Linguistic Society of America

Review
Author(s): Jacob Mey
Review by: Jacob Mey
Source: Language, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Dec., 1978), pp. 977-982
Published by: Linguistic Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/413257
Accessed: 22-02-2016 13:23 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:23:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEWS 977

mistaken about anything: this (not always happy) circumstance is called COM-
MUNICATIVEBALANCE (51, 54-5). H&K state: 'We shall say that S's behavior is
RHETORICALwhenever the markers S and SHS are both -. This means, in essence,
that S is not sincere and that he expects H to be aware of this' (53). Further dia-
grams characterize MAKINGFUN OF, BULLYING,DECEPTION, HUMORING,SUSPICION,
PERFIDY, and MANIPULATION.Each category is discussed with economy and insight,
and further distinctions within the various categories are explained. The number of
illustrations provided is sufficient to lend considerable plausibility to the analysis.
One large unanswered question, however, is how what H&K call PR is related to
truth conditions, and to illocutionary force.
NOTE. Reading about all these rather ugly things that can be
5. A PERSONAL
done with words, I feel amazement at the potentialities we have for conveying
information and at the complexity of human interaction, and sadness at the pain
and suffering which the skillful use of these devices has caused. Each of us needs to
acknowledge the complexity of human communication, and then to remain aware
of it in our dealings with others. With attention and discipline, we can learn to
exercise care and restraint in the use of some of the more pernicious devices which
H&K discuss. The direction I am urging is not that which leads to the logical
positivist (of old) who wants language to just 'state facts' (see p. 36), but that which
leads to a way of speaking which is simple, straightforward, and without guile. In
any case, our FIRST step-and here Harder & Kock help us-must be to understand
the available resources, and how they are used. Even being able to see clearly that
someone else is attempting to stick us with his presuppositions may help to avoid
such impositions, and thereby to escape the profound humiliation and self-hate
which Dr. Poussaint felt when the redneck called him 'Boy' (see pp. 56-7, 64).
Sticks and stones can break our bones; but if we don't understand how they are
being used, words can break our minds.
REFERENCES
BOER,S., and W. LYCAN.1976. The myth of semantic presupposition. Bloomington:
Indiana UniversityLinguisticsClub.
H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation.The logic of grammar,ed. by D. Davidson
GRICE,
& G. Harman,64-75. Encino, CA: Dickenson.
KEMPSON,R. M. 1975. Presuppositionand the delimitationof semantics.Cambridge:
UniversityPress.
D. 1969. Convention.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
LEWIS,
S. R. 1972. Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
SCHIFFER,
[Received6 September1977.]

Pragmatik/PragmaticsII: zur Grundlegung einer expliziten Pragmatik. Edited by

J. SCHMIDT.(Kritische Information, 25.) Munchen: Fink, 1976. Pp.
SIEGFRIED
229. DM 36.00.
Reviewed by JACOBMEY, Odense University, Denmark*

This book is a sequel to an earlier volume edited by Schmidt-Pragmatik I

(Miinchen, 1975); but it is different in that the present volume contains original
* The reviewer wishes to thank Hartmut Haberland for useful comments and suggestions.

This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:23:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
978 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 54, NUMBER 4 (1978)

articles
art c es (essent a y the proceed
(essentially ngs of a conference on pragmat
proceedings pragmaticscs he
heldd at BBielefeld,
e efe d
Germany, in
West Germany n 1973)
1973), whereas Vo
Vol. I was a co
collection
ect on of (trans at ons of) ear
(translations earlier
er
shed contr
published
pub contributions.
but ons The cho
choice
ce of art
articles
c es iss thus not the work of the ed editor,
tor
and he cannot be b blamed
amed or pra sed for it.
praised t However
However, there iss much that an ed editor
tor
mandate, that S has not done
do, even under a mandate
can do done. There iss noth ng here like
nothing ke a
Vorbemerkung in
ntroduct on (apart from a 'Vorbemerkung'
thematicc introduction
themat n nnine
ne lines),
nes) and the
c es have not been arrangedin
articles
art n any themat
thematicc order-or any order order, as far as I can
see. There has been no attempt to correct the authors
see authors' contr
contributions
but ons as regards
content, presentat
content presentation, syntax, or even spe
on syntax ng There iss a genera
spelling. general aairr of ssloppiness
opp ness
about the book wh ch does not enhance its
which ts cred course, one can let
b ty Of course
credibility. et authors
use the anguage (German or Eng
theirr own language sh) or have them trans
English), translate
atethe
theirr contr
contribu-
bu-
ons; but the resu
ttions; resultt shou d conform to certa
should certain standards. A few examp
n standards examples es to the
rary may su
contrary
con ce '... a Par
suffice: Partial Theoriee oof Tex
a Theor Texts'
s (5);
5 '... the
he D scr p on oof
Discription
Discourse'
D b d and pass
scourse ((ibid. m); 'The
passim); The quest ons d
questions scussed in
discussed n the preced
preceding
ng po nt has
point
ead to the conc
lead us on ...' (111; ssicc and ssic).
conclusion c) On p 205, one of the authors refersto
p. 205 refers to
Kamp H
a paper by Kamp as 'Kamp, H. ..., MS despitee the
MS', desp he fact
ac that
ha the
he paper in
n ques
question
on
iss the contr
contribution
but on immediately
mmed ate y preced
precedingng h own. A
hiss own All th s and more
this, more, coucould d and
should
shou d have been avo avoided.
ded
However, there are more ser
However serious
ous object ons to a co
objections collection
ect on of artarticles
c esofof th
thiss k
kind.
nd
I have aalready
ready ment
mentioned
oned the themat
thematicc d vers ty of the vo
diversity volume.
ume Desp
Despite te the com-
prehensive
prehens t e the art
ve ttitle, articles
c es d
differ
ffergreat
greatlyy in
n scope and content
content, as wewell as in n qua
quality;
ty;
thiss makes itt hard to see who m
th ght be the intended
might ntended readers of the book book. Of the
eeight
ght contr but ons four dea
contributions, deal wwith
th what one cou could d cacall 'formal
forma pragmat
pragmatics' cs
(('explizite
exp z te Pragmat
Pragmatik', k as the bookbook'ss subt t e has it).
subtitle t) These are the papers by
Kummer, ' Forma
Werner Kummer Formalee Pragmat
Pragmatik'; Kutschera, ' Grundzt
k ; Franz von Kutschera Grundztige geeeiner
ner
logischen
og schen Grammat
Grammatik'; k ; and Hans Kamp Quant f cat on and reference in
Kamp, 'Quantification n moda
modal
and tense logic
og c '-as
-as we
well as FranzGuenthner
Franz Guenthner'ssshort short not ce Remarkson
notice,' Remarkson contextua
contextual
notions'.
not ons Of the rema remaining
n ngcontr but ons two dea
contributions, deal w
with
th the more trad
traditional
t ona aspects
of linguistic
ngu st c pragmat
pragmatics:cs: Teun A A. van D Dijk,
jk 'Pragmatics,
Pragmat cs presuppos
presuppositionst ons and
context grammars
grammars';; and Char Charleses JJ. F
Fillmore, Pragmat cs and the descr
more 'Pragmatics description
pt on of
discourse'.
d scourse One-Thomas T Ba Ballmer,
mer 'Sprachliche
Sprach che KommunKommunikation kat on zw zwischen
schen
Mensch und techn technischen
schen Prozessen'-could
-cou d be labeled
abe ed 'applied
app ed pragmat
pragmatics';cs ; wh
whilee
the rema
remainingn ngcontr but on by Janos S
contribution, S. Petof
Petofi, desp te its
despite ts amb
ambitious
t ous ttitle-'
t e- Forma
Formal
pragmatics
pragmat cs and a part a theory of texts
partial texts'-deals
-dea s w with
th the top
topicc on
onlyy VERYpartpartially,
a y
iff at aall. In the fo ow ng I w
following, will d
discuss
scuss the individual
nd v dua papers in n the fo
following
ow ng order:
Kummer, Kutschera
Kummer Kutschera, Kamp
Kamp, Guenthner
Guenthner, Ba Ballmer, Petofi, van D
mer Petof Dijk,
jk and F Fillmore.
more
The troub
troublee w
with
th pragmat cs as Kummer sees it,
pragmatics, t has been itsts lack
ack of a sc
scientific
ent f c
foundation.
foundat on Pragmat
Pragmatics has been equated
cshas equated, more or less,ess w
with
th presc
prescientific
ent f catt
attitudes
tudes
and bebeliefs
efs about language
anguage useuse, rather than w with
th exact methods of linguistic
ngu st c
description
descr pt on (10) Kummer wants to remedyth
(10). Kummerwants remedy thiss by introducing
ntroduc ngthethe forma
formal apparatus
oped in
developed
deve n dec
decision
s on theory
theory. The troub
troublee wwith
th th
thiss apparatus
apparatus, however
however, iss that itt
was ororiginally
g na y deve oped to dea
developed deal wwith
th ssituations
tuat ons where a ssingle
ng e agent (('Aktant')
Aktant )
tries
tr es to arr
arrive
veat
at a dec
decision,
s on rea z ng h
realizing hiss individual
nd v dua aaimsms most cclosely.
ose y In the case of
several agents
severa agents, the mode
model iss compounded
compounded, us ng more than one 'decision
using dec s on tree
tree'.
From Kummer
Kummer'ss presentat
presentation, however, itt iss not cclear
on however ear how the 'pragmatic
pragmat c

Th s con en down oaded om 128 233 210 97 on Mon 22 Feb 2016 13 23 30 UTC
A use sub ec o JSTOR Te ms and Cond ons
 REVIEWS 979

mp cat ons re
implications' ate to the 'institutionally
relate nst tut ona y cond t oned or groupw
conditioned groupwise se or individually
nd v dua y
xed norms
ffixed (52). Kummer
norms' (52) Kummer'ssconc
conclusion b d ) iss thus one to wh
us on ((ibid.) whichch I most heart
heartilyy
be: 'A
subscribe:
subscr A so
solution
ut on of many prob ems in
problems n forma
formal pragmat
pragmaticscs iss on
onlyy poss b e in
possible n
thiss extended framework
th framework' [[i.e. ngu st cs in
e linguistics n connect on w
connection with
th the other soc social
a
ences] (For a ssimilar
sciences].
sc approach, see now D
m ar approach Dietmar
etmar Zaefferer
Zaefferer, 'Understanding
Understand ng
sunderstand ng Journa
misunderstanding',
m Journal of Pragmat
Pragmaticscs 11.329-46,
329-46 1977
1977.))
Kutschera'ss contr
Kutschera contribution
but on bu proposalss by Montague and Carnap con-
ds on proposa
builds
cerning
cern ng the formal structure a un
forma of universal
versa language; however, he aalso
anguage; however so wants to
incorporate
ncorporate the of
theory speech acts as
acts, deve
developed
oped by Searle
Sear e and others, into
others nto h
hiss
formalism.
forma sm As the instrument
nstrument of this
th s formalization,
forma zat on Kutschera (in
( n accordance with
w th
Carnap) devises
dev ses a logical anguage L
og ca language L, conta
containing
n ng a set of functions,
funct ons called
ca ed inten-
nten-
ons from express
ssions, expressionsons inn L to the
theirr extens ons in
extensions n poss b e wor
possible worldsds (139)
(139). Thus a
dge iss bu
bridge
br builtt from 'descriptive'
descr pt ve to 'performative'
performat ve (among other) mean meanings:
ngs:
semantics
semant cs ((in
n a narrow interpretation
nterpretat on of the term) iss connected to pragmat pragmatics.
cs
However performat ve and 'pragmatic
However, 'performative' pragmat c mean ngs are not just synonymous
meanings' synonymous,
according
accord ng to Kutschera
Kutschera. The 'performative
performat ve funct
function'
on of an utterance shou should
d be
distinguished
d st ngu shed from its use in
ts 'use n a comprehens
comprehensive ve network of act actions'
ons (156)
(156). Note that
on atter wou
onlyy the latter would d qua fy as a 'pragmatic
qualify pragmat c mean
meaning'ng in n the sense of 'useuse of
anguage (e
language (e.g.
g an utterance) as a societal
soc eta function'
funct on (cf.
(cf H.
H Haberland
Haber and & JJ. Mey
Mey,
'Pragmatics ngu st cs Journa
Pragmat cs and linguistics', Journal of Pragmat
Pragmaticscs 11.1-12,
1-12 1977)
1977).
per orma ve functions',
As too 'performative unc ons these hese shou
shouldd be descr
described,
bed accord
according ng too KuKutschera,
schera on
her level
another
ano han that
eve than ha oof the
he 'comprehensive
comprehens vene network
work oof ac
actions'.
ons In L L, sen
sentences
ences wwithh per
per-
orma ve mod
formative her than
modi oother han the
he ssimple
mp e decdeclarative
ara veare
are charac
characterized
er zedbyby wha
what KuKutschera
scheraca
callss a
per orma vedescr
'performative p on (154).
description' 154 Thus per performative
orma vemean
meaning ng iss a function
unc on oof the he linguistic
ngu s cacact
oof descr
describing orma ve y(e.g.
performatively
b ngper e g a speechac
speech act). Per Performative
orma vemean
meaning, ng aat one level,
eve iss a function
unc on
oof descr
descriptive meaning
p vemean ngaat the
he oother.
her In this
h s sense
sense, one cou
couldd say that
ha poss
possible
b e wor
worldsdsare
are intro-
n ro
unc ons oof the
duced as functions he rea
real wor
world;d this
h s iss more sa
satisfying
s y ngthan
han thehe usua
usual procedure
procedure,by wh whichch
b e wor
possible
poss ds are introduced
worlds n roduced too cope w with h prob
problems
ems in
n the
he rea
real wor
world.d However
However, one shou should d
keep innm ha the
nd that
mind he who
wholee nonotion
on oof 'possible
poss b e wor
world'd was introduced
n roduced into n o linguistics
ngu s cs by
og c ans the
logicians; he poss
possible world
b ewor d is,
s first
rs oof aall, a way ou
out oof a logical
og ca d dilemma,
emma and on onlyy secondar
secondarilyy
a means too dea deal wwithh linguistic
ngu s c prob
problems.
ems The 'world'
wor d oof logical
og ca modamodalities es can be identified
den ed
with
w h the real wor
he rea worldd oof pragma
pragmaticc(in n my sense
sense) per
performative
orma vefunctions
unc ons on onlyy aat an abs
abstract
rac level.
eve
The poss b e wor
possible world d iss poss
possible
b e prec
precisely
se y because
because, and insofar
nso ar asas, it iss abs
abstract,
rac and thus hus no
not
ever) rea
more, ever
ye any more
(yet, real. No
Not amaz
amazingly,
ng y thish s ho
holds
ds for
or 'impossible'
mposs b e wor worlds,
ds toooo (again,
aga n on thehe
abstract
abs eve As Ba
rac level). Ballmer
mer says
says: 'Unmogliche
Unmog che We Welten?
en? Nee
Nee, das ggibt'sb s n nicht'
ch (personal
persona
ca on re
communication,
commun relayed).
ayed
The prob ems ra
problems raised
sed above are very much present in n Kamp
Kamp'ss wewell-written
-wr tten and
uc d contr
lucid but on It illustrates
contribution. ustratesperfect
perfectlyy the logicians'
og c ans d dilemma
emma when dea dealing
ng w
with
th
anguages: 'most
natural languages:
natura most sentences
sentences', ee.g.g inn Eng
English,
sh cannot be sa said
d to have a truth
mp c ter (160; for reasons ggiven
ue ssimpliciter
value,
va ven be
below,
ow I wouwould d drop the 'most'
most here)
here).
formal mode
mp e forma
Any ssimple model try
trying
ng to descr
describe
be actua
actual sentences w will have to dea
deal w
with
th
fact. The var
thiss fact
th ous so
various solutions
ut ons that have been proposed aall go in n the ddirection
rect on of
extending
extend mp e forma
ng the ssimple formal languages
anguages by add adding
ng connect
connectives
ves such as P (for 'past')
past )
future ): L(P
and F (for 'future'): L(P, F) w will aalso
so be ab
ablee to ass
assign
gn truth va
values
ues in
n cond
conditions
t ons
actual 'here
other than the actua here and nownow' of oolder
der pos
positivism.
t v sm Furthermore
Furthermore, one coucouldd
add a connect
connectiveve 0 (read as 'it
t is
s necessarily
necessar y the case that')
that ) to obtain
obta n expressions
express ons
modallyy true or fa
that are moda false.
se The troub
troublee w
with
th these 'extended'
extended logical
og ca systems

Th s con en down oaded om 128 233 210 97 on Mon 22 Feb 2016 13 23 30 UTC
A use sub ec o JSTOR Te ms and Cond ons
980 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 54, NUMBER 4 (1978)

(tense and moda

modal pred og c respect
cate logic,
predicate respectively) still are based on the
ve y) iss that they st
notion
not on of 'possible
poss b e wor
worlds'.
ds
The argumen
argumentiss nevermade
never made exp c bu
explicit, but I think runs somewhataalong
h nk it runssomewha ong these
hese lines:
nes sen
sentences
ences
have truth
ru h va
values; hence, if they
ues hence cannot be ass
hey canno gned truth
assigned ru hva ues in
values n one worworld,d then
hen there
heremus must
be oother
her ('possible')
poss b e wor ds in
worlds, n wh
whichch it iss eeither
her true a se that
rue or false ha eetc. us ra ethe
c To illustrate he language
anguage
L(P,
L P F F), one may cons consider Kamp'ss own examp
der Kamp example: number of p
he numbero
e the 169 W
ane s (169).
planets Withh regardtoo
L (0),
0 one shou should d be aware that ha the poss b e wor
he 'possible world' necessarilyyruns the
d necessar he danger oof turning
urn ng
into
n o a 'necessary
necessaryposs b y Kamp quo
possibility': quotes es Le
Leibniz e us that
bn ztoo tell ha 'too be thehe case necessar
necessarilyyiss too
be thehe case in n aall poss b e wor
possible worlds'
ds (162). However, such a no
162 However on oof 'necessity'
notion necess y be ongs too the
belongs he
Necessary Being
NecessaryBe ng by dedefinition:
n on it iss an 'ontological'
on o og ca no on in
notion n the
he Le
Leibnizian
bn z ansense cannot be
sense. IIt canno
used for or con ua ons such as occur in
ngen ssituations
contingent n our ac actual
ua worworld.
d Kamp
Kamp'ss own suggessuggestions ons
wh ch are worked ou
(which out inn some de detail
a foror individual
nd v dua cons an s are based on the
constants) he no
notionsons oof
coun erpar and 'alternative
'counterpart' a erna vere a on I canno
relation'. cannot go into n o de
details
a s here
here, bubut I urge the he readertoo
ake up the
take he cha o ow Kamp in
enge and follow
challenge nh hiss de
defense
ense oof poss b e wor
possible worlds.ds IIt may be the he case
that
ha theyhey are no h ng aat aall (as
nothing mp es p
as Kamp implies, 163),bu
p. 163 but they
hey servetoo illustrate
us ra esome
some important
mpor an
points
po n s in
n sen
sentence semantics:
enceseman cs there
here iss no true-false
rue a sesemansemantics csoof the
he individual
nd v dua sen encein
sentence n ac
actual
ua
anguages Here Kamp iss on the
languages. he rright
gh track
rackwhenhe
when he sstates ha 'if sen
a es that, sentences
encescancan be sa
said d too have
ru h va
truth hey can in
ues aat aall, they
values n the
he ma or yoof cases on
majority onlyy be sasaid
d too have them
hem re a ve too par
relative par-
ticular
cu arcon ex s oof use
contexts 160 IIf one were too take
use' (160). ake truth-functional
ru h unc ona seman semantics csser ous y the
seriously, he truth
ru h
conditions
cond or these
ons for hese con ex s oof use shou
contexts should d be thehe ma
main arge oof our theorizing.
n target heor z ng The ques question on
would
wou d then be: Is there
hen be here such a thingh ng as a 'truthru h function'
unc on in n pragma
pragmatics? cs?Le us ra ethis
Let me illustrate hs
with
w h the
he we
well-known
knownsstory ory abou
about the he Zen monk who iss threatened
hrea enedby by hhiss mas
mastererwwith ck and
haa sstick
a three-pronged
hree prongedlogicalog ca d s unc on IIf he says the
disjunction. he sstick
ck iss rea
real, the
he mas
master er wwill h
hit h m IIf he
him.
not, the
says it'ss no he mas
mastererw will h
hit hhim.
m IIf he says no h ng aat aall, the
nothing he mas
master erwwill hhit h m As I see
him.
ven these
it, ggiven hese cond
conditions, here iss no 'possible
ons there poss b e wor d in
world' n wh
whichch the
he prob
problem can ever be so
emcan solved,
ved
ong as the
as long he mas er re a oniss repec
master-relation repectededbyby thehe monk
monk. Bu But once he abandons this h s re
relation,
a on ee.g. g
by grabb
grabbing he sstick
ngthe ckand
and h ng the
hitting he mas
master over the
erover he head
head, thehe prob
problemembecomes par part oof ano
another,
her
not poss
no b e bu
possible but ac ua wor
actual, world.d The prob
problem emhashas van shed it has no
vanished: not been so solved.
ved (See
See aalsoso my
commentss on van D
commen k s ar
Dijk's article
c e be
below.)
ow

short paper by Guen

The shor hner cons
Guenthner consists
s s essen a y oof footnotes
essentially Kamp, and
oo no es too Kamp
thus suffers from the same linguistically
ngu st ca y unsat sfactory tendency to cons
unsatisfactory consider
der
poss b e wor
'possible ds as va
worlds' valid modelss for
d mode or ac
actual
ua language
anguage use
use. Guen
Guenthner
hner no
notes
es rrightly
gh y
(202) that 'thethe bas concepts, such as poss
basicc concepts possibleb e wor
world,d seem qu te often un
quite unintuitive'.
ntu t ve
However, h
However hiss way of remedy
remedying ng ththiss defect-
defect-' ssimplymp y to exc
exclude
ude those aspects wh which
ch
feltt to be counter
are fe ntu t ve as far as ord
counterintuitive, ordinary anguage iss concerned
nary language -may be
concerned'-may
'intuitively' ght but itt lacks
ntu t ve y aall rright, acks forma
formal prec
precision. (Recall that the need for forma
s on (Reca formal
s on was the ma
precision
prec main n mot
motiveve for introducing
ntroduc ng 'possible
poss b e wor ds in
worlds' n the ffirst
rst p
place.)
ace )
nterest ng not
Another interesting notion
on iss that of 'contextual
contextua implication'.
mp cat on Guenthner
Guenthner'ss br brief
ef
scuss on of the not
discussion
d notion
on of 'context'
context shows h hiss logical
og ca bbias.
as For h hiss purposes
purposes, 'the
the
study of d scourse in
discourse n natura
natural language'
anguage (205) dea dealss w
with
th arguments-whose con-
sequence const tutes the texture of d
constitutes scourse the con-text
discourse, Whilee I agree w
con-text. Wh with
th
Guenthner that 'the the forma
formal ana ys s of natura
analysis natural language
anguage iss bas
basically
ca y the study not
of isolated
so ated sentences (204), itt iss hard to see that sentent
sentences' (204) sentential
a coherence necessar
necessarilyy
should
shou d be conce ved of in
conceived n terms of coherence of arguments arguments. Reca
Recall that even the
truth-value
truth-va uecrcriterion
ter on itself,
tse f aalthough
though app applied
ed lavishly
av sh y by linguists
ngu sts and logicians
og c ans aalike
ke
to ssingle
ng e sentences
sentences, be belongs
ongs by b rthr ght in
birthright n the anaanalysis
ys s of argumentat
argumentation, on not of
anguage Is that what forma
language. formal pragmat
pragmatics cs iss aall about
about, as Guenthner seems to imply mp y
(205)?
Ballmer
Ba mer seems to have a d different
fferent idea.
dea For h him,
m forma
formal pragmat
pragmatics csex
exists
sts in
n the

Th s con en down oaded om 128 233 210 97 on Mon 22 Feb 2016 13 23 30 UTC
A use sub ec o JSTOR Te ms and Cond ons
 REVIEWS 981

applied form of a computer program that is able to 'interact' with a human. What
Ballmer wants to do is this. Given a restricted context (such as a steel factory), he
wants to be able to instruct a machine in ordinary human language, with the inter-
mediate help of a computer. The translation from 'Human' into 'Computerese'
should take into account that an instruction in Human can have differentshapes for
its 'illocutionary content' (the latent performance included in a speech act) and its
'illocutionary force' (the actualized performance corresponding to the act). As
examples, consider instructions such as 'Increase speed', 'Get that line moving',
etc., which 'do' the same-despite their different shapes in Human-precisely
because their illocutionary content and force are the same. The way Ballmer pro-
ceeds is with a Church-type X-functional calculus. Furthermore, he postulates
(213, 224) that instructions should, on occasion, be read and understood as com-
pounds of sub-
sub-instructions (Frege'ss semant
nstruct ons (Frege semanticc thes s) On th
thesis). thiss latter
atter po nt however
point, however,
note that 'Human' Fregean : in
Human iss not 'Fregean': n ord
ordinary anguage use
nary language ocut onary forces
use, illocutionary
may be actua zed as the sum of d
actualized fferent and often qu
different, te d
quite sparate 'contents'
disparate contents
(semanticc or performat
(semant ve) In an interesting
performative). nterest ng as de Ba
aside, mer shows how h
Ballmer hiss trans
transla-
a-
ttion
on procedure iss tru nter- ngua : itt works for Ch
trulyy inter-lingual: nese too
Chinese, too. (Quest on: What
(Question:
nput does he use in
nd of input
kind
k n th
thiss case?)
Of Petof paper, one may say (as a Czech fr
Petofi'ss paper friend
end of m mine,
ne a we
well-known
-known mathe-
mat c an once sa
matician, extremelyy frustrat
d after an extreme
said frustratingng paper to wh whichch we had been
Lots of symbo
sten ng): 'Lots
listening): symbols; s; many def n t ons; one theorem; and no proof
definitions; proof.' The
troublee w
troub th papers like
with ke th theirr authors be
thiss iss that the eve that the mere introduction
believe ntroduct on
of a forma
formalism
sm iss equ va ent to estab
equivalent establishing formal theory
sh ng a forma Petofi'ss case illustrates
theory. Petof ustrates
the unavo dab e fate of such attempts: they never get off the ground
unavoidable ground, because the
formalism
forma sm iss deve oped from the outs
developed de and the operat
outside, ons are def
operations defined
ned on
onlyy by
vague ana ustrat on of the k
og es As an illustration
analogies. nd of 'operation'
kind operat on that the author
indulges et me quote h
n let
ndu ges in, himm on the ser series
es CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION-PROJECTION-SYNTHESIS
PROJECTION SYNTHESIS II:
'S
Since
nce one can make an idea dea of th thiss ser es of operat
series operationsons on the bas
basiss of the repre-
sentation
sentat on ggiven above, I do not want to dea
ven above deal w with ose here
th itt more cclose here' (s
(sic,
c 119)
119).
If one takes the troub ook up these operat
troublee to look operations n order to 'make
ons in make an idea',
dea one
ffinds
nds a d agram w
diagram with
th doub arrows, w
doublee arrows th an accompany
with accompanying ng text ddistinguished
st ngu shed by
ass gn It iss not made cclear,
the frequent use of the verb 'assign'. ear however
however, how th thiss bas
basicc
operation
operat on of 'assigning'
ass gn ng iss to be understood forma formally. Petofi does h
y Petof himself
mse f (and us) a
disservice
d sserv ce by throw formal ccloak
ng a forma
throwing oak around h necessarilyy tr
hiss not necessar trivial
v a insights.
ns ghts
The rema n ng contr
remaining but ons those by van D
contributions, jk and by F
Dijk more dea
Fillmore, deal w
with
th the
more fam
familiarar aspects of pragmat n re
cs in
pragmatics at on to what one may ca
relation call the standard
ngu st c trad
linguistic t on of the past decades: generat
tradition generative grammar. Both are concerned
ve grammar
with
w th the dedelimitation
m tat on of pragmat ndependent subd
cs as an independent
pragmatics v s on of grammar;
subdivision
but whwhilee F more s treatment iss more anecdota
Fillmore's ramb ng (as he h
anecdotal and 'rambling' himself
mse f
characterizes
character zes it, 103), van D
t 103) jk makes an honest attempt to draw prec
Dijk precise
se bound-
aries.
ar es F
Fillmore's
more s art
article
c e conta
contains nterest ng observat
ns a number of interesting ons (wh
observations (which
ch by
now have more or less ess permeated the ongo debate), and cou
ng debate)
ongoing couldd be used as a
concrete illustration
ustrat on of certa
certain
n controvers
controversial n the h
ssues in
a issues history
story of pragmat
pragmatics,
cs
a y that of CONTEXTUALIZATION((internal
especially
espec nterna and externa ) Van D
external). Dijk,
jk however
however,
takes the not
notion
on of CONTEXTas the bas basiss for h formal de
hiss attempt at a forma delimitation
m tat on of

Th s con en down oaded om 128 233 210 97 on Mon 22 Feb 2016 13 23 30 UTC
A use sub ec o JSTOR Te ms and Cond ons
982 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 54, NUMBER 4 (1978)

the object of pragmat ndependent d

cs as an independent
pragmatics division hiss attempt iss on
v s on of grammar; h onlyy
a y successfu
partially
part successful.
A con
context,
ex accord
according ng too van D Dijk,k iss 'the ngu s ca y re
he linguistically relevant
evan se set oof charac er s csoof a
characteristics
communicative
commun ca vessituation'
ua on (57).57 So far, ar so good (if one knows wha ngu s ca y re
what iss 'linguistically relevant';
evan
van DDijk ves no cr
k ggives criteria-cf.
er a c 'genuinely ngu s c later
genu ne y linguistic' a er on 65). The con
on, 65 contextex grammarshou should d
then descr be the
hen 'describe ruc ureoof aall appropr
he sstructure appropriate ex s re
contexts,
a econ relative
a ve too we
well-formed
ormedu utterances'
erances (57).
57
From this ear that
h s it iss cclear ha van D Dijk k env sages h
envisages hiss con ex grammartoo be the
context pragmaticccoun
he pragma counter-er
part oof the
par he syn ac co seman ctext
syntactico-semantic ex grammar
grammar; bu but the
he re
relation
a on be between
ween the not cclear.
wo iss no
he two ear
Notee in
No n par cu arthat
particular ha van D ex grammariss an ex
k s text
Dijk's ens on oof the
extension he Chomskyan sen sentence
ence
grammar:aalong
grammar ong w with h the
he Chomskyan inheritance, number of no
nher ance a numbero notions n roduced whose
ons are introduced
a us in
sstatus pragmaticc framework
n a pragma de ned such as we
ramework iss ill-defined, ormedness and even the
well-formedness, he 'usual
usua
ence per ormanced
competence-performance
compe distinction'
s nc on (58). 58 Van D Dijk abora e formal
setss up an eelaborate
k se orma appara
apparatus ustoo
cover the he no
notionon oof 'context',
con ex bu seems unsureof how too use it in
but he seemsunsureo n wha o ows He remarks
what follows. remarks:
The immediate
'The mmed a e tasks asks aat the
he level
eve oof pragma
pragmatics cswh ch we have now rough
which roughlyy d discussed
scusseddo do nonot
seem genu ngu s c in
ne y linguistic
genuinely n thehe traditional
rad ona sensesense, bubut ra her a task
rather ask oof appropr
appropriate a econ
contextual
ex ua
og cs and their
logics he r seman
semantics' 65 Wha
cs (65). What iss interesting, hough are the
n eres ng though, pragmaticccons
he pragma ra n sthat
constraints ha
underliee the
under ruc uresoof texts.
he sstructures ex s Bu But these
hese cons
constraints are no
ra n sare not formulated
ormu a edby van D Dijk kwwith h the
he
help
he p oof the
he formal rameworkthat
orma framework ha was deve oped ear
developed er W
earlier. With h a littlee bbit oof ma
malice,ce one m might
gh
say that
ha formal
orma pragma pragmatics cs iss eeither orma and then
her formal-and hen iss no
not pragma
pragmatics n the
cs (in he traditional,
rad ona
linguistic sense)-or
ngu s csense se it iss pragma
or eelse pragmatic, c bu
but then
hen it iss no orma Van D
not formal. Dijkk seems too sense the he
dilemma
d emma h mse when he remarksthat
himself, ha 'Current
Curren genera
generative grammarsdo no
vegrammars not seem too have a
form
orm in n whwhichch such [pragmatic]
pragma c cons constraints
ra n s can be hand handleded w without
hou pos u a ng a formal
postulating orma
language
anguagegenera
generating ngseman
semanticcrepresen
representations og ca forms'
a onsas logical orms (67). True, bu
67 True what too do abou
but wha about
it?? Here
Here, a re erencetoo Ku
reference Kutschera's
schera sand and Kamp
Kamp'ss ar c es in
articles he same vo
n the volume
ume wouwould d have been
very appropr
appropriate a e(theyhey ARE menmentionedoned in n the
he list he end
s aat the end).
Bu e s go back too the
But let's he ddistinction
s nc on be between
ween seman
semantics cs and pragma
pragmatics, cs too wh
whichch van D Dijkk
devotes
devo es a who
wholee sec on oof h
section hiss ar
article.
c e Bas what this
ca y wha
Basically, h sd s nc oniss aall abou
distinction about iss thehe no
notionon oof
appropr a enessoof con
'appropriateness ex s w
contexts withh respec
respect too uutterances'
erances (70),70 as concontrasted
ras edw with ru h or sa
h truth satis-
s
ac on cond
faction conditions.
ons In everyday linguistic ngu s c par h s wou
ance this
parlance, would d mean that ha seman
semantics rea s the
cs treats he
general cond
genera conditions ons oof we ormedness whereas pragma
well-formedness, pragmatics dealss w
cs dea withh 'ad-hoc ea ures oof
ad hoc features
ssituations'
ua ons (69).69 To me hsd
me, this distinction
s nc on doesndoesn't make sensesense. Even in n van D Dijk's rameworkoof
k s framework
generative
genera vegrammar
grammar,pragma pragmatics specifyy some k
cshas too spec nd oof appropr
kind a enesscons
appropriateness ra n s in
constraints na
formal,
orma genera
generative way: one canno
ve way cannot just us lete we ormednesscarry over too pragma
well-formedness pragmatics cs under
another
ano abe In the
her label. he same way that ha wewell-formed
ormed sensentential ruc ures are spec
en a sstructures specified ed by thehe
Chomskyan grammatical
Chomskyangramma ca appara
apparatus, us the
he appropr a enesscr
appropriateness criterion
er onshoushould applyy too aall poss
d app possible
be
pragmaticccon
pragma contextsex s that
ha are recurs ve yenumera
recursively enumerated edby van D Dijk's
k s sys em (62,
system 62 bubut van D Dijk k iss
confused
con here: on the
usedhere he nex
next page
page, he wan wantss the
he poss
possibleb econ ex s too havea
contexts have a 'recursive
recurs vedescrdescription',
p on
which
wh ch iss ask ng for
asking or more
more-butbu never m nd A
mind). At any ra e it seems far
rate, ar too
oo op m s ctoo charac
optimistic character-er
ize
ze the heore ca and me
he 'theoretical hodo og ca d
methodological distinction
s nc on be ween the
between he doma
domains ns oof seman
semantics cs and
pragmatics'
pragma cs as 'rather ear (70).
ra hercclear' 70
A final
na commen
comment: van D k no
Dijk notes
es that
ha h per a n too formal
hiss remarks 'pertain ex sstruc-
orma text ruc
tures
ures and their og ca forms'
he r logical orms (76). However, as he says eelsewhere,
76 However I iss poss
sewhere 'It possible
be
that pragmat
pragmaticc constra
constraints nts are not restr
restricted to the logical
ctedto sentences' [and
og ca forms of sentences
(67). If th
texts] (67) thiss iss true
true, then we cannot formaformalizeze pragmat
pragmaticscs w
without
thout reduc
reducingng itt
to some k kind
nd of logical
og ca semant cs 'enriched
semantics, enr ched w with
th an exp c t semant
explicit semantics, g a
cs ee.g.
Montague-type of grammargrammar'. To th thiss I wou
would ke to add that the same ho
d like ds for
holds
texts and contexts as we well. We may make a request w with
th severa sentences, or we
several sentences
may ask a quest
questionon w with
th what iss forma
formallyy an assert on; and so on
assertion; on. The not on of
notion
success', wh
pragmat c success
'pragmatic which
ch iss centra here, seems very hard to capture in
central here n any
zed logically
formalized
forma og ca y cons stent system
consistent system.
August 1977
Rece ved 23 Augus
[Received 1977.]

Th s con en down oaded om 128 233 210 97 on Mon 22 Feb 2016 13 23 30 UTC
A use sub ec o JSTOR Te ms and Cond ons