Naming

 and  Verbal  Behavior  

Caio  Miguel,  Ph.D.,  BCBA-­‐D  

California  State  University,  Sacramento  
Naming  
•  What  is  naming?  
•  How  is  naming  developed?  
•  The  importance  of  naming  
•  Teaching  naming  
•  Using  naming  to  produce  novel  behavior  
  
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.  
 
Miguel,  C.  F.,  &  PetursdoTr,  A.  I.  (2009).  Naming  and  frames  of  
coordinaXon.  In  R.  A.  Rehfeldt  &  Y.  Barnes-­‐Holmes  (Eds.),  Derived  
rela<onal  responding:  Applica<ons  for  learners  with  au<sm  and  other  
developmental  disabili<es.  Oakland,  CA:  New  Harbinger.  
 
Greer,  R.  D.,  &  Longano,  J.  (2010).  A  rose  by  naming:  How  we  may  
learn  how  to  do  it.  The  Analysis  of  Verbal  Behavior,  26,  73-­‐106  
 
 
Verbal  Behavior  
•  The  behavior  of  an  individual  that  has  been  reinforced  
through  the  mediaXon  of  another  person’s  behavior  (the  
listener).  
•  Listener  must  have  learned  to  respond  in  order  to  reinforce  
the  behavior  of  the  speaker.  
 “Can  I  
•  Speaker  emits  operant   receives   “Thank  
have  some  
behavior  that  affects  the   water   you”  
water?”  
behavior  of  others  
•  Listener  is  affected  by  
sXmuli  generated  by  the  
speaker’s  behavior   “Can  I  
“Thank  
have  some   gets  water  
you”  
water?”  
Verbal  Operants  
•  Forms  were  classified  based  on  their  funcXon  
•  Variables  that  determine  what  someone  says,  writes,  
gestures,  or  signs  
 MO   SD  

Mand   VB  
?  

YES   NO  

PT   Tact  
?  

YES   NO  

FS   Intraverbal  
?  

YES   NO  

Duplic   Codic  
Mand  
•  VB  in  which  the  response  form  is  controlled  by  the  speaker’s  
moXvaXon.  The  consequence  for  the  mand  is  specific.  
•  “Water”when  water  deprived.  
•  “I  want  a  hazelnut  laie”  when  Xred/caffeine  
•  “It  is  quite  hot  here”  when  wanXng  to  cool  off.  
•  “Would  you  mind  taking  the  garbage  out?”  
•  “You  look  beauXful  today...can  I  borrow  some  cash?  
Tact  
•  VB  in  which  the  response  form  is  controlled  by  an  
immediately  prior  nonverbal  sXmulus.  The  consequence  for  
the  tact  is  non-­‐specific.  
•  “Water”  when  seeing  a  boile  of  water.  
•  “I  feel  thirsty”  when  describing  a  private  event.  
•  “Look  at  his  purple  Xe  !”  when  seeing  one.  
•  “Thank  you”  
Intraverbal  
•  VB  occasioned  by  what  someone  says,  signs  or  writes.  No  
point-­‐to-­‐point  correspondence  between  sXmulus  and  
response.  
•  Saying  “vehicle” as  a  result  of  hearing  “car”  
•  Saying  “Caio”as  a  result  of  hearing  “what’s  your  
name?”  
•  Saying  “drive”as  a  result  of  hearing  “what  do  you  do  
with  a  car?”  
Duplic  and  Codic  
•  Duplic:    Echoic  and  copying  a  text.  
•  Codic:    Textual,  taking  dictaXon.  

Michael,  1982  
Echoic  
•  VB  in  which  the  response  form  produces  similar  sound  
paiers  as  the  verbal  antecedent  sXmulus.    
•  “Water”  when  hearing  “Water”  
Textual  &  Taking  Dictation  
•  VB  consisXng  of  response  paierns  under  control  of  verbal  
sXmuli  in  the  form  of  text  (reading  aloud)  
•  VB  consist  of  wriXng  what  is  heard  
Naming  
•  Horne  and  Lowe  (1996)  extended  Skinner’s  (1957)  approach  
by  emphasizing  the  individual  as  a  speaker  and  listener  within  
the  same  skin.  
•  Central  in  understanding  how  words  acquire  their  meaning  
•  Informed  by  other  accounts  of  language  development  
(Vygotzky  and  Mead)  
•  Informed  by  research  on  language  development  
Listener  
•  Children  learn  to  listen  before  they  learn  to  speak  

•  Learn  to  discriminate  caregiver’s  speech  sounds  

•  Caregiver  names  an  object  (Richelle,  1993)  

•  Speak  slowly,  use  accentuated  single  names  in  simplified  syntax,  
repeat  them  many  Xmes  (Snow,  1977)  
Listener  
•  Caregiver  notes  what  children  are  looking  at  (or  playing  with)  
before  they  talk  about  it  (Masur,  1982)  

•  Caregiver  indicates  the  object  that  he/she  names  (joint  aienXon)  

•  Child  learns  to  follow  a  point  and  then  point  to  the  object  
herself,  which  serves  as  a  cue  for  the  caregiver’s  naming  of  
the  object  (Foster,  1979).  Child  also  picks  up  or  shows  objects  to  
caregiver  
Listener  
•  Caregiver  models  and  reinforces  convenXonal  behavior  (Kaye,  
1982).  
•  Note  importance  of  generalized  imitaXon  

•  Extension  of  listener  behavior  to  other  exemplars  and  with  

the  frame:  
•   “Where’s  the  __?”  
Listener  Behavior  

Horne  &  Lowe,  1996  

Echoic  Relation  
•  Children  imitate  the  speech  of  caregivers  (9  to  13  months  old;  
Poulson,  Kymissis,  Reeve,  Andreatos,  &  Reeve,  1991)  

•  When  the  caregiver  names  an  object  the  child  can  not  only  
engage  in  listener,  but  also  echoic  behavior  
•  This  is  when  the  child  starts  to  become  a  speaker-­‐listener  

•  Echoics  may  also  occur  at  the  covert  level  

•  This  is  when  the  child  becomes  speaker-­‐listener  to  her  own  
verbal  sXmulus  
•  Listens  to  herself  (verbal  thinking?)  
Listener:Echoic  

Horne  &  Lowe,  1996  

Tact  Relation  
•  Caregiver’s  vocalizaXon  occasions  the  child’s  echoic  response  
in  the  presence  of  the  object  

•  Caregiver  provides  reinforcement  for  the  child’s  echoic  

behavior    

•  Over  Xme,  the  object  itself  exerts  sufficient  control  over  the  
child’s  vocal  response  (tact)  
Naming  
•  Tacts  emerge  from  the  interacXon  between  echoics  and  
listener  behavior.  
•  This  may  explain  why  there’s  almost  never  a  tact  without  listener  
behavior  (Whynn  &  Smith,  2003).  

•  When  a  child  emits  a  tact,  a  verbal  sXmulus  is  generated  

which  in  turn  may  evoke  listener  behavior  

•  At  this  point  we  say  the  child  can  name  the  object  
 
Listener  :  Echoic  :  Tact  

Horne  &  Lowe,  1996  

Naming  

Horne  &  Lowe,  1996  

Naming  

•  Naming  is  a  higher-­‐order  operant  that  involves  a  bi-­‐direcXonal  

relaXon  between  the  spoken  word  and  a  parXcular  sXmulus  

•  Naming  is  said  to  exist  when  the  reinforcement  of  a  listener  
relaXon  is  accompanied  by  the  emergence  of  a  speaker  
relaXon  and  vice-­‐versa  (Horne  &  Lowe,  1996;  Miguel  &  
PetursdoTr,  2009)  
Naming  as  a  skill  

•  The  mulXple  exposure  to  speaker  and  listener  relaXons  in  the  
presence  of  the  same  object  and  relevant  contextual  cues  
(e.g.,  “is”,  “called”,  “name  of”)    

•  Naming  may  be  controlled  by  cues  of  sameness  or  similarity  
(Hayes,  Barnes-­‐Holmes,  &  Roche,  2001)  
Importance  of  Naming  
•  Naming  makes  it  possible  for  children  to  learn  language  
incidentally  (Greer  &  Longano,  2010)  

•  Language  explosion  (2-­‐3  yrs)  is  correlated  with  development  of  

naming  (Hart  &  Risley,  1995;  Fiorile  &  Greer,  2007)  

•  The  cue  of  the  caregiver  poinXng  to  an  object  and  labeling  it  may  
be  sufficient  to  evoke  the  whole  sequence  of  behavior  that  makes  
up  the  name  relaXon  (Horne  &  Lowe,  1996,  p.202)  
Importance  of  Naming  
•  New  features  may  acquire  control  over  verbal  behavior  (e.g.  
dog  panXng,  barking,  etc.)  

•  Children  with  disabiliXes  without  naming  would  have  to  be  

taught  every  verbal  funcXon  separately  
•  They  may  not  be  able  to  learn  from  experience  

•  A  child  with  naming  repertoire  is  capable  of  emiTng  both  

speaker  and  listener  behavior  towards  an  object  by  simply  
observing  others  name  an  object  (Perez-­‐Gonzalez’  current  
research)  
•  What  it  is  expected  in  the  classroom  
Importance  of  Naming  
•  FoundaXonal  skill  in  learning  to  read  and  write  (Greer  &  Longano,  
2010).  
•  When  children  acquire  textual  control  of  phoneXc  sounds,  novel  
combinaXons  may  lead  to  novel  textual  behavior  
•  The  child  will  hear  herself  and  “recognize”  the  word  
Comprehension  

“Fireman”   /Fireman/  

Fi  re  man  
Importance  of  Naming  
•  Children  with  phoneXc  textual  control  who  lack  naming  have  :  
•  Poor  comprehension  (Helou-­‐Care,  2008)    
•  May  not  able  to  spell  or  take  dictaXon  (Greer,  Yuan,  &  Gautreaux,  2005)  
•  “Lack  of  naming  spells  educaXonal  disaster”  (Greer  &  Longano,  2010,  
p.  97)  
Importance  of  Naming  
•  Naming  may  lead  to  the  acquisiXon  of  intraverbal  behavior  
(Horne  &  Lowe,  1996)  
•  At  18  months  children  start  to  combine  words  typically  as  a  
funcXon  of  conXguous  usage  by  the  caregiver  (Skinner,  1957)  
•  Child  may  name  items  that  typically  appear  together,  and  their  
names  may  be  linked  intraverbally  (e.g.,  “spoon  fork”)  

•  FuncXons  may  be  transferred  via  intraverbal  relaXons  (“hot  

keile”)  
Importance  of  Naming  
•  Naming  may  lead  to  the  acquisiXon  of  mands  (Horne  &  Lowe,  1996)  
•  When  names  for  objects  are  first  established,  they  are  extended  
to  mand  objects  and  events  
•  Arer  learning  the  frame  “can  I  have,”  the  child  can  now  mand  
any  object  that  she  can  name  
•  Magical  mands  (Skinner,  1957)  
Importance  of  Naming  
•  Naming  is  central  in  understanding  “meaning”  
•  When  we  name  an  object  we  recognize  it  (Mead,  1934)  
•  We  react  to  objects  we  name  as  members  of  a  funcXonal  class  
(e.g.,  “cake”)  
•  So  naming  is  symbolic  behavior  (Horne  &  Lowe,  1996)  
Importance  of  Naming  
•  Naming  establishes  verbal  control  (Horne  &  Lowe,  1996)  
•  Parent  says  a  plasXc  bowl  is  a  boat,  child  will  name  and  react  to  it  
as  if  it  were  a  boat  
•  Name  establishes  new  funcXons  (funcXon-­‐altering  sXmuli)  
Importance  of  Naming  
•  Naming  leads  to  sXmulus  categorizaXon  (Miguel  &  PetursdoTr,  2009)  
•  When  objects  produce  the  same  name,  they  acquire  the  same  
meaning  
•  If  dissimilar  objects  are  called  “toys,”  then  children  will  sort  them  
accordingly  
Teaching  Naming  
 
•  Research  suggest  that  children  who  do  not  learn  how  to  tact  
arer  learning  listener  relaXons  may  be  able  to  do  so  arer  
MulXple-­‐Exemplar  Training  (MET  or  MEI;  Greer,  Stolfi,  Chavez-­‐Brown,  
and  Rivera-­‐Valdes,  2005).  

•  If  children  can  recepXvely  discriminate  objects  and  echo,  why  

wouldn’t  they  be  able  to  name?  

•  …because  they  may  not  be  able  to  echo  the  sample  during  
listener  trials  
 Tact  

Listener  

Where’s  the    
“CAT?”   SR+  

“CAT?”  
Teaching  Naming  
•  Assess  pre-­‐requisite  skills  
•  Generalized  echoic  repertoire  
•  Basic  tacts  and  listener  relaXons  involving  same  sXmuli  
•  InstrucXonal  control  
•  Tact  Training  
•  Train  at  least  three  targets  to  mastery  
•  Listener  Test  
•  Test  the  three  mastered  targets  on  a  recepXve  discriminaXon  
task  
•  Train  and  probe  
•  ConXnue  training  tacts  and  tesXng  for  recepXve  discriminaXon    
•  If  following  tact  training,  the  child  typically  responds  on  
listener  trials,  than  tact  training  resulted  in  naming  
Teaching  Naming  
•  If  the  child  does  not  respond  as  a  listener  following  tact  
training,  train  the  listener  relaXon  directly,  then  go  to  train  
another  tact  and  probe  the  listener  
•  MEI  uXlizing  task  interspersal  can  also  be  used    
 MEI  
Naming: MEI versus SEI 117

Table 4. Example of an MEI Learn Unit Sequence for a Training Set (Learn Unit Presentations
Proceeded from Left to Right in the Following Training Set Example).
First LU Second LU Third LU Fourth LU
Match Diamond Point to Safire Match Ruby Impure tact Amethyst
Tact Diamond Impure Tact Safire Impure Tact Ruby Match Emerald
Point to Diamond Tact Safire Tact Amethyst Impure Tact Emerald
Impure Tact Diamond Point to Ruby Point to Amethyst Tact Emerald
Match Safire Tact Ruby Match Amethyst Point to Emerald

response resulted in the independent observer then multiplied that number by 100%. The
circling the student’s plus or minus (Ingham & accuracy of the experimenter presentation of
Greer, 1992). learn units and probe trials for all sessions with
We also recorded the accuracy of probe trial independent observers was 100%.
presentations in a similar manner; however,
probe trials were
Greer   et  anot
l.,  2to receive reinforcement
007   Independent Variable: MEI Instruction and the
or corrections. Thus, we recorded the accuracy Control SEI Condition
of the antecedent and response opportunities The independent variable in the experiment
and the absence or presence of a consequence. was multiple exemplar instruction (MEI) for the
Presenting a consequence for a probe trial experimental group and the control condition
would have been recorded as an error had an was singular exemplar instruction (SEI) for the
error occurred. control group. Instructional sessions consisted
Verbal  Modules  
•  Instructor:  “Touch  the  car”  
•  Student:  Touches  the  picture  of  the  car  (recepXve)  
•  Instructor:  “What  is  it?”  
•  Student:  “Car”  
•  Instructor:  “Say  ball”  
•  Student:  “ball”  
•  Instructor:  holds  up  a  picture  of  a  ball,  and  says  “what  is  it?”  
•  Student:  “ball”  
Naming  and  Categorization  
•  When  objects  produce  the  same  name,  they  acquire  the  same  
meaning  
•  Individuals  react  similarly  to  sXmuli  that  produce  the  same  
name;  these  sXmuli  become  members  of  the  same  class,  or  
category  
“Animal”  
”Animal”  
”Animal”   ”Animal”  
“Animal”  
“Animal”  
Naming  and  Categorization  
•  CategorizaXon  (sorXng  objects  or  pictures  by  category)  seems  
to  develop  with  no  direct  training  when  typically-­‐developing  
children  learn  to  name  (Horne,  Lowe,  &  Harris,  2007;  Horne,  Lowe,  Harris  &  
Randle,  2004;  Lowe,  Horne,  &  Randle,  2002;  Lowe,  Horne,  &  Hughes,  2005;  Mahoney,  
Miguel,  Ahearn,  &  Bell,  2010;  Miguel,  PetursdoTr,  Carr,  &  Michael,  2008)  
JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2013, 46, 669–673 NUMBER 3 (FALL 2013)

THE EFFECTS OF TACT TRAINING ON THE EMERGENCE OF

CATEGORIZATION AND LISTENER BEHAVIOR IN CHILDREN
WITH AUTISM
CAIO F. MIGUEL AND VISSY V. KOBARI-WRIGHT
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

We evaluated the effects of tact training on the emergence of categorization and listener behavior
using a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across 2 children with autism. Participants learned
to tact the category name of 9 pictures that belonged to 3 different categories. We assessed whether
participants accurately matched pictures by category and selected the correct comparisons when
hearing their category names. After training, participants categorized and emitted listener behavior.
One participant did not categorize until asked to tact the samples. These results suggest that tact
training may be an efficient way to produce listener and categorization in children diagnosed with
autism.
Key words: autism, categorization, naming, verbal behavior

Objects that produce the same speaker and
listener behaviors are said to belong to the same
class or category (Horne & Lowe, 1996). For
instance, when a typically developing child learns
to tact a new object as a “tool,” he or she may also
be able to select it from an array of objects when
hearing the word “tool” (i.e., listener response).
Moreover, when asked to put the object away, the
child may place it with all the other tools (i.e.,
perform a categorization task after being taught
the relevant components of naming separately. In
Experiment 1, four children (3 to 5 years old)
underwent tact training in which they learned to
label pictures of U.S. state maps as either “north”
or “south.” They were then presented with a
categorization task in which they had to select
comparisons that belonged to the same category
as the sample, as well as listener tests, in which
Categorization
 
•  Assess
 whether
 parXcipants
 would
 show
 derived
 
categorizaXon
 and
 listener
 skills
 arer
 learning
 to
 tact
 pictures
 
with
 common
 names.
 
 
•  Two
 children
 diagnosed
 with
 auXsm,
 Donald
 (6
 years)
 and
 
Jonathan
 (5
 years)
 parXcipated.
 
•  Generalized
 idenXty
 matching.
 
Categorization
 
•  CategorizaXons:
 Percentage
 of
 correct
 responses
 in
 a
 3-­‐choice
 
visual-­‐visual
 matching-­‐to-­‐sample
 (MTS)
 task
 

•  Listener  Behavior:  Percentage  of  correct  responses  in  a  3-­‐

choice  auditory-­‐visual  MTS  task  
Categorization  
•  A  non-­‐concurrent  mulXple  baseline  design  across  parXcipants    
 
•  Experimental  condiXons:    Pretraining,  categorizaXon  tests,  
listener  tests,  tact  training,  categorizaXon  posiests  and  
listener  posiests.  
 672 CAIO F. MIGUEL and VISSY V. KOBARI-WRIGHT

Tact
Training

Categ. Categ. Listener Categ. Categ. Listener

Prettest 1 Prettest 2 Prettest Posttest 1 Posttest 2 Posttest
100
90
80
Tacts-to-sample
70
60
50
40
30 Listener
Percentage of Correct Responses

20
10 Donald
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

100
90
80
70
60
50 Categorization
40
30
20 Jonathan
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Nine-trial Blocks

Figure 1. The percentage of correct categorizations, listener responses, and tacts to sample for Donald (top) and Jonathan
(bottom). Categ. ¼ categorization.

Correct prompted responses resulted in praise figure), to reach the mastery criterion during
only. Incorrect responses were followed by a pretraining across all conditions (tact, listener, and
correction procedure that involved re-presenting categorization). Figure 1 shows the pre- and
the trial at a 0-s prompt delay. posttest measures for the categorization and listener
tests with unfamiliar stimuli (categories of dogs).
During pretests, Donald and Jonathan demon-
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Categorization  
•  Speaker  training  alone  can  produce  novel  categorizaXon.    

•  There  was  a  clear  transfer  from  speaker  to  listener  behavior  

(i.e.,  naming)  and  both  categorized  successfully.  

•  IniXal  support  for  clinical  recommendaXons  (Miguel  &  

PetursdoTr,  2008).  
The  Effects  of  Listener  Training  on  the  Emergence  of  Categorization  
and  Speaker  Behavior  in  Children  with  Autism    
 
Vissy  V.  Kobari-­‐Wright  and  Caio  F.  Miguel  
California  State  University,  Sacramento  
 
in  press,  JABA  
 Listener
Training

Categ. Categ.
Tact Prettest 1 Posttest1 Tact Posttest 1
100 Prettest 1
90
80
70
60
Categorizations
50
40
Percentage of Correct Responses

30
20 Tacts
10 Andy Tact
0 Training
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Tact Categ.
100 Posttest 2 Posttest 2
90
80 Tacts-to-
70 Sample
60
50
40
30
20
10
Amy
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Nine-trial Blocks
Categorization  
•  Three  of  4  parXcipants  successfully  tacted  the  sXmuli  and  
showed  emergence  of  categorizaXon.  
•  Amy  did  not  tact  the  sXmuli  arer  listener  training  and  also  did  
not  categorize  the  sXmuli  unXl  she  was  directly  taught  to  tact  
them  with  a  common  name.    
                                      Naming  
(Miguel  and  Kobari-­‐Writght,  2013)  

“Work  dog”  
(Speaker)  

/work  dog/  

(Listener)  
Categorization  
•  Results  support  previous  research  conducted  with  typically  
developing  children  in  that  speaker  or  listener  training  alone  
can  produce  novel  categorizaXon.    
•  There  was  a  clear  transfer  from  speaker  to  listener  behavior  
(i.e.,  naming)  and  both  categorized  successfully.  
•  IniXal  support  for  clinical  recommendaXons  (Miguel  &  
PetursdoTr,  2008).  
Applied  Implications  
•  Categorizing  and  classifying  objects  and  events  in  our  
environment  is  an  important  skill,  it  is  a  way  to  relate  to  
objects  and  events  in  our  environment,  especially  novel  ones  

•  Clinicians  may  be  able  to  produce  novel  categorizaXon  via  

either  speaker  or  listener  training  

•  Results  seemed  dependent  upon  a  well-­‐established  naming  

repertoire  (Greer  et  al.,  2007)  
Teaching  Categorization  
•  Simple  tact  training  
•  MulXple-­‐tact  training  
•  “What  is  this?  ____”  “right,  this  is  a  ___  and?”  
•  Category  test  
•  SorXng  or  MTS  
•  Troubleshoot?  
 1 2 3

C
Conclusion  
•  The  naming  repertoire  is  composed  of  the  bi-­‐direcXonal  
relaXon  between  listener  and  speaker  behavior  
•  Naming  is  a  higher-­‐order  verbal  operant  established  via  direct  
reinforcement  of  word-­‐object  bi-­‐direcXonality  with  mulXple  
sXmuli  
•  Naming  appears  to  be  a  criXcal  developmental  skill  that  
results  in  the  capacity  to  learn  in  new  ways  (Greer  &  Longano,  p.  84).    
•  When  language  fails  to  develop,  the  task  of  teaching  naming  
lies  with  educators  (Miguel  &  PetursdoTr,  2009)  
Conclusion  
•  …the  study  of  naming  should  not  be  taken  lightly  

•  ConXnued  contribuXons  to  the  research  on  naming  can  lead  

to  a  beier  understanding  of  verbal  behavior  and  the  
development  of  new  teaching  technologies  
  
 
 
 
www.verbalbehaviorlab.com  
www.verbalbehaviorlab.com