🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 6, 6:00 pm, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in

> > 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?

Well, _someone_ had to point out that what Skinner had to say about
that was not of interest to linguists!

> >> 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.

People cannot introspect about and do not know what is going on when
they speak. Similarly, people do not need to know about airfoils and
flow and all that to ride 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.
>
> All I can say is "really?"

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.

No. Neurobiology and neurolinguistics are branches of neurology,
perhaps.

It's like saying ichthology is ornithology.

> >> >> 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.

If you don't recognize the names of four of the most prominent
linguistic philosophers of the later 20th century, then you shouldn't
make remarks about philosophy and language.

> >> >> 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.

No.

> >> > 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."

Exactly.

> > 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."-

This is the sort of naivety that shone through every page of those
behaviorist chapters I edited last century.