Talk:Nonverbal communication/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page started

I was in the middle of fixing this, and as it's my first article, I'd like feedback on it so far, if possible. I have to go to the airport to pick up my girlfriend now, but I'll resume editing this tomorrow unless someone else completes it. Benji 22:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) where r u benji..?its 2009 now..?hmmmmmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.82.116 (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sign language and verbal vs. non-verbal

ok, as for

American Sign Language : A standardized set of gestures that mimic/complement speech.

...this is wrong in a number of ways. first of all, please please please understand that ASL is it's its own language. They do not "mimic/complemen speech"; ASL is speech. It is not english words signed out, it isn't even english. It is not pantomimes or sherades. It has its own grammar quirks, unique aspects of syntax and many, many influences and origins. It is, in fact, its own language. There, now that that is out of my system, here is why I don't think ASL is nonverbal communication- I went to the great dictionary.com and found this definition:

ver·bal Audio pronunciation of "verbal" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vûrbl) adj.

 1. Of, relating to, or associated with words: a detailed verbal description. 

Upon this foundation, I would very much say that sign language is 'verbal', as it uses words. Many sign languages, ASL, FSL etc, are complete and very indepth languages. On this basis I would say that sign language is 'verbal' and does not belong into the 'nonverbal' category. I got the following definition out of "The Nonverbal Communication Reader: Classic and Contemporary Readings".

  Nonverbal communication refers to communication effected by means other than words.

OK, here's a problem for you:

We are able to develop written language from verbal language.

ASL cannot be written; its users instead rely on the written form of the English language.

ASL cannot be written because it is not composed of phonemes, as is spoken language. ASL is constructed from kinemes, which are the basic unit of kinesics, which (as we've agreed) is a sub-category of nonverbal communication.

Our American language is composed (depending on your dialect) of about 44 phonemes. ASL, by constrast, has countless kinemes. That's why it's not possible to come up with written ASL; you'd need to have a letter for each way that each hand can move in three dimensional space, how fast and far it moves, whether the motion is connected or distinct from other motions, and all of the body parts and fine facial expressions that are combined with the gestures. Too close to infinity!

It's correct that people misinterpret ASL as a gestural translation of the English language rather than as a language in its own right--but it is a language built out of nonverbals, as nonverbals are generally understood.Truddick 18:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Benji is completely correct, sign language is not nonverbal communication. Rauh 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The scent of a person - is it foul, alluring or brisk? A waitress writing a smilie face on a check when giving it to the costumer - tips are statistically higher when women do this (but not men...). I would even say hand signals like holding out a hand to stop, wagging a finger or flipping someone the bird........but sign language is with words. While areas like personal proximity, eye dilation, even silience has their grounds in nonverbal communication, none of them are direct verbatium speech - which sign language is. Heck, typing this message to you right now...would you consider this nonverbal communication? Would writing someone a letter be considered nonverbal communication? Communication effected by means other than words... JoeSmack (talk) 07:20, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Okay... From the above description of verbal, take a look at word. (from American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition)

A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.

I would say that ASL doesn't use words, it uses signs, a concept independent of what a word is. If you look at the wikipedia entry for ASL, it makes a distinction between what a sign and a word are. As for these written words being considered nonverbal, I would agree with you, except that they're being used as a stand-in for spoken words. The distinction is a fine one, but present. I would argue that if it can't be said out loud, it's not a word, and that makes it nonverbal communication. Benji 22:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I urge everyone to consider that dictionaries are attempting to render the common usage of terms; they are not governing bodies that decide the meaning of technical terms, and as such are inadequate for resolving arguments about meaning.Truddick 05:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually i think written words aren't nonverbal communication, because yes, they are stand-ins for spoken words. if you don't consider signs words how about just stand-ins for spoken words?

We're getting too tripped up on definitions here. lets look at the big picture. say you're born deaf and instead of spoken speech you learn ASL. fast foward in twenty years. you think that there is anything that can't be articulated, explained or conveyed with ASL? it is a full and rich language, capable of describing anything. now lets look at nonverbal communication, any of the areas of nonverbal communication. can you grow up using silience as a means of language? clothing you wear? attractiveness? eye contact? fast foward in twenty years. using any of those things, can you describe Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Read a book to another with any of them?

The thing that seperates nonverbal communication from the pack is that it compliments language. it is the subtlety, the nuance that it acents language with. ASL is so much more than a sublety. so much more than a nuance. so much more than acenting a language. it just hurts me to see American Sign Language, with all it's culture and history, possibly be put in the same category of communication as eye dialation.

It's so much more than all that.

More? Well, yes, in most systems, it's more.

If you'll just look in most basic communication texts, they generally agree that nonverbal communication performs several functions.

Usually, nonverbal behavior communicates the socio-emotional dimension of the communication. In other words, it tells others how we're feeling, and it signals our relationship to them. However, the signals are often ambiguous; a trained actor can "lie" about emotions by exerting finely-practiced control over nonverbals.

However, often nonverbal behavior--according to those basic texts--substitutes or works in tandem with verbal. Consider these examples:

--If I hold up my hand flat, fingers pointed up, palm aimed at you, don't you know that it means "stop"? It means that regardless of the situation or the emotions present at the time. It's a purely denotative meaning. In this case, the nonverbal is what Ekman and Freisen would call an "emblem"--it has a precise symbolic meaning just like a word would have.

--If I say "the fish was this big" and hold my hands apart to show the length, then the nonverbal is working together with the words to convey a symbolic meaning. It's not like the "stop" example above because just holding my hands apart doesn't always mean the same thing; there must be words spoken to complete the meaning. However, again the meaning is denotative; it isn't conveying emotion or relationship.

I'd submit that Ekman and Freisen's definition of "emblem"--a nonverbal that replaces a verbal--would include American Sign Language. I appreciate ASL as a unique language, not a derivative of another. But I don't see it as insulting to say that it's a language composed of nonverbal symbols--those are not inferior in any way to verbal ones, all symbols are created equal. It's just a matter of definition; in verbal language, the smallest unit is the phoneme, which by definition (yes, a technical definition established by the board of the International Phonetic Association) is a vocal sound. The smallest unit of ASL, by contrast, is a kineme--which derives not from vocalization but from kinesics.

If we are going to insist that nonverbal behavior communicates only emotion and relationship, then we are by definition saying that the following are not nonverbal messages:
waving goodbye. - verbal
shaking hands. - verbal
saying "rrrr" to demonstrate the sound of the engine. - verbal
standing in line. - verbal, you communicate that you are in a certain order by a predetermined and arbitrary code, that of the line of people. It might be useful to remember that children have to be thought to stand in line, it is not something they just 'get it', it is a code that they learn.
putting books on a desk to reserve it as one's space in class. - verbal
demonstrating how to break a wrist grip with a judo move. - verbal
wearing a uniform. - verbal
pointing out a direction. - verbal

If anyone here wants to advance a reasoned argument that the above are not examples of nonverbal communication, I'll be back to read your explanation. If not, then I hope we can agree on the following simple distinctions:
Verbal = communication using spoken words [Written: a way of representing a language using visual symbols] Nonverbal = all of the aspects of interpersonal messages that are not verbal

Then maybe we can get on with polishing this article--it needs some basic editing. [No disrespect for prior authors--I've started articles that needed as much or more] Truddick 05:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what it is:

* Verbal - communication that uses an arbitrary code composed of symbols (that refer to something)

* Nonverbal - communication that uses a non-arbitrary system of signs (that have intrinsic meaning) Rauh 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That is NOT what it is. That's one definition, and one that doesn't acknowledge that, sometimes, nonverbals are in fact symbolic. When the nonverbal acts "just like a word" and can be defined, then it's not a "sign that has intrinsic meaning." Moreover, that is this "non-arbitrary" claptrap: if you study nonverbal insults from various cultures, you'll see clearly that they are often arbitrary: the "bird" in the USA translates to a "V for Victory" gesture in S. America and an upside down "OK" sign in Australia.

A kid who puts fingers at right angles on forehead to indicate "loser" is, in fact, referring to something, yet it's not spoken language. What would you call that, if not nonverbal?

Look, we have got to take these definitions critically. If the definition doesn't take into account ALL examples of communicative nonverbal behavior, then it's a crap definition and we don't need to be wasting our time with it.

Verbal communication involves spoken words.
Written communication involves graphic symbols for those words.
Visual communication involves pictoral messages (e.g., graphs and charts and pictures).
Nonverbal communication then is anything communicative that's not verbal, written or visual.

If you disagree with this, then please post a detailed explanaiton of what you would call the "non-arbitrary" nonverbal symbols I've listed earlier. Are they not nonverbal--if so, what's your name for them. Please don't just parrot definitions, let me have some understanding of your logic.Truddick 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

First - I hope no one minds that I added the above two subheaders. Otherwise, the Talk page was having too long an intro! ;)

Second - why the hell are people arguing about what they think is a "reasonable definition" of this? Is this not a scientific subject? It's a linguistic subject, a subject of communication, etc., thus, it's scientific. THUS, there is a specific definition (or more than one) in actual scientific communities. THAT is what we should report. Nothing more, nothing less. Plus, where the hell are all the citations!? There are none! That's horrible for an article on a scientific subject. All of the information here should be verifiable and citable to some scientific publication of some sort. For instance, generally the term "verbal" includes "spoken or written communication", yet here we have people talking about what I would consider aspects of spoken language (such as pitch and tone of voice, the former of which IS definitely a specific aspect in languages such as Chinese) - yet where is the citation regarding who by and when it was defined that these aspects are "non-verbal", despite being part of speaking? Please take this seriously. Cite things!Runa27 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sign Language

Interesting that I found this page yesterday and was going to updated it. I'm glad other people are on the boat.

I am 100% sure that non-verbal communication is "communication that does not use SYMBOLS". Therefore sign-language is verbal communication. Non-verbal communication is divided into spontaneous and pseudo-spontaneous communication (I can provide references from Journal of Communication later). Spontaneous communication is all the things that we do with our bodys that send some information to another person, the most powerful and important one being EMOTIONAL communication, as a matter of fact, some say that all non-verbal communication is emotional (or at least affective). Pseudo-spontaneous communication is when people fake verbal communication. When you fake a smile, for example. In this case you are use a non-symbolic form of communication in a symbolic way (at least as far as the sender is concerned). If you are good at it, other people will pick it up as non-verbal. Any discussion into non-verbal communication will have to go into emotions and the communication of emotion (see The Communication of Emotion by Ross Buck).

This is just a small summary of how things that should be on this page and how they are structured. And we definitely need to have a definition up there. This is final's week so once I'm done with it I can gather some references and offer more specific info. Rauh 17:34, 14 Dec 2004

Okay, this is getting good. Now, please what is the difference between a symbol and a word. Or, to cut to the fun part. Would you care to give us a bit of an explanation about the historical usage of the terms signfier and signified with relationship to the meanings of words and the differences between words and symbols?

Words are symbols. They are specific symbols that have a phonetic expression and many times a written specification. You might have symbols that are not words btw, like an exclamation point. Rauh 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! So you have an actual scientific source that you can cite for this? If so, please do. The article as it is practically no better than Original Research, unless we get some bloody cites in there. Runa27 16:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Read up: Stokoe, W. C. Jr. (2005). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 3-37. This is actually the landmark paper (reprinted) by William Stokoe that proved American Sign Language as a bona fide language, written in the 60s (40th anniversary in 2005 or something). JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

types of NVC that should be added

Chronemics, Paralinguistics, Proxemics, Semiotics and touch should be added.

Emotional Communication - BIG ONE Rauh 17:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The current article is only about humans. NVC in e.g. non-human primates should be included.

And: the current article is only about psychology and sociology. Neurobiological knowledge about NVC, e.g. about mirror-neurons, involement of Broca-area in movement etc. should be included - PPilz, 21 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPilz (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi PPilz! Thank you for your comment, but we have Animal communication to cover non-human communication. As for including Neurobiological knowledge about NVC, if you have good, secondary sources – and please also check WP:MEDRS – then please be bold and write a section about it! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 11:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Also pictorial communication. ~~ April 10 2015 ~~ User:Namangwari — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.88.157 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

removed from main article for further discussion

Artistic Expression

Numerous forms of art are nonverbal. Music can be nonverbal, though it is often mixed with a person or persons singing, making a form of mixed communication. Music tends to be less explicit in terms of the message conveyed than verbal communication.

As images often have ideas attatched to them (such as the snake being a symbol of evil), paintings, photographs, and mixed media often use these symbols to communicate a message without stating it directly. The reason for indirect communication is the belief that the brain retains connections that it has made on its own better than those made for it. This may be the reason that the higher art forms are considered to be more emotionally and intellectually satisfying than the written or spoken word.

There are also signs from the person you are communicating with, what is their stance? are they relaxed or ready to pounce? how fast are they breathing? have they got their arms folded, how far away are they standing are they using eye contact? all these signs can help to make up your mind of their state of mind

         Why on earth would anyone remove artistic expression but leave CLOTHING in objective comunication?!  first fashion is art                    to.
         art has been a nonverbal form of communication for millions of years.  before any verbal language existed. 

if you dont like a section dont remove the whole thing. EDIT IT! you make no explination for removal either.75.31.235.93 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This viewpoint constitutes one opinion. For example, an entirely contrary viewpoint can be seen in the music theories of noted 20th Century American Composer John Cage, who insisted that music was not at all communicative. I urge you to read some of his writing in order to realize that there is far from consensus on the communicative qualities of artistic expression. Note that, despite definite differences in scholarly definitions and theories, there is no significant dispute that nonverbal behavior is communicative. Truddick 05:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Interpersonal attitudes

This was recently added as a third paragraph of the lead section of the article. I moved it here for further discussion:

Most researchers generally agree that the verbal channel is used primarily for conveying information, while the non-verbal channel is used for negotiating interpersonal attitudes, and in some cases is used as a substitute for verbal messages. For example, a woman can give a man a ‘look to kill’; she will convey a very clear message to him without opening her mouth.

Perhaps we could have a citation that 'most researchers generally agree' to the above, because to me, it appears to contradict the first two paragraphs a little. I might be misunderstanding what was intended here — if so, can it be re-worded for clarity? Firstly, the fact that the woman in the example didn't open her mouth seems intended to indicate the message is nonverbal, but the second paragraph of the lead section clearly states that 'nonverbal' is not considered a synonym for 'non-spoken', among researchers in the field. Secondly, is the example intended to illustrate the point that "in some cases [nonverbal communication] is used as a substitute for verbal messages"? In what way is a "look to kill" a substitute for a verbal message? Thirdly, nonverbal communiction is clearly used to convey information, even when it is used 'for negotiating interpersonal attitudes'. Not to mention things like infographics! Hope we can clear this up. ntennis 01:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, until we have a citation for 'most researchers generally agree' we can add the {{Fact}} tag. Yes, it can be re-worded for clarity. Be my guest to do it.

Yes, you get it right. In some cases nonverbal communication is used as a substitute for verbal messages. Sometimes, a simple look can be worth tousends of words. --Eliade 07:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, a look can be worth a thousand words, but I don't see any verbal message being substituted here. Rather, the "look to kill" is directly communicating a nonverbal message. ntennis 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. I can get the cites if you'd like, but "most researchers" is kind of hard to come up with.

Nonverbal communication suffers from the widely-distributed claim that if you understand it, you can just about read people's minds (Julius Fast, Body Language, back cover notes). The claim that 95% of communication is nonverbal is usually ascribed to Albert Mehrabian, but as David Lapakko clearly demonstrated, this is a distortion. Mehrabian stated that 95% of the emotionalcontent of any message is nonverbal. Some messages, Mehrabian noted, have almost no emotional content, and in those cases nearly 100% of the meaning is verbal. Just try to communicate "this is Darby Street and Mulberry Avenue is two blocks north" using 95% nonverbals!

I'd say that "most" researchers still labor under the oversimplified, over-reaching claims of Julius Fast and his ilk, and only those more aware specialists in communication and psychology might hold the more accurate opinion in their majorities. But there's no proof either way. Truddick 05:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[Candidates to remove source from] Importance

Seeing how there are a lot of figures floating around (including misinterpreting Albert Mehrabian's 7% vocal to mean 93% of communication is nonverbal), I think it's unwise to cite a non-scientific self-help book on a percentage, even one as vague as "two thirds". See bits of the cited work here:

https://books.google.de/books?id=oJQ9dxDqdEcC&pg=PP2&lpg=PP2&dq=can%27t+get+through+8+barriers+to+communication&source=bl&ots=l3yVw2tRDG&sig=Bbp-mml1Wi_mKE--Ts6XLMtg0lI&hl=de&sa=X&ei=NpJjVYyBFYz3UMz5gKAJ&sqi=2&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=can't%20get%20through%208%20barriers%20to%20communication&f=false

Edit: same goes for source six, also popular science with no foundation (The Definitive Book of Body Language). 7 2A02:8071:B390:2201:357A:F479:841A:CD0F (talk)

Please also see this page which clarifies, "Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable." It seems very clear to me that this "two thirds" number is bogus and is not supported by any real research. «Coopkev2»^(talk) 22:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Suprasegmentals

Expand or delete? Cbdorsett 16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a message for user mikka We are graduate students with the University of Oklahoma in the communications program. Our professor, Dr. Claude Miller assigned us a project at the end of our Nonverbal Communication class - to update the nonverbal page in Wikipedia. Our group was assigned chronemics. A week ago I entered a link for chronemics on the nonverbal page, and wrote a short introduction - similar to those already posted on the page. It was highlighted in red, indicating a "work in progress." When I checked my link today I noticed you had deleted it, and left us a short message on our users discussion page. My group is meeting tomorrow to submit weeks worth of writing into this link (which I need to create again.) Please leave this link open as a work in progress until our professor has a chance to look at our work, and our REFERENCES, and consider a grade for us. Thank you.Mattoliv0821 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proxemics reference

I'm unsure of the way to go about this, but for the "Proxemics" portion of the article, where "citation is needed"--I have that! It is a book called Bridges, Not Walls: A Book About Interpersonal Communication 9th Edition. Edited by John Stewart, pgs 132, 133. The essay is "Verbal and Nonverbal Dimensions of Talk" by John Stewart and Carole Logan. Published by McGraw-Hill, New York 2006.71.74.129.210 (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the reference. I can put the reference into the article for you if you like. Or you can do it yourself - it's not too hard. You just click the "edit this page" tab on the top of the article page. Then scroll down to the section that has a "citation needed" request next to it - it looks like this: {{Fact|date=December 2007}}. Just replace that text with your reference, adding <ref> before and </ref> after the reference to make it appear as a footnote. ntennis 03:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Absence of non-verbal communication.

Can anything be added on how people with a lack of non-verbal communication skills function is society? I know it goes deeper than failing to impress job interviewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph at the end of the article about people having difficulties with nonverbal communication. I hope this can make a start to deal with the above subject.Kåre Fog (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonverbal intimacy

Both of these articles were merge tagged, and I've since redirect nonverbal intimacy here. The content appeared to duplicate this article, but I will paste it below in case anyone sees the need to add it:

Nonverbal communication is an important element in close relationships. Nonverbal communication and behaviors are used to convey involvement, warmth, and affection. Its interpretation is based on the social context of the action. It is said "to be more closely linked to relational quality than the verbal mode".

Visual behavior, also referred to as oculesics, is important in the establishment of interpersonal intimacy. One behavior is pupil dilation. When stimulated by something interesting or attractive, a person's pupils become dilated. While this is considered a cue of intimacy, it is one that has a low level of awareness.

Proxemics is defined as the way people perceive and use space. Several years ago, four distance zones, including their measured distances, were identified as a function of types of interpersonal interaction. The closest zone was identified as the "intimate distance". The people allowed within this space are usually only one's children, closest friends, family members, and romantic partners.

Along with the distance between partners, the body angle is another way in which intimacy is communicated. Facing someone is considered an intimate cue. Being at a 45 degree angle to someone, sitting next to them, or turning your back on a partner is considered less intimate.

Dance and Nonverbal Communication Reference

My primary issue was with the opening sentence:

Dance is a form of nonverbal communication that requires the same underlying faculty in the brain for conceptualization, creativity and memory as does verbal language in speaking and writing.

It makes a very interesting point, but with no reference it's questionable to state it as fact, who ran the brain scans to determin this was the case?! Please someone find a citation! I would genuinely love to read the original research article.

The rest of the paragraph is on even shakier ground. Not only does the opening of the second sentence make little or no grammatical sense, but I can't help but feel it's pure opinion on the writers part, especially when claiming the presence of vocabulary and grammar. My understanding is a vocabulary is made from words, words themselves of course have to have a specific, definable meaning, which dance steps/moves do not. If you're going to stretch this analogy towards a level of intentional, understandable meaning inherant in dance then the closest you're likely to come to language is referential signalling displayed in some species of animals such as vervet monkeys and their predator specific alarm calls. The calls are not words themselves, they have no definition can cannot be formed into a sentence, however they do have a general 'meaning'.

Also if you're claiming a vocabulary and grammar, then it would fit a rather shaky definition of 'language' thus making it verbal... therefore this point has lost it's relevance as you've now likened it to verbal communication, not nonverbal.

Hmmm, another point to make is this entry assumes all dance is deeply formulised, which it is not.

I don't feel my understanding of the intricacies of dance are sufficient to rewrite this sub-point so sadly I only know (or think I know, I'm no expert!)what's wrong with it, not how to fix it. Crydwyn00:01, 31 Dec 2009 (UTC)