August 27, 2015

August 27, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my tenth response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others” by Rendall and Owren, (2010).  “Auditory-motor sympathy has also been shown in humans for non-verbal vocalizations, where the sound of non-verbal exclamations

of positive affect potentiates in listeners activity in motor areas involved in facial expressions associated with producing the same positively-toned exclamations (Warren et al., 2006).” This is evidence from neuroscience for how we perceive each other while we speak. Although we speak verbally, our sound is “a nonverbal vocalization.” If the speaker’s positive affect is expressed, it affects the listener differently than when the speaker’s negative affect is expressed. The message is perceived differently when the voice of the speaker induces a different emotion in the listener.

“Gallese et al. (2004) have proposed viscero-motor mirror circuits as a foundation for direct emotional resonance via simulation of at least some of the felt emotions of others.” There are many implications for this “vocal-affective influence.” If we stay with the fact that we experience positive or negative emotions when we hear someone speak, we recognize that we either engage in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) or Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). These two subsets of vocal verbal behavior occur in every verbal community around the world. Regardless of whether one speaks Chinese or Arabic one will either experience SVB or NVB. Similarly to listening to different languages, when the listener listens to SVB, that listener is not experiencing NVB, but when the listener is listening to NVB, he or she is not experiencing SVB. Likewise, when the listener is familiar with the Dutch language but not with the French language, he or she will not be able to understand the French language. Likewise, when the listener is familiar with NVB, but not with SVB, he or she will not be able to understand SVB.  Without the environmental stimulation by some SVB speaker, a teacher, the listener cannot become a SVB speaker by him or herself. 

“Given the reciprocally integrated neurophysiological networks

for perception and action, and in so far as vocal signals are reliably driven by emotional states in signalers, then the process by which listeners perceive emotion-laden signals includes the capacity for experiencing some similar emotions and thus also potentiating behavioral responses that might naturally flow from that shared experience.” The authors cautiously mention only “some similar emotions” potentiate behavioral responses, but once the SVB/NVB distinction is known, we recognize that each language actually consists of two languages and all emotions potentiate “behavioral response” that “naturally flow from that shared experience.” However, I would reserve phrases like “naturally flow” for SVB, as nothing flows in NVB, which is coerced. Only positive emotions flow. As we share the same negative emotions we continue to have NVB. Certainly, our shared anger, frustration, hatred and animosity results in behavioral responses which are different from those which only “naturally flow from” SVB. These predictable outcomes are lawful. If there is SVB we get another predictable outcome, and, if this outcome wasn’t obtained, this simply means that NVB must have prevented it. This is another way of looking at ourselves and each other. Things happen for a reason. When we find why they are happening, we find ways to change them. If we don’t know that the perpetuation of our problems was preceded and maintained by our NVB, if we don’t see any reason to decrease our NVB and increase our SVB, we are not going to be able to solve any of our problems. The solutions to our communication problems will only “naturally flow from” our shared positive affect. It cannot and will not result from our negative emotions. 

The question is really: are we going to speak the same language? Are we going to have SVB? If we have SVB, we find that SVB is the same in every language. Whether we get along with each other doesn’t depend on whether we speak Spanish or Swedish. Everywhere when people get along with each other they engage in SVB. SVB is a universal phenomenon, it transcends all our differences. “Empirical confirmation” of this type of process will only be obtained if we are going to engage in it. Writing and reading about it is not the same as experiencing it. Experiencing SVB is the only way in which we can individually verify its validity. Reading about it will not and cannot provide this experience. Also, a “neurophysiological account” is not really needed to prove what we already know through direct experience: “affective and behavioral resonance in humans such as contagious laughter, contagious crying and comfort-seeking.” We need a SVB way of talking, which makes us familiar with our emotions and more capable of expressing them accurately. NVB can be defined as our failed attempts to express our emotions. We cannot wait for “empirical confirmation” to get better at expressing what we feel. The “vocal-affective influence” is there whether we know it or not. Although we may have a lot of trouble because of this, unconsciously, we still experience our own and each other’s emotions.

The authors argue in favor of “vocal-affective bootstrapping of complex communication.” This is opposed to the long-held, reigning Chomskyan view that language learning “must be governed by some innate coding of its deep organizational properties in a special language module in the brain (Chomsky, 1957). Such a view disregards that “speech sounds, as physical signals, influence attentional and affective systems of listeners in ways that might promote language acquisition.” This could mean we learn about SVB, a different language than NVB, the language which we had accepted as ours. Not surprisingly, Chomsky’s voice incites frustration in most of his listeners. Even though he wishes to reduce violence and oppression, his sound has an aversive effect on listeners, who think that this is okay. A similar effect is created by others who adamantly try to change the world.  Amy Goodmans, Rush Limbaughs, Clintons, Popes, Dalai Lamas, Doctor Phils all mainly have NVB and teach people to have NVB. They know how to attract the attention, but are unaware of the SVB/NVB distinction. All of them are supposedly simplifying things. Fact is, their NVB complicates things. Only SVB can simplify things, because it includes rather than excludes complexity. Supposedly, if we listen to these people we obtain the solution to our problems. Nothing is further from the truth. Only a different way of talking is going to solve our problems and this way of talking is not demonstrated by any of these people. They cannot demonstrate it as they don’t know about it. Of course, they have all experienced SVB and they have some familiarity with it, but this hasn’t resulted into a persistent adn skillful focus on the “vocal-affective influence” of the speaker on the listener. Such a focus is needed to achieve and maintain SVB.