ON NAMING AND SYMBOLIC BEHAVIOR: IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE NAME?

Abstract

This is an exciting time in behavior analysis. Several converging lines of research and interpretation have raised the possibility of a genuinely behavior-analytic account of language and symbolic functioning. That specific research problems in behavior analysis have some general relation to language has long been recognized. But how does it all fit together? Is one relationship more fundamental than others, or do they all perhaps derive from something more basic? Will new principles be needed, or will older ones suffice? In this broad and scholarly paper, Horne and Lowe outline a theoretical framework to address such questions. The paper is impressive in its breadth, drawing for support on a wide range of research findings both inside and outside behavior analysis. This kind of interdisciplinary approach is frequently called for but seldom accomplished so well. But the paper is more than merely a review of the research literature; it is a theoretical reconceptualization that tries to make sense of the literature in light of current behavioranalytic thinking. The paper is thoughtful, timely, and provocative, and is sure to inspire a good deal of future work. Horne and Lowe have provided a plausible account of the development and maintenance of naming, and how it might be related to other straightforward verbal processes. Things could happen this way. But do they? These are questions about the kinds of explanatory statements that can be made about certain kinds of evidence. In identifying some of the conditions that may give rise to the development and maintenance of naming, Horne and Lowe are engaged in a scientific interpretation, as opposed to a scientific analysis. Unlike an analysis, which aims to specify