‘Verbal behavior’ is a label chosen, primarily, because she was a virgin. Skinner was studying language from an innovative point of view and was trying to find a term that a) suggested the study of the individual speaker and b) was not flawed in advance. Let’s take a second to explain this.
If we think about the terms that are usually used to talk about these topics we will see that finding a term referring to “the individual speaker” is not easy. The term ‘language’ refers to the practices of the linguistic community. ‘Speech’ is associated either with the vocal or with specific practices within a large linguistic community (eg Andalusian speech). The problem with ‘language’, which is the term cognitive psychology usually uses, is that it has many philosophical debts attached to it that we would have to prune before getting to work. On the other hand, terms such as ‘symbolic behavior’ could have been used (Mead, another distinguished pragmatist thinker like Skinner, had adopted it for his system), ‘relational behavior’ or, what do I know, ‘social behavior’. But the truth is that verbal behavior was a good candidate because it was simply not used.
The problem with ‘language’, which is the term cognitive psychology usually uses, is that it has many philosophical debts attached to it.
It is important to understand, dear cognitive psychologist, that the popular distinction between ‘verbal communication’ and ‘non-verbal’, although it began to take shape with the group of Kendon, Scheflen and Birdwhistell in 1955, did not take off until the second half of the 60s. Skinner’s “Verbal Behavior” was published in 1957 after twenty-three years of work.
In reality (as Skinner himself recognizes) there is no reason to speak of ‘verbal behavior’ other than the tradition of behavior analysis itself, and I myself have at some point proposed addressing the terminological change. But I understand that people are reluctant to change 80 years of research because Tim Roth did a series.
Okay, I understand why ‘verbal’ is used but what does it mean?
As expected, Skinner decided to explain “language” (verbal behavior) as he did best, controlling it. That is, the task was first to describe this type of behavior and then to be able to answer a simple question “Why the hell does So-and-so say something when he says something?”
If you value articles like this, consider supporting us by becoming a Pro subscriber. Subscribers enjoy access to members-only articles, materials, and webinars.
But let’s start at the beginning: From this point of view, a ‘verbal behavior’ is a behavior that is reinforced by the mediation of other people. That simple and that complex.
To give a classic example, when a thirsty person turns the crank, that behavior is reinforced by the fact that water comes out of the tap (and they can drink it). On the other hand, when a thirsty person asks for water, that behavior is reinforced by the fact that someone gives him water. The second would be verbal behavior and the first would not.
According to radical behaviorism, that is the heart of the artichoke.
A ‘verbal behavior’ is a behavior that is reinforced through the mediation of other people. So simple and so complex
Two quick things: a) this way of seeing language (from a non-representational, psychological perspective and focused on the individual subject) fits with the classic cognitive definition of “system of symbols and rules that allow us to communicate” (Elosúa, 2006): that is, it is not a phenomenon different from what we commonly and in a broad sense call language. And b) for the rest, it is compatible with the different evolutionary perspectives (as long as we ignore the ‘mentalism’ of the latter) that are at a different explanatory level. We must not forget that Watson’s famous phrase about the ‘total blank slate’ is a straw man.
Very brief classification of verbal behavior
For reasons of narrative economy I will use the classification used in the FAP, which although it is a simplification, is manageable and helps us understand each other. The classification of verbal behaviors within behaviorism is carried out according to their causes (functional analysis). But not all the causes, of course, but those that happen just before (discriminative stimuli) and those that occur after (contingent stimuli).
Touches. A tact is defined as a verbal response that is under strict control of a discriminative stimulus and that is reinforced by secondary generalized reinforcers. That is, it is a behavior preceded by something concrete and reinforced like many different things. They show you an apple, they say ‘what is that?’ and you answer ‘an apple’. Your response will be reinforced by an ‘uh-huh’, a ‘very good’, a piece of candy or anything else.
The word ‘touch’ is reminiscent of ‘contact’ (in the sense of contacting or touching reality verbally) but as you can see it is a very original way of reconstructing the basic ideas of linguistics and semiotics from a non-representational point of view.
Controls. A mand is a behavior with the following characteristics: a) it occurs because it was followed by a particular reinforcer, b) its strength depends on the degree of deprivation or aversive stimulation and c) it appears before a very wide range of discriminative stimuli. That is, a behavior preceded by many different things and reinforced by something in particular. You perceive that it is a good time to ask for water, you ask for it and they give it to you.
‘Command’ is reminiscent of command or demand, but it not only includes ‘imperatives’, interrogations and many other verbal behaviors are commands as well.
Intraverbals. In general, they are behaviors that are elicited by other verbal behaviors and that cannot be defined as tacts or commands.
That’s it? Only this?
Well, actually this is just the beginning. Everything is much more complex and richer. In recent years, developments such as this allow us to explain phenomena that seemed very inaccessible to the analysis of behavior, such as moral behavior from a behavioral perspective.
the division between the biological and the psychological is only analytical
But isn’t biology important? Aren’t you deep down dualists at heart?
The other way around.
In general, the division between the biological and the psychological is only analytical. Different levels of analysis do not mean different ontological orders. In my point of view, Skinner was right when he said that “the experimental analysis of behavior is a rigorous, extensive, and rapidly advancing branch of biology” in 74. But biology has many valid and fruitful levels of analysis.
By the way, Donahae and his team studied the issue of how the leap is made from the biological (neurological) to the behavioral. Articles like this one on reinforcement resolve the apparent dualism and allow us to build transdisciplinary bridges when we see fit.
Addendum for behaviorists: This use of ‘verbal behavior’ is in the minority.
It is important to keep in mind that for the majority of the world, pointing the finger is a non-verbal behavior due to what we explained in the first question. This simple idea can save you many useless discussions.
Previously published article in which he analyzes various topics related to science.