" [ ] Jane English, for instance, recognizes the difficulties involved in the task of devising the required linguistic subdivision [ into 'theoretical' and 'observational' terms], but holds that "[i]f science is recursively axiomatized, the problem of saying which of the system's terms are observational is tractable" (1973, p. 454). Whether or not there are philosophical views according to which the present strategy would be regarded as promising, I will here point out that, from a Quinean perspective, it won't. First and foremost, a Quinean would strongly resist the idea of drawing a principled distinction between 'theoretical' and 'observational' terms. As Quine is more than ready to argue, the smallest individually significant units of language are statements or sentences rather than terms (1953, section 5; and 1960). Observationality, for Quine, is a property of sentences or statements, but not of individual terms: the same term can occur in a broad range of fundamentally different sentences, observational and non-observational ones, and no sense can be made of claims about the alleged 'observational' or 'theoretical' nature of a term on its own. "