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.