May 30, 2015

May 30, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

I am reading a paper by Douglas Greer called “The Ontogenetic Selection of Verbal Capabilities: Contributions of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior Theory to a More Comprehensive Understanding of Language” (2008). He considers “the joining of the speaker and the listener within the skin” – which happens after the “initial independence of speaker and the listener” – as essential for the foundation for an “empirically based theory of verbal development.” 

This is exciting as my theory of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) is based on this “joining of the speaker and the listener within the skin.” Moreover, this affects the sound of the speaker’s voice, which is then perceived by the listener as an appetitive stimulus. The crux of SVB is that the speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks. In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) by contrast,  in which the speaker’s voice is perceived by the listener as an aversive stimulus, the speaker is not listening to him or herself. Interestingly, we say that in NVB the speaker gets under the listener’s skin, that is, he or she coerces and forces the listener to listen to him or to her. 

Greer’s paper focuses on how language may have evolved.  Since by verbal behavior “we mean all the producing and mediating functions of language responses (speaking, signing, gesturing, Morse Code, smoke signals, drumbeats)”, we need to recognize that although “the term verbal is not synonymous with vocal or oral language”, it does include it. 

The sound of the voice of the speaker is either perceived by the listener as an appetitive or an aversive stimulus. If the speaker’s voice positively affects the listener, he or she will tact SVB, but if the speaker’s voice negatively effects the listener, the listener will tact NVB. We must learn to distinguish between SVB and NVB as this will help us to increase SVB and decrease or stop NVB. 

Since NVB negatively effects the listener, we should try to prevent it and replace it with SVB. By focusing the listener’s attention on the quality of the sound of the voice of the speaker, communicators increase their understanding of how the environment selects their verbal behavior. Although the sound of the voice which pertains to SVB or NVB is made by the individual speaker, it is definitely not caused by him or by her.

Greer writes “Scientific analyses of verbal behavior focus on investigations of the functions of verbal behavior including the control of the environment: an environment that includes the control exerted by the audience on the speaker and, more recently, the function of verbal behavior for the listener.” Since we are considering operant and respondent conditioning, we need to explore and trace back as much as possible, while we speak, the environmental variables on both sides of the skin, which set the stage for SVB or NVB, which are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive. “Verbal behavior assumes that certain evolved physiological capabilities made it possible for the adventitious selection of language functions in cultures through social learning – social learning made possible by our capacities to benefit from respondent and operant conditioning experiences reflected in the basic principles of behavior”.

SVB is identified as “a higher order operant”, which provides “explanations of complex verbal functions and their ontogeny.” The social contingencies which select SVB are different than those which select NVB. SVB is characterized by equality between speaker and listener, but NVB is hierarchical; the speaker aversively controls the behavior of the listener. An new way of analyzing the function of language becomes possible because of the SVB/NVB distinction. From the verbal reports of those who have explored this distinction it is clear that SVB and NVB are two subclasses of vocal verbal behavior, which must have a different neurophysiological pathways. 

Greer identifies whether children “are missing certain verbal capabilities or verbal behavioral developmental cusps.” By trying to “develop interventions which are designed to supply these missing capabilities” he then traces the “environmental experiences that led to the verbal capabilities.” I extend his idea of “developmental cusps”, but offer SVB not to children, but to adults. I claim that as long as we remain entrenched by NVB, we will be without “certain verbal capabilities.” Moreover, if we don’t experience enough SVB, certain repertoires can never even be learned. Our lack of repertoire perpetuates NVB and without SVB, individual verbal behavior stops developing. People, that is, speakers are the environmental variables which lead to these developments. 

Lack of development of verbal behavior repertoire must have consequences for the workings of our brains. I hypothesize that onset of Alzheimer’s can be delayed by increased levels of SVB and am confident that those who have Alzheimer’s have higher rates of NVB than those who don’t have it. SVB is an adult behavioral cusp which most people completely miss out on. 

Rosales-Ruiz & Baer (1996) defined the behavioral developmental cusp as “a change that (1) is often difficult, tedious, or otherwise problematic to accomplish, yet (2) if not made, means little or no further development is possible in its realm (and perhaps several realms); but (3) once it is made, a significant set of subsequent developments becomes easy or otherwise highly probable, which (4) brings the developing organism into contact with other cusps crucial to further, more complex, or more refined development on a thereby steadily expanding, steadily more interactive realm.” (underlining added). SVB fits perfectly with this description. 

SVB seems difficult because not enough environments are available to make it happen. However, these environments are not difficult to arrange, but they will only be organized, stabilized and available, if we acknowledge our need for such environments. If it is too cold, we turn on the heather; if it is too warm, we turn on the air-conditioner. We can turn up the rate of SVB if we know what it is and what is needed to make it happen. I disagree with this definition which says that change is often difficult. We only say that because we lack an environmental perspective. Once we adopt the view that behavior is not caused by inner agents, but by our environment, SVB, or other behavioral cusps, are easy to accomplish. It is true, however, that NVB prevents the change involved in the cusp called SVB. 

Many other things would become possible, if we would arrange environments in which SVB could happen, which, by the way, are environments in which NVB couldn’t happen. These other developments come into view only when SVB is continued, but remain out of sight as long as NVB takes over again. The numbing and stunting effects of NVB are such that there is hardly any appreciation for the subtle complexities of SVB. Lastly, in NVB the speaker is talking at the listener and not with the listener. In other words, in NVB the speaker doesn’t interact or take turns with the listener. Actually, in NVB the speaker doesn’t really speak and the listener doesn’t really listen.