,

•
THE AUTI STIC CH I LO
Language Development
Through Behavior Modification
 _ 10ss11

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
THROUGH BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION

By 0. Ivar Lovaas

IRVINGTON PU BL ISHERS, INC., NEW YOR K

Distr ibuted by HALSTED PRESS, Division of

JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.
NEW YORK LONDON TORONTO SYDNEY

•
 •

To 111) 1l11fdn11
Randt. Lua. Karr. a11d Enk

Copyright© 1977 by IRVINGTON PUBLISHERS, INC.

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatever,
including information storage or retrieval, 1n whole or in part (except for brief quotations
1n critical articles or reviews), without written permission from the publisher. For
information, write to Irvington Publishers, Inc .. 551 Filth Avenue. New 'lbrk, New 'lbrk
10017.

01stributed by HALSTED PRESS

A d1v1s1on of JOHN WILEY & SONS, Inc • New York

Library of Congress Cataloging in Pubhcat1on Data

Lovaas. Ole Ivar. 1927
The autistic child
B1bhography· p.
L Autism 2. Handicapped children Education-
Language arts. I Title.
RJ506 A9L68 371.9'2 76·5890
ISBN 0·4 70-15065-3

Printed in The United States of America Photos by Allan Grant

•

CONTENTS

Page

Foreword I
~

Acknowledgments I

Chapter I: BASIC PRINCIPLES 9

Learning Theory and Language 11
Ovcrvte"' of Languag<: Program 12
Brief Outline of Language Programs I5
l3a:.1t Training Principles 18
The (.haldren 29

Chaprer II : BUILD!'\IG THE FIRST \XfORDS Af\.D LABELS 15

Building a Verbal Topography 36
Labeling Discrete Events -i2

' C.haptc:r Ill BUILDING ABSTRACT TER~fS 57

Rclat1onsh1ps Among Ob1t-cts and Events, and
Other Abscract Terms 57

Chapct·r IV ~fAKING LANGUAGE SOCIAL AND

SPONTANEOUS 71
Conversation 71
G1v1ng and Sl'l'k1ng Information 77
•
vii
viii Contents

c;ran1matK.tl Skills 79
Rec.ill 8-i
Sponranc1ry 87
Sroryrclli ng 89
Inform.ii Training
•
93
Rtxording) of Spontanc-ous Verbalizations 95
Re1nforccmcnr and rhe i\1ainrenance of rhe
I~1nguage Beh;iv 1or I0~

Chapter V 1~1PLICATl01':S AND SPECULATIO"lS 107

Relar1onsh1p to Ocher Dara on L:tnguage 107
PsycholinguistJCs and Some Specular ions 119
Suggcsrions for Progra1n Change; from Language
Development 1n Normal Children 128
Suggestions for Pn1gram Changes from 01scnm1nar1on
Learning w1rh Aur1sr1c Children 132

Chapter VI: LAl\GUAGE TRAINING i\fANUALS I-ii

Laheling Discrete Event' l-12
Prepositions 148
Pronouns I 51
Ti1nt! Contcpcs 154
Ocher Simple Absrract1011; 157
Convcrsar1onal Speech 161
Verb Transformar1ons / 6.j
Plue.ii and Singular 165
Rl'Catl /67
Sponranc1t}" Training 170
Story tell 1ng Ii 5
Sorne further Problem, in Teaching / 76
Stopping Elholal1a 180

Chapter VII : CASE STLDl l:.S LA:'\GL'AGE

ACQUISITIOl\ l'I TH REE AUTISTIC- \HILDRE:'\ 18~
Reeve 184
Tummy 206
Linda 221

SU~fJ.fARY 231
THE AUTI STI C CHILD
Language Development
REFERENC LS 235 Through Behavior Modification
SUBJECT INDEX 2-i I
•
AUTHOR INDEX
 FOREWORD
•

en years ago we began a comprehensive morning-co-evening

project of creating autistic children by means of behavioral
modification procedures. Considering the minimal behavioral de-
velopment of aucisc1c children, we were in a sense crying co build
individuals scarring with a Tabula rasa. Language was a crucial
behavior borh because ic seemed che mosc complex one co cackle
and because che children needed 1c 1n order co become more nor-
mal le 1s difficult co be a normal person w1chouc possessing some
form of language w1ch which one can affect, or be affected by, che
society in which one lives.
As language is strikingly complex behavior. co cry co build 1r
is a good cesc of how much v:e, as psychologists, knov.· about be-
havior. Ten years ago nor a great deal v.·as known about how co
build language. We read lengthy rexes on the acqu1sicion of lan-
guage and then \venc back co face our children without having
learned hov.· co help chem calk. We were altogether alone 1n tr}-
ing co help these children; 1n a sense ""e lacked professional skills.
If a child psychologist cannoc ceach a child co calk, ""hac can he
do'
This book will present some of che language programs v.•e
have developed since char rime. le was obvious from che begin-
1
•
2 Foreword
ning that even though psychology knew very little about ho\v to
build language, it did kno\v something about how co build be-
havior. In particular we knev; of the operant \\'Ork on animal
shaping, and we were familiar with modern learning cheor>·. The
language programs were derived from chis literature, particularly
from the area of discrimination learning
The programs were mosc often conceived on the spot, with-
out much forethought. Fourteen days afrer we had hospitalized
the first group of children in 1964, we ran out of treatment pro-
grams; we had no choice but ro invent and improvise. We \vere
determined chat the children were going co learn and chat we
were going to teach chem. The programs \\'tll reRecc chis lack of
adequate preparauon.
Attempting co build all che language a child needs, \ve be-
came Jack.s-~f-all-trades, amateurs in a way; it might have heen
more grat1fy1ng to have worked in a limited area, such as reach-
ing grammar or conversational skills or helping the child increase
his use of spontaneous language .~uc our goals for the children
we~e essentially therapeutic: to make chem as normal as possible.
This goal precluded the mere building of isolated behaviors. Our
global goals left many of our efforts with inadequate data and in
need of more exccnsi~e analysis. Bue our efforts are a beginning of
more detailed analysis of che cond1t1ons which help nonltngu1sc1c
children co speak.
~iosc of our efforts have been directed coward the aucisnc
child who, in the more extreme manifestations of che condition
had the motor development and the exterior physical appearance
of a normal child but showed fi:w if any of the behaviors that
would hel~ define him ru: a social individual. The less developed
c~1ldren did ~oc give evidence of language (expressive or recep-
tive), play w1th coys, or form emotional accachmencs co ocher
people.
In all likelihood our findings have generality beyond the au-
tistic child. We h~ve already employed the same procedures to
teach languag~ skill~ to retarded children with Down's Syn-
drome Other 1nvest1garors report on chc application of similar
procedures co ocher forms of retardation, as "'·ell as to more nor-
mal children. Some invcstig~rors have even caught quite complex
language to subhumans, using procedures which are strikingly
s1m1lar co chose used \\'ith disturbed children. The procedures we
h~ve helped develop, which we descnbe in derail 1n chis book,
will be useful 1n helping a wide variety of children co calk.
Foreword 3
Beyond che practical benefit from these programs for children
seriously lagging in language development, one may also encer-
cain the possibility chat these procedures represent chc way "na-
ture" ordinarily reaches language to normal children. These
studies, then, should increase our understanding of language ac-
quisition in general. We shall present some data contrary co cer-
tain theories of language development, particularly chose which
place a heavy emphasis on organic determinants.
1 This book is intended to help chose working with children
who are seriously behind 1n their language development. A vari-
ety of persons are so involved· parents, teachers, psychologists,
speech therapists, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, and aides.
The book should be easy reading for upper d1v1s1on and graduate
ps}·chology scudencs, but it may prove quite difficult for parents
w1ch no background in psychology. Yee ic is crucial chac parents
learn che principles we describe 1n this book, because the parents
are che child's primary language teachers. We have been unable co
help a child meaningfully in language development without the
parent's active involvement. If we were co present chis material in
a less technical, more informal manner, so much precision would
be lost that the text would be relatively useless, as it is extremely
difficulc to build complex language.
Throughout chis book the reader will be introduced co the
largely operant learning theory v.•h1ch has formed the basis for our
language work up co the presenc. As many readers may wane a
deeper understanding of these learning concepts and processes
chan v.•e can provide here, i c ma> be desirable co supplement chis
book with auxiliary rexes on operant work. There arc several ex-
cellent rexes, which \Vtll help, two of which are Fred S. Keller,
Le,1r11i11g: Rei11force111e111 Theory. and Sidney W. Bijou and Donald
M. Baer, Child Develop11n111, Vofu111e I: A Syste111e11ic a11d E111pirical
Theory. A slightly more advanced cexc is G. S. Reynold's A Pri1ner
of Operant Condi1io11111g. There are also several more "practical" but
excellent books on the subject, such as Patterson and Gullion's
Li1i11g Ll'ith Children. Sulzer and Mayer's Beha1 ior J\lod1fica11011 Pro-
1
cedures for School Per101111el. R. Vance Hall's Behat'tfJr J\fa11age111e11t
Ser·res. and Whaler and Malocc's Ele111e11tary Pri11ciple1 of Beharror.
A good foundation in learning theory 1s basic, buc not
sufficient, for helping children learn to talk. Ont has co be famil-
iar \vich rhc 1ncracac1cs of children, their affect, "'·har pleases
mem, and so on, 1n order co teach chem. Such familianty can be
gained only by being around children.
 4 Foreword Foreword 5

Speech therapists have often written about hov.· to help chil- References
dren talk Mose of this material deals with the more normal
child, bur some reference is made ro the psychotic or retarded B1 jou, S W , &. Baer, D l\I ChJ/d deulopment Vo/11111t I.· A J)Jlc111111ic 1111d 1111p1r-
child. A number of suggcscions are made in these writings on u.tl 1hcor) New York Applecon-Cencur)•-Crofts, I 961.
how co facilitate language development, and although there 1s lit- Grey, B .. &. Ryan, B Progr11n11fl<d (IJ1Jd111on111gfor l1111g11agt: Progr11m book. l\lon-
tle, 1f an)', data co back up mosc of these suggestions, che reader tercy, California. l\loncerey learning Syscems, 197 l.
Grey, B. & Ryan. B A lang11agt program for the nonlang11ag< c-h1/d. Champaign,
may wane co fu.miliarize himself \vi ch them. In reaching our chil-
lll1no1s Research Press, 1973.
dren ro talk, we have often supplemented our O\vn programs wich Hall, R. V. 8th.1111Jr managc111<11t >rr1tJ. Lawrence, Kansas: H & H Enccrprisc$,
material and suggestions from other language programs, such as Inc , 1972 (No 1-6)
che ~ionrerey Program (Grey and R)·an, 1971, 1973) Several Keller F S Lc.u·n111g. Rt1nfnra111t111 1hcur>- New York: Random House, 195·1 .
rexes on speech pathology are also available, bur it's beyond che Lovaas, O I , Berberich, J .P, Perloff, B.F., & Schaeffer, B. Acquis1cion of
realm of this book co cry co evaluace chose rexes. 1m1ra1ive spte<h by sch1iophren1c children. Satnrt, 1966, I 51. 705-
From whac has just lx:cn said, and from what v.·ill become 707
apparent as we present our programs, there 1s a grear deal which Lovaas, O I 8th,1nor 1111,d1ficJ//1J11. Ttarh111g la11g11age to PJ)<hotu ch1'drt11 ln-
we do not know as yer abouc language learning. I would single scruc11onal film, 45 min., 16 mm.-sound, Applecon-Cencury-Crofts,
our 1n particular such areas as the effecr of a child's emotions on New York, 1969
che rare and kind of his language learning, rhe conditions under Panerson, G. R, and Gullion, M E. L1v1ng u·11h chtldre11: Neu 111tlhotl1forpar-
tlll.f a111/ 1rruhtr1. Champaign, llltno1s: Research Press, 1968.
which receptive language facilitates expression or the optimal
Reynolds, G S A pr1111tr of operafl/ co11d1110111ng. Glenview, Ill.: Scocc, Foresman
order (sequencing) of teaching language casks.
and Co., 1968.
Despite such ignorance, 1c 1s appropriate ro publish rhis book Sulzer, B., & Mayer, R. G. Behal'lor motl1jica11011 proced11reJ for school ptrJ01111<I.
because rhe information we provide is necessary for language Hinsdale, Ill.. The Dryden Press, Inc., 1972.
learning. A psychotic or retarded child wirh severe limitations on Whaley, D L., & Malott, R.\'(/. Eleme111ary pr111ople1 of beha110•'. New York:
expressive and receptive Janguag<: v.•111 in all probabilit}' nor learn Applccon-Ccntury-Crofcs, 197 l.
language unless his therap1sc/reacher knows hov.· co reach him ac-
cording co che pnnciples laid our in chis book.
The book is organized co introduce basic learning principles
in Chapter I, with che appltcatton of rhese principles in building
I che 6rsc v.•ords and meanings given 1n Chapter 2, leading co pro-
gressively more complex languagt 1n Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 5
scares rhe cheorerical implicarions of our work, and \\'ill be 1m-
porranc primarilr ro professionals inceresccd in language per it .
Chapter 6 <.:onrains the language cra1n1ng manuals, v.•h1ch arc re-
ferred co throughout rhe earlier chapters. Chapter ' presenrs
three illustrative case histories of children v.·ho have undergone
our language tra1n1ng. Although these case histories are placed
last 1n the book (because rher can best be understood ac char
point), the reader mar v.·ant to read Chapter 7 first, because the
case reports help make sense of rhe basic principles as \Veil.

•
•

, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

n enormous amount of work has gone into the data we

present here, from a number of extremely bright, highly
motivated, socially commirted people who contributed ar all
levels; rhc proiect could not have succeeded wirhour their help
and cfforr. As v.•c worked around rhe clock, we gor co know each
ocher quire v.•ell, and v.·har 1s presenred here is as much theirs as
mine In rhe early years, I had rhe help of several srudenrs v.·ho
have since received their doctorates. I am parncularly graceful for
rhe contributions of Ors. John Berberich. Lorraine Freitas, B11an
Guilan1, Irene Kassorla, Joan 1'-feisel, Edv.·ard Nelson, Bernard
Perloff, and Benson Schaeffer. As the language programs de-
veloped and we had rhe opportunity to invesrigare more ana-
l yr1cal aspects of rhc acquisition process, I received much help
from Mrs . t.(ercd1ts Gibbs and Ors. Robert Koegal, Buddy
Newsom, and Laura Schreibman. Perhaps more rhan anyone else,
Or. Judirh Stevens-Long's help. borh in organizing the data on
spontaneous language and in relaring our data ro the normal
chi Id's language development, was critical. The training manuals
7

•
 8 Acknowledgments

in Chapcer 6 of chis book were organit.ed by Dr. Sceven-Long and

1-frs 1-feredich Gibbs. Finally, Ms. Cachy Graves and Ms. Sheryl
Nisenson have ed1ced and ocherwise helped make rhis manuscnpc
more readable.
I \•las forcunare co mcec Dr. James A. Simmons, Assoc1ace
Chief of rhe ;\1enral Recardanon and Child !\.fencal Healch Pro-
grams ac che U. C L. A Neuropsych1acric Inscicuce. early 1n my
work wich autiscic children. From 1964 co 1968, we worked
close!)' together, and much of the dara presenred here were col-
lecred ac char cime We reinforced each ocher in whar we thought
was imporranr ro aurisric children, and we have published co-
gecher on these efforts.
The Nanonal Inscicure of ~fenral Healrh (MH 11440) and
rhe Office of Education <OE 4-6-061188-0614) have supporced
our work on language. The organizauon and wrinng of chis book
were also facdirated by a Guggenheim Fellowship.
Aspeccs of rh1s research were presenred as early as 1965, as
papers ar the Western Psychological Association (Honolulu) and Chapter I
the American Psychological Association (Chicago). Those papers
described the acquisition of abstract verbal behavior and our be- BASIC PRINCIPLES
ginning elforrs 1n budding syntax. le formed the basis for an in-
vited address to Division 7 of che American Psychological Associ-
ation meec1ng in San Francisco 1n 1968 An overviev.• of the lan-
guage program was presenced on film (Lovaas, 1969), v.•hich
should provide a good introduction ro rhe studies we present
here. However, with the excepnon of a publ1car1on on the acqui- osr children acquire language \\'1thour anyone kn0\\'1ng.
sition of verbal 1m1rarion (Lovaas, Berberich, Perloff, & Schaeffer, hov. rhey do so Ir 1s a "natural phenomenon", and knowledge of
1966), this 1s rhe first rime our language srudic:s appear 1n princ. rhe process 1s usually nor needed Unforrunacely, some children
do not learn ro ralk on rheir O\vn; rhey ne~d help. The ~enefits
\\'htch come from knowing ho\\ language is acqu.1ted might be
shared by man) . as language is central 1n hum~n life ;\(an) con-
sider ir a unique characterisc1c of human behavior and feel 1r con-
tnbutes in a maior \\ ay co human chought and rcasoni_ng.
Despite rhe importance of language ;n human existence .. no
one kn 0 ,,. 5 ho,.,· language is acquired. \'l/e do nor ~s yec possess
laws .tbouc language which v.·ould cell. us whac vanables co ma-
nipulate co obtain a certain progress 1n language developmen~ .
When linguists and psychologisrs have srud1ed language in r e
iasr, chey have confined chemselve~ large~y co descrtpC1.ve a~­
~ouncs of language devclopmenr; che1r .scud1es descn~e c~c order
in which normal children develop cerca1n I.anguage bcha,"1~r~ ,1nd
the conrcnr of these behaviors. On the basis of such observaC1onsg

•
 10 Basic Principles
the investigators have· often guessed ar v.·hy and how children ac-
quire language·. These guesses have nor as yer been experimen-
rall y veri lied.
. The same lack of syscen1acic empirical evaluation charac-
~enzes the efforts of professionals directly concerned wirh reach-
ing or orher\\'1se facilitating language developmenr. Such
reacher~ have no proven procedures co guide them. The
re~hn1ques che_Y _have suggested for reaching language are offered
v.·1rhour emp1ncal evidenct' of rhe1r merirs. Some of their
techniques may he u~eful, or hers may hinder rn short then 1f
one seeks facts and information on hO\\' ro develop laC:guage' in
persons who have no language, one linds no empirically validated
procedure.
We present in rh1s book a technology and daca on hov.· ro
reach language to nonspeaking children. This is a practtcal rexr
thac reports on techniques we have developed over rhe last 12
yea~s 111 ~>ur arrempr to reach language to muce and echolalic au-
r1st1c ch1l~ren We also. prese~r studies which have used proce-
du_res similar co ours hy 1nvesrigarors working wich ocher types of
children'. such as cu.I rurally disaJvancageJ and retarded chilJren.
The •.nrcnc heh1nd this book is highly praccical. We arc con-
cerne.d v. 1Ch helping the reacher or parenc reach children ro com-
mun1care more effectively. Being pragmatic clinicians and
teachers lirst, we wanted rouse whatever procedures helped chil-
dren learn ro ralk U~forrunarelr, nor enough is kno\"\'n about chc
nervous system ar this time to manipulate it with the precision
needed co produce language. Therefore, v.•hen one cries co help
ch1l~ren learn ro c~I~. one. I\ f.1irl}' v.·ell resrricred co arcemprs co
n1an~pularc- the child s environment , Furchermore, if one seeks ro
'.11an1pulare rhe child\ t•nvironment to facilirace language )earn-
·~~· rhen one 1s larg.el}' rescr1cted co chose operations specified
v. 1r?1n rno~ern learning cheorr. certainly tf one v.·anrs co base
o~e s reaching efforts . on expcrimencallr val1dared procedures.
\'\ Hh1n modern learning theory. ir ts chose operations which
define operant ~o?dirioning or reinforcement theory rhar have
been most expl1c1 rl y re la red ro cht acquisition of human be-
havior Ir ts prohabl}' rhe case, then, char we have no choice ac
rh1s time bur ro \VOrk v.•irhin modern learning theory co cry co
reach langu,1ge
Once our proceJure~ and daca have been presented, v.•e relate
our. studies to current rheorencal positions about language. To re-
late our lind111~s ro rhese cheorencal pos1uons, is almost unavoid-
•
Basic Principles 11
able since they are so central in the histor}' of psychology. For
example, 1t has been considered by many that cerra1 n aspects of
language such as grammar or S}'ntax are so complex char rhey
could nor be acquired through experience, bur had ro come about
because of certain innate neurological!>· based language abilities
\vhich generate language with minimal environmental assiscance.
From chis point of vie\v, our efforts co reach children language
should fail . The dara v.·e present 1n chis book support some
cheones of language more rhan ochers and may suggest certain
direcuons for future research on language. We examine these
rheoreucal considerations after v.·e present our merhod and dara
Lee us nov.· introduce the basic framev.•ork v.·e used 1n teaching
language.
Learning Theory and Language
Since v.•e will drav.· heavily on learning rheory, introducing
certain learning concepts at chis point will supply some order to
our presentation. If \Ve approach rhe problem of language acquisi-
tion from a learning rheory framework, we see char a child who
actiuires language must acquire rwo evenrs. First, he must ac-
quire ccrra1n behaviors or reJpoNJeJ, a differenriarion of vocal our-
pur. These voe.al or verbal responses correspond ro various levels
of language analysis v.·irhin linguisrics. One of these levels in-
cludes phfl11e1111f behavior (consonants, vowels); another level con-
cerns 1110,.phe1111£' behavior (v.•ords), another includes J)llla£'ti£'al or
g,.11111111c111cal behavior (arrangement of v.·ords 1n sentences)
When a child can produce only these verbal responses, his
verbal ourpur exists w1rhour meaning-ir is nor yec a language.
One can observe such behavior in rhe form of im1rauon. or a par-
roung of ,,·ords. Infants are said ro pass through such a stage_of
1m1taring rhe utterances of ochers. Some psychouc and bra1n-
damagcd children come close ro rh1s in instances of ccholalic
speech, as \vhen the child emirs ·· Ho'v are you!'' 1n response ro
rhe adult's question. " Hov.· are you?" In order for his vocal our-
pur ro acquire meaning, rhe second evenr, his verbal behavior
must occur ,,·irhin a certain stimulus concexr. Certain aspects of
rhe child's environment musr acquire certain somulus functions
v. h1ch serve to regulate rhe occurrence of his verbal behavior To
acco1nphsh chis, a chilJ musr learn, lirst, what stimulus cond1-
rions, be rhey external or internal, give rise to verbal utterances
and, second, what stimulus functions che utterance itself should

12 Basic Principles
poss ess-c har is, what furth er verbal or nonverbal behavior, in
hims elf or other s, may be elicited by that utter ance . In lingu istics
the term sr111,111tics mosc closely resembles our use of che cerm
1ti11111/111 ft1111"t10111. This defin ition of langu age. of ident
ifyin g che
sumu lus and response prop eroes of langu age, 1s most closely as-
soc1<1red with Bloomfield (193.3) with in che field of American lin-
guistics; Skin ner (195 7) is its best- known contemporary spokes-
man
\X'hecher chis vie" of language 1s correct or not, 1r 1s con-
venient for rhosc who \vane co build language, for it relates one's
efforts co some rathe r \vell-kno\\·n principles of behavior chan ge,
those of d1scriminauon learning. Perhaps 1c does not attrib ute
enough novelty or uniqueness co language, since any response can
be described 1n simil ar terms A smile , for exam ple, shares the
same propc:roes; 1c is a behavioral topography 'l\'h1ch acquires
mean ing co rhc exten t chat IC acquires stim ulus properties over
ocher behaviors and comes co be conrrollcd by stim ulus events
which surro und it. Skinner has argued chis repeatedly (""Verbal
behavior is oper ant behavior ), and chis argu ment is considered
the most unique and radical 1n his posit ion on language.
We repeatedly use the terms ti11111/11 and rrsp1111se in describing
our procedures, and also provide data \vh1ch help co define these
cerms funcuonally and empirically. \V/e do not scare a priori how
largt: or small a lingu istic unit can be before ic becomes or ceases
co be a response. Are phonemes, morp heme s. and sentences re-
sponses? Can rhey funcnon as sumu lt ~ We rake the pos1non char
we can find out whet her rhcy are or not. We knov.• char we have
isolared a snmu lus or a response when we can relate one 1n an
orderly (la\\ful) mann er ro rhe other . le 1s likely rhac the scudy of
language, more so chan rhe scudy of any othe r behavior, will help
us bette r co unde rstan d these terms ar the hum an level Such a
funcrional-emp1ncal defin1c1on of rhe cerms sumu lus and re-
sponse is che defining feacure of empirical behaviorism <Skinner,
195 3).
Overview of Language Program
The goal of our research was co teach, co developmentally re-
tarded (autistic) child ren who appeared ro have licrlc or no unde r-
stand ing or use of language. a language v. h1ch appr oxim ated
normal adult language. In ,,·orking \\•1th nonl1nguisc1c child ren,
one soon realizes how handicapped they are 'l\'1chouc language In-
Basic Principles 13
scead of our being able co cell cht:m what ro do, chey had co be
moved physically throu gh rhc desired behaviors. If one has to
delay meet ing che1r needs, there is no effeccive way co cell chem co
delay gracificacions. Whe n they became emon onall y attached to
us there \Vas no way co tell chem when v.·e left for rhe day rhar v.•e
w~uld retur n the ncxc day. If they wan red some thing , they had
no easy way to cell us what chey want ed. Language \vas _co become
a means co faci11cace social inter actio n, to help che child co deal
bccter \Vtth his feelings. Ther e \vere ocher goals.
We were inter ested in learn ing how che child 's language
migh t regulate his own behavior In the back of our mind s \Ve
had some nono n chat if che child learned co calk, someho'I\ a con-
cepti on of hims elf would emer ge, thac he migh t become more
defined as a person, chat he migh t show more self~concrol
Start ing wich the mute child ren, 'l\'C first ~cv1sed a prog ram
for chem co acqu ire che firsc verbal utter ance s, simp le morp heme s
such as "a"" "b" and "mam a". We did chis by reaching che child co
imita te sounds and 'l\'Ords Once this was done , we began ro place
chose verbal responses in a more extended scimulus conte xt, co
label simp le events arou nd them . S1mulcaneously we caught chem
comp rehen sion of those verbal uccerances, co respond correctly co
simp le verbal requests from us Graduall )',. 'l\'e expanded the
stim ulus concexc control11ng chttr speech, ~nng1ng _it unde r in-
creasingly abscracc stimu li such as pronominal relac.1ons or tem-
poral cues. At che same cime, we expanded the chi_ld s verb.ii out-
put co comprise gram mar, the rules for comb ining 'l\'Ords into
sentences and conversacion w1th us. .
To iliuscrace how some of chese acquis1tions may fie 1nco a
learn ing parad igm, let us consider our arrcmpcs co reach mean-
ing. le so happens chat these efforts roughly con~orm t? C'-'~O basic
discr imin ation s, as given in Table 1. In one d1scnm1nac1on t~e
stim ulus is verbal and rhe response is nonverbal; in chc ~rher d1s-
crim inari on rhe scimulus is nonverbal and rhe response 1s verbal.
Disc rimin ation Stim ulus Response
Verbal Non-Verbal
I Receptive
Non-Verbal Verbal
JI. Expressive

14 Basic Principles
Alrhough Table I presenrs rwo disrincr dr~crrminarions most
discrrmina cions ar(• mixcures of borh che verbal and che n'onvcr-
bal. Rarely is che srrmulus purely verbal wrrhouc a nonverbal
componenr ; the response usually had both tomponent s too. For
example, we may ask che child, "What's your name?" co ans,ver
c~1s correctly, he has co discrimina te borh rhe verbal st1mulus and
his O\vn person. When rhe scimulus is largely verbal and che re-
spons~ nonverbal. \\'e label che discri minarron as an i nsrance of
recepuve language: \\'e sar rhat rhe child gives evidence of cr.i11i-
prfhfnS1Q11. When the response is verbal and che stimulus nonver-
b:il, \ve may relaC<: rhe inceraccion as an example of e>.J1reHtl't Jan-
g.uage. ~hen horh r~c scim.ulus and the response arc largely ver-
b_.11, the 1nceract1on rs spec1 fically referred ro as cor11·ers11 t11111 Ac
~1mes, rhe child m~y respond wirhour any experimen ral stimuli
1mmed1acely preceding hrs uccerance ; \ve may refer co rh1s as Jp1111 -
1,111e1111s speech. here c~e tues have robe 1nferredpr1J/ h,,c. Somerimes
rhe chtld may provide himself w1ch his O\vn stimuli for his O\vn
subsequen t behavior. as he does when he reads directions co hun-
self, a.n exchange which many refer ro as1elfco11trQ/. Sometimes he
'?mh1nes borh verbal and non~erbaJ responses, borh operanrs and
r~spondenrs~ as when he describes his behavior, "I am laughing,"
"h1le laughing. \Ve tall such a child verbally exp1·esJ1te. One can
chink of. many or her parallels in everyday language. for purposes
of butld1ng speech. ho_\\·e\·er. JC sttmed helpful co consider rhac
there \Vere cwo kinds of d_iscrim~nacions, expressive and recepcive.
At chis point, we offer a bnef oucl1ne of che more significanc
seeps comprrs1ng rhe language program, before we describe H rn
derail. The language. training became divided into several steps or
programs, arranged in a hierarchy from "easy" to "difficult "such
char we thought it \\'Ou)~ benefic a child co complece a~ early
program .before he \\'as er.tined on a lacer one . \Ve ended up \\'Ith a
large \'artery of programs, ~uc w·e shall pre~c·nc onl}' e1ghc of chem
here, since these serve co tlluscracc che major seeps 10 language
r.ra1n'.n.g. There rs some overlap ber~e~n che various programs
for cxamp.le, Program 2, che acqu1s1c1on of labels for discrete
events (ob1ecc-rerms, ere.) is a never-endi ng process char con-
tinues throughou t th(• later programs, bur we demanded some
masrery of_char progr•~m before che child was 1nrroduced co Prog·
r~m .~. \\'hrch dealr wrch terms denor1ng the relationshi p bet\\·een
drsc~ece e~·cnrs \Vhac follo\\'S is an incro<luccion of che major
progr.tms 1n our efforts co reach language-.
Basic Pnnc1ples 15
Brief Outline of Language Programs
Prf/r,r""' 1. 8111/chnr. 1·erbal responses. The children who were
muce and whose vocalizac1ons were essenc1ally limiced co vowels
and contained no discrimina ble words were first introduced to a
program designed co teach chem how co produce speech sounds or
words. This became a program co faciltcace phonologic al de-
velopmcnc , which we erred co accomplish b)' ceachr ng che child co
1m1cace the verbal ucceran<.:es of ochers. We cra1ned verbal imica-
cive behavior 1n gradual seeps. dunng \\ h1ch che child was rein-
1
forced for increasingl y marching che verbal producnon s of ochers.
Imicarion, then, became a discrimina tion where the response (che
child's vocalizatio n) resembled its stimulus (the adult's vocaliza-
tion). This training program gave the child the large range of
complex verbal oucpur he needed co begin che language training.
Ar this level H existed as vocal ourpuc w1chouc mc>an1ng and re-
sembled che ccholaltc child's verbal production s. We began ro
reach meaning 1n Program 2 (reaching labels). Programs I and 2
overlap 1n the sense char rhe child was introduced co Program 2
after he had acquired IO recognizab le words in Program l.
Prnr,rr1111 2. Labeling dHcrete e1 e111s. The goal of this program
1
was co reach che child rhe cwo basic language discriminac ions of
cercarn discrete environme ncal events, such as everyday objeccs
and acc1vities. \Ve \Yanted to grve him a basic vocabulary , che
nouns and verbs wich \Vhith co ans"·er quesc1ons like "What is
ic?" and .. What are you doing, .. As soon as he sho\\·ed some mas-
tery ac chis level, \Ve made the vocabulary functional: Thus, he
could cell us \vhac he \vantcd (He had co ask or he was nor fed),
and \Ve could begin ro tell him \\ hat we wanced. We began co
1
control him and he began co concrol us ac a purely verbal level.
Pn1xrc1111 ~ Rela11011Jh1p hflllttll ere111J. ab11rac1 l!'l'lllJ. Once che
child had acquired a labeling vocabulary of discrete evencs (ob-
jects ;1nd behaviors). \Ve caughc him che cerms which described
relauonsh1 ps between chese events such as spatial relations (pre-
posicrons), cemporal relac1ons (ti me concepcs). personal relations
(pronouns) , <.:olor, size, and shape. These conccprs are called
abscraction s since che language which descrtbcs chcsc events has
come under rhe relatively narrow concrol of sumulus elements
which may be shared by manr objects. A child must kno\\' many
of chese .1bscract concepts in order to function ac even che mosr
minim.ii level in societ}'·
 16 Basic Principles
Proxra111 4. As the tra1n1ng programs became
Cr1111•rrra1Jr111.
more and more elahor•lte, the interacrion between the child and
his teacher increased in complexity, necessitating a more verbal
exchange between them, \Vhich we came co label "conversation
training." In general terms, this program was designed to teach
the child to ask and answer questions and ro make comments
• •
\\'h1ch "·ould provide stimuli co '' hich others could verbally
respond,-co exchange information, to "c"arry on a conversation."
Pror.ra111 5. Git i11g and reeki111( i11/or11f(tfion What we tried to
accomplish in chis program was ro make language a short cut to
an enlarged experience. Jn other words, we wanted che child ro
learn to seek information about his environment such as what ,,.e
\Vere having for dinner or \\•hen school would be over. Jn chc
laboratory, to untangle and build rhe basic mechanisms of infor-
n:1ation exchange, \V<: placed che child 1n a three-person incerac-
uon. Person A asked che child a quesc1on. The child tvas caught
to seek the answer from Person B and return the 1nformac1on co
Person A. He also learned co discriminate between questions to
which he did or did not know the answer.
Prn~ra111 6. C~a111111atirr1I skt!ls. Already during label training
and obviously during conversation training, rhe child's verbal re-
sponses required more than one-word answers, which necessitated
char we reach him certain basic rules on how to combine \VOrds
into sentences (ho,v co make grammatical sentences). In the
grammatical skills program, we drilled him extensively on cer-
tain_ nuances of gram~ar, such as adiective-noun relationships.
subiect-verb relar1onsh1ps, rules for transposing verbs from pre-
sent ro past, and so on
Proxra111 7. Recall. Once rhe child had mastered certain basic
temporal terms ("first," "last") and could transform verbs, we
move~ cov.:a~d o~e ~f the terminal goals of the proiecc: teaching
~he c~1kl to enrich the environment, his ov..n or ours, bv teach-
ing him to rc~all his past \Vlc began by reaching him t~ tell us
\\•hat he had JUSt Jone some seconds before and chen graduall}'
extende~ his descriptions to his past, such as v.•har he had done
the previous day We hoped that chis would make hrs past more
real fo~ him and that he could "rearrange" it to better suir him-
self When a child verbalizes evc:nr~ which have occurred ro him
he also presents functional ~ti mu Ii for persons who were nor acru:
ally present when rhe events occurred. In a sense, others have
more "access" ro him; it ts an interpersonally enriching expen-
•
Basic Pnnc1ples 17
ence. Ar about chis stage we also began programs for more ex-
tended and spontaneous descriptions of whac he observed in his
immediate environment.
Pr"K'''"' 8. Spr11ua11etifJ. Perhaps because of the highly-
concrolled nature of our language training and its reliance on ex-
perimental rather than "natural" reinforcers, many of the children
shO\\·ed verbal behavior rhac had come under very restncced en-
vironmental control. Too oft:en his language occurred in response
ro the experimental s1tuauons, such as the reacher s questions.
and very seldom other\\·ise. To help him become more free in his
descriptions '"e became concerned with loosening this control, to
shift the conrrol ro features of the environment not so spec1 ficallr
tied to the reacher's explicit requests for speech.
!11for111c1/ trc1111111g With a base in the programs just discussed,
using the same principles, \Ve extended the language training on
an informal basis into all or most aspects of the child's life. In
working wrch children such as these, one has the opportunity,
seemingly from the beginning, to teach logical thought and
reasoning and co investigate questions of interpersonal motives
and causation. We also taught the beginning of reading, arithme-
tic, and writing. We cried to relate these academic skills to the
child's O\Vn everyday behavior, as when the teacher wrote down
instructions for the child or the child himself wrote do\vn his own
experiences. Once che child got this far, \\'e conducted "play
school," as parents sometimes do with their own children before
they leave for real school, except we had to be more systematic
and careful.
In this book v.·e descnbe these programs in detail. Suffice 1r to
say that when "'e v.•ere reaching recall and descripuon. the pro-
gram extended in many directions. For example, we taught the
child to use his imagination. We caught him games of
"pretending" -to create stories enri~hed by comments about in-
terpersonal mocives and emonons. The rule of thumb \\'as nor ro
rake for granred that the child could master a parncular phase (for
example, to move from recall to pretending or co begin asking
questions about his environment) without being expltc1rlr
trained to do so It also became apparent at this stage of the pro-
gram chat as language training and "therapeutics" began to merge,
the behaviors and their controlling situation became very com-
plex L<lnguage became dynamically related to the child's experi-
ences for exam pie, in terms of what he wanted or did not wane co
 18 Basic Principles
recall. le is our concention char rh<.' m<.'chanisms (learning seeps)
which broughc him to this complex behavioral output \vere rela-
cively simple, alrhough very abstracc. Let us look ac them
Basic Training Principles
Discrimination Learning
Certain general concepcs appear chroughouc che various crain-
1ng programs, which we will illuscrace by firsc discussing d1s-
criminacion learning. Thar parr of learning cheory which pre-
scnbes how behavior comes under che conrrol of scimul1 (wh<.'rhcr
externally or inccrnally generated) 1s called d1Jo·11111nation lear11111g .
Discr1m1nanon learning underlies meaningfu l speech, and any-
one '\\·ho reaches language muse und<.'rsrand chis concepr. In _ics
mosc abscracc sense, discrimina uon learning scares char a behavior
becomes concrolled by cercain feacures of 1cs surroundin g envi-
ronmenc when ics occurrence is reinforced 1n che presence of those
features and is nor reinforced in their absence. To illuscrac<: from
language reaching, 've may expecr rhar 1f \\'e wane the sighc of rhe
mother co reliably evoke the \VOrd "mother," chen we have co
reinforce the child for sa} 1ng chat \\'ord in che presence of the
1 stimuli and optimal reinforcement schedules_ dunng . rr~1~1ng .
mother and 9.'ithhold reinforcement if he says "mocher "\\"hen she
is nor there. If we do so, che morher·s presence should acquire
discnminacive snmulus (S 0 J properues over rh<.' child's verbal1La-
cion "mocher." Of course, '9.·e wane many ocher environmencal
and incernal scimulus events co acqui re such s0 concrol over his
response "mother." For example, we may wane a feeling of
h<:lplcssness, che feeling of being protected and secure, of being
loved, and numerous or her evencs co evoke "mocher." \Vie \\'ant
char word ro become ' meaningfu l" co him. Indeed, the range of
evencs \\'hich may acquire S0 control O\'t:r "mother' is cruly amaz-
ing. 1 used co ski \\'1th some good friends v.·ho, as we approached
che mouncains and 1f 1c was sunny and \\'arm, would look up at
the whice peaks and loudly proclaim"mocher." Such highly per-
sonal meanings (such exccnsive idiosyncratic SD conrrol) do nor
prevenc us from bcg1nn1ng co build meaning by reaching rhe
child co say "mother" in che presence of his mocher. And suth
meaning craining is a problem in discriminacion learning.
Let us jusc briefly skccch some of rhe procedures and problems
associated with d1scnminac1on learning as we nO\\' know ir. First,
1n order co reinforce the child for em1Cr1ng "mother" in che pres-
Basic Principles 19
ence of his mocher (or some ocher appropriace scimulus), che
child muse firsc emir · mocher" 1n her presence le is unlikely char
he \viii do so unless we help him. We may help him by prompt111?,
him co say"mocher," and lacer remove char prom pr. Disc~imina­
cion learning, chen, deals wich problems such as discovering op-
cimal scracegies for presenring and removing promp.rs or, as
others may say, for shifting stimulus control fron: one su~ulus ro
anocher (from che pro"1p1 stimulus co the 11·a111111g sumulus).
Exactlr ho9. one accomplishes such shifrs 1n stimulus concrol 1s
nor fully underscood. D1scrim1nauon learning deals also w1th
procedures for finding appropriac e ~onc.ra~ring (mocher-n oc
mother) scimuli in order ro ease rhe d1scrim1nac1on task. fo~ ~he
child. le may, for example, scare our che craining by max1m121n.g
the difference between mother (S 0 ) and non mother (S 6.) sumuli.
Later 1n the training, one may \Vant to diminish the difference
between sP and S6. stimuli 1n an attempc co build more narrow
d 1scnm1nat1ons. D1scr1m1nacion learning has concerned itself
With Optima( procedures for f.1ciJitaring the Organism's resrond-
ing co relevant scimuli, as 1n eliminatin g ~~ncurrenr and 1rrele-
vanc stimulus inputs, perhaps by randomizin g rh.e order o.r the
position of the stimulus presenrarions. ~c deals "':''th techniques
for facilitating inhibir1on (nonrespond1ng) co 1n~orrecc . (~6.)
Discrimina tion learning also concerns itself \\•1rh peculiant~es in
che sensory reception or accencional p.rocessing .1cross or?an1sms.
Fortunatel y, much is knO\\ n abouc d1scr1m1nac1on learning f~om
rhe animal hceracure. In order co underscan<l the process o~ budd-
ing a <liscrim1nacion, ic is useful co familianze oneself w1ch that
liceracure chrough such chapters as chose by Terrace ( 1966) and
Blough ( 1966) and books such as rhose by Fello,vs ( 1968) and
Trabasso and Bower ( 1968) These rexes are some9.·hac advanced
and may be besc underscood afcer an 1ncroducr1on co operant pro-
cedures such as char provided br Keller and Schoenfeld ( 1950),
Biiou ;tnd Baer ( 1961), and Reynolds ( 1968). .
Ba.1t1" ttrlltJ. Lee us begin w1ch some basic defin1c1ons. A. tr~un-
111?. Jfllllllfll; is a scimulus to \Vh1ch we crain (heli~ che child as-
sociace) a correct response. This stimulus can be either verbal or
nonverbal. In mosc cases, che craining scimult 9.'e have used had
boch verbal and nonverbal components.' ~o tha_r when ..1c 1~ 1nd1-
caced in a manual char " f; presencs a cra1n1ng Stimulus, chis usu-
ally meancs char E presencs some nonverbal _scimulus such as an
obiecr, 1n con1unccion 9.'ith some verbal sc1mulus, such as che
quesnon, "Whac is it?"
 20
Basic Pnnc1ples
Pron.pt andpro111pt /ad111g are crucial parrs of all rraining man-
ua!s. A prompt is a ~timulus \\ hich cues rhe desired response
prior co traana~g ?r w1~h minimal ~raini~g. The prompt is pre-
~enred 1n assocaaraon warh rhe tr;11n1ng set mu Ius and assures char
the child gives rhe desired response an rhe presence of the training
Stimulus. ~rOmp~tng mar be accomplished 1n a variety of
ways-by E phys1caJly assasrang the chald co perform some re-
~ponse, or by E celling the child the correct answer, or by E serv-
1?g as a model. for rhe child'~ behavior. For example, if the de-
sired res~n~e as nonverbal, lak~ rouch1ng an object, E may pick
up. rhe ch~ld s hand and place 1r on rhe obiecr. If S is imiranng
reliably, [.; may prom pr. rhe desired response by couching rhe ob-
iecr himself a?d rhen reinforce rhe child for ami raring char acc. If
the response as verbal, E makes rhe response himself and rein-
forces rhe child for 1mirarion.
Afrer rhe response has been prompted for several trials and
rhe response occurs reliably and wirh ease, the prompr is gradu-
ally elamanared so rhar only rhe training stimulus remains. This
process of elimination is called "fi1d1ng rhe prompt" and as rhc
term implies, ir is usually a gradual process. Over a nu:nber of
trials, fl migh.r move che child's h;tnd only three-quarters of rhc
way to the obiect, then half way, then simply couch che child's
hand. If the prompt is verbal, E nught gradually lower the de-
cibel level of rhe prompt, then g1vc only che in1t1al sound, rhen
v~1celesslr for~ rhe 1nirial sound Y•1rh his lips. After a number of
rraals fl d1scont1nue~ presenring rhe prompt enrarel)'.
The rare of fada~g oughr to be determined by the child. In
som~ cases, very rapid, almost sudden, fading is appropriate and
poss1~le . In o~her_ cases, for certain children performing ccrr.1in
behaviors, fading as a slow process. The rule is to use the minimal
numbcr of prompts nec~ssary ro obtain the desired response.
Afrcr 5 or 10 proanpced trials, we presented che craining stimulus
once v:achouc the prompc. If the correct response was given, rhe
prom pc was, of course, no longer necessary and was removed al-
together. ~f rhe c?rrecc response was nor ~aven, chen E returned
co_~romptang, using the smallest unac of the prompt necessary co
elacat the cor~ect resl'?nse, a~d rh~n proceeded ro fade the prompt
from chat point, cestang again "·1thouc the prompt every 5 to 10
trtals.
All as \\·ell ~o long as che prompt c.1n be dropped entirely and
the corrccc response occurs co che training stimulus alone. Often,
however, a problem occurs 1n char the child's response \von'r
Basic Principles 21
"shaft" from the prompt Stimulus ro the training stimulus. Tech-
nically, this is referred co as a problem in "shifting sCtmulus con-
trol." So far as \\'e can see, litcle is kno\\•n abouc how and why
organisms do shift from one stimulus input co anorher; nor has
the field of learning recognized hO\\' extensive and amporcant chis
kind of learning is, parCtcularly ac che human level When we
encountered problems in shifting control, we cried co solve chem
an one or more of four ways: ( 1) to make the prompt scamulus
"unreliable," so chat ir cook effort for S co use ar (while che train-
ing stimulus remained very salient and reliable); (2) co withhold
reinforcement for responding ro che prom pc-an a sense, to make
ir difliculc for S co eac or co avoid punishment unless he stopped
responding co the prompt and began responding co the training
stimulus; (3) co prompt within the same stimulus d1mens1on as
che training stimulus (co avoid cross-modality shifts); and (4) co
drop the prompt altogether and "wait the child ouc " Schreib-
man's research (1975) has gaven some encouraging dara on the
ease with which psychoCtc children can shift stimulus control
when such shafts occur within, rather than between, sc1mulus
dimensions-ch ar is, it is easier co shifr control from a form
stimulus co another form, rather than from a color stimulus co a
form sci mulus. Some <lay we will know how co use prompt
techniques more efficacncly.
A correct response occurs when the child makes the desired
response co the craanang stimulus 'vichouc prompts. Thas defini-
CtOn reads "co rhe training stimulus", and che complcxacaes in-
volved 1n chis phrase are noc immediately apparent It is cempc-
ang co say chat a correct response has been achieved when the
child begins making che desired response " '•thout prompts upon
che presencaCton of che first training stimulus an any training
program, and indeed the term is ofren used in this manner. How-
ever, we learned repeatedly chat we could noc be certain chat che
child was respond1 ng co the relevant properties of rhe rrai ning
srimulus merely because he emicced rhe desired response ac the
appropriate rime (when£ presented che object, asking "Whac is
ar)"). The child usually responded to someothe,. aspect of the s1cu-
aC1on than rhe ancended rra1n1ng sc1mulus. He mar have been re-
sponding co che rone off J voice or the way E looked at him One
can cesc \\' hat controls S's responding by deleting successive as-
pects of rhc coral SCtmulus input. For example. 1f che cra1n1ng
stimulus is an obiecr like a cup andS has been caught to verbalize
"cup" ''·hen E holds a cup in front of him, chen it is ahvays sober-

22 Basic Principles
ing co hear S verbalize "cup" on che trial when £ lifts his empty
hand. The response is as yet undiscriminated. Until a discrimina-
tion has been made, char is, until rhe child gives rhe desired re-
sponse co the rele1 ·11111 stimulus and nor co ochers, we have no
reason ro believe he 1s responding co the cra1n1ng stimulus. I n
chis sense, a correct response is a discriminared response. The dis-
tinction is a subde one, bur the importance of discrimination
learning in almost ever}' phase of language training is difficult co
overemphasize \Xie are more assured char S is emitting che correcr
response when he can respond d1fferenciallr co t\vO training
stimuli, for example, a cup and a glass. In such a case, mosr or all
aspects of the training situation (such as E's movements) remain
constant between the two training scimul1, 1n order co be correct,
S has co learn co accend co (co d1srY1J11111a111) the relevant aspecrs of
the training sttmulus. We cried co accomplish chis through a pro-
cedure called "systematic snmulus presentation," which we '"ill
descnbe, using steps from Expressive Discrimination Training.
Systematic shmul us presentation
Step I. The process begins \Vi th the presentation of che first
training stimulus (TS!). f. ~vaits forS co accend co him visually,
or he may have precra1ne<l S co respond co "Look ac me". As soon
as S attends, [discretely and succincdy moves TSl (for example,
an obiect such as a cup) inco S's ltne of vision. E may or may nor
ask, "What is 1c?" The quesuon, · \Xlhac ts 1c?" may interfere \\•1th
S's response co more relevant pares of the training stimulus.
Through prompt(£ says "cup") and fading F trains the correct R
<R l) co TS 1
Step 2. When-~ n:liably gives R l co TS I (five ouc five presen-
tations), ~ nc" cra1n1ng srimulus 1s introduced by E presencing a
second snmulus, TS2, such as an apple. le 1s almost a cerraint}'
char rhe initial presentation ofTS2 will evoke Rl. The response is
not as yet discnminaccd. This being che case, t muse correct S
and prompt the new desired response ("apple"). For example, E
accompanies S's mistake with "no, and a 5-second TO (Time
Our-. meaning F looks away from S, ignoring him and being
unavailable). E then prompts the ne\\' R2 ("apple"), and the
prompt is then faded <l\ in Seep I.
le is co be noted in the procedures we have jusc described chat
S is allowed to make errors. There are procedures whereby one can
prevent or minimize errors, and these procedures may be impor-
'
Basic Principles 23
cant co keep 1n mind. To illustrate: After we have trained R 1 co
TS l and \Ve then present TS2, S \vill respond with R 1, which is
an error, •tnd E will in some way have co punish chis (withdraw
his attention, c1.:I I S" no," and the like). Invariably, a succession of
errors will elicit tantrums from S or leave S unresponsive. To
avoid or m1nimit.c errors, \ve have experimented \\'ith procedures
\\·hereby "·e tr}' co reach S not co respond co TS2 when TS I is
being crained . That is, \\ hile training R 1 co TS l, \\'e present TS2
1n ~ J ltnc of v1s1on so quickly char S does nor gee a chance co
respond co 1t Gradually \\'e \viii present TS2 for longer and
longer duranon and reinforce S for noc responding \vi ch RI. We
arc 1n essence reaching S co inhibit, \\'ithhold, or nor co respond
\\•tth RI co TS2. Exactly how chis seep will be worked 1n 'vi ch
ocher seeps remains co be seen. Thar is, onces has been caught nut
to respond w1ch RI co TS2, it may be more difficult subsequently
co reach chc correcc R. Bue we do kno\\• that it 1s important co
keep S from making errors, since errors interfere so much wtth his
learning. Terrace ( 1966) has published extensively in chis area of
"errorless" learning.
Sttp 3. When the child has mastered Seep 2 (gives five our of
five correct R2's co TS2), E again presents TSl. When TSI is
rcincroduce<l, S will usually emir R2. During the early stages of
training, .) gives an incorrect response each time E S\vicches the
training snmulus. [ should expect char as ne\v stimuli arc intro-
duced, ch ere \\ill be a cerca1 n amount of loss in previously ac-
quired responses (We present some data on this lacer.) For exam-
ple, "hen TS I is reintroduced it will cake the child fe~ver trials to
regain RI. In later stages of training, "·hen one _begins co. ,,·ork
,, ich a third or fourth training sCtmulus, loss again occurs 1n che
prcYiousl}' mastered discriminations; however, ch~ degree.o~ loss
cyp1cally decreases as addinonal responses are acquired This sav-
ings over casks" or "learning co learn" has been frequently re-
ported 1n che learn1n,g literature in a \vide variet} of sicuacions.
\1tp ../ Once TS l again reliablr evokes R 1, E again presents
TS2. recover~ R2, moves back co TS l, and so on. E now has co
hecornt· concerned about che 01·dtr or sequence 1n \\'hich he pre-
sents stimuli There are problems here \vh1ch we have nor
adequacel}· solved, bur we me~rion chem so char r~e reader can
bl'<.:oine ,\\\;Ire of the problems involved and determine for a par-
ttcul.1r child ho"' he" ill run a sci mu Ius sequence. .
Suppose.\ h<IS become dependent upon che prompt. If E ts nor
careful, he may have caught him such dependency. For example,

24 Basic Pnnc1ples
E presents TS 1, S gives R2, E then prompts RI, S nov: gives RI,
t111d E re111force1. In such a procedure S 1s reinforced for responding
co the pro~pt and may never have co attend co the relevanc (im-
portant) snmuli (TS I and TS2). In a general sense, E is so helpful
tharS never has co learn anyching new. In a technical sense, TS!
does nor acquire any S 0 (discrim1n anve stimulus) funcnons. To
remedy chis, E ma>' s1mplr have co \vair for S co correct himself
\v1chouc prompts. This helps co minimize "prompt dependenc r",
since the prompt does nor al\\·ars precede rhe correct R This
seems simple enough, bur S mar rapidly learn char if the first re-
sponse he gives is unreinforc ed, he need only S\\•icch co rhe ocher
response co gain r~i nforcemenc . Thar is, E presents TS I; S g1 ves
R2; ~ d~s nor re1.nforce ~nd does nor prompt; S chen gives R J
and is reinforced. S may, 10 a s1ruacion like chis, learn ro respond
co the absence of reinforcem ent for one response \\•ich another re-
sponse. Tec hnically, the \\•irhhold1ng of reinforcem ent for R2 be-
0
comes an~ for RI. To prevent S from making chis error, mar r has co cake great care nor co reinforce the v.•rong d1scnm1nacions.
have co \\'1rhhold reinforcem ent for rhe correct response 1f ir has
been preceded by an incorrect response. For example E ~usr pre-
sent TS 1 twice i.n a ro\v and S muse respond correc;ly tv.'lce in a
row before E reinforces. This seep leads ro ocher problems, be-
cause now. E muse guard against 1nad,·ercencly reinforcing 5 for
perse~eraun~ (r~peat1ng the same response). There are several
v•ays in \\•h1ch E can build perse\·eracion responding , and there
are ways co avoid it One \\'ay co minimize perseveracion is ro
reinforce a correc~ R, 1f char R occurs on the first presenrario n of a
Stimulus 1n a ~enes. For example, reinforce R2 if R J \\•as correct
on the preceding trial: In general, iris wise co keep rhe rrials as
heterogene ous as possible, so as co maxi1nize rhe discrim 1nacion
of(artenc1o n ro) rhe cra1ning srimuli. A similar problem occurs if
S is allo":'ed co d1scnm1nace a certain "order" of sumuli For
example, 1fTS land TS2 are srscemacic allr alternated (TS 1, TS2.
TS I, TS2, TS l, TS2), S may learn chat alcernaung Rs bring rein-
forcement.. S1mtlarly, 1f E presents a particular stimulus more
chan once 10 a row (TS l ' TS I ' TS I ' TS2 • TS2 ' TS2) , S may Iearn
h b
t at Y .merely repeac~ng a correct R ar the nexr rrial he is likcl}
~o be reinforced (a re1nfor~ed R .becomes discrimina tive rhrough
its own rec.urrence). _T har 1s, E 1s reaching S co perseverarc . Fi-
nally: E will m1n1m1zc perseverau on and ocher order effecrs b ..
~unn1ng a series of crials \vhere rhe training stimuli are presented
in a nonsyscemac1c order. We refer co chis as a "nonsrstem aric
Basic Principles 25
sumulus rotation. Non syscemacic roracion means chat we avoid
presenung the same tra1n1ng sumulus on more than cwo consecu-
tive .rnals co avoid perseverac1ve responding . We also avoided any
specifiable order or pattern of presentatio n (such as TS l, TS2,
s
TS 1, TS2) co prevent a specific order co acquire 0 conrrol.
Again, our main concern 1s co insure chat the child will be attend-
ing co the training stimulus for the appropnac e response.
Ocher problems will arise, and the safest rule co apply 1s chis :
Whatever change 1n the en\ironme nc is syscemacically presenc ac
the t1me a response 1s reinforced acquires S0 control over chat re-
sponse. Another safe rule co apply is chis: If S can make che dis-
criminatio n (give E che desired response) without attending co
the cues which£ intendr for him co attend co, then S 'viii do so.
Some cues are more salient for some children than ocher cues;
rarely arc cues equally we1ghced for all children . The important
message is chat when E does reinforce, then S 1s lcarn1ng, and one
In chis regard it is also important co point our that the problems
we have enumerate d here 1n rhe reaching of developme ntally re-
tarded autistic children are nor unique co such children. Al-
though much needs co be kno,vn abour discrimina tion learning in
young normal children or 1n retarded children, ic is likely char
one will encounter similar problems. Certainly, animal training
liceracurc abounds v.1th examples of such problems (cf Blough,
1966).
Lee us return co Step ·~ . Once 5 has mastered char seep, char
is, \\hen he can reliably on 10 successive trials give R 1 and R2 co
the firsc presencauo n of S l and 52, given char S l and S2 are ran-
domly intermixed , then we can say for the first Clme chat the
child is making the correct response.
Ac rh1s juncture a ,,·ord should be said about selection of
training stimuli Boch che stimuli themselves and the desired re-
sponses should be max1m.1llr J1fferenc co aid in the discrimina -
tion process. le seems easier for che child co d1scnm1nace between
objects char look different and words chat sound different than be-
tween chose chat are similar. For example, che child will be able
co d1scnm1nace more easily ber,veen che objects milk and bacon
than between milk and juice (both of v.·hich generallr come in
glasses). It v.•ill be easier for " co learn che labels for cup" and
"ball" ch.in "cup" and "ca( Lacer 1n crain1ng , minimal differ-
ences ma}' become important to sharpen S s discrimina tion. For
 26 Basic Principles
example, one may \vane co expose S co numerous examples of an
object 1n order co crain or rest generalizar1on. Bur ac first, the best
results seem co he ohrained \virh maximal differences among rhe
training stimuli.
Mose of the pro~rams \\'e present arc generally concerned \virh
expressive speech cra1n1ng because our inceresc focused on reach-
ing rhe child exprt~si ve (producri ve) language. Howe\'cr, we
began training on recept1\'e speech (che adult would speak, che
child \vould poinr) as a 'prerraining .. seep ro develop rhe child's
own speech, because \~C felt char ir would be easier for him co
speak once he had learned co arrend co many of the cues \\•hich
would be relevant in acquiring expressive speech. ~fany consider
it advantageous char recepuve speech precede productive speech,
bur rhe \\•hole problem of rhe 1nceracrion between recepuvc and
productive speech is nor known. Guess and Baer (1973) recendy
reviewed che e1np1rical research 1n chis area and present one of
their own Studies which failed co show 1nreracrion between the
rv"o forms of speech. According co rheir revrew, it is apparent
char receptive speech may, under certain circumstances, facilitate
productive speech, hue it is by no means certain v.1hen such
faci l itating wrll occur.
Prompting and Shaping Behavior
So far, we have talked almost exclusively abour discrimina-
tion learning-the kind of learning char relates behavior ro an
appropriate stimulus conrexr. Ir will be more difficult ro describe
another kind of learning-ho\\ behavior itself is acquired. In
terms of r~e lan~uage program, we v.·ill need procedures \\'hereby
a mute child \viii be taught co express verbal responses. char is,
~O\v co make words and sentences. In order ro begin such cra1n-
1ng, we lirsc need ro kno\\· hO\\' co elicit rhe basic uni rs of speech,
rhe morphemes.
Lee us illusrrare ~he problems br an example from training.
Suppose F. is fuced with a child who is mure, who never has ur-
r7red a wor~, as far as .1nyone can ascertain. The child may occa-
sionally emir certain vowels, bur his spontaneous rare of these
productions may be so low thar ir is possible for him ro be com-
pletely nonvocal 1n any one cra1n1ng session. E wanes 5 ro voca-
lil.e, because he can then reinforce rhese vocalizations and
thereby increase chc1r rate Eventually, rhe child will undergo a
•
Basic Pnnc1ples 27
shaping program \vhich may turn chese sound productions into
more recognizable urcerances, such as words.
f. may now cry co pr1J111p1 S co help S vocalize, co break the
silence. Essenr1ally, E attempts co identify the uncon<l1t1oned
sumulus char elicits S's vocalizations as respondent behaviors.
Perhaps all optranr behavior 1s 1n1rially respondent, vocal or
ocher\\ 1se C.errain respondents seem easily el1ciced-scarcle
reflexes, rage, or the like Bur little is knov•n about how co elicit
vocal behavior. ~fosc l1kel>•, the unconditioned stimulus for vocal
behavior is nor a discrete evenc, as seems co be the case for start-
ling or salivating. Ir seems 1nsread ro involve a certain order111g of
many discrete sun1ul1. Thar is, a child musr be in a good mood,
reseed, and nor roo hungry. E may reach over and srroke his
stomach or ucklc him gently under rhe arm, or he may feed him
some small b1ces of food which increases rhe likelihood char 5 ..viii
vocalil.e. So1neumes [ may cry co elicit or induce the vocaltl.a-
r1ons by having rhe child jump, flap his arms, or engage in some
ocher vigorous physical exercise. Or E may manuall~ elicit a ~o­
calizacion by closing the child's lips and suddenly letnng rhe child
release air. Once the first vocal ization has occurred, E reinforces
im1nediarely co raise its rare. When he does reinforce, he muse be
careful co guard against rhe possibility char the reinforcing
sr11nul1 do nor chen1selvcs inhibit or orher,vise block further vo-
cal1zar1on, as \\hen rhe child 1s srarrled. Ideally, rhe reinforcing
stimuli should themselves elicit more vocalization, which they
seemingly do\\ hen a child is reinforced \virh food. The "spacing"
of rhe trials probably is imporranr, as the child appears co have a
"rh}•thm .. char \\ill produce more vocalizations Add1rionally,
some vocalizations seem easier co control through reinforcement
than or hers, bur ,,.e <lo nor knO\\' exactly which ones E will prob-
ably also obscrvt: char the vocalization rhar become.s an op~:ra_nr
(has come under rc1nforcemenr concrol) is slightly different 1n HS
ropographr rhan \\·hen 1r \vas a respondent, before 1r \\'as rein-
forced.
In any case, little is known about how co elicit vocal be-
h,1vior, and \\'C do nor know hO\\' or \\'hy such elicited vocal (re-
spondent) hehavior becomes operant through .re1nforcemenr.
Segal ( 1972) has \\'rttten on the problems of 1dent1fy1ng the
elen1enr.1rr un1cs of operant behavior in general, and rhe reader
n1ay /incl ht•r paper helpful. She suggests char operants ini.rially
exist •IS respondents She also discusses certain broad variables

28 Basic Principles
char one can mani pulat e co elicit respo nden t beha\'1or, such as rhe
man1pulac1on of emon onal stim uli. deprivaf!On, and 1nducr1on
by reinf orcem ent In recen r rime s, learn ing theorises like Mille r
( 197 l) have also demo nstra ted reinf orcem ent contr ol over re-
spon dent beha ,·ior. Bur in gene ral, this litera ture docs noc seem co
conta in a grea t deal of conc rete 1nfor1nacion· on the proce ss
wher eby a respo nden t beco mes an oper ant .
Onc t F v:as able co prom pr a vanc ry of soun ds from the child
and has incre ased che occu rrenc e of these soun ds throu gh rein-
force ment , then rhe actua l shap ing of these soun ds 1nro word s
was acco mpli shed throu gh a train ing prog ram 1n vocal imita flon
(Prog ram 1) In char prog ram, child ren were caug ht how co n1:1ke
v•ords and sente nces by first being raugh c to imita te the vocal be-
havio r of atten ding adul ts. For the c11nc being , Ice us say char rhe
v.:ay in 'vh1ch we bring the first soun ds from the child is poor ly
unde rstoo d, and only a perso n who 1s fami liar w1ch a child (\\ho
know s how co play with hun and other wise care for hun) \vil l be
able co cl1c1t a full range of 1nit1al soun ds
Lee us bnefl y dt·scribe one add1flonal mcrhodolog1cal prob lem
before we go on. Once the child can prod uce a sec of recog nizab le
word s and these word s are brou ght 1nco parfl cular su rnulu s con-
texts , prob lems mar occu r. S may beco me aln1ost 1nau<l1hle, or he
may begi n co g1v<: comb 1nac ions of cv:o or more respo nse
alcer nariv es-h e rnay comb ine R 1 (appl e) and R2 ( cup ) in co
some thing like "cup apple ' or "api xup. " Som enme s (perh aps al-
ways) such a prob lem come s abou t because of E's eage rness co
reinforce the child , whic h resul ts in reinf orcin g appr oxim ation s
of the desir ed responses and may lead co a sHua tion in whic h a
response drift s a\\.t}' from crite rion. f.'s job here 1s nor mulh
easier than the child 's. lfF, 1s coo libera l in his reinf orccr ncnc , chc
child 's responses rema in undil fcn:n ciatc d and obsc ure On rhe
oche r hand , ifE 1s too strtl t. the child 's beha vior \\·ill cxun gu1s h .
Pare off \ job is ro keep the child beha v1ora llr recep tive. Ir 1s
appa rent char we <lo not know rhe exact proce dure for shap ing
beha vior, but we hope \Vt knO\\' enou gh co begi n the effort
In the course of askin g ques nons and prom pung , speci al pro-
cedures arc need ed for deali ng "'ith echo lalic child ren, since they
repea t not only a verbal prom pt bur also the t1uest1ons or corn-
mencs rhar E make s co them . Thar 1s, echol.d1c child ren aln:a<ly
have a verbal topo grap hy, whic h 1s ofcen very exrens1vc, but 1r 1s
unde r socially inapp ropri ate stimu lus contr ol. \Y/e have there fore
develope<l a proce dure for "brea king ccho lalta " In chac prog ram
•
Basic Pri:ic1ples 29
\Ve ceach che child co discr imin ate when it is appr opria te and
"hen 1t is nor appr opria te co echo . In gene ral, we have arcem pced
to "fade 1n" chose pares of /j's scacemenr that we did nor 1nrend for
imita tion ("Wh at is chis?" is prese nted at a relati vely low decib el
level) and then "pun ish" what ever echo lalia occu rred at chat cime.
Ac che same rime '"e prese nt the prom pt ("cup ") so loudl y .and
quick ly that it may block the echo lalic repet ition of rhe ques tion,
and then , of cours e, we reinf orce S's repet ition of the prom pt
Tech ntCa ll) spea king , \\'e are reach ing the child , throu gh <l1f-
fcrentiatc<l reinf orcem ent, when It 1s appr opria te co echo . The
langu age film v.·e prod uced (Lovaas, L9?9) provi~es a good exam -
ple of reach ing che child ro inh1b1r his echo lalia. Teac hing the
child not co echo 1s an ongo ing prog ram, but 1n the lacer stage s of
train ing 1t requr es less effort. As a child bega n r~. unde rstan d lan-
guag e, he \vas mere ly cold, "Don 't he echo laltc.
In chis secn on \Ve have accem pred co intro duce some of the
h<lsic term s and opera tions char \Ve empl oyed in our elforcs co
build langu age Thes e term s and proce<lures 'viii be furth er
dcfine<l as \Ve discu ss che vario us langu age prog rams in more de-
tail. Let us nO\V desc nbc rhe chd<lren co \vhom \Ve caug ht lan-
guag e. so that che exten t of cheir langu age defic it may be bette r
unde rstoo d.
The Children
Most of our research has dealt exclu sivel y with chose child ren
who ,vere sufficicncly retar ded in ernor ional , s.oc1al, an<l 1?rellec-
cual deve lopm ent co b1.: J1agnose<l as auns nc or aut1sc1c \\.'tth
childhoo<l schiz ophr enia. All of che chtl<lren had been so. diag-
nosed by ac lease one othe r agen cy nor associated with chis pro-
iecc. Also , che majo rity of che child ren had more than one diag-
nosis, usua lly bein g referred co as retar ded and brain dama ged,
and had been rejec ted from one or more schools for the emot 1on-
all y ill or retar ded because their reac~ers cou~d not ~oner~) the~
and chetr beha vior v.as so b1:carre char 1t \\JS <l1srupt1\e. ~ltn1 cally
spea king , with chree or four exce ption s, rhe~ seem ed void ~f a~x­
iery. None had any awar eness rhac some thing was \Vrong with
him . \'<It selec ted rhe mosr unde velop ed of the child ren so as co
virtu all} rule our che poss1btltt) char the child ren knew any lan-
guag e befor e we raug hr them . .
Gene rally , che child ren we caug ht can be desc nbed as shov.·-
 Picture A·I . Ricky during an outburst ot tears. screams and hots out at himself
and the environment Such tantrum· like behavior is typical during the early ses·
soons and often seems triggered by the new demands which the teaching s1tua-
t1on places on the ch old There ts a variety ot ways on which one mtg ht try to treat
such a tantrum Sometimes 11 works to comfort a child, at other times such com-
lort may 1ust serve to increase the tantrum One may try to "work through the
tantrum. that os paying little, 1t any, attention to it and not allow 11 to disrupt the
teaching s1tuat1on II this fails. one may try some procedures such as extinction
or tome-out where the therapist looks away from the child or places the child on
1solat1on Note that of the child's tantrum 1s an attempt to escape from the situa·
tlon, then placing the child In time-out would merely worsen 11 If everything else
falls one may try aversive control, such as saying a loud "no" or one may have to
give the child a slap on the bottom contingent on the tantrum Note that 11 com·
forting the child dod not help the ftrst year. it may help the second year

•
 P1crure A·2 Pam. se1t-s11mulating. regarding her hand, and swishing saliva in her
mouth Such self-s11mulat1on takes several forms. as 'n rocking. spinning . gazing
twirling . sifting · sand , ' inspecting · floating lint etc We try to suppress such
behavior as much as possible. since the children appear inattentive dunng self·
st1mula11on On the other hand we may let the children self·stornulate for a short
period (3 seconds) as a reinforcer for being correct on the teaching tasks

•
 30 Bas1c Pnnc1pl es
ing the following characcensncs, all of "'hich define autism: (I)
che /,1nf(lft1gt tli!fi(ien') \vas a sal1enc feature. T hus exp1·esui·e speech
was missing or minimal. Half of che 20 children we rrained \Vere
niute, th.It I\, rhcy produ(ed no recognizable words. The other
half \11crc <:cholalic, "'hich meant chac chey echoed che speech of
orh<:rs, either immediately or after a delay, giving che impression
of nonrelated inappropriac<: speech. On occasion, some of che
echolalic thildren \vould express a request (wich rhe pronouns re-
versed) co an accendinJ.: adult under che appropriate cir-
cumstances, such as "You ""anc co get do,vn?" if held 1n the
adult's lap against his \\•ill or "You \vanr some candy(' 1f there \Vas
candy availahlc Some auttsnc children have been kno,vn co use
relatively elahorarc language, buc these \Vere excluded from our
study, since \\'e were concerned wich building spoken language in
children who had licde, if any, such behavior. In all rhe children
rccep111, JP<"h \vas mi\sing or m1n1mal. So1ne of che ch1lt!ren
woult! obe} simple commands, such as shurring the door when
asket! co "Shur rhc door." le 1s nor likely, however, char chey un-
derstood chis command, sin<.:e rhey would also shut the door 1f
one exclaimed "1'here'5 a window and a door." At besc, rhey re-
sponded in a relatively undifferenriaced way co language, using
speech as a "go" signal. They could nor identify (point ro) rheir
body pares or common ohjeccs around rhem if rhey \vere asked co
do so. None of the children gave evidence of underscant!1ng
abscracc speech, such as prepos1tions, pronouns, and rime.
In add1t1on co chis language deficiency, rhe children (·an be
described as showing (2) 11pp,1r.111Jtnror;1/efi(1/, which refers co rhe
face rhac mosc of rhe parencs have described their children on che
R1mland Checklisc (Ri1nland Diagnostic Checklisc for
Behavior-Disturbed Children, Rimland, 1964) as (a) ac one rime
apf'<'aring.co be deaf and (b) looking through or \\·alking chrough
chi n~s as if the}' \\ere· nor rhcre. ( ~) Se1 er. affet't no/,1tifJ11 v.·as pre-
dom1nanc, meaning rhar che p.ircncs described the children on
che Rimland Cht·cklisc •IS (a) failing ro reach our co be picked up
\\'hen approached b)' people, (b) looking ar or v;alk1ng through
people as if chey \\•eren'r rhere, (c) appearing so distant char no
one could reach chem, (d) indifferent co being liked, and (e) noc
affectionate. (Ii) a high race of.relfr1111111latr11')' hehat HH·. which refers
c? beha.v1()r that appeared on!}' co provide rhe children \\'ich prop-
rioc.epttve feedh,1ck (r<x:king, spinning, t\virling, flapping, or
gaz 1ng ). (5) There \Vas al <,o an 11hJ1•11t'e "/or 111111i111al J1roe11.-e ,,; 1,,,.,,,/
'""' ulfh1•/p bth,11111rJ-1nosc o( the children could noc dress
•
Basic Principles 31
chemselvcs, mosr were unaware of common dangers (they \vould
\Valk our 1nro busy streets), most could nor wash themselves or
comb che1r hair, some were nor toiler-trained. (6) Some ofrhese
children were Jtlf1/tJlr11c111e or 1elf-1111111lator). All had severe ag-
gressive cancrum-like oucbursts, scratching and bicing attending
adulcs \\'hen forced co comply \\'ith even minimal rules for social
conduce. These arc severe handicaps, indeed, buc che> do provide
che 1nvesttgacor \virh che advantage of scarring his '''Ork \\'1th as
close ro a 1ah11la rasa as one can obcain.
The other problems chese children display may be che cause of
their language deficiency or irs effect, or all may be caused b>
some third faccor Such an enumeration of "symptoms" as \Ve
have described serves ro identify a certain number of children,
bur che behavioral grouping is probably quice arbicrary. For
example, rhe absence of language, instead of being l1sced as a
separate "sympcon1," could \\'ell be subsumed under rhc category
of"minimal social behaviors," and all che behaviors may \veil be a
consequence of "apparent sensory deficit." The relationships arc
nor undcrscood
One has ro make some changes in these children's behavior
before one begins to reach chem language, or ir is unlikely chat
chey \Vi II learn Ic seems pointless ro tr}' ro reach language co a
chiltl 'vho is banging his head against che \vall in self-mucih1tion
or chreaccn1ng co b1Ce his reacher. So, before language learning
coulJ begin, we decided co remove chese interfering behaviors by
e1chcr presenting c1me our (TO) or ocher aversive scimulauon
conringenc upon che behavior. Jc 1s surprising ho"'· quicklr one
can gain concrol over such interfering behaYior (cf. Lovaas and
Simmons, 1969).
One also has co suppress some of rhe self-srimularory behavior
(the rocking, spinning, t\\ 1rling) before one \\·ill be able co go
ver> far in che reaching of man> of chese children. The dara \Ve do
have suggesc char che self-scimulacor}' behavior delays or reduces
che child's re:.ponses ro audicorr scimuli (Lovaas et al , 197 1) .ind
does noc allo"· for dis(riminanon learning co occur (Koegel and
Covert, 1972). Again, 1t \Yas relauvelr easy ro suppress self-
srimuh1tory behavior by che use of conringenc disapproval or
ocher aversive stimuli
The ch1rd, and probably rhe major, problem 1n dealing ,,·ich
aucisuc· children centers on chcir deficient morivacional scrucrure.
\'<11thout adequate reinforcers, \Ve would lack a basic rool needed
ro effect chc changes ''e hope for. There are t\vO solucions ro ~u<.:h
 Baste Principles
32
a problem. bur onlr one is available ar rhis rime. The one a\aila-
blc ro us presenrlr enrails rhe consrrucrio n of an .. arrifici.11" or ex-
perimenral moravarion al srrucrurc b.1scd on rhe use of food and
physically aversive sri1nuli as reinforcers . This is a makesh1fr solu-
rion, v.•irh a nurnber of drav.•backs. Typi<·ally. rhe behavior one
has builc using ;1n arri fic1al rcinfortcr is exringuish ed \Vhcn that
reinforcer is removed Such excincuon ofcc:n occurs \Vhen che
child leaves che tcach1ng env1ronme nr. In order co pre\'cnt J1s-
criminacio n and ro help him ma1nca1n rhe Jtains he has madc, v.·c
must rake pains co cqualize crearment and noncrearm enr cnvi-
ronmencs (Lovaas rt,,/. 197 J ). Arnli«i.d re1nforcers are obviously
i n.1dequate \vhen compared ro che i mmcd 1acy, pov.•er, and a vaila-
hil i ry of che natural daily-life reinforcers char probably ser\'e to
build rhe compreht·n sion and the flcx1bk speech of normal chil-
dren. A normal child's speech can efii:cr profound changes 1n his
social and physic.ii environme nr. He can n1ake lighrs go on and
o!T, he can control his plarmaces. he can make his parcnrs laugh
or \\·eep. If such effects lose rheir reinforcing functton tor him, he
n11ghr cease ralking One can Sa} that the normal child speaks
because he \vanes ro, \Vh ich is ver} much like saying rhat he
speaks because he has co . We made sure rhar rhe psyC"horir t hil-
dren also had to talk in order co ger along.
Ir 1s prob.iblr impossible co build flexible, h1ghlr arriculaced ,
"ffuenc" speech using foo<l and ocher arti lic1al reinforcem cnr. \'ec
rhe alcernauvc . rrying co normalize rhe morivarion al scrul'rure
prior ro budding spceC"h, 1s simply nor n·alisrically available. Oe-
spi re claims ro rhe C"Oncrary (1/ the large psychoanalyr1c l 1n:raru re
on treating autism), no one has provided convincing evidence or a
replicable mechoJ or data that \vould sho\v us ho\v co accon1pltsh
such an end.
There 1s one n1ajor advantage a~s<x iated \Vi th this dcfil icnt
morivation al srru(ture. In normal children, language: is acquired
so quickly and 1n so many circumscan ces char one does nor ger rhe
opporcun1t y co finJ our \\ har 1s going on. Developm cnrallr re-
rarded, aunsr1c children, on rhe orher hand, develop very slov.·ly.
They are 1n a sensc, like rhe bubble (ham her 1n physics, g1v1ng us
some measure of conrrol over the process, slo,ving ir dov.•n
sufficiently co studr rhe phenon1en on of acqu1nng language· in
some derail. r\or111al lhild devclop111cnc in normal en\ironmc nrs
does not allov. ch,1r.
For the purp<>~e of contribunn g to a general thtory of lan-
guage dcvelopme nr, v.·e ha\'e assumed rhar rhe developmc ntallr
Basic Principles 33
retarded, auciscic child's failure ro acquin: language is based on
his dc:licienr mottvauon al structure. If \\'e can shO\\' char by "re-
pa1nng" that srrucrure rhc auttsttc child a(qu1rcs language, rhen
our assumptto n is supporrcd. Bur one may also be alert co ocher
pecul1ant1e s of che aut1sric child which would render him so
unique that his language data \VOuld have limited general icy. One
can raise quesc1ons about organic damage and permancnc l) al-
tered \\·ays of responding . For example, one mar .1rgue char chere
has been Jamage co a "language center, "h1ch has prevented
"ord1n.1rr" language learning ro occur. Or poss1bl}, rhe1r failure
co develop language 1s a funcr1on of cerra1n sensor} problems
which disrorr incoming stimuli. Cerrainly, a Ii mired deviar1on on
the srimulus input side cou ld \veil shuc dov.•n rhc rest of rhe sys-
cem, even if che rest were 1nralr, and manr ocher kinds of damage
could be present. In face. in iniriaring our vcnrure. \\'e found 1r
best co ignore \\'hac others h.1d said about organic damage and
language acqu1sinon The prognoses one gathers from chese ar-
gumenrs are so pess1m1st1l char one v.·ould be unlike!} even co
scare a language program 1f one arcended to rhem.
References
Bijou S \\ & Baer D ~I ( /,,/./ 1!.tclr.pm,111. Viii I 1\ fl•f<111,1111 ,111J emp1rt-
"" '"'"" '\lew York Appleton -Cencury-C rofi,, 1961.
Bloomhdd, L I ,111g1111gr New 't'tirk Holr 19'\ '\
Bloui:h, () S. The 'rudy of an1 m.d "'nsory processes hr oper.1nr methods. In
\X'. K Honig <Ed l Op''"""' l1d•,111m An·,11 •if ,.,,r,n-.h ,nu/ 1ppl1<.tll"11.
Nt·w 'tork Appleton Cen1ur~·Crofr,, 1966.
Fellow\ B J T1.>t Ju1ro 1111.111•·1' wo1t11 ,111.I J.a/.,p111olf \Jc" York: Pergamon
Pre". 1968
Gue", D, & B.tcr, D ~I An anah'I' of 1ndiHdu.1I d1tfcrente' 1n 1-:eneraliz.1-
rion ht:tween rt.-cepll\'I.' and produtt1ve l.1ni:u.1gt· 1n n·r,1rded children
)011111,,/ 11/, \ppltul Brh,11101" ·\ 11.diu1, 197 .'\, 6 , .'\ I 1- '\ 29
Keller, F S., & 'ithocnfold, \\ \J l'1111oplro "//'•Jc/Jo/•1.1 l J\ •J•lt//lt1llr ft\/ 111
d· "1e111< "f htl»11•u,,. New York Irvington Puhlt,hers, 195 0
K<>ef:cl, R , & Covert, A The rd.111onsh1p of ,cJf."1111ul.1rion to learning 1n
,IUll,11< d11ldrc:n. J..111"11.d u( ·\ppl1uf Bel"'""' /\11,1/)tll , 19-2, 5 (-1),
iHl-'\89
Lo\,lJs. 0.1. 8.h.111tJr 1110,/ijicdfl'll/. lr111h1r.., l.111g111J/(t lo f'J).1"11' .l11/dre11. 10-
'trll<ttonal him. 1'.) min , 16mm. -sounJ, Appleton·Ce ntury-Crofrs ,
Nt" 'lurk. 1969.
34 Basic Principles

Lo'·'"" 0 I., L11 ro\\ n1k, A., & .\lann, R Response latencies ro .1ud1 tory
\llmuh 1n aut"tl< duldren eni:a,1:l'd 1n >elf-stimularorr beha"1or. Bt·
h.11·1~r R<lr.Jrth .111d 'f /,,.,·,1p1 1971, 9, 59·-19.
Lo\'aa•. 0. I., S<hrc1hman, L.. Ko<:~d. R .• I>.: Rehm, R. St-lecr1ve responding
by au11>ti< duldrtcn 10 rnultiplc: sen,ory 1npur ;,,11r11.il of Ah11~'""'''
1'1).l~il·. I I')" I. ~ 7 <.\) • 211-222.
Lo\:1a>, 0 I o.c Si1111111n1•. J .Q ~lan1pul.11ion of ,.,1f-desrrul'.cion 1n three re-
cardt-d children }•>1tr11r1/ bf Appl1<J 8cha119r A11a/;11J, 1969.1. 113-157
~tiller, :-;, E. ln,crumen1.il ll'arn1n.11 of vi~er.ol re>ponses. In N. E ~lilkr
(Ed.), 5dt11t.I pap.rs. :-\ew 't{>rk: Ald1ne & At hereon. 19 1
Reynolds, G. ~. ,\ pnn1<r ,,/ r•{'<raf// .011J111on111g. Glen"e". Ill 5con, fort's·
man & C..o .. 1968
R1mland, B. 111(11111/, 111111 "· '-'c" 'li>rk C.encurr-Crofr>.196-i.
&hre1bm.in. L. \X'1ch1n-"11nulu> versu> extra-sllmulus prompting procedure'
on d1scrim1nat1on learning with J.ull>UC children.)•'11Y11al 11,1.pplud Br·
ha1·1or,,/ An,d)lll. 197~. in press
'>egal, I. f lndutr1on .1nd the provcnantc of operants. In R. l.\.1 Gilberc & J
R ~ilknson <Ed;.), Ru11/,,r«.,,1tlll' Bcha11r,r,1/ antt!)JJJ New York:
A,.1dcm1t Pre"· 197 2
Skinner, B I' 5u111re .1111! /111111.n1 hr/>,11 ,,,,. Ne" York Macmillan, 1953
Skinner, B I• I 'tr/1,i/ /,,h,11 w•'. New Yorio. Appleton- (.encury -Crofcs, L95 7
Chapter II
Tcrratc. H S Sr11nulu' <Ontrol In \V/ K llon1g (Ed.). Oper,,nl heh""'"" Arra•
of rr1t111'<h .111.t .1ppl1c"a1Jm1. New York Appleton-Century-Crofcs. 1966.
BUILDING THE FIRST WORDS
Tr.ib;1:.so. T , & Bow~r, G. H A1111111"11 111 leo1n11111: New York John \V/iley
and Sons. Inc . 1968.
AND LABELS

cc us no\v turn co the specific programs 'vhich illustrate

our pnxcdures. They are not exhaustive, nor art rhey presented
in derail here. The reader \\ho \\'ishes co examine these rra1n1ng
programs further can turn co rhe various rrain1ng manuab 1n
Chapter 6. In order co avoid d1sconnnu1ry ber,veen these pro-
grams and rhe dara relevant co each, dara and program "·ill be
presented rogecher The daca are illuscrauve, since 1c was both
impossible and unnecessary co record all che language on all the
children ar all umes. \'<le employed rhe follo"·ing rules for dara
collecrion.
F1rsr, ,,.e kepr derailed dara on a limited number of children
(c\\·o co six Ss) chroughour a particular program and rhcn observed
rhc resr of rhe children more informally on rhe same program If a
child dev1.1red, \Vt resumed derailed dara recording.
Second, co help assess generaliry across Ss \\•e rook Jara from
35

•
 Picture B One ol the first tasks we try to teach the child is to 1m1tate our nonver·
bal behavior Nonverbal imitation may start out with 1m1tat1on of simple be·
hav1ors such as raising arms upwards. followed by placing hand on the table.
followed by patting head. etc. This is followed by behaviors which are more sub·
tie to d1scnmmate. such as facial expression which we see Billy practicing 1n this
picture We begin teaching the chi ld nonverbal 1m1tat1on since 11 1s easier than
verbal 1m1tat1on Once the chi Id has made a beginning in nonverbal imitation. we
try to gain verbal control over these behaviors and use them as a basis for teach ·
mg following commands · (such as 'raise your hands."" touch the table ,' etc.) .
This marks the first steps 1n receptive language training

•
Picture C Once lhe child has some control over his tantrums and self-s11mu1a1ory
behavior, can sit 1n a chair and look at the therapists s face. and has made some
progress In nonverbal 1m1tation and receptive language. we begin verbal im11a-
1ion This parlicular scene shows Chuckie and his therapisl practicing lhe vowel
"oh , which has a dist inct visual component also. We have felt lhat sounds which
have dls11nc1 visual components (such as " oh. " a," " m," " p "J help 1he child ac-
quire verbal 1m1tat1on. But there may be a problem in this use of such extra visual
cues. since the child may become overly reliant on the visual cues and tail to
attend to the verbal ones
36 Building the First Words and Labels
different children for the different programs. If Child A, B, and C
were recorded for Program I, we rried to rake data on Child D.
E, and f for Program 2 .
Third, when the child's speech became parricularlr complex.
V•e recorded 1t verbatim.
fourth, ,,.e tried to use larger ,\ ' 5 for rhe more "advanced pro-
grams. since rhe advanced programs subsumed rhe 1ntroductorr
Program 1: Bulldlng a Verbal Topography
Casual observation suggests that normal children acquire
words by hearing speech. that is, children learn ro speak by im-
irac1on. The mute aurisric children with whom we worked v.•ere
not 1m1Cat1ve The establishment of im1rat1on in rhese children
appeared to be rhe most beneficial and practical starring point for
building speech. The first srep 1n creating speech, then, was co
establish conditions 1n which 1mitat1on of vocal sounds would be
learned.
The method chat wt· eventually found mosr feasible for estab-
lishing verbal 1m1tation involved a d1scr1m1nation training pro-
cedure. l'he child was rewarded only 1f his vocalizacion very
closely matched the adult's vocalizanon-that is, if it was imita-
tive. Such verbal imitations \Vere taught through the develop-
ment of a series of increasingly fine discriminations.
During the rra1n1ng sessions the child and the adult sat facing
each other, their he.ids ••bout 30 centimeters apart. The adult
physically prevented the child from leaving the tra1n1ng situation
br holding the child's legs berv.een his O\vn legs Rev.·ards in the
form of a single spoonful of rhe child's meal \\'ere delivered im-
mediately after correct responses. Punishment (spanking, shout-
ing br the adult) was delivered for inattentive. self-destructive,
and tantrum-like behavior \\hi ch interfered w1rh the training ,
and most of chest· behaviors \\'ere thereby suppressed v.·irhin one
\veek . Inc or re< r vocal beh.1vior v1;as never punished.
Four distinct steps v.·cre required ro establish verbal imita-
tion In Srep I, \\'e reinforced the child for every vocalization he
made, to raise the frequency of his vocal behavior. In order for us
ro get vocalizations to re1 nforce, we cried ro prompt or el1c1c chem
1n the manner we described in the secnon on "Prompttng and
Shaping Behavior " That is, the child was kept content and in
good spines and was frequently fondled, stroked, and tickled
During Step 1 the child was also rewarded for visually fixating on
•
Building the First Words and Labels 37
the .tdulc's mouth. When the child reached a level of abour one
verbal response everr five seconds \vithour being fondled or
orher\\'ISC manipulated and was visually fixanng on rhe adult's
mouth more than 50 percent of rhe ume, Seep 2 of training \vas
introduced .
Step 2 marked our initial arrempt co bring the child's verbal
behavior under our verbal control, so chat our speech would ulti-
mately become discriminative for speech in the child . ~fasrery of
this second step involved acquisition of a temporal discrim1nar1on
by the (hild The adult emitted a vocal response-for example,
" baby" - about once ever> ren seconds. He \\'Ould then passively
,,·ait for the child to vocalize, and if the child vocalized \\'ithin
five seconds after the adult's vocalization, he was reinforced _
However, any kind of vocal response of the child would be re-
"'arded 1n rhac rime interval; he did not have co march the adult's
speech. Vocal1zar1ons outside char five-second rime interval \Vere
not reinforced The nexc seep, Srep 3, was introduced \\' hen the
frequency of the child's vocal responses within the five-second in
terval \\as three times what it had been initially.
Step ~ \Vas structurally similar to the preceding seep, but It
1nc Iuded che additional requ iremenr rhar the child actual! y march
che adult's votalization before receiving the reward . In rhis, and
in following steps , the adult selected the verbalization co be
placed in imicativc training from a pool of possible verbalitacions
th<tt had n1er one or more of rhe follo"·ing criteria. First , \Ve
seletred vocal behaviors char could be prompted; that 1s, vocal
beha\ 1ors rhac could be elic1ted b) a cue prior co any experimental
training. such as by manually moving the child through the be-
havior. An txample of training v.·ith rhe use of a prompt is af-
forded in reaching the sound "m ." The training v.·ould proceed in
three stages: ( 1) The adult emitted "m" and simultaneously
prompted the child ro emir "m" by holding the child's lips.clo5ed
,,·irh his fingers .ind quickly removing chem '"hen the child v~­
calizcd . (2) The prompt v.·ould be gradually faded by rhe adults
, moving his fingers a\vay from rhe child's mouth, ro his c~eek,
and finally gent!) couching rhe child's ja"'· (3) The adult emitted
rhe vocalization "m" only, v.•1thhold1ng all prompts. The rare of
fading ,vas determined by the child; rhe sooner the child's verbal
ht•h;1v1or came under control of the adult's v.•1chout the use of the
pron1pt, che better The second cri rerion for selecuon .of words or
sounds 111 the early stages of training centered on their concom1 -
ranc v1su.1l con1ponenrs (which we exaggerated ·when we pro-
38 Building the First Words and Labels

nounced rhcm), ~urh as rhose of rhe labial consonanr .. m .. and of

open-mouched vowels Jikl· "a " \X'l sclecred such sounds because
v.·e rhoughr rhac che children could discriminate \\'Ords \vich \'IS-
ual componcnrs n1orc ea~ily chan chose v.•ich only audicory rom-
ponenrs (chc gucrural con\onancs " k" and "g" proved exrremelr ..., ID
difficulc co crain and. like "! " and "s," 'll."t:re mascered lacer than "'"'
ocher sounds). Third. v.·e selecced for training sounds char che
child emirced most frequenrly 1n Seep 1.
10'...,
-N

Seep 4 'll.'aS a rec>·cling of Seep ), with rhe addition of a ne\\"

sound We selecced .1 sound chac "'·as very different from chose
...,
:>..
~
-
Cl)

presenced 1n Srep 3 so char rhe lhild could discriminate berv.·een ........_, ~ ,_

the ne\v and old sounds more easily. To make certain char the
child was in facr imicacing and noc actend1ng ro irrelevant ;!!;peers
...::> ID

of che sicuac1on. v.•e resorted co che d1scnm1nacion craining proce-

dures we have described . Thar is, y.·e syscemancally rocaced che
"'
sumuli of Seeps 3 and 4 and observed che ocher precautions v.·e l °'"' ......
-N
0
........
~__.
>-
..,.
""-
0
discussed 1n che seccion on "Basic Training Principles" co help the _, 0
...,
child to discriminate rhe parcicular sounds involved. There had
been no rcquircmenr plated upon the child in Seep 3 to discrimi-
... ---
"'
= 04-C
mooo
_,
.....,
>--'
O< ,o c
om
>-
Cl>

"'
nate spelifir aspctrs such as vo,vch, consonants, and order of rhe
adult's speech; a child might ma.srcr Seep 3 wirhouc attending co "'- .... ,o
.,. JI: 0
rhe spec1 fie properc1es of rhe adult's speech. Seep 4 is therefore a
mosc difficult seep co master. All seeps beyond Seep 4 consisred of
-
....-
repltcac1ons of Seep .3, but new sounds, words, and phrases v.•ere
used. Each new 1ncroducc1on of sounds and words required in- 0
n
0 - >-
N

- "'
0
0 0
creasingly fine discriminarion hy the child and hence provided <> - 0

g'"' :E .g
<I
0
evidence char he v.as in f.1cr marching rhe adult's speech. In each ~ 2i .g 0

nev.· seep, che previously masrered v.·ords and sounds v.·ere re- •
E 0
hearsed on a randomized ratio of one mastered sound to e\'err E "' 1cu 10 ,.._

E
three nC\\' ones. A particular srep or sound \\·as introduced when ""
che child had m~ccrcd the previous seeps br making ren consccu-
E
E
-
civelr correct replic.trions of rhc· adult\ uccerances.
One hour of each dar's rraining \vas rape-recorded. T\\'O in-
dependenr observers scored che child"s correct \'OCal responses
.....
E
E

• g
0 "'
...,
from these sessions . A corr<~cr response v.·as defined as a recogniz-
E <>
E 2,
0
0
..
able reproducrion of rhe adulr's utterance. The observers shov•ed <
0
0
~

better than 90 percent agreement When rhe child's correcr re- "5l: "
0
0" "'
sponses are plotted .1ga1nsr days of training and the resulting ,_, >o
"0
0
,g
function is posiuvely accelerated, ic can then be said that rhc " 2 -
child has learned co i1n1tate.
The results of the firsc 26 days of 1m1caoon training on Billy
and Chuck, borh five years old and mure, are given in Figure I.

•
40 Building the First Words and Labels

Billy and Chu<.:k \Vere rhc firsr rv.·o children given the im1tarion
training program They \vere trained six days a week, seven hours
a day, \\l(h a 15-minure resr period accompanring each hour of
rraining. The abscissa denores rrain1ng days. The words and
sounds arc printed 1n fo,vcr-casl' lerrers on rhe days rhey were 1n-
....
-.
.t:: ...

rroduccd and in capital lerrers on rht days rhey \vere mastered. Ir ·o c

o -
....
,' CI)
-N
can be sten char ;1s rraining progrtssed, che rare of masrery in- o' Cl c
creased. Ounng rhc firsr cv.·o v.eeks of rhc: program, rhe children
' N
=o·-
~
c ::
rook several days ro learn a sin:~le v.·ord. v.·hereas during rhe lasr 0 ..
.,0.(/)
t\\'O v•eeks. rhe}' "·ould masrer several words in a single day.
The rare of acqu1sl(10n \'aries enormously among rhe chil-
dren. The performance of Chuck and Billy seems "average" for
q-
N
--
.. c
...
u·.
., •
... .t::
' ... 0
o ••• :/-.:<I~--
--o:---. . --
0 Cl
che I 0 mu re children \Ve have \vorked '\\'irh We have seen some
children \\'ho acquired in chree days of training whar Billy and
---_q::i /
N
N
u 0
-0 ..
Cl

<I:::::. .o c:
Chuck m•1srered <1frer 26 days. One can probably observe similar o :>
o c
~

acqu1s1uons \virh n1uch less rr;11n1ng. In ocher \\•ords, ir is possi- <l- N E "'
'• .. <D
ble rhar rhcrc 1s l1rcle, 1fany, productive learning beyond t\VO or .o =
--
•• • _g c-
o· _ <1 a)
~ (/) ·-
.,c
three one-hour sessions spaced rhroughour rhe day. We do nor

-- ---
•' ., 0
know rhe opr1mal Jurarion of training sessions or optimal rest be- o'
.~
,- --<1-- = E= g.
.s::. E .c O>
z
,,.., 0
0
.,~
- ., .. -,;;
u;
tween the sessions. Th.:re are times char we have done well v.•irh <>, ......... -- - - -
0 Q) 0 ~ (/)
(/)
(/)
OCQI
much less than rhe daily seven-hour regimen rhac Billy and <l, ........ 4' _
·:::o
_. <I 0I
lJJ ,s:;,
., ·-• u:>
Chuck under,venr ~:c~
~- I : q"(/)
:J ~ e
-
-
'•
The errors \vh1ch the child makes as new imitations (stimuli)
are 1nrroduccd may give some cue as ro rhe underlying learning
<!::::. :o I :
<I 0
en=
·- .. -c
- N ·-
O~- .._<! ~ ~c
process. We rccorJed chc amounr of loss in an imitative sound as
<1-
;..-<._
--- --o I- 0
.,
. ·-
nev. sounds \verc introduced for Jose (a five-year-old in1cially 1
<I,
-
o' .-- 0.-
Cl .,
= ..
c (/)
__ - __ -
-
mure chdd). He received C\\'O rrain1ng sessions a day that lasred
-... ·-
,/ .. c
50 m1nures each. These sessions are plorted on the abscissa in Fig- '<I -- C--1--

- - - -o---
....
c=
- -------
-...- -
ure 2. The ordinate gl\·es rhc percentage of correct resPonses '<!- o E
=
/,o---- -- - --
- -<1 ----=o E
(number of correcr responses over rhe number of srimulus
presentations S0 s per rnal-X 100). As can be seen, we srarr
<J~- ---<!-- - - -- ... _--
-- ...:o
<l
/
E .,
-~
Cl
.
c
recording ''hen "ah \Vas laying ar 100 percenr correct reproduc-
uons. As soon .1s the second sound ("mm") 1s 1nrroduced (Session -- --
o---- -- ••
' ·o
c :>
;:: 0
:> .,
~ ~
..
3), rhe rcprodu1.rion of''.1h" deceriorares. Not1ce again rhe loss 10
"ah· \vhen the rh1rd d1scrim1nar1on ("eh") 1s demanded 1n rhe <:)- - -
--- -~<1
N
~
... .,
0 c

.-
sevenreenrh session As each ne\\" sound 1s acquired, there 1s less w ..
and less loss 1n rhe previously mastered ones. The behavior gees
"rougher" \vich rra1n1ng \Xie infer from rhese data rhat rhe child
0
0.-
0
en
0
CI)
0
r--
0
l.D
0
l()
0
q-
0
r<>
0
N
0 0
....-
NG>

... c
:> -
1s learning ro discnminace relevant fearures in rhe verbal behavior -
Cl~
u.. 0...
PERCENT CORRECT
of the reacher.
Afrcr the child has heen raughr ro imitate some of che adult's
vocalilar1ons, he becomes somewhat like rhe ccholalic child; he

•
Picture D In this picture Corey and Doug are beginning some early pre-academic
tasks. such as matching common ob1ects. colors. shapes . etc We include
numerous tasks of this nature in an attempt to help the child to discriminate
early concepts Note that there is a large number of student-therapists present
who meet with the child and parents on a weekly basis to review what the child
has learned the preceding week , to spot potential errors 1n each others teach·
ing and to formulate programs tor the subsequent week .
42 Building the First Words and Labels
has a reperco1re of words, but he does noc know \vhat ~hey me~n .
\X'e lx:g111 chis cnuning in "meaning tr,1ining" (semanncs) dunn.~
Program 2.
Program 2: Labeling Discrete Events
Di1cr1111i11.1t1 ng tilt ir·u11111t111,1/ fr,1t111·es. The goal of chis program
v;as to ceach the child che names of common ob1ects or e\'encs
around him and chc names of certain common accivioes and be-
haviors We \VJnted co give him a basic vocabulary, che nouns
and the verbs \Vhich ans\ver quc~c1ons such as "Whac is ic?"' and
"\X'hac arc you doing!" and co express wanes such as "co~kie,'"
"wacer, " and "out · \X'e began v.1ch che names of obieccs (re1nfor-
cers) v.•h1ch seemed 1mporcant co che child, such as foods. The
child looked ar these ch1ngs and v.•anced chem, and \Ve cook ad-
vancage of his ,ttcenciveness . . . . .
This program \\·ill basically describe a Type 2 d1scr.1m1na~1on
procedure, but ic is a classu.: example of a case where D1scnm1n.a-
tion I may be helpful ;1s a "pre cra1ning" procedure. The details
of che program are presented 111 '."ianual A in C~apter 6. The
craining seeps 111 Program 2 arc s1m1lar .co those 111 Pro~ram 1.
Essentially.£ begins chc cra1n1ng by h~,·1ng che child p~1nc co or
couch che objects he \viii lacer be required co label. For 1n~cance,
E may place rhree obieccs (CO•\St, bacon. and a glass of milk) o~
che cable 111 fronc of S F gives chc command, "Touch che coast. '
E may prompr and reinforce rhc correct R E proceeds wHh the
cra1ning in a<:cord.1nce \\'ith the d1scnm1nacion. procedures _?Ut-
lined earlier. for cx.1mple, he switches rhc pos1uon of rhe obiecrs
co prevent S from n:spon_ding co p~sir1on cues. He cri~s co facil1-
cace S's arcenuon b\' ha\ 1ng rhe lht!J fixate on che ob1ccrs bcfore
he prcsencs che co~mand . Also, s1nll' che o!'sec of che crial might
become a reinforcer. 1c is 1mporcanr co avoid presenting the cnal
1usc after tanrrums or coo much acuv1ty . le is often helpful co re-
strain S's h;1nds Ckctp them on~· slap) at firsr, so that he makes a
discrete response rarher ch.in reaching pare of che 'lvay to several
ob1c,rs bcforc making a compler<: response.
[;begins the procedure for D1scri~inacio~ 2 tlabeling) ?nee 5
has masrcrcd 01s<.r11ninac1on I (po1ncing) \\'1th three co six ob-
jects (or pcrh.1ps more). The first tra1n1ng sumulus (TS I, a glass
of milk) is pn.:st·nrcd along wHh che question "\X'har is ic)" The
•
Building the First Words and Labels 43
desired response (RI, in chis case "milk") is prompted It is pos-
s1bl<.: chat rhe question "What is it?" should be deleted 111 rhe
earl} ph.1Scs of tr<un1ng, since 1c ma}' block a good response co rhe
prom pr and conceivably also block S s percept1on of che training
stimulus (chc glass of milk). In general, the less E sars at firsc, chc
better. ("John, look here, \\'ill you please, \\'hac do } 'OU call chis('
is probablr a good example of a stimulus \\·hich eJCher has lose or
is f.1st losing 1rs Sil properties )
In Step I f presents TS I (milk), prompts, and fades until ~
gives RI co TS I as per er tenon. Then E goes on co Seep 2 and
presenrs rhe second training stimulus (TS2 , a piece of bacon)
and prornpcs tht desired response. E chen rc1ncroduccs TS I
(mtlk, Seep )) and conunues presenung milk unnl 5 1s perform-
ing ac cncenon again. TS2 1s chen reintroduced (Seep -1) and <11-
cernaced with TS I unnl S has made no errors, even though TS I
and T52 have been alternated 111 r· ndom presentations on I0 suc-
cessive trials. Ne\v training stimuli (TS3) may be introduced as
rap1dl} as chc chilJ 1s able co handle them. Generally, ir \viii be
sufficienr co begin \vich rhe introduction of the nt:\\ cr:11n1ng
scin1ulus, as 111 Seep 2, and then proceed immediately co sc1mulus
rotation. In other \VOrds, f. dril ls S on TS3 until S has reached
cnrerion, rhen TS.1 1s immediately intermixed in a nonsystemaric
order \VHh 1·51 and T52.
After S has n1ascered approximately 10 labels, ic becon1es
cumbersome co rcvic\v all rhe labels equall r in ever} session. Ar
chis point one may begin to intersperse pre,1ously mast<.:red
sc1mul1 v.·1ch nt'\\' sci mu Ii. The rauo of old to new muse bt deter-
mined by hO\\' much n.:v1c,,· seems necessarr in order co ,1void loss
of previous Je.1rning .
Before \\' C present che daca, lee us make a procedural point A
great <lea! of research is needed in chrs area of elemencarr "label-
ing, " and rhc data \\'e present are co a large, buc unkno\\·n, excenr
a function of rhe arb1rrarr procedures \\'e use. For example. notice
char rhe sC1mulus display for D1scnminarion I conrained rhrct·
ohjecrs (5 had to point to coasr, bacon, or n1ilk) \X'Hh rhrce surh
• objects, ~ \\di be reinforced 3'> percenr of rhe time if he is jusr
guessing A .) .)-percent scheJule is more likely co exringuish
guessing th.in a 50-percenc schedule (using only rv.·o obJelts), bu1
perhaps chis is noc chin enough for some Ss. The choice of rhree
ohiecrs (as compared to C\\'O or four) \Yas arbitrarr; there arc no
data on oprrn1um size of che stimulus display .
44 Building the First Words and Labels

Let us no\\' prl'sl'nl some data \V'hich illustrate the resulrs one '
trpically obtains dunng the training of a labeling vocabulary.
Thl: acqu1siuon of simple labels is pre,<.:nct·J 1n Figure 3 Bo1h Ss 2:
were boys an<l wer<.: n1ute when rra1n1ng lX'.gan, Kevin was seven 0
0 2:
a. ::>
years old and Taylor \\aS five. They had received from rhre<: to six U> <..:> <D
.....
months of training 1n verbal imitac1on anJ had mastered chr<.:l' co ~
'ix obiects in Discrimina tion l (Ss t«>uld correccly po1nr ro thl' ~
objects in various displays v.•hen asked to do so br £). ~
,...,
~

....
The labels art• \\'rittcn in lov.·er-casc letters on the days cher "'
E
E
>-
0 >-
are introduced and pr.H:c1ced and 1n capitals \Vhen chey are mas- 0
OCD
44 "'
.....
..c:: CD CX
tered. Although tr took several days to learn a particuh1r label an 0
4 a. >-
w:> .._,
che beginning, chc child acquired several labels in a single day CD U :..:
0
.....
>-
later on in training. This positive JCCel<.>racion of the learning .... ;E
00.>-,~
curves ("learning to learn") has been present 1n all che children v.·e CV ::::> Q.> =>
.Cl u ....- ~
a:>
ha\'e trained. \X'1rh continuatio n of the craining, many of rhe >. "'
E
children evenruallr acquired nev. labels ''1th a single trial rer E
I.1bel. meaning chat the correcc responst• \\'as prompted once (as -
:::>

thl'y were cold che (orrl'(t label), and char was sufficient for a(-
qu 1s1c1on.
The speed of l<.:arning varied enorrnously bet\\·een children.
Thus, several of ch<.: l'tholal1c children could master \vichin hours
what Taylor (Fii.:urt· 3) 1nascered afrer 10 J.i>'S. For examplt, R1tk 0
(an eight-year- old echolalic) gave the (Orrecc response co T5 I afcer .......... "'
four crials in \V'hich he echoed the question \X'har is ch1s 1 " before IV WV>
>.20
he be~an co give the correct response. \X'hen TS2 was introduced , "' "" z
..,>- c::~~~
he made t\\'O errors (he echoed t\V'O r1n1es) bur ma1nra1ned corre(t Q,) ..aic
0 ::c
c:. (/')
responding when TS l and TS2 were 1nrenn1xed. He echoed nine .., 5!~cx
r1111cs v.•hen TS.) was introduced , bur from TS4 on 1nade no more V> >.
c:: ..c::
0 ~
4.n w

errors, learning nev.• labels by bl'ing prompted on(e. Pan1 (.1n ....z:x:
Q)
..,0 ....
.. ..c:: 0
eight-year- old echolalic) echoed 982 rimes on TSl, 14 times on 0
:::;; ..,0 ....
" ' Q)

TS2. 22 umes \\·hc.:n TS l and TS2 \\Crc inrern1Lxed, and then \\'JS :x:
.... ..c::
essenuallv• errorless after TS-l had been n:ached Rick ,,·as ,,·ell on ....
... ... 0'"0:::>
<,/'t 0 ,.....,
"' ..,
0 0

oos;_,""'""
his \vay inco label rrain1n~ che first da>·· hue Pam's echolalia \Vas CllC.,. - <lllC.

more persistent and slo,ved her down In the early scages of chis
., -
... ., .c ~ ....
program, prior co n1nre objective data collecr1on, we taught rhc "'0c 0
.c 0'0" N ..c::
"' ..,
0

al phaber (26 pai r{'d assoc iares) co an c1ghr-year-old echolal 1c child "' - E
....
...
..-..., --
(\\ho \Vas diagnn~t·d as having prim.1ry rerardation , moderate <- L
0

r.inge, with autistic fe,ttures) an less rhan t\\'O hol'rs . A pcrfonn-

... ...0 ....
"'0c ., "
o
.c a- E 0
ant<.: like chat, \\ h1ch rnay or may not be.: rnacched b>' a rrp1ca! " "' "' I "'
college freshman. can someumes be observed among autistics . In
some children, ho,,·ever, 1c may cake n1onchs co reach that muth.
Exaccly hO\\' h.1rd one has co \\'ork co accomplish che firsr dis-

•
46 Building the First Words and Labels Building the First Words and Labels 47

criminauon is illustrated by Billy, a seven-year-old mute aut1st1c, recorded amount of errors that S made on a previously mastered
who \vas first taught verbal imitation (see Figure 1). In Billy's label as new labels were introduced. T hese data are presented 1n
case, "·e had to \vork for 90,000 trials ro bring about the first Figure 4 for rwo children. f\,f ike and Jose were initially mute, and
correct labeling (between "milk" and "bacon"). This docs not
imply that his acquisition consisted of 90,000 incremental steps
or that "operant conditioning cra1n1ng" 1s slO\\' b>; nature. Rather,
Billy \\'as the first mute child to undergo label training, and he
taught US how eaS}' it \\'aS CO train the \\'rOng discnm1nanOn.
Some children become too dependent on prompts, others come to
associate posiuon rather than object cues, some perseverate. and
ochers become barely audible or combine words, making it
difficult for E co decide "·hcchcr to reinforce or not. Billy sho"·ed
all these problems In his case, we ceased prompung altogether,
presented che tra1n1ng stimulus alone, and \vaited for him co give
the correct R on his O\vn; if he gave the correct R upon the first
presencauon of the cra1n1ng sc1mulus, \Ve reinforced him. We
learned a great deal from Billy, but we are scill a long way from
understanding ho\v to reach efficiently even simple discrimina-
tions to the children. Wasserman ( 1969), Koegel ( 197 l ), and
Schre1bman ( 1975) have desc.:ribcd some of the problems char au-
tistic children have in d iscrimination learn ing. We shall return to
these problerns lacer.
We have taught many behaviors that involve the child's dis-
criminanons of relatively simple stimulus aspects of the environ-
ment. In each case, chc: acquis1r1on is pos1cively accelerated. Con-
sider the acqu1s1non of correct nonverbal responses to simple ver-
bal commands (which 1s D1scrim1narion 1) such as "raise arm,"
"couch belly," "drop hands,' "stand up," "couch nose," "tongue
our," "couch eye,'' "couch ear," "pat head." For 7'.fichael, a s1x-
year-old mutl' autistic. the number of sessions (a session \\'as 50
minutes. "ith approximately six trials per minute) required for
acqu1s1t1on ofrhest commands \vere 4, 3. 3, 2, 2, 3, I. I, 2, I,
l. l. respccuvely For che correct response co simple quesuons
such as "What do you \vanc 1 " ("cookie"); "Do you want [name of
food'"] ("res'); \Xlhac's your name(' ("1'-fike"); "What 1s chis!'
("bab> ');"How arc you 1" ("fine"); "Do you \Vanr me co hit }'Ou?"
("no"). the sessions required \Vere 9. 8, 3. 4. 4, 3 respectively
The absolutt numbers of sessions differ between children,
Figure 4. Errors duri ng label training for Michael an d Jose._ Per-
?-.iichacl seen1ed "average" for the mutes. The accelerated rate of cent correc t responding is given on the ordi nate, an d training
acquisa1on is represenrauvc: for all. sessions are shown on the abscissa. New labels were i ntro-
T he kinds of errors that the ,htld makes during learning may duced In Sessions 1, 7, and 11 for Michael , and in Session s 2,
10, and 15 for Jose.
grve cues about che underlying learning process. Therefore, we

•
48 Building the First Words and Labels 100 Cs c c c 6 6

both were approximately five years old. The number of sessions, 75 \"oh"
which lasted 50 n1inuccs anJ were given rwice a day, are shown
on che .1bsciss.1. The ord1n.1rc shO\\'S the percentage of correct re-
sponses (number of correct responses over the number of stimulus
50
presentations S0 s per trial- x 100). Ir is apparent chat
,,·henever ant\\ label is incroJuceJ, ic inctrferes w·1th chc: proJuc- 25
uon of an older one:, bur chis inrerfcrcnce decreases as addi uonal
labels are .1cquired . An c:xample is show·n by the line rhac ~ives 0
correct responding for TS 1 ("spoon") in Jose's daca in rhe upper
half of Figure 2 He h,1s bc:en trained co 100-percenc correct re- 4 5 6 7 to
sponding, and Sc:ss1ons I and 2 show• chis mastery. \X'hen TS2
("baby") is incroduled tn Session 2, his correct responding on TS I 100
drops co 50 percent, bur recovers over the nc:xc sessions. le is back (/) II
_o.. - ---0
ac 100 percent by Session 9. then drops again co 50 percent \Vhen 0::: ah" ,P' --~" II
75 , ee
TS3 1s incroducc:J 1n Session 10. le 'limbs back up once more, I

reading 100 pcn:ent by Sc:ss1on 14. Ir shO\VS some loss (bur much ,..._ ''
less) when TS I ("cup") 1s introduced 1n Session 15. Similar effects 0 50 I
I '
can be seen 1n Mike's d.1ca 1n rhe lower half of Figure 2. Nore rhe
extensive s1n1ilar1Cy becwc:en figures 2 and 4 (and Figures 1 and
3), w•hich spc•aks of rht comrnonalicy in rhe learning process un-
-c
Q)
25
-··-0
I
•
•
''

derlying rhe C\VO acquis1C1ons.

u
"- 0 o- ---
Q)
A study by Ncwsom .ind Lovaas ( 1975) givc:s yec another il- 0...
lustration of che le,1rning process underlying che acquisition of 4 5 6 7
labels. In chis study, c:cholalic children w•ho had no labeling vo-
cabulary werl' caught co give d1ftc:renc labels co geomecnc forms 100 "sh" • sr----?.
wich varying numbers of .1nl(lts <3-. 4-, 5-, 6- , 7- , and 10-si<lcd 7' '"ee'
forms) . They wert fir,c caught only one label. namely che l.1bcl for
\.1\ ,'
75 "ah" I \ ,'
the three-sided form "ah," and chen w•ere presented w·Hh che re- I \ ,'
maining (unl.1bclt<l) forms ro resr for generalizauon, that is, the I \,·
cxn:nc co v>hich rhc first 1.1bel \\·as given co rhe ocher forms. They 50 ,'\
\\·ere chen raughc .t sclond la be: I, "cc ... ro denote the I0-si<lcd I I \

form, and a>;.11n ccsrc:d for !!ener.1liz<1tion. Finally, chty were
raughr to h1bel the 6-sided form. "sh." and cesred as before.
1·he Jaca from onl' of rhe ~ s < Jeff ) in chis scudy 1s presence<l
1n Figure 5. '!"he orJinare gives rhe percentage of cime a parucu-
lar label is given co a parcicul.1r 5cimulus ( 100 X che sum of par-
ticular label Rf coral number of che parricular form presencarion)
The abscissa presents rhe various stimuli <3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-. and
IO-sided forms) If one exa1nines rhe cop pare of che figure, IC can
be seen that the: labcl ("ah"), \Vh1lh he \Vas caughr ro rhe 3-sidcd
forn1, 1s given equ.tlly ofren co <Ill forms during rhe gentral1zat1on
ccsrs. His gencr,tlitacion gradient 1s flac. When he is taughc che
second la be: I ("cc") ro the I0-sr<led form (middle of the figure). his
•
25 I ,' '
I I
,' '
0 ~=
® 4
Stimuli
Figure 5. Generalization in label usage as a function of number
of labels trained. Percent usage of a particular label is given on
the ordinate, while the various stimuli (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10) are
given on the abscissa. The top part of the figure shows the use
of the label "ah" across the different stimuli when it was the only
label that was trained. It was trained to stimulus 3. The middle of
the figure shows generalization when two labels had been
trained, and the bottom when three labels had been trained.
50 Building the First Words and labels
generalizarion gradienrs are much sceeper. When he is caughr rhe
rhird label ("sh" for rhe 6-sided form), rhe discnminarions be-
come quHe sharp (hoc com of figure). For example. rhe rhird label
'\\'as noc generalized co ocher forms; he used ir much more dis-
cretely than he used cht· first label
These data (Figures 1 through 5) are consisrenc with a dis-
criminarion )e,1rning model St:emingly, rhe child learned co dis-
cnminare (attend co) chose defining features of che en\"ironment
co \\'hich \\'e associate verbal beha\"iOr and not ro respond ro rhose
fearures 1.vhich are nondefin1ng. Thus. in 1miracion learning. che
child's verbal ht:ha1. iors came under rhe S0 concrol of anorher per-
son's verbal stimulus. In h1bel training the child's verbal behavior
came under rhc control of nonverbal stimuli. To focus or guide
che child's accentton co rhesc \".lrtous stimuli required differenc1al
reinforcement; excinccion of R co nondefining (Sli) features and
re1nforce111enc for responding co defining (relevant, S0 ) features.
When th<.: child has 1nascered perhaps a dozen labels 1n Pro-
gram 2, we begin generalization rra1n1ng on each one. By rhar we
mean thar the ch dd muse be rrai ned to correct! y label 111n11ber1 of a
class of objects, such as the different insrances of che class of
"chair" upon first presenrarion, before ""e can argue rhac he has a
concept of the objclt \'V'hen \Ve begin co train this concept, rhe
child is exposed co numerous <:xamples of che object and co simi-
lar ob1eccs which have d1tferenc labels. For instance, th<: child
may label an}•th1ng wlCh four legs "chair." He muse therefore
learn co d1scrim1nare becv.·een cables and chairs-chat chairs may
be any color, may be upholsctred or noc, may be made of v:ood,
sceel. or plasric. may have arms or nor, or may be small or large.
Obviously, such language is coo rich in meaning (requires exten-
sive discriminations) co be practically or effecci,·ely caught in a
laboracorr. Ir is practically impossible. and probably not neces-
~ary, co train formally any one concept to its full meaning. The
child's dar-co-dar t·n1.·ironmenc is full of all the necessarr relevant
(and irrelevant) stimuli, v.·hich is ..,,·here the discriminacions be-
come "firmed up ...
Lee us make one more comment on ho\\· ..,,.e 1nformallr ex-
tended the label cra1n1ng. Labeling 1s a concinuous process ..,,·hich
is never completed \X'hile normal children may expand their
vocabulanes \\'ith minimal explicit adult assistance, aucisnc chil-
dren need help, ar k·ast 1n1nally. In addition co arranging a reach-
ing environment \\ h1ch f,1cilic,1ced the early discriminations, we
also helped the children becon1e more curious about che world
around chern. For exa1nple, .iurisc1c children typically do nor ask
Building the First Words and Labels 51
for the names of ob1ecrs around them as normal children often do.
Therefore, co help chem expand their vocabulary we raughr rhem
to a.~k questions abour rheir environment, and we reinforced
them for doing so. If the child did not know the name of an ob-
ject, we prompted him co ask us "What is it?" and then gave him
the label Our film on language acquisition (Lovaas, 1969) illus-
traces such a method.
8111/d111g gr<J111n1a11c<JI rrJponseJ. From the very beginning, we
built grammatical phrases and sentences as pare of the programs
..,,.e construcred, because che response \\'e required from the chil-
dren in these various programs soon extended beyond one-..,,·ord
answers. Even in the labeling program, \\'e quickly began co de-
mand more than a single \\'Ord. We initially held the child co a
one-,vord ans,ver (like ansv.·ering "cookie" co the question "What
is it 1 "), and then demanded more elaborate answers ("It is a
cookie'). Lacer, \Ve required more elaborate descriptions char re-
quired co1nb1nat1ons of \\'Ords, such as verb-noun comb1narions
(nor iusc a "horse," bur a "white horse"). The same requirement
was placed on his demands co ask nor just "bacon," buc "I wane
bacon" or"( wane (any nun1ber of things)." There are n1any ocher
<.:xamples. When the children acquired prepositional speech (in
Program .1), an example of criterion response would be: "I put che
book under che table ... More abstractly, we caught che children
the senrence: "I put (x) under (y)," etc.
Use of phrases and sentences required chat \\'e reach the child
co order words into grammatically correct sequences. This build-
ing of grammatical sentences did nor involve a different process or
sec of techniques from chat used for bu1ld1ng single "·ords To
move from simple sounds (like "m," "a," "1") co a combinauon of
sounds (such us "mommie") involved the same reaching
techniques we used in moving from a \\'Ord co combinations o(
words, as in sentences. Combinations of sounds (\vords) and \vord
combinations (sentences) all constituted verbal rapo11JtJ "'·hich '"e
built through d1fferennal reinforcement co a varierr of stimulus
sicuacions. The sound comb1nat1on "c-o-p" ""'as prom peed and dif-
ferenr1ally reinforced in one kind of stimulus siruarion, \vhile
another comb1nanon of the same sounds, like "p-o-r", \\'as rein-
forced 1n a different situation. The two verbal behaviors are dif-
ferent bec.1use che combinations of sounds are different and be-
cause rhe1r r<:specrive stimulus situations are different. The same
is crue of che sentence "I don't" as contrasted co "Don't I?" Tech-
n1cally, such ~hap1ng, when one vocalization provides part of the
52 Building the First Words and Labels
51> for the next vocalizarion. is knO\\'n as response chaining.
Therefore, we used rhe same prompt and fading procedures co
build sl·nrl·nc<.'s a~ \\Chad in building single words. Throughout,
d1fferenr1al reinforrcmcnr was used ro bring a particular \'erbal re-
Building the First Words and Labels 53
evidence char he can order words in co a correct sentence. We re-
turn to a discussion of che conceptual issues involved in crcaring
sentences as responses lacer in chis book and present explicit data
on the way in \\ hich we raughc certain aspects of grammar, such
0

sponse under rhe control of cirhcr an external srimulus (as in as verb transformations.
labeling) or an internal sumulus (as 1n response chaining). In Bue lee us first illuscrace how we caught the use of sentences
building chains. one typically srarcs \virh rhe lase member of rhe by presenting verbatim transcripts of rape recordings caken dur-
chain and mO\'CS for\\·ard in gradual seeps. Thus, 1f one wanrs co ing various stages 1n different programs. The follow·ing excerpt
build che chain "I \Vane bacon," one scares wirh "bacon," rhcn illuscraces the rra1n1ng procedures with Billy, previously mute.
goes on ro ""·ant b.1con," and finally "I \vane bacon." One usually \\•ho 1s being caught ro ask for rhings, using phrases like "I wane
distinguishes b<.'t\\"t:<.'n homog(·n<.'ous and heterogeneous chains, [ob1ecc]." He had been caught verbal imirarive behavior and mas-
and co move from a homogeneous chain (,,·here each R looks like tered about 10 labels for different foods. He sics in front of his
everr ocher R .•1s in "ma-ma·) ro a heterogeneous chain composed breakfast rray wi ch E.
of copographically different Rs (as 1n "mom-mie") is very difficult
for rhc 1..hild. But apparently, once he can perform his first r Wha1 do you want'
Bi/11 Egg
hcrerogencous chain, nc\v ones arc acquired wirh greacer ease.
r No, wh.u do you wan1) I
We rrit:d co ccat h htttrogencous chains in the following man-
Btll) (No response)
ner. Suppose "momn11e · was rhe rargec R. If E initially presents r I
"mommie" co rhe child, rhe child will give him back che la11 Btll) I wanr . . (f:'s "!" cues Billy's "I want" on ehe basis of prior
con1ponenr of char scirnulus such as "mie" or "ie" (which seems rr.11n1ng).
reasonable, since 1c is n1osr recent for che child). To help rhe child /; Egg (p.iusc). O.K .. whar do you wane?
reproduce or orl1tr\vise UM.: the whole chain, E scarred by pron1pc- 811/) I want egg.
i ng each tomponcnr ("n1om" and "m1e") separately. The size of r Good (fccJs Billy)
rhe component w.1s determined for e•t<..h child; E used as large a I Wh;ie Jo you wanr'
component as S would g1v<.' back 1ncacr. E then accencuaced rhe 811/) Lgg
fuse prompt ("n1on1") .ind gradually faded out rhe second prompt F No, what Jo you w;tnt' I
("mie") \vhile he cried co maintain boch components ("mommie") 811!) I w;1nt egg
for the thild. In ocher \\·ords, E presents "mom" and the child I GooJ bor (feeds Bill)').
£ What ;, thi>1 (shows Billy bacon).
now gives "mom-mie." E rhen gradually fades in the second syl-
81'1) Bacon.
lable ('°mie") "·hile mainraining rhe child's '"mom-mie." so chat I: (,ooJ, "h.u Jo )"OU w.int>
evenruall\'• r:·s "mommie" cues the child's "'mommie." The same 811/) (No response:)
procedure 1s used ro cc.1ch anr heccrogcneous chain such as "I Ji I
\\ant l)aton. .. 811/J I "dnt bacon.
Br using prompc fi1ding and reinforcement techniques. \Vt: t: GooJ \'(/hilt do you wane'
builr sentences ,\S heterogeneous chains. Whac the child is ltar11- 811/) I "ant bacon
111f.!. ho\\•ever. wht:n he is caught sentences 1s probably different • I Good (feeds again) What is this! (shows milk).
from what he 1s learning \\·hen he is reinforced for emirring single 811/1 ~{ilk (/! corrects pronounciation).
\vords. Jn general, 1f he: 1~ reinforced for producing sentences. he l Good . I . . . .
learns co order ,,·ords 1nro gran1marically correcc sequences For 811/) I want milk.
cxan1ple, 1f rhc rhild 1s pro1nprcd and reinforced for emitting rhe L You want whac?
811/) I want t:gg
senrencl' "I \vane [bacon, candy, milk]" 1n a large variety of sttua
I' Egg (to improve enunciation)
rions, rhc:n he will evencu;1lly en1ic "I wanr [x]" wichour being
811/) F.gg
prompced ''hen he is confronced wich situation "x." He gives I' 0 K (feeds) .
•
54 Building the First Words and Labels Building the First Words and Labels 55

81'!) I want cgit Like B1lly, the previously muce Michael sac in front of the break-
E Good (feeds>. fast cable E held up che coasc and asked him, "Whac do you
wane?" Michael was scored correcc if he answered "I wane coast"
Th<: daca collected on phrase-building, like our ocher daca, to chat stimulus \Vithouc being prompted. As can be seen, his
\Vere pos1cively accclcraccd. To 11luscrate, ic cook Dean <.previ- performance was errorless after 180 crials. He started at a high of
ously mute) cwo days co learn co chain "I go," whereas he _ac- 60 percent (in che firsc block of trials) since he had alread} had
quired three C\vo-word phrases-"s"'•imm1ng po~I,_" "sev.·1ng several sessions of rra1n1ng on ocher phrases.
machine," and "clap hands"-on the fifch day ofcra1n1ng.
J.{ichael's acqu1s1cion of "I wane coast" 1s given in Figure 6.
References
100 Koe,llel, R .'irlut11-r uff<llffOll to prompt 1f/n111!t b) aflflJtl( a11d 11om111/ rh1/Jrr11. Un-
published docroral dissertation, Universiry of California, Los Angeles,
1971.
90 Lov;1,1s, 0. I. Brh1111or 111od1firaf/011: Ttarht11g la11gflagt to psJrhot" rhddrtn, 1n-
struct1onal film, ·15 min , 16 mm.-sound, Appleton-Century-Crofts,
80 New York, 1969.
Newsom, C. D .. & Lovaas, 0. I. Stimulus control in rhe acquis1rion of labels
In preparation, 1975.
70 S,hrc1bm;1n, L W1rhin-scimulus versus extra-stimulus prompttng procedures
on d1scrim1nauon learning wirh autistic children.Jo11r11a/ of Applud Bt·
+- h111'1or11l A1111lyJ11. 1975, in press.
(.)
Q)
60 Wasscrrn.in, L. t-1. D1I<ri111111a11011 learn111g "' a111isffr d1ildre11. Unpublished doc-
'-
'- toral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1969
0
u 50
+-
c
Q)
(.)
40
'-
Q) II II
CL
30 I want toast

20

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Blocks of 20 Trio Is

Figure 6. Michael's acquisition of the response " I want toast" to

the question " What do you want?" at breakfast time.

•
•

Chapter 111
BUILDING ABSTRACT TERMS
Program 3 : Relationships among Objects and Events, and
Other Abstract Terms

llllllllrince rhe child had acquired a basic labeling vocabularr of

objecrs. behaviors, an<l ocher seem1nglr concrere evenrs, \\'e in-
cro<luce<l him ro common absrracr cerms like preposirions, pro-
nouns, .ind rime concepts. These rerms define simple rclarion·
ships 1n rime and space an<l relacionships among people, objcccs,
and cvcnrs. Th<: child muse kno\v many of rhcse conccprs 1n or<lcr
co funccion ac evt.n rhe mosr m1n1mal level in s<x.1<.:t}· As these
concepts muse come under rhe relar1velr narrO\\ control of
srimuh1s elemcncs char mar be shared by manr ob1eccs, rhese dis-
crim1n;\CIOllS se:em more difficult (more "abscracc') than chose in-
volved 1n rhc acquis1rion of"simple" labels Ho\\·eve:r, even "sim-
ple' 1.1bels require "abscracc" behavior: The second rime .1
sr11nulus 1s prescnce<l, rhc situation is nor idenrical to chc firsr
c11ne (che ••nglc of sensory inpur is slightly Jifferenr, .is arc the
57
•
58 Building Abstract Terms
backgroun d stimulation and possibl)' ocher f.'lctors), and no cwo
members of a class of objects are just alike . Learning co label rela-
uonsh1ps between events thus often requires the prior acquisition
of labels for che events themselves . Lee us consider how we can
reach some of these abstraction s.
Prepos1hons
Preposition s denote che spacial relationshi ps berw·een ob-
jects. In reaching preposition s we had the underlying notion that
we might thereby help che child co define and order space and
locate himself within IC. Eventually we did tcach the child about
his own position in space and the relationshi ps bcr,veen obieccs in
space (the sugar placed beside rhe cereal, rhe child lying 011 111p 11/
his bed). A child can acquire comprehen sive understand ing of
preposition al concepts only when he is conunuous ly iniciac1ng
and changing spacial relations among objects Such an under-
scandi ng can help bi m get along better, 1f for no or her reason
than that he will understand better what ochers say. As usual, we
began co reach the basic concepts in the laboratory, using simple
and easily manipulate d objects, such as a penny placed 011 top of J
cup. To facilitate the.: learning of the preposic1on and co prevcnt ~
from accending co irrelevant cues, E caught che spanal arrangc-
menrs br using man}' differenc kinds of common objects (a block
inside a dresser, a spoon beside a place). Thar is, we rned co avoid
a situation in which S would learn merely co place obiecc A on cop
of Bat the command "Place A on cop of B," since che child may
learn only chat particular placement (A on B) and not the rela-
tional rerm. To break up such incorrect discrimina rions, we ar-
ranged for B co be put on top of A and for a variery of obiecrs co
be placed on cop of each ocher.
. The manual for prepos1nons 1s an example of a program
which w·e always began w·1ch Discrimina tion I training. E in-
structed S co place an ob1ect, such as a penny, 111 a container, like
a cup. The response \Vas prompted (£ moved S's hand, holding
rhe penny ro rhe cup, and helped him release it). The prompt was
faded, and the tra1n1ng proceeded along "basic principles. " When
the child had mastered chis discrimina tion (111 ), E introduced a
Jtf11nd container a small box, and instructed the child co place cht·
obiccr.1111tkr the box. Tra1n1ng procecdcd through alternate pre-
sencauons of TS 1 and TS2 1n chc J)'Jtt111t11ic sti11111/11s prest111t1li1Jn
routine described earlier Once the stimulus rotation had been
•
Building Abstract Terms 59
completed , E gradually faded our the differences between che
concai ners, reaching the chi Id co respond appropriate ly co in and
toultr, using only one container. Finally, new objects and con-
tainers are introduced . Ne\v preposition s, such as beside and in
fr11111 uf. \vere then caught by repeating che procedure, first with
the introductio n of a new training stimulus (TS3), then with al-
ternate presentano n ofTS3, TS2, and TS! through stimulus ro-
ranon, and finally w1rh the 1ncroducrion of new ob1eccs. ~1anual
B 1n Chapter 6 describes the cra1n1og method 1n derail.
When rhe child had mastered five or six preposition s at che
level of Discrimina tion l, £ began Discrimina tion 2. The proce-
dure was exaccly the same as for Discrimina tion t, except that
now E placed the ob1ecc in or 11nder the concai ner (or E instructed
S co do so) and then askedS. "Where is it?" The desired response,
"in che cup" or "1111dtr the box," was prompted The procedure
was repeated. E someumes introduced TS2 using the same con-
tainer as for TS 1. Once 111 and 1111der had been trained, E used
many different ob1eccs and containers, as for D1scriminacion l.
We will present no formal data here on the acqu1s1c1on of preposi-
tional speech. A very comprehen sive project, directed by Mans-
field ( 1972) in our laboratory, has produced ample data showing
che similarity between chis kind of acquisition and the acquisi-
oon of ocher abstract concepts such as pronouns and time-relate d
terms, which we will reporc on. One of ~iansfield's findings v.·as
chat successive prepos1oon s were acquired \vich a decreasing
number of trials, char 1s, che acqu1sit1on curve was positively ac-
celerated . This observation is consistent w1ch viewing the mas-
tery of preposition al relations as che acquisition of a sec of succes-
sive discrimina tions.
Pronouns
It 1s difficult co specify all che gains for the child who under-
stands and uses pronouns appropriate ly. Ac one rime we thought
char such learning would help che child d1scnm1nare between
himself and ochers, co form a body image, a concept of"self," and
so on. Even if such ambitions are not achieved, the child who can
be cold what belongs to him and \\•hat belongs ro ochers, who has
co do whac, or whar 1s going co happen ro whom will obviously
makc large gains in his social behavior.
Our program for teaching pronouns involved training in both
rbe nom1nauve and che possessive case. Jn che initial stages of
60 Building Abstract Terms
rraining for the nominative c.1se we employed a large number of
ordinary daily heh,1viors (standing, sitting, jumping, laughing).
while common objects (shirt. shoes, \\·arch) and body parts (eyes,
nose, arm, foot) \\'ere emplo>·ed an training for the genitive case.
\Vie first trained for personal pronouns an che nominati\'C case.
E began training by asking che child. "What am I doing?'' \\ htle
performing some discriminable accivacy. such as jumping. S \\'as
prompted to say "')ou are jumping ... <If E inicially po1nced co
himself whale asking che question. of course, che additional
prom pc was fad<:d as usual). 5 v.•as nO\\' cold co engage in che ac-
riviry. and E asked ·what arc you doing?" The desired response
was prompted, "/ am 1umping ... The pronouns \\'ere exaggerated
(made especially loud and discincc) co help che discrimination. I
and>'"' \\ere alternated and chen rotated as usual. E changed tht
accivity from craal co trial once S had mastered che discrimination
becween I and J'"" wich chc first actavHy. Ac chis point a second
adulc was introduced, and appropraace responses co "What 1s Jhe
<he) doing)"' were trained. We review the training of pronouns
briefly later an this chapter, and a more complete description of
the training can be found in t.ianual C in Chapter 6.
We next trained for poss<:ssive pronouns in che genitive case.
Training for poss<:ssive pronouns bcg<tn with Discrimination 1,
chat 1s, the child had co discrimanat<: th<: referent of the pronoun
used 1n E's sentence. [ began training with "Point co ;our
("nose'. or some ocher body pare).· Once the child had mascered
"'Point co ;0111· (body pare),"' the command "Point co 111y (bodr
part)" ...vas introduced When chis discriminataon was completed,
E began changing che bodr pare over trials. A second adult \\·as
then introduced, and hu or het· v•as trained.
At this stage. training in Discrimination 2 was initiated. The
child was required co give che appropriate verbal as \\'Cll as rhe
correct non\'erbal respon\c co the referent of E's sracemenrs. Pro-
noun rever5al sometimes occurred E had labeled S's nose u)o111·
noseM during D1s<.rim1nat1on I: no\\ 5 had co label chat same nose
"'111) nose ... Conversely, S had pointed co E's nose, \\•hich E called
"'111) nose"'; buc now S had to call it ')0111· nose ...
When the child had mastered both personal and possessive
pronouns, we proc<:cdcd to train rhear combined use. For such
training f: engaged in some simple acrivacy chat involved a body
part or possession For example, £ couched S's nose and asked
"'What am I doingi" S was pron1pced ro say ")011 are couching"')
•
Building Abstract Terms 61
nose " E then had S touch E's nose and asked "What are )Oii do-
ing)" 5 \\'as prompted co respond "! am couching )""" nose "
Training proceeded as for individual pronouns. A third person
\\'as introduced once the first srage "·as mastered, and responses
such as " He as couching his nose·· \vere trained As soon as S had
mascerec.I che correct pronoun use for a parncular bo<ly pare, n<:\\'
body parts \\·ere introduced co help insure char 5 acquired the
broad abscraccion rather than some concrete aspect of the srimula
\'(fc present some data on pronoun acqu1s1non here. Although
rhe tra1n1ng procedure is quire complex, rhe daca do appear co be
typical of che r<:sulrs \Ve obtained in atcemptang co teach other
abstract rclat1onsh1ps. The acquisicion of che possessive pronouns
"your," "my," .ind "her" is presenced in Figure 7. Dara an: pre-
sented on sax children. The trials are presented in blocks of ten on
che abscissa, \\ hilc che percentage of correct responses \111ch1n each
block as prescnccc.I on che ordinate. The child '"as required co re-
spond nonverbally (Discran1inacion I) by pointing to che object
denoted by E ("Point to yn11r (object)"). One can see hov• chc
commands "Point co y11111· (object),"' "'Point co 111y (object)," and
"'Point co hir (object)" were trained separately, intermixed, and
roraced w1rh each ocher (referred co as "your, my, her mixed").
When che <.:hi ld approached mastery, \VC n1adc certain that in
any one block of trials, a certain number of obiccts or possessions
(more chan t\\'O out of cen) had nor been trained in the prc\'ious
blocks If che child \\'as snll responding at 100 percent correct,
chen we \\'ere assured chat he \Vas responding to the abstract rela-
tionship bet\\'een new st1n1uh racher than basing h1s ans\ver on
some irrelevant aspect of the training.
Looking ,u che data, one can draw t\\'O rather ob"ious infer-
ences. first, che children d1c.l learn about the pronoun5, but there
is great \"Jriabilicy an cheir acqu1s1t1on races. Tiro (a sax-year-old
echolalic) apparcncl) acquired the second pronoun m)" ai. he
learned che first pronoun ·)'Our (making no errori. on the pro-
noun "'my'') He made onl}' t\\'O errors an learning co discriminate
b<:t\\'etn "rour" and "my ... (See che first block of "your, m).
mixed "')Sheldon (a se\'en-year-old mute). on the ocher hand, \\as
much slow<:r than Ti co, requiring 2·t0 trials co learn "my." That
ch<:y learned \1bout pronouns"' is apparent \\hen \\'e look at_ th(
s.1v1ngs ov<:r casks The children \\'ere faster in the mastcrr of the
chird pronoun "her" chan che first t\\'O pronouns, "your" and
" 1ny "S1n1ilarl)'. the d1scram1nacion of "'your," "1ny," <Ind "her"
Picture E Mark wolh hos mother, al home. on one of the more formal sessions
Mark Is begonntng lo acquire pronouns, and on this particular scene points to hos
mother's nose on her request, " point 10 mom's nose," as contrasted to ·poonl to
Mark's nose ' Later these requests may be more pronoun-specific, such as
spec1tyong · poonl to my nose. and point to your nose" Notice that the mother
has Mark sollong down on the chaor on an allenllve pos1t1on, sonce these early ac·
qu1s1t1ons are d1H1cult lo acquire . Most language learning at home occurs on for·
malty with the chold free to move around
 Building Abstract Terms 63

intermixed required fev.•er trials rhan chat of "your, " "my" inter-
mixed, even though the former involves more stimuli than the
latter.
The Jara \VC have presented on pronoun learning represent
N only a fraction of the amount of training a child needs 1n order to
use pronouns correctlr. As soon as a child sho\ved some mastery
N
of pronouns in the controlled laboratory training session, he \\·as
moved to rhe outside environment ("Whose bed is this,· '"\Xlho is
a) eating cer<:al?" "Is she your mother?"). Training in rhe correct use
of pronouns \vas also imbedded in a number of other programs, .1s
..•
., ..- in conversation training, \Vhich \ve will illusrrare shortlr .
The complexines involved in teaching pronouns become ap-
parent \vhen \Ve examine the cond1uons under v. h1ch the child
-
0
acquired D1scnminacion 2 in pronouns. The chtl<l had already
z been caught (as 1n Figure 3) co give a correct nonverbal response
"' .... (he had co point co E's nose) co an essentially verbal stimulus (/!
says "Point to 111y nose "). This is Discrimination I. Nov.·, we
\vanred the child, while he was engaged in this nonverbal re-
sponse, ro label verbally (with the correct pronoun, "yo11r nose'")
N
N >- an essentially nonverbal stimulus (E's nose). Thar is Discrimina-
~ co tion 2. We ran Discrimination l and 2 concurrently. The
(/)
00 _,
- <l'. difficulty 1n chis acquisinon arises \Vhen one considers char the
t verbalizanon ')011r nose" was used co refer co rhe child's nose
-
0 when E spoke (D1scrim1narion 1), while ir 1s E's nose char 1s
.N
. meant if the child says rhe same phrase. S has ro discnm1narc rhe
0
relationships of verbalizations ro rhe persons v.·ho make them
This discrimination \\'as considerably complicated since: Ss often
imitated 1:·s verbalization. failing to discriminate hct,veen
prompts and instructions. For example. E inscrucced S co "Poinr
ro "') nose," and if S responded correctly (D1scrim1nauon I), f:.
asked for Discrimination 2 by saying "\'V'hose nose;" lf5 did noc
respond correctly, E prompted ')0111· nose." In D1scnm1narion I.
<; \\'as trained co point ro his own nose 1n response ro rhar request,
\vhdc 1n Discrimination 2 he had to be caught co inhibit the
-
0
c pointing response and ro imitate E's verbalizanon (')011r nose") in
Cl.
.,
~ order co masrer thl correcr \'erbal label
• V\
---.
.---r-,- .,-
000 00 00 0 0
~
~
T :;_! ,- T l r
Some data on such "pronoun reversal" is presented 1n Figure
8. ~f1chacl v.·as mute and Leslie echolalic whcn ,,.e began Ian
0 0 00 0 0 0 00
guage rrain1ng. Trials are 1n blocks of ccn on rhc .1bsl1ssa The
0 <X> \/> '1 N
- 0 a)
- "' "
N
- "'
0 a) oq N

percentage correct v. 1rh1n che block of ten cnals 1s given on rhc

PERCENT CORRECT ordinate. In rhe first ser of trials. E gave rhe command "Point co
.l 011r (body pare)" (for example, "nose," inrerm ixed among ocher
•
 64 Building Abstract Terms Building Abstract Terms 65
body parts). In order co be correct, chc child was required both co 60 t n als. In rhe chi rd sec of crials, che rwo commands were ro-
point to his own nose (01scriminacion 1) and co ver balize ··111y raced, \vhich is called "mixed" in che figu re. They learned chis
nose" (Discrimination 2). This 1s called "Point co your , say my" disc rimination within 80 trials. The lase poinc on che graph de-
1n Figure 8 . During chc ~ccond sec of crials, E gave che com mand scribes rhc performance of the children afcer chey had been
Po1nc co111) nose," \\'hich S h.1d co do. and he had co learn ro say trained on che ch1rd pronoun (" Poinc co he,. nose.") \\'hen E gave
')'u11r nose" \\·hile he did so co E's quesnon ~'hose nose?" T he all three commands, " Point co )Ollr (nose)," Po1nr co 111) (nose)."
training co acquire chis discrimination is called "Point co m y. say and ·Point co her (nose)" in rocacion. Th is 1s presented as "my,
your" in Figure 8 . Thc~c t\vo acquisitions \\'ere mascered \\'ichin your. her mixed" 1n Figure 8. In order co be scored correct. rhe
child no\\· had not only co correccly point co a particular person's
POINT TO YOUR, SAY MY, POI NT TO MY, MI XE D MY, YOUR, HER body pare or possession, but also co label verbally rhe pronominal
SAY YOUR M:XEO relation as well. By the cime ~i ichael and Leshe reached this lase
MICHAEL S
100 • stage of che formal pronoun craining, they performed wichour er-
rors. They sho\ved thac they were well on che way co mastery of
che basic and complex discriminations 1nvolv1ng pronouns.

60 Time-related terms

The ob1ecc of che next part of Program 3 was co introduce t~e

ch ild co rerms \vhich denote ways in which we order events 1n
I- rime. T his is che firsc step in helping the ch ild co relate his be-
u 20
w havior to events in che past, present, and fut ure and co begin to
0: reconstruct what has happened co h im and ro plan for evencs co
0: 0
0 come.
u The decails of che laboratory cra1n1ng procedures are pre-
LES L IE
I-
z 100 • sented 1n Manual D in Chapter 6. We usually began \\ich the
w term "first," although in retrospect \\'e probably should have
u begun with "lase," since for chat cerm the spaual a.nd temporal
0:
w cues are more recent We collected a large pool of th1rt} common
Cl.
60 objects, and randomly picked any five ob1eccs co form Sec I.
T hese objects \\'ere then returned co the pool. and another set ?f
five objects was chtn picked co become Set 2. and so on . To begin
cra1n1ng, E placed Ser I (ke>, cup, pencil, \\'atch, ring) 1n fronc of
S and cold him co couch chree of chem 1n a certain order (couch
\\'arch, then cup, then r1ng). E askedS "What \\as thcfirsri" T.hl'
desired response (e.g., .. ,,·arch") \\'as prompted After the ~htld
8 2 4 6 2 4 6 8 made che desired response, Ser I remained, but tt was phys1callr
TRIALS BY BLOC KS OF TEN
rearranged, and a different selecnon of rhree objects \vas couched,
rhe question was repeated, and che response prompted. After S
Figure 8. The acquisition ol correct nonverbal response to cer- reached critcrton (five successive correct trials), Set I \\•as replaced
tain possessive pronouns ("point to your," and so on) while the by Set 2 (five d1fferenc objects), then Sec 3 ~eplaced Sec 2 . . Once
child was taught the concurrent verbal response denoting the
appropriate pronoun ("say my," and so on). che ch tld reached cricer1on on a ne\v sec, cra1n1ng \vas terminated
on che concept "first," and che nexc concept, "lase," \vas i ncro-

•
66 Building Abstract Terms

duced "Wh<lf \Vas !;1,r )" \Vas caughc 1n the same manner as
"What \Vas first'" Afrer borh \\'ere mastered, che two concepts ..,
~ere altcrnaccJ (mixeJ) \X'hen ther were intermixed, we use<l "'0
rhc same .set of objects as cr,un1ng stimuli for boch. That is, after
S couched chree obiect~ 111 a ccrca1n order, he \\"as as_ked \Vhich one
...
0
"'
"'-
....
.. .c

--
)(
::J -

~·as couched Mfirsc :'" ht· responded; he was chen asked \vhich ~·as
couched .. last, .. and so on .
::f 0
....
.210
.c~
t- f
'" Afcer ~ and '"before'" were caught nexr. Using che same mate-
rial and scimulus presentations as in teaching ··firsc"' and lase ... E
••
~.

~---,,..
..,
....c ....
:!:!
~
::J
asked "'\\' h•lt came <,.1ft~r. ht/in·() che (obiecc))" Special supplemen- "' :cu u
c:
tarr techniques plus a complt·tt· example are described in ~lanual
D in Chapter 6.
-
..
:g
s= ·-
.~
1'he Jara on the .1cquis1tton of rhe discriminarion of "'first" c: ::J
r:r
·- u
an<l "last" appc.1r 1n Figure 9 Scott, a five-year-old echolalic, re- : "'
iii ..
quired 120 trials on Set I co 1denufy correctly the object which
\\·as couched "fin,r " (.\ had co verbalize che obiecc and its te1n-
0

... .......z --..

.. .c
:
,, >
c: 0
-.. _.,"' ..
.
poral order: "car wasfirrt ")He arrived ac maste ry within 20 trials "' .a ,,
:
on Set 2 and ~·as errorless from t he begi n ning on Sers 3 and 4 ., ID ::J
•• :,;:: J: en
Since he had nor been exposed co che temporal ordering of these
particular sti1nuli before (rhe or<lenng of Sets 3 and Ii), it was
chc1r temporal o rdering char he attended ro. Temporal order ac-
--
~·
~·

· -<::....__
:
-
C'I
::J ..
81:0 ·-
Q.
J:l
c: - 0
0

0 ..
- -o
quired disc n m1nar1v<.' scimulus propcrries for him. We can .llso u ., .,
Cll .. -
argue chat since he ha<l n<."ver been confronted '' ith these particu- ; .8 3l
lar stirnuli before (che ordering of Scts 3 and 4) and had not been o E .,
-
c: 0::J
.. ::J
caught that parcicular rcsponsc before ("boac v.as jirJt"'), his be-
havior is cruly novel and '\elf-creaced ... He \vas caught co "gener-
ate'" (produce his own) correct phrases co st1mulus situations he
N---- .,
c t.> •
&.~. >
.,
·-

had previously not encounrereJ .

This is another exampl<.' of rhe " learning to learn" phenome-
....
..."'
a: ••
~---,
N
-
2
-.. ·-.."'..
.. !!!
u-
.. 0
::
o-
non, this time boch ovcr secs anJ over concepts. i\[oreover, ~·c
again encounter che hcccrogencicy of che children. For example,
one can ~t.'C ho\\ slO\\' Kevin , a six-year-old mute, 1s 1n compari-
- ..8
u 0
0
c:
JI(.

•• o
:. -.a
son ro che others . Bet\\'een che !Och and che •i5ch blocks on che ~ .

- c:
~-- .! ·-
concepc first, " \\·hich corresponds co rhe IOOch and the 4 50ch
-
0 ::J "'
r:r -
crials Kevin is apparencly not learning anything. T he data sho~· u ,"',
c(
..
hO\\ much more we have ro kno''' .1houc chis kind of acqu1s1non
before \Ve become cftlcu:nr in reaching ir 000000
OC0 \ 0 ¢ N
000000
O CD \ O • N
"'.. l
6.
-. .c
Cll ..

0
·-
IL .c
Ol
Miscellaneous concepts PERCENT CORRECT

We raughc a vast arr.1y of abstractions. Some of these are pre-

sented 10 more dec.111 1n i\lanual E in Chapter 6. The children

•
 Building Abstract Terms Building Abstract Terms 69
68
part1cipaced in programs designed co develop concepts of color. massive and controlled exposure, the children seemed unable to
shape, and size; che majority of the children have been caught to make the necessary discriminations for subsequent training an
use words \\'tth even less concrete referents, such as "'fast," "slo\\'," their everyday environment.
"do\\·n," "up," "more," "less," "same," and "'different." The basic
procedures for reaching these concepts and the data we obtained
on their acquisition do not seem co differ substantially from chose Reference
for the concepts \\'e have alreadr discussed, pronouns and time-
relaced terms. E"s ingenuity in concept training co some extent is t..tansfield, J. T . TIH op.rant <'vnd1110n1ng of ab1tra<1 mofQr r<>JX>nu to Jlrtf>OJ11tonal
reflected in his choice of sci mu Ius material. Such material muse 1p.ah 1n 1'Jungu!ntdi Unpublished doccoral dissercanon, Un1vers1t)' of
be made co vary along many dimensions and may consist of a California, Los Angeles, 1972.
number of objects (a large pile of blocks and a small one when
reaching "more" and "less") or may depend upon the relative rate
of occurrence of cwo events an time (\vhich E began by instructing
S co move his hand an a circular morion, first "fast," then "'slow").
The procedure for cra1n1ng "yes" and "no" deserves some elab-
oration. The goal of chc procedure was co gave che child a simple
verbal behavior co express his desires and cell us something about
the excenc of has knowledge. The procedure was divided into cwo
pares, "yes-no" for factual maccers, and "yes-no" for personal feel-
ings. We began the training \virh "yes-no" for factual matters by
employing c.:ommon objec.:rs as training stimuli. E pointed co an
object, such as a car, and asked "Is chis a car?" S was prompted co
answer "yes." When the chtld responded "yes" reliably on perhaps
a dozen ob1eccs, E asked S to 1dent1fy a dafferenc object, asking "Is
I chis a car?" and prompted the ans\\•er "no." "No" is trained co
I
criterion; "yes" is reancroduced, and finally the cwo are rocaced.
Once the child had mastered "yes-no" for factual matters. E
proceeded co training "yes-no" for personal feelings or prefer-
ences. E selected several foods or activities he was fairly certain S
v;ould en1oy (such as eating). E chen asked "Do you \\'ant (re-
sult)?" and prompted the child to say Hyes." Training proceeded
as for factual matters. E then selected several foods or activities he
\\'JS certain S dad nor like (such as a slap on che hand) and asked
che child "Do you \\·ant me to slap you'" The ans\\·er "no was
prompted. Once the prompt \Vas faded, 1f S answered the ques-
tion incorrectly, we let him experience the consequences of his
incorrect answer (e.g., we would slap his hand)
Whenever we decided that a child should knov.• a concept, we
spent from one to two hours a day of concentrated practice on that
concept (with up ro cen trials per manure, chis practice could
yield anywhere from 600 co 1200 trials per day). Without such

•
 Chapter IV
MAKING LANGUAGE SOCIAL AND
SPONTANEOUS

Program 4: Conversation

his program became pare of almosr all rhe ocher programs

'''e have discussed. Conversation is a sophisncared marter; ic can
be defined as a verbal response whose form is some function both
of another person's s0 . As rhe program progressed. more and
more of rhe snmul 1 chac conrrolled che ch1ld"s \'erbal beha,·ior be-
came subcle. diffuse. and removed 1n rime. as che manuals '"ill
• 1nd 1care Sn II. rhe reinforcement operaoons we performed sorred
chem out and escabl ished chem as funcuonal.
st1mul1 rhar controlled rhe child's verbal behavior became subtle,
diffuse, and removed in time. as the manuals'' tll 1nd1care Still,
che reinforcement opcrarions '"e performed sorted then1 out .1nd
escablashcd them as funcnonal.
The child 1s initially raughr ro answer simple social questions
71
•
72 Making Language Social and Spontaneous Making Language Social and Spontaneous 73

like "Hov.- are you?" and "\"(.'hat's your name?" and so on \X'e similar situation, Ricky being taught to label objects and be-
tried to make the conversatrons eas}' by imbedding the child) haviors in a picture book. Although the focus of chis training is
answer within E's question ("Ho\\· are you feeling, Ricky!'' ··Fine, on labeling (teaching S co discnminace bet\\·een \\ho the person is
and hO\\' are you feeling, Joan!''). In a sense. the quesuon prompt- and \vhac the person 1s doing), it is apparent char S is also learn-
ed the answer. Usually basic training in conversauon was part of ing co converse.
other programs and was caught concurrently once che early d1s-
cnm1nacions \vere established. Ir may be helpful co describe four E Ricky, tl'ho is chis> Who is this, Ricky? \'(!ho is she>
"conversations" with Ricky at four different stages in his cra1n1ng. Ricky (unincelligible)
These examples trace Ricky's progress from a mere parroting of £ "No. Who is she? (pause) Betty? (pause) Beny>"
R1Ck) "Beet)• "
E's statements through learning co answer simple questions to
E "Thac's good \f'h,11 is Beny doing?"
more direct training for complex conversational speech. These Rick) Betty 1s danunj.l
conversations both give data and serve co illustrate our method. E Good boy, Ricky . That's good, Rick). Good boy, Rick Good boy.
The first "conversation" cook place on the fuse day of treat- Puc )'Our hand down, R1Ckr Ricky. who is chis'
ment. Ricky was 8 years old, untestable, echolalic. tancrumous, Ruk) Betty.
and "classically autistic,·· with self-scimulac1on, no social accach- E Thar's good, Ricky Who is this'
menc, apparent sensory deficits, and so on. S and F. are s1cc1ng Rick) Betty.
rogccher facing a picture of children playing. E tries co interest E Who 1s chis! (pause) Who is this' (pause) Ricky. who 1s this'
Ricky in the book and asks Ricky co describe 1c. Ricky makes a Rick) (un1nrcll1gihlc}
grabbing reach at E's glasses. E No. \'(!ho 1s chis, Ricky? (pause} Beccy? (pause) R1Cky, who is chis?
(pause) Beery?
Rick) Betty.
RicA·y Say please, I o.·ant your ,µlas'c~ (Ricky echoes E's earlier 'tate·
E Thac's nghr, RKk)• Whac is Beccy doing? (pause} Bcny is blowing.
mcnt).
t; Here, Ricky. All right, no"' 1c • my turn. Ko"' give them back. Rick) Betty 1s blowing
E Thats good, Rtek)" "err good, Rick Good boy Good l><>)'. Ricky
Rilky, lee go. \X1hac's chis, R"k-. !
Who 1s chis, Rick)·'
R"J.> What's chis, boy!
E \X'hat's >·our name? Rick) Bcccy
R1,J.y Whac's your name! E Thar"s good, and wh.1r is Beccy doing'
Ruk) Beery is blowing
E Ho" old are you? Ricky?
Rt,k) How are you? I want my gla~~es.
E Do you like my glasses? A lacer recording (six months into training) shows us working
Ruf> Do you like m>· glas~es' within another context (training "expanded" <lcscnprions) but
E Say please, I wane }'Our ~lasses. si mulraneously tra1 ning conversation.
Ruk> Say please, I wane your glasses (Ii gives Ricky the glasses}.
E All right, let me have chc Rlassc~. Ricky. Ricky, let go. I'll ~1vc E Ricky (pause}, Ricky. what are you wearing'
chem back. Accaboy. Good, good Ricky, who's this' Rick) I'm wearing cloches
RHk) Ricky, who's chis' E What kind of clothes)
C What's char, R1Ckr>
Ruk) Yello" shin
Ruk) \V'hac s char, Ricky! E Th,u·s nght \X'hac else?
t: Look Ricky. Look where Im poin11ng. Who'' chis. Ricky' Ruk) (un1ntcll1gibl<:)
Ri.1·1 Say please, 1 wane your ~la~sc) , 0

£ Th<1c s righc .
Rlfk) Black ccnn" ~hoes .
E Thats nghc \X'h.1c ,1bout your socks?
One month lacer we recorded the follo\ving conversation 1n a Ri<k) Black st>< k'

•
74 Making Language Social and Spontaneous Making Language Social and Spontaneous 75
F. Very ,i:ooJ. Very good Ricky, whac is chac chere on rhe dres5er' r Joan Good boy. Ricky Thac's good Thar"s good Come here,
R11J> Book. Ricky Srand up, Ricky Ricky, how are you feeling'
E \X'hac i' J hook tiir? R1<k) 1 am feeling line
Rick) Book book for reJding I: ThJr\ good Ricky, come here Rickr. come here "low you ask me
F Very good, Ritky. \'cri good Th.u", good. Ricky. whar"s chis. R11k) How are )'OU feeling'
Rick); Fi I .1m feeling line Th,1c"s good. Thac"s good.
Rtek) 1'o•e. Rid'> Lie down, please. Lie down (Preceding chis hour S had b<:cn
E \X hJi°• a n~e for' taught how co order E co srand up, lie down, smile, etc )
0

R1Cl-) :-\o~c for •mt:llin,i: £: R" k )', how old arc you'
E Th3r s good, Ricky.
0

R11k) l"m 7 years old

r; That 's right Ask me, Ricky .
The filrn we produced on rhc l.inguagc program (Lovaas, R11l, A,k me .
L969) provides ~evcral good examples of rrain1ng conversar1onal I' No . Thar's nor whar I asked you. Ask me how old I am S.1y,
speech. ~fuch cfforr \Vas spcnr 1n reaching rhc child ro 11111u1tc how
conversauons, for example, ro ask quesrions abour his immediace R11l, Arc you feeling'
environment (ls chis a cable) Is chis a chair!). Again, che film I No Thais no1 whar I asked you either. 1 asked you how old )'OU •trc
Now, you Jsk me. Say, how
provides some good examples of rh1s kind of craining.
R1tl) !'low
Some of the discnm1nattons involved in conversacional speech
I· Say, old.
are very subclc ,ind difficulc ro learn, as the following transcrip- J<uk> Old .
cion indicates. Yer masrery of these discnminacions is essenrial for Ii SJ)', arc you.
subsequent progress. Nore rhac Ricky and his rherapisr have /~1d:) Arc you.
noch1ng "concrete" co focus rhcir convers<1rion on (like a book of E Th,1c'> rig hr. Now Sa)' H all cogerher. Say, how old arc you?
picrures), a sicuac1on which probably requires more difficult d1s- Ru~·\ 1 .un 7 years old How old are you?
cnm1nauons. Nore char che "prompt" now ts beginning co be- I.! l"m 21 years old. Thac 's good. Thac"s very good. Thar's good
come imbedded 1n rhe conversarton nself (Ricky's rel11ng hh.
name is hts cue co ask rhe reacher whar her name 1s); ic's rhe be- Eighreen monrhs inro rreacmenc BilJy, another echolaltc
ginning scage in rhe training of "connected discourse." This 8-year-old, was arrend1ng school and talked co che rherap1sr
program had already begun during his chird monrh of language about H Oanuary 25, 1968)
rra1n1ng.
r; Tell me Jhou1 school.
E Ri<k\' 811/) The doors were locked and we couldn't get in .
•• what's )'Our ndm<"
Ri1k) Ricky r: Then w h.u happcnl-d'
E Th.n's riglu . 811/• The doors opened
Ririe) llo'I\ arc you feeling> f Who opcnl-<l them'
E No. Jok inc what I a>kcJ )OU Rick>' Say, whdt s rour ndme 1 811/) The deaning man.
0

Rl{tJ Rick)' · I Wh.u happened rhen?

E 1'-:o. 5.11, what-. .. 8111) \X'c ~J1d rhc pled,!tc of allegiance. (Bill rhen repeated 1hc plcdgt•
•
Rn/.> \Vha1 \ <p.1uscs). w1th his hand over his heart )
E 'ti>ur. . • /: How "Rua chis wecl.;>
Ruf, 'I-Our (JYJU\t,) . . . 8111) Rita h.iJ a seeturc lase week. Mrs helped her She
E SJy, nurnc. had co go home: and rcs1 (Bill then 1rn1cated Rica having a >c11urc)
Ruk) Name .
E No"'. >ay 1t all coget her . Lacer in rhe conversation:
Ruky \X'hJc·s your narnt'~ I· Whac·s for dinner, Billy>

•
76 Making Language Social and Spontaneous Making Language Social and Spontaneous 77
811/) I don'r know. f Why did you change sears?
E Ask me S.1y what's for dinner. Ed! Btll) Su~tn asked me
Bill) \Vh.1r ~ for d1 nncr, Ed; r WhJr does Sus.tn look like?
E HJmburgers 811/) D1tferenr
Btll) Oh. boy. £; How doc> she look d1tferenc ?
F \X' hAr's for dinner, Billy~ •
81'1) She's blond.
811/1 Hamburgers . r \X'hy else>
F Good. Bill . Hov. did )'OU find our )'OU are ha"ing hamburgers> 811/) And she looks preccy.
81, ·'.1 I don· t knov. . £! Do )'OU sic nexc to her?
E You asked me. 811/) Yeah, sometimes.
811/) I asked ) ou l.! Who do )'OU usually sn w ich>
E Good, B1llr. Btff) 0Jlc:.
E Dale who'
FoJlo,ving this convcrsanon, Billy was trained co ask ques- 811/) Dale R (pause). This morning Jeannie goc new shoes.
tions of a third person as \\'ell as of rhe chcrapisc. The following l; What kind of shoes. Bill)'!
conversation ensued: 811/) Black .ind gold shoes.
/! Do you like chem?
E What are you going co do at school tomorrow! 81!1) Yes.
811/y I don't know. What' E Whac 's Jeannie's lase name?
F. I don't know either, Bill)" How can )'OU find our? 811/J I don't know Lisa came on the bus. Susie said Bill hurt my feel-
Btlfy I can ~sk t.1omm1c. ings . (Bil l mimicked rhcir conversation at chis poinc.)
E She doesn't know either How can you find our> ,~· was prompced ro £! \X/h,1r did Mr. B say abour rhac, Bill?
say he could ask /\1 rs l , his teacher>. Btfl) Noch1ng. Ed.
Btfl) 0 K
E How c~n you find out what you arc i-01ng to do at school? It is important to remember that Billy was echolalic when we
Bt!fy I can ask /\1r~ U started his training, and although he could imitate sentences he
E Good, Billy. could not generate correct ones. This is true of all the echolalic
children we have trained.
The last conversacion v.·e have from Billy \Vas recorded: Details of the training in Conversational Speech are presented
in Manual F in Chapter 6.
E. \X'har h.ippc:ncd .11 sd1ool today , Bill)'?
Btfl) /\1art)' H . goc in th<" cafct<"ria and startN crying (p-duse) On the
bus, DAk hit Cristy-Anne Jnd Crist)'·Anne startN crying. Program 5: Giving and Seeking Information
E. \X'har happened a tier th.11 , Bill /
8111) ~1r. B. changed Cri>t)·Annc (t.lr B is che bus dn"er) .
E. \\' here did ~he chJngC' to; It is apparent from the transcriptions above char the conversa-
Bill) To thC' front window . tions we had ,,·1ch the children involved a great deal of "informa-
E \Vh<"re , Bill>·' tion exchange. " In order co help such an exchange gee started we
8111> Thi: front of the bu; . developed a formal program in the lab which v.·as intended to
E \\~hr did DJle hit Cnstr· Anne' help the children learn how co request and transfer information
811/) Chn;ty·Annc lut Dale and 0Jle hie Cristy-Anne back. and to discriminate bct\\•een what they did or did not know. This
E \X'hy did Dale hit her' program \Vas to reach a format, then, that ~xtended ch~1r be-
B 111) I don· t know . havioral repertoires and co provide a mechanism for facd1tanng
E Where were you s1t11ng!
conversations.
Btfl:; Alone, .ind I d1angc:d scats with Susan.
Essentially, f; asks S a question from a large list of questions
•
 Making Language Social and Spontaneous Making Language Social and Spontaneous 79
78

co which S sometimes kno,vs the ans,,er, sometimes does nor tending adult after£ has posed a question to him. T he top of the
(e.g., What's your name?" \vhich he knows; "What are you figure sho,vs (solid line) rhac Leslie learned co seek answers co E's
going co ear for dinner!'' '"hich he may nor knO\v). A third person quesc1ons by the fourch day of craining (abouc a half-hour of train-
is present in che room with the child and E E asks S a question, ing per day). Danny (6 years old, muce), on che ocher hand, re-
and S 1s to ask the third person rhe ans\\ er co char quesnon (seek- quired 16 days. The broken line sho\\•S errors, which means chat
ing 1nformarion) and then to relay char informanon back to E the child "·ould ask the attending adult che answer co a quesnon
(giving informar1on) In Figure 10 v•e sho"· the acquisition of for'' h1ch he (the child) already kne\\' the answer. As can be seen,
chis behavior of seeking information, "·hich is scored as correcr if Leslie made chis d1scnm1nanon (bec·11..een ans\\•ers she kne\\' and
che child, "·ichour being prompced, addresses himself co an ac- did nor know) from che beginning; Score and Billy acquired it
during training; \Vhile Danny did nor learn che discrimination
during these sessions. T hese daca are of parcicular inceresc because
SEEKING INFOR M ATION RETUR N I N G INFORMATION Score and Billy .ire acquiring a discrimination of a purely 1ncernal
100
_r r'° even~, the difference beC\\'een "koo"·ing" and "noc kno\\•ing."
l-lav1ng learned the correct ans"·er, che child did noc immediacely
80
60
[: "kno,v" that he had co recurn chis information co E; he had co be
4
40 8LOC • S OJ I() TRIALS trained co do so in a separate seep. The section labeled "Returning
20 •· o 9LOC • S Of~ !RIALS LESLIE 2
Information" shows how chis behavior was acquired. le took 4
0
.....
0 O· 6-0-·0
days for Leslie, 10 for Score, 16 for Danny, and 4 for Billy ro seek
10
0
w 100 an answer to a quescion and co give rhac answer back co che person
0: 80
e (/)
\\• ho had requested it .
IX IX
0 6 0
60 a:
0
40 4 a:
,_ w
z
w
20
·.o...o.
2 ...0 Program 6: Grammatical Skills
.o. 0
0
a:
w
0
IOD
•04.0- O· 0-·0

ID •
a.
6 In Program 2 we described procedures for building certain
80 DANNY
6D 6 elemenc;1ry phrases and sentences, using prom pc, re1 nforcemenc,
4D p 4 and scimulus rotanon procedures much like che ones '"e have
• used 1n all the language programs. In terms the linguist might
1 •," ,,, ' ' 2
2D
"••
'b-o ·•-<t,.• 'I0 0 use, "'e have .iccempted to help che child make \\'ell-formed sen

BILL/
0
IDD •O cenccs, or grammatical sentences, by beginning \VICh senrenccs
80.
60
4Cl
•
/ 6
6
4
composed almosc ennrely of "free" or "full" morphemes. For in-
scance, "1 \Vane bread," "I \\'ant go," and "1 "'ant C1ckle" \Vere all
acceptable sentences at first. As training progressed, \Ye began
zo z
" ·" "•• 0
prompting and re1nforc1ng the use of more complex surface struc-
0
2 "
4 6
r
8 10 •2 4 16 z 4 b 8
.
10 12 14 16 •
tures. For instance, '"e began co demand the use of arc1cles (the
DAYS
insertion of "co" in such sentences as "I want to go"), modi ficat1on
of nouns br adjectives. che use of preposicional phrases "·here ap-
Figure 10.. Acqu isition curves for four children who were taught
to ask various questions of one adult ("seeking information"),
propriate, agreement bet,veen pronouns and sub jeer-verb rela-
and then lo relay that Information to a second adult ("returning t1onsh 1ps in sentences, and the like. We can illuscracc this train-
Information" ). The broken line shows errors, which means the ing by giving excerpts from rhe "conversations" we had wirh
child asked for answers to questions he already knew. The solid some of the children. Lee us firsc introduce Rick, ar abour one
line gives the percentage of time the child sought or returned
the correct Information without being prompted. year into trearmcnc, co illustrate rhe acquisi tion of grammar, par-
ticularly correct pronoun usage .
•
80 Making Language Social and Spontaneous
Ricky and F are looking at a picture of a lake with sailboats,
people on the shore, and so on
E Look at the pictur< Who·, chis!
Ruk) J\1ommy.
E Good. \X'hJt i) J\fomm) Joingi
Rul, Ile as stanJ1ng on rhc dock
[ No. she
Ruf; She is scand1np on the dock.
£ Good Look, .... h.u d~ 1s J\{ommy doing!
Rtrk1 ~tommy he is putting around his shoulder>.
£ No, she
R1Ck) She 1s putung around his shoulders
£ Around her shoulders.
Rule) Her shoulders
L Good, Ricky Ver> good Wh.u 1s Susan doing!
Ruk) He 1s putc1ng hands 1n rhe pocket
£ No, she
R1CkJ She as putcing hands 10 rhe pocket.
E That's ver> good. Her hands.
Ruky Her hands 1n the pocket.
£ Th.it's right. What's happen ing out here?
Most of the teaching of grammar was conducted informally
without obieccive daca recording. However, we also developed
cv.·o specific programs for the teaching of grammar \\'hich dealt
with the addition of 1nfiect1onal affixes. These are simple lexical
items, nor complex S}'ntactical rules . "S" for the plural and '"ed" for
the past tense are inflectional affixes. T hey do nor change the
grammatical class of che \\'Ords (as is often the case v.·ich deri va-
tional affixes such as "l»") and, in general, the formation of "·ords
through the addition of infiecuonal morphemes is quite regular as
compared to other kinds of affixes. Rules governing tht: addition
of affixes arc the simplesc kinds of grammatical rules, and infiec-
cional affixes are the simplest kinds of affixes. These may be some
of the reasons we "·ere able ro develop a simple, successful, formal
training program for teaching their use.
The acquisition of inflectional affixes allo\\'S rhe child to form
some very common kinds of utterances about time and number.
Jo parttcular, it seems that the transformation of verbs from pre-
sent to past tense accounts for a large percentage of the descrip-
rions people commonly 1nake. This skill enables one to call upon
one's past experience and that of ochers, to learn how the past
•
Making Language Social and Spontaneous 81
relates to the present and, one hopes, to be in a position to
ev;iluatc che consequences of an ace wichouc performing ic.
There are t\VO scages to che program we have developed for
teaching che cransformauon of verbs from present co past tense.
We ,vorked as follO\\'S. Using three Ss, Billy, Scocc, and Leslie (5
to 8 years old, echolaltc), \\'e selected l 0 common nonverbal be-
haviors (such as \valk1ng, dancing, closing, looking) \\•hich we al-
ready had caught S co label 1n che present tense ("! am walking
across chc room ""I am dancing." "I am closing the door ""I am
looking outside.") The verbs describing these behaviors all re-
quired "cd" 1n che past cense. We then gave che children a per-
formance precesc co assess whether chey could use their verbs 1n
che past tense. In chis rest, S was first cold co perform che be-
havior and asked co label 1t 1n che present ("What are you do-
ing)"). He \vas then cold co scop and co label the be~avior 1n the
past ccnse ("What did you jusc do?"). None of the child~en ~ould
label their behaviors in the past tense, as can be seen 1n Figure
1 l.
Ss "'ere chen trained co transform chc 10 sentences involved in
che pretest co che past cense, buc \vichouc che associated nonver~al
performance. E merely asked S co repeat che present censc (£said:
"Say, I am walking across che room."), chen asked for che pasc
cense by saying: "What did you jusc do?" and pr~mpced ch~ cor-
rect past tense. If \Ve examine Billy's record on chis task, which is
labeled "verbal training" in Figure 11, \\'e can see chat he learned
co crircrion "'irhin the first block of 10 trials. Actually he erred
and \vas prompted the correct transformation on the sentences
numbered L, 3, -1, and 7 on che first block of I 0 trials, he made
no mistakes "·hen these sentences \\'ere repeated in the second
IO-trial block. \V/e then administered a performance post-te~c,
identical to the performance pretest, in an attempt to determine
\\'hether the purely verbal cra1n1ng on transforming sentences had
helped him to label his nonverbal behavior 1n c~e past tense. The
children nO\\' performed considerably better. Billy, for example,
raised his score from zero to SO percent correct. He made m 1s-
takes in labeling the first behavior ("I an:1 walking across rhe
room') "·hich E. corrected. He also made mistakes on numbers 3,
4, 7, a~d 8. The children \Vere then trained s~c1fically in cor-
rectly labeling behaviors 1n rhe past tense, w.h1ch we tra.1ned as
follows They \vere cold co perform the behavior, and w~1le they
\Vere engaged 1n the behavior they were asked to label tt in the
present tense. This they already had mastered. They were then
 82 Making Language Social and Spontaneous Making Language Social and Spontaneous 83

cold co stop and asked (trained) co label the behavior 1n the past
tense They acquired this task of labeling lO behaviors using the
past tense \vith1n 20 trials, as can be seen in the per/1Jnna11a tra1n-
z 1ng 1n Figure 11 Finally they were given a generalization test in
0 \\'hich \\'C selected 10 common bur neu· behaviors (such as clap-
....
ci
•
ping hands, scratching head, poincing, couching). They could
-
N
J
ci label chese behaviors 1n che present cense, bur chey had nor been
a:
.... trained co label chem 1n che pasc rense. As the figure shO\\'S, their
....z<.:> • • • pcrformance .,.,·as errorlcss on the generalization cesc. The children
....u made somt· minor (and understandable) errors, but these did nor
z <.:> discracc from the adequacy of their performance. For example,
ci z 0
~ - Billy transformed "touch" to "couched" ("I couched the .,,·1ndo\\' )

a:~
0 ci and transformed "push" to "pushed" ("! pushed the car").
~
..... a:
a: ..... N
In summary, the data show char the children learned co
w
(l_ \ \ - z
w transform simple verbs from the present to the past tense During
.....
w ..... the general ization test, they both responded to ne9.' st1 mull, and
u.,_
z ti) 0 they a lso constructed new responses (grammatically correct sen-
ci w (/)
~ ..... >C tences). Within our conceptual frame\\•ork, one can state that
a: ,.:. v
Qt/)
..... 0 0_J verb transfor1nation is a response created through differential
a:
....
...
(l_
>-
J • . ...... CD
>-
reinforcc1nent. Jn other terms, one might say that they had
-J
-co -o----1 co learned a grammatical "rule" by ..vhich they generated novel sen-
u
ti) (/)
_J
tences.
~
The use of irregular verbs (run-ran, ear-ate) "'as caught as ex-
,._ a:
..... ceptions to the "ed" ending in che child's day-co-day act1vir1es.
"'.,., The acquisition seemed uneventful.
The program for pluralizarion also considered regular and ir-
regular forms [ selected 10 common object labels \\·hich rc-

...u,_
----- .,
j-N qu1rcd the addition of s" 1n the plural. He held up che appro-
priate number of ob1ects and said, for example, "Here 1s one apple,
here are t\VO. . . The desired response 'lvas prompted, and so
on. After 5 mastered the first 10 plurals, E trained plurahLat1on
z
co several more quesnons (S 0 s) (e.g., "Here are some . . . " "Here
ti)
ci w
~ .....
a:w
0 a:
... Q.
a:
.....
Q.
• • .- are manr ") E. then rested for generalization using both new
ob1ects and ne'v s0 s. T hey learned co pluralize as they learned the
verb cransformauons. Irregular plurals were taught in the same
1 I I I I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 manner as irregular verbs, i.e., as they \Vere encountered 1n the
Q
- al <0 V N Q al <0 V N
-
0 al <0 V N
child's <lay-to-day funcuoning.
PERCE NT CORRECT The procedures 1ust offered, even v.1rh rhc more detailed ac-
counts found 1n chc manuals (see manual G and H), cannoc possi-
bly cover all che problems one encounters 1n teaching grammati-
cal language behavior. Like any complex social behavior reper-
toire, it is coo varied and extensive co be taught explicit!}' 1n che
84 Making Language Social and Spontaneous
lab. However, 1t is horx·d that rhe reader \vill be abl~ co absrract
(<liscriminate) the principles involve<l and generate his own prog-
rams for proble1ns as he de.its \\·irh children in everyday life. No\\
lee us turn co some more elaborace programs.
Program 7: Recall
\~c: have de,crihcd programs for introducing the child. to
basic concepts of cime \'\1t have oud1ned manuals for teaching
"'first'' and "Jase," "before and "afrer," and verb transformations.
Onct che child h.id acquired some of chese basic discrim1nauons
\Ve then excended the ci me concept in many d1recc1ons. One such
direction involved teaching the child co describe his beha,1or, as
it was increasingly removed from che presenc. We termed t~is
training '"n:call." Recall is a behavior which can be said co "enrich
the c:nvironmtnt," borh of rhe child and of the£. The programs
on recall, therefore, as is the case v.•1ch the remaining ones, relate
quire directly to the rt•rininal goals of the langua"?c project. R~­
call enriches the environment by enabling the child to trans1nir
and record past events 1n a manner comprehensible to all. These
records and transrn1s~ions may chen become functional srimuli for
persons not actually present "hen the event occurred. As such,
they will control the beha\10r of both the speaker and che lis-
tener.
The recall proi.:ram requires chat the child have most, if not
all. of the language skills discussed in che preceding programs.
The manual involves .) steps. The first seep, v.·hich centers on re-
call of the 1n1mediatc past, is caught much as \\·ere transforma-
tions. F. and S c:ngagc in some bch.tvior together, \\•h1ch 5 mar be
describing ar rhar time. Five co 10 seconds may elapse. and chen
E asks. \X'hac did you just do(' 1·he child mar ans\\·er or be
prompced co ans"·er, "I stood up. \\·alked to the blackboard.
wrote on it, looked our the \vindov.. sat do\\·n " Gradually E de-
creases his instructional involvement until S 1s performing and
rhen recalling .\s many as six to eighr different activities per crial.
This practice serves ro graduallr increase the delay berv.•cen the
Stimulus input and S's verbal reconstruction of that input. Recall
training serves, in a sense, to "build" che child's memory.
Tht second seep in tht· program invol,·es the verbal reproduc-
tion of events v.·ich ,1 somewhat longer delay and of acti\1C1es
\\·hich are more complex and provide less specific cues for recall.
•
Making Language Social and Spontaneous 85
When rhe child has completed chis seep, he should be able ro re-
call a sequence like "We goc a drink, \\'enc do,vnscairs, Sa\v a dog,
bought some candy, and came back." We are now ralking about
delays of up ro l 5 m1nures.
The final step involves recall of events anywhere which have
occurred hours or days 1n the child's pasc When the child mas-
ters rhis phase. he should be ans\\·ering questions like "\Xlh;1c did
)"OU do lase \Veekend?" E must kno\v \\·hat has happtned ro rhe
child in order co prompt him co give a correct response ,,·hen
necessary Derailed description of che procedures 1s given 1n
r.tanual S 1n Chapter 6.
Dara from che recall training on t\vO children, Le~lte and
Scott, are presented 1n Figure 12. The abscissa denotes from one
ro t\\•O hours of training per day. The figure shows the acqu1s1cion
(rhe increase in recalled events \\•ith decreased prompting) of re-
call from rhe three srages in which the children v.•ere raughr ro
verbally reproduce events in their past. Ar first rhese events in-
volved simple acts in the immediate pasr (such as drinking or ear-
ing) and lacer in training became more elabo_rac~ (\vere recall_e d
\vith adjectives, anc.! so on) and more removed in time. The train-
ing of recall 1s presented in more derail _in Manu_al I in Chap~er ~-
As training progressed and the child acquired the basic d1s-
criminarions involved in recall, reinforcement became less con-
tingent on spontaneous, perhaps noc ahvays accurate, descrip-
tions of his behavior and environment. We wanred ro build rhe
beg1nn1ng of fantasy, and \Ve called rhis ne'' program "sror>·-
tclling."
Before \\"C describe the "story-telling" program, ir is 1mpor-
rant to point ouc that the principal disadvantage. of our training
program centered on its failure co produce the kinds of sponcane-
ous, cross-situational. generalized speech that normal children
display \'<le have no ob1eccivelr recorded ~ompari~ons. b.~t i~
soon became apparent rhat many of our children did nor use
language as normal children do, ofren giving the parent the prob-
lem of crying ro "shut che kid up" once he learns ro_speak ~fost
of che children seemed not co \\'ant co speak, except 1n a s1tuar1on
where chere \\'as a pO\verful reinforcer available such as food.
Whenever one uses experimental (artificial) re1nforcers for speech,
that speech probably becomes highly discriminated. The amount
of spontaneous speech seemed co be some _function ~f the range of
reinforcing stimuli functional for a pa~ncular child. !he more
developed children gave more spontaneity. However, 1n the ab-
 Making Language Social and Spontaneous 87

sence of independent measures of a child's mocivation, these are

clinical impressions only. We shall return co a discussion of such
morrvattonal variables lacer.

0
I
\
0
-
0
Cll
V> \ "'
~

::c
.....
0 <!>
O z
•
o,
' 'o /
- -- -
-"' "'"'
Cll 'Q
s; ..

31:!
Program 8: Spontaneity

o::> z- 0
8'
"' ..
/ s; 0<.;tatls of the spontaneity training program arc presented 1n
>-a:
0 cf .. Q. l>.1anual J 1n Chapter 6. Strange as chis ma> seem co some. \\C
02 \
0 \ =c ·-cOI acruall> built a program co help rhe child become more spontane-
,_
~
:x:
N
..
·=
..
.. -..
'Q ous We began such sponcane1cy cra1n1ng by holding up a
...... ....
0
31: "poster on \Vh1ch was pasted a picture of one obiecc chat che child
• s;
... Cll
could label. E asked, "What do you see?" and prompted che ans-
\ver. The number of pictures on rhe poster were chen increased 1n
• °'' ' ..
c c
- ....&.
-~ gradual steps, to t\VO or three co a dozen or so; and reinforcement
<!>
z
0 I
I
o....,
0
---
....
~ Cll
"'
· - 'Q
\Vas given conringcnr on larger and larger responses. The child
\vas said co have mastered a poster v.•hen he had labeled all the
0
z
w
w w
' ......
'o
.... ..
c Q.
E
0
components of rhe poster without requests (prornpcs anti the like)
ro do so. After the chi ld had been reinforced for such "extended"
en \ II:
I- responses using che kind of conrrolled scimulus presentations a l-
.. -
·- Q.
'Q c
::> ..J \ I- I,{') (/) ~
0 (/) 0
\ 0 >-
Cll lo"·ed by rhe posrers, we moved on ro material and quesrions like
>- w u <{ .. u
..... ..J (/) s; .. "What Jo you see on che table?" and '"What do you see in chis
> ~ <:T 0 -c 0t::
~
·- u room"! and "Tell me about yourself."
:x:
..... ' ' o, ......... ~ 31:
.. 0
Jn "'Tell me about yourself," E scarred S labeling his body
~
::c
31: ' .....~
'Q
:::
s;
s; ..,
., pares and cloches. If an unusual response occurred, 1r ''as 1m
u .. mcJiatcl}" and generously rewarded, \vhercver 1c occurred in the
•
' ~-
oc
31: = chain. Lee's look ar some dara. Figure 13 shov.·s rhc chaining of an
- 'Q
c Cll increasing number of bod> pares (on the ordinate), over training
• --1 0 i:
days (about half an hour of rra1n1ng per day) for three children-
0 (/')
....
(/') Cl 0
c
...
0 w 'Q
Scorr, Leslie, and Danny. By che 12rh day. Leslie v.·ould. '"'irhour
-
~

V>
.,::>
(/')
z
~
0 .. s;
·!:=
·- Cll
addrcional cues from E produce: ··eyes, nose, hair. shirr, arm,"
:i°', (I'' - ..
....
'Q
::> (/) ..... a., c and so on, pointing co each pare as she labeled ic Alrhough ,,.e
0
>-
I w/' u • trained 0<tnn} for 50 da}'S, his performance v.·as SClll quire V.tri-
0 a: ' N ~
0 \ a: Q.
able, somcumcs being very good (up ro 18 "irems" ''1rhour in-
-.. ..
• E
0 \
....
~
<> N 0
Q.
tervening prompts) and sometimes producing very J1rclc.
::c r ' T r r 1 Ir secn1cd a rclanvely small srep, once che child could dc-
31: I.--.-----.--..-,
1 -.-, • 1 ' r 1 • 1
0 ~
• 0 CD Ii) "1 N 0 CD IJ) <:T N 0 Cl ~cribe his O\\'ll behavior and body, ro reach h1n1 co describe his
NUMBER OF RESPO N SES PER DAY u.
surrounding en,·1ronmenr. We have some daca ro describe ho'v
such learning orcurs in rhe record of Score, v.·hom '"e caught ro
desrrihc his brcakfasr, ar one >•ear inro his language training. He
 Making Language Social and Spontaneous 89

was S years old and echolalic when he came ro us Dara on "Tell

me abour breakfasr" is given in Figure 14. He received IS ro 30
0
I() minures cra1n1ng on rhis cask per day, over 16 days (on rhe
a)
<t
-..c .c..... abscissa). The ordinare gives rhe number of responses per trial

-cc ....•
• U) Ol" and che number of promprs for a parricular response T he dara
<t oi- given in Figure 1·1 shO\v char he learned co describe his experi<:nce
<t
<t
N
v
-
-.c.. .c
0
:>
around breakfast so rhac evenrually he used rarher exrens1ve ver-
balizarions, unaided by E. On rhe 16rh day of rraining Score gave
0 .. -
"O 0
c-S
.. l
rhe follO\\·ing accounr. "·h1ch reAecrs che amounr of derail \\"ere-
quired:
<t
a)
rt)
.. .,
t: ~
a. 0
-li_ U)
rt)
>-"O
"O -
~5
I; \Xfh.11 did you ha\'C: for hrc:akfasc'
.\.011 Bacon and c:ggs. orange 1u1cc:. and milk . Eggs are yello", c:gg> .ire
<t g1x1J I like chc: eggs The hacon is red and wh1ce, rhc: b,Kon "good,
~ l
-0 "O
rt)

V) N
rt)
..c =
£ .
and oh, I l>Jd '><.rambled eggs, .ind I like rhe bacon t.1tlk " loqu1J,
1ntlk "' good, .ind I ltkc rhe mtlk . Orange 1u1ce "good, 0 J "
~
0 ..
0 -;::: CD >-
rt) a..c • \oh no! I had gr.1pefru1c. Grapefru1c ts grxxl. I e.1c tr w 11h .1 ~r.1pc
~
"t: - "O
a) (.) 7D Cft fru1c spoon, and chat's all.
.. .cc
......
::::> <I,
NC/)
c.D
N <(
>-
-8 -·c
~t:
·- .. .,
!:
C)
~
--------
<)if :: - -
--~
- - "(] ...
<t a
N
"O .,
sa. ....
e->
Q. ...

Program 9: Storytelling
~ o~o
-~:~
N
N ... a. .-E
a. "'
~....., -
.....,
°"n
<JC:-
·<I'
..<l" ... -

- -- -- - ---
0
N
a)
--.8
c .. .c
:> .. OI
.. 0 .:
:> ... -
0
., a.
E
Program 9 on sroryrelling became a direcr exrens1on of Pro-
gram 8 on sponrane1ty rraining. Whar Program 9 arrempcs ro do 1s
ro move rhc child's language from conrrol by concrcr<. and ex-
~ ---
U) c E o
., :> ... s
perimentally manipulared 0 s co less observable SClmul1. We
'
' Cc~
-- --
-- - ---- --- ... <>-
<J . ---
··<] <t 0 ..
..a. ..>
\vanrtd rhc child ro use language as in fanrasy for his p<:rsonal
grar1ficacion. \Y/e began ro reinforce ex~ens1ve idiosyncraric de-
- >-
--- -- -__• : <l
N
-c.
0
scnpuon \vhenever possible. Our purpose \\'as co 1ncreas1ngly free
1 -UJ
<)-------- ----- 0 c~
I- ...JZ
o(f)Z
uW <t
•
<J... •
•<l a)
--
0 .,
-c
-.!! "O
:> 0
...
rhe child's verbal behavior from rhe concrol of 1mmed1are and
concrere sr1 muli. ro bring IC under che conrrol of che child s feel-
(/) ...J 0
-- ... -- -- - a., ings and experiences, and yec co keep ir sufficienrly public so rhar
U)
...
.......
I :r
" .c \VC could "share his expressions"' and agree char his descriprions
<t .c c ,,·ere ··sensible . .. As ir is possible ro reinforce ··psychoric" vc.:rbal
..... f
N ..,- .c=
• "O
behavior as \\·ell (Lovaas. 1967), rhe shaper has co keep some kind
of crirenon of "comprehens1bir>'" or "sens1b1lit}" 1n mind.
"
f ..
:>
Ol f Ir seemed rh.1r \Ve should build extended verbal reperro1rcs ro
0
N
a) c.D <t N
-
0 a) c.D <t N 0 - .c
u. - supply a range of re1nforcers for fantasy behavior. This presup-
poses ch.tr rhe child 1s reinforced by controlling large aspects of
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
his person.ti env1ronmenr, be}'Ond rhe necessary operarions for
eaClng and slcepin,g Many aucisric chi ldren do nor find rheir en-

•
 Making Language Social and Spontaneous 91

v1ronmenr ro be rhac reinforcing, and with such children we

f.1iled co produce verbal fantasies. Bur for rhose children whose
environment contained more varied reinforcers, language became
0
PROPORTION OF PROMPTED RESPONSES
.. rich anJ appropriate Let us illustrate chis point. Ricky ahvays
0 0
en
0
co 0
,... 0
\0
0
tO
0
<t
0
r<l
0
N
0
•
0
c
....- en1oyeJ himself at Disneyland, and \\·hen he \vas caught co de-
scribe anJ or<lcr his experiences, a question like \X'hat <lo you
c
,,·anr co talk about? could bnng about a large repertoire of ver-
0
..
Cl.

!
balized experiences ("I \\'enc co rhe ~fatcerhorn, an<l \\'e \\·enr

-..
'tJ through the \\"ater. ") \\'ith quite appropnate affect Another
Cl.
chil<l, or Ricky himself, \\'hen we first began treatment \\'1th him,
E .;
, ,,
,
I
,0 0~ >-..
Cl. 'tJ
c QI
might have spent the enure day at Disneyland \Vithout being able
co cn1oy talking about it later.
o' ::> c The mute children <lid not reach this level, bur many of che
-., .=..
c-

.. -
echolaltc ch1l<lren became quire elaborate in their dcscnprions .
ell ~
The transcnbed cape recordings from cwo such children serve co
,' .. QI
illustrate che degree of soph1sricated expressions some of rhc chtl-
" -..
~c
N
,o'
,' ·-....
c ..
<lren attained coward the end of their training. Enc \Vas 12 years
o'
'I
I
,'

0
-"
J:
'tJ
c
~

.!:
J:
old and \Vas echolalic upon admission. Like che ocher chtl<lrcn
(like Rick, who was also echolalic) at intake he lacked a labeling
,o l'U !:::'.
vocabulary and was unable ro answer even a simple question like
, CJ) .. ~
,, (]l
>- a.-
<( E :; "What is your name?" He was treated for one year for chree hours
Q
~ per week I lis parencs served as co-therapists, which excendcd his
\
\
co
0
-......
Cl. ..
o.Q
:S<
crai n1 ng on a Jai ly basis.
0
I '
.... ·--
::> J:
The following conversation was recorded on audio cape .an<l
then transcnbed verbat1 m. Eric and his therapist are seated at ,1
·~ 0 table discussing a book filled \\'Ith pictures of man> common
.. c
J: 0
u=
.. Cl.
household items. The items on the first page included an electric

-.. ....
~ ·.: mixer, a roaster, a fan, and a radio. It is obvious char Eric goes
J: .. " beyond th~ immediate stimulus situation given by rhe book. He
-..c'O'ti is, 1n face, using his imagination and "celling a scory ··
..
.,, --
.. J:
~ "
N ....
"
'tJ
t;,,, I "an1 10 calk abour rhe egg be-arer, makes egg> and rhc.- fan turns
on and blo"s rhe wind off. Turn on wich a sw1cches It blows. I puc
....J: 1<><1~r in rhe coasrer and make roasted cheese sand" iches. I
m,1kc: . . . I put . I make . .. rurn on chc.- music and I li>-
cen I Ii seen I Ii seen ro che muslC and 11 ><ngs lors of 1hings
N 0 CD N 0 N 0
N N
Quire interesting 1n chis sequence 1s Enc's apparenr search for
NUMBER OF RESPONSES TO FIRSTS . 0 . the corrc.:cr verb \\'irh which co describe hO\\' to operate rhe radio
("I 111,1ke I put . . . I make . . . rurn on . . . "). Lacer in
rhe ~ame session, Eric turns to a page in the book wirh pictures of

•
92 Making Language Social and Spontaneous
the sun, the moon, a ra1nbo'""-, and stars. The rainbow is depicted
behind a group of pine trees (note Eric's reference ro "Christmas
trees"). Eric's father is present during the session:
Ertc Talk about thl.' sun coming up 1n che west Talk about the
• •
sun . . 'un ~un •. ri\C\ • • • rises comes up 1n the west
clouds • wc'c douds
f"Jth.r 0.~s the sun rise 1n the \\CS!!
Eru Sun \X'hcre"s rlx· sun <ome up! Comes up in che \\CS! Goes
down 1n the \\CSt .
f,,1/Jcr \XI here docs tt come up from?
F.rit The east.
Fathi:r Right.
£ru The cre~cnc moon's up in chc skr and see chose colors of the r.11n-
bow Reds and yellows, green and blue and purple and Chnstmas
trees 1n the Christmas mountains. Scars up in che skr Talk about
these enough
Eric's speech may be judged robe creative, 1r goes beyond the
immediate concrete stimulus situation, and ir enrerrained us as 1r
seemingly entertained him.
Billy \Vas another child ro illustrate such elaborate speech. He
was echolalic and 6 years old at the beginning of rreacmenr. This
conversauon, which cakes plac<.: \virhour any discrete stimuli, v.:as
recorded afrer Billy had been 1n rreacmenr for rwo years.
E WhJc s new, Billy /
811/· \\'.'e're ,l(otng to have a carnival on Friday Can 1 pull Susie do,it"s
to1i I~
E ~o. Bill.
811/1 \\'hy!
E Becau5e it would hurt her.
811/y Her, you rcmemht-r the monster on Voyage to the Borrom of che
Sea1
£ Yes, Bill. Docs he 1>.alk ltke this; <E pretends co be monscer.)
811/' ~o! Ed (cherap1sr·s name), like chis. (He demonscraces.)
£ Like chis, B1111 a: 1mttates Billy l
811/) Yea, char·s right . . . (pau<e) . . . I ,llOt a 1oke for you, F.d.
E What i~ it!
811/) Al rhe iiortlla was readin~ a newspaper (f and Billy both
lau,1thed Bill) chought che joke was vcrr funnr.)
l.fore derail on how we shaped this kind of" fan easy-behavior"
is presented 1n ~1anual K rn Chapter 6. Nore rhar che child is
Making Language Social and Spontaneous 93
now verbal1ting events char do nor have an explicit external refer-
ent, bur which are more correccly called an expression of private
"ideas" and "images " It can now be said char E has caught che
child co creace and respond ro fantasy material. E created, and 1n-
d1recrly controls, through the manipulation of S's history, these
ideas and images. Incidencally, chis process of responding co
"ideas" and "images· (stimuli v.·hich have no explicit and concur-
rent external, physical referent) is called displa<e111e11f 1n linguis-
tics, and is considered co be a most unique achievement of man.
Informal Training
The language skills che child needs co effectively communi-
cate w1Ch his environment are so comprehensive and varied that it
was simply impossible co formalize the procedure and record daca
on all of them. Once the teachers or parents had mastered che
essential principles involved in the early programs, rhey could
generate their own with considerable ease. The daca did not seen1
to reveal any new insights into the child's learning process.
We tried co teach the children about interpersonal relation-
ships and qucscions of mocive, matters of feelings and attitudes.
We conscrucccd s1cuarions which could bring their feelings our,
and then we labeled them. For example, we \vould place a child
1n front of a sv.·imming pool, v.•here he was very frightened, and
reach him co label thac scare ("I am frightened") and ro discrim1-
nace rhar from hov.• he felt v.•hen he was given a swing, \vhich he
loved ("I am happy"). .
We experienced much success in extending language relaung
ro sports and games, apparencly because these behaviors became
reinforcing. We taught che children baseball, baskec?all, board-
cype games (like checkers), and nursery games (like London
Bridge and nng-around-rhe-rosey). We caught chem hO\\" ro cake
0
turns. about rhe thrill of winning and ho'' robe a good sport,"
about rhe importance of serung and adhering ro rules, and abo~r
verbalizing }'Our O\\ n performance. Ir would have been 1mposs1-
ble ro accomplish such crain1ng '"irhour language, and of course
language became enriched through chis training.
As a person's language 1s perhaps only as rich as his experi-
ence, v.•e crnphasized experience and "doing things ... We tried ro
help the children understand natural phenomena of all kinds. We
I
 Picture G Before a child is sent oft to school we '"practice school' at home We
will go to the child's prospecltve school, and assess exac11y what 11 is that the
teacher has her children doing Then we will practice and master these be·
hav1ors 1n detail 1n the child's home before he goes to school. Early parts ot
school . then . consist merely of shifting stimulus control where the teacher and
the other children acquire control over those behaviors which the parents and
therapists already can control In this picture the child s therapist plays the
teacher. while Marks mother and the other therapists play students In these
sessions we try to teach Mark to listen while he is 1n a group ol other people. to
take turns in asking questions to listen to what the group 1s saying etc

•
94 Making Language Social and Spontaneous Making Language Social and Spontaneous 95

helped chem co plane and care for small gardens Such teachings /'. That's right.
were closely and complexly related co a large variety of behaviors Rui'.) I \\Olnt to go 10 1he bathroom
which we had already caught. Planes, of course, lead co the con- f Okay. In a lit1lc bit Why did I hit you)
R1,J; Bl'C.tusc there \\as (unincel11gible).
cept of growth. For example, che children had learned abouc size,
£' No
about small planes and big planes, about small boys and big men. R1.k1 Bl·cause I cried
The concept of gro\\·th refers co the change of small to big \X/t F. That's righr Fed bcccer now, Ricky?
caughc chat planes grow by giving chem \\'acer. One child de- Ri1l) Yes .
duced, "Put some v.·acer on my head " \Xie rook the children co fi Good.
zoos and pee stores and discussed the animals. We caught them co Ri,k) I \\anc 10 go swimming.
label che weather and 1ts consequences ("Ir's raining, so I can't go F. You wanr 10 do a 101 of things, don't you'
oucside co play ."). \Xie rook them for walks and cnps and had R11k; I want to go s\\imm1ng.
chem label and describe the things around chem. li Liter, RtCk}'. we'll go swimming. Do rou wane co look at the blocks
We began co explore chc actual reaching of logical thought here'
and reasoning about everyday events, which many \\'Ould consider Ruk) N o. I don't look ac che blocks
a basic pay-off behind language. One 1s referring here co be- r \'qhy are chcy all chc same, Ricky)
R11l:J Bc~.1use 1hcy'rc blue.
haviors like inference, deduction, and che understanding of cau- E Good
sation. We explored the reaching of these processes in che context
of ocher programs Some of these processes may be simpler than
After cwo or rhree years of language reaching (v.•ich che
we choughc. For example, 1n \vorking our a program for causa-
echolalic children) the program became so complex char we were
tion, mere correlation in ci me of the cwo (cause-effect) events
unable ro disentangle the antecedents. For example, the child
sufficed co gee the childn:n on che way T he follo\ving conversa-
whom v.•e described earlier as requesting "some v.•ater on my
cion illustrates an accempc ro ceach "about causes." Ricky is pre-
head" co facilirare his growth illustrates chis complexity One
sented with blocks of differenc colors and different shapes \vhich
docs not just reinforce such behavior, one "'ants to do somech1ng
we use as beginning material for che reaching of che concepts sa"1e
else as v.·ell. T herefore, \Ve cerminaced our formal efforts ac that
and diffi,.ent. He had iusc been slapped for "acting crazy" (v.•hin- .
po1nc.
ing and self-sc1mulacory psy~hot1c behavior) The therap1sc is try-
ing ro reestablish his good relationship with Ricky and to cell
him uh; he was slapped Notice the repetitions "·hich we
thought were imporcanr. Recordings of Spontaneous Verbalizations

Ri.k) (tearful trom E's reprimand) I \\'ant ro go che bathroom (Ar char The final data \vhich we shall present consists of excerpts
umt" chis was R1<ky's favurire "uuc" from unpleasant expenences.) taken from rhe recordings of spontaneous verbal behavior of t\\'O
E In a m1nuce. of rhe pariencs dunng different stages of treatment. Rather com-
R1. "' In about fuur minurc~ plece behavioral descnpuons v.·ere kept of the firsr seven panencs
E Now come on. Give me a hug . Come on That's a good boy. Good ("·ho "'ere all hospitalized during our rrearment). The staff (Es
boy ~'h>· did I hll rou, Ricky!
"·ho \\•ere students, teachers. nurses) \\'Cre also i nscrucred to im-
Ruk) Because I "as cr~ing.
mediately write down, when possible, the child's spontaneous
E Yes . lc's all right now. Do you crr a loti
t1f/r111t1! verbal behavior While chis \Vas very easr in the first four
Rick> Yes .
E Wane 10 sic down chccc! (Porncs co chair) or five rnonths of treatment, when the child produced no such
Ruk:; No. Wane co go to rhc bathroom. behavior, some children eventually became so spontaneous chat
E Sic down fir>c (Ricky ~ics) Why did I hit you. Ricky? the recordings had to be limited co examples or excerpts.
R"h) Because I was crying. We shall present che data on cwo of these children, Ricky and

•
96 Making Language Social and Spontaneous Maki ng Language Social and Spontaneous 97

Billy W They are rt•pre~enrar1ve of rht· other children we have conve;:rsarion \vi th some members of the staff."), and 2 points for
seen R ick \\'a5 echolalic anJ Bill; \X' was mute at the beginning instances of the chi ld's speech \vhich exemplified the use of com-
of rrcarmcnt. The recorJ~ \\'Crc taken over rhe 14 months of their plete sentcnces Once again August was used as a source of exam-
treatment. In addition to recording chc child's verbalizat1ons, the ples T he rarer then assigned points co her own notes on January,
staff v.·ere also cold to v.·rirc a description of rhe coorexr 1n v:hich ~1arch, and October.
the child's speech occurred Over the 14 monrhs, some 20 scaff Both the rarer and£ chose approximately rhe same number of
members \\·rote in the patient logs. producing several Staff record- instances and assigned the same number of points in each month
ings on an;· one dar. Thc~t· recordings \\ere usually nor indepen- reseed. T he daca are summarized in Table 2 Both readers sa,,· the
dent since S ">vas attended tO br more than one staff member and same progress in che patient's behavior. Since the Statements \\·ere
usually several of the sea ff \\'Ould rake nor ice of the child's speech. chosen more or less as samples from a pool and the rarer did nor
T hese recordings were entered along with ocher notes about the have comparable experience \\•irh the children, rhe same state
patient (everyday nonverbal behavior, caring, sleeping, play, vis- men cs were not al\vays chosen by both; ho\vever, 1n almost every
its, and so on) into a patient log.
These handv.'ntren logs were subsequently typed and raced
for spontaneous speech by a rarer, an undergraduate psychology
student, and one of the f:s T he undergraduate rarer was unfamil-
iar with che children and the events of rhe study. She \vas cold
that \Vt: were actcn1pung co devise a system char would describe
the appropriate, spontaneous verbal behavior of our children, Reliability Data
both quantitatively and qualicauve;:ly. We then told her rhac we
were trying co ascertain \vhich of se;:veral possible systems was the Month Dae um Experimenter's Racer's
simplest ro reach a ne\\' person. She was 1nsrrucred that she would
be asked ro read through three months of notes written about the January Number of 3 5
children. She \\'as told that v.•e ,,·ere looking for instances of spon- examples chosen
taneous verbal behavior, that is, verbal beha,·ior \vhich occurred
without being asked for, \\hich \\'<lS not being specifically rraine;:d Number of points 6
at the rime or promprt·d by f:, bur for which the determining assigned to
cues could onlr be inferred from the behavior itself. statements chosen
The racer \\':15 then given a list of common examples and was March Number of 21 23
read rhe recordings made by E for Rick during August. She then examples chosen
read through Rick's log for January, ~1arch, and October, and
\\'rote down any instances of spontaneous verbal behavior. T hese Number of points .32 •iO
months were selecceJ by E as being typical of a sparse, a medium. assigned co
and a full month of spontaneity. T hey \\•ere presented in the order statements chosen
J\farch, Januar}'. October. I\ umber of 28 32
October
When rhe racer had finished this cask, she \\·as presented \\'ith examples chosen
a nev. set of inscruccions chat served co clarify rhe assignment of
points. The raccr \\•as given her own notes and asked co assign l Number of points •l9 52
point for use of single \vor<ls and phrases, l point for comments assigned to
written by the therapist without specific reference to the patient's scaccmenrs chosen
own words (for example, "R icky earned on quire a spontaneous
96 Making Language Social and Spontaneous
case, rhe qualit}' of the statements ·were similar. E had read all of
the logs, \\ hdc the r;1tcr had read only samples from different
months \X'ith the bro.u.ler picture, E cended to disregard some of
the simpler t:xanlplc:s. Perhaps chis ,,·as the reson \\'hy E differed
consistenth• \1:ith the r;tter in the direcC1on of underescimaC1on.
The data shov• that instances of spontaneous \erbal behavior can
be reliably identified from such "ritten logs, buc, because of our
failure to retord (or assess) reliability in the original (log) record-
ings, these data ought to he vic\\·ed wirh reservaC1ons. Ho"·ever,
a description of \\'h,1r rhe children spontaneously ralked about as
they gradually acquired mastery of language would perhaps be
the most 1mporca11t d.1ta in a language program. \'<le shall at-
tempt co illu~tr;ttc ~uth l,1nguagt: for Ricky (8-ycar-old echolalic)
and Billy <5-year-old mure) \Xfc shall first p rovide a numerical
score ("points") \\ hich is intended to quantifr the frequency and
con1plexitr of spontaneous, appropnare verbal behavior. Scores
were a\Stgned in the same manner ,1s for the reliability check. For
eaC"h month, we '"ill also give <:xamples of the mosr typical type
of behavior for rh,ir month and attempt to illustrate the most
co1nplex.
Ricky's sponc;u1cous verb.ii beha ....1or (S initially echolalic)
Jul> ( l>t )Car): 0
Augusc 0
No,·cmbcr. 0
December 0
~1t-d1an Spuntancouslr labeling ob1eccs
Complex Reque,11ng ro dra" a rocker ship and a merrr-go-round
Januar> (2nd yt11r): ~
\f(<fian s~>1ng " h1" and 1nreratring w1ch rherap1sts
Complex- l:s1ni: phr."e' hke "k1" 1c and m.i.ke n heccer. " R1<k hoc
h" r herap1sr , 'Ct'lnt'd concerned, said " How .i.re you ieel-
ins. Joan.,•
FehruJr\• 17
~fcd1an Rcquc,r1ng 'Ong, , l"'pcr ti>r drawing, ro go home . Askin.!(
<111t·s1ion> ,1bout h" mochcr, TV programs.
\\'ork1ng w1rh other ('hildren, promp11ng rhe1n. cdlini:
tht'1n to "p.1r .1u.-nr1on ," and rc1nforung them ..vhcn cor-
rclt w1rhout pro1npt1n,c hr ther.1p"r
Making Language Social and Spontaneous 99
March 20
l>lcdi.1n: Labeling actions of ochers in complece sencences, recalling
past evenrs w11houc prompung Rtcky now reases il lor and
is able co label his own behavior as teasing .
Complex Ricky has generalized che use of " I don't wane to" (in ne"
siruarions wichouc formal cra1ning). He makes analogies
abouc new experiences, such as saying chc dark room 1s
"like rhe dark sk) ." He 1s able to answer riddles about
familiar acr1v1ries For inscance, F sa>·s " I am at rill·
amusemenr park. I go up and down \X'hac am P " Ricky
answers, "Ferris wheel."
April. 30
t.fcd1Jn Rickr 1s using "I Jon't want co" regular!)·, commcn11ng on
pictures in books and coming events. Com1ncn11ng on
ch1ngs he 1s being cra1ned ro do.
Complex Ricky 1s able: co use "supposcd" properly and sponr.1nc·
ousl)•, c.g .. "I am supposed rouse m)· napkin . " He 1s able
to discuss cvenrs in rhe fucure using 11mc concepts, c g.,
"I am going home Thursday. rhree more day~. no, two
more days" (Two days 1s correcr in th is case.) He is •tlso
bcg1nn1ng to conrro l his own behavior verbally~ he says, "I
.1m nor going co gag (whine, ere.) any more "
May: 27
~ledian Ricky is asking and answering quesuons and n1ak1ni-: re-
quescs of peers sponcaneouslr. He is nocic1n,i: and ask1ni-:
quesuons of scrangers and "crbaliz1n,i: his feelings co some
extent.
Complex: E allows R1ckr to go on short walks b)' himself occasion-
ally . After one such walk Rick)' returned .ind told me: thar
ir was amazing" rhar he had gone br him<elf. I i told him
rhar Rowers grow up and so do people; he said. " Pour wme
wacer on m)' head " He understands part of the concc:pc of
.
gro\\ 1ng up .
June: 21
~ledian ·
Joan . Ricky's original rherap1st . lcfr chc projl""Ct at thl· be-
ginning of June . Throughout rhl' mooch , Rick)' makes
commenrs .1bour her: "I miss Joan ""I wanr ro i-:o to J1>.1n's
hou<t "Two more months and I go ro Joan\ house: . .. (He
"as rold Joan would rec urn for a ""11 1n cwo month, , )
Complex Rick} was very upset about Joan's luv1ng to lc.1"'" The
100 Making Language Social and Spontaneous
Making Language Social and Spontaneous
resr of the st.1ff cried to tell him he would s111l ha\'e fun.
Augu~r :
He would rc:ply. · 1 don't want to ha\'e fun at the beach. I
September 'I
"Jnr to go to .Joan' house •· Rick is also beginning to ver-
balize the rc:asons for e"ents on his own. I can·r go ro lJ.
C1enei.:u
•
bt'C-duse I .1m s1ek " He is able co ''erbalize some
,-ery abstract frcl1ngs. " I wane co ~et beccer."' October: i I
July : '10
f\fc:J1an\'c:rh.il11ing re.,,ons, I l1kt' f\lrs . Dumont because she is a
nice- friend ." "The fir 1s too hard ro <'1tch He goes real
fosr ." Toalking abour bt-rng a big boy and using, "I wanr ro
do it my,eJf •
Complex· R1tk> has thC' tonctpt of difficulty Says 'I don·r know" or i':ovc:mbc:r 19
'Th.It " h.1rd " when he (JO 1 answer a question . Points our
th.11 th<" h.u1Js on th!." clock •re · ,neaking" and rhar .1 pic-
rure in,, book look' like Chuckie, anothtr patient Ir do;:s
ls l><:g1nning H> rnakc: fine Jescrimin;111ons .1bout his env1-
rt>nmenr
August : .~9
:\leJi,1n Ritky is ton,i.onrl~ an.dog1z1ng new cxpcncnces wnh
f'.on11Ja,1r ones. 'Spnnklcr IS like .1 l1tclc shower, .. blo\\ 111g
hubbies 111 th<' h.uhtub water is "1ust like the sw1m1n1ng
pool, C;1ncc:loupt 1> JUSt like watc:rmc:lon," spinning on
rh~ '" 1ngs is "jusr like an elevator
Con1plc:x. Rock)• 1> ,able co verbalize: rc:1nforcemen1 contingentic-,:
· '¥bu give rnt· .in ;11rpl.1ne spin bec.1use I do such good re- )•IOU.tr> (2nd
tail He: is verbalizing hi\ fears and talks about chose he
h;is overt•llllt'. "I an1 nor afraid to swing fasr. •
September 20
:\ltd1an Pamela, one o! the girls on the pro1ect. is senc back co
Scat< Husp1tal this month R1Ck\' is talkin~ ahour her con-
. '
\tJnrly "\\'hc:re is Pam' " Hears a sing-song vo1Ce and
"1}S. "Just hkt• Pamela." wbels toy rigures RlCkr and
Pam
C..ompJ.,, He is able to verbahl<: dcla,·ed rerniorcem~nr conringen-
ues. "" F.d, i:1ve me an airplane spin when I finish work-
•
ing " He rc:tognllcs the quality of his own behavior; " I Jid
very wl'll on the cards " "I ;houlJn'c gee so upse1ted ...
B1llv's spontaneous verbal behavior (S initially mute)
Julr (1st yt-.irJ · 0
•
101
0
Bally is using "go" at the Joor and "bread" to request bread at me;1ls .
~leJian He is using " I wanr " followed br one word 10 express de-
sires for food.
Complex. Recognizes and asks for his father: "I "ant DadJr • B1llr
is able to use rhe word "more" correctly 1n order to gc:t a
second helping ar meals.
Median 8111 rs using "I want"' plus one word to desii:natc: rein-
forcements ocher than food : "I want push" and " I w.1nc
swing
..
Complex He uses "Go away" when he wanes to h,1ve someone le.1vt·
him alone He greets hos peers w1ch "Hi "
December 22
Median I le is requesnng reinforcement 10 man)' W<l)'S: hackndes.
pushes, hcing picked up.
Complex: Billy uses "rhe" correcrly as in "Open rhe door" I It also
uses the pronoun "me" correctly in some req11cscs, as 1n
"Push me "
)'t.lr) 23
S11nplc rc:qucsts for reinforccmenr lie spont.1n1:ou,Jy
f\1cJ1a11
grtt:t\ his therapist with "Hi"' 10 tht morning .
Complex Billr" labeling ob1ccrs he sees. I le 1s using " I , 2, 'I , i:o"
co 1n1narc ranng games \\ ith or her>
Februarr. -~ ~
~lc:dian :
Billr is labeling many objects and things he see' like: 'kr.
truck. car, conrencs of che doll house .
Complex: Using \'erbs on his requests . He commands tht' thcrap1St to
"come. " uses 1nfin1£1\'es such as " I "ant co eac. " · 1 wane co
ear candy "
f\l.ord1 . \.2
f\1cd1an Billy is using rhc names of the pt'<lpk he: knows 1n greet
1ni:s .•1s 1n " H1, Mary," or s1mpl1· naming people .1rountl
h11n .
Con1plex. I le: 1s using verbs 10 his rcquesrs anJ rct1uc:s1111g th111gs
ocher ch.111 simple rc:1nforcemcnts. Ht no" •lsks for hdp huuonong
102 Making Language Social and Spontaneous
his pckcc and co go "pour." He i' beginning to develop some sense
of tirne, e.g . he greet\ f. ont: morning with, .. H1 Sleep, wake up."
April: 55
~leJ 1 an :
1..is1n,i: "all done c:orri:cdy 10 indicate" hen he has finished
.1n a<ti\ II)' 'iponrancou>I> counts numbers he sees, as on
ek\'ator buut.HI' anJ TV channels. He is greeting
chcr.&p,.rs. peer'>. and stranger> with " Ht. - He is using
"rhe" for more ob1cns, " I want the ball."
Complex: Billy i> usin.11 >Ome fairl>• compkx sentences with \C\Tral
pronouns: "I "ant >OO 10 ricklc me.· "I want co tie my
;hues."
!>lay: 55
Billy is usin!( mort' complex sentences for more requescs,
.\ted1an
l'.g , " I wanr you to ch.&Se me." He is consistently 1ndud·
1ng n.1mes 1ngrec1ings Ht, Ricky," ··Goodbye, Daddy ."
Complex Billy 1s using " Yes" and "No" sponraneously both to ans-
wer questtons and to express desires or respond co com-
m.1nJs G1v1ng some commands co therapists, using pre-
pos1rions such as "come over" and "sa down."
June. 6~
Billy 1• 11< 1 n~ complex sentences composed of pronouns,
~1edi.1n.
aruclcs, and prcpos111on<, as tn "I want a drink of warer. ·
Complex I le 1s lahchni.: Jcuons he <ees in pictures or performs h1m-
<df, such .H "d~ncin~· and "1ump1ng." Becoming in-
rere<red 1n books, .1skini.: for them, labeling whac he secs
1n them . \J';1m1ng rhe color< of familiar objects and letters.
July 8 l
l\led1an Billy is no" vcrr 'pontaneous when looking ac books,
1..f>cl1ng oh1e<ts, ('('Opie, p1<:king ouc leuers he knows,
using "curn rhe page." He often laf>cls che color• of ch1n,11s
he sees
Complex: He bejlin' co u-.c the "ord "outside," ask1ni;: co /i,O outside.
lali<:ling ic "hen he is ouc"de He sometime; goes through
Ion,.: >trin,i:> of lah.:b of things he secs, e.g .. "letters,"
"h.111," "<w1mm1ng," "rrike." "skr blue," "window." and
"red." "grcu1," "rechcr ball," "oucs1dc," "'sk)'." "fence."
Augusc. 89
l\1e<l1an. Billy i' u\lni.: ··ouh1t.ll'" quite frl'quenrly in complex sen·
ccn<C> "I \\,111c 10 go ouu1de. · He is labeling familiar ob-
wrt' \ccn 1n n1.1i:at1ncs and books, through windows. and
on TV
•
Making Language Social and Spontaneous 103
Complex Sometimes he will label his own actions 1n complete sen-
tences, as 1n "I am reading a book." He 1s using wmC'
generali2at1on in labeling. calling a helicopter J "b1i: fan"
and label1 ng the blue riles 1n a design he made JS "sk>" •
Sc:prcmh«r .. .,
~1cdiJn Same level JS August.
Complex Quite concerned about going home Asks for l\1on1m>· .ind
0Jdd>·, labels people in magazines .u l\fomm>· and 0Jddr.
starts Jsking for brother, "Par." He 1s .ibk 10 folio" 1n-
scru,t1ons of a srranger. a 1ani1or. and help him ell"Jn >Omc
windows. He 1s using "no" to express denied request> ·;-..;o
monc> , no coke, no cand>·."
Reinforcement and the Maintenance of the Language Behavior
We felc chac one of che mosc imporcanc variables in che scu<ly
was che adminiscracion of che experimental reinforcement (strok-
ing, exaggerated social approval, goodies co eac, slaps. loud "no,"
accencion wichdra\\'al, and so on). Bue che large amounc of in-
ceraccion (we licerally lived wich some of che children) could well
have produced language through some hypothetical mtchanism
such as "exposure" or "scimulacion," quire independently of irs
role as reinforcing st1n1ulus. Therefore, one year into rra1n1ng, we
ran a separare scudy on Ricky and Pam in \\'h1ch v.·e temporanly
<l1sconnecced the relationship ber,veen these reinforcing sc11nul1
and rhe child's beha\tOr. vt/e did chis by sh1fnng che expenmen-
cal re1nforcers from a response-connngenc co a cime-conc1ngenc
deliver}. Dunng che nme-concingenc delivery rhe chd<l received
as much social scimulacion as before, v.·e calked co him jusc as of-
ten, and \Ve shov.·ed him as much affection and concern; but ''t
accc<l concingcnc on che time elapsed since the lase inceraccion.
rather than conc1ngtnc on che child's response. This procedure
shoul<l cell us "hecher our use of reinforcers '\\'as necessary in
maintaining appropnace language.
The daca from chis 1nrervent1on are presented in Figure 15.
Days(.\ s received abouc 6 hours of rra1n1ng, discribuced through-
out chc dar) are plorred on che abscissa. Correct respondin~.
'"h1ch 1s plorred on che ordinare. means correct ans ..vers co che
abstract tcrrnsSs had been caught up to chis rime. such as prcposi-
c1onal ,1n<l pronorn1nal rerms. We obtained t\VO days of baselint·
<laca (<lays I an<l 2), followed by six days (days 3 chrough 8) of
 Making Language Social and Spontaneous 105

reinforcement delivered contingent on time elapsed since last de-

livery. rather than on the child's correct behavior. Finally, the
reinforcement 1s reinstated contingent on correct responses (d<l}'S
c•
f I-
;;
c
0....:.
u- c
9. 10, and 11). Obviously, the children did not ma1nta1n correct
behavior 1ndcpcndently of che experimental reinforcement. For
these effects co be maintained, chen, appropriate re1nforc1ng con-
'' wZ
U>w
C•
.. CJ> d1uons have to be arranged.
' 'q 0 z<!>
.? c
Q;;
.. c
\ o~ .o
:J u
>- \ a..1-
- •"'&. References

.-......
Cl>Z Cc
~
(.) ~
m WO ~
- <l
a: a.. a::: u u .. "' Lo\',tJ\, 0 . I. A lx·ha\'lor rhcrJpr approach to the treatment of ch1klhood
x ·----- o- 'chi,ophrcn1" In John P Hill (Ed.), Al11111<.1"1P J}11JP,,J111 "11 ,hr/JP'>'""'·
~ '0 _: E "K) ~i1nne,1p0Ji, . University of ~11nncsota Press, 1967 .

I
<X>
/ !t Bih.111111· 111,,J1jfrallfl11. T,a,h111;: la11g11dJ:< to PJ)th,,tu dJ1/dn11, 1nsiruc
I / c-
I / .! u 11on.1l film, ·15 min , 16 mm -sound, Applcton -Ccntur)'·Crofrs , Ne"'
x 0 ~~ York, 1969 .
o' x
....
.e 1:
Q. ..
'O .s::
x '
fl lO (.{)
>-
<!
~~
c-
.. c;
.!:! ::J
/ o,,"'" 0 a; u
I()
I- ·- .. ..8
c ..

I
I z
w
E
....
0
I
v
(!)
z
- -••
! ::J
u "'
..

--
·- .. >

!
\
\ WI- ~c
\ :EZ ~&
\
0
I
r'> -o
t-u ..oo
u ;;
c
:: c
-- - - -r -·-------- - - -
'rI
I
C\J
w
(/)
I -·
.
·-
o-z .
Zzl-
+
Oe
uu
o E
;;

I
Q.1-
-e
w I-.s:: ·--
I
0 (/) z (!) c

0 0
WO
a::: u -
"'-
••
._ OI
0

c
0 0 0 ::J
0 Q) lO v C\J
-
OI
~

PERCENT CORRECT R

•
Chapter V
IMPLICATIONS
AND SPECULATIONS

Relationship to Other Data on Language

;;c;:=:;:: ec us nO\v consider hov.· our method and data re lace ro or her
siinilar <behavioristic) v.·ork in language. \'<le v. ill also relate our
procedures co dara on normal language development and ro
theoretical oricnrar1ons v.·irhin linguisncs Finally, v.·e \viii offer
some speculations about direcnons for future research on lan-
guage.
Although we have conceptualized language development as
the acquisition of responses and stimulus functions, one usually
talks abour language developmenc 1n terms of three aspects: the
semannc, rhe synracnc, and rhe phonetic. Ir might be helpful ro
relate our data and others' data co these three divisions, begin-
ning \vHh semanrics.
107
108 Implications and Speculations
Se111, 1111in. A m.lJOr <lrea in l.1nguage development, che field of
semantics, toncerns the acquisition of meaning. How do verbal
utterances become assoc1accJ . .
to che appropriate context ~ 0 ne
usuallr speaks of t\\'O Jimcns1ons to this co~text. One can focus
on rhc en\'ironmencal stimulus input chat cnggers the verbal be-
havior, or one can focus on the verbal behavior as ~npuc. trigger-
ing furcher beha .... iors in eicher the speaker or rhc listener ..
\'<le have gone ro some lcngth to shO\\' ho\\', through d1fferen-_
tial reinforcement, \'erbal behavior mar come under t_he control ?f
a large range of environmental stimuli, external or internal \Xie
showed ho\\ v.e tc>uld bring verbal behavior under the control of
snmuli '"hich \\'<:re: boch subclc and Jynamic, such as the tem-
poral anJ spatial relations bet\\Ccn ob1ccts and beha,·iors, differ-
ences ber,vcen purely inrernal events such as knO\\n and unkno\vn
material and m1nuce differences bet\Yeen scacemencs like "Ricky
1s a bad boy," "Is R1tky a bad boy?" and "Ricky is a big bo}'."
Skinner ( 1957) has speculated extens1velr on the power of rein-
forcement 1n bringing verbal behavior under appropriate
stimulus control, and our data support his speculations. Our data
on semantics arc perh.1ps our strongest point and relate co a small
body of similar 1nvcstigacions that have been published over the
lase few years.
One of the more derailed .1ccouncs of operant procedures for
language acqu1s1uon, 1nclud1ng semancics, is concained 1n che
work of "rhe Kansas group"-Baer, Risley, Sherman, \Xlolf. and
so on. These scud1es describe prompting, fading, cim1ng of rein-
forcement. stimulus rorarion, •tncl a myriad of special procedures
very s1m1lar co those employed in our srudies. In rh~ir first study,
\X'olf, R1sle)', anJ ~fees ( 1965) were able co escahhsh a 10-\\·or<l
labc:l1ng vcxabulary in a ~~~-year-old psychoric and echolalic ho)'.
Deraile<l prcxedurc:s and rcsulcs \\ere nor given in che 196-l reporr
for the Labeling program, bur chcy \\'ere rcvie\\·ed in a lacer article
(Risley & \X'olf, 1967). The 1967 scu<ly is particularly incerescing
since ic involved four psychotic children '"irh echolalic spcc'h
and atremptc<l ro escablish broader classes of funcuonal speech
The procedure\ employed are srrikingly similar co those we have
ourlined, e\'en chnugh chc £\\ o programs \\'ere developed 1nde-
pendenrl}'. Their daca .ilso rriletr che posicive accelerarion (sav-
ings over casks) ch.1r characterizes our rcsulcs The aurhors also
lOmrncnt on 1na11y of the learning Jifficulc1es we have encoun-
cered, such as the loss of previously mastered material as new
sr1muh are 111croduc..ed .ind chc:: difficulty of shifring behavior from
the prompt co rhe rraining stimuli.
Implications and Speculations 109
l lc\\'ecc's ( 1965) scudy is one of the earliesr re pores of a be-
havioral approach co che acquisicion of beginning language reper-
roirc. He w·orkcd with a 4•'2-year-old muce autistic boy, building
both a basic labeling vocabulary and some basic componenrs of
conversational speech. His procedures have extensi\'e overlap
~-ich those \\'e have described. Prompting, fading, and scimulus
roracion arc all menuoned br He\\·ect as part of his training pro-
cedures. He employed a comprehensive reinforcement en\·1ron-
menr, underscoring rhe 1mporcance of an "artificial" morivarional
S)'Stem 1n \\'Orking \vich psychotic children. He"·err's child \\'as
reported co have acquired a 32-\\•ord vocabulary \\'1th1n a six-
monch period, the hsc included 105 v.·ords one year farer.
Another group of related scud1es are concerned '''ith reaching
"comprehension" as 1n the \vork of Stark, G1ddan, and ~1e1sel
( 1968), \vho describe che acquisition of beginning comprehension
in a five-year-old auriscic boy. Their daca show the acceleranon of
the child's acquisition in the decreasing number of trials required
for mastery over successive responses.
There are several less derailed accounts of progra1ns arcempc-
ing co cscabhsh labeling behavior, such as char reported by Cook
and Adams ( 1966); Salzioger el al. ( 1965); Sloane, Johnston, and
Harns ( 1968); and MacAuley ( 1968).
L1cerarure on the acquisition of abscracrions (pronouns, pre-
pos1t1ons, and che like) is more scarce rhan rhac for simple label-
ing. There are some references ( Risle~ and \'</olf, I 967) co
selccccd children \vho evencually acquired such abscracc1ons;
ho,ve\·cr, chest references are usuall}· offered as informal data
only. .
H1scoritally mosc \\ricers 1n the field of language. ha\'e not de-
bated che importance of differential reinforcement 1n the estab-
lishment of meaning, ,,·hich mar explain v. hy there are so fev.·
in\·esrigarors researching chis area. Yee obviously \\'e ha\·e nor ~c­
solvcd a number of issues on ho\\· ro reach semantics Some quHe
surprising findings may be ahead on \\'hat ?efines a snmulus,
,,·h1ch seemingly is chc critical issue 1n reaching semanrics Cer-
tainly \\C \\·ere surprised at rhe relative ease (Figure 10) \\'Ith
\\ h1ch \Ve brought the child's verbal. behavior un~~r the .1ppro-
pn.uc control of "knO\\ 1ng" (\·erSUS 'not knO\V'.~g } c.er~:un fac-
tual evenrs about his env1ronmenr-a purely 1nccrnal e\·ent.
We hope '"e "'111 see much more work in rh1s area: \\'har the child
1s learning about his cnv1ronmenr \\'hen he 1s reinforced, how
subrle a difference he can respond to, ho\v broad a range of eveots
may const1tutt' a stimulus, and so on.
110 Implications and Speculations
If \\'C turn our attention to the acquisition of grammatical
skills, on che other hand, \\'e see the beginnings of a significant
liceracurc This \vork 1s no\\' revie\\·cd as "syntax.··
S}nt,1.:. \X'h1le many 1nvesti~ators think chat d1fferencial rein-
forcement and modeling plar some role in che acquisition of
semantics, chey feel that syntax (grammar) 1s too complex co be
understood 1n cerms of learning prc)(:e~ses as we now know them.
Early acrcmpcs, such as those by Guthrie ( 193 5) and Hull ( 19'1.~ ),
to define responses in topographical terms (as patterning of mus-
cle or effector activity, like a physiological reflex) severely limited
the ab1licy of learning theory formulauons co account for complex
behavior, and virtually excluded grammaucal behavior as being
learned. The expression of grammatically correct responses (sen-
tences) required not iust one fixed output, but secs of responses
"''ith different and interchangeahl e topographical features
(different "responses" in che Hull-Guthrie sense). The problem 1s
complicated by the face chat people v.•ill speak in grammatically
correct senten<.:es even though they may never have been rein-
forced for (or "practiced") these specific sentences in che past
Bro\\ n and Fraser ( 1964) point out that chtldren are able co un-
derstand and consrrucc sentences (and grammatical forrns) they
have never heard but v.•h1ch are nonetheless, well formed, 1.e.,
well formed 1n terms of the general rules chat are 1mplic1c in rhe
sentences che child has heard Because 1c 1s very difficult co ac-
count for this apparent face \vithin the Hull-Guthrie formula-
tions, many linguists have posculatl·d certain cheorecical concepts
such as the concept of "generative" grammar or "rule-generated "
language and have endowed chese concepts v.•ich manr
neurologically-based (innate) decerm1nancs.
The argument char language has a strong innate determinant
is of course nor new. For cenrunes the psycholog1sc~ and
philosophers who have ~1ven thought to che origins of human
hehav1or and who have wondered ho'v complex behaviors like
language come about eirhcr descrih<.· language as determined hy
innate, organic structures or describe language as learned or de-
cermined by environmental or experi1nencal \'artables The first
posHion, che naC1\'1scic one, is current!>· most closely associated
\\'ith Chomsk) ( 1965) and Lenneherg ( 19('>-i). The en\1ronmen-
ralisc position has been mo~t closely associated \\'ith Skinner
( 1957) and ~1owrer ( 1960). and co some extent with Berko
( 1958), Brown and Fraser ( 196·1 ), and Ervin ( 1964 ). We hope our
•
Implications and Speculations 111
findings \\'ill lend 1nore credence to some of those conceptions
rather than ochers.
The reader 'viii remember chac we presented considerable
daca to sho\\ thac, by certain reinforcement operauons, our chil-
dren came co understand and correccly express novel and gram-
macically correct sencences. How can we conceptualize such flexi-
bilicy within learning cheory? We find che concept of response class
direccly useful, as che response class concept allows for che expres-
sion of behavior 'vhich has noc been specifically reinforced in che
past, provided other responses within che same class have been
reinforced. Although most critiques of learning approaches co
language appear nor co be full> cognizant of it, che notion of re-
sponse classes 1s noc new. Skinner ( 195 3) defined a response (an
operant) not 1n terms of ICS topography. bur as a generalized or
functional tiass of responses which one can 1dent1fy by showing
ho"'', when one changes rhe screngrh of one response. one is
simultaneously altering che scrength of several ocher responses
wichouc dircccly intervening on them. A very "simple" illuscra-
cion of this concept c:an be found in shaping che barpress of a rat.
If a rat has been reinforced for pressing che bar with its left foot,
then (under certain circumstances) ic is now more probable char
in che future che rat \viii press the bar with his right foot or his
head and "express" a similar '"ide range of new appropriate be-
haviors which had nor heen specifically reinforced on the bar All
these different responses. \\'hose expression has been altered be-
cause of che change in che strength of one response. are said co
constituce a response class.
To 1lluscrace chc notion of response classes from language de-
velopment, suppose one reinforced an infant for emitting the
phoneme "ah." One may observe an increase 1n che emission of
range of ocher phonemes as well as facial expressions (mouth and
eye movements), even though chese additional responses have noc
beeo direccly reinforced We \\•ould say chat we had isolated a re-
sponse class The interesting part of chis concept (of response class-
es) is chat they cannot be know ,, pr1or1: what does or does not
conscicuce a class is an c1np1rical question. One knows chat one
has isolared a class ''hen the members of chat <.lass interact in a
/aufi1l manner to reinforcement operacions (or some ocher environ-
mental 1ncervention). This 1s exaccly Skinner's ( 1953) defini-
non of rhe term response "
HO\\' does chis notion ot response classes he! p us understand
112 Implications and Speculat10ns
che acquisn1on of gr,1mmacical forms~ One of the earliest reports
rel.icing che concept of a response cl.I\\ co grammacic al forms
comc::s from the scu<ly by Salz1nger, Feldman, Co\van, ,1nd Sal-
zinger ( J965). $,dzinger Observed the Janguuge developme nt Ill
one child \vho was re1 nforced for rhe response "gimme cnn<ly."
Afcer the response gimme candy" \Vas reinforced, he observed an
increase in che use of che "gimme· response \v1ch a whole ~cries of
nC\\' "·ords and C\'cn strings of "·ords "'·irhouc che additional
"specific reinforcem cnc of these combinacio ns." Examples in-
clude, "gimme rape, " "gimme office," gimme \Vaic," "gimme no
more cloudy again," and several ochers, including a perfectly log-
1cal, although ungr<lln111attcal request for assistance, "g1111111e
pick 1r up." The concurrent appearanc<: of rhese similar responses
i II usrrares the concept of r he responsr class.
Several ocher an\'esugacors ha,·e presenced dara relanng re-
~ponse classes ro th(• acquisition of grammacic al forms. Guess.
Sailor, Rucherford . and Baer ( 1968) did so in che case of plurali-
zanon. These auchors present data on che acquisition of plurals by
a JO-year-old rer;1rdcd girl (1f their rigur<: I, p. 301). The child
was caught the plural forms of rhree objc·cr labels she had pr<:v1-
ously mastered 1n singular form. After chis relatively short rr;un-
1ng period, rh1s child correcrl; gencral1ie<l che plural form ro
ocher objects Thar i~. after she had learned the plural response co
some obiecrs she ,,·ould now use rhe correct plural lahcl on neu
objeccs even though she had nor been spec afically rra1 ned ro
pluralize chesc. It v;as chis obser\·acaon rhar led rhe aurhors ro
.1rgue rhar rhe plural morpheme may be conceptual izeJ as a
(generalize d) rcsponst· class, rhus cxpl.1ini11g the appearance of
behavior char has not been directly taught.
Baer and Guess ( 197 I) reporr on a study rhac further serv<.·s ro
illustrate che usefulness of differential reinforcem ent procedures
in spc<.'Ch cra1n1ng . 1·her raughr three insr1tuuon alized ret.1rded
children co correcrl}· identify quanrnativ e relacaonsh1ps bct"·een
srimult, as described by comparativ e <ind superlanve relarionsh1ps
(concepts such as "bag-bigge r," "small-sma llest'). The result of
rh1s training sho\\1 S clearly rhar once the child had been trained co
' Our own dara replicares and serves co extend the srudies we
master these concepcs on some srirnult, ch<: child generaltzc<l rht·
understand ing of chese concepts co ne\\' stimuli \\'ithour further
training. Baer .ind Guess relate rht n:,p<>nst· class concept ro their
dara in a parricularl~ succinct manner:
che respon,t· d a,, concept Je,, r1l><:, • >1gn1fit.inc fate of rc-
spon><: devel opment thdt chcrc ofren emcrgt·' from the organ1Sm rnure
•
Implications and Speculations 113
behavior exemplifying the dimensions of his experience than chat expcn-
entc has taught directly to him In this conceptual approach, language
and speech may be conceived to be a large number of highly generalized
response classes, at borh the receptive and productive levels, exemplify-
ing the same dimensions or rules that characteriled the persons training
or experience. Thus, teaching a child ro identif) correctly the quantica-
t1v~ rel.iuonships between stimuli, as indexed by comparative and suptr-
lat1\'c ob1ecuves, could result 1n an organ1led ser of responses that the
child then can appl)' corre<tly to new stimuli, chereb)· generating re-
sponse co new words within his old grammar, without further training .
(p. 130)
Schumake r and Sherman ( 1970) used similar imicarion and
reinforcem ent procedures ro reach three retarded children ro use
verbs in past and present rense. Their results show:
that , as past and present tense forms of verbs w1ch1n an 1nllectional
class were trained, the children correctly produced past and present tense
forms of untrained verbs w1th1n chis class When verbs from two or more
classes were trained, the children correctly produced the verb tenses from
each of these classes. Thus, the imitation and reinforcement procedllres
were effeccive in teaching generdcive use of verb 1nllections (p. 273)
The \\'Ork of Harr an<l Risley ( 1968) on esrabl1shin g rhe use of
descnpuve adjectives 1n che spontaneou s speech of disadvanca ged
pre-school children provides furcher illusrraraon of che applacabil-
iry of rhe response class model in language learning. Disadvan-
taged pre-school children were observed ro display very low rares
of adjective- noun combinatio ns in everyday spontaneou s lan-
guage use. During experimenc al interventio n pre-school mate-
rials were dispensed ro rhe children in free-play periods conrin-
genc upon spontaneou s requests for chose materials \\' hen rhe
child referred co che color as " 'ell as rhe label of rhe desired item.
The procedure resulted an an increase in che use of previously ob-
served color-nou n comb1nario ns. The authors of this srudy argue
from the dara rhar word classes form funcrional response classes.
have jusc reviewed. For example, our work on rhe inflectional
affix "ed" (as given in Figure 11) directly supporcs Schumaker and
Sherman's ( 1970) work as well as rhe work of Guess, Sailor.
Rutherford , and Baer ( 1968) on che plural affix. The children
"·ere indeed acquiring very broad and appropnar e classes of lin-
gu1sric behaviors. Consider again our daca on che acquisicion of
pronouns, preposirion s, or our dara on rhe remporal rerms, and
114 Implications and Speculations
the like. It is apparent in these data that che children both
learned to respond correctly co stimuli chat were novel co chem
(for example, chey would eventually correctly respond to the
command "put A on B," even though they had never heard char
particular sentence before), as \\·ell as co verbally respond with
correct terminology (sentences) even though thac parcicular sen-
tence, 1n its physiological topography, had never been taught co
the child or previously expressed by him. For example, che child
may say "I couched (an ob1ect like 'X') before (the object 'Y'),"
which was the correct thing co say, yet he had nor previously
emitted and therefore nor been trained on chat particular re-
sponse
In the latter example che child 1s nor simply using word class-
es, he is conscrucnng a sentence. If one accepts the nocion chat
word classes and morphemes function as response classes, chen
chis provides strong argument chat children can learn what posi-
tions individual words may occupy in a given sentence. This is
a rather complex matter, since it is also true chat a particular
word class may occupy a number of positions, depending up-
on the type of sentence employed. le is this complexity \vhich
has led some investigators to propose that one must know
the "rules" which govern sentence structure in order to prop-
erly combine word classes. Our question nov.• becomes whe-
ther such "rules" can be considered response classes, whe-
ther the reinforcement of the permissable orders of words
(and the nonreinforcemenc of nonpermissible orders) can become
response classes and account for the acquisition of the complex
"rules" governing syntax and sentence structure. As Salzinger
(1965) puts it, "A second kind of complexity is inrroudced by
response classes of a somewhat larger size (than, say. word clas-
ses). To the outside observer these response classes appear co be
quire obviously based upon rules Thus che 'rule' for sentence
type is a grammatical one or a series of these having to do v.•ith
the arrangement of words and phrases " We may speak of v.•ords
as forming the response unit of interest when we discuss the dis-
crimination of word classes, and sentences as forming the re-
sponse \\•hen we speak of the acquisition of sentence structure.
Our O\\'n data give ample demonstration that one can prompt
and differentially reinforce a child for arranging v.•ords into sen-
tences and that, as a function of this training, he will then com-
bine words into new and correct sentences. All our echolalic chil-
dren, and most of che muces, acquired such behavior. The tran-
•
Implications and Speculations 115
script1ons we presented 1n the result section illustrate this kind of
learning, as do Salzinger's daca (1965). The Wheeler and Sulzer
( 1970) study provides us with a very direct illustration. They
worked \Vi th an eight-year-old boy, variously diagnosed as brain
damaged, retarded, and autisttc, who spoke in v.·hat the authors
refer to as "telegraphic" English, leaving out most of the arttcles
a~d aux1llarr verbs Through a combinacion of chaining, 1m1ta-
uve prompting, and differential reinforcement, the child v.•as
trained to use a particular kind of sentence structure v.·hich in-
cluded articles and verbs to describe a standardized set of pic-
tures The sentences were of the form "The (noun) is (present par-
ticiple of the verb) the (noun)." (E.g., "The man is smoking the
pipe.") Since the use of this form generalized co sets of untrained
and novel stimuli, the authors argued chac a functional response
class had been established.
Risley, Reynolds, and Hart (1970) have also presented proce-
dures and data which support the feasibility of using prompts and
differential reinforcement to build and extend sentence structure.
Working with culturally disadvancaged and linguistically im-
poverished children in a program they refer to as "Narration
Training" (which is very similar to our "Spontaneity Training"),
they give the following account of their method:
If the chilc.I h,1cJ responJec.I to che quescion, " What die.I you sec on the way
co schooP' wich, A doggie," che ceacher nodded and said, "What kind
of c.logg1e?" The child answered, "A German Shepherd ... The teacher
pr-.used, gave him an ~1&~i and chen asked again, Whac did rou sec on
che wa>· co school!" He answered, "A doggie"; che ceacher looked expcc-
cantly, raised her eyebrows and wa1ced. The child then said, A German
Shepherd dogg1e," and was praised and given an l\l&M The nexc ume
chat che child responded co the quesc1on v.1Ch. A German Shepherd
dogg1e," che ceacher noddw, smiled, and asked what the dogg1e was do-
ing: co which che child responded "Fighcing." This was reinforced and
che chilJ again was asked, What did you see on che way co schooP" The
child responded. A German Shepherd dogg1e, ·, che teacher raised her
eyebrows and v.aicw and che child said. A German Shepherd dogg1e was
' lighcin~ "
They present data on how the effects of chis training
general1tc<l to new situacions that had noc been specifically
cra1 nc<l.
Similar success at building sentences has been reported by
Stevens-Long and Rasmussen ( 1974). They worked with an aucis-
116 Implications and Speculations
tic boy and, by using 1m1tat1ve prompts and reinforcement, built
both simple and compound sentences. They also present da~a that
this behavior \\'as under reinforcement control and generalized to
nev.· stimulus situations in v.·hich the child had received no direct
. .
tra1n1ng.
Finally, v.·orking \Vi th animals (chimpanzees), Gardner and
Gardner ( 197 I) and Pre mack ( 1970) provide very Strong support
for the concept of response classes and the power of discrimina-
tion learning in building sentence structure. Neither Premack
nor the Gardners have presented their method (training pro-
tocols) 1n sufficient detail as yet, but one 1s struck by the large
amount of initial apparent s1m1larity between their procedur_es
and the ones we have reported with the aunstic and retarded chil-
dren. Consider, for example, Premack's report on training pro-
grams for che acquisition of prepositions ( 1970, p. 113 and 11_4).
Here he speaks of choosing and rotating snmuli in such a fashion
as to allow S to discriminate the correct dimensions of the train-
ing stimulus ("to assure that our subject uses syntactic definiri~~s
from the beginning . . . ," p. 111), the use of prompts ro fuct11-
tate the desired response ("co bring about th<: desired behavior by
limiting the probability of other kinds of behavior . . . , " p.
114), tests of gcneralizauon to new (untrained) stimuli, cautions
that S's correct response to prepositions may not extend beyond
certain stimulus dimensions (the color chips used 1n training)
without add1nonal learning, and tests of simultaneous acquisi-
tion of productive language as receprive language is trained and
mastered . Exactly how the chimps' rare of acquisitions compare
co that of autistic and r<:tarded children 1s not known. There is a
tendency by those who work with chimps not to report derail of
the acquisition process, bur one may guess char chimps acquire
language \vith more ease than most of che autistic and retarded
children v.e have reported on here. In any case, both Premack and
the Gardners report positive acceleration as a characterisnc fea-
ture of the acquisition they observe, and both studies noce a sub-
stantial amount of stimulus generalization.
It is apparent from our data and similar research on semantics
and syntax that the concept of response classes and discrimination
training procedures can yield behaviors that far exceed any
simple-minded notion of what one should consider as learned be-
havior. It is also the case, of course, that we v.1ould have been
unable to remed1ate as well as we did had our procedures merely
•
117
Implications and Speculations
taught topographic-specific responses. The response class notion
docs imply chat, from a sec of instruccional procedures, it 1s pos-
sible for a child to make major steps ahead . Most objecrions ro
beha\'iOr change 1nrerventions based on learning models fail to
recognize the response class concepr and base their ob1ecnons on
outmoded conceptions of the rerms 11i11111/11s and re1pQnJt To the
excent thac these key terms are misunderstood, critics of learning
intervennons do noc come ro grip v.·ich the issue of "v.·hat is
learned," or ""hat can be learned."
The reader who v.anrs to familiarize himself more exrens1vely
\V1th the conceptual basis of the response class model and HS rela-
t1onsh1p to the acqu1s1non of complex behavior may v.·ant to read
excellent discussions on this topic by Wiest ( 1967) and MacCor-
quadale ( 1970). Exactly ho"' far one will be able to extend this
nor1on of a response class is hard co say. Beyond certain points the
process would break down, and reinforcement would no longer
act to strengthen a unit. Both the person's history and his genetic
make-up will derermine these boundaries. Research such as we
have reported here does help to define what is a stimulus and
what is a response and \Vhac can be learned by people. Conceiva-
bly, the child will be able to learn as complex verbal stimuli and
verbal responses as those of the investigator who is describing
him, since the latter probably also learned his verbal behavior.
Phonet1r1. Ir would seem a simple matcer co engineer pro-
grams for phonological development once we already had some
kno"•ledgc: of ho\v co teach a child semantics and grammar . Bur
this 1s nor necessarily so. Let us introduce the problems involved.
We began our efforts to accelerate phonological development
in rhe muce auc1stics through a straightforward shaping proce-
dure We atrempted ro reinforce rheir spontaneous vocalizauons
through successive approximations to\\·ard recognizable words.
Rh1negold ti al. ( 1959) had already shown such reinforcement
control over the vocalizations of three-month-old infants and
suggested the feasibility of a reinforcement model ro account for
phonolog1cal development.
After several months of shaping vocalizations through ap-
proximations \Ve succeeded 1n increasing the rate of the reinforced
sound (e.g., "ma") However, v.•e seemed ar the same nme ro re-
strict tbe output of or her sounds, and the first targer \\'Ord ("ma")
ext1ngu1shed as soon as we began to reinforce approximations co
the second target word ("dee"). Obviously, we weren't getring
118 Implications and Speculations
anyv.·here, and \Ve made no particular progress on phonologic al
developme nt until we developed procedures for the acqu1s1c1on of
verbal imitative behavior (Lovaas et al.. 1966). In chis study,
which we reviewed 1n Chapter 2, we built verbal 1mita(lve be-
havior through a set of discnmina tions v.·here the child's verbal
response had co resemble its stimulus (the adult's vocal11at1on).
Several developme nts preceded our srudy. The Baer and Sherman
( 1964) model of "generalize d imararion .. formed rhe most impor-
tant base. Briefly, Baer and Sherman vie\ved the acquisition of
im1Cat1on as the acqu1s1non of a d1scram1nanon in v.·hich the top-
ological similancy between che adult's behavior and the child's
behavior came co be discrimina tive for reinforcem ent.
The use of d1scrim1nation training procedures co build verb:.il
imitative behavior does obviously assure one of some progress in
phonologic al developme nt for the mute child Our dace (cf Fig-
ure I) confirm thar. But casual observation s also shov.·ed large
differences becv.·cen the " imitation- trained" child and the
echolalic child who already imitated che adult's speech. It v•as
stnking co observe how clearly, richly, and "effortlessly" the
echolalic child 11n1taced che adult's speech. They "spoke" a lot
and "played" with speech. The imitative behavior of cht: previ-
ously muce children, on the ocher hand, stayed closely dependent
on che expenmen ral reanforcers, frequencly deteriorate d and
.. drifted" av.·ay from cncerion, and sounded suited. In general,
our language program was nor as successful for rhe mutes as for
rhe echolalics. If che child was already echolalac, even though he
did not know the meaning of his vocal expressions or how to ar-
range them in appropriate sentences, then 1t seemed easy for us co
rearrange behavior (syntax) and bring at under appropriat e
stimulus control (semantics). The face chat we \Vere less successful
in creating and maintainin g new behavioral topographi es seems
co point to problems in our understand ing of phonologic al de-
velopment
There wcr<: some interesting exceptions to our failure at
phonologic al training A few of chc mute children became
echolalic, and by char we mean chat their \VOrd production sud-
denly became extensive and cook on the qualities of rhe echolalic
child's imita(lons. We don't knov.• v.h>· these children became so
verbally expressive Perhaps some pnnciple ocher than, or in ad-
dition co, discrim1nac1on training does underlie phonologic al de-
velopment . In any case, there remain several inceresung problems
co be answered 1n chis area. Let us discuss some of these problems
in the section chat follows.
•
lmpltcalions and Speculations 119
Psycholinguistics and Some Speculations
So far we have attempted to relate our discussion of phono-
logy, semantics, and syntax to rather objective data. Lee us con-
clude the discussion by presenting some speculation s based on
more informal observauon s. We shall introduce these specula-
uons through some observation s on psycholingu1scics.
There was no question that the child learned, through the
language vie had caught him, co interact more extensively and
effeccavely with us. This alone would have been a sufficient reason
co teach language. An 1ncerescing question, though, can be
phrased like chis: Granted that che child"s language came co con-
trol us and granted that our language came co control him, did
his O\vn language ever control his own behavior? There are many
ways co phrase chis question of "internal" control, and che kinds
of questions one asks depends on one"s conceptual frame"•ork . For
example, one may ask, did the language acqu1s1t1on facilitate che
child's awareness of himself as a person? Dad he now achieve a
better hold on reality? What innate cognitive structures did his
language activate? Did he become incellecrually curious? If one
considers language co be che cool of che mind or the vehicle for
thought, then we were tn a rather favorable and unique position
ro throw ltghc on these basic questions an psycholing uistics. We
will offer some of our cho ughcs on chis problem of"ancerna l" con-
trol.
We were disappoint ed We hoped again and again chat we
would stumble upon a construct which, once the child mastered
it, would lead co a sudden seep forward (such an "aha" experience
as Helen Keller supposedly underwent when she learned che label
for water as shown in "The f\1iracle Worker.") There were no sud-
den awakening s. There seemed co be no large internal reorganiza-
uons \XlouJd re noc have been nice if che child had said: "Now
chat I can speak well, I see ho"' I have been very sick, but now I
am well " No one said chat .
One can imagine chat '"e failed to acuvate these internal
stares or central constructs for a number of reasons. Perhaps we
did nor reach rhem right. There are no known rules for how ro
build language, and we 1nay have ended up \Vith the wrong pro-
cedures Ir may have been chat the language structures \\'e caught
\\'enc in through che wrong "channels" and therefore dad not rrig-
gt:r the appropriat e central processes.
On the ocher hand, suppose we dad tt right, but we were
lookan~ for something that does not exist. We may have been
120 Implications and Speculahons Implications and Speculations 121

given che wrong problem to solve. Perhaps there are nor central but ic serves to illustrate the problem. Behavioris tic attempts co
processes in the first place, no minds co be awakened, no cogni- understand internal control are probably not radically different
tions ro fire, and no egos to be repaired. Perhaps such 1nternal from many ocher conception s; in a general sense, 1nrernal control
control does not exist. Ultimately , this is the most disturbing is said to exist when one behavior system controls another and
elemenc in the behav1or1st1c philosophy of man, that che "mind" both systems reside within the same person. The behaviorist ic
as we nOVI' know 1c may not be a source of his direction. conception of internal control may have an advantage over ocher
Possible 111t :h.i1111111J 111 111ter11al co11trol Lee us illustrate by an concepnon s since ic suggests certain explicit 111ech,11111111s of inter-
empirical example what a behaviorist may mean when he talks of nal control and che conditions under v.·hich such control becomes
language producing 1ncernal control The illustration is taken escablished . What are these mechanism s)
from some work che author did some years ago crying to shape Ler us consider potential mechanism s behind internal control
language in normal speaking children. A normal child enter~ a by first examining instances of social or external control. We have
room where an attending adult seats him in front of a box. The cried co illusrrace chis control in figure 16. Consider first the
adult tells the child that he will gee candy and ocher goodies for upper half of the figure which gives a simple for1n of this conrrol.
talking co che box, and she then wahdraws co a corner on the Restncttng ourselves to control over operant behavior. che figure
opposite side of chc room and sears herself behind a screen . Van-
ous children say different things like .. Hello, i\ir. Box, .. '"Hov• are
you, i\fr. Box)" \'Qhen che children ,,·ere reinforced for these
sraremencs , chey tended to be repeated Nor much inccn:sung
was happening until one child said, What shall I say?" He was
reinforced for chis utterance by a reward emptying in a tray near
the box. He chen repeated che srarcm<:nc, was again reinforced,
rose /ro111 the chair and tl'.ilked acrqss tht r()(1111 to the attend1ng adult Speaker's \@>--S R
and directed his quesuon ro her. Thar '\\·as unusual behavior since
che children usually did as they '\\'ere cold, namely sac in the chair
and did nor \valk around. Why did he rise from the chair and listener's R+-•-<@ S s, sos <D • Listener's R..-•-{Q)>---sR
walk across the room? Let us cry co answer chis way. Walking
across che room is operant behavior and can be concrolled in cwo
ways-thro ugh reinforcers and through s0 s. We did not reinforce
him for walking across the room; we only reinforced him for calk-
1ng co the box. So v.•e may conceivabl y rule ouc reinforcem ent
~o-• spe'/j • © s~
control. What about s0 control) Instruction s are good examples
ofS 0 s. What had "·e cold him? \Xie did nor cell him co 'valk across Listener's R" @ SRs, SOs --<D--+ Listener's R-•-<Q}>-- SR
the room; 1n fact, v.·e had cold him co sir doVl·n, so che s0 v.·as
probably nor given by us. If ic was an instance ofS 0 control, chen
the child muse have produced che S0 s himself. How did he pro-
Figure 16. The upper half of the Figure shows a simple form of
duce these S0 s? One might suspect chat the statement, "What social control, where t he Speaker's A generates discriminati ve
shall I say?" generJted or otherwise '"gave him'" the 0 s \\h1ch s st imuli (5°s, arrow 1) and reinforcing stimuli (S"s. arrow 2) for
triggered his \valk1ng across the room. There seems no other im- the Listener's A. Note the presence of reinforceme nt as neces-
sary to maintain both these relationship s (arrow 3 and 4). The
mediate cause for his behavior, and w•alk1ng across che room, as lower half of the Figure shows a more complex form of control,
trivial as ic mar seem, should have a cause some variable acting 0
where the Listener's A provides reinforcers and S s for the
at the rime the behavior cook place Speaker (arrow 5 and 6. respectively ).
This is an admittedly simplified exaniplc of internal conrrol.
122 Implications and Speculations
shows how one person (rhe speaker) can control anorher person
(the listener), by presenting s0 s and reinforcers for char pe:son's
behavior. This control is given by arrow l and 2 respectively.
Notice also that in order for rhe listener to come under the con-
trol of rhe speaker's s0 s, rhe listener has co be rea.nforced for re-
sponding co chat s0 (as given in arrO\\ 3). Finally, rhe speaker
has CO be reinforced for giving these S0 s and SRs, as shown by
arrov.· 4, orherv.•ise he v.·ould cease ro do so
Nov.· consider our experience v.·irh rhe aurisric children. Im-
agine char rhe auusric child as rhe speaker, and rhar rhe rherapisr
is rhe listener. \Xlhen rhe aur1sr1c children spoke, they controlled
us both in rerms of rhe s0 properties of their speech (as we would
carry our almosr any of their requests), and their speech of course
reinforced us exrensavely. Also nouce char we were reinforced for
responding ro rhear Sl>s (arrow 3). and char we reinforced chem for
speaking (arrow i). Since differential reinforcement was available
(as given by arrow 3 and !) 1r seems char conditions were ideal for
social control co be esrablished.
The upper half of Figure 16 presents probably rhe simp lest
instance of social control, and ir is easy co engineer a more com-
plex system using rhe same constructs. Consider that we were
willing agents in chis control, which produces two additional
points of interaction as given in the lower half of Figure 16. This
diagram as extended to show how our behavior as listeners pro-
duced the reinforcers for rhe speaker's behavior (arrow 5), and
that we dad also srrengrhen his efforts ar controlling us by arrang-
s
ing for the 0 s which allowed his behavior to occur (arrow 6).
NO\\ let us cry ro describe i11ter11al control, by considering
char rhe speaker and the listener are the same person. According
co this analysis, it \vould be possible for a person to control him-
self if one of has behaviors generated s0 s and reinforcers for his
ocher behaviors. In order for such control ro exist a person muse
have experienced a specific history v.·1th regard ro such control,
because borh rhe s0 and rhe reanforcemenr functions are acquired
funcraons For example, rhe S0 properties of the child's verbal
behavior (e.g .. rhe sentence 1n rhe earlier example, .. What shall I
0
say' musr have been acquired through differential reinforce-
)
ment. We may guess thar the child had been reinforced for asking
this quesraon in rhe presence of adults (the adulrs ans\vercd his
inquiry), and he h,1J noc been reinforced for asking rhe question
when no one \vas there. Bur rhas as a lso important: Unless adults
continued to reinforce him for seeking them out when he asked
•
Implications and Speculations 123
questions, has question would no longer generate the 0 s whichs
made him rurn ro a<lulcs for answers. Internal conrrol as a set of
stimulus funct1ons requires extrinsic differennal reinforcement,
both for ars 1n1rianon and maintenance.
Keeping rhis analrsis of self-conrrol 1n mind, ler us rerurn ro
cerra1n observarions on rhe aurisric children. We nored chat de-
spite rhe f,1cr rhar rhey acquired much language which increased
rheir social control, they did nor simultaneous Ir gave evidence of
internally organized control. If our conception of internal control
is in facr correct, then \\'e can see hov.· it v.·as unrcalasrac of us ro
have expecre<l any reorgan1:zarion of ocher behaviors concurrent
v.•ith their newly acquired verbal behavior because control by an-
rernally organized (response generated) snmult is a funcoon of a
specific kand of reinforcement history. The verbal be~av1or \Ve
caught rhese children had no public existen.ce for rhe.chal<lren be-
fore v.•e began co reach, and therefore contained no stimulus func-
cions which would modify their ocher behaviors, operant or
otherwise. Whatever public life their verbal behavior .had c.n-
joycd, we had provided. In the.same sense, ~vharcve~ pra~atc life
they would possess, we would g ave rhem .. Th as ana ~ ysas of 1 ~rernal
control whether correcr or nor, is cerraanly consasrenr \vach be-
' .
haviorisric notions of personality: Whatever is nO\V privare was
.
once public Skinner has argued chis point nice!)' in has book on
Verh"I Bth,11111r ( 195 7).
S0111e d, 1111 on intfrnal control. So far v.•e have argued char lan-
guage serves internal control by providing certain ~umu~us _func-
tions char dercrmane rhc occurrence of other behaviors v;arh1n the
person ,.,ho speaks. NO\\" the question is. Does at \vork chat v.·~r?
Cerrai nly many social practices arc based on the premise that an-
rernal control does work. Social systems, hkc educauon. or-
gan azed religion, psychotherapy, and. so on, inre.nd co effecr
changes 1n a person's non-verbal behavior by changing char per-
son's verbals. Loosely speaking, v.•e say char they a.rrempr to con-
trol our feelings and loyalties and so on by conrroll1ng the \\·ay ,,.e
· rhank .. \X'hcn the Bible says, "Thou shall nor cover thy
neighbor's v. afc, .. ar means co control cerra'.n non verbals (adul-
tery) by removing certain sramuli ("thought ) \\·hach help conrrol
chose non-verbals. Ir accempcs co prevent the occurrence of a n:r-
manal responsl· an a chain of responses by JlfpprfJ.1111g early anem-
bers of char chain. When a therapist helps a panenr speak more
favorably abour himself, rhen the therapist intends rhe ne\\ forms
of vcrb;ll behavior to generate stimuli char control a more pleasant
124 Implications and Speculations
form of incerpcrsonal behavior as well as an increased feeling of
well being. He arcemprs to iniriace a chain by Jtre11gthen111g chc
early mc:mber of such a chain. Recentl}' a .,.. hole nev: area of
treatment cechniques havt" been initiated v.·h1ch is referred co as
"cognirive behavior modification.·· le is be)•Ond the scope of this
book ro evaluate thar field, but it \vould seem char man}' of che
rechniques v.·ichin rhar are.1 resr heavilr on rhc principles and as-
sumptions v.·e havt· discussed here.
Unfortunatelr, imporcanr as rhis area of research is, there
cxisc verr little explicit data on this problem of verbal control
O\'Cr non-verbal behavior. Some data are reporred br Luna
( 1961 ). v.· ho prc!>ented the firsc syscemacic v.·ork 1n rhis area. His
studies soughr ro demonscrace vanous levels of nervous system
control, and v.·cre only secondarily concerned wtth internal con-
trol che war .,...e have discussed It here. In more rccenc work,
Lovaas ( 196 I), R islt:y and H,1rt ( 1968), and Sherman ( 1964)
manipularcd a pt•rson's verbal behaviors and then observed for
changes 1n that persons concurrenr non verbal behavior. Essen-
ciall y, these invcsttgacors arranged for a situation in which a child
may give himself various 1nscrucc1ons or inscruccion-like com-
mands, and rhen ohserved co see if che child in face acced on his
own 1nsrrutrions or commands. In general, one could observe 1n-
scances of such 1nrernal conrrol. bur ir appeared co be a rarher
weak form of control and 1c was short lived, extinguishing
qu1ckl>• The only except1on to chis cook place when Risley,
Reynolds, and Hart ( 1970) made special efforts to mainrain che
(onrrol through external differential re1nforcemenr of the
verbal-non-verbal relationship. Risley had pre-school children
descri~ a certain pare of rheir day·s behaviors. like \Vhecher they
had pa1nred or nor rhar n1orning. f\terelr reinforcing rhe child for
describing his painting did nor produce a noticeable effect on che
painring unless rhe child had. in fact, painted and ""as differen-
cial~y reinforced for correctlr verbalizing chis non-verbal be-
havior. lJnder such efforts to ma1nca1n control in the verbal-
non-verbal relationship, Risler could c:ffccr changes in rhc child
br merely manipulaung the child's \'erbal behavior. R1sley's
\\'Ork suggest~. and casu,d ohser\·acion lends some support ro this,
thac rhe trirical variable in internal control 1s the presence of dif-
ferential re1nforcemcnr for such control (arrow 3 1n Figure 16).
W1rhour some external monitonng of rhe condicions under v.•hich
such reinforcement 1s gi~en an.d withdrawn, ic seems unlikely
char a person \\'Ould subJt'Ct himself co the unpleasant cask of
•
Implications and Speculations 125
withdrawing positive or presencing negative reinforcers for him-
self, as .,..,ell as the equally i mporcanr rask of keeping rrack of the
exact conditions under which he should experience these
re1nforcers.
One may ask, if such internal control is v.·eak, .,.. hy do people
persist 1n crying co direct themselves? Wh)• does a person pcrsisc
in making decisions about his life, v.•hen he does nor follow
through with chose decisions' If he does nor ace on his decisions
he is receiving no excr1ns1c reinforcement for making decisions
In fact each rime a person makes a decision v.•ichouc acting on 1c
he 1s losing reinforcement, and his verbalizations are exungu1sh-
1ng whatever s0 properties they once possessed. In the absence of
extrinsic pay-off, how can we justify such extensive performances'
Psychology has yet co demonstrate char a person, by caking
"thought ... can change che course of his own behavior. Others
usually have co provide such assistance. One can help ochers bur
ic seems chac one cannot help oneself.
Even if we were to grant the existence of some forms of inter-
nally generated control, most (private) dialogues are not problem
(or direction) oriented co scare wich. They seem essentially neutral
in content. Thus one is al\vays describing one's experiences. We
continuously code what we see and hear, we exclaim co ourselves,
sooth, attack ochers in private duels, and so on. It 1s virtually
impossible co "'pull a blank," something 1s a(.,..•ays going on "up
there."
If these private behaviors are operants, and 1f chey have no
extrinsic merit, \vhat are the reinforcers rhat maintain chem! To
pose an explicit question. why do people pray' ~f1ll1ons have
prayed for thousands of years, and still do. •
For some. it is their
main behavioral repertoire If God does nor listen, \\'ho does' Or
consider dreams In our dreams \\'e talk co ochers night <1fter
night, but surel}' there is no one there co reinforce such beh;1v1or.
Self-Jti11111/ato1) btha11or. To ans\\•er the quesc1on of why cer-
tain forms of privace language occur ac a high race v.·1thour appa-
rent extrinsic reinforcemenc. it may be helpful co rurn co an
exam1narion of ocher behaviors char occur at a high rare even
though these behaviors are not maintained by social consequences
or ocher extrinsic reinforcers; char is, rhey do not appear "goal-
d1rccred," and seem co be void of any "proble1n-solv1ng" proper-
ties. 1'he main consequence of che behavior is more of the same
kind of behavior. We can quire clearly see rh1s phenomc:non 111
aut1scic children who exerc great efforr ro rhythmically and
126 Implications and Speculations
monotonously rock, hand flap, spin, gaze, t\virl, jump, pace. ecc
They are 1n c:oncinuous morion, never still And chis behavior
persists for months an<l years, \virhour signs of extinction We
called chis behavior "sclf:-stimulatory" since the child seems co
engage in chis behavior primarily to "stimulate" himself from the
kinesrhettc, proprioceptive and vestibular feedback involved in
chese acciv1cics .. Rimlan<l ( 1964) an<l Orn1cz ( 1974) have boch
made similar commcnrs. \Vic speculated on rhe "need" of che
nervous svscem co be scimulared in chis manner. when socially
more app;opriace behaviors could nor serve rhe same function. In
chis way self-srimularory behavior would be as primary as earing
and Jrinking. If v.·e consider self-srimularory behavior as operant
behavior, rhen it is the chilJ r;Hhcr than society who programs or
controls rhe reinforcers char maintain 1r. We have discussed self-
scimulacory behavior 10 aur1sc1c ch1l<lren in some derail in an ear-
lier publ1cac1on (Lovaas, LttrOv.'n1k, & Mann, 1971).
Self-st1mulacory behavior occurs noc only 1n auciscic children
buc can be observed 1n a number of ocher persons as well. Berkson
( 1967) has reported on such behaviors, which he labels
"scereoryped motor acts," in retarded children and describes 1cs
persistent and high rate. Casual observation suggests chac infants
self-stimulate exccnMvcly, as when they babble, gaze at their
hands, nonnurrirively suck chc1r fingers, couch blanker ro face,
ere. Perfectly normal children self-snmulare when rhey are alone
w1ch nothing else co <lo. Ac such rime chey show a striking s1m1-
laricy co auciscic children Adults also shO\\' racher obvious exam-
ples of self-sr1mularion when rhey are nor otherwise engaged (for
example, a.\ v.·hcn rhey arc "v.•airing" by themselves, chey pick
their ears and noses. stroke their faces, grimace. groom. ere.).
The impression one gees from observing people at such ume is
char they arc "full" of sclf-sttmularory beha\'iors.
Perhaps the clearest area of research relevanc co self-
5c1mulacory behavior ha5 been summarized by Kish ( 1966) on
sensorr rcinforcemcnr ,virh animals. Research on sensorr rein-
forcemcnc deals wich rhe conditions under which anunals v.•ill re-
spond for sensory 1npur of moderate inrensiry, such as changes in
light incensity. incidental sound productions like the clicking of
relays, etc. The implic;1tion of chis work, of course, is chat ani-
mals have a "need" for sensory srimular1on, are conrrolled by such
conscqu<.:nces, .ind char sclf-sr1mularory behavior is an example of
behavior which 1s n1a1ncained b} such re1nforccrs.
'J'u;o k111dJ ofopn·,11111. Apparently, then, organisms respond co
•
Implications and Speculations 127
obtain reinforcing stimuli which appear unrelated co social rein-
forcement or che reduccion of biological reinforcers as we nO\\'
knO\V chem (appettrive re1nforcers, sex, pain reduction, ere.).
This sec of reinforcing stimuli may be labeled se11Jo11 re111for.-en
(Kish, 1966) and v.·e may call operant beha,·ior \vh1ch 1s ma1n-
ca1 ned b} sensory re1 nforcers Je/f-st 111111/aror) opera11tf. Self-
sc1mulatory operants differ from extr1ns1c or social operan/J 1n terms
of uhr, controls rhe reinforcer In rhe case of self-srimulatorr oper-
ants, rhe organism himself concrols che reinforcers, hence. sh.apes
and/ or maintains his own behavior. In rhe case of exrnns1c or
social operants, 1r is ochers (1.e., society) who control rhe reinforc
ers and ochers, then, control the form and ma1nrenance of rhe be-
havior.
l.Alllf.llaJ!,e and 1h1J11f.ht aJ Je/f Jt11n11la1ory behat'101·. Language an<l
thought may have a social eriology, but once in1C1aced, any
number of reinforcers could maintain it. If sensory reinforcers can
maintain nonverbal behavior, they can equally well maintain ver-
bals. With chis in mind let us recurn co the problem of the mu re
children who failed co maintain a high rare of verbal behavior.
We suggesc chat che mutes never learned co self-stimulate \Vith
language. The echolalics, on che ocher hand, gave every e~1~cncc
of self-scimulattng with language even before we began rra1n1ng.
In recent research (Lovaas, Koegel, Varni and Loesch, L975)
we report chat children engage in verbal behav.ior v.•h1ch satisfies
some of the criteria of self-stimulatory behavior. For example,
certain autistic children emir verbal behavior chat echoes, either
immediarel} or" 1rh delays of hours or days, the speech of others.
Their speech productions are often loud ~nd clear, . a1Jo,v1ng for
easy recording \'<le observed no systemauc change 1n these chil-
dren's verbal behavior, even though the} spoke alone for as ma~y
as ~O sessions, "·ich some sessions lasting up co 90 minutes 1n
length. There v.•as no reason co believe chat the children e~en
knew "·hat rhey were calk1ng about. We found s1m1lar data "'~th
rhe normal children we ran. With no apparent exrnns1c rein-
forcement for chis verbal behavior one would expect, 1f the be-
havior is dependent on extrinsic reinforcemen~, r_har rhe rare
\voul<l fall off a bit, exttnguish so co speak: Bur 1r did nor.
The proposir1on char private language is maintained hy stn
sory rc1nforccrs is d1fficulc to rest. Firsc, one has to rule our more
pars1mon1ous sources of reinforcement such as che cond1t1oned so-
cial reinforcement generated by speech. Skinner (1957) has ar-
gued very persuasively for the conditioned reinforcement support
128 Implications and Speculations
of pnvatc verbal events. Also. psychodynamic notions have been
advanced co the effect that h1nguage may "bind anxiety"; chat 1s,
be based on es{ ape: or avoidance schedules. Secondly, not all pri-
vate language is self-stimulatory; some forms of private langua~e
facilicate changes in the external \vorld. Apparencly. language d1-
recced coward the rearrangement of one's extrinsic environment is
funcc1onal in chat a.sp<.'Ct. That is. up to a poinc ones language
moves ochers about, and parricipaces in che manipulation of one's
physical environment Bue verbal beha,·ior directed tO\vards che
rearrangement of one's O\vn behavior may nor be functional for
chat purpose.
This anal rs is of language and thought as self-stimulatory be-
havior is similar co Freud's primary process chinking ( 1970) and
Piaget's egocentric thought ( 1955 ). Freud and Piaget introduced
chese conscruccs co allow for the essentially nonsocial, non-
rcalicy-onenred, non-problem-solving basis of thought and lan-
guage. Our vie" of language a.~ self-scimulacory behavior appears
less tied co inst incrual grati ficarion (Freud) and less controlled by
maturational, age related variables (Freud and Piaget). In our
analysis, self-sti1nulatory language and thought function co pre-
serve thc nervous systetn, it is bchavior necessary for biological
survival.
Returning no\v co our efforts at building language in non-
linguistic psychotic children, the most immediate problems for
us concern the discovery of the cond1uons for maintaining high
races of oucpuc This probably entails changing inappropriate
self-sc1mulacory motor behavior (such as rocking) co socially ap-
proprian: self-st1mulat1on. such as language and thought. Ho"· co
do chis is nor kno\\n.
Lee us finish our discussion on language by turning co more
daca-based issues concerning certain leads on hov. co build a more
efficient training progranl \\'c "ill first look ac suggestions for
improving the program by examining data from language acqu1-
s1cion in normals. and then by considering certain peculiarities
which developmencallr retarded aunsnc children sho"' during
discrimination learning.
Suggestions for Program Changes from
Language Development in Normal Children
When w<: designed our program we proceeded w1th total dis-
regard (or \vhat ochers considered 1mporcant co kno"' about ner-
Implications and Speculations 129
vous system determinants of language. This seemed a desirable
point of departure for us since the organically-based theories of
languagc acquisition v1rcuall} rule out any hope of building lan-
guage through cnv1ronmencal interventions. No'' chat we have
succeeded in building complex language by manipulating en-
vironmental ,·ariables, it may be appropriate co turn co some in-
vescigacions chat suggest the concribucions of certain pocenriall)'
11t111·1Jl11g1r,1/ variables in the hope of strengthening a language
program such as "'e have ourlined. If chose behaviors char possess
strong organic determinants require minimal environmental in-
st1garion, then 1r \VOuld seem chat one could speed up che acqui-
s1non process by incorporating such supposedly organically con-
crolle<l features. In parncular, one may wane co capitalize on \vhac
many 1nvesrigacors consider co be maturational determinants 1n
language learn 1ng.
Suggestions about chese genetically (maturationally) deter-
mined behaviors typically emerge from observations on language
development in normal children. One of the most intriguing and
probably 1nosc well-<locumcnced observations co come our of chis
work on language development in children is their use of certain
gram1nac1cal forms, different from chose of adults, "'h1ch gener-
ate utterances chat appear not co have been directly imitated,
probably not d1recrly shaped, ar least on the basis of their gram-
matical correctness.
The form most often discussed governs utterances \vh1ch are
typically t\VO co three \vords long. This form has been carefully out-
lined b; Bra1ne (1963) and Bellugi and Brown (196-t), among
ochcrs Bas1callr, the form can be described as a t\VO-\\'Ord utter-
ance involving chc use of an "operator" or .. pivot" "·ord plus one
member of an "open class" of "·ords. This form has been referred
co as the "P-X" form (P for p1voc and X for the open class). Pivots
are high frequency \\•Ords \vh1ch rend co be rescr1cced co .a g1_vcn
position in a sentence, most frequently co the first pos1non 1n a
t\\'0-"«ird utterance. Pivots are usually fe\\· 1n number and are
?64 ).
generall }' nonsuffixed, unmarked fo:ms (1'-f ill er a~d Ervin. l
Bro,vn and Bellugi report chat p1vocs are typically modifiers.
"hde open-class \\'Ords tend co be nouns
When che child begins co combine ·words, ic 1s generally ob-
served chat he uses a pivot and one member of the open class co
form a t\VO-"•orJ utterance. The open class is che only ocher chtss
1n the child's repertoire at firsc. and thus contains all the \vords
except pivots. One of rhe inrerescing features of che utterances
130 Implications and Speculations
generated by chis form is char they are nor alv•ays grammatically
correct by adulc scandarc.ls . For instance, "cv.•o" is fr~quencly a
member of chc child's pivoc tlass. Use of chts v.·ord 1n the first
posicion results 1n rhe generation of such ucce_ra~ces. as "Two ~·a­
cer. " and "T\\'O mommy.'' I c is argued char 1m1caC1on and rein-
forcement cannoc accounc for che production of such "errors" l-e-
cause che child has certainly nor imicaced these utterances, and ic
1s possible chat he v.·ill not be explicitly reinforced for making
blatant errors .
The frequent}' anc.I relative scable positional ~elarionship of
modifier and noun 1n ac.lult English also makes chis form one of
che most salient ones . As Brown and Bellugi point ouc, che P-X
form is the forerunner of the noun phrase. The noun phrase may
be used in isolation co name or request something; 1c may be used
1n the subject, ob1ecc, or predicate nominative pos1uon in a sen~
tence. It is a "suhwhole of a sentence," as Brown and Bellug1
suggest. "le has a kind of psychological utility." Certainly all of
chese features contrihuce to a kind of "natural" salience for the
noun phrase anc.I the P--X form le may be appropriate co begin
training che chilc.I co combine words by selecting a small class of
"pivot" \VOrds and a larger open class If the P-X (or noun phrase)
forms are as generically dcccrm1ncc.I as many \vricers suggest, then
it should be acquirec.I quicker than any other cwo-word combina-
C1ons. This would be relatively t:asy co cesc.
Another possible advantage of applying normal developmen-
tal sequences to language crai ning for deviant children is chat
normal development seems more economical than the scep-ac-a-
C1me program \\'C propose. Lee us examine chis suggestion bncfly.
Several sruc.lies indicate char simple abstractions are often ac-
quired b>· normal chilc.lren in che context of the P-X form. BrO\\'n
and Fraser ( 1964) outline chc emergence of possess1,·e pronouns.
Ac first, proper nouns arc combined v.·ith common nouns co pro-
duce such utterances as "Daddy hair.·· Only lacer is che possessive
affix "s" added by che child Klima and Bellug1 ( 1966) 1nd1cace
chat negation is first expressed by adding "no" or "noc" to che P-X
utterance co produce phrases like " not Evie chair. " Lacer "don't
and "can't" are added. A final exam'ple also comes from Klima
and Bellugi and c.lescribcs che acquisition of interrogatives. Ac
first the child merely uses the P-X phrase, changing only 1ncona-
t1on co produce quesnons like 'That car?" Lacer "wh" words are
added to the bas1C phrase, c.g , "Where chat car!"
Another 1ntercsc1ng obscrvac1on pertains co the very regular
Implications and Speculations 131
pattern in which certain language forms develop across children.
Such data have been used to infer genetic determinants. An early
review by McCarthy ( 1954) showed chat the firsc vocalizacions,
followed by cooing and chen vocal play, emerge becv.•een 0 and 6
months Children begin co imitate sounds between 6 and 10
months, co vocalize recognition at about 8 or 9 months, and co
say their first v.·ord becv.·een 9 and 13 months. They are follov.·1ng
simple commands and imitating words by 14 months. Labeling
emerges between 18 and 22 months. The child comprehends
simple quesnons br 20 monchs, combines cv.·o \\'Ords by 24
months, first uses pronouns, phrases, and sentences at 24
months, and begins co understand preposiuons by 26 months.
There are ocher 1nceresung observations on normal language
development, some of which are already part of our procedures.
Jakobson and Halle (1956) proposed, for instance, chat the child
learns co produce phonemes in a particular sequence which
reflects the <lifferenciacion of successive contrasting. distinctive
features. The vowel-consonant discinccion is chc first co be ac-
quired because ic affords maximum differences of these features .
Disrinccive features are based on differences in che place and
manner of articulation and acoustic characteristics. Each new
phoneme emerges in an order dependent upon the ease of distin-
guishing and reproducing ics distinctive features relative co ocher
phonemes . Jakobson predicted that the first utterance a child
makes will be "pa," which consists of two sound elements chat arc
polar opposites in terms of distinctive features. In Englis.h, the
acqu1s1c1on of the" I" and "r" sounds involve chc finest d1scnm1na-
c1on of such features. \Vie did incorporate some of these
consideranons when v.·e developed our program (co fac1l1cace chc
discriminations), but we did nor 1nvesngace chese suggestions
systematically.
Normative descriptions of language development usually re-
port chat comprehension precedes production by some margin .
We have nor yer assessed , 1n a systematic wa>' • hov.• comprehen-
sion (Discrim1nauon l) affects the acquisition of expression (Dis-
cnm1nanon 2).
Whether reinforcement procedures do or do nor produce che
kinds of dcvelopmencal daca we have descnbed remains an open
question LHcle would be gained if we cried to show, on a purely
concepcu;tl level, how we could accommodate these data within a
rc1nforccmcnr framework. On the ocher hand, it seems easy to
check empirically \vherher these behavioral sequences , which
132 lmpllcatt0ns and Speculations
supposed!) ' have a hl.'avr biological dererm1na rion, are t.>Jsier co
teach than chose \Vhich are more arb1crarilr arranged.
Suggestions for Program Changes from Discrimination
Learning with Autistic Children
Nor a great <lea! is knov.·n as }'Ct abour discrimina tion learn-
ing among spt.~ 1al groups of children, such as psrchocic or re-
tarded children Such children mar posc special difficulties . such
as accencional deficits co cercain kinds of srimulus inputs or de-
ficiency in response co commonly e1nployed rc1nfor<.:<:m<:nt
stimuli. Lee us first illustrate some porenttal problems from c<:r-
ra1n studies which have used exceptiona l children as 5 s.
Wasserman ( 1969). working 1n our laboratory, examined dis-
criminatio n learning in aurisric children She employed 12 \'s,
four ,,·ho v.·ere echolalic and seven who v.·ere essencialh· mt•te
Her children, w·irh perhaps two <:xteprions, v.•ere repreiencat tve
of the more regressed half of rhc psyc.:hotic toncinuum and similar
to the.: ones \\·e have employed 1n our languag<: acquis1t1on pro-
gra1ns. The problc1n che child had co solve 1n her experimen t
seemed rarher simple. He \Vas presented with two colors and \vas
rew·arded for cons1srenrl}' denoun.R (e.g., po1nnng co, or ochcr-
v.·ise idenufy1ng ) one or rhe ocher <e g , rhc red and not the blue).
The posicion of the colors were intermixed co avoid rhe acquisi-
tion of position cues . Alternative ly he \\'as presented v.·ich tv.·o
geometnc forms; one v.·as correcr, and he v.·as rewarded for point-
ing co ic. Wasserman 's first attempt co teach the discrimina tion
problem used a noncorrett ion procedure, "h1ch is the procedure
mosr typical of the \Vay in v.·hich d1scr1m1nacions are caught 1n
laboratory studies and perhaps learned 1n everyday life. In the
noncorrecu on procedure che child 1s rC\\arded for making a cor-
rect response, and if he makes an incorrect response he is not
punished and loses nothing, except chat he muse v.·a1t until the
next trial co try again . It 1s remarkable chat under these condi-
r1ons, onlr four of the 12 Ss learned the solution (cons1stently .
identified a color or shape) v.•ithin 1000 trials. Rhesus 1nonkcys
do a lor better Monke;-s learn co cricenon (e.g., 10 suctessivt•
correcc choices) v.·1tlH11 the first 25 trials (Har lo''" 19 ~5)
1foreover. Wasserman reports rhar rhe eight Ss who did nor reach
criterion showed no improveme nt, ther responded ac che chance:
level rhroughouc Some of her Ss \\'ere presented v.·ich more than
2000 trials and snll did nor learn. The eight who did nor lt·arn
•
Implications and Speculations 133
'"ere mure and (\\·irh one exception) engaged in considerab le
self-sr1mu lation. The four Ss \vho did learn \v1rh1n the firsr 1000
trials v.·ere characteriz ed by echolalia (rather than mutism), and
they did not engage in self-stimul atory behavior during the
study.
The Wasserman Ss '"ho failed apparently did not atrend ro
the visual cues in the experimen tal d1splar. They appeared co per-
severace on posinon cues (e.g . . consisrent lr p1ck1ng rhe left
stimulus). behaving so as co minimize efforr and seemed rela-
tively unresponsi ve co rhe Es reinforcem enr contingenc ies. Simi-
lar pos1tion perseverari on strategy, a "stay side" pattern, has been
seen as the most primitive response method in the discrimina tion
learning of very young children (below 2. 5 years of age; White,
1963).
Eventually Wasserman was able ro reach seven of rhe eight
failing Ss b)' running through a varierr of procedures . For exam-
ple, she rned correcu ng the child v:hen he v.·as v.·rong, by
prompt1ng (showing him) rhe correct response. She tried increas-
ing rhe power of her reinforcers through food deprivation and che
•.isc of punishmen t (£ slapped S's hand and said "no") when che
child 1nacle an error. Less successful procedures included decreas-
ing rhe number of extraneous cues and making relevant ones
more salient (e.g., by using a black-whit e d1scrim1nacion instead
of color) Ir 1s notable char no one procedure appeared co be a
"key" procedure for all the children. She did conclude, however,
char rhe dr/ferentlfrl rern/orre111e111 chat accom pan1es a correcuon
procedure may be instrument al 1n evoking attending (or dis-
criminated ) behavior. Given these observarion s, 've may specu-
larc chat one reason that autistic children seem so inacrencive co
their surroundin gs is char they arc indifferent co che reinforces
chose surroundin gs provide
One may also rurn co studies of che mencallr retarded 1n the
hope of gaining further informauo n abouc discrim1na rion be-
havior in psychotics. W1th1n this body of ltrerarure the work of
7,eaman and House ( 1963) with retarded Ss may throw some
lighr on the difficulties autistic children experience in discrimina -
tion learning situations. Zeaman and House ( 1963) offer a tv.•o-
facror theory of discrimina non learning. They suggest chat S first
learns co attend ro the relevant snmulus dimension and chen
learns co respond ro the positive element of char dimension . This
model has been reseed 1n ocher experimen ts (Shepp & Zeaman,
1966) The results of these expenmen rs indicate char che learning
134 Implications and Speculations
curves of recardaces may be composed of two portions. The first
pore ion is characterized by a Rat, steady, chance level of respond-
ing followed by a second portion 1n which a rapid and positively
acceleraced curve appears. Zcaman and House observe chat the
major difference becween che curves of normals and chose of recar-
daces 1s che increased length of che initial Rae portion of che curve
for recardaces . They suggest char che primary difficulty of re-
tarded children centers on the longer rime chey require before
they accend co relevant cues. They have found char increasing che
number of relevant dimensions (increasing che magnitude of che
physical differences berween stimuli and/or increasing che
number of incrad1mensional shifts in a series of problems) serves
co increase che race ac which Ss learn a discrimination (i.e., de-
creases che length of che 1nic1al flac portion of che curve). A prim-
ary difference becween retarded and auciscics may be chat che re-
tarded children are more responsive co experimental reinforce-
ments chan are auciscics, and hence are more quickly brought
under the control of all cues, both relevant and irrelevant ones.
Cercai n recent studies in our laboratory on perceptual devia-
tions in autistics may provide some clues as co why auciscic chil-
dren encounter such greac difficulty in discrimination learning.
The main focus of chis research centers on our finding (Lovaas el
al., 1971) of whac we referred co as "stimulus overseleccivicy" or
"overselect1ve actencion. ·· In chat study three groups of children
(autistic, retarded, and normal) were reinforced for responding co
a complex stimulus involving che simultaneous presentation of
auditory, visual, and tactile cues. Once chis discrimination was
established, elements of chc complex were presented separately co
assess which aspects of the complex stimulus had acquired concrol
over che child's behavior. We found char: (a) The aut1st1cs re-
sponded primanly co only one of che cues, che normals responded
uniformly to all three cues, and che recardaces functioned bet\veen
these t\\'O extremes. (b) Conditions could be arranged such chat a
cue which had remained nonfunctional when presented 1n associa-
tion with ocher cues could be escablished as functional when
trained separately. The data failed co support notions chat any one
sense modality is impaired in autistic children. Rather, when
presented wich a sci mulus complex, their accent ion was overselec-
c1ve.
Shortly thereafter, we repl1caced chis finding 1n a cwo-
scimulus s1cuac1on (Lovaas & Schreibman, 1971) in which autistic
•
Implications and Speculations 135
Ss again showed overseleccive attention by responding co only one
of che cwo stimulus components, while normal SJ tended co re-
spond co boch.
We also found (Schreibman & Lovaas, 1973) chat when autis-
tic children \\'Crc caught co discnminace between t\VO life-like boy
and girl figures, they made chis discrim1nat1on on che basis of
only one or a peculiar combination of components of these
figures . For example, one child discriminated che figures on che
basis of che1r shoes; when che shoes were removed, he could no
longer cell the boy and girl figures apart.
We hypothesized from these findings char autistic children
would encounter difficulties in learning sicuanons requiring Jh1jis
111 Jf/11111/us control over behavior. There are at lease three such
shifts (subsc1cucions) which are basic co normal functioning. In
each of che following three sicuacions che organism receives two
stimulus inputs, roughly simultaneously: (1) In classical condi-
tioning, behavior elicited by a particular stimulus (the US) comes
under che control of contiguously presented, previously neucral
(che CS) stimuli. Many consider char classical conditioning un-
derlies ch<: acquisition of appropriate a/feet and the acquisicion of
seanular; (symbolic) retnforcerJ. The autistic child appears to have
problems in both kinds of acquisicions. (2) Stimulus overselecciv-
icy should lead co problems in che acquisition of environmental
concexcs char underlie meaningful speech. One can argue char
speech ex1scs without meaning co che extent chat ic has an im-
poverished concexc. The acquisition of a concexc for speech prob-
abl}' involves shifts and extensions in scimulus control co simul-
taneous presencanons of auditory, visual, caccile, and ocher cues .
Much aunsc1c speech (e.g., "echolalia") appears co be concexcu-
ally impoverished. (3) Stimulus overselecciviry should also seri-
ously interfere with learning when prompc and prompt fading
procedures are employed. In mosc teaching s1tuac1ons, che reacher
"helps" che child co the correct response by some form of "gui-
dance," "aid," or "suggesnon," as in prom pc fading techniques.
This, of course. involves added cues v.·hich should interfere wich
the aunscics' learning.
The first study co invescigace problems with shifts 1n stimulus
control '"as conducted by Koegel (1971), v.•ho raised the question
of whether aucisnc children wouJd learn a discrimination more
easily if there were 110 pro1np1s available and also whether
becween-modalicy or within-modality transfers affecced learning .
136 lmplicat1ons and Speculations
Briefly. chis is whac he did. T\\·o groups ?f ~hil?ren (auc1snc a_nd
normal) were precrained in a color d1scnm1nanon cask. The 1n-
cent was to use che color cues as prompcs subsequentlr for more
difficult training stimuli. Once the children had. mastered che
color discriminations chc colors were presented s1mulcaneouslr
v.·ith training stimuli in a prompc-fad1ng procedure \\·hich v.·as
used co train four dif:Terenc discriminations. The results v.·ere as
folJoy,·s: First, autistic Ss failed to transfer from che color prompc
to che craining stimuli more: often chan normal Ss. Second,
gradually fading the prompc gene~allr produce? ~ transfer for
normal S s but not for autiscic Ss Third, chose aunsnc and normal
Ss who did noc cransfer co the training scimuli conrinued co re-
spond correctly co che faded color cue, and autistic Ss discrimi-
nated differences in chc color (prompt) discrimination that \\'ere
as small as chose che normal Ss discriminated. In ocher v.·ords,
they were capable of making extremely fine discriminations, bur
chey had parc1culac d1fficulcy in sh1fcing from one cue co anocher.
Shortly after Koegel's scudy was com pieced, Schre1bman
(1975) asked whecher s1cuac1ons could be arranged so chat
prompts would work to che child's advantage. The purpose of
Schreibman's research was co develop a prompting procedure that
would be effective 1n reaching discriminations co autistic chil-
dren. Two prompting procedures were used, (a) the provision of
an ad<le<l st11nulus as an t.\t1·11-Jt111111/11J pro111p1. This prompc re-
quires that che child accend co boch che prompc and the craining
scimuli and v.as s}·sccmac1c:all> faded co derermine if cransfer
could be accomplished (b) Prov1s1on of a ui1h1n-111111lfllf1 prrJ111p1
char emphasized che relevant component of the training stimulus.
This prompt v.·as also faded by gradually reducing chc emphasis.
Jc \\'aS hypothesiLed chat the v.·ithin-srimulus prompc would be
effective since it doc~ not rt·quirt· the child ro transfer from one
stimulus dimension co another.
Six .tutisuc children \\Crt· each trained on four difficult d1s-
cnm1nation tasks. Tv•o of the tasks involved visual snmuli (forms
on cards), and t\VO involved audicory scimuh (c\vo-syllable non-
sense words). For che visual casks, che exrra-srimulus prompt ·
consis red of E poinci ng ro the correcr card and gradually v.·Hh-
drawing chc poinring prompt. The \\'ith1n-st1mulus prompt
involved exaggeranng che relevant componcnc of che form dis
crimination and gradu.tlly reducing this emphasis. For rhe audit-
ory d1scrim1nac1ons the extra-stimulus prompt consisted of the
sound of a buzzer presented conc1guousl> with the correct
•
137
Implications and Speculations
stimulus. This buLier \Vas faded by decreasing its 1ncensity. The
0
\\1thin sc11nulus prompc involved emphasit.ing the relevant com-
ponent (syllabic) an<l gradually reducing this emphasis.
The results indicated that the autisuc children failed co learn
the discriminations \\'1thout a prompt. The Ss always failed co
learn "·hen the extra-snmulus prompr v.·as employed, while they
usuall}' did learn when the wichin-scimulus prompt was
employed. Thest findings were independent of v.•hich modalic}'
(au<l1cory or visual) \\·as required for che discriminacion.
Schrcibman's scudy opens up an important area for us: co
begin to tailor educauonal procedures, as represented in our lan-
guage training program, in an actempt to "work around'" the
children's problem. le 1s also important co note that, as we learn
more abour aunsnc children, their potentially "'basic deviance"
seems less severe and less absolute and hypocheses concerning
d,tmagc co "language lcarni ng centers" become less tenable.
References
13,1cr. D f\.t , & Gue>S, D. Reccpcivc training of ad ice rival inflcccions in men
c~I rccar<laces )1111rn11/ 1Jj Applted Beh1111or A1111lyH1, 197 I, 'I. 129 139.
B.icr, D f\.i • & Sherm.in, J. A. Rc1nforcemcnc concrol of generalized 1m1ca-
uon 1n young chtl<lrcn.j1J11r1111/ of Exp<r1111t111al Chdd PJ) <holfJg). 1964, I
(I), 57 19.
Bcrko, J The ch1tJ·s le;1rn1ng of English morphology U'!,,·J. 1958, /q ,
150 17 7
Berkson, (, Abnormal srcreocyped mocor aces. In J. Tub1n and H. f . Hunc
<E<ls ) G ,111p,1rt1//1t P1)d>1,pa1hulog): A111mal and H11111a11. New York
Grunc ant.I Scraccon, 1967.
Brainc, ~I D S The oncogen> of English phrase scruccure: The 6r>1 phase
1~111~/l"f.' 196.\ , l9 1- lj.
Bcllugt, l , & Brown. R . <Eds.) Tht acq1111111r,r1 bf la11g11ag< Yellow Spnngs.
Ohio The Anuoch Press. 1964
Brown. R &; Fraser. C The acqu1s1uon of syncax. Chdd De1t!opmc11t ,\f~1111-
•1.1p/,, 196·1. 229. 43-79.
Chomsky, 'J A •P• ;11 u/ rh, rlxor) of •)lllax Cambndge: ~{ I. T. Pres~. 1965 ·
Cook. ( , & Adams. H. E. Modificanon of verbal beha~1or 1n speech defictenc
chi l<lrcn. Bd>.11111111· Reffar1h dlld Therdp). 1966, .J. 265-.27 I
Er"'"· 5. /\{ lmicac1on and scruccural change in children's lang~age . In E H
Lcnndx·rg (EJ ). \'tu tl11·,1t1Mlf in 1hr: .1111d) of la11J!Jlt1f/.< Cambndge: M
I T Press, 196 I
Frcu<l, S Bq,,11,/ rlH p!..11u11·1 p.-111aplt. New York: Liverighc. 1970.
138 Implications and Speculations
Gardner, B. T . & GJrJner, R . /\ . Two-war communication with an infant
ch1mp.1n1cc:. In /\, S<.hricr & F Scollniri (Eds.), Beh.i1iqr uf 11011h11m"11
prim,l/tJ. New Yori.. /\cdJemic Press, 1971.
Gue,;s, D .. S.ulor, \X'., Rurhcrford, G. & B•er, D. An experimental andl)·sis
of linguistic devdopmcnt The productive use of the plural morpheme.
jo11r11al o/AppluJ 8,h,,ua• A11.tl)JJI, 1968, I (4), 292-307
Guthrie, E R Th. p1)1bQlor,) of lt.trnu1g New York Harper. 1935.
Harlo", H F StuJ1es 1n Jiscnm1nation karn1ng 1n monkeys: V. ln111al per·
formance b)· cxpcr1mcncall) nai'c monkeys on srimulus-ob1ecc and pat·
rern discrim1nat1ons )011rrttJI of G.,,..,,,1 P,y.lr<,log). 194 5, 33. 3-10
Harr, B.. & Risley, T Esiablish1ng use of descripuvc objcccives in the: 'pon·
caneous >pt'e<h of d1sadvancagcd prc!>Chool children. )•urntJI of ...pplud
8th.t1101 A11.tl)ill, 1968, I, 109-120
He .... etc, F. t.l Tead1ing spt't'<h to an au11st1c child through operant conJiuon·
1ng. A111<rt(an}ri111n,1l 'f Orrh.,p,)tlJrtllr), 1965, 35, 927-936.
Hull, C. Prr1111plo of bth.111m ('.ew 'I-Ork. /\pplcron-Ccnrury-Crofrs. 1913.
Jakobson. R., & Halle, t.1 . F1111d.1111r111ali uf l<1ng11"g" The Hague. Netherlands:
Mouton & Co., 1956.
Kish, G. B Studies of sensory rc1nforccmt'nr In W. K. Honig (Ed ), Opu·t111t
beht11·1u1· A•'<'<ll "f rtJtiird> und t1pplrra11011. New York. Appleton·
Century-Crofcs, 1966
Kit ma, E , & Bcllugi, U Syntactic regulariues 1n speech of children. In J.
Lyons and R . Wales (Eds.), Pi)d111li111111is11r papen. Edinburgh: Edin-
burgh Un1vers1!)' Press, 1966
Koegel, R. Sele<111t t1ttt111101110 prompt J//1111111 bJ a1111111r and 11111·11u1/ rhildnn. Un·
publisheJ doccoral dis~ertauon, Un1versuy of California, Los /\ogeks,
1971.
Lenneberg, E. H Language di,ordef'> in childhood. Harl'ard Educat1u11al Rt·
lltU, 1964, ).j (2), 152-177
l..o\'aas, 0. I Interaction l>etween \'erb.il and nonverbal beha,·ior. Child Vt·
ulbpmtnl, 1961, J.:!, 329-3_)6.
Lovaas , O I., Berberich, J. P., Perloff', B F , & Schaeffer, B. /\cqu1siuon of
1micacivt• speech by ~hizophrenic children Su nre. 1966. I 51. 705-
707 .
Lo\'aas, O . I., Licrown1I.. , A , o.: ~iann. R Response latencies ro audicor)'
sumuli 1n autis11c children engaged in <elf·stimularory behavior_ Bt·
hano11r Rt•<ar,h 11ul Tlwafn 19"' I, 9 39-49.
Lovaas, 0 I., 1nd xhreihman I Sc mu Ius overselecuv1ty of auuscic children
in a cwo-sumulus >1cuauon 8,ha111111r Rtuarrb and T&r"p). 1971, 9.
305-310
Lovaas, 0. I .. S<.hrc1bman, L. KOt'gel, R • & Rehm, R Selecrh·e responJing
hr auti,tic children to mulriple sensory 1npur journal of Ab1111r11141I
P1J1f>,,logy, 1971, 77 <,), 211-222.
Lovaas. 0 I , Koegel, R , Varni, J .. & Loesch, N. Some ohservauons of the
noncxnngu1shabil1ty of children's speech In preparation, 1975
•
Implications and Speculations 139
Luria, /\ R. The rtJlt of •P«l'h 111 tbt reg11la1io11of11qrmt1l d11d 41h1wr111t1I hrht11iqr
New York: Livcrighr, 1961
~1.1eAulcy , B. D. A program for reaching speech and beginning reading to
non·vcrbal recardaces. In H. N. Sloane, Jr., and B. D ~facAuley
(EJs. }, Optrant pr..aJ11ra 111 rr111td1al spttrh and 1.,11g11<1gt tr.,111111g. Bose on:
lloughron ~1ffi1n Co, 1968.
~falCon1uadalc:, K, On Chomsk)'°s revie" of Skinner's "Verbal behavior."
)01tr11.il of tbt £-'pcrrmtntal Anal)JIJ of Beha11or 1970, 13 (I}, 83-99
~1tCarchr. D . Language: development 1n children. In L Carmichael (Ed .),
\1,11111.,I o/ 1h1'J PJ)1bulo6), 2nd td. New York. Wiley , 1954
t.1iller, \X' , & Ervin, S The development of grammar in child 1.inguage.
,\lo11,,i;r,1ph1 of th, Soa..t) f~r RtstJr.-h 111 Child De1~lup111rn1, 196·1, 29 (I),
9 3·1
~1owrcr, 0 H 1....,,n1111g 1/Jtot') a11d the J)mbolir prorrius . New "I-Ork Wile)',
1960
Orn1cz, E. The m0Jul.1t1on of sensory input and mocor oucpuc 1n auc1scic thil·
drcn . )011n111I of A1111s111 a11d Childhood Sch1zophre111a, 1974, -I (3). 197-
215,
P1Jgcc, J . 1ht la11r,1111gt a11d thought of the child. New York. World Publishing
(;o., 195 5
Prcn1alk, D. A funttional analysis of language. )011r11al of 1he f>;per1111u1111I
A1111l)si1 ''f Behflr'ror, 1970, 14 (I), 1-19.
Rheingold, H . L., Gew1rrz, ]. L,, & Ross, H . \'(/_Social cond1uon1ng of
vocdliza11ons. ju11r11al of Compara111~ a11d Ph)Slologlt'al PS)fhlil11g).
1959, 225, 68-73
R1mland, B /11ft1111ilr t111111111. New York: Applecon-Century-Crofrs, 1964
Risley, T R , & Hart, B t.L Developing correspondence between che non·
verhal and verbal l>ehavior of pre-school children.)011r11al of App/red Br·
ha11m A11.1l)J1!. 1968, I (4), 26"'-281.
Risley , T R .. Re)·nolds, N . & Harr, B. The disadvantaged: Behavior mod·
ilic.icion with d1sadvancaged preschool children. In R H Bradfield
(I'd,), 8tht111or 111"1/rjlt'a/lon. the h11ma11 efforl San Rafael. California 01·
mcns1ons Publishing Co .. 1970.
R1sle)', T . R .. & \X'olf, ~I Establishing funccional speech 1n echolalic chil-
dren Bcl>ttirnr Rtrc.trdr and Tbtrap). 1967. 5 ~3-88.
Salz1ngcr K Feldman R ., Cowan, J . • & Salz1nger, S. Operant cond1uon1ng
of vcrhal l>ehavior of cwo young speech-deficient bors In Krasner and
Ullm;tn (Eds ), Rt1r.1rrh 1n htha1 ior modifiralron :-Jew York Hole,
R1n1:harr and W1nscon, 1965
Schrc1hman I \X'1ch1n-sumulus versus excra-scimulus prompring procedures
on J1~nm1nm1on learning with autistic children,J01tr11.,I <f Applud Br·
h,111111·.il ti 11.iliii.1 , 197 5, in press.
Sdirc1hman, L., & -Lova.ts, 0 I o,·erselective response co social stimuli by
auti~1ic lhildrcn )011rnrtl of Ah11or11111I Chtld Pl)l'holox;. 1973, I (2),
152- 168 .
14-0 lmplicattons and Speculations

Sd1un1akt:r, J & Sherm.in, J A Tra1nin)l gc·ncrarive verb usage by 1mirarion

.\nd reinforcement procedure> )~11,.,,.,/ of App!ttd Bthan•1r Ali.1')11<.
1970. i . 27 ~ 287.
Shepp. B , b: 7.t-aman , D . 01'><.rtn11n.uion learning of size and brighrne-. by
rerardatt:>.)011111.1/ of CoH1p.n'1fllc and Ph)Jlfll1Jg1.-.1/ PJ)<bt,l&;o , 1966, 62
(I), 55-~9 •
Sherman, J ~lodifi<at1011of11on ·\'crbal behJv1or through rc1nforcemen1 of re-
faced •erb:il lxha\'tor. Child D.1~/··r"""' 196·i, 35 i li-123.
Skinner, B. F. Se101u a11J h11n1J11 btl•,111• r ~"" York. l\.iac~i11lan, 195 ~
Skinner, B F \'tt-f,.,/ bd,.11 "'' 1'c\\ York Appkton-Cenrury-Crofts, 19) i
Sloone, H. =-: .. Johnston, 1\.1 K . , & Harns, F. R . Remedial procedure> for
rt:adting verbal bcha\IOr co spee(h defiuenr or dcft:<:rivc )·oung chtl-
dren In Sloane and l\.1a,Aulcy tEds .). Opcr.i111ptm«dton11t rt?11eJ1al 1ptub
a11J la11?,11.1/i.< 1r,1111111Jl.. (8o;1on : Houghron l\.liffl1n Co .. 1968.
Sr ark, J., Gidd.1n, J. J., b.: Meisel, J. Increasing verbal behavior 1n an au11snc
ch1ld.)01011.,/ oj !JjJtrd• ,111.I l/e,1r11tfl. D1Jnr.krJ. 1968, 33. 42- 48.
Scevens-Long, J .. & Rasmussen, M The acquh1t1on of :.1mple and compound
scnccncc structure 111 an autistic ch1kl. )011r11.il 1Jj App/red Brh.111or
A1111/;111, 197•1, 7. 47j-479
\X'asserman, L. M Ducr111111i.111~11 lt11r1111tf. llla11t1Jfu chlidre11. Unpublished doc- Chapter VI
toral d1s~crcanon, Un1vcrs1Cy of (.al1forn1a, Lo, Angeles, 1969
Wheeler, A. J., & Su l1er, B. Operant tr.uning and gcneraltzanon ofa vcrba l
response form in a ~pecch-defioc:nt child )q11r11al 1f Appl1<·J Bth111•wr
LANGUAGE TRAINING MANUALS
An,t!JJIJ, 1970, l. 1;9 11? •
Wh 1te, S H l..<11rnt11g t11 child prycht1f0F,). 'f'hr ()2nd) tarbo<Jk 1Jj f/:1< ,-.;aflo11al Srn 1-
tl) fr1r 1h, S111di 1if Ed11«1f1~n In H . \V . Stevenson <Ed.). Chicago: lln1-
vers11y of(h1cago, l963.
Wiest. ~' 1\1 5omt n:ccnt tntiusms ot behaviorism and learning chtory: he: follo\v1ng manuals \Vere prepared \\·irh rhe help of
W1th special reference co Breger and l\.lcGaugh and co Chom~k).
f\1er,.d1rh Gibbs and JudJCh Srevens-Long . The manuals are illus-
PJ),h ,foxn.,f 811//e1111. 1967, (17 <3>. 2 lcl-225.
rrilCIVC of tht \\ii) \\'C caughr che language behavior~ \\'e have re-
Wolf. 1\1. i\f , R1~le)-, T .. & !\.Ice-;, H . Apphcacion of operanc cond1nonini:
procedures co the behavior problems of an aucisnc child. 8th1111br Rt- vie\\·ed in chis book The> should be vie\\·ed as preliminarr Jr,1trs
"arrh .ttrd Tht•aP> · 1965 , i. 1 l.~-124 . only, in need of rev1s1on Specifically, che manuals do noc incor-
Zeaman, D, & House, B. J. The role of acrenrion in recardace discrim1nacion porace suggescions from recenr findings on transfer" Hh1n \'ersus
learning. In ~ - R. Elli~ (Ed .), Hand/}(J(JJ. of 11un1al dtfiaenq Kew )ork rransfer ;1cross stimulus dimensions 1n prompcing S1milarlr.
l\.1cGraw-Htll, 1963 . man)· recent findings 1n d1scnm1nanon learning, such as prerrain-
1ng ~ to ,,·1chhold re:;ponding 1n rhe presence ofS-. ha\·e noc b<:en
1nt"orporared in rhese manuals. Fucure revisions should benchr
fro1n rhesc fine.lings
Before che ceather rcaJs rhese manuals he shoulJ famil1arite
himself wirh che secc1on on· basic cra1n1ng pnnc..1ples ," .1nJ rhe
various s1x-c..1.il reaching problems "'e have presenred rhroughour
ch15 book. As these manuals are procedurallr 1nt'omplecc, che) .ire
inrc..·nded only ro give cont"rere examples and further excension of
rhe hasic craining procedures.
141
•
142 Langu age Training Manuals
Note chat che abbreviatio n E in chesc manuals refer to anr
adult working \Vith the child 1n che pos1c1on of a teacher. This
could be a parent, a psychologi st, a student, or a reacher. f: is
likely to mean a professional person for the laboratory training,
and the child's parent for generalizat ion training in the child's
everyday environme nt.
Note also that \\'e have related our \\·ork co similar work on
language reaching, and we have presented references co studies
\\·hich describe methodolo gies for reaching labelling. use of cor-
rect grammar, and so on. T he reader mar want co fumiliariLe
himself with those procedures as well.
When one reads these manuals, 1t is important to keep 1n
mind ho\\• little \\'<.' know about certain important areas of lan-
guage learning. \'(/e have rried co identify some of these arcas in
the main bod} of this text. The more imporcanr areas deal \\ ith
the effect of rhe child's mood on language learning, hO\\.' much
receptive languagt· one should build before beginning training on
expressive language, optimal sequencing of learning seeps, and
the like. We have avoided incorporan ng these areas in rhe manu-
als because no data exist on how to cope with these problems.
Manual A: Labeling Discrete Events
Labelling 1s the first and most basic manual in the language
program. The object 1s to teach the child to answer l·ommon
questions like "What is this?" and "What are you doing)" A large
number of common objects and normal, everyday behaviors serve
as training srimul1. The training procedure cypically begins \\'ith
a type l discrimina tion procedure. In the preliminar y stages of
training, it may be parucularl} ' advantageo us co use food items as
training sumuh, as rhe child is likely to attend to these stimuli .
Ret·ept1i·e Spt,th. E and .S sit facing each ocher across a table.
Receptive training begins when E places TS 1, such as a piece of
roast, on che table 1n front ofS. E \\•a1ts for the child co visually
fixate on the object before beginning the training trial Since the
onset of the trial ma>• become a reinforcer, one must insure that 1t
is nor presented jusr after tantrum behavior or coo much acuvicr.
Ir mar be helpful co restrain che child ac first (keeping his hands
on his lap or reaching him ro hold his hands on his lap when cold
to do so) so chat he \\•ill make a discrete response, rather than
•
Language Training Manuals 143
reaching part of che way to several objects before making a com-
plete response. Once E has S's attention, he gives a command
such as "Touch the coast," or initially perhaps only rhe command
"Toast." E waics for a few seconds co see if the child will make che
desired response. Three possible response alternative s now exist.
(I) S may respond correctly, at which point he is reinforced (fed).
(2) S may not respond, at which point £ repeats the command
and concurrent ly prompts the desired response by caking the
child's hand and placing 1t on the correct obiect The child 1s 1n1-
t1ally reinforced for responding to the prompt. (3)5 responds in-
correctly, like reaching for E's hand or leaving the chair, at which
point E turns his head a\vay so as to ignore S (places S on a
S-second time ouc or, if the incorrect behavior persists, on a
longer duration of TO). If TO does not \VOrk E presents a loud
aversive "No," and if this also fails to suppress the wrong re-
sponse, L may give S a sharp slap on the hand Once E has pre-
sented the child with the appropriat e consequenc e, the cra1n1ng
Stimulus 1s removed (e.g., placed beside or under the table), and
E remains passive for ac least 5 seconds. The second trial is then
started by E first placing the toast on the table, and shortly there-
after (e.g., within 3 seconds) presenting the com1nand. In a way,
the presentatio n of the visual stimulus should alert che child to
rhc face that the verbal sri mu Ius 1s about to appear. Ir is impor-
tant that the stimuli arc presented succinctly, tht discrete onset
should help make them discrimina ble. E gradually gives less and
less of a complete prompt until the child is responding on his
own to the command alone. For instance, on rhe second rrial E
may take the child's hand and move it only three fourrhs of che
way CO\vard TS 1. After several more rrials of diminishin g
prompts, E may merely touch S's arm after giving the command.
Eventually E may present the training stimulus \\'ith no prompt
stimulus. IfS does not respond. E may reinstate a part1al prompt
for one or cwo trials and then again accempc co remove che
prompt entirely. It 1s appropriat e co expect considerab le difficulty
in shifring from che prompt co che training stimulus. S will re-
spond co the barest remnants of the prompt, and cease responding
altogether when the prompt 1s totally removed. \'(/e have discuss-
ed chis problem ac some length earlier in rhe book. If S does not
shift from the prompr to the training stimulus, E may simply
have co \Vair for che child ro make che correct response on his
O\\ n E gi\'es the comn1an<l, and if S does nor respond " 'ithin a
specified rime limir, for cx.1mple, 5 seconds, I: removes the crain-
144 Language Training Manuals
ing stimul us and presents the child \vith a period of nme out
(TO), for instance, E turns av.•ay for I0 seconds. The cra1n1ng
sumul us 1s then rt-pres ented, and E again v.J1ts for the child ro
respond \Ve discussed alcernare cacrics 1n tht: section on basic
trainin g procedurt:s 1n the main part of the book.
E repeats rhis pr9cedure uncil S is giving the desired response
at che cnterio n level (for example. S gives correct responses (R l)
on 9 our of 10 presencacions of TSl) TS2 1s chen 1nrroduced
Thar 1s. a new object is presented. for instance, a glass of milk.
and F gives the co1nmand "'Point co the milk," or JllSt simply
"Milk " TS2 is then presented until the child reaches criterio n on
TS2
Once the child has reached criterion on TS2, TS I ('Toas t") is
reintroduced and R 1 recoverc:d The cv.·o tra1n1ng stimul i are then
presen ted rogeth er. and rOt<ltion betwee n them is initiat ed.
1 child, one may need to increase che ratio so that all previously
When the child can identify TS 1 and 1·52 when thl!y are pre-
sented 1n nonsyscemacic order. TS3 ma\' be introdu ced. For 1n-
scance, E may select "bacon" ,1s 3. v.'hich is first trained in isola-
tion. That is, E gives the comma nd "Show me the bacon (again,
a differently \\·ordcd comm and), and tht· desired response 1s
promp ted. TS3 is repeatedly presented until S is po1nt1ng to rhe
bacon on 9 our of I0 trials. E 1Tia) then reintroduce TS I and TS2
Dept:nd1ng on the level of the child, E ma> train TS2 or TS 1 and
TS3 alternately or he may proceed directly ro stimul us rotatio n.
When the child can correctly d1scrim1nare perhaps a dozen ob-
\ mediat ely useful for the childre n. Second, rhe labels should be
1ects, F may begin trainin g expressive speech.
F:o:pre.1rire Spcrch E presents the trainin g stimul us. tor exam-
ple, the original TS I (roast) As soon as S visually fixates the
stimul us, the adult promp ts che label "Toast ·· When the child
responds to the promp t, he is reinforced (e.g , he is given a bite
of coast). The cra1n1ng stimul us is rhen removed (for 3-5 seconds)
a_nd represented on the next trial Tra1n1ng proceeds along rhe same
lt~es as for receptive speech 1ncroduc1ng 1·s2, trainin g alrerna tely
with TS~. ecc .. Afrer t~e child l~as mastered perhaps a half dozen
label~. u~1ng ~his ~;1rad1gm. E will want co begin asking the ques-
uon \X hat 1_s 1rJ T~1s q~esrion 1s nor asked 1n che prl·iiminary
stages of rra1n1ng, since it may block a good response ro rhe
promp t and, conceivably, may also block S's perception of rhe
rra1n1ng stimul us. In general, the less r: s.1ys ar first, the better
Verb labels, e g , runnin g, jumpin g, laughi ng, <Ire caught in
~uch the sa~e _manner as object labels. E may begin by perform-
ing some acuv1C)', such as 1umping. E simultaneous!)· presencs
Language Training Manuals 145
the questio n "What am I doing?" E \Va1ts 5 seconds and if no
response or a~ incorrecc response is forchcoming, r<:peacs the
quesuo n and 1mmed1ately gives che prompc "1ump1ng " Ne\\
cra_in1ng stimul i are 1ncroduced as for ob1ect labels. Once che
~hdd has mastered a dozen or so labels, f: may change the train-
ing s~rua~.'on by having S perform the acr1vicy and asking the
questio n What are you do1ngi
Once S has mastered approx1macel> 10 labels, 1r becomes
cumbe rsome co cry ro revie\v all of che labels, both nc\\ and old,
equally 1n ev~ry session. At this point, one may begin co in-
tersperse previously mastered stimul i with nev.• scimul1 1n some
ratio \\h1ch muse be determ ined for each child, depend ing upon
hov. much rev1e\\ seems necessary. Usually, a trial for rev1e\Y
ev~ry 5 or 6 rra1n1ng trials \VIII suffice. Ho,vever, for a particu lar
mastered labels may be revie\\•ed 2 or 3 ri1nes each session
The objects and activities v.•hich are selected for label trainin g
should meec C\\'O criteria , parricularly ar rhe onsec of trainin g.
The~· should be comm on, everyday things . obiecrs and act1\'iries
the childre n use frequently and often see others use. This crirer-
ion is imporcanc because 1r should make the labels more im-
maximally cliffcrenr The child \vi11 have less difficulty learning ro
d1scrim1nate bet\\·een "cup.. and ba1r· than ·cup·· and "car:· or
betv.'een "\valk1ng" and "1ump1ng" than '°\,alk1ng·· an<l "t;1lk1ng.
As a corollary co this rule, rhe obiecrs and act1v1ries themselves
should be maximally different. "Cup" and "ball" are easier to dis-
c_rim.~nare than "cup" and "glass,'· similar ly "v.·alking" and "sir-
ung make an easier proble m than ··\\·alk1ng' and "runni ng."
Spn·1c1! p1·f/et:d11rL'r This manual and the teacher's understand-
ing of rhe learning principles \ve described earlier should help rhe
child get scarred on his firsc seep into language acquisir1on. Bur
manr special problems \\'111 arise, requ1r1ng the exploration of
cerca1n special procedures. Lcr us menc1on some of chesc
Sc)me childre n \\'Ill acquire h1bels very quickl y, \vhde others
'viii be experiencing considerable difficult)'· If the child has par-
ticular difficulty 1n master ing labels, certain special procedures
\\"e have developed ma)· be of use Several childre n "·ill experience
considerable difficult)' in promp t use, \\·hich probab lr points ro
146 Language Training Manuals
our ignorance of elfeccive procedures in chis area. Therefore, ,,.e
have begun co explore ney; seeps in chis training chat consider
some of our recent findings on che auciscic's use of prompts. Spe-
cificallr. \\'e no,,· cry co exaggcrare (and cherebr prom pc) relevant
pares of rhc rrainang srimuli, in chis manner \\hen TS land TS2
are presenced simulcaneously (and ic is in chis seep char S \\ ll 1 TS2 arc displayed, and E asks for R l, rhen S has to learn not co
ha\'e che mosr probk·n1\) /! mar iniciallr make TS I manr nmes
its oraginal (" nacural ") size. For example, 1f TS I as coasr and TS2
is milk, E mar emptor a small glass of milk while TS l (rhe roast)
is a large, visually very dominanc, 2 X 2 foot piece of bread. This
may allo\\ S ro n1ake the dascraminarion on rhe basis of size c':1es
(which m1n1m1les S s reliance on E's pointing prompts, \\h1ch
seem so preporenr and difficulr for S ro relinquish). In subsequent
seeps TS 1 as ~raduallr reduct·d in size co approx1mace TS2. Lacer
E may want co use several different sizes of TSI, jusr co exnn-
guash .\ 's use of siLe cues in chis discrimination.
One 1nay want to explore different kinds of prompt cues, and
a position d1str11nination as particularly useful for some children.
Three ob1ecrs ;\re placed on the cable and the correct object or rhe
training snmulus 1s placed slaghrly in front of the ochers; alrerna-
tively, the tra1n1ng Stimulus may he consiscenrly presented on rhe
right or on the left. ~1osr chaldren wall develop a position d1s-
cnminarion rapidly. \\'hen rhe child ts discrim1nat1ng pos1non
reliably, the training sramulus is gradually moved 1nro line wirh
the ocher objecrs. rf it has bec:n to rhe left. for 1nscance' it is
moved closer co, chtn parci.ill}' in front of, then completely in
front of, and then to rhe right of rhe ochers. The position uf che
rraining stimulus is chc:n S\\'Hlhed 1n nonsysremacic order.
A marching procedure as more appropriate for che child \\'ho
is readily imitating and is l.arricd ouc as follO\\·s: E selects three
objects for thl· lhild and a macc;hing sec of three objects for him-
self. E tells S co "Touch rhe " (preferably using the com-
mand ''h1ch "·ill lacer be used for regular receptive speech train-
ing) S1multanc:ouslr ,,·ich che presentation of the command, E
couchc:s thl obiect in has O\\'n scr rhar marches rhe training
stimulus 1n S's sec. /i's set of objtcrs should be placed on the cable
in the samt: order as chose ofS. The procedure ma}' be modified
for reaching 'erh labc:ls. r; performs the actt\'ity co be labelled,
has S 1mirace him, and gives rhe comn1and, "jump," (or rhe ap-
propriate label).
Gradually, marching is faded. E comes less and less close to
actually couching rht ohjcct in has sec, or performs the activity
less completely on successive trials. Eventually, E is giving a
•
Language Training Manuals 147
mere suggestion of rhe acciv1cy or rhe ace of couching. E may then
remove his sec of ob1eccs completely or disconttnue performing
the prompttng acttvary alcogecher.
OrhCr\\·ise \\'e are exploring ways of reaching S nor co re-
spond co a particular sttmulus. Consider chis problem. If TS land
respond to TS2 Therefore, \\'e have explored a variation on the
training procedure \\'hich can be illusrraced as follO\\'S. S is caught
co give RI to TS I, and once RI is reliably established, instead of
presenring TS2 "at full incensiry," TS2 1s graduall)' 1nrroduccd
into the situatton. For example, E has caught S co point co TS l (a
piece of roasr placed on a cable in fronr ofS) \\'hen I:. asks "roasr ..
No\\ £!. places TS2 (milk) on the same cable when TS l 1s pre-
senred, bur some d1srance (say four feer) a\\·ay from TS l, and
therefore only in S's peripheral field of vision. Thar is, TS2 ,,·ould
anicially be a "lo\\• strength" stimulus, \\•h1ch helps S not to re-
spond to at Gradually, then, TS2 is moved more inro 5's visual
field and is eventually presented ("full srrengch") right next co
TS l. If E had presented TS2 (ac full strength) initially, \Vichouc
such prcrra1ning, S very likely would have responded co TS2 as
often as co TS I .
Here is an example of another variation in the cra1n1ng proce-
dure \\·hich is being explored by the staff at che Un1vers1ry of
Cal1forn1a at Santa Barbara Autism Project (under Dr. Robcrr
Koegel) Although the example describes the training of abstract
terms (color), ic sCr\'es co illustrate rhe problems involved. The
projec;c had inir1ally cried co teach the labels "red" and ""·hire,"
using different-colored chips, and failed co make much progrc:ss
\vi th several of rhe children. apparenrly because the children \\'Cre
not attending co rhe training sttmula (rhe chips). They therefore
used fi1miliar objecrs such as a glass of red punch and a cup of
\\'hire ice cream, and reinforced the child \\'ith the appropriate
food if he poinred co the correcr object v.·hen asked to clo so. As
these children .dread} kne'v co reach for ice cream and punch
when asked co do so, rhese labels \\'ere then used as promprs in
reaching rhe child co respond co color. The prompts \Vere gradu-
ally faded, until the child responded correcrly co rhe color label
r
(e ·t: , cont1nucd co present "red" quire loudly and ckarly.
while "punch" \vas gradually faded 1n inrensiry uncal tt became
in<ludible) The rraaning procedure 1s of 1nreresr since 1r
maximizes S's arrencion co rhe rraining stimuli. Obviously. \'
rnay sr1ll nor respond ro rhe color of rhe stimuli, since rhe stimuli
daflcr on •I number of ocher dimensions, such as size and cexrure .
 Language Training Manuals
148
1·hese exrra cues woulJ have co be faded out in order co insure
chat S \\·as in facr responJ1ng on rhe basis of color. Nore rh,\C chis
variauon 1n the rra1n1ng proceJure resembles che manner in
\\·hich normal chilJren acquire certain labels. For examph:, nor-
mal children seem co learn certain ad1e(tives firsc in con1un(t1on
\virh certain specific ob1eccs, such as "big Daddy," "red car,"
"cold snO\\'. ·· (Perhaps \vhen \\•e knov.· more abour rhe manner in
\vh1ch normal children learn. \\·e \\·111 also be in a posirion co ber-
rer help che Jevianr child . Thar is, \\l' rcallr don't kno\\' rhc: ex-
renc ro which chc procedures \\'C have oucl1n<:d for the psychotic
child are "special" or unique, until we kno\v whar the proceJures
are which help normal children learn. Conceivably, the fin.ii pro-
cedures may have extensive overlap. \'i/c arc required co unc.lc:rcakc
considerable rcv1s1on anJ exploranon since we don r knO\\' how
language is acqu1rl'<l).
In any case, explorarion of various prcrraining sreps and the
usl' of certain kinds of prompts and rr.uning stimuli rather than
soml' ochers shoulJ le.id co major revisions of these manuals.
Generalization
When rhe child has mastered perhaps a dozen labels, Ii will
\Vane co begin generalizau on craining. Numerous examples of an
objecc are incroduccd (e g .• many cups. many chairs, manr ra-
bies). Examples oucs1Jc the original rr.1ining siruarion arc no\\·
emphasized. Tra1n1ng no\v becomes pare of rhe child's everyd.1y
lift. Ir 1s just nor possible co present the chdJ wirh suffic1cnc in-
stances of a label 1n the laboratory situation. Bue che ours1de
\\•orld 1s replete \Vich appropriace sumuli Maximal differences an.:
of course. no longer our concern, on chc contrary, min11n<il Jiffer-
ences are 1mporranc in rhe beginning . One begins b}· extending
rraaning co examples of the label \vhich are similar co the original
sc1mulus, and graduall}· one uses instances \\'hich are more di-
verse. The child m.t} he said co have developed a "concepc' v.·hen
hc: is able co correctly label members of a cl.1ss upon first prest·nta-
.
r1on.
'
Manual B: Prepositions
The object oft his manual is co re.1ch the child co lab<:! spaual
relationships bccv.cen ob1ecrs. Later, one \\'ill accempr co reach
•
Language Training Manuals 149
rhc child ab_ouc h'.s own position in space and rhe relarionsh1ps
bct\\·cen ma1or obiccts. The manual for preposirions 1s an exam-
ple ofa program which al,vays begins \vich receptive speech rrain-
1ng.
Receptive Speech
E and 5 are seared ar a rable and on rop of rhe rable is a small
container, such as a cup, and a small obiecc, like a penny. E in-
structs S co place the ob1ecr in rhe container ("Puc rhe penny 111
the cup," or E may simply say "in.") If rhc co1nplere command is
used, E should vocally stress the word "in." The correct response
is prompted if necessary by raking S's hand, placing rhe penny in
IC, anJ pucc1ng the penny 1n rhe cup. The prompt is rhen faded 1n
che..usual manner, by L gradually d1m1n1sh1ng his paruc1par1on
1n 5 s response, unril he barelr couches S's arm, and so on. When
che ~hild 1s reliably responding ro rhe prepos1rion "in" (e.g ,
mak1~g 9 our of 10 correcr responses wirhour promprs), E begins
co rra1n a second preposition , usually "under." The same objecr
may he utilized (the penny), but a different container (e.g., a
small box) is used. E m.1y say "Puc the penny unJer rhe box," or
simply "under." The response is prompred, and rhe prom pr
faded When 5 has mastered "under," "1n" 1s re1ncroJuced and RI
rerra1ned, then "under" 1s rccra1ned, and so on. unril 5 1s making
no more rhan one error each time E sv.·1rches the cra1n1ng sumuli.
During the entire procedure rhus far, one conra1ner has been used
for "1n" and anorher for "under." !n all probability , 5 is now
learning rhac when one container is present he is supposed co
place an object 1111dtr i r, and \Vhen another conrai ner is presenc hc:
shoulJ place an object i11 1r. Thar 1s, 5 1s probably nor learning any-
thing abour preposirions, bur \Ve employeJ C\\'O different contain-
ers co facd1rare S's discnmin,1rions, and "gee him on the v.·ay. " In
order co bring 5 under rhc concrol of (allo\v him co arcend co) the
verbalized preposition s. f. begins co fade one of the conrainers, for
example by gradually removing 1c so far a\Va} from 5 char it is
simpler for 5 co use rhe same container for borh "in" and "under."
When 5 can respond correctly ro "in" and "llnder," using the
same container and \Vith rocaced trials, gcnl'rali1arion training
m.t} be 1nsr1rutcd using ne\\ conra1ners and plating objects one ar
a umc or simulraneousl} Ne\\ preposic1ons such as "beside, "on
cop of," "behind," and "1n fronc of' ma} be caughc using rhe same
procedures, omirc1ng any seeps \\·hich seem unnecessary for a par-
 Language Training Manuals
150
cicular child. Thus. for one child it ma>· he necessarr co train a
nc\\ preposition in isolauon, then .iltcrnately co crain the new
prepos1t1on and a previously mastered preposition an? finally to
present the nev.• preposition in nonsyscem attt order w1ch a previ-
ously mascered one. For anocher child, it may be sufficient co
\imply train che new preposteion in isolation v.•1chouc concern for
. prepos1uon s and of their extension into everrda>' life. Obviously ,
nonsrscem auc presentatio n.
Expressive Speech
When the child has mastered 5 or 6 prcposicion s for receptive
speech, E may begin expressive speech training. The procedL1rc is
exactly rhe same as rhac for recepnve speech except thac no\v E
places che object in or under the conca1ner (or E may 1nscruct ~ to
do so) and chen a\ks S "Where is 1t!" The desired responst c.g .
"in" (or "i11 che cup"). "under," (or "under chc box,") are prompc-
cd, etc. le v.·ill prohahlr noc be necessarr co use different con-
c;uners in che initial stages of expressive speech training if che
child has a good beginning on receptive speech. To test for this
poss1bilicr , E should try co introdutc TS2 using che samc con-
tainer as char for TS I Once "in" and "under" have been tr,11ncd,
F. should begin using many different objects and containers, as for
r<.'ccpuve speech Ne"' prcpos1c1ons m.1y be incroduc<.'d at this
scage.
Generalization
As v.rith mosc of che other progr;lms we will present, once che
child has completed tht laboratory training phase of the progran1,
generalizar ion training is carried out in the child's everyday life.
The object nov.· becomcs to teach the child about his ov.·n position
in space and rht relauonsh1 ps becv.·een major everyda}' ob1eccs-
to scand "on cop of' che cable, co hide "behind che dresscr. to sic
"1ns1de · che closer, co puc the books "on cop of che bed, pl.ice his
slippers "under" the bed The rule is, teach che child rhe correct
•
response co the most common preposinon al rclacionsh1ps tn the
lab co facilitate lacer the day-to-day inceraction you ha,·c: \\'1th
hi1n.
Once S can carry out the most cornn1on demands involving
preposition al rclac1onsh1ps, E may begin generalizat ion training
on expressive spccch, br first 1nstructtng 5 to sir on a chair, for
example, and then prcsenc che quescion "What are you doing('
Language Training Manuals 151
The child 1s then prompted co reply "I am s1ccing on che chair f:
may then ask "Where is the record plarer?" and prompr rhe an-
swer "on the cable." E may then ask S to "sit on the bed," to stand
"?n top of the chair," and so on, and prompt S's correct verbaliza-
tion of these behaviors. The language tnuning film which \VC
produced gives certain examples both of the laboratory training of
~he opporcun1t1es for che cra1n1ng and testing of generalizat ion are
1nfin1te once \Ve cake the child's training into the real v.·orld
Manual C: Pronouns
This program includcs th<.' training of g<.'n1tive pronouns (my,
rour, his, her) and personal pronouns (l, }'OU, he, she). We have
not syscemauc ally evaluated che quescion of" h1ch co reach first
Hov.•ever, we have generally caught the genitive first.
Genitive Case Pronouns
Reap111•e .rpeerh trt1i11i11Jt. for ')r111r. ·· Training in the receptive
use of the genitive case for the pronouns my, your, mine, yours,
his, and hers proceeds as follo"·s. A large number of common per-
sonal possessions (such as clothing, or jc\\·clrr) and body parts
(nose, eye, ear, arm) arc used as training scimuli. The child
should already kno\v ho'v to label rhesc possessions and bod>
pares. Training for che gen1c1ve case of receptive speech means
that che child must no\v learn co correctly 1dencify the personal
referent of E's statements , 1 e , che child must discrimina te rhe
pronoun used in E's sentence. E begins with the sentence, "Point
to your nose·· (or some si1nil,1r body part) or f n1ay simplr state
"your nose." At the same time E prompts the correct response br
couching S's nose (and 5 has been pre' 1ousl} taught to respond co
this prompt). Once ch ts response is esrabl1shed , L 1ncroduces, and
eventually rotates, the second sttmulus, " Point to my nose" (or
just "1ny nose"). The incroduccio n and rotation of these stimuli
proceeds in che same manner as we descnbcd for TS l and TS2.
Once this discrimina non 1s established . and \' po1ncs to his O\vn
or B's nose \vhen asked to, rhe d1scrim1na tton I\ "broadened " by
introducin g other bodr pares . The training stimuli may nov.· go
as follo\\'S ' Po1nc to n1}' no~t, · Point to your car," "Point co mr
eye," and so on. We .1rg uc chat S has mastcrcd ch is phase of pro-
 Language Training Manuals
152
noun traininJo( \vhc·n he: ran correctly point to a parcicular posses-
sion or body p<lrt v.·hH:h has not been used in training (for exam-
ple, v.·hc:n he: can correcrly point co his O\\·n or E's hair, even
though he has not been spcc1fic.11ly c.~ained co ~.o so). . . . .
£.\preJJllt spee1h t1.1111111g fir ")011r ,uul "111;. In. chis discnm1-
nacion the child" tll be rc:quired to verbalize a particular pronom-
inal relationship Confusion over pronoun reversal is the problem
most ch.lract1:nsc1c of chis sca~e. The: child has jusc been caught co
"Point co your ,"and che desired rtsponse \\'as co point co
one: of his o"'·n bod>· pare' When E said "Point co my - - -
che desired response ''"'s to p<Hnt to one of F.'s body pares '.\ov.·
v.•hen E says" Point to your " che child muse now po1nc co
his O\\'n hody part .ind 1nusc S•I}" "~fy . "Of course, "my" is
the label che child has heard applied ro E'!. body pares. In order ro
abate: so1ne of che confusion, che 5D is changed from "Point to
- - - " co "Whose is this!' Ii says "\'<'hose is
this'" and s11nulcaneously points co the appropriate ob1ecc, e.g.,
points co S"s nose S is rhen prompted co say "My nose." Once S
has complered rhi~ src·p .ind can d1scrrn1inace reliably between the
t\vO pronouns on one· body pare, ne'' body parts may be inrro-
d uccd as dcsL r ibed.
Anorhc:r procedure, v.•hich \VL have nor systematic;dly
explored, bur whKh n1,1y conscicucc a useful prccraining seep by
diminishing che <.:onfusion 1n pronoun reversal, scares our pro-
noun training \Vich proper nouns, like "Niommy," "Daddy"
and/or the child's name:. During chis pare of cra1n1ng. che Lh1ld
may be taughc co poinc ro ";\tommy's nose as d1snncc trom
"Scephen\ nost'." or .1nr ocher pare. This may help in che sense
char rhc: child i' c.1ughc to attend co, not jusc che body pare. bur
che .tppropriatt• rc·ftrenc.
E.,prtJJllt sp1tth trlli11i11J!,ji11· "hu" .111,/ "he1 Once che child ha.\
ma.,cc:red chc possess1,·e pronouns "my" and "your" for several
body p.1rc' .ind possessions. /. may 1ncroduct rhe training on the
expression of "his" and "h1:r." A ch1rd person (or a pit cure of a
person) 1s incroduced inco chc crain1ng s1cuanon. E poincs co char
persons nose, for instance, and asks \Xfhose nose ts this?" The
child is pro1npccd co say "his nose .. The prompts are faded, and
che lhild drilled co tricerion as usu.ti Ar chis point, E may alcer-
nace craining on "his" with training 'my· or "yol1r" in a system-
atic st11nulus roc.uion \\'ith "n1y" and "your." This \Vlll, of course,
deprnd on E's c:xpc:rrcnte \\'ich chc chiltl in similar progran1s. l e
ma)' be possible for some children co immcd1acely begin cra1111ng
Language Training Manuals 153
on such systematic rocacion of pronouns and body pares. Ocher
children \viii require craining in isolacion on each change in che
training snmulus.
Nominal Case Pronouns
Sttp I. £.\pressire speech 11·a1n1ng for "!. .. It is difficult co say
v. hecher 1c 1s best co reach che child personal or possessive pro-
nouns first \Xie have merely presented these in an order \Ve gener-
ally use. Personal pronouns are caught using a large number of
common accivicies. E performs such an acnvicy or prompts S co
perform it and chcn asks, "What arc you doing)" S is then
prompted co say "I am " (for example, "I am jumping.")
le may be useful for E co poinc co Sas he asks che quesr1on "Whac
arc you doing?" dunng the initial stages of craining. Boch of chc
prompts will then have co be faded, as was the case for che posses-
sive pronouns. E chooses one acrivicy (such as standing, po1nnng,
jumping, sm iling, or laughing) for use in Seeps l, 2, and 3.
Again, only one accivicy is used in the fi rsc seeps. OnceS has mas-
tered che desired response, E may proceed co Seep 2.
S1tp 1. E>.pl'essit·e speech trctining for ')1111 ... E performs the ac-
ClVicy sclecced for use in Seep 1 himself and asks rhe child "What
am I doing?" Ife may, of course, simultaneously poinc co himself.
The child is prom peed co say "}'011're-." Prompcs arc faded, and
cra1ning is conc1nued co cncerion.
Step L l?11t11/11J!l of ')r111" and"/." Seeps l and 2 are repeated
uncil S is mak1n.i;: no more chan one error per shifc "\'(lhac are ;011
doing," and "What am I doing?" are chen rocaced in nonsyscem-
acic fashion as usual. Again, onlr one accivicy. che same as rhac
employed 1n Seeps I and 2, is used. When che child is responding
<lt cricenon level for nonsyscemacic stimulus rocacion, E mar
begin co change che acuv1c> (behaviors) from one crial co che ncxc
using the same procedures as chose outlined for che S\\ itching of
body pares 1n craining possessive pronouns. Again, 1f che child
has difficulty sw1rching acuv1ues, che ne\\' acc1v1Cles may be in-
troduced and trained one ar a rime v.rhile E conunues co S\vicch
rhe pronouns nonsyscemacical ly.
Sttp 4. F......pn·JJ/l'f Jpeerh training for "he" ,111d "1hi." Once che
<.:hild is .1ble ro respond to questions about "you" and "[" pre-
senred in nonsysccmacic fashion, for several acc1v1cies, F 1nay
begin training "he" and "she." A third person is introduced inco
154 Language Training Manuals
the cra1n1ng sicuatton as in training for che genitive case. The
chird person performs some .1ccivic>'• and E asks "What is he (she)
doing?" The correcc response is prompccd, che prom pc faded, and
drill conunued co cricerion. Ac this point, E may either systemat-
ically alternate training on "he" \\'1th craining on "you" and "I" or
he ma}' proceed directly co nons>·scemacic stimulus rocacion, de-
pending on E's judgement of hO\\' successful S "·ill be. This
judgement is based on E's experience with che particular S in-
volved
Step 5. ExpreHll< 1pnch tr,un1ng fin· cqnibined 11se qf genitite and
nQ111111al prono11111. \Xfhen the child has mastered both personal
pronouns and possessive pronouns, one can proceed co train their
combined use. One begins by rotation of questions about posses-
sive pronouns 1n a non~ystcmatic fashion with questions about
personal pronouns When \' has mastered such rotation, E may
engage in some simple acc1v1Cy which involves a body part or pos-
session. For example, f. may couch 5 's nose and ask "What am I
doing i" S wi II chen be prompted co say. "You are couching my
nose." Training on chis scimulus may be continued until S
teaches crireraon, or, 1f F feels the child can handle it, he may
change the training sramulus on the next crial co "What are you
doi~g.," and have S couch E's nose("! am touching your nose.")
Tra1n1ng proceeds as for individual pronouns. skipping any seep
which fl may feel 1s unnecessary for a particular child. A third
person may be introduced once S has mastered several such com-
binac1ons for both "you" and "!." For example, "He is couching
your eye" may be trained.
Manual D: Time Concepts
The object of this manual i~ to reach the child co use the
\\·ords "first" and "last" and before" and "after" co describe sim-
ple temporal relacion)haps We usually have begun with "first ...
although, in retrospect, one mar be better off beginning \\'ith
, cr~1n1ng_"first" and "lase"), and a ne\\• selection of objects \Vithin
"lase," as the spatial and temporal cues for char concept are most
recent.
Exprdsitt .1pl'ech 1ra111111g for "la11." E places five objects (Sec l,
e.g , key, boat, pencil, ball, and \\'atch) on the cable 1n front of
the child. le is ad_visable, a~ in the first stages of training for
labels, co select obieccs w1th1n a sec for maximal stimulus differ
ences. Boch the label for the object and the physical appearance of
•
Language Training Manuals 155
th~ object should be considered for differences. We have used five
obiccrs to re~uce the probability char S will be reinforced by
merely l_abel.l1ng one of che objects by chance \vichouc dis-
cram1nac1ng ICS temporal relation co the ochers. E rellsS to couch
three of the five obiecrs in a certain order (e.g., "Touch che kc>'
~ouch che pencal_',, couch the boat."). E then asks che questto~
\Xfhac came lase_! or "\Xfhac did you couch lase>" and prompts S
co make the desired response, e.g., "boat." Prompnng may an-
clud_e boc.h che verbal prompt "boat" and a nonverbal prompt
(caking S s hand and placing it on the boat.) Of course, both
prompts muse be faded. After the child makes che desired re-
sponse, sec 1 remains, but a ne\v seleccaon of three objects within
che sec as .~ouched (e.g., pencil, boac, key), and rhe quesuon as
repeaced ( Wh.ac dad you couch Jase"). S is prompted ("the key"),
an~ so on. Th as procedure as repeated, using che same sec of five
o~iec~s and a ne\v selecc1on of three on each trial unci I S reaches
cri~eno~ (~.g., 9 our of 10 correct responses). Now a new sec of
obi.eccs as anr~od~ced (e.g., cup, book, spoon, dish, paper). S is
trained to criterion on Set 2, and then it is replaced by Set 3.
When S can 1nake 10 consecutive correct responses on a new set,
'!'e a.~sum~. he understands the concept "Jase" and proceed co crain-
1~g fir~t. The use of new sets, and the use of new object selec-
caons w1C~1n these sets, "forces" S away from a particular obiecc
(or ocher irrelevant cues) and "enables" S co "abscracc" (or "attend"
co) the relevant stimulus in chis discrimination, which is the
temporal arrangement (time).
FxprtHllt 1peech tran1111g for ·first. " The secs are used over
again, bur the question "Whac came lase?'" is replaced by che
quescaon "What came first?" He is prompted and trained as be-
fore \X'hen S as able co make 10 correct responses in a rov• upon
presencanon of a ne\\' sec, "What came lase?" mar be rein-
troduced, and so on.
Ro1a1io11 of ·first" and "fast." Nonsyscemanc sci mu Ius rotation
is ~ar_ried out using a new sec of objects (obieccs nor employed in
this sec 1s made on each trial, rotating the question 'What came
first)" \\ ich "What came lase?" Prompting and fading may be
employed as usual 1f necessary. When S is able co make JO con-
secutive correcr responses upon presentation of a new set of ob-
JCCts, mastery is assumed. E may then begin training "afcer" and
"before."
l!xprl'S.fll'e .rpeerh tra111i11g for "befqre" and "after." The same
156 Langu age Training Manua ls
Langu age Training Manua ls 157

mater ials and stimu lus prese ntatio n may be emplo yed as for
r~r, .. begin ning ,,·irh 3-seco nd delay s of food consu mpno n. S
"first" and "last. " Howe ver as usual, specia l care: must be taken ro
\\O~ld be show n a food, "·h1ch he wante d to ear 1mme diarel y
make sure rhar each obiec t serves equal l; as the objec t for one
wlule .E \YOU)~ give "lacer" as an S for an increa singly longe ;
0
sci mu Ius ("before") as for the ocher ("afrer"). E instru cts S to
dela.y in reach ing for che food. Such gener alizat ion rraini ng was
couch 3 of che ob1eccs and then asks "\Xlhac came 11/ler che
1n~.ugaced for mo.~r ..of the child' s prefer red behav iors, like "goin g
- - - " (ch<: firsc ob1ecc couched). for exam ple, 1f che key "'as first we finish class, " and "Joan comes back
S\\ 1mm1ng larer,
couched firsc, F asks "\Xlhat came afcer che keyi" Dunn~ the 1n1- tomor ro\v."
cial stages of cra1n1ng, 1c is proba bly advisa ble always co make che
desire d response corres pond co rhe \econ d obiecc couch ed. Once
che child has proce eded throu gh nonsr scema uc sci mu Ius rocacion Manual E: Other Simple Abstractions
using chis proce dure, E may repeac the proce dure, requ1 rt ng che
child to give responses corres pondi ng to che firsc nnd chi rd objeccs
In this man~al, we shall prese nt traini ng proce dures for rwo
couched as well as che secon d. Once the child has maste red "af
more types of simpl e absrra crions , tllusrr ative of the many \ve
cer, .. L begin s rra1n1ng on "befo rt
have taugh t 1:hey are a proce dure for reach ing color and a proce -
Speaa l pr11fed11res. For childr en \\'ho seem to havt: specia l
dure for reach ing che use of "yes" and "no." The proce dure for
difficulcy in masce ring rhese conce pts, a suppl emen cal proce dure
color follows closely the progr am for teach ing simpl e labels and
simil ar co che posici on discri minat ton for labell ing may be
shoul d serve as an t:xample of ho\\• chis proce dure may be adapt ed
emplo yed. In chis case, f; ""·111 place che oh1ccts on che cable so
for c~e reach ing of many k1n<ls of simpl e abscracc1ons. For exam -
thac che desire d response corres ponds to che label for the ob1ecc
ple, 1f the reach er substi cutcs objec ts with differenc forms (like
which appea rs consiscencly on rhe lefr. Once rhe child has de-
block s of <l1fferenr forms ), rhe child \\•ill be learni ng about fonns .
veloped a posin on discnrn1nacion (1 t: • 1nakes 10 cons<:cucive cor-
The proce dure for "yes-n o" tra1n1ng 1s sl1ghcly more comp lex and
rect responses on a ne"· ~ct of ob1ecc~). £ "111 gradu allr place chis
may .serve as an examp.le of rhe \\'ays in \vh1ch che progr am can be
objec t slighc ly 1n franc of, then comp lccely 1n fronc of, chen to che
modif ied for the teach ing of conce pts 'vhich do nor fie easily 1nro
righc of che ocher objec ts. When che child comp letes chis phase , the usual proce dure.
E may begin swJCching che pos1non of che ob1ects corre spond ing
co che desire d response in a nonsy stema t1c fashion le may be Color and form
necessary co dt:velop a positi on d1scr1minarion boch for "firsr" and
for "lase. " fn any case, che posicion discri minat ion muse be faded
Rel'efltil'e speel'h. The ob1ccc of chis proce dure is co reach rhe
before traini ng on a ne\\' conce pt is begun
child co d1scrim1nace amon g colors and co label chem appro -
Gentra/1za11011 lntrod ucrio n of .1 nc\\· st:r of objec ts serves as
pnace l>. As 1n reach1n~ !abels , recep tive speech rra1n1ng is gener -
one ct:st of stimu lus gcner ahzau on f\,iany poss1biltues prese nt
ally useful as a prerra1n1ng proce dure. E places , on rhe cable in
thems elves as rra1 ni ng 1s rnoved frorn the labora tory co every day
fr.one of S. three objec ts (block s, plascic chips or che like) \\·hich
life For exam ple, E mighc \vish co cra1n an<l tt:st gencr alrzan on,
differ only 1n color , and nor on any ocher dimen sion (like size or
using a seque nce of accivic1es. Hert· traini ng merge s clo'>elv \\'ith
s~ape). E then prese nts TS I, char is, he asks S to point to or give
rhe proce dure for recall prese nted 1n l\ianu al H So far as w~ coul<l
' him a color. He may say "red" (or "Give me red"), which means
cell, the childr en goc a lot ouc of this progr am on "tin1e ," partic u-
rhac S has co give E rhe red objec t. E prom pts an<l fades, as he
larly \\•hen chey began co undersran<l conce pts like "lacer " Like
has 1n or her kinds of tra1n1ng Once S reliab ly respo nds \\'Ith R l
norma l ~hildren, auri~nc childr en \Vane imme drace gracif icatro n,
(gives E. the red obiec r). even thoug h chis colored ob1cct is chang -
and. their under stand ing of posrp onrng bur nor rel1nq urshin g
ing pos1t1on amon g the ocher colors on the table, chen E incro-
gracrficar1ons seems criuca l 111 helpin g them suppr ess rhe1r frus-
duces TS2 and trains as per basic traini ng steps. Some childr en
tratio ns an<l concu rrent \vl.1ining an<l fussin g The rime tonce prs
gener alized n1c<:ly co out\td e act1v1cies. as \\'hen \\'e taugh t "Ia- acqui re color recog nition ver; early, ochers are slo"·e r. For rhe
fast learne r, relarivcl}· fe,v colors (say three or four) are cra1ne<l in
•
158
Language Training Manuals
che lab before che color recognition is brought "oucside." If the
child has coo many Jifficulcies at chis level of receptive speech,
che matching and position discriminations ouchne.d 1n ~1anual A
may be easily modified for use in chis manual. E sunply uses .col-
ored blocks or blocks of different shapes in place of che ob1eccs
described in ~1anual A and reaches the child co macch colors as a
. . . . .
prerra1n1ng step 1n recepttve rra1n1ng. . . . ,
E:..prrsJlt'« Spieth . To begin expres~1..,·c spe~ch rra1n1ng •. E
selects several of thl· colored blocks used 1n receptive speech train-
ing. E presents one of the blocks co S, v.·~ics ~or.! co visually at-
tend co the block, and asks " \X1 hac color is this? (Again, for rhe
first fev; trials, E may simply give the color label and omi r the
question .) The desired response is prom peed, the pr?mpc faded, a
new stimulus introduced, and so on When the child 1s labeling
~cveral colors correctly, rhe color discriminations may be used to
facilitate the acquisition of shape.
We have usually caught form labels after the color labels, but
we know of no reason that should be necessary. In the 1nicial
stages of form discrimination, chac is, while E is reaching recep-
tive speech, E may assemble, for example, a blue block (square). a
red circle, and a yellow triangle. F says "Hand me the bft1e
sq11are," "Hand me the red circle." and so on. When S is able co
correctly respond to these commands for three or four different
shapes, E may begin asking simply for the square, e.g., "Hand
me the square," dropping the color label from the S0 , which es-
sentially means that E is ren1oving che prom pr. Once the child is
responding well to commands containing no color labels, E 1nay
begin fading color as a cue altogether by using differenc-colore<l
examples of the same shapes or same-colored examples of different
shapes . Expressive speech training is carried out exaccly as for
color and object labels .
Gt11trali:atit111 tra111111g. As in all the ocher programs, E may
cake rhe child's training outside the experimental situation in
order co train and cesc for generaliLarion. The color of eyes and
hair, clothing. or furnHure may be used. The shapes of cables and
containers and coys ma)• be included Color and form discrimina-
tion, once mastered, are often quire useful in faciliraring new
learning . For example, one will find many kinds of programmed
learning materials for teaching reading 1n which color is 1n1rtally
used co help the child form rhe correct discriminations between
words Keep 1n mind chat once more we are going into che child's
everyday life co extend the child's understanding (discrimination)
Language Training Manuals 159
of color only after we have helped him attend co (discriminate)
colors in the concrolled lab environment.
Yes no tra1n1ng involves the teaching of two procedures; one
is labeled "yes-no for factual matters" and the ocher "yes-no for
maccers of personal feelings." One generally begins with "yes-no
for factual maccers," as such training allows one co use more con-
crete training stimuli.
E>.pri:SJ11•e 1peech tra1111ng of ')es-110 for fact11al 111atter1. " The ob-
ject of this procedure is co give che child a simple tool for express-
ing his knowledge about che environment, so chat he can begin
co affirm or deny che cruch of statements about che real objects
and events around hi1n.
E selects a number of real common objects. He places chem in
front of 5, picks up one of chem, waits for S co visually fixate the
object, and asks, "Is chis a ?" E begins by asking only
questions \Vhich can be answered in the affirmacive. For example,
li may pick up a cup and ask S, "Is this a cup?" The desired re-
sponse, "yes," is prompted. E presents a different object on che
nexr rrial, e.g., "Is chis a boar?" and prompts rhe answer "yes."
Over successive trials the prompt is faded until S is ans\vering
"yes" reliabl). E may then begin training "no." E picks up an
object, like a cup, and asks, "Is chis a boac?" S will almost cer-
tainly say "yes." E corrects Sand prompts rhe desired response,
"no " Again, E picks up a different ob1ecc on the nexr rnal, such
as a boar, and asks .. Is chis a cup?" The desired response, "no, " 1s
prom peed Over successive trials, che prompt is faded. When rhe
child is reliably ans'l\·ering "no," training for "yes" 1s repeated,
chen "no" is reintroduced, and so on. When the child is making
no more than one error in cen cries v.·hen E S'l\'itches the questions
from ones char require "no" co "yes" and vice-versa, the questions
arc pn:sented in nonsyscemacic order.
• Sprt'ittl procu/11re1. Different secs of ob1eccs ma}' be used to
reach "yes" and "no" and a new sec introduced 1n rocacion if chis
procedure seems co facilicare S's performance. If rhe child has
difficulty in che inirial stages of training, E may 1nsncuce a proce-
Jure analogous co the matching procedure for simple labels E
holds up che ob1ect in question and asks S. "What is this)" S
labels the ob1ecr and E asks, "Is chis a )"prompts the cor
rect response, and so on. One may consider char S's answer ("yes"
 Language Training Manuals
160
or "no") co the Jase quesr1on is helped co rhc exrenr rhac he can
march his O\vn and E's label (che ba:;ic d1scnm1nacion for a "res-
no" answer) \vhcn his own label has been made more available.
Eventually chis extra cue (S's initia l labell ing of the object) 1nar
be fi1ded .
FxprcSJll< .1p..·ch tra111111~ of')t1-11t · fo1· pn·.1r,11al feel111g1. The oh-
jecc of chis prote<lure 1s to give S rhe \\'Ords co answer quescions
abouc his ov.·n personal feelings and desires and rhus co help him
acquire some control over \\hat he wanes peoplt: ro do, and nor ro
do. \VICh him.
In che firsr srages of chis crain1ng, we have found H useful ro
concencrare on reaching S to answer quesrions abouc chc foods and
accivities he appears co srrongly like and dislik e In the firsr seep,
E selccrs a numb er of foods and acr1v1ries he is fairlr certai n S
en1oys (e.g., candy, ice crc·am, sv•1ng1ng, ncklr ng). E rhen asks S
if he \Vould like co ear one of chese foods or engag e in one of these
acuvi ues, e.g . • "Do you \\anc some candy 1" S is prom peed co
ans\\·er "Yes " A correct response is follov.·ed by g1v1ng 5 rhe foo<l
or acr1v1ty involved. E ma} sv.·irch rh<: food or acrivicy on the next
rrial, providing it 1s anoth er that S enJO}'S, and 1n this way avoid
stimu lus sac1auon
\X'hen 5 1s reliably ans\vering yl's, E seleccs several foods or
act1v1cies he is fairly cerca1n S does not enjoy (e.g., spina ch, being
pinch ed, stayin g inside instead of playing) F then asks S (for
example), "Do you v.•anc me co pinch you?" S is prom pted co ans-
v.·er No ... le 1s 1mporcanr char if 5 gives an 1ncorrecr response.
1.e., ans\\e rs "yes, .. chis response 1s follo"·ed by che appro priate
consequences, e.g., E pin<.:hes S. E rhen repeats the quesu on,
prom pts rhe correct R, and helps .S avoid rhc.: .ivc.:rs1ons \X'e con-
sider 1t 1mporranc co "consequare defin1rely and succ1ncrly, be-
cause 1f there are no consequences for an 1ncorrecr cransm1ss1on,
parr of the mean ing of"ye s" and "no" is obscured Once the child
is reliably anS\\'ertng "no," traini ng for "yes" is re1ncroduced, and
so on .
Ge11era/1z,1ti1111. For facrual matte rs, generalization may be
'
reseed and/o r trained for colors, shapes, body pares, prono uns
(e g • "Is chis my nose'" ), or almosr any of cht ocher basic skills
which S has mastered For personal feeling~. che sn may be
chang ed and gener alizan on caught for a numb er of quesn ons gen-
erally requi ring "yes-no" answers. For exam ple, E may ask S "Do
you like , .. (e g . , "co go sv.1mming"). Anocher approach
involves rhe feelings and desires of a third person, e .g ., "Does
•
Language Training Manuals 161
Billy \va~c co be tickled?" The use of a ch1rd person, of course, is
bcs_r earne d o~t \\•hen S .sees anorher person engag ed in some ac-
c1v1r} like c.:anng and display 1ng ob' 1ous visual cues to his feel-
ings on the subiccr or ralk1ng about ho"' much he docs or does
nor like 1c.
Manual F: Conversational Speech
. This progr am 1s ned ro almos t all of the ocher programs de-
scribed ~n rhese manu als. Basic rra1n1ng in conversation 1s cm-
b_c<ldcd rn orher programs as \veil. In the.: first sragc.:s of this p.1r-
c1cular proce dure, the child 1s taugh r co answer si1nple "social
quest ions" like "Ho,,· arc.: Y?U' and \Xlhar"s your name '" 1n a
mann er \Vh1<.:h encourages further conversational excha ngt be-
tween S and £. Thcs t answers requir e largely one-word stace-
mencs, and 1n. char sense rhc progr am resembles labelling (prog-
ram 2) As rra1n1ng pr?gresses, all of rhe maren al from programs
such as recall, des<.:nb1ng, and sroryrell1ng (co be outlin ed next)
become 1narerial for conversar1onal speech. In rhe second stage of
the proce dure, rhe rraini ng of conversational speech centers on
teach ing the child co d1scnm1natc bet\\'een \\ har he docs and docs
nor know , co regul'st and tr<lnsfer 1nfon nauon , and rhe like.
Part 1. Social Questions
The obiecr in chis phase rs ro reach .\ co ansv.·er simpl e social
quest ions in a mann er char provides further scin1ul i co wh1th a
second person may respond in turn .
One.: begin s b) reaching .\ co ans\\e r a quest ion asked by E
\V1th both an anS\\'Cr co the direct quest ion and a further quest ion
or comn1enc co whKh E can respond . To factl1rarc su<.:h traini ng, S
rnusc be ,1ble co take a comn1.1nd direct ly. char 1s, \\hen E says.
Say I am fine. ho"· are you 1 " \ shoul d bt able co S<l) • "I am fine.
how arc your· fn order co do chrs, che chrld muse tirsr be able to
imita te a long sequence of verbal responses Second, he muse be
.1ble co drscriminare between \\'Ords he 1s supposed co imirare and
chose he 1s nor (i.t he muse ht· able ro respond <.- irrccrl} co chc
l<~mmand SJ)"). This discrirninacion 1n.1) be builr 1n a numb er
of ways. Ii 1nay pause afcer "say," never reinforcing any response
rh.1t occurs 1n the pause. E 1n.1y repeat "say" 1n a \'Cry soft voice.
,1nd the rest of rhe sentence n1uch loude r. 1·1me out mar be n1ade
162 Language Traini ng Manuals
contingent upon .\ s repeaci ng the word. "say." Fur.ch~r inscruc-
cions 111ay be found 1n ~{anual ~f . "breaking echolalta. Once che
child is able co rcspond ro direct commands for verbal responses.
chc ccncral pro<:cJure may begin. _.. ..
E asks) .1 social question such as "HO\\' arc you! or HO\\' old
are you'' If S answers corrccdy. he 1s reinforccd and rhen pr?mpc-
ed co a.\k E Ho"'· old are you?" or "Ho\\· are you?" Ar firsc 1c may
be necessary co rc\vard boch pares of che response, 1.e ... the ans\\·er
and the further question. E then responds coS s quesc1on. On che
next trial, f; may repear the original question (i.e .... Hovl ~re
you?~). Over succcssive trials, the prompcs are faded and rein-
forcement for the answer alone is dropped. Evencually, only the
response "I an1 fine, how are you?" will be reu~for~ed, and o~ly
when ic occurs \\'lthout prompts. \Xfhen che child 1s performing
ac cricerion level for che firsc quesuon, a new qucscion 1s 1ncro-
duced, e.g., "Whac's your nan1e?"
\'X'hen 5 has mastered chis form of response to several such
questions b should begin requiring ) co give longer chains of
responses hcforc delivering re1nforccmenc. T he target response
n1ight be •In interchange such as E: " How are you?" S: " I am fine,
how arc you?" f:.: " I a1n fine. Whac is your name?" S: "R icky.
Whac is your name?" f:: "Joan. How old are you?" S. "Eight.
Ho'v okl are you?" ,1nd so on. At firsc, E \viii reinforce each cor·
rccc response 5 makes. Gradually, E requires more and more 1n-
cerchang<.: before re>ward1ng rhe child
As S masters ocher programs, such as recall and describing-
account1ng, the macerial may h<.: broughc inco che concexc of con-
versational speech, e.g., E asks. "\X'hac did you do chis morn-
ing?" S rhen describes his morning and ask~ F. "\'X'hac did you.do
chis morning!"' Gen<.:ralizarion m;1y be rra1ned and resr<.:d, uo;.1ng
macerial from other prograrns. Anocher approach co gencralaza-
cion craining 1s co 1nvol\e .1 third person in the conversation, hav-
ing him ask rhe child chc cr.uning quesuons.
Part 2. Requesting and transferring 1nformation
The object of thi' pnxc:dure is co teach che child co discnmi-
nace bec"·ecn \vh:n he kno\vs and 11.'har he docs nor, co request
information from anochcr person \vhen he needs such informan on
and then co tr.111sfer ch.tr 1nform.1t1on as appropnare.
f lOITI pil<.:s ,l list of <..jLICSC HlllS, !iOITIC.: of\\ hich 5 \Vltl be able CO
ans\\·er and sonic: of"•h1th he will nor, bur will have co as k some-
•
Language Training Manuals 163
one else for ch<.: requisite informarion (e.g., "What 1s your morher
cooking for dinner)" "How old is your brother?" "What did she
do chis 111orn1ng!''). A chard person, e.g., the morher, 1s present
during che rraining sessions.£ presenrs one of che quest1ons ro S.
If the child cannor ans,ver the quesuon (and £ should be fairly
certain thac S has the appropriate 1nformarion), rhe child is
prompted co say, "I don'c knO\\'," and ro repeat the question ro
rht third person. The rhird person ans\'\·ers rhe child s question,
and S rs then prompced ro repeat the anS\\'er co f..
Questions ro \vhich S does nor kno'v the ans\\·er ma> ht
trained first, and then one may \Vane co pose him quesuons that
he can ans\\'Cr co reach him che difference bet\\·een che t\VO s1tua-
rions. 1'ypically. ho\vever, 'vhen rhe child reaches chis scage of
rhe program, IC 1s possible from rhe earliest srages ro presenr
questions he can answer intermixed in nonsyscemat1c order '"irh
chose he can nor answer. On che or her hand, IC is usually neces-
sary, at lease ac first, co reinforce Sat several poincs in che chain of
responses required co complete this interaction, i.e., ro re1nfon;c
him for nsk1ng q uestions as \Veil as for giving ans\\•ers to E. le is
somcrirnes useful ro have rhe rhi rd person deliver reinforcement
"'her<.: appropriate co direcc S's arrenrion a\vay frorn l'... Fur in-
stance, a typical training rrial may go like chis in rhe beg1nn1ng:
r What arc you having for dinner tonight'
) No rc~pon><".
I Sa) l don't know.·
.\ l don t know.
f' (rood bo)'! (Delivers re1nforcem1:nr ) :-.ow ask your mother S.I)
\X'hat arc we ha"ng for dinner?"
.\ \\'hat arc we having for dinner'
r "'-o. l.ook ac )·our mocher. Good. '\:ow say \X'hat are we ha, in~ tor
dinner!"
S \\'h.11 an: we ha' ing for dinner' (l>forher mar deliver re1nfortcmt·nt
for tht child's asking her.)
,\fotl~,. Srew
1; Look .u me Good \X'hat are you having for dinner' S make' no R. l
\.1y 'Stew "
~ Scew
I Good CJ)divt·rs reinforcement.)
Lvt·n1u,11lr, F will fadt· each of rhe prompt' <e.!! .. "S.i)' ..
"Look .11 - . ")and che final repent ion of thl' quc•flnn "ill
hl' dropped f: will also discontinue all intcrinediatt· rc1nfort<'-
mt·nc, dcl1vl'nn!! re1nforcemenc onl)• ar che end of ch<· 1ntcr-
d1.1nJ:t'. An ideal trial ac c:nrerion level m<l)' ~o likt• chis .
164 Language Training Manuals
E Wh.u .ire you hav1n~ for dinner?
S I don't know (Look; .11 1nochcr.) Mother, whar are we h.1'1ng for
<l1nncri
.\1 01/>,r· Sccw
S Look> Jt l) Stew
(E dch\'tr> rc1nforcemcnc.)
• e g., "I closed the door." After S' shov.·s mastery of the first set of
Manual G: Verb Transformations
T he object of chis manual is to reach S co cransfor m verbs
from the present co rhe past tense. The manual is an example of
the specific and concrere manner in which \Vt' caughr gramma ti-
cally correct speech. Specifically, we had hoped rhat the child
might acquire behavio r \\ ith \vhich ro call upon his past experi-
ence and rhar of ochers, to learn hov. rhc past relates co the pre-
senr, and rhc:n to be 1n a pos1uon ro evaluate the consequ ences of
an act \\'irhour perform ing 1t.
The manual involves C\\"O sreps; rhe first reaches the child co
make rhe correcr verbal response (i.e., rhe verbal rransform ar1on),
and rhe second helps rhe child arcach rhe correct verbal response
ro his O\\n hch.ivior . The n:gular inflectio nal affix "ed" 1s raughr
first, and irregula r forms arc raughc later .
Exp1·(HI/ t Jp(e(h trai11i111: for reg11/,11 1 ,,./;J. [ selects 12 to 15
verbs \\'hteh label common acr1vtt1es and require the "e<l" affix in
rhe pasr rense (e.g., 'valked, iumped, c losed). [ may begin this
rraining ar a purely verbal level, by g1v1ngS the presenr rense of a
senrence (e.g . . "I am walking ") and reaching 5 ro respond \Vt th
rhe pasr tense of rhar senrence ("! walked" ) \\'hen asked ro do so.
In a subsequ enr seep, f 1na} perform an action and simultan e-
ously label it, e.g., "I am closing rhe Joor" r rhen asks "\Xfhat
<lid I iusr do?" and prompts S to say "You closed che door." E
repears chis procedu re using the same v<:rb unril S can correccly
ans\\•er th<: quesuon .. \Vhac did I iusc do!'' The r<:sponse is
prompre d, rhe prompt faded, rhe first verb is then reinrrod uced,
and soon .
Once the child 1s able ro properly rransform perhaps a dozen
verbs 1n response to E's question , E moves on to che next srep and
begins g1v1ng S comman ds, having S hibel rhe acriviry \vhile he
perform s ic ("\X'hac are rou doing?" ) and rhen anS\\'er the ques-
rion "\X'hat did you just do(' For example , r tellsS to 'close the
door ... \\'heh: 5 1s perforn1 ing chis acriv1rr, f: asks "\X'hat are you
•
Language Training Manuals 165
doing.;"~ should be able ro answer rh1s question "I am closing the
door, since he already has complet ed the program for simple
labels. When \ has complet ed the acriv1t}, S returns to /j and E
asks .. \Xfhat did }'OU iust do(' The desired response is prompte d,
verbs, E selects a nev.• set of regular verbs and tcsrs for generali za-
tion. ~f S transform s most of these verbs correctly upon firsr pre-
senratio n, /• rnay move on ro irregula r verbs.
During rhc 1nirial stages of training transfor mations , it is re-
commen ded that one choose verbs \vh1ch require a rather ex-
tended period of ume to perform . If the response can be per-
formed very quickly , it 1s possible that S \\di use the past tense to
answer rhe quesnon "Whar are you doing'" If f; uses a verb like
walking or 1umping or closing, E \viii have ri1ne ro have S n1ake
sev~ral J1_screte resi:onses such as correctly labeling the acnvity
\\ htle he 1s perform ing it, stopping the behavio r and returnin g to
E before labeling the action in rhe past tense.
E:>.pr~Hil'I .rpffCh o·a111111;:. fr1r 1rreg11/11r rerh.r The proc<:Jur<: is
the san1t: as for rt:gular verbs, that 1s, E perform s an activ1ty, asks
S "What did I jusr do 1" and so on. Ir is to be expecred thar the
child \\'tll require longer to learn a number of these forms than
the regular forms Drill 1s connnue d on regular verbs \\'hile the
irregula r ones are being taught A regular verb may be included
ever} five or six trials durcng rhis phase onct S has masrered sev-
eral irregula r forms. Of course, since rhc:rc are no rules gov<:rning
the irregula r forrns, it "'ill nor be possible ro tesc for gencrali za-
rion of forrn L 1nusr reach th<: proper forn1 for each new cxa1nple
uncil S has masrere d most of the forms '' h1ch \\'ill be u~<:ful ro
him. Gencrali £at1on may be reseed in rhc 1nJi\'1dual b} using a
rhird person The rh1rd person 1s insrrucr ed to perform son1e ac-
riviry, and S 1s asked "What did he iusr do!" Needless to say, we
moved slowly on the acquisir ion of irrcgul;1r verbs, since it is
difficult ro master Also, it 1s possible to understa nd a child \Vho
does nor kno\\' the irreguh1r form .
Manual H: Plural and Singular
The object of rhis manu.d is ro enable S co pluralize noun
labels using the proper ending~ and to d1scrcm1nate bet\\"C<:n refe-
renrs of th<: singular and plural cases .
Expre.1111r .1p1e1h 11·a111111K fr1r tht re;:.11/11r f ,1.11 As 1n rraining
166 Language Training Manuals
rransformaC1ons, one begins \"1th rhc regular .c~se. E ;~e.1.e~ts 10
common object labels whith re4u1re rhe add1C1on of s in rhe
plural form (c.g , "apples," "fto\vers," "blocks"). These sho.uld be
ohiects for \Vhich \ has already masrered the la~ls. ~ selects ont
of these objects and places two examples of the item 1n front ofS
for example, cwo apple'>. E picks up one of ~he apples and sa,·s.
"1-lere 1s one apple." I-folding the first apple 1n one ha~.d. E .t~en
picks up the other apple and s.irs "J::lcre ar~ t\VO
for ~ to supply the missing word, .1ppl~s ). ~f S doe~ not re:
spond, /.;" prompts the de., ired res pons~, 1n th is case. apple~'.
Training on one irem (e.g., rhe apples) 1s conunu~d until S gl\es
rhe ditferenrial response (apple or apples) reliably. '~it hour
prompting. F. then selects a new set of ob1ecrs (e.g., pencil, pen-
cils) and trains a second regular form, returns to che fuse. and so
on. After S has masrcn:d perhaps I 0 regular plurals, E chan_gcs
rhe narurc of the rr,un1ng srimulus. Several examples of an ob1ecr
arc phict:d i 11 front of 5. for ex;1m rile. three or four aooles. E .~avs
'
"Here are three (or four) ," or "Here are some . . . ' or
"Here are many . . . , " and so on
E.>.prtJJll'C" .rp1·et"h 1t·,11n111g /11r 1rrep,11/11r fin·111J. Irregular forms arc
caught using rhe san1e procedure as char for regular forn1s. Ag~1n,
as is rhe case for rransformac1on~. irregular forms rake more ome
and require more cxrens1ve specific rrain1ng. Regu_lar forms are
revie,ved occasionally; perhaps 1n every five or six trials o.ne regu-
lar form may he presented, once S has mastered several irregular
forms.
Gtt1tr, 1/1z, 1111111 Generalization for regular forms may be reseed
by the 1nrrodul.t1on of ne\\· training stimuli, rhe labels of ,,·hich
are pluralized by the aJJ1cion of "s." For irre¥ular forms, ne\\'
examples of chc ,an1e obietcs mar be used, provided the child has
sho,vn generalization of ,irnple ob1ecr labels. For boc_h re~ular
and irregular forms. generalization ma)' be reseed by using d1tfer-
ent numbers of ohjecrs as rhe training stimuli and new ques-
nons, such a~ "Here ar<: several . . •" '"Here are a couple
of . . . . ," .ind ~o ~>n. This is .1 particularly use:ul '"a)' co t~~c
generaliL.H1on for irregular forms v. here the new S 0 s have he.en
crained and reseed for regul.1r forms, but never used during rr.un-
ing tor irregular forms Since no general rules .appl)' co the
pluralilacion of 1rreguh1r forms, one ~an nor s1mpl} introduce new
objects which rake 1rrt:gular forms 1n rhe pl~ral and see 1f the
child correcrly rransforn1s rhc:m. One must rra1n and rest for each
form 1nd1viJu,1lly.
Language Training Manuals 167
Manual I: Recall
The objecr of chis manual is co enable the child co transmit
and record p;1sc events in a manner comprehensible co all so char
these records and transmissions may then become functional
stimuli for persons nor present '"hen the event occurred. As such
thcr ,,·ill control the behavior of both rhe speaker and che lis-
(wa1t1ng tener. The program requires chat the child have most, 1f not all,
of rhe skills ourlined 1n rhe previous manuals. The training pro-
cedure on recall involves three seeps. Seep l centers on the recall of
rhe immediate pasr (e.g., w1ch1n a minute) and 1s caught much
like transformations (see ~fanual G). Seep 2 involves rhe verbal
reproducnon of even cs \\'ith a somewhat longer delay rhan 1n Step
I (e g , from I to 60 minutes old), and Seep 3 involves recall of
events \vh1ch have occurred hours or days 1n the child's past
Step I. I 111111erhate f!ttJt. E selects ar lease 12 and up co 15 s1 mp le
behaviors which S has already learned co label. E 1n-
scrucrs S co perform rhe acrivicy, for example, "Close rhe door."
When 5 has comp le red the acrivicy and returned co E. D asks,
'What did you jusr do~" and prompts S to ans,ver, "I closed rhe
door." (lf.S has completed the program for verb transformations,
he should be able to ans\ver such questions.) When S is able to
give rhe correct response for a least six simple activities,/; begins
co1nb1n1ng cwo att1v1cies. For example, E instructs S ro tlose rhe
door and rhen \Valk to rhc bed. Ar first, Ema} have to instruct S
co do one act1\1t}", \vair for S co complete 1t. and rhen repeat chc
add1tional instruction. le 1s ofren useful for S to label his act1\ 1t1es
''·hile he is performing chem in the first srages of training ~- re-
turns co E \\·hen he has performed both actiY1ties, and £- asks
"What did you jusr do(' and prompts the ans,ver (e.g., "I closed
che door and then \valked co the bed.'"). As al\\·ays F. (ides his
prompts as soon as possible, from the complete statement of\ s
ans,,·er co partial prompts, relring on S co "fill in" the anS\\"(;r as
best he can ("! do . . . ," \\alts for S. if no ans\\·er, I closed
the . . . ," and on to prompts like "I closed rhe door and
rhen . . . , " and so on). Ac this stage 1n the child's rra1n1ng, IC
should be possible for E co change rhe t\vO acnviues on each suc-
cessive crial, provided char.\ is able co label the aCCJ\"lt)' and trans-
form rhe v~·rh co rhe pasr tense. Changing rhe t\VO act1\1C1es al-
lo\\ s S co disc r1m1nare the appropriate stimuli sooner, \vhich may
not occur 1f P. sta)'~ v.·1ch the same acti\'ities throughout. F con
unucs co1nb1n1ng rwo acriviucs in this fashion unril S' can reliably
•
168 Language Training Manuals
rectll borh ,vie hour proinprs . Ar firsr . E may nor require rhe child
ro 'recall che acr1v1rics in rhc c.:orrecr remporal order. .1:0\\·cver'
rhe child should be held tor rcmpon1l order for C\\'O acuv1ty co~­
binauons before mo\'ing to rhe next phase. The next phase in-
volves rhe comb1ninJ.( of three acci,·ities. then_ four, and so o.n.
Thl <hild should bt· held for temporal order tor three actl\:1ues
before c.:omh1ning four , and so on
p
During chese first stages of rraining, ,,.,11 ~ant ro select ac-
ri\'1Cies \\·hil.h ha'e l.oncrete object~ associated \v1rh rhem, such as
l.losing the door or pl.1ying ball. L1 '".'." then be abl~ co pro'!lp~
che child's response by 1nercly saying and then · · · an~ ~inc
ing co chc cue (i .e. , obiccr) associated '':1th ~he next ac.:uvHy. S
should be allo\ved co look ac che ~biects ar r~1s point \vhen qu~~~
Cloned : ho" e,·er. one r.1n nor consider the tra1 n1n~ of Step 1 co
piece before cht· child t·an rcrall the acnv1t1es 1n correct order
\\'tthout proinpcs, "·hich ide.11ly means that .he .docsn r have to
look at che objects ,1ssoc1art"d ''1th rhe acnv1t1es he ~·~s. pe~­
forined. When the thilc..I can reli;1bly rcl.·all five or six act1,·ir1es in
ordt'r \vichouc pron1pcing, L 1nay move on co Seep 2. .
Strjl 2. 1 h~ lt!JI l/ll/)/f(/Jt1te f>111/. rn rh1s phase, the c~il~ \\"Ill be
caught co recall what tu: has 1usr done \vhen char act1vay involves
more complex behaviors than 1n Seep 1 and \vhen co~crete '~.es
may nor he available. The child 1s no\\ expecced co "chink bark a
shore period 1n tinic.
In che initial scagcs of chis phase. E selecc~ an.umber of com-
mon acriviries " ·hic.:h require an extended period 1n nme to per-
form as compared ro che atrivic1cs 1n Step I. Some examples arc
riding in the elevator, ger.u~i!:: .1 drink, •Ind gr~e~1ng ano~her .rc~­
son . le 1s besc co select ,1ct1\'1t1es ac chis scage \\ h1ch require \\alk-
ing some distance, performing rh~ acnvity, and recurn1ng co rhe
original scarring p<Hnc. As che vanous beha\'1ors are performed. IC
1s recommended rhac 1; ask ,\ co verbalize \\·har he 1s do1n.g . UP'?~
recurn1ng co rht' sr•trring poinc , 1; asks. · \X'har did y~~ 1usc ~o!..
and 5 1s prompced to respond, '" I rode 1n ~.he elevator, I said H1
co John," Ml drank \\;1ter in cht· fountain, ,1nd ~o on. 1.fS respon~s
corret cl r at first "1th no pro1nprs, [ m;1y 1m n:ied1arcly beg 1n
combining t\vo atll\1ties or may hold S foe recalling rhc first a~­
uvity in niore dec.111, e.g., "I opened the door and chen I rode in
rhe elevator •· lf \ docs nor respond correct!> ac firsc, a not her
single acrivity 1s selected an~i trained unnl s. i~ rccall1ng. ~ingle
acc 1vicies \\:1thour pro1nprs. /; continues comb1n1ng acuv1ues a~~
requ1 ring more spec i fie rt•call unri I ) can recall a sequence such as I
Language Training Manuals 169
opene<l rhc door, v.alked downstairs, then goc a drink, and talked
to someone We looked ar che fountain and "'enc up 1n rhe
elevacor ··
Ir is extremely important during Seep 2 co immediatcly and
profusely reinforce all inscances of sponcanett)'. Jn che course of
performing the selecrcd acti,·icies, E will require S co label \\'hat
he 1s doing, or E " ·ill label 1c himself. For example, E ma) Sa)'
\\'e ,1re opt'n1ng che door, nO\\' \\'e are \\ alk1ng do"·nsca1rs, no\1'
0
\\'<: are getc1ng a dnnk . · If, upon returning, S ans\vers r·s qucs-
r1ons ''1th a sequence like the following: '"\Y/e opened rhe door,
,,.e "alked do\\ nsca1rs, '>A\X A DOG, goc a drink, and C.At.IE
BA< K, •• S mar be considered to have given cv..o sponcancous re-
sponses These should be immediately reinforced. As 1n Step I, E
mar nor require correcr temporal order \vhen firsr training a com-
binar1on; ho,vcver, before another acriviry 1s added co the comb1-
nauon, S should be r<:quired co recall the correct temporal order.
5ttjl 3. 'Fhi· rt11101e paJt. During this step of training, S \viii be
caught ro reraJJ events which rook place several hours before at
. first, and eventually those thac happened days and weeks before. E
l)Cgins, for example, by requiring Sin an afternoon session to re-
call what occurred that morning. E concentrates on co1nmon,
daily activities during rhe initial scages. For example, E may
begin \\'1th rhe question "What did you do coday?" He pro1nptsS
to say "I got up. ·· E then says, "Then \vhat?" and prompts S co say
"Arc bre.1kfi1sr. .. The question "\X1 hat did you do today?" is then
rcpeated and 5 1s required to anS\\'er ··1 got up and ate breakfast ··
Tra1n1ng connnues b) expanding S's responses until Scan recall a
sequence such as "f got up, are breakfasc , then played '"ith my
toys After char 1 " 'enc co school, ace lunch, and came ro UCLA "
Spontaneous responses are immediately reinforced. Tra1n1ng in
rccall1ng the "remote" pasc proceeds best when E 1s suffic1enrly
fi1mil1ar \\ irh the child co kno\v che nuances of \\·hac spec1ficall>'
0
has happened on a parcicular morning, or on a particular trip the
<la> before, co ·ex rend" che child"s verbal behavior co as manr
pares of his cx1srence as possible. Mose of the rime parents are che
on!> persons \vho have that kind of familiarity " 'ith che child, so
that the term r here as often as noc refers to the child"s parent.
Ar this point, training in recall merges completely \Virh
rra1n1ng 1n spontaneous speech and conversational speech. Wht"n
the chdJ gets to chis st;1ge, ir btcomes extremely difficult co sepa-
rate the progran1s and specifically define the procedures E uses
The child 1s btin}.\ taughr in rnuch the same manner as the normal
•
 Language Training Manuals
170
child is caught at home. Tra1n1ng becomes pare of his everyday
life, and every day life becomes cra1n1ng.
Manual J : Spontaneity Training
As \VC described ic in che basic cexc, the training regi.~e'. v.·ich
ics experimental laboraror} secnng, ics use of "unnatural ~e1nfor­
cers, and che like may have been responsible for pro.duc1ng che
very sicuanon-spec1 fie, restricted verbal oucP.ut v.:.h1ch v.·~ do~­
served 10 many of our children. To acrempt co open the chtl ~en
up more, co help chem calk more oft.en an~ more freely, \VC e-
vised a specific program 1n sponcaneay r.ra1n1ng. Ke~p 10 mind
chat it may be possible co reach sponcane1cy, bur nor 1n che kind
of scruccured program we describe here . Perhaps s~ncaneo~s
speech comes about when the chi ld feels accepred a.nd ltk~d by his
grown-up friends, ,vhich does nor occur when he 1s c?nt1nuously
monicored as co che correctness and incorrectness of his language,
as we have done. Even chough son1e of our data support the no-
tion of increase in spontaneous language, we do. nor have che data
we needed ro show that our sponcane1cy rra1n1ng program pro-
duced an overall, generalized use of everyday spontaneous b~­
havior. The reader may want to cesc the empirical value of this
program himself, and here is " 'hat we did.
for convenience, v.le d1 v1ded che program for sponra.n~1t}
training into four pare~: (I) describing pictures'.(~) describing
body pares and personal belongings, (3) descnb~ng. eve.ryday
events, and (4) expressing desires. In general, ch~ pnnc1pal 1ncenc
of the program, ,, 1ch che exception of expressing des1n:s, is. ro
have the child learn co give more and more extended descriptive
accouncs of his environment "1ch fewer and fewer requests to do
so by his [s \'<le came ro define sponraneo~s speech v.·h1c~ occur-
red 1n the absence of expcnmencally manipulated cues, 1.e., the
child speaks \\·ichour being specifically requesr~d co ~o so Sp?n-
caneous speech also refers co speech that occurs 1n a snmul~s s1r~­
anon 1n which char particular behavior has noc been trained~ 1r
may consist of a novel response, a novel combination of old re-
sponses, or an old response 1n a new stimulus sicuacion.
Part 1. Training in extended descriptions of pictures.
£ makes up ,, number of posters for use in c.his proced.ure.
These posters consisc of piccures taken from magazines, of obi~cts
Language Training Manuals 171
which .che child c~n label. E begins by holding up a poster on
which is pasted a picture of one object. E asks "What do you see?"
and prom,prs the answer. If the child does noc respond well to the
quesuon What do you see)" E may use "What is chis)" ac first co
prompt the desired response (example: E: "What do you see." S:
No response £. "What is chis?" S: "Car." E: "Good. What do
you see'" S. "Car."). The posters (each poster showing a different
obiect) are changed from trial to crial. When the child 1s reliably
labeling posters sho\v1ng one picture, E incroduces a poster with
two pictures. on 1t. S must nov.• label both pictures before being
reinforced L asks S "What do you see?" and then points ro or
labels the pictures for S in order co prompt his response, or E may
simply Sa>• "and . . . . " In face, ic is generally useful co include
"and . .. " along v.•ith ocher prompts so char lacer "and ... "
may be used alone. A new poscer wich cwo different pictures on 1t
may be used on each trial. T he number of objects per poster 1s
gradually increased until Scan label as many as a dozen objects 10
respon~e co one general question like "What do you see?"
le is often useful co prompt S co name che objects from lefr co
1ighr and rop co boccom. As ch is gives S an organized way co
sea~, ~e does nor repeat che same labels over and over again while
om1rung so~e completely. Ir will also help in lacer programs,
such a.s reading, where scanning in an orderly fashion becomes
, quire 1mporranr.
. A number of posters may be reserved for generalizauon cesr-
1ng. Another approach ro generalization craining and resting in-
volves describing real snmulus arrays, for example, E may say
"Tell me v.'hac you see on che cable," or "Tell me ..vhac you see 10
the room." Ac chis point, che procedure begins co overlap V.'lth
the procedure for Pare 3, describing-accounting .
Part 2 Describing body parts and belongings.
The procedure for reaching rhe child extended descnpuons of
his ov.•n person 1s very similar ro chat for describing pictures. The
maior difference 1s char S is required to respond ro a larger
sumulus, only pares of which are visible. E will say roS, "Tell me
about yourself," and require S co respond by describing his body
pares and clothing. Thus E begins by saying "Tell me about your-
self," and prompting S ro say something like "I have a nose." E
responds with "Good, and . . . " or "Good, and what else?" and
prompts (e.g., by pointing) the child co say "l have eyes." Ethen
repeats the 51> "Tell me about yourself" and prompts rhe child to
 Language Training Manuals
172
say "I have a nose and eyes· (p<:rhap~ initially E ma}' poinr ro rhe
child's nose, then eyes). E gradually requires S ro make more ~nd
s
more responses co che 0 "Tell me abouc yourself. .. The mosc_ 1m-
porcanr aspecr of Parr 2 1s rhar ir is more likely rhar S \\-ill g1~·e a
sponcaneous response in describing his body pares-and belongings
rhan 1n responding co rhe posters and p1ccures. At chis stage in
che training, S should be able ro label a large numbe~ of body
pares and belongings. If S uses one of these labels, and 1r has not
been specifically prompted, S i~ 1m1nediarely reinforced gener-
ously
A spontaneous response 1s reinforced immediarely regardle~s
of \\-'here 1n the chain 1r appears Again, a sponraneous rc~ponse ts
one chat has never been prompted or required char da}. le may be
necc~sary ar some point co simply \\;llC for the child co give such a
respon~c before reinforcing him. 5 mar go through che enure ltsr
of responses char ha\'e been prompted, F may rhen say, "And
what else?" and waic for rhe child co include some new label
More and more, E's re1nforcc1ncnt 1s made contingent on novel
responses, such rhar S acquire~ novelty in his repercoire.
Generalization n1ay be reseed by asking the child co describe£ or
a ch ird person.
Part 3 Descnb1ng-accounhng everyday events.
Describing-acco unting of everrdar events rakes up. 1n a
sense, \\•here poster and picture craining ends In posrer and pic-
ture training, che ma1or goal 1s co have rhe child learn co give
longer and longer chains of responses co a general request HO\\'·
ever, poscer and piccur<: tr;un1ng 1s som<:\vhar limited as a base for
che generalization of spontaneous speech Describ1ng-acc ounung
uttlites the everyday experiences an<l environment of che child
an<l thus provides unlimited novelty of srimularion and oppor-
run1ry for che child co make new responses. The ob1ecr of che pro
cedurl:, then, is to haveS give a dec:uled description of an ,1rr<t) of
st1muli or an activity in response to a very general request.
The procedure involves a~k1ng S a general quesuon like
"\X/har are you playing?" or m.1king a request like "Tell me about
your coys,'" and then presenting a number of promprs <~u<.:h us
po1ncing co ob1eccs, asking specific questions or saying
"and ··) designed co evoke specific informauon, eventually
fading these prompts. F tries co keep prompring as g<:neral as
possible, even in rhe first stages of tra1n1ng (e.g., asking "Wh<1t
•
Language Training Manuals 173
else'" or saying "and .. ")rather than suggest1ng a certain kind
of response (e.g., \X'har color \Vas it?" "Ho\\ big)"). Specific
prompts are gt\'en only 1f S does nor give the desired response co
more general st1mul1. £ gradually reduces rhe number of specific
promprs and requires more and more responses per general
pr?mpc. ~ventually, th~ goal is to drop all prompts and have che
child emir a long, derailed chain of responses co one general re-
quesc.
In many ways this procedure overlaps wirh char for recall as
ir often involves rhe description of evencs and activities in ~he
pasc: The difference is 1n rhe emphasis. In chis program, one is
parc1cularly concerned \\'1th che number of responses and the de-
gree of sponcane1cy rather chan che accuracy of descnpuon and
temporal order Responses \vh1ch are nor specifically prompced
are generously and 1mmediacely reinforced.
Part 4. Expressing desires.
In chis procedure, one is concerned nor so much 'vich the
number of responses the child makes to a request by E as with che
number of responses the child can make wichour any requests
"'harsoever. The objecc 1s ro have S be able co cell E and ochers
what he \\'ants 1n hopes chat che child will become aware of some
of rhe everyda) reinforcement properues of language.
In che in1c1al stages. the procedure is qutCe similar co simple
labeling. Nonverbal prerra1n1ng based on receptive speech, as de-
scribed in J\fanual A, may be useful. E '''ould ask che child
"What do you \Vant?" ;1nJ have S point co the desired objecc. In
che beginning, it is recommended chat one use food icems. Ac all
levels of training, E muse be fairly certain char S accually desires
the objecc or acciviry in question.
To begin expressive speech craining, E selects several foods or
coys which S appears ro enioy. We recommend beginning \\-•ich
food, as E can be fairly cercain about S's likes and dislikes and his
level of sauation E asks S "Whac do you wane'" and prompcsS co
label rhe desired 1rem. e g., "milk."' Sis chen given some milk as
reinforcement for making che desired response. The procedure
proceeds much like labeling. excepc 1c is useful co haveS 1nd1cace,
e.g., by poinnng, \vhac he \\ancs on each ne'v trial, as his desires
may change during the session. Thus, one cannot be as consiscenc
abouc crainin_g irem I, chen 2, then 1, and so on. The objects or
 Langua ge Training Manual s
174
foods may have to be changed on every trial, co avoid buildin g a
stereotyped sequence. In general, we have begun trainin g in ex-
pressing desires as soon as the child is able co label three or four
food items. le 1s appare nt, then, chat certain aspects of spon-
taneity trainin g were scarred very early in the language trainin g
(already with Program 2) and were practiced informally as pare of
all programs. The earl}' introdu ction of chis program reflects our
desire co have the child learn from the beg1nn1ng chat langua ge is
an import ant cool for obtain ing reinforcement
Generahzat1on
Generalization 1s probably che mosc import ant seep 1n chis
manual. One should begin generalization cra1n1ng very early in
the learning process, for instance, as soon as Scan express his de-
sires for chree or four food items. E and ochers around che child
should require char che child begin co ask for everych1ng he
wanes, even though 5 may only be able co label che 1rem 1n rhc
most elementary way. Ar first,£ asks "What do you wane?" each
time he notices char 5 appears co be desirous of some object or
accivicy (such as going oucside or gee ting a coy.) Evencually, as
one wanes the child co learn co request such items w1chouc being
asked ,£ will have co stop askin~ and scare v.airing ar some point.
This often requires much patience and persiscance. The impor-
tance of consistency is high. One cannot require speech some-
times and not ochers and expect co ger very far \\'ith these chil-
dren
As the child moves throug h ocher programs, such as pro-
nouns, verb labels, colors, and conversation, these are incorpo-
rated 1nco deman d trainin g. For instance, one 1nay begin co hold
the child for "I wane uckle" and lacer "I wane you co uckle me" as
he learns co make these longer responses 1n the course of ocher
programs. Ac first, of course, "uckle " will suffice. After yes-no
trainin g is compl eted, "I don't wane" may be trained Lising an
informal procedure such as E "Do you wane me co hit you?" S:
"No." E. "Good. Say no, I don't v.•anc you co hie me "S 'I don'c
want you co hit me."
The mosc import ant point co be remembered 1n pursui ng
demand trainin g is chat any and all spontaneous requests are co be
reinforced generously and immed iately 1f ac all possible. Ac
times, It v.·ill noc be possible co give the child exactly what he is
asking for. For example, he may ask co go out on a rainy day.
•
Langua ge Training Manual s 175
Such requests can be reinforced socially \vi ch such phrases as
"Good talking . Good boy," and hugs and ticklin g.
Sometimes 1c may be impossible co specify che reinforcer
\Vh1ch underlies a child's speech. In chis regard \\'e have an 1n-
cerc:scing observation co relate about one of the children who was
underg oing trainin g in "extended" descriptions of his O\vn person
and irnmed1ace enviro nment and \\•ho also had an extensive reper-
toire of self-stimulator}' behavior (he \Vas concinuously twirlin g,
gazing , and the like). As the child's father began co suppress the
self-sc imulac ory motor behavi or (throu gh disapp roval and
punish ment), he spontaneously began describing his environ-
ment, apparent! y as a subsci cuce for che motor self-sci mulacion.
We cook chis co mean chat the child \\as subscicuc1ng an accept-
able form of self:.sc1mulation for one chat seemed bu:arre and
psychotic . The escablishmenc of self-sc1mulacory verbal behavior
may be seen as one of the ultima te goals 1n che program, but we
don't knov.• as yec how chis can be accomplished ac \\di.
Manual K: Storytelling
The object of chis manual is for che child co cell a detailed
story about an event which goes beyond the concrete scimuli
available co h11n 1n his physical enviro nment at the c1me and uses
whac is commo nly called "imagi nation ." That is, che program
deman ds thac he verbalize events v. h1ch he has "internalized" and
1
\\'h1ch are not phrs1cally available co him 1n his present external
enviro nment . This trainin g builds upon all previous programs. le
is similar co che sponcane1 cy progra m, particular! y describing-
accounci ng, in chat ic involves giving an orderly, detailed account
of some particu lar subjec t 1naccer, and in chat novel and un-
cra 1ned respon ses are heavil y reinfo rced. Ir has obviou s
s1mtlariues co rhe program on "recall. " Bue che program on
"scorycelling" is different from che ocher programs in chat E is
beginn ing co reach the child to talk abouc events which are not
ph)'Sically present in the child's curren t phrsical and external en-
vironm ent. The events ~ hich the child nO\\' is taught co verbalize
may not even have occurred 1n his pasc bur may in fi1cc be verbal
descriptions of events which he is conscruccing for hin1self. That
1s, he is responding co events \vhich truly do nor have an exact
external referent but ~· hich nevertheless arc made up from v. hac
1
experience he h.1s co dace .
176 Language Training Manua ls Language Training Manuals 177
1·0 rhe exten t char sror}· telling is simila r co accou nting , a
stages of traini ng, rhe childr en sho\v great losses in mater ial the>
simila r proce dure can be follo1.ved This involv es an ini~1.1l presen~ h<1ve previo usly mast<:red At times , these losses can be accrib ured
cat1on of a gener al srimu lus, e g , Tell me abouc rh1~ pictu re. co the incrodu<..uon of nc\v and some what simila r dema nds or ro
follo1.vec.I by prese ntatio n of increa singly spec1~c q~esnons neces - gener ally ncgar ive behav ior. Bur often one can cite no direct ly
sary co obtain che appro priate amou nt of dec,111 Pictur es of per- antec edent cond1 tion. \Vie shall discus s some of che probl ems \Ve
sons or anima ls engag ed 1n some acCI 1. JC)' are paruc ularl }' usefu l. have t} p1call} encou ntered in che cours e of label rra1ni ng, bur
Once che child has descri bed the peopl e. ob1ect~, and e\'enr s de-
analo gous probl ems occur in al most all the early progr ams ar
picted , E begin s askin g quest ions which canno t be answe red. di- .
t1mes .
rectly from stimu li 1n rhe pictur e. Thus E move s from quest ions In addiri on co rhe~e seemi ngl} spont aneou s losses , che chil-
like What is rh1s perso n doing ?' co "\'V'har is chis perso ns drtn mar show marke d deren orauo n 1n prono unc1a uon or the
name '" As rra1n1ng contin ues, quest ions becom e even less con-
lo,ver ing of che \'Oice co a po1nr ''here rhey becom e inaud ible. Ler
crete, e.g., "Whe re does he live?" "Whe re is he going i" "Why 1s
us bcgin ro look ar rhese diffic ulnes \vich an exam ple Jrawn fron1
he going there) " " H o\\' does he feel 1 " E shoul d encou rage and rc-
che logs kepc on Chuc k, one of our first pacien rs, an initia lly
\\ard longe r, more derail ed respon se seque nces and gradu ally de·
muce five-}·ear-old OO) \'<le began rra1n1ng on June 26 and on
crease the nun1b cr of specific prom pts. Augu st 3 I, Chuc k began losing some of the words he had previ-
One of the bcsr sect1ngs for gener aung '\cori es" arrang es for
ous Iy maste red. He seeme d not ro look at objec rs he was co label,
che child co simpl y "prete nd" char he 1s engag ed in somt accivi ry
and his voice becam e inaud ible •lt rimes . I le had diffic ulty S\\'1tch-
he likes Suppo se he had a good v1s1t co Disne rland , and suppo se
1ng from one respon se to anorh cr. On Septe mber ·'· "arren t1on
chat[ . has helpe d him verba lize ("talk ed to him about ) che vari-
rra1n1ng" w,1s insur ured as a separa re pan of sevcra l sessio ns.
ous event s that cook place ac Disne yl.1nd . Then , the nexr day scat
Chuc k was reqL1ired co point ro and look ac che objec t he was co
S in a chair, cake a sear beside him, and prece nd co go dO\\'n che
label and \\•as reinfo rced for gradu ally increa sing the lengr h of his
i\1act erhorn nde Perha ps H 1s easier co scare prece nding 1.vich a
gaze This proce dure appea red co \\'Ork for a '>''hile, and by Sep-
more 11nmed1ace event , like eanng food. If5 likes ice cream v.-1th
rernbe r 9. Chuc k \\'as makin g four out of five respon ses correc tly
choco late sauce , one can of cours e gradu ally fade those comp o-
durin g mean ing traini ng. Howe ver, durin g rhe nexc \veek, he
nents and retain che behav iors (eat1n g ice cream and feelin g good)
again showe d signs of dereri orar1o n
co a sC1mulus like "lee's preten d v,:·e are eat1n.~ ice cream ," v,:·hile
The staff cried pl.1c1ng each b1te of food on a "hire rov,:•el be-
going throu gh rhe moc1ons of "prete nding ro pour choco_lare
fore askin g \vhac ir was, 1n an ,1rrc:1npc ro foc:us Chuc ks acrenc ion
sauce over rhe ice cream , holdi ng the spoon , ••nd so on. If.\ likes
on the srirnu l us co be l.1belled . This see1n ingly led co some im-
car rides, one can preten d co drive a car, rurn1 ng sharp corne rs
prove ment 1n che ac1..ur.1cy of his labell1r1g Anorhe;r rec_hn14ue
and so on S1mtl arly, 5 C"an preren d ro be E and one can help
,, h1ch seeme d co result 1n some 1mpro veme nr, consis ted of askin g
prom pr chat \Vhen S '>'·ears some off's clorhe s, S rrains f. on son1e
Chuc k ro arren d co obiec rs held by rhe therap ist at a distan ce of
cask, feeds him, and disapp roves of his errors . Man}' of chc chil-
six or more feer. This requir ed a n1ore active "atten tional search "
dren \Ve saw were exrre1 nely reinfo rced by gaini ng su<..h explic it
on Chuc k's part. Obvio usly, then, '"e cried a numb er of differ cnr
concr ol over E.
solut1 ons "1tl1 more or less succ<:ss. In rhe case of Chuc k rhe most
succe ssful techn ique seeme d r<:1nedial traini ng on reccp cl\c
'
speec h, bur we have nor had the oppor run1r y, co sysrem arical ly
Manual L: Some Further Problems in Teaching
<..valuate chis seep. Thar 1s, Chuc k \\as cold co give ch<: cherap1sc a
parc1c ular obicc r or co po1nc co an ob1ecc and \\JS asked \X'hac is
Throu ghout chis book we hav~ descr ibed a numb er of "spe-
it!" on ly after he had correc tly 1dencified the objec t nonve rball> .
cial" probl ems, or learni ng pecul iaritie s, and our attem pts to deal
Event ually. che nonve rba l de1na nd '>'•as faded our. Reme dial
v.•irh chem . Lee us no'' arrcm pr co Lomp lerc a descn prion of the
rra1n1ng on rccepr i,·e speec h '"as 1nscicuccd on Septe mber 19, and
diffic ulues "·e have encou nccre d Very often durin g che earlr
b} Sepre1nh<:r 22, Chuc k had made suh5tanc1al impro veme nt.
•
 Language Training Manuals
178
The reader should note char expressive speec~ training was n_oc
discontinued .ilcogecher Rather. several minutes of _remedial
training w·ere employed ac che beg1nn1ng of each _session or at
points \\·here Chuck appeared co have parcicul~r d1~culcy. Th~
amount of rime spent in recepuve speech c_ra1n1ng was grad~all_>_
reduced over ..c~sions unnl only expre~sne speech cra1n1ng re
mained {September 22, morning) During c~e afcernoon of Se_p-
cember 22, Chuck sho"·cd a slight relapse 1n perform~nce '.was
bnefly given remedial cr.iin1ng involv1~g a nonverbal 1de_nn~ca­
cion cask, and again sho\\·ed immediate and subsranual im-
provement. · ffi
These procedures may be used w·hen che_chtld ?eg1ns coo .er
incorrect responses or no response ac all dunng dnll on macer1al
,vich which he 1s already familiar Anocher approach is nec:ssary
,vhen accempnng co r.use the child's volume. For ex~mp.~e. Chuck
was speaking very softly" hen ans'':erin~ che quesc~on What d_o
you \vane?" The \t.tfT was able co ra1~e ~1s.. volu.me simply by ask-
ing him questions suth <ts "What 1s ic?. which he ha_d ~!ready
mastered. The procedure seemed ro reinforce the chi!~ s con-
fidence in his 0 ,vn responses and seems to be successful in so1?e
limited number of cases. In general, ho\vever, two more easily
explicable procedures have proved rnosc fruitful..
The first of chese 1s volume im1cacion. This ~rocedu.re has
been used ,virh a number of children. The therapist begins by
saying "loud" in a very loud voice. No~e chis,_ t~ac although the
child has gone through extensive imicauon c~a~n1ng. and now• can
imitate most words w1th minimal if .1ny cra1n1ng: he sr11l cannot
imitate E's loudness {volun1c). Thar 1s, loudness did nor become a
functional snmulus <luring imaar1on cra1n1ng. ~roba~ly because
we did nor d1fferenciallv reinforce the child for 1m1tanng Es de-
cibel level (\X'e found scant e .. idence for a large range of'"gencral
imitanve behavior!>' dunng our 1m1tanon rra1n1ng.) Any ..,ay, ..ve
proceeded co reach rhe child co 1m1cate loudness, by dtfferenually
reinforcing the chtl<l for m<ttching rhe ~dult's level. .. \'Ve ~l:o
caught him to r.i1se his voKe co E's "lou~,' b_y E saying l~ud in ,
a loud voice, then gradu,1lly lowering his voice level,_ leaving the
command loud" a~ rhc funcuonal cue. Once the child has mJ.s-
cered chi~ response. 13. 1ncro<luces che w•ord "soft" using a nl'ar
"·hisper. and again che child 1s held for im1tation of volum1.: as
"ell as of the word ··,oft." When rhe child 1s sh1fong easily from
loud co soft, rhe cxpen1nenrer introduces ocher ~o~ds._ He may
raise his own voice volun1c and hold the child for 1m1rar1on, or he
•
Language Training Manuals 179
may use rhe word "loud" a~ a prompt co increase volume. Drill is
maintained unt1l the child is imitating the new words 1n the ap-
propriate volume. The use of "loud" as a prompt generally means
thar £ says "louder'" and then gives che second \\'Ord. The child 1s
reinforced for repeating che second word, bur not che word
"louder. Of course, the child muse give che second "'Ord 1n the
appropnare volume. Gradually, the second word is faded. For
example. lee us say the "'Ord ro be imi rared is "car." The E would
say "c.it," and the child \VOuld imitate. If his volume 1s coo soft,
the E says "louder, cat," repeating "cat'" in a very loud vo1Ce. The
child would be held for 1miraring "car." Eventually, che therapist
should fade che word "cat" and use only the word "louder" to in-
crease rhe child's volume.
The second method depends for its success upon the child's
current repertoire. Very often the child is consistently making
some responses in a loud voice spontaneously. For Chuck, chis
response was an Indian war whoop, with all the concommicanr
pounding on the chesc. In Billy's case, E noticed that Billy was
consisrcncly louder after he had just been tickled. In both cases,
the staff began by briefly reinforcing the children for any loud re-
sponses. Then the activities were used as stepping scones for rais-
ing volume in training sessions. When the child"s volume drop-
ped, the therapist would initiate one of these accivicies and follow
ic up closely with the task on which the child's voice was coo soft.
Acnviries which serve this purpose usually involve a large non-
verbal componenr, such as tickling, pushing, chasing, .ind 1ump-
ing. Rough-and-tumble play is a good place ro begin looking for
the appropnare act1v1ty.
The final problem which we w•1ll cover' 1n this section involves
poor pronunc1at1on. This may be a continuing difficulty for che
child or may occur in connection with a parricular cask and ap-
pear co be a transient problem. Often, simply holding the child
stnccly for the best pronunciation of which he is capable 1s the
best cure. Ho"·ever, V.'lth more recurring d1fficuloes in chis area,
the suggested procedure varies with the specific deficiency
Billy, for instance, displayed much difficulcy in making the
sil1banr sounds. The therapist drilled on these, raking Billy's
hand and purring 1t in front of rhe cherap1sr's mouch, and then
Billy's mouth, so he could feel the expulsion of air, in the hope
char this add1cional stlmulus would facilicare his discrimination.
In addirion, words on which Billy had much trouble were broken
down into component sounds and drilled separately .
 Language Training Manuals
180
Here is ,1nocher, ~11nrlar, procedure. One 1nay r<·gain claric r
111 che produ(CIOn of rhe sound s "pa and "b,1" br suspe nding a
pie(l' of coccon on a sering so che thilJ can see che coccon S\\ 1ng in
ch<· air expelled by E when makin g che sounJ , or by h1niself, 1fhc
1n.1kes che sound correccly The gucceral sound s ma~ be prompced
b) h,1\·1ng rhc chrld im1race cough ing, a response '"ich a large
nonverbal comp onent \\ h1ch some childr en seem co enioy . One
muse remember.always. ho,vevcr, char any artificial me.ins of gec-
ung che ,hild co make che corre<..t respons(; 1nusc evenrually be
faJ~d. These mechods serve che purpo se of makin g chc correcr r<·-
sponse more llearl y d1sln minab lc, somech1ng ver} <l1fficulc for
ch<· chcrap1sc co demon\crace, since so much of pronu nliaci on is
v1rcually unobs ervab le from che child 's po1nr of view, anJ
difficulc co explain ,·erhally co chc mosc lucid ,1dulr.
The basic principle 111 all of chese procedures 1s co discover
\\'h,tt sore of re1nedial cr,11ning is ne(cssary, ,1nd rhen drop brieAy
co drill on che simpl er c,1sk. burlJ ing back .L~ yuick ly ,\\ possible
co che more J1fficulc ones Ont: 1nusc bc abk co sore our arccn-
cional probl ems from real losses and volume d1ffi,ulcH.:s from pro-
nunriacion or 1usr general confusion and co sec comp ounds of sev-
er.ti probl ems. From rhtre, rhe mer hods .in. a comb1 nac1on of
'''\'<treness, (omm on seno;e. and cnal-a nd-er ror 1n a reinfo rceme nt
fra1ne\\'Ork
Manual M: Stopping Echolalia
Echolal ia 1s one of rhe 1nosc inrerescing and fruscr anng
~ymproms assoc1aced wJCb auusm Bas1call), one is f,1<.cd \\,1rh che
f.1l'r char che child echcx:s everych1ng you sa\ You cannoc afford co
romplecel} exnng uish elhola ltc behavior, tor 1mirar1on is a basic
cool 111 cvcrr procedure; hue you muse reach rhe child co discn m1-
n.ue berw·ct·n chose \\'Ords he is ~upposed co 1m1rare .ind chose he
1s nor. Thc t\\'O procedures "'e have used mosr frequ ently for
tacrl1Cat1ng chis discr11n1nar1on arc volume <.ue1ng" and rhe use •
of rhe con1111and "don'c echo."
The goal of rhe proct dure 1s co have che child cc ho only chc
desired response and nor rhe prom pc, yuesr1on. or inscru cuon
\\ hich precedes 1r. For example, one needs co be able co say
"\X1 h,1c is 1c 1 car" <tnd hav(' \ repeac only "car," or IJ m1ghc
,·erhaltze ·Sa} my name 1s Ricky ··and "'1nt ~ ro 01n1r the \vord
"say " Volu1n<. cuein!! is one \\',t}' co facilic,\Ce such discri mina-
•
Language Training Manuals 181
t1ons. One repeats che quest ions very sofcly and che responses
quire loudl} The chrld "·ill usually rcpcar only che loud \vords.
Over successive rnals, onc gradu ally increases cht volume of the
quesr ion and, of course, fades che voral1t.acion of rhc desired re-
sponse (che promp c) unril chc cwo are eyual in volume. One chen
proce eds co fade che prom pt furrhe r unrrl 1r 1s dropp ed al-
rogerher. Time our may be made conr1ngenc upon 1ncorrecr 1m-
icacions, char is, verbalizacions in which rhe quesc1on is ent1rely
or parcially repeared When such a response occurs, E ma} say
Don'c echo·· immc d1are lr before insc1ruc1og a rime our.
There <Ire many kinds of prograrns \vhere verbal in11Cat1on is
enrire ly inapp ropria te, for cxa1nple, where a comm and is in-
volved. An imporr;1nr exam ple 1s rcc<:pt1vt speech crain1ng for
prono uns (IC can be d1sasrrous if rhe chrld echoes rhe ,,·ords my
nose" "hen poinn ng co E's nose. ) Ac chese nmes , E gives rhe
com1nand "don'c echo" and presents t1me our conringenc upon
echoi ng
In man} progr ams, E "'111 need co be able co includ e rhe \\'Ord
"say" iusc prior co a \vord or phrase in order co in<licace co the
child chat he is co cake a prom pt direct ly. This cc<.hnique saves a
good deal of rime once rhe (hild learns char he 1s nor co crho
say." When che chrld has learned chis d1scnm1n.1t1on, "sa} .. ma}
serve as a cue char \\ hac comes nexc shoul d be 1m1rared. If onc
\Vere co consiscenrly reinforce imica non after che \\'Ord "say" and
not at ocher rimes, rhe child shoul d learn rhar "sa>" means "no"'
you are co 1m1rare" and char 1m1cacion 1s inapp ropna re 1n ocher
circum stance s. Ho\vcver, '"e usual lr do nor crain ··say" unnl rhe
child has been in the progran1 for some cirne. Reme mber, the rule
ac firsc 1s char che fC\\'Cr \vords rhe beccer 1-Io\vevcr, in lacer stages
of rra1n1ng, it is ofrcn useful co reach che child chis d1scnn11na-
c1on, parc1cularly \vhere E and 5 are m,1k1ng exrcn dtd responses
and incerchanges as 111 recall, conversac1on, and srorytelling
 Chapter VI I
CASE STUDIES:
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
IN THREE AUTISTIC CHILDREN
By Dean Alexander,
Paul Dares,
and Paula Firestone

....~ hapter VII 1s presented by three therapists \\ho paruc1-

pared 1n the treatment of three aunstic children . These cases are
represenranve of rhree d1fferenr kinds of aunsnc children. The
firsr child, Reeve, funcrioned ar a very low level and for practical
purposes he had no language at inrake. Srimultaneously he
showed an excessive amounr of inattenrion, tanrrums, and self-
sumularory behavior.
The seton<l thil<l, Tommr, was nor quire so undeveloped; he
could fo llo\\ s11nple commands and showed sporadic im1ration of

• 183
 Case Studi es· Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
184
vo,vel sounds. I le ,,·as not as inarrenrive as Reeve and shov.1ed less
self-stimulatory beha\'ior; in general, he \vas easier co manage.
He had no play ;1n<l only· ltmHed or nonex1srenr social behavior.
The third child ro be described, Linda, is a "high funccion-
1ng" aur1sr1c . She had echolaltc speech, could label s1mplt ob-
1ecrs. and could follo\v simple commands v.·hen properly mori-
\'ared She had no understanding of abstract terms such as ome or
prepos1nons and pronouns She "·ould play v.·irh simple coys bur
sho,,·ed no 1nceresr in her peers Her self-srimularory behavior
was delimited and fiurly eas> to control, as "'ere her ranrrums
Each child \\,ts st•lrted in therapy prior co iO monchs of age,
partly· because of the rcvers1btl1ty of crearment gains "hich had
characrertled our earlier efforts '''ith older autistic children
(Lovaas et al.. l97 3). Each child received more than 15 hours of
rrearmenc per \Veek. and most of char rrearmenc was conducted in
the child's home. This rrearmenr. although supervised by a pro-
fessional \vas conducted b}· a graduace srudenr in psrchology or
education v.•ho, in turn, had from four co six undergraduare sru-
denrs v.•orking for hin1. Addicionally, rhe child's parents v.•ere
caught how ro rre.n him, ro observe and participate in all rhcrapy
sessions, and, keep logs <Ind rake data. Jn chis n1anner, rhe child
receivtd treatment (1.c., lived in a relatively incensive educational
environment) for almosr all his '''aking hours. The involvement
of the child's parents \Vas intended parrly co overcome rhe sirua-
rionaltry assoc1aced v.11rh the rrearmenr gains in our earlier v.·ork
(Lovaastt al. 19 7 ~). Thar is, \VC \vanred some assurance char 1m-
provemenc 1n rhe children v.•ould nor be Ii mired ro rhe clinic bur
v.·ould also extend 1nro their day-to-day funccioning in rhe1r
homes. The parents, of course, grearl} expanded the efficiency of
rhe project in a nu1nber of\\ ays.
Tht current autism proiecc from \Vh1ch these chree cases have
been rak~n 1s run as a 101nc effort by Drs. Laura Schre1bman,
Robert Koegel. and myself. The chapter begins v.•1rh a descnp-
uon of Reeve, th<: lease developed of the three children.
Reeve
Reeve \Vas 2 years and ~ 1nonrhs old ac che onset of rrear1nenc.
He \\<lS the produce of ,1 nonnal pregnancy, bur had been deliv-
ered through Caesarean secuon for brt:ach presentation. A con-
•
Case Studies Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 185
gen1ral cleft of rhe velum, 'vhich extended approx1macely half an
inch 1nro the hard palace, had been successfully repaired ar rhe
age of 18 monrhs He suffered from frequenc ear and respiratory
1nfecrions, colic. and allergies. He also had a bilaceral hernia and
unilateral cryprorchism (che failure of rhe cesces co drop into the
scrotum). A small O\'ergro'' rh of skin on che lov.·er portion of his
ear may suggest a generic defect, of a rype usuall}' not associated
\\'ith auflsm. Extens1\'e medical examinations shov.·ed no ev1<lenct
of neurological disease and no 1nd1cacion ofbra1n damage or ocher
cerebral dysfunction. There 1s no family history of neurological or
gtnet1c disease.
Developmencal mdesrones v.·ere reached v.·irh1n normal
limns I-le sac up at 8 months, crav.•led ac 9 months, and walked
ac 16 months Teech erupce<l abouc 12 months of age. He v.•oul<l
grasp ar obiecrs ac abour 8 monrhs, bur scoppe<l doing so afcer
several rnonr hs.
His parents became aware char he was definirel>• different
from ocher children when he was 3 monrhs old, when he seemed
to avoid social inreracrion or contact wich adults or orher children
and \vas conrenc ro remain alone for long periods of rime. He
would respond to orher people's arremprs ro shov.• hirn affection
by screa1ning and crying, parcicularly ,vhen picked up. Lacer, his
use of roys was generally inappropriace (e.g., he would rcpeare<lly
throv.1 che1n on che ground), and he \vould nor play on equipmcnr
such as slides or S\v1ngs. When firsc seen by us he v.1as physically
very lechargtC, n1ov1ng '' 1ch seemingly greac effort. He could nor
dress or undress himself. open doors. or climb into chairs \V1chour
help. He v.·as onl>· parcially ro1ler-rrained and had only• recenrly
been raughr co feed himself. He still resisted solid foods
Boch parents report him as ha\'ing been unresponsive v.•hen
spoken ro his first rear of life He vocalized rarely and never
mimicked. He failed ro laugh or smile. and he seeme<l 1nsensirive
co p<lin. His mother reporrs chat he sac up on che operacing cable
during hernia surgery (\\·hen he '"as 26 monrhs of age) and ar-
cempred onlr a fe,, <lays afcer rhe operation ro v. alk up the stairs
of his home.
He en~a~ed exrensivelr 1n self-srimularorr acr1,·1oes such as
ga11n~ at his hands, ar lights, or off inro space. He chanced ro
h11nself tonr1nuously, ran or sromped in small circles repeatedly,
and rocked himself frequently in his crib, on che Aoor, and par-
ucuhtrl>• next co the V<tcuum cleaner. He smelled and licked both
186 Case Studies; Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
objefts and people. I-le refused ro ear obiecrs of certain colors, for
example, he would nor put anything red into his mouth. He vio-
lenrl)" refused to touch sand or grass. In addinon, he compul-
sivelr lined up p.1pers or roys 1n particular paccerns. He v.·as often
extremely fearful of new roys or ;1ctivities and of a~y incrus1~ns
into his en\ironmenc. He sho,ved some self-desrrucuvc behavior,
consisting of head banging concenrrared on sharp corners of fur-
niture
\X'hen his language v.·as rested ac 2 }'ears of age br a clinical
psychologist (t\\"O months before he began treacmenr at UCLA).
Reeve v.as characterized as rurally nonverbal \\'1th minimal recep-
uve speech exhibited only "·hen properly morivaced. He reseed at
only 8 months on the language area of rhe Gesell Developmental
Schedules; the test results revealed an "'1nabiliry to formulate
words or imitate sounds " Reeve's vocalizacions consisted primar-
ily of primitive grunts, screams, and squeals; and only rarely did
he vocalize a repetitive series of reduplicated consonant vO\\·el
syllables ("'no no no," "na na na," or "do do do," for example).
These reduplicated syllables \\·ere only sporadic, occurring with
low frequency, and like many other aspecrs of Reeve's behavior
tended to appear briefly and then disappear for prolonged
periods. Many of his sounds nevt·r reappeared after being heard
once or cw1ce l le \vould never imitate these sounds when they
were presented by his mother for him co m1m1c. Reeve's parents
1n1oally suspected <l heanng deficit because he seemed oblivious
ro verbal commands and comments Subsequent resting, how-
ever. shov.•ed Reeve's hearing to be normal. Ar 1nrake his de-
velopmental index on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development
v..·as less than SO.
,\fo111h 1. t.1uch of the first rhree co four months of rherap>
focused on eliminaring his incessant high-pirched screaming.
squl'aling, and crying \\·hen people approached him, parricularlr
"·hen cht· rht:rap1sr placed demands on him or spoke co him or
couched him We tried inicially an excinccion procedure, consist-
ing primarily of ignoring his screaming In addition. any
momentar}' subsiding of his screaming and rancrums was praised.
and food \\·as given as a re\\•ard . Hov.:ever. he responded to all
these efforts \\'ith increased tantrums. lncidenrallr. his ranrrums
\\'ere phys1c.dly quite passive:, for example, he screamed,
squealed, and cried continuously, yet his body simultaneously
remain~d limp. I le seerns incredibly physically lethargic and un-
responsive.
•
Case Studies Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 187
During sessions when we rry ro reach Reeve co life his arm on
command (" ra1st: arms" \Vhile therapist simultaneously raises his),
the therapist manually fifes Reeve's arm up for him, verbally
praising him for having his arms up, bur as soon as his physical
support 1s " ·irhdrawn, Reeve's arm falls limply ro his side. Dur-
ing rhe firsc month we also began ro build eye contact 1n response
to rhe command, " Look ar me. " There has been no progress on
either cask during chis month, and no reducuon 1n his tantrums .
1\l11111h 2 , Reeve was sick most of chis month \virh massive ear
and chroar infections There seems to be no decrease in his tan-
trums. His spontaneous verbalizations remain at zero Because
time-our procedures were 1neffecuve in reducing his canrrun:is.
we have decided co "work through the ranrrums·· and keep deliv-
ering our requests despite his ob1ections. Also, since food and. s~­
c1al reinforcement did nor maintain his response to the therapists
"raise your arm" (Reeve typically would barely and lecharg1cally
raise his arms a couple of inches, or fail co do so altogether), we
have decided to harshly (and probably painfully for Reeve) raise
his arms when we prompt him (we abruptly raise his arms by
physically moving our limbs under chem). Thar. is, he has. been
shifced more ro a reinforcement schedule by \vh1ch he avoids or
escapes aversive scimularion (in addition ro receiving positives)
when he complies. These are extremely crying rimes for his
therapists as well; chey are tac1gued afrer one or cwo hours of su<..h
crearmenr. His lethargy and apparent negauv1sm are astounding
,il11ilfh ~. Reeve under\venc surgery ro correct his bilateral
hernia this month and 1s ready ro continue therapy three _weeks
later. He is beginning ro mascer some simple sounds in the
therapy sessions These sounds, pri~arilr "'_Aee'" (\vhich may he
Re<.:ve's \vord for "light," since he points co IC " ·hen he .makes the
sound) and ·~tmmm, " are nor spontaneous bur are em1rced upon
command \V'hen che therapist points co rht light and says.
"\Xlhac 1s 1r'' Reeve sometimes says "Aee. and \\·hen the
therapist says. '" Reeve. say ~immm . " he somer11!1es say~
"Mmmm ." (Thar 1s, rhese sounds are nor under cons1srenc S
control buc occur sporadically ) We are beg1nn1ng ro see some
progress in his response co our commands. .
i\l11n1h ~ We are hearing more sounds during therapy ses-
sions . Although chest: sounds are often an1malist1c , spoken in
very chroacy grunts, chey are of the type.. \\·e have seen before.'.
inulnple chains of syllables; for example, mah 1nah 1nah m.1h ,
1
"m<: me me me, " or "lah lah !ah lah." If we present che S 1.
188 Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
Reeve, s,1y 'me," "\ve ITI<I}' hear "me me me me," although we
arc JUSt as likely co hear him say "la la la la ... As the firsr seep in
our language program, every verbal response of Reeve·s. is consi~­
ered correct .ind 1~ reinforced heavily. \Ve arc encouraging vcx:al1-
zations of any kind 1n an>· contexc. buc chey are still scarce.
Reeve is no'v making some progress in recepnve speech train-
ing, \\'hich has prompted us co accelerate his receptive speech
training to commands such as "give me che book." "touch your
foot," and chc like'. His responses continue co be quire random;
he docs not appear co be listening co what is being said.
,\l11nthJ 5 .11ul 6 . Reeve's little brother was born. buc Reeve
seems verr quiet and remains unresponsive to him. <This brother
and a subsequent one boch developed normally; the parents were
amazed ac che <litferencc.) Reeve nO\'-' has a very small repertoire
of sounds upon \Vhich we bas<.; a daily verbal 1m1cac1on dnll. \V/c
continue co reinforce all vocal1zat1ons 1n an effort to increase his
frequcnc>· of respon<l1ng Reeve's 1nabtlity or unwillingness to
move his n1outh and congue Aex1bly 1nhibics his further progress
This, assoc1.1ted with his failure ro chew and swallov.· hard foods
and the troubl<.: he \hO\\' S S\\all<l\v1ng liquids, along with the
problems inherent 1n the repaired cleft palate, suggests chat
Reeve's problems \v1ch his congue <Ind mouth arc nor simply re-
lated co a lo\\ n1orivaC1on co perform
We are exp,1nd1ng his recepC1ve speech drills. and he is doing
\\'ell w1rh simple tasks and \vii! retrieve and deliver many labeled
objects . He· has an atnnit}' ti)r receptive labels and nov.: appears
able to remember as many as are caught \\·ich only minimal expo-
sure Final!}', the tantrums have definitely subsided \V/htle ex-
pressive speech creeps along, recepc1\'e speech is Aounshing. Ir is
apparent chat Reeve's earlier tantrums and sclf-sc1mularor}' be-
havior \\'ere 1n,1sking his pocencial rcceprivc ab1lit1cs
1\10111/, 7. This monch Reeve scarred half-day sessions at a reg-
ular remplc-connecred nursery school in his ne1.ghborhood . He
seems co like che school, and \\'Care encouraged. The elimination
of his Jisrupnve tantrumous behavior ac che beg1nn1ng of treat-
ment and his early succc\sc~ in receptive speech help him adjust
to school \X'c arc engaging daily in formal verbal imitation
drills, using \ounds \\'C h.1ve overheard him say in earlier drills or
sounds " ·hich arc similar co those "h1ch we have heard, such «S
"\\:t:," "!ah. " n.1h," ' 1nah," "~f1nn11n," and "do." In these drills.
while chl sounds arc presented as s1nglt.: srllables, \Ve connnue ro
receive responses from Reeve 1n mulc1ple redupl1canons such as
"v:e we "'e \vt we" or "lah lah lah lah lah."
•
Case Studies Language Acquisition in Three Au1istic Children 189
Reeve sho\vs an increasing spontaneity \vi th music . He hums
songs he h;1s lcarnc<l, such as " Happy Birthday" and "It's a Small
Worl<l ," an<l has begun to sing che songs using his syllabics, such
as "bah bah," "<lo <lo," "nah nah," "lah lah ... This allo\>.·s us to
pracricc his sounds in an informal, spontaneous conccxc and al-
IO\\'S him co experience his sounds in rhychm, "·h1ch "ill hope-
fullr have some effecc on his learning of inconacion . "Ahmah" has
nO\\' become his scock ans\\·er, replacing mosc of his ocher sounds
<luring verbal 1mitacion training. His perseverac1on on the
"ahmah" response 1s remarkable, and he is even singing "-'1th
"ahmah" as the lyric .
Reeve has mac.le rapid progress in his recepc1ve speech dc-
velopmenc 1n the lase monch. He 1s nO\\ able co d1scr11n1nace ,
po1nr ro, or recneve any number of objects, responding co ch~
verbal <;;us, "Po1nr ro _ , .. "Touch ,'' "Give me __
"Pick up ,"and "Bring me che "accurace!y and con-
sistently We arc concentrating on objects around his bedroon1
sue h as che table, chair, bed, and books and on body pares such as
hea<l, rongu<:, an<l arin. He is able to discriminate and. po.inc co
his leg, kn<:e, sock, and shoe. These receptive speech acc1v1t1es are
not wichouc problems. Reeve has a cendency co beco1ne sloppy
\\•hen asked to po1nc co obieccs. . . .
He 1s learning color concepts quite rapidly. He will 1<lcnrify
and retrieve re<l , blue , and green objects. He is also able to re-
spond over t\\'O dimensions, discnmi~at1ng both color. an<l shape;
for exam pk, a red square from a red circle, a yello'v triangle from
a blue triangle, or a yellow circle from a red square.
Reeve has sho\\' n a fascination "·ich alphabet letrers He has a
small sec of plastic magnetic ones chat he plays "1th const;tn.~ lr:.
He can nO\\' i<lcnuf} and po1nc correctly to the lercers A
through "f" "hen presented before him. le appears thac \Ve ma}'
have an avenue here ro explo1c. When a child such as Reeve shO\\S
little mouvacion co learn, ic 1s extremely 1mporcanc co find an ac-
civicy thac is at once re\\·arding and pocenna~ly educau~nal.
1\l11111h .'I . In addition co language tra1n1ng, Reeves therapy
cune includes a number of varied activities designed t o sustain a
high<:r alc1v1cy level, including playgro~nd act1v1tics , cacchi~g a
b.111, dancing, and crafts such as pa1nc1ng We ,,·ork th~1n 1nco
chc speech dnlls. We have begun to \Vichdra\\' all acrcnr1.on and
reinforccmenc for the response "Ahmah" 1n an effort to cxt1ngu1sh
ic as Reeve's stock verbal response. From all indications IC appears
char this cxt1nction procedure \viii be effective. Throughout ~he
n1011th, Reeve's verbal imitation responses are cons1scently high
190 Case Studies: Language Acqu1s1hon in Three Autistic Children
and accurate for a variety of sounds. His verbalizations are becom-
ing more accuratl· and n1uch more distinct and easier to under-
stand.
During a therapy session at UCLA, one of rhe cherapiscs en-
gaged in a ncv.· cype of dialogue \Vi th Ree\'C. An 1n1ual verbal S 0
\vas presenced co v.·hkh Reeve responded. The therapist then im-
itated Reeve·s responst· back co him \Vith an intonauon charac-
teristic of con\'ersacion . Every response Reeve made became the
chtrapisc\ next \'t:rbali;i:,ition \'V'e observed an immediace increase
in his frequency of \'<x:ali;i:ac1ons during chis interchange. Also
during this samt stssaon, Reeve said "Do do" spontaneously,
v.·ichouc anr verbal sn or prom pr, during a verbal drill. He has
rarely spoken sponcaneousl}' during therapy. and chis 1s the fuse
observation of the crpe of spontaneity char has been reported by
the parents 1n rhe home journal.
Reeve as nov.• SJ)•ing "mama," hue we can't be sure char he is
making chc conneccion between chc v.•ord "mama" and his
n1othcr Because he appears ro enjoy seeing his mother. v.·e have
begun to make "n1ama" funtcaonal, pairing its emission with an
opporcunicy ro sec ~fama.
In his rectpcave sptech activ1cu.-s he concinucs co progress in
che same d1recc1ons as lasr month Often chose commands chat
Reeve completes quickly and consistently in therapy he v.•111 not
complete for has parents \V/e have given the parents five com-
mands to usl· v.·ith him. Ther are : "come here," "sir down,"
"bring me shoes," "go co bed, .. and "close che door .. The parents
arc concencr.1cing on achieving consiscenc compliance co these five
com1nands. using pun1shmtnc 1f necessary.
,\lonth 9. Rc1.:\'e \\enc co Seatcle for one \veek v.·ich his parents
ac che beginning of the month Upon ht~ rccurn. his mochtr re-
ports to us char hl· is more vcrballr r<:sponsave ac home. Ho\\·ev<:r.
1n che therapy session~ he is more rancrumous. more uncoopera-
tive and noncompltanc. His accenc1on is poor and boch his verbal
and rtcepcive sptc<.h r<:sponding seem depressed . He shO\\'S signs
of pain and , ftt·ling that he is perhaps ill. \ve have become more
lenient, detre;i,ing dl•mands on him in therapy.
\V/l h.l\l' moved inco mort play and begun receptive speech
drilling \\'ith ;1cc1ve toys such as "go dov.·n rhe slide" and "climb
o\·er the hump ... Retvc is participating voluntarily and appears co
havt· fun.
i\fonth /() ()ur school ohservanons are alarming. Reeve 1s
gazing and does nor orienc co his name. He is connnually en-
•
Case Studies Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 191
gaged 1n running bac;k and forth along a fence as self-scimulacory
behavior. I-le runs \vich his head bent over and his tongue our
1-lis overall behavior in all concexcs seems poor. Whenever
therap}' demands are placed upon him, he holds has genicals,
doubles over as 1f in pain, begins a cancrum, and demands the
toilet. Hov.·ever, once placed on the coilec, he refuses co go. This
type of noncomplianr behavior has concinued since 1ust before che
trip co Seatcle. \'V'e had interpreted it chen as possibly due co
physical illness ;1nd had been sympathetic and lenienc co,,·ard ic .
A doctor's chtck, however, proved us co be wrong. There appears
co be nothing physically \vrong \v1th Reeve. Probably our lack of
discipline and ,,·1chdrawal of demands has allowed Reeve co seri-
ously regress.
We decided char Reeve's subscancial nonperformance is co
earn him sharp pun1shmenc (a slap on the boccom). Afcer only a
few days of such punishmenc and reinscaced accentuaced positive
cont1ngenc1es, he is responding much more quickly an_d consas-
cencly. J lis verbal imitation is more accurate, and has overall
awareness of the coral environment has improved.
As \VC had hoped for earlier, we are hearing cwo more par-
tially reduplicated syllables in Reeve's repertoire ... non ah .. and
"dodah." We can now assume char his use of "ahmah" (in Month
7) was not merely a fluke. In using "nonah" and "dodah," Reeve
appears co he concrascang rhe vowel sounds "a" and "o," m1x1ng
chem while he keeps che consonanc concexr constant. As che pre-
dominance of chese parcial reduplications subsided, Reeve's ocher
verbal rcpertoirt reappeared. \Vi th. his vocalizations ~o~~isn~g
almosc coca II}' of sy llablcs formed \V1th consonants. and .a. ~; h1l~
the sound "o" has \'1rcually disappeared. Reeve as saying ah,
.. pa h , .. .. ma h •.. " bahbah
, , " " mahmah , .. and "nahnah,
. " and yet "o"
sounds such as " no" and "do," v.·hach \vere previously scrong. ha\'e
decreased in frequency co almosc zero. .
In chese aspects, Reeve's verbal beha,·1or concanues co be con-
siscenc \vi ch l1ngu1sr1c observaraons of normal ~h1_ldr~n . His use of
p<ircial reduplicauons, concrasring sounds w1ch1n.. 1de.~t1cal con-
texts, ,ind his predom1nare use of the vov.•el sound ah, che vowel
most commonly used firsc by normal children, are encouraging
exaanples of norn1al language development. As Ion~ as Reeve co~­
t1nucs to develop along che same lanes as normal children. ,,.e \Viii
he encouraged about has fucure language possib1l1u.es.
We are using {\VO methods co loosen ~ceve s mouch and
tongue, f.1cal1tac1ng his tongue movements, lip formations, .ind

192 Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
sound produccion. He is asked co blo\\" ouc macches held in fronc
of him. A puckered blo\\ is mo<lele<l for him by che cherap1sc.
and chen Reeve 1s asked . .. Bio"· ouc che macch."" He is imicaring
some minima. mouch movemcncs A more effeccive and enjorable
method is mirror 1m1rat1on \\'e are no\\· modeling f.1cial ex-
pressions for Reeve \\·hile sirring nexr co him in fronc of a mirror.
\'<'t are modeling such responses as an open mouch, a closed
mouch, a blo\v, puckering rhe lips. rongue our, a smile 'IVich
ccech cogccher, and a fro,vn Reeve en1oys chis mirror imiracion
and "ill respond in shore spurcs. moving his congue .1nd lips
quice flexibly.
\X'e are incroduc1ng recepcive speech commands rhroughouc
che house. using s0 s such as .. curn on/ offcheTV." "puc che ne\\S-
paper on che cable' chair, .. and "open rhe record cabinec ... \X'e
agree char che parents are ;1lmosc continuously co ask him co carry
ouc behaviors. on rheir requests , in all siruat1ons, rhroughouc che
day \X'e have begun \\"Ork on the concepr ··same," asking Reevt·
co pick up che same object as che cherap1sc . \'Ve are ha,·ing only
• moder<\ Ce success .
Reeve's parents -report 1n che home journal chac Reeve c.1n
no\\' ident1fy mosc of rhe alphabet leccers and 1s saying rhe lecctrs
"A" rhrough "f.' \X'e have nor \\·orked on alphabec leccers 1n
rherapy. and because Reeve appears co be learning chem on his
o\\·n, \ve have no immed1ace plans co include chem in formal
drills.
,\lo111h 11 . Reeve has madl· i;rc.':lc progress 1n verbal 1mirat1on,
buc he is no longer using manr of che sounds he once did . This is
apparenc from a revie\\· oi a C) pica! 11sc of verbal drill sounds . He
is accurate 60 co 90"-t of che cime for che sounds "lahlah •..
" nahnah." "mahmah. ' "m.ih. " "bah bah," "bah," "pahpah."
"pah, " and "ah ... He 1s accurate less chan jQ'k of che time for
"lolo," "nono," "dodo,' "do .. "dudu,'' "dahdah,'' "du ... "da,"
"na." "ee. and "'bab)." App•lrencl>·· Reeve's vocalizat1ons are
no"· predominarely of che form of consonant and .. ah ... All orher
vo\\ cf sounds seem co occur \\'Hh very lie tie frequency , The "d •
sound i~ no\\ \'irruallr nonexistent 1n his repertoire. \\'hilc Reeve
. -
~ys "nahnah,'" he cannot or \\'111 nor SJ\ .. nah ... \\'e ha\'C bccun co
use conungenc access co music .is a reinforcer in che \'erbal Jnlls .
The parenc's home 1ournal reporrs Reeve·s use of "·ord~ "h1ch
\\e are noc hearing during chtrapy. and an increased frequency of
spontaneous verbalizations ~t home \\'e ha\'e norcd during thl·
monch .1 small amount of spontaneous vocalizarions dunn,i.:
Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 193
Reeve's free play rime We are hearing che spontaneous sounds,
"ah," "ae," "yah, · "mahmah," "mah," "lahlah," and even .. dodo,"
which he does nor use during verbal drills and \viii nor repeat
\\'hen asked directly
/\1onth 12. Reeve's behavior seems erratic chis month Ar rhe
beginning_ of rhe monrh, he seemed inarrenuve and sloppy and
noncompltanr and was doing poorly on tasks we knew he had
mastered._ There~ore we sharpened our consequences, increasing
both positive reinforcement and punishment. The effects "'ere
immediace and positive. He is now discriminating his body parrs
from rhe cherap1sr's, responding co commands like "couch
Reeve's hand" and "couch (therapisr's) hand " No personal pro-
nouns are used as yec
Reeve is becoming more d1srupcive and ph}s1cally asseruve
outside che formal drills, \Vhich we \\•elcome and encourage. He
sho\vS great Rucruauons in che rate of his vocalalat1ons and fre-
q4ency of spontaneous speech; one day chey are excellent, the
next day poor.
Although Reeve had little luck with che sound "f' (made by
placing che cop ceech on the lower lip and blowing out), he did
use the sounds "cu" and "'ve" for the firsc cime <luring rhe drills
chis month. We have begun to use flash cards of alphabec letters
and piccures co facil1tace verbal imicacion (in part because he likes
these obiecrs so much).
/\10111h Ii. With minimal \\'Ork (using che mirror) \\"e observe
a significant increase 1n che flex1bil1t} of Reeve's mourh and
rongue. Once again, necessary punishment for 1nartenc1on during
verbal drills 1s bn ng1 ng clear, an imaced verbalizac1ons He 1s nO\\'
reciting the alphabet and numbers 1 through I 2 1n che correct
order, leaving a space \\•here he can't reproduce rhe sounds. Ver-
bal drills continue, generally comprised of four sounds at a rime.
In an effort co increase che length of Reeve's sound "ah," we are
incroducing inco the drills the shorcer sound "eh eh .. ro provide a
length conrrasc for the longer sound.
No\\• char rhe sound "f' has been shaped, Reeve has begun co
use ir as rhe init1al sound in many vocalizauons, 1ns1scing upon
keeping his ceech our on his lower lip. While this is an 1nceresr-
ing example of overgeneral1zauon, ic is obviously inappropriate.
We hesicacc co exc1ngu1sh the sound as it rook so long for him co
learn 1t, and he likes 1c so " 'ell. We are using the presencacion of
some of his high frequencr sounds ("bah," "mm, " and
.. mahmah,'' for example) 1n the verbal drills as reinforcement for
194 Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
the emission of the more difficult, less frequent so~nds. ~his v~ri­
ation of chc Premack principle appears effective 1n ma1ntatn1ng
Reeve's interest
It is becoming apparent chat Reeve is watc~ing our mo~ths
for visual clues in both che recept1ve and expressive s~ech dnlls,
perhaps ignoring che audi~ory ones. We ha":e expen~enced by
covering our mouths dunng the presencac1on o~ S s \X'hale
Reeve's accuracy of responding did noc decrease, has eye contact
disintegrated completely. Because a decrease 1n eye conca~c may
increase che probabalacy that Reeve -o.·ould become 1natcenuve, we
have decided not co remove the original cues.
1\fonth 14. Due co vacations borh in the universiC)' and i.n
Reeve's nursery 5ehool, he was without rherapy for most of th~s
month. He has regressed in both his verbal respon~1ng and an has
overall behavior. However, as always, has recept1ve use of lan-
guage remains relatively undiscurbed. He conti?,ues co res.Fon~
consistently and correctly co commands such as .~rand up, sit
down," "iump up and down," and "hug the doll.
He has once again lose several sounds char he once used. Spec-
1'fica II y, "b u h , " " p uh , " "me , " "nab , " and "i" are gone.
. We are
drilling alphabet sounds now, pairi ?g the presentanon of a verbal
50 with the presentatton of a plasttc letter, the letter drawn, or
the letccr on a flash card. \Xie arc dnl11ng both "a" and "ah," "be"
and "bah," "mm" and "mah," "pe' and "pah "and "el'' and "lah,"
for example. To put Reeve back into shape in his expressive
speech, we have reintroduced into the drills "nahnah," "dodo,"
and "nono "
Afonth 15 Reeve 1s noy,· using all of his vo-o.·el sounds, al-
though the "o" sound occurs infrequently Having begun co
label, Reeve is no-o.· combining simple sounds into a s~all func-
tional labelling vocabulary His ··words" occur 1n _sev~ral
categories: as single consonanr-vowel segments approx1maung
word~. such 35 "du" for juice, "-o.·ah" for v.·ant, "teh" for ten, and
"te" for teeth; as full)' reduphcaced segments, such as "cheche" for
cheese, "nono" for nose, "mahmah" and "pahpah,"' "nahnah" for
banana, and "cere" for Reeve; as parnally reduplicated segments,
such as "Ayah" for Allen, ''Tahree" for Scottie, "ahpah" for apple;
and as formally dnlled sound segments that are themselves
words, such as "me," "knee," "tv.•o,'" and "eye." In all of these
cases, by presenting rhc ob1cct and then the verbal s0 for imita-
tion, we arc able co make the labels functional.
We arc finding, in add1c1on co the obvious oversimplification
•
Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 195
of these words, chat Reeve is leaving the endings off most of his
v.•ords as in his approximations for juice, ten, ceech and his use of
"orah" for orange The sound "ce" appears as a frequent substiruce
for the "c" and "s sounds, as in his approx1mac1on for Srev1e.
\X'e have v.anced to start Reeve on elementary (preschool)
dra'' ang exercises, and after several futile artempcs at dra-o.·ing
lines and figures by nonverbal imitation, -o.•e asked Reeve co draw
che letter "~f . " He drew an ··~r· and labeled at, then drew an "I"
and labeled 1c His fascination with letters as again an obvious
advantage We will begin to work on his drawing letters as a way
of introducing him co or her kinds of drawings.
,\lo11th /6. We are cont1nuing verbal drills with variations on
alphabet sounds, for example, "a," "be," "1," "ce," "de," "da,"
"do,'' "du," "d1, and drills of words. Reeve can now also label
"tuce" for cookie, "cecah" for tickle, "nor" for more, "ahm" for
arm, and "beh" for bed. Reeve's approximation of his own name
has changed from the original "tete" to "weebe." We hope that
Reeve 'viii clear up his articulations as he develops, and we are
sarisficd co allow his approximations to words at this time.
Reeve is not 1naincaining a constant repertoire of vowel
sounds. Whale the vowel sound "ah" conri nues co dominate, all
other vowel sounds come and go. The "o" sound occurs in context
but rarely an 1solarion, where it does occur as a grunt. Consonant
and "e'' sounds were strong a month ago. yet they virtually disap-
peared by che end of chis month. Consonant and "1" sounds are all
ending in "n" or "m," as are many of Reeve's verbal approx1m~­
cions. He has now subsratuced "y" for" I,'' and rhe word "leg" as
tr<\nsformed in his reperroire to "yem."
\Xie have received an evaluation of Reeve's speech from a
speech clinician who cells us many things v.·e have already ob-
served : che predominance of "ah," although orher vov.•els exist an
isolation, and che eliminanon of end consonants and the substitu-
tion of some 1nit1al and end consonants. She suggested several
prompts co encourage cercain sounds: the S 0 "a-o" co prompt the
,·owel sound "o, " che s0 "e-u" to prompt the vowel sound "u,"
.ind rhe manual prompt on the tongue ro facilitate vocalazanon of
the hard "k" and "g" sounds. The vowel prompts are effective
" ·hile chc consonant prompr seems ineffective.
Dunng free play, Reeve engages in a peculiar verbal play,
speaking an patterns, keeping one unit. of a two-unit phrase con-
stant whale varying the other almost lake advanced parual redu-
plications, for example, "ahmah," "ahtah," "ahbah," and
196 Case Studies: Language Acquisition 1n Three Autistic Children
"mahnene," "tahnene," and "bahnene" We encouraged this
babbling because 1c is spontaneous, because it provides practice,
and because it may provide che opporcun1cy for Reeve co hear the
contrast of different sounds in identical contexts. We have even
begun formal drilling of partially reduplicated sounds such as
"ahmah," "ahnah," "ahdah," "ahpah," and "ahlah."
Reeve is now usin~ a sentence, "I ~·ah," ~·hich is his approx-
imation for tht· sentence, "I wane." Beginning wirh "I ~·ah che."
for cheese, it expanded quickly co demands for juice, cookie,
cickle, mama, daddy, and so on. He has even adde? the w~rds
'\omc" and "more · ro che sentence. le has generalized rapidly
over situations, people, and obieccs.
Reeve is nov.• able to recepuvely discriminate and then label
with verbal approx1manons about half a dozen colors. He under-
0
stands the concept of counting. responding verbally to the S
"How 1nany?" when presented with a number of obieccs. He re-
sponds co the 51> "What does chis animal say?" whe~ prese?ted
with a picture of an animal, by giving ch~ appropriate an_1mal
sound. He is responding co commands that include prepos1t1ons,
put ring his foor, his hand, or his arm on, under, or near the bed,
che chair, or ocher furniture in his room.
Reeve's letter and drawing reperroire on che blackboard now
includes the letters "m," "i," "o," "h," "x," "e," and "a." He rec-
ognizes che word "me" drawn on the blackboard. ~e can write 1r
and label it, and as he labels 1r. he points co himself. We are
using the blackboard co teach the concepts of "big:· and ".little,"
having him <lrav. big and l1tcle lines or letters He 1s learning the
concepts of "same" and "other" and "first" and "second," ~sing
structures he has made v•ith his building blocks. Afcer cwo iden-
tical structures are built, cwo objects are placed in the sa111t scruc-
cure, or one in che fir11 and che (Jfhn· in che ~cond, or one in the
first and che othtr in che sa111e. and so on. using all of these con-
apcs . teacher, and he 1s falling apart. le also becomes obvious co us chat
,\lolith I., \'i/e are concenrranng our formal verbal drills on
che vowel sounds "a," "e," "i," "o,' and ··u," using che "a-o"
•
prompt for the sound "o" in an effort co facilitate Reeve's consis-
tent use of all of his vo~·el sounds We are also drilling combina-
tions of che~e vowel sounds, for example, "a-e," "a-i," "a-o,·· "a-
u," "e-a," and "e-o." Reeve 1s doing very well in all of these vo~·el
drills.
Reeve's "m" and "n" endings persist on consonanc-"i" and
consonanc-"ah sounds; for example, "bi" becomes ·'bine" and
•
Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 197
"ba" becomes "bame." He is subsrirucing "b" for "v" sounds. We
have begun drilling the "s" sound chat Reeve has never used be-
fore, 1nrroduc1ng 1c as a hiss. We have yec co have an}' success
\\ ich the hard "k" and "g" sounds, even wirh the use of manual
prompcs on his tongue.
Reeve conunues co expand his use of the "I wane" sentence
and 1s nO\\' saying, "t..fy name 1s Weebe." He has begun co use che
\\"Ord "bye-bye" co expressively signify the absence of an obiecc or
his desire for an objr.cr or a person co be removed.
Jn all aspects of language training now, che emphasis is upon
Reeve's verbaltzatton of chat which is going on around him. Ob-
JCCts are presented co him and labeled for him co imitate. P1ck1ng
up such labels rapidly, Reeve then responds with the correct v.•ord
v.hen presented w1rh an object and asked, "What is ic)" Reeve 1s
nO\\' labeling cloches, body pares, objects around the room, and
figures dravvn on che blackboard. He is now using cwo word
phrases quite naturally, saying "two eyes" rather than just "eyes"
and "red shire" rather than just "shire." He is verbalizing all re-
ceptive speech concepts concerning color, number, and size,
::.nswering "two cookies" co the question "How many cookies do
you wane?" answering "blue book" co rhe question "What color is
ic?" and even labeling as "big" or "little" letters and figures he
draws on the blackboard. One day in response co che question
"What color are your pants?" Reeve answered "red and blue and
\\·hice "
On che blackboard Reeve is now drawing a big "o," a little
0
''o,'· a big line, a liccle line, lecrers ''m,·· ''i," ''h," ··a,'' ··n,'' e,"
and the number" 10." He can dra~· and identify "me" and "ma."
/\fonth I 8. Problems re laced co Reeve's current school situa-
tion have resulced 10 severe behavioral regressions, inaccennon,
unresponsiveness, and aparhy. Apparenrl}', he \\'as placed 1n a
class ,vay above his level of functioning, wtth a "nond1recuve"
our decrease in use of food reinforcers was premature. Social re1n-
forcers alone are not yet strong enough co maintain Reeve's be-
havior Ir cakes us one month co correct these problems, asking
chat he be reassigned co a more directing, "consequacing"
reacher, and we reintroduce exaggerated reinforcers in our rreac-
ment He recovers nicely.
We are beginning co reduce rhe formal verbal imitation
drills, concentraring now on che use of dialogue as expressive lan-
guage therapy. We continue to demand Reeve's verbalizations of
198 Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
objecrs and activities I Ie responds ro mos_r of our requests and
needs only robe given one verbal prompr 10 order co remember
any word or phrase. If asked. he \viii repeat his verbal responses,
ofren cleaning up his articulation signdicancly by the second ?r
rhird repeucion. If his articulation does nor improve nacur:tllr i_n
rhis informal therapy situation. as consulcancs have suggested it
should. we "·ill reinstate formal imicacion drills 1nro che therapr:
Combining receptive exercises on the bl~ck~ard, Reev~ is
dra\\·ing and labeling big and licrle letters, 1ns1de and outside
squares, triangles, and circles afc~r these fi_gures are dra\\'n ~nd
labeled. It is as much an exercise 1n expressive speech as an exer-
cise 1n concepr formation Reeve is connecting a circle _an~ a line
on che blackboard, labeling 1c as a lollipop, and then l1ck1ng che
palm of his hand, precend1ng co ear the candy. He has forgotce_n
how co draw leccer "'E," becoming confused as co how many hori-
zontal lines should be drawn. Reeve is now counting on an
abacus moving certain numbers of colored beads and then
answering, for example, "t\VO red and three blue" when asked
what he has done.
t.1o111h 19. There 1s liccle forward progress chis mooch.
Therapy continues in much che same direction, us~ng pictures
from Reeve's locco games and Rash cards to expand his expressive
vocabulary. His new words include tunnel, water, hammer, bird,
and baby. all spoken quire 1ntell1g1bly. Unforcunacely, the rest of
Reeve's verbalizations conunue co be quire sloppy and hard ro
undersrand.
We have decided co work on S0 control over Reeve's verbal
volume, co be able co cell him co calk loudly enough co be inccl-
ligible, which he often docs not do no". Also, he is responding
"yes" or "no" co simple questions of vohuon, for example, "Do
you want a cookie'" or "Do you \\'anc co erase che blac~board?"_
1\f<Jnth 20 \X'e are beginning co notice a significant increase 1n
the spontaneity of Reeve's speech and the clarity of his arcicula-
cions, \\·hile he conunues co label nouns and is no\\• labeling ac-
uvicies in response ro che S0 'What are you doingr· Reeve 1s nO"-'
using rhree sentences, ·· I wane _,""I am ... and "Jr is
__ -·" It is possible ro hold a simple conversation with him
now. A typical conversation might go as follows: Therapist: "Do
you wane something, Reeve?" Reeve: "Yes." Therapist. "\X'hat do
you wanr?'" Reeve. · I wanr 1uicc." Therapist (holding Ju1ce):
"What is rh1s?" Reeve: "le 1s iuice." Therapist: "Whac do you do
with 1u1ce?" Reeve: "Drink 1u1ce." Therapisr (after g1v1ng Reeve
•
Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 199
1uice). "What are you doing?" Reeve (after drinking): "I am
drinking Juice.··
Reeve's use of the "I am" sencence has generalized more
quickly than rhe "I wane" sentence. He will now perform an ac-
civ1cy and sponcaneously say, "I am swinging," "I am sliding," "I
am running," ··1 am jumping," or "I am walking." While on che
playground, Reeve will label his activities; while on the swing he
"ill spontaneously sar. "I want off...
We have Reeve conscantly moving abour his room, respond-
ing co commands and questions about objects and people in it In
response ro the SD "What is in your room?'", Reeve gives us lists
of obiects and people chat he sees. In response co the S0 "Tell me
about Reeve," Reeve gives us a list of his various body parts, as he
po1nrs co chem \'<le are finding chat during Reeve's recicac1on of
these ob1eccs, our confirmation of his response aces as a motivat-
ing factor, increasing the number of objects he will list during
these exercises. In ocher words, if we respond, "Yes, Reeve, chat
is a cable and what else?" Reeve apparenrly responds better than if
we simply say, "Yes, and whar else?"
We have brought into his home some of che songs chat Reeve
has been hearing in his nursery school. These are songs with lyrics
char can be acted out by Reeve as he listens. In addition co per-
forming the activity suggesced in the lyrics, Reeve often sings
along \Vi th the records. We do this "school homework" in part co
facilitate his school adjustmenr.
While s1tt1ng at the blackboard now, Reeve responds to rhe
quesuon, "What are you doing?", \vith che answer, "I am draw-
ing." Reeve now dra\\'S letters A, C, E, F, H, I,], L, f\.f, N, 0,
P, R, S, T, U, V, X, and Z, and numbers 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, ..,, and
10. He 1s now drawing houses, trees, cookies, lollipops, and
faces.
,\lo111h 21. Having mastered drawing rhe numbers I through
20 and almost all of the alphabet, Reeve can now spell his own
first and lase names .
He is improving on his verbalizacion. He is spontaneous,
mainta1n1ng a good arcicularion, and he is building a fi.ne vo-
cabulary. While his use of the few sentence structures (1.e., "I
am" and "I want") conunues co expand and generalize beauti-
fully, these sentences comprise most of Reeve's conversational
speech. That which he learns receptively about the conceptual na-
ture of his language seems confined co chose few recept1ve speech
exert"1scs we can conduct with Reeve on the blackboard. Now
200 Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
chac he h,1s acquirec.I chc fundamentals of expressi~e speech, he
must learn what co talk about, hO\V words are used in relat1on co
each ocher. and how he can generate novel sentences co express
new ideas \'<le are therefore moving inco a ne\\ formalized lan-
guage program, emphasizing language concepcs such as p~o­
nouns. one of the first concepts \\'e '"ill \\'Ork \\'1th. Along \v1ch
pronouns, this month \\'C are introducing prepositions and che
rime concepts of "first" and ''lase."
Introducing the concept of pronouns, we concencraced on a
mas terr of the rc<..eptive c.liscriminacion of" my:· and_ "y~ur: .. u~ing
body pares, before moving into che expressive d1sc:1m1nau~n
Reeve had had informal contact w1Ch pronouns while learning
body parts, and \\·ichin a \\·eek he had reached cntenon on this
receptive discrimination, responding co S0 s such as "touch 111;
nose" and "point to ;011r ear."
We began the expressive discrimination, concentrating on the
pronoun "my," using J contrast prompt such as "point co your
s
nose" and che corresponding 0 • such as "whose nose is it?" Reeve
quickly worked co criterion, and we then introduced the pro-
noun, "your" in an identical manner with the concrasc prompt
s
before the 0 . As of the end of this month, Reeve is responding to
criterion for the pronouns "my" and "your" buc nor for the pro-
nouns "your' and "my" when chey are mixed. This lack of success
in mixed drills is explained in pare by observing Reeve's data.
Having learned each pronoun separately, Reeve is simply perse-
vering on one response, sw1cch1ng onlr v.•hen che prompt changes
or he receives no reinforccn1enc If the prompt is removed or the
s0 s are mixed, his responses ar<: consistendy wrong.
Reeve has had much better luck in preposition training. He
reached cncenon on six prepositions: "in," · under," "next to, ..
"on cop of," "in front of." and 'behind" in less chan two W'eeks,
responding co s0 s such as .. Puc the pen under the book" and
"Stand next to the door \'<le are able co mix all six of che preposi-
tions together w1chi n any drill, and we are using many ob1eccs
and locations No verbal responses are required of Reeve as yet.
and v;e will not move into the expressive use of prepositions chis
month, having decided co gcnerali.te and strengthen che concept
receptively.
The concepts of "firsc'' and "last" are enurely new co Reeve.
We place five obieccs on a cable, asking Reeve co couch and label
three of them, one ac a ume. We chen incroduce the S0 "What
did you couch last>" Our inicial accempcs were mer by complete
•
Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 201
failure Several attempts at various prompts \\•ere also unsuccess-
ful We decided co use only three object~ on the cable, and t\VO of
the sax therapists report reaching criterion by the middle of the
mooch. By che end of the month, he is performing d1fferentl}' for
each therapist. For some he is gi v1ng cen correct responses our of
s
ten presented 0 s, while ochers may receive ten correct responses
s
out of fort}' presented 0 s. As we are unable co 1dentifr the areas
of inconsistencies among our therapists, we are unable co explain
the erratic nature of Reeve's responding. Ir does nor appear chat
he has mas re red che concept "lase."
t\lfJnth 22. Reeve has begun co babble and sing incessantly,
\>vh!Ch is good Bue it also may have become a good avoidance
behavior for him during language drills.
Those therapists who had reported success v.1ch che concept
"lase .. decided co introduce che concept "firsc. .. Reeve's respond-
ing is consiscenc, I OO"f wrong. He is persevering cocally on the
lase object rather chan che first. With excessive verbal and posi-
tioning prompts, some therapists are able to achieve minimal re-
sponding, yec chis success is once again i nconsiscent over
~herapiscs. We are finding also chac any success wich the concept
"first" is faithfully accompanied by a loss of Reeve's fragile mas-
tery of che concept "last." We are as yec unable to explain our
inconsistencies, and the drill has become so aversive co Reeve that
he engages an strong avoidance behaviors when 1t is introduced
each day in therapy. le is decided chat the possible advantages of
learning chis concept are all out\\·eighed by the problems \Ve are
ha\ 1ng teaching it.
As we have found no successful solution, \Ve are dropping che
rime concept drills from our language program after some\\·hac
less than t\VO months of crying.
\Vorking \\'tth pronouns ac the beginning of the month. \\.'C
\Vere able co mix the pronouns ··my" and "your" roger her in a dnll
\\1th che concrasc prompt. As this prompt \\'as faded, ho\vever,
Reeve's performance deteriorated drasucally. He \\'as obviously
hooked on the prompt. We decided co retrain the concept "your"
alone v;ichout a prom pr, as Reeve already kneW' the pronoun
"my" w1chour one Having done chis, v.•e \Vent back co inter-
changing che pronouns within a drill. Reeve's responses fell ac
chance level. He continued ro persevere on the response "1ny,"
sw1Cch1ng only \\hen he is told he is \Vrong, and often nor chang-
ing ar all. These drills have also become aversive for him. He cries
co .ivoid che1n and v.·hen he does work, he appears cocally con-
 Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
202
fused. \Vie coo are confused. le is hard co say '' hac v•e arc doing
wrong.
Forrunarel y, Reeves 1n1rial success w1ch the recepnve use of
preposicion s are followed by similar successes 1n their exprcssi ve
use. We point to an object or have Reeve place an ob1ect, and
then we ask, ''Where is (the object)( lnit1ally, Reeve responded
to this command by pointing to rhe object rather than by celling
us w·here ic w-as \Ve had to use the prompt, 'Reeve. say 'in the
hat,' " for example \X'e faded this prompt quickly, and Reeve
now responds ioor, co quescions involving all six of che preposi-
tions we have caught him.
We are also asking Reeve co place h11nself 1n relation co ocher
obieccs. and then asking him where he is He responds with che
correct prepos1non spontaneou sly. often before the question 1s
asked We will nov.; concencrace on revie\\' co maintain perfor-
mance and a generalizat ion of the response co many environ-
ments He enjoys chese casks.
We now have begun a series of exercises designed co cesc
Reeve's memory of events outside his immediate perception s. In
the first, we verbal! y present Reeve w nh several leccers, nu1nbers,
or \\'Ords and then ask him to repear chem. For example, we say,
"Reeve. sa}' A, R • .., .. or "Reeve, say red. B, X." In the second
series of exercises. \\'e draw rhree or four similar letters, numbers,
or figures on the blackboard . chen cover chem up and ask Reeve,
'\V/rite \\·hac I iusc wrote "
The third series of exercises involve che sequencin g of
acc1v1C1es-g1v1ng Reeve t\vO commands within one s . He muse
0
com piece boch before reinforcern enc. We say, for example.
"Reeve, bring me che book and chen stand by che door."
Reeve's responses co all of chese exert 1ses are good. around
90''f, w·1ch minimal prompting . Our immediate goals cherefore
are co ( 1) increase the number of letters or words presented ver-
bally for Reeve co repeat, (2) increase the amount of time between
our covering che lecters drawn on che board and asking Reeve to
write them, and('~) increase the number of activities for Reeve co
complete within one s0 .
The eventual goal of chese memory exercises relates directly
co Reeve's languag<: abil1c1es and conversatio nal skills. Often con-
versanon concerns evencs chat have alrcadv •
occurred. These exer-
cises chat require Reeve co process and score bics of informacio n
for recrieval ac a later time involve the skill'> chac are prerequ1sices
co chis advanced conversauo n.
Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Aut1st1c Children 203
\X'e began a nev. acciv1t}' with Reeve involving memory. Four
ob1cccs are placed on a cable Reeve labels chem and chen is cold
co turn around while chc therapist removes one of che objects.
Reeve is then asked co look again and respond to che question,
"Whac 1s missing?" Our 1nit1al attempts suggested co us chat \ve
had expected too much from Reeve. He \\•as cocally una\\·are of
\\'hac w·as going on, responding randomly and ofcen noc even
looking at the objects We retraced our seeps, beginning \\'1Ch
onl>· one ob1ecc, allow·1ng Reeve co "'atch 1t being taken av.·ay,
before w·e asked him whac was missing. While chis worked, the
incroducc1on of the second obiect resulted 1n 50'/t responding ,
even with excessive prompts. He is simply not paying atcencion.
In chis case ic appears chat Reeve could learn 1f he had any interest
in performing . We, how•ever, are unable co 1denufy the effeccivc
re1nforcers.
,\fn111h 2 'L By che end of lase month, Reeve had lose his pro-
nouns and could nor or w·ould not respond 1n the "What 1s m1s-
s1ng?" and "first and lase" exercises. His abiltcy or \villingness co
learn nc\v concepcs appears co be decreasing rapidly. He seems
Jisincercsc ed. He has even begun chis month co respond incor-
rectly co preposition drills chat he has done so \veil on before.
\Vic mar have 1dent1 fied the underlying problem chis time:
Incons1scenc1es over the six cherap1sts assigned co Reeve may have
led co his confusion. In our enchus1asm w•e became frustrated eas-
ily, so chac if a drill did not produce 1mmed1ace results, \ve
changed 1c rather than assuming chat a consistent pattern of
differential rei nforcemcn t \vould be effccci ve. We became innova-
tive, expecting Reeve co learn magically, rather chan being per-
sistent and patient.
For chese reasons and also because it seems chat Reeve is learn-
ing more 1n informal sessions chan 1n formal drills (\\ hich had
become so aversive as co prompc screaming cancrums), we began
searching for ne'I\' and consistent language acc1v1c1es co supple-
ment che conversatio nal act1v1ties chat have conunued through-
ouc che last cwo months and have continued co be successful.
In particular we arc now• concentrat ing upon Reeve's decrip-
cion of his room, house, and himself; exercises designed co build
vocabulary ; and exercises designed co emphasi.te Reeve's convcr-
sat1onal use of verbs to describe his act1\1cics . As an example of
one acrivicy. v.·e asked Reeve co dra\\' a face and a house. \X'e then
erased chem and asked Reeve ,,·hac he had done. His response \\as
"Dra\v t:1ce and dra\\' house."
 Case Studies Language Acquisition 1n Three Autistic Children
204
Every <la> "''e read Reeve a scory, asking him question s abouc
characte rs and pictures , pron1pcing answer~ when necessary We
tried a co1nper1nve "group approac h" ro srory reading. One
therapisc reads che srory co Reeve who sit~ on the floor \\1th t\vO
ocher therapis ts Afrer a sraceme nt has been read. question s are
no\v posed to Reeve and che therapis ts. and each person can nO\\'
respond an<l get reinforc ement. For example , one therapis t reads
a sraremenc co the effect chat a blue b1r<l 1s sirring in a tree. He
then asks rhe persons present about char sracemenc ("\X/hac color
\vas rhe bird, .. and so on). If one person fails to answer, another
person gees a curn. Reeve's initial response to being incorrec t and
observin g another person receivin g rc1nforcemenc is co v.:h1ne,
cry, an<l accempc co cake the reinfon.:er. Again, chis 1s a good
example of an exercise which may help Reeve learn better in
school, because he is trained co listen more closely co his reacher
and other children 1n a group and ro "·hat other group member s
are doing In general, \ve err to rehearse manr of che verbal casks
his reacher \\Ill demand ofh1m 1n rhe clinic and home before the}'
occur 1n sthool, so chat he becomes more successful.
/\lr1111h 24. Reeve's voice level is appropr iately high, and his
sounds art· becomin g 1ncn.:as1ngly intell1g1ble. He has close ap-
proxima tions co all of the sounds nO\v, except ··K' and "G ·
Reeve's spontane ous speech 1s becomin g excellenc. He 1s
spontaneous!}' describi ng his 09.n activitie s, making his desires
known, and labeling ob1eccs He responds using these sentence
structur es, "I v.•ant ,""I need _,""I have ,"" Ir
is , " "I am _ ," "You are , " and several i ncom-
plete fragmen ts of sentence s, especially those: conta1n1ng verbs,
for example . "dra\vin g nose, " ,1nd "stand1n~ up" \X'c arc engaged
1n exercises designed co emphasi ze Reeve's use of the ad1eccive-
noun pairing in his dcscript1ons of ob1eccs around him We v.•ant
Reeve co say "lircle red book" instead of simply "book." While he
1s doing chis to some exrcnr now, it is nor (Ons1srenr.
\1Ce are cont1nu1ng our story reading, using rhe comper1t1ve
srudent- tht:rap1s t approac h chat \\·e began lase month \\'h1le v.·e
are reading, \Ve shov. Reeve piccures an<l ask, \X'har do you see?'.
He uses the sentence " I sec " and th<.' word "and'. 1n listing
v. hat he ~ees. Rememb ering char confirm ation of his response is a
reinforce r, \Ve say "yes, you see (char) an<l \vhat else do you see?"
\X'e have begun coloring \v1ch crayons with Reeve Reeve
picks a color, saying, "I \vane rhe _ one'" Either Reeve or the
therapis t draws a figure, and chen rhey ralk abouc 1c If the: figure
1s covered, Reeve can rememb er \\'har 1c 1s, and even afrer several
•
Case Studies Languag e Acquis1t10n 1n Three Aullshc Children 205
pictures have been drawn, he rememb ers who drew which pic-
ture. As we wanted him co ask us to draw things, we employe d
s
the 0 "Reeve, say, Paul, draw airplane ." He spontane ously said,
"I wane Paul <lra\v airplane ." This sentence structur e quickly ex-
panded ro vanous s1Cuar1ons, for example , I want Bruce rea<l me
story," and ' I want Paul uckle rummy, " an<l "I \vane N 1tza give
me juice," and even "I \Vane Paul dra\v red airplane ."
We began a formal drill of rhe concepc "yes" and "no" ro resr
once again Reeve's abilit}' ro learn in a formal setting He re-
sponds yes or no ro question s concern ing volition , bur nor ro
chose concern ing faces. We began a drill using rhe qucst1on "Is
this a cookie?" while holding up eicher a cookie or a glass of juice.
Even with chis simple task, Reeve fails.
fl.fonth 25. Reeve's spell ing vocabula ry has blossomed ro over
cwenry words within a matter of days. This vocabula ry includes
his own full name and phone number , rhe names of his brothers ,
parents, and the rherap1srs \vho work \Vtrh him, and rhe v.•ords
"cac," "dog," "yes," "no, "up," "dov.·n," "all," and "bab>·· He
will spell \VOrds presente d to him verbally , e1ther drawing them
on the blackbo ard or reciting chem back, and he can recognize
these words \vhen they are written in front of him. He has learned
ro spell rhe sentence "I want" and now a<lds co it the \VOrds
"Mama, " "juice, "hug," an<l "book." He can no'v upon request
\vnre a full senrence on the blackbo ard, exprt:ss1ng his desire for a
person or ob1ecc. One day upon arr1v1ng ar school, Reeve im-
mediate ly wenc co rhe blackbo ard and spontane ously wrote, "I
wane book." When he finished he went co the bookcase, picked
up a book, and \vent co the cable co read.
Reeve continue s to expand his use of the sentence form, "I
\vane Paul <lra\v airplane '· Rarher than r<.:m;uning a simple re-
sponse to our request for Reeve to ask us ro <lo somethi ng, this
sentence form 1s now his response \vhcn we ask him co do some-
thing he cannot do. For example , if we say "Reeve , draw a
rhinocer os," Reeve v.•ill respond "I wane P1111/ drav.• rhinocer os."
He has e"en approac hed us co ask us ro <lrav. ob1ecrs char he has
heard mention ed 1n nurserr school and ro spell for him on rhe
blackbo ard words chat he has heard. We arc encoura ging his use
of the shorrene<l comman d form of this senrence , for cxa1nple,
"Paul, draw a rhinocer os," or "Paul , give me juice," rather chan
using "I want "ac the heJ.(1nning of each request.
Reeves rea<.:c1on co the use of other therapis ts during sror}-
reac.l1ng nmc has changed complet ely. Ht nov. really en JOY!> the.
accivicy, and he smiles, laughs, and couches another person" ' hen
 Case Studies: Languag e Acqu1s1hon 1n Three Autistic Children
206
rhac person gers a reinforc emenr. As our question s ro Reeve now
involve informa tion given by che other rherapiscs in earlier ques-
tions, Reeve muse nov. listen co the orher people's responses This
exercise rherefore has become a program involvin g Reeve 1n the
transfer of informa tion among a number of people. Ir seems ideal
precra1n1ng for school. v.·here he has ro learn from ocher children 's
behavior .
After a year and a half of crying, we have finally succeed ed 1n
finding a prompt effective in faciliraring Reeve's use of the sounds
"K" and "G." le has alv•ays been our goal 1n chis area to hold the
cip of Reeves rongue do,vn so chac rhe back would rise 1nro che
posnion necessary for the producc ion of these hard velar sounds.
Howeve r, lollipops . pencils, pens, and fingers have been unsuc-
cessful. Reeve would never allow us inside his mouth. We are
now placing a small piece of cheese on the end of a rongue depres-
ser, purring 1r on the rip of his tongue, rhen g1v1ng the S ,
0 sionally following around a group of neighbo r children . 1-fe did
"Reeve. sar 'car' (or 'car· or 'go').'. WHh his tongue so confined ,
rhe "k .. and "g" sounds are produce d correctly , and he 1s im-
med1arely reinforced by the cheese 1n his mouth. This is the first
rime Reeve has rhe opportu nity ro hear himself say rhe "k" and
"g" sounds correcrly and be reinforced It is obvious now rhat this
1s what we should have done all along
Beg1nn1 ng this summer . Reeve v.·ill be arrend1ng an all-day
camp, five days a week. Home cherapy sessions v.·111 be tempora r-
ily reduced until camp 1s over. We expect ro maintain Reeve 1n
therapy for another year, with treatme nt activitie s emphasi zing
his recepri ve understa nding of the languag e, conri nued pr;icrice
1n conversa tional speech, and increased sponran eicr and appro-
pnatene ss of speech v. hile in social environm enrs v.·irh his peers.
Reeve's conrinue d progress in languag e learning \viii depend
largely upon his acqu1s1rion of a greater social awarene ss of his
peers. Ir is our hope rhat the camp experien ces Reeve brings back
ro rherapy ar rhe end of rhe summer will facilicace his furrher
progress v.·1rh us. Reeve·s last year of therapr will be of the same
intensity as rhe first cv.·o years, and v.·e plan no major changes 1n
our treatmen t of him
Tommy
Tommy . a black male child, began cherap) ar rhe age of 3
years, 4 months. He exhib1red a varietr of auustic behavior s. In
•
Case Studies: Languag e Acqu1s1tion 1n Three Autistic Children 207
particul ar, his languag e develop menr was quire slow. While he
had evidence d some expressive speech (such as "dog," ··leg ht,"
"mama, " and "bye-by e" which he used fairly consiste ntly) at
abour tv.•o years of age, he had stopped ralking by the age of
three, excepr for an occasional "mama" or "dada." He frequenr ly
used po1nung or orher gestures co subsucu ce for his lack of ex-
pressive speech Similarl y, his receprive speech v.•as grossly de-
layed. He displaye d no compreh ension of concepts such as s1£e,
color, and form. Howeve r. he did understa nd a few simple com-
mands such as "sic down," "come here," anc.l "open rhe door "
His eye conracc was fair \Xlhile he frequenr ly looked 1nco che
eyes of people around him, he rarely looked upon demand . Al-
though he somerim es climbed into a person's lap and sat chere for
a fe\v minures , he resisred being held or cuddled \\•hen he did nor
initiate rhe interacti on. His peer interacti on \Vas limited co occa-
nor play 1r11h children . He did play appropri ately on rncycles and
scooters and wHh some mechani cal cors such as a "record- player"
music box He occasionally played appropr iately wirh cars and
trucks bur usually preferred co line rhem up in neat rows.
He exhibice d a variety of psychoti c behavior s, in parricul ar
self-srim ulatory behavior s such as rockin.i:. li.ithrly banging his
head, spinning "heels and ashcrays. turning faucets on and off
repericiv elr, and iumping 1n one place for long periods of rime.
In addition , he engaged 1n cons1de rabk verbal self-snm ulation,
usually screechi ng or saying. "ba-ba-b a" repenriv ely. Occas1on-
ally, after hearing a sracemenc, Tommy said "ba-ba-b a . ,"
echoing the 1nflecrion of the phrase, as in p<trcial echolalia .
He was characre rized by apparen r sensory deficits. Ar rimes,
for instance , he seemed nor ro hear his name when he \\'as called.
His parents had at first been quire concern ed about his heanng
and had had It ccsred. The rests, however , shov.•ed rhar his hear-
ing v.•as normal. He \vas sometim es insensiti ve co pain and ap-
peared ofren ro ace as if he \Vere blind. F1nall>. his canrrum s \VCre
,
excessive, and he \\'ould scream for long periods unconso lably. his
parenrs kepr him ouc of scores, rescauranrs. and ocher public
places ro avoid the excessive common on he caused
Tommy ar inrake obtained a Social Quotien t of 78 on the
Vineland and a ~1enral Age of 21 months on rhe Bayley1. His
chronolo gical age "as 40 monrhs
1\fo111h I. Tommy , \Virhin a few trials on che first day of
rherap}'. caughr on quickly ro verbal 1mirario n Wirh food rein-
208 Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
Case Studies: Language Acquisition 1n Three Autistic Children 209
forcemenr he would quick ly imita te a numb er of sounds: "t,"
· ·· ··s , " a n d a fe"· V.'Ords:
" t I·'1, ·· " me,· ·· ''be, ·· " p, ·· ·· eye. '' ·· \\a, 1ng responses to a verbal comm and: clap hands, raise arn1 , and
~ouch kne<.·. nose, mout h, head, ear, panes, and shoes.
"mam a," Jada, " and "bye-bye" (ba ba). Bue he was also unable
co 1m1race some sound s char mosc three-year-olds could say: "k," . He 1n1C1ally exh1b1ted l1ccle self-sc1mulacion or cancrums dur-
"g," "n," "!,"a nd he could nor 1micace rwo different sound s in ing the therapy sessions. Durin g the second week of cherapy,
ho,vever. these behaviors began co increase in frequency He
succession, such as "\\·aca." For che 6rsr C\VO weeks of traini ng
clicked hrs teerh and lee his attent ion drift bet\\·een trials in rhe
Tomm y ''as drille d on che sound s and \\'Ords char he could al-
ses~rons. Pun1sh:nenr, shout ing "no" or "pay atrcnc ion," and oc-
ready say, co insure char he would consiscencly perform chem (we
casionally slapp ing his arm or leg, decreased che frequency of
could "get control" over chem). In che third week of therap y,
Tomm y \\as manually prom pted co im1Care a "k" sound by hold- these behaviors. Punis hmen t "Was not effccr1ve in stopp ing a tan-
ing do\\ n che front of his tongue After three prom pted trials , he trum o~ce it had begun . A highly effective strare g}, hot;\ever,
"_'<IS co \VOrk throu gh the tantru m by prese nting Sbs and rern-
\Vas able co say "k" spontaneously and wirh greac enthu siasm . For
forc1ng Tomn1y for appro priate responding just as chough he were
rhe first fe\\ days afrer chis prom pting , Tomm y confused "c" and
1

k on verbal 1micauon crials, buc by che end of the third v.·eek,
h(· rarely confused che sounds.
In che fourth week, Tomm y began co work on puttin g differ-
ent sounds togeth er. By the end of che \\•eek he could imita te C\VO
ne\\' \\'Ords "up" and "eac," ,,·hen pre~encauons of these \\'Ords
\vcre randomly altern ated with v.·ords and sound s he could already
. trum for 15 .minu tes, che longest tantru m ever seen 1n his year of
11n1rare.
In che first days of therapy, Tomm y did nor swallow his saliva
durin g rhe verbal 1m1Cauon drill'> . The saliva filled his mout h,
prcve nnng him from 1m1tacing efficiently. Tomm y \\as therefore
caught ro S\vallO \V on co1nman d. The S\vallo\ving response was ac
first manual!} prom peed by massaging rhe rhroac, bur ic soon
came under verbal contro l. B} che end of Augu st, Tomm y v.·as
usually swallo\\'1ng \\ Hhouc berng remin ded co do so
Durin g the first 1nonch of traini ng Tomm y rarely used che
words he knew spontaneously Only one instance of sponcane1Cy
\\as recorded. He ran co his front door and called our "mam a"
v.·hen he s,1\\ her appro achin g. H0\\ evcr, Tomm y s babbl ing
1 Tomm r regressed sl1ghclr over this break He had dropp ed rhe
chang ed considerably durin g che first month of therapy from ics
1n1ual repeuc1ve "ba-b a-ba-b a." He began co incorporate mosc of
the sound s \\'Orked on in chc verbal imicac1on casks 1nco che
babbl ing ac home.
In che first week of therap y, Tomm y was noc caugh t any re-
ceptive language. Ho,vever, he was periodically asked co perform
various comm ands rhac he under stood , such as "close che door, "
"turn on rhe light, " and "kiss daddy ," as a change of pace from
his verbal and nonverbal imita tion drills. Durin g the second
week, traini ng \Vas begun co shift che nonverbal imicac1on rover -
bal control By che end of the mont h, he could makt the folio\\·-
•
not having a tantru m Tomm y usually quiete d down t;\'irhin one
minu te \vhen chis "\\•orkrng throu gh" strategy \Vas used. HO\V-
ever '\vork1ng throu gh" proved ineffective the first time chat
Tomm y's f.1ther did therapy with him. Instead, as Tomm y re-
fused to rtspo nd ro his farher's requesrs, he \\/as placed, chair and
all, 1nco a corne r anJ t1med our Thcrc he conun ued che tan-
therapy. before he became quicc. Time out \vas rarely needed co
contr ol his tantru ms after this 1nc1denc
\fr1111h 2 Tomm r learned co differenuall> imita te "k" and g
,ind began to learn co imita te two ne\v words, "wate r" and
"cookie." I le initia lly had difficulty in sequencing the two differ
enc sound s 1n each \\'Ord Water tende d cu (Orne out as "\vah\\·ah,"
\vhtle cookie \\as kcekec." Ht \\as ablt co s<I} '\vahr ah" (for \\<I·
cer) cons1stencly, bur "cookie' st1ll requir ed t\vO s s, one for cach
0
syllable. No therapy was condu cted in che sccond and third weeks
of l\iont h 2, '''hen rhe Auusn1 Pro1ecr staff took their vacar1ons.
"c" from his imita tion of "ear," and he could no longer imita te
",vater" \vhen a single S0 was presenced. By the end of the first
session he again \vas able to imita te "eat" appro priate ly; his imita -
tion of "\\acer" to one s0 rerurned br rhc end of rhc v.:eek. Jn
' ,1Jdition, by che end of the \Vcek he \vas able ro 1m1tare "cookie."
Torn my \Vas raug ht his first expressive labels: v.•atcr and cookie.
l'hese \VOrds '''ere learned quick ly (\\·1ch1n rhe first one-h our scs-
~ion). ~e \vas also requir ed co say "up before he could get up
from his chair By rhe end of one week of traini ng he sponrane-
ouslr asked for "wah tah" and to get "up " Tominy's paren ts noted
ch,1t he sponr aneou slr began co .1sk for "cookie" and "\vahtah' at
home ar chis time .
 Case Studies: Language Acqu1sit1on in Three Autistic Children
210
Tommy's recepc1ve language continued co increase He
learned co couch his ceech, shire, shoes. and rummy. Ac home, he
began co comply more readily wich his p~rencs whe~ chey asked
him co come co chem, sic down, or puc his coys 1n his room.
Ac che end of chis monch, we began co see char Tommy had
subscancial crouble wich complex demands. Thus, he could noc
perform a cask in which he was asked co give one of cwo available
objects co one of cwo people presenc. If eicher component, ob1~cc
or person, was held conscanc across cnals, he could follow che 1n-
scruccions The processing problem occurred only when boch
componencs were unlimited wich1n a single command.
/\fo11th 3. Tommy learned co 1m1cace a number of new words,
such as "car," "keys," and "ouc," composed of sounds chat he
could say separately. The learning of a ne\v v.•ord frequently cem-
porartly <lisrupced che pronunciacio? of a previously l:arne~
word For example, just afcer being <lnlle<l on a new word, key.
he began co pronounce "ouc" as "ouk", che error was correcced
w1ch a few trials of prompc1ng. Tommy also learned co say cwo
new sounds, "f' and "l," and words containing chese sounds. "L"
was difficult for Tommy. He was first caught co place his congue
properly co make an "l" sound.
As soon as Tommy could say a "'·ord fairly well, he was caught
co label che corresponding objecc and find che object when it was
asked for by name. He frequently used the words char he learned
spontaneously. Ac che clinic, he picked up a doll_ and labeled the
feacures on ics face. Ac home, he frequendy cried co label the
chings he saw on celev1s1on. He often asked for cookies or milk
and che like. Since Tommy was verbally asking for chings regu-
larly, he was caughc co use "I want "sentences. Within a
week, Tommy had mastered this sentence form. A second phrase,
"Hi, (person's name)" (in response co chc greeting "Hi,
Tommy"), was added ac chis time.
Tommy learned receptive labels quite easily. He seemed un-
able, however, co learn co discnm1nace becwcen cup and spoon
After three weeks of crying numerous vartacions of discrimi nae ion
training (boch Tommy and his cherapiscs were preccy fruscraced)
we scopped working on che discriminanon. le seemed poindess co
spend so much rime on one discnminacion "'·hen Tommy learned
ocher receptive labels very easily We felt chat. lacer, he v.·ould
probably learn chese labels easily or on his own. (In face, a fev.·
monchs lacer, Tommy did learn chcsc labels in less than 10 cnals)
We began co reach verbs receptively. The first verbs we chose
were "run," "jump," and "walk." Tommy was asked co perfor.m
Case Studies. Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 211
che action named These verbs were chosen prtmarily because che
acc1ons involved 1n carrying our chcse verbs \Vere ver}' reinforcing
co him, and he learned chem quickly. Furthermore, afcer reach-
ing him a label for che behavior, we were also able specifically co
1nscru~c him co "stop JU~ping," an accivicy which he engaged in
exc~ss1~ely for it~ self-stimulatory propercies. That is, we were
beg~nning co gain verbal control over his sclf-scimulacory be-
havior (lacer, we m~y tell him co stop twirling, co stop spinning,
or co stop accing bi.:arre). Ac home, Tommy is now scnc around
his house co find objects and perform simple casks. He enjoys
these tasks because he can be quite accive and because a cask is
very game-like ac nmes .
1\f(Jnth 4 Tommy finally learned ro make chc "n" sound chis
month. We had cried unsuccessfully co reach him co im1cacc the
sound lase month . During a break in the cherapy session, Tommy
asked chc chcrapisc for che coy gun she had by saying "gah." The
cherapisc refused co give 1c co him and cold him co say "gun." To
her surprise, Tommy did so, breaking chc \VOrd up 1nco cwo dis-
ttncc syllables, pronouncing che word as "gu-n." For a few days,
Ton1my was unable co say "n" excepr as pare of "gun," buc he
evencually learned ro say che "n" sound separately and in ocher
words.
Tomm}''s vocabularr of names conrinucd ro increase. He
learned more body parrs, ob1ecc names, and verbs . A ne\v cask,
labeling pictures in books, \\'as added co che sessions Tomm>•
learned the names of a number of animals and also rhe sounds chat
che}' make For instance. \vhen asked \vhac sound a car makes •
Tommr anS\\'Cred "me-o"'" using che approprtace 1nffeccion.
Tommy also began co recice, by roce, che numbers one through
five.
Tommy spontaneously began co label che people he knew: his
parents, his relatives, and the thcrapiscs. Wichouc being caught,
he used chese names as modifiers of objects. He called his father's
car, "dada car," and a rherapisc's car, "Larry car ."
Given chis sponcaneous use of names as ad1ecnves, we sys-
ccmac1callr began co reach Tommy ocher adjectives . He learned
some of the ad1ecr1ves quire eas1lr ; ochers \\'ere d1fficulc for him.
He learned big \'(rsus liccle discrimination using blocks in about
50 crtals. He generalized che relauonal terms co other pairs of
items "-'ich few errors . In concrasc. Tommy acquired color names
slo\\·ly. He learned co label blue quickly, bur he v.·as scill having
trouble "''ich yellow and green ac che end of November.
Tomm>• \Vas caught how co march 1dcncical icems co each
 Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Atuistic Children
212
ocher. He began matching object~ co objects. \\'ent on co match-
ing photos to photos, and finally to marching o?jeccs c~ photos.
We planned co use chis matching response lacer tn reaching more
complex conlepts
We also ,carted co \\'Ork on Tommy's memory. Tommy
labeled an objelt, then puc ic inco a buckec. The open1ng_in .the
bucket \\'as covered, chen Tommy "·as asked v.·hac v.·as 1ns1de.
\'qichin a week, he could usually an~\\·er correctly even af~er a
30-second delay bccv.·een che action and che request, even 1f he
had perforn1ed another cask during the delay inrerv~L
At chis point, Tommr began a program of learning co process
complex demands. In che first cask, he was asked ro give _che
therapist C\\'O ob1ecrs fron1 a five-objecr display. To our ~urpnse.
in the firsr session he began ro say che names of the ob1ects out
loud a fey, cin1es before picking chem up. He did not echo the
enure so; rather, he seemed to bt verbally rehearsing the names
before p1ck1ng lip cht obieccs. . ..
ln the middle of chis rnonch (i.e., four months 1nco cra1n1ng),
Tommy began showing less eye-co-face contact, d~wdling when
complying \Vith demands, and his race of self-snmularory be-
haviors went up . Verbal punishment (like a loud "no") had little
im1ned1ate effecr 1n reducing the frequency of the off-task be-
haviors, so physical punishment (his therapist s.lapped his l_eg)
was used The physical punishment was effecuve almosr 1m-
med1ately This cempor•iry rist:• in psychotic behavior sho,ved us
chat, although Tommy had been improving rapidly, he v•as still
far from normal.
,\fQnth 5 Tomm> finallr learned che names of four colors: red,
yello"" blue, and green, re,eprively and expressive! y \X!hen h!s
correct responding became consistent, he was raught to d1scr1m1-
nate bet\\een che quesrions, "u·hat is it?" and "\\·har c11lor is ir?"
Since the \\'ord "color" \\·as heavily emphasized \\'henever that
question wa\ asked, he spontaneously began co repeat "color" be-
fore proceeding to answering che question Soon after he began
echoing or rehear\ing the "·ord, he learned to discriminate be-
t\vecn the questions It was ver)' clear in chis task char he spon-
taneous!}' engaged 1n overt verbal rehearsal.
Tommy concinuc<l co learn che names of accions. \Xie used a
vanecy of pictures showing people engaged in vanous acc1v1nes.
\X'e frequently reseed for generalization in other sicuacions. For
instance. after Tommy had been caught co "jump" and had
learned co command his therapist co "jump," we gave him a coy
•
Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 213
soldier and asked him co "make the man jump." Tommy lifted
~he ~an up and dO\\ n from a table and labeled the acc1on "iump-
~ng. After he had learned verbs such as earing, sleeping, comb-
ing hair, and brushing ceerh, Tommy began ro learn hov. ro pre-
tend co perform the acrions. He learned co pretend quick!) and
enJO}'ed It ver}' much. After about one week of training, he be,1:an
ro acr our rhe prerend1ng behaviors v.·hich he had been caught
sponcaneouslr and ro h1bel rhe behaviors he acted ouc.
The program for teaching Tommy ro process complex de-
mands '"'as resumed Tommy v.•as co give one of cv.·o available ob-
jects ro one of cwo people present. He had been unable co learn
chis cask three months ago. He now learned the rask \V1th1n one
hour. The second rype of complex demand chat Tommy \vorked
s
on \vas more difficult for him. He was asked, in one 0 , ro couch
two different pares of his body in sequence. A rypical SD \vas.
"touch nose and couch car." His problem in this cask was th;1r he
did not wa1r for the complete SD to be given before beginning ro
respond. The therapists therefore began to hold Tommy's hands
down until rhe sn was complcced, and his performance improved.
This 1nonch, Tommy learned his first shapes and preposi-
tions. He acquired a receprive discrimination between circle and
square 1n one 50-minuce session. He similarly learned a receptive
discrim1narion bet\vcen "in" and "on" in one session. "Under"
was lacer added co his repertoire of preposinons.
Some simple social games \vere added co che therapy session
The first game '''as "knock, knock." Tommy knocked, che
cherap1sr asked "Who's there;" and Tommy ans,vered "~le!"
Another game \Vas "parc1cake co a song. Tommy performed the
clapping pare and rne<l co sing along. "Gimme 5" \\aS a ch1rd
game. The therapist held our his hand, palm up. and said
"Gimme 5", Tommy then slapped his hand The Gimme 5"
game \Vas used co teach Tommy co discriminate bet\\'een "easy"
and "hard" 1n his hirring. He v.·as asked ro "Gimme 5--..tI) .. or
"Gimme .~-hard... In addition, because he gready enjoyed all of
chest games, rher \\'ere used as reinforcement for \vorking on
less-preferred casks. For example, after \\'Ork1ng on his preposi-
tions f<?r five minutes, Tommy \\'as allowed co play che games for
t\\'O minutes.
1\11111rh 6. Tommy \VOrked on generalizing "in," "on," and
"under" ro a variety of siruacions. He became confused ar one
point \vhen he was placing objects "on" or "under" a chair. The
therapists soon real i1.ed chat Tomn1y was nor discri mi nan ng be-
 Case Studies: Languag e Acquisition 1n Three Autrshc Children
214
tween rhe 1nsrrucr ions "on chair" and "under chair" because he
imitated both instructi ons as "und<:r . '' He was taught to dis-
criminat e the 1nsrrucn ons using verbal 1micauo n drills, where he
was first caught ro 11111tatr the 1nsrrucr ions accurate ! y. He then
perform ed rhe response s correctly w1rh no further rraininf, . By
che end of the month he could put obieccs "in," "on," or "under"
1usr about anything and cell rhe therapis t \vhere ir \'as.
Tommy 's repertoi re of verbs conrinll ed co expand. He was
taken ro a playgrou nd a few rimes by his mother, '"here he
learned "swingi ng" and "sliding ." His pretendi ng be1.:ame more
elaborat e. He learned hO\\' to Nmake pan<."akes" after his parents
cooked some for him one \\'eekend . He added three more colors,
orange, brown, and pink, to his repertoi re wirh liccle trouble. He
also learned a rhird shape. triangle , easily.
Tommy learned ro count by rote from one co five this month.
After he mastered rhe first cask, he \\·orked at count1n~ objects.
At first, he \vas asked to touch each object us he counted . He had
trouble, however , 1n coordin ating his verbal and motor re-
sponses He tended to count faster rhan he couched the ob1ecrs.
The task therefore was modified . The therapis t placed the obiects
on the floor 1n front of Tommy , one at a time, banging each ob-
1ect against rhe table ro make a loud sound: Tommy counted each
object as it was placed on the floor. He quickly mastered rh1s
cask. In the next seep, rhe blocks co be counted were all placed on
rhe cable ac once, and the therapis t pointed to each block while
Tommy counted . After rh1s step was mastere d, he returned ro the
original cask, couching and counting s1mulran eously He success-
fully coordina ted his motor and verbal response s mo~t of the
•
ume.
Tommy learned ro im1rare che pitch and loudness with <.\:h1ch
words were spoken. He learned ro vary loudness and pitch very
quickly. 1-Ie rhoughr char whisper ing was very funny, laughing as
he im1cated che cherap1sc's voice. He created the whole cask as a
game, which of course 1s ideal
Tommr began attendin g a nurser>' st·hool. His second day ar
school, he and anocher child picked up the receivers of t\vO coy
phones and began "calk1ng" (babblin g) co each ocher After a feVI
days at school he spontane ously began to sing along Vl'tth rhe
ocher children dunng the music penod. He could only ~ay a few
words clearlr. and the>· \\·ere said a little too sloV1·ly, but he rned
co keep up, and he enjoyed part1c1p ating. In his first month at
school, however , he engaged in little real verbal interact ion with
his classmat es.
Case Studies: Languag e Acquisition in Three Aut1st1c Children 215
7
. _t.fonth : This month Tommy learned rouse "yes" and "no" ro
1nd1cace volition . He learned to say "yes," he wanted cookie and
"no," ~e did not want vinegar, in one session. The res~nse
generali zed co other foods and to accivitte s such as playing and
gecung spanked , \vuh few errors.
Tommy conunue d ro work on counun g He learned co count
by roce up co 10 and to count up co 10 objects. He rhen began co
learn how many he had just counted when he was asked to do so.
He also began \vo~king on a n~\v memory cask. Ar first two pic-
tures were placed 1n front of him After he labeled the pictures ,
he closed his eyes, and the therapis t removed one of rhe pictures .
Tommy was cold co open his eyes and was asked "What's m1ss-
1ng ,.. He learned this task very quickly. By ~he end of chis
month.' he respond ed correctly when five pictures were used as
st1mul1. He now began sponanr eously to play therapis t in this
rask. He •. acting like the therapis t, laid out and rook away rhe
p1crur~ himself, then waited for the therapis t to ask him what
was m1ss1ng
We began to reach pronoun s. He was first taught "your" and
"My" receptiv ely. A typical demand was "touch your nose."
Tommy learned this task quire quickly.
When Tommy first learned co use prepos1t1ons expressi vely,
he .~1d onl> the preposit ion in response co rhe question "where is
1t 1 For example , 1f asked, "where 1s pen'" \\·hen rhe pen Vl'aS on a
table, he ans\vere d "on." This month, he learned co expand his
answers to phrases. In rhe above example , for instance , his re-
sponse became "on table." He began to do this cask all by him-
self. He placed an object some\vh ere, then cold the therapis ts
Vl'here it was .
We are expandi ng his use of sentence s. First, he learned ro
sa>' • "I am done," \vhen he finished a task or game such as a puz-
zle. He also learned a new sentence form, "I am ing," with
which he describe d his current acriviry. He learned to use this
senren~e form within a week Lastly, he was raughr to give his
rherap1s rs comman ds, such as "L1rry, jump" or "Susan, move," so
that he could exercise more verbal control over his environ ment .
Tommy 's mother nored char his spontane ous speech at home
increase d rapidly this month. She commen ced chat he was crying
1nore often ro put \vords rogecher in phrases and sentence s. Ir Vl' aS
usually hard co understa nd him, his mother said, but she Vl'as
p~eased that he Vl'as trying One day, ar home, Tommy ran up co
his morher, rell1ng, "Sky! skr!" He pulled her outside and
pointed ro a bird-sha ped kire in rhe sky. Another time, after ger-
216 Case Studies: Languag e Acqu1s1tion 1n Three Autistic Children
ung our of the car, he ran up ro his morher and said, "~1ama
car-ha nJ hurt.·· When his mother askcJ him to show her \vhat
was \vrong, he po1nrcd to che hor exhaust pipe on rhc car He
. of objects I-It: \\·as asked, "What 1s
apparen rly haJ couched ic anJ burned h1n1self. . .
Tommy' s parents and rherap1sts are no,,· nouc1ng cha~ h~ 1s
beginnin g CO learn manr \\"Ords \\'ithouc formal tra1n1ng._ [•or ·~­
stance, he learned '"w1nJow," "tree," anJ sky" from his father in
informal (Onversarion in v.thich his farher labeled the ob1eccs once
or t\v1ce. Also, by the end of rhe second monrh of nursery school,
Tommr , \vie hour system;1ric training , had learned rhe names of
abour half of his classmat es.
Tomrnr develop td t\\'O problem bch,1viors rhis monrh. Firsr,
he began co echo frequenr ly. To suppress rh1s behavio r, he \\'as
taught ro echo on comman d, and was subsequ enrly cold "do~'t
echo" when he did so 1nappro pnacely. Second, he bccan1e quite
noisy ar his nursery school \X'e again dc,1lr w1rh this behavio r by
reaching him a label for ir He \\'as raught ro "make noise on
comman d Afcer he learned this response , he \\·as rold "don'c
make noise" when he \vas disrupti ve 1n rhe classroon1. This pro-
cedure \Vas effective 1n eliminat ing tht: echoing and rhe noisines s.
t\frilllh R Tra1n1ng on the expn:ss1vc pronoun s bt:gan, It did
nor progress easily. Tommy learned to use "rour" and "my" ex-
pressivt:ly, but 1n doing so, he lost che rccepriv e use of che '''ords.
When training was re1nsncured on rhe receptiv e use of"your ' and
"my," he hecame even more confused . He finally acqu1re<l the re-
ceptive and expressive forms of "your" and "n1y" afrer t\VO \veeks
of drilling Afcer his "your" and "my" r('spond ing stabd11e d, he
began to learn "you" .1n<l "I" recepti V<:ly. Tommy and his
therap1sc eath held an objt:cr. The therapis t asked, "\Vhac do you
(l) have?"
lfe 1s mascenn g countin g. For ex.imple , he can rt:ll the
therapis t that rhere were one, two, or rhree blocks 1n the display
wirhouc counting chem our loud. To generali ze his counrin g
skills. ocher casks were introduc ed. For example . he \\'as caughr
co clap or jump or cap a des1gnaced number of t1mes. B}' rhe end
of tht• month he could make up co five moror responses accu-
rarel y In ocher casks, h<: was asked ro counr blocks and tell how
many he h,1d counted . Then, one block \Vas removed and he was
again aske<l, "Hov.· many~·· To go along \vich his counrin g he
learned ro recogniz e and label che numeral s 1n order. Like many
ocher aucist1c ch1l<lren, l"ommy enjo>ed \\'Orking with che num-
erals and learned chem quickly. Afcer he had learne<l rht: numer-
•
Case Studies: language Acquisition in Three Aut1st1c Children 217
a.ls, he began labeling chem \vheneve r he Sa\\ rhem, on clocks,
license plates, or \vhateve r.
During rh1s month v.•e also began co reach him the function s
for?" For instance , a
bed ,,.as "for sleeping ," a cookie for eating," an<l milk "for drink-
ing. He also le.lrned ne'' memory rasks Three or four pictures
\Vere d1splayc<l 1n front of him 111 a line. After Tommy labeled rhe
picrures , rhey \\•ere cur.nee.I face down. The therapis r rhen asked
for one of the picrures by name. He learned rhis memory cask
\\'Ith fe\\' errors, and he quickly began ro play therapis t. He
\\'Ould turn ovtr the p1crurcs himself an<l name one for che
therapis t co pick our.
Tomm> bcgan \vork on a cask designed ro improve his de-
scriprive spct:ch. We began reaching chis by showing him a pic-
ture and asking him co rel1.1bour 1r. Ar first, he labelle<l just1111e
1cem and rhen stopped . \X hen asked \\•hac else he saw, he re-
peated his first response . The rherap1scs began co prompt him co
name differenr ire ms by po1nt1 ng ro rhem, then fading chis
prompr. By the· end of the monrh he had begun ro exrensiv ely
de~cribe picrures .
Tommy learned t\\•O ne\v sentence s chis monrh. He learned ro
ans"·er "I am four" to che question "Ho\v old are you)'" and co
ans"·er ··1 am fine" co rhe question "Hov.· are you?" In add1c1on, he
lcarned co say "stop" \vhen he <l1<l noc like what someone \\'US
doing co h11n. He was caught co use rhe \VOr<l by having a
therapis t rickle him unril he said "stop." This respons e
generali zed co rhe nursery school, where he used ir when a child
\vas botherin g him.
Tommy continue d co use languag e sponrane ously. At home,
he cold his mother, "Give n1c gun " He had never been caught to
say "give mt:," ,1lchough tht: therapis ts often used the phrase. At
school, he frcqucnr ly began ro ask for foods at lunch, for insrance ,
"l \\'ant milk" or "more juice"
i\lu111h 9. As Tommy had mastered the pronoun s "you and )"
receptiv ely, he \'as raughc "rou" and "me·· expressi vely, using a
game. The rherap1sr placed a block between himself and Tommy .
He rhen sa1<l "Ready -sec-go !" When he said "go," rhey borh
grabbed for the block. They each goc rhc block some of the rime.
The rherap1sc rhcn asked Tornrny , "Who has rhe block'" Tommy
lovt:d ro play chis game. Ht: \\'Ould put the block in pos1r1on, say
"J!.o" h1msc:lf, an<l larer sponcan cously cell tht: rherapis r '"ho had
the block. Some: furrher rr.1ininJ!. \\'as conduct ed \\·irh the pro-
218 Case Studies; Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
nouns "your" und "1ny" because it was found cha~ the presence o~ a
third person 1n the cask disrupte~ hi~. responding. T~~m>'..d1d
nor understand chat the recepuve my and expressive your re-
ferred only to che person speaking co him. F1rsc •. Tommy, Tom-
my's cherapisc, and Tommy's ceddy bear \\'Orked Jn che cask. The
cherapisc asked whose body pare had been couched .. Tommy mas-
tered chis cask quickly. A person \vas chen subsncuced for che
reddy bear. Tommy made fe"· errors. In lace~ sessions, che J?Crson
who gave instructions and the other adulr 1n the task S\l.'ltche~
roles half \\·ay through the session. Tommy \l.•as able to change his
responding appropriately.
Tommy learned new· preposiuons chis month. He .learned co
place objects in front of, behind, and next co other obieccs, each
w·ich less than 10 prompted trials. A generalization task "'aS
caught next. Tommy was asked co pos1t1on himself 10 relation co
various objects. A typical command, for inscance, \Vas "scand be-
hind chair" or "sic under cable "Tommy mastered chis cask in one
session.
Tommy also learned a new use for "yes" and "no." An object
or picture was held up, and Tommy \Vas asked, "Is chis a ?"
Tommy learned co say "yes" \vhen the object \vas correctly named
and "no" when rhe name was incorrect. Tommy was trained with
one object or picture until he 1nascered the cask wich it, then
another picture was used. After cra1n1ng on about five pictures
and objects, Tommy ~eneralized the responses. He answered
questions correctly about nev• objects wirh no training After he
mascerl'd "yl's" and "no" for object names, some general1zarion
casks were conducted, using actions, adjecuves, and prepositions.
Typical s0 s w·ere: "Are you sirring?", "Is che boy (in a picture)
running'", ls chis a blue square?" and ··1s the block on the ca-
ble?" Tommy m015cered these variacions of the cask wirh few er-
rors. He also lc-arned nc\\ concepts this mooch: "~fore·· and "less"
\Vere caught ar first by shov.-ing him C\l.'O secs of blocks, w1Ch a
different number 1n c.-ac h sec, and asking him co po inc co chat
which had "more" or "less." To reach "same" and "different," in
one cask, three objects were placed in front of Tommy; two "'ere
identical, the third different. Tommy w·as asked co give the
therapist thl' "saml'" or the "different." He also learned a new sen-
tence form chi~ month, "It is a ," in response co "What 1s
1t!" when an object was held up or pointed co. By the end of chis
month, Tommy was occasionally using the sentence spontane-
ously.
•
Case Studies Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 219
Tommy's spontaneous speech increased noticeably, and his
Sp(!ech became much more varied. During a therapy session, for
instance, after Larry, a therapist, slapped his hand, Tommy said,
"Larry hit me." At school, he capped a girl who had her back co
him and cold her "around," for turn around. Tommy had never
been taught to say or use the word "around." He began co spon-
taneouslr use colors as modifiers A few times dunng the month
ht' said, "I wane blue car" or " I wane orange car " When he w·as
placed in rime-out (a corner) at home for crying, he stopped cry-
ing, turned to the cherap1scs and said "done." At school, he held
his jacket out to the cherap1sc and said "I v;anc on." The 1nflec-
cions that he used 1n talking became more normal during chis
period, and he picked up certain mannensms such as shrugging
his shoulders We concluded chat he was learning these behaviors
from the children at his nursery school.
J\111111h I() Tommy learned a number of sentence forms this
month In answer co the question, "What color is (ite111)?", he
learned to answ<:r "( itr111) is (color)." He learned chis s<:ncence
quickly, but he used it only in response co the specific question.
He also learned to say "you are ing" co describe a person's
actions. At first, he cried co substitute "am" (from "l am
1ng") for the "are," but within a week he was able co use
the sentence appropriately wichouc prompting. Finally, he
learned to say "I have " and "You have " co describe
ob1ects that he and a person speaking co him \vere holding.
Tommy soon began to use these sentences spontaneously His
main problem w·ich his sentences was that except for che "I wa11t
___ .. sentence, he said ocher sentences more slowly than nor-
mal children did. Pare of the problem "'as that he said manr in-
dividual v.·ords slowly. A speed drill was therefore begun "hich
relied on his imitating different races of speech.
Tommy continued co work at describing pictures from books
and magazines . Two elements were added co his responses First,
he \\'as taught co say "and" between the items he named. Second,
he \\' <IS taught to say "I see , " ac the beginning of his re-
sponse, co make the response a sentence. Thus, a typical descrip-
tion of a picture was "I see man and dog and tree and house " By
the end of che month, Tommy generally "'ould mention all of the
items in a picture w1chouc a prompt.
Tommy learned a new variation of "What's missing?" The
therapist drew• a face, but he omitted one element such as the eyes
or rhe hair. Tommy \vas asked co identify the missing part.
220 Case Studies: Language Acquisition 1n Three Autistic Children
Somewhat to the chcrapiscs' surprise, he never made an error on
the cask. In chc other "What's missing'" cask, which involved
piccurcs, he began co play thcrap1sc much more elaborately. He
removed one of the piccurcs, then asked "missing?" If che
therapist ans\\·ered corrcccly, Tommy showed hi":! the p1ccure and
said "good ." If the cherap1sc \Vas incorrecc, Tommy goc a puzzl~d
expression on his f.1ce, said "no-wrong" choughcfully, and again
asked "Whac's missing'
Tommy's kno\\·ledge of the funcnons of various objeccs ~as
expanded co include the functions of his body pares. A cyp1cal
quescion \\'as "What do you sec ·~vith'" ro which he ansv..ered
"eye." Tommy acquired the responses quickly. Abouc two weeks
afcer che training of the cask \vas begun, he approached one of his
cherap1scs and sponcancously began co name che functions of cer-
cain body pares. He pointed co his nose and said "smell," then co
his eye, saying "see," and finally co his ear, saying "hear."
A number of casks were designed chis mooch which combined
elements of language which had previously been v.·orked on sepa-
rately to facilitate his understanding of everyday speech. One task
combined rhe use of pronouns, color, and the conjunction "and."
Tommy and the therapist each held a few colored blocks. The
therapist asked, "What <lo you (!) have?" A typical answer from
Tommy was "I (you) have yellow and blue and red." A second
cask combined the use of pronouns \vi ch yes and no. The therapist
and Tommy again held objects. The therapist asked, "Do you (l)
have ?" and Tommy ans,vered yes or no. Tommy mascered
chese casks quickly.
Tommy began v.•ork on new number casks in May co
generalize his use of numbers and counting. In one cask, he was
required co counc a set of blocks and chen poinc co che numeral
\\·hich corresponded co che number he had counted. By che end of
this mooch, he could perform chis cask correccly for up co four
blocks. A second cask required him co give che cherap1sc a desig-
nated number of blocks from a larger set of blocks. Tommy could
give up co seven blocks correccly. He spontaneously played
therap1sc 10 chis cask. Tommy gave che therapist the s0 "give me
blocks." Ac first he asked for che same number of blocks
on each cnal. By che end of the month, hov.·ever, he asked for a
differenc number on each trial withouc prompcing. In a chird
task, blocks of one color and blocks of a different color were pre-
sented co him 10 one display. He was asked how man}' blocks of
each color were presenc. A typical sec of questions was "How
many red?" followed by ··How many yellow?" As Tommy mas-
•
Case Studies Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 221
tered chis cask quickly, differenc shapes were substicuced for
different colors Tommy sci II required prompting \\'ith the shapes
ac che end of the mooch.
Tommy scarred to learn the alphabet chis month. By che end
ofche mooch, he cecogn1:zed and labeled "A" chrough K,' and he
could put chese teeters in the correct order. He also learned che
firsc half of chc alphabet song. He \\'as often playful during che
alphabet cask One day v.·hen he v.·as rec1nng che pare of the al-
phabet that he knev.·. he cook one seep backward as he said each
letter.
The amounc and vanecy of his sponcaneous speech chis mooch
surprised both his parencs and his therapiscs. He began ro make
n1ort demands of people, for in seance, he cold one cherap1st,
.. Laurie:, dance ... He cold his mocher "Mama, clap, .. \\hen he
wancc:d reinforcemenc. He began co commenc more frequencly on
his environment, using sentences. Ac home, he said phrases such
as "Phone 1s green," "Mama wash dishes," and "Dada on chair ...
He made some actempcs to use the pasc cense in verbs. After his
facher gave him a record, he said "Dada give me record ... He
began co engage in more prolonged verbal inceractions. Ac a res-
taurant, chc therapisc allO\\'ed him co order for himself. 1-Ic said,
"I wane hoc <log and milk." When the milk \Vas brought, Tomm}'
said, "No, I \Vane chocolate milk." He lacer said, "Thank you,"
\vhen che \\airer broughc him the chocolace milk. At a chcrapisc's
home, Tommy cook a dollar from the therapisc·s mocher, and said
"Bye-bye- score .. The cherapisc asked him, "Whac do you
wane>" Tommy ans,,·ered, "Ice cream, ice cream, b}'e-bye,' and
chcn added, "L1urie car-score."
Tommy's cherapy is cxpecced co concinue for another year,
\\'ith the creacmenc focusing on his underscanding and use of con-
versacional speech, 1ncr<.-as1ng his spontaneous speech, and im-
proving his social inceracuons v:ich peers. He \\ill accend a nor-
mal nurser>' school full nme, five days a week. t.fosc of his
cherapy \\·111 be conducced ac che nursery school, as chis .secting
\\•ill provide Tommy '' 1ch a variety of opporcun1ues co inceracc
\\'ith his peers and to use che language which he is learning .
Linda
Wh Ile n1ocor development appeared normal, both her parents
and a pediatrician suspecced Linda to be parcly deaf and blind
She sho,vcd no scarcle response ro a loud clap behind her. ycc
--

••

Picture F Tony is with his parents and his therapists... giving them orders... which

..... -- can be very reinforcing for some of the children To build variety. Tony tells his
father to touch his nose. another therapist to open her mouth. the third therapist
to touch her hair, etc It 1s probably critical that the child acquire early and exten
sive verbal control over his environment for language to "take hold

•
222 Case Studies: Language Acquis1t1on in Three Autistic Children
'''ould reacr ro rhe sound of rhe opi:ning of a gum \\·rappi:r She
\\'Ould hold her hand in fronr of her face much of the rime, stare
at the lights on rhe ceiling or at ,1 point on rhe \Vall, anJ nor look
ar people who approached her, bur ··iook right through" chem,
even when chey arrempced co distract her.
In add1t1on co these apparent perceptual disturbanc es Linda
showed considerab le self-srimul arory behavior. She n.xked from
foot co foot 1n her crib so 1ncessanrly that she \\'Ore our several
mattresses She also spun bar srools .ind coy wheels. t\\·irled her
hair and the strings on her blanket, closely examined minute
pieces of dire and lint, giggled, laughed, and clapped her hands
inappropria te! y, and rubbed her own skin, ground her teeth, and
looked our of the sides of her eyes. She was also very concerned
w1ch ma1nrain1ng order. Thus, she \vould have a cancrum until all
objects \\'ere returned to their proper places, unril her father's
briefcase was closed, until rhe Cheerios box Wa!> shut, and until
the washing machine lid "'as closed Cr1vcn a series of ob1ecrs, she
would line them up 1n ordered ro\\·s She also remained unusually
afraid of falling .1nd of elevators and \\'as fearful of ne\v and un-
predictable chings.
By the rime she was seen by us at intake, Linda could label a
few common objecrs, and she \\·ould follow 1nany comn1on com-
mands \\·hen propi:rly mocivared (e.g., "sir do\\·n, · "give rnc the
cup:· ··raise rour hand"). Yer she \\'Ould nor respond co her name
\\'hen called She had no understand ing, receprrvel}' or expres-
sively, of absrracr terms. She could nor converse, bur i nsread
\\'Ould echo ochers. Thar is, she \\'Ould respond to th<: questions
"What day is today'" or "What's your name?" by echoing back
the question
She began treatment wirh us ''·hen she w·as 3 years, i 1nonrhs
of age. Ar char rime she obtained a S<><.1al Quorienc of 7 2 on the
Vineland, and a f.lenral Age of 30 months on che Bayle>··
1\I1Jnth I. Linda had a canrrum and struggled "to gee a\\'ay"
during portions of the first three sessions Thar 1s, she would nor
sic 10 a chair when asked to, bur would instead scream and cry,
struggle co get our of the chair, and resist rhe therapist couching
her. The firsr step with Linda, as \virh rhe ocher children, \vas co
bring her under this elemenrary control: to sit in a chair for brief
periods of ume, ro look at the rher:tpisr's face \\•hen asked ro do so
("look at me"), and to remain reasonablr free from screams. This
was relanvelr quicklr csrablished w·ich Linda, being n:asonably
well accomplish ed \\'ithin rhe first month 1n rhe cl1nic.
•
Case Studies. Language Acqu1s1tion 1n Three Autistic Children 223
Second, seeps \\·ere raken to bring Linda's echolalta under the
control of the rherap1sc. Her imitation (echoing) of the rherap1sr"s
verb,1ltzations was unreliable in rhat she sometimes would nor
echo him, or she would echo his previous verbalizatio ns (as in de-
layed echolalia), or her enunciatio n \vould be poor. We cried ro
acco1npltsh chis by reinforcing her for echoing him when he said
"sa) , " or "say 'vhar 1 say: , or "sa}' this: . . . . " At
the same ume she \vas caught co inh1b1r her echolalia \\'hen the
therapist said ·Don 1 echo" by g1v1ng her verbal disapprova l for
echoing at chose times. Finally, she had a peculiar 1nronat1on co
her statements , in the sense that each of her statements ended
with a rising inflection, as if she was asking a question. The
therapist also brought this intonation un<ler his control, in •l
similar manner as he gained control over her echolalia.
Already dunng the first month L1nd,1 sho"·ed us several ap-
proprtate verbal behaviors, for example, she thanked a rherapisr
for giving her a coy, replied "0. K. " w·hcn asked 1f she \\·anted
candy, and correctly labeled several coys and obiecrs. For chc
most part, ho\\•ever, her speech remained 1napproprta ce. She per-
sisted on echoing commands and ofren used either garbled or
"singsong·· speech.
Alo111h 2. The mosr important \\'Ork in chis month centered on
the reduction of ccholal1c speech. Linda continued to echo and
mimic the \\'Ords and gestures of her rh<:rapists \vhen in11Cation
\\·as not called for L1nda·s excensive ec..hoing n1ade her appear
very abnormal. We nO\\ began co pair the..· c..ommand .. Don"c echo"
with a finger over rhe mouth each nme Linda scarred co echo. Ar
the same time, we rewarded Linda \\'ith cand}' for nor echoing our
commands . Echolalia decreased sharply.
Second, we introduced funccional ~reech exercises. Spcc1-
ficall}-, \Ve began ro build the first "I \Vant _ " phrase, scarr-
ing \virh I v.anr cand}· " Similar!}, Linda learned ro use the
action-base d verbs "sec," "take," and "go Sh<: acquired these
behaviors very quickly.
Also during this month we began to re.1ch her the beginnings
of conversatio nal speech ("How old are rout "How are you('
"What's your name?"); rhe pronouns "my," "your," "his," and
"her", color, shape. and Sile, the preposirton s "1n" and "under";
and the conceprs of "samt•" and "differenr."
1\l1J11th 3. Al readr dun ng chis moot h '' e felt char \\'e could
branch our into different areas of language rr.11n1ng "irhour \\'or-
rring about special problems of morivarion During rhe firsc
224 Case Studies: Language Acquisition 1n Three Autistic Children
monch we had depended upon food rewards co keep Linda mou-
vaced co learn. Already during che second mooch she had become
inceresrc:d in many of che teaching materials themselves, and br
the rhird month of rrain1ng she began co demonscrace a concern
for getting the right ans\\·er by herself and obcaining our ~ocial
approval.
\Ve continued to develop both recepttve language and func-
uonal speech . Linda \vould be asked co give us cv.·o or rhree ob-
jects from one group (e.g., of coys), and perhaps a// ofrhe objt:cts
from another group (e.g., 11/I of che marshmallo\\•s). The func-
tional speech rraining focused on verbs (have, do) chat were noc
obviously acrion-based Linda soon mascered '"have" as ic applied
co parts of the body, buc "do" \\"as perhaps confusing. Asked
"Whac are you doinr." she would respond "I am doing jump up
and down" rather than '"I am 1ump1ng."
A memorr ra~k called '"What's missing?'" was also introduced
as a first step 1n c1.:.ich1ng cerms relaung co pasc and present. She
was asked co 1denrify several objeccs on a nearby cable and chen co
cover her eyes The therapist then removed one (or more) ob1eccs,
rearranged the posinon of che others, and asked, "What's mis-
sing~" Linda did qu1ce \veil (about 75% correct) afcer only one
prompt.
Another cxen;1se, \Vh1th prov1.:d more difficult, helped Linda
learn co ask questions abouc unfam1l1ar things racher chan talk
about chen inappropriately. She was caught co say "I don't know"
when asked co idencify an unfamiliar object and also prom peed co
ask attending adults, Whac's chis!'' Teaching such children co
ask questions (such as "\Vhac's chis?") 1s a very 1mporcanc skill
because it helps the child to obtain informacion abouc the envi-
ronmenc.
In addition to cr.1ining on memory casks and asking ques-
tions, v.e scarred teaching concepts of number She quickly
learned co count co ten and ro use singular and plural forms cor-
rcccly. Identification of quanury ('"Ho\\: many?'"), ho\\ever, re-
mained difficult . During chis month she also learned che alphabet
through "G,"" to use '" yes" and "'no'" in statements of face, co use
the connective '" and, " and to use pronouns and preposttions to-
gether in funccional speech.
1\lr1111h -1 Linda's speech \Vas becoming much clearer, her
1nflccrion v.as improving, and she had begun co use complece,
well-constrU(ted sencences spontaneously and appropriately. We
were both surprised and encouraged by the large amount of
•
Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 225
generalizatton \vh1ch emerged from our specific drills. lnconatton
exercises correcced and sharpened speech infleccion. Descrtptton
of story-book pictures and piccure cards provided an opporcuntty
co use newlr acquired speech. She sponcaneously began co de-
scribe her o\\·n activities, which \\'e could clearly observe during
breaks in the speech drills . A classification exercise helped Linda
ro calk about concrete objects at a more abstract level : e.g . , a CO\\'
is an animal, cookies and raisins are foods.
A second seep 1n reaching pasc-presenc relationships y,·as in-
croduced this monch . Using ac firsc only verbs with regular '" ed'"
endings, the cherapisc would model a past-tense conscruction
(e.g , ··say, 'You closed che door' "), and rhen ask "'What did I
do?"' afcer closing the door. During chis month she also learned
more extensive pronouns (such as "\\·e are'" and "they are'") and co
rec1cc the encirc alphabet. The concept of '"lase"' y,·as parncularly
hard for her, and training on It was cemporarily d1sconc1nued .
Linda's use of questions improved considerably, and she seemed
to generalize the concept of "I don'c know." Occasionally, how-
ever, she \\'ould respond with a familiar but incorrecc answer if
she could not answer a question correccly.
/\lo111h 5. We attempted to strengchen and stretch newly ac-
quired skills such as use of past tense, spontaneous speech, recep
tive speech, and plurals. We began co expand her use of the past
censc. The therapist and Linda together performed various actions
around the room. The cherap1st would then ask her "What did we
do over there?"' poinc1ng co a particular locanon 1n rhe room .
Somey,·hat lacer they carried out a series of acuons in different
pares of che building. Linda \\'as 1nic1ally required co recall_a~l .of
the activities regardless of order, and lacer co recall che acttv1nes
in their proper sequence. In a supplemencar} exercise an adulc
..vould encer the creacmenc room and carry ouc an accion 1n fronc
of Linda and the therapist. Then ar increasingly longer intervals,
the therapist \YOuld ask Linda \\hat acuon che adult had per-
formed . All of chese past-tense exercises \\'orkcd together to
clarif}· the relanonsh1p bec,veen che immediate past and present
Linda \vas learning rhac acnons taken cogerher formed sequences
and rhar order was important. Ar the same rime . these exercises
\\'Crc preparation for a lacer exercise chat would reach her co 1nce-
gr;1rc events of rhe more remote pasr with present and future
f Ull( rt Ont ng.
During the previous monrh we had noted the appearance of
spontaneous speech, particularly relating to structured casks and
226 Case Studies. Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
activities \'<le thtn srarted ro consider possible exercises thac
v:ould allow sponraneous speech ro emerge through some kind of
structure. Ar firsc several of us exchanged single stacemenrs found
in everycl.1r ronvt•rs,1rion . Lincl.1 seemed confused by che exercise
and echoed ont• of che scarements in curn Next, one of che
cherapiscs beg,1n some .1cri\'ity. and each therapist in turn de-
stribed \\'h,n he ,,·as doing. Linda appeared co understand rhe
exercise, but found ir difficult co add to our descripuons. Our
chi rd accempc. hO\\'ever, mer "ith :.uttess. Individual foods or
coys or picture cards "·ere passed around co each member of chc
group. One rherapisc \\'Ould chen announce that he "·as holding a
bah\ doll. or thar his balloon \\as red, or char he "'as earing a
rais;n Since the orhcr group n1tmbe;rs had obieccs from che same
class (foods or coys or 1e"t·lry), rhe scruccure for char trial "·as al-
ready defined. If the firsc cherap1sc said ",\f) balloon is red," Linda
coukl readily say, ".\1} balloon 1s green," wichouc any further
pro1npung and \\ 1chour echoing. Moreover, chis form of che
"sponraneiry cxcrt1se" allowed us ro build spontaneous speech
more systemarically. 1·wo staremenrs could he required from each
group member rarher rhan one. Different sentence constructions.
tenses. and parts of speech could be employed. Objeccs from dif-
ferent classes could be used ro encourage individual forms of
response Subsequently. V.'e observed subsranrial increases in
spontaneous speech nor only w1chin rhe exercise bur in Linda's
everyJay functioning .
Cont1nueJ \VOrk on receptive speech exercises appeared co
help Linda's expressive speech . LinJa "·ould spontaneously ask for
t"·o green candie~ after a cherapisc had earlier asked for objects
accordin~ ro number. color. size. and class.
,\lfJ11th 6 . To allO\\' Linda to express herself freely and fre-
quently v.·e began to reduce che structure of earlier exercises . In-
stead of asking her speci fie questions about pictures 1n a story
book. \VC \voul<l .1sk her simpl)' co rell us about chem . The
rhl'rapisr' also involved her in pretend play "·here Linda coul<l de-
scribe ongoing im.1gined .1ctivirr sequences and help make up the
sror\· as it \\'ent Jlong.
1'he ,,·ord "and" \\\ lS used ro connect series of obietrs 1n the
''\Xlhac's missing(' and sponrancirr exercises, and ro link preposi-
nonal phras<:s rogcrhcr and also verb sraremencs 1n boch rhe pres-
enr and pasr tenses.
l\{oreover, L1nd.1 lc:.1rntd rhe prepos1uon "through" and che
ad1ect1ves "open" and "closed." She improved rapidly on identify-
•
Case Studies Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 227
ing quanunes and learned ro respond correctly to the past tense of
"do" ("\X'har did he do?"). Finallr, she entered the cl1n1c one day
and proudly sho"·ed us char she could read and spell her name .1n<l
her sister's name .
i\lo11rh 7. As \\' e encered che second half-year of trc:atmcnr.
Linda began co <lcmonscrace increasing init1at1ve 1n speech as" ell
as spontancit) After "·e had practiced a simplified "Simon says. "
Linda srarted ro give the commands. Soon afterv.ar<ls she insisted
on leading che "\\' hat's m1ss1ng(' exercise, doing so \\'ithouc
error and \\' irh great sacisfuct1on.
S1m1larlr. she began ro ask or comment abour everything at
rhe clinic . Handed a broken peg she said, " Ir's broken, it
scratches." Her more derailed observations corresponded nicely
"1th 'attribute exertises," \\•hich had been recently introduced
I le;re a rherap1sc \VOuld ask Linda if a parucular animal had four
legs or 1f an airplane flev.· 1n the sky. Alrernarively, che therapist
v.·oul<l scr our a group of ob1ecrs and say. ''Give me all rhe an11nals
with four legs"; "Give me something chat flies in the sky. " Also
rhis 1nonrh \VC began to practice discrim1narion of number forms
and c;hildrcn's songs such as "Old MacDonald . "
l\l1111th H. Throughout this month many of the exercises were
c:omb1ncd in various forms. These variations screngthcncd Linda's
performante in different areas and helped maintain motivation .
Our log frequently notes spontaneous, clear, and appropriate
speech.
At chis rime we began to work on a concept of che more re-
mote past Linda's mother would note events of rhe mornin~ or
rhe preceding day so rhar " 'e could quesuon Linda at rhe clin1t·
("\X'hat did you ear chis morning?"; "\X'har did you do yester-
day)"). Prompcing \\'as necessary ar firsr. L1~da did best " '.hen \\'C
questioned her about something of s1gn1fica.nce- •1 b1rrhdar
part>. a special vistc, a favorice cartoon. Occas1on,1lly she ,,·ould
ans,vtr <lppropnaccly bur 1ncorrecdy (e.g ., eggs cacher than tcreal
for breakh1st), and \Ve \\·ould correct her "1rh her mochcr's help.
Linda's face v.·ould beam each ttme v.•e talked about her birthday
parry or a trip co Grandmas house. She also learned chat a cons1<l-
<orar1on of past events could be verr useful 10 ma~1n_g dec1s1ons
ahout rhe present and furure Afrer ralk1ng about falling our of a
\\'agon, Lind,1 <letlared thar sh~ did nor \vanr anocher ride
All along '"e "ere expanding her use of recepr1v~ language.
Jn one cxcrc.:1st a therapist would make a srarcmenr, or a series of
sracen1cncs, followed b) a qucsrion based upon the c:oncent For
 226 Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children
example, the therapist woulJ scare: "The black horse 1umped over
che fence She ace oacs and hay." Then. he may ask: "\X'hac color
\\'as the horse)" "\X'hat did the horse ear?" A second exercise re-
quired rh.u Linda not only comprehend '1.'hat '1.'as said co her buc
also cransform it from recepu\'e co expressive speech Linda \Vas
cold , for exan1ple. "Go .1sk Dan what he is "-'earing coda}", " or
"Go ask Rich ho" old he 1s Beside remembering rhe informa-
cion Linda woulJ have co cransform che pronoun and verb forms
"'·hen she returned the information co che cherapisc ("Dan said he
is \\'cann~ jeans.").
1\l1111th 9. The fe,v sessions run chis month focused on varia-
cions of earlier exercises . Havin.g learned che concepts of number
and matching, Linda used her memory skills 1n playing rhe card
game 'Concentration .. She learned several ne"-' songs \Vith ac-
companying motions. She prcrended ro be rhe ditferenc animals
\\·hich she labeled and described. As rhe immediate pasr exercises
(i.e., acnvicies conducre<l around che room) were rev1e\\·ed, 1r-
re~ular verb forms were inrroc.luced. Nor surprisingly Linda at-
tempted co regularize chem (e.g , "blowed" instead of blew).
The only nc•,v (On(epr \vas causality. Here, for example, the
cherapist would knock over a block and ask. "Why die.I che block
•
fall down?" The rherap1sr rhen prom peed Linda to say, "Becausc
you pushed 1c." "Why d1<l che door shut?" "Because you closed
it " Linda mastered the concept quickly, and she correcdy used
the "cJ" enc.ling' fi>r past rcnsc
Af11nth 10 \'V'e: 1ncrodu(ed variations of the accnbuce and clas-
sificac1on exercises, Se\'eral ne\\ pronouns. and some ne\\ games.
A variation of rhe arcribuce exercise (1.e., "Give me two animals
\\:irh horns .") tried co dn1'1. our similaricies expressively: "HO\\'
are a ram and a bull alike?" ~Ther are both animals . They both
have horns." The classific.1rion exercises (i .e. , "Co"·s and pigs arc
animals ." "Cookies and r.1isins are foods.") led into the (Oncepr of
belonging: "\Xlhere do thc•t· animals belong?" "They belong in
chis barn ."; "\X'here do these fcxxl> belong? .. "Ther belong in che
cupboard ." LandJ diJ \\ell on both of these variations.
$e\'cral ncv.· pronouns (e\'errbody, nobody, 1c) were next in-
croduce<l in a ne\\' pronoun exercise. One therapist would work
\\'1rh Linda \\.·hale one or t\vo adults sat nearby. The rherapisc
woul<l ask, "\Xlho has a bro\\n shirr' .. and prompt, .. He does ·
This kind of cra1n1ng proceeded until Linda had mastered "he:
does," "sht: <loc:s, " "I do," and "you Jo . .. The therapist rhen
asked, "Who has j(reen h.iir(' anc.I prompted the response, "f\o-
•
Case Studies: Language Acquisition in Three Autistic Children 229
bod) does ... S1m1larly he asked, "Who has cwo eyes?" and \\Hh
physical and verbal prompting cued Linda co say, "F..t•erybod)
does·· Having learned co use "nobody," Linda, \\•hen asked v.·ho
has a nose and mouth, replied "Yes-body!"
Moreover, Landa learned several new games chis month One
1n parucular-che card game "Go Fish"-nor only allo\\·ed L1ndar
co practice many new skills (number, matching, functional
speech, asking quesnons) bur also led co considerable play with
her older sister She also learned a trading game, which exercised
functional speech. Teaching her co rhyme, however, proved
difficulc.
Ocher exercises included story-book description and com-
prehension, immediate and remote past drills, pretend conversa-
tions on che telephone, and numbers up co 20.
1\1fJ11th 11 . All of our acremprs co teach specific speech skills
would be quite meaningless if Linda were not able co integrate
chem into her everyday speech. Thus, this month \\'e \Vorked on
1ntegrac1ng order and causality relationships into Linda's descrip-
tions of stories and siruacions.
At che same rime, we worked carefully on reducing the srruc-
rure \vhach had helped co shape Linda's conversational skills.
Rather than pressing her with questions, we encouraged Linda to
talk freely Conversations led by Linda about yesterday and .rhe
weekenJ, preschool acrivicies, and che colors, functions, an<l 1n1-
cial letters of various coys helped Linda co pra(tice her speech
naturally while \Ve prov1de<l only minimal guidance.
While making up stories by herself ,,·as coo difficult, Linda
confidentl} d1recced games like "Simon say.s". \\ irh such com.-
man<ls as .. Simon says. "Touch your eyebrows. ; Blink rour eyes . :
'Lie on rhe ffoor ' " In a game where one person hid an object and
a second person guessed ac che location Linda \\·as happy co as-
sume either role.
In addition, she began to learn the <lays of the \\'eek and
"right" and "left" during chis month. _
1\lnnth 11and12 . It v.·as apparent co us several monchs earlier
char Linda ·would nor need a second year of inrens1ve rrearmenc.
She already had acquired the most 1mporranc skill \\'hich \\'e
(Ould teach- the ability co learn from her nacural env1ronmenc.
Thus, our efforts in these cwo months were aimed simply at refin-
ing such skills as asking questions, classifying, listening , an<l
(OllVers1ng.
Linc.la pr<1c:cicc<l asking questions as she \Vas cold, "Go ask
230 Case Studies: Language Acqu1s1tion in Three Autistic Children

Corr \\'har color her <:ar is!" After several "refresher" rrials Linda
was encoura~c:<l to .1sk her own quesrions ("Go ask Linda a ques-
rion," or ''Ask me a quesrion"). A constant "barrage" of sponrane-
ous quesrions durinJ.? suhsequenr sessions and ar home 1ndicared
rhar Linda had .1ppropri•Helr learned to requesc informarion.
:..1arch1ng and cl.ts,ificarion skills \\ere inregrared in an exer-
cise \Vhcre Linda had ro march picrurc cards according co class. A
fireman and n polke1nan. or a co.,., and horse, rcprcsenred a
march.
An adJicion co our simplified version of ·simon says" helped
ro develop Ii,tening skills If Simon ga,·e a command. each player
had to obcr. Hn\vever, 1f Ralph ~ave a command, no one was ro
ober In anorher exercise L1nd.1 had ro listen carefullr ro descrip-
tions of picture cards ;1nd then guess v:har rhe picrure 'lvas. Her
pc:rfonnan<:e was p<.:rfect.
By p!.1<:ing differenc-colorcd candies 1n identical paper cups a
therapist began ro reach Linda rhe demonsrrarive pronouns "thar" SUMMARY
and "whKh " L1n<la \Vas prompted co say, "give me rhe cup 1ht11
has a rc·d candy." She learned rh1s quickly and exhausted our
candy supply.
Finally, \ve conunued ex<.:rc1ses where Linda could use her
speech flt•x1hly ,1nd 'ponraneously We developed a group exercise
ro simulare '' classroom serring where one therapist would ask, e have presented methods, and data which show how ro
"Who C•ln rell me about ?" Another person would raise his teach certain complex language skills ro developmentally re-
hand <tnd say, "I can!" and \VOuld then ralk ro rhe group. As tarded, auc1sr1c children who had l1rtle or no recepnve or express-
Linda raised her h,1nd exciredlr co speak, '"e all knew, in face, ive language. In doing so, we conceptualized language develop-
rhac ~he could ment as rhe acqu1s1r1on of a set of responses and sr1mulus
S1nct Linda had encere<l cn.·.1Cmenc as a h1ghcr-funct1on1ng functions, and \Ve relied on discriminanon training paradigms co
auc1sr1c child che gains in language-\\·hile nonetheless accomplish both acquis1nons.
dramaoc-\\·ere not unexpi:cred Our present emphasis 1s ro shift Scarring ,,·irh rhe mute children • .,.,.e bt:gan ro reach langu.1gc
rhe rra1nin,!! from che clinic co che preschool classroom. \X'e have through training the child 1n verbal 1m1canon. ,,·hich \\e defined
t-:irned our excensive obser\·,1cions 1n her classroom 1n order ro as- as a discnminanon br \\·hich rhe child s verbal r<:sponse came to
sess .1nd sul?sequenrlr re1ncd1arc any language problems \X'c have resemble its stimulus (che adult's verbal response). By rra1ning
ohservt·d. tor t:xampk', rhar Linda 1s more grammarical in rhe rhe child ro imitate. v:e could establish verbal responses 1n hirn .
clinic scrrings rh.1n 1n rht• classroom . Also, Linda uses more One<: rhe child possessed a \'Crbal copography, \\'e then taught the
commands \vi ch children and mori: descriptive and conversational , meaning of these verbal responses through t\\·o basic d1scnm1na-
speech ""trh adulrs . Presently \\:C <1re working co help Linda con- t1ons · one discrimination concerned comprehension of ,·erhal be-
verse _as ca~ilr \\ irh her friends as she does \vi th her cherapisrs . havior 1n char the stimulus \\'as verbal, while che child s response
Thar 1s, \ve have hccome hc:avily involved in peer therapy. Ac che ,,·as nonverbal. The ocher d1scriminanon n:IJred ro verbal expres-
same nme, the differences ber,veen Linda and her peers are quire sion, che srimulus was nonverbal while his response '"as verbal
small. 'IX'c believe chat a n,11ve observer could not roday single our In rhis manner we scarred ro reach che child co label everyd.1>
Linda from a1nong schooln1ares as an excepnonal child. events (common obicccs and behaviors) such as are 1nvolved 1n the
us,1ge of common nouns and verbs. This was follo,vcJ by pro-
• 231
232 Summary
grams for chc acquisttion of relacionsh1ps becween evencs, as is
involved in abscracc language, encompassing preposicional rela-
tions, pronouns, ci me, and so on We also presenced programs on
ho"'' co teach children co construct grammatically correct sen-
tences, co use language in conversations. co produce descnpuve
or narrative accounts, rouse language co seek information, and so
on . As a consequence of rhcse procedures rhe children acquired
certain strikingly complex language behaviors. For example, they
learned ro ralk abour evenrs rhac had happened co chem in che
past. They learned co express and .::omprehend verbal descr1pc1ons
of cheir social and physical cnvironmenc which they had noc cn-
counrered before. The crain1ng produced verbal behaviors which
came under rhe conrrol of very subcle internal events, such as che
child's knowing or nor knowing a parcicular scare of affairs.
This srudy rhroughour $tronily supports the notion rhar it is
discrimination learning rhar underlies rhese complex language
acquisitions. D1fferencial reinforcement became che key construct
rhrough 'l\•h1ch we facdttaced phonolog1cal development (caught
verbal 1micacion); and IC was through differenc1al reinforcement
char \ve caught semantics, rhar 1s. brought the child's verbal be-
havior under the control of various features in his external and
internal environment. le was also through differential reinforce-
ment that we caught the child syntax and grammar, by which a
parucular response was brought under the control of rhe child's
preceding response as well as the exrrinsic concexc. As the
mechod derives from reinforccmenr theory, so do che daca The
form of che child's acquisicion and an analysis of the kinds of er-
rors he made during learning supporc che inference char che child
was learning co discriminate .
In relating our studies co similar invesrigacions reported from
ocher laboratories "'·irhin rhe lase few rears, one is struck by- the
considerable overlap in procedures and dara, "·hich \vould
suggest rhar rhese behaviorisric arremprs co build complex lan-
guage behavior are highly replicable and reliable.
The success of rhese efforts, particularly 1n regard co che
acquisition of grammatical behavior, conrrasrs somewhat \vich
certain theoretical notions concerning hO'I\' children come co
comprehend and produce complex behavior, like grammar. Spec-
ifically, many theoreticians within ltngu1st1cs have supposed rhat
language behaviors like grammar are so complex chat rhey could
noc be acquired through mere experience or learning buc muse be
determined by cerrain 1nnace abil1t1es, unique co incacc human
beings. Our data cases serious doubts on che necessity for posc-
ularing specific innate or central nervous system centers spec~
Summary 233
1fically endo"'•ed "''1th che capacity ro generate grammar. In d1s-
cuss1ng rh1s issue "''e suggested char rhe narivisric pos1c1on on
language had 1n part been strengthened by an erroneous concep-
tion of rhe response conscrucr. One's definition of rhe term
ri·.1pfJ11.1t does of course reflecr whar one considers and organism
capable of learning. If response is defined in terms of irs physical-
ropographic (muscle or effector) characcensc1cs, as 1c was defined
by che early learning theorises (Guthrie & Hull), rhen chis 'l\'Ould
seem co preclude grammar as learned behavior. le 1s a mistake,
ho\vever, ro ignore much more flexible and daca-based definitions
of beha' 1or as ft111c11011al uni rs, like rhe concept of response clas-
ses We accempced co use the concept of response classes co inreg-
rare our dara on grammac1cal behavior.
Both rhe acqu1s1r1on of semanncs and grammar concern es-
scnt1;11ly che r~arrttllf.e111e111 of behaviors, ro bring behavior under
che control of external and internal stimuli, such as certain fea-
tures of che extrinsic environment or rhe organism's own
response-produced cues. Perhaps chis is wh}' discrimination rrain-
ing \Vas such a powerful root, because 1r has been specifically de-
veloped co rearrange behavior. Quire anorher macrer, however, is
the 111t1h11ou111(e of verbal behavior once it has been acquired. The
primary weakness in rhe training program at chis rime centers on
our f.1durc ro maintain a high race of verbal behavior in the previ-
ously mut<: children le is possible chat chis failure co ma1nrain a
high rare of verbal beha,ior reflecrs che child's deficiency 1n his
repertoire of cxcr1ns1c social rcinforcers. Bue we also advanced che
poss1b1licr char certain aspeccs of language may noc be .m~1.n­
ra1ned br exrrinsic social re1nforcers. We discussed che poss1b1l1tr
chat l,1nguage. particularly 1n che form "implicit'' speech or
choughr, occurs ar an extremely· high race seemingly independent
of exrrins1c reinforcers. This seems parucularly true of self-
d i rec red r houg he ( i m plic1 r verbal behavior describing the
spt-.1ker's own exisrence) "'· hose elfeccs on che e~rrinsic environ-
ment seem so rhin as co be incapable of supporung rhe high race
of ourpuc. Therefore " 'e advanced the notion of another ser of
• reinforccrs. noc social and extrinsic, bur intrinsic and sensory
(sclf-scimulacory). char maintain rhe high race of language 1n
normal persons. le may be necessarr , therefore. to discover hO'I\'
one brings a person's language behavior under che control of self-
srimul.irory reinforcers in order ro normalize 1c In any case, chc
mor1var1onal problem seemed rhe major issue 1n language
,lcqu1sir1on at chis cime. We also discussed additional re.s~arch
problc1ns peculiar co reaching autistic children , such as d1tficul
ncs due co ovcrselclrive artcncion.
•

REFERENCES

B.1cr, D. J\1 . & Guess, D Receptive training of Jd1cctival 1nAe,t1ons in men·

t.:d ret.1rd.1tcs }1111r11.1/ of Applted Brh,111ur A11aly1i1. 1971, ~ 129-139
B.1cr, D 1'1 & Sherm.in, J A Reinforcement control of generalJZed im1t.i·
uon 1n )'OU ng children j ·111r11<JI •1E:.fJ<ri•ll<111al C hdd PJ) ""''''!.), 196·I, I
<1), ~7 19.
Dcrko, J The child's learning of English morphology ll''nr./, 19~8. 14,
l~0-177
lkrk,on, G Abnormal stcrt'Otyped mocor :icrs. In J. Tub1n Jnd H r Hunt
([ds ), C•J11p,1r.1t11t PJ)</,.1p,11h<lu10: A11iTr..d """ llilfflt11J 1'/c" 'I-Ork.
Grune and Scrauon, 196;.
B11ou. S. \\' , & B.ler, D. ~l Chdd D,1~/,,pnu111 II>/ I A ''>'1'"'·""''"d1111p1Y1·
'"'/Mor) '\e" York Appleton-Cencury-Crofrs. 1961
Bloomfield L L11111.11tJK.<· Ne" York: Holt, 193 3
Blou.i.:h. D S. The study of animal sensory processes by operant mech0<b In
\X' h. Honig (Ed.), Op;r,1111 brha11ur; Ar,,IJ 'f r<u.Jrth """ <1ppl1t·<1tw11.
'le" York. Appleton-Cenrur>•-Crofts. 1966.
Br.unc. J\t D S The ontogeny of English phrase structure· The first phase.
1~111~//,/j;t. 1963. l9 1-13.
Bcllu,i.:1. L .. & Brown, R. (Eds.), Thr acq1111111n111Jfla11x11'1f.t Yello" Springs.
()h10: The Anuoch Press. 1964.

235
•
 236 References
Brown, R., & Fraser <... The acqu1s1c1on of syncax Child Dnrlopmffil 1\fon,,..
graphJ 196·1, 29 ·i 3-79
Chomsky, I\ A.rptasoftmtmor) o/J)lltax Cambridge: M I. T. Press, 1965 .
Cook, C., & Adams, H . E l>lodificac1on of verbal behavior in speech defic1enc
children . 8than11J1r Rt1tJrth a11d 7 h, r.1p). 1966, -I. 26 5-2- I.
Ervin, S. }.1, lm1ca11on and scruccural change in children·s language. In E. H.
Lenneberg <Ed .), ,\'tu d1rr1110111 111 th< JtJJd) of la11g11agc . Cambndge:
~i. I. T Press, 1964
Fellows, B. ) . 1ht d11rr1m111allr1n proav a11d dc1tlop111r111 l\e" York: Pergamon
Press. 1968
Freud, S. Bt)onJ tm plra111rr pr1nup/, New York· Liverighc. 1970
Gardner, B T •• & Gardner, R . A T\\o-way communicanon with an 1nfanc
chimpanzee In A Schrier & F Scolln1cz (Eds.), 8eha11"r of nonh11•11a11
pr1,,1atc.1 New York AcademlC Press. 1971.
Grey, B .• & Ryan, B Prt1J:,ram111.d <011d11w11111g f"r la11g11age · Program /10<11. .
~foncerey, California. Monterey Learning Systems, 1971.
Grey, B , & Ryan, B A la11g11ar.• program fur tht 11orila11f?.11age <htfd. Champaign,
ll11nois· Research Press, 197 3
Guess, D , & Baer, D M An analysis of individual differences in generaliza-
tion between recep11ve and productlve language in retarded children
}011r11al nf Applied 8tha1111r A11al)fl<. 19"'3, 6, 3I1-329.
Guess, D . Sailor, W , Rutherford, G .. & Baer, D An experimental analysis
of linguistlc development· The productlve use of the plural morpheme
jour11al of Applied B,h,111111 A11flly.r1< 1968, 1 (4), 292-307
Guthrie, E. R '/ht PJ)tholng) r{ lt11rr1111x New York· Harper, 1935.
Hall, R. V Beh.11'/IJr ,\fa11agt111<111 Str1t1 La" rence Kansas : H & H Enterprises,
Inc , 1972, (No 1· 6).
Harlow, H. F Scud1cs in d1s..rim1na11on learning 1n monkeys V_ Initial per-
formance b)' experimentally naive monkeys on srimulus-ob1ect and pat·
.... tern discn mi nations. }fl11r11nl of Gt11rrJ/ P1yrhvlog;. 194 5 ~ ~. 3 10.
Hare, 8 , & Risler. T . Estdblishing use of descriptive ob1ecuves in the spon-
tJnl'OUS speech of dis.tdvantdged pre•chool children .)011r1111I uf Appli,J
8tha11qr A.n.1l)J1J , 1968, / , 109-120
Hewett, F l\f Teaching Sf>tt<h to an autistic child through operant condition -
ing Amtrl(t111)011n1al ofOrth·,PJ)ih1,1lr) , 1965, i5, 927-936.
. ._ Hull, C . Pri11"plt1 of b,h.,11..r l';e" York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1913.
Jakobson. R • & Halle, .\1 F1111d.111 .111.111 of l,111g11ai;< . The Hague, ~etherlands.
l>1outon & Co., 1956.
Keller, F S. Ltan1111g: Rt111fu1.c•1 111 Tl•turJ . New York: Random House, 1954.
Keller, F S. & Schoenfeld, W N. Pr111aplrJ ofpJ)rhulog) A JjJltm11tu '"''' '"
tht "'""'of bc/1J1111r New York: Applcton-Centur)·-Crofts, 1950.
Kish, G B Studies of >ensory reinforcement In W K Honig (Ed.), Op"""'
hthanor: A rra1 of rr.1r.u-.h t111d appl1rllltu11 New York: Applcton-
Century-Crofts. 1966
Klima, E • & Bellugi, U S)'ntacric regulariues in speech of children. In J.
Lyons and R. Wales (Eds.), PJychol111g11iJt1r paprrs. Edinburgh. Edin-
•
References 237
burgh University Press. 1966.
Kocgd, R. Selective attenoon co prompt stimuli b)' autistic and normal chil-
dren Unpublished doctoral d1ssercacion, University o( California, Los
Angeles, 197 I.
Kocfel R • &: Coverc, A. The relauonsh1p of self-sumulat1on to learning in
autl\tll children. )011r11al of Applitd Brhatt(Jr A11al) lt1 , 1972, 5 (4),
38 I- ~89.
Lennebcrg, E. H Language disorders in cl:t.ildhood. Hariard Ed11<afiq11al Rt·
11<11 ', 196·! , 34 (2), 152-17"'.
Lovaas, 0 I. lnteracuon becween verbal and nonverbal behavior. Child Ot-
1rl,,p111t1ll , 1961. 32. ~29-336 .
Lova.is. 0 . I. A behavior therapr approach to the treatment of childhood
..chiLophrenia. In John P. Hill (Ed.). ,\1111nts6/a I)lllfJ<1J1ll ~n 1hild PJJrhol-
•K) l>i1nneapolis: Universit> of l>finnesota Press. 1967
Lovaas, 0 l Brht11111r 111od1firat1011 Ttarhtnf?. la11g11ag• to ps)rholt< ch1ldrtn. ln-
Strucoon.il film, 45 min , 16 mm-sound, Appleton-Century-Crofts,
N~w York, 1969
Lova;1s, 0 I , Berberich, J P , Perloff, B. F , & Schaeffer, B Acquisition of
imit;uive speech b)· schizophrenic children. Sr1tnrt, 1966, I 51. 705-
707
Lov;1;1s, 0 1 , Lirrownik, A., & Mann, R. Response latencies to auditory
sumuli in autistic children engaged in self-stimulatory hehavior. Be-
h,1111J111· Rtrt1irrh 1111d ThernP>. 197 I, 9. 39-49.
l.ova;is, 0 I , & Schrc:ibman, L Stimulus overselccriv1ry of autistic children
in .t two-snmulus situation 81h,11•ifJ1· Rt.<t11rch 1111d Thtr11p). 1971, 9.
~05 - ~ 10
l.oVJJS, 0 . r • S.:hre1bman , L .• Koegel, R . • & Rehm, R SclccttV<· responding
b)' ,1uti\tlt children to multiple sensory input Jn1ir1111I nf Ah1111r11111I
P1J1h1./11J;.~
19"' I, 77 (.3), 211 - 222 .
Lov;u~. O I., & Sin1mon,, ) . Q . ~ianipu!Juon of self-clestrucrion in three
rccardcd children . )011r1111I of Applud B.h.i11or A11,1l)lll, 1969, 2 , l·i3 -
l 5i.
Lovaas, O I , Simmon~.) . Q , Koegel, R. L. & Stevens, J . Some generalia-
tion :ind follow-up measures on auusuc children in bcha,·ior therar>·
j (J1n1111 of Applud B,h,11 w1 A1111l)JtJ , 197 3, 6 131 166 .
Lovaa\, O . I Koegel, R ., Varna, J .. & Lorsch, ~ Some ob~ervauons of rhc
nonexungu1sh:ibil11r of ch1ldrcn's speech . Jn prcpar.itton, 1975 .
LunJ A R The r•lr of Jpc.. h tn the •'<gula1to11 fJj normal 11nJ ah11ormal bth.it wr
New 'lork: Li.,,erigh1, I 961.
l>iJtAulc), B D A program for teaching specxh and beginning reading to
non-verbal rcrard.ucs . In H. N Sloane, Jr., and B D. :l\1acAuler
(Eds .), Opt1"J1/I pr •ud11rtJ 111 rc111rd1al sp.uh a11d lt111g11.1gr trai111ng. Boston·
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968.
t..1.1tCorqu<1dak, K. On Chomsk> ·s review of Skinner's "Verbal behavior."
)11111111111,fth, L\p1r1111u11al A1111l)JiJ of81ha1101 1970, 13 (!), 83-99.
M.1nsficld, J T . The opl'ra111 ro11d111011111g of abs11·ar1 1110101 rr.1po11.11· 111 prtptJJt11011ttl
238 References
'/""" 111 ''""'ll."l"1JJ Unpublished doccoral d1sserracion. Un1vcrsJty of
Calif.>rn1.1, l.o' Angele\, 1971.
~lcCarth)', D . L.inguJgl· Jcvdopmtnc 1n children In L Carmichael <Ed.).
.\l.11111.t! ..f child f'J)cholog) . .2nd ed . l\ew Yc>rk· \1Cder. 1954
~l1ller, /'\ . E lnscrumcncJl ll-arn1ng ol 'is.era) responses In ~ F ~Idler
(lid.), Stlnud paprr1 :-.:ew 'tork· Ald1ne & Acherron, i9' I
~!tiler , \\7 . , & F.rv1n, S. The dt,elopmcnc of ~rammar in child language
,\fo11ograph1 "/ tht .\ 011fl) J~r Rt1tarch 111 Child Da~lopnu11;, 19~. 29 (I),
9-~4.
~(owrer , 0 H /111r1"11tg 11•<£•'1 and the l)m/xJl1r prortJJtJ. New York; 7
\11, 1ley,
1960.
:-lcwsom. C . D., & Ul\aas, 0 I Srimulus concrnl 1n rhe acqu1s1tton of lahel\.
In prtpJrauon, 1975.
Orn1tz, E. Thl· modulacion of S<:nsory input and mocor oucpuc 1n aunscte ch1l-
dren . )011r11.t! QJ A11111n1 .tnd Cht!dhood S1h1Zt•{'hr1111a, 197'1, 4 (3), 197-
215
P.1rcef\on, G R., & Gullion, t.i E. /.11 '"X 1n1h ,htldrt11 \'tu n1ttl-.d1 f1r p.1r,1111
,111.I 11.1eht11. Champ.11gn. llltnoi• Re\earch Press, 1968
Piaget, J. The l1111x11.1i:1 .111tl thr111;:.h111f th, thild New York: World Publ1shin1'
Co .. 1955
Prcmack. D. A func11on.1I an.tlyst> of language. )1111r111d of tht• E.,jltr1111t111.t!
Anct/)1!111//J,h,111111 1970, 14 (!), I 19
Reynold~. G S. A pn111rr 1if ''fiu11111 t~11di11"'"''X· Glenview, Ill.: Scocr Fort\·
man & Co , 1968
Rhc1ngolJ , H L, Gcw1rtt, J L & Ro,s, H W Social condit1on1ng of vo-
caltzac1ons )011111<1/ nf Cr,,11p.1rat1tt· and Ph)uolugual P1ycf,,,,/11g} . 1959.
25. 68 73
Rimland, B . /11f.1111tlt .1111u111 New York : Applccon-Century-Crofts, 196 l
Risley, T R , & Hart , fl t.1 De•cloping corrcspondenct bccwccn che non-
verbal anJ vcrbJI beh.1v1or of pre-school children jr,ur11,,/ ~J .~pp!t(d Bt·
ha11,,rAnal)li1, 1968, I (I), 267 281
Risley, T R .. Reynolds, N .. b.. llarc , B. The disadvancaged : Behavior mod-
ific;uion wtrh dis.iJ,~ntagcd prcsthool children In R. H Br.idficld
<Ed ), 8tha11~1· mod1fi.a11011, tht h11ma11 tffi ··1 San Rafael, California D1·
mcn'10ns Puhlishing Co., 1970
Rislc), T R , 6.: \\'olf, .\I Establishing functional speech in ccholalit chil-
dren lirha11or Rrstari b anJ Tl>t1,.: 196-. ~ -3 ·88.
Salz1ngcr. K ., Feldman, R , Cowan, J . & Sali.ingcr, S Operanr conJi1ion1ng
of verbal beluv1or of rw o young sp<:cch-deficienr boys In Krasner and
Ullman (Eds.) R 11.ircl> 1n l.,ha11vr n:r1<ltfica111111 New York: Hole,
Rinehart .ind \X'1ns1on, 1965.
Schrc1bman, L \\'11h1n stimulus versus extra-stimulus prompcing procedures
on d1slrtn11nac1on learning w1ch auc1sr1c childrcn.)1111r11al of Appl1td R.-
bar·wral A 11.11)111 , 197 5, tn pre»
Schre1bmdn, L., & Lovaas, 0 I Oversdecnve response co social scimul1 by
•
References 239
aut1scic children. )1111r11<1/ of Ab11111·mal Cbt!J P1Jcholnr,). 197\, 1 <2>.
151- 168 .
S..humakcr, J .• & Sherman, J. A. Training generanve verb usage br irn1c.u1on
.1n<I rt1nfi>rccmenc procedures. )n11r1111I rif Applied Rth.1110r .-\11<1l)lll,
1970, ~. 27'1-287.
Segal, r F lndlll'CIOn and rhe provenance of operancs. In R . \1 Gilbert &
J R '.\lillenson <Eds.), Rri11frJrum1111 Brha11or,1/ a11,rl)J1 \lew York ·
Ac.1dcm1c Prtss , 1972.
Sh.. pp, B. to.. 7.c.1m;1n, D Discnminacion learning of size anJ hrightnc" h)
ret.ird.uc' )· 11rn.tl 11f C~mp.1r.i111~ an.I Ph) 1io/,,g1r.rl P1)cf><ilo>:> 1966, 62
(I), 55 59.
Sherm.in, J llfodt fit.it ion of non-\'crbal behavior ch rough re1nforccmcnc of re·
l.trt'll \'crt.11 bcha\'iOr Cht!d 0<1,/1,pmulf 196~. 5 717 72'1.
Skinner B I' .~ 101 , .t11d h11ma11 ,,J,,,11,,1· New York 1'fac1'f1ll.1n, 195 'I,
Skinner B r l ,.h,rl f1th.11·1.,r New York: Appleton Ccnrurr-Crofr-, 1957
Siu.inc, II N , Johnston, ~1 K. , & Harns, F R Rcn1cJ1.tl pro<cdurcs tiir
rc.l(hing vcrh.tl hchav1or to speech <lcfiucnt or tlcfccrl\T )'Oung du l·
drcn In Sloane .ind ~1acAulc)' (Eds.), Optr11111{'rllcflllil'tl1111'11111·1'1,d •{'o<h
.1111l l,111x11,111.1 ,,.,111111111. Boston Houghcon 1111ffi1n Co .• 1968
St.irk J , G1dd.1n, J, J , & Meisel, J Increasing verb.ti bcha'1or in .in .niri•tt<
d11ld.)0111·11,1/ •if Spt't'lh t111d /lull'lllg 0JJfJl'dtn, 1968, l l, 12 18
Steven>· Long, J , & R.1>1nu.scn, M The acqu1sitton of simple .1nJ n11npo1111d
scnccncc •truuurc 1n .in auciscic ch tld . )0111·11,t! 11/ tlpp/11·d /J,h,111111
1\11ttf)'>/J, 197 '1, ~ j'?3 1-9.
'iul1cr, B , & ~1.l)•er, R G 8.IJ<111ul' m111ltfiu1//1111 p1·11trd111u Ji11· 1thrml pe1·1,,1111d
II 1nsd.tlc, 111 . TIH: Dryden Press, Inc , 197 2.
Tcrralc, II S. Stimulus concrol In \Y/ K Hontg <EJ ), Op,1·,1111 /,,J..111"1
Arc.11 -J 1· •runh 1111t! .1pp'1..1t1•111 ~"" York Appkcon ·Ccnrury-C.rofrs,
1966
Traba,so, T & Bower. G H. :\//c11/ln11 ,,, /,.,1·11111t, !\cw York : John \\ 1k)
,1n<l Sons. Inc. 1968
\\ sscrm.1n, L ~I. [)u,1·1m111.ttw11!..1T11111b111.i111tifl< ,f,r/.fra1 Unpuhll\hcJ Juc.-
cor.11 dis\Crcac1on, l.n1vers1ty of California, Los Angeles, 1<169
\X'hale)'. L) L, & 1'1alocr. R \\. E/r,1t111ary pr111apl<1 ofbtha11•.1 'e" )ork:
Applecon-CcncuC\·-Crolrs. 197 I. .
\\ hl"t:ler, A J & Suiter. B Opcranc rra1n1ng and gcncr~ltzanon ot .1 \l·rlul
response form 1n .1 ,pcech-defincnc ch1IJ )0111·11.il "/ ,\pplu.I 8ti''" "''
~11•. l)Cll, 1970. " 1~9-1-ii' .
\X'hirc '> H /,,,11·11111i: 111 cht!d /J!)chol"J:.J· I hr 6~111/ )«t..l}lJf,J •/ti• \,111,,1111/ ,\ ,,11.
,11 /"'ti• \111d1 •'1 f.d111·a11011 In H. \\ Scc,cn,on (Ed ). C..hic.1~0: Uni·
\·cr'1t) of (lucago, 196.'1.
\X' 1c,c, \\ ~I 'iomc rcct:nc cnuusms of bch.J\tortsm ,ind k-.1rn1n,i.: th<'Or)"
\X'uh 'J'CClal reference to Bre~er and /\lcG.1ugh .10J to <..hum>k) .
I'') hrrl"ii'"tf IJ11/lcltll, 196", fi7 (~). 1l l-225 .
Wolf 111 M , Ri.,lc). T .. & /\tees, H. Appltcacton of opcn1nc cond11lon111i;
240 References
procedures to the ~havior problems of an autisric d11ld Bth.11mur Rt-
'"'"h ,u1d Thcr"h· 1965, l, l 13-124 .
7..cdman, 0., & Housc, B , J. The role of auention in retardacc discrimination
lcarn1n,i; In N . R. Ellis (Ed .), H>111dhook of n1<11ral dtficimry . Nev. York ·
~fcGraw-H11l, 1963.
•
SUBJECT INDEX
Ab;1r.1tr ccrms
Jcfin1t1on of, 15, 57
te.1ch1ng of miscellaneous con-
cepts. 65-69
teaching of color and form, 68,
157, 159
reaching outline of. 15
teaching of sample abstract
terms, 157-161
teaching of yes and no. 68,
159-161
(see also prepositions, pro-
nouns, ume-related rcrms)
Ad1ect1ves, descrap11\'e, I 13
Animals. language learning, I I 6
sensory reinforcemenc, 126
Auenrion, problems wuh auus11c
children, l~ 1-137
(sec d1scrim1nac1on learning)
Autism. hchavaoral description of.
29-~~
1mpa1rcd sense modahcaes, 134
•
Beha v1or (sec rc;ponse >
Behav1or1st view on language, 11-12,
110-117
Case historaes. 1!1·1·230
Causa11on, ceach1ng cause-etft..;t l<>n-
cepc, 94
Cognacive beha\'10r mod1ticac1on, 121
Communicac1on. 93-9 i
Compara11ve and superlative rda11on·
ships. 112
Comprehension. defin1c1on of. l•I
effeccs expression. I 31
Concepcs. mascellaneous, 66-69
ceach1ng concepts chrough ex-
perience. 94
(see abscracc terms)
Conversation
connetced discourse. 7•1
delin111on of. 14
ceachtng outline of, 16, -1 77
cra1n1ng manual for. 161-161
241
242
o ..crimin.1tll10le.1rn1ng
<ommon problem' during,
2 l ·25
common crr<u,, 25
gencr.il pr<xeJure>, 18 ·26
with auti\tl( ch1ldrt-n, I ~2· l ~7
"1th retarJcJ dulJn:n , I ~3 - 1 ~ i
D",r1m1natl\'t' ~t1muh" ('c-e st1m·
ulus)
D1>placemcnt. 9~
Echolali.t. 28, \ 1, 7-;
\topping nf, 180· 181
Exp<»urc, as hypoc htt ital mt:< h;1n1>m
proJucini: langu.1i:e. 10_,
Expressive- speech, I,, I I, 26
Fanta>y (>ee >tory celling)
Feeling,, teaching co describe, 93,
160
Gcnen1l11a1iun 1e;1d11ng, l l ,
of labch. I 18
of pre po" uon>. I 50
Genetic Je1crrn1nan1s ol l.1ngu.1ge.
13 I
(see also N.1civl\tK pos1nonl
Gen11i•t: t.1>l' pronuuns, l') I
Gr.tmmar;
ce..ching grJmn1a11<.tl re;pon;es,
51-55, 79-81, 115-116
Jevclopmcnt 1n norm .. I ch1l-
Jrcn, 129-1 32
hornogent'llU> .. nd heccrogcn<:-
ous ~nrrnte chain> , 52
plural anJ ;1ngular lorin> cra1n-
1ng manual 156-166
ccadun,i: outline oi. 16, 79-8-l.
115-116
(sec rcspon;e, syntax , and
Vt-rb,)
lmitation
ceaclung of vcrbdl, ~6-12. I 18
loss of, 178-180
lnffe<c1onal affixes. HO
Subject Index
lntormauon exchange, 15
cra1n1ng manual for. 162-161
teaching outline of, 7i-79
lnlorm.11 training, 93-95
Intern.ii concrol, 9 .) . 119-125
• ceac·h1ng oucl1ne oi, 58-59
Libeling:
gcncraliac1on of. -48-50. I ill
member. of cla;s oi objnt>. 50
teaching outline ot 15. •12-'>5
problems and special proce-
dures. 145-148
training manual tor, 142-148
language;
a> sonal control, 121
de,elopmenr in normal chil-
dren, 128- 132
descripuve accounts. 9. 10
1nnace determinants of. 110,
128-132
learning theory of language d<:-
velopmenc. I I . 12
cheones of. 10. 11
(see self-stimulatory beha' 1or)
Language programs. outlines of
15-17
learning. errorless. 2_3
problems in. 24-25. 176-180
theory and basic cexcs. 3
chc'Or)' and language, 11, 12
<see di~rim1nacion learning>
~f.,;1n1ng, definition of, 11
teaching of, 13
(see seman11csl
:l.tonu:re>· Program, -l
~lorphemc>, a<qu1snion of, 79. 112
~toe" a11on, Jdiuency 1n. 32
t.1utc, 26-28, ~6. 91. 118
Naciv1snc posioon, 110
decerm1nancs, 128-132
'\lom1nal case pronouns. 15~-154
N cu rolog ical decerm 1nanc; (see
'\laciv1soc posnion)
•
Subject Index
Phonemes, I _~ I
Phonetics, Jev<:lopmcnt of 117 -118
(see verbal 1m1tacion)
PrcpoS1t1ons , generalizac1on of,
150-151
cra1n1ng manual for. I 18-151
Promp11ng. delinit1on of, 20
dt"penJency on , 2·t
fading of, 19-21, 113
odtt'r prohlemsw1ch, 135-13-
Pronouns , pronoun reversal. 63
t<:u<h1ng of, 59-65
cr.11n1ng manual for. 151-151
Pronunciation, problems with, l "'9·
180
p,ychol1ng'"'rics. 119-126
P- X f(irm utcerances, 129
Questions, as prompt, 72
cc.1ching for asking social,
161- 162
Recall, out11nc of, 16
tr.11n1ng 1n.1nual for. 167-170
te<Kh1ng of, 81-87
Re((:pc1ve speech, 12. I-1. 26
Rc1nforccmenc anJ maintenance of
language· behavior. IO 1· l05
c'ok1ng accend1ng behavior.
I; 3
Rc1ntorler>. Jrtl lio.11. ~I- 32. 85
crans1t1on from response-con-
tingent to ome--<:onc1ngcnt
Jell\err. 103-105
Rc,ponsc·:
dclinit1onot. 12, 110-112
ehc1t1ng and shaping ,-ocaha-
cions, 26-29
cxccn<leJ, 87
da,ses, 111-117
co vt·roal commands. ~6. I l3
to t1uest1ons "1chouc prom pc,
78-79
(\CC gr,1mmar, 1ml(ac1on
learning. speech. ~ponca­
neous speech)
243
Rim land, d1agnost1c checklist. 30,
34
Self-control. defin1c1on of, Ii
(see 1nccrnal control)
Self-created responses , 66
Self-sumulatory behavior. 1nccrfrring
properties. 3 I
and language, 125-128
Semantics. relaceJ work 1n, IOH-110
Sencenct-s (see syntax and gramm.tr)
Shaping beha\lor, 26-29
Social speech (see convers.it1on , 1n-
formauon. g1nng and ~king>
Spontaneous speech, defin1uon of, I I
reaching outline of. 17, 85. 87,
89
recording sponrnne1ty. 91-98
cra1 n1ng manual for, 170- 175
Snmulus, Jcfini11on of. 12
discnm1nac1ve sumulus, lH
overselecci,•1cy, 135-137
teaching stimuli. 19, 25 I 15
(see prompting, <l1scrim1n.1-
c1on learning)
Story celling. ceach1ng of. 85, 89-9_3
(see also spontaneity. story cell·
ingl
Syntax. related wnrk 1n, I 10-11 7
(see grammar)
T ime-rch1teJ tt"rm'. gencr.1lu.u ion
of. 156-15-;'
teaching outlint' of, 65-66
cra1n1ng manual for , 151-157
Thought, teaching of logical, 91 ·95
as sclf-s11mul.tcorv behavior,
'
127-128
Verbal responses (sec respon'>C)
Verbs. past and present tense, 81,
I I3
ceach1ng outline of 80-H .~
cra1n1ng manual l()r, l61-165
Voca I responses (see response)
244 Subject Index

Words, hu1ld1ng words and sound,,

36-42
(~ce •b~cr•cc term~. gr.im-
mar, resp<>nse, and •·erbsl

AUTHOR INDEX

Adams. H L. 109 Feldman, R. 109. 112, 11•1, 115

Fellows, B.J. 19
Baer, D.M 3. 19, 26, 112, 113. Fraser, C. 110, 130
118 Freud, S. 128
Bellug1, U . 129, 130
Berko,J . 110 Gardner, B.T 116
Berkson, G . 126 Gardner, RA 116
Berberich. J P. 8, 118 Gewircz, J. L. 117
B11ou, S W 3, 19 Giddan, J .J . 109
Bloomfield L 12 Grey. B 4
Blough. D.S. 19, 25 Guess, D. 26, 112. 113
Bower, G . H . 19 Gullion, ~LE. 3
, Braine, ~{ . D S. 129 Guthrie. E R 110
Brown. R 110, 129. 130
Hall, R V .3
Chomsky, N . 110 Halle, ~f 131
I
Cook, C. 109 Harlow.HF 132
Coven, A..3 I Harns, F R. 109
Cowan, J 109. 112. 114, 115 Hart,B 113. 115 , 12·1
Hewett, FM 109
trv1n, S.M 110, 129 House, B .J . 133
245
•
246 Author Index

Hull, C. 110 Reynold,, '\J 11 S. 12 l

Rhc1 n,i.:old H L. I 17
Jatobson, R. 131 R1mbnJ , B . 30. 126
Johnuon, ~1 K 109 R"k) , TR 108, 109, II\, 115,
12 I
Keller, F.S. '· 19 Ro", H.\lC. II-;
Kish, G.B 126, 12- Ruiherlord ,G 112,11'
K 1mJ, r . 130 Ryan, B. 4
Koq.:d , R. '.\I, 46, 127, 1>5, !Si
S.111"'· \\-. . 112. 113
Ll'nnebrri:. I' II 110 S.1IL1nger. K 109. 112 , 114, 115
L11ro"n1k A 31. 126 SJIL1ngc:r, S. 109, 112. 111, I IS
Loe> h 1' 127 &h.ictftr. B 8, 118
u,,a.is 0 I S, 29. 3 I, 32, 18, 5 I, SthocntdJ. \V. ~. 19
7 l, 89, 118, 12•1, 126, 127, 131. St'hre1bman, L 21. .32, 16, 1_31,
135 , lhl 1.3 5. 136
Luria, A.R. 121 &humaker,J 113
Segal. E f 27
,\i.itAukr. B.D 109 Shepp, B. 13;
/\1.icCorqu.iJalt, K . 117 Shtrman,J.A. 11_3. 118, 12-i
/\1.lloct R ....:' .\ S1mmon>,J.Q. 31, 181
/\iann, R ) I, 126 Skinner. B.1-. 12, 108. 110. 111 .
/\1.inslidJ . J T 59 12), 127
/\1.1 rer, R G 'I Sloane, H.N. 109
Mctarchy. l) 1.3 I Stark, J 109
/\ices, H . 108 Stevens- Long. J 115, 18-1
:O.te1sel, J 109 Suiter, B. 3. l 15
:O.l1ller I'\ f 28
/\l1ller \\ 129 Terrace. H.S. 19. 2.)
,\lowrcr, 0 H. 110 Tmbasso. T 19

\'arni, J 12-;

Orn11z. E 126
\X'as,crman, L. /\I ·~6. 1\2
Paner,an G R. ; \\'h.iley , D . L. 3
Pcrlotf, B \\'hcckr, A.J. I IS
f. H, I 18
P1a1er , J. 128 \\'hut·. S.H. l.3.'\
\\' 1est. \X' ~I. I I 7 ,
Prema(k, D. 116
Wolf. ,\L,\t. 108, 109
Rasmu"en, /\1. 11 ~
ReynolJ>. G.S 3. 19 /AC.iman. D. 133

•
 PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
1tke
RJ 506.A9l68
The autistic child :

/~f/I3 2440
If/iJj~ll 1/fj/jli/[~f,J/,1//l/ /1/!i///f/jj
1/'/
000 520 494
1
1 1
/1

l!Jb06
A&L68 Lovaaa t Ol e Ivar
(1 z. The au:tistic
c hild

I.

1CSS7!
--