Explaining Language: A Behavioral Critique of Skinner's Analysis of Verbal Behavior

ABSTRACT In Verbal Behavior (1957), Skinner attempted to offer a functional account of human language and made a point of contrasting his approach with the more traditional accounts available at the time. Rather than focus on the structure or mechanics of language (formal aspects of language), Skinner attempted to identify the conditions that gave rise to those behaviors. Although Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior has been influential, particularly in treating language deficits for individuals with autism, there are conceptual problems with the way he defined and categorized verbal behavior. In this paper we argue that Skinner's analysis is in fact largely based on formal aspects (rather than functional) and that this has both created confusion and limited the utility of the analysis. Specifically, we argue that Skinner's formal account makes it difficult to distinguish verbal from nonverbal behavior and to distinguish the various types of verbal responses from one another. We then summarize and respond to some of the contemporary defenses and criticisms of Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior. Finally, we argue that although Skinner's analysis has had some practical utility, the conceptual benefits are questionable. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT Skinner (1957) offered a behavioral account of language in his book Verbal Behavior. Compared to more traditional, structural accounts of language at the time, Skinner's analysis attempted to identify the variables that control and maintain verbal behavior. This behavioral account of language has proven useful, especially in the area of treating language deficits for individuals with autism. However, there exist conceptual problems with Skinner's analysis. The definition of verbal behavior and subsequent taxonomy of verbal operants (or units) is based largely on formal properties. We suggest that these formal elements of Skinner's analysis result in arbitrary distinctions that emphasize the form of behavior or stimuli. This is problematic, at a conceptual level, as distinguishing between verbal and nonverbal behavior and distinguishing between the different verbal operants necessitates not only a functional account of stimuli but identification of the source and form of stimuli. In this paper, we examine some of the contemporary defenses and criticisms of Skinner's analysis. Lastly, we conclude that although Skinner's analysis of language has had practical utility, the conceptual benefits are limited.