Naming is not (necessary for) stimulus equivalence

Article Abstract:

Horne and Lowe are to be praised for their effort to expand Skinner's conceptualization of verbal behavior to more completely analyze the behavior of the speaker as listener and the early development of speaking and listening repertoires. However, there are certain points in their account concerning stimulus equivalence and naming that need to be challenged. These assumptions are that match-to-sample procedures are needed to assay stimulus equivalence, evidence against the naming account of stimulus equivalence is weak, evidence for the naming account of stimulus equivalence is strong and naming contingencies do not entail equivalence relations.

---

Experimental analysis of naming behavior cannot explain naming capacity

Article Abstract:

Horne and Lowe's analysis of stimulus equivalence does not provide adequate illumination on the topic of symbolization and language in general, and naming capacity in particular. In addition, their conception of associative equivalence between name and object is actually trivial. What needs to be explained and studied instead is how to properly manage the correct association of names to things. The experimental analysis of naming behavior merely assumes that the connection is present .

---

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: On the experimental analysis of naming and the formation of stimulus classes. The evolution of naming - just so!
• Abstracts: Naming, stimulus equivalence, and conditioned hearing. Naming and equivalence relations
• Abstracts: On the origins of misguided theories of naming and other symbolic behavior. Listener behavior and ostensive learning

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.