Definition
Intelligence in the use and comprehension of language, including the ability to understand and profit from experience with language [40].
Description
In his theory of Multiple Intelligences, Howard Gardner identified Verbal-Linguistic intelligence as one of eight core intelligences along with logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal intrapersonal, and naturalistic intelligence. Gardner described Verbal-Linguistic intelligence as an individual’s sensitivity to and facility with spoken and written language. High verbal-linguistic intelligence is associated with lexical knowledge, verbal memory, ability to understand and manipulate syntax and the capacity to utilize symbolic and abstract language. Linguistic ability is observed in an individual’s ease in learning primary and secondary languages and capacity to use language effectively to accomplish certain goals such as expressing oneself rhetorically or in prose, learning via literacy skills, analyzing syntactic information, and persuading or instructing others [12, 13]. Gardner’s assertion that multiple intelligences exist independently, rather than as subsets of general intellectual ability (aka “g”) has been criticized based on the lack of validating studies [23, 34]. However, examination of the content of a variety of instruments which measure verbal abilities provides empirical support for the greater part of Gardner’s definition of Verbal-Linguistic intelligence. Therefore, even if the conceptualization of Multiple Intelligences is rebuffed, one may find Gardner’s definition useful as a pragmatic framework from which to view the functional expression of verbal intelligence.
The construct of verbal intelligence has indeed been widely supported in psychometric research. Verbal intelligence is typically evaluated as part of a broader assessment of cognitive abilities/IQ, although it may also be evaluated through brief intelligence tests and specific language assessments. The reliability and validity of measures of verbal intelligence are typically supported by psychometric analyzes including normative statistics, reliability analysis (coefficient alpha, test–retest, alternate forms, etc.), correlational methods examining convergent/divergent/predictive validity, and confirmatory/exploratory factor analytic methods to support construct and criterion validation. When compared with other measured dimensions of human intelligence such as nonverbal reasoning, speed of information processing, and memory, scales representing verbal intelligence tend to be the most psychometrically robust in regard to reliability (e.g., standard error of measurement) and contribution to general intelligence (i.e., amount of variance in “g” accounted for by verbal intelligence) [21].
The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities [21] is an empirically grounded, psychometric theory of intelligence. Many psychologists believe that CHC theory, which combines Cattell and Horn’s Gf-Gc theory (i.e., general fluid and general crystallized intelligence) [5, 15] and Carroll’s [4] three-stratum theory, provides the most comprehensive framework available for understanding the structure of human cognitive abilities [20]. The apex, Stratum III, represents the general level: general intellectual ability or “g”. Stratum II, the broad level, is comprised of eight factors including fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, general memory and learning, broad visual perception, broad auditory perception, broad retrieval ability, broad cognitive speediness, and processing speed. The broad cognitive abilities subsume approximately 70 narrow cognitive abilities represented by Stratum I. Crystallized intelligence, which is associated with verbal intelligence, refers to knowledge and skills that are primarily influenced by environmental and sociocultural factors and is generally assessed through verbal skills [16]. For example, on the Woodcock Johnson-III Tests of Cognitive Abilities [39] the CHC cognitive factor (Gc) is entitled Comprehension-Knowledge and is comprised of two subtests: Verbal Comprehension which requires naming pictured objects, providing synonyms or antonyms, and solving verbal analogies, and General Information which requires answering questions presented orally. Together the subtests assess an individual’s breadth and depth of knowledge of a culture, ability to communicate knowledge, and ability to reason using previously learned knowledge.
The Wechsler scales are commonly used for the assessment of general intellectual ability [35, 37]. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children reflect a four factor model of intelligence, where verbal intelligence is represented by the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI). Although the Wechsler scales were not based on the CHC premise, the content of scales measuring verbal intelligence is consistent with the theoretical framework Crystallized intelligence (Gc). The VCI is a measure of general verbal skills, such as verbal fluency, ability to understand and use verbal reasoning, and verbal knowledge.
There are numerous instruments designed to assess multiple dimensions of verbal intelligence, many with similar content to the Woodcock Johnson-III Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Wechsler scales. These include the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-fifth edition [29], the Differential Ability Scales – second edition (DAS-II, [11]), and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, second edition (KABC-II, [17]). Yet, there are many children whose true verbal abilities may be under-represented by traditional assessments. These include children for whom an adequate assessment has not been standardized in their primary language, children who have limited experience with the dominant culture, those who are deaf, or those who suffer from a hearing impairment, speech and language disorders, neurological disorders, traumatic brain injury, language-related learning disabilities, autism, selective mutism or other neurological or mental disorders. In such cases, psychologists may choose to administer non-verbal assessments that provide insight into symbolic representation, a particular area of crystallized/verbal intelligence. Symbolic representation has been long recognized as the basis for human communication, with aural/oral language exchange being only one manifestation [10]. Tasks involving symbolic memory, learning, and reasoning skills draw upon an individual’s cognitive skills in internal verbal mediation. Some non-verbal assessments, such as the (CTONI, [14]) and the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT, [3]) allow for specific assessment of symbolic abilities and provide a standardized administration with no expressive or receptive language requirements on the part of the examinee. Based on the PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive) Theory of Cognitive Processing [9], the Cognitive Assessment System [24], provides a unique purview into an individual’s ability to process successive verbal information. On the CAS, Successive processing is defined as the means by which an individual “integrates stimuli in a specific order that forms a chain like progression” (p. 5) and is associated with the syntactic nature of language and the ability of one to derive meaning from it. The findings from such instruments can provide valuable but circumscribed information about discrete domains of verbal intelligence.
Relevance to Childhood Development
Perhaps the most important contribution of developmental psychologist Lev Vygotsky [33] was his theory on the relationship between language and thought. Vygotsky asserted that cognitive development potentiates from a dialectical process whereby a child learns through experiences with others and where language is the primary form of interaction. Language begins as an external, “interpsychological” tool for social exchange and becomes an “intrapsychological” tool which the child utilizes to makes sense of his/her world. This can be observed in a child’s utilization of “private speech,” a repetition of comments by others, which is often first expressed aloud and later becomes internalized/silent self-talk. As learning progresses, the child’s own language comes to serve as her primary tool of intellectual adaptation, concept formation, and self-awareness. Eventually, children can use internal language to direct and regulate their own behavior, thoughts and emotions. Contemporary developmental theories have also supported the role of linguistic abilities in enriching development of interpersonal skills, emotional regulation, and executive cognitive functioning [1, 30, 32].
With the caveat that both are influenced by background, previous education, and cultural experiences, verbal ability is a good predictor of achievement orientation. Assessment of verbal abilities using psychometrically sound instruments can be a valuable tool in identifying preschoolers at-risk for academic and cognitive delays [19, 22]. In older children, lexical knowledge [8, 18], syntactic awareness [2, 7] and verbal working memory [6, 31] have been found to be related to basic literacy and spelling skills. Aggregate measures of verbal intelligence (i.e., Verbal IQ) have also been positively correlated with reading comprehension skills [25, 26]. Moreover, measured verbal intelligence has been found to be more strongly related to academic achievement measures of reading, mathematics, and written language than non-verbal measures [27, 28, 37].
References
Bell, M. A., & Wolfe, C. D. (2007). The cognitive neuroscience of early socioemotional development. In C. A. Brownell & C. B. Kopp (Eds.), Socioemotional development in the toddler years: Transitions & transformations (pp. 345–369). New York: Guilford Press.
Bentin, S., Deutsch, A., & Liberman, I. Y. (1990). Syntactic competence and reading ability in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 147–172.
Braken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (1998). Universal nonverbal intelligence test. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1941). Some theoretical issues in adult intelligence testing. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 592.
Chiappe, P., Hasher, L., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Working memory, inhibitory control, and reading disability. Memory & Cognition, 28, 8–17.
Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369–400.
Compton, D. L. (2003). Modeling the relationship between growth in rapid naming speed and growth in decoding skill in first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 225–239.
Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment of cognitive processes. The PASS theory of intelligence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., Inc.
Elliott, C. D. (2006). Differential ability scales-second edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Hammill, D. D., Pearson, N. A., & Weiderholt, J. L. (1997). Comprehensive test of non-verbal intelligence. Austin, TX: ProEd.
Horn, J. (1976). Human abilities: A review of research and theory in the early 1970’s. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 437–485.
Horn, J. (1998). A basis for research on age differences in cognitive capabilities. In J. J. McArdle & R. W. Woodock (Eds.), Human cognitive abilities in theory and practice (pp. 57–87). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman assessment battery for children: Second edition. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Kirby, J. R., Parrila, R. K., & Pfeiffer, S. L. (2003). Naming speed and phonological awareness as predictors of reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 453–464.
Lenkarski, S., Singer, M., Peters, M., & McIntosh, D. (2001). Utility of the early screening profiles in identifying preschoolers at risk for cognitive delays. Psychology in the Schools, 38(1), 17–24.
McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151–179). New York: Guilford.
McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical manual. Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
McIntosh, D. (1999). Identifying at-risk preschoolers: The discriminant validity of the differential ability scales. Psychology in the Schools, 36(1), 1–10.
Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence. Roeper Review, 18, 263–270.
Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Interpretive handbook. Cognitive assessment system. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Nation, K., Clarke, P., & Snowling, M. J. (2002). General cognitive ability in children with poor reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 549–560.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming. Cognition, 70, B1–B13.
Psychological Corporation. (1992). Wechsler individual achievement test manual. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Psychological Corporation. (2002). Wechsler individual achievement test examiner’s manual (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet intelligence scales–fifth edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: Toward a neurobiology of interpersonal experience. New York: Guilford Press.
Siegel, L. S. (2002). Bilingualism and reading. In L. T. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 287–302). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Thompson, R. A., & Goodvin, R. (2007). Taming the tempest in the teapot: Emotion regulation in toddlers. In C. A. Brownell & C. B. Kopp (Eds.), Socioemotional development in the toddler years: Transitions & transformations (pp. 320–341). New York: Guilford Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41, 207–225.
Wechsler, D. (2002a). Technical manual. Wechsler adult intelligence scales-III. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2002b). Technical and interpretive manual. Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence-III. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Technical and interpretive manual. Wechsler intelligence scale for children – IV. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001a). Technical manual. Woodcock Johnson-III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001b). Woodcock Johnson-III tests of cognitive abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
WordNet. (2008). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Retrieved online September 30, 2008, from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=verbal+intelligence&sub
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this entry
Cite this entry
Augustyniak, K. (2011). Verbal Intelligence. In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_3016
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_3016
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-77579-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-79061-9
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science