Sometimes just listening to laughter
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releaseDocument text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
Sometimes just listening to laughter
compels listeners to laugh. Sometimes
hearing a cry of terror directly imputes
an instantaneous feeling of fear.
Hearing someone weep can produce a
feeling of sorrow and perhaps even
cause one to cry. This suggests that
some forms of vocal communication can
elicit direct empathic sharing as Decety
discusses in his chapter.
These forms of vocal
communication can produce direct
results in listeners without following a
route of symbolic reference and
interpretation.? Language has typically
been viewed as operating by the more
symbolic route because of the linguistic
claim that symbols are not the things
they stand for and thus must be
understood—words and sentences are
not felt. However, the right insult or
angry words delivered in the right way
or the right praise seems to be felt
directly, perhaps through the same kind
of mechanisms by which empathic
sharing occurs.
But how is this achieved? This
kind of impact of language is not a result
of understanding the content of speech.
It reflects social goals and motives. To
the extent that this kind of social impact
may parallel empathic processes, we
might find that similar mechanisms are
involved. Some kind of resonance must
be established between a speaker and
hearer, and language can serve to
establish this resonance and lead to
subsequent action by the hearer. This
idea of a resonance in an audience does
seem more compatible with the effects
of vocal behavior such as laughter or
crying on a listener than the symbolic
interpretative view. This notion of
resonance may also be useful in
understanding other kinds of language
impact from the fiery sermon of
Page | 69
Edwards to the passionate speeches of
Obama and Kennedy and King.
In listening to speech that has
impact, language has created a state in
the listener that reflects the intention of
the speaker. Whether it is fear or
connection, somehow language can
operate as the medium by which social
and emotional psychological states get
transmitted to an audience. But how
does this impact get created in the social
brain?
Language impact in the social brain
Understanding spoken language
has typically been viewed as an analytic
process in which sound patterns are
translated into linguistic symbols by the
brain. However, an alternative theory is
that we understand spoken language by
using our motor system to simulate what
might have been said. The idea is that
trying to mentally produce the speech
internally (without talking) might help
us understand what is said, when speech
is not clear. However, this theory did
not have much neural plausibility.
People do not generally move their
mouths overtly or even covertly while
listening.
The discovery of mirror neurons,
examined at greater length by Steve
Small in the next chapter, suggested one
kind of mechanism that might instantiate
this kind of process. In certain parts of
the brain, involved in the control of
action, some neurons that respond when
making certain actions also respond
when observing the same actions. This
led to the inference that these neurons
are involved in understanding the
behavior of other people. The reasoning
is simply that neural activity in the
observer’s motor system that results
when seeing a behavior essentially
establishes the brain state that would
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021315
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents