Life on this Earth has known hostility, and similarity in colors too. Terms ■Batesian and ■Müllerian in butterfly coloration — all imply learning. Let us be aware in choosing our learning experience and think, if observations on ■mimetism apply to language.
Predators often ■sample to learn, that is, nibble on evolution and stay away from the unpalatable bit. They do not, as animals altogether do not, have language.
The human animal?
A human being would be gone to nothings, without language. Math of no word written or spoken is figure beyond imagination, to teach or learn past the stage of simple arithmetic. Physics … Medical professions … Painters might rebel against exclusion too …
ADVERTISEMENT
Notes for Emily Dickinson’s poetry
Fascicles and print, the poetic correlative with Webster 1828, Latin and Greek inspiration, and an Aristotelian motif, Things perpetual — these are not in time, but in eternity. ■More
Burrhus Frederick Skinner
■Behaviorism holds language for “verbal behavior” that becomes “reinforced through the mediation of other persons”. Wrote ■Burrhus Frederic Skinner in ■his book,
Much of the time, however, a man acts only indirectly upon the environment from which the ultimate consequences of his behavior emerge. His first effect is upon other men. Instead of going to a drinking fountain, a thirsty man may simply “ask for a glass of water” — that is, may engage in behavior which produces a certain pattern of sounds which in turn induces someone to bring him a glass of water.
To Skinner, language was manipulative behavior. Speech was indirect activity; it induced; it had men experience effects.
In living experience and with a drinking fountain nearby, man is probably unwell if asking for water. The request might open only a potential interaction, as the other person may decide to help or ignore the request completely.
Behaviorist object, purpose, or — target
B.F. Skinner continues,
The sounds themselves are easy to describe in physical terms; but the glass of water reaches the speaker only as the result of a complex series of events including the behavior of a listener. The ultimate consequence, the receipt of water, bears no useful geometrical or mechanical relation to the form of the behavior of “asking for water”. Indeed, it is characteristic of such behavior that it is impotent against the physical world. Rarely do we shout down the walls of Jericho or successfully command the sun to stop or the waves to be still. Names do not break bones. The consequences of such behavior are mediated by a train of events no less physical or inevitable than direct mechanical action, but clearly more difficult to describe.
The important phrase to bring in right at the beginning here is — by standard. The phrase means there is no violence or coercion allowed. I love psycholinguistics for advocating “footloose and fancy free” talk about language. Truth is, you can only get artifacts of inferior manners otherwise.
1. Language is not as easy to describe as it might seem. Merriam-Webster are doing a great job with their idea for pronunciation — as in ■ˈfyüz for fuse — but it is standard-internal. It works for people who speak American English.
Among or between languages ■IPA can do all there is necessary, yet most linguists have experience only with part of the transcription, because there is not even one person on Earth who could speak fluently all languages on the globe.
Therefore, it is not strictly easy to describe language — already at the phonetic level.
This is not all. There are ■phatic and ■locutionary intent factors that people by standard perceive. “Good evening” spoken late at night to a teenager coming back home; “good morning” on a rainy day hike. I do not go into “illocutionary” or “perlocutionary” things, as “locutionary” is enough to say, good writers maybe describe talk in their books, but never all of it.
Language works also if your description does not. Hertz is simplistic, in the light of it all.
2. Human locomotion involves the brain and the spinal cord. Not simple to describe with these regards, neurology is yet irrelevant if you ask a healthy person for water. A writer might go into detail about the face, posture, gait, a neuron maybe too, for purposes of style. In living experience, if someone asks you for water and you can give it to them — and he or she is not a sound and kicking person you know and hate — you simply give them that.
3. There is a repeated phrase in Skinner’s text, “the ultimate consequence”, and it is misused. To ask for a cup of water, you do not mean holding it in your hands for your purpose. You want to drink some to feel better. Is your feeling good the “ultimate consequence”? That is not certain in literature. Events leading one to another have made shelves of good stories. Plus, there is Eternity.
ADVERTISEMENT
Your mind, soul, or self is your only way for eternity, he reminded. Of a mortal human, there is simply nothing else possibly to survive. You may change your mind; anyone can; but as you would not merely give your breath into the hands of another, to live, never give up on your faith in Eternity, he warned.
4. Geometry or mechanics of language spoken form is not relevant here, the same as neurology was not for simply bringing someone a cuppa. There is the vowel chart and slips of tongue are not volitional, but if you can and want to, you just ask for something.
5. Impotence was strongly associated with matters of intimate prowess already in Mr. Skinner’s time.
6. Invocation for the Biblical walls of Jericho would not resonance with Thomas Paine well. Feel welcome to ■All the Paine, to consider the reasons.
7. Skinner holds speech for equal with action: “The consequences of such behavior are mediated by a train of events no less physical or inevitable than direct mechanical action”. Speaking to a book obviously does not open it.
Animals hardly ever help one another
The Skinner picture is virtual reality where you see objects and targets to tell the beginning, consecution, and end of events. Things that would be simple in life, here become “complex” to tell, as if everyone should wait for the good Samaritan to show up with a cup — the ultimate consequence.
Skinner omits volition like the phrase “thank you” could be purely phatic. Words are to “move” another human being, and water in the hands is all you should care to see.
In human cultures that do not penalize assistance, it is volitional and well paid just because people feel so; such cultures make the best civilizational progress. Conqueror and colony policies would eradicate assistance to subdue the people. Communities become isolated individuals.
Behaviorist reference to animals cannot persuade. Animal packs are no civilization. Bacteria can be ■cultures too.
The idea is almost as if there would be remote controls to try on people. B.F. Skinner was with Harvard, and Harvard involvement with MK Ultra is declassified. Maybe the text should be so perceived.
Ultima cœna is the Latin for the ■Last Supper. Cena or цена is the sound for the price, in Polish, Slovak, Russian, or Serbian. It was likely acquired with the amber trade.
Language command
Let us return to Mr. Skinner.
Behavior which is effective only through the mediation of other persons has so many distinguishing dynamic topographical properties that a special treatment is justified and, indeed, demanded. Problems raised by this special mode of action are usually assigned to the field of speech and language. Unfortunately, the term speech emphasizes vocal behavior and is only awkwardly applied to instances in which the mediating person is affected visually, as in writing a note.
Jotting down happens a lot in life. Phone numbers, addresses, recipes, names and other words; if you do not have a pen on you, it must be your phone has it all. The basic ability you need is your own language command, where a behaviorist would be in error on purpose. There is no “special mode”, and nobody is “affected”. All people know it, and thus a behaviorist could only pretend there is an enigma.
Standard use of language has no geographical topography. It is possible anywhere.
Your command of language, what is it? It is your own ability to direct your own speech and writing. Without it, a human being would compare with a parrot. Those cannot really speak. Language command is exactly what parrots do not have.
Behaviorist purposed error
■McNamara, ■Edgewood, ■Ketchum — behaviorist experiments have been plainly cruel. Ketchum would have said he had good intentions, those yet can be doubted with his own phrasing, the “human machine”.
Edgewood Baker Unit, there was a Brennan, a famous Irish baker name too, purportedly brought out of a coma with a phrase by a commander: ■Waking a soldier from a coma.
The Military.com ■have lost the link since — in case ■Khrushchev or ■Lenin got to look less demanding on discipline? Fortunately, YouTube has the story. I do not know about any lexical access that brings out of coma.
There is the degree of cognitive detachment between language and motor behavior. It works when you are conscious, and you can read a book without doing everything there is written. If you went unconscious, it would be all the more difficult to get to the “motor level”.
Language cannot be explained all in terms of tissue (■Brains, parameters, and devices), but this does not mean there is potential for working medical miracles with words.
If such a thing really happened — you mean, a general spoke and an unconscious soldier woke and moved, without evidence in medication or other therapy — the soldier’s brain would have been under microwave suppression taken off in time.
Faith against language cannot do favor to the military or anyone really. It is more as to say, “they need something as special that nobody conscious and aware would have it on oneself”.
Excuse my honesty. A human being who agrees to suppress own language faculty for purposes of propaganda is unlikely. After all, it is up to the people if and what to believe or not. Faith around is no obligation or duty on the human individual, whoever that would be. Democracy is best sane.
ADVERTISEMENT
When you feel you want to assert on your inner balance, immerse in thought and turn in mind to the skies, in that inward tranquility that you have learned with the vastness. Your soul, self, mind, and heart — all have been one, in everything there was and is; and you even cannot fall apart, for what there will be.
Speech and language
Let us finish reading the paragraphs from Mr. Skinner’s initial chapter.
“Language” is now satisfactorily remote from its original commitment to vocal behavior, but it has come to refer to the practices of a linguistic community rather than the behavior of any one member. The adjective “linguistic” suffers from the same disadvantage.
For logopedics I must say, you do not need pathology or conscious practice at swallowing. To have the bad morsel or depart from speech would be error, where you may focus on actors and other business people to whom ■suave is agreeable vocal behavior. With λογου πεδα, following the reason and words, a sizable bag of money is no wonder.
“Speech and language” is the phrase to emphasize the naturally spoken quality of human talk. Print is black on white. Speech and language is for natural language.
If language behavior would have features of mimicry and that unpalatable bit of evolution to misunderstand everything on purpose, it is in behaviorism. I do not think I’d be buying Mr. Skinner’s book. I neither need nor like behaviorist advice. By standard, no such advice could be imposed.
Attempts to get the US back with the UK would be via faith. Kings and queens have been “God’s anointed”. If there could be ideas as crazy as forcing the US into the Commonwealth, only a world conflict with massive damage on the US might give them a chance. Faith would be instrumental.
Feel welcome to a good idea: the ■Union of the Pacific.
ADVERTISEMENT
Resource for Emily Dickinson’s poetry
The epsilon, predicate structure, vowel contour, phonemics, person reference in abstract thought, and altogether stylistic coherence, for manuscripts and print, piece-by-piece. ■More
