🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:1188945724.237713.155490@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 4, 5:19 pm, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "DKleinecke" <dkleine...@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.
>
> So are most linguists. Try again.
>
>> > 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.
>
> You still haven't named any studies in which "behaviorism" had
> anything interesting or useful to say about human language.
>
> Has it accomplished anything even more significant that the "parallel
> processing/connectionist" AI people, who have produced nothing?

Horne, P.J. Lowe, C.F. & Harris, F.D.A. (2007) Naming and categorization in 
young children: V. Manual sign training. Journal of the Experimental 
Analysis of Behavior, 87, 367-381.



Luciano, C. Gomez Becerra, I. & Rodriguez Valverde, M. (2007) The role of 
multiple-exemplar training and naming in establishing derived equivalence in 
an infant. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 349-365.



Randell, T. & Remington, B. (2006) Equivalence relations, contextual 
control, and naming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 
337-354.



Palmer, D. C. (2004). Data in search of a principle: A review of Relational 
frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. 
Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior,. 81, 189-204



The second paper listed is concerned with stimulus equivalence research 
which many people think has a lot to do with "language." The 4th is Palmer's 
reply to a group of  behaviorists that take issue with some aspects of 
Skinner's position on verbal behavior. You can obtain the reference for the 
people Palmer is responding to from his paper, but Palmer is always a 
level-headed guy, and it might give you some of the flavor of the current 
debate in an area that you are unfamiliar with. And, of course, there is 
always Verbal Behavior itself, the book that you  began this discussion by 
trashing. There are many other references, of course, and I mentioned the 
applied literature as well.



You still haven't said what it is that you think "had anything interesting 
or useful to say about human language" other than Chomsky's review. Perhaps 
you'd like to debate some of that.




>