Thanks. I'll take that into consideration as I meditate since I see I committed the same mistake in my "Post the letter..." bit where I refer to this. I'll re-read the thing, if I can. Possibly Buehler did not know the first thing about the function of language. Technology was very primitive in those days. Suppose I ask Geary, "What is the function of a fridge?" In linguistics, we distinguish langue parole It is otiose to speak of the function of Language (Sprache, Buehler would say, with a capital). It's speakers who fulfil functions, as it were. The emotive is possibly drawn from Ogden/Richards. Performative is an anachronism, and we know Austin got that from Scots law -- the 'operative' use of language he thought of calling it. 'Descriptive' is now used for 'the king of France' -- vide Grice, "Vacuous Names", repr. in Ostertag, "Definite DESCRIPTIONS". So one has to be careful. But thanks for the point that the higher functions presuppose the lower ones. Good evolutionary point. Cheers, Speranza In a message dated 8/11/2011 4:17:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: Bear in mind the presuppositional direction in Buehler-Popper (Buehler supervised Popper's Phd. thesis btw) is in the opposite direction: higher functions, like description, presuppose lower, like expressing. (Not lower presuppose higher). Lower functions may exist without, and do not presuppose the presence of, higher functions. [Compare: no biology without chemistry, no chemistry without physics; but there can be physics without chemistry and chemistry without biology: the idea of causal emergence but (logical) irreducibility lies at the heart of all this in Popper's view]. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html