Here's my definition of a sentence: A sentence is a grammatical unit consisting of at least one finite, independent clause. Finite is not hard to define, but 'independent' is. The old 'can stand alone' is a pretty good metric. When working with relatively simple, declarative sentences, tests like 'I am convinced that _____' and tag-formation are useful for determining this kind of independence. I think of it as a unit which is not so constructed as to be a constituent of another unit. A dependent clause, for example, is structured as a constituent of a larger sentence, hence the term 'dependent'. This definition conforms to the way traditional grammar has used the term. Questions, etc., are considered to be different types of sentences. I don't like the notion of deriving one type from another, but it _is_ one way of approaching the shared propositional content of sentences of different types (e.g., active vs. passive). It is probably also, for non-linguists, the most robust remnant of transformational-generative grammar. It is also a definition which will allow students to understand rules for end punctuation as found in most grammar books and writing manuals. I think it's important for students to realize that punctuating non-sentences as if they were sentences is a stylistic deviation. It certainly happens a lot, and is quite acceptable in numerous genres of text, but it is not acceptable in all genres of text. (This should make clear that I do not find 'a stretch of words between a capital letter and a period' to be a good definition of a sentence. This definition would certainly not help students avoid fragments and comma splices when they need to.) Maybe some people don't like the idea of defining one grammatical term by referring to other grammatical terms. But grammar is a system of interdependencies. No one would object to defining a fuel injector by referring to other car parts and their functions; indeed, there is no other way to understand the concept of a fuel injector. Grammar deals with the parts of language and their functions. These all work in concert to connect meanings to each other. I wouldn't go near true/false judgments with a ten-foot pole. There is a whole tradition in the philosophy of language, along with a counter-tradition, which explores truth/falsity as a metric for defining linguistic units. Keyword: truth-conditional semantics. There are lengthy works that defend the notion that true/false judgments are crucial to defining a sentence, and others that argue against that claim. Have fun wading through all that! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics English Department, California Polytechnic State University One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-259 • E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ** "Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose, but that's not why people do it normally" - Frank Oppenheimer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~