Psy 514: Conditioning and learning
Handout on traditional criticisms of behavioral approaches to verbal behavior
Two traditional criticisms of empirical/behavioral approaches to verbal behavior are as follows:
(a) The criticism based on an assumption of serial processes. Traditional accounts say that
according to a behavioral account, speech or language is a serial process, where a speaker emits
words in a chain, like beads on a string. Thus, traditional accounts say that according to a
behavioral account, people speak in sentences because one word of a sentence becomes
“associated” with the next in a simple linear sequence through the action of some environmental
influence (e.g., word #1 in a sentence should be construed as evoking word #2, word #2 as evoking
word #3, and so on according to a linear chaining process (with perhaps some hypothetical
mediating or intervening entities to link the words). Some traditional accounts say that according
to a behavioral account, the underlying process is mere temporal contiguity and classical
conditioning, and others say it is operant conditioning and reinforcement. Regardless of the
process, traditional accounts point out that because of the flexibility, complexity, and novelty of
language (e.g., recursive sentences, active vs passive voice), one cannot reasonably say that
language generally occurs according to a linear chaining process. Consequently, the criticism
goes, a behavioral approach is entirely wrong and unacceptable.
(b) The criticism based on an analysis of developmental processes (sometimes also called the
poverty of the stimulus argument, or “underdetermination”). Traditional accounts say that
according to a behavioral account, speech or language develops only through the influence of
environmental factors. As before, some traditional accounts say that according to a behavioral
account, the environmental factors are temporal contiguity and classical conditioning, and others
say they are reinforcement and operant conditioning. However, traditional accounts argue,
language develops so fast in children that environmental factors could not possibly be responsible.
For example, at a year and a half, a child might have a vocabulary of 25 words, and at 6 years,
15,000 words. The increase is about 10 per day. The criticism is that environmental factors such
as temporal contiguity or reinforcement could not possibly be responsible for this kind of rapid
change. Moreover, following the underdetermination argument, the number of sentences is
infinite, and children can produce novel sentences without those sentences having been emitted
and then reinforced in the past. Thus, the criticism goes, environmental factors like prevailing
stimulus conditions in the environment don’t completely determine verbal behavior, and any
account that appeals to stimulus conditions (as any form of behaviorism does) is necessarily
impoverished. Consequently, the criticism goes, a behavioral approach is entirely wrong and
unacceptable.
By virtue of these arguments, the traditional approach argues that language can only be understood
as a result of innate/cognitive mechanisms, understood to be an independent contribution of the
individual, rather than as a result of environmental factors. In other words, human brains are
innately hard wired to process language, according to a set of transformational/ generational/
computational rules. It is in the human genes to be able to do so. The meaning of words is stored
in a lexicon, and many other information processing metaphors are applied, such as sentences
being generated by a process that transforms and applies generative rules. The appropriate
explanation of verbal behavior must take these factors into account, rather than a serial process or
the influence of environmental factors such as reinforcement.
What is the behavioral counterargument?
The first criticism assumes a linear chaining process with unobservable associative mediators
generally underlies all forms of verbal behavior. Although accounts offered by early S-R
behaviorists, such as Watson, did appeal to a linear chaining process based on classical
conditioning, and in modern accounts some forms of verbal behavior might involve a linear
chaining process (e.g., intraverbals), most forms of verbal behavior according to contemporary
behaviorism do not involve a linear chaining process. In addition, according to contemporary
behaviorism verbal behavior comes about through operant processes, not classical conditioning.
Thus, although behavior analysts agree with the first part of the criticism–that verbal behavior
doesn’t occur according to a S-R chaining process, they disagree with the second part–that
behavior analysts are committed to a S-R chaining process as a general account. Thus, the first
criticism doesn’t apply.
The counterargument to the second criticism is more complex. The second criticism involves
three related inter-related assumptions.
1. First, the criticism assumes that reinforcement is accomplished through unconditioned
reinforcement and drive reduction, and if there has not been drive reduction, then reinforcement
could not be involved. Historically, some versions of reinforcement did appeal to drive
reduction, but modern conceptions do not.
2. Second, the criticism assumes that the only form of reinforcement is unconditioned
reinforcement. Modern behavioral approaches involve conditioned reinforcement as much as
unconditioned reinforcement.
3. Third, the criticism assumes that the stimulus control by antecedent circumstances cannot be a
complex process, individually determined by one’s prior experiences. A behavioristic approach
emphasizes the complexity of stimulus control, where novel features of the environment combine
to occasion novel verbal responses. There will be generalization and abstraction, based not only
on observed features of the environment but also on subtle relations among features of the
environment and the speaker's own verbal behavior, both prior and ongoing. In addition, the
study of equivalence relations shows how verbal behavior can develop rapidly in the absence of
direct reinforcement. One might say that verbal behavior develops indirectly, but still as the
result of environmental influences.
Although behavior analysts agree with the first part of the criticism–that verbal behavior does
develop very rapidly in children, they disagree with the second part–that verbal behavior develops
only through the direct action of reinforcement. Not every response has to have the strict, oneto-one relation with having been reinforced in the past. Thus, the second criticism doesn’t apply.
Moreover, much of the criticism appealing to the rapidity of development is based on data from the
developmental cognitive psychologist Roger Brown, who analyzed transcripts of interactions
between child and caregivers. He argued that environmental factors were not influential.
However, subsequent analysis of the same transcripts by Ernst Moerk showed a strong influence of
environmental factors, once one understood what to look for, particularly concerning the process
of reinforcement. Thus, careful analysis of developmental data reveals that subtle and implicit
reinforcement principles do operate in the development of language in children, particularly as
reflected in interactions with their caregivers.
For further information, see
Moore, J. (2000). Behavior analysis and psycholinguistics. European Journal of Behavior
Analysis, 1, 5-22.