Chomsky VS Skinner

Main points of Skinner, and how Chomsky responded to them:

Skinner: Chomsky

• A stimulus is something that describes the behaviour : We don’t actually know what the stimulus is until we see the behaviour (post-hoc fallacy)

• Stimulus response-theory is how languages are learned: Stimulus-response theory is too simplistic for language acquisition.

• Response is something that is provoked by a stimulus: The stimulus doesn’t actually have to be present in order for it to be provoked, so what provokes a response in that case?

• Response strength is measured by the frequency & intensity of a stimulus: This does not apply to verbal behaviour (screaming “WOW!” 5 times as opposed to just saying “..wow” once)

• People do things because of reinforcement: Reinforcement is way too vague a term; it should explain why someone gives a certain behaviour, but has to include every possible behaviour, so it essentially explains nothing

• Deprivation (wanting something you don’t have) explains a lot of verbal behaviour: It can’t explain all behaviour, it’s difficult to tie complex verbal behaviours to just one need, people may exhibit verbal behaviour without deprivation

• All internal states (thoughts, feelings, intentions) are irrelevant to explain behaviour: Intentions are important because they can determine responses (friend calling me an idiot)

• Children learn language through reinforcement and imitation: Children mimic automatically, without reinforcement from the parents -- parents responses don’t influence the degree to which children mimic

• Children need to be carefully taught language by the parents: Children learn language without actively being taught

• Parents need to be conscious of teaching the child correct grammar: Children will learn correct grammar regardless