Michael and Malott's dialog on linguistic productivity.

Jack Michael and Dick Malott sat down and talked. They recorded their chat about.

They argued about how Skinner's old verbal-behavior ideas fit with the newer Relational Frame Theory.

No kids, no data—just two experts hashing it out in words you can read.

Michael held the line for Skinner. He said autoclitic frames and listener mediation can explain new sentences.

Malott pushed back. He said RFT adds something Skinner missed: how we learn to relate words in new ways.

The talk ends without a winner. You get both sides in plain language.

Hatton et al. (2004) jumped in next year. They wrote a formal reply that backs Malott’s side. They say relational operants are just old operants under new training.

Palmer (2023) shows Michael might still be right. He uses autoclitic frames to explain English grammar without RFT.

Fushimi (1990) did the same dance earlier. He compared Skinner’s three kinds of “understanding” to Parrott’s network view. Same fight, older date.

de Lourdes R da F Passos et al. (2007) adds Bloomfield to the mix. They say Skinner and Bloomfield both treat language as listener-driven. This gives Michael more backup.

You teach language every day. This paper shows out the two big toolboxes you can pick from. Sk reading can help you decide when to lean on Skinner’s autoclitics and when to borrow RFT’s relational training.