Generalization of naming responses to objects in the natural environment as a function of training stimulus modality with retarded children.

Rosenthal et al. (1980) wrote a theory paper. They asked: what is naming in Skinner's verbal behavior?

They split naming into two parts. Common naming links object to name. Intraverbal naming links name to object.

The paper gives no new data. It sharpens old terms so BCBAs can test and teach naming better.

The authors say naming is one big skill that joins speaker and listener roles.

Once a child has naming, you teach either the word or the object and the other side pops out for free.

Lancioni et al. (2009) and Meier et al. (2012) show the idea works. They taught preschoolers with autism either mands or tacts. The untrained operant showed up right away. Their data match the paper's claim that naming lets skills emerge without extra teaching.

Dass et al. (2018) go further. After discrete-trial tact training with smells, kids could name new smells and sort them into groups. That broad generalization is exactly what the 1980 paper calls 'generalized naming.'

Palya (1985) looks like a puzzle. Pigeons learned tacts, mands, and even tiny intraverbals. Birds don't have human language, yet the same operants appeared. The 1980 paper stays silent on animals, but both studies use Skinner's units, so the bird work simply stretches the framework to non-humans.

Check both sides of naming in your next assessment. If a child can name a dog when she sees one, test if she can point to the dog when you say 'dog.' If only one side exists, teach the missing piece and watch for the free emergence of the other. This saves hours of drill and builds true bidirectional language.