On nonobjects of syntactic study

[Dan Parvaz]

> And the problem of recognition here is not merely hard. It is
> in-principle impossible. This is because to know that this or that
> fact is 'pure grammar', uncontaminated by nongrammatical factors,
> would require knowledge of everything about that fact, i.e. just
> everything.

Removing 'grammar' from this statement, and replacing it with 'matter,'
'culture', or 'art,' seems to create an equally impossible epistemological
standard for those areas of imquiry. So why necessarily pragmati(ci)sm?

Cheers,

Dan.

____________
,,,
. .   D A N  P A R V A Z  --  Geek-in-Residence
 U    University of New Mexico Linguistics Dept
 -    dparvaz@{unm.edu,lanl.gov}   505.480.9638