September 4, 2016

September 4, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my eight response to “Verbal behavior in clinical context: behavior analysis methodological contributions” by Zamignani and Meyer (2007). These researchers elaborate on the classic research approach and state “The categorization parting from topographic criteria has as focus similarities in the movement and/or posture and/or appearance of behavior (spatial dimensions of behavior).”

“Topographical dimensions of social behavior” are difficult to determine. Skinner (1957) states “Underneath the level of words lay roots, or, more precisely, the small ‘meaningful’ units called morphemes. Above the words are phrases, idioms, sentences, clauses, etc. Each one of them can have a functional unit as a verbal operant. A particle of behavior as small as a single sound can be under independent control of a manipulating variable. (...) On the other hand, a broad segment of behavior (...) can vary under similar functional unitary control.” (p. 21).

Aversive stimulation changes the sound of our voice. We sound very different in a safe environment. “Contiguous events when responding – immediately preceding and subsequent events – are not sufficient for the identification of a functional class of responses, but make up elements that give context to the individual’s verbalization or action.”

After considering pros and cons of the pragmatic and the classic research approach, the authors conclude that “Such categorization strategy, considering the classification of Russel and Stiles (1979), is between the classic and the pragmatic (as pointed out by Hill, 1986) and involves the estimate of the immediate function of the verbalization parting from the observation of the topography and the immediate context in which the verbalization fits in.” They get close, but not close enough so that the speaker and the listener become one.