is by and large satisfactory. For example, re

1989, 52, 193-196

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR

NUMBER

2

(SEPTEMBER)

SPEAKING OF BEHAVIOR "Etymology is the archaeology of thought" (Skinner, 1989, p. 13). Some of the most important interactions in one who plods through the following outline behavior analysis are those that occur in the that the range of possibility is nearly without laboratory, where we make systematic contact bound. The reader may also get the feeling with the behavior that is our subject matter. that much of the research is little more than In that setting, we sometimes come to discrim- an exercise in esoterica. Even Skinnerians are inate some features of behavior from others, occasionally beset with such intimations. Reand if those discriminations are useful we may covery from such self-doubt usually takes the try to teach them to others. But typically we form of listing the various applications in eddo not do so directly; instead, the medium of ucational, industrial, organizational and therinstruction is verbal behavior. Perhaps that is apeutic settings that have been made (which, one reason why we place so much emphasis admittedly, are many)" (Reber, 1985, pp. 631on defining our terms and on debating matters 632). After three columns on various schedof commonplace and technical word usage. ules, Reber closes with: "There are others but The concern with vocabularies is long- enough is enough" (Reber, 1985, p. 633). Such standing in psychology. Dictionaries of psy- editorializing seems inappropriate in a general chology have a substantial history (e.g., Chap- dictionary, and Reber has not chosen to apply lin, 1968; Drever, 1952; Harriman, 1947; it to other topics to which some students ocWarren, 1934), though quantitative compar- casionally have had difficulty in warming up ison of their prevalence with that in other dis- (e.g., verbal learning procedures or measureciplines is precluded by differences in the ages ments of threshold). and sizes of the disciplines. In dictionaries of Despite these serious reservations, his arpsychology, the quality of definitions varies ticles on particular terms are often substantial over a wide range, and sometimes even mis- and informative, and his treatments stand up leading definitions include particular insights. well to those in other extant works. The shortFor example, a definition of reinforcement in comings of two competing works have already one dictionary gives considerable attention to been treated in some detail in reviews in this the now mostly obsolete Pavlovian usage, but journal (Baum, 1974; Moore, 1984). also points out the important difference beWithin behavior analysis itself, the develtween naming a phenomenon and offering an opment of the field of reinforcement schedules explanation of it: "This is the original usage provided an important impetus for definition, in learning theory; it is a direct denoting of and a glossary was included in the seminal the experimental fact and need imply no the- book on schedules by Ferster and Skinner ory" (English & English, 1959, p. 452). (1957). At about the same time, Verplanck Among current general dictionaries in psy- (1957) produced a more general glossary of chology, probably the most useful is Reber's behavioral terms. One of its significant fea(1985). Behavior analysts may wince at read- tures was that it attempted to bring behavior ing in the definition of behaviorism that radical theorists and ethologists together by defining behaviorism eschews private events, or in the terms from both research areas and suggesting definition of Skinnerian that Skinner is an op- common features of the phenomena studied in erationist and a positivist. These misrepresen- each. Sidman's "Tactics of scientific research" tations have persisted too long. Nevertheless, did not include a full-fledged glossary, but an the treatment of the major technical vocabulary appendix, "A terminological note," provided is by and large satisfactory. For example, re- commentary on and clarification of central inforcement as operation and process is clearly terms in behavior analysis (Sidman, 1960, pp. distinguished from reinforcer as stimulus or 393-410). The increasing formalization of the event. behavioral vocabulary was soon followed by It is unfortunate that the author's lack of the publication of suggested translations (e.g., enthusiasm for some behavior-analytic topics French, in Richelle, 1960; German, in Schaeis often passed on explicitly to the reader, as fer, 1960; and Portuguese, in Azzi, Silva, Bori, in the following passage about reinforcement Fix, & Keller, 1963). Some time later, Catania schedules: "It will be clear, in practice, to any- (1968) prepared a glossary based on the ter193

194

REVIEW

minology in several key experimental and theoretical papers in the experimental analysis of behavior. The works mentioned so far are some of the reference sources for technical usage, and one or another of them may be cited to justify a particular definition or distinction. But definition is not a matter of legislation, even though editorial contingencies can place constraints on the usages of authors. Among behavior analysts, the authority for a definition comes not from priority of usage but rather from the consistencies that develop between particular usages and the discriminations of behavior upon which they are based. In other words, some definitions work better than others, in the sense that they more effectively help us to see important properties of the behavior that we study (elucidating how they do so is one major task of a behavioral analysis of scientific behavior). Because definitions can change with new findings and with new organizations of a subject matter, it is often of interest to examine not only the static properties of a vocabulary, as expressed in current glossaries of technical usage, but also its dynamic properties, as expressed in etymologies. Etymologies illustrate selection as it has operated at the level of word usages: Some word usages have survived and others have not, presumably on the basis of their consequences. Etymologies may also provide some evidence for the origins of the variations upon which that selection has operated. In particular, abstract terms typically arise as extensions of concrete ones. Metaphor is often regarded as artful and subtle, especially as it is discussed in the context of poetry or literature. But instead it usually involves commonplace terms applied to complex abstract properties (as when time is described in spatial terms: "the future is ahead of us and the past is behind us"; cf. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Useful sources for etymologies include the indispensable Oxford English Dictionary (1972), the etymological appendix in the first edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (1969; this appendix was deleted in later editions), Skeat (1956), and Partridge (1959). Hogben (1970) has provided a discussion and compendium of Greek and Latin roots that enter into scientific terminology, and specialized accounts of word origins are available in many fields, including chemistry (Crosland, 1962/1978), astronomy

(Allen, 1899/1963), and ornithology (Gruson, 1972). It is interesting to discover that, along with appearance, behavior is a substantial component in the etymology of animal names (Potter & Sargent, 1974). For example, wolf is derived from roots meaning rending or tearing, and dormouse, presumably on the basis of the animal's long hibernation, is derived from roots meaning sleeping. Unlike the remote etymologies of common words, the history of geographical place-naming (Stewart, 1945, 1975) is recent enough to include descriptions of the circumstances under which places were named, and therefore provides interesting suggestions about the variables that enter into such naming. For example, a name is more likely to be based on unusual than on common features of a region: If all of the trees in an area are maples, then the valley in which a single oak tree grows is more likely to be called Oak Valley than Maple Valley. In "The origins of cognitive thought," Skinner (1989) provides an account of the etymological sources of common cognitive terms and argues persuasively that the language of cognitive processes has its origins in the language of behavior. Brief etymologies of some of the technical vocabulary of behavior analysis are presented at the beginning of the chapters in Catania (1984), to illustrate their evolution and their metaphorical origins in concrete rather than abstract terms. We might speculate that the vitality of a subject matter is demonstrated by the extent of its explicit concern with its vocabularies. Those who weigh their words may find that the scales then begin to tip in their favor. Idiosyncratic and lively recent accounts of relevant vocabularies are provided in biology by Medawar and Medawar (1983; try their discussions of behaviorism, life, ethology, and Lamarckism), in culture and society by Williams (1983; try his discussions of behaviour, evolution, class, and rational), and in philosophy by Quine (1987; try his discussions of etymology, meaning, rhetoric, and mind versus body; he does not have entries for behavior or behaviorism). The inclusion of a glossary with a treatment of a subject area is a sign that the author has explicitly dealt with the articulation between existing terminology and new contributions. Notable examples are the glossaries in the pre-

195

REVIEW

sentation of sociobiology by Wilson (1975) and in the synthesis of the literature on the organization of action by Gallistel (1980). And what of the significance of all this for behavior analysis and its future? It seems appropriate to close with an anecdote. Shortly after the publication of the first edition of my text on learning (Catania, 1979), it was reviewed by a cognitive psychologist (Moeser, 1980). The reviewer thought well of the first half of the book, which dealt primarily with operant behavior and the related literature of animal learning, but felt that the second half failed. That part of the book covered language, memory, and other topics that are typically regarded as the primary areas of cognitive psychology. Some time later, I met the reviewer at a professional meeting. As I recall the encounter, after some discussion I asked what critical material had been left out of the second half, so that I might be able to improve those sections in a later edition. The conversation continued for some time, but it emphasized the difficulty of defining what was missing and included suggestions of one or two behavioral researchers who were sufficiently in tune with cognitive issues that they might be qualified to help me. The conversation eventually ended without any particular resolution. I felt discouraged for a while, but later realized that the reviewer's inability to tell me what I had omitted from my treatment of cognitive phenomena might have a more positive interpretation. That psychologist could not tell me the essential features of the cognitive subject matter even though I was already an interested audience and wanted to present that material at a level appropriate to undergraduate students. Can we guess how successful that psychologist is likely to be in describing those features to the undergraduates from whom future classes of cognitive psychologists must be drawn? If the terms of a subject matter cannot be explicitly defined, how can they be passed on from one generation of students to the next? At least to some extent, the survival of a discipline must depend on the consistency with which its members pass its key terms and procedures on to its students. Despite its sometimes precarious position within the larger structures of psychology, behavior analysis has defined reasonably well the basic phenomena

that it must teach to its students. It may sometimes emphasize definitions and terminology at the expense of teaching the behavior of the behavior analyst, but behavior analysts should be encouraged that their subject matter remains coherent and well defined and that their taxonomy of behavioral processes is expanding. I have heard it said that considerable overlap of terminology can be found across the indexes of recent textbooks on behavior analysis, whereas textbooks on cognitive psychology more often include terms in one volume that are mutually exclusive of those in another (e.g., see Leahey, 1987, chap. 15). It would be of interest to examine systematically the accuracy of that claim. Meanwhile, it has been some time since publication of the book by Neisser (1967) that helped to define the major outlines of cognitive psychology. Have I missed it, or is it correct that even after all this time no glossary of cognitive science widely acknowledged by those in that field has yet appeared? Let us hope that those in cognitive science take up the challenge implicit here. Behavior analysts need not feel threatened if that happens, because such explicit definitions will inevitably clarify the relations between terminology, the behavior under study, and the discriminations that are established as researchers interact with their subject matter in the laboratory. A. Charles Catania Review Editor

REFERENCES Allen, R. H. (1963). Star names: Their lore and meaning. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1899) The American Heritage dictionary of the English language. (1969). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Azzi, R., Silva, M. I. R., Bori, C. M., Fix, D. S. R., & Keller, F. S. (1963). Suggested Portuguese translations of expressions in operant conditioning. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 91-94. Baum, W. M. (1974). Definition in behavioral science: A review of B. B. Wolman's Dictionary of behavioral science. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 445-451. Catania, A. C. (1968). Glossary. In A. C. Catania (Ed.), Contemporary research in operant behavior (pp. 327349). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Catania, A. C. (1979). Learning (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Catania, A. C. (1984). Learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

196

REVIEW

Chaplin, J. P. (1968). Dictionary of psychology. New York: Dell. Crosland, M. P. (1978). Historical studies in the language of chemistry. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1962) Drever, J. (1952). A dictionary ofpsychology (revised by H. Wallerstein). New York: Penguin. English, H. B., & English, A. C. (1959). A comprehensive dictionary ofpsychological and psychoanalytical terms. New York: David McKay. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Gallistel, C. R. (1980). The organization of action: A new synthesis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gruson, E. S. (1972). Wordsfor birds. New York: Quadrangle Books. Harriman, P. (1947). Dictionary ofpsychology. New York: Philosophical Library. Hogben, L. (1970). The vocabulary of science. New York: Stein and Day. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Leahey, T. H. (1987). A history of psychology: Main currents in psychological thought (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Medawar, P. B., & Medawar, J. S. (1983). Aristotle to zoos: A philosophical dictionary of biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Moeser, S. D. (1980). An introduction to behavioral research. Contemporary Psychology, 25, 1013. Moore, J. (1984). On the tactful specification of meaning: A review of Harre and Lamb's The encyclopedic dictionary of psychology. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 387-395. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. The Oxford English dictionary. (1972). New York: Oxford University Press. Partridge, E. (1959). Origins: A short etymological dic-

tionary of modern English (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Potter, S., & Sargent, L. (1974). Pedigree: The origins of words from nature. New York: Taplinger. Quine, W. V. (1987). Quiddities: An intermittently philosophical dictionary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reber, A. S. (1985). The Penguin dictionary ofpsychology. New York: Penguin. Richelle, M. (1960). Suggested French translations of expressions in the field of operant conditioning. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 3, 167-170. Schaefer, H. W. (1960). Suggested German translations of expressions in the field of operant conditioning. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 3, 171-182. Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books. Skeat, W. W. (1956.). An etymological dictionary of the English language. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Skinner, B. F. (1989). The origins of cognitive thought. In Recent issues in the analysis of behavior (pp. 13-25). Columbus, OH: Merrill; published concurrently in American Psychologist, 44, 13-18. Stewart, G. R. (1945). Names on the land: A historical account of place-naming in the United States. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Stewart, G. R. (1975). Names on the globe. New York: Oxford University Press. Verplanck, W. S. (1957). A glossary of some terms used in the objective science of behavior. Psychological Review, 64 (No. 6, Part 2). Warren, H. C. (1934). Dictionary of psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society (revised). New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, E. 0. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.