September 11, 2016

September 11, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my third response to “Sound, Symbolism, and Swearing; an Affect Induction Perspective” (2010) by Yardy. “The Affect Induction Model (AIM) has particular implications for animals that display dominance hierarchies.” The AIM has important implications for the presence or absence of human dominance hierarchies as well. 

In the presence of dominance hierarchies we will predictably engage in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), but only in the absence of dominance hierarchies will we be able to engage in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). 

“A low ranking animal that cannot defend itself in an agonistic context is predicted to produce vocalizations that produce negative or unconditioned effects on listeners, such as abrupt-onset and noisy, broadband shrieks and screams.” Owren and Rendall (1997) have, albeit unknowingly, given us a very detailed description of NVB. 

The vocalizations produced by inferior animals were either preceded by or co-occurring with vocalizations by dominant animals. Such dominant animals “are predicted to produce calls with prominent cues to individual identity and combine these with behavioral acts (aggression) with salient affective consequences for subordinates.”

The AIM explains the evolutionary origins of our coercive NVB, which, as we all know, is ubiquitous across the globe. However, the fact that humans evolved to have language allowed them to describe what communication would be like if there was no such dominance hierarchy. Such a conversation is scientific and cannot be anything else but SVB. There is neither a need to dominate nor to defend in SVB, as there is a total absence of aversive stimulation; SVB is the science of peace. 

The AIM also accounts for the origins of SVB. “The Affect Induction model of animal communication has predictions for the types of vocalizations used not only in agonistic or hostile situations but also in affiliative or social situations.” Here we read another description which characterizes the distinction between NVB and SVB; NVB is a function of hostile situations, whereas SVB is a function of peaceful situations. 

“Animals that display dominance hierarchies can benefit by using vocalizations that elicit positive affect in conspecifics in those context where close contact is desirable, such as mating and grooming.” And, of course, humans can benefit from such vocalizations, when they create and maintain the context in which SVB is possible and will occur. 

SVB reliably happens in the auditory context which makes it possible. Similarly to primates, humans can pair such vocalizations “with other affiliative behaviors that strengthen the conditioned response and thus strengthen the affective impact of the vocalization.” 

The SVB speaker always induces positive affect in the listener, but the NVB speaker always induce negative affect. Therefore, the AIM, which explains animal communication, validates the SVB/NVB distinction and can be used to explain human communication. “In general, this model predicts that vocal sound patterns change depending on what type of affect the signaler is attempting to induce in a receiver.” 

If our goal was to have SVB, we would be able to have SVB, but this requires that we become scientific about human communication and must pay more attention to how we sound rather than to what we say. 

“In most contexts, harsh and grating sounds are used in conflict situations where they have perceptually aversive effects on listeners; while smoother, more tonal and harmonic sounds are used in affiliative contexts where the relative harmonious qualities have an appeasing or soothing effect on listeners.”

The SVB/NVB distinction couldn’t be described more clearly than that. Evolution teaches us that NVB is a function of threatening situations and SVB is a function of peaceful situations. We need communication labs to explore “the acoustic impact of vocalizations on the listeners.”