September 17, 2016

September 17, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

I am trying to imagine that this is the first thing you ever read about my work. I am a psychology instructor and a therapist. I teach three classes in Principles of Psychology at Butte College, Oroville and, at this point, I see 28 mental health clients a week. Each of my classes is at full capacity, which means 38 students are enrolled. I am booked up and my life is busier than ever before. I am proud of being busy as I know that I am making a difference in the lives of many. 

I teach from a book on the many issues which are related to the field of psychology, such as: emotion, motivation, sensation, perception, stress, mental disorders, psycho-analysis, behaviorism, just to name a few. My students learn about these matters, write papers and take quizzes and exams. They also learn about the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 

Everything I teach is taught against the background of the SVB/NVB distinction. We re-visit it again and again as it is of utmost importance. My students like the way I teach and tell me how much they learn, before, in, and, after class, in their papers and in their evaluations.  Likewise, I treat my mental health clients with the skills and knowledge I have acquired after years of studying and teaching psychology study.

Teaching and therapy are my passion. I am able to help my clients with their problems and each one of them is slowly improving and recovering. How am I able to do that? The facts speak for themselves. They are treated not only by my knowledge of psychology and behaviorism, they are stimulated to pay attention to the SVB/NVB distinction. I point out to them how the listener is affected by the sound of the speaker.

September 16, 2016

September 16, 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. Today I had a skype conversation with the author. He agreed with each of my findings and was excited about my distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which is also explained by the Affect Induction Model (AIM) and the Sonority Hierarchy (SH). 

It was interesting to have face-to-face interaction with this excellent researcher, who acknowledged how adversarial the conversation is among academics and how much the emphasis on the printed word obfuscates the importance of the spoken word. By talking with him it n became clear what a taboo has been placed on talking and listening. 

Many papers continue to be written, but little or no actual conversation is taking place among researchers. Brandon agreed with me that if we would have SVB, our communication would be much more productive. Also the important issue of scientific spoken communication was briefly addressed.  Regardless of whether they do manipulate listeners because they have more power or sophisticated acting skills, as long as communicators dominate their listeners they can’t be scientific. 

During SVB it is self-evident that none of the speakers dominate the listeners and that the speaker and the listener take turns, that is, that the speakers can become the listeners and listeners can become speakers at any given moment. This turn-taking is essential to maintaining equality among the speaker and the listener. In NVB the speaker and the listener are separate as there is no such turn-taking. 

My conversation with Brandon Yardy illustrated why in our current academic environment it is almost impossible to have SVB. Competition among academics not only prevents collaboration and intellectual exploration, it takes away from people their integrity as it puts great stress on the relationship between supervisors and supervisees.

Brandon and I have both been disappointed by the lack of support from our superiors for our ideas when we were working towards our degree. 


I withdrew from candidacy for the Ph.D. in psychology at Palo Alto University (PAU) as nobody there was interested in my distinction between SVB and NVB. In retrospect it is astounding and insulting that the director of this institution once invited me and my wife for dinner at his house. This was not, as I thought at the time, a social occasion, the dinner had only one purpose: I had to submit to my supervisor’s topic of interest. I was told in plain language by the director himself that only after I had earned my Ph.D. I would be able to pursue my own interest. 


It is incredible that I have paid (and continue to pay) so much money for the inconsiderate and intellectually dishonest manner in which I have been treated. Although I never doubted that withdrawing was the right thing to do, it is indeed a sad state of affairs that nobody at PAU was capable of backing up my scientific ideas, which are supported by all the researchers that are mentioned in Yardy’s thesis. 

Brandon and I immediately understood each other and our conversation clarified my distinction between SVB and NVB. The fact that also his outstanding work has hardly received any attention doesn’t surprise me. I have faith in the process and I am sure that our conversations will make more people aware about the SVB/NVB distinction. The AIM and SH as well as many other phenomena will make more sense once we  know about this distinction. Yardy’s work is more than merely words on paper as it fully supports SVB, the science of vocal verbal behavior. 

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.