Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms

On Jul 17, 12:46 am, ck <ck_NoS...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
"ck" <ck_NoS...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OZtmi.35012$3j1.18067@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
"Neil W Rickert" <rickert...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Cj8mi.26127$2v1.458@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Instead, his view was that, for example, some
circumstance strengthens some core responses (let's look at tacts for
the
moment) and then the core responses become temporally organized as a
function of contingencies that produce other units that we call grammar
and
syntax (these are autoclitics). The utterance is often emitted as a
complete
occurrence, not assembled after "the early parts" are emitted. Skinner
felt
that Spoonerisms provided evidence that this, in fact, was the case
since
later parts of the response appeared to exert control over earlier
parts.
That seems like an over-analysis.

I'm not sure about Spooner. But for most people, spoonerisms are
used (and coined) because they are fun. When my father used to
mention "Thud and Blunder" movies, it was because he thought that
was a better description than "Blood and Thunder".

I was specifically talking about "non-deliberate" Spoonerisms. You seem
to be talking about those that are produced via rule-following, and these
are not of much interest. Still, the fact that there may be "thuds" and
the characters frequently seem to make the worst of blunders suggest some
of the processes operating that I described, though I never heard of the
term "Blood and Thunder." If you are talking about Spoonerisms that
"occur to people" (i.e., not the product of a deliberate rule-generated
transposition) and are funny, your explanation is not far off from mine -
except for the lack of the "explanation" part.
To follow your point, i would also add the greatest benefit in
observing spoonerism is the clue they provide to the normal
generation of language. You say spoonerisms represent the

Should read ------> You could say

normal mechanisms gone slightly asquew.

No I don't.

To which you would no doubt reply -- no i wouldn't ;-/

GS is limited to radical behaviorist terminology and a radical
behaviorists world view. I don't think AI actually interests
him at all.


.