Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Reinforcement principles applied to language intervention have attended primarily to the “power” of the reinforcer selected rather than the match between the reinforcer and topography of the behavior being taught. Stokes and Baer (1977) emphasized the use of natural maintaining contingencies. This emphasis has resulted in a number of investigations that have attempted to discern the effect(s) that the functional relationship between stimulus and reinforcer might have upon the acquisition of language comprehension and production skills. This article reviews this literature, offers methodological considerations in the selection of reinforcer/response relations, and discusses the possible effect that such reinforcement strategies have on learning to comprehend language as well as learning to produce language to both request and provide information.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bricker

Dennison

Bricker

(1976). A language intervention program for developmentally young children (MCCD Monograph Series I). Miami: University of Miami, Mailman Center for Child Development.

Garcia

Baer

Firestone

(1971). The development of generalized imitation within topographically determined boundaries. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 4, 101–112.

Goetz

Gee

Sailor

(1985). Using a behavior chain interruption strategy to teach communication skills to students with severe disabilities. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 10(1), 21–30.

Hart

Risley

(1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 8(4), 411–420.

Janssen

Guess

(1978). Use of function as a consequence in training receptive labeling to severely and profoundly retarded individuals. AAESPH Review 5(4), 246–258.

Keogh

Reichle

(1985). Teaching functional communication to severely handicapped difficult to teach learners. In Warren

Rogers-Warren

(Eds.), Teaching functional language. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Lamarre

Holland

(1985). The functional independence of mands and tacts. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 45, 5–19.

Litt

Schreibman

(1981). Stimulus-specific reinforcement in the acquisition of receptive labels by autistic children. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities 1, 171–186.

MacDonald

Horstmeier

(1978). Ready, set, go talk to me. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

10.

Reichle

Brown

(1986). Teaching the use of a multipage direct selection communication board to an adult with autism. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 11(1), 68–73.

11.

Rogers

Siegel

(1984). Reinforcement strategies with a language disordered child. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

12.

Saunders

Sailor

(1979). A comparison of three strategies of reinforcement on two choice learning problems with severely retarded children. AAESPH Review 4, 323–333.

13.

Savage-Rumbaugh

(1984). Verbal behavior at a procedural level in a chimpanzee. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 41, 223–250.

14.

Shepp

(1962). Some cue properties of anticipated rewards in discrimination learning of retardates. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 55(5), 856–859.

15.

Skinner

B. F.

(1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

16.

Stokes

Baer

(1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 10, 349–368.

17.

Williams

Koegel

Egel

(1981). Response-reinforcer relationships and improved learning in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 14(1), 53–60.

The Match between Reinforcer Class and Response Class: Its Influence on Communication Intervention Strategies

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References