The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 3–19 | Cite as

Rudimentary Reading Repertoires via Stimulus Equivalence and Recombination of Minimal Verbal Units

  • Maria Amelia Matos
  • Alessandra Lopes Avanzi
  • William J. McIlvane


We report a study with sixteen low-SES Brazilian children that sought to establish a repertoire of relations involving dictated words, printed words, and corresponding pictures. Children were taught: (1) in response to dictated words, to select corresponding pictures; (2) in response to syllables presented in both visual and auditory formats, to select words which contained a corresponding syllable in either the first or the last position; (3) in response to dictated-word samples, to “construct” corresponding printed words via arranging their constituent syllabic components; and (4) in response to printed word samples, to construct identical printed words by arranging their syllabic constituents. After training on the first two types of tasks, children were given tests for potentially emergent relations involving printed words and pictures. Almost all exhibited relations consistent with stimulus equivalence. They also displayed emergent naming performances—not only with training words but also with new words that were recombinations of their constituent syllables. The present work was inspired by Sidman’s stimulus equivalence paradigm and by Skinner’s functional analysis of verbal relations, particularly as applied to conceptions of minimal behavioral units and creativity (i.e., behavioral flexibility) in the analytical units applied to verbal relations.

Key words

Rudimentary reading stimulus equivalence minimal verbal units unit recombination 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blachman, B. A. (1997). Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. de Rose, J., de Souza, D. G. & Hanna, E. S. (1996). Teaching reading and spelling: Exclusion and stimulus equivalence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 451–469.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. de Rose, J., de Souza, D. G., Rossito, A. L., & de Rose, T. M. S. (1992). Stimulus equivalence and generalization in reading after matching to sample by exclusion. In S.C. Hayes & L.J. Hayes (Eds.) Understanding verbal relations (pp. 69–82). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dube, W. V., McDonald, S. J., McIlvane, W. J., & Mackay, H.A. (1991). Constructed response matching to sample and spelling instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 305–317.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1996). Some implications of a stimulus control topography analysis for emergent stimulus classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 197–218). North Holland: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldstein, H. (1993). Structuring environmental input to facilitate generalized language learning by children with mental retardation. In A. P. Kaiser & D. B. Gray (Eds.), Enhancing children’s communication: Research foundations for intervention (Vol. 2, pp. 317–334). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  7. Holcomb, W. L., Stromer, R., & Mackay, H. A. (1997). Transitivity and emergent sequence performances in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 96–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee, V. L. (1981). Prepositional phrases spoken and heard. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 227–242.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Lindsley, O. R. (1992). Precision teaching: Discoveries and effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mackay, H. A. (1985). Stimulus equivalence in rudimentary reading and spelling. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 373–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mackay, H. A., Kotlarchyk, B. J., & Stromer, R. (1997). Stimulus classes, stimulus sequences, and generative behavior. In E. M. Pinkston & D. M. Baer (Eds.), Environment and behavior (pp. 124–137). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mackay, H. A., & Sidman, M. (1984). Teaching new behavior via equivalence relations. In B. Sperber, C. MacCauley, & P. H. Brookes (Eds.), Learning and cognition in the mentally retarded (pp. 493–513). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Matos, M. A. & Hübner-D’Oliveira, M. M. (1992). Equivalence relations and reading. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding Verbal Relations. Reno, NV: Context Press, pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
  15. Matos, M. A., Hübner, M. M. & Peres, W. (1997). Leitura generalizada: procedimentos e resultados (Generalized reading: procedures and methods). In R. A. Banaco (Ed.), Comportamento e Cognitpo, Volume I: Questões Teóricas, Metodológicas e de Formatpo. Campinas: ARBytes, pp. 470–487.Google Scholar
  16. Matos, M. A., Peres, W., Hübner, M. M., & Malheiros, R. H. S. (1999). Oralizatpo e cópia: Efeitos sobre a aquisitpo de leitura generalizada recombinativa (Naming and copying: Effects on the acquisition of generalized recombinative reading). Temas em Psicologia, 1, 47–64.Google Scholar
  17. Matos, M. A., Hübner, M. M., Serra, V. R. B. P., Basaglia, A. E., & Avanzi, A. L. (2002). Redes de relat)es condicionais e leitura recombinativa: Pesquisando o ensinar a ler (Networks of conditional relations and recombinative reading: Researching reading instruction). Arquivos Brazileiros de Psicologia, 54, 284–303.Google Scholar
  18. McIlvane, W. J. & Dube, W. V. (2003). Stimulus control topography coherence theory: Foundations and extensions. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 195–213.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Kledaras, J. B., Iennaco, F. M., & Stoddard, L. T. (1989). Stimulus-consequence relations and stimulus classes in mental retardation. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 7, 17–20.Google Scholar
  20. McIlvane, W. J., Kledaras, J. B., Callahan, T. C., Dube, W. V. (2002). High probability stimulus-response relations with delayed S+onset in a simultaneous discrimination procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 189–198.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. McIlvane, W. J., Kledaras, J. B., Munson, L. C., King, K. A., de Rose, J. C., & Stoddard, L. T. (1987). Controlling relations in conditional discrimination and matching by exclusion. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 187–208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. McIlvane, W. J., Serna, R. W., Dube, W. V., & Stromer, R. (2000). Stimulus control topography coherence and stimulus equivalence: Reconciling test outcomes with theory. In J. Leslie & D. E. Blackman (Eds.), Issues in experimental and applied analyses of human behavior (pp. 85–110). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  23. Postman, L. (1975). Verbal learning and memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 26, 291–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saunders, K. J., O’Donnell, J., Vaidya, M., & Williams, D. C. (2003). Recombinative generalization of within-syllable units in nonreading adults with mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 95–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 5–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sidman, M., Willson-Morris, M., & Kirk, B. (1986). Matching-to-sample procedures and the development of equivalence relations: The role of naming. Analysis and Intervention of Developmental Disabilities, 6, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing GroupCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W. (1998). Teaching language to children with autism or other developmental disabilities. Danville, CA: Behavior Analysts, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Torgesen, J. K., Morgan, S. T., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 364–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Amelia Matos
    • 1
  • Alessandra Lopes Avanzi
    • 1
  • William J. McIlvane
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidade de São PauloUSA
  2. 2.University of Massachusetts Medical School—Shriver CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations