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

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:d8pq2j$23e0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> 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."

As you may know, I am not a big fan of Skinner, but then mostly what I
know of him is what I have read from critics. And what you write above
makes sense (to the extent I can follow the lingo) in understanding how
human ancestors got from the primitive verbal behavior exhibited by
gibbons to our current ability to have endless discussions on the
internet. It may be true that postulating an innate language instinct is
necessary to understand modern humans, but absent magic there must have
been a time when human ancestors did not have such an instinct. Without
learning and reinforcement there is simply no way to expand upon
primitive verbal behavior to get to modern verbal behavior.


> 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."

Here I was being careless. I meant of course that evolution affected our
ancestors, not that our ancestors decided to become human.

>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.

Again I am unused to the terminology - but it seems that singing in non-
human primates has a very strong correlation to monogamous social
arrangements. The examples are gibbons, siamangs, and another that
escapes me at the moment. ISTM this only makes sense if the song is what
you call a conditioned reinforcer, and the content is relatively
unimportant. In other words, I am suggesting that human ancestors sang
because they were monogamous. At the same time they may have been
developing other non-verbal forms of communication into symbolism. The
two eventually merged into language.


Yours,

Bill Morse

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Singing as prerequisite (or aid) to language.
    ... > nightingales have language. ... Modern singing humans are engaging ... > definition of verbal behavior would be something like "verbal behavior ... > is it a reinforcer because the "singing" controls the behavior of the ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Singing as prerequisite (or aid) to language.
    ... The Skinnerian view would be that singing and verbal ... behavior ("language" sort of) arose at the same time. ... verbal behavior by the Skinnerian definition. ... > he thought the development/practice of songs may well have ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Humans "unique" social
    ... >> It is the product of language, ... Skinner did not think this. ... He held that verbal behavior was operant ... > Chomsky pretty decisively showed that Skinner was wrong. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)