No abstract

Two related experiments examined generalization across contexts involving different sentence forms when selected grammatical features were trained within a single syntactic context. Results obtained within a single-subject multiple baseline design showed that training the verbal/auxiliary (contracted with pronoun he) was sufficient to induce its generalization across a variety of verbs, object noun phrases, and a different subjective case pronoun, but not across an objective case pronoun. Similar results were obtained for the uncontractible auxiliary in the past tense. Generalization of the uncontractible auxiliary in the present tense was noted across different verbs; so also was the generalization of contractible copula to different adjectives qualifying the subjective case pronouns he and she (but not in qualifying an objective case pronoun it). Finally, generalization of possessive s inflection across male, female, and animal categories was evident. Trained behavior generalized to home situation in one of the experiments. Some unexpected results also suggest that training on certain forms of either verbal auxiliary or copula may be sufficient to generate correct production of both of them.

The study was designed to investigate whether auxiliary is and copular is belong to a single response class. Two children acted as subjects. The auxiliary verb was trained, then reversed, and later reinstated in one of the subjects, while the copula was similarly trained, reversed, and reinstated in the other child. Both the auxiliary and the copular sentences were tested on probes. The first subject, who was trained only on the auxiliary, was able to produce the untrained copula. When the auxiliary production was reversed, the copular production also was reversed. Finally, when the auxiliary production was reinstated, the copular production also was reinstated. For the second subject, the auxiliary production was generated, reversed, and reinstated by training, reversing, and reinstating only the copula. These results suggest that the copular and auxiliary is belong to a single response class and training either of them is sufficient to generate the production of both.

Meaning is a mentalistic concept in linguistics and philosophy. Linguists assert that a behavioral analysis cannot explain this abstract and deep feature of language. However, behavioral analysis can offer a natural science account of meaning. Meaning is a function of the controlling relation between the antecedents, the verbal behavior, and the consequences that follow. Meaning is indeed abstract because it is neither a mental entity, nor a property of language, nor a content of linguistic structure, nor is it what language represents. Gaining access to the meaning of utterances is the same as gaining access to their controlling relations. The concept of Meaning, as defined in terms of the controlling variables of verbal operants, serves no further purpose.

While speech-language pathologists (SLPs) accept the behavioral methods of treatment in their professional work, they tend to entertain an inadequate or dismissive view of the behavioral analysis of language and grammar. This may be because SLP' academic study of language consists mostly of linguistic theories that typically misrepresent Skinner's (1957) analysis of verbal behavior. An appreciation of Skinner's analysis would be consistent with the clinicians' use of applied behavioral techniques in treating speech and language disorders. Therefore, this paper reviews Skinner's functional units of verbal behavior and his analysis of grammar in terms of autoclitics as secondary verbal operants. Skinner's analysis is comprehensive, innovative, clinical researchsupported, and relevant to SLPs.