 72; C. Travis 71; Valdés Villanueva 77; Wagner 77. See also SPEECH ACT. ACT, LOCUTIONARY: Austin 62; Forguson 73; Furberg 63; Holdcroft 74; Lanigan 77; Searle 66b, 68; Strawson 73. ACT, PERLOCUTIONARY: Austin 62; T. Cohen 73; C. Hartmann 77; Lanigan 77; Schlieben-Lange 74, 75, 76b; Steinmann 75; Verschueren 75c. ACT, RHETIC: Austin 62; Thau 72. ACTION: Apostel 72; Castañeda 67; Forguson 67; Frese 67; Hartnack 68. See also LOGIC, ACTION. ACT OF SPEECH: See SPEECH ACT. ACTOR: See AGENT. ADDRESS, MODES OF: Jonz 75; Kramer 75; McIntire 72; McLean 73. ADJECTIVE: Ehrich 75; Martin & Ferb 73; Wilkinson 70. ADJUNCT, PARENTHETIC: See PARENTHESIS. ADVERB: Davison 72; Goral 74; G. Lakoff 74c; Lehrer 75; Tsao 76; Uhlířová 74. ADVERB, CAUSAL: Davison 70. ADVERB, EVALUATIVE: Corum 74. ADVERB, FACTIVE: Corum 75b. ADVERB, MODAL: Corum 75b; Micheli 76. ADVERB, SENTENCE: Micheli 74. See also ADVERB, FACTIVE and ADVERB, MODAL.

248

PRAGMATICS

ADVERBIAL: Schreiber 72. ADVERBIAL, REASON: J. R. Davison 72. ADVERTISING: Flader 72; Vorlat 76. ADVICE: Hindelang 77. AGENT: Kirsner 76; Schachter 76. AGREEMENT, GRAMMATICAL: Givón 76. AGREEMENT, PRONOUN: Byarushengo & Tenenbaum 76. ALLEGATION: Hajičová 73; Sgall et al. 73. ALLEGORY: Holdcroft 76. ' ALLERDINGS': Koch & Pusch 76. ALLUSION ('SOUS-ENTENDU'): Ducrot 69b. ALMOST: Sadock 77b. ALTERNATIVE: Liberman 73. ALWAYS: Lawler 73. AMALGAM, SYNTACTIC: Cogen 74; G. Lakoff 74a. AMBIGUITY: Hinds 75b; Kasher & Kasher 76; Li 75; Putseys 77; Salomon 66; Schegloff 76; Stalnaker 70; Weiser 74; Weydt 72; Wirth 75; Zuber 73a. AMBIGUITY, PRESUPPOSITIONAL: Zuber 72a. ANACOLUTHON: Betten 76a. ANALYSIS, PERFORMATIVE: See HYPOTHESIS, PERFORMATIVE. ANAPHOR: Akmajian 73; Garrod & Sanford 76; J. Wright 74. ANAPHOR, NON-SYNTACTIC: Gensler 77. AND: R. Lakoff 71; Reis 74b. ANNOUNCE: Apeltauer 77. ANSWER: Åqvist 65; Baumert 77; Belnap 66; Bhatia 74; Cicourel 74; H. H. Clark 72; Ervin-Tripp 70; Harrah 61, 63; Harries 72b; Hiz 62; Keenan & Hull 73a; Klinke 76; R. Lakoff 73b; Maas 72a; Savia 75c; Steffensen 75; Walther 76; Weiser 75. ANTECEDENT, NON-SYNTACTIC: Gensler 77. ANTHROPOLOGY, LINGUISTIC: P. Hartmann 65. ANTI-LANGUAGE: Halliday 76. ANTINOMIES, PERFORMATIVE: G. Lakoff 72a. ANTITOPIC: Chafe 76. ANY: Fauconnier 75b. APPROXIMATION: Sadock 77a. ARBITRARINESS: R. M. Müller 77. ARGUMENTATION: Anscombre 75, 76; Anscombre & Ducrot 76; Bar-Hillel 69, 70b, 70c; Goeppert 74; Kambartel 77; Kasher 76a; Kummer & Kummer 76; Maas 73b; Metzing 75; Sadock 77c; Siegert 77; Wunderlich 77. ART, VERBAL: See LITERATURE. ARTICLE: Bickerton 75c; Hawkins 76; Morgan 75b. ARTICLE, DEFINITE: Hawkins 75, 77; Lyons 75. ARTICLE, GENERIC USE OF THE: Nunberg & Pan 75. ARTICLE, INDEFINITE: Ducrot 70; Kasher & Gabbay 76. ASK: See QUESTION. ASPECT: D. Cohen 71. ASSERTION: Aguirre 76; Aldrich 66; Apostel 72; Arbini 67; Attal 76; Aune 67; Austin 50, 53, 70b ; Axelsen 69; Ballmer 72a; Bar-Lev 75; Bickerton 75c; Black 52; Carnap 56; Castaneda 67; Cook 73; D. E. Cooper 74a; Garner 68; Geach 65; Grewendorf 77b; Hajicova 73; Hamblin 63; Harrah 61; Holdcroft 77; Huth 75; F. Klein 75; Langen-

SUBJECT INDEX

249

doen 71; Lemmon 66; Maas 73a; Micheli 76; Salomon 66; Searle 66a; Stalnaker 75; Strawson 50a, 64b, 65; Walker 69; Wheatley 69; Wilson 75a, 75b; Wunderlich 77; Zuber 77c. ASSERTION, CONDITIONAL: Manor 76. ATTITUDE: Feldman 74. ATTITUDE, PROPOSITIONAL: Grossmann 60; Hintikka 69; E. Klein 75; Quine 66; Zuber 77c. ATTRIBUTIVENESS: P. Cole 75b. BACKGROUNDING: Kirsner 76. BE: Grady 74. BEFORE : Heinämäki 72. BEHAVIOREME: Pike 67. BELIEF: Austin 46; Baskett 74; Carnap 56; Hutchinson 71; Kasher 75b; Kummer 73. BILINGUALISM: Gumperz 72. BIOLOGY: Marshall & Wales 74. BREAK: Fillmore 70; Ruhl 72. BUT: R. Lakoff 71; Reis 74b. CATEGORY, GRAMMATICAL: Maas 71. CAUSATIVE: Brennenstuhl & Wachowicz 76; Costa 75b; Hyman & Zimmer 76. CERTAINTY: Sheintuch 75. CIRCULARITY, SYMPATHETIC: Weber 76. CLAIM: Carl & Horstmann 72. CLASS, SOCIAL: A. D. Edwards 76. CLASSIFIER: Becker 75. CLAUSE, IF-: Linde 76. CLAUSE, MAIN: Green 76. CLAUSE, NON-RESTRICTIVE RELATIVE: Ayres 74; Corum 75b; Loetscher 73; Thorne 72. CLAUSE, RELATIVE: Ebert 73b; Fairclough 73; Kuroda 76a; Lewkowicz 71; Morgan 75b; Offir 73; Staal 70. CLAUSE, RESTRICTIVE RELATIVE: Rivero 71; Ziv 75. CLAUSE, SUBORDINATE: Green 76. CLAUSE, TEMPORAL: Andersson 73. CLAUSE, 'THAT'-: Brondeel 77; Costa 72a. CLEFT: Halvorsen 76; Harries 72a, 72b; Hornby 71. CLEFT, PSEUDO-: Harries 72b; Hornby 71; Muraki 70. CLICHÉ: Green 75. CODE: A. D. Edwards 76. CODE-MIXING: Thelander 76. CODE-SWITCHING: Clyne 67; Gumperz 75; Hathaway 77; McClure & Wentz 75; Raffler Engel 72; Thelander 76; Verma 75. COHERENCE: E. 0. Keenan 74; E. 0. Keenan & Klein 75; Ruhl 72; Werth 76. COLOUR TERM: Ure 67. COMMAND: Apeltauer 77; L. J. Cohen 69; Bohnert 45; Rescher 66; Sugathapala De Silva 76. COMMENDATION: Montefiore 67. COMMENT: See TOPIC.

250

PRAGMATICS

COMMENT, EVALUATIVE: Freeman 76. COMMENTING: Hindelang 75; Posner 72a, 72b; Sornig 76. COMMITMENT, (SPEAKER'S): Brondeel 77; Carey 75; Manor 76. COMMUNICATION: Ader et al. 76; M. Clark 77; Dittmann 75; Keller 76a; Kuroda 76b; Lanigan 77; Meier 69; Searle 74; Ungeheuer 74; Waismann 65c; Wolff 77. COMMUNICATION, INDIRECT: Holdcroft 76. COMMUNICATION GAME: Kummer 72. COMPARATIVE: Ehrich 75; Higgins 77; Napoli & Nespor 76; Panagl 75. COMPARISON: Anscombre 75, 76; Cantrall 71. COMPETENCE: Fidelholtz 74; Immler 73; Kanngiesser 72; Oksaar 76; Shank & Wilks 74; Steinmann 76. COMPETENCE, COMMUNICATIVE: Allen & Widdowson 74; Badura 72; Bar-Hillel 73; Bates 74; Bayer 76; Bouveresse 74; Brekle 72; Bruder 74; Bunting & Kochan 73; Campbell & Wales 70; Candlin et al. 76; Chomsky 74; Ervin-Tripp 73; Geest et al. 73; Gumperz 72; Habermas 71; Hindelang 73; Homberger 75; Joas & Leist 71; Lütjen 73; McClure & Wentz 75; R. M. Müller 77; Oksaar 76; Savic 77; Savignon 75; Siegert 77; Walraven 75; White 74; Wunderlich 70, 75; Zifonun 75. COMPETENCE, CONVERSATIONAL: E. 0. Keenan 74; Keller-Cohen & Dennis 75. COMPLEMENT: D. Cohen 71; L. Karttunen 70a, 70b, 71a; R. Lakoff 68; H. B. Lee 70; Riddle 75; Rivero 71; Spears 73; Wilkinson 70. COMPLEMENT, 'FOR'-: Goossens 77; Horn 71. COMPLEMENT, 'TO'-: Horn 71. COMPLIMENT: Breitborde 75. COMPREHENSION: See UNDERSTANDING. CONDITIONAL: Austin 56; Auwera 77e; D'Alessio 72; Fogelin 72; Gazdar 76a; Hare 70; Nowell-Smith 60; Pears 73; Rivero 72; Stalnaker 75; Thalberg 69. CONDITIONAL, COUNTERFACTUAL: L. Karttunen 71b. CONDITIONAL, ELLIPTICAL: Lawler 75. CONDITIONAL, IMPERATIVE: Ibanez 76. CONJUNCTION: Bublitz 77; R. Lakoff 71; Mittwoch 76; Peterson 69; Reis 74b. CONJUNCTION, ASYMMETRIC: Schmerling 75. CONJUNCTION, TEMPORAL: Oosten 75. CONNOTATION: Salomon 66. CONSTRAINT, TRANSDERIVATIONAL: See GRAMMAR, TRANSDERIVATIONAL. CONSTRUCTION, EXISTENTIAL: E. Clark 70. CONTEXT: Abraham 75a; Antal 61; Apostel 71; Bar-Hillel 54, 70b, 70c; Bates 76; Baumert 76; Benes 67; Bigelow 75; Bouveresse 74; Candlin 72; Chafe 74, 76; L. R. Cole 75; J. R. Davison 72; Dijk 72, 74b, 76; Dixon 64; Dressier 72; Ellis 66; Fidelholtz 74; Fillmore 74b; Fraser 73; Friedman 76; Garrod & Sanford 76; Giv6n 75b; Goody 76; Grabski 74; Greenbaum 77; Gregory 67; Greimas 74; Grewendorf 72; Gunter 66; Halliday 76; Hirst 74; Holdcroft 77; Isard 75; Isard & Longuet-Higgins 73; Jackson & Clark 74; Kachru 66; Kasher 73a; Kasher & Gabbay 76; Kasher & Kasher 76; Kirstein 75; Kummer 68; G. Lakoff 74d; R. Lakoff 72b, 73b; Li 75; Lyons 66; Makkai 71; Martin & Ferb 73; McCawley 74b; Mcintosh 66; McNeill 76; Melka-Teichroew 75; Nagy 73; Oller 75;

SUBJECT INDEX

251

Radhakrishnan 72; Raffler Engel 72; Robins 52; Sacks 76a; Savic & Jocic 75b; Schegloff 76; Schnelle 71; Shank & Wilks 74; Slama-Cazacu 70, 73; Spencer & Gregory 70; Staal 65; Stalnaker 75 ; Strawson 50a, 70; Taylor 75; Tillmann 67; G. W. Turner 73; Urmson 52; Wertsch 74; Weydt 72; Wolff 73; Wunderlich 71a, 72c. CONTEXT OF SITUATION: See CONTEXT. CONTRACT: Samek 65. CONTRADICT: Sornig 76. CONTRAST: Werth 76. CONTROL: C. Baker 75a, 75b; Brennenstuhl & Wachowicz 76; R. W. Schmidt 74; Sheintuch 75. CONVENTION: Allwood 76; Brück & Kendziorra 72; Ehlich 72; Landesman 72; Lanigan 77; O'Neill 72; Savigny 75; Schiffer 72; Schlieben-Lange 76b; Skinner 70; Strawson 64a; Wunderlich 72a. CONVERSATION: Bates 75a; Ervin-Tripp 76; Gumperz 75; Hinds 75b; Holly 76; Sachs 76b, 76c; Trömel-Ploetz & Franck 77; Wallace 70; Yngve 70. See also DISCOURSE (...). CONVERSATION, ADULT-CHILD: Savic 75a, 75c, 75d; Snow 75, 77; Wertsch 74. CONVERSATION, COMMERCIAL: Dengel & Scheck 77. CONVERSATION, DOCTOR-PATIENT: Cassell et al. 76; Cicourel 74; Sinclair & Coulthard 75. CONVERSATION, INFORMAL: See DISCOURSE, NON-FORMAL. CONVERSATION, MAXIMS OF: C. Baker 75a; Braunroth et al. 76; H. H. Clark 73; Cogen & Herrmann 75; A. Davison 77; Fillmore 75b; Grice 67; Horn 73; Kasher 76a; E. 0. Keenan 76; Kempson 75; R. Lakoff 73a, 74c; Larkin & O'Malley 73; Tannen 75; Weiser 74; Wirth 77a, 77b, 77c. CONVERSATION, MOTHER-CHILD: See CONVERSATION, ADULT-CHILD. COOPERATION: Allwood 76. COORDINATION: Gazdar 76a. COPY-CLEFTING: Talmy 75b. COREFERENCE: Cornulier 74; Gensler 77; Morgan 70; Postal 72a. CORRECTNESS, CONVERSATIONAL: Groenendijk & Stokhof 75, 76. COUNTERFACTUAL: C. L. Baker 70b. CYCLE, SYNTACTIC: R. Lakoff 69. DECEIVE: Eggs 76. DECISION: Kasher 73b. DECLARATIVE: Abraham 72; Forman 74a, 74b; Kasher 76a; Larkin & O'Malley 73; H. Lee & Maxwell 70; J. R. Ross 70. DECOMPOSITION, LEXICAL: Antinucci & Parisi 71; Borkin 72; G. Lakoff 70a, 70b; Lipka 76; Verschueren 75c; Yamanashi 72. DEDUCTION: G. Lakoff 71b. DEDUCTION, PRAGMATIC: Parret 76a, 77b. DEFINITENESS: Chafe 76; Chvany 73; Hawkins 77; Hyman & Zimmer 76; Schwartz 76. DEFINITION: Black 52; Salomon 66. DEIXIS: Becker 75; Faerch 75; Fillmore 75b; Goeppert 74; Hinds 75b; R. Lakoff 74d; Lyons 75; Wunderlich 71a, 72c. DEMONSTRATIVE: Isard 75; R. Lakoff 74d; Lyons 75. DENOTATION: Salomon 66. DERIVATION: Lawler 75.

252

PRAGMATICS

DESCRIBE: Toulmin & Baier 52. DESCRIPTION: M. Clark 71; Radnitzky 62. DESCRIPTION, DEFINITE: Donnellan 66; Ducrot 72; Gabriel 71; Geach 50; Mates 73; Morgan 75b; Schnitzer 71; Seilars 54; Strawson 50a, 54. DEVIATION: Abraham 71. DIALECT: Rucktäschel 73. DIALECT, SOCIAL: Hathaway 77. DIALOGUE: Badura 72; Goffman 76; Savic & Jocic 75b; Tymister 73; Wunderlich 69. DIFFERENTIATION, FUNCTIONAL: Meeus 75; Steube 74. DIRECTIVE: Ervin-Tripp 76. DISCOURSE: Ballmer 72a; Chafe 74; E. Clark 70; Coursil 75; Dahl 69; Ducrot 73; Ervin-Tripp 70; Greimas 74; Habermas 71; Huisman 73; E. 0. Keenan 75b; E. 0. Keenan & Schieffelin 76; G. Lakoff 74d; Lahman 77; Parret 77d; Werth 76. See also CONVERSATION. DISCOURSE, NON-FORMAL: Drachman 75; Harrah 76; Sandig 73. DISCOURSE, SCHIZOPHRENIC: Ehlich & Martens 72; Schmidt-Knaebel 76; Zavarin 77. See also LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY and PSYCHOTHERAPY. DISCOURSE, UNIVERSE OF: Becker 75; Bublitz 77; Kempson 75; SchliebenLange 75. See also WORLD, POSSIBLE. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: Betten 75, 76a, 77; Fillmore 74b; Hinds 75a; Maingueneau 76; Schlieben-Lange 75; Sinclair & Coulthard 75; Todorov 70b; Wirth 77a, 77b. DISCOURSE IN THE CLASSROOM: Adlung 75; Coppalle et al. 76; Prucha 73; Sinclair & Coulthard 75; Tymister 73. DISCUSSION, MEDIA: Sinclair & Coulthard 75. DISJUNCTION: Kottke 72. DISTANCE, COMMUNICATIVE: Peng 74. 'DOCH ' : Rath 75; Valin 75a, 75b. DURATION: Allwood 74. DYNAMISM, COMMUNICATIVE: Firbas 67; Levinsohn 75; Pala 74; Sgall 75a, 75b; Sgall et al. 73; Svoboda 74. EFFECT, ILLOCUTIONARY: Searle 69. EFFECT, PERLOCUTIONARY: Austin 62; Goebel 74; T. Cohen 73; Schweller et al. 76; Verschueren 77b. ELECTION MANIFESTO: Sandig 73. ELLIPSIS: Betten 76a; R. N. Ross 75; Venneman 75. EMOTIVES: Kiparsky & Kiparsky 69. Postal 72b. EMPATHY: Chafe 76; Joseph 76; Kuno 75, 76; Makino 76. EMPHASIS: Chafe 76; Clayre 73; Dahl 69; Gunter 66; F. Karttunen 75; Kiefer 69; Werth 76. ENTAILMENT: Boër & Lycan 76; Castañeda 67; D. Cohen 73; D. E. Cooper 74a; Fillmore 71; Horn 69, 72; L. Karttunen 74a; Kempson 75; Roger Montague 69; Morgan 77; Nerlich 65; Reis 73; Schnitzer 71; Stalnaker 75; Whiteley & Mganga 69; Wilson 72, 75a. ENTITLEMENT: Brown 77.

SUBJECT INDEX

253

ENVY: Joseph 76. EQUI-NP DELETION: Morgan 70. ERGATIVE: Halliday 70a. EUPHEMISM: Salomon 66. EVALUATIVE: Postal 72b. EVEN: Cogen 74; Horn 69, 71. EVIDENCE: Bigelow 76; Holdcroft 77. EXCLAMATION: Elliott 74. EXCUSE: Austin 57; New 66; Rehbein 72. EXISTENCE: Schirn 74. EXPECTATION: Abraham & Braunmüller 71; Bhatia 74; Ehlich & Rehbein 72a; Hackman 77; Lawler 71; Mandel 74; R. N. Ross 75; Tannen 77; Tsao 76. EXPLETIVE: Bailey & Timm 76; Oliver & Rubin 75. EXPRESSIBILITY, PRINCIPLE OF: Searle 69; Verhagen 76. EXPRESSION, FORMULAIC: Ferguson 76; Tannen & Őztek 77; Zuluaga 77. EXPRESSION, INDEFINITE: Kasher 75b; Kasher & Gabbay 76. EXPRESSION, INDEXICAL: Bar-Hillel 54, 63; Sayward 75. EXPRESSION, NOMINAL: Pelc 71. EXPRESSION, PSYCHO-OSTENSIVE: Tannen & Oztek 77. EXTENSION: Kasher 75b. FABRICATION: Goffman 74. FACT, SOFT: Pyle 76. FACTIVE, FULL: L. Karttunen 71c; Oh 74b. FACTIVE, SEMI-: L. Karttunen 71c; Oh 74b. FACTIVITY: Aguirre 76; Auwera 75a; D. Cohen 71; Goossens 77; L. Karttunen 70a, 70b, 71a, 71c; Kiparsky & Kiparsky 69; E. Klein 75; Postal 72b; Reis 73; Rosenberg 75a; Schwarz 76; Spears 73; Vlach 74; Wilkinson 70; Wilson 72; Wirth 77c; Yamanashi 72. FAMILY RESEMBLANCE: Wittgenstein 53. FELICITY: Austin 62; A. Davison 72, 73; J. Heringer 72; G. Lakoff 72a; Perret 74b, 76; Wunderlich 76b. FICTION: Gale 71; Pelc 71; S. J. Schmidt 76; Searle 75b; Smith 75; Suhor 75. FIGURE: Givón 75a; Talmy 75a. FILTER: L. Karttunen .73; Liberman 73; Reis 74b. FOCUS: Abraham 75a; Akmajian 73; Allwood 74; Auwera 77a; Ballmer 72a; Bartsch 75; Boadi 74; Chafe 76; Clayre 73; Cook 73; Hackman 77; Hajičová & Sgall 75; Halliday 74b; Heringer & Wolontis 72; Hope 73; Huisman 73; Jackendoff 72; Kess 75; Kirsner 76; Kuno 75; Miller 73; Pike 67; Saltarelli 70; Schachter 73; Schwartz 76; Sgall 75a, 75b; Sgall et al. 73; Verma 76; Werth 76; West 73; Whiteley & Mganga 69; Wierzbicka 75. FORCE, ILLOCUTIONARY: Apostel 72; Austin 62; Bech 75; Boyd & Thorne 69; Clarke 70; L. J. Cohen 64; D. E. Cooper 74b; Coursil 75; A. Davison 70, 75b; Fraser 73; Furberg 69; Gazdar 76a; Gochet 65; Goebel 74; Goody 76; Holdcroft 77; Hudson 75; Jackson & Clark 74; Lecointre & Le Galliot 73; MacKay 67; Mittwoch 76; Morgan 75a; Ohmann 70; O'Neill 72; Parret 77c; Reeder 75; J. R. Ross 75a; Schwayder 60; Schweller et al. 76; Searle 69; Stalker 73; Strawson 73; Valdés Villanueva 77.

254

PRAGMATICS

FOREGROUNDING: Mukařovsky 64; Schachter 73; FRAME: Bauman 75; Coleman 75; Fillmore 75a; Gensler 77; Goffman 74; Leonardi 76; Petöfi 76; Wilks 76; Zavarin 77. FRAME ANALYSIS: Garrod & Sanford 76; Goffman 74. FRAMEWORK, PRIMARY: Goffman 74. FUNCTIONAL SENTENCE PERSPECTIVE: Bacvarov 74; Benes 67, 73; Danes 70, 74; Danes et al. 74; Dressler 74; Filipec 74; Firbas 67, 72,74; Fried 72; Halliday 74a; Kuno 72, 75; Levinsohn 75; Lipka 76; Novak 74; Pala 74; Sgall et al. 69; Svoboda 74; Uhlířová 74; Vachek 66. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE: Bayer 73; Bouveresse 74; Chomsky 74; Dubsky 72; Durand & Robinson 74; Garvin 67; Goossens 73; Greimas 74; Gundel 77; Halliday 70a, 70b, 73a, 73b, 74b, 75, 76; P. Hartmann 74; Havránek 64; Helbig 76; Horálek 65; Jakobson 64; Kress 76; Leech 74; Marcellesi 74; Martinet 74; McCawley 74b; Meeus 75; Mukarovsky 64; Parret 75b ; Pelc 71; Pride 74; Prucha 72; Pytelka 72; Richards 72; Robinson 72; Salomon 66; R. W. Schmidt 74; Shetter 66; Sinclair & Coulthard 75; Stich 73; Todd 72; G. W. Turner 73; Ulshöfer 77; Vachek 66, 72; Verburg 52; Verschueren 75a, 75b; Wekker 74; Wittgenstein 53; Wittwer 75; Ziegesaar 75; Karoly 63. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, COGNITIVE: Ziegesaar 76a. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, CONATIVE: See FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, DIRECTIVE. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, DIRECTIVE: Halliday 73b; Jakobson 64; Luria 59. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, EMOTIVE: See FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, EXPRESSIVE. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, EXPRESSIVE: Jakobson 64; Ziegesaar 77. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, HEURISTIC: Halliday 73b. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, IDEATIONAL: Halliday 70a, 73b. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, IMAGINATIVE: Halliday 73b. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, INSTRUMENTAL: Halliday 73b. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, INTERACTIONAL: Halliday 73b; Jakobson 64. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, INTERPERSONAL: Halliday 70a, 73b. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, METALINGUAL: Jakobson 64. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, PERSONAL: Halliday 73b. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, PHATIC: See FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, INTERACTIONAL. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, POETIC: Jakobson 64. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, REFERENTIAL: See FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, REPRESENT­ ATIONAL. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, REGULATIVE: See FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, DIRECTIVE. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, REPRESENTATIONAL: Halliday 73b; Jakobson 64. FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE, TEXTUAL: Halliday 70a, 73b. GAME THEORY: Hintikka 76b; Kasher 73b. GAPPING: Kuno 75. GENERIC, UNIVERSAL: Lawler 73; Putseys 77. GOOD: Hare 52, 70; Montefiore 67. GRAMMAR, CASE: Lipka 76. GRAMMAR, MONTAGUE: Groenendijk & Stokhof 76; Hamblin 73; Hausser 76; L. Karttunen 77; L. Karttunen & Peters 75, 76; Kasher 75a; Rohrer 72; 73; Weingartner 75. GRAMMAR; SITUATIONAL: Kirstein 75. GRAMMAR, TAXONOMIC: Apostel 70.

SUBJECT INDEX

255

GRAMMAR, TRANSDERIVATIONAL: Gordon & Lakoff 71; G. Lakoff 74b. GRAMMAR, TRANSFORMATIONAL: Apostel 70; Dahl 69; Davis 68; Hajicová & Sgall 75; R. Lakoff 72b; Lightfoot 73a; McCawley 68a; Morgan 69; Oh 74c; Searle 72; Shank & Wilks 74; Wilks 75. GRAMMATICALITY: Droste 73; Gutknecht 71; Köck 73; G. Lakoff 71a. GREETING: Ferguson 76; Ghosh 72; D. Hartmann 73. GROUND: See FIGURE. HAVE: Costa 75b. HEDGE: Borkin 72; Fraser 75a; Herrmann 75; Klockow 76; G. Lakoff 72b; Prince 76; Sadock 77a. HINT: Holdcroft 76. HIT: Fillmore 70; Ruhl 72. HOLE: L. Karttunen 73. HOLOPHRASE: Dore 75. HONORIFIC: Yamanashi 74. HYPERSENTENCE: Rentsch 76; Sadock 69a, 69b. HYPOTHESIS: Bickerton 75c. HYPOTHESIS, MEANING: Savigny 76. HYPOTHESIS, PERFORMATIVE: Abraham 72; Anderson 71; Ayres 74; Boër & Lycan 76; D. Cohen 71; P. Cole 74a, 75b; Comrie 76; Corum 74, 76; Dirven 73; Downes 77; Fairclough 73; Fraser 74a; Gazdar 76b; Gerstenkorn 76; Grewendorf 72; Harnish 75; Holdcroft 76; Kasher 76a; G. Lakoff 74b; R. Lakoff 68, 69; C, Lee 73c; H. Lee & Maxwell 70; Loetscher 73; Micheli 74; Morin & O'Malley 69; Parret 77c; Peterson 69; J. R. Ross 70, 75a; Sadock 69a, 74; Schreiber 72; Searle 76c; Shell 75; Siertsema 72; Staal 70; Stampe 75; Stassen & Walraven 72; Suhor 75; T h o m e 72; Thümmel 76; Uyeno 71; Watt 74; Weiser 74. HYPOTHESIS: SAPIR-WHORF: See RELATIVITY, LINGUISTIC. IDIOM: Sadock 72. IF: Peetz 75. IMITATION: E. 0. Keenan 75a. IMPERATIVE: Broadie 72; Castañeda 67; Downes 77; Hare 52; Haverkate 72, 76; H. Lee & Maxwell 70; Leonard 59; Sadock 74; Voroniuc 77b. IMPERATIVE, HYPERBOLIC: Lawler 75. IMPERATIVE, HYPOTHETICAL: Greenspan 75. IMPLICATION: Auwera 77e; Bhatia 74; Black 62a; Ducrot 72, 73; Fraassen 68; L. Karttunen 70a; König 74; Kotschi 76; Todt & Guhl 75b. IMPLICATION, CONTEXTUAL: Hungerland 60; Nowell-Smith 62; Stroll 67. IMPLICATION, MATERIAL: Peetz 75. IMPLICATION, PRAGMATIC: Bar-Hillel 60, 63; Castañeda 57, 61; Grant 58; Kummer 73; Potter et al. 77. IMPLICATURE: Allwood 76; Auwera 77a; Cogen & Herrmann 75; Ehrich & Saile 72; Freeman 76; Gazdar 76a; Green 74; Grice 67, 75; Huntley 76; L. Karttunen 74a; L. Karttunen & Peters 77; Kasher 74, 75a, 76a, 77; Perret 76; Thomason 74; Verschueren 77c. IMPLICATURE, CONVENTIONAL: Grice 67, 75; Halvorsen 76; L. Karttunen & Peters 75, 76, 77. Parret 76c. IMPLICATURE, CONVERSATIONAL: Boër & Lycan 76; Braunroth 76; P. Cole 74b,

256

PRAGMATICS

75a; Grabski 74; Grice 67, 75; Horn 72; Hübler 77; L. Karttunen & Peters 77; E. 0. Keenan 76; Keller 75b; Kempson 75; Kotschi 76; G. Lakoff 74b; Lindenfeld 77; R. J. Matthews 75; Mohan 74; Morgan 77; Norrick 76; Parret 76c; Sadock 76, 77b; Schmerling 75; Wirth 77a, 77b; R. A. Wright 75. IMPOSITIVE: Freeman 76; Lawler 75. INDEXICAL: G. Lakoff 74b; Sacks 76a. INDICATIVE: F. Klein 75; Rivero 71. INFELICITY: Austin 62; Brennenstuhl 77; Thau 71. INFERENCE: Bellert 74; Metzing 75; Petöfi & Rieser 73; Wilks 76; Zwicky 71. INFERENCE, FORCED: Horn 72. INFERENCE, INVITED: Geis & Zwicky 71; Horn 72; Wirth 75. INFERENCE, PRACTICAL: Hare 71; Wunderlich 77. INFERENCE, PRAGMATIC: Kirsner & Thompson 76. INFERENCE, REASONABLE: Stalnaker 75. INFINITIVE, PREPOSITIONAL: Haverkate 76. INFORMATION: Forman 74a. INFORMATION, CONVERSATIONAL: Groenendijk & Stokhof 75, 76. INFORMATION, GIVEN: Byarushengo & Tenenbaum 76; Chafe 76; Cinque 76; H. H. Clark 73; Dirven 68; Eroms 75; Garrod & Sanford 76; Gundel 77; Halliday 70a, 70b, 73b; E. 0. Keenan 75b; E. 0. Keenan & Schieffelin 76; Kuno 72, 75. INFORMATION, NEW: See INFORMATION, GIVEN. INFORMATION, OLD: See INFORMATION, GIVEN. INSCRIPTION: Kasher 71, 72. INSERTION, LEXICAL: Müraki 74. INSINUATE: Holdcroft 76. INSULT: Breitborde 75. INTELLIGENCE, ARTIFICIAL: Wilks 76. INTELLIGIBILITY (OF HEARD SPEECH): Bruce 68. INTENSIFIER: Hübler 77. INTENSION: See INTENSI0NALITY. INTENSIONALITY: Bigelow 76; Kasher 75b; Searle 76d. INTENSITY: Allwood 74. INTENTION: Dressier 72; Grice 69; Hartnack 72; Landesman 72; Lanigan 77; Leist 72; Parret 75a; Savigny 75; Strawson 64a; Tanaka 72. INTENTIONALITY: Carnap 56; Searle 76d; Zuber 77b. INTERJECTION: R. Lakoff 73b. INTERROGATIVE: Åqvist 65; H. Lee & Maxwell 70; Leonard 59; Llewelyn 64; Oomen 75; Sadock 74; Teyssier 74. INTERVIEW, DOCTOR-PATIENT: See CONVERSATION, DOCTOR-PATIENT. INTERVIEW, MEDICAL HISTORY: See CONVERSATION, DOCTOR-PATIENT. INTERVIEW, RADIO: Sinclair & Coulthard 75. INTONATION: Firbas 72; Halliday 74b; Hirst 74; Kress 76; Liberman & Sag 74; Lipka 76; Opalka 77; Sag 75; Voroniuc 77b. INVOLVEMENT: Sheintuch 75. IRONY: Berg 76; Cutler 74; Holdcroft 76; Löffler 75; Perret 74b, 76; Tanaka 73; A. Travis 75.

SUBJECT INDEX

257

JUDGE: Zillig 77. JUDGING: See VERB OF JUDGING. JUSTIFY: Frankenberg 77. KEYING: Bauman 75; Goffman 74. KNOWLEDGE: Austin 46; Chisholm 66; Kummer 73. KNOWLEDGE, COMMON: Harder & Kock 76; Kasper 76; Keller 75a; Schiffer 72. KNOWLEDGE, MUTUAL: See KNOWLEDGE, COMMON. LANGUAGE, POETIC: Marcus 74. LANGUAGE, RELIGIOUS: Grabner-Haider 73. LANGUAGE, SCIENTIFIC: Marcus 74. LANGUAGE, WOMEN'S: Dubois & Crouch 75; R. Lakoff 73c, 74b, 75. LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: Bates 74, 75a, 75b, 76; Bielefeld 76; Bruner 75; Campbell & Wales 70; Chambers 73; Cross 75; Dore 74, 75; A. D. Edwards 76; Ervin-Tripp 70, 73; Felix 75; Geest et al. 73; Giese 77; Giesecke & Martens 77; Grimm 75; Gruber 67, 75a, 75b; Halliday 75; E. 0. Keenan 74, 75a, 75b; E. 0. Keenan & Klein 75; E. 0. Keenan & Schieffelin 76; Keller-Cohen & Dennis 75; Limber 76; Lindner & Zaefferer 76; Luria 59; Lyons 75; Marshall & Wales 74; McClure & Wentz 75; Meditch 75; Oksaar 76; Ramge 73, 77; Reeder 75; Rodgon et al. 77; Rosenbaum 75; Sachs & Devin 76; Savic 75a, 75b, 75c, 76, 77; Savic & Jocic 75; R. W. Schmidt 74; Schnelle 71; Shatz 75; Steffensen 75; Shugar 76a; Todd 72; Wertsch 74; Wode 76; Zaefferer & Frenz 77. LANGUAGE CHANGE: Butler 77; A. Davison 74b; Hathaway 77; Traugott 72. LANGUAGE GAME: Ballmer 72a; Habermas 71; Henne 75; Hintikka 76a; Kasher 75b, 77; Kasher & Gabbay 76; Meyer 76; Nuchelmans 71; Roche 73; Schlieben-Lange 75; S. J. Schmidt 71, 73; Wittgenstein 53. LANGUAGE IN THE FAMILY: Martens 74. LANGUAGE IN THE WORKPLACE: Hansell 77. LANGUAGE OF COMMERCE: Pytelka 72. LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY: Luria 59. See also DISCOURSE, SCHIZOPHRENIC and PSYCHOTHERAPY. LANGUAGE TEACHING: Ader et al. 74, 76; Adlung 75; Allen & Widdowson 74; Barkowski et al. 76; Bonati 75; Bruder 74; Bunting & Kochan 73; Candlin 72, 76; Chiu 73; L. R. Cole 75; Dieckmann & Schulz 72; Eichler 74; Firbas 72; Fried 72; Fritz & Hundsnurseher 75; Halliday 74b; Halliday et al. 64; Homberger 75; Humann 75; Kern 77; Kirstein 75; Kopperschmidt 75; Kozevniková 72; Lipka 76; Littlewood 75; Lütjen 73; Matragos 74; R. M. Müller 77; Oller & Richards (eds.) 73; Oomen 75; Petiot 77; Pytelka 72; Rucktäschel 73; Savignon 75; Schlieben-Lange 75; Schüle 76c; Ulshöfer 74, 77; White 74; Wolff 73, 77; Wunderlich 69, 75; Ziegesaar 75, 76a, 77. LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY: Haarmann 75 ; Li & Thompson 76. LAUGHING: Jefferson et al. 76. LEFT-DISLOCATION: See TOPICALIΖATION. LET'S: Costa 72b. LEXICON: Fillmore 69a; Nagy 73; Umbach 76; Wilson 75b. LITERATURE: Abraham 71; Axelsen 69; Baron 75; Bauman 75; Beardsley 73; Campbell 75; Dijk 76; Filipec 74; Fish 75; Goebel 74; Kasher & Kasher

258

PRAGMATICS

76; Koževniková 72; Kummer 72; Kuroda 76b; Landwehr & Settekorn 73; Lecointre & Le Galliot 73; Levin 76; Marcus 74; Mukarovsky 64; Nierlich 73; Ohmann 70, 71, 72, 73; Spencer & Gregory 70; Steinmann 75; Tanaka 72, 74; Traugott 73. LITOTES: Wonneberger 77. LOCATIVE: E. Clark 70. LOGIC: Kambartel 77. LOGIC, ACTION: Kummer & Kummer 76. LOGIC, FUZZY: Klockow 76; G. Lakoff 72b; Sadock 77a. LOGIC, INTENSIONAL: Richard Montague 70. LOGIC, NATURAL: Boër & Lycan 76; Bouveresse 74; Chomsky 74; Dahl 72; Gordon & Lakoff 71; Kasher 73a, 75a; G. Lakoff 70a, 70b, 74b, 74d; McCawley 74b; Stalker 73. LOGIC, PREDICATE: Gerstenkorn 77. LYING: Baskett 74; Bolinger 73a; Chisholm 77; Leonard 59; Siegler 66. 'MAIS': Bruxelles et al. 76. MANIPULATION: Parret 77a. MARKEDNESS: Zuber 73b. MEANING: Alston 63, 64a; Antal 61; Atlas 75b; Bigelow 76; Bouveresse 74; Burch 73; Cameron 70; M. Clark 77; Clarke 70; L. J. Cohen 64; T. Cohen 76; D. A, Cooper 72, 73; Dixon 64; Findley 61; Fraser 73; Furberg 63, 69; Garner 75; Grice 57, 68, 69; Hajicová 73; Hare 70; Harman 68; Hofmann 76; Holdcroft 64; Immler 73; Kempson 75; Kirsner & Thompson 76; Landesman 72; Lanigan 77; MacKay 72; Pele 71; Pike 67; Raphael 56; Reier 77; Richards 71; Robins 52; Ryle 53b, 61; Sadock 74; Savigny 75; Schiffer 72; Searle 62, 74; Stampe 75; Strawson 73; Tanaka 72; Umbach 76; Valdés Villanueva 77; Waismann 65b; Warnock 71; Zuber 77a; Zwicky 71. MEANING, IRREFUTABLE: Auwera 77b, 77c, 77d. MEANING, NATURAL: Grice 57. MEANING, NONNATURAL: Furberg 63; Grice 57; R. A. Wright 75. MEETING, COMMITTEE: Sinclair & Coulthard 75. MEMORY: Cicourel 74; Hornby 71; Offir 73. MESSAGE: Kirsner & Thompson 76; Zwicky 71. MESSAGE, FORMAL: Harrah 71, 76. METAPHOR: Abraham 75a, 75b; Abraham & Braunmüller 71; Bickerton 69; T. Cohen 75, 76; Helmer 72; Keller 75b; Levenston 76; Mack 75; R. J. Matthews 71; Nieraad 75; Pelc 71; Price 74; Zuber 77c. MODALITY: Aguirre 76; Antinucci & Parisi 71; Austin 56; Belle 73; Boyd & Thorne 69; Brinkmann 73; D'Alessio 72; Ehlich & Rehbein 72c; Fraser 75a; Geerts & Melis 76; Gerstenkorn 76, 77; Groenendijk & Stokhof 75; Halliday 70b, 73b; Horn 72, 73; Kress 76; R. Lakoff 72a; Nowell-Smith 60; Parret 76b; Pears 73; Rivero 72; Shell 75; Thalberg 69; Uyeno 71; Verma 74; Verschueren 77a; Zuber 73a. MODEL THEORY: Kasher 73b. MODIFIER: Hawkins 76. MOOD: Axelsen 69; Dirven 68; Halliday 70a, 70b, 73b; Kasher 74; Rivero 71 MORPHEME: Pike 67. MOVEMENT RULE: Werth 76. MUST: Isard & Longuet-Higgins 73.

SUBJECT INDEX

259

NAME, PROPER: D o b n i g - J ü l c h 7 5 ; P e l c 7 1 ; S e a r l e 6 9 , 7 1 . NECESSITY: Fraassen 77. NEGATION: Allwood 72; Bar-Lev 75; Borkin 72; A. Davison 77; Gazdar 76a; Givon 75a, 75b; Hare 70; Kotschi 76; H. B. Lee 70; Napoli & Nespor 76; Pride 74; Rosenberg 75b; Schwarz 76; Shenaut 75; Vlach 74. NEGATION, ILLOCUTIONARY: Garner 71b. NEGATION, SENTENCE: Garner 71b. NEG-ATTRACTION: Sheintuch & Wise 76. NEG-LOWERÌNG: Sheintuch 75. NEG-MOVEMENT: Sheintuch 75. NEG-RAISING: Bhat 75; Cattell 73; Horn 71, 75; R. Lakoff 69; Prince 76; Sheintuch & Wise 76. NEG-TRANSPORTATION: See NEG-RAISING. NEOLOGISM: Marcellesi 74. NOUN: Langendoen 71. NOUN PHRASE: Steinmann 74. OBJECT: Friedman 76. OBJECT, DIRECT: Kooij 72. OBJECT, INDIRECT: Kooij 72. OBLIGATION: Carey 75. ONLY: Auwera 75a; Horn 69; Lawler 73. OPACITY: Abbott 76; P. Cole 75b; Heringer 69. OPACITY, ILLOCUTIONARY: Genova 75. OPERATOR: Rivero 72. OR: R. Lakoff 71. ORDER: See COMMAND. OUGHT: Greenspan 75; Hare 52; Kolenda 72; Searle 69. PARADOX: Sacks 76c; Trömel-Ploetz & Franck 77. PARENTHESIS: Bayer 73; Betten 76a; Corum 75b, 76. PARENTHETICAL: See PARENTHESIS. PARODY: Sornig 76. PARTICLE, CLITIC: Browne & Vattuone 75; Corum 75a; F. Karttunen 75. PARTICLE, LEXICAL: Ikranagara 75. PARTICLE, LOGICAL: L. J. Cohen 71a. PARTICLE, MODAL: Bublitz 77; Gerstenkorn 77. PARTICLE, SENTENCE: Asbach-Schnitker 75; Koch & Pusch 76. PARTICLE, TONING DOWN: Opalka 77. PASSIVE: Cinque 76; Costa 75a; Hinds 75a; Kirsner 76; Lipka 76; Stanley 75; Verschueren 76; Vroman 75. PASSIVE, IMPERSONAL: Cinque 76. PERFORMANCE: Bauman 75; Fidelholtz 74; Immler 73; Jones 64; Kasher 71; Mey 72; Shank & Wilks 74; Walraven 75. PERFORMATIVE: See ANTINOMIES, ...; HYPOTHESIS, ...; UTTERANCE, ...: VERB, ... PERFORMATIVE, ARCHETYPAL: Furberg 63. PERFORMATIVE, HIGHER: See HYPOTHESIS, PERFORMATIVE. PERSON: Hyman & Zimmer 76. PERSON, FIRST: Lecointre & Le Galliot 73. PERSUASION: Guhl & Schwarze 74; Kopperschmidt 73; Stich 73; Vorlat 76.

260

PRAGMATICS

PHENOMENOLOGY, LINGUISTIC: Austin 62; Furberg 63; J. F. Harris 76. PHCNEME: Pike 67. PHRASE, ADVERBIAL: Corum 75b. PITCH: Allwood 74. PLUG: L. Karttunen 73. POINT OF VIEW: Chafe 76. POLARITY: C. L. Baker 70b ; Borkin 71; Fauconnier 75a; Horn 71; Lawler 71. POLITENESS, (RULES OF): C. Baker 75a; Bates 76; Comrie 76; Ervin-Tripp 76; Ferguson 76; Fillmore 75b; Habel 76; Hurford 75; Ikranagara 75; R. Lakoff 73a, 74b, 74c, 75; Melka-Teichroew 75; Mohan 74; Sugathapala De Silva 76; Tannen 75; Yamanashi 74. POSSESSIVE: E. Clark 70. POSSIBILITY: J. N. Martin 75. POSTULATE, CONVERSATIONAL: Bates 76; Bouveresse 74; Dressier 72; Gordon & Lakoff 71; Hübler 77; Ibanez 76; Ikranagara 75; E. 0. Keenan 76; McCawley 74b; Mohan 74; Morgan 77; Perret 74a; Schlieben- Lange 75. POSTULATE, MEANING: Dahl 72; Gordon & Lakoff 71; G. Lakoff 70b; R. L. Martin 71; Verschueren 75c. POWER ('HERRSCHAFT'): Kästle 72. PRAGMATICS: Allwood 76; Ballmer 72b; Fillmore 74b; Haberland & Mey 77; Henne 75; Kalish 67; Lieb 71, 76; Marshall & Wales 74; Oiler 72; Sayward 74; Schneider 75; Stepanov 74; Thomason 74; Weiser 74; Wimmer 77. PRAGMEME: Kasher 73b. PRECONDITION: Kasher 73a, 74. PREDICATE, SENTENTIAL: Morin & O'Malley 69. PREDICATE, SIGNIFICANT-CLASS: Goossens 77; Spears 73. PREDICATE RAISING: Muraki 74. PREDICATION: Dore 75; Goebel 74; Landesman 72; Lorenz 76; Mcintosh 66; Searle 69. PREDICATION, SCALAR: Horn 72. PREDICTION: D. A. Cooper 73. PREFACE, 'BUT'-: C. Baker 75a, 75b. PREFERENCE: Kasher 73b, 74. PREPOSITION: König 74. PRESCRIPTION: Hass 71. PRE-SEQUENCE: Sacks 76c. PRESUPPOSITION: Abraham & Braunmüller 71; Aguirre 76; Akmajian 73; Allwood 72, 76; Anscombre 75, 76; Anscombre & Ducrot 76; Antley 74; Åqvist 65; Arutjunova 75; Atlas 75a, 75b; C. L. Baker 70b ; Ballmer 72a; Bar-Lev 75; Bartsch 75; Bates 76; Bellert 73, 74; Belnap 66,69; Berg 76; Bhatia 74; Bickerton 75b; Binnick 72; Black 52, 62a; Bolinger 73a; Bouveresse 74; Brekle 72; Brisau 77; Bublitz 77; Cantrall 71; Caton 71; Chafe 74; Chomsky 72, 74; Cogen 74; D. Cohen 71, 73; Coleman 75; Cook 73; D. E. Cooper 74a, 74b; Costa 72a; Coursil 75; Dahl 69, 73; A. Davison 70, 73; Dijk 73, 74a, 76; Donnellan 66; Dressier 72; Droste 73; Ducrot 69b, 72, 73; Ebert 73a; Egli 71; Ehlich & Rehbein 72a; Fillmore 69a, 69b, 71, 72, 75b; Fraassen 68; Franck 73; Gabriel 71; Garner 71a; Gazdar 76a; Geach 50; Givón 75a; Goossens 77; Grady 74; Grewendorf 77a; Gumperz 75; Gundel 77; Gutknecht 71; Haefele 74;

SUBJECT INDEX

261

Haiman 76; Hajicová 73; Harder & Kock 76; Harries 72a, 72b; R. Harris 76; C. Hartmann 77; Hartnack 75; Hausser 73, 76; Hawkins 77; Heinämäki 72; Helke 74; Henne 75; J. Heringer 69, 72; Herzberger 75; Higgins 76, 77; Horn 69, 70, 71, 72; Hornby 71, 74; Hull 75; Huntley 76; Hutchinson 71; Ibanez 76; Immler 73; Isard & Longuet-Higgins 73; Jackendoff 72; L. Karttunen 70a, 70b, 71a, 71b, 71c, 73, 74a; L. Karttunen & Peters 76, 77; Kasher 73a; Kasher & Gabbay 76; Katz 72, 73; Keller 75a; Keller & Kotschi 77; Kempson 75; Kiparsky & Kiparsky 69; Klockow 76; König 74; Kooij 72; Kotschi 76; Kuroda 69, 74; G. Lakoff 70b, 71a, 71b, 74d; R. Lakoff 71; Landesman 72; Langendoen 71; Langendoen & Savin 71; Lawler 71, 73; C. Lee 73a, 75; Leech 74; Lehrer 75; Leist 72; Lemmon 66; Liberman 73; Liberman & Sag 74; Lightfoot 73a, 73b; Lyons 75; Maas 72a, 72b, 72c, 72e; Maas & Wunderlich 72; J. N. Martin 75; R. L. Martin 71; Mates 73; McCawley 68a,68b, 74b; Metzing 75; Roger Montague 69; Morgan 69, 70, 73; Morin & 0'Malley 69; Muraki 70, 74; Napoli & Nespor 76; Nerlich 65; Offir 73; Oh 74a, 74b, 74c; Oosten 75; Osgood 71; Perret 74a; Petöfi & Rieser 73; Posner 72a; Putseys 77; Reis 73, 74b; Rivero 71, 72; Rohrer 72, 73; Rosenbaum 75; Rosenberg 75b; Sadock 77b; Schiebe 75; Schlieben-Lange 75; Schmerling 71; S. J. Schmidt 73; Schnitzer 71; Schwarz 76; Schwayder 60; Seilars 54; Seuren 75; Sgall 75; Sgall et al. 73; Shenaut 75; Spears 73; Stalnaker 70, 75; Stassen & Walraven 72; Stechow 71; Strawson 50a, 52, 54, 64b; Stroll 67; Tanaka 72, 74; Teyssier 74; Thomason 74; Todd 72; Todorov 70b; Todt & Guhl 75a, 75b; Vandamme 73; Vennemann 75; Verkuyl et al. 73; Verschueren 77c; Waismann 65c; Wilson 75a, 75b; Wirth 77c; Wonneberger 77; Wunderlich 72b, 73a, 74; Yamanashi 72; Zuber 72a, 72b, 73a, 73b, 75, 77a, 77c; Zwicky 71. PRESUPPOSITION, CONTEXTUAL: See PRESUPPOSITION, PRAGMATIC. PRESUPPOSITION, DISCOURSE: Muraki 72. PRESUPPOSITION, EXISTENTIAL: Bickerton 75a, 75c; Chvany 73; Ducrot 72; Verkuyl et al. 73. PRESUPPOSITION, FACTIVE : Norrick 76; Verkuyl et al. 73. See also FACTIVITY. PRESUPPOSITION, LOGICAL: Andersson 73; Bickerton 75a; Ebert 73a; E. L. Keenan 71; E. L. Keenan & Hull 73a, 73b; Norrick 76; Shanon 76; Wilson 72. PRESUPPOSITION, PRAGMATIC: Auwera 75a, 77a, 77c; Ebert 73a; L. Karttunen & Peters 75, 77; Katz & Langendoen 76; E. L. Keenan 71; Kummer 73; Manor 76; Schwarz 77; Shanon 76; Stalnaker 70, 73; Vroman 75. PRESUPPOSITION, SEMANTIC: Auwera 75a, 77a; Boer & Lycan 76; L. Karttunen & Peters 77; Katz & Langendoen 76; Schwarz 77; Stalnaker 73. PRESUPPOSITION, SENTENTIAL: Bickerton 75a. PRESUPPOSITION FAILURE: Allwood 72; Garner 71a; Harder & Kock 76; Strawson 50a, 64b; Verschueren 77c. PRETEND: Austin 58. PROJECTION PROBLEM: Bar-Lev 75; Hamish 76a; Helke 74; L. Karttunen 73; Langendoen & Savin 71; Liberman 73. PROMISE: Ardal 68, 76; Durrant 63; Harrison 62; Jones 64; Searle 65, 69; Stampe 76; von Wright 62. PRONOMINALIZATION: Bickerton 75b; Kiparsky & Kiparsky 69; Kuno 75; Vennemann 75.

262

PRAGMATICS

PRONOUN: Givón 76; Hinds 75a; Isard 75; Sacks 76c, 76d; Watson 75. PRONOUN, PERSONAL: A. Travis 75. PROPOSAL: Freeman 76; Perret 74a. PROPOSITION: Aune 67; Bech 75; Braunmüller 73; Dahl 73; Eggs 74; Geach 65; Kanngiesser 73; Landesman 72; Reinhardt 67; Sadock 75; Saltarelli 70; Searle 68, 69; Steinmann 74; Switalla 73; Zuber 75. PROPOSITIVE: H. Lee & Maxwell 70. PROSODY: Hackman 77. PROTOTYPE: Fillmore 75a; Leonardi 76; Verschueren 76. PROVERB: Andrzejewski 68; Green 75. PRO-VERB: Sacks 76d. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS: Průcha 72; Slama-Cazacu 73; Tervoort 72. PSYCHOTHERAPY: Goeppert 74; Trömel-Ploetz & Franck 77. See also DISCOURSE, SCHIZOPHRENIC and LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY. QUANTIFICATION: Fauconnier 75b; Horn 72, 73; G. Lakoff 70b ; Nunberg & Pan 75. QUANTIFIER: Bickerton 75c; Hausser 73; Quine 66; Rivero 72. QUECLARATIVE: Sadock 71, 74. QUESTION: Âqvist 65; C. L. Baker 70a; Baumert 77; Belnap 63, 66, 69; Bennett 77; Borkin 71; Cicourel 74; H. H. Clark 72; Elliott 74; Ervin-Tripp 70; Forman 74b; Freeman 76; Goody 76; Haefele 74; Hamblin 58, 63, 73; Hare 70; Harrah 61, 63; Harries 72a, 72b; Harweg 74; Hindelang 77; Hintikka 76b; Hiž 62; Hundsnurscher 75; L. Karttunen 77; Katz 68, 72; Kearly 76; E. L. Keenan & Hull 73a, 73b; Klinke 76; R. Lakoff 73b; Langacker 74; Lawler 71; Llewelyn 64; Maas 72a, 73a; Merritt 76; Sag 75; Salomon 66; Savic 75a, 75c, 75d; Schegloff 76; Schwayder 77; Slakta 71; Steffensen 75; Sugathapala De Silva 76; Szaniawski 73; Vandeweghe 77; Waismann 65d; Walther 76; Windross 68; Wode 76. QUESTION, DISJUNCTIVE: Grewendorf 77a. QUESTION, INDIRECT: Hull 75; L. Karttunen & Peters 76. QUESTION, RHETORICAL TAG: Corum 75b. QUESTION, TAG: Cattell 73; Dubois & Crouch 75. QUESTION, YES-NO: Baumert 76; Bennett 76; Bhatia 74; Hudson 75; Thümmel 76. QUESTION-BEGGING: Lycan & Schumm 75. RATIONALITY: Kasher 76a. READING: Landwehr & Settekorn 73. REALITY: S. J. Schmidt 71. REASONABLENESS: Gordon & Lakoff 71. RECOMMEND: See COMMENDATION. REDUCTION: Werth 76. REDUNDANCE, SEMANTIC: Hackman 77. REFERENCE: Auwera 75b; Ballmer 72a; Bar-Hillel 54; Bickerton 75c; Braunmüller 73; D. A. Cooper 73; Dobnig-Jülch 75; Donnellan 66; Dore 75; Ebert 73b; Franck 73; Goebel 74; Immler 73; Kasher & Gabbay 76; Kempson 75; Lyons 75; Mates 73; Morgan 75b; Searle 69; Stalnaker 70; Strawson 50a, 64b; Wunderlich 72b.

SUBJECT INDEX

263

REFERENCE, SELF-: Fraassen 68. REFERENTIALITY: See ATTRIBUTIVENESS. REFLEXIVE: Costa 75a; Kuno 75. REFLEXIVIZATION: Schwartz 76. REFUSE: Schwayder 77. REGISTER: Chiu 73; Haft-van Rees 74; Halliday et al. 64; Hess-Lüttich 74; Petiot 77; Scherfer 76; G. W. Turner 73; Ure 67; White 74. RELATIVITY, LINGUISTIC: Droste 73; Haiman 76. RELATIVIZATION: Ickler 77; Justus 76; Kuno 75, 76; Schachter 73; Schwartz 76. See also CLAUSE, RELATIVE. RELOCUTION: Wonneberger 77. REPETITION: Huisman 73; E. 0. Keenan 75a, 75b. REPLY: Goffman 76. REPORT, NEWSPAPER: Sandig 73. REPRESENTATION: Searle 74. REPRESENTATION, PICTORIAL: Searle 76e. REPRESENTATIVE: Forman 74a. REPROACH: Coursil 75; Frankenberg 77. REQUEST: Adlung 75; Apeltauer 77; Ervin-Tripp 76; Garvey 75; Hindelang 76; Maas 73a; Pride 73; J. R. Ross 75a; Shatz 75; Sugathapala De Silva 76. RESPONSE: Garvey 75; Goffman 76. RHEME: See THEME. RHETORIC: Clarke 70; Ehret & Walther 77; Knappe 76; Kopperschmidt 73, 75. ROLE: Baron 75; Fillmore 72; Goody 76; Joas & Leist 71; Littlewood 75; Ramge 77. ROLE-PLAYING: Sachs & Devin 76. RULE: Lanigan 77. RULE, CONSTITUTIVE: Brück & Kendziorra 72; Ransdell 71; Searle 69. RULE, REGULATIVE: See RULE, CONSTITUTIVE. SAY: Riddle 76a. SCALE PRINCIPLE: Fauconnier 75a, 75b. SCOPE: Abbott 76; P. Cole 75b; Fauconnier 75b; Horn 75. SCRIPT: Wilks 76. SELECTION RESTRICTION: Antley 74; Ebert 73a; Kuroda 69; McCawley 68a, 68b. SEMANTICS: Fillmore 74a; Schneider 75. SEMANTICS, FUNCTIONAL: Nagy 73. SEMANTICS, FUZZY: See LOGIC, FUZZY. SEMANTICS, GENERATIVE: Boër & Lycan 76; Chomsky 74; Faerch 75; Grady 74 R. Harris 76; Jackendoff 72; G. Lakoff 74d; Parret 77c; Sadock 75; Sgall et al. 73; Shank & Wilks 74; Traugott 73; Wilks 75. SEMANTICS, INTERPRETIVE: Hust & Brame 76; Jackendoff 72; Searle 72. SEMANTICS, PREFERENCE: Wilks 75. SEMANTICS, TRUTH-CONDITIONAL: Wilson 75a. SENSE: See REFERENCE. SENTENCE: Austin 50; Bech 75; Dore 75; Grewendorf 72; Habermas 71; Kasher 71, 72; Lemmon 66; Lorenz 76.

264

PRAGMATICS

SENTENCE, ANALYTIC: Zuber 77c. SENTENCE, BASIC: Todd 72. SENTENCE, COMPLEX: Bellert 74; D. Cohen 73; L. Karttunen 73; Langendoen & Savin 71; Schiebe 75; Talmy 75a, 75b. SENTENCE, CONTRADICTORY: Zuber 77c. SENTENCE, DECLARATIVE (INTERROGATIVE; IMPERATIVE): See DECLARATIVE; INTERROGATIVE; IMPERATIVE. SENTENCE RADICAL: Thümmel 76. SERVICE ENCOUNTER: Merritt 76. SIGN: Antal 61. SIGN LANGUAGE: Friedman 76; Schlieben-Lange 77. SIGN TRANSPARENCY: Zuber 77b. SIMILE: Mack 75. SINCERITY: Gordon & Lakoff 71; Leonard 59; Perret 74b; Searle 69. SITUATION: Gregory 67; Kummer 72; Maas 71; Wunderlich 71a, 72c. SOCIOLINGUISTICS: Hoffmann 75; Průcha 72; Schlieben-Lange 75; SlamaCazacu 73; Tervoort 72; Wunderlich 71b. SPEECH: Manor 76. SPEECH, CASUAL: See DISCOURSE, NON-FORMAL. SPEECH, INDIRECT: Engelen 73; Ziegesaar 76b. SPEECH, REPORTED: Wunderlich 72b; Zwicky 71. SPEECH ACT: Ader et al. 74, 76; Aldrich 64; Allwood 76; Andreev & Zinder 64; Apeltauer 77; Apostel 71; Auwera 77a; Axelsen 69; Bar-Hillel 70b, 70c, 73; Baron 75; Beardsley 73; Becker 75; Bech 75; Berg 76; Black 68; Bouveresse 74; Boyd & Thorne 69; Brekle 72; Brennenstuhl 77; Brück & Kendziorra 72; Bruner 75; Bünting & Kochan 73; Cameron 70; Caton 71; Chomsky 74; M. Clark 71; L. J. Cohen 70, 74; T. Cohen 75, 76; D. E. Cooper 73, 74a; A. Davison 74b, 75b; Dijk 76; Dinneen 72; Dore 74, 75; Ducrot 69a; Durand & Robinson 74; Ebert 73a, 73b; Ehlich & Martens 72; Ehlich & Rehbein 72a, 72b; Ehret & Walther 77; Fillmore 69a, 72; Forguson 67; Fraser 74c; Furberg 63; Genova 75; Gerstenkorn 77; Giese 77; Giesecke ¿Sc Martens 77; Goeppert 74; Grabski 74; Greimas 74; Grimm 75; Gumperz 75; Gundel 77; Haarmann 75; Habermas 71; Hare 70; Harman 68; Harnish 76a; Hartnack 72; Haverkate 76; Hawkins 75, 77; Henne 75; Hindelang 73; D. H. Hirsch 76; Holborow 72; Homberger 75; Hübler 76; Huth 75; Isard 75; Jäger 75; Jäger et al. 72; Kambartel 76, 77; Kanngiesser 72, 73; Kasher 73b; Kasher & Kasher 76; Katz 72; E. 0. Keenan 75a; Klinke 76; Knappe 76; Kolenda 71; Koller 70; Kopperschmidt 73; Kummer 68; G. Lakoff 70b, 74b; Landesman 72; Landwehr & Gettekorn 73; Lanigan 77; Leech 74; D. Lehmann 76; Leist 72; Levenston 76; Levin 76; Linsky 72; Lütjen 73; Maas 72b, 72c, 72d, 73a, 73b; Maas & Wunderlich 72; Mack 75; MacKay 66; Maingueneau 76; Manor 76; Martens 74; McCawley 74b; Metzing 75; Meyer-Hermann 76; Nierlich 73; Nordenstam 66; NowellSmith 67; Nuchelmans 67,71; Ohmann 70, 71, 72; Perret 76; Posner 72a; Pride 74, 76; Ramge 73, 77; Ransdell 71; Reinhardt 67; Richards 71; Roche 73; Roth 71; Ryan 67; Sadock 72, 74; Sandig 73, 74; Savigny 75; Schiffer 72; Schirn 74; Schlieben- Lange 75, 76a, 77; S. J. Schmidt 73; Schnelle 71, 73; Schwayder 77; Searle 62, 65, 69, 75b, 76d; Skinner 70, 71; Smith 75; Sørensen 76; Sornig 76; Stampe 75; Stassen

SUBJECT INDEX

265

& Walraven 72; Strawson 64a, 70; Tanaka 72; Todirov 70b; Traugott 72; Ulshöfer 74; Urmson 67; Vendler 72; Verschueren 75a, 75b, 75c, 77c; Vorlat 76; Voroniuc 77b; Wallace 70; Walraven 75; Warnock 71; Wheatley 63; Wolff 73; Wonneberger 77; Wunderlich 72a, 72b, 73b, 73c, 74, 76b; Zaefferer & Frenz 77; Ziegesaar 75. SPEECH ACT, EMBEDDED: A. Davison 75b. SPEECH ACT, CONDITIONAL: Wunderlich 77. SPEECH ACT, IMPLICIT: Ehrich & Saile 72; R. J. Matthews 75. SPEECH ACT, INDIRECT: A. Davison 74a, 75a; Ehrich & Saile 72; Forman 74a, 74b; Franck 75; Gordon & Lakoff 71; Green 73; C. Hartmann 77; R. J. Matthews 75; Meyer-Hermann 76; Perret 76; J. R. Ross 75; Sadock 70, 71, 74; Sag 75; Schlieben-Lange 75; Searle 75a, 76c; Shatz 75; A. Travis 75. SPEECH ACT, INSTITUTIONAL: Kern 77. SPEECH ACT, MASTER: Fotion 71, 77; Lanigan 77. SPEECH ACT, NEGATIVE: Wonneberger 77. SPEECH ACT, NON-DIRECT: Ehrich & Saile 72. SPEECH ACT, PURPORTED: Hackman 77. SPEECH ACT, SUBORDINATE: See SPEECH ACT, EMBEDDED. SPEECH ACT CLASSIFICATION: Austin 62; Brown 77; Campbell 75; Fraser 74b, 75a; Guinee 77; Habermas 71; McCawley 74a; Pisarkowa 76; Searle 76a; Vendler 70, 72. SPEECH ACT SEQUENCE: Betten 76b; Frankenberg 77; Fritz & Hundsnurscher 75; Kendziorra 76; Meibauer 77; Merritt 76; Rehbein 72; Sacks 76c; R. Turner 75; Wagner 77; Wonneberger 77. SPEECH ACT THEORY ('SPRECHHANDLUNGSTHEORIE', 'SPRECHAKTTHEORIE1): Bayer 76; Braunroth et al. 76; Brennenstuhl 75; Eggs 74; Fish 75; Fotion 77; Heeschen 76; E. D. Hirsch 75; Leuninger 77; Nuchelmans 74; Schlieben-Lange 75; S. J. Schmidt 69; Schule 76a; Searle 72; Slakta 74; R. Turner 75; Voroniuc 77a. SPEECH ACT VERB: D. Lehmann 76; Verschueren 77b. SPEECH ACTIVITY THEORY ('SPRECHTÄTIGKEITSTHEORIE'): Braunroth et al. 76; Dormagen 76; Fotion 77; Heeschen 76; Schule 76a, 76c. SPEECH PRODUCTION: McNeill 76. STATE OF MIND: Yngve 69, 70. STATEMENT: See ASSERTION. STATEMENT, NEGATIVE: Wason 65. STATISTICS: Uhlířová 74. STATUS: Beeman 76; Vorlat 76. STRESS: Borkin 72; Lehman 77; Schmerling 71; Skladanek 75. STRESS, SENTENCE: Vennemann 75. STRUCTURE, DEEP: Wierzbicka 75. STRUCTURE, SURFACE: Hornby 74. STYLE: Abraham 71; Abraham & Braunmüller 71; Beeman 76; Dubsky 72; Ohmann 71; Sachs & Devin 76; Spencer & Gregory 70. STYLE DISJUNCT: Schreiber 72. STYLE SHIFTING: See CODE SWITCHING. SUBJECT: Butler 77; Chafe 76; Eroms 75; Fillmore 72; Friedman 76; Givon 76; Gruber 67; Kirsner 76; Kuno 76; W. P. Lehmann 76; Li & Thompson 76; Limber 76; Lipka 76; Maas 72a; Schachter 76; Schwartz 76.

266

PRAGMATIC

SUBJECT DELETION: Drachman 75. SUBJECT DELETION, BACKWARD: Kuno 75. SUBJUNCTIVE: F. Klein 75; Rentsch 76; Rivero 71. SUGGESTION: Freeman 76; Holdcroft 76. SUPER EQUI-NP DELETION: Kuno 75. SUPER-HYPERSENTENCE: Rentsch 76; Sadock 69a. SUPERLATIVE: Fauconnier 75a, 75b. SUPPOSITION: Ducrot 72. SYNONYMY: D. E. Cooper 73. SYNTAGMEME: Pike 67. SYNTAX, CATEGORIAL: Bartsch 75. TAGMEME: Pike 67. TELL: Aldrich 66; Schwayder 77; Sugathapala De Silva 76. TENSE: Åqvist 76; D. Cohen 71; P. Cole 74a; Köck 73; Rivero 72. TENSE, FUTURE: Binnick 72; Brisau 77; Wolf 75. TENSES, SEQUENCE OF: Brondeel 77; Costa 72a; Riddle 76b. TEXT: Bauman 75; Bellert 73; Bouveresse 74; Brinker 73; Daneš' 70, 74; D. H. Hirsch 76; Köck 73; Löffler 75; Sandig 73; Slakta 75; Sørensen 76; Sornig 76; Verdaasdonk 76. TEXTLINGUISTICS: Benes 73; Breuer 72, 74; Brinkman 74; Dijk 72, 73, 74a, 74b; Dittkrist 76; Dressler 72, 74; Gülich & Raible 72; P. Hartmann 74; Kummer 75; Petöfi & Rieser 73; Posner 72a; Schlieben-Lange 75; S. J. Schmidt 73; Ulshöfer 74. THANKING: Ferguson 76. THEMATIZATION: Dirven 68; Miller 73; Perfetti & Goldman 75; Verma 76. THEME: Beneš 67, 73; Browne & Vattuone 75; Chafe 76; Cook 73; Creider 76; Danes 74; Daneš' et al. 74; Filipec 74; Firbas 72, 74; Halliday 67-8, 70a, 70b, 73b; Hinds 75a; Kress 76; Kuno 72, 75, 76; Lipka 76; Maas 72e; Pala 74; Sgall 69, 74; Slakta 75; Uhlířova 74; Vennemann 75 ; Verma 76. THREATEN: Apeltauer 77; Fraser 75b. TOKEN: See TYPE. TOPIC: Barry 75; Bartsch 75; Butler 77; Chafe 76; Chambers 73; Chvany 73; Cinque 76; Dahl 69, 74; Dezso & Szepe 74; Eggs 74; Eroms 75; Felix 75; Firbas 74; Friedman 76; Givón 76; Goebel 74; Gruber 67, 75b; Gundel 77; Hajičová & Sgall 75; Hawkinson & Hyman 75; Hope 73; Hornby 71; Ickler 77; E. 0. Keenan 75a; E. 0. Keenan & Schieffelin 76; Kiefer 69; Kirsner 76; Kooij 72; W. P. Lehmann 76; Lewkowicz 71; Li & Thompson 76; Miller 73; Schachter 76; Schwartz 76; Sgall 72, 75a; Sgall & Hajicová 73; Sgall et al. 73; Thomason 74; Vachek 66; Vennemann 75; Weiss 75; West 73; Wierzbicka 75. TOPIC, EMBEDDED: Hyman & Zimmer 76. TOPIC, NATURAL: Hyman & Zimmer 76. TOPIC SHIFT: Hinds 75b. TOPICALIZATION: Ickler 77; Justus 76; E. 0. Keenan 75b; Lipka 76; Perfetti & Goldman 75; Talmy 75b; Vennemann 75. TRANSFORMATION: Sloman 69. TRANSITIVITY: Dirven 68; Halliday 67-8, 70a, 73b, 74b; Whiteley & Mganga 69.

SUBJECT INDEX

267

TRANSPARENCY: See OPACITY. TRUTH: Åqvist 65; Atlas 75b; Austin 50; Axelsen 69; Bech 75; Bolinger 73a; T. Cohen 76; D. E. Cooper 73; Droste 73; Frassen 68; Furberg 63; Grewendorf 76; Groenendijk & Stokhof 75; Habermas 71; Houston 70; Isard & Longuet-Higgins 73; Kasper 76; Keller 75a; Kolenda 71; G. Lakoff 72b; Leonard 59; Sadock 77a; Schirn 74; Stampe 75; Strawson 65, 50a, 50b; Wheatley 69; Wilson 75a; Zuber 73a. TRUTH-VALUE GAP: Herzberger 75; Lemmon 66; Quine 60; Strawson 64b. TYPE: Bar-Hillel 54; Nunberg 74. UNDERSTANDING: Auwera 77d; H. H. Clark 73; Fillmore 74a; Keller 76a; Shank & Wilks 74; Skinner 70. UNIVERSAL, LINGUISTIC: Cook 73; Dezso & Szepe 74; Dore 75; Eggs 74; Haiman 76; Halliday 74b; E. 0. Keenan 76; Lieb 75; Parret 77b; Schwartz 76; Todd 72. UNIVERSAL, PRAGMATIC: Bar-Hillel 73; Habermas 71. UNTIL: L. Karttunen 74a. USAGE: Findlay 61; Flew 56; Ryle 53b, 61. USE: Alston 63, 64a; Åqvist 67; Atlas 75b; Benveniste 70b; Black 68; Bouveresse 74; Cavell 58; Findlay 61; Flew 56; Halliday 74b; Hintikka 76b; Kasher 75b, 77; Mates 58; O'Hair 67; Percival 68; Raphael 56; Ryle 53a, 53b, 61; Sadock 74; Schnelle 71; Schwayder 60; Singer 71; Todorov 70b; R. Turner 75; Waismann 65b; Yngve 69. UTTERANCE: Benveniste 70b; Carnap 56; Daneš' 70; Ducrot 70; Garner 68; Grewendorf 72; Habermas 71; Kasher 71, 72; Lecointre & Le Galliot 73; Maingueneau 76; Parret 77d; Schwayder 77; Todorov 70a, 70b. UTTERANCE, CONSTATIVE: Anderson 71; Austin 62, 63; Furberg 63; Gale 70; Garner 68; Gruber 75a; Jacobsen 71; Lanigan 77; Nuchelmans 71; Olsen 67; Walker 69. UTTERANCE, EXPLICIT PERFORMATIVE: Bolinger 73b; Cornulier 75; Davis 64; Ehrich & Saile 72; Grewendorf 76, 77b; Groenendijk & Stokhof 76; Houston 70; Zuber 77b. UTTERANCE, INCOMPLETE: Isard 75. UTTERANCE, PERFORMATIVE: Anderson 71; Austin 62, 63, 70b; Bates 75b, 76; Black 63; Brame 67; Chafe 74; Chisholm 66; Danielsson 65; Ducrot 75; Durrant 63; Ervin-Tripp 76; Fillmore 75b; Fingarette 67; Forguson 66, 67; Fraser 75a; Furberg 63; Gale 70; Garner 68; Gochet 65; Gruber 75a; Hartnack 63, 67; Haverkate 72; Hedenius 63; Carl & Horstmann 72; Jacobsen 71; Kottke 72; R. Lakoff 74c; Landesman 72; Lanigan 77; H. B. Lee 70; McConnell-Ginet & Ginet 76; Nuchelmans 62, 71; O'Hair 67; Olsen 67; Radnitzky 62; Rivero 72; Rosenthal 76; Ryan 67; Samek 65; Sampson 71; Sesonske 65; Siertsema 72; Stassen & Walraven 72; Urmson 77; Verkuyl et al. 73; Walker 69; Warnock 73b; M. Wright 65; Zuber 73a. UTTEREME: Pike 67. VAGUENESS: Salomon 66, VARIABLE, PRAGMATIC: Braunmüller 73. VERB: Fillmore 70; Langendoen 71; Pala 74; Ruhl 72. VERB, ABSTRACT PERFORMATIVE: See HYPOTHESIS, PERFORMATIVE. VERB, COMMENTATIVE: Van deweghe 75. VERB, COUNTERFACTIVE : L. Karttunen 70a; Rosenberg 75b.

268

PRAGMATICS

VERB, DELOCUTIVE: Benveniste 66. VERB, EMBEDDED PERFORMATIVE: Huddleston 73; C. Lee 73b, 75; Sadoek 74; Thompson & Wright 75. VERB, FACTIVE: See FACTIVITY. VERB, IMPLICATIVE: Aguirre 76; L. Karttunen 70a, 70b, 71a. VERB, MODAL: See MODALITY. VERB, PARENTHETICAL: Urmson 52. VERB, PERFORMATIVE: Abraham 72; Austin 62; Belle 73; Benveniste 66; A. Davison70, 72, 73, 74b; Fraser 74b; Guinee 77; Hinds 75b; G. Lakoff 70b; McCawley 74a; McConnell-Ginet & Ginet 76; Morgan 69, 73; Pisarkowa 76; Polak et al. 77; Rosenthal 76; J. R. Ross 70; Vandeweghe 75; Vendier 70, 72; Verschueren 75c, 77b. VERB, PSEUDO-PERFORMATIVE: Prince 76. VERB, SHADOW PERFORMATIVE: Vendler 72. VERB OF JUDGING: Auwera 75a; Fillmore 69b; R. Müller 75. VERB PHRASE DELETION: Kuno 75. WARN: Fraser 75b. WELL-FORMEDNESS, RELATIVE: G. Lakoff 71a, 71b. WHIMPERATIVE: Green 70b, 73; Sadock 70, 74. WORD: Lorenz 76. WORD ORDER: Byarushengo & Tenenbaum 76; W. Cooper & J. R. Ross 75; Dahl 69; Friedman 76; Hope 73; Hyman & Zimmer 76; Kiefer 69; Kirkwood 69; Lipka 76; Martin & Ferb 73; Sgall 69; Slakta 75; Verma 76. WORLD, POSSIBLE: Fraassen 77; Groenendijk & Stokhof 75; Hintikka 69; Kasher 73b. See also DISCOURSE, UNIVERSE OF. WRITING: Ulshöfer 74.

LANGUAGE INDEX

AKAN: Boadi 74. AMGANAD IFUGAO: West 73. ANGAATAHA: Huisman 73. ARABIC: Brame 67; Ferguson 76; Lewkowicz 71. BASQUE: Corum 75a. BETAWI: Ikranagara 75. BULGARIAN: Bacvarov 74. BURMESE: Becker 75. CASHIBO: Shell 75. CHINESE: Barry 75; Tsao 76. CHINESE, MANDARIN: Li 75. CZECH: Pala 74. DUTCH: Brisau 77; Brondeel 77; Dirven 73; Goossens 77; Kirsner 76; Putseys 77; Verschueren 76, 77a. ENGLISH: Asbach-Schnitker 75; Baumert 76; Hübler 77; D. Lehmann 76; Lipka 76b ; Oomen 75. ENGLISH, BLACK: Raffler Engel 72. ENGLISH, INDIAN: Kachru 66. ENGLISH, MIDDLE: Butler 77. FINNISH: Heringer & Wolontis 72; F. Karttunen 75. FRENCH: Hyman & Zimmer 76; Lindenfeld 77; Prince 76; Rentsch 76; Scherfer 76. GERMAN: Clyne 67; Dirven 73; Gumperz 75; Harries 72b; Hathaway 77; Kirkwood 69; Thümmel 76; Valin 75a, 75b. GREEK: Tannen & Őztek 77. HAYA: Byarushengo & Tenenbaum 76. HEBREW: P. Cole 74a, 75a. HINDI: Bhatia 74; Gumperz 75; Verma 74, 75.

PRAGMATICS

270 HINDI-URDU: A. Davison 77. HITTITE: Justus 76. HUA: Haiman 76. HUNGARIAN: Kiefer 69.

ILOCANO: Schwartz 76. INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES: W. P. Lehmann 68. INGA: Levinsohn 75. ITALIAN: Bates 74; Cinque 76; Costa 75a; Napoli & Nespor 76. JACALTEC: Breitborde 75. JAPANESE: Kuno 72; Kuroda 76a; Makino 76; Peng 74; Uyeno 71; Yamanashi 74. KOREAN: C. Lee 73a; H. B. Lee 70; Lee & Maxwell 70. LATIN: R. Lakoff 68; Panagl 75. LISU: Hope 73. LUO: Creider 76. MALAGASY: E. 0. MAMANWA: Miller MELANAU: Clayre MOORE: Peterson

Keenan 76. 73. 73. 69.

NEPALI: McLean 73. PERSIAN: Beeman 76. PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES: Clayre 73; Kess 75; Schachter 76. PORTUGUESE: Vroman 75. RUMANIAN: Ure 67. RUSSIAN: Chvany 73; Dahl 69. RUSSIAN, OLD: Ickler 77. SANSKRIT: Staal 65. SERBO-CROATIAN: Savic 76. SHONA: Hawkinson & Hyman 75. SINHALESE: Sugathapala De Silva 76. SOMALI: Andrzejewski 68. SPANISH: Haverkate 72, 76; F. Klein 75 ; McClure 75; Rivero 71. SWAHILI: Whiteley & Mganga 69. SWEDISH: Thelander 76. TAGALOG: Cook 73. TAMIL: Radhakrishnan 72. TURKISH: Tannen & Őztek 77. ZENÉYZE: Browne & Vattuone 75.