Craig writes, "The underlying assumption is that it is what it is because of 
what it does. Use shapes form."

Exactly the point I made by writing that if it functions as a past tense verb, 
that's what it is, whatever might be in front of it, be it the word 'had' or a 
bushel of kumquats or a truckload of Eskimo Pies. If that's how it functions, 
that's what it is. Why would anyone still quarrel the point?

.notbaitflo.brad.07mar11.




________________________________
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, February 24, 2011 7:44:51 PM
Subject: Re: sources re conversational behavior

John,
    I am no doubt under the influence of my current reading as well. I'm
working my way through Talmy Givon's Syntax, where he says "the best
point of departure for functionalism is to be found in biology, the
mother-discipline that has been profoundly functionalist for over two
thousand years."
    A very apt analogy might be anatomy and physiology. No medical
researcher would look at anatomy without thinking of physiology, and
to fully understand physiology you need to examine anatomy in use. The
underlying assumption is that it is what it is because of what it
does. Use shapes form. The most important insights come from health,
not illness.
  From this view, we can't fully look at the forms of conversation
without thinking about purposes and intentions.

Craig


      

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/