rolandi@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM (rolandi) (04/01/88)
In response to Arti Nigam's answer to Heather Mackinnon: >Is it really true? I assume you are speaking of language acquisition. The >development of the ability to speak grammatically and in novel sentences, >and the ability to differentiate between grammatical and nongrammatical, >seems NOT to develop as a result of specific reinforcement. Most parents >do not follow their toddlers around correcting the grammar of the utterances; >they may correct their child if the child mislabels an object, they may >pronounce a word completely that was half-pronounced by the child, but >more often than not the parent will ignore syntax, or even reinforce >faulty syntax by speaking 'baby-talk'. Simple reinforcement does not >explain language acquisition. This treatment of reinforcement suggests some of the more common misconceptions about what reinforcement is and how it works. But before I turn up the flames, I would like to ask Arti Nigam to state the difference between "reinforcement", "specific reinforcement", and "simple reinforcement" as referenced above. Also, I would like to know if: >Most parents do not follow their toddlers around correcting the grammar ... is meant to convey that reinforcement in language acquisition is necessarily something that comes from one's parents. Walter Rolandi rolandi@gollum.UUCP NCR Advanced Systems, Columbia, SC University of South Carolina Departments of Psychology and Linguistics
arti@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Arti Nigam) (04/02/88)
In article <83@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> rolandi@gollum.UUCP (Walter Rolandi) writes: > > Arti Nigam's answer to Heather Mackinnon: >>Is it really true? I assume you are speaking of language acquisition. The >>development of the ability to speak grammatically and in novel sentences, >>and the ability to differentiate between grammatical and nongrammatical, >>seems NOT to develop as a result of specific reinforcement. Most parents >>do not follow their toddlers around correcting the grammar of the utterances; >>they may correct their child if the child mislabels an object, they may >>pronounce a word completely that was half-pronounced by the child, but >>more often than not the parent will ignore syntax, or even reinforce >>faulty syntax by speaking 'baby-talk'. Simple reinforcement does not >>explain language acquisition. Walter Rolandi said: >This treatment of reinforcement suggests some of the more common misconceptions >about what reinforcement is and how it works. But before I turn up the flames No need for flames; if you have observed any misconceptions of mine (we all have plenty), I welcome clarification. Particularly about reinforcement. The last quarter of one of my classes may be devoted to the subject, so please tell me as much as you want. >I would like to ask Arti Nigam to state the difference between "reinforcement", >"specific reinforcement", and "simple reinforcement" as referenced above. I am using the word reinforcement in all three cases with the same meaning. The qualifiers mean what you would expect based on standard English meaning: specific reinforcement: when a particular, isolatable, definable behavior is reinforced. Simple reinforcement: The mechanism of reinforcement is presented usually as rather simple; a behavior is generated, a contingent event takes place which increases the probability of recurrence of the behavior. I could have said "a specific behavior is generated, a specific contingent event...," but I think you have a problem with my adjectives! >Also, I would like to know if: > >>Most parents do not follow their toddlers around correcting the grammar ... > >is meant to convey that reinforcement in language acquisition is necessarily >something that comes from one's parents. > >Walter Rolandi Well, okay, let's say from other people who are capable of responding differentially (of providing contingent reinf.) to the child's language production. My nephew is an only child who as an infant was rarely around people other than his parents for a significant amount of time, so I made that mistake because I was thinking of him as I wrote the above. Your turn. Arti Nigam.