|
| Contemporary Conceptual Issues in the Analysis of Verbal Behavior |
| Monday, May 31, 2004 |
| 3:00 PM–4:20 PM |
| Republic A |
| Area: VBC/TPC; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Jonathan J. Tarbox (University of Nevada, Reno) |
| Abstract: . |
| |
| Skinner’s Autoclitic, Some Perspective |
| WILLIAM F. POTTER (California State University, Stanislaus) |
| Abstract: This presentation examines Skinner’s treatment of the Autoclitic, in light of the other verbal operants that he discusses in his text, Verbal Behavior. |
| |
| The Issue of Reference in the Analysis of Verbal Behavior |
| JONATHAN J. TARBOX (University of Nevada, Reno), Linda J. Parrott Hayes (University of Nevada, Reno) |
| Abstract: In his analysis of verbal behavior, Skinner explicitly rejected the issue of reference, which most non-behavioral scholars regard as integral to the phenomenon of language. Skinner’s primary reason for doing so was to eliminate reference as a hypothetical explanatory variable which historically directed attention away from a scientific analysis of the relations between the behavior involved in language and environmental events. While this achievement was critical for establishing a behavioral, naturalistic analysis of language, the wholesale rejection of reference as a relevant issue carried with it several debilitating effects. While reference should not be conceptualized as causal with respect to linguistic behavior, ignoring the issue has resulted in an incomplete analysis of much complex human behavior, language being the most obvious. Perhaps the most troubling consequence of ignoring the issue of reference has been the concealed inclusion of it in inconsistent and non-technical conceptual analyses. Skinner’s analysis of rule-governed behavior is probably the clearest example of these problems. In this paper, we will propose that reference can and should be subjected to a naturalistic, technical behavioral analysis and that doing so alleviates several areas of inconsistency and incompleteness. A brief review of Kantor’s concept of referential behavior will be presented as it relates to the current topic. |
| |
| Understanding Rule Governance Requires a Functional Definition of Reference and Specification in the Listener |
| DENIS P. O'HORA (University of Ulster), Dermot Barnes-Holmes (National University of Ireland, Maynooth) |
| Abstract: The aim of this current paper is to outline a novel conceptual approach to the experimental analysis of rule governance and in particular to the referential properties of rules. Skinner’s account of rule governed behaviour as control by ‘contingency specifying stimuli’ oriented researchers to a critical source of control of human behaviour. However, he was not clear how such stimuli or series of stimuli (e.g., sounds or written words) come to specify a contingency for a listener (Hayes & Hayes, 1989; Parrot, 1987). Certainly, Skinner addressed issues such as specification and reference from the perspective of the speaker in terms of the mand and tact relations. We have come to believe, however, that a functional definition of specification or reference from the perspective of the listener is of crucial importance to the understanding of complex verbal control. In particular, such a technical definition should provide the functional criteria that are necessary to distinguish instructional control of a verbal listener from other forms of stimulus control (e.g., discriminative or respondent control). The current paper draws on current theoretical and empirical work on Relational Frame Theory in order to supplement Skinner’s description of instructions by providing such functional criteria. |
| |
| Rule Contacting as a Part of Rule-following |
| KATE KELLUM (University of Mississippi), Linda J. Parrott Hayes (University of Nevada, Reno) |
| Abstract: Rules, rule-following, and rule-governed behavior have received a great deal of theoretical and empirical attention in the behavior analytic literature. Much of this attention has focused on the conditions under which one engages in rule-following and has been provided from a number of different conceptual frameworks. The paper has three purposes. First, a conceptual framework from which the analysis is taken is outlined. Second, the component behaviors involved in rule-following are delineated and defined. Finally,. the paper attempts an analysis from the behaving organism’s perspective of conditions under which one may learn the rule to be followed (i.e., rule-contacting). |
|
| |