Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!greenba From: greenba@gambia.crd.ge.com (ben a green) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Modelling reinforcement Message-ID: Date: 17 Dec 90 18:06:07 GMT References: <25667@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <16562@cgl.ucsf.EDU> valis@athena.mit.edu (John O'Neil) writes: For an excellent criticism of the behavioristic view of language and semantics, see Chomsky's review of B. F. Skinner's ``Verbal Behavior'' in Language 35: 26-58. Although not as easily available, it is a useful antidote to Skinner's work. Chomsky's review was highly influential among those who were unfamiliar with Skinner's work, and had the effect of making them think they could dismiss it. However, the review missed the point of the book. Chomsky's advice to study "what language is" before "what language is for," doesn't work well when you consider language as a tool. The essence of understanding a tool is to understand first what it is for. Skinner explains what language is for in many of its aspects. Chomsky's formal grammars are useful for computers, but for human languages, his approach has been discarded in favor of "pragmatics," a school which analyzes language explicitly in terms of its uses. -- Ben A. Green, Jr. greenba@crd.ge.com Speaking only for myself, of course.