Some aspects of the debate about the relationship between Skinner’s approach to verbal
behavior and the research in the field of stimulus equivalence are adressed. A description
of the conceptions of meaning presented by Skinner and Sidman, in their attempts to
generate a behavior-analytic interpretation about language, is provided. Skinner’s and
Sidman’s analyses of verbal behavior are examined in terms of their scope; the notions of
meaning as controlling variables, and as stimuli equivalence relations are compared; and
finally, the role of substitutability in language, its function and limits, is examined.
Skinner’s analysis is broader than Sidman’s, in the sense that it tries to embody the totality
of verbal behavior. Skinner is different from Sidman, in that the first tries to compare his
proposal to the existing theories of language and the second, not. Skinner’s analyses point
to meaning as the variables that explain behavior, while Sidman’s analyses, to the meaning
as equivalent stimuli. The notion of meaning proposed by Sidman is based in stimuli
relations (four-term contingencies, or more than four) and its substitutability (stimulus
equivalence). In his conceptualization of verbal behavior, Skinner considers the distinction
between functions of speakers and listeners as an important one, while this distinction
doesn’t appear in Sidman’s work. Sidman’s analyses of meaning present some aspects that
distinguish them from the traditional theories criticized by Skinner; however, the notion of
meaning proposed by Sidman remains problematic. The substitutability, as a good basis to
interpret meaning, is criticized. Equivalence can be a useful tool to understand language,
specially with respect to the production of verbal behavior that is not directly trained,
helping to improve verbal behavior analyses.
|
