Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
M.J. Arul
"Blessed are they that have eyes to see and ears to hear!"
Communication involves sending and receiving of messages. It also calls for a message carrier. Suppose I
(the sender) want to tell you (the receiver) what, for instance, communication (the message) is. I use
words for the purpose. Words are symbols standing for something. They are not the message, but carriers
of it. I encode my message in words and you decode it from them.
People communicate messages not only about external, concrete objects and events, which are open to
independent observation and verification, but also about inner experiences and feelings. While judicious
use of words can do an extremely good job of the former, non-verbal cues such as facial expression can
by far outwit words in communicating feelings, inner conflicts, emotions, and interpersonal attitudes. (A
good friend of mine was recently bereaved of his girl. The event shattered him and left him in a terrible
state. But, all he could say in words was only, "Boy, I just have no words to tell you how I feel.")
Empirical findings[1] show that in communication of feelings and attitudes, the verbal content contributes
only to 7 per cent of the message, vocal cues (voice qualities like the pitch, intonation, etc.) to 38 percent,
and facial expression 55 per cent. Stein[2] found in his experiment that observers of a working group most
accurately identified the emergent leader in the group, when they (the observers) had access to both the
verbal and non-verbal cues of the interacting group members. The observers were less accurate when
exposed only to vocal (filtered speech) and visual cues. Their judgement was least accurate when made on
the sole basis of the script of the words that were spoken by the individual members of the group.
Exclusive dependence on words for communication can, therefore, give rise to intellectual starvation or
malnutrition let alone emotional consequences.
Host: "How is the food?"
Guest: "Excellent; delicious!"
Consider this wee bit of conversation. You can quite reasonably infer from the words above that the guest
enjoyed the meal. The host, however, read a different message from the same words and he was right. The
guest's language of behaviour (his ill-at-ease appearance, the forced smile on his lips, etc.) "spoke"
something to contradict his language of words. [To complete the scene for you: A well-grown, but
deflated, worm in the dish had caught the eye of the polite guest!]
Whether aware or unaware, with or without intent, we constantly communicate in a number of languages
that are not verbal. Our body, our use of time, space, and things also "talk". Here we shall only sample the
ways we use these languages to communicate.
"Why are you looking so sad?"
The general appearance of a person conveys messages. For instance, our style of walking (such as a
steady gait or a meander, a hand-in-pocket shuffle or a "gravity-free" bounce) can reveal our varying
moods and needs. It can air our inner states of dejection, preoccupation, carefree happiness, excitement,
and what have you, and "ask" others to respond to us empathically. If the other person tunes in his/her
behaviour so as to fall in phase with ours, the interaction is complementary and rewarding. Otherwise we
confidence, diffidence, etc. can also be read off from one's eyes. Your eye contacts and eye-contact
avoidance can encourage, maintain and consummate an interaction or discourage and damage it,
depending on how they are used. A constant stare in the eye may embarrass the other person and a total
gazing away might "tell" him off.
Gesticulation or hand movements form another of our communication systems. Our gestures carry
messages. Some gestures, as is the case with other body cues, are more obvious and less ambiguous than
others. The beckoning gesture, for instance, is universal and well understood, even though there are
"palm-up" and "palm-down" variations of it in different regions. Pointing fingers while talking may
communicate anything from authoritative attitude through emphasis, accusation, and lack of
sophistication to insult. Wringing and drumming of fingers and knuckle-cracking could betray anxiety,
nervousness, boredom, restlessness, or an unresolved state of mind. A click of fingers or a clap of hands
(usually a pair of clicks or claps) could mean calling for the attention of someone near or far. It could also,
when done singly (in a jerky snap and accompanied by a quick lighting up of the face), convey that some
sought-for solution or a brainwave has just flashed in the person's mind! The applause value of clapping is
of course well known. Punching of a clenched fist into the palm could mean disappointment or
determination. Tapping the finger-tips of a steeple formed by the palms could signal involved thought or
scheming.
A scratch, besides being physically functional, can also "say" that the person is psychologically
uncomfortable at the moment. A slow, sustained scratch on the head, the neck, the chin, or the cheek
coupled with the eyes looking down or up and away may mean the person is trying to recall something.
The same scratch, when done faster coupled with a grin and/or a peculiar head-shake, could tell you that
the person is embarrassed or that he recognizes what an ass he has made of himself before others. Very
small and subtle changes in the choice and combination of cues can make a big difference in meaning.
The head supported at the cheeks by one or both the hands can stand for despair, bereavement, prolonged
thinking, boredom, or extreme interest. Concomitant cues from the eyes can corroborate the message.
Head movement can convey agreement and disagreement. You can also nonverbally "ask" for the other
person's agreement by synchronizing your speech with vertical nods.
Even our legs are not dumb in interaction contexts. The way we position them (crossed, close together,
held apart ...) can convey relaxation, tension, modesty, seduction, etc. Foot-shaking can also ensue from
impatience, anger, or nervousness. Stamping one's foot could reveal one's authority, arrogance, or
contempt.
It is important to note that subtle modifications in the combination of cues will qualify the context and
consequently alter the meaning of a particular cue.
Communication, as already indicated, is a multi-channel network. If all the expressive cues (verbal, vocal,
kinesic, and proxemic) used in a given context converge to communicate one message, positive or
negative, then their redundancy often serves to ensure the accuracy of the message and the emphasis
attached to it by the communicator. But, how about combinations of inconsistent cues? When a girl tells
her boy, "you're a swine; I don't like you" amidst an amorous smile and a velvet slap...the medium is
inconsistent, but the message that gets across is the positive one from the nonverbal cues. (Similarly
negative inconsistency in communication could also take place.) Such phenomena suggest that when
verbal and nonverbal channels are inconsistently combined, the nonverbal channel dominates in
determining the message received. It is also possible that inconsistent cues lead to confusion. The mother,
for example, with a smile playing on her face, tells the child not to touch the glass. Her smile "belies" her
words and the junior reaches for the glass only to get spanked immediately. Comparable instances of
References
1. Mehrabian, A. Communication without words, Psychology Today, 1968, 2 (4), 53-55.
2. Stein, R.T. Identifying emergent leaders from verbal and non-verbal communications. Journal of
Personality and social psychology, 1975. 32 (1), 125-135.
3. Mehrabian, A. Opus Citatum.
4. Macros, L.R. The emotional correlates of smiling and laughter. The American Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 36 (1), 33-41.
5. Jones, E.E., & Gerard, H.B. Foundations of Social Psychology. John Willey & Sons, Inc., New York,
1967, 257.
6. Thiruvalluvar. Thirukkural. Chapters 71 and 110.
7. Holtz, J.L. Communication : The Use of Body Languages. Harvard Business School, 1973, 4-474-058.
8. Athos, A.G. Communication : The Use of Time, Space, and Things. HBS, 1969, 9-470-009, HP 692.
9. Birdwhistell, R.L. Kinesics and Context. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970.