Fryling Mitch J
California State University, Los Angeles.
Anal Verbal Behav. 2013;29(1):157-65. doi: 10.1007/BF03393132.
Skinner's (1957) analysis of verbal behavior has been the subject of much controversy in recent years. While criticism has historically come from outside the field of behavior analysis, there are now well-articulated arguments against Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior from within the field as well. Recently, advocates of Skinner's analysis have attempted to respond to the critiques, particularly to those regarding Skinner's definition of verbal behavior articulated by proponents of relational frame theory. Specifically, it has been suggested that talk about definitions equates to making the essentialist error. This paper provides an overview of these issues in the context of understanding the role of constructs in science more generally. It will be argued that definitions are central to scientific progress, and are not only relevant to a functional analysis, but a central prerequisite to the pursuit of such an analysis.
斯金纳（1957年）对言语行为的分析近年来一直是诸多争议的主题。虽然从历史上看，批评来自行为分析领域之外，但现在行为分析领域内部也出现了对斯金纳言语行为分析的明确反对观点。最近，斯金纳分析的支持者试图回应这些批评，特别是针对关系框架理论支持者所阐述的关于斯金纳言语行为定义的批评。具体而言，有人认为谈论定义等同于犯本质主义错误。本文在更广泛地理解科学中概念的作用的背景下概述了这些问题。将论证定义对科学进步至关重要，不仅与功能分析相关，而且是进行这种分析的核心先决条件。
