Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:40:52 -0500 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Of course not! Still, if a sentence is a grammatical term defined
exclusively by other grammatical terms, I don't see how you can avoid
circularity in your rigorous explanations of linguistic practice. The
approach seems to preclude the possibility of giving a clear, consistent
account of the point of creating sentences in the first place, just like
the approach of an imaginary auto mechanic who defines the function of
every part of a car's engine in exclusively in terms of its other parts.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Johanna Rubba wrote:
> Thanks, David. But I hope you don't lump me in with those people who
> don't believe in teaching about what sentences are for .... !!!
>
> Johanna
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
|
|
|