Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> My understanding is that an important part of Chomsky's work was
> the hypothesis of the "autonomy of syntax", that it makes sense
> to study the syntactic properties of language without regard for
> those other issues. Not denying the existence or importance of
> those issues, just saying that syntax could also be examined
> without taking them into account. Sandy Harris
>
> ---------
>
> I haven't read anything of Chompsky's, except his politic essays now
> and then, so I can comment on syntax or his analysis of lanugage.
>
> Sure it makes sense to study language through linguistically derived
> concepts. It sounds like that's what linguistics does---independent of
> other areas of study.
>
> But I take it that Kenneally wants to step out of that box and start
> looking at language differntly. So there is a dilemma. How much of say
> the background of anthropological study of language does a linguist
> want to incorporate?
It is this _sort_ of thing that has me more or less convinced that _at best_ Kennelly is a superficially educated pop-scientist writer; she may be a simple fraud.
There is no question that the fruitful ways to study language are numerous and differ widely. The question is CAN one study syntax independently of semanantic considerations. DOES syntax have an internal logic. Colorless green ideas sleep furiosly - and so forth. I think it would be fascinating to study the semantics of that sentence, but clearly such a study would not in the least touch on what is to be learned through the independent study of its syntax as syntax. To see these as alternatives, as in any way in conflict, is (I would say) fraud.
Carrol