that children who fail tests of derived relational responding may later pass them ..... The child should be required to point at the sample (observing response).
Chapter 7 Naming and Frames of Coordination Caio F. Miguel, California State University, Sacramento; and Anna I. Petursdottir, Texas Christian University
The study of derived stimulus relations has generated a large and fruitful body of research and application within behavior analysis. It has also generated some controversy regarding the origin of derived relational responding. The controversy centers on the observation that performance on tests of derived relations appears to be highly correlated with verbal ability. As a result, it has been debated whether or not such performances depend on the occurrence of covert behavior in the form of naming during training and testing (see Clayton & Hayes, 1999; Stromer & Mackay, 1996). For example, it has been noted that children who fail tests of derived relational responding may later pass them following explicit training to name the stimuli to be related (Dugdale & Lowe, 1990; Eikeseth & Smith, 1992). In addition, the nameability of stimuli (for example, how easy it is for the learner to pronounce them) seems to affect performance (Arntzen, 2004; Randell & Remington, 2006). However, derived relations have also been observed with animals, and individuals with minimal verbal repertoires, in which the occurrence of naming appears unlikely (Carr, Wilkinson, Blackman, & McIlvane, 2000). The debate has not yet been resolved, but it seems apparent that naming may greatly facilitate derived relational responding. When teaching children with autism or other disabilities, clinicians may be able to use training protocols for various curriculum components so that naming is employed to the learner’s advantage. In this chapter, we consider how naming has been conceptualized within behavior analysis, describe how naming repertoires may be established, and present several examples of how naming might be incorporated into intermediate language intervention curricula.
What Is Naming? In 1957, B. F. Skinner proposed that individual terms such as naming could be replaced with a functional taxonomy of verbal operants. For example, a child saying “cat” upon seeing a cat would be emitting a tact response, evoked by the sight of the cat, due to a history of that response being reinforced in the presence of cats. By contrast, upon hearing another person say, “Can you name an animal that has whiskers?” the same child saying “cat” would be emitting an intraverbal response, which would require a reinforcement history separate from that which established the tact response. Skinner’s analysis suggests that such verbal operants are functionally independent of what he referred to as the “behavior of the listener,” which largely involves responding receptively to the language emitted by others. Therefore, a child capable of responding to an adult’s saying “Look at the cat!” by orienting toward or pointing to a cat would not necessarily be able to say “cat” unless that skill had also been directly taught. However, it appears that, for verbally competent individuals, acquiring particular speaker or listener skills contributes to the development of more complex skills.
Naming as a Bidirectional Relation Recently it has been suggested that naming is a higher-order operant that involves, at minimum, a bidirectional relation between a spoken word and a particular stimulus (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001; Horne & Lowe, 1996). Naming is said to exist when the reinforcement of a listener relation is accompanied by the emergence of a speaker relation, or vice versa. Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche (2001) described naming as a simple frame of coordination, a type of relational response that is contextually controlled by cues of sameness or similarity. In the case of naming, the stimuli to be related consist of a word and its referent—for example, the sight of a cat and the word “cat”—whereas the relevant contextual cues may include “is,” “called,” and “name of.” According to this analysis, children come to respond relationally to words and their referents in a frame of coordination when contextual cues are present that in the past have resulted in reinforcement for symmetrical responding. For example, when a child is told that the animal that is running around the room “is” a cat, “is” may serve as a contextual cue for symmetrical responding; the next time the cat appears, the child may say “cat,” provided that the child has the relevant instructional history with the word “is.” Early in a child’s development, speaker relations, such as the tact, may be functionally independent of listener relations. In other words, the child may say “cat” when in the presence of a cat but may not orient toward the cat when a caregiver says “cat,” and vice versa. Then, following exposure to multiple instances of reinforcement for both tacts and listener relations involving the same objects in the presence of appropriate contextual cues, the child may begin to show untrained speaker and listener relations (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2000). Horne and Lowe (1996) propose a detailed history by which bidirectional naming may arise, initially through the incidental reinforcement of orienting responses that occur when a tact is reinforced, and through the reinforcement of self-echoic responses that occur when a listener relation is reinforced. For example, when a parent asks her child to
130
Derived Relational Responding
“go get the ball,” social reinforcement for retrieving the ball is also delivered contingent upon looking at the ball as well as repeating “ball” in the presence of the object. Repeated exposure to similar situations involving a variety of objects will create an interlocking set of speaker and listener relations. It is thus argued that naming is a higher-order operant involving a bidirectional relation consisting of two component relations: a speaker component (tact) and a listener component (receptive discrimination). Naming occurs when just one of these components, speaker or listener, suffices to establish both relations. Recent evidence suggests that bidirectional naming relations may be important in facilitating derived relational responding (Horne, Hughes, & Lowe, 2006; Miguel, Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael, 2008). Thus, there may be good reason for language intervention programs for children with disabilities to focus on the establishment of bidirectional naming skills. In the following sections, we will use the term tact training to refer to the reinforcement of a (typically vocal) response in the presence of a nonverbal stimulus; for example, reinforcing a child’s saying “cat” in the presence of a picture of a cat. We will use the term listener training to refer to the reinforcement of a selection response (for example, pointing to or touching one of a number of nonverbal stimuli) in the presence of a (typically vocal) verbal stimulus; asking a child to “find the cat” and then reinforcing the selection of a picture of a cat would be an example. (This procedure is also known as receptive discrimination training [see Miguel, Petursdottir, & Carr, 2005].) We will use the term naming to refer to the emergence of a derived tact or listener component following the direct establishment of the other component. That is, a child who receives listener training with respect to cats and dogs and is then able to tact cats and dogs, even though the tacts have never been reinforced, is demonstrating naming.
Teaching Naming Traditionally, manuals that describe early language interventions for children with disabilities have listed the completion of listener training protocols, often referred to as the training of receptive skills, as prerequisites to teaching corresponding tacts or other expressive language skills (Leaf & McEachin, 1999; Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996). For example, it is recommended that before a child is taught to vocalize color names in the presence of color stimuli, the child should be able to respond to vocally presented color names by selecting color stimuli from an array. This recommendation is consistent with what seems to occur in typical language development (Fraser, Bellugi, & Brown, 1963). However, it may not be the most efficient sequence if the goal is to establish bidirectional naming relations. In fact, the reverse sequence may be more productive. Specifically, among children both with and without disabilities, it appears that tact training is more likely than listener training to generate both tact and listener skills (Connell & McReynolds, 1981; Wynn & Smith, 2003). In addition, tact training may consume fewer training trials than listener training does (Cuvo & Riva, 1980), and prior listener training may not necessarily facilitate the acquisition of new tacts (Miller, Cuvo, & Borakove, 1977). Thus, it may be wise to begin tact instruction early on in language intervention programs. As mentioned earlier, it seems that in typical language development children acquire naming via a history of multiple-exemplar training. Applying this notion to teaching children with developmental delays, Greer, Stolfi, Chavez-Brown, and Rivera-Valdes Chapter 7
131
(2005) found that children who did not initially tact objects when they were trained in listener relations did so following a history of multiple-exemplar training. Likewise, listener responses may well emerge as a result of tact training, as was shown in a study by Guess and Baer (1973), who found that failure of a tactlike training condition to generate appropriate listener responding was overcome when tact trials were interspersed with reinforced listener trials. Some practitioners have, in fact, long recommended interspersing tact and listener trials during training (Sundberg & Partington, 1998) rather than adhering to the more commonly proposed receptive-before-expressive instructional sequence. Additional strategies for promoting the acquisition of naming include reinforcing echoic (vocal imitation) responses during listener training trials. That is, a child who does not tact objects following listener training, despite being able to echo the names of those objects, might benefit from being prompted to echo vocal stimuli presented on listener trials during future listener training (see Horne & Lowe, 2000).
Recommendations for Establishing Vocal Naming 1.
Assessing prerequisite skills: a. Ensure that the child has acquired a generalized echoic (vocal imitation) repertoire. b. Ensure that the child has acquired a number of basic tacts and listener relations involving the same stimuli. In other words, will she label a number of objects and identify those same objects in an array that contains at least one other object by pointing or touching? c. Ensure that instructional control of those skills has been established. In other words, will the child respond to the question “What’s this?” when shown an object or picture, and identify an object or picture by pointing or touching when told to find the item?
2.
Tact training: a. Begin instruction on new naming targets with tact training. For example, a first step to teaching color naming might be to reinforce the vocal response “yellow” in the presence of a yellow stimulus. If it appears that a child has difficulty acquiring new tacts but not listener relations, it may be advisable to begin with listener training and test for the emergence of tacts. (Although we generally recommend beginning with tact rather than listener training, some children may more easily acquire bidirectional naming relations with listener than with tact training [Wynn & Smith, 2003].)
3.
Listener test: a. Following the mastery of each new tact, test for the emergence of a listener relation. For example, present a yellow stimulus along with a different colored stimulus and ask, “Which one is yellow?”
4.
Multiple-exemplar training and testing: a. If the child consistently responds correctly on listener trials (in other words, touches the yellow stimulus), continue training other tacts (such as “black”),
132
Derived Relational Responding
and testing the corresponding listener relation (for example, “Which one is black?”). b. If, following tact training, the child typically responds correctly on listener trials, this means that the tact training resulted in bidirectional naming. c. If the child does not consistently respond correctly on listener trials following tact training on the first relation, train the listener relation directly. Then go on to train another tact, and test listener relations while continuing to allow the child to practice both of the already mastered “yellow” relations. 5.
Troubleshooting: a. If, after training a number of exemplars, the child does not begin to respond correctly, additional manipulations might involve interspersing tact and listener trials (see Greer et al., 2005), in which a tact training trial is immediately followed by the corresponding listener trial throughout training. This should be done until the training of one of the skills results in the emergence of the other.
Ultimately we would hope to see a decrease in the amount of direct tact training required in order to establish the new naming relations. That is, the eventual goal should be for the child to acquire at least some new naming relations as a result of merely being taught the name of an object. We now go on to consider how naming may be used to facilitate the acquisition of other frames of coordination and categorization skills. In the following sections, when we speak of tact training, we will generally assume a learner for whom tact training may already establish bidirectional naming relations.
Frames of Coordination The relational responding that comprises what we have called a frame of coordination has been the object of study for stimulus equivalence researchers for many years (see Sidman, 1994). This research has focused on the study of stimulus classes whose members are not physically similar but serve similar behavioral functions, such as the relationship between an object or picture and its corresponding spoken name and printed word. Learning to substitute these stimuli for each other under specific conditions seems to be of practical concern to those working with children with disabilities. When asked to point to a ball, for example, a child should be able to point to either a ball, a picture of a ball, or the printed word ball. If, however, a child is asked to kick the ball, only one stimulus (the actual ball) should function as an effective discriminative stimulus for this response. The matching-to-sample procedure (MTS) has long been used in the study of stimulus equivalence (see chapter 8 of this volume). It is also a common method used to teach numerous skills to children diagnosed with autism and other developmental disabilities (Maurice et al., 1996; Sundberg & Partington, 1998). In MTS, a single stimulus (sample) is presented followed by two or more other stimuli (comparisons). For instance, a teacher may show a picture of a ball as a sample, and the printed words ball, car, and hammer as comparisons. Selecting one of the comparisons is always reinforced in the presence of one Chapter 7
133
specific sample, but not in the presence of others. In the previous example, selecting the printed word ball would only be reinforced in the presence of the picture of the ball. As a result, the discriminative function of the comparison stimuli for the selection response becomes dependent upon the presence of a specific sample. When individuals learn to respond this way, they are said to have learned conditional discriminations (Green & Saunders, 1998). If, during a series of MTS tasks, individuals learn to match comparisons with sample stimuli, it is suggested that stimulus substitutability between sample and comparison has been achieved. Such substitutability between the stimuli does not always seem to occur for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities; however, it may be achieved by merely teaching individuals to tact stimuli. It has been reported that performance on matchingto-sample tasks (Eikeseth & Smith, 1992) and on relational responding can be greatly improved by teaching individuals to tact related stimuli with a common name (Goyos, 2000). These results imply that, for learners for whom tact training already establishes bidirectional naming relations, tact training alone may be sufficient for the establishment of frames of coordination, as shown by mastered performance on matching-to-sample tasks. Listener training alone, however, may also be sufficient (Miguel et al., 2008). In one of our clinical studies, two preschoolers diagnosed with autism demonstrated substitutability among spoken words, pictures, and printed words after receiving either listener or speaker training (Stone, Miguel, & Gould, 2006). Listener training consisted of a typical MTS preparation involving reinforcement contingent on AB relations (selecting a picture after hearing the name of the object in the picture) and AC relations (selecting the printed word after hearing the name). Speaker training consisted of reinforcement of tact (BD) relations (saying the name of the picture in its presence) and textual (CD) relations (reading the textual stimulus when presented). Both speaker and listener training procedures took approximately the same number of trials in order to be mastered. In addition to the BC (selecting the correct printed word in the presence of its picture referent) and CB (selecting the correct picture referent in the presence of the word) derived relations, participants were able to select the correct pictures when hearing the names of the objects in the pictures (listener behavior) after learning the tact and textual relations (speaker behavior) and vice versa, which suggested that naming skills had been acquired. These studies have important clinical implications. Once bidirectional naming skills are acquired, as previously described, speaker training alone may serve to establish frames of coordination such as the ones involved in reading comprehension. Thus, for a child to comprehend that the printed words ball and pelota and a picture of a ball have the same meaning, it may be sufficient to teach her to label all of these stimuli as “ball.” If the child were to only label the printed word ball (textual behavior), this could not be considered reading since there is no guarantee that such training would establish the printed word, object, and spoken word as equivalent. Reading comprehension can only be achieved when word and referent are related to one another in a frame of coordination (see figure 7.1).
134
Derived Relational Responding
Object
Label
Auditory
Picture
Printed Word
Figure 7.1. Relations involved in a frame of coordination among auditory stimuli (words spoken by experimenter), objects, pictures, printed words, and labels (words spoken by the participant). Solid lines depict the components of the listener and speaker relations (naming). Dotted lines depict derived, or untrained, relations.
Recommendations for Establishing Frames of Coordination via Speaker Training 1.
Tact training (BD): a. Select at least three pictures of objects and their respective printed words (six stimuli total). These pictures can be labeled B1, B2 and B3. Examples may include a picture of a bike (B1), a car (B2), and a truck (B3). b. Each trial begins with the presentation of a sample picture (B). Stimuli may be presented one at a time. Say, “What is this?” while pointing to the picture. Use a prompt-delay or errorless training procedure (echoic prompt) for the child’s vocal responses (D).
2.
Textual training (CD): a. Repeat steps a and b above, replacing B1, B2, and B3 with the printed words bike (C1), car (C2), and truck (C3).
3.
Mixed training (BD/CD): a. Repeat the procedures described above, mixing tact (oral labeling, BD) and textual (“reading,” CD) trials.
4.
Derived relations test (CB and BC): Chapter 7
135
a. Each trial begins with the presentation of either a picture (B) or a printed word (C). The child should be required to point at the sample (observing response) prior to the presentation of the comparison (either B or C stimuli). b. Presentation of comparison stimuli should be randomized so that each picture serves as a correct choice the same number of times in the right, middle, and left positions. c. These trials should not be reinforced; therefore, BD (tact) and CD (textual) trials can be interspersed and reinforced to keep the child motivated. 5.
Troubleshooting: a. If the child fails to match the correct printed word to the picture (CB) and the correct picture to the printed word (BC) stimuli, this skill should be taught directly using the same errorless training procedure as in 1 and 2 above.
Recommendations for Establishing Frames of Coordination via Listener Training 1.
Receptive discrimination of pictures (AB): a. Select at least three pictures of objects and their respective printed words (six stimuli total). These pictures of objects can be labeled B1, B2, and B3. Examples may include a picture of a bike (B1), a car (B2), and a truck (B3). b. Each trial begins with the presentation of a sample spoken by the experimenter. Sample stimuli can be labeled A1, A2, and A3. Examples include the words (spoken by the experimenter) “bike” (A1), “car” (A2), and “truck” (A3). c. If the child can echo, require that she repeat the sample. This guarantees that the child is attending to the sample (observing response). d. After the child repeats the sample, present the three comparison stimuli: B1, B2, and B3 (pictures). e. Use a most-to-least prompt-delay or errorless training procedure to teach the child to point to the correct comparison stimulus. f. Presentation of comparison stimuli should be randomized so each picture serves as a correct choice the same number of times in the right, middle, and left positions.
2.
Receptive discrimination of printed words (AC): a. Repeat steps A through F above, replacing B1, B2, and B3 with the printed words bike (C1), car (C2), and truck (C3).
3.
Mixed training (AB-BA): a. Repeat the procedures described above mixing spoken-word-to-picture (AB) and picture-to-spoken-word (BA) trials.
136
Derived Relational Responding
4.
Derived relations test (CB and BC): a. Each trial begins with the presentation of either a picture (B) or a printed word (C). The child should be required to point at the sample (observing response) prior to the presentation of the comparison (either B or C stimuli). b. Presentation of comparison stimuli should be randomized so each picture serves as a correct choice the same number of times in the right, middle, and left positions. c. These trials should not be reinforced; therefore, picture-to-word (BC) and word-to-picture (CB) trials can be interspersed and reinforced to keep the child motivated.
5.
Troubleshooting: a. If the child fails to match the correct printed word to picture (BC) and the correct picture to printed word (CB), this skill should be taught directly using the same errorless training procedure as in 1 and 2 above. For more details regarding this type of training see Green and Saunders (1998).
Naming and Stimulus Categorization The process of determining how to group objects or events together is usually called categorization or classification, while those objects or events that cohere may be regarded as a category or a class. It is often assumed by cognitive scientists that the categorization process is dependent upon the acquisition of specific concepts (Quilliam, 1968; Rosch, 1975). These concepts are said to be units of mental representation that are independent of any behavior-environment relation (Zentall, Galizio, & Critchfield, 2002). A concept, however, should be defined as a group of objects (such as stimuli or actions) that control similar responses. The concept “chair,” for instance, involves a collection of objects that evoke sitting behavior. As a result, concepts may be equated to stimulus classes, or groups of stimuli that exert the same function. It is believed that stimulus equivalence serves as a useful model for what cognitive psychologists refer to as language categories (Galizio, Stewart, & Pilgrim, 2001; Pilgrim & Galizio, 1996). When different objects produce the same speaker-and-listener behavior, they are said to acquire the same meaning (Horne & Lowe, 1996). For example, a child may learn to react as a listener when hearing the word “animal” by looking at the animal (such as a bird). Later, when learning that a giraffe, which she has never seen before, is also called an “animal,” the child would be able to appropriately label the giraffe by saying “animal” in its presence. When she hears herself saying “animal” (either overtly or covertly), all of the behaviors previously associated with hearing someone say “animal” would occur. This would include categorizing or putting together all of the stimuli or objects previously called “animals.” A series of studies conducted in the last five years (Horne, Lowe, & Randle, 2004; Horne et al., 2006; Lowe, Horne, Harris, & Randle, 2002; Lowe, Horne, & Hughes, 2005; Miguel et al., 2008) have evaluated effective procedures for producing categorization skills in young children: children between one and six years old were taught to Chapter 7
137
either label two sets of objects with a common name (speaker behavior; for example, label pictures of northern and southern American state maps as either “north” or “south”), or point to the objects given a common name by the experimenter (the listener behavior; for example, select the correct picture of a state map when hearing either “north” or “south”). After this training, children were tested to see whether they could categorize these same objects. The categorization test included presenting both sets of visual stimuli (for example, pictures) to the participants. One of the stimuli was then withdrawn from the array and held up in front of the participants (for example, a northern state). Participants were then asked to select the remaining stimuli belonging to the same set (the two remaining northern states). Results from all studies suggest that children who acquired bidirectional naming relations (listener and speaker) also demonstrated untrained stimulus sorting skills. In other words, it was only when children were able to label the pictures as “north” and “south” and receptively select the pictures from an array when hearing either “north” or “south” spoken by the experimenter that they were able to match the pictures by category—a skill that is targeted and expanded upon in many early childhood settings. By contrast, children who failed to acquire tacts as a result of listener training (or vice versa) did not correctly match the stimuli. These studies have important applied implications. The skill of sorting or matching objects or pictures by category (for example, sorting pictures of maps of northern and southern states) may develop with no direct training when children learn to tact pictures and objects with a common category name. In our own clinical practice, we have observed derived categorization or sorting after teaching common tacts to children diagnosed with autism (Miguel, 2006; Miguel, Kobari, & Findley, 2009). After children were taught to tact the name and the category of several pictures belonging to three different stimulus sets, they demonstrated derived sorting skills. In other words, after being taught to label pictures of foods, clothing, and animals by name and category (for example, “This is a bear and an animal”); children were able to sort these pictures into categories by placing them into different piles according to the category to which they belonged. Hence, emergent sorting or categorization skills may be obtained if children are first taught to tact the pictures to be sorted (see figure 7.2).
Recommendations for Establishing Derived Categorization Skills 1.
Simple tact training (naming stimuli): a. Select nine to twelve pictures or objects belonging to three different categories. Possibilities include animals, furniture, and clothing. b. Stimuli may be presented in an array or one at a time. Say, “What is this?” while pointing to the item. Use a prompt-delay or errorless training procedure.
2.
Multiple-tact training (naming stimuli and categories): a. With three items on the table, say, “What is this?” while pointing to one item. After the initial response, state, “Right. This is a [item], and [prompt the category name using the same prompt hierarchy as in 1 above].” Use prompt delay or errorless training procedure until the child can reliably tact both the name and category of each stimulus.
138
Derived Relational Responding
Visual Exemplar 1
Visual Exemplar 2
Auditory 1
Auditory Common
Auditory 2
Label 1
Label Common
Label 2
Figure 7.2. Relations typically involved in programs that teach categorization. For simplification, a category is shown that contains only two exemplars. A frame of coordination is shown among visual stimuli, common auditory stimuli (words spoken by the teacher), and common labels (words spoken by the learner). Hierarchical relations are shown between common auditory stimuli and exemplar-specific labels, and vice versa. In addition, relations are shown between different exemplar-specific labels. Solid lines depict the components of the listener and speaker relations (naming). 3.
Category test:
a. Place one item from each category in a clear bin, one per bin, or on the table in front of the child (the child should be able to see the picture or object if it is in a bin). Present the remaining stimuli to the student and state, “Put these in categories,” “Put these in the right bins,” “Match,” or “Sort.” (Use familiar instructions and be consistent across trials; to establish instructional control, the child should be exposed to similar procedures with familiar items.) 4.
Troubleshooting: a. If the child fails to categorize, this skill should be taught directly using the same errorless training procedure as in 1 and 2 above. (Sample data sheets are provided in this chapter’s appendix.)
Although the success of this methodology has been extensively demonstrated with typically developing children, we are currently evaluating its effectiveness with children diagnosed with autism; therefore, the above recommendation should be taken with caution. However, if individuals with disabilities, many of whom require numerous trials to learn how to sort pictures and objects, are able to categorize after learning to tact Chapter 7
139
stimuli, then categorization would not need to be taught directly but would emerge as an outcome of these language training procedures. In addition to teaching children to categorize visual stimuli and name categories, curricula designed for use with individuals with autism (Leaf & McEachin, 1999; Maurice et al., 1996; Sundberg & Partington, 1998) typically include programs designed to establish hierarchical intraverbal relations between category names and exemplar names (for example, to answer questions such as “What are some animals?” or “What is a cat?”). It is generally assumed that these skills will be taught directly, typically subsequent to teaching exemplar naming, categorization of visual stimuli, and common naming. It is possible, however, that the categorization curriculum can be structured such that those skills will emerge in the absence of direct training. It appears, that it should be possible to structure the training of the other components of a categorization curriculum in such a way that those skills would emerge without direct training given the appropriate contextual cues (see figure 7.2). For example, if a child has learned to respond with both “cat” and “animal” upon seeing a cat, we might expect the emergence of intraverbal relations between “cat” and “animal.” Or, if a child has learned “cat” as a tact and then learns to respond with “animal” to the question “What is a cat?” we might expect to see the child select a cat from among other stimuli in response to the question “Which one is an animal?” So far, such effects have not been demonstrated. Studies on the effects of combining tact and/or listener training of exemplar names and category names have generally demonstrated minimal effects on typically developing children’s intraverbal responding (Miguel et al., 2005; Partington & Bailey, 1993; Petursdottir et al., 2008). In addition, we found little evidence that direct intraverbal training, in combination with training of exemplar names, resulted in the emergence of other relations (Petursdottir et al., 2008). For one of two children we worked with, one instance of training resulted in the emergence of bidirectional relations with respect to common category names; however, the effects of these different training sequences remain to be further investigated.
Conclusion We have described the naming repertoire as composed of the bidirectional relation between listener and speaker behavior, or, in other words, the frame of coordination between words and their referents. The emergence of either speaker or listener behavior after the direct training of one of those skills could be referred to as derived naming. Like any other relational frame, naming is a higher-order operant established via a history of direct reinforcement of the word-object bidirectionality with multiple stimuli. This history encompasses the contingencies involved in child-caregiver interactions at early stages of language development (Horne & Lowe, 1996). However, when language fails to develop as a consequence of this typical history of reinforcement (as is the case with many children with developmental disabilities), the task of teaching complex linguistic skills such as derived naming lies with educators. As previously mentioned, the establishment of naming skills is important for many reasons. First, it allows us to overcome the functional independence of listener (receptive) and speaker (expressive) behavior that may be observed in early speakers with and without developmental delays. Second, naming may be important in facilitating the acquisition
140
Derived Relational Responding
of additional frames of coordination, such as the one involved in reading comprehension. Third, it may serve to remedy failures observed during conditional discrimination tasks. Finally, it facilitates the development of derived nonverbal responding such as stimulus categorization. We should stress that, although we have made suggestions for teaching language to children with autism and other developmental disabilities, the existing data on naming and derived relational responding in such special populations is limited. Although these data are promising, further work is necessary to translate findings from basic experimental research into application. The suggestions presented here are direct extrapolations from a body of experimental research that has included mostly typically developing children as participants, or laboratory experiments involving educationally irrelevant stimuli. Thus, we hope that our suggestions will inspire future applied research that will pave the way for effective application.
References Arntzen, E. (2004). Probability of equivalence formation: Familiar stimuli and training sequence. Psychological Record, 54, 275–291. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Cullinan, V. (2000). Relational frame theory and Skinner’s Verbal Behavior: A possible synthesis. Behavior Analyst, 23, 69–84. Carr, D., Wilkinson, K. M., Blackman, D., & McIlvane, W. J. (2000). Equivalence classes with individuals with minimal verbal repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 101–114. Clayton, M. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1999). Conceptual differences in the analysis of stimulus equivalence. Psychological Record, 49, 145–161. Connell, P. J., & McReynolds, L. (1981). An experimental analysis of children’s generalization during lexical learning: Comprehension or production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 309–332. Cuvo, A. J., & Riva, M. T. (1980). Generalization and transfer between comprehension and production: A comparison of retarded and nonretarded persons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 315–331. Dugdale, N., & Lowe. C. F. (1990). Naming and stimulus equivalence. In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behaviour analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies. Hove, England: Erlbaum. Eikeseth, S., & Smith, T. (1992). The development of functional and equivalence classes in high-functioning autistic children: The role of naming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 123–133. Fraser, C., Bellugi, U., & Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension, and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 121–135. Galizio, M., Stewart, K. L., & Pilgrim, C. (2001). Clustering in artificial categories: An equivalence analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 609–614.
Chapter 7
141
Goyos, C. (2000). Equivalence class formation via common reinforcers among preschool children. Psychological Record, 50, 629–654. Green, G., & Saunders, R. R. (1998). Stimulus equivalence. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Greer, R. D., Stolfi, L., Chavez-Brown, M., & Rivera-Valdes, C. (2005). The emergence of the listener to speaker component of naming in children as a function of multiple exemplar instruction. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21, 123–134. Guess, D., & Baer, D. M. (1973). An analysis of individual differences in generalization between receptive and productive language in retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 311–329. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A postSkinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum. Horne, P. J., Hughes, J. C., & Lowe, C. F. (2006). Naming and categorization in young children: IV. Listener behavior training and transfer of function. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 247–273. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (2000). Putting the naming account to the test: Preview of an experimental program. In J. C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analysis of human behavior. Reno, NV: Context Press. Horne, P. J., Lowe, C. F., & Randle, V. R. L. (2004). Naming and categorization in young children: II. Listener behavior training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 81, 267–288. Leaf, R., & McEachin, J. (1999). A work in progress: Behavior management strategies and a curriculum for intensive behavioral treatment of autism. New York: DRL. Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., Harris, F. D. A., & Randle, V. R. L. (2002). Naming and categorization in young children: Vocal tact training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 527–549. Lowe, C. F., Horne, P. J., & Hughes, J. C. (2005). Naming and categorization in young children: III. Vocal tact training and transfer of function. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83, 47–65. Maurice, C., Green, G., & Luce, S. (Eds.). (1996). Behavioral intervention for young children with autism: A manual for parents and professionals. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Miguel, C. F. (2006). Language development: A behavior analytic research agenda. Paper presented at the annual convention of the California Association for Behavior Analysis, Burlingame, CA. Miguel, C. F., Kobari, V., & Findlay, K. (2009). The effects of multiple tact training on the emergence of naming and categorization by children with autism. Paper presen-
142
Derived Relational Responding
ted at the annual convention of the California Association for Behavior Analysis, Burlingame, CA. Miguel, C. F., Petursdottir, A. I., & Carr, J. E. (2005). The effects of multiple-tact and receptive-discrimination training on the acquisition of intraverbal behavior. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21, 27–41. Miguel, C. F., Petursdottir, A. I., Carr, J. E., & Michael, J. (2008). The role of naming in stimulus categorization by preschool children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89, 383–405. Miller, M. A., Cuvo, A. J., & Borakove, J. (1977). Teaching naming of coin values: Comprehension before production versus production alone [Abstract]. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 735–736. Partington, J. W., & Bailey, J. S. (1993). Teaching intraverbal behavior to preschool children. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 11, 9–18. Petursdottir, A. I., Carr, J. E., Lechago, S. A., & Almason, S. M. (2008). An evaluation of intraverbal training and listener training for teaching categorization skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 53–68. Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1996). Stimulus equivalence: A class of correlations or a correlation of classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier. Quilliam, M. R. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky, (Ed.), Semantic information processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Randell, T., & Remington, B. (2006). Equivalence relations, contextual control, and naming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 337–354. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Stone, A. M., Miguel, C. F., & Gould, D. D. (2006). The effects of conditional discrimination and tact-textual training on the development of equivalence classes. Poster presented at the annual convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Atlanta, GA. Stromer, R., & Mackay, H. A. (1996). Naming and the formation of stimulus classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier. Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W. (1998). Teaching language to children with autism or other developmental disabilities. Pleasant Hill, CA: Behavior Analysts, Inc. Wynn, J. W., & Smith T. (2003). Generalization between receptive and expressive language in young children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 18, 245–266.
Chapter 7
143
Zentall, T. R., Galizio, M., & Critchfield, T. S. (2002). Categorization, concept learning, and behavior analysis: An introduction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 237–248.
Authors’ Notes The preparation of this chapter has been partially supported by the California State University, Sacramento, RCA Summer Fellowship awarded to the first author. We would like to thank Katharine Findlay for helping to create the data sheets included in the appendix.
144
Derived Relational Responding
APPENDIX Data Sheets for Categorization Procedure
Categorization Testing1 Instruction: “Match.” Correct trial: Child responds by matching the sample to the comparison from the same category → “Okay.” → (+) Incorrect trial: Child responds by matching the sample to a comparison from another category → “Okay.” → (-) or does not respond within 5 seconds → “Okay.” → (-) Block 1 Circle one: Pre-Test/Post-Test Teacher Date
Block 2 Circle one: Pre-Test/Post-Test Teacher Date
IVI 2
IVI
Trial
Sample
L
M
R
+/-
Ø Sr+
LMR
Trial
Sample
L
M
R
+/-
Ø Sr+
LMR
1
B3
B1
A3
C2
1
A2
B2
A1
C3
2
A1
C1
B2
A3
2
C3
C1
B2
A3
3
C2
A1
C3
B2
3
B1
A1
B3
C2
4
A3
B2
A1
C3
4
B2
B1
A3
C2
5
B2
A2
B3
C1
5
C1
A3
C2
B1
6
C3
B3
C1
A2
6
B3
C3
A1
B2
7
B1
B3
C2
A1
7
C2
B1
A2
C3
8
A2
A3
C2
B1
8
A1
A2
C1
B3
9
C1
A2
B1
C3
9
A3
A2
B3
C1
# correct
/ 9 =
%
# correct
Block 1 Circle one: Pre-Test/Post-Test Teacher Date Sample
L
M
R
+/-
Ø Sr+
LMR
1
C1
B3
A1
C2
2
B2
C1
B3
A2
3
A3
A2
C1
B3
4
A1
B1
C3
A2
5
B3
B2
C3
A1
6
A2
C2
B1
A3
7
C3
A3
C2
B1
8
B1
B2
A3
C1
9
C2
A1
B2
C3
/ 9 =
%
IVI
Trial
# correct
/ 9 =
%
Prompting: All blocks should be completed in one session. Instructions should be given without any visual or physical cues. Reinforcement: Trials are not reinforced. Reinforced maintenance trials may be interspersed (every 2 to 3 trials) Scoring: + Indicates correct responding without prompt. – indicates incorrect or response after 5 seconds of the delivery of the instruction. Mastery: N/A Categories: 1 2 3 Exemplars: A1 A2 C3 B1 B2 C3 C1 C2 C3
1 Categorization Testing is conducted under extinction. Teacher should acknowledge response (e.g., “okay”) regardless of accuracy. Reinforced mastered trials can be interspersed with categorization trials. 2 The last two columns of each block are for collection of independent variable integrity (IVI) data. Teacher should make a + or – on whether reinforcement was/was not delivered (Ø Sr+) and whether the comparisons were presented in the correct position in front of the participant (LMR)
146
Derived Relational Responding
Multiple-Tact: Category Mixed Instruction: “What is this?” Correct Prompt: Child responds with the correct exemplar name. —> “That’s right! And what else? [Category name]” Child responds with correct category name. —> “Good job!” —> +p. Correct Ind: Child responds with the correct exemplar and category name before prompt. —> “Good Job!” + Incorrect Trial: Child responds with an incorrect exemplar or category name, or does not respond within 5 seconds. —> Prompt: “What is this?” [Exemplar and Category names] a. Child responds with the correct exemplar and category name —> “Good Job!” —> -. b. Child responds with only exemplar name, only category name, an incorrect exemplar or category name, or does not respond within 5 seconds. —> [Exemplar and Category.] —> -. Block 1 Teacher
Date
Block 2 Teacher
IVI
Date
IVI
Trial
Exemplar
Category
+p/+/-
Sr+
Exe
Trial
Exemplar
Category
+p/+/-
Sr+
Exe
1
B2
2
1
A1
1
2
A1
1
2
C2
2
3
A3
3
3
B3
3
A2
2
C2
2
4
5
B3
3
5
C1
1
6
A2
2
6
B2
2
7
B1
1
7
C3
3
8
C3
3
8
B1
1
9
A3
3
4
9
C1
# correct
1
/ 9 =
Block 1 Teacher
%
# correct
Date
/ 9 =
Block 1 Teacher
IVI
%
Date
IVI
Trial
Exemplar
Category
+p/+/-
Sr+
Exe
Trial
Exemplar
Category
+p/+/-
Sr+
Exe
1
A3
3
1
C3
3
B3
3
2
C1
1
2
3
A2
2
3
C1
1
4
B2
2
4
C2
2
5
C3
3
5
A1
1
6
A1
1
6
B2
2
7
B3
3
7
A3
3
8
A2
2
9
B1
8
B1
9
B2
# correct
1 2
/ 9 =
%
# correct
1
/ 9 =
%
Prompting: Begin with two blocks at a 0-second delay. Proceed to prompting at a 1-second delay, until the child has 2 consecutive blocks of +8/9. Proceed to prompting at a 2-second delay, until the child has 2 consecutive blocks of +8/9. Proceed to prompting at a 3-second delay, until the child has 2 consecutive blocks of +8/9. Proceed to prompting at a 4-second delay, until the child has 2 consecutive blocks of +8/9. Instructions should be given without any visual or physical cues. If the child makes three consecutive errors within a block, return to previous second delay and repeat trials. Reinforcement: Trials are reinforced at the prescribed prompt. Differentially reinforce independent responses (prior to the prompt) by increasing the magnitude of the reinforcer and by being more enthusiastic. Scoring: +p indicates correct answer was prompted (i.e., all 0-second delay). + indicates correct answer without prompting. - indicates incorrect answer, or delay in delivering correct answer Categories: 1 2 3 Exemplars: A1 A2 C3 B1 B2 C3 C1 C2 C3
Chapter 7
147
LISTENER TESTING3 Instruction: “Give me the [Category].” Correct Trial: Child responds by choosing the comparison from the correct category —> “Okay.” —> + Incorrect Trial: Child responds by choosing a comparison from another category —> “Okay.” —> - Or does not respond within 5 seconds —> “Okay.” —> -
Block 1 Circle one: Pre-Test/Post-Test Teacher Date
Block 1 Circle one: Pre-Test/Post-Test Teacher Date
IVI 2
IVI 2
Trial
L
M
R
Category
+/-
Ø Sr+
LMR
Trial
L
M
R
Category
+/-
Ø Sr+
LMR
1
A1
A2
A3
3
1
B3
B1
B2
1
2
A2
A1
A3
1
2
B2
B1
B3
2
3
A2
A3
A1
2
3
B2
B3
B1
3
4
A3
A1
A2
3
4
B1
B3
B2
2
5
A3
A1
A2
2
5
B3
B2
B1
1
6
A1
A2
A3
1
6
B3
B2
B1
3
7
A3
A2
A1
2
7
B1
B2
B3
2
8
A2
A3
A1
1
8
B1
B3
B2
1
9
A1
A3
A2
3
9
B2
B1
B3
3
# correct
/ 9 =
%
# correct
Block 1 Circle one: Pre-Test/Post-Test Teacher Date Trial
L
1 2
/ 9 =
Block 1 Circle one: Pre-Test/Post-Test Teacher Date
IVI
M
R
Category
+/-
Ø Sr+
LMR
Trial
L
M
C2
C1
C3
3
1
C1
A3
C1
C2
C3
2
2
B2
A1
3
C3
C2
C1
1
3
C3
B1
4
C2
C3
C1
2
4
B1
5
C2
C3
C1
3
5
B3
6
C1
C2
C3
1
6
7
C3
C1
C2
3
7
8
C3
C1
C2
1
8
9
C1
C3
C2
2
9
/ 9 =
%
# correct
%
+/-
Ø Sr+
LMR
B2
C3
A2
C2
A3
C2
A1
B2
C1
A3
A2
C3
B1
B3
A2
C1
A1
B3
C2
# correct
R
Category
IVI
/ 9 =
%
Prompting: All blocks should be completed in one session. Instructions should be given without any visual or physical cues. Reinforcement: Trials are not reinforced. Reinforced maintenance trials may be interspersed (every 2 to 3 trials) Scoring: + indicates correct responding without prompt. – indicates incorrect or no response after 5 seconds of the delivery of the instruction. Mastery: N/A Categories: 1 2 3 Exemplars: A1 A2 C3 B1 B2 C3 C1 C2 C3
3 Listener Testing is conducted under extinction. Teacher should acknowledge response (e.g., “okay”) regardless of accuracy. Reinforced mastered trials can be interspersed with listener trials.
148
Derived Relational Responding
