🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 5, 10:34 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1188997353.596408.308130@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> > What does any of that tell us of the nature of human language?
>
> Well, since Skinner's thesis is that it is exposure to contingencies of
> reinforcement that produce verbal behavior (i.e., "human language") then the
> ability to produce it via these means in populations of humans that don't
> acquire it in the "normal fashion" suggests that he might be correct.
> Similarly, when one establishes verbal reports of "private states" in
> non-humans via the arrangement of contingencies, it suggests that Skinner's
> analysis is also correct.

This paragraph is chock-full of technical terminology that I do not
have the slightest ability to comprehend. But human language is far,
far more than "verbal behavior."

> > If "behaviorism" treats an organism (such as a human) as a black box,
> > with input and output but no interest in what's _inside_ the box, how
> > can it tell us anything about what's inside the box?
>
> The answer that Skinner used to give, and it seems obviously the correct
> one, it cannot.

Then it is of no more value than Chomsky's mathematical models that
generate grammatical sentences but are not even claimed to have
anything to do with what actually goes on in brains.

> But what it can tell one is what must be explained. That is,
> the facts uncovered by behavior analysis (and are misrepresented by the
> phrase "input and output") ARE what must be explained in terms of
> physiology.

Except for your last four words, that is of course what linguistics
has been up to for about two centuries now -- long before and long
after Skinner's kindly attempt to tell us "what must be explained."

But to suggest that brain function is nothing but physiology is
laughably naive.

> > 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> in society?
>
> Skinner was. Though, obviously, not from within the usual framework of
> explanation via explanatory fiction.

Wow, a Giwer in academic's vocabulary!

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.