🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:1189008547.960271.125140@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 5, 10:34 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in 
>> messagenews:1188997353.596408.308130@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > What does any of that tell us of the nature of human language?
>>
>> Well, since Skinner's thesis is that it is exposure to contingencies of
>> reinforcement that produce verbal behavior (i.e., "human language") then 
>> the
>> ability to produce it via these means in populations of humans that don't
>> acquire it in the "normal fashion" suggests that he might be correct.
>> Similarly, when one establishes verbal reports of "private states" in
>> non-humans via the arrangement of contingencies, it suggests that 
>> Skinner's
>> analysis is also correct.
>
> This paragraph is chock-full of technical terminology that I do not
> have the slightest ability to comprehend. But human language is far,
> far more than "verbal behavior."

The only technical term is "contingencies of reinforcement" and this is easy 
to find via Google - you coul look it up, just like I looked up 
"sociolinguistics" though I had a pretty good idea what that entailed. 
"Private states" is sort of self-explanatory. There is no question that 
"language" is more than "verbal behavior" is true - that's why the term 
"verbal behavior" was adopted. Much of what is of interest to linguists has 
little to do with individuals talking or signing etc. - especially 
structural analysis of language.

>
>> > If "behaviorism" treats an organism (such as a human) as a black box,
>> > with input and output but no interest in what's _inside_ the box, how
>> > can it tell us anything about what's inside the box?
>>
>> The answer that Skinner used to give, and it seems obviously the correct
>> one, it cannot.
>
> Then it is of no more value than Chomsky's mathematical models that
> generate grammatical sentences but are not even claimed to have
> anything to do with what actually goes on in brains.

But the behavior of real individuals speaking (or signing etc.) has a great 
deal to do with what goes on in the brain, since "what goes on in the brain" 
mediates behavior.

>
>> But what it can tell one is what must be explained. That is,
>> the facts uncovered by behavior analysis (and are misrepresented by the
>> phrase "input and output") ARE what must be explained in terms of
>> physiology.
>
> Except for your last four words, that is of course what linguistics
> has been up to for about two centuries now -- long before and long
> after Skinner's kindly attempt to tell us "what must be explained."

Most of linguistics is largly irrelevant to individuals engaged in "speaking 
their language."

>
> But to suggest that brain function is nothing but physiology is
> laughably naive.

Really? This is a curious statement. One is tempted to say it is "stupid," 
but I am far to magnanimous to say that. Brain function is not a part of the 
broad filed called "physiology," huh? Quite a curious statement, indeed.

>
>> > Are "behaviorists" interested in neurolinguistics?
>>
>> Some are, sort of. They are more interested in the functional relation
>> between contingencies of reinforcement and verbal operants. Since this is
>> what verbal behavior really is,
>
> Linguists aren't interested in "verbal behavior," they're interested
> in language.

Well, some are interested in real people speaking (or signing, writing 
etc.), no? And if they are not, there is a huge hole in what they do, and 
your claims concerning brain activity and "language" are rendered nonsense.

>
>> perhaps "neurolinguistics" should take some
>> interest in it, rather than the other way around. Many behaviorists (and
>> others) think that much of neurobiology in general is a conceptual 
>> muddle.
>
> I didn't ask about neurobiology.

But you have mentioned the brain several times as if that is somehow your 
domain.
>
>> For a scathing rebuke of it by two nonbehaviorists see:
>>
>> M.R. Bennett, P.M.S. Hacker
>> Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience
>> Bennett, M.R. and Hacker, P.M.S., Philosophical Foundations of 
>> Neuroscience,
>> 2003, Blackwell Publishing, 480pp, $39.95 (pbk), ISBN 140510838X.
>
> No, I really don't have time for a 500-page book on philosophy.

OK. But my guess is that linguistics is rife with philosophy - only it is 
bad philosophy.

>
>> in society?
>>
>> Skinner was. Though, obviously, not from within the usual framework of
>> explanation via explanatory fiction.
>
> Wow, a Giwer in academic's vocabulary!

Sorry, I'm not familiar with this reference.

>
> Since language is "the social art," the study of the use of language
> in society is a rather important part of the study of language.

Yeah, but it is largely orthogonal to the behavior of individuals. Not 
irrelevant - just orthogonal.

Cordially,
Glen



>