Reflections on the History of Behavioral Theories of Language Author(s): Ryan D. Tweney Source: Behaviorism, Vol. 7, No.

1 (Spring, 1979), pp. 91-103 Published by: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27758932 . Accessed: 21/10/2011 14:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Behaviorism.

http://www.jstor.org

Reflections Theories of

on

the

History

of

Behavioral

Language

Bowling

Green

Ryan D. Tweney* State University

i do not believe that we can avoid mistakes merely by studyingpast mistakes. an That is article of faithwhich has been repeated in the prefaces of too many history books, and which seems to betray a facile ignorance of the difficulty
in relating complex events in the past to similarly complex events in the we not or do know about the either the present. Generally, past present to enough to be able make adequate inferences.1 Even so, the study of the past does have its uses. Just as knowledge of the reinforcement can, under history of an organism ideal circumstances, allow times extrapolate historical issues us to predict future behavior, so also we trends in a way that aids in the evaluation Study can some of current and a involved

hot"

trends. Such extrapolation is especially likely to be useful when "ideologically

are under discussion. of the past can help attain distance that, viewed in the proper to do in this paper is to convince what

dispassionate objectivity inapproaching such problems. One of the things i hope

the reader historical

light,the gap between the behavioral traditionand the cognitive tradition in the it is usually thought to be (by, e.g., Segal & Lachman, 1972 or by MacCor quodale, 1970). i thinkthepoint emerges out of consideration of some of theearly
behaviorist work on language. psychology of language, i will refer to as the "two cultures," is smaller than

*Based on a paper presented at the 84th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, D.C., September 1976, as part of a Division 25 symposium entitled Washington, '' Verbal Behavior and Psycholinguistics: Closing theGap.'' The author is indebted toEvalyn Segal
and to Thorn Verhave for their valuable access comments on an earlier draft B.F. Skinner

should be sent toRyan D. Tweney, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 *Of course, many scholars have disagreed with thispoint, and have claimed forhistory a special usefulness as a guide to the future.Esper (1964) shares thisview, an irony that will be apparent later
in this paper.

for allowing

to unpublished

mimeographed

material.

of this manuscript, and to for reprints Requests

91

Ryan and

D.

Tweney of

Behaviorists

the

Problem

Language

course,

of and behaviorally oriented theorists have, Behaviorists, psychological a that noticed behavior long language presented special testing ground account its of behavior. Because of its overt complexity, for any explanatory of distinct but inter-dependent events, and its seemingly close rapid sequence relation to "the mental it is controlled Thus, in his account is learned of how language life," a convincing to be situational and variables by organismic appeared were 1914 book John Watson that habits argued language learned indicate language habits as were the answers be related

and how essential. not

be under

arithmetic problems by countingwith his hoof. Justas Hans' behavior proved to

the control series of learned of his trainer, so also could habits. So confident was Watson human to a in the validity of this view that

different from such other complex, intrinsically involved who could Hans" in, say, the horse "Clever

to

he somewhat flippantly passed over the inadequacies of the only relevant study available to him in 1914:Wyczoikowska's (1913) poorly executed attempt to
record tongue movements while sentence" for five subjects, 1914, p. (Watson, including were reported (though only partially), and included introspective accounts W.," was no as well as kymograph since there The established nothing, tracings. study over any of the relevant other than that provided control variables by the were validated and the tongue movement instructions, only intro recordings was of in usefulness this method Watson's faith the Apparently spectively.2 subjects 325). Results were "told to think of a word or a "Dr.

contain

shaken, since there is no mention of the study in the 1919book, Psychology from the standpoint of a behaviorist, nor in its 1924 second edition? both ofwhich
accounts careful and more extensive of language habits than the 1914 book. Watson, from the academic world perhaps as a result of his departure an experimental to in 1921, never developed language. approach accounts have attempted of language cer Simply to show that behaviorists more

whose work estab behaviorists (Note 1; 1957), and many contemporary there has never been a gap the same point. As far as interest is concerned, than takes more traditions. between the cognitive and the behavioral Science Skinner lishes research very on conducted actually by behaviorists recent. There is a sense of newness about

? tainly does not require thatwe go back toWatson

there isKantor (1952),

interest,however. In spite of the long history of concern with thisproblem, the

is, for the most part, language and a feeling of the endeavor,

what can be achieved. Yet many of the issues and problems which confidence in
to note 2It is interesting that published ical Review that Wyczoikowska's Watson's classic paper paper appeared "Psychology in the same from volume the of Psycholog of a be

haviorist," and Angell's (1913) attack on thatposition. Included also was a paper by Rudolf Pintner (1913) reporting an experiment that inhibited vocal articulation during silent reading (by using an Watson edited the result that is inconsistentwith Watson's theory. It is fascinating to realize that journal thatyear, and thatAngell, Pintner,Watson, andWyczoikowska were all at theUniversity of Chicago! 92
interfering digit-recitation task). Pintner found no change in reading speed or comprehension ? a

standpoint

Behavioral

Theories

of Language

are being encountered to language were dealt with by behavioral approaches a His work, Erwin its decades rather neglected behaviorist: ago by Esper. the principal will constitute antecedents and its consequents, focus of this paper and the historical "lesson" that I have to offer.

ESPER

AND THE PROBLEM

OF LANGUAGE

CHANGE

Erwin Allen Esper (1895-1972) was a student of the behaviorist Albert Paul Weiss (1879-1931) at Ohio State. Weiss had strong ties to the problem of lan guage. His system of behavioral psychology (Weiss, 1929) was influential in persuading Leonard Bloomfield, the American linguist, to alter his originally Wundtian approach to language (Bloomfield, 1914) in favor of one based on behavioral principles (Bloomfield, 1933; Esper, 1968;Hymes & Fought, 1975). Esper had studied classical philology prior to entering psychology and, encour was natural for him to pursue a psychological aged inhis interestsbyWeiss, it which in had its the problem origins studyof historical change in language (Esper, 1973; Hockett, 1973; Olmsted, 1970;Wesley, 1973). That languages change gradually over long (or sometimes even short) periods of historical time is a factwhose full significance had become apparent in the nineteenth century (Pedersen, 1931;Robins, 1967). Even more interesting for the
of scientific accounts of language was the demonstration that lan emergence and empirically discoverable. The insights guage change was lawful, systematic, of Rask, and others culminated in the development of comparative Grimm, a in and methods reconstruction of linguistic language, "Proto-Indo-European," the effects of the laws of sound change backwards extrapolating serious problem faced this endeavor, when it became clear however, laws of sound Law" change were completely of phonetic correspondence: regular. the discovery For example, that aspirates consider

which no longerexisted, butwhose phonological properties could be deduced by

in time. A "Grimm's that not all

like /bh/ tend to

become voiced plosives like /b/,thatvoiced plosives tend to become unvoiced and thatunvoiced plosives tend tobecome fricatives, like HI (Pei plosives like /p/,
& and a search for the psychological law" to sound change, But that exceptions existed was of the the discovery under-pinnings regularities. an embarrassing was If the of result naturally occurring anomoly. language 2 then why weren't all the rules exceptionless processes, 1973, Chapters (Esper, concept of "natural

"day." The discovery of such laws in the firstplace led to an extension of the

Gay nor,

1969).

This

is why,

for example,

German

"tag"

became

English

& 3; Hoeningswald, 1974;Wheeler, 1887;Whitney, 1867, pp. 95-99)? Careful inspection of some of the exceptions indicated thatmany of them
? two of analogical accounted for by invoking a principle change words which are similar inmeaning may tend to converge in form as well. This were highly the terms for "father" and "mother" why, for example, explained similar to each other in all Indo-European the close meaning relation languages: could be ship led to sound change in the direction of greater 93 similarity. Change by analogy

Ryan

D.

Tweney

can

be

invoked

to "explain 1963, pp.

away" 48-55).

most

of the exceptions

to regular

sound

change

Since many analogical processes might or might not be involved. pairs are also an that is related associationally it evident is again (father-mother example), word associations should be examined, change process together with analogical es. In fact, an entire school of philologists, the Neogrammarians, evolved around the notion of a close relation between analogy and association. Systems to approach these issues. He that were

fix" that makes On the everything orderly and comfortable. a true psychological other hand, if analogy represents it should be then process, to specify the conditions under which itwill occur. Further, before we possible we invoke it as a causal better know had principle, something about what other

the "mentalistic

Analogy is a nicely psychological principle. It is also easily misused: itcan be

(Waterman,

Artificial Esper took a direct, simple,

Language

developed an artificial linguisticsystemwhich he taughtto human subjects under

controlled Esper's procedure important correspondence during a long series of training trials, a sound-meaning set of colored words. He then tested subjects by shapes and a set of nonsense new color-shape the response and observing combinations (Esper, presenting and he determined conditions, in determining sound change. experimentally the variables was to establish, between a

and satisfying way

morphologically; while NAS-KOP

to "red-shape 3," for example, might correspond to "yellow to and ROJ-DEG 2," "red-shape corresponded a combinations found that such 3." After series, Esper newly presented shape ? that the syllabic division could be learned very quicklyfc'by analogy'' provided and conformed words was consistent with English of the nonsense syllabication NAS-DEG to the semantic of the shapes (color and form, in this example). dimensions for "yellow-shape 2," was an easily learned correspondence, the form of the nonsense series had been learned. If, however,

1925). The procedure differedfromnonsense itemprocedures of theEbbinghaus (1885) type in that the nonsense itemswere structured both semantically and

ROJ-KOP, the above syllable become Suppose,

Thus, after words

ways which did not conform toEnglish corresponded to the semantic referents in

other

Since syllabication did series that also contained NU-MBOW and NU-LGEN. was slower to begin with than for the not correspond to thatof English, learning
series. assimilated analogical

structure, then initial learning was slower, and novel instances tended to to properties of some single instance of the stimulus set. assimilated 1" in a was paired with "green-shape for example, that NU-GDET

analogy with NUL-GEN.

Esper's

there was Further, tomore English-like

some of the ways predicted by philologists ? 94

in actual historical examples changes results thus proved that analogic change

Many of the observed changes were strikinglylike new formswere altered "by
languages. involving natural in at least do occur processes

a strong tendency for the nonsense words to become NUL-DET, forms, for NU-GDET

to be

by

Behavioral

Theories

of Language

forms of similar meaning. with existing Subsequent experimental analogy" under which analogical the conditions studies investigated and, change occurred of associations between that the existence items was not a showed in particular, necessary condition

dependent factors which led to the production of both analogical change and
associations: True analogical context elicits similar formations . . .may occur when or morphs which, in learned though previously not previously been uttered or heard by the . . .The relation of context. forma in this particular speaker analogical a comes about tions to word-associations through the fact that when tends to elicit several different forms, each form also acquires a a morph have contexts, a syntactic or semantic

for analogical

change

to occur.

Rather,

there were

context

context

tendency to elicit the others. (Esper, 1973, pp. 201-202) The conclusions were all supported by experimental data, providing the final
of the Neogrammarian In effect, Esper had shown that assumption. to regular sound laws could and the bothersome changes analogical exceptions those for using be accounted Furthermore, lawful, psychological principles. confirmation

between certain kinds of con relationships principles were based on functional texts and changes to meaning in the nature of the linguistic responses. No appeal was necessary to explain the phenomena. To be sure, there remain problems of

generalization: Do the laws found to hold in vitroalso hold in vivo? This question
not yet been addressed. concerns The major point to be made here about Esper's its close research an experimental relation to linguistic science. In devising Esper was approach,

has

following a suggestion advanced by two philologists, Albert Thumb and Karl Marbe (1901). The successful experimental implementationof this suggestion of
work on experimental preliminary a in formulating researchable he 1918; 1973). Yet part (Esper, Esper's question, relied on the extensive analyses which linguists had already made of the opera or not analogical In fact, the question tion of analogical of whether processes. required amount of careful processes linguistic are factors analysis had in language could not even be raised until after change shown the insufficiency of sound-change laws. Between a lesson has Linguistics of the work tack, and Psychology course a good

The There interested generally A

Relationship

is, I believe, in language somewhat

here. Most

taken a different

independent

of descriptive

proposed by behaviorists are since behavioral analyses studies: linguistic behavior sizes. is the size of . . .Any one of as A bit of behavior

these may have functional unity as a verbal operant. or even a pitch or stress pattern, may be small as a single speech-sound, ... If this seems at under independent control of a manipulable variable. 95

in the analysis of verbal problem long-standing the unit. Standard linguistic units are of various

Ryan

D.

Tweney

must be remembered that the odds with traditional linguisticanalysis, it

verbal operant is exclusively a unit of behavior in the individual

(Skinner, 1957, p. 21)

Only

speaker.

can determine what units are functionally research psychological impor stream the into tant, and, until we know how to "carve units, the up" speech careful classificatory are of the idle. Similar views were ex attempts linguists pressed by others, e.g., Kantor (1952). benefit of his research. psychological problem of analogical change emerged of sound analysis phonemic change, not the other way around. the manipulation of syllable structure in Esper's experiments on a careful analysis of language units. There is, to be sure, The

IfEsper had believed this, I think it is clear thatwe would not have had the

from the linguistic Thus, for example, was clearly based great uncertainty the stock-in-trade

the empirical status of some of the units that now form as a of linguistics. The behaviorist attempt to remove meaning construct in the explanation of language behavior (a major goal of Skinner's work on language; Note Skinner, Note 1; 1957; Hefferline, 2), seems to have engen dered a similar removal of any other construct derived only from linguistic about Esper alinguistic one. can recover analysis. alone was able It is senseless to see that a meaning-free account to ignore the descriptive endeavors did not mean which an led up to

units and only the important units. to the fact that language systems are systems, not ? of learned responses. just collections Esper was very clear on what this meant corre all of his experiments relied on analysis of the discrete sound-meaning The above in one set of correspon and on an analysis of the effects of changes spondence on other sets. Thus, whether or not analogic dences change occurs when new are been instances upon what other instances have previously presented depends ? on the entire system of correspondences, or, if you prefer, on the presented can be the conditions entire learning history. Using either terminology, subjects' are and functional formulated. The relations both precisely resulting empirical lawful, and they are clearly

established linguisticunits, and it is unlikely thatpurely functional approaches

all the important point is related

studies:

In 1933, Esper provided the following rationale in reporting some of his

in its fundamental, living form, consists of a system of verbal to interrelated stimulus patterns, responses closely (chiefly external) with the patterns of manipulative The fundamental unit to be behavior. Language, then is not a purely one, but a stimulus investigated grammatical . . .Words as responses occur to unit. and word-mixtures response or are one and in the form of words situations, changes meaning only between certain patterns of stimulation aspect of a changed relationship and the response It is patterns of the individuals of a speech community. from a study of the conditions that we response relationship determining may hope 96 in a stimulus these changes to arrive at the principles of

dependent

on the entire

system of correspondences.

Behavioral

Theories

of Language

linguisticchange and of linguisticorganization. (1933, p. 347, emphasis in the original)

itmay of systemic properties, acceptance Esper's stand why he has had influence only on non-behaviorists, Given be easier rather to under than on be

haviorists. In spite of Esper's dislike of Chomsky's formulations (Esper, 1968) and of the "psycholinguists" (Esper, 1973), miniature language systems have ? been used by some verymentalistic types notably George Miller (1967), and
some of James Jenkins' students

briefaccount of thisdevelopment within psycho linguistics (Tweney, 1974), but it isworth pointing to again as an example of how close the two cultures can be in approaches to a psycholinguistic problem. Both are committed to the scientific
of natural phenomena, and both understanding no matter what its theoretical pretensions. Consider systems: When skilled behaviors either overt or covert, into independent responses, analyzed that can be reinforced and assembled individually be applicable. of rule-guided can be the following quote should recognize a good method, on miniature

(e.g.,

Smith,

1967).

I have

previously

given

from Miller's

paper

language

without significant interaction, the principles of learning derived from

conditioning however, This seems, may experiments are not characteristic

systemic aspects cannot be avoided. (1967, p. 184)

at first sight, to be as sharply anti-behavioral as

components, Independent human behavior, and the it could be, since it

denies the applicability of reinforcement principles. Yet,

consistent

in fact to have non-independent and the (which prove systems components), results then can be extended in for empirical confirmation natural systems. or not reinforcement can be used is, then, a secondary Whether issue. principles An analysis along reinforcement as generalization and response that, however, the system. can come to such interactive principles appeal to account All for non-independence. nature of the only after previous work has determined lines could induction

with Esper's to behaviorist work, and should not stand in contrast in an one that does not issue involved is analyses general. The major empirical involve reinforcement: either the components of a linguistic system are indepen is empirically answerable dent, or they are not. The question using artificial

in fact, it is quite

Structure, It is now worth of Skinner's

Function,

and

Behavior

approach which the level of processing is focused an in derive from concrete attempt to show that all meanings change, though, some on work discredited terms, he cites by etymological change long-since 97

contrasting Esper's Verbal Behavior

with the process-oriented approach in The major difference resides not does Skinner upon. ignore language (1957).

Ryan

D.

Tweney

Home Tooke
effort was

of the reinforcing events and discrimina It is, to use the precise tive stimuli which are operative during a verbal utterance. " or a a recent of behaviorist account, reconstruction,' 'plausible phrasing of the and of verbal behavior" control (Winokur, theory origin, maintenance, on the focuses is one which 1976, p. 3). Esper's theory, on the other hand, directed toward explication

(1786, 1805) and his followers.3 Nevertheless, Skinner's major

phonemes to other linguisticunits. It is both diachronic and synchronic, though thedistinction becomes quite artificial in the context of such a behavioral theory. An Aristolelian might say thatSkinner emphasized efficientcauses, and sought a
functional theory, while Esper emphasized formal causes, and sought a struc tural theory.

systematic

properties

of language ?on

the interrelations

of words,

syllables,

and

be analogous

would thing.Titchener (1898, 1914, 1929) argued fora structuralpsychology that

to anatomy, while It is not that he was a functional

A dichotomy

between

structure

and function

in behavioral

science

is no new

since the impact of Chomsky's analysis. Cognitive psycholinguistics initially tried (and failed) to incorporate linguistic structures directly into a cognitive theory of language. Most recently, Catania (1973) on the behavioral side and Miller (1974) on the cognitive side have argued for the utilityof maintaining a
distinction (1972), between (1977), structure and and function Segal others have in psychology. tried to carry out like "deep Further, Catania of "translations" behavioristic

opposed physiology. follow structural he felt such efforts should necessarily times thought. Instead, ? of view. American to behaviorist of the in course, contrast, point descriptions recent in structuralist has been decades, particularly overwhelmingly linguistics

to would correspond psychology some as is to functional psychology,

descriptions Chomskyean terms that avoid mentalistic similar Given translation the historical with origins

of sentence constructs

structure

into functional structure." rule"

the notion

? Bloomfieldian in spirit linguistic theory (Harris, 1951), itself

to see that such translations that Chomsky should be as the creator than rather linguistics, Given of a new

of "grammatical ? of Chomsky's analysis

tried a Esper in his last, 1973, book. structuralist Zellig Harris's

we should not be

surprised scholars

are possible. There is a feeling among some seen as a stage in the history of structural paradigm (see, for example,

Aarsleff, 1970; Hymes & Fought, 1975).

about the lack of human this, I can't help wondering on of language. the problem If, as many by behaviorists are more properly treated of linguistic analysis categories

work experimental the have argued, a from functional,

all words, analyses

what he thoughtof as an extension ofLocke's 3Tooke, in

even function words like "if," and verbs like "to are now as and as having

analysis of language, tried to show that

be," were etymologically derived from the development of linguistics in

concrete nouns. Tooke knew littleof the new philological methods then being developed, and his (Aarsleff, 1967, has a lively account).
regarded spurious, retarded

England

98

Behavioral

Theories

of Language

research is there so little relevant then why by be an the how as of own to to research his haviorists? example point Esper mentalistic while avoiding of language could be approached structural properties or one it seems clear that be his Whether not, accepts approach categories. no research can be done, and it is important research, havioral psycholinguistic are few there orientation. matter what one's conceptual compar Unfortunately, into research on the of language able attempts to turn other behaviorist analyses behavioral point of view, was able properties of human language.

Variability concern Esper's of his research ? with

and

Language

something to be explained away. It is clear that ifreinforcementprinciples are to be used to account for adaptive behavior, then theremust be variability in the
behavior. individual can "select" we cannot Just as natural adaptive selection can result in speciation differences between responses 1859), (Darwin, organisms only ifa range of responding only if there exist so also reinforcement exists prior to the of the

systematic properties was reflected in one other aspect and to the importance of explaining the attention given to deal with this had has Behavioral variation. for always theory accounting as so or it has one done often in fashion another, though only negatively, concept

reinforcingevents (Keller & Schoenfeld, 1950; Skinner, 1957).More generally,

with laboratory comfortable feel completely factors of behavioral change unless we can demonstrations show also that the ob

served variability in behavior outside the laboratory is functionally related to factorswhich can also be directly controlled. The logic of this methodology was and is implicit in Crozier & Crozier 1934) (1929; Hoagland, clearly presented by all of the behaviorist research methods that have derived from Skinner's methodological and conceptual breakthroughs (Skinner, 1938). Ifwe wish to
understand need demonstrate behavior, that we then one can control and strategy is to bring it into the laboratory and the it completely ? eliminating variability or not in one stroke. Whether of sampling variations

controlling

as best we this ispossible with a particular problem, we are stillbound to identify, can, the factors thatproduce thevariability in thenatural situation and to embed
those factors within point has functional, an important lawful relationships. to language. The discovery This application

for statistical

analysis

that

languages changed historically led very early to the supposition that languages might represent evolving systems, like biological species. Darwin himself felt strongly that thismust be the case (Darwin, 1872; Gruber, 1974). Attempts to
understand ceptually,

? philologists

sound

notably by Schleicher (Waterman, 1963; Blumenthal, 1970). Con

seems and There very promising. syntax, and notions of "least is great individual variation effort" can be formulated

change

using

evolutionary

principles

were

made

by many

the idea

in

pronunciation

to

provide a selection principle (as by Zipf, 1949). But very littleresearch has been 99

Ryan

D.

Tweney

conducted

on

these

progress by experimentally demonstrating that certain individuals inhis minia

ture language role experiments showed greater tendencies to assimilate novel critical mitted learned in language since any changes be trans this pre

questions.4

Esper,

in contrast,

was

able

to make

some forms

intoEnglish morphological categories. If so, then such individuals should play a

change, they impose Esper should unchanged by other, system "nonanalogizing," persons. tested naive

diction by devising a social communication study inwhich subjects who had

an artificial 1966). served as stimulus sources for other,

on language variation within the context of social interactions and of the an of such power potential explanatory approach. in language goes far beyond of course. Even Variation individual differences, more striking is the attempt made by Esper to use contextual factors to predict work analogic change. Thus, he stated the main goals of one study as follows:

completed, Esper was clearly aware of thenecessity of embedding experimental

(Esper,

Although

the program

of research

was,

unfortunately,

subjects never

and what characteristics differentiate stable from ity in verbal responses, as a result manner and what in and unstable units; (b) stimulus-response an an tend toward of what does unstable system linguistic changes equilibrium among its component stimulus-response units. (1933, pp.

(a)What are the conditions determining relative stabilityand instabil

347-348)
association by using free operationalized After the kind and latency of response. to the a were associations for their in tested miniature training language, subjects was corre in tendencies learned item. Esper found that variability association "stimulus-response and measuring techniques . . .Variation with a uniform to respond to an object not only of response, this readiness but sometimes also with the responses verbal response, In that study, unit" was

lated in some interesting ways with the semantic fieldof theminiature language:

made to somewhat similarobjects, undoubtedly is thebehavior tendency most linguistic (and logical) organization. which has been responsible for
Its end-products in language are semantic and phonetic word groups.

(1933, p. 372) The implicationsof thisare very general. Itpoints to thepossibility of a coherent, integrated theory of language which can include both structuraland functional descriptions. Ifbehaviorist psychology is to show how the structureof language
4Skinner's work on the "verbal summator" (Skinner, 1936) seemed as if itwould lead to an
of the sources of variability in language. By presenting repeating samples of speech

like sounds at barely audible intensities, Skinner was able to evoke a bewildering variety of interpretations from subjects about what the sample "said." No complete account of the laws governing behavior in such a taskwas pursued by Skinner, however. Instead, theverbal summator was later described (Skinner, 1957)merely as an illustrationof theway inwhich vague external stimuli could supplement other variables to produce an overt response. This is not a very helpful reduction, however, since the account is a plausible reconstruction, unsupported by empirical laws. Such laws have not been sought by behaviorists for situations of this sort.

examination

100

Behavioral

Theories

of Language

emerges essential.

from the functional Both levels,

that of structure

empirical findings,and both can be consistent with the tenets of good science.
Conclusion is of interest to psychologists research Esper's It has demonstrated cal persuasion. relationships no matter what which cannot their theoreti be ignored

laws of language use, then some such theory is on and that of function, can be based

in spite, even, of in preferred vocabulary, in spite of the difference explanation, that the in research strategies, both sides ought to recognize the great differences an are to understand and relevant important by Esper investigated phenomena ing (however one chooses to define that term!) of language.

either cognitive or behavioral theories. In spite of the difference in level of

by

There is a pointed, topical message here. The intensity of some of the interchanges between the two cultures (notably Chomsky, 1959; MacCor commonalities. Is ittoomuch to quodale, 1970)has obscured some of the striking a that in to each side be offer may suggest position empirical aid and comfort to
on matters of theory is impossible, ifagreement that recognition can can more on be studied and be understood should lead to agreement language ? our common knowledge about the phenomenon it is, after all, not the posses the other? Even sion of Instead, they are that distinguishes the scientist from theory alone the scientist is one for whom theories are subservient the non-scientist.

to the phenomena intended to explain. History will more likely remember us, as it remem bers Esper, for what we learn about the phenomena, for our empirical findings, are tools ? to be used until dull, then rather than for our theories. Theories in But we should dull them on hard facts, and not waste discarded. ourselves

will be decided by argument about which theory is the finest tool. In the end that
the knowledge we discover, and not by the tool with which we unearth it.

Note versity,

1. 1948.

Skinner,

B.F.

Verbal

behavior.

Unpublished

manuscript.

Cambridge:

Harvard

Uni

Note 2. Hefferline, R. A psychological analysis of verbal behavior. Class notes made by R. Hefferline, Summer 1947, ina course at Columbia University, given by B.F. Skinner. Unpublished
manuscript, no place, no date.

REFERENCES Aarsleff, H. The study of language inEngland, 1780-1860. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1967. 1970, 46, 570-584. Aarsleff, H. The history of linguistics and Professor Chomsky. Language, Angell, J.R. Behavior as a category of Psychology. Psychological Review, 1913, 20, 255-270. Bloomfield, L. An introduction to the study of language. New York: Henry Holt, 1914. Bloomfield, L. Language. New York: Henry Holt, 1933.
Blumenthal, A.L.

JohnWiley & Sons,

Language

1970.

and psychology:

Historical

aspects

of psycholinguistics.

New

York:

101

Ryan

D.

Tweney

Catania,

A.C.

Chomsky's

formal

analysis

of natural function, Verbal

languages:

behavioral American 1959, 35,

translation. Psychologist, 26-28.

Be

haviorism, A.C. Catania, Chomsky, N.

1973, 28, 434-443.

A review

1972, /, 1-15. The psychologies of B.F.

of structure, Skinner's

and development. Language,

Crozier, W.J. The study of livingorganisms. In Carl Murchison

mental psychology. Worchester, Massachusetts: Clark

behavior.

(Ed.), The foundations of experi

Press, Clark 1929.

Crozier, W.J. & Hoagland, H. The study of livingorganisms. InCarl Murchison (Ed.),,4 handbook
of general

University

1934.

experimental the origin

psychology.

Worchester, of natural

Massachusetts: selection,

University

Press,

Darwin,

C. On

Darwin,

lished 1885. Esper, E.A. A contribution to the experimental study of analogy. Psychological Review,
468-487. E.A. Esper, A technique material. Studies Journal for the experimental Language in linguistic of General Monographs, behavior Psychology, investigation 1925, organization: 1, of associative 1-46. I. Characteristics 346-381. Saunders, Language, sources The 1964. interference

C. The in man and expression of the emotions H. Memory: A contribution to experimental Ebbinghaus, and C.E. Bussenius. New York: Teachers College,

races in the strugglefor life. London:

of species

by means

JohnMurray,

1859.

or the preservation London:

of favoured 1872. Ruger pub

animals. psychology. Columbia

Translated University,

John Murray, by H.A. 1913. First

1918,25,
in artificial verbal

linguistic E.A. Esper, reactions. Esper, Esper, Esper, Esper, E.A. E.A. E.A. E.A.

of unstable

1933, 8, A history of psychology. W.B. Philadelphia: of an artificial Social transmission language. Mentalism Analogy and and objectivism in linguistics: and

psychology of language. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company,

association

1966, 42, 575-580. of Leonard Bloomfield's

1968.

on man: H.E. Darwin Gruber, win s early and unpublished E.P. Dutton & Co., York: Harris, Hockett, Z.S. C.F. Structural Erwin

of Georgia Press,

1973.

in linguistics

psychology.

Athens,

Georgia:

University

A psychological notebooks, 1974. Chicago: In E.A.

creativity, together with Dar study of scientific New and annotated transcribed by Paul H. Barrett. University Esper, of Chicago and Press, association 1951. in linguistics and

psychology. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1973. in the history of linguistics: Notes on the appraisal of the Hoeningswald, H.M. Fallacies Nineteenth Century. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Studies in the history of linguistics: Traditions and
Home

linguistics. Allen Esper.

Analogy

&
Hymes,

paradigms. Tooke, D.

1805.
&

Bloomington, J. Epea Ptereonta, Fought, J. American

Indiana:

Indiana

Diversions

ofPurley,

University Parts In T.A.

Press, I and

1974.

II. London: (Ed.), Current

for J. Johnson, trends

1786

structuralism. of grammar.

Sebeok

tics, Volume 13:Historiography of linguistics. The Hague: Mouton,

J.R. An objective psychology Bloomington,

1975. Pp. 903-1176.

The Principia

in linguis Press,

Kantor,

Indiana:

1952. Keller, F.S. & Schoenfeld, W.N.

behavior. New K. Project Baltimore, York: On

MacCorquodale, Miller,

mental Analysis of Behavior,

G.A. Grammarama. Maryland:

1950. Appleton-Century-Crofts, of Skinner's Verbal review Chomsky's

Principles of psychology: A systematic text in the science of

behavior. Journal

1970, 13, 83-99.

of the Experi Seven

essays. G.A. Miller,

Human Psychology, language, communication: Theoretical New York: 1974. & Sons, John Wiley explorations. sources D.L. of Mentalism Review and objectivism in linguistics: The Olmsted, of Leonard 131-140. Erwin A. Bloomfield's 1970, 46, By psychology of language. Esper. Language, H. The discovery Translated science in the Nineteenth Pedersen, of language: Century. Linguistic

In G.A. The Psychology Miller, of communication: 1967. Inc., Books, Penguin In A. Silverstein and levels of communication. (Ed.),

by J.W. Spargo. Cambridge, Massachusetts: inDanish in 1924.

Harvard University Press, 1931. First published

102

Behavioral

Theories

of Language

Pei, M.A. & Gaynor, F. A dictionary of linguistics. Totowa, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams, &
Co., Pintner, Robins, Segal, Segal, R. E.F. E.M. 1969. R.H./4 129-153. silent reading. 1913, 20, Review, during Psychological speech Indiana: Indiana University short history of linguistics. Press, Bloomington, a coherent In W.K. & J.E.R. Staddon Toward of language. Honig psychology Inner & 1968. (Eds.),

Handbook

of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New

R. Complex behavior or higher

1972, 27, 46-55. Skinner, B.F. The verbal summator and a method for the study of latent speech. Journal of Psychology, 1936, 2, 71-107.
Skinner, B.F. The behavior 1938. behavior. of organisms: New intrusions 73, York: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts, B.F. Verbal Skinner, Smith, K.H. 1957. letter pairs. Journal Grundlagen 1898,7,449-465. the American Company, by Erwin A. of

Lachman,

mental

Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
process. American

1977.

Psychologist,

Rule-governed

Appleton-Century-Crofts, in the free recall of structured 162-164. Englemann,

Untersuchungen Wm. sprachlichen Analogiebildung. Leipzig: E.B. The postulates of a structural Titchener, psychology. as the Behaviorist E.B. On Titchener, "Psychology der

1967, Experimental Psychology, A. & Marbe, K. Experimentelle Thumb,

iiber die psychologischen 1901. of

Philosophical
E.B.

Society,

1914, 53, 1-17.

psychology: A nalogy and

Review, Philosophical it." Proceedings views New York: The

Titchener, Tweney,

1929.
R.D.

Systematic Review article:

Prolegomena. association

Macmillan

Esper. Historiographia
Waterman, Watson, /, 385-398. J.T. Perspectives An J.B. Behavior: 1914. Psychology Psychology J.B.

Linguistica: International Journal of the History of Linguistics,

in linguistics. Chicago: to comparative introduction the standpoint University psychology.

in linguistics

and psychology,

1974,

of Chicago 1963. Press, New York: Holt Henry Pennsylvania: edition. Philadelphia,

and J.B.

Company, J.B. Watson, Watson, J.B.

from

Lippincott Company,
Pennsylvania: A.P. A Weiss,

1919.

of a behaviorist. behaviorist. Second

Philadelphia, Second

R.G. Adams & Co., 1929 (firstpublished 1924). Wesley, F. Erwin A. Esper 1895-1972. Journal of the History of theBehavioral Sciences,
187-189. Wheeler, B.I.

the standpoint from of a 1924. Lippincott Company, theoretical basis behavior. of human

edition,

revised.

Columbus,

Ohio:

1973, 9,
Cornell

W.D. Whitney, Language science. New York: Winokur, Wyczoikowska, Zipf, G.K. S. A Prentice-Hall,

University Press,

Analogy

and

1887.

the scope

of

its application

in language.

Ithaca,

New

York:

and

Charles

primer of 1976. A. Theoretical

on the principles the study of language .Twelve lectures Scribner & Company, 1867. verbal An operant view. Englewood behavior: Cliffs, and and Inc., experimental the principle studies of in the mechanism least effort. of speech.

of linguistic New Jersey:

cal Review,
Human

1913, 20, 448-459.

behavior Press,

Psychologi

Addison-Wesley

1949.

Cambridge,

Massachusetts:

103