Frameworks vs. the human mind
Enrique Figueroa E.
efiguero at CAPOMO.USON.MX
Sat Apr 19 15:20:51 UTC 1997
Beware hocus-pocus lx! Also beware God's truth lx!
The question is ideed crucial, difficult and practically infinitely
discussable! I'd try putting it this way:
Are "esoteric and highly formalised rules" (sorry and ashamed to admit
the phrasing was mine, originally, though I didn't even dream such an
unheaval would come out of it!) THE LINGUIST'S *REPRESENTATION* or THE
LINGUIST'S *EXPLANATION* (or, perhaps, *EXPLICATION*)?
One other thing should be clear, thoguh: as TG points out to me (in a
recent private message regarding the same discussion), there IS (and
there CANNOT NOT BE) a THEORY necessarily implied in every linguist's
approach to any (no matter how punctual aspect of) language.
(PS. I'm not taking sides here, just trying to shed some light on what I
think should be *one* of the cruxes of the ongoing discussion.)
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Diego Quesada wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Dave wrote:
> > It *is* possible to show that questions are derived from statements, in
> > certain frameworks.
> Because someone else, rather accurately, had written:
> > > or as it is represented in people's minds? In people's ordinary use of
> > > language they do not form sentences by deriving them from other
> > > sentences (eg. questions from statements). Outputs of the linguistic
> There are "frame-works" that can show you that (Lat.) /audio/ is the
> "underlying synchronic" form of Spanish [oygo] 'I hear'...
> A framework can tell you whatever you want to hear (to make it
> work... and the cycle goes on), but people's minds is something
> different from frame-works (that happen to be in some people's
> J. Diego Quesada
> University of Toronto
More information about the Funknet