🚀 go-pugleaf

"DKleinecke" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1189113237.251323.213520@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 6, 1:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2:51 pm, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
>
>> > > 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.
>
> I snipped the rest because this seems to be an excellent little
> summary of the problem. Unless I misunderstand the current behaviorist
> position



You do.



(which I believe Skinner did not share)



Most of the behaviorists left are, in fact Skinnerisns.



>the individual is
> assumed to be a solipsistic (or very nearly one) entity impinged upon
> by a host of stimulii and attempting to respond.



Hardly.



>There seems to be no
> room here for concepts like culture and community.



Skinner wrote extensively about "culture," and as far as "language" is 
concerned, it is the so-called "verbal community" that is responsible for 
our "acquisition of 'language.'"



I read Skinner years ago and I thought he might have something to
> contribute to linguistics although most of the behavior he considered
> was far more primitive than speech.



Skinner's book "Verbal Behavior" was based on simpler behavior in 
non-humans. This is the closest you have com to being accurate. VB, however, 
considered utterances and their context.



 For example, what happens when a
> person realizes that, in their understanding of a sentence, they have
> been led down a garden path?



Give me an example.



> Unless they can broaden their outlook I fear the behaviorist are going
> remain a quaint survival from the 1950's.



Given your understanding of "behaviorism" your fears are understandable.



Cordially,

Glen