DD,

And when we depart from scientific method, we get into the area of belief.  I'm not embarrassed to acknowledge that I find a cognitive approach more believable than an innatist approach, but we're a long ways from being able to treat that issue scientifically.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of DD Farms
Sent: 2008-12-08 15:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE: Correct)

At 09:44 PM 12/7/2008, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: . . .
>I tend, as I've said before, to disagree with post-generative 
>grammarians on innateness and to lean more towards Geoffrey 
>Sampson's arguments in his book Educating Eve, but even Sampson 
>acknowledged that while he had developed a strong rationale for a 
>cognitive-based grammar there was no proof either way.  These are 
>not hypotheses that are in any way rigorous enough to be falsified. . . .

DD: Goodness gracious. There are people on this list that understand 
scientific theory. I agree! Make the possible to be falsified 
hypothesis and check out if it can be. { AND report back to the 
community of your results.}

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/