March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is the second part of this writer’s response to “Verbally-Governed and Event-Governed Behavior” by E.A. Vargas (1986). The reader is informed about this paper, because it contains important descriptions which come close to what this writer calls Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Vargas writes “Unfortunately, we typically state that the organism is an agent for whatever action

it takes. This is especially the case when we speak of verbal behavior. Our language - the typically reinforced utterances of our verbal

community – impels us to describe action that way.” Vargas refers here to NVB. Although most of us would like to believe otherwise, we mainly engage in NVB. Only in moments in which we are completely at ease can we have SVB.  However, such moments are rarely prolonged while we speak.  

It is of great importance we acknowledge that most of our vocal verbal behavior is NVB. We will only be able to make progress with vocal verbal behavior, if we have an accurate description of it. However, we describe ourselves as agents for the actions we presumably take only when we feel threatened. Only for the person whose environment is safe and supportive, does it make sense that “The organism does not originate verbal behavior as "speaker" in any of its modes [topography], whether writing, talking, or gesturing” (italics added). Only when the mediator without any obstruction or effort, can become the verbalizer and can express him or herself in an uninhibited manner, will we transcend our ancient agential uptightness. 

By placing, as Skinner wanted, more emphasis on “the place of mediation”  rather than on “the place of emission”, will we be able to consider “the social behavior that mediates the contact of verbal behavior with its environment. The locality of the behavior that mediates has traditionally been called a "listener."” SVB is the listener's perspective of the speaker. 

“The analysis of verbal behavior properly concentrates on the behavior being mediated.” Yet, mediation is impossible if the mediator is prevented from becoming a verbalizer.  If the mediator is construed as someone who cannot become the verbalizer, this “dispenses with the special analysis we make of verbal behavior as behavior that is verbal because it is mediated.” Emphasis on mediation only makes sense if the mediator has been given the opportunity to become a verbalizer. Vargase writes “If the analysis takes place within the behaviorological theory of verbal behavior, then that "listener" is simply a "speaker," when the controlling relations at that locality are those of verbal behavior.” Only during SVB can verbalizers become mediators and mediators become speakers, but during NVB these roles are predetermined and cannot be reversed. Once these rules are changed, it is no longer NVB, it becomes SVB. It is therefore due to the mediator and not due to the speaker that more instances of SVB and less instances of NVB will begin to occur during a verbal episode. 

Vargas reminds us “It is important to keep in mind the non-autonomous nature of the behavior of the parties we choose for the current focus of our analysis.” The verbalizer behaviors as well as the mediator behaviors are “systems of variables – the mutual effects of response and stimulus interactions” (italics added). Vargas replaced the agential term “speaker” with “verbalizer" and “listener” with "mediator" as “they more accurately describe both the subject matter, and the relations addressed.” He moved in the right direction from which SVB and NVB can become apparent. 

In SVB we comprehend and accept the behaviorological account that we are not causing our own behavior, but in NVB we remain confined by our outdated agential fiction. As we are verbalizing “in a variety of modes”, not only “speaking, but also writing and gesturing” the “critical action of the mediator” is not “what he or she has heard what was verbalized.”

In vocal verbal behavior, on the other hand, “the critical action of the mediator” is “what he or she has heard what was verbalized.” What is heard in SVB is different from what is heard in NVB. SVB sounds good and NVB sounds awful. “Behavioral topographies gain significance only in their relations to controlling circumstances.” SVB can only take place under non-aversive circumstances, while NVB is always controlled by aversive circumstances. “Calling someone a behaviorist” denotes “respect” in SVB, but “contempt” in NVB. The great difference between linguistic and behaviorological analysis is that in the former “analysis results in a category of verbal utterances classified by the speaker”, but in the latter, analysis is about whether “the mediator behaves as he or she is asked by the verbalizer.” In verbal episodes rich with SVB instances there is almost no difference between the verbalizer and the mediator, but in episodes with high rates of NVB instances, the differences between and the separation of the verbalizer and the mediator become bigger and bigger.

In the conclusion of his paper Vargas gave an illustrative example. “Let's say a person turns his head to a shout in another language, for example, "hombre."” Italics are added to emphasize that the verbalizer and mediator are not and cannot be on the same page as they don't speak the same language. This is identical to the mediator’s response in NVB, whose behavior is controlled by the verbalizer with a negative contingency. “He turns due to the loudness and sharpness of the noise, just as he would to any other sound with those characteristics. The noise, we would say, has no "meaning" for him, even though he may mediate the verbalizer's demand by stopping, and then turning his head. The sound, as [a noxious] stimulus, would not be verbal any more than the sudden bang of an object that fell, or the bark of a dog, or the noise made by an animal.” Many italics were added to emphasize the aversive nature of the sound that is involved in NVB. “Only if he were a member of the same verbal community, would it be possible to mediate his (the mediator's) behavior.” Members of the non-aversive (SVB) vocal verbal community cannot and do not mediate the verbal behavior of members of the aversive (NVB) vocal verbal community. Someone familiar with SVB will not even turn his or her head anymore as he or she knows such sounds weren't meant for him or her.