The Duplic and Codic: the Importance of a Consistent Taxonomy of Verbal Behavior.

The authors looked at how we talk about 'transcription' in verbal behavior. They said the word is fuzzy. It can mean copying spoken words or copying written words.

They proposed two clean labels. 'Duplic' for copying spoken words. 'Codic' for copying written words. They want every book and chart to use these terms.

No new data were collected. The paper is a map. It shows how one muddy term splits into two clear streams.

The map helps teachers, supervisors, and app makers speak the same language.

Abbott (2013) set the stage. That paper told us to stop arguing about definitions and look at what makes us use them. Smit et al. (2019) follow the same rule: they looked at how the verbal community uses 'transcription' and offered a fix.

Becker et al. (2022) extends the idea. Their aphasia review says clinicians should use Skinner’s verbal operants. The duplic/codic split gives those clinicians sharper tools when they test copying skills after brain injury.

Embregts (2000) refined 'establishing operation.' Smit et al. (2019) repeats the trick for another concept. Both papers tidy up the vocabulary so practitioners can write clearer protocols.

If you write lesson plans, supervise RBTs, or build data sheets, pick one label and stick with it. Say 'duplic' when the client repeats what you say. Say 'codic' when the client copies text. Your team will score responses the same way every time. No more guessing if 'transcription' means spoken or written. Clear words make clean data.