September 15, 2016

September 15, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my eight response to “Sound, Symbolism, and Swearing; an Affect Induction Perspective” (2010) by Yardy. Parker’s work (2008) demonstrates that there is “a cross-linguistic pattern supporting his sonority theory” and Peperkamp’s work (2016) demonstrates that in every language the pattern of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) exists. Moreover, these two universal response classes are perfectly explained by the sonority theory. 

“The measure that consistently correlated best with sonority was intensity or amplitude (loudness) with a very strong Spearman correlation of 0.91 (Parker, 2002, Parker 2008). It is unequivocally clear that SVB only contains “consonants high in sonority” which “tend to have a tonal and soothing pattern”, while NVB “contains consonants low in sonority” which “tend to have a broadband harsh pattern.” 

I witness the far-reaching consequences of a “tonal, soothing pattern” versus a “broadband, harsh pattern” in each of my mental health clients and in each of the students of the psychology classes I teach. I totally agree with the researchers Owren and Rendal (1997), who suggest that “words used in different contexts might be chosen based in part on the affective impact of their phonemic impact as predicted by the Affect Induction approach to animal communication.” In other words (pun intended), agreeable words sound different from disagreeable words. 

The great importance of Yardy’s work (2010) is that it demonstrates that “consistent word form expectations” might “not be limited to nonsense images and words but ultimately affect real word usage, at least in some natural contexts.” This can be easily verified when we talk with each other and explore the SVB/NVB distinction. Our words are not arbitrary and how they sound always has inherent meaning.

The reader should not be surprised to find out that “The swearwords and profanity category contained significantly more harsh sounding consonants than lullabies and carols.” The same can be said about the NVB and SVB category. Based on Yardy’s work, I hypothesize that speakers produce high amounts of “expletives and epithets” in NVB, but hardly swear at all in SVB. I endorse Yardy’s powerful suggestion that “the Affect Induction model may have explanatory power not only for animal communication but also for human communication.” 

I have had various wonderful long skype conversations with Brandon Yardy. As expected, we immediately connected. Our conversation flowed with SVB and we felt tremendously validated by each other.

When we consider the SVB/NVB distinction, we agree the AIM applies to animals and to humans. We can verify this while we speak. Only if we are in non-aversive situations will we be able to have SVB, but when we find ourselves in hostile, threatening or intimidating circumstances, we will engage in NVB. We are clueless about the extent to which we, like other animals, produce sounds “with acoustic properties” that “influence or manipulate a targeted listener’s affective state.” 

Human communication, like animal communication, is for the most part NOT about “relaying information from one animal to another, as purported by classical ethology” (Owren & Rendall, 1997). Therefore, the prominent information processing model didn’t and couldn’t produce an integrated understanding of animal communication. Moreover, it is now evident that our misunderstanding of animal communication was based on our misunderstanding about our own human communication. 

It is catastrophic that “Just as classical ethologist viewed animal communication as an exchange of information between among senders and receivers, linguists have traditionally viewed human language as being exclusively purposed to convey information to other individuals” (Scott-Phillips, 2006). To our own detriment we select high rates of NVB and justify this with explanatory fictions. If “language is selected to improve conveyance of information by increasing understandability (Pinker & Bloom, 1990) we would produce higher rates of SVB.

September 14, 2016

September 14, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my sixth response to “Sound, Symbolism, and Swearing; an Affect Induction Perspective” (2010) by Yardy. Parker’s work (2008) demonstrates that there is “a cross-linguistic pattern supporting his sonority theory” and Peperkamp’s work (2016) demonstrates that in every language the pattern of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) exists. Moreover, these two universal response classes are perfectly explained by the sonority theory. 

“The measure that consistently correlated best with sonority was intensity or amplitude (loudness) with a very strong Spearman correlation of 0.91 (Parker, 2002, Parker 2008). It is unequivocally clear that SVB only contains “consonants high in sonority” which “tend to have a tonal and soothing pattern”, while NVB “contains consonants low in sonority” which “tend to have a broadband harsh pattern.”

I witness the far-reaching consequences of a “tonal, soothing pattern” versus a “broadband, harsh pattern” in each of my mental health clients and in each of the students in the psychology classes I teach. I totally agree with the researchers Owren and Rendal (1997), who suggest that “words used in different contexts might be chosen based in part on the affective impact of their phonemic impact as predicted by the Affect Induction approach to animal communication.” In other words (pun intended), agreeable words sound different from disagreeable words. 

The great importance of Yardy’s work (2010) is that it demonstrates that “consistent word form expectations” might “not be limited to nonsense images and words but ultimately affect real word usage, at least in some natural contexts.” This can be easily verified when we talk with each other and explore the SVB/NVB distinction. Our words are not arbitrary and how they sound always has inherent meaning.

The reader should not be surprised to find out that “The swearwords and profanity category contained significantly more harsh sounding consonants than lullabies and carols.” The same can be said about the NVB and SVB category. Based on Yardy’s work, I hypothesize that speakers produce high amounts of “expletives and epithets” in NVB, but hardly swear at all in SVB. I endorse Yardy’s powerful suggestion that “the Affect Induction model may have explanatory power not only for animal communication but also for human communication.” 

I have had various wonderful long skype conversations with Brandon Yardy. As expected, we immediately connected. Our conversation flowed with SVB and we felt tremendously reinforced by each other.

When we consider the SVB/NVB distinction, we agree the AIM applies to animals and to humans. We can verify this while we speak. Only if we are in non-aversive situations will we be able to have SVB, but when we find ourselves in hostile, threatening or intimidating circumstances, we will engage in NVB. We are clueless about the extent to which we, like other animals, produce sounds “with acoustic properties” that “influence or manipulate a targeted listener’s affective state.” 

Human communication, like animal communication, is for the most part NOT about “relaying information from one animal to another, as purported by classical ethology” (Owren & Rendall, 1997). Therefore, the prominent information processing model didn’t and couldn’t produce an integrated understanding of animal communication. Moreover, it is now evident that our misunderstanding of animal communication was based on our misunderstanding about our own human communication. 

It is catastrophic that “Just as classical ethologist viewed animal communication as an exchange of information between among senders and receivers, linguists have traditionally viewed human language as being exclusively purposed to convey information to other individuals” (Scott-Phillips, 2006). To our own detriment we continue to select high rates of NVB and justify this with explanatory fictions. If “language is selected to improve conveyance of information by increasing understandability (Pinker & Bloom, 1990), we would produce higher rates of SVB!  

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.

September 12, 2016

September 12, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my fourth response to “Sound, Symbolism, and Swearing; an Affect Induction Perspective” (2010) by B. Yardy. In the discussion section of the paper Yardy is referring to the Bouba-Kiki Effect as he states “the ordinal rank order of the different consonants is precisely what would have been expected based on our hypothesis that harsher sounding plosive consonants will be more commonly associated with jagged imagery and smoother sounding consonants will be more commonly associated with rounded imagery.”  

Once we have become familiar with the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) aspects of this sound hierarchy will become clear that relate to how we talk: people who were introduced to the SVB/NVB distinction unanimously pair SVB with rounded imagery and smoother sounding consonants and NVB with jagged imagery and harsher sounding plosive consonants. 

It is wonderful that Yardy specifically points out “the phonemic and acoustic effects of affect induction” although affect induction, of course, “is not limited to the auditory domain.” This emphasis on auditory aspects of the AIM supports the SVB/NVB distinction, which, in my opinion, is more needed in this world than anything else.

Without evolutionary evidence for the primacy ofsound we get carried away by what we say and by other modalities that influence us. Owren, Rendall & Ryan (2010) point out “The Affect Induction perspective of signaling can be applied to all sense modalities as all senses can be manipulated and influenced.” With the SVB/NVB distinction we also get clear about affective signals other than vocal sound production.

The rattle of the rattle snake is a “harsh sound pattern with rapid onset (Fenton & Licht, 1990) and can therefore be considered as an example of NVB. “The authors conclude that the rattle is not meant for communication between rattlesnakes because the signals are most intense outside the sensitive hearing range of snakes; instead, the authors argue that this acoustic pattern has been selected to instill fear in potential predators by startling them” (Fenton & Licht, 1990). 

Once we distinguish between SVB and NVB it becomes evident that NVB is not even meant for communication, but for intimidation and domination. Similar to rattle snakes, the sound that we make when we engage in NVB is outside of our sensitive, conscious hearing range. 

Once we have acknowledged the SVB/NVB distinction, we can begin to make sense of Yardy’s finding that “swearwords/profanity contained a higher proportion of words with harsh, plosive consonants than did lullabies, which contained a higher proportion of words with smooth, sonorant consonants.” Also, the findings of other researchers fall into place when we focus on the importance of how we sound while we speak. 

“Swearing is considered part of “automatic” speech and even individuals with aphasia that struggle to say other words are able to swear fluently with appropriate prosody” (Lancker & Cummings, 1999). It is my clinical experience with bipolar clients, who often swear, that this “automatic” speech is decreases as a result of my SVB interventions. 

I have found SVB can also decreases symptoms of individuals diagnosed with Tourette Syndrome. “Swearwords and swearing may also be distinctive neurologically in being processed in lower (limbic) level than words that are primary referential, and thus cortically processed (Lanker & Cummings, 1999). I predict that our NVB, like swearing, is a response class that “is neurologically distinctive in being processed on a lower (limbic) level.”  In SVB, on the other hand, our words “are primarily referential” as they are processed on a higher cortical level.  

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.”