🚀 go-pugleaf

"DKleinecke" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1188935616.753418.288780@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 4, 12:29 pm, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > I don't know what you might mean by "stuff said to contribute to the
>> > 'understanding of language'."
>
> Be careful - you are slipping into troll mode.

Well, the quote above was Peter's. But there is no question that I am 
critical much of what is said to contribute to an understanding of language.

>
> Nobody denies that speaking a language is a kind of behavior in the
> broad everyday sense of behavior.
>
> It is not clear to outsiders that speaking a language is a kind of
> behavior in the technical sense of behavior used by behaviorist
> psychologists.

The behavioral definition of "behavior" is meant to capture much of the 
ordinary meaning. Indeed, respecting "ordinary usage" is a hallmark of the 
version of behaviorism to which I adhere.

>
> If it is a behavior that a behaviorist might study has there been any
> such studies that carry the matter as far as the interests of a
> linguist?

Linguistics is a huge field, and I admit that I am not well-versed in what 
such people consider important. But, again, I am critical of the sorts of 
things proferred by Chomsky and, from a more modern viewpoint, Pinker.

>
> If so - how about a reference?

Well, obviously, Skinner's Verbal Behavior is such a reference. I am, at 
least, somewhat expert in that view, though my published work has not been 
about that. I also know a modest amount about efforts to establish 
functional verbal repertoires in the developmentally disabled and autistic 
populations. But, of course there has been a fair amount written on the 
subject. I guess I could do a search. I am also familiar with some of what 
cognitive psychologists have done, but I find it largely unimpressive.

>
> If not - any thoughts about why the results of the behaviorists fail
> to overlap with the interests of linguists?

Certainly Verbal Behavior is relevant to the interests of some linguists - 
witness Chomsky's vociferous misrepresentation of of VB, as well as 
Pinker's. Linguists like to cite Chomsky's "review" (still!) but almost none 
of them have read VB. This is usually justified by saying it is all 
nonsense. I would guess that virtually no linguists have ever read the book, 
and that includes Chomsky.

>