September 13, 2016

September 13, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my fifth response to “Sound, Symbolism, and Swearing; an Affect Induction Perspective” (2010) by Yardy. By listening to monkeys we can learn something important about human communication. Here is a perfect description of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB): “Some of the stimulation induced by macaque calls were described as loud, plosive and harsh as well as shrill and guttural adjectives that can also describe swearing in context of aggression” (Robinson, 1967). 

Simply stated, each time we raise our voice or speak up we engage in NVB, but when we tone it down and have a peaceful voice, we engage in SVB. Parker’s (2008) “sonority hierarchy” (SH) is explained by the Affect Induction Model (AIM), but the AIM must be applied to human interaction. The distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and NVB allows us to apply the AIM and SH to our spoken communication.

The SVB /NVB distinction, like SH, focuses on variable intensity. It will allow us to develop a harshness-smoothness scale consisting of the amount of SVB and NVB instances occurring during a verbal episode. In friendly conversation the ratio of SVB: NVB may be 90:10; in a more impersonal conversation the ratio may be 50:50; in a threatening conversation the ratio may be 10:80; and a happy conversation 0:100. 

A happy (0:100 ratio) conversation is a genuine, energizing, realistic, understanding and effective conversation which is determined by how we sound. Since in such a dialogue we like how we sound, we will pay attention to how we sound. Paying attention to how we sound equals enjoying the relaxation of our body, which only occurs during embodied conversation made possible by to the absence of aversive stimulation.

“Consonants low in sonority tend to have a broadband harsh pattern; conversely, consonants high in sonority tend to have a tonal, soothing pattern.” These sound patterns map perfectly on NVB and SVB. And, “this difference in acoustic characteristics may also account for findings on the “agreeableness” and “disagreeableness” scale of consonants (Roblee & Washburn, 1912), which maps onto SVB and NVB.

The AIM has big implications not only for animal, but also for human communication. Animal researchers have not yet widely accepted AIM  as the spoken communication among academics is characterized by low rates of SVB. This will change once the SVB/NVB distinction is in place. It provides evidence that “language is not completely arbitrary.” 

There is converging evidence of the “Bouba-Kiki” studies, the AIM and the SVB/NVB distinction. Humans evolved to have NVB and SVB. “The alternative to viewing language as altruistic is to view it as selfish; it benefits the signaler or speaker directly. Perhaps this direct pay-off has been the main selection pressure for its evolutionary development (Scott-Phillips, 2006). The SVB/NVB distinction grounds our “sound symbol system” (language), “in inherent sound-meaning relationships.”

With the grounding “in inherent sound-meaning relationships” we will be embodied speakers who produce SVB, but without such grounding we are disembodied speakers who produce NVB. Our body is the starting point for meaning as it is the instrument with which we produce sound. 

Of course, “innate biases and affect-based dynamics between young infants and caregivers is how the booth-strapping of language learning is initiated.” How could it be otherwise? The baby is without language;  verbal learning is based on nonverbal learning. “An important innate bias may well be a simple distinction between abrasive patterns (shhh!) or harmonious acoustic patterns (infant directed speech), with negative and positive affect, respectively.” Simply stated, abrasive patterns describe NVB and harmonious acoustic patterns describe SVB. 

Not only the baby, but also the adult “will respond with crying or with coos”, that is, with NVB or SVB. The learning involved in “more complex body-world coordination” resulting into “utterances of words to alter the behavior of caregivers and others (Cowley, 2007) depends on the increased number of SVB instances in which our speaking and listening behavior are joined. High rates of SVB predict less speech problems.