I return to this book off and on. (I wish I can study this book with someone who has mastered this material.) The only epiphany I have had in my life is/was when I read Chapter 2 of this book about two decades ago (and understood that Skinner was analyzing language utterances as law of effect conditioned behavior).
Simply a brilliant book. Most underrated,as people have pointed out.
I just reread Chapter 1. It only has 12 pages. However, the brilliance can clearly be seen. As is the difficulty. There are about 12 sentences (in these 12 pages) that I do not understand almost completely. (For instance, the one about speaker also being a listener.)
Added on 6/12/2004
------------------
I happened to come across Chomsky's critique of Verbal Behavior online and started studying it closely, especially Section 3. I noticed several misunderstandings almost right away and started answering them, in a writeup. (I will post the details on these later.) On a lark, I sent a copy of this to Noam Chomsky, not expecting to receive a reply. I was surprised to get a reply. We exchanged several e-mails. However, Chomsky stubbornly refused to see my points. His answers were mostly non-sequiturs. Are may points valid? You be the judge when I get around to posting my two specific points. In the meantime, you may want to look at
http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305940
Added on 12/25/2011
-------------------
I am rereading this book and the following thought occurred to me: In this book, Skinner proposes a whole new scheme for understanding language behavior, which effectively pushes aside centuries of traditional views. (If he is right, this is a major step forward. And I have no doubt that he is right.) Has this ever been done before? Did Darwin do it in his The Origin of Species? (This is not a trick question. I have not read it carefully.) I am trying to understand the hostility of people like Chomsky to this book, why they didn't give it the chance it richly deserves. I wonder whether the following is the more common scenario: somebody proposes a breakthrough idea or two, some people who buy into these start promoting these, and so on. Skinner is not diffident at all. (Darwin was. He held his book for a long time. Gould theorized that this was because Darwin's livelihood was from the church. Fortunately, Skinner's livelihood was NOT from prior incarnations of cognitive psychology :-)) When he started his PhD, he wrote to his parents that, if necessary, he was going to change the field to suit himself (or something like this). And this is what he did. I am wondering whether this one person pushing for all these major changes unabashedly is the reason for Chomsky's hostility. Chomsky has written that Skinner has no right define how psychology should be done.