The problem of the hermeneutical circle is one of the contentious issues in philosophical hermeneutics. This paper, begins with focusing on the question as to whether what hermeneuts mean by a hermeneutical circle is in fact a real circle with no analogical sense involved. Recognizing that this problem is not confined to the relation between part and whole, this study confines itself to explore the problem of the hermeneutical circle with regard to the circularity between part and whole in a sentence. I will argue that, as far as the interdependence between part and whole of a sentence is concerned, there is no real circularity between them. This will be followed by scrutinizing the source of such a misunderstanding, i.e., the circular interdependence between understanding the part and the whole of a sentence. I will present my analysis through a critical reading of two contemporary hermeneuts, Eric Donald Hirsch and Graeme Nicholson, even though both are on the right track in questioning the existence of such a circle in the first place. The argument presented could apply to contexts well beyond that of the circularity between part and whole in a sentence.