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


"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d8n48e$18mp$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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."

How smart do you mean? I confess that I am not particularly familiar
with Skinnerian jargon and theory, but it seems to me that a wide variety
of organisms have conditionable vocal musculature - songbirds, cetaceans,
wolves (who can learn to bark), and a host of others which are capable of
learning vocalization patterns. I don't know why you would think that the
condition in humans is less primitive than our "smartness". Admittedly,
until we were smart, we probably didn't have much to say. And, once we
did have things to say, there was probably some selection pressure to improve
the "conditionability" so that we could say it more clearly. But you seem
to be suggesting something different.


.