The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 31–54 | Cite as

A Behavior Analytic Analogue of Learning to Use Synonyms, Syntax, and Parts of Speech

  • Philip N. Chase
  • David W. Ellenwood
  • Gregory Madden


Matching-to-sample and sequence training procedures were used to develop responding to stimulus classes that were considered analogous to 3 aspects of verbal behavior: identifying synonyms and parts of speech, and using syntax. Matching-to-sample procedures were used to train 12 paired associates from among 24 stimuli. These pairs were analogous to synonyms. Then, sequence characteristics were trained to 6 of the stimuli. The result was the formation of 3 classes of 4 stimuli, with the classes controlling a sequence response analogous to a simple ordering syntax: first, second, and third. Matching-to-sample procedures were then used to add 4 stimuli to each class. These stimuli, without explicit sequence training, also began to control the same sequence responding as the other members of their class. Thus, three 8-member functionally equivalent sequence classes were formed. These classes were considered to be analogous to parts of speech. Further testing revealed three 8-member equivalence classes and 512 different sequences of first, second, and third. The study indicated that behavior analytic procedures may be used to produce some generative aspects of verbal behavior related to simple syntax and semantics.

Key words

Generativity language matching-to-sample sequence learning humans 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alessi, G. (1987). Generative strategies and teaching for generalization. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 15–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Andronis, P. (1991). Rule governance: Enough to make a term mean. In L.J. Hayes & P.N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 226–235). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, D., Smeets, P.M., & Leader, G. (1996). New procedures for establishing emergent matching performances in children and adults: Implication for stimulus equivalence. In T.R. Zentall & P.M. Smeets (), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 153–171). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Catania, A. C. (1998). The taxonomy of verbal behavior. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.) Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 405–433). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Catania, A. C. (2007). Learning (4th interim ed.). Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York: Sloan.Google Scholar
  6. Chase, P. N., & Danforth, J. S. (1991). The role of rules in conceptual learning. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.) Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 205–225). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chase, P. N., & Parrot, L. J. (Eds.). (1986). Psychological aspects of language: The West Virginia lectures. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E., Markham, M. R., Greenway, D. E., & Wulfurt, E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 334–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellenwood, D. W., & Chase, P. N. (1990). Combining semantic and syntactic classes through paired associate and matching-to-sample procedures. Unpublished honor’s thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown.Google Scholar
  11. Fields, L., Adams, B. J., Verhave, T., & Newman, S. (1990). The effects of nodal-ity on the formation of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 345–358.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldiamond, I. (1962). Perception. In A. J. Bachrach (Ed.), Experimental foundations of clinical psychology (pp. 280–340). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, G. A., & Chase, P. N. (1991). The relationship between stimulus equivalence and verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 107–119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relational control theory of stimulus equivalence. In Linda J. Hayes & Philip N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 19–40). Reno, NV: Context.Google Scholar
  15. Hayes, L. J., & Chase, P. N. (Eds.). (1991). Dialogues on verbal behavior. Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hayes, S. C., Blackledge, J. T. & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Language and cognition: Constructing an alternative approach within the behavioral tradition. In S.C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 3–20). New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (Eds.). (1992). Understanding verbal relations. Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  18. Imam, A. A., & Chase, P. N. (1988). A stimulus equivalence model of syntactic classes. The Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 14, 11–21.Google Scholar
  19. Layng, M., & Chase, P. N. (2001). Stimulusstimulus pairing, matching-to-sample testing, and emergent relations. The Psychological Record, 51, 605–628.Google Scholar
  20. Lazar, R. M. (1977). Extending sequence-class membership with matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 381–392.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Mackay, H. A. (1985). Stimulus equivalence in rudimentary reading and spelling. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 373–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Michael, J. (1988). Two kinds of verbal behavior plus a possible third. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 3, 2–5.Google Scholar
  24. Peterson, N. (1978). An introduction to verbal behavior. Grand Rapids, MI: Behavior Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of a respondently conditioned stimulus function in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275–301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Salzinger, K., & Feldman, R. S., (Eds.) (1973). Studies in verbal behavior: An empirical approach. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  27. Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 41–45. Shahan, T. A., & Chase, P. N. (2002). Novelty, stimulus control, and operant variability. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 175–190.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Sidman, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Sidman, M. (1992). Equivalence relations: Some basic considerations. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 15–27). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  31. Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Sidman, M., Kirk, B., & Wilson-Morris, M. (1985). Six-member equivalence classes generated by conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior43, 21–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Sidman, M. & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Spencer, T. J., & Chase, P. N. (1996). Speed analyses of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 643–659.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Vaughan, W. (1988). Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 36–42.Google Scholar
  38. Wetherby, B. (1978). Miniature languages and the functional analysis of verbal behavior. In R. L. Schielfelbusch (Ed.), Bases of language intervention (pp. 399–448). Baltimore: University Park.Google Scholar
  39. Winokor, S. (1976). A primer of verbal behavior: An operant view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Wirth, O. & Chase, P. N. (2002). Stability of Functional Equivalence and Stimulus Equivalence: Effects of Baseline Reversals. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 29–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Transfer of conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125–144.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip N. Chase
    • 1
  • David W. Ellenwood
    • 1
  • Gregory Madden
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations