Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:45:57 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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/
|
|
|