In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK NOTICES 999 on natural kinds and Schwartz on nominal kinds; and he proposes a third category of primary kinds. Natural kinds (rose, gold, tiger) are subject to stable generalizations, and are understood largely in terms of their stereotypes. Nominal kinds (boat, pencil, joke) have some analytic specifications, and can be the subject of stable generalizations. Primary kinds (solid, dry, yellow) are the subject of some generalizations , can have analytic specifications (e.g., solids resist penetration)—and, most significantly , are understood primarily via their stereotypes . For primary kinds, the stereotype is all that exists (166). P is concerned mainly with metatheoretical issues in semantic theory. What might the implications be for the descriptive linguist whose main concern is to analyse and compare lexical structures? One implication would be not to use semantic primes. (In actual practice, most features proposed turn out to be words or phrases in a natural language, enclosed in brackets and occasionally prefaced with + or - .) A more significant implication is that, where prototype theory is applicable, one should concentrate on prototypes instead of trying to provide necessary and sufficient conditions. In other words, instead of trying to show what distinguishes cup from mug, one should characterize the prototype of each. Although each section and chapter of P's book flows smoothly on to the next, the overall organization is hard to follow. Discussions of some topics (e.g. analyticity) are scattered throughout, and it is not always clear how each section is related to issues already considered. There are several topics about which I wish P had said more—such as translation, what kinds of nameables are actually given proper names, and the nameability ofevents and other abstract phenomena. But the book has many virtues: it is lucidly written, well-argued, and interesting. P's exposition ofothers' work is fair, intelligent, and generous. Although P deals with only a small range ofissues, I hope that Word meaning and beliefwill lead to more work (by P and others ) in the analysis of the categories used by linguists. [Adrienne Lehrer, University of Arizona.] Sprechakttheorie und dramatischer Dialog: Ein Methodenansatz zur Drameninterpretation. By Reinhard Schmachtenberg. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 120.) Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1982. Pp. x, 194. This volume is a reworking and shortening of Sch's 1981 Cologne dissertation. As the title suggests and a second reading of the text confirms , he skillfully applies S[peech] A[ct] theory to the analysis of four 17th century English restoration dramas. The result is a fascinating interdisciplinary study that merits the attention of both linguists and literary scholars. Speech 'as a form of action' (p. 2) provides the link unifying the literary genre ofdrama with a theory of SA's. In the introductory Chap. 1, Sch establishes the relevance and goals of a coordinated literary/linguistic analysis. In Chap. 2, he justifies in equally brief fashion the inherent problems of treating fictional speech as representative of real speech. Sch's assumption, though controversial, does not significantly affect his analysis. In Chap. 3, the theoretical portion ofthe study, Sch discusses several shortcomings of Searle's SA theory. Searle's taxonomy is not complete with regard to ceremonial SA's, e.g. toasts and formulaic expressions, nor does it account for distributional factors of SA's, e.g. initiating or reacting. This latter consideration (cf. D. Wunderliche 1976 Studien zur Sprechakttheorie) provides a major basis for Sch's analysis, in which the sequencing, identification, and classification of SA's are considered. Other criteria —e.g. subject reference and time reference of the propositional content, as well as the interests , obligations, and social differences ofthe speaker and hearer—aid him in further subcategorizing SA types. Sch's proposed framework, like Searle's, includes five types, all with English names: representatives (informatives, attesters, verdictives ); future directors (orders, requests, inducers, restrainers, wishes, commissives); expressives (ascribers, implicators); declarations (ceremonials, operatives, institutional operatives); and rituals. The class of future directors represents a combination of Searle's directives and commissives, and Sch adds the category of rituals. Unfortunately, his only examples are in the application in Chap. 4. However , Sch frequently directs the reader to an appendix containing a useful matrix of the essential criteria and the five SA types. The...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 999-1000
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.