If you Google:
http://www.royharrisonline.com/integrational_linguistics/integrationism_introduction.html you will find "Integrationism: a very brief Introduction", written by Harris himself. I take no joy in standing by my judgment that he lacks the required sharpness of intellect. I tried to give examples of his weaknesses. I'm sorry they weren't persuasive. Perhaps the prototypical example of the Harris weakness is his blurry and inconsistent usage of that essential sound, "meaning". He even uses "word" with no clear idea of the problems behind that utterance. I found his introduction (and some other writings of his) so intellectually inadequate I gave up on the man. The Introduction is only about 4,000 "words". I claim an attentive reading by any smart person can put one off Harris forever. In a message dated 5/18/12 11:14:34 PM, [email protected] writes: > I think there's a distinction between Harris' theory of Integrationist > Linguistics and Integrational Linguistics, a theory advanced by Lieb. > Similar > terms, different concepts. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, May 18, 2012 7:18:55 PM > Subject: Re: On Roy Harris 2 0f 2 > > I do find, in prowling around Google scholar looking for references to > HArris, that rather a lot of people-four-use the word polemic to > describe his style. Also who is this H H Lieb,who seems to have written > eight volumes worth of integrationist linguistics in the middle > eighties, and several single books in the seventies? > Kate Sullivan
