On Chomsky's Critique of Skinner's Verbal Behavior (original) (raw)
Related papers
Chomsky's objections to Skinner's approach to Verbal Behavior
In his review of Skinner's "Verbal Behavior", Chomsky presents several objections to the behaviorist approach for studying human language. In this paper, I will examine two of such objections. The paper is structured as follows: First, I will give a brief account of the basic ideas in Skinner's behavioral approach that motivate Chomsky's critique. After this, I will present what I consider two of Chomsky's strongest arguments against Skinner's view. Finally, I will mention some responses I think could be used to defend Skinner in light of Chomsky's attacks.
Acquisition, Learning, or Development of Language? Skinner's “Verbal Behavior” Revisited
The Spanish journal of psychology, 2004
In 1957, Skinner, in his "Verbal Behavior", proposed an explanation on how a language is learned. In 1959, Chomsky strongly argued the non-learnability of language, establishing in the field of developmental psycholinguistics the substitution of the term "learning" for that of "acquisition". Currently, the constructivist models describe language acquisition as a process of ontogenetic, gradual, complex, and adaptive change. This new theoretical framework has been especially useful for rereading Verbal Behavior because it facilitates recovering the Skinnerian learning mechanisms. This can be observed in the recent research trends that recapture reinforcement and imitation (echoic responses), although they are now located in the initial phases of the process and are included in a cognitive dynamic that, by gradually increasing its complexity, can achieve grammar. The new constructivist theoretical framework, by retrieving the functional and referential aspects of language, can also take advantage of the classic Skinnerian proposal about the pragmatic types of verbal behavior, providing it with new meaning.
A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior
1967
by Noam Chomsky Rereading this review after eight years, I find little of substance that I would change if I were to write it today. I am not aware of any theoretical or experimental work that challenges its conclusions; nor, so far as I know, has there been any attempt to meet the criticisms that are raised in the review or to show that they are erroneous or ill-founded. I had intended this review not specifically as a criticism of Skinner's speculations regarding language, but rather as a more general critique of behaviorist (I would now prefer to say "empiricist") speculation as to the nature of higher mental processes. My reason for discussing Skinner's book in such detail was that it was the most careful and thoroughgoing presentation of such speculations, an evaluation that I feel is still accurate. Therefore, if the conclusions I attempted to substantiate in the review are correct, as I believe they are, then Skinner's work can be regarded as, in effect, a reductio ad absurdum of behaviorist assumptions. My personal view is that it is a definite merit, not a defect, of Skinner's work that it can be used for this purpose, and it was for this reason that I tried to deal with it fairly exhaustively. I do not see how his proposals can be improved upon, aside from occasional details and oversights, within the framework of the general assumptions that he accepts. I do not, in other words, see any way in which his proposals can be substantially improved within the general framework of behaviorist or neobehaviorist, or, more generally, empiricist ideas that has dominated much of modern linguistics, psychology, and philosophy. The conclusion that I hoped to establish in the review, by discussing these speculations in their most explicit and detailed form, was that the general point of view was largely mythology, and that its widespread acceptance is not the result of empirical support, persuasive reasoning, or the absence of a plausible alternative. If I were writing today on the same topic, I would try to make it more clear than I did that I was discussing Skinner's proposals as a paradigm example of a futile tendency in modern speculation about language and mind. I would also be somewhat less apologetic and hesitant about proposing the alternative view sketched in Sections 5 and 11 --and also less ahistorical in proposing this alternative, since in fact it embodies assumptions that are not only plausible and relatively wellconfirmed, so it appears to me, but also deeply rooted in a rich and largely forgotten tradition of rationalist psychology and linguistics. I have tried to correct this imbalance in later publications see also Miller et al., 1960; Lenneberg, 1966). I think it would also have been valuable to try to sketch some of the reasons --and there were many --that have made the view I was criticizing seem plausible over a long period, and also to discuss the reasons for the decline of the alternative rationalist conception which, I was suggesting, should be rehabilitated. Such a discussion would, perhaps, have helped to place the specific critique of Skinner in a more meaningful context.
Linguistic sources of Skinner’s verbal behavior
The Behavior Analyst, 2006
Formal and functional analyses of verbal behavior have been often considered to be divergent and incompatible. Yet, an examination of the history of part of the analytical approach used in Verbal Behavior (Skinner, 1957/1992) for the identification and conceptualization of verbal operant units discloses that it corresponds well with formal analyses of languages. Formal analyses have been carried out since the invention of writing and fall within the scope of traditional grammar and structural linguistics, particularly in analyses made by the linguist Leonard Bloomfield. The relevance of analytical instruments originated from linguistic studies (which examine and describe the practices of verbal communities) to the analysis of verbal behavior, as proposed by Skinner, relates to the conception of a verbal community as a prerequisite for the acquisition of verbal behavior. A deliberately interdisciplinary approach is advocated in this paper, with the systematic adoption of linguistic analyses and descriptions adding relevant knowledge to the design of experimental research in verbal behavior.
Evaluation of the Chomsky-Skinner Debate
2024
Noam Chomsky, one of the most influential figures of the 20th century in the fields of linguistics and philosophy, had one of the most emblematic debates of his career: the intellectual conflict with B.F. Skinner over language and verbal behavior. This article evaluates the main controversies and contributions of this debate, using a variety of key sources to offer a balanced and critical view.
The Psychological Record, 2008
The year 2007 marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, a book that by Skinner's own account was his most important. The received view, however, is that a devastating review by a young linguist not only rendered Skinner's interpretation of language moot but was also a major factor in ending the hegemony of behaviorism in psychology and paving the way for a cognitive revolution. Nevertheless, in taking stock of Verbal Behavior and behaviorism, both appear to be thriving. This article suggests that Verbal Behavior and behaviorism remain vital partly because they have generated successful practical applications.
Skinner's verbal behavior: A reference list
VB news, 1982
The language literature contains many citations to Skinner's book Verbal Behavior (1957), however, most of them are negative and generally unsupportive. The current list of references was assembled to bring readers in contact with the growing body of literature which supports Skinner's work. A total of 136 references were found and divided into two categories, (1) conceptual, and (2) experimental and applied. These references are presented in an effort to stimulate additional research in this important aspect of behavior analysis.
The Selective Impact of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior on Empirical Research: A Reply to Schlinger (2008)
The Psychological Record, 2010
In a recent article, Schlinger (2008) marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of Skinner's Verbal Behavior (1957) by considering its impact on the field of behaviorism and research on verbal behavior. In the present article, we comment on Schlinger's conclusions regarding the impact of the book and highlight the extensions and alternatives to Skinner's account proposed by research on stimulus equivalence and derived relational responding. Moreover, we argue that Verbal Behavior has had a selective impact on empirical research and that only further basic and applied research will determine whether the next 50 years of behavior-analytic research on verbal behavior will live up to the promise that Skinner envisaged.
Filling the gaps: Skinner on the role of neuroscience in the explanation of behavior
It is often said, especially in philosophy and the neuroscience literature, that Skinner defended an anti-physiological position on the explanation of behavior. Aside from this, behavior analysts who discuss the relation between behavior analysis and physiology usually emphasize the independence of these two fields. Amid criticisms of Skinner's allegedly anti-physiological position and behavior analysts' defense of their discipline as an autonomous science, there is comparatively little discussion of Skinner's positive views on physiology. The goal of this paper is to present an analysis of these views, taking into account Skinner's writings from the 1930's to the 1990's. Among the topics to be discussed are the definition of the object of study of physiology, its role in the explanation of behavior, and the relation between behavior-analytic and physiological explanations. I pay special attention to Skinner's use of physiological hypotheses in developing his theories of private events and perception, and I hope to counteract the ill-founded notion that Skinner was always opposed to physiology in the study of behavior.