The Symbolic Process and its Integration in Children
Chapter 3: The Social Behaviouristic Approach — A Genetic and Comparative Study
John Fordyce Markey
Table of Contents | Next | Previous
THE increasing importance attributed to social behaviour in the symbolic process has been discussed in the preceding chapter. This approach will be applied to the present analysis. By " social " is meant those influences exerted by organisms of the group upon each other, and those responses which are made to other organisms as a result of these influences. The main task is to analyse the materials in order to see clearly the operation of these social interactions.
The behaviouristic approach has been so well established as a sound methodological principle that its application to this problem is an obvious necessity. This is particularly true on account of the fact that the symbolic process has been held as one of the strongest vantage grounds of introspectionism and subjectivism. However thriving these two institutions may have been at one time, their present bankruptcy certainly gives reason for the trial of other frames of reference.
It is not the intention to enter into a discussion of the metaphysical questions lying behind the behaviouristic method. The assumption is that the universe is manifest to us by its activity and by our behaviour in reference to it. This, of course, does leave the door open for one to posit whatever he may by act of belief or faith wish to hypothecate as lying behind phenomena. But this question is one for philosophy, science can deal only with observable phenomena. Having ruled out the metaphysical question, one may not therewith deny facts of experience, as some have done. The object is to discover how closely the
( 28) behaviouristic account will fit and explain the observed facts. This does not, however, mean that assumptions merely read into behaviour processes by some recent psychologists must also be accounted for. By the use of the behaviouristic method it is not meant to espouse an " ism," but to adopt a method of studying psychological phenomena as composed of acts and action on the part of biological organisms living in the world to which they respond. Those behaviouristic assumptions which deny facts which are often called thought, mental, conscious and the like, are not acceptable. Nor are the assumptions acceptable which deny that a behaviouristic study of such phenomena can be made.[1] It is accepted that there are facts which are designated by such categories and the problem is to see whether they may be explained by the behaviour, the action, of physiological organisms. There is no pretence that such an approach will leave nothing more to be known This cannot be said of any science or method. The attempt is to discover whether such things as are sometimes termed " mind," " consciousness," " psychic" and the like which do not appear to be biological structures can be more completely explained in terms of the behaviour of organisms than by positing them as separate or special structures or elements introduced ex cathedra. The attempt is to see how far mind et al. may be explained as a particularly integrated type of behaviour; i.e., to look at mind as action.
For the present purposes, a symbol may be defined as an act or object which is marked off by behaviour as a substitute for a stimulus-act or -object and a response-act or -object, and which is also at the same time set off by behaviour as different from them. The symbol has a double validity, that is, for both the stimulus and the response. The object spoken of- is a behaviour object, one which has received its character as an object due to behaviour responses-this holds regarding all objects. In view of this fact, the definition of a symbol may be
( 29) expressed a little differently as an act which is a stimulus-substitute for another act often not present, and at the same time is a stimulus for a response to-something to be done about-this other act, while the stimulus substitute is also marked off by behaviour as distinct from the other act and the response to it.
While language symbols might be used as practically synonymous with this definition, it would probably be preferable to restrict language to speech and gesture symbols and retain the term symbol to include also other objects, such as emblems, art, etc., which have this particular relation shown in its clearest form in language.
The genetic development of symbolic behaviour will be traced from the standpoint of the individual and of the larger group process.
Behaviour is a continuous process. For purposes of getting a steady look at it, the act and the S-R (Stimulus Response) process furnish points of reference from which uniformities, dependent and sequential correlations may be measured and induced. The S-R relationship or phases , of the act being such a generally recognized frame of reference maybe accepted as a common ground for departure. It gives a basis for a functional (in the mathematical sense) and mechanistic explanation. Such an attempt to thus establish uniform and interdependent relationship is sound and necessary if we are to have a nomological science of behaviour. Any departure from a S-R (dependent) relation should be critically examined to ascertain the dependent or sequential character of it. Nor is the S-R equation of itself an " object with power," the functional nature is to be shown by scientific procedure, not otherwise assumed or taken for granted. The work of neurologists and psychologists such as Pavlov, Jennings, Sherrington, Loeb, Herrick, et al. has already given firm ground for the assumption of such mechanistic relation in behaviour processes.
In studying the development of symbolic behaviour it will be one of the chief tasks to see whether this remains true in this latter field of activity as well.
( 30)
The development of conditioned reflexes and conditioned responses is also well established upon a physiological basis, particularly due to the work of the Russian school of objective psychology.[2]
Starting for the time with these concepts, we may trace the early development of the child's symbolic behaviour. The infant begins with gestures, not used in the sense of language gestures, and laryngeal expressions which have an instinctive basis. The equipment is in common with other animals, but more extensive. About the second half-year of life, the period of articulation begins, the babbling and cooing of the child. Such activity is particularly important as a means to the establishment of circular reflexes or responses between the sound of the syllable and the response of speaking it. This is the requisite situation for the establishment of the conditioned response. The vocal motor synaptic resistance is lowered or completely overcome at the same time that the auditory stimulation occurs. From now on articulation may be controlled through the auditory receptor. The child becomes conditioned to the sounds produced by the vocal apparatus of other persons.[3]
The theory so far outlined, as Allport states, is hypothetical, as precise psychological data are lacking. The question lies between two main theories, that of instinctive imitation and that of the conditioned auditory-vocal response as outlined above. Such control by surrounding sounds is what is so often called imitation; the literature on the subject is full of it. The inheritance of such an already established auditory-vocal connection, however, seems to be purely a speculative assumption. There is little or no positive proof for it.
( 31)
The imitation theory, if accepted, must establish the inheritance of an instinctive mechanism set without learning to operate in an imitative manner to the sounds around the child. Any other position takes the heart out of the theory as an explanation of this period of development. An individual cannot imitate anything for which he has not already established some mechanism, either inherited or learned. Hence, if such structure is not inherited, then it is the learning or acquiring of this ability which interests us and which imitation does not explain. If there are instinctive connections already set and established in any workable condition, it is hard to see why children have so much difficulty in " imitating " correctly. We are thus thrown back upon a maturation theory, which in this case does not appear applicable but even more speculative, or we must admit the process of conditioning similar to that explained above. If these so-called instinctive connections are so loose that they require conditioning by vocal and auditory stimulation in order to be operative, then reliance must be placed upon these conditioning processes in their actual establishment, the instinctive basis must be supplemented and cannot be used except as a partial explanation. The fact often given as evidence that a child responds with a similar word to the stimulus word is no proof at all for instinctive imitation, it merely indicates something to be explained.
More accurately, this process seems to be one of the touching-off of previously acquired vocal habits by the auditory stimuli conditioned to them. The child in this period of development, as far as can be observed, does not imitate the sounds spoken by another, but responds with the sound for which the word by similarity or otherwise is a sufficient stimulus. To call this "imitation" seems to be an addition of confusion to the situation. Present-day psychologists are fairly well agreed that the term " imitation " is little more than an inexact term for similarities observed in behaviour. (Allport, 1924, p. 239 ; Thorndike, 1920, Ch. VIII.)
On the other hand, there is positive evidence in support
( 32) of the establishment of conditioned circular response. The following lines of evidence supporting this hypothesis are reviewed by Allport (1924, p. 185).
1. If vocal responses are circularly fixed, with the sound of speaking them serving as a stimulus, we should expect that reiteration of the same syllable over and over would be a necessary result. This is supported by the facts.
2. Only sounds which have already been pronounced in random articulation can be evoked by the speech sounds of others, those which have had a chance to be circularly fixated as ear-vocal reflexes. There are data to support this ; for instance, " box," " bottle," " bath," " block," and " bye " all were reproduced as " ba " (Allport, p. 185). Similar responses occur for other words.
3. There exist in the central nervous system mechanisms adequate for the circular fixation of vocal habits, leaving out of account the cortex. The ear-vocal connection is direct and immediate.
4. Congenital or early deafness is usually accompanied by mutism. Deaf-mutes are able to articulate in the manner of the random infantile period, but cannot, without special methods, learn the use of spoken language.
While it is true, as he states, that all these points might be construed to fit the imitation theory, point 2 would be particularly difficult to explain on such a basis. In addition, the other difficulties in connection with this theory remain unanswered. On the other hand, cases of the establishment of ear-motor reflexes are clearly established (Allport, 1924, p. 183).
The absence of evidence for this type of " instinctive imitation " along with the positive evidence for the circular conditioned vocal-auditory response leaves it as the only tenable theory. More positive experimental results in this connection are desirable.
In Allport's discussion he goes on to show how certain
( 33) verbalizations which are evoked by others become conditioned to objects and situations. This is illustrated, for instance, in his figure 19, p. 184. Beyond this his explanation is quite unsatisfactory. It merely amounts to saying in substance that symbols involving thought appear,, without saying how they appear. The whole process, as he explains it, may not involve the true language habit. Put schematically, the situation may be illustrated by Fig. A without the interchange shown there having effectively taken place. This may represent the activity of any animal trained in vocalization without involving true language or symbolic behaviour. It is just at this point that most psychologists, not excluding the behaviourists, leave out essential social factors. For those who merely accept " thought " and " consciousness " this is not serious; they have accepted a mystery already. But for the behaviourist who tries to explain, particularly the " thought " process, through symbolic behaviour the case is a serious one, for, if he assumes such a direct knowledge of objects, as he must unless he brings in these social factors, he is indeed in a dilemma. Either he must deny facts of behaviour operative in so-called thought process, or these processes must be held to be epiphenomenal. Hunter is another notable example showing the almost total neglect of the further social factors. Consequently " thought " is dragged in bodily by its ears. A very few are exceptional in even recognizing the additional social factors, Weiss for instance.
A more explicit statement of these factors is necessary.[4] The V.S. (verbal stimulus) of another person, the mother or nurse, for example, is associated with a general situation containing specific behaviour and objects. It becomes a conditioned stimulus for the child's responses to the specific behaviour or object, and at the same time an adequate stimulus for the child's own V.R. (verbal
(34) response). This situation results in the child's own V.R. becoming conditioned to all these factors in a manner similar to that in which the mother's or nurse's V.S. is conditioned. A factor which often facilitates this process is that the mother or nurse often imitates the child, instead of the reverse. The child's V.S. or V.R. thus becomes substitutive for the stimulus act or object and for his own bodily process or response. Any of the factors
indicated in Fig. A may now serve to call forth the V.R. of the child. Another step is required to complete the true language habit. When the above conditioning process has gone to the point that the baby's V.R. is effectively substituted for, or interchanged with, that of the mother or nurse, we then have the beginning of true symbolic behaviour. However, this would not yet be symbolic
(35) behaviour unless the association and conditioning had been carried to the degree that all three of the following factors functioned dependently together. (1) The substitution of the child's V.R. for the V.S. of the other person to such a degree that the child actually performs this act so well that (2) it produces in itself the same tendencies to respond that the other person produced, thus arousing by its own act, as if the other person's V.S. were actually present, the beginning or early implicit or overt bodily responses, to the person or object, which have been conditioned to the person's V.S. "These beginning visual, auditory, motor and other responses being conditioned to, or a stimulus to, behaviour which follows when the original stimulus is present tends to arouse the conditioned or habitual responses of the child. (3) At the same time, the child also arouses similar and other conditioned responses to its own V.R. on its own validity as a stimulus and as a part of the behaviour processes of the child. This third factor is facilitated by the fact that the child is used to responding to its own vocal response and also by the fact that the absence or lack of the usual response by the other person inhibits complete expression of the beginning behaviour pattern and tends to direct the behaviour of the child toward its own responses, already in operation, as differentiated from the behaviour stimulus of others. These reactions of the child which differentiate its own verbal stimulus as being the same or similar to that of the mother and at the same time which give it validity as its own vocal stimulus gives the vocalization the character of a symbol. These three parts of behaviour merge or integrate into a functional behaviour unit, Fig. A. We have in this unit the V.S. indicating the absent stimulus and the present response to it. Although such writers as Mead, Weiss, and Dewey have not stated the process in the manner given above, their conception of language habits must rest upon some such behaviour process. Mead's theory of taking the role of the other through the use of significant symbols rests directly upon it, the significant symbol having these two
(36) references-to the absent stimulus and to the present response (1922). Weiss' theory of interchangeability of receptor-effector mechanisms (1924) is also made clear by this explanation.
The first moment that such an integration occurs in the behaviour of a child must be a. startling one. This flash of co-ordination, facilitation, inhibition, summation, and integration of responses which occurs in the behaviour mechanisms would be a novel and extraordinary experience. Of course, it bas gradual development in genetic growth.
Helen Keller gives a suggestive description of such a sophisticated--because more artificially induced--analytical integration condensed into a short period of learning.
Such a theory explaining symbolic integration has the weight of psychological and sociological evidence behind it, and provides a basis for a genuine behaviouristic explanation which does not ignore facts of experience. Even though the unsupportable theory of instinctive imitation be accepted, this conditioning process would still be an essential and dernonstratable part of language and symbolic development. The period up to the point at which the child's own stimulus is effectively substituted for the other's stimulus has been made fairly clear by various writers. The point which needs further clarification here is this process of social interaction by means of which the child does thus effectively make this interchange. Any act on the part of the child which was conditioned, as described above, in behaviour to the child's own responses and to the other's stimulus and which could be interchanged would probably serve the purpose. As a matter of fact, the process of teaching deaf-muted depends directly upon such a conditioning process. In the life of a normal child the conditioning is built up in verbal mechanisms. These are so similar in the child and the adult that substitution and interchange is bound to occur under the normal conditions of an adult language milieu.
Further, without any previous language there is no
( 37) other mechanism or act in the individual's behaviour which would seem adequate to establish the conditioning necessary and be of such a character that the individual could interchange it with some other act or object. Even at this, the process of conditioning would be a precarious one.
The fact that the child does interchange stimuli and takes the role of the other person is an observed fact. This has been emphasized especially by Cooley and by Mead specifically. However, there is need for more exact and controlled observation concerning tine details of the child's behaviour, especially at the age in which the child is just acquiring symbols. Close observation of this period from the standpoint of these social interactions is a neglected but most important phase of child study, and one which will be amply fruitful of results.
Such data as are available concerning the s social factors in symbolic development will be analysed in following chapters. In the next live chapters data regarding the social behaviour involved in symbolic development will be analysed along with materials showing the probable extent of symbolic behaviour in the animal world. Afterward, in Chapter IX, a more thorough analysis of symbolic integration, including these social phenomena, be attempted. It will then be valuable to o relate the symbolic process to so-called thinking in order to see how completely this may be accounted for by symbolic behaviour.
