🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:1189167084.076926.250790@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

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."



But "speech" and "act" are ordinary terms, and their usage is not, as far as 
I know, banned because of that. It also seems that you are more interested 
in picking nits than arguing substantive points.


>
> 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.



I doubt very much that I have. I'm guessing his usage is covered by what I 
said above, including the parts about "gyrations." There is no question that 
his usage is, at least, metaphorical. Of course he is going to argue that it 
isn't "conscious rule-following" (or something like that) because, by 
definition, one would be able to sate the rule and we know native speakers 
usually cannot. But I think I have said enough in this regard. You may say, 
still, that I am misinterpreting but I don't think so. I choose not to be 
more long-winded now.



>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?



Well, I deny the existence of consciousness as an explanation, just as I 
deny that we do "intelligent things" because we possess "intelligence." 
Since the term "consciousness" has so much written about it. I could hardly 
comment given that this is the first time you mentioned the term. In any 
event, many people who say that there is such a "thing" as "consciousness" 
would argue that it is still "neurobiological" and, hence, "physiological." 
This is not my view but, nonetheless, it is certainly the view of many 
"neurobiologists" and these people would not say that "neurobiology" is not 
"physiological." My advice, which I'm sure that you are not inclined to 
consider, is that saying "brain issues" or however you want to phrase it, 
are not a part of physiology, make you look silly. But since you brought the 
term up, I will say that my view is that "conscious" is simply a name for 
certain sorts of behavioral observations. Thus, saying that it is the cause 
of the sorts of behavior observed is, well, silly. This is, of course, a 
minority opinion.




>> >> >> >> 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.



You seem to have missed my point. Since I o not know who they are, I can 
criticize only their view. But you have not presented it.




>
>> >> >> >> 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"?



My patience only extends so far. My impression is that you have been 
somewhat rude and arrogant, but I'm sure I'm over-reacting. My deepest 
apologies.


>> >> >> > 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!



You shouldn't necessarily take Skinner's view as correct. The rest of what 
you said strikes me as an egregious misrepresentation of what I said, but I'm 
sure any misunderstanding is my fault.




> 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.



I'll have to think about this. On the surface, I tend to agree with Chomsky 
about description. There is, in an odd way, a correspondence between Chomsky's 
view and Skinner's. This is not generally recognized, but I'll leave it 
there for now.


>
>> >> > 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?



On the contrary, it is a recognition that the principle of selection 
operates at the cultural level. It is sort of a recognition of the notion of 
"memes," but I don't care much for that approach.



Cordially,

Glen






>