o. Theoretical linguistics is a term not very often used in Soviet Linguistics. The terms 'structural linguistics', 'mathematical linguistics', 'applied lin guistics' (which, incidentally, has another meaning here than in other parts of the world) all may cover theoretical work in linguistics. In older days serious theoretical work was done under the heading 'machine translation'. Very often the need for a special term for theoretically oriented studies in linguistics does not even arise. Does this mean that there is no real theoretical linguistics in the Soviet Union? This would be, of course, a completely false conclusion. Some lin guists tend to identify theoretical linguistics with generative grammar. Though it might be true - and I am myself very much inclined to subscribe to this view - that generative grammar has been the most fruitful linguistic theory up to now, this does not justify, however, the above identification. Incidentally, as we shall see later on, generative grammar has not been left unnoticed in the Soviet Union either. There are different trends within theo retical linguistics, one of which is generative grammar. While generative grammar (though one can worry about the content of this notion for many. internal and external reasons) seems to be the mean theoretical trend in the United States and in Western Europe, it represents only one of the main trends in Soviet linguistics."

In the study of language, as in any other systematic study, there is no neutral terminology. Every technical term is an expression of the assumptions and theoretical presuppositions of its users; and in this introduction, we want to clarify some of the issues that have surrounded the assumptions behind the use of the two terms "speech acts" and "pragmatics." The notion of a speech act is fairly well understood. The theory of speech acts starts with the assumption that the minimal unit of human communica tion is not a sentence or other expression, but rather the performance of certain kinds of acts, such as making statements, asking questions, giving orders, describing, explaining, apologizing, thanking, congratulating, etc. Characteristically, a speaker performs one or more of these acts by uttering a sentence or sentences; but the act itself is not to be confused with a sentence or other expression uttered in its performance. Such types of acts as those exemplified above are called, following Austin, illocutionary acts, and they are standardly contrasted in the literature with certain other types of acts such as perlocutionary acts and propositional acts. Perlocutionary acts have to do with those effects which our utterances have on hearers which go beyond the hearer's understanding of the utterance. Such acts as convincing, persuading, annoying, amusing, and frightening are all cases of perlocutionary acts."

In the last decade a profound change has occurred in linguistic science. Not only have old problems been tackled from an entirely new point of view but also quite a few new fields of linguistic research have been opened. The common characteristic of the majority of the theories and methods developed recently is the search for a more adequate description of language. Adequacy does not mean simply that the theory must conform to the facts. It must also meet the general requirements of present-day theories: coherence, clear-cut notions, rigor of presentation. It has also become abundantly clear that linguistic research cannot be content with the registration and classification of linguistic phenomena. In one way or another linguistics must try to explain the deep-seated regularities in language which in general do not appear on the surface in some straightforward way. Therefore, we find the attribute 'deep' very often in contemporary linguistic literature. Linguistic theories seek an explanation for the observed facts in terms of a system of hypotheses about the functioning of language. As research proceeds these will undergo essential changes. Some of them will be waived, others com plemented. The papers of the present volume follow these general principles of linguistic theory though they may differ from each other in the way of presentation considerably. Some of the papers make use of the framework of transformational-generative grammar (e. g. Kuroda; Perlmutter), others approach the pertinent problem from a different angle (e. g. Dupraz and Rouault; Apresyan, Mel'cuk, and Zolkovski)."

The present volume is intended to give an overall picture of research in pro gress in the field of generative grammar in various parts of Europe. The term 'generative grammar' must, however, be understood here rather broadly. What seemed to be an easily definable technical term several years ago is becoming more and more vague and imprecise. Research in generative gram mar is carried on according to rather diversified methodological principles and being a generative grammarian is often more a matter of confession than any adherence to the common line of methodology which can be traced back to the conception of grammatical description initiated by Noam Chomsky. The direct or indirect influence of this conception is, however, clearly recog nizable in most of the papers of this volume. The most difficult thing was, naturally enough, to select appropriate papers in the realm of semantics. Apart from the special trend in generative grammar referred to as 'generative semantics' (though here, too, we might ponder on what 'generative' really means) the term 'generative' is hardly employed in semantics. The search for semantic primes, the application of the methods of mathematical logic, the inquiry into the intricate relationships between syntax and semantics and the utilization of syntactic information in semantics are perhaps the most charac teristic traits of contemporary semantics. All of this, of course, is at no variance with the principles of generative grammar, on the contrary, most of it has been made possible through the achievements of generative grammar."

In almost all principled accounts of questions questions are related to the corresponding answers. Zellig Harris (Harris 1978:1), for example, maintains that" ... all interrogative sentences can be derived, by means of the independently established transformations of the language, from sentences which assert that someone is asking about a disjunction of statements which are the relevant possible answers to that interroga tive." This amounts to the claim that a yes-no question such as Will John stay? is derived from I ask you whether John will stay and a wh question such as Who came is derived from something like I ask you whether A came or B came or ... or X came .. Though in generative grammar interrogatives are not derived from the corresponding declaratives, the semantic interpretation of questions is akin to the syntactic source of questions posited by Harris. Jerrold J.Katz and Paul M.Postal (Katz-Postal 1964:113-117) state a reading rule for Q, the interrogative constituent, which boils down to (1) in the case of yes-no questions and to (2) in the case of wh-questions. (1) Tell me which of the following is true: John will stay or John will not stay. (2) Tell me which of the following is true: A came or B came or ... or X came. Thus, the semantic interpretation of questions makes reference to the set of possible answers represented here by a disjunction of statements."

The present volume is intended to give an overall picture of research in pro gress in the field of generative grammar in various parts of Europe. The term 'generative grammar' must, however, be understood here rather broadly. What seemed to be an easily definable technical term several years ago is becoming more and more vague and imprecise. Research in generative gram mar is carried on according to rather diversified methodological principles and being a generative grammarian is often more a matter of confession than any adherence to the common line of methodology which can be traced back to the conception of grammatical description initiated by Noam Chomsky. The direct or indirect influence of this conception is, however, clearly recog nizable in most of the papers of this volume. The most difficult thing was, naturally enough, to select appropriate papers in the realm of semantics. Apart from the special trend in generative grammar referred to as 'generative semantics' (though here, too, we might ponder on what 'generative' really means) the term 'generative' is hardly employed in semantics. The search for semantic primes, the application of the methods of mathematical logic, the inquiry into the intricate relationships between syntax and semantics and the utilization of syntactic information in semantics are perhaps the most charac teristic traits of contemporary semantics. All of this, of course, is at no variance with the principles of generative grammar, on the contrary, most of it has been made possible through the achievements of generative grammar."

o. Theoretical linguistics is a term not very often used in Soviet Linguistics. The terms 'structural linguistics', 'mathematical linguistics', 'applied lin guistics' (which, incidentally, has another meaning here than in other parts of the world) all may cover theoretical work in linguistics. In older days serious theoretical work was done under the heading 'machine translation'. Very often the need for a special term for theoretically oriented studies in linguistics does not even arise. Does this mean that there is no real theoretical linguistics in the Soviet Union? This would be, of course, a completely false conclusion. Some lin guists tend to identify theoretical linguistics with generative grammar. Though it might be true - and I am myself very much inclined to subscribe to this view - that generative grammar has been the most fruitful linguistic theory up to now, this does not justify, however, the above identification. Incidentally, as we shall see later on, generative grammar has not been left unnoticed in the Soviet Union either. There are different trends within theo retical linguistics, one of which is generative grammar. While generative grammar (though one can worry about the content of this notion for many. internal and external reasons) seems to be the mean theoretical trend in the United States and in Western Europe, it represents only one of the main trends in Soviet linguistics."

In the study of language, as in any other systematic study, there is no neutral terminology. Every technical term is an expression of the assumptions and theoretical presuppositions of its users; and in this introduction, we want to clarify some of the issues that have surrounded the assumptions behind the use of the two terms "speech acts" and "pragmatics." The notion of a speech act is fairly well understood. The theory of speech acts starts with the assumption that the minimal unit of human communica tion is not a sentence or other expression, but rather the performance of certain kinds of acts, such as making statements, asking questions, giving orders, describing, explaining, apologizing, thanking, congratulating, etc. Characteristically, a speaker performs one or more of these acts by uttering a sentence or sentences; but the act itself is not to be confused with a sentence or other expression uttered in its performance. Such types of acts as those exemplified above are called, following Austin, illocutionary acts, and they are standardly contrasted in the literature with certain other types of acts such as perlocutionary acts and propositional acts. Perlocutionary acts have to do with those effects which our utterances have on hearers which go beyond the hearer's understanding of the utterance. Such acts as convincing, persuading, annoying, amusing, and frightening are all cases of perlocutionary acts."

In the last decade a profound change has occurred in linguistic science. Not only have old problems been tackled from an entirely new point of view but also quite a few new fields of linguistic research have been opened. The common characteristic of the majority of the theories and methods developed recently is the search for a more adequate description of language. Adequacy does not mean simply that the theory must conform to the facts. It must also meet the general requirements of present-day theories: coherence, clear-cut notions, rigor of presentation. It has also become abundantly clear that linguistic research cannot be content with the registration and classification of linguistic phenomena. In one way or another linguistics must try to explain the deep-seated regularities in language which in general do not appear on the surface in some straightforward way. Therefore, we find the attribute 'deep' very often in contemporary linguistic literature. Linguistic theories seek an explanation for the observed facts in terms of a system of hypotheses about the functioning of language. As research proceeds these will undergo essential changes. Some of them will be waived, others com plemented. The papers of the present volume follow these general principles of linguistic theory though they may differ from each other in the way of presentation considerably. Some of the papers make use of the framework of transformational-generative grammar (e. g. Kuroda; Perlmutter), others approach the pertinent problem from a different angle (e. g. Dupraz and Rouault; Apresyan, Mel'cuk, and Zolkovski).