Holtz Idea

Posted on Saturday, December 19th, 2009 at 9:32 pm

Tim Holtz Compendium of Curiosities CHA10 Idea Book NEW
Paypal

US $29.99

Tim Holtz KRAFT RESIST Ranger Advantus Idea ology Scrapbook 12 x 12 Paper Stash
Paypal

US $18.75

TIM HOLTZ IDEA OLOGY LOCKET KEYS
Paypal

US $9.75

Tim Holtz Idea ology KRAFT GLASSINE PAPER STASH PAD
Paypal

US $11.75

Tim Holtz Idea ology Grungebook 6x6 12 pages 2 ring binder
Paypal

US $11.00

Tim Holtz Tote TICKETS District Market Idea ology Bag TH92980
Paypal

US $20.99

Chomsky Vs Skinner

Comparison between Chomsky and Skinner

The two men share greatly differing views and ideas to the acquisition of grammar in humans. Skinner, a behavioural psychologist and Chomsky a linguist, their branches of science are already different. Skinner's explanation of language was that any acquisition was due to a learning process involving the shaping of grammar into a correct form by the re-enforcement of other stimulus, correct grammar is positively re-enforced and will be used in the future, and incorrect grammar is negatively re-enforced and will be not be used again. Chomsky differed in his view that human grammar acquisition is an innate biological ability that all humans possess, and viewed some form of `generative grammar' which he felt could explain the rapid acquisition and creative nature of grammar and language. Skinner proposed a `finite', (single word) processing system used in sentence interpretation, whereas Chomsky advocated a model involving whole sentence processing using some form of `transformational' system. Both men have juxtaposing theories on how it is that all humans manage to obtain grammar and seeing as chronologically Skinner was first, here is a good place to start. B.F Skinner was a Behavioural Psychologist and was unconcerned with any `underlying mental processes' that may have been occurring during learning and denounced these `un-observables' as fictitious. Instead he was concerned with the observable materialistic nature of behaviour. He felt that there was no `underlying' meaning to words and that verbal behaviour was due to the conditioning that occurs between the words and the reinforcement properties of a stimulus. This does not just apply to physical reinforcement stimulation: `that
if you ask for "a glass of water", you get one', but also social reinforcement in the form of praise and encouragement i.e. `well done'. This reinforcement is an important concept, and past experiences of verbal behaviour are important in determining whether
they will be used again. Skinner used the phrase `Verbal Operant Conditioning' where a verbal response that occurs in a given situation and is followed by a reinforcer becomes more likely to occur again in the same situation. Skinner identified five separate
classes of `Verbal Operant' : Mands, Tacts, Ethoics, Textuals and IntraVerbals ( cited in Psychology of Language : Paivio & Begg 1981). He also explained grammaticalacquisition using an `Autoclitic', but seeing as the `Autoclitic' uses all five of the `Verbal Operants', a brief explanation of their characteristics had better be given first.

The Mand is based on the speaker conveying a command or request for something which is met with it's production. A child knows from it's past history that if it says "milk" it will most probably get milk (milk becomes the reinforcer). The Mand is rooted in the idea of `com-Mand' and `de-Mand'. Tacts on the other hand, are based on child's reference to non-verbal objects and the use of `naming'. Reinforcement occurs through the praise for correct naming i.e. child says "cat" and mother says "good girl, that is a cat". The Echoic Operant is the imitation of speech and can be reinforced by a variety of means including "repeat after me". Textual is the reading part of the `Verbal Operants'. The last, but by no means the least is the Intraverbal operant. This is a form of `word association' where a certain word will control which word is to proceed after it, that only certain words can go after the word that has just been said (a sort of "table, chair" game but involving all types of words). According to Skinner this process is going on all the time whenever we use a word, only a certain set of words can go after it.

So we arrive at the `Autoclitic'. This is a form of commentary made upon one of the `Verbal Operants' described above. Correct grammar uses the correct order of `verbal operant' and Autoclitic comment. But Autoclitic comments also take on the form of having verbal operant characteristics. An example (taken from Psychology of
Language : Paivio & Begg 1981) is probably needed : `the primary [verbal] operant is the tact `John is in Montreal'. If the speaker says " I hear that John is in Montreal" we have an example of autoclitic words in which `I hear that' is a comment on a primary [verbal] operant that is presumably an echoic (that is, the speaker heard that someone say that John is in Montreal'). Still confused ? `John is in Montreal' is the primary `part' of the sentence involving the words being produced individually using the verbal operants. Then the sentence is commented upon by the `autoclitic' which itself has the characteristic of being echoic. If the sentence was "I read in the paper that John is in Montreal" then the autoclitic comment would have a `textual' (reading) characteristic.
Correct Verbal Operant and Autoclitic comment (correct grammar) will be positivelyreinforced by praise e.t.c and said again, whereas incorrect grammar will be negatively reinforced ; `no that's wrong' like `Montreal read in paper that is John I the') . The complexities of studying such a model, in dissecting each sentence into it's
appropriate verbal operant and autoclitic parts, abound.

So what evidence have Skinner and Behaviourists produced to validate their claims? Guess et al 1968 (cited in Psychology of Language : Paivio & Begg 1981) described how they taught a mentally retarded girl to make correct grammatical utterances using positive
reinforcement of praise and food. Studies on adults giving reinforcement for certain nouns and plurals, found an increase in an occurrence of correct responses, if `praise' was issued (see Holtz & Azrin Conditioning Verbal Behaviour 1966). In general, children are
considered to acquire correct grammar through reinforcement of their verbal teachers (particularly their mothers). Yet there is little evidence to support such a claim. Not only has it been found that there is no relationship between child correct grammar and parental
positive reinforcement it seems that parents are only interested in the correctness of a child's meaning (see Slobin 1975). Also some adult subjects are un- aware of the relationship between correct and incorrect responses and the reinforcement that they receive because of their grammar. Reinforcement does
not seem to occur in the right context but it also seems not to be noticed. Many (including the linguist Noam Chomsky) have advocated that a behavioural stimulus - response system involving reinforcement and a `finite grammar' model, cannot explain the
rapid, creative and complex nature of language. Chomsky `stepped into the limelight' in the debate on language and grammar acquisition in his Review Of Verbal Behaviour by B.F Skinner (Chomsky 1959). It is to him that attention will now be turned.

Chomsky argued that there was no way that a child can obtain a language from only the `primary linguistic data'(Psycholinguistics teachers and environment. He prescribed that an infant enters this world with a predisposition to learn a language fluently, and this predisposition is encased in our biological make-up, innate to all humans. (A sort of `Language Acquisition Device' or `L.A.D' as it has now become known). One of the manifestations of this was in the form of a `generative grammar', that had the ability to `generate' and create all the words in a linguistic grammar that he viewed Skinner's `finite grammar' (though capable of producing) was far too limited in it's application.

Chomsky defined this `generative grammar' as : `finite set of rules operating on a finite vocabulary to generate an infinite number of acceptable grammatical sentences and no un-acceptable ones' (quoted from Psychology of Language : Paivio & Begg 1981). So, from a small number words, using `some rules', we can create a vast (infinite) number of words, you can in fact boil down all the words in the English Language to around 500 or so. What did the form of this generative grammar take the shape of , and what are these `some rules' that are mentioned above? Chomsky explained the acquisition of grammar using a process of transformation or `Transformational Grammar' which is perhaps `the physical form', and the rules that are `generative grammar'. As may be apparent `transformational grammar' involves the changing of sentences into other states. They are metamorphosed into their `deep' and `surface' structures by a set of rules, or phrase structures. These two `deep' and `surface' structures are then interpreted according to their phonological and semantic meaning. The theory is considerably more complex than can be explained here, and has been revised many times by Chomsky since it's first publication in 1957. The result of this, is that once a child can master these rules and transformations, it has the ability to create and expand on his/her grammar by using these rules to create new sentences that it has not heard before (which `finite grammar cannot as the child needs to use or hear the word and find out it's reinforcement properties). A great deal of creativity occurs in child grammatical utterances. Chomsky viewed this creativity as a very important aspect.

So what evidence is there to support Chomsky's view of `transformational generative grammar' and that this is an innate biological species specific trait ? All languages of the world share similar characteristics of using nouns, verbs, pronouns, though not
necessarily in a similar order. Grammar and complex language usage seem also to be a `uniquely human capability' as no other species on the planet seem to posses such proficiency as humans, though there have been some successes in teaching `sign language' to Chimpanzees, it is viewed that any ability that they grasp, cannot be seen as
Homologous, similar in structure, to the complex human abilities of language (see Modularity, Domain Specificity and the Development of Language : E. Bates). One theoretical concept, so abstract, so explicit, and usually overlooked, is proposed by S. Pinker & P. Bloom in their article Natural Language And Natural Selection (Behavioral
and Brain Sciences 1990). The fact that all human languages use symbol manipulation to make references to something else that they (the symbols) are not physically related to, i.e. some form of `arbitrariness', is an important aspect . The sign is only arbitrary
to the thing it comes to represent. For example, the sign for `Genus Canus' can be dog, chien, skili or even ##stlg, it does not matter as long as the word, or sign used, comes to represent the object/concept and is in no way physically related to it. ( Onomatopoeia will not be discussed). But say that every time you wanted to talk about `Genus Canus' you had to produce one, or draw an exact copy, this is not arbitrary or particularly practical. Pinker & Bloom defined this as some form of `universal grammar' that is an innate ability in all of us that uses this `arbitrary symbol manipulation' adapted to it's present complex form by the process of Natural Selection. This human symbol manipulation similarity is an important aspect (Watch out do not confuse your grammars : `universal grammar' (arbitrary symbols ) is different from generative grammar ( rules used to manipulate these arbitrary symbols).

Other evidence to support Chomskian claims, can be found in the study of language deficient patients (aphasia). It has long been known that damage to the left hemisphere near the motor cortex (Broca's Area) causes a loss of speech, especially to grammatical elements. One patient could not access the word `would' (grammatical word), but could access the word `wood' (content word) (see Marin EtAl 1976 cited in Psycholinguistics D. I Slobin). Is this localisation of a grammatical area in the left hemisphere ? Further
evidence (using P.E.T) has indicated that a conclusion of this nature is much too naive.

There is a volume of evidence to support Chomsky's claims of an innate generative grammar, though it is difficult (and unscientific) to introspect whether a transformational process occurs during grammar acquisition, this would seem considerably more likely than a `finite' system. These days `generative grammars' have become a widely accepted theory in linguistics and cognitive science, for they manage to answer more of the questions on the rapid and creative nature of grammar acquisition than a Skinnerian, or even a Neo Behaviourist, model can see fit. (Of course behaviourist's do not feel this way and defend their claims adamantly - see What Are The Scope Of Radical Behaviourist Theory : Questions To B.F Skinner By S. Harnad - question F). Recently, contemporary debate has been focused upon the nature of this Language Acquisition Device, which
Chomsky proclaims. Just how much innate language ability does a child have when he/she enters this world ? (see Modularity, Domain Specificity And The Development Of Language 1994 - E. Bates). What are the semantic (meaning) components of transformational, and most grammar systems used in language? (This is of particular importance to Psychologists). The detailed and vast nature of language, the difficulty in collecting empirical data during child language acquisition and the fact that language touches on so many areas of Psychology, make validation of Chomsky and Skinner's theories, and any language theories, particularly difficult. Though it would seem
more favourable, from the evidence, to accept `some parts' of Chomsky's theory.

About the Author

Student

New Tim Holtz Idea-ology Available in My Store