🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 5, 7:20 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews: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

Thank you.

> 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.

VB is now 50 years old. Has there been no progress since then?

> 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.

That was your phrase, not mine, and it was you who refused to
elucidate it.

Offhand I'd say that the most insight into language over the past
fifty years has come from the school of linguistics founded by Uriel
Weinreich and William Labov -- "sociolinguistics." There is also
"functional grammar," where importnat names are Andre Martinet and H.
A. K. Halliday.

Most interesting in the generation before Chomsky -- those whom he
thought he was superseding, but whose work in fact he was continuing,
as has been shown by historians of linguistics -- are C. F. Hockett
(Leonard Bloomfield's most significant disciple, though no one was
untouched by Bloomfield's work), Martin Joos, and Fred Householder.
Attempts are made to claim there was a great divide between
Bloomfieldians and Sapirians, but there wasn't.