Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– ## Discussion6copy.docx
– ## Palmer1996.module6.pdf
– Science_and_Human_Behavior-Chapter8.pdf
– GoetzBaer1973..Module6.pdf
**## Discussion6copy.docx**
Discussion 6
Skinner described thinking, decision-making, problem-solving, and self-awareness as behaviors subject to the same principles as overt actions. Using this framework, analyze a recent experience where you engaged in "thinking" or "problem-solving."
1. Describe the situation and the covert or overt behaviors involved.
2. Identify any environmental manipulations or techniques (e.g., making lists, shuffling stimuli, asking questions) that influenced your behavior.
3. Reflect on how understanding the behavioral principles behind your actions (e.g., reinforcement, rules, contingencies) might improve your future decision-making or self-awareness.
Students are expected to cite all assigned readings within the module that a discussion post is assigned. They
are also expected to find an outside source that is eligible and academic
For references use the followings readings:
1.
Science and Human Behavior: Science and Human Behavior: Chapter 16 & Chapter 18.
Rubic
## image1.png
**## Palmer1996.module6.pdf**
289 COMMENTARY
ACHIEVING PARITY: THE ROLE OF
AUTOMATIC REINFORCEMENT
DAVID C. PALMER
SMITH COLLEGE
The central insight of Horne and Lowe's
article is the importance of the role played by
the discriminative effects of one's speech
upon one's self. Informed by this insight,
Horne and Lowe provide a parsimonious and
coherent interpretation of the behavior said
to show equivalence relations, exploiting only
established concepts of behavior analysis. I
am enthusiastic about both the goals and ac
complishments of the article and therefore
will confine myself to suggesting an elabora
tion or refinement of one or two ideas lightly
covered by the authors, particularly the role
of automatic reinforcement in the shaping of
the speaker's behavior (cf. Skinner, 1957, p.
164, 1979, p. 283; Sundberg, 1980;Vaughan
& Michael, 1982).
Speech is special in that we stimulate our
selves in just the same way and at the same
moment we stimulate others. This is a char
acteristic not entirely shared by sign lan
guage, because the appearance of a sign var
ies with the location of the viewer; typically
the speaker and the listener view signs from
opposite sides. Although subtle, this differ
ence should impair the acquisition of naming
in sign language relative to that of speech,
because listener behavior is under the control
of stimuli that the speaker can never quite
reproduce. Moreover, we might expect more
idiosyncrasies, or accents, among signers than
among speakers.
The auditory feedback from one's speech
can play a special role for a speaker who is
already a competent listener. Horne and
Lowe allude to the discriminative control that
such feedback exerts over orienting behavior
and note that this control contributes greatly
to our understanding of performance in re
search on equivalence classes. They also refer
to the potential reinforcing function that
Correspondence concerning this commentary should
be addressed to the author at the Department of Psy
chology, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts
01063 (E-mail: dcpalmer@science.smith.edu).
such feedback can provide, assuming that the
verbal stimuli already function as conditioned
reinforcers. A stimulus may be automatically
reinforcing if it has been paired with uncon
ditioned reinforcers; thus, as Horne and
Lowe observe, "the sounds and words uttered
by parents may function as potent classically
conditioned stimuli that have strong emo
tional effects on the child so that when she
hears her own replication of these vocal pat
terns she generates stimuli that have similarly
strong reinforcing consequences" (p. 198).
Presumably, then, there may be a reinforcing
effect of hearing one's self say, "Good job,"
because such expressions from parents are
likely to serve a reinforcing function.
Horne and Lowe do not make much of this
point, and rightly so: We would expect only
a relatively few verbal stimuli to function as
conditioned reinforcers. Moreover, presum
ably one quickly discriminates between the
praise of another and one's own; the former
is far more precious. The reinforcing effec
tiveness of verbal stimuli quickly becomes
conditional on other variables.
However, the feedback from one's own
speech plays a different sort of reinforcing
function that I will argue is far more impor
tant in the shaping and development of ver
bal behavior. One's own utterances can shape
and maintain one's behavior, not because of
the specific stimulus properties of the verbal
stimuli, but because of the parity of such stim
uli with practices of the verbal community.
That is, a speaker who is already an accom
plished listener can detect when he or she
conforms or deviates from typical verbal prac
tices. Under most circumstances, people find
parity of their speech with that of others to
be reinforcing and deviations from parity to
be punishing. The child who says "Tarry
me!" does not have to receive explicit differ
ential consequences from the verbal com
munity when she eventually learns to utter
"Carry me!" She knows instantly that she has
[mailto:dcpalmer@science.smith.edu](mailto:dcpalmer@science.smith.edu)
290 COMMENTARY
achieved parity, because, as Horne and Lowe
observe, her repertoire as listener typically
precedes her repertoire as speaker.
Achieving parity is a conceptually awkward
sort of reinforcer. It is not a stimulus. It is a
particular kind of response, a recognition
that one has conformed. It is difficult to mea
sure, even to operationalize; thus, in our in
terpretations of the acquisition of verbal be
havior it is seldom given the emphasis it
deserves. But, although difficult to measure,
the reinforcement is real enough. The effects
of achieving, or failing to achieve, parity are
particularly conspicuous in endeavors in
which social reinforcement is clearly absent
or irrelevant. The boy who tries to imitate the
sound of a locomotive, an airplane, or a vac
uum cleaner does not need differential feed
back from his parents or siblings; the child
who picks out the tune to "Mary Had a Little
Lamb" on a xylophone may succeed without
instruction or approval; the girl trying to
learn how to wiggle her ears or to wink profits
more from the mirror than from a tutor. In
each case, the person already knows what the
behavior should look like or sound like, and
any behavioral variant that approaches parity
is strongly reinforced.
Why is the achievement of parity reinforc
ing for children? First, it must be acknowl
edged that it isn't invariably reinforcing in all
areas of conduct, as legions of mortified par
ents in restaurants and supermarkets can at
test. However, one of the surest ways to opti
mize one's behavior in a novel situation is to
do what others do, and children quickly learn
to model their behavior after that of their el
ders. Nonconformity is often punished with
staring, silence, or ridicule. The contingen
cies for achieving parity in verbal behavior
are doubtless subtle, but the embarrassment
of those who stutter, lisp, or suffer from other
speech impediments suggests that they are
nonetheless powerful.
The implications of this source of rein
forcement are profound. A staple criticism of
behavioral interpretations of the acquisition
of language, by linguists and cognitive psy
chologists, is that the reinforcing practices of
verbal communities do not seem to be ade-
quate to shape the many subtleties of verbal
behavior that children learn to respect. The
child who begs to be "tarried" may be car
ried many hundreds of times without protest;
it is not the parents who insist that she get it
right. Moreover, as Brown and Hanlon
(1970) point out, parents tend to reinforce
the content of children's utterances, not the
syntax or pronunciation. Despite Moerk's
subsequent reanalysis of their data, revealing
many sources of reinforcement overlooked by
Brown and Hanlon (Moerk, 1983, 1990), the
critique is trenchant: Although people re
spect countless verbal conventions, most of us
are unaware of many of them and are in no
position to tutor others about them. For ex
ample, donate and gi,ve are roughly synony
mous words. One might say, "I gave the mon
ey to the Jimmy Fund," or "I donated the
money to the Jimmy Fund." But, although
one might say, "I gave the Jimmy Fund the
money," one is unlikely to say, "I donated the
Jimmy Fund the money." Our language is re
plete with such anomalies. To argue that the
verbal community explicitly shapes respect
for such distinctions would be fatuous. The
exquisite subtlety of our verbal repertoires is
shaped by the contingencies of automatic re
inforcement of which Skinner spoke; there
are countless such contingencies and they are
optimally arranged. To the competent listen
er, a deviation from parity is instantly detect
ed; one need not wait for the lumbering ma
chinery of social reinforcement to swing into
action. Identifying units of listener behavior
that are relevant to cadence, intraverbal
frames, and the other dimensions of syntax
remains a formidable problem, but one that
is within the scope of the kind of interpreta
tion pioneered by Skinner and extended
here by Horne and Lowe. (See Donahoe &
Palmer, 1994, pp. 312-319, for a fuller treat
ment of this theme.)
The foregoing analysis does not weaken
Horne and Lowe's thesis, but it suggests that
their interpretation of language development
resorts more frequently than necessary to social
reinforcers. Second, it suggests that a new mem
ber needs to be added to their family of effects
of a speaker's behavior on him- or herself.
**Science_and_Human_Behavior-Chapter8.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/science-and-human-behavior-chapter8-pdf)
**GoetzBaer1973..Module6.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/goetzbaer1973-module6-pdf)
**GoetzBaer1973..Module6.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/goetzbaer1973-module6-pdf)
**## Discussion6copy.docx**
Discussion 6
Skinner described thinking, decision-making, problem-solving, and self-awareness as behaviors subject to the same principles as overt actions. Using this framework, analyze a recent experience where you engaged in "thinking" or "problem-solving."
1. Describe the situation and the covert or overt behaviors involved.
2. Identify any environmental manipulations or techniques (e.g., making lists, shuffling stimuli, asking questions) that influenced your behavior.
3. Reflect on how understanding the behavioral principles behind your actions (e.g., reinforcement, rules, contingencies) might improve your future decision-making or self-awareness.
Students are expected to cite all assigned readings within the module that a discussion post is assigned. They
are also expected to find an outside source that is eligible and academic
For references use the followings readings:
1.
Science and Human Behavior: Science and Human Behavior: Chapter 16 & Chapter 18.
Rubic
## image1.png
**## Palmer1996.module6.pdf**
289 COMMENTARY
ACHIEVING PARITY: THE ROLE OF
AUTOMATIC REINFORCEMENT
DAVID C. PALMER
SMITH COLLEGE
The central insight of Horne and Lowe's
article is the importance of the role played by
the discriminative effects of one's speech
upon one's self. Informed by this insight,
Horne and Lowe provide a parsimonious and
coherent interpretation of the behavior said
to show equivalence relations, exploiting only
established concepts of behavior analysis. I
am enthusiastic about both the goals and ac
complishments of the article and therefore
will confine myself to suggesting an elabora
tion or refinement of one or two ideas lightly
covered by the authors, particularly the role
of automatic reinforcement in the shaping of
the speaker's behavior (cf. Skinner, 1957, p.
164, 1979, p. 283; Sundberg, 1980;Vaughan
& Michael, 1982).
Speech is special in that we stimulate our
selves in just the same way and at the same
moment we stimulate others. This is a char
acteristic not entirely shared by sign lan
guage, because the appearance of a sign var
ies with the location of the viewer; typically
the speaker and the listener view signs from
opposite sides. Although subtle, this differ
ence should impair the acquisition of naming
in sign language relative to that of speech,
because listener behavior is under the control
of stimuli that the speaker can never quite
reproduce. Moreover, we might expect more
idiosyncrasies, or accents, among signers than
among speakers.
The auditory feedback from one's speech
can play a special role for a speaker who is
already a competent listener. Horne and
Lowe allude to the discriminative control that
such feedback exerts over orienting behavior
and note that this control contributes greatly
to our understanding of performance in re
search on equivalence classes. They also refer
to the potential reinforcing function that
Correspondence concerning this commentary should
be addressed to the author at the Department of Psy
chology, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts
01063 (E-mail: dcpalmer@science.smith.edu).
such feedback can provide, assuming that the
verbal stimuli already function as conditioned
reinforcers. A stimulus may be automatically
reinforcing if it has been paired with uncon
ditioned reinforcers; thus, as Horne and
Lowe observe, "the sounds and words uttered
by parents may function as potent classically
conditioned stimuli that have strong emo
tional effects on the child so that when she
hears her own replication of these vocal pat
terns she generates stimuli that have similarly
strong reinforcing consequences" (p. 198).
Presumably, then, there may be a reinforcing
effect of hearing one's self say, "Good job,"
because such expressions from parents are
likely to serve a reinforcing function.
Horne and Lowe do not make much of this
point, and rightly so: We would expect only
a relatively few verbal stimuli to function as
conditioned reinforcers. Moreover, presum
ably one quickly discriminates between the
praise of another and one's own; the former
is far more precious. The reinforcing effec
tiveness of verbal stimuli quickly becomes
conditional on other variables.
However, the feedback from one's own
speech plays a different sort of reinforcing
function that I will argue is far more impor
tant in the shaping and development of ver
bal behavior. One's own utterances can shape
and maintain one's behavior, not because of
the specific stimulus properties of the verbal
stimuli, but because of the parity of such stim
uli with practices of the verbal community.
That is, a speaker who is already an accom
plished listener can detect when he or she
conforms or deviates from typical verbal prac
tices. Under most circumstances, people find
parity of their speech with that of others to
be reinforcing and deviations from parity to
be punishing. The child who says "Tarry
me!" does not have to receive explicit differ
ential consequences from the verbal com
munity when she eventually learns to utter
"Carry me!" She knows instantly that she has
[mailto:dcpalmer@science.smith.edu](mailto:dcpalmer@science.smith.edu)
290 COMMENTARY
achieved parity, because, as Horne and Lowe
observe, her repertoire as listener typically
precedes her repertoire as speaker.
Achieving parity is a conceptually awkward
sort of reinforcer. It is not a stimulus. It is a
particular kind of response, a recognition
that one has conformed. It is difficult to mea
sure, even to operationalize; thus, in our in
terpretations of the acquisition of verbal be
havior it is seldom given the emphasis it
deserves. But, although difficult to measure,
the reinforcement is real enough. The effects
of achieving, or failing to achieve, parity are
particularly conspicuous in endeavors in
which social reinforcement is clearly absent
or irrelevant. The boy who tries to imitate the
sound of a locomotive, an airplane, or a vac
uum cleaner does not need differential feed
back from his parents or siblings; the child
who picks out the tune to "Mary Had a Little
Lamb" on a xylophone may succeed without
instruction or approval; the girl trying to
learn how to wiggle her ears or to wink profits
more from the mirror than from a tutor. In
each case, the person already knows what the
behavior should look like or sound like, and
any behavioral variant that approaches parity
is strongly reinforced.
Why is the achievement of parity reinforc
ing for children? First, it must be acknowl
edged that it isn't invariably reinforcing in all
areas of conduct, as legions of mortified par
ents in restaurants and supermarkets can at
test. However, one of the surest ways to opti
mize one's behavior in a novel situation is to
do what others do, and children quickly learn
to model their behavior after that of their el
ders. Nonconformity is often punished with
staring, silence, or ridicule. The contingen
cies for achieving parity in verbal behavior
are doubtless subtle, but the embarrassment
of those who stutter, lisp, or suffer from other
speech impediments suggests that they are
nonetheless powerful.
The implications of this source of rein
forcement are profound. A staple criticism of
behavioral interpretations of the acquisition
of language, by linguists and cognitive psy
chologists, is that the reinforcing practices of
verbal communities do not seem to be ade-
quate to shape the many subtleties of verbal
behavior that children learn to respect. The
child who begs to be "tarried" may be car
ried many hundreds of times without protest;
it is not the parents who insist that she get it
right. Moreover, as Brown and Hanlon
(1970) point out, parents tend to reinforce
the content of children's utterances, not the
syntax or pronunciation. Despite Moerk's
subsequent reanalysis of their data, revealing
many sources of reinforcement overlooked by
Brown and Hanlon (Moerk, 1983, 1990), the
critique is trenchant: Although people re
spect countless verbal conventions, most of us
are unaware of many of them and are in no
position to tutor others about them. For ex
ample, donate and gi,ve are roughly synony
mous words. One might say, "I gave the mon
ey to the Jimmy Fund," or "I donated the
money to the Jimmy Fund." But, although
one might say, "I gave the Jimmy Fund the
money," one is unlikely to say, "I donated the
Jimmy Fund the money." Our language is re
plete with such anomalies. To argue that the
verbal community explicitly shapes respect
for such distinctions would be fatuous. The
exquisite subtlety of our verbal repertoires is
shaped by the contingencies of automatic re
inforcement of which Skinner spoke; there
are countless such contingencies and they are
optimally arranged. To the competent listen
er, a deviation from parity is instantly detect
ed; one need not wait for the lumbering ma
chinery of social reinforcement to swing into
action. Identifying units of listener behavior
that are relevant to cadence, intraverbal
frames, and the other dimensions of syntax
remains a formidable problem, but one that
is within the scope of the kind of interpreta
tion pioneered by Skinner and extended
here by Horne and Lowe. (See Donahoe &
Palmer, 1994, pp. 312-319, for a fuller treat
ment of this theme.)
The foregoing analysis does not weaken
Horne and Lowe's thesis, but it suggests that
their interpretation of language development
resorts more frequently than necessary to social
reinforcers. Second, it suggests that a new mem
ber needs to be added to their family of effects
of a speaker's behavior on him- or herself.
**Science_and_Human_Behavior-Chapter8.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/science-and-human-behavior-chapter8-pdf)
**GoetzBaer1973..Module6.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/goetzbaer1973-module6-pdf)
**## Discussion6copy.docx**
Discussion 6
Skinner described thinking, decision-making, problem-solving, and self-awareness as behaviors subject to the same principles as overt actions. Using this framework, analyze a recent experience where you engaged in "thinking" or "problem-solving."
1. Describe the situation and the covert or overt behaviors involved.
2. Identify any environmental manipulations or techniques (e.g., making lists, shuffling stimuli, asking questions) that influenced your behavior.
3. Reflect on how understanding the behavioral principles behind your actions (e.g., reinforcement, rules, contingencies) might improve your future decision-making or self-awareness.
Students are expected to cite all assigned readings within the module that a discussion post is assigned. They
are also expected to find an outside source that is eligible and academic
For references use the followings readings:
1.
Science and Human Behavior: Science and Human Behavior: Chapter 16 & Chapter 18.
Rubic
## image1.png
**## Palmer1996.module6.pdf**
289 COMMENTARY
ACHIEVING PARITY: THE ROLE OF
AUTOMATIC REINFORCEMENT
DAVID C. PALMER
SMITH COLLEGE
The central insight of Horne and Lowe's
article is the importance of the role played by
the discriminative effects of one's speech
upon one's self. Informed by this insight,
Horne and Lowe provide a parsimonious and
coherent interpretation of the behavior said
to show equivalence relations, exploiting only
established concepts of behavior analysis. I
am enthusiastic about both the goals and ac
complishments of the article and therefore
will confine myself to suggesting an elabora
tion or refinement of one or two ideas lightly
covered by the authors, particularly the role
of automatic reinforcement in the shaping of
the speaker's behavior (cf. Skinner, 1957, p.
164, 1979, p. 283; Sundberg, 1980;Vaughan
& Michael, 1982).
Speech is special in that we stimulate our
selves in just the same way and at the same
moment we stimulate others. This is a char
acteristic not entirely shared by sign lan
guage, because the appearance of a sign var
ies with the location of the viewer; typically
the speaker and the listener view signs from
opposite sides. Although subtle, this differ
ence should impair the acquisition of naming
in sign language relative to that of speech,
because listener behavior is under the control
of stimuli that the speaker can never quite
reproduce. Moreover, we might expect more
idiosyncrasies, or accents, among signers than
among speakers.
The auditory feedback from one's speech
can play a special role for a speaker who is
already a competent listener. Horne and
Lowe allude to the discriminative control that
such feedback exerts over orienting behavior
and note that this control contributes greatly
to our understanding of performance in re
search on equivalence classes. They also refer
to the potential reinforcing function that
Correspondence concerning this commentary should
be addressed to the author at the Department of Psy
chology, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts
01063 (E-mail: dcpalmer@science.smith.edu).
such feedback can provide, assuming that the
verbal stimuli already function as conditioned
reinforcers. A stimulus may be automatically
reinforcing if it has been paired with uncon
ditioned reinforcers; thus, as Horne and
Lowe observe, "the sounds and words uttered
by parents may function as potent classically
conditioned stimuli that have strong emo
tional effects on the child so that when she
hears her own replication of these vocal pat
terns she generates stimuli that have similarly
strong reinforcing consequences" (p. 198).
Presumably, then, there may be a reinforcing
effect of hearing one's self say, "Good job,"
because such expressions from parents are
likely to serve a reinforcing function.
Horne and Lowe do not make much of this
point, and rightly so: We would expect only
a relatively few verbal stimuli to function as
conditioned reinforcers. Moreover, presum
ably one quickly discriminates between the
praise of another and one's own; the former
is far more precious. The reinforcing effec
tiveness of verbal stimuli quickly becomes
conditional on other variables.
However, the feedback from one's own
speech plays a different sort of reinforcing
function that I will argue is far more impor
tant in the shaping and development of ver
bal behavior. One's own utterances can shape
and maintain one's behavior, not because of
the specific stimulus properties of the verbal
stimuli, but because of the parity of such stim
uli with practices of the verbal community.
That is, a speaker who is already an accom
plished listener can detect when he or she
conforms or deviates from typical verbal prac
tices. Under most circumstances, people find
parity of their speech with that of others to
be reinforcing and deviations from parity to
be punishing. The child who says "Tarry
me!" does not have to receive explicit differ
ential consequences from the verbal com
munity when she eventually learns to utter
"Carry me!" She knows instantly that she has
[mailto:dcpalmer@science.smith.edu](mailto:dcpalmer@science.smith.edu)
290 COMMENTARY
achieved parity, because, as Horne and Lowe
observe, her repertoire as listener typically
precedes her repertoire as speaker.
Achieving parity is a conceptually awkward
sort of reinforcer. It is not a stimulus. It is a
particular kind of response, a recognition
that one has conformed. It is difficult to mea
sure, even to operationalize; thus, in our in
terpretations of the acquisition of verbal be
havior it is seldom given the emphasis it
deserves. But, although difficult to measure,
the reinforcement is real enough. The effects
of achieving, or failing to achieve, parity are
particularly conspicuous in endeavors in
which social reinforcement is clearly absent
or irrelevant. The boy who tries to imitate the
sound of a locomotive, an airplane, or a vac
uum cleaner does not need differential feed
back from his parents or siblings; the child
who picks out the tune to "Mary Had a Little
Lamb" on a xylophone may succeed without
instruction or approval; the girl trying to
learn how to wiggle her ears or to wink profits
more from the mirror than from a tutor. In
each case, the person already knows what the
behavior should look like or sound like, and
any behavioral variant that approaches parity
is strongly reinforced.
Why is the achievement of parity reinforc
ing for children? First, it must be acknowl
edged that it isn't invariably reinforcing in all
areas of conduct, as legions of mortified par
ents in restaurants and supermarkets can at
test. However, one of the surest ways to opti
mize one's behavior in a novel situation is to
do what others do, and children quickly learn
to model their behavior after that of their el
ders. Nonconformity is often punished with
staring, silence, or ridicule. The contingen
cies for achieving parity in verbal behavior
are doubtless subtle, but the embarrassment
of those who stutter, lisp, or suffer from other
speech impediments suggests that they are
nonetheless powerful.
The implications of this source of rein
forcement are profound. A staple criticism of
behavioral interpretations of the acquisition
of language, by linguists and cognitive psy
chologists, is that the reinforcing practices of
verbal communities do not seem to be ade-
quate to shape the many subtleties of verbal
behavior that children learn to respect. The
child who begs to be "tarried" may be car
ried many hundreds of times without protest;
it is not the parents who insist that she get it
right. Moreover, as Brown and Hanlon
(1970) point out, parents tend to reinforce
the content of children's utterances, not the
syntax or pronunciation. Despite Moerk's
subsequent reanalysis of their data, revealing
many sources of reinforcement overlooked by
Brown and Hanlon (Moerk, 1983, 1990), the
critique is trenchant: Although people re
spect countless verbal conventions, most of us
are unaware of many of them and are in no
position to tutor others about them. For ex
ample, donate and gi,ve are roughly synony
mous words. One might say, "I gave the mon
ey to the Jimmy Fund," or "I donated the
money to the Jimmy Fund." But, although
one might say, "I gave the Jimmy Fund the
money," one is unlikely to say, "I donated the
Jimmy Fund the money." Our language is re
plete with such anomalies. To argue that the
verbal community explicitly shapes respect
for such distinctions would be fatuous. The
exquisite subtlety of our verbal repertoires is
shaped by the contingencies of automatic re
inforcement of which Skinner spoke; there
are countless such contingencies and they are
optimally arranged. To the competent listen
er, a deviation from parity is instantly detect
ed; one need not wait for the lumbering ma
chinery of social reinforcement to swing into
action. Identifying units of listener behavior
that are relevant to cadence, intraverbal
frames, and the other dimensions of syntax
remains a formidable problem, but one that
is within the scope of the kind of interpreta
tion pioneered by Skinner and extended
here by Horne and Lowe. (See Donahoe &
Palmer, 1994, pp. 312-319, for a fuller treat
ment of this theme.)
The foregoing analysis does not weaken
Horne and Lowe's thesis, but it suggests that
their interpretation of language development
resorts more frequently than necessary to social
reinforcers. Second, it suggests that a new mem
ber needs to be added to their family of effects
of a speaker's behavior on him- or herself.
**Science_and_Human_Behavior-Chapter8.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/science-and-human-behavior-chapter8-pdf)
**GoetzBaer1973..Module6.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/goetzbaer1973-module6-pdf)
– 1
– 2
– 3
– 4