JEAB 1997 68, 244-247 The Role of Joint Control in the Development of Naming Barry Lowenkron In my earlier comments (Lowenkron, 1996a) I pointed out that  Horne & 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 & 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 on 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 significantly more explicit, and far more general than the naming account.  Return to Tale of Contents