🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:1189133690.355293.289220@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
I am inclined to be more both and more in-depth about the particular kind of 
"AEVASIVE" personality that is Glen's.

(AEVASIVE is a far more in-depth, balanced, and nuanced lingual tag than 
"neurotic" - but also harder to add to one's repertoire, or "kit", of 
conceptual tools.)

One of the many facts that Glen cannot find a way to connect (inside his 
head) is that our languages *also* can block (and provide a buffer for 
"ambiadvantageously" adaptive "actention selection" serving processing of) 
potentially self-defeatingly distress or flight/fight motivating 
predicaments and the normally (if survived) automatically "conditioned-in" 
(dynamically neurally stored and imprinted) correlates of such potentially 
overly onerous lifetime challenges; This kind of lifetime challenges can, if 
perceptively spotted from a far enough distance, be seen to be an aspect of 
our phylogeny's "evolutionary pressure (or patterning ) totality".

P