🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 7, 7:09 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews: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!
>
> But that isn't what Chomsky said. Chomsky said Skinner was wrong, and that
> the principles were inadequate, not that explaining individual "speech acts"
> (to avoid technical terminology) was of no interest. Did you ever even read
> the review?

Er, "speech act" is a technicat term. Emerging from J. L. Austin's
*How to Do Things with Words* (1962), one of the founding documents of
the branch of linguistics known as "pragmatics."

I was thinking of taking it with me to the doctor's office this
morning. I've never had a reason to read it before.

> >> >> 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.
>
> I thought you might have meant something like this. You have muddled the
> issue quite badly. First, the comparison would be that people cannot
> introspect about and do not know what is going on when they speak, and that
> planes cannot introspect about and do not know what is going on when they
> speak. Few claim that planes need to know anything (but ask some people if
> "planes follow laws" or, similarly, if the Moon computes its orbit etc.),
> but it has been widely claimed that children are following rules when they
> speak their native tongue (and, of course, occasionally they are - at least
> after formal education begins). A common explanation for over-regularization
> of verb tense is that children have extracted, and are following, a rule.
> There are occasionally gyrations like "Well, they're not really following a
> rule" or "They are unconsciously following a rule" etc., but this is merely
> trying to have one's cake and eat it too. One wants to appeal to common
> LITERAL rule following (i.e., "Look both ways before you cross the street."
> "i before e, except after c" etc.) as an explanation, but then say "But it
> isn't REALLY that." Or "it is the same but unconscious" etc. The rules that
> linguists extract from observation of a language have almost nothing to do
> with people's speaking of their native tongue. And before anyone observed
> the orderliness, it had NOTHING to do with individuals speaking their
> language.

A pity that you, like the late Robert A. Hall, Jr., wilfully refuse to
grasp the meaning of "rule" in Chomskyan grammar. Chomsky and his
school have a VERY annoying habit of reusing existing terminology for
their own purposes, often without warning that that is what they have
done -- rather than inventing a new term for a new concept.

> >> >> > 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.
>
> Well, that is all I can say being the polite fellow that I am.
>
> >> >> >> > 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.
>
> No, your claim is more like saying that studying bony fishes is ichthyology
> and studying cartilaginous ones is not. But remember that your original
> claim was something like "there is more to the brain than physiology."

One would think that's rather obvious. Or do you deny the existence of
consciousness?

> >> >> >> 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.
>
> First, I didn't say I did not recognize their names (I do recognize Searle
> and Quine) and, second, what you say is a logical fallacy. I don't, for
> example, know the names or work of many people that argued that electricity
> was a liquid, but my criticisms of that view may be correct.

I don't see your criticisms of Austin and Grice.

> >> >> >> 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.
>
> I didn't think it was important. I have noticed that not much of what you
> say is.

What was that above about being "polite"?

> >> >> > 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.
>
> But if Skinner's view is correct, then the functional analysis of verbal
> behavior is not really "orthogonal" to the brain - it is what is to be
> explained. Linguistics is not. Much of linguistics is simply a description
> of the language.

But why should we take "Skinner's view" as "correct"? It has nothing
to say about language, or even, you have claimed, with verbal
behavior!

It is a great failing of Chomskyism that it has largely abandoned the
"description of[...] langauge[s]." It tries to describe every language
in terms of English, and when it discovers that it can't, it grafts
more and more ridiculous kludges onto the initial formulations.

Even Chomsky started out by recognizing that you can't explain until
you have described -- but he then declared the describing
uninteresting.

> >> > 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 should have said that that is the function when the level of analysis is
> the individual speaker. Language certainly has other functions at the level
> of cultural selection. But your repeated reference to "the brain" suggested
> that you were focusing on the level of the individual. True, there were your
> references to "sociolinguistics" but this merely seemed internally
> inconsistent or careless.

"Cultural selection"?? What's that, some offshoot of sociobiology?