342 The subjectivity of utterance

the world that they arc in. I might just as well have put it the other way round, saying that speakers must refer to the actual or non-actual world that they are describing from the viewpoint of the world that is in them. But, whichever way these relations of accessibility are formulated, it will now be clear that they can be explicated in terms of the account that has been given in this chapter of indexicality and subjective epistemic modality.

There is no reason to believe that these notions are beyond the scope of formalization. Indeed, my reference to the notion of accessibility, at the end of Chapter 7 and again at this point, is intended to suggest that model-theoretic, or indexical, semantics is not necessarily restricted to the truth-conditional part of lin­guistic meaning. It could doubtless be extended to cover every­thing that has been discussed in this chapter, and more especially in this section, as part of the subjectivity of utterance. Of course, there are those who might prefer to refer to any such extension as pragmatics, rather than semantics. But that is neither here nor there. As we have seen on several occasions, there are many different ways of drawing such terminological distinctions. The view that we have taken throughout this book is that linguistic semantics should cover, in principle, (all and only) such meaning as is encoded in the lexical and grammatical structure of particular natural languages, regardless of whether it is truth-conditionally analysable or not.

Suggestions for further reading

As I said in the Preface, I expect this book to be read in conjunc­tion with other introductions to linguistic semantics (and prag­matics) and with a selection of textbooks, monographs and articles which deal with the particular topics in greater detail. Many of these other works will adopt a different theoretical stance from mine. They may also use different terminological and notational conventions. Throughout this book, but espe­cially in Chapter 1, I have tried to give readers enough guidance for them to be able to move from one theoretical framework to another without difficulty. Most of the books mentioned below have good bibliographies, which will usefully supplement the Bibliography given below.

Chapter 5 of Lyons (1981) contains a simplified exposition of linguistic semantics that is theoretically and terminologically compatible with the one given in this book: it also provides enough information about other branches of linguistics as is necessary for understanding any references made to them in the book. Readers with no previous background in linguistic seman­tics will find that Leech (1974), Nilsen and Nilsen (1975), Hur-ford and Heasley (1983) and Palmer (1981) provide them with a very good starting point. Two more recent introductory works, which take a radically different view from mine on some of the issues dealt with in this book, are Frawley (1992) and Hof-mann (1993): the former gives examples from a wide range of languages and includes a number of discussion questions for each chapter; the latter contains a set of well-chosen exercises (with answers at the end of the book). Allan (1986) covers much the same ground as I do here, but in greater detail and

343

344 Suggestions for further reading

with far more examples. Lyons (1977), though superseded by more recent works for particular topics, is still the most compre­hensive general work.

For general surveys of the field and its several subfields and an up-to-date account of work on particular topics, not only in linguistic semantics (and pragmatics), but on other relevant branches of linguistics, Asher (1994) is invaluable. Also to be consulted from this point of view are Bright (1992), Collinge (1990) and Newmeyer (1988a, b, c, d).

On lexical semantics, the best textbook to use in conjunction with this volume is Cruse (1986): it generally uses the same ter­minology, goes into most of the topics in much greater detail, and has plenty of examples. Ullmann (1962) is still useful, espe­cially for its account of early-twentieth-century work and its exposition of structuralism and the adoption of the Saussurean principle of the priority of the synchronic over the diachronic. Baldinger (1980) develops, in greater detail than Ullmann (1962), the post-Saussurean semiotic approach to semantics. Aitchison (1987) is an excellent general introduction to modern lexical semantics and deals with most of the topics discussed in Part 2 of this book with a wealth of well chosen examples: it is especially to be recommended for its account of recent psycho-linguistic work. A very readable, deliberately non-technical and, at times, provocative, introduction to lexical semantics at an elementary level is Hudson (1995). For an up-to-date account of various modern approaches to lexical semantics, see Lehrer and Kittay (1992).

In addition to the works listed above: for componential analy­sis, see Nida (1975), Dowty (1979); for semantic fields, see Lehrer (1974); for prototype semantics, see Lakoff(1987), Tay­lor (1989). For influential modern versions of the cognitive approach to lexical semantics, see Jackendoff( 1983, 1990) and Wierzbicka (1980, 1992). For the acquisition of lexical meaning by children, see Clark (1993).

There are no textbooks that deal exclusively with sentence-semantics (or grammatical semantics) as such. My own treat­ment of sentence-semantics in Part 2 is intended to introduce students, informally, to modern formal semantics: it can be

Suggestions for further reading 345

supplemented with Cann (1993) and Chierchiaand McConnell-Ginet (1990). For semantics within the framework of Chom-skyan generative grammar of the classical (Chomsky, 1965) and immediately post-classical period, which prepared the way for the adoption by linguists of the ideas of formal semantics, see Fodor (1977); and for generative grammar as such see Lyons (199la) and, for a more technical treatment, Radford (1988). For Montague's system of formal semantics, see Montague (1974), with its important 'Introduction' by Thomason. For standard modal logic, see the now classic Hughes and Cresswell (1968). For the basic concepts of formal logic (set theory, prep­ositional calculus, predicate calculus, etc.) see Allwood et al. (1977).

For the grammatical structure of English, I have generally fol­lowed Huddleston (1984). But most of the terms I use are also compatible with those employed by what is currently the most comprehensive and authoritative reference grammar of English, Quirk et al. (1985).

For noun classes and categorization, see Craig (1986). For tense and aspect, see Comrie (1985, 1976), Dahl (1985). For mood (and modality): Palmer (1986), Coates (1983), R. Mat­thews (1991). On negation, see Horn (1989).

On morphology as the interface between grammar and lexical semantics, in English and more generally, see P.H. Matthews (1992), Bybee (1985), Lipka (1990). On the complementary notions of grammaticalization and lexicalization, see Hopper and Traugott( 1993).

On the prosodic structure of spoken English, see Brown (1990), Crystal (1976).

For the topics dealt with in Part 4, under the rubric of utter­ance-meaning (or pragmatics), see, generally, Leech (1983), Levinson (1983), Horn (1988). More specifically: for illocution-ary force, see Austin (1962/1975), Searle (1969, 1979), Katz (1972), Recanati (1987); for conversational and conventional implicatures, see Grice (1989); for relevance theory and neo-Gricean pragmatics, see Sperber and Wilson (1986), Smith (1982), Blakemore (1987), Huang (1994), Levinson (forthcom­ing). For deixis, see Jarvella and Klein (1982); for anaphora,

346 Suggestions for further reading

see Cornish (1986), Reinhart (1983), Huang (1994); for meta­phor in relation to semantics (and pragmatics), see Lakoffand Johnson (1980), Ortony (1979).

For the semantics of text and discourse .(regarded in this book as an extension of linguistic semantics based on the analysis of the meaning of utterances), see Brown and Yule (1983), Halli- day and Hassan (1976), Beaugrande and Dressier (1981), Seu- ren(1985).

For the philosophical background, reference may be made, in most cases selectively, to some or all of the following: Alston (1964), Lehrer and Lehrer (1970), Olshewsky (1969), Parkin­son (1968), Potts (1994), Rorty (1967), Strawson (1971b), Zabeeh et al. (1974). Many of the classic papers (by Davidson, Frege, Grice, Kripke, Tarski, and others) in formal philosophi­cal semantics are included in Martinich (1985).

Only a small number of the works listed in the Bibliography have been mentioned explicitly in these 'Suggestions for further reading'. This does not mean that the others are less important or less highly recommended. What they deal with is usually evi­dent from their titles; and students are advised to consult at least some of them in order to acquire a sufficiently broad and balanced knowledge of the field.