(Presented with all the other Commentaries on the Horne and Lowe article)
[No abstract; these are the first two paragraphs.]
In my earlier comments (Lowenkron, 1996), I pointed out that Horne and Lowe's (1996) account of the naming relation seems to be deficient in explaining how novel stimuli come to be selected in response to their names after the names are learned as responses to the stimuli. I also suggested that this deficiency could be remedied, and several strengths could be gained, by appreciating the role joint control plays within the naming relation. Lowe and Horne (1996, p. 318), however, assert that applying the joint control account to the naming relation involves two problems: first, that it engenders an anachronism with respect to the order in which the component responses develop, and second, that the notion of joint control is merely redundant with the notion of the naming relation. I argue here that neither assertion is correct. Interpreting the development of generalized stimulus selection in terms of the role of joint control does not involve an anachronism, nor is the account redundant on the naming account. Rather, appreciating the role of joint control allows for an account that is significantly more explicit and far more general than the naming account. Does the Joint Control Account Stumble on an Anachronism?
As described earlier (Lowenkron, 1996, p. 253), when it is under joint control, the selection response is actually an autoclitic that reports which comparison stimulus brings the currently rehearsed sample topography under joint control. Thus, as illustrated there (Lowenkron, 1996, Figure 1, Panel A), when a person is vocally instructed to find the printed number sequence 135476 from a list of six-digit sequences, he or she will rehearse that topography ("135476") as a self-echoic while perusing the list. When the correct sequence is encountered, any further rehearsals of the topography occur under joint control, for now, in addition to self-echoic control, the rehearsed topography is also (i.e., jointly) emitted under the tact control produced by the printed sequence on the page. By pointing to the printed number sequence that initiated this change from self-echoic to joint self-echoic/tact control, the person selects the sequence specified by the original spoken numbers. The pointing response is thus an autoclitic, because it reports to the observer about an event (the onset of joint control) that affected the verbal behavior (the rehearsed topography) of the speaker (Lowenkron, 1991).
Address correspondence to Barry Lowenkron, Department of Psychology, California State University, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90032.