A noção de significado em B. F. Skinner e em M. Sidman

Abstract

Some aspects of the debate about the relationship between Skinner’s approach to verbal behavior and the research in the field of stimulus equivalence are adressed. A description of the conceptions of meaning presented by Skinner and Sidman, in their attempts to generate a behavior-analytic interpretation about language, is provided. Skinner’s and Sidman’s analyses of verbal behavior are examined in terms of their scope; the notions of meaning as controlling variables, and as stimuli equivalence relations are compared; and finally, the role of substitutability in language, its function and limits, is examined. Skinner’s analysis is broader than Sidman’s, in the sense that it tries to embody the totality of verbal behavior. Skinner is different from Sidman, in that the first tries to compare his proposal to the existing theories of language and the second, not. Skinner’s analyses point to meaning as the variables that explain behavior, while Sidman’s analyses, to the meaning as equivalent stimuli. The notion of meaning proposed by Sidman is based in stimuli relations (four-term contingencies, or more than four) and its substitutability (stimulus equivalence). In his conceptualization of verbal behavior, Skinner considers the distinction between functions of speakers and listeners as an important one, while this distinction doesn’t appear in Sidman’s work. Sidman’s analyses of meaning present some aspects that distinguish them from the traditional theories criticized by Skinner; however, the notion of meaning proposed by Sidman remains problematic. The substitutability, as a good basis to interpret meaning, is criticized. Equivalence can be a useful tool to understand language, specially with respect to the production of verbal behavior that is not directly trained, helping to improve verbal behavior analyses.