What the Autoclitic is

and

What the Autoclitic is Not

Mark L. Sundberg, Ph.D., BCBA(marksundberg@astound.net)

Part IV of book Verbal Behavior (1957) is titled “The manipulation of verbal behavior.” There are three chapters in this section, and in them Skinner provided a verbal behavior analysis of some of the most complex aspects of language.

Some of the topics analyzed were…

syntax grammar composition sentence construction articles pronouns conjunctions prepositions pluralization

punctuation inflection tense markers noun-verb agreement predication assertion negation grammatical tags

Michael (1984) made the point that “the student’s main difficulty (with Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior) is not with the ‘behavioralizing,’ but rather with what is being behavioralized” (p. 369).

•No where else in the book is this complexity more obvious then the content of these three chapters.

• It is interesting to note that it was these chapters that covered the topics of most interest to linguists and psycholinguists such as Chomsky.

What the autoclitic is

In the autoclitic relation “Part of the behavior of an organism becomes in turn one of the variables controlling another part. There are at least two systems of responses, one based upon the other. The upper level can only be understood in terms of its relation to the lower level” (Skinner, 1957, p. 313).

A theme throughout Verbal Behavior is that a speaker can, and often does, function as his or her own listener.

“Converting the speaker into an interested bystander is certainly the direction in which an analysis of behavior will first move” (p. 311).

“The term ‘autoclitic’ is intended to suggest (verbal) behavior which is based upon or depends upon other verbal behavior” (Skinner, 1957, p. 315).

In common sense terms the autoclitic is verbal behavior about a speaker’s own verbal behavior.

“An autoclitic affects the listener by indicating either a property of the speaker’s behavior or the circumstances responsible for that property” (p. 329).

“Autoclitic behavior is concerned with practical action or with responses on the part of the listener” (p. 344).

Autoclitic behavior increases the probability that the listener will behave appropriately.

“the immediate effect upon the listener (is to) modify his reaction to the behavior they accompany (p. 315)

“Although the community can establish such a repertoire only by basing its reinforcing contingencies upon observable behavior, the speaker eventually exhibits it under the control of private events” (p. 313).

There are always two related, but separate three-term contingencies to analyze in autoclitic relations.

Skinner identified these two levels of verbal behavior as a “standard relation” and “an autoclitic relation.”

“the distinction that Bertrand Russell makes between a primary language and a secondary language is (close) to the distinction between nonautoclitic behavior and autoclitic behavior” (p. 320).

Michael (1992) suggested adopting Russell’s terms to identify these two levels of verbal behavior:

Primary verbal operants (standard relation) Secondary verbal operants (autoclitic relations).

The primary verbal operants are

Mand

Tact

Echoic (Copying a text)

Intraverbal

Textual

Transcription

Primary Tact

Nonverbal SD “Mommy” Sr

of mommy

Peterson (1978) suggested that secondary verbal behavior be identified (or sub divided) as either “autoclitic tacts” or “autoclitic mands” depending on the source of control relevant to the specific autoclitic to be analyzed.

The autoclitic tact “informs the listener” with respect to some nonverbal aspect of the primary response (including its controlling variables) and is therefore controlled by nonverbal stimuli.

Primary Tact

Nonverbal SD “Mommy” Sr

of mommy

Autoclitic tact

Child tacts the controlling variables of his own verbal behavior

“I see”

Child tacts that it is visual SD of Mommy is the source of control for the

primary tact “Mommy”

“I hear”

Child tacts that it is an auditory SD of Mommy that is the source of

control for the primary tact “Mommy”

“I think it’s”

Child tacts weakness of the nonverbal source of control and its

relation to the primary tact “Mommy.”

“I see Mommy” may contain the autoclitic tact “I see” if there are indeed two levels of responding, and the second level of verbal behavior is controlled by nonverbal stimuli related to the primary verbal operant.

Autoclitic responding is shaped by listeners in several ways. For example, if a father is wrapping a gift for his child’s mother, and the child nearby say’s, “mommy,” the father may mand to the child to identify the source of control for the response, “mommy” as in, “Did you see her?”

The father may differentially respond to “I see” indicating that clearly “mommy” is a tact and the gift should be hidden, rather than just a mand for mommy, in which case it is okay to keep wrapping the gift.

It could also be that the source of control for the response “mommy” is the gift, as in “That’s for Mommy. The autoclitic “That’s for” informs the listener that the exact source of nonverbal control for the primary tact “mommy” is the gift, and the father can continue wrapping.

Additional examples of possible autoctitic tacts

I’m sure it works (primary tact is well controlled by the relevant variables)

I admit it’s rough (primary response occurs in spite of negative variables)

I need to know if you are going? (primary response is a mand)

“The autoclitic function may also be carried by and arched look or tone of voice” (p. 318).

The autoclitic mand “enjoins the listener” to behave is some way with respect to the primary response and is controlled by MOs.

Autoclitic mands occur frequently to manipulate listener behavior in ways reinforcing to a particular speaker.

In the autoclitic mand there is some specific MO that is controlling the secondary response.

The response “I see Mommy” may contain an autoclitic mand if “I see” is not controlled by an SD related to a tact of the visual stimulus of mommy, but by an MO such as the same MO that might control the response “hurry up.”

Autoclitic mands are ubiquitous, but since the sources of control are private it is difficult for a listener to tact the fact that MOs are controlling the verbal behavior.

“Hidden agendas” often revel themselves to a careful observer who identifies the autoclitic mands that may accompany primary verbal behavior.

For example, a primary intraverbal such as an answer to a question about the sales of a particular product may contain an autoclitic mand such as “I’m sure you will be pleased with the sales” where “I’m sure you will be pleased” is controlled by the same MO that might control the response “Don’t ask me for any details about the sales.”

Skinner presents several different types of autoclitics (e.g., manipulative, relational, quantifying, and qualifying), and analyzes hundreds of examples. It is beyond the scope of the current presentation to describe each type.

What the autoclitic is not

Skinner lists hundreds of examples of responses that could be autoclitic in Chapters 12, 13, 14. However, functional relations of any type cannot be identified by form alone. It is very easy to misread all of these examples as autoclitics. Skinner is assuming the appropriate autoclitic controlling variables are present.

The response “I see” may not be autoclitic at all if it is actually a primary response acquired as a unit, as in “I see mommy.”

Primary Tact

Mommy “I see Mommy” Sr

The speaker may not be tacting that fact that they are, for example, seeing vs. hearing the nonverbal source of stimulus control, but emitting the whole response as a primary tact without any autoclitic activity.

Early language learners do not emit much autoclitic behavior. Skinner is clear on this point: “It is only when verbal operants of the sort discussed in Part II (i.e., the elementary verbal operants) have been established in strength that the speaker finds himself subject to the additional contingencies which establish autoclitic behavior” (p. 330). Thus, autoclitic training should probably not be a part of an early language intervention program.

Examples of form without function from the autoclitic chapters.

“Another group of autoclitics describe the state of strength of a response. I guess, I estimate, I believe, I imagine and I surmise” (p. 315).

“Another group of autoclitics...are I agree, I confess, I expect, I concede, I infer, I predict, I dare say, I must say, I can say, I admit, I reply, I should say, and I mean to say” (p. 316).

“What the autoclitic is” contains a qualifying autoclitic of assertion that “has the specific function of indicating that the response is emitted as a tact, or under some circumstances as an intraverbal” (p. 327).

“What the autoclitic is not” contains a qualifying autoclitic of negation where there is some tendency to say “autoclitic” but the circumstances are inappropriate. This autoclitic “has the force of a mand (and) may be roughly translated as Don’t act upon this response as an unextended tact” (p. 324).

“There are no black scorpions falling on this table” contains a qualifying autoclitic of negation (p. 458).

Thank you!

For an electronic copy of this presentation email

marksundberg@astound.net