On Chomsky’s appraisal of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior: A half century of misunderstanding

Abstract

The history of the writing of Verbal Behavior (Skinner, 1957), Chomsky's review (1959, and MacCorquodale's rebuttal (1970) are briefly summarized. Chomsky's recent reflections on his review are analyzed: Chomsky's refusal to acknowledge the review's errors or its aggressive tone is consistent with his polemical style but comes at a minor cost in consistency and plausibility. However, his remarks about the place of Skinner's work in science reveal misunderstandings so great that they undercut the credibility of the review substantially. The gradual growth in the influence of Skinner's book suggests that its legacy will endure.

The Long Good-Bye: Why B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior is Alive and Well on the 50Th Anniversary of Its Publication

“…Although the book may have lain somewhat dormant for several years, interest in it and in a behavior analysis of language in general has been revived as part of the slow progress that science often makes. As Palmer (2006a) has recently written, "Science is like a river, flowing inexorably downstream, freshened and swollen by rivulets of data. our efforts to dam or divert it are too puny to prevail for long against the gathering weight; sooner or later all obstacles are swept away, and the river resumes its natural course.…”

“…(1987, p. 11) the only question for Skinner, then, was whether the interpretation conformed to and was constrained by the principles on which it was based. For most behavior analysts, the answer has been in the affirmative (e.g., Palmer, 2006a). But the answer from outside behavior analysis has been mixed.…”

Teaching Tacting of Private Events Based on Public Accompaniments: Effects of Contingencies, Audience Control, and Stimulus Complexity

“…Chomsky (1959) criticized Skinner's approach as a nonscientific, untested hypothesis. At the time Verbal Behavior was published, it was true that Skinner's account of language was untested, but extending experimental data to other phenomena is the business of scientific interpretation (see MacCorquodale 1970 andPalmer 2006, for rebuttals to Chomsky's criticisms), which differs from speculation that is not rooted in scientific evidence. Palmer (2003) distinguished between experimentation and interpretation, and he elaborated on the role each plays in the science of human behavior.…”

The clinical relevance of stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory in influencing the behavior of verbally competent adults

“…From a behavior analytic perspective, Chomsky's challenges have now been largely discredited as reflecting an inappropriate conflation of mechanistic/structuralistic approaches (cognitive psychology) with the differing assumptions and objectives inherent in functional contextualism (behavior analysis) [4][5][6], but his work nevertheless contributed to the rise of the cognitive revolution and 'second wave' cognitive behavioral therapy [7]. A verbal behavior research agenda consistent with the philosophical assumptions and aims of functional contextualism was slower to develop, but eventually contributed to the theoretical foundation of modern 'third wave' cognitive behavioral therapies.…”