Skinner's book Verbal Behavior was mostly unsatisfying because it didn't have a lot of data; it really just laid out a research program which had not been carried out in any significant way (and now, never will be). Of course it is also unsatisfying that Skinner does not appeal to our sense that we already understand everything important about psychology and language "from the inside" and don't really need any stinking data.
The reason most people are unsatisfied with Skinner's approach to language is that they did not read Verbal Behavior, but rather Chomsky's review; and because Chomsky chose it (as among Skinner's weakest work) and reviewed it in the most uncharitable way possible, without understanding any of the basic concepts or motivations to Skinner's approach.
So, for example, he successfully associates Skinner directly with Watson, and makes it out that "radical" behaviorism is radical not for its rejection of premises of classical behaviorism but for being even more crazy.
That review is a masterpiece of propaganda and it effectively prevented Skinner's basic ideas from even being seriously evaluated ever again.
The reason most people are unsatisfied with Skinner's approach to language is that they did not read Verbal Behavior, but rather Chomsky's review; and because Chomsky chose it (as among Skinner's weakest work) and reviewed it in the most uncharitable way possible, without understanding any of the basic concepts or motivations to Skinner's approach.
So, for example, he successfully associates Skinner directly with Watson, and makes it out that "radical" behaviorism is radical not for its rejection of premises of classical behaviorism but for being even more crazy.
That review is a masterpiece of propaganda and it effectively prevented Skinner's basic ideas from even being seriously evaluated ever again.