[lit-ideas] Re: Persuasion Redux
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:50:56 +0900
On Dec 22, 2007 10:54 PM, <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> I has never (so far) been too persuaded or convinced that there is a
> distinction need or worth making, but as Grice and Warnock would say
> (following Austin), if the English language deploys such a distinction,
> there must be a logic to it.
>
I am not persuaded that this assumption, "if the English language deploys
such a distinction, there must be a logic to it" is valid. I am reminded of
a lecture I heard at Berkeley in the spring of 1972, where a noted
historical linguist, talking about Chomsky, remarked that Chomsky, like many
philosophers, assumes that language is like a shiny new Erector Set found
under a Christmas tree. It is easy to sort the parts and imagine all sorts
of intricate structures to build with them. All that is missing is the
instructions. These have to be reverse engineered from the parts.
In contrast, he said, historical linguistics like himself, know that any
natural language is more like the Erector Set of years gone by, found while
rummaging in an attic. Many original parts are missing, and their places
have been taking by dirt and dust, miscellaneous screws, odd bits of
hardware, pieces of wood, rubber bands or the fossilized remnants of
well-chewed bubble gum. The instructions are still missing, and what we find
in the box owes as much to historical accident as to any original design.
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
