{"id":403,"date":"2018-09-10T14:52:51","date_gmt":"2018-09-10T18:52:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thescienceofhumanpotential\/?post_type=chapter&p=403"},"modified":"2021-02-07T13:10:02","modified_gmt":"2021-02-07T18:10:02","slug":"speech-and-language","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/thescienceofhumanpotential\/chapter\/speech-and-language\/","title":{"raw":"Speech and Language","rendered":"Speech and Language"},"content":{"raw":"Speech and Language <\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nCivilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock<\/em>.\r\n\r\nSigmund Freud\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nObservational learning has been evidenced in many species of animals including birds (Zentall, 2004) but approximations to speech appear practically unique to humans. Paul Revere famously ordered a lantern signal of \u201cone if by land and two if by sea\u201d during his Revolutionary War midnight ride through the streets of Massachusetts. This is not functionally different from the distinct alarm calls emitted by vervet monkeys in the presence of eagles, snakes, and leopards (Strushaker, 1967; Seyfarth and Cheney, 1980). Through observational learning, young vervets learn to respond to different screeches for \u201cheads up\u201d, \u201cheads down\u201d, and \u201clook around!\u201d Vervets hide under trees to the eagle warning, rear on their hind paws to the snake warning, and climb the nearest tree to the leopard warning. Recently, even more descriptive \u201cspeech\u201d has been demonstrated in prairie dogs (Slobodchikoff, Perla, & Verdolin, 2009). These examples are the closest we see to social learning of speech in other animals. Slobodchikoff (2012) has written a fun and informative review of animal communication entitled Chasing Dr. Doolittle: Learning the Language of Animals<\/em>.\r\n\r\nMeltzoff and Moore (1977, 1983) demonstrated unambiguous examples of imitation in infant humans as young as 12- to 21-days of age, leading to the conclusion that humans normally do not need to be taught this mode of learning.\r\n
\r\n

Video<\/h3>\r\nWatch the following video of Dr. Metzloff describing his research demonstrating imitation in young infants:\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=y4MCqFkbQXI\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nSkinner (1986) contributed an interesting but admittedly post-hoc speculative theoretical article describing possible evolutionary scenarios for the adaptive learning of imitation and speaking. An imitative prompt is more informative than an ordinary gestural prompt in that it specifies the specific characteristics of a desired response. Speech is preferable to signing as a means of communication since it is possible at long distances and other circumstances where individuals cannot see each other.\r\n\r\nHockett\u2019s Features of Language<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIf we are to understand human behavior, we must understand how language is acquired and its impact upon subsequent adaptive learning. Before we proceed, we must consider what we mean by language. Charles Hockett (1960) listed 13 features that he considered essential to language:\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Vocal-auditory channel \u2013 We saw in Chapter 1 that the human being\u2019s brain, with its disproportional amount of space dedicated to the tongue, larynx, and voice box, facilitates the acquisition of speech. Sign language, involving a manual-visual channel, is mostly restricted to deaf people and those wishing to communicate with them.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Broadcast transmission and directional reception \u2013 Sound is sent out in all directions while being received in a single place. This provides an adaptive advantage in that people can communicate with others out of their line of sight.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Rapid fading (transitoriness) \u2013 Sounds are temporary. Writing and audio-recordings are techniques used to address this limitation of speech (and alas, lectures).<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Interchangeability \u2013 One must be able to transmit and receive messages.<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. Total feedback \u2013 One must be able to monitor one\u2019s own use of language.<\/li>\r\n \t
  6. Specialization \u2013 The organs used for language must be specially adapted to that task. Human lips, tongues and throats meet this criterion.<\/li>\r\n \t
  7. Semanticity \u2013 Specific signals can be matched with specific meanings. Different sounds exist for different words.<\/li>\r\n \t
  8. Arbitrariness \u2013 There is no necessary connection between a meaningful unit (e.g., word) and its reference.<\/li>\r\n \t
  9. Discreteness \u2013 There are distinct basic units of sound (phonemes) and meaning (morphemes).<\/li>\r\n \t
  10. Displacement \u2013 One must be able to communicate about things that are not present. One must be able to symbolically represent the past and the future.<\/li>\r\n \t
  11. Productivity \u2013 The units of sound and meaning must be able to be combined to create new sounds and meaningful units (sentences).<\/li>\r\n \t
  12. Duality of patterning \u2013 The sequence of meaningful units must matter (i.e., there must be a syntax).<\/li>\r\n \t
  13. Traditional Transmission \u2013 Specific sounds and words must be learned from other language users.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nAlthough all of Hockett\u2019s features are frequently cited as\u00a0 [pb_glossary id=\"3020\"] essential characteristics of language [\/pb_glossary], the first three elements are restricted to speech. These features do not apply to sign language, letter writing, reading, and other examples of non-vocal\/auditory modes of symbolic communication.\u00a0 The essential characteristics are interchangeability, semanticity, arbitrariness, discreteness, productivity, syntax, and displacement.\r\n
    \r\n

    Exercise<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    \r\n\r\nDescribe Hockett\u2019s major characteristics of language.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nLanguage Acquisition<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe principles of predictive and control learning help us understand the acquisition of language and the role it plays in subsequent human adaptation. At a few months old, infants start to babble and are able to make all the possible human sounds. Eventually, as the child is increasingly exposed to the sounds of her\/his social unit, some of the sounds are \u201cselected\u201d and others removed from the repertoire. Routh (1969) demonstrated that infants are able to make subtle discriminations in sounds. The frequency of speaking either vowels or consonants could be increased if selectively reinforced with tickles and \u201ccoos.\u201d It has been demonstrated that the mother\u2019s vocal imitation of a child\u2019s verbalizations is also an effective reinforcer (Pelaez, Virues-Ortega, and Gewirtz, 2011).\r\n\r\nChildren may learn their first word as early as 9 months. Usually the first words are names of important people (\u201cmama\u201d, \u201cdada\u201d), often followed by greetings (\u201chi\u201d, \u201cbye\u201d) and favored foods. As described in Chapter 5, classical conditioning procedures may be used to establish word meaning. For example, the sound \u201cpapa\u201d is consistently paired with a particular person. Children are encouraged to imitate the sound in the presence of the father. It may be the source of humor (or embarrassment) when a child over-generalizes and uses the word for another male adult. With experience, children learn to attend to the relevant dimensions and apply words consistently and exclusively to the appropriate stimuli or actions (e.g., \u201cwalk\u201d, \u201crun\u201d, \u201ceat\u201d, etc.). Similarly, words are paired with the qualities of objects (e.g., \u201cred\u201d, \u201ccircle\u201d, etc.) and actions (e.g., \u201cfast\u201d, \u201cloud\u201d, etc.). Children learn to abstract out the common properties through the process of concept formation. Words are also paired with quantities of objects. In the same way that \u201credness\u201d may be a quality of diverse stimuli having little else in common, \u201cthree-ness\u201d applies to a particular number of diverse stimuli.\r\n\r\nMuch of our vocabulary applies to non-observable objects or events. It is important to teach a child to indicate when \u201churt\u201d or \u201csick\u201d, or \u201chappy\u201d or \u201csad.\u201d In these instances, an adult must infer the child\u2019s feelings from his\/her behavior and surrounding circumstances. For example, if you see a child crying after bumping her head, you might ask if it hurts. As vocabulary size increases, meaning can be established through higher-order conditioning using only words. For example, if a child is taught that a jellyfish is a \u201cyucky creature that lives in the sea and stings\u201d, he\/she will probably become fearful when swimming in the ocean.\r\n\r\nSince different languages have different word orders for the parts of speech, syntax (i.e., grammatical order) must be learned. At about 18 months to 2 years of age, children usually start to combine words and by 2-1\/2 they are forming brief (not always grammatical) sentences. With repeated examples of their native language, children are able to abstract out schemas (i.e., an organized set of rules) for forming grammatical sentences (e.g., \u201cthe car is blue\u201d, \u201cthe square is big\u201d, etc.). It is much easier to learn grammatical sequences of nonsense words (e.g., The maff vlems oothly um the glox nerfs) than non-grammatical sequences (e.g., maff vlem ooth um glox nerf). This indicates the role of schema learning in the acquisition of syntax (Osgood, 1957, p.88). Children usually acquire the intricacies of grammar by about 6 years of age. In the next chapter, we will describe the process of abstraction as it applies to concept learning, schema development, and problem-solving.\r\n\r\nVocabulary size has been found to be an important predictor of success in school (Anderson & Freebody, 1981). Major factors influencing vocabulary size include socio-economic status (SES) and the language proficiencies of significant others, particularly the mother. In a monumental project, Hart and Risley (1995) recorded the number of words spoken at home by parents and 7-month-to 36-month-old children in 42 families over a 3-year period. They found that differences in the children\u2019s IQ scores, language abilities, and success in school were all related to how much their parents spoke to them. They also found significant differences in the manner in which low and high SES parents spoke to their children. Low SES parents were more likely to make demands and offer reprimands while high SES parents were more likely to engage in extended conversations, discussion, and problem-solving. Whereas the number of reprimands given for inappropriate behavior was about the same for low and high SES parents, high SES parents administered much more praise.\r\n\r\nSpeech becomes an important and efficient way of communicating one\u2019s thoughts, wishes, and feelings. This is true for the Nukak as well as for us. Given the harshness of their living conditions and the limits of their experiences, the Nukak have much in common with low SES children within our society. Declarative statements (e.g., \u201cthe stick is sharp\u201d, \u201cthe stove is hot\u201d; \u201cpick up the leaves\u201d, \u201cdon\u2019t fight with your sister\u201d; \u201cI am happy\u201d, \u201cyou are tired\u201d, become the primary basis for conducting much of the everyday chores and interactions.\r\n
    \r\n

    Exercise<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    \r\n\r\nDescribe how control learning principles apply to the acquisition of language.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nSpoken language is observed in stone-age hunter\/gatherer and technologically advanced cultures. There has been controversy concerning the role of nature and nurture in human language development (Chomsky, 1959; Skinner, 1957). Skinner, writing from a functionalist\/behavioral perspective, tellingly entitled his book Verbal Behavior<\/em>, not \u201cUsing Language.\u201d Watson (1930) described thinking as \u201ccovert speech\u201d while Skinner (1953) referred to \u201cprivate behavior.\u201d According to Vygotsky (originally published in 1934), children initially \u201cthink out loud\u201d and eventually learn to \u201cthink to themselves.\u201d Skinner suggested that speaking and thinking were not different in kind from other forms of behavior and that respondent conditioning (predictive learning) and operant conditioning (control learning) could provide the necessary experiential explanatory principles. There was no need to propose a separate \"language acquisition device\" to account for human speech.\r\n\r\nWe saw in Chapter 5, how predictive learning principles could be applied to the acquisition of word meaning. Basically, Skinner argued that words could serve as overt and covert substitutes for the control learning ABCs. As antecedents, words could function as discriminative stimuli and warning stimuli. For example, \u201cGive mommy a kiss\u201d or \u201cHeads up!\u201d As consequences, words can substitute for reinforcers and punishers (e.g., \u201cThank you.\u201d, \u201cStop that!\u201d). A rule is a common, useful, and important type of verbal statement including each of the control learning ABCs (Hayes, 1989). That is, a [pb_glossary id=\"3035\"] rule [\/pb_glossary] specifies the circumstances (antecedents) under which a particular act (behavior) is rewarded or punished (consequence). For example, a parent might instruct a child, \u201cAt dinner, if you eat your vegetables you can have your dessert\u201d or, \u201cWhen you get to the curb look both ways before crossing the street or you could get hit by a car.\u201d\r\n\r\nChomsky, a psycholinguist, submitted a scathing critique of Skinner\u2019s book, emphasizing how human genetics appears to include a \u201clanguage acquisition device.\u201d The Chapter 1 picture of the human homunculus, with its disproportional brain space dedicated to the body parts involved in speech, certainly suggests that the human being\u2019s structure facilitates language acquisition. The homunculus also implies there is adaptive value to spoken language; otherwise these structures would not have evolved. Proposing a \u201clanguage acquisition device\u201d, similar to proposing an instinct to account for speech, is a circular pseudo-explanation. The language acquisition device is inferred from the observation of speech, it does not explain speech. Remember, a psychological explanation must specify specific hereditary and\/or environmental causes. Chomsky does neither, whereas Skinner is quite specific about the types of experience that will foster different types of verbal behavior. It is not as though Skinner denies the role of human structure in the acquisition of speech or its importance as indicated in the following quote. \u201cThe human species took a crucial step forward when its vocal musculature came under operant control in the production of speech sounds. Indeed, it is possible that all the distinctive achievements of the species can be traced to that one genetic change\u201d (Skinner, 1986). Neuroscientists and behavioral neuroscientists are actively engaged in research examining how our \u201call-purpose acquisition device\u201d (i.e., brain) is involved in the learning of speech, reading, quantitative skills, problem-solving, etc.\r\n\r\nHuman beings may have started out under restricted geographic and climatic conditions in Africa, but we have spread all over the globe (Diamond, 2005). We developed different words and languages tailored to our environmental and social circumstances. There is much to be learned from the school of hard knocks, but it is limited to our direct experience and can be difficult or dangerous. Our verbal lives enormously expand learning opportunities beyond our immediate environment to anything that can be imagined. Indirect learning (i.e., observation or language) often speeds up adaptive learning and eliminates danger. It is not surprising that human parents universally dedicate a great deal of effort to teaching their children to speak. It makes life easier, safer, and better for them as well as their children.\r\n\r\nMacCorquodale (1969) wrote a retrospective appreciation of Skinner\u2019s book along with a comprehensive and well-reasoned response (1970) to Chomsky\u2019s critique. Essentially, MacCorquodale described Chomsky as a structuralist and Skinner as a functionalist. That is, Chomsky attempted to describe how the structure of the mind enables language. Skinner was concerned with how language enables individuals to adapt to their environmental conditions. Paraphrasing Mark Twain, an article marking the 50th anniversary of its publication concluded that \u201cReports of the death of Verbal Behavior <\/em>and behaviorism have been greatly exaggerated\u201d (Schlinger, 2008).\r\n
    \r\n

    Exercise<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    Describe how control learning principles help us understand verbal behavior.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nReading and Writing<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIt is language in written form that has enabled the rapid and widespread dissemination of knowledge within and between cultures. It is also the medium for recording our evolving advances in knowledge and technology. Early forms of Bronze Age writing were based on symbols or pictures etched in clay. Later Bronze Age writing started to include phonemic symbols that were precursors to the Iron Age Phoenician alphabet consisting of 22 characters representing consonants (but no vowels). The Phoenician alphabet was adopted by the Greeks and evolved into the modern Roman alphabet. The [pb_glossary id=\"3037\"] phonetic alphabet [\/pb_glossary] permitted written representation of any pronounceable word in a language.\r\n\r\nThe [pb_glossary id=\"3038\"] Arabic numbering system [\/pb_glossary] was originally invented in India before being transmitted to Europe in the Middle Ages. It permits written representation of any quantity, real or imagined, and is fundamental to mathematics and the scientific method, which rely on quantification and measurement. The alphabet and Arabic numbers permit words to become \u201cpermanent\u201d in comparison to their transitory auditory form. This written permanence made it possible to communicate with more people over greater distances and eventually to build libraries. The first great library was established at Alexandria, Egypt in approximately 300 years B.C. Scrolls of parchment and papyrus were stored on the walled shelves of a huge concrete building (Figure 6.5).\u00a0\u00a0 Gutenberg\u2019s invention of the printing press in 1439 enabled mass publication of written material throughout Western Europe (Figure 6.6). Today, e-books are available on electronic readers that can be held in the palm of your hands (Figure 6.7)! It should not be surprising that college student differences in knowledge correlate with their amount of exposure to print (Stanovich and Cunningham, 1993).\r\n\r\n \r\n

    \"File:Library<\/p>\r\n

    Figure 6.5\u00a0 The library at Alexandria.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n

    Figure 6.6\u00a0 Gutenberg\u2019s printing press.<\/em><\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/1\/18\/Kindle_3_by_Jleon.jpg\"\r\n

    Figure 6.7\u00a0 The library now.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nAttributions<\/strong>\r\n\r\nFigure 6.5 <\/strong>\"The library at Alexandria\"<\/a> by Wikimedia<\/a> is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\r\n\r\nFigure 6.6 <\/strong>\"Guttenburg's printing press\"<\/a> by \u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05e8\u05dc<\/a> is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\r\n\r\nFigure 6.7 <\/strong>\"A<\/a>mazon Kindle\"<\/a> by Jleon<\/a> is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n ","rendered":"

    Speech and Language <\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    Sigmund Freud<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Observational learning has been evidenced in many species of animals including birds (Zentall, 2004) but approximations to speech appear practically unique to humans. Paul Revere famously ordered a lantern signal of \u201cone if by land and two if by sea\u201d during his Revolutionary War midnight ride through the streets of Massachusetts. This is not functionally different from the distinct alarm calls emitted by vervet monkeys in the presence of eagles, snakes, and leopards (Strushaker, 1967; Seyfarth and Cheney, 1980). Through observational learning, young vervets learn to respond to different screeches for \u201cheads up\u201d, \u201cheads down\u201d, and \u201clook around!\u201d Vervets hide under trees to the eagle warning, rear on their hind paws to the snake warning, and climb the nearest tree to the leopard warning. Recently, even more descriptive \u201cspeech\u201d has been demonstrated in prairie dogs (Slobodchikoff, Perla, & Verdolin, 2009). These examples are the closest we see to social learning of speech in other animals. Slobodchikoff (2012) has written a fun and informative review of animal communication entitled Chasing Dr. Doolittle: Learning the Language of Animals<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    Meltzoff and Moore (1977, 1983) demonstrated unambiguous examples of imitation in infant humans as young as 12- to 21-days of age, leading to the conclusion that humans normally do not need to be taught this mode of learning.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Video<\/h3>\n

    Watch the following video of Dr. Metzloff describing his research demonstrating imitation in young infants:<\/p>\n