July 23, 2015

July 23, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

The following writing is my second response to the paper “Two Organizing Principles of Vocal Production: Implications for Nonhuman and Human Primates” by Owren, Amoss & Rendall (2010). 

Human beings have existed for eons of time before the arrival of language. Structures which once only facilitated vocalizations are still there and made languages possible. I say ‘languages’ not to indicate French or Japanese, for which structurally no differences are expected. A child learns Japanese or French just as readily. ‘Languages’ refer to our biology, to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) or Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the two universal subclasses of human vocal verbal behavior. When humans feel threatened, they produce distinctively different sounds than when they feel safe.  

As these subsets are based on our evolutionary or phylogenetic history, I predict that structural differences account for the rates of SVB and NVB. Since ontogenetic development emerges from phylogenetic history, it is predicted that those people who have learned during their lifetime to have more instances of SVB and less instances of NVB, are those who were already genetically predisposed to do so. By contrast, those who capitalize on NVB and take advantage of the SVB of others, adhere to hierarchical interaction and relationship determined by biology. 

The SVB/NVB distinction posits that a much bigger part of how we talk refers to our phylogenetic than to our ontogenetic history.  Changing the way we talk, as individuals, is not possible for this reason. This is not to say, however, that there are no epi-genetic effects which can be inhibited. I have worked with mentally ill, traumatized and disabled clients and I have found that with each one of them progress was possible due to SVB.

The authors also mention a “second principle” which “concerns a phenomenon” they “dubbed dual neural pathways. Here, the critical observation is that when a species with an existing vocal system evolves a new functionally distinct vocalization capability, it occurs through the emergence of a second parallel neural pathway rather than through expansion of the extant circuitry. In other words, when individuals of a given taxon exhibit two functionally distinct vocal systems, the underlying neural circuitry is found to be organized in parallel pathways rather than as a single multipurpose system.” 

If my prediction is true, NVB and SVB are mediated by these parallel pathways. I am thinking the same way as these authors, who consider “affect to be centered on subcortical limbic structures and pathways.” Moreover, they write that “this usage will contrast with viewing cognition as more abstract and elaborated, with cortical processing, mental concepts, and symbolic representations playing a central role. Affective processing will be considered inherently less flexible than the cognitive variety, although learning and experience are likely important in both cases.” 

Although affect and cognition are intertwined, they are biologically, hierarchically intertwined, that is, emotions have a longer phylogenetic history than cognitions and are therefore more likely to have more impact on cognitions than the other way around. The SVB/NVB distinction therefore predicts that the flexibility of cognitive variety depends on positive affect. Moreover, negative affect is considered by this distinction as a hindrance to learning operant behavior. Although respondent learning can occur under negative affect inducing circumstances, these processes will always in one way or another constrain operant learning processes.

Many antropomorphizing primate researchers still don’t agree on the obvious fact that receivers don’t “encode specific information about predators,” but are influenced by “the arousal or motivational states of vocalizers.” It is unbelievable that this is still even an issue. Animals don’t have language and therefore they can’t have self-talk either. Only humans have self-talk, because they can be a speaker-as-own-listener. 

“Information processing” is an explanatory fiction, which doesn’t explain anything, but private speech or other behavior occurring within our own skin, such as thinking or remembering, is parsimoniously explained as  verbal behavior receded to a covert level. Denial of what is scientifically already known is made possible by NVB, which elevates what we say over how we say it. “Evidence from development and neural control of vocalization is compelling in this regard, showing that while some primate calls can function as if having the ‘‘cognitive and cortical’’ nature of spoken language, the production processes involved are nonetheless fundamentally “affective and subcortical.’’” These researchers provided a good example of “evidence from development.”

The authors noted that “one kind of production learning, namely that while young vervets may call to non-predator events, such as falling leaves and passing warthogs, these kinds of false alarms disappear over time. Yet, even this ‘‘mistaken’’ usage occurs in the ‘‘right’’ circumstances, for example, with eagle calls being elicited by stimuli such as falling leaves, but leopard alarms being reserved for terrestrial events, such as warthogs passing by.” Such evidence confirms “the larger conclusion that call production is generally highly constrained in these animals.” Similarly our human vocalizations are affectively constrained. Like vervet monkey’s, human infants also respond initially to a threat by “running to their mothers, or respond in ways that can increase rather than decrease their risk of being taken.”  Anyone who has ever been around a baby knows that “alarm call production” seem to be more or less “full blown” at birth and “functional responding emerges gradually” through the care that is proved by the mother, that is, “through social learning.” 

The ubiquity of NVB signifies how often social learning fails. Although SVB is needed to bond, affiliate, groom and to be social, although without SVB there would be no safety, connection, support, reciprocation or learning of complex forms of behavior, occurrence of SVB is relatively rare, as SVB is not accidental, but consciously decided. We consciously decide to stop in front of a red light and we can decide to have SVB. However, this will only be learned if we follow the scientific rules of human interaction.