A Comparison of Verbal–Behavior and Linguistic-

Communication Curricula For Training Developmentally

Delayed Adolescents To Acquire and Maintain Vocal
Speech

Gladys Williams and R. Douglas Greer

Columbia University Teachers College

This manuscript is taken from Behaviorology, a journal of

The International Behaviorology Association and is
reprinted with permission. For more information, contact:

Carl D. Cheney – Editor Glenn I. Latham, Ed. D- Managing Editor

Utah State University - UMC 2810 – Utah State University - UMC 9620 –
Logan, Utah 84322 Logan, Utah 84322
 A Comparison of Verbal–Behavior and Linguistic-
Communication Curricula For Training Developmentally
Delayed Adolescents To Acquire and Maintain Vocal
Speech1
Gladys Williams and R. Douglas Greer
Columbia University Teachers College

This study compares a verbal-behavior-based curriculum and a linguistic based

curriculum on the acquisition of communicative behaviors. The independent variable
consisted of the application of the components of each curriculum including different
words and units (i.e., verbal operants versus language units). The dependent variables
consisted of the number of words emitted correctly during training trials and the number
of correct responses to maintenance probes conducted at various points of the study. Both
curricula were designed to train functional speech. Operant training procedures were held
constant across curricula. The study used a reversal design (BABA), alternating
linguistic-based phases with verbal-behavior phases, applied to three adolescents with
developmental disabilities. The results showed that more words were emitted in the
verbal behavior training phases for all subjects, and the responses learned under the
verbal behavior curriculum were maintained and generalized more than the words learned
in the linguistic based curriculum despite little difference in the training data. The
findings were interpreted as an indication that: a) the two curricula are indeed different,
and b) the approaches implicit in Skinner’s verbal behavior are likely to produce greater
maintenance and generalization of the communicative responses taught in this study. The
natural fractures controlling the communicative behavior termed “spontaneous speech”
are captured in Skinner’s conception of the verbal operants mand and tact.

Key words: verbal learning, linguistic, communication, training, delayed, humans.

A Comparison of Verbal-Behavior and

Linguistic-Communication Curricula

A central objective in training people with developmental delays has been to

establish effective communicative behaviors (Lovaas, 1977), and the research has
reflected this concern (Guess, Keogh, & Sailor, 1978; Halle, 1987; Halle, Marshall, &
Spradlin, 1979; Simic & Bucher, 1980). Although curricula have been developed to teach

1
The research reported herein was accomplished by the first author as a doctoral dissertation under the
sponsorship and within the programmatic research of the second author. The first author was a Keller
Fellow whose training was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. Reprints may be
obtained from the second author at Box 76, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027.
The first author is now at the Fred S. Keller School.
communication skills by applying operant procedures to train linguistic units (Guess,
Sailor, & Baer, 1976; Lovaas, 1977), these curricula have not systematically incorporated
Skinner’s (1957) conception of verbal behavior.

Research in verbal behavior

Despite the widespread use of operant procedures to teach communicative
behaviors, few applied studies have incorporated Skinner’s (1957) conception of
language as verbal behavior (Michael, 1984). One such study, Carr and Durand (1985),
found that teaching individuals vocal or gestural communication responses served to
decrease assaultive behavior. Their data suggested that the assaultive behavior had
functioned as a mand, because the replacement of the assaultive behavior with a vocal or
gestural mand functioned to reduce the maladaptive response. Sundberg (1980)
demonstrated that verbal behavior was a useful curriculum for teaching sign language to
people with hearing impairment. However, much of the applied research relies on
linguistic or structural analyses of communication (Michael, 1984), and no comparisons
have been made between a linguistic based curriculum and one based on Skinner’s
conception.
Components of Skinner’s (1957) conception of language have been studied in the
laboratory. Mands and tacts were found to function as independent repertoires with
young children by Lamarre and Holland (1985) and with chimpanzees by Savage-
Rumbaugh (1984). Sundberg (1985) demonstrated acquisition of “verbal behavior” by
pigeons replicating the work of Epstein, Lanza, and Skinner (1980). Stratford, Sundberg,
and Braam (1978) found tacts to be under the control of generalized reinforcers, and
Weinrich (1964) found that tacts were under the control of nonverbal antecedent stimuli.
Chase, Johnson, and Sulzer-Azaroff (1985) demonstrated three functionally independent
intraverbal units with college students. Greenspoon (1962) demonstrated that verbal
behavior of college students was under audience control. Lodhi and Greer (1989) found
that young children acted as both speaker and listener when playing alone with three-
dimensional toys that had anthropomorphic characteristics.

Verbal behavior and establishing operations

The verbal behavior curriculum tested herein incorporated the establishing
operation as a component of the curriculum. The establishing operation (Keller &
Schoenfeld, 1950; Michael, 1982) is a critical component of verbal behavior. The
establishing operation is not an antecedent stimulus, but instead experimenter induced
motivational conditions that affect the reinforcement or punishment effects of a
consequence. Studies concerned with the use of time delay procedures suggest that such
delays have the motivational effect associated with definitions of an establishing
operation. Time delay studies (Halle, Marshall, & Spradlin, 1979); Schuster, Gast,
Wolery, & Guilitan, 1988) have consistently shown that time delays effectively evoke
responses from persons with developmental disabilities when the same consequences did
not reinforce the behavior prior to the use of the time delay.
Similarly, it is possible that the procedures used in incidental training (Halle,
1987; Hart & Risely, 1975) function as establishing operations although they have not
been conceptualized as such in that literature. The notion of the importance of
motivational preconditions is a basic component of Skinner’s (1957) conception and may
be the critical ingredient in the emission of verbal behavior, not simply the incidental
component. One of the problems implicit in incidental training has been that the student
does not receive frequent opportunities to respond (Greenwood, Delquadri, &Hall, 1984).
If the success of incidental trial instruction is due to the presence of an establishing
operation (e.g., momentary deprivation of an item, event, or activity), rather than waiting
for deprivation to occur, one can create the momentary deprivation in massed trial
settings. Recent innovations in the use of operant procedures to teach linguistic
components for communication have stressed the incidental approach but have noted the
low number of opportunities to respond (Warren & Kaiser, 1986). The verbal behavior
approach used herein was designed to rectify the situation by bringing establishing
operations to the massed trial setting, while simultaneously teaching natural rather than
artificial components of communication. Still, a third establishing operation was
suggested by Michael (1984) and used by Sundberg (1985). This procedure, consisting of
an interrupted chain, requires an individual to mand a missing item associated with a
well- developed chain of behaviors (such as completing a puzzle or making a sandwich).
Given the developing literature affirming the operant concepts of verbal
behavior, a curriculum for teaching communicative behaviors to persons with
developmental disabilities appeared to be viable (Greer, 1986, 1990). As a part of that
effort, comparisons between teaching communicative behavior using linguistic units
versus using verbal behavior units was a necessary step to test the effectiveness of the
verbal behavior curriculum. The availability of a linguistic curriculum (Guess, Sailor, &
Baer, 1976) and a verbal behavior curriculum (Greer, 1986) made feasible a comparison
of the acquisition and maintenance of morphological units (words) under each
curriculum.
The studies reported herein differ from traditional experiments which hold the
curriculum constant but vary training procedures, in that the present studies hold training
procedures constant and vary the curriculum. Although the linguistic units and verbal
behavior units were different, they held in common equal opportunities to produce words,
and thus words became the dependent variable for training trials and number of correct
responses (regardless of number of words) was the dependent variable for the
maintenance probes. It was necessary, however, to insure that the operant procedures
used to train the responses for each curriculum were equally effective as a control
condition. If correct responses were maintained for the verbal behavior responses more
than the linguistic responses, then the results would suggest that verbal behavior units
were natural units of communication.

Method

Participants
Three adolescents with developmental disabilities participated in the experiment.
Student A was a 15 year old male with organic brain damage. He had limited vocabulary
which was echolalic in nature. He did not request objects or activities independently. He
had received several years of operant training in linguistic units (Guess et al., 1976) and
had a Stanford Binet I.Q. of 27. He read several survival words and engaged in
independent art activities.
 Student B was a 16 year old nonverbal female who had been a resident of a non-
English speaking country until a few months before the onset of the study. She had no
verbal behavior in her native language and had a Stanford Binet I.Q. of 32. Within a few
months of arrival to the residential school, she had learned to brush her teeth, bath
herself, and dress and undress herself independently. Prior to the onset of the study she
acquired basic prelinguistic skills such as compliance to commands, imitation as a
general response class, and imitation of vocal sounds. She was trained linguistically to
label vocally sixteen items, to say “want” when presented with an item, and to say
“what’s that” when presented with a novel item (Steps 1 to 4 in Guess et al., 1976). All of
the above mentioned verbal skills were under the control of the verbal antecedent of the
instructor. At the onset of the study, she neither labeled nor requested items
independently.
Student C was a 16 year old male profoundly retarded (MA of 12.8 months on the
Cattell Infant Intelligence Test). After four years of instruction in the residential school,
he had learned to wash his face and hands, dress and undress himself, brush his teeth at a
gestural prompt level, match three dimensional objects, label the letters of the alphabet
and the numbers 1 to 10. He had progressed to step 12 in the linguistic curriculum (Guess
et al., 1976), but had not achieved criterion on step 7 (yes and no answers), nor could he
identify objects or activities when prompted by the instructor with questions such as “are
you eating a cookie?” He emitted the following words, but only under the verbal
antecedent of the instructor- “water,” “cookie,” “ball,” and “toy.”

Setting
The study took place in the classrooms of a residential school in a large
metropolitan area. Each student was in a separate classroom. The institution provided
intensive operant-based training procedures in the school and the residence. The school
included 48 children and adolescents with severe to profound retardation, many of them
who were also autistic. Each classroom had a teacher, two paraprofessionals, and six
students. The components of the school model are described elsewhere (Greer, 1992).

Curricula
The linguistic curriculum consisted of the curriculum and operant procedures
described in Guess et al. (1976). These authors based their program on five years of
research and had field tested it with over 100 individuals with severe handicapping
conditions. This curriculum consists of a series of individual training steps sequentially
designed to develop functional communication skills. There are 60 steps divided into four
parts. Part one (steps 1-9) deals with the student labeling novel items when asked by the
trainer “what’s that?” Part two (steps 10-29) deals with training the student to label
actions, persons, and things when asked by the trainer. Part three (steps 30-42) deals with
the student stating possession and color (“Is this my… Is this yours?” and “what color?”)
when asked by the trainer. Part four (steps 43-60) deals with the student stating size
(big/little), relationships (on/under), and location (inside/outside) when asked by the
trainer. The specific components of the linguistic curriculum are outlined in Table 1 with
step-by-step comparisons with the verbal behavior curriculum.
The verbal behavior curriculum was based on a pilot version of the “Scripted
Curriculum for Verbal Behavior” (Greer, 1986). One component of this curriculum
(nonverbal antecedent control of verbal responding) was relevant to the objectives of the
linguistic curriculum. The following verbal operants were trained with the verbal
behavior curriculum: echoics, mands, tacts, and autoclitics. Words or groups of words
(verbal operant units) were trained in a sequence consisting of echoic training, followed
respectively by either: a) mand training, b) tact training, and c) autoclitic training with
both tacts and mands.
An echoic unit of verbal behavior consists of verbal responses having point-to-
point correspondence with a vocal verbal behavior unit of another speaker (Skinner,
1957). It is an exact imitation of the spoken word of anther speaker. (See also Vargas,
1986). The trainer says “ball” and the child says “ball.”
A mand unit is a verbal operant consisting of vocal sounds, a word, or words (and
gestural or textual equivalents) emitted in the presence of an item and its deprivation
(including lack of access to the item) or its deprivation alone (without the presence of the
object), which results in the speaker obtaining the item (reinforcer). Thus, a mand
specifies a known reinforcer, and it may consist of an utterance, a gesture, or other
behavior, but only when deprivation conditions are part of the controls. If a child is asked
“What do you want?” and responds with “I want ball”, the response is not a mand but
rather an intraverbal response. The latter response is primarily under the control of the
verbal antecedent “What do you want”, not the deprivation or the item’s presence. If the
same sequence is viewed from a linguistic perspective, the child is being taught the
linguistic structure and would presumably acquire the linguistic function of request.
A tact unit consists of verbal behavior under the control of nonverbal stimuli
(item, event, activity) and generalized reinforcers. It is verbal behavior that makes verbal
contact with the nonverbal world. For example, in the presence of a stapler, a child says
“stapler”, and a trainer or parent says “good” (generalized reinforcer) or presents the
child with a token. The word “stapler” could function as a mand if the reinforcer is access
to the stapler. Thus, to be a correct tact the response must be under the appropriate
antecedent stimulus control and a generalized reinforcer. If, however, the child is asked to
label the stapler, and the verbal antecedent (e.g., “What’s this?”) precedes the response
“stapler,” the response is not a tact according to a behaviorological analysis of verbal
behavior. From the linguists’ point of view, the child is learning linguistic labels for
stimuli. The specific antecedents and consequences of the behavior are not part of the
account. Thus, according to linguists, failure to label items spontaneously is a function of
lack of mental structures, not specific stimulus control.
Autoclitic units are collateral responses to mands or tacts which qualify, confirm,
negate, or affirm certain consequences on the listener’s part of other verbal behavior that
is being uttered. The word “cookie,” a whine, or a gesture (point) may function as a
mand. The following consists of a mand with autoclitics: “May I have one cookie,
please?” and is consequated with a cookie. The word “cookie” may also function as a
tact. The following consists of a tact with autoclitics: “That is a big cookie,” and it is
consequated with the generalized reinforcer “Yes, it is.”
Verbal units were selected for echoic training and assigned to mand training if the
words were ones that specified items or activities known to be reinforcers (e.g., high
preference items, events) to the student. If the verbal units were common items, activities,
or events in the child’s environment but were not high preference stimuli, they were
trained as tacts. If the verbal units modified either tacts or mands, they were trained as
autoclitics with the tacts and mands. In the normal sequence of the curriculum, words
were trained as both tacts and mands interchangeably. All the words trained in the verbal
behavior curriculum were different from those trained in the linguistic curriculum with
the exception of “Yes” and “No.” However, in the verbal behavior curriculum “Yes” and
“No” were trained functionally as qualifying autoclitics of affirmation and negation,
using establishing operations.

Training Procedures
Both curricula involved the use of operant procedures. Each had controlled
antecedent presentations and the use of reinforcement operations using items, activities,
or events known to function as reinforcement for the target students. There was no
difference in the number of correct responses per students between the two curriculum
conditions during training. This was an indication that operant procedures were applied
without systematic bias to the two curricula. That is, generic use of operant procedures
was controlled across curricula.
The student had to be able to sit still on command for 5 seconds and make eye
contact as a prerequisite to training in either curriculum. During the training of the verbal
behavior curriculum, the trainer called the student’s name to indicate that the trainer was
going to voice a unit (echoic), present a known reinforcer (mand), or present a common
item, or model and activity (tact). The antecedent conditions consisted of brief
deprivations of the item or activity (i.e., after sitting, walking was manded) and
accessibility to the item contingent on verbalizations. Trials that were not correct resulted
in countable instances of deprivation (Michael, 1982).
During echoic training, correct or successive approximations of mands were
reinforced by access to the item named and by nonvocal approval (smile, pat, nod). In the
case of tacts, correct or successive approximations were reinforced by nonvocal approval
followed by the opportunity to mand a generalized reinforcer. An echoic response
graduated to mand or tact training when either (a) the student echoed the response
correctly in five successive trials (first verbal behavior training phase), or 12 successive
trials (second verbal behavior phase) or (b) the student manded or tacted an item outside
the echoic discrete trial training session on two separate occasions or (c) the student
manded or tacted the item in five successive trials in the training setting before the trainer
presented the stimulus item to be echoed.
During mand training, the items to be manded were displayed on a plate or table
(at least two at a time) in front of the student. The student had to mand the object which
was then used as an immediate natural reinforcer (eating a bit of food, or 5 seconds of
contact with an item). If the item was not manded within 5 seconds, the item was moved
closer. If necessary, the student’s name and a gesture (point) was used. When the student
completed 5 consecutive responses (criterion) without prompt, the stimulus was removed
and a new one added. Subsequently, the acquired mand was to be used in other settings.
The mand became part of the list of responses used as generalized reinforcers during the
tact training. Each mand was “incidental” in that access to the consequence was
contingent on vocal responses.
During tact training, the item to be tacted was displayed on the table in front of
the student. If the student did not tact independently, a lip prompt (the topography of the
word presented with the lips, without emitting any sound) was used. If, with the lip
prompt the student did not emit the correct response, then a vocal prompt was used.
Vocal prompts were faded as soon as possible. When the student emitted the correct
response independently (without any prompts), he could mand a reinforcer. For each tact
session, there were at least two previously learned mand items or activities available
(these were changed as new mands were acquired).
The autoclitic training began after a series of mands and tacts were in the
student’s verbal repertoire. Echoic, mand, and tact sessions were conducted in rotated
order. That is, a session devoted to echoic training might be followed by tact or mand
training sessions. As soon as possible, autoclitics were trained echoically then added to
mands or tacts already in the student’s repertoire (i.e., “This is a _____.” “May I have a
(the) _____, please.” or “I want some _____, please.”).
The learning of “yes” and “no” responses was an objective in each
curriculum. The specific components of each curriculum taught to each student were
based on the individual response history of each student. Two of the students did not have
the “yes” and “no” responses in their repertoires. These responses were trained first
linguistically and then as autoclitics of affirmation and negation in the verbal behavior
curriculum. For example, if a student had not achieved criterion on responding “yes” or
“no” to questions in the linguistic curriculum and the “yes” and “no” responses were next
in the verbal behavior sequence, the student was trained to emit “yes” and “no” using
verbal behavior procedures.
In the verbal behavior curriculum, students were presented with previously
established reinforcers, one of which was made less desirable to the student (mustard on a
cookie versus no mustard, or soda with cola syrup or other flavoring versus soda with no
flavoring). These procedures functioned as establishing operations (Michael, 1982)
consistent with Skinner’s conception of the mand and the qualifying function of
autoclitics (Skinner, 1957). In one case (Table 2), the student required one trial in which
an adult modeled “yes” and “no” to the desirable and undesirable item respectively. The
student subsequently acquired the “yes” and “no” criterion. The general characteristics of
each curriculum are outlined in Table 1. The specific curriculum for each student is
shown in Tables 2 and 3 which also provide a step-by-step scenario for each student. See
Greer, Dorow, McCorkle, Williams, and Asnes (1991) for additional research on
establishing operations.

Definition of Responses and Data Collection

The dependent variables were correct learn-units defined as all words being
correct during a trial, and number of words emitted, but only for correct trials. For
brevity’s sake, the data on the number of correct trials in training are not presented,
because they showed that correct number of trials in training did not differ significantly
from curriculum to curriculum and were evaluated only to ensure equitable application of
reinforcement procedures. Equitable application of reinforcement and training was
necessary to allow the type of unit (operant or linguistic) to be tested.
During training trials all words being trained were counted if all of the words in
the trial were correct. Any correct responses to mands were also counted in addition to
tact items during tact training. Thus, if a student said “we are walking” and subsequently
and independently manded a stapler “may I have the stapler, please,” nine words were
counted. If, in the linguistic curriculum the student responded correctly “we are in the
box,” and then he said “want juice,” then all seven words were counted. Also, during
training if a student emitted vocal speech which had been trained during prior linguistic
or verbal behavior phases (a phase consisted of 20 sessions of a specific curriculum
training), these responses were tallied as generalized session responses (see Figure 1) and
categorized as to whether they were initially trained in the linguistic or verbal behavior
curriculum.
The data presented in Figure 2 for the maintenance probes are for correct trials
only, regardless of the number of words. Thus, the training and generalization data were
number of words and the maintenance data were number of trails. In the case of the
verbal behavior curriculum, correct trials were the correct operant unit with
accompanying autoclitics. This difference of collecting data during maintenance probes
allowed a comparison of the training of units per se (linguistic or operant). The
maintenance probes involved presentation of trials for each linguistic or verbal behavior
unit trained during the immediately prior phases only. All language or verbal behavior
units trained over the 18-month period were tested in the final maintenance probe.

Interobserver Agreement
A second trained observer independently collected data on correct and incorrect
responses during some of the 20-trial training sessions and on the number of words
emitted in training sessions and maintenance probes. Independent observations were
conducted for 20 sessions (25%) of the training sessions received by Student A, 19
sessions (24%) for Student B, and 25 sessions (31%) for Student C. Percentage
Agreement was calculated for correct/incorrect responses by dividing point by point
agreement on words emitted correctly only when the trial was correct (all words correct)
by agreement plus disagreement and multiplying times 100%. Training sessions mean
agreements were 99% for Student A (range 97% to 100%), 98% for Student B (range 92
to 100%) and 92% for Student C (range 90% to 100%).
Second observations were conducted on all of the eight maintenance probes
received by all three students. The mean and range percentages of agreement were 95%
for Student A (94% to 100%), 99% for Student B (98% to 100%), and 97% for Student C
(96% to 100%).

Experimental Design
The design for all three students consisted of a BABA reversal treatment design
(where B represented the verbal behavior curriculum and A the linguistic curriculum)
with maintenance probes (one for each curriculum) at the conclusion of the first A phase,
second B phase, and second A phase. The design was characterized as a reversal because
the curricula were reversed from phase to phase. Each phase consisted of 20 sessions,
established a priori, to maintain equivalent sessions under each phase. Maintenance
probes were conducted at the end of the first A phase, the end of the second B phase, and
the end of the second A phase. Multiple probes were conducted after the entire
instruction for all responses was completed. The steps and repertoires trained to each
student are shown in Tables 2 and 3.

Results
 Figure 1 shows the number of words emitted per student during training sessions
for each phase. Student A emitted a mean of 168 words (range 0 to 300) during the first B
phase (verbal behavior phase) and a mean of 59 words (range 8 to 158) during the first A
phase (subsequent language phase). During the second B phase (verbal behavior phase)
he emitted a mean of 103 words per session (range 15 to 280), while during the second A
phase (language phase) his mean was 26 (range 5 to 72). Student B emitted a mean of 36
words (range 3 to 100) during the first B phase (verbal behavior phase) and a mean of 13
words (range 2 to 18) during the first A phase (subsequent language phase). During the
second B phase (verbal behavior phase) she emitted a mean of 30 words per session
(range 6 to 73), while during the second A phase (language phase) her mean was 40
(range 0 to 96). Student C emitted a mean of 29 words (range 2 to 68) during the first B
phase (verbal behavior phase) and a mean of 5 words (range 1 to 11) during the first A
phase (subsequent language phase). During the second B phase (verbal behavior phase)
he emitted a mean of 56 words per session (range 12 to 78), while during the second
A phase (language phase) his mean was 11 (range 5 to 31). For all students, sharp
decreases in words correct (see Figure 1) signaled attainment of criterion and the
introduction of new words.
Students B and C emitted words that had been trained in pervious phases but were
not being trained during that particular training phase (Figure 1). During the second B
phase, Student B emitted 72 words that had been trained during the first B phase (verbal
behavior phase). During the second A phase, she emitted 135 words trained in the prior
two verbal behavior phases and 2 words trained during the prior language phase.
During the first A phase, second B phase, and second A phase, student C emitted 209,
157, and 72 words, respectively, that had been trained during the training of the verbal
behavior curriculum. During the second B phase and a second A phase, he emitted a total
of 20 and 7 words, respectively, that had been trained during the training of the language
based curriculum (Figure 1).
Figure 2 shows the number of correct trials (single or multiple words) in the
maintenance probes. The figure shows the correct trials and total units trained during the
most recent prior phases for each curriculum and all trained responses for the final
maintenance probe conducted two days after the end of the study. Student A emitted 37
correct responses to 56 possibilities from the language curriculum after a latency of four
days. He emitted 42 correct responses out of 58 possibilities from the verbal behavior
after a latency of 8 months. For the second probe (following the second verbal behavior
phase), he emitted 25 correct responses to 56 possibilities from the language based
curriculum after a latency of nine weeks. He emitted 39 correct responses of 54
possibilities in verbal behavior after a latency of three days. For the third probe, student
A emitted 10 correct responses out of 18 possibilities from the language curriculum after
a latency of five days, and 48 correct responses out of 54 possibilities from the verbal
behavior curriculum after a latency of four weeks. For the final probe (which tested all
words trained under each curriculum), Student A emitted 42 correct responses out of 73
words trained in the language curriculum (58%) and 65 correct responses out of 80
possibilities (81%) from the verbal behavior curriculum.
Student B emitted 11 correct responses to 16 possibilities from the language
curriculum after a latency of two days. She emitted 19 correct responses out of 39
possibilities from the verbal behavior after a latency of 8 months. For the second probe
(following the second verbal behavior phase), she emitted 12 correct responses to 16
possibilities from the language based curriculum after a latency of three weeks. She
emitted 19 correct responses of 22 possibilities in verbal behavior after a time of four
days. For the third probe, Student B emitted 11 correct responses out of 36 possibilities
from the language curriculum after a latency of five days, and 15 correct responses out of
22 possibilities from the verbal behavior curriculum after a latency of two months. For
the final probe (which tested all words trained under each curriculum), Student B emitted
34 correct responses out of 52 words trained in the language curriculum (65%) and 58
correct responses out of 67 possibilities (87%) from the verbal behavior curriculum.
Student C emitted 3 correct responses to 6 possibilities from the language
curriculum after a latency of three days. He emitted 6 correct responses out of 23
possibilities from the verbal behavior after a latency of 10 months. For the second probe
(following the second verbal behavior phase), he emitted 3 correct responses to 6
possibilities from the language based curriculum after a latency of two months. He
emitted 13 correct responses of 14 possibilities in verbal behavior after a latency of three
days. For the third probe, Student C emitted 10 correct responses out of 16 possibilities
from the language curriculum after a latency of five days, and 14 correct responses out of
14 possibilities from the verbal behavior curriculum after a latency of four weeks. For the
final probe (which tested all words trained under each curriculum), Student C emitted 6
correct responses out of 16 words trained in the language curriculum (37%) and 43
correct responses out of 54 possibilities (80%) from the verbal behavior curriculum.
At the final probe for all the students, substantially more words learned under the
verbal behavior curriculum were maintained than the words learned under the language
curriculum. The number of correct responses maintained also differed markedly by
curriculum for Student C on all probes, and for Student A on the third and final probes.
Student B showed marked differences by curriculum only at the final maintenance probe.
All three students emitted more words per session during the verbal behavior
training than during the language training with one exception. Student B emitted more
words during the second A phase (last language phase) than during the preceding second
B phase (verbal behavior training). Both students B and C emitted verbal behavior units
appropriately during language training (generalization), and Student C emitted some
language units trained in prior phases.

Discussion

The two curricula resulted in substantial differences in communicative responses

with these three students. This occurred in spite of the fact that there was little difference
between number of correct trials in training sessions confirming the equity of operant
training procedures. Thus, (with the exception of one phase for student B), the students
learned more words when the words were trained as components of verbal behavior
operants than when the words were trained as language per se. The words trained as
verbal operants were maintained and generalized substantially more than the words
trained as linguistic units. Student B did show an ascending trend in acquiring responses
during both curricula for the last two phases, but the maintenance data were markedly
different.
 The data show that the two repertoires being trained were truly different. That is,
the language curriculum used trainer vocal verbal behavior to evoke vocal responses from
the student that corresponded to language units. Thus, although the intent of the language
curriculum was to teach the students "spontaneously" to label their environment, ask
questions, request items, identify possession, and affirm or negate questions, what the
students learned was to respond when asked to do so.
If the student was asked "what do you want?" and he responded with "I want the
ball," the response was not a mand but rather an intraverbal (or sequelic, Vargas, 1986)
response. This response is under at least partial control of the verbal antecedent "what do
you want?", not the deprivation of the item necessarily. The response was not under
nonverbal environmental control. The result was that the nonverbal antecedent stimuli
never gained control of the responses. That is, the necessary transfer of stimulus control
did not occur because the use of language to evoke nonverbal environmental control of
verbal behavior did not occur. Rather, the students learned a form of intraverbal academic
responding to verbal questions. But even then, they maintained it at levels lower than the
levels of verbal behavior. We suggest that this occurred because the linguistic approach
did not draw on the natural fractures controlling verbal behavior.
In the verbal behavior curriculum, the students acquired the nonverbal control
(true tacts and mands), and the nonverbal stimuli remained in their environment resulting
in more generalized stimulus control of verbal behavior. It is believed that this is why the
verbal behavior objectives were generalized and maintained and the language objectives
were not, a suggestion also made by Simic and Bucher (1980) concerning their own data.
A major problem for some people with developmental disabilities is that they tend not to
use speech unless prompted to do so. However, the students of this study did do so when
taught verbal behavior under the appropriate antecedent control; so called spontaneous
speech is simply under nonverbal stimulus control. In some teaching circumstances, the
use of enhanced establishing operations (Michael, 1982) may be necessary also in
conjunction with teaching the nonverbal antecedent control (Greer, et al., 1992) for
mands as suggested by the data on acquisition of "yes"/"no" responses.
This experiment differed from the majority of research studies in that different
types of stimulus control and different units were taught while attempting to control the
equal application of operant techniques. An exception to this procedure occurred in the
case of Student C, who was unable to emit "yes"/"no" responses using the linguistic
approach. Thus, one of his phases in the linguistic curriculum resulted in fewer correct
acquisition trials than during previous phases. The introduction of a brief establishing
operation (Table 3) during the subsequent verbal behavior phase resulted in the rapid
acquisition of "yes" and "no" as true autoclitics. While this was a training bias in favor of
verbal behavior, no comparable procedures were available in the linguistic curriculum.
The conclusion is that, although the attempt was for an even-handed application of
operant procedures, the linguistic curriculum had omitted a key operant procedure-the
establishing operation. Perhaps the use of the time delay procedure (Halle et al., 1979)
would improve the successes of training this linguistic unit. If that were going to be done,
the new approach would approximate procedures from verbal behavior.
The first verbal behavior probe occurred several months after the intervention due
to factors which interfered with the research. At first blush, this seemed problematical.
However, the degree of maintenance of the units learned actually turned what was
seemingly a limitation of the study into a positive attribute; that is, the stimulus control
was seen to be maintained even after an extensive delay. This was a finding affirmed
again in the final maintenance probe.
The linguistic approach may be reconceptualized as a training program for
intraverbal behavior in which only the verbal antecedent would be expected to evoke
the verbal response. Thus, spontaneous speech can not be the result. Such intraverbal
behavior is also important for individuals with developmental disabilities. Future research
needs to test verbal behavior approaches to obtaining verbal responses to antecedent
verbal stimuli, but clearly distinguish them as separate and perhaps independent
objectives. Thus, the results of the present study are interpreted as clarifying the differing
effects to be expected from the two conceptions for training communicative behavior.
We held training procedures constant and manipulated curricula. This is a radical
departure from traditional methodology and is risky. Could it be that the different
"words" taught with the respective curricula were responsible for the obtained
differences. Perhaps, but the number and variety of "words" suggests that such an
interpretation is unlikely. The use of words as measures is an unsatisfactory one from our
verbal behavior perspective. However, had we counted operant units (a measure close to
the one used for maintenance and generalization probes), what would we have measured
for the linguistic units? We chose correct responses for the maintenance and
generalization, and words for the training measures. Words are the measures used by
linguists.
Our finding suggest that a re-conceptualization of so called spontaneous speech as
nonverbally evoked verbal operants allowed these students with severe developmental
delays to emit communicative behavior though they did not do so when taught language
per se. The linguistic curriculum used in this study (Guess et al., 1976) has been replaced
in the applied literature for the most part with more "naturalistic" incidental training
procedures by most behavior analysts. We suggest that the "naturalistic" component
however is really the unrecognized use of establishing operations. This incidental
approach still does not draw on Skinner's conception fully. While behaviorology has
served as the basis for the development of a science of pedagogy (albeit generally
unrecognized) over the last forty years, the potential of the verbal behavior perspective
for the reconceptualization of curricula for teaching problem solving, self-management,
and independence is just beginning to be understood (Greer, in press).

References

Carr, E.G., & Durand, M. V. (1985). Remediating behavior problems through

communication training, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111-126.
Chase, P. N., Johnson, K. R., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1985). Verbal relations within
instructions: Are there subclasses of the intraverbal? Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 43, 301-313.
Epstein, R., Lanza, R. P. & Skinner, B. F. (1980). Symbolic communication between two
pigeons. (columbia livia domestica), Science, 207, 543-545.
Greenspoon, J. (1962). Verbal conditioning and clinical psychology. In A.J. Bachrach
(Ed.), Experimental foundations of clinical psychology (pp. 510-533). New York:
Basic Books.
Greenwood, C.R., Delquadri, J.C., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and
student academic performance. In W. Heward, T. Heron, D. Hill & Trap-Porter
(Eds.), Behavior Analysis in Education, (pp. 58-88). Columbus, Oh: Charles,
Merrill.
Greer, R. D. (1986). Pilot version of a scripted curriculum for verbal behavior.
Unpublished manuscript.
Greer, R.D. (1990). Teaching operations for verbal behavior. Unpublished manuscript.
Greer, R.D., Williams, G., Dorow, L., Mckorkle, N., & Russ, A. (1991). Peer-mediated
procedures to induce swallowing and food acceptance in young children. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, Winter, 24, (4), 783-790.
Greer, R.D. (1992). Teacher as strategic scientist: A solution to our educational crisis,
Behavior and Social Issues, 1 (2), 25-41.
Greer, R.D. (in press). Learner-driven professional expertise for superior schools. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Guess, D., Keogh, W., & Sailor, W. (1978). Generalization of speech and language
behavior: Measurement and training tactics. In R.L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Bases of
language intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Guess, D., Sailor, W.S., & Baer, D.M. (1976). A functional speech and language training
program for the severely handicapped. Lawrence, KS: H & H Enterprises, Inc.
Halle, J. W. (1987). Teaching language in the natural environment: An analysis of
spontaneity. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12,
28-37.
Halle, J.W., Marshall, A.M., & Spradlin, J.E. (1979). Time delay: A technique to increase
language use and facilitate generalization in retarded children. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 12, 431-440.
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411-420.
Keller, F.S., & Schoenfeld, W.N. (1950). Principles of Psychology: A systematic test in
the science of behavior. New York; Appleton-Century Crafts.
Lamarre, J., & Holland, J.G. (1985). The functional independence of mands and tacts.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 5-19.
Lodhi, S., & Greer, R.D. (1989). The speaker as listener. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 51, 353-360.
Lovaas, O.E. (1977). The autistic child. Language development through behavior
modification. New York: Irvington.
Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of
stimuli. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149-155.
Michael, J. L. (1984). Verbal behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
42, 363-376.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E.S. (1984). Verbal behavior at a procedural level in the
chimpanzees. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 223-250.
Schuster, J. W., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Guilitan, S. (1988). The effectiveness of
a constant time-delay procedure to teach chained responses to adolescents with
mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 169-178.
Simic, J., & Bucher, B. (1980). Development of spontaneous manding in language
deficient children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 523-528.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Stratford, M., Sundberg, M.L, & Braam, S. (1978). An experimental analysis of mands
and tacts. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Convention of the Midwestern
Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago, Illinois.
Sundberg, M.L. (1985). Teaching verbal behavior to pigeons. The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 3, 11-17.
Sundberg, M.L. (1980). Developing a verbal repertoire using sign language and Skinner's
analysis of verbal behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan
University.
Vargas, E.A. (1986). Intraverbal Behavior. In P.N. Chase and L.J. Porrott (Eds.),
Psychological aspects of languages. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
Warren, S.F., & Kaiser, A. F. (1986). Incidental language training: A critical review.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 291-298.
Wenrich, W.W. (1964). The tact relation: An experiment in verbal behavior. Journal of
General Psychology, 71, 71-78.