Re: Singing as prerequisite (or aid) to language.

GS (previous): The Skinnerian (i.e., correct) view would be that singing and
verbal
> behavior ("language" sort of) arose at the same time. Indeed, both
> would be verbal behavior by the Skinnerian definition. Simply put, all
> that is necessary is for the vocal musculature to come under control
> of operant contingencies. No doubt operant conditioning mechanisms
> were already highly advanced (i.e., we were already "smart") when the
> necessary mutation made the vocal musculature "conditionable."

WM: Funny, Wikipedia doesn't list "correct" as any of the definitions of
Skinnerian :-).



GS: Yeah - it's the darndest thing. But then, most people think that Chomsky
actually read Verbal Behavior, and that his review actually addresses what
Skinner wrote. Wikipedia isn't too bad, incidentally, though I did suggest
several alterations.



WM: But since you put it so, I am happy to learn that gibbons and
nightingales (to name a few) have language.



GS: Yes, I was a little careless. Modern singing humans are engaging in
verbal behavior, it seems to me, but that does not mean that what we call
"singing" in every species is verbal. Incidentally, a short definition of
verbal behavior would be something like "verbal behavior is operant behavior
for which the reinforcers are alterations in the behavior of the listener,
and the antecedent stimulus function of the speaker's behavior (or the
product of the behavior), with respect to the listener's behavior, is not
primarily unconditioned elicitation." Now, the question of whether or not
non-human animals in the wild show behavior that has verbal function should
be examined in this light. There seems to be no doubt that non-humans can
acquire behavior that has verbal function by Skinner's definition, though
the discovery of emergent equivalence classes in humans, and the
near-complete failure to demonstrate them in non-humans, suggests to some
that some aspects of verbal behavior are completely out of reach for
non-humans. I am on the fence wrt emergent equivalence classes - I don't
know if we need some other behavioral process (or rather whether emergent
relations constitute a behavioral process) to account for emergent classes,
or if they can be explained by pointing to the known behavioral processes
that Skinner used in 1957 to interpret "language."



WM: The alternative hypothesis is that we had singing before we became
linguistic, and our ancestors coopted and expanded the vocal control
mechanisms to enhance their linguistic capabilities.



GS: This could be seen as very close to what I am arguing, actually, except
for the "psychological creationism" contained in "our ancestors coopted and
expanded the vocal control mechanisms to enhance their linguistic
capabilities." The question I would have is "Do you think, in your scenario,
that vocal behavior was modifiable by its consequences and do you think this
played a role in 'singing?'" And if it did, is it the behavior of a listener
that is the reinforcer? And is it a reinforcer because the "singing"
controls the behavior of the listener in ways that are not subsumed under
"unconditioned elicitation"? Or are you saying that "singing" was basically
like many animal cries, i.e., elicited by certain aspects of the world, and
any effects it has on "listeners" is also unconditioned elicitation?

On the other hand, it may be that there was a time when "singing" was like
some kinds of birdsong where the form of the song clearly involves operant
conditioning. In some song acquisition, it appears that hearing the song
establishes the form as a conditioned reinforcer. Then, when the bird starts
to sing, its vocalizations gradually converge on the "target" through a sort
of automatic reinforcement. Something like this may have gone on in humans.
So the song content is "useful" only because all members of the group share
a song form, but the form of the "speaker's" behavior is not produced by the
behavior of "listener" in the relation we call operant conditioning. Here,
the "content" of the song is "meaningless" (to use inefficient, but
sometimes necessary, ordinary language) - its only important property is
that it is shared by all members of a local group. Complicated stuff, to be
sure, and I will have to spend some time thinking about it. Thanks for your
response, though, Bill.



Cordially,

Glen



"William Morse" <wdmorse@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d8o8un$1l25$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Singing as prerequisite (or aid) to language.
    ... > behavior ("language" sort of) arose at the same time. ... > would be verbal behavior by the Skinnerian definition. ... > that is necessary is for the vocal musculature to come under control ... The alternative hypothesis is that we had singing before we became ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Spanish Version of "Star-Spangled Banner"
    ... yeah, you won. ... Very sorry that someone singing a song in a language you ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Spanish Version of "Star-Spangled Banner"
    ... Very sorry that someone singing a song in a language you ... of my adult life recording music with spanish lyrics, ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Favorite Beatles song
    ... One song that I've liked for a long time (although it is not a Beatles ... However the singing is in a completely foreign language. ... were singing about although the melody alone was moving. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Favorite Beatles song
    ... most sweetest memories. ... Sometimes a good song can evoke special memories or emotions. ... However the singing is in a completely foreign language. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)