🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 6, 2:51 pm, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews: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

verbal behavior
private states
arrangement of contingencies

> 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.

And thus whatever it is "behaviorism" has to say about "verbal
behavior" is thus also of little or no interest to linguists.

> >> > 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.

As the proliferation of models just within Chomskyism shows, the
"behavior" tells us very little of what goes on in the brain.

> >> 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."

Just as most of physics is irrelevant to people traveling in an
airplane.

> > 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.

I never heard of neurology being considered a branch of physiology.

> >> > 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.

Did you miss everything I said about sociolinguistics?

> >> 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.

Neurolinguistics is not neurobiology.

> >> 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.

No. When philosophers have a go at language, they're usually almost as
naive about it as behaviorists. Austin and Grice are exceptions. Quine
and Searle aren't.

> >> 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.

Have a glance at the two biggest threads in sci.lang at the moment.

> > 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.

Exactly.

You're not interested in the purpose and function of language (viz.,
solidarity and communication), so you can offer little insight into
language.