Papers by Ted Schoneberger
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, Apr 1, 2005
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, Apr 1, 1991
conceptual analyses of verbal understanding are presented. For Ryle, the term understanding signi... more conceptual analyses of verbal understanding are presented. For Ryle, the term understanding signifies simultaneously an acquired disposition and a behavioral episode. For Wittgenstein, it signifies simultaneously a skill and a criterial behavior. Both argued that episodes of understanding comprise heterogenious classes of behaviors, and that each member of such a class is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of understanding. Next, an approach integrating the analyses of Ryle and Wittgenstein with that of Skinner is presented. Lastly, it is argued that this integrated analysis adequately counters Parrott's (1984) argument that understanding, for Skinner, is potential behavior and not an event.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, Apr 1, 1990
Skinner's (1957, 1974) distinction between three senses of the term understanding is presented. F... more Skinner's (1957, 1974) distinction between three senses of the term understanding is presented. For Skinner, a listener understands if she (a) can repeat back to the speaker what he has said; or (b) can respond appropriately; or (c) knows about the controlling variables. Next, a critique of Skinner's view by Parrott (1984; now L.J. Hayes) is presented. Parrott criticizes the first sense of understanding for simplifying a complex activity; the second for equating understanding with reinforcement mediation; and the third for defining understanding as potential behavior. Next, Parrott's two alternative views are presented. Understanding is (a) having perceptual responses of things when only their "names" are present, and (b) organizing objects and words into relational networks. Lastly, Skinner's and Parrott's views on understanding are evaluated, and Parrott's views are critiqued.
The journal of speech and language pathology, applied behavior analysis, 2006
Abstract Since the publication of Lovaas's (1987) seminal paper, serious questions have surf... more Abstract Since the publication of Lovaas's (1987) seminal paper, serious questions have surfaced regarding design features that compromise the validity of treatment efficacy data resulting from studies of early intensive behavioral treatment (EIBT) for children with ...
The journal of speech and language pathology, applied behavior analysis, 2007
Two years ago Jane Howard and colleagues published their quasi-experimental study "A compari... more Two years ago Jane Howard and colleagues published their quasi-experimental study "A comparison of intensive behavior analytic and eclectic treatments for young children with autism" (Howard, Sparkman, Cohen, Green, & Stanislaw, 2005). A year later my paper (Schoneberger, 2006)-which, in part, raised some serious questions about the methodology of their study--appeared in this journal. Since it publication, my paper has received a number of positive appraisals--some from local public school employees, some from members of local agencies serving special needs children (e.g., Valley Mountain Regional Center, an agency which played a role in Howard et al.'s research), and some from other professionals across the nation. As an example of the latter, consider the comments of Andy Bondy, a prominent behavior analyst and co-founder of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS). With regard to the issue of "how to best describe" Howard et al.'s methodology and results, Bondy found my paper (2006) "astute and helpful" (personal communication, September 27, 2006). However, others have attempted to counter my criticisms. Specifically, this journal recently published two letters to the editor offering spirited defenses of Howard et al. (2005): one by the researchers themselves (Howard, Sparkman, Cohen, Green, & Stanislaw, 2007) and the other by Tristram Smith (2007). Further, this current issue contains a third letter (Wright, 2007) which also offers a defense of Howard et al. In what follows I respond to all three letters, beginning with the more substantive of the three (Smith, 2007), and then concluding with Howard et al. (2007) and Wright (2007). Response to Smith (2007) Drawing largely on a paper by Tristram Smith and colleagues (Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000), my paper (2007) identified three guidelines to be followed by studies assessing the treatment efficacy of behavior analytic approaches to young children with autism. These guidelines are: "(1) random assignment of participants to treatment conditions; (2) use of uniform assessment protocols across all participants; and (3) documentation of sufficient methodological detail to allow for independent replication" (Schoneberger, 2006, p. 208). Further, in my paper I reported Tristram Smith's (personal communication, July 25, 2005) critical commentary on Howard et al.'s (2005) study; namely, that the study's "limitations" included (a) its use of nonrandom assignment and (b) its providing "limited information about the interventions." The logical implications of Smith's criticisms are that Howard et al. (2005) failed to adhere to the first and third guidelines. In his letter to the editor defending Howard et al.'s (2005) study, Smith (2007) does not dispute the accuracy of my citations of his personal communication to me. However, Smith (2007) does assert that "this characterization of our correspondence is quite one-sided and misleading" (p.146), apparently because I did not include his favorable comments about Howard et al.'s study that were contained in his personal correspondence to me. Indeed, in my paper I did not report Smith's statement to me that Howard et al.'s study "is a very useful contribution to the literature." Further, I did not include his comments that "the groups appear fairly comparable prior to treatment, and the comprehensive assessments and use of independent examiners are strengths. Also, the results are impressive" (T. Smith, personal communication, July 25, 2005). Thus, to the charge that my characterization of his correspondence was "one-sided" I plead guilty with an explanation. However, I disagree that I was thereby misleading. Consider the following explanations of my "guilty" plea. In selectively quoting Smith's correspondence with me, I was arguing for a particular point of view. So, of course it was one-sided. Smith's criticizing me for being one-sided is like criticizing a participant in a formal debate for being one-sided. …
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, Apr 1, 2000
In 1957 Noam Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, expressing views characterized as constituti... more In 1957 Noam Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, expressing views characterized as constituting a "revolution" in linguistics. Chomsky proposed that the proper subject matter of linguistics is not the utterances of speakers, but what speakers and listeners know. To that end, he theorized that what they know is a system of rules that underlie actual performance. This theory became known as transformational grammar. In subsequent versions of this theory, rules continued to play a dominant role. However, in 1980 Chomsky began a second revolution by proposing the elimination of rules in a new theory: the principles-and-parameters approach. Subsequent writings finalized the abandonment of rules. Given the centrality of rules to cognitivism, this paper argues that Chomsky's second revolution constitutes a departure from cognitivism. "In Woody Allen's story 'The Whore of Mensa,' the patron asks, 'Suppose I wanted Noam Chomsky explained to me by two girls?' 'It'd cost you,' she replies" (Pinker, 1994, p. 126; see Allen, 1972, pp. 32-38). Noam Chomsky's linguistics career spans half a century. The scholarly product of that career-papers, books, lectures-has been prodigious. Reviewing enough of this material to develop an easy familiarity with its central themes is a daunting task. Further, Chomsky's work is replete with formalisms and other technical expressions, making much of it unfathomable to those outside the field of linguistics. Because his views have changed frequently over time, any account of Chomskyan linguistics must carefully specify which works by Chomsky are being used as source material. And Chomsky's apparent penchant for historical revisionism-reinterpreting his past statements in a self-serving manner that often strains credulity (e.g., see Matthews, 1993, pp. 191-192)makes it even more difficult to get a
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, Apr 1, 2010
Three popular assertions have hindered the promotion of an empiricist approach to language acquis... more Three popular assertions have hindered the promotion of an empiricist approach to language acquisition: (a) that Brown and Hanlon (1970) claimed to offer data that parents do not reinforce their children's grammaticality; (b) that Brown and Hanlon also claimed to offer data that parents do not provide negative evidence (i.e., corrective feedback) for ungrammaticality; and (c) that Gold (1967) claimed to offer a formal proof showing that, without negative evidence, a child cannot acquire a language solely from environmental input. In this paper I offer introductory comments on the nature-nurture distinction (including interactionism, and the nativists' claim to have found a gene for language). Next I debunk the three aforementioned assertions by arguing that the authors (Brown & Hanlon; Gold) never made the claims attributed to them; review evidence on the role of reinforcement and corrective feedback in language acquisition; and offer some concluding comments.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 2010
Three popular assertions have hindered the promotion of an empiricist approach to language acquis... more Three popular assertions have hindered the promotion of an empiricist approach to language acquisition: (a) that Brown and Hanlon (1970) claimed to offer data that parents do not reinforce their children's grammaticality; (b) that Brown and Hanlon also claimed to offer data that parents do not provide negative evidence (i.e., corrective feedback) for ungrammaticality; and (c) that Gold (1967) claimed to offer a formal proof showing that, without negative evidence, a child cannot acquire a language solely from environmental input. In this paper I offer introductory comments on the nature-nurture distinction (including interactionism, and the nativists' claim to have found a gene for language). Next I debunk the three aforementioned assertions by arguing that the authors (Brown & Hanlon; Gold) never made the claims attributed to them; review evidence on the role of reinforcement and corrective feedback in language acquisition; and offer some concluding comments.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 1991
conceptual analyses of verbal understanding are presented. For Ryle, the term understanding signi... more conceptual analyses of verbal understanding are presented. For Ryle, the term understanding signifies simultaneously an acquired disposition and a behavioral episode. For Wittgenstein, it signifies simultaneously a skill and a criterial behavior. Both argued that episodes of understanding comprise heterogenious classes of behaviors, and that each member of such a class is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of understanding. Next, an approach integrating the analyses of Ryle and Wittgenstein with that of Skinner is presented. Lastly, it is argued that this integrated analysis adequately counters Parrott's (1984) argument that understanding, for Skinner, is potential behavior and not an event.
The Behavior Analyst, 2016
In BBehavioral Pragmatism: No Place for Reality and Truth,^Barnes-Holmes (2000) proposed a behavi... more In BBehavioral Pragmatism: No Place for Reality and Truth,^Barnes-Holmes (2000) proposed a behavior-analytic version of philosophical pragmatism he called behavioral pragmatism (BP), a perspective which challenges two bedrock tenets of Western culture: (1) metaphysical realism, the view that an external, physical reality exists which is mind-independent and (2) the correspondence theory of truth (CTT), a theory which maintains that true statements are those which correspond to mindindependent reality. Many (perhaps most) behavior analysts accept both of these tenets (though they typically name and describe these tenets using different terms). By contrast, in lieu of the first, BP offers, as a replacement tenet, nonrealism, in place of the second, the pragmatic truth criterion. The account of reality and truth of BP has gained increasing prominence within behavior analysis because of its inclusion within relational frame theory, a perspective with a growing number of adherents. In this paper, I first argue that the realism/pragmatism dispute needs to be resolved because it threatens the coherence of radical behaviorism as a philosophy of science. Next, I present a detailed account of the differing conceptions of reality and truth as articulated within: (1) metaphysical realism, (2) behavioral pragmatism, and (3) Richard Rorty's version of pragmatism (Rortian pragmatism). Finally, using the insights of Rortian pragmatism (RP), I offer three proposals for modifying the core tenets of behavioral pragmatism. If adopted, these proposals would help narrow the realism/pragmatism divide, thereby reducing the threat to radical behaviorism's coherence. Keywords Behavioral pragmatism. Pragmatic truth criterion. Metaphysical realism. Correspondence theory of truth. Rortian pragmatism. Barnes-Holmes. Richard Rorty Concisely put, metaphysics is Bthe study of ultimate reality^(van Inwagen 2009, p. 1). Among Western philosophers, a prominent, popular, and enduring approach to
The Journal of Speech and Language Pathology – Applied Behavior Analysis, 2006
Abstract Since the publication of Lovaas's (1987) seminal paper, serious questions have surf... more Abstract Since the publication of Lovaas's (1987) seminal paper, serious questions have surfaced regarding design features that compromise the validity of treatment efficacy data resulting from studies of early intensive behavioral treatment (EIBT) for children with ...
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 2000
In 1957 Noam Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, expressing views characterized as constituti... more In 1957 Noam Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, expressing views characterized as constituting a "revolution" in linguistics. Chomsky proposed that the proper subject matter of linguistics is not the utterances of speakers, but what speakers and listeners know. To that end, he theorized that what they know is a system of rules that underlie actual performance. This theory became known as transformational grammar. In subsequent versions of this theory, rules continued to play a dominant role. However, in 1980 Chomsky began a second revolution by proposing the elimination of rules in a new theory: the principles-and-parameters approach. Subsequent writings finalized the abandonment of rules. Given the centrality of rules to cognitivism, this paper argues that Chomsky's second revolution constitutes a departure from cognitivism. "In Woody Allen's story 'The Whore of Mensa,' the patron asks, 'Suppose I wanted Noam Chomsky explained to me by two girls?' 'It'd cost you,' she replies" (Pinker, 1994, p. 126; see Allen, 1972, pp. 32-38). Noam Chomsky's linguistics career spans half a century. The scholarly product of that career-papers, books, lectures-has been prodigious. Reviewing enough of this material to develop an easy familiarity with its central themes is a daunting task. Further, Chomsky's work is replete with formalisms and other technical expressions, making much of it unfathomable to those outside the field of linguistics. Because his views have changed frequently over time, any account of Chomskyan linguistics must carefully specify which works by Chomsky are being used as source material. And Chomsky's apparent penchant for historical revisionism-reinterpreting his past statements in a self-serving manner that often strains credulity (e.g., see Matthews, 1993, pp. 191-192)makes it even more difficult to get a
The soil is an important vehicle for the transmission of the protozoan Giardia duodenalis, which ... more The soil is an important vehicle for the transmission of the protozoan Giardia duodenalis, which causes the global disease giardiosis, gastroenteritis of changeable severity. The objective of this study was to evaluate different process of homogenization soil samples in order to know which of them is most effective for cysts detection and recovery. Four treatments of homogenization were performed with four replicates of each one. Each replicate contained 10g of soil contaminated with a 500 cysts, moistened with phosphate-buffered saline and shaked according to the following VII Congreso de Medio Ambiente /AUGM 2 treatments: vortex for 2 minutes; magnetic stirrer for 10 minutes, homogenization during 30 minutes in a rotary mixer; and manual homogenization for 5 minutes. After homogenization, the samples remained resting for 5 minutes on the bench in order to sediment and separate the coarser soil particles. Then the supernatant and the finer particles were centrifuged at 1050 x g for 10 minutes and the immunomagnetic separation was performed in the resulting pellet. The cysts were labeled and enumerated by immunofluorescence assay. There was no significant different found in the mean value of magnetic stirrer (81.07), rotary mixer (70.40) and manual homogenization (49.60). However, the replicates of rotary mixer showed themselves more homogeneous when separating the coarser particles from the finer ones that would be taken to centrifugation. Therefore, this treatment was chosen as the most effective and reproducible process. The mean from the vortex samples was the lowest (8.45) showing a significant difference from the others.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior
In What 's Within? Nativism Reconsidered (1999) Fiona Cowie addresses three questions: (1) What i... more In What 's Within? Nativism Reconsidered (1999) Fiona Cowie addresses three questions: (1) What is nativism? (2) What is meant by calling some trait "innate"? and (3) What types of evidence should be offered when claiming innateness? This review concentrates on these questions as they pertain to Chomsky's faculties-based account of language acquisition. In particular, this review focuses on Cowie's critique of three versions of the poverty of the stimulus argument (POSA): (1) the a posteriori POSA, (2) the logical problem POSA, and (3) the iterated POSA. In addition, counter arguments to her critique, and Cowie's response, in turn, to some of those counter arguments, are also reviewed.
The Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, Jun 22, 2007
The Journal of Speech and Language Pathology – Applied Behavior Analysis, 2007
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 1990
Skinner's (1957, 1974) distinction between three senses of the term understanding is presente... more Skinner's (1957, 1974) distinction between three senses of the term understanding is presented. For Skinner, a listener understands if she (a) can repeat back to the speaker what he has said; or (b) can respond appropriately; or (c) knows about the controlling variables. Next, a critique of Skinner's view by Parrott (1984; now L.J. Hayes) is presented. Parrott criticizes the first sense of understanding for simplifying a complex activity; the second for equating understanding with reinforcement mediation; and the third for defining understanding as potential behavior. Next, Parrott's two alternative views are presented. Understanding is (a) having perceptual responses of things when only their "names" are present, and (b) organizing objects and words into relational networks. Lastly, Skinner's and Parrott's views on understanding are evaluated, and Parrott's views are critiqued.
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2005
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2000
Edited correspondence between Ullin T. Place and Noam Chomsky, which occurred in 1993-1994, is pr... more Edited correspondence between Ullin T. Place and Noam Chomsky, which occurred in 1993-1994, is presented. The principal topics are (a) deep versus surface structure; (b) computer modeling of the brain; (c) the evolutionary origins of language; (d) behaviorism; and (e) a dispositional account of language. This correspondence includes Chomsky's denial that he ever characterized deep structure as innate; Chomsky's critique of computer modeling (both traditional and connectionist) of the brain; Place's critique of Chomsky's alleged failure to provide an adequate account of the evolutionary origins of language, and Chomsky's response that such accounts are "pop-Darwinian fairy tales"; and Place's arguments for, and Chomsky's against, the relevance of behaviorism to linguistic theory, especially the relevance of a behavioral approach to language that is buttressed by a dispositional account of sentence construction.
Uploads
Papers by Ted Schoneberger