🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:1189110942.304838.295860@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

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



VB is operant behavior that is reinforced by a listener. Operant behavior is 
behavior that is modified by its consequences. Certain kinds of consequences 
are called "reinforcers" and the process is called "reinforcement."



>private states



Some of our behavior is observable only to the behaving individual. It is, 
thus, called "private." I don't much care for "states" as I think that what 
we introspect is our own behavior, but people are comfortable with "states" 
though there is a problem there.


> arrangement of contingencies



The term "contingencies" refers to a relationship whereby responses produce 
consequences. To arrange contingencies is to construct an environment 
whereby responses produce certain consequences.
>
>> 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.



But what Skinner had to say about VB was of interest to Chomsky. Wasn't 
Chomsky a linguist?




>> >> > 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.


Not sure how you mean this.




>> > 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.



All I can say is "really?"




>> >> > 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?



No.




>> >> 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.



If it has to do with the brain (at least allegedly) then it does.


>
>> >> 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.



This doesn't tell me much.


>
>> >> 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.



No. If it is important, just elucidate it.
>
>> > 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.



Then it is orthogonal to "the brain."


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



On the contrary, I am interested in little else. The "purpose" of "language" 
is to modify the behavior of a listener. This is "the function" of 
"language."