AReviewofBFSkinnerWord文档格式.docx
《AReviewofBFSkinnerWord文档格式.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《AReviewofBFSkinnerWord文档格式.docx(37页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
Rereadingthisreviewaftereightyears,IfindlittleofsubstancethatIwouldchangeifIweretowriteittoday.Iamnotawareofanytheoreticalorexperimentalworkthatchallengesitsconclusions;
nor,sofarasIknow,hastherebeenanyattempttomeetthecriticismsthatareraisedinthereviewortoshowthattheyareerroneousorill-founded.
IhadintendedthisreviewnotspecificallyasacriticismofSkinner'
sspeculationsregardinglanguage,butratherasamoregeneralcritiqueofbehaviorist(Iwouldnowprefertosay"
empiricist"
)speculationastothenatureofhighermentalprocesses.MyreasonfordiscussingSkinner'
sbookinsuchdetailwasthatitwasthemostcarefulandthoroughgoingpresentationofsuchspeculations,anevaluationthatIfeelisstillaccurate.Therefore,iftheconclusionsIattemptedtosubstantiateinthereviewarecorrect,asIbelievetheyare,thenSkinner'
sworkcanberegardedas,ineffect,areductioadabsurdumofbehavioristassumptions.Mypersonalviewisthatitisadefinitemerit,notadefect,ofSkinner'
sworkthatitcanbeusedforthispurpose,anditwasforthisreasonthatItriedtodealwithitfairlyexhaustively.Idonotseehowhisproposalscanbeimprovedupon,asidefromoccasionaldetailsandoversights,withintheframeworkofthegeneralassumptionsthatheaccepts.Idonot,inotherwords,seeanywayinwhichhisproposalscanbesubstantiallyimprovedwithinthegeneralframeworkofbehavioristorneobehaviorist,or,moregenerally,empiricistideasthathasdominatedmuchofmodernlinguistics,psychology,andphilosophy.TheconclusionthatIhopedtoestablishinthereview,bydiscussingthesespeculationsintheirmostexplicitanddetailedform,wasthatthegeneralpointofviewwaslargelymythology,andthatitswidespreadacceptanceisnottheresultofempiricalsupport,persuasivereasoning,ortheabsenceofaplausiblealternative.
IfIwerewritingtodayonthesametopic,IwouldtrytomakeitmoreclearthanIdidthatIwasdiscussingSkinner'
sproposalsasaparadigmexampleofafutiletendencyinmodernspeculationaboutlanguageandmind.IwouldalsobesomewhatlessapologeticandhesitantaboutproposingthealternativeviewsketchedinSections5and11--andalsolessahistoricalinproposingthisalternative,sinceinfactitembodiesassumptionsthatarenotonlyplausibleandrelativelywell-confirmed,soitappearstome,butalsodeeplyrootedinarichandlargelyforgottentraditionofrationalistpsychologyandlinguistics.Ihavetriedtocorrectthisimbalanceinlaterpublications(Chomsky,1962,1964,1966;
seealsoMilleretal.,1960;
KatzandPostal,1964;
Fodor,1965;
Lenneberg,1966).
Ithinkitwouldalsohavebeenvaluabletotrytosketchsomeofthereasons--andthereweremany--thathavemadetheviewIwascriticizingseemplausibleoveralongperiod,andalsotodiscussthereasonsforthedeclineofthealternativerationalistconceptionwhich,Iwassuggesting,shouldberehabilitated.Suchadiscussionwould,perhaps,havehelpedtoplacethespecificcritiqueofSkinnerinamoremeaningfulcontext.
ReferencesinthePreface
Chomsky,N.,"
ExplanatoryModelsinLinguistics,"
inLogic,MethodologyandPhilosophyofScience,ed.E.Nagel,P.Suppes,andA.Tarski.Stanford;
Calif.:
StanfordUniversityPress,1962.
----------,CurrentIssuesinLinguisticTheory.TheHague:
MoutonandCo.,1964.
----------,CartesianLinguistics.NewYork:
HarperandRow,Publishers,1966.
Fodor,J.,"
CouldMeaningBean'
rm'
"
JournalofVerbalLearningandVerbalBehavior,4(1965),73-81.
Katz,J.andP.Postal,AnIntegratedTheoryofLinguisticDescription.Cambridge,Mass:
M.I.T.Press,1964.
Lenneberg,E.,BiologicalBasesofLanguage.(Inpress.)
Miller,G.A.,E.Galanter,andK.H.Pribram,PlansandtheStructureofBehavior.NewYork:
Holt,Rhinehart,andWinston,Inc.,1960.
TheReview
byNoamChomsky
"
sVerbalBehavior"
inLanguage,35,No.1(1959),26-58.
I
Agreatmanylinguistsandphilosophersconcernedwithlanguagehaveexpressedthehopethattheirstudiesmightultimatelybeembeddedinaframeworkprovidedbybehavioristpsychology,andthatrefractoryareasofinvestigation,particularlythoseinwhichmeaningisinvolved,willinthiswaybeopeneduptofruitfulexploration.Sincethisvolumeisthefirstlarge-scaleattempttoincorporatethemajoraspectsoflinguisticbehaviorwithinabehavioristframework,itmeritsandwillundoubtedlyreceivecarefulattention.Skinnerisnotedforhiscontributionstothestudyofanimalbehavior.Thebookunderreviewistheproductofstudyoflinguisticbehaviorextendingovermorethantwentyyears.Earlierversionsofithavebeenfairlywidelycirculated,andtherearequiteafewreferencesinthepsychologicalliteraturetoitsmajorideas.
Theproblemtowhichthisbookisaddressedisthatofgivinga"
functionalanalysis"
ofverbalbehavior.Byfunctionalanalysis,Skinnermeansidentificationofthevariablesthatcontrolthisbehaviorandspecificationofhowtheyinteracttodetermineaparticularverbalresponse.Furthermore,thecontrollingvariablesaretobedescribedcompletelyintermsofsuchnotionsasstimulus,reinforcement,deprivation,whichhavebeengivenareasonablyclearmeaninginanimalexperimentation.Inotherwords,thegoalofthebookistoprovideawaytopredictandcontrolverbalbehaviorbyobservingandmanipulatingthephysicalenvironmentofthespeaker.
Skinnerfeelsthatrecentadvancesinthelaboratorystudyofanimalbehaviorpermitustoapproachthisproblemwithacertainoptimism,since"
thebasicprocessesandrelationswhichgiveverbalbehavioritsspecialcharacteristicsarenowfairlywellunderstood...theresults[ofthisexperimentalwork]havebeensurprisinglyfreeofspeciesrestrictions.Recentworkhasshownthatthemethodscanbeextendedtohumanbehaviorwithoutseriousmodification"
(3).1
ItisimportanttoseeclearlyjustwhatitisinSkinner'
sprogramandclaimsthatmakesthemappearsoboldandremarkable,Itisnotprimarilythefactthathehassetfunctionalanalysisashisproblem,orthathelimitshimselftostudyofobservables,i.e.,input-outputrelations.Whatissosurprisingistheparticularlimitationshehasimposedonthewayinwhichtheobservablesofbehavioraretobestudied,and,aboveall,theparticularlysimplenatureofthefunctionwhich,heclaims,describesthecausationofbehavior.Onewouldnaturallyexpectthatpredictionofthebehaviorofacomplexorganism(ormachine)wouldrequire,inadditiontoinformationaboutexternalstimulation,knowledgeoftheinternalstructureoftheorganism,thewaysinwhichitprocessesinputinformationandorganizesitsownbehavior.Thesecharacteristicsoftheorganismareingeneralacomplicatedproductofinbornstructure,thegeneticallydeterminedcourseofmaturation,andpastexperience.Insofarasindependentneurophysiologicalevidenceisnotavailable,itisobviousthatinferencesconcerningthestructureoftheorganismarebasedonobservationofbehaviorandoutsideevents.Nevertheless,one'
sestimateoftherelativeimportanceofexternalfactorsandinternalstructureinthedeterminationofbehaviorwillhaveanimportanteffectonthedirectionofresearchonlinguistic(oranyother)behavior,andonthekindsofanalogiesfromanimalbehaviorstudiesthatwillbeconsideredrelevantorsuggestive.
Puttingitdifferently,anyonewhosetshimselftheproblemofanalyzingthecausationofbehaviorwill(intheabsenceofindependentneurophysiologicalevidence)concernhimselfwiththeonlydataavailable,namelytherecordofinputstotheorganismandtheorganism'
spresentresponse,andwilltrytodescribethefunctionspecifyingtheresponseintermsofthehistoryofinputs.Thisisnothingmorethanthedefinitionofhisproblem.Therearenopossiblegroundsforargumenthere,ifoneacceptstheproblemaslegitimate,thoughSkinnerhasoftenadvancedanddefendedthisdefinitionofaproblemasifitwereathesiswhichotherinvestigatorsreject.Thedifferencesthatarisebetweenthosewhoaffirmandthosewhodenytheimportanceofthespecific"
contributionoftheorganism"
tolearningandperformanceconcerntheparticularcharacterandcomplexityofthisfunction,andthekindsofobservationsandresearchnecessaryforarrivingataprecisespecificationofit.Ifthecontributionoftheorganismiscomplex,theonlyhopeofpredictingbehavioreveninagrosswaywillbethroughaveryindirectprogramofresearchthatbeginsbystudyingthedetailedcharacterofthebehavioritselfandtheparticularcapacitiesoftheorganisminvolved.
Skinner'
sthesisisthatexternalfactorsconsistingofpresentstimulationandthehistoryofreinforcement(inparticular,thefrequency,arrangement,andwithholdingofreinforcingstimuli)areofoverwhelmingimportance,andthatthegeneralprinciplesrevealedinlaboratorystudiesofthesephenomenaprovidethebasisforunderstandingthecomplexitiesofverbalbehavior.Heconfidentlyandrepeatedlyvoiceshisclaimtohavedemonstratedthatthecontributionofthespeakerisquitetrivialandelementary,andthatprecisepredictionofverbalbehaviorinvolvesonlyspecificationofthefewexternalfactorsthathehasisolatedexperimentallywithlowerorganisms.
Carefulstudyofthisbook(andoftheresearchonwhichitdraws)reveals,however,thattheseastonishingclaimsarefarfromjustified.Itindicates,furthermore,that