AReviewofBFSkinner.docx

AReviewofBFSkinner.docx

《AReviewofBFSkinner.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《AReviewofBFSkinner.docx（37页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

AReviewofBFSkinner

AReviewofB.F.Skinner'sVerbalBehavior

NoamChomsky

InLeonA.JakobovitsandMurrayS.Miron（eds.）,ReadingsinthePsychologyofLanguage,Prentice-Hall,1967,pp.142-143

Preface

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

"AReviewofB.F.Skinner'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