Pragmatics and Semantics: An Empiricist Theory by Carol A. Kates (review)

64ROCKY MOUNTAIN REVIEW the following: 1) The theme of Cuba, 2) The theme of love, 3) The theme of poetry, 4) Meditations and philosophical speculation, 5) Religious poetry, and 6) Other thematic tendencies. In addition he includes discussions of "Neoclassic Forms and Romantic Content" and "Plenitude of Romanticism." As should be evident, there is a problem ofconsistencyin this thematic breakdown, a problem which Harter freely confesses; but for convenience the scheme is retained. The plays and novels Avellaneda wrote are dealt with individually, with commentary once again primarily relating the works to the private life and views of the author. Particular attention is given to her abolitionist novel Sab. The study ends with a brief chapter on shorter prose works, including, along with an essay on women, her leyendas (traditional tales or legends). This is the first book-length study on Gertrudis Gómez de Avellaneda available in English, and for that reason it will undoubtedly be useful to English-speaking students interested in an introduction to this figure. In fact, Harter's study of this author is quite consistent with the general tone of works in this series; it is a useful introduction in English to a literary figure of some importance. KAREN BURRELL, Yale University Carol A. Kates. Pragmatics and Semantics: An Empiricist Theory. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980. 253 p. The stated goal of Kates' study is to explore "the nature of communicative competence, or the cognitive prerequisites for speaking and understanding" (p.ll) using an empiricist orientation. The book consists of two main parts — "Part I: Pragmatics and Semantics: The Nature of Communicative Competence" and "Part II: An Empiricist Theory of Utterance Meaning: Philosophical Foundations" — preceded by a brief Acknowledgment, a Table of Contents, and an Introduction and followed by a list of References and an Index. As the title suggests, the book is an attack on rationalism, particularly the variety advocated by Chomsky in Cartesian Linguistics (1966), Language and Mind (1968), and Reflections on Language (1975). Kates objects to Chomsky's rationalist model on the grounds that his view of innate ideas is not borne out by empirical facts and that his theory of universal grammar carries with it unacceptable metaphysical implications . To buttress her argument, Kates carefully examines research on the acquisition of lexical and grammatical paradigms and of pragmatic structures. Based on this research, she concludes that perceptual experience is the ultimate source of human knowledge, thus making it unnecessary to posit innate linguistic knowledge of the kind assumed by Chomsky. Kates objects similarly to the concept "grammatical rule," arguing instead for a model of paradigmatic structures, a variant of the old "analogy approach," which she says is sufficient to account for the "productive patterns speakers use to produce and interpret novel utterances" (p.34). The "projection problem" is simply pushed aside with her assertion that "no grammar is 'descriptively adequate,' " since "it is not possible to describe in advance all of the surface structure regularities of utterances or to define a set of possible sentences of a language" (p.34). Perhaps the most interesting part of the book is the discussion of metaphor. According to Kates, the meaning of a metaphor "can be understood only in pragmatic terms, as a function of a use of signs with a given literal empirical connotation ... to frame a new, nonempirical intentional object" (p.224). It is this sort of paradigm construction that explains the speaker's ability to produce and interpret novel utterances. BOOK REVIEWS65 Overall the book is well argued and makes a good casefor empiricism. However, Kates's careful selection of her opposition may well have alot to do withit. Fora book concerned with semantics and pragmatics, much space is given to trying to debunk TG grammar. Her arguments against the underlying level of syntactic structure become meaningless in the light of Gazdar's (1979a) demonstration that Chomsky's TG grammar produces a context-free language, and that his PS-grammar without transformations can overcome all of Chomsky's (1957) objections to PS-grammars. Moreover, many scholars would insist that Chomsky has never given a clear and useful definition of pragmatics. It is thus easy for Kates to contrast her "pragmatic" solution with...