Verbal Behavior: the Other Reviews Terry J

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 1992, 10, 87-95

Verbal Behavior: The Other Reviews Terry J. Knapp University of Nevada, Las Vegas The extensive attention devoted to Noam Chomsky's review of Verbal Behavior by B.F. Skinner has resulted in a neglect of more than a dozen other rewiews of the work. These are surveyed and found to be positive and congenial in tone, with many of the reviewers advancing his/her own analysis of speech and language. The dominant criticism of the book was its disregard of central or implicit processes and its lack of experimental data. An examination of the receptive history of Verbal Behavior offers a more balanced historical account than those which rely excessively on Chomsky's commentary

Verbal Behavior (1957) is B.F. Skinner's also evident in Skinner's own work. In A most distinctive work. There is reason to Matter of Consequences (1983), he men- believe it is the book that he most valued, tioned only one review, other than that and many people regard it as the most by Chomsky. original of his contributions. Open to vari- The continuing impact of Chomsky's ous readings, and carrying with it a history review is apparent in data gathered from of criticism, it continues to attract new the Science, Social Science, and Arts and readers. Its composition history is complex. Humanities Citation Indexes for the period The outline and early notes for Verbal 1972 through 1990 (see Figure 1). During Behavior originated in the mid-1930's, this nearly two decade period the review though the book itself did not appear for of Verbal Behavior by Chomsky was cited another 23 years, in 1957. Between these once for each two citations of Verbal years, aspects of the functional analysis Behavior itself. A very unusual relation- contained in the book were presented in ship between a book and a review, per- public lectures by Skinner, and in sec- haps a unique one in the history of the ondary accounts based upon his talks. social sciences. Thomas Leahey, a histo- When reactions to Verbal Behavior are rian of psychology, believes that discussed, disproportionate attention is "Chomsky's review is perhaps the single given to the critical review by Noam most influential psychological paper Chomsky (1959). For example, one com- published since Watson's Behaviorist mentator suggested that only a few manifesto of 1913" (1987, p. 347). The reviews of the work appeared, and that various attempts to lessen the impact of none of these were in psychology jour- the Chomsky review (e.g., Mac- nals (Andreson, 1990). There were, how- Corquodale, 1970) have, for the most ever, more than a dozen reviews of part, not succeeded in displacing the Verbal Behavior in journals ranging in timeliness or relevance of Chomsky's content from speech pathology to psy- comments. choanalysis, as well as reviews in the The other reviews of Verbal Behavior mainstream journals of American and died the quiet death associated with many British psychology. The lack of attention academic works. An attempt at resuscita- to the other reviews of Verbal Behavior is tion is motivated by two considerations; first, to describe the contemporary recep- Reprint requests should be sent to Terry Knapp, Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las tion of Verbal Behavior by the established Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154. psychology community and other disci- 87 88 TERRY J. KNAPP 900 800 700 -tn-- Chomsky -El--- Skinner 600

500

400

300

200

100

0 1972 1975 1980 1985 1990 Fig. 1. Cumulative number of citations of B. F. Skinner's book Verbal Behavior and Noam Chomsky's review of the book based on the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, 1972 to 1990. plines, and secondly, to understand some- the verbal summator study of 1936, also thing of the general stance that is taken by suggested the outlines of a functional critics in regards to a book of novel con- analysis. Secondly, something must be tent. Are the criticisms developed internal said about the state of mainstream psy- to the text itself, or are they rather con- chology in the late 1950's. The so called structed from the critics own theoretical 'cognitive revolution' was still almost a formulation? An examination of the decade away; the humanistic psycholo- receptive history of Verbal Behavior will gists had yet to organize. Academic psy- provide a context for clarifying how the chology was largely comprised of various book was, and is, understood, as well as forms of behaviorism. Spence and offering a more balanced historical Tolman were still living. The newest per- account than those which rely excessively spective in the academic psychology of on Chomsky's commentary. mid-1950's was that of Broadbent, whose Before examining the reviews them- Perception and Communication had selves two brief reminders are in order. appeared in 1953. In that same year As noted, the ideas contained in Verbal Osgood's (1953) mediational behaviorism Behavior did not come fresh to the review- had received extended treatment in his ers. The functional analysis of verbal massive Method and Theory in Experimental behavior it presented had been pre- Psychology. The invention of psycholin- viewed on a number of occasions. The guistics was underway at Harvard (see William James Lectures of 1947 at the preface to Brown, 1958). Harvard University (Skinner, 1947b), the The summer course in the same year at Reviews in Mainstream Psychologyjournals Columbia University (Skinner, 1947a) and In 1957 Contemporary Psychology, the the chapter on "Social Behavior" in Keller major journal for book reviews in psy- and Schoenfeld's Principles of Psychology chology, was only one year old-having (1950) all provided a general sketch of the been established under the impetus of E. later book. The papers on verbal behavior G. Boring the previous year. Boring Skinner had published, beginning with assigned two reviewers to Verbal Behavior. VERBAL BEHAVIOR: THE OTHER REVIEWS 89 Both of them were widely known for their ciency of Skinner's conception, not its cor- contributions to the emerging field of psy- rectness as far as it goes" (p. 210). Osgood chology of language. Their reviews is continually seeking examples from appeared sequentially in the August issue Verbal Behavior that cannot be "explained of 1958. without a mediational account," and pas- The first reviewer was Charles E. sages where Skinner is implicitly commit- Osgood, then Professor of Psychology at ting himself to such accounts.2 There is the University of Illinois.' Osgood is not nothing, according to Osgood, which short on praise for Verbal Behavior. It is would prevent a "merging" of Skinner's described as "remarkably wise and one-stage model with "representational insightful" (p. 209), a "must" read for (symbolic) mediation processes" (p. 212), those in the psychology of language (p. while still maintaining a "rigorous and 212), and "certainly one of the two or behavioristic" stance (p. 212). three most significant contributions to this Thus, Osgood finds Skinner's Verbal field in our time..." (p. 212). Verbal Behavior making many valuable contribu- Behavior is admittedly a difficult book, one tions, and he regards it as a "must" read "to be studied rather than scanned" (p. for anyone interested in "language behav- 209), and one for which the reviewer ior." However, it is not a "sufficient" admits that Part IV, The Manipulation of account because, while seemingly Verbal Behavior, especially the autoclitic, acknowledging implicit or nonverbal pro- "remained obscure...even after careful cesses, it does not explicate them, nor does study" (p. 211). it, being a single-stage theory, have the Osgood's praise is a prelude to a major requisite concepts to do so. Osgood con- criticism: the inability of a single stage cludes, "Having agreed that there are account to handle known phenomena. implicit, nonverbal processes in behavior, "...the overt R required for an objective, Skinner does not go on to explicate their single-stage account just simply may not nature and function. This is the major occur in situations where, on other insufficiency of Verbal Behavior, but it grounds, we must assume the listener has would require another book and probably 'understood' directions or the reader has one that Skinner himself would not write" silently 'comprehended' the text or the (p. 212). problem-solver has 'thought out' a solu- The second reviewer selected by Boring tion" (p. 211). It will not do to speak of was a philosopher of reputation, Charles reinforcement of a covert response for "to Morris, who "for a long time advocated a say it [a response] occurs 'covertly' can- behavioral 'nonmechanistic' approach," cels the pristine objectivity of the system which differed from that of Skinner by and eliminates any real distinction being cast in a "more general theory of between single-stage and two-stage mod- signs" (p. 213). The theory of signs origi- els" (p. 212). nated in the 19th century with the pragma- The problem for Osgood is "the suffi- tist Charles Pierce, and was continued by 'Osgood's works are worth inspecting for their cita- Morris, among others, with his Signs, tion of Skinner's views, and for an examination of the range of verbal behavior then being examined by 2The arguments which Osgood advances for the mainstream academic psychology. Method and Theory necessity of mediational variables may be found in in Experimental Psychology contains a chapter titled Osgood, 1953, pp. 392-412, especially p. 410 where he Language Behavior (Chapter 16, pp. 680 - 727). concludes "We have shown that representational Skinner's general formulation as available in the mediation processes of some kind must be postulated William James Lectures or the Hefferline Notes is not to account for the experimental and observational discussed. Skinner's verbal summator paper (Skinner, data available-there are many learning phenomena 1936) is described as an "ingenious method" for that cannot be incorporated on a single-stage S-R examining the "hierarchical structure of associations" basis. For the historical context of mediational theory (Osgood, p. 722). Skinner's study of associations is see the second or earlier editions of Leahey, (1987), also cited (Skinner, 1937). Imitation and labeling are pp. 389-393. A direct comparison between Skinner's discussed, the latter as a "straightforward learning functional analysis and Osgood's mediational theory phenomenon" (Osgood, p. 688). can be found in Terwilliger (1968). 90 TERRY J. KNAPP Language, and Behavior, a 1946 work with a later reviewer (see Gray), Morris con- "behavioral" orientation.3 cluded that psychology "has no privileged Morris' review is distinguished by the place" in the understanding of verbal clarity and conciseness of its summary of behavior. He found sympathy with Roger Verbal Behavior. Morris focused on the Brown and Don Dulaney (see the latter's broad effort of Skinner, to eschew mentalis- review below) who have, he said, a formu- tic concepts, rather than on any technical lation similar to Skinner's, but which met aspects of the functional analysis. He found the criterion of verbal behavior functioning nothing "methodological objectionable" (p. as a sign for something else. 213) about treating verbal behavior as a Although Morris found Skinner's dependent variable and classify classes of emphasis on the speaker the "distinctive verbal responses based upon their relation- feature" of the analysis, the processes ship to an independent variable. The main described under reacting to one's own ver- problem Morris had with Skinner's analysis bal behavior "tended to break down" the of verbal behavior was the "informal use" "sharp distinction between Skinner's of "sign terminology" (e.g., specifies, iden- approach and those who stress the role of tifies, describes) without formal explication. intra-organismic processes" (p. 214). It is as though "Skinner still eats surrepti- Morris concluded the reader of Verbal tiously of the cake he has professedly Behavior faced a dilemma: "Skinner has thrown away" (p. 214). 'spoken,' and [the reaction] as a 'listener' is Morris wondered if Skinner's analysis to be either a conditioned response or a was adequate (in Skinner's own terms of reaction 'appropriate' to the 'given state of "appropriate" to all special fields), or affairs.' It is difficult to 'disagree' with whether "it needs to be supplemented by Skinner on these terms, since we are told (or incorporated within) a more general that to 'understand' a speaker is to talk as framework . . . such as the theory of signs" he does" (p. 213). (p. 213). Obviously for Morris the answer Edith D. Neimark (1960) of New York was yes. Skinner's account suited his pur- University reviewed Verbal Behavior for the pose of analyzing the variables controlling Psychological Record. She had received her the verbal behavior of the individual Ph.D. at Indiana University in 1953, and speaker, but "there are other legitimate was perhaps a student of J. R. Kantor, at interests in verbal behavior" e.g., linguistic, the least she was familiar with Kantor's An esthestic, logical, social (p. 214). As does a Objective Psychology of Grammar (1936), a book she described as the only prior 3Charles Morris had been a student of George H. "large-scale attempt by a psychologist" to Mead, and was one of three former students who explain language. edited the notes of Mead into Mind, Self, and Society (1934). A curious mixing of association theory, She found Verbal Behavior "presented in a Morris's formulation, and Skinner's functional analy- form which smacks of intellectual snob- sis may be found in Miller (1951). See the chapter on The was with the "The Role of Learning" wherein the William James bery" (p. 63). problem Lectures are used to answer the question "How can examples and illustrations. They were we specify all the conditions leading to the commis- derived from literature, great works that we sion of a verbal act?" (p. 160). Elsewhere in the book use is made of each of Skinner's other writings all should know, but as she said, rarely do. (through 1941) on verbal behavior. In contrast, Roger Her criticism was "not merely a personal Brown's Words and Things, which appeared in 1958, expression of the annoyance at being made cited none of Skinner's verbal behavior papers, only The Behavior of Organisms (Skinner, 1938). Brown to feel stupid," (p. 63), but the fact that psy- likens his view on meaning as behavior disposition to chologists can do better than rely upon "lit- those of Charles Stevenson, the philosopher and erature and everyday life as a source of evi- Charles Morris (incorrectly listed in the references as Noriss), see p. 102. These theories are contrasted with dence..." Such a practice is a "disservice to "reaction" or "conditioning theories," of which the ideal of objective analysis" (p. 63). Skinner would undoubtedly be regarded as another The major thrust of Neimark's criticism variety. For the relation between Osgood's mediational view and Morris' theory of signs see Alston is whether Skinner gives his audience any- (1967). thing new, or whether Verbal Behavior is in VERBAL BEHAVIOR: THE OTHER REVIEWS 91 fact no more than "old demons in a new research it generated, then it is highly disguise of impeccable language" (p. 65). probable that this book will be a scientific Could any stronger barb be hurled by an landmark." (p. 351). Clearly, Krasner academic psychologist of the 1950's than already believed this to be the case for he that "on some points Skinner's analysis is had published his own studies based upon indistinguishable from Freud's..." (p. 65)? a functional analysis of Verbal Behavior. His Verbal Behavior does not meet the method- lengthy review of "Studies of the condi- ological cannons of the day. "Experimental tioning of verbal behavior" (Krasner, evidence," wrote Neimark, "or even the 1958b) had also recently appeared. development of testable implications, is in Don Dulaney (1959) reviewed Verbal short supply" (p. 66). What we are left Behavior for Science. He had received his with, she said was, "post-hoc analysis of Ph.D. at Michigan in 1954, and, while writ- passages from Finnegan's Wake" (p. 66). ing the review, was serving with the The review is not, however, without United States Army subsequent to a some praise for Verbal Behavior. She lengthy career at the University of Illinois. acknowleded that the book was an "enor- Although Skinner discussed the private mous...undertaking" with "stimulating control of responses, Dulaney noted that insights" (p. 65). Among these "insights" "there are repeated instances of hesitant, was a better understanding of our own almost wistful, recognition of private con- verbal behavior, and such phenomenon as trol, but they are never given full status in unintended plagiarism. Yet, in the final the system" (p. 143). Moreover, Skinner analysis, the book is deemed a disappoint- seemed to ready to accept "emotional" pri- ment, but for reasons that are "difficult to vate controls, but scorned "ideas," or cog- verbalize" (p. 65). nitive private controls, though Dulaney Neimark did make one observation could see no reason for this "peculiar onto- derived from the account offered in the logical distinction" (p. 143).4 For Dulaney, book. Perhaps, she said, Verbal Behavior Skinner's analysis of private control was suffered from "a twenty year gestation "brillant," but he could find no reason to period during which audience control limit it to emotional stimuli. changed from a small homogeneous The main difficulty for Dulaney with group, psychologists, to both a heteroge- Verbal Behavior, however, was the critical neous audience containing logicians, lin- problem of meaning. "As I read a page of guists, and literary critics and an audience Skinner's book" Dulaney wrote, "it arouses of one: the self-editing of Skinner's func- numerous ideas and images which I am tional analysis" (p. 65). accustom to call 'meaning.' In a changing One of the few reviews by a member of and complicated world, of what can I be the behavioral community appeared in more certain? Common sense alone is Human Biology, and was authored by never a firm base for ultimate positions, Leonard Krasner (1958a), then at the Palo but we should not, without very good rea- Alto V.A. Hospital. Krasner offered a brief son begin by flaunting it" (p. 143). Dulaney set of comments in which little was said could not discern whether Skinner's objec- about the book itself. Instead, he articu- tion to the concept of meaning was lated the general Skinnerian thesis that methodological or metaphysical. "the lawful relationships embodied in There is in other matters great praise from speech are the same as those governing all Dulaney. He wrote, "Skinner's approach to other human behavior" (p. 351). Ever the language is not one that gains a degree of proselytizer, Krasner recommended that success from excessively modest aims. He Verbal Behavior be read with Walden Two has accepted the challenge of ordinary con- and Science and Human Behavior. A high versation, composition, self-editing, and standard was proposed for evaluating the even scientific discourse. His discussions of book: "If one can judge the importance of a 4Dulaney did much of the latter work criticizing book in a scientific field by the amount of operant conditioning without awareness. 92 TERRY J. KNAPP metaphor, literary style, and verbal wit perspective, what Skinner's work lacked was suasively argue for the generality of the an "emphasis on central processes in the model. No psychologist has ventured an nervous system" (p. 372). In particular, account of verbal behavior of this complex- Skinner was opposed to the view that ity, and with certain qualifications, it is a responses might be controlled by a "long- remarkably plausible account" (p. 153). lasting state of the brain...[which] at pre- Dulaney's is the only other review of sent [is] undetectable except by its effects." Verbal Behavior which Skinner (1983) had (p. 372). Thus, "the main weakness of cited in A Matter of Consequences. Although Skinner's attitude from the point of view of he acknowledged that "Verbal Behavior a cyberneticist is the lack of emphasis on received a few favorable reviews" (p. 153), central processes within the nervous sys- he immediately took up that by Chomsky, tem." which as he said "soon began to receive B. A. Farrell (1960) reviewed Verbal more attention than my book" (p. 153). Behavior for the Quarterly Journal of Charles M. Solley (1958), Ph.D. Experimental Psychology. He presented one University of Illinois, 1954, was assistant of the most precise and concise, as well as professor at the Menninger Foundation accurate summaries of Verbal Behavior - when he wrote his review of Verbal all in a page and a half of journal text, leav- Behavior. He expressed surprise that the ing only a half page for his reactions. These source of supporting material was not lab- were comprised of four remarks: (1) There oratory data, but "instead, poetry, selec- are no explicit research directions for tions from novels, figures of speech, pieces experimental psychologists to follow. "If of conversation heard daily, and ordinary Skinner wanted the experimentalists to get grammatical structures" (p. 111). something out of this book," Farrall writes, Reviezvs in British Academic Journals "he could have helped him by showing where the edifice can be brought down Two reviews by British psychologists and tied to the earth of the laboratory" (p. may be found in the leading British experi- 125).6 (2) It would not have been necessary mental journals. Donald Broadbent (1959), to "spin this colossal story in order to who then had only recently introduced fil- answer Whitehead's question." (Why have ter theory of attention, (see Perception and I just said, "No black scorpion is falling Communication in which he regarded him- upon this table"?) (3) Skinner's answer to self as a behaviorist), and who would come Whitehead's question is an answer that an to be called the "father of information pro- American psychologist of his period would cessing psychology" (see Knapp, 1986) give, hence, Verbal Behavior is a "period reviewed for the British Journal of piece," a unique and historical "product of Psychology. Broadbent admitted to "a dis- American culture." (4) The value of Verbal taste for works...not containing experi- Behavior lies in its contribution to "theoreti- ments," and said Verbal Behavior was not cal psychology" and in its effort to bring easily assessed. He came to believe that together the field of psychology and logic, "the merits and vices *of Skinner's thereby slaying "the bogey of psychologi- approach appear[ed] to be very closely calism." similar to those of Freud's Psychopathology The reviewer for the British Journal of of Everyday Life... that is, facts must be Educational Psychology was E. A. Peel accepted on the basis of whether they seem (1960). His reading of Verbal Behavior had reasonable or not" (p. 372). an original suggestion to add to the classi- Broadbent identified himself as a "cyber- fication of verbal operants. He wondered neticist"5 and stated that, from such a per- "why should we not complete the scheme of control by defining verbal responses 5Cybernetics origined with the work of Norbert controlled by the audience as those Wiener, a mathematician, who coined the term (from auds, the Greek for Steersman) to describe the "art and sci- by the speaker's previous history as extends ence of control," especially through feedback, see Weiner, (1956), pp. 321-332. 6But see Sundberg, (1991). VERBAL BEHAVIOR: THE OTHER REVIEWS 93 and those by other verbal materials as language was at the time of writing his reverbs?" (p. 90). He clearly understood the review a Fellow at the Center for the book, which he said was "as complete a Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences behaviorist account of the individual's ver- (later he joined the University of bal life as one could image" (p. 89). The Minnesota faculty from where he had one danger he noted was the freshness of received his Ph.D. in 1950). His review is a the approach. "At first the book may strike concise summary of the book, for in less the reader as being so fresh in its approach than two pages he described the classifica- as to be difficult " (p. 91). tion of verbal operants, the nature of auto- Reviews in Other Disciplines clitics, and much more. Skinner's account of verbal behavior is "ingenious" though Verbal Behavior was reviewed in the jour- its explanations are "after the fact" (p. 114). nals of disciplines other than psychology. It rests upon "a metaphorical extension of Speech was one of them. Both the Quarterly the language of the psychological labora- Journal of Speech, published by the Speech tory." The use of illustrations rather than Association of America, and the Journal of experiments leads to the fundamental Speech and Hearing Disorders, the primary terms (e.g., stimuli, responses, and rein- source journal of speech pathologists forcement) being "further and further offered reviews of Verbal Behavior. away from defined concepts with clear Giles Wilkeson Gray, a professor of reterents" (p. 74). speech at Louisiana State University, According to Jenkins the limitations of described Skinner as "an eminently quali- Verbal Behavior are in the nature of what is fied psychologist" (p. 196) who writes from promised. He believed Skinner had given the perspective of "neobehavioristic deter- "a program suggesting how we ought to minism" (p. 196). Gray provided a brief proceed and where we ought to look," in description of Skinner's "functional analy- short he had given a "series of promissory sis" and welcomed Skinner's "brief, but notes..." (p. 74). Jenkins singled out two apropos, excursions into such areas as "especially note worthy" contributions reading, drama, rhetoric, even speech which Skinner's book made. The first was pathology..." (p. 197). However, he cau- the shift to emphasizing the speaker rather tioned that classical rhetoric had made than the listener. The second was "his more contributions to our understanding attention to the intraverbal determinants of than the simple classical schemes Skinner language. Here Skinner seems to be on discussed. Gray suggested that Skinner firmest ground, yet it is ground that has might also have considered "different not been adequately treated in earlier liter- media as controlling variables" (p. 197). ature in spite of the fact that most of the Gray found potential usefulness in bulk of verbal behavior must have Verbal Behavior, but clearly was suspicious intraverbal determinants" (p. 74). of into the field of psychologists intruding Other Reviews communications. "Although psychology is Foreign unquestionably involved in verbal behav- We are fortunate in having a review ior, it is not the whole story. Granted that it from a "Soviet behaviorist" (see Andresen, is indispensable in any complete study of 1990 for a more complete description). 0. communication, it must also be insisted K. Tikhomirov, found that Skinner over- that other areas of thought make signifi- looked the social and transforming nature cant contributions as well" (p. 197). of speech (verbal behavior) which gives Possibly Gray had in mind philosophy, rise to the differences between people and classical rhetoric, hermeneutics, and the animals. Speech adds a new dimension to then emerging field of behavioral studies what must be explained, a Skinnerian func- of communication. tional analysis is simply an extension of James J. Jenkins (1959), who was to have Skinner analysis of nonverbal responding. a distinguished career in the psychology of For Tikhomirov, "the acquisition of speech 94 TERRY J. KNAPP does not simply create in man a new func- or language, e.g., for Morris the theory of tion, a new layer of behavior, but, what is signs and signification, for Osgood media- especially important, it qualitatively trans- tional processes, for Tikhomirov the trans- forms all the other forms of behavior. formational and social nature of speaking, These theses, which were already for Dulaney and for Broadbent mediational advanced by L. S. Vygotskij in his doctrine and central processes. The dominant criti- of higher psychological functions, have in cisms were neglect of central or implicit recent years been worked out in detail by processes and the lack of experimental A. R. Luria and his collaborators" (p. 366). data. Reveiws in Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis Ernest Hilgard and Gordon Bower, in the first edition in which they shared joint An Army clinical psychologist, Colonel authorship of Theories of Learning, con- Frederick August Zehrer (1959), who had cluded a brief description of Verbal Behavior received his doctorate in Education at in this fashion: "The book on Verbal Harvard in 1948, (perhaps having heard Behavior, while certainly a serious effort the William James Lectures in the summer has not proved to be very influential. This of 1947) commented on Verbal Behavior for may have come about because it was not the Journal of Orthopsychiatry. His com- well received by the professional linguidts, ments were brief and descriptive, conclud- whose rapidly developing linguistic ing with "It is a scholarly reference which science has made great strides by means of does more than epitomize the literature on analyses different from Skinner's (e.g., the subject: it should be considered as a Chomsky, 1959). Or it may be that the basic reference text on verbal behavior in interest in programmed learning, coming the behavioral sciences" (p. 430). to a head about the time when this book George Mahl (1958), who had earned his appeared (1957), siphoned off the interest Ph.D. at Yale and was associated with the and debate that the book might otherwise Institute for Human Relations reviewed have provoked. If that should prove to be Verbal Behavior for the Psychoanalytic the case, we may some day see a revived Quarterly. He acknowledged Skinner's interest in the book" (1966, p. 133). The twenty-five years of contributions to psy- appearance of this tenth volume of The chology, and regarded the book as original, Analysis of Verbal Behavior provides evi- imaginative, and systematic" (p. 595). One dence of the prescient of Hilgard and which "can have different values for differ- Bower remarks, as does Eshleman's history ent readers" (p. 596). His most important of verbal behavior research in the immedi- comment, however, concerned the rela- ately preceding volume (Eshleman, 1991) tionship between Skinner's functional anal- when compared to the baseline rate of ysis and psychoanalysis. Mahl said he research on verbal behavior through 1983 "came away from the book believing there (McPherson, Bonem, Green, & Osborne, is a closer underlying kinship between 1984). Skinner and the psychoanalyst than either might realize or concede, and that each can REFERENCES gain something from the other" (p. 597). Alston, W. P. (1967). Sign and symbol. In P. Edwards, P. (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofphilosophy, Vol. 7. New York: MacMillan. CONCLUSION Ammons, C. H. (1958). [Review of Verbal behavior] Psychological Reports, 4, 316. Verbal Behavior was widely reviewed in Andreson, J. T. (1990). Skinner and Chomsky thirty respectable scientific and professional jour- years later. Historiographia Linguistica, 17,145-165. nals both in the United States and abroad. Broadbent, D.E. (1953). Perception and communication. Oxford: Pergamon Press. A large number of the reviews were posi- Broadbent, D. E. (1959). [Review of Verbal behavior] tive and congenial in tone, offering only British Journal ofPsychology, 50, 371-373. minor or qualifying criticisms. Many of the Brown, R. (1958). Words and things. New York: Free Press. reviewers used the occasion to advance Chomsky, N. (1959). [Review of Verbal behavior] his/her own particular analysis of speech Language, 35, 26-58. VERBAL BEHAVIOR: THE OTHER REVIEWS 95 Dulaney, D. E. (1959). [Review of Verbal behavior] Miller, G. A. (1951/1963). Language and communication. Science, 129, 143-144. New York: McGraw-Hill. Eshleman, J. W. (1991). Quantified trends in the his- Morris, C. (1946). Signs, language, and behavior. New tory of verbal behavior research. The Analysis of York: Braziller. Verbal Behavior, 9, 61-80. Morris, C. (1958). [Review of Verbal behavior] Farrell, B. A. (1960). [Review of Verbal behavior] Contemporary Psychology. 3, 212-214. Quarterly Journal of Experimental, 12, 124-125. Neimark, E. D. (1960). [Review of Verbal behavior] Gray, G. W. (1958). [Review of Verbal behavior] Psychological Record, 10, 63-66. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 44, 196-197. Osgood, C. E. (1958). [Review of Verbal behavior] Hilgard, E. K., & Bower, G. H. (1966). Theories of learn- Contemporary Psychology, 3, 209-212. ing (3rd ed.) New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Osgood, C. E. (1953). Method and theory in experimental Jenkins, J. J. (1959). [Review of Verbal behavior] Journal psychology. New York: Oxford. of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 24, 73-74. Peel, E. A. (1960). [Review of Verbal behavior] British Kantor, J. R. (1936). An objective psychology of grammar. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 89-91. Bloomington, IN: Principia Press. Skinner, B. F. (1938). Behavior of organisms: An experi- Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Principles of mental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. psychology: A systematic text in the science of behavior, Skinner, B. F. (1936). The verbal summator and a New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. method for the study of latent speech. Journal of Knapp, T. J. (1986). The emergence of cognitive psy- Psychology, 2, 71-107. chology in the latter half of the twentieth century. Skinner, B. F. (1937). The distribution of associated In T. J. Knapp & L. C. Robertson, (Eds.). Approaches words. Psychological Record, 1, 71-76. to cognition: Contrasts and controversy. Hillsdale, NJ: Skinner, B. F. (1947a). Notes by Ralph F. Hefferline on Erlbaum. verbal behavior course given by B.F. Skinner at Krasner, L. (1958a). [Review of Verbal behavior] Human Columbia University, Summer, 1947. Biology, 30, 350-351. Skinner, B. F. (1947b). The William James Lectures. Krasner, L. (1958b). Studies of the conditioning of ver- Unpublished manuscript. bal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 148-170. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Leahey, T. (1980). A history ofpsychology: Main currents Appleton-Century-Crofts. in psychogical thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Skinner, B. F. (1983). A matter of consequences. New Prentice-Hall. York: Knopf. Leahey, T. (1987). A history ofpsychology: Main currents Solley, C. M. (1958). [Review of Verbal behavior] in psychogical thought. (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 22, 111. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sundberg, M. L. (1991). 301 research topics from MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomsky's review of Skinner's book Verbal Behavior. The Analysis of Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Journal of the Experimental Verbal Behavior, 9, 81-96. Analysis of Behavior, 13, 83-89. Terwillinger, R. H. (1968). Meaning and mind: A study Mahl, G. F. (1958). [Review of Verbal behavior] in the psychology of language. New York: Oxford Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 27, 595-597. University Press. McPherson, A., Bonem, M., Green, G., & Osborne, J.G. Tikhomirov, 0. K. (1959). [Review of Verbal behavior] (1984). A citation analysis of the influence on Word, 15, 362-367. research of Skinner's Verbal Behavior. The Behavior Weiner, N. (1956). I am a mathematician: The late life of a Analyst, 7, 157-167. prodigy. New York: Doubleday. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: Zehrer, F. A. (1959). [Review of Verbal behavior] University of Chicago Press. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 29, 429-430.