ISSN 1982-3541 Belo Horizonte-MG, Brazil 2007, Vol. IX, nº 2, 21-38 B. F. Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior: a chronicle Ernst A. Vargas Julie S. Vargas B. F. Skinner Foundation Terry J. Knapp University of Nevada, Las Vegas Abstract A time line of Skinner’s work on verbal behavior must start at the very beginning of his scientific career. Skinner laid down the conceptual framework of his Theory of Behavior as early as his thesis. He developed his experimental work within this framework, and depended on research results to adjust and modify his theory. At the same time, he initiated efforts to interpret verbal behavior within his theoretical formulations and upon the operant relations he discovered in the laboratory. Work on both mediated and nonmediated relations entwined throughout his career. He discovered the basic verbal relations slowly and inductively over a twenty-five year span of effort. Key words: Skinner, Verbal behavior, History, Theory. Introduction ior derived from an experimental analysis of a more rigorous sort” (Skinner, 957, p. ). Skinner’s writing of Verbal Behavior From the beginning, it was an effort about took place over many years, in many settings, which he was quite explicit as he stated in a and with continuous revisions. More impor- letter to Fred Keller, “What I am doing is ap- tantly, it took place within the implicit frame- plying the concepts I’ve worked out experi- work of his theory of behavior, primarily mentally to this non-experimental (but Em- based on the process of behavioral selection. pirical) field” (Skinner, July 2, 1934). But the Equally significant, its development derived guiding assumptions of his theory of behavior from an intertwining of experimental and were already present. With his doctoral thesis naturalistic observations. From the begin- of 90, the theoretical effort started early. It ning, the interlacing of unnoticed theory and continued to the very end. But we take the observed fact show themselves consistently. story only to 957 and only with respect to Skinner insinuates their dual presence his effort on the analysis of verbal behavior. when he states at the very start of Verbal Be- Figure provides a brief overview of havior “The present extension to verbal behav- the intertwining of experimental and natural- ior is thus an exercise in interpretation rather istic work within his theory. Throughout his than a quantitative extrapolation of rigorous career, Skinner addressed issues within the experimental results” (Skinner, 957, p. ). lingual area and within the straightforward He announces more clearly the type of analy- operant work of the laboratory. The reader sis by further stating, “The emphasis is upon can note that 957, the year his theoretical an orderly arrangement of well-known facts, work on contingencies over lingual actions, in accordance with a formulation of behav- Verbal Behavior, was published, was also the Contributions of the authors were in the order given. We particularly appreciate a review of the manuscript given by Dr. Jerome Ulman. Ph.D. Vice-President of B. F. Skinner Foundation. E-mail: [email protected] Ph.D. B. F. Skinner Foundation. Ph.D. University of Nevada. 2 Ernst A. Vargas - Julie S. Vargas - Terry J. Knapp same year he, along with Charles Ferster, and others, was an attempt “to resolve, by published the magnum opus on laboratory compromise, the conflict between observed controlled contingencies, Schedules of Rein- necessity and preconception of freedom in forcement. The reader should also note that the behavior of organisms” (Skinner, 90, p. from the beginning Skinner actively pursued 9—underlined emphasis Skinner’s). He noted his analysis of language and of nonlanguage that the compromise was due to a behavior concurrently. crisis in the history of the metaphysical con- cepts that dealt with the same phenomenon6. [T]he movement of an organism had generally Early Work: late 1920s and early to mid been taken as coexistent with its life and as 1930s necessarily correlated with the action of some such entity as soul7. The necessary relation- Though not stated in an orderly fash- ship between the action of soul and the con- traction of a muscle, for example, was explicit. ion nor necessarily in explicit manner, Skin- As a consequence it was disturbing to find, ex- ner’s earliest work, including his thesis, lays perimentally, that a muscle could be made to out the assumptions by which he later inter- contract after it had been severed from a living prets his experimental and naturalistic obser- organism or even after death (Skinner, 90, p. vations. Several premises or themas guide 0). him. (See Holtan [97/988] for a techni- cal discussion of how themas steer scientific Skinner rejected such a compromise. theory). Skinner echos them later in his in- From the beginning, he dismissed any notion terpretations of experimental observations of of an agency as a guiding force in the behav- behavior and of naturalistic observations of ior of any organism. Early workers (e.g., Des- verbal behavior. These premises formed the cartes, and afterward even evolutionists such underlying framework of his incompletely as Wallace) drew a demarcation line between 8 articulated theory of behavior. All of his work humans and other animals . But like Darwin, on verbal behavior fell within the framework Skinner maintained the continuity of shared of his theory. properties between the human species and 6 The “same phenomenon” referred to animal movement. Thematic beginnings of the theory 7 As the reader may note, in the analysis of lingual behavior other redundant agencies continue to be promoted such as a “self” or a “speaker” or a more subtle equivalent construct like Skinner submitted his thesis on De- a “sentence generating structure.” Skinner’s use of the term cember 19, 1930. The first half was theoretical; speaker is that of a location. It should not be construed as an the second was experimental5. The theoretical originating force. 8 Rene Descartes (596-650)) did it by separating “mind” from half was in the form of a review of the history “matter”. He then further asserted that the quality of “mind” of the reflex. He sounded the keynote for the was what separated humans from animals, the latter being by and large nothing more than complex machines. Descartes review at its start: All the early work on the agency of “mind” (and its accompanying dualism) constitutes reflex, from Descartes through Marshall Hall the core of much current behavioral science especially when it comes to matters of language. It still resonates in the pres- 5 A similar balance of intellectual labor continued throughout ent day “theory of mind”. Alfred R. Wallace (8-9), co- his scientific career. For Skinner, theory was as important as originator of the natural selection process that drives evolu- laboratory work. He even wrote an article (Skinner, 950), tion, agreed with Darwin that there was a continuum between “Are Theories of Learning Necessary”, to which he gives a firm humans and other animal life except when it came to man’s “yes” if of the right sort. He emphasized that theories must be mind. The reader of this essay no doubt knows of Descartes couched in the dimensional framework of the science’s subject but for those encountering him for the first time, probably the matter so that, for example, behavioral phenomena should not best place to start is with his Discourse on the Method. Wallace, be interpreted using physicalistic explanations. Any range of like Darwin, has the happy accident of being a clear and inter- behavioral phenomena may be accommodated within a con- esting read. Though place names must be changed, The Malay tingency selection framework, from neurophysiological events Archipelago (869/9) still appeals for the reader attracted to to the lingual activity of a culture. Though the thematic and natural history. For further information on the split between empirical content of his theory is implicit in his many writings, Darwin and Wallace on the continuity issue of “brain and Skinner makes explicit features of his theory in articles and behavior”, the interested reader can start with Richards, R. J. books such as Selection by Consequences (98) and Contingen- (987). For what these issues imply to the behavioral sciences cies of Reinforcement, A Theoretical Analysis (969). see Vargas, E. A. (996). 22 Braz. Jour. of Behav. and Cog. Ther., Belo Horizonte-MG, Brazil, 007, Vol. IX, nº , -8 B. F. Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior: a chronicle other species. He was already setting the stage No event is a stimulus independent of its re- for the speaker as a locus not an initiator. As lation to another event called a response, and he subsequently put it at the end of his book no event is a response independent of its rela- Verbal Behavior (p. 60), “I have found it nec- tion to another event called a stimulus. Each essary from time to time to attack traditional of these events could be described physically, concepts which assign spontaneous control to and as such within the dimensional frame- the special inner self called the speaker.” All work of the observational system of physics, his work dealt with contingency relations. As but the paired events derive meaning from an explanatory force, contingency replaced their relationship to each other. A light is not agency. a stimulus unless and until an action occurs The term contingency only shows up with respect to it and only then can the action later, past his thesis work. Initially in his the- be termed a response. All the verbal relations sis, Skinner emphasized correlation. But it was he later described require a similar analysis, not correlation in a statistical sense that he for example, “A mand is characterized by the emphasized.