August 30, 2015

August 30, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my thirteenth response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others”by Rendall and Owren, (2010). How interesting it is that “words that convey “smallness” are disproportionately characterized by high-front vowels whose spectral density is biased toward higher frequencies, and words that convey “ largeness ” are characterized by low-back vowels whose spectral density is biased toward lower frequencies ( Hinton et al., 1995 ).” As someone who played on different sizes of flutes this is nothing new to me. There is a lawful relationship between size and sound and this has nothing to do with language differences. A similar relationship exists between emotion and sound. However, we underestimate the importance of this relationship. We are biased toward semantics and tone-deaf for emotion as we fixate on the words and don’t listen to how we sound while we speak. In every language of the world there is SVB and NVB. Only during SVB does the sound of the speaker’s voice “facilitate semantic learning. 

“This phenomenon occurs cross-linguistically and represents the semantic extension in languages of the natural sound-symbolic relationship that exists in the wider world as noted above. Hence, a young infant’s affective familiarity with these basic sound-symbolic relationships could subsequently facilitate semantic learning, at least of words that obey the cross- cultural pattern of semantic diminution and augmentation.” Not much learning is going to occur as long as the listener’s “affective familiarity with these basic sound-symbolic relationships” is based on fear of punishment. Unfortunately, much, if not most of our cultural conditioning is based on coercion. Our cultural conditioning is as strong as it is, as it is based NVB which dominates in every culture. However, there are cultures in which there is more SVB than in others. I am certain that in Holland there is more SVB than in the United States. “And these linguistic patterns in turn are likely to have arisen naturally but unintentionally through historical processes of cultural selection, which favored the use and survival of word forms that convey their meaning more “naturally” in the sense that they are easier to learn, recall and deploy, precisely because they exploit biologically preprepared sound – meaning relationships.” Cultures change. It seems to me the national dialogue in Holland, my country of origin, has in recent years become more NVB, while conversation in the USA is slowly beginning to change toward SVB. I like to think of myself as helping that process along. This gives the saying ‘don’t ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country’ an entirely new meaning.

If we engage in SVB, we will be exploring what the authors have called “affective semantics.” In SVB we say different things because of how we sound. We will say things which we couldn’t say before, because our sound wouldn’t let us. The authors describe SVB; “Accepting this possibility suggests even wider scope for semantic constructs to be grounded in the perceptuo-affective “impacts” of sound structure – what might be termed affective semantics.”Our nervous system prefers certain sounds over others. If we were given the choice, we would choose SVB over NVB 100% of the time. Fact is, however, that we are not given the choice and we don’t even realize that we have a choice. The choice is apparent when the distinction is made between SVB and NVB. As stated, we have a semantic bias and we don’t listen to ourselves while we speak and we engage in NVB by default. 

In every textbook about the scientific method we are told that we must start with observation and description before we formulate a hypothesis. From the get-go there is visual bias. Auditory data, as pertaining to how we sound while we speak, is given short shrift in psychology. Even if it is mentioned, since everything in science has to be defined and written, the auditory data are lost in translation, because written and spoken language are two entirely different things. Experiencing the affective effects of how we sound while we speak and listen isn’t the same as reading and writing about it.

“Kohler (1947) famously reported a bias for human subjects to match particular nonsense words, such as naluma and takete, with unfamiliar objects whose form was rounded or jagged, respectively. This bias has been confirmed in other populations and in young children, and it has been extended to include other objects and other nonsense words, such as bouba and kiki (e.g., Westbury, 2005 ; Maurer et al., 2006 ). One explanation for this implicit semantic bias is that it reflects reciprocal linkage between the visuo-sensory processing of a rounded object and activation of motor areas responsible for coordinating the articulation of the round-mouth vowels both in bouba and naluma, but not kiki or takete" (Ramachandran and Hubbard, 2001). As is clear from this line of research, the interpretation is “reciprocal linkage between the visuo-sensory processing.” Yet, another interpretation is needed.

“A related alternative is that the semantic bias reflects the differential affective quality of sounds with different spectral density and signal onsets, as reviewed earlier for animal vocalizations. In this case, the consonants /k/ and /t/ are unvoiced and have relatively plosive onsets and noisy spectra. Therefore, the words kiki and takete might more naturally conjure “harsh/fractured” and similar semantic constructs, and so be matched to jagged objects preferentially. In contrast, the consonants /b/, /n/, /l/ and /m/ are all either voiced, or nearly so, and therefore have smoother onsets and more patterned spectral structures. Hence, the words bouba and naluma might more naturally conjure “smooth/ connected” and similar semantic constructs, and so be matched to rounded objects. Recent experiments using words that both replicate and cross the original consonant and vowel contexts (i.e., boubakiki; kouka-bibi) provide some support for this account (Rendall & Nielsen, unpublished data). By extension, a vastly larger set of affective semantic effects might await future discovery and might ultimately be shown to account for the form of at least some real words.”

Since they are animal researchers, these authors are on the right track when they state: “The semantic bias reflects the differential affective quality of sounds.” I think the “vastly larger set of affective semantic effects” that "awaits future discovery and might ultimately be shown to account for the form of at least some real words” will remain unknown as long as we continue to have NVB and don’t discover SVB and learn how to maintain it. SVB holds the key to a many discoveries. Certain things can only be said and understood during SVB, but as long as NVB reigns, we are not going to hear it, as we are not listening to ourselves. Even if we overcame our semantic bias and we would focus more on how we sound, it still remains to be seen (pun intended) if we would be willing to be concerned with how we ourselves sound. Our willingness to pay attention to how we as speakers sound depends on the circumstance in which we talk. If the circumstance is such that we, because of threat, focus on each other, instead of on ourselves, we again engage in NVB. If others are aversively influencing us as speakers or as listeners, our communication becomes a struggle between the speaker and the listener, based on our outward orientation and fixation on words. 

SVB requires the absence of aversive stimulation and only if we arrange for such a circumstance we are able to achieve and maintain it. “Vocalizations can exert direct and indirect influences on listener affect and behavior. Some of the effects are taxonomically widespread, evolutionarily conserved and very difficult for listeners to control or resist.” Both SVB and NVB are “evolutionary conserved” as we have a survival need to express safety, wellbeing, but also fear and threat. “Of course, as functional as such affective effects of vocalizations can be, they do not undercut the role of cognition, nor do they preclude the possibility of more complex communicative processes and outcomes in many species.” I disagree with this general statement, because I think of human vocalizations. NVB not only “undercuts the role of cognition”, but it also “precludes the possibility of more complex communicative processes and outcomes.” 

Only in SVB do vocal signals “scaffold communicative complexity.” Only in SVB there can be “the complementary and integrated nature of affective and cognitive systems.” Only in SVB there is “semantic complexity of human language” based on positive affect and subsequent “sound – meaning relationships.” Only in SVB do communicators experience that “such pre-prepared, or early acquired, sound – sense relationships represent a form of intrinsic (i.e., original) meaning that provides a natural foundation from which to construct increasingly complex semantic systems.” None of these ontogenetic effects will be achieved with negative affect, that is, with NVB.  NVB creates a negative motivation for our actions. With NVB we are not for something, but we are always against something. “The corollary is that the communicative importance of the affective influence of vocal signals do not disappear when brains get larger and the potential for cognitive, evaluative control of behavior increases. Rather, complex communicative processes might often specifically exploit and build on the phylogenetically ancient and widespread affective effects of vocal signals.” NVB doesn’t and can't provide us with “cognitive, evaluative control of behavior”, instead it makes us justify and downplay our actions, specifically our way of talking, because of our negative emotions.

August 29, 2015

August 29, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my twelfth response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others” by Rendall and Owren, (2010). In the section of the paper titled “Bio-phonetics”, the authors give a perfect example of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). However, they only mention it as a possibility, not as a necessity, which, of course, it is. “It is also possible that some of the relatively rich semantics of adult language is scaffolded on simpler sound–meaning relationships. For example, the first natural sound–meaning relationships for infants are those marking the caregiver’s identity. Young infants of most species, including humans, show an early preference for mothers ’ voice whose unique features they quickly associate with the comfort, support and accompanying positive affect that she represents.” Without a safe and reliable “sound-meaning relationship”, which is based on the mother’s voice, the infant cannot grow up to be able to produce the “relatively rich semantics of adult language.” If the infant didn’t and couldn’t experience “comfort, support, and accompanying affect” of the mother’s voice, he or she grows up with a narrowed basis for language. Moreover, if there was no SVB, there must have been Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which, because of its negative affect, impairs our relationships. The foundation for what later becomes SVB or NVB is laid in our childhood.

“Over time, infants learn additional social discriminations that have other functional behavioral consequences. These include discriminating the age, sex and body size of social companions, because these basic distinctions herald important differences in the social status, behavioral dominance and implicit threat or challenge that others represent.” If the mother’s identity is recognized, the infant will learn to associate her voice with giving “comfort, support, and accompanying affect” and begin to realize how different the mother sounds compared to others. In other words, the mother’s SVB forms the foundation for the infant’s ability to recognize NVB. If the father and the other children share the mother’s SVB, then the family interactions are going to be happy and harmonious, but if their communication, like it was in my family, is NVB, then NVB sets the stage for discriminating “the age, sex, and body size of social companions, because these basic distinctions herald important differences in the social status, behavioral dominance and implicit threat or challenge that others represent.” This exactly describes  NVB, because in NVB the speaker dominates the listener.

At age 57, I finally have become capable of recognizing that only in SVB we can discriminate NVB and that NVB simply cannot discriminate SVB. My mother’s influence was such that I was able to discover SVB. Now that I have discovered it, I don’t go back anymore to the NVB represented by my father and siblings. NVB is meaningless to me as the “implicit threat or challenge that others represent” could never result in SVB. I consider SVB to be a science which can only be learned if it is taught. Social, hierarchical distinctions are based on pre-scientific NVB. We have maintained NVB because of our social distinctions, which have prevented us from becoming truly verbal and fully human. Such distinctions don’t matter during SVB. 

Coercive interaction simply sounds horrible, that is why I didn't listen to my father. “Many of these social distinctions are also signaled by salient differences in the acoustic features of the vocalizations these individuals produce, such as in voice pitch (fundamental frequency) and voice resonances (or formants) that vary predictably among age – sex classes and among individuals of varying body size.” Discrimination of NVB makes higher rates of SVB possible.  It is true for primates “many of the earliest sound – meaning relationships that young infants acquire are those that represent meaningful social distinctions among group members, and the affective and behavioral consequences they predict.” It was my mother’s, not my father’s voice that taught me the difference between SVB and NVB. 

Another way of saying the aforementioned is that my father’s dominating NVB have inadvertently led me to work very hard on trying to understand how spoken communication actually works. His way of talking was such a big contrast to my mother that I was unable to deal with this difference as a child. The authors are correct when they write “It is, therefore, possible that the semantics of human languages exploit some of these biologically, preprepared sound – meaning relationships which would then offer infants a natural aid in semantic learning.” My father’s forceful voice impaired my language development and learning initially, but my mother’s voice made me wonder what would happen if her way of talking could continue.

August 28, 2015

August 28, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my eleventh response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others” by Rendall and Owren, (2010).  Before I continue commenting on this important paper, I want to write about a dream I just woke up from. It was a about magnificent feast.  Accompanied by music, a big, canoe-like dish was carried in by eight men and eight women. The food displayed looked beautiful. It was a piece of art, so colorful and abundant. As they ceremonially came to the middle of the room that was filled with the many participants for this celebration, it was apparent to everyone that the food was alive. People let out sounds of joy, thankfulness and anticipation and were amazed by the wave-like changing patterns and colors of the food. The huge dish seemed to float off the shoulders of the carriers, who, with great care and calmness lowered it to the ground. It seemed to take a long time for the dish to land and everyone admired the grace with which this was done. People drew closer and were ready to eat from this gorgeous dish. Plates had been handed out and while this boat of sacred food came closer to the ground, it began to overflow. Everyone came closer and held out their plates to catch the food and plates were passed from one person to the next until everyone had been provided. Before the eating began, a song was sung by a female and a male singer, which described the waiting for, the arrival and the meaning of this food. As everyone swayed to this graceful music, their eyes filled with tears of gratitude. It was now time to eat, to use our hands and to nourish ourselves.

While we speak, we either adjust and attune to each other or we don’t. If we don’t, speakers produce Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), but if we do, we make Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) available to the listener. Because of their punitive conditioning many adults never acquired the ability attune. As children, we were born sensitive and in need of attunement and attachment. Without attunement there can be no attachment. Attachment is only possible if we are and remain attuned. However, even if were fortunate enough to have good parents, most of us only experience this wonderful attachment and attunement while we grow up.  As we get older, we become less and less reinforced for this and, consequently, this creates many problems. There is of course a more obvious need for reinforcement while we are young, because without it we are unable to learn anything. As we have learned things, we are capable of reinforcing ourselves, but this never means that we can completely do without the reinforcement of others.

The authors wrote “In many cultures, the speech that adults use when talking to infants is quite different from the speech they use when talking to other adults. Infant-directed speech is often simplified compared to adult-directed speech, but it also often involves exaggerated prosodic features, such as wider excursions of voice pitch; more variable amplitude, tempo and delivery; and more varied patterns of word stress. These modifications to infant directed speech mean that, as a physical acoustic signal, it is inherently both more salient and more variable than adult-directed speech, and these properties also make it more functional in capturing and focusing infant attention and modulating core arousal.” It is interesting that we, as adults, also want to see and hear actors and performers act out “exaggerated prosodic features.” Our emotional need continues to exist. However, we can’t get our need for “salient” and “variable” speech met by passively listening to actors, performers, leaders, preachers and professional speakers, who supposedly do the talking for us. Unless we engage in SVB, our need for interaction can’t be met. Every time we engage in NVB this need is frustrated and we become more isolated. Also, our therapists and teachers usually can't help us achieve SVB as they tend to be too busy with what they are saying. Their common verbal fixation causes NVB and is based on a misunderstanding about talking and listening. As long as the sound of our voice is not our focus while we speak we will continue to have NVB.

The aforementioned more “salient”, “variable” speech, which seems to come natural when adults talk with children, is needed for adults as well.  However, during the course of our normal development our overt speech becomes covert. Initially, everyone is happy when a child says its first few words and begins to formulate sentences, but once they acquire language, speech begins to recede to a covert level, where it becomes what we say to ourselves and determines to what extent we are able to regulate ourselves. Obviously, negative self-talk is dysregulating and only our positive self-talk is regulating. Such negative or positive self-talk is a function of the NVB or SVB which we have experienced while growing up. For most people there is more SVB while growing up then while being grown up. Therefore, as adults, we are mainly determined by what we say to ourselves, by covert speech. To the extent that our positive self-talk allows us to be open to what others say to us, we will engage in SVB, but to the extent that our negative self-talk prevents us from being open to others, we will engage in NVB. Thus, how we were being talked with while we were growing up determines how we later talk as adults. We cannot produce SVB as long as it was not reinforced. And, of course, then, we also cannot reinforce SVB in others.

Our ability to become an effective speaker is determined by the extent to  which we can be an affective speaker. We don't become fully verbal as long as the sound of our voice doesn’t support what we are saying. This is only be the case in SVB. During NVB our voice contradicts what we are saying, that is, our negative affect influences the listener in such a way that he or she experiences our sound as an aversive stimulus from which they want to escape. To learn, not only children need to hear a positive sound, adults need to hear a positive sound too. Without that listeners will not fully understand what the speaker is saying. “The resulting modulatory effects have been shown to facilitate semantic learning and to highlight additional organizational properties of language. For example, exaggerated pitch excursions and word stress in conjunction with manual gesturing and manipulation of concrete objects facilitates semantic labeling. Variable tempo and pausing help to highlight phonetic boundaries, clausal boundaries and higher syntactical units (reviewed in Kuhl, 2000 ).

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.