Can linguistics contribute to the study of verbal behavior?
Keep linguistic labels out of your behavior plans unless you can point to the real-world triggers and payoffs.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The author asked a simple question: can the science of language help behavior analysts understand talking?
He looked at how linguists describe grammar and compared it to how Skinner describes verbal behavior.
The paper is a warning, not an experiment. It tells us to watch our step.
What they found
Linguistics and radical behaviorism still speak different languages.
Grammar rules are about sentence shapes. Verbal behavior is about what happens before and after we speak.
Mixing the two without care can send research down blind alleys.
How this fits with other research
Hobson (1984) seems to disagree. That paper says we should welcome cognitive and linguistic terms. The difference is focus. Julià (1982) warns against swallowing assumptions whole. Hobson (1984) asks us to taste new words before spitting them out.
Logue et al. (1986) shows a safe path. They use Kantor’s field model to study talking as real-time interactions, not abstract grammar. This keeps the data close to what we can see and count.
Cox (2026) proves the wait was worth it. Cheap text mining now lets us watch verbal communities live, something Julià (1982) could only dream of.
Why it matters
Next time you write a verbal behavior program, pause when you catch yourself saying a child ‘knows a word.’ Ask what exact situations make that word come out. Swap mental words for before-and-after events. You will write clearer targets and take cleaner data.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Rewrite one language goal so it names the audience, the response form, and the consequence instead of saying the child ‘understands’ or ‘knows.’
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A number of publications during the last decade reveal a growing interest in linguistics and psycholinguistics among some radical behaviorists, who have proposed a direct rapprochement between a formal analysis of language and a functional account. It is argued that whereas function has to do with the circumstances under which verbal behavior is emitted, structure has to do with its "internal organization," the ways in which sentences or parts thereof are presumably interrelated. These are said to be different dimensions of verbal behavior; together they should lead toward a coherent psychology of language. But psychologists bent on incorporating techniques from linguistics should be aware of its underlying assumptions, lest their work be deflected in essentially unproductive directions. The line between rapprochement and subservience is thin indeed, as the extant literature shows. This paper traces the development of mainstream contemporary psycholinguistics and examines the linguist's assumptions about the subject matter in the light of a behavioral analysis. The possibility of an effective reconciliation seems to be a long way off.
The Behavior analyst, 1982 · doi:10.1007/BF03393136