paradigms

[Daniel L. Everett]

Martha,

Tsk, Tsk. Of course I understood this. But if you are telling anyone
what the components of the 'correct' theory are, that just *is* a
metatheoretical statement.

Good luck,

Dan


On Thursday, Mar 11, 2004, at 02:16 Europe/London, Martha McGinnis
wrote:

>>> Perhaps I misunderstood, but I don't think Jonathan was making a
>>> metatheoretical statement.  I understood him to be making a
>>> falsifiable empirical claim: that paradigms may be a useful
>>> descriptive tool, but they have no theoretical status.
>>
>> But they do have theoretical status. Just not in DM.
>
> Again, I didn't mean this metatheoretically.  I understood J to be
> proposing that paradigms aren't part of the human linguistic system,
> i.e. that they have no status in a *correct* theory, whether that's
> DM or some other theory.
>
> Cheers,
> Martha
> --
> mcginnis at ucalgary.ca
>
>

------------------------------------------

Daniel L. Everett
Professor of Phonetics & Phonology
Postgraduate Programme Director
Department of Linguistics
The University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester, UK M13 9PL
http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/de
Fax: 44-161-275-3187
Office: 44-161-275-3158