as fernantic relations between several expressions. These are inv;!.jabl(: basic de:jlsnds, which are in principle accepted also by the three semantic t$ecEcE wit ti the generatide framework: Interpretive Semantics (IS) (Katz). Ges:ef::.;;s: Ser w-hcs (CS) (Lakoff, McC;iwley), and the Extended Standard Theory (EST) (Cl- om;ky , Jackendoff); wlrat differs are the ways these basic demands are accourted for, m:linly with respect to (i) and (ii), as ulell as tF,- 1~ ~~~~~~ecluences each of these approak‘hes has for the form of the grammar.

Xext, however, Fodor does not - in contrast to conv(:II tional in troductionc - im nediately pass on to the detailed presentation of the thr::e controversial theories. Instead, in ch. 2 (pp. 9-61), thz basic demands on a linguistic theory of meaning as co.nprised in (i)-(ivj above are first checked and then assessed by confronting t.hi:m with other theories of meaning of not prunarily linguistic orientation and 0r:gin. Set?ion 2.1 raises the question: (1) 10 which extent is a semantic theory that tal-:eb cl_r notion “meaning of an expression” to 0e sufficiently clesr in +-r* 1: of

ini uil:ion and makes use of it in explicating t hc phenomena of semantic competence, also obliged to define and explain what mesing is; and (b) v-hat could odrer tht ories of meaning contribute to answer this question. The author fol!ows up with ~1 excellently arranged rev-i rl?r cf answers to the question “what is meaning?“. Her 0~ n answer, if I may anticipate the result obtsined in section 2.8, is: the linguistic notion of “meaning of ar: expression” is Trot redzrcibk w any of th.> notions of meaning developed in other disciplines. It has a status su,i gerzeris, and its explica- .ion remains the goal (not the prerequisite) of linguist if: research in semantics as a ,vhoIe.

3c cl.xe examimtrion of the witie range of conceptions of meaning leading to tk

~concluslon above is so instructive that it deserves a more detail4 discussion. P-w

cerning the quesr~~wl raised in section 2.1, each OS’ rl;w wnceptions discussed eon- tributes somehow to a better understanding of $3 : 4. ii means to explicate, in lin- guistic tennis, the *nLza~i~ng of a linguistic expri>>I; #n by ajslgnlng it a semantic

represen tatl.on.

In section 2.2, t;le r.otions of meaning identifying th: meaning of an expression with what it refers to, or with some idtw it is associatecl with <Locke), or with the ‘istimulus-response” relation (behaviorism) are rejxted as inadequate. IV XC- rion 2.3, “meaning” is characterized as “use” according to Witt,;ensteirl, and dis- cussed subsequently br the sense of ‘“i1locution;rt-y aci: potential” (Alston, Se?rle), and of “utl.erer’s meowing” (Gricc). The riecessity sf dividing semence meaning dt least into ikxwtiorta~y &we and (~a~&r’onal corttcm IS maintained. The Zatter notion is elaborated in section 2.4 where. following Fiege’s distinction of “sense” (Sifin) 1%. “‘reference” (,&&ww&, it is postulated that the representation of the

propositional content. of an (;Iss:rtive) sentence should include rhe specification of its truth conditions. Althouga it originally marks a historical cievI:lopment inside formal logi:. the author recog!?izcs the Flregean Pr nciple ofC’orn.positionality as the counterpart (in suhjcctj and model (in rea!;i ziitiorl) for chose basic demands which were formiblated in (i)-(ii) from a linguistic point of view. It is made clear t.h:it

this basis, F )dor jhcws that neither the * - ssertives-as-performativos approach (p-g. the rrigis ally syn t act icaUy motivated so-:‘ _I ‘! _ A performative hypothesis within CS). nor the apprcach that reduces performatit e serrtences to their assetiive paraphrases (as proposed ‘oy Lewis) will do. Therefore, the most promising theory seems to’ be one that offers ;I parallel procedure frlr ass+vp and non-assertive ser,tences, allowing for the syntactic: moods (declarativeI imperative, interrogative) as well as for the differences between ? assert. . c, .I order. . ., HC. by defining the proposi- tional content h>’ mear-s of conditions I.vhich, dependent on the respective sen- ‘tence types, are specified as truth, conrplsance, or answerhood condit.,ons. (Such a theory has, in fact, been elaborated in Ihe inzantime: see Katz (15’97) ml3 the

review b;/ Davis (1978) in this journal). The idea of il Linguistic semantics ir&grating importan; concepts of‘ iOgiC,

philosophy of language, aqd speech act 1:h3ory without beinll reducible to either, th:ms fbiiAS the general frame of assessmr:nt ;‘or !hp +I-- X$X theories of mei:.ning de\Joped within generalive linguistics Fotior summarizes. “The indications are that we are drawing to the end 01’ the pericd in which smmtic repr2sentatilr)ns forrr, an abstract uninterpreted system v41ich czn be connected with reality only by ident, fying its primitive terms with ~lorncc” u liverA innate mend en%i*s” (p. 6 1).

TILE vrew enables Fodor to characterize ihz three theories at issue as an intrelm- guistic :;t?ge cf transition (chs. 3 to 5’). The common basis of 1’5, GS, and EST is the atterlpt to f~N.il rhe basic requirements (i)--(iv) above within the framework of a gramm IF which at f,rst consisted only of phonoiogy and syntax, and to which a semantic 8:onjporlent was then added. Thus, as Fodor shows, the point was to ciqlrn- bisle synr.i\ and lexicon to form a type of semantic re;JreSentation that coiAd 3e maegrated into the derivation4 system yielding structura! descriptions of senfcncr:s. This explasns the “uninterpretedness” of these ser- dtic representations w1t.h respect to extralinguistic reference on the one hand. _ d !o the cognitive Isis of the assumed components of meanin!: (semantic mark r.‘cn and their configur a tl?jls) on the other.

After an outline of the main tenets of IS, G§, and EST in ch. 3 (pp. 63 -lOG), the next tw,o ch:hpters concentrate on the discussion of controversial point: of the “middle sta;:es ol* derivation - which is where syntax and semantics meet” (p. lot)). Despite; a general consent on the 1 rinciple that a g’-j._,,mar should correlilte the phonologically 3nd the morphosyn tactically specified representations of II given sentence with those elf its ruesningt:s:~, there are considerable differences ain; dis- agreements cunc:erning the. way those vsrioras representations should be mapped onto each orher. With great didac:;ic sk.ti akld through concise argllmentations,

Fodor compares the three the~~ier~ wit’ I respect to their abilities [o jccc4-mt for phenr>r.lena such 3s: selection I-CS~IXZ~~~~ s, coreference, opaqueness, scope forma- tier!, h,us and presupposition i amlsigui! y and synonymy, efc., and then asses5 es each OII’ ~hern ccltnpared with the t AJO cw +c,, aG io their descriptive means (dirclc- Iion of derivation, formal proper&s of rules, mvenmry c:rf dr:scAprive units, geriel-a-

tive CapilCity , eX. ).

lefwence book for actual research, as it is useful as a textbod for studem of

linguistics, and reliable as a source of information for interested -workers irk adjacent Mds.

Ewald Lang Ce;=:~j 1.z?5titute of Linguistics

Academy of S’ences of the GDR Berlin

Reference 5

Davis, !:tevl;n. 1979. Review of JGW 1977. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 383 -394, Katz, .Jerr&ld J. 1977. JVopositional structure ;Ind illocutionary i’orce. New York : The mas Y.

Crowd.

Ert~ald Lzr.~g. Bor,n in 1942. Studied C?linese a& (iencral Linguist+ z? the University of Leipzig and at the ~rlu~thold,:-~lni\lersity of Berlin. Dr. phil. degree in 1974. Since 1966: research work at the i3en1131 Institure 01 Linguistics, Academy of Scil:nces of the CD!R, Berlin.

Resear:J! inreresls: Sy nlax, semanlics, and pragmatics of operat&ike expressions in natural languages fr: >nnectors, quarnifiers, ad1 erbials, particles).

Tht: si\l(j!r MI&X r8ev-ilew, Ew~ld Lang’-; dissertation written in the early seventies and publishers ti Ii h considcrabl: delay, can be considered as Gne of the most original and inn 13 reszdvc s_-~ntribut.i~)ns t:~ !ext theory. T~?E: rev branch of linguistics exiendiclg Ehc sco7f: of 1inqJistic FPsearch beyond ;, . . sentence must face serious theoretqiial XK~ methodoiqica~ problems. Most of I .; a&erents assume that the analysis of liq;uistic u!terallLeS should be based on a unit ‘text’ and therefore the questiorl b; which steps this abstract term ‘text’ can be transformed in the special utieranl:t: rzzpectively in the already well-known terrrs of serllence grammar is son- :ILLcL~ rfs decisivlz for text theory. Lang, however, takes another approach involving the graljual cr~largement of the already known domain nf the sentence and thereby arrives :rt the aexr fram the sentence. He does not formulate any comprehensive theoretic al construct, and the scope of his investigations is devoted to the semantics (“l thr: i;cr!.TrrW l c~mective~r tin&a’, aber, der;n, O&Y, ennveder-odw, tkll L .,_ .-I. .‘--; a .

?lii!ll wh ?P --- ‘3 rather limited topic involvirlg empirical analysis which way suggest tl-rat hi:. st;l~e4r~reslt~ have only rather restricted theoretic& relevance. ‘Flit appear- ance i:;. however, n,isle,iding: Lang’s book represents a thorough survey of relevant rL:xt-tlvcl>re tic:d r:orlsiderations, it provides valuable scl:titlons of general ;.mportance and, a:; 3 matter uf foe, it points out a new and pra:ticdly real&able approach to text theory instead of mere speculative experiments.