Nonverbal Language   Term Paper ID:27736 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines question of whether nonverbal communication can be considered language. Also examines extent to which nonverbal communication components represent universals.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 8 sources, 9 Citations, TURABIAN Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines question of whether nonverbal communication can be considered language. Also examines extent to which nonverbal communication components represent universals. Paper Introduction: Nonverbal Language? Introduction The question mark after the heading of this paper is intentional, since one of the questions under consideration is whether nonverbal communication qualifies as a language. The other major focus of this paper is the extent to which nonverbal communication components represent universals, whether of a type of language or of a symbol system that is not truly language. Language or Communication System? There is considerable disagreement about the nature of nonverbal communication and whether it qualifies as language. Taking a strong position that nonverbal communication is not language, but more Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Thus, thought isnot separate from gesture-call or from responsiveness, but part of thetotal system that results in social interaction and communication.Universality of Nonverbal Communication The work of Nowicki and Duke (1992), among others, seems to assumethat nonverbal communication has universal elements and universal means ofreceptivity and expression. There doesseem to be increasing evidence that nonverbal communication systems, orgesture-call systems in Burling's terminology, are similar to those ofother animals. Russelldebunking the research and contending that it was language-dependent bynoting that a large segment of the evidence is language-independent. Goleman (1995) reported on some of the recent researchwhich indicated that courtship behaviors and flirting among humans aresimilar to those of other species. Response to Burling. Henoted that the basic problem with Russell's critique was that he arguedagainst universal semantic attributions, which is not the point indiscussions of the universality of facial expressions. It is important to distinguish between the existence of universalgestures, calls, signals, and expressions and the interpretation of them.That is part of the problem that Russell and his critics were discussing.There is not sufficient evidence for assuming that there is any universalsemantic attribution of meaning to particular gestures or nonverbalcommunications. In addition, they indicated thatsome social and personal problems resulted from the fact that children, andadults, failed to master these receptive and expressive nonverbal languageequivalents and, thus, are likely to experience low self-esteem, highanxiety and depression, and social maladjustment. Nonverbal Language?Introduction The question mark after the heading of this paper is intentional,since one of the questions under consideration is whether nonverbalcommunication qualifies as a language. (1994). Indeed, there is considerable evidence to indicatevariability in interpretation when language is introduced into the picture. Burling stated from the beginning that human beings have twofundamentally different forms of communication systems. Instead, as he termed it, not-wores provide a context modifiers,intensifiers, and other aspects in the creation of meaning within a wholesystem. While Burling based his conclusion on the discontinuity betweennonverbal communication systems and human language, others findconsiderable evidence of similarities or continuities between these two,leading them to the opposite conclusion. Innate and universal facial expressions: Evidence from developmental and cross-cultural research. There also seems to be a position that differs slightly from the othertwo in finding the total communication system as including both verbal andnonverbal components. He responded to a critique by J.A. For example, several of therespondents to Burling's own article disagreed with his conclusions, notingthat he makes too extreme a case for the separation of language fromcommunication systems. Atlanta, GA: Peachtree.Patnaik, P. Scientists have speculated that thereis a nonverbal template or model that humans and other animals utilize.This nonverbal communication stem differs fundamentally from language andthere is not necessarily a clear link between them. Given the ongoing controversy about whether animals possess "language"or simply communication systems, it is not likely that the final answer canbe given here. The New York Times, Sec. Patnaik (1995) noted that words by themselves are not the solecontributor to the creation of meaning, whether in verbal or writtenlanguage. The nonverbal elementseems to be more clearly shared with other species and to mirror thebehaviors of other species, to some extent. (1992). (1995). Onthe other hand, Blount's consideration of language as embedded in a larger,and earlier, nonverbal communication system is interesting, too. Strong evidence for universals in facial expressions: A reply to Russell's mistaken critique. Burlingclearly distinguished nonverbal gesture-call systems, as he termed them,from language, claiming that they could not have even served as the basefor the development of language. Instead, the universality resides in the repertoire ofgestures, expressions, calls, etc. Current Anthropology, 34(1), 38-39.Ekman, P. One includeslanguage, and the other represents most nonverbal communication. Izard (1994) examined the evidence from both developmental and cross-cultural research studies on facial expressions and determined that thatevidence was good for considering that there is a large body of innate anduniversal facial expressions. Within cultures or particular groupings of people, however, there mayalso be great similarity of meaning in both expression and receptivity.This seems to be what Nowicki and Duke (1992), along with Love et al.(1994) are concerned with when they discuss dyssemias. This applies to both gesturesand expressions and calls, which Burling distinguished from language, andwhich animals also utilize in their communications. In the parallelprocess model of nonverbal communication, Patterson indicated thatbehavioral and perceptual processes are interdependent. In some respects, the universality, particularly in terms ofthe relationship of human nonverbal communication to animal communication,seems to counter the argument for nonverbal communication as language. Invited article: A parallel process model of nonverbal communication. New Literary History, 26(2), 455-458.Patterson, M.L. Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 128(6), 7 3-7 6.Nowicki, S. Theyequated the failure to master verbal language, leading to poor academicperformance, with the failure to master nonverbal language, leading to poorsocial performance. (1994). Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 268-287.Goleman, D. They termed the problemdyssemia, representing the ineffective and inaccurate use of signs. Yet, like Chomsky and others, it seems that Burlingbelieves that language is inextricably bound to the human brain, andrepresents a function completely separate from the gesture-call systems ofanimals and nonverbal human communication. There is considerable disagreement about the nature of nonverbalcommunication and whether it qualifies as language. The other major focus of this paperis the extent to which nonverbal communication components representuniversals, whether of a type of language or of a symbol system that is nottruly language.Language or Communication System? C, p. Again, this does not mean that the child lackssome universal gesture or expression, but that he or she lacks the culture-specific interpretation or responsiveness ability that would lead togreater social competence.Conclusion The questions about the universality of nonverbal communication andits relationship to human language seem to be related when we look at theliterature. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 288-299.Love, E., Nowicki, S. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19(1), 3-29. Whether that is subsumed under the heading oflanguage does not seem as relevant as the consideration of its contributionto meaning. and Duke, M.P. Not-words. The child who isunable to express and interpret the particular nonverbal communications ofhis or her culture is likely to feel outside of the mainstream because ofthe failed communication. 1.Izard, C.E. Instead, he indicated, nonverbalcommunication represented a non-language communication system and that manyanimals have similar systems, but no language. Ekman (1994), too, noted that there is considerable evidence ofuniversality and responded to Russell's critique by noting that Russellmisrepresented what universality means and failed to discuss all theevidence. (1995). Helping the child who doesn't fit in. Thus, the universality is not in the ability of a particular nonverbalcommunication to communicate one, and only one, meaning to all people atall times. (1993). Both Ekman (1994)and Izard (1994) contend that there is considerable evidence for theuniversality of certain facial expressions, if not all forms of nonverbalcommunication. (1994). The Emory dyssemia index: A brief screening instrument for the identification of nonverbal language deficits in elementary school children. Science times: for man and beast, language of love shares many traits. (1995). and Duke, M. In some respects, the parallel process model that Patterson (1995)discussed seems to be similar to this in conception. At the same time, they recognize theindividual variability in communication and receptivity. According to him, there is strong evidence, even with pastmethodological problems to warrant consideration of the existence ofuniversals in facial expressions. Taking a strongposition that nonverbal communication is not language, but more closelyresembles nonverbal communication systems of other animals is RobbinsBurling (1993). Yet, thelack of evidence of movement from nonverbal communication toward thedevelopment of language in animals, and the retention of nonverbalcommunication systems among humans seems to indicate that nonverbalcommunication is not language, but does contain a number of universalelements. Forexample, in their work Nowicki and Duke (1992) indicated that they believedthat there are receptive and expressive nonverbal language equivalents toreceptive and expressive verbal language. Perhaps the most persuasive position is that of Burling. BibliographyBlount, B.G. On the other hand, many researchers and theorists work under thestarting assumption that nonverbal communication is equivalent to nonverballanguage, presenting some of the same opportunities and difficulties. Blount (1993),for example, indicated that human language might be part of a largercommunication system, embedded in the phylogenetic earlier system ofgesture-calls. Instead, they support a theoretical stance thatfinds a relationship between animal nonverbal communication systems andhuman nonverbal communication systems and human language. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.