I enjoyed reading this article. It was a nice break from some of the heavy articles we encountered earlier! This article reflected a careful selection of words chosen by Skinner to make his bold statements. The poems were a bit challenging to decode, but that could be because I hate poetry and never interpret what the author is getting at. My mind is too logical and I need to work on opening up the creative side for other interpretations.
I liked the way Skinner responded in this article. I felt like he didn’t have direct, harsh egocentric comments like we have seen before. This time he wrote in a way to still make bold statements, but it was more reader friendly. It was nice a nice change to see him write something more ‘normal’ and not so scientific. In other words, I didn’t get the notion of Skinner as an argumentative scientist in this article.
I found the whole issue with Chomsky interesting. In South Dakota I took a class called Psycholinguistics and all I learned about was Chomsky and the development of language through his theories. I can agree with the statement in Skinner’s article about “linguists have always managed to make their discoveries earthshaking.” At the beginning of that class I learned the history of Psycholinguistics and now reflecting back on it, it did seem as if everything surrounded a specific topic/finding until something new came out. Unfortunately that class only focused on Chomsky and it would have been nice to get another perspective of the development of language, but my professor loved him.