Aspects of conversational style—linguistic versus behavioral analysis

Skinner’s functional analysis of verbal behavior has been contrasted with formal linguistic analysis which studies the grammatical structure and “meaning” of verbal response-products, regardless of the circumstances under which they are produced. Nevertheless, it appears that certain areas of linguistic analysis are not entirely structural. In her recent books That’s Not What I Meant (1986) and You Just Don’t Understand (1990), the linguist Deborah Tannen purports to explain how people exhibit different “conversation styles”—that is, how they speak and achieve effects on listeners in different ways. There are indications, however, that the linguistic model may not be the most functional and precise one that could be used in analyzing conversational style. This paper takes concepts presented in Deborah Tannen’s book That’s Not What I Meant (1986), analyzes them from a linguistic and a behavioral perspective, and compares the relative utility of the two approaches.

     

Teaching mands by manipulating conditioned establishing operations

Skinner’s (1957) analysis of verbal behavior suggests the functional independence of the verbal operants. However, only a few empirical studies have directly examined the nature of these operants, and their independence. The present study evaluated whether teaching topographies as tacts would lead to their emission as mands. The results indicated that manding only occurred reliably after direct mand training, which consisted of the use of imitative and tact prompts, and fading those prompts, to transfer stimulus control from nonverbal stimuli to conditioned establishing operations. The results contribute to the existing data on the functional independence of mands and tacts, as well as demonstrate the value of manipulating conditioned establishing operations for mand training.

     

Towards a Balanced Account of Autism Etiology

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior - Drash and Tudor describe six sets of reinforcement contingencies which may be present in the environments of some children eventually diagnosed with autism and...     

The relationship between stimulus equivalence and verbal behavior

Despite the apparent similarity between stimulus equivalence and verbal behavior, these phenomena have been described in different terms. With different terminologies for each phenomenon, the precise nature of their relationship is difficult to determine. To explore this relationship, this paper first defines stimulus equivalence using a synthesis of the mathematical definition of the equivalence relation and Sidman and Tailby’s (1982) definition. Selected examples of stimulus equivalence are then described as verbal behavior using Skinner’s (1957) terminology. The paper then cites instances of verbal behavior that cannot be described as stimulus equivalence and considers whether there are instances of stimulus equivalence that cannot be described as verbal behavior.