When a young child steps back, throws
up her hands and—perhaps unconsciously—lets out a declaration of disassociation
in response to dropping a vase, we question where she learned this method of
using words to separate herself from blame. Languages, according to the Language Files textbook, fall into one
of two modalities: auditory-vocal or visual-gestural (24). This description of
language types leaves little room for crossover, meaning a language can be
classified into only one of the two categories. When we think of language, most
people immediately associate it with speech, which explains why our discussion
focused so heavily on the implicitly learned nature of the young girl’s verbal
response. Her word choice created a disconnect between her and the broken vase,
a verbal device she picked up through observation as opposed to explicit
teaching.
Now reimagine the situation:
without uttering a word a young girl drops a vase and jumps back, throwing her
hands up and away from the mess. Does she not essentially convey the same
message? Another person would look down and see a broken vase, and look up to
see the girl’s body and hands far removed from the shards on the floor. Now
that’s not to say the observer couldn’t put together cause and effect, but the
added spoken disassociation would not prevent that association either. The
girl’s reaction in this scenario, too, was never explicitly taught. We learn
our gestures through observation in much the same way as spoken language. People
often adopt movements or facial expressions of family and friends in much the
same way one would take on their manner of speech.
Returning to the second scenario I
begin to question how separate the two established language modalities truly
are. While I grant that most gestures augment or enhance conversation, as in
the original situation with the young girl and the vase, there are certainly cases
when movement may replace spoken words. There is by no means a dictionary or
codex detailing the meanings behind gestures in our society, and yet we often
understand certain motions to mean certain things as well as if words were
spoken to us. A wave of the hand can acknowledges someone else’s presence, a
shrug indicates a lack of knowledge or unwillingness to help, and one may hold
up their fingers to replace saying numbers aloud. And unlike in learning a
separate second language in which the learner at first likely mentally translates
everything he or she hears into his or her native tongue, an observer of gestures
can understand their meanings without any mental translation.
Keeping this in mind, I have come
to believe the language with which we interact with one another is a mix of
both auditory-vocal and visual-gestural, meaning that while most communication
is made with speech, there are certain expressive gestures that are also
elements of our spoken language’s vocabulary.
To inspire discussion: Can you
think of expressions or gestures you may have picked up through observation
from the people around you? What about an occasion when you’ve communicated
without using spoken words?
This dialogue brings to mind the difference between language and general inter-human communication, if there is one in the eyes of linguists at all. Visual gestures are crucial to successful communication: they give power to successful oration, can help indicate the difference between “this” and “that,” and, as you point out, can act as a more efficient mode of communication. Additionally, I think we probably rely on visual communication especially heavily when our feelings, emotions, and beliefs are more difficultly articulated with words (i.e. frustration, love, anger, passion). Auditory elements, such as pitch, amplitude, and tone, can also alter the meaning of spoken word. The lack of these elements in text, for example, account for why reading a joke is rarely as funny as hearing it delivered in a successful manner.
ReplyDeleteThe importance of these visual/auditory elements notwithstanding, the fascinating thing that separates them from language is the fact that their usage is not standardized by rules. Unlike our language, which has a grammar; there isn’t a dictionary where I can look up how to move my facial muscles to communicate specific feelings. It’s especially tricky, since everyone has their own mannerisms and gesticulations that give identity to their communication; but we don’t have rules for what makes someone come off as wry, standoffish, or humorous. The passage on page 24-25 seems to be alluding to visual languages where the gestures have a distinct and codified meaning. I’m curious as to how linguists feel about this issue: are visual gestures also a language?
I definitely agree with your assertion that there’s overlap between auditory-vocal and visual-gestural language modalities. To me, the two systems seem to interact almost inextricably. An eye-roll can convey sarcasm that needn’t then be explicitly vocalized; the utterance “look at that” is much clearer when accompanied by some gestural indication of what “that” is. With this in mind, it’s interesting to think about how this might be different in a deaf-mute community, where the auditory-vocal language modality is inherently excluded.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to your point about learning a second language, I don’t know if what you say is entirely true, although I still think the comparison you allude to between foreign language and gestural language is worthwhile and intriguing. Personally, I don’t translate my second language into English. When I’m using my second language, I think in my second language; I think in one language just as often as in the other, and sometimes I think in a combination of them both – some ideas seem to be inherently more fully articulable in one language than in the other. And I think this is actually similar to what you say about gestures – that it isn’t necessary to translate them into vocal language, because they themselves serve as vessels for the direct conveyance of meaning. And I would add that certain elements of communication lend themselves more easily to auditory-vocal language while others are better suited to visual-gestural language.
I loved Alden's point here about "thinking" (or not thinking) in body language. It's true that we don't actively say to ourselves, "Cross your arms and sigh--that will show them you're annoyed." Our body language, like the tone of voice we use and often the words we choose, is less careful than that.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found myself thinking of was the common instruction in creative writing: "Show, don't tell." In other words, rather than explaining that a character is anxious, show him fidgeting, biting the corner of his nail, hunching his shoulders, pacing. Not only does it convey anxiety in a much more forceful and believable way, but it provides sufficient information to demonstrate emotion without ever using the word "anxious". We possess enough understanding of our own mechanics to know that doodling and tapping a pencil means boredom; the curl of a lip and crinkle of a nose means disgust. It makes me wonder how we recognize these reactions so easily--have we seen them enough times that we've learned them? But even infants display familiar body language by reacting in certain ways. So is it innate? Some mixture of the two?
This very interesting post and discussion on the comparison of auditory-vocal and visual-gestural languages made me think about the connection between visual-gestural forms of communication and how these forms of communication are translated into written forms. Most spoken languages have a corresponding written form. Is there a comparable system for gestures used along with verbal communication?
ReplyDeletePunctuation seems to be one solution for this. Punctuation marks take on some of the function of gestures in spoken language in written language: providing emphasis, denoting phrasing, and supplementing the words themselves. These functions are of course not solely the responsibility of gestures in spoken language -pausing, tone, etc. still play a role, but they still do seem to provide an important role.
This post also got me noticing places in spoken communications in which people use gestures in place of words. For example, people seem to use gestures in place of “filler words” like uh and um. When they are trying to think of where to continue their thoughts, people sometimes move their hands as an indication of continuation. Likewise, when searching for a correct word, I’ve noticed that people will sometimes place their palm upwards, as if imagining holding the object or word they are looking for.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI would definitely agree that our use of language is a cross between the auditory-vocal and the visual-gestural. However, in practice, visual-gestural communication can standalone whereas we rarely see the use of auditory-vocal without the visual-gestural. This may be a naïve hypothesis, but perhaps from an evolutionary point of view, the visual-gestural did stand alone as the unique method of communication for a long time. Communication slowly evolved from hand gesture to sound symbolism to abstract sound, always building up on itself. In an evolutionary sense, the gestural was once independent of the auditory – but not the contrary – and our use of a combination of visual and auditory language was motivated by a need to express more and more complex thoughts.
ReplyDeleteLaura, I would argue that unlike spoken language, some visual-gestural communication is indeed innate. Some basic human emotions directly translate into body gestures. A baby can smile or even crinkle its nose when it tastes something sour. However, more advanced cultural gestures are of course learned (think the ‘cheese sign’). On the other hand, auditory-vocal communication does not strike me as innate although its acquisition is hard-wired within us.
For discussion: Would our day-to-day communication be seriously hindered without visual-gestural communication. If the answer is yes, then consider how auditory language stemmed from pre-existing gestural language – even growing around it. In this sense, is it right to distinguish the two modalities given they are so intertwined?
Much like the opinions expressed in the other comments on this post, I, too, agree that auditory-vocal and visual-gestural communication are inextricably intertwined. Having read the discussion that has evolved from Griffin's post I find myself recalling the work of UCLA psychologist Albert Mehrabian who famously introduced the famous ' 7%-38%-55% Rule' . For the sake of brevity, Mehrabian advocated the importance of nonverbal communication with regards to the emotional response evoked by human communication. Specifically, Mehrabian believed words accounted for merely 7% of our (emotional) liking of the person who was communicating while tone and body language accounted for the other 93%.
ReplyDeleteBy citing Mehrabian's work it does not mean I full-heartedly endorse his findings, however I believe it is important to note since it brings to bear how important nonverbal communication is for evoking an emotional response. As many of us may know, a piercing glare and dismissing tone can be much more haunting than the mere utterance of "I hate you."
Linking the importance of nonverbal communication to the transmission of emotion/feeling makes me agree with Quentin's assertion above where he states that perhaps visual-gestural communication was the first noticeable form of hominid communication and an imperative factor on the road to the formation of early complex social bonds -- and as a result, a potential platform for the emergence of auditory-vocal language.
I am by no means an expert in evolutionary linguistics and I have no doubt I may be making ridiculous assumptions; however, I do think this discussion highlights one thing: communication would be seriously hindered without visual-gestural communication as emotion and subtle social cues could be lost in mere words.
I agree with the idea that communication would not be the same without visual-gestural communication. The words we speak are put into context through our body language, which help communicate our meaning even more. I do think some gestures are innate but also think a lot of them are taught to us through others or media. For example, shrugging our shoulders in order to communicate that we were upset/not in accordance. I also wonder how these gesture/body language differ amongst cultures.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, in our discussion thread, it has been stated that sometimes our body language can communicate even more than the words we say. Mehrabian's work supports that idea since body language accounts for so much more than words in his findings (7% to 93% is a pretty big difference!). I wonder if this is because we believe body language is more innate/natural in comparison to the words that we formulate in our minds?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think how we use and especially combine auditory-vocal and visual-gestural languages in our everyday conversations is incredibly fascinating. This post, along with the comments, brought up a lot of questions for me about how integral many of the gestures people use while they speak are. Are they innate, or do we learn them as we grow up and are trying to copy the adults and other peers around us? For example, in a psychology class I learned that even children that have been blind since birth will smile; so smiling appears to be something that is innate. Are there any other gestures that are innate like that? Will people who are visually impaired use gestures such as shrugging or crossing their arms?
ReplyDeleteOn the question Griffin posed - I think one of the most fascinating visual-gestural forms of communication that I've learned is the ability to insult with body language. I even remember how, on the elementary school bus, I learned the power of the middle finger from the ever so large 4th graders. I now had the ability
ReplyDeleteI wonder what that implies though - does that mean our auditory-vocal system is difference than our visual-gestural one? Am I fluent in English and the ability to swear with multiple hand gestures, or is my visual-gestural system purely an extension of my auditory-vocal one? That itself might be a flaw of the book's definition, an overgeneralized view of common languages.
Even so, I feel that, as a driver from Los Angeles, I'm fluent in both English and the many different ways to visually express anger at a incompetent driver.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the idea that gestures in visual-auditory language blur the traditional boundaries of modality. Instinctually, I would think that body language is not formalized enough to qualify as a language. However, in reexamining Hockett's Qualities of Language, formal codification is not a requirement for a language. Many visual-auditory languages remain un-codified in writing, and many others would not have become codified were it not for the recent efforts of linguists.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, though, Hockett does require that language be culturally transmitted and not biologically determined. Evidence from behavioral psychologist Paul Ekman suggests that body language is biological and thereby universal. To illustrate his idea, Ekman often tells an anecdote in which a traveler journeys around the world and always understands locals' emotions from their facial expressions and body language despite understanding nothing of their visual-auditory language. Ekman goes on to hypothesize that evolutionary pressures supported the development of biologically ingrained body language. He argues, for example that, clenching fists at moments of anger provides increased blood flow to the hands, such that the angry person becomes prepared for physical combat.
If Ekman is correct in that gestures are evolutionarily determined, then bodily gestures are not language by Hockett’s definition.
This post, as well as Nicolo's comment above, raised novel questions for me in distinguishing what constitutes a natural language versus a code.
ReplyDeleteOur text states that signed languages are not codes because they "evolve naturally and independently" of spoken languages, whereas codes are artificially constructed systems for representing a natural language (25). By this delineation, we must determine whether non-signed visual-gestural modalities (such as a shrug) represent artificial constructions, or developed naturally and independently.
It is hard to believe that gestures did not exist prior to the development of natural language. The evidence that Nicolo presents via Ekman supports this intuition, but puts us in a chicken-or-the-egg quandary. I would imagine that, even though primates used non-codified physical gestures prior to spoken language, the development of spoken language has changed those gestures.
For example, the gesture in which we close our fingers, touch our lips, make a labial kissing noise and open our fingers is used by humans to signify the deliciousness of a food (think: "bonisimo"), but is also used by non-human primates naturally. This suggests that, perhaps, that gestures have been affected by language, and language by gestures, further blurring the lines between code and language.
While some facial movements and gestures may be innate, as some of the previous posts suggested, we should not overlook the important role culture plays in how we express facial movements and gestures, how we interpret them, and which ones are deemed appropriate or expected in a given setting.
ReplyDeleteWhile smiling may be a universal sign of happiness (à la Ekman’s research) and/or innate (as suggested by the study on blind babies mentioned in a previous post), European Americans’ smiles tend to be more intense compared to East Asians’ – this observation has been validated in studies comparing smile width and height in Facebook profiles of Americans vs. Asians, popular children’s books in America vs. Asia, and more. Prof. Tsai from our very own Psychology Department theorizes that this may arise because of cultural differences in ideal affect (i.e. the emotion(s) one ideally wants to feel): Americans value high-arousal positive states (e.g. excitement, enthusiasm), whereas East Asians value low-arousal positive states (e.g. calmness, serenity; Tsai, 2007).
An interesting case that not only highlights the importance of culture in facial movements / gestures but also challenges the distinction between auditory-vocal and visual-gestural language is the case of emoticons. Recent studies suggest that Americans tend to choose emoticons that emphasize the mouth (e.g. :), :P), whereas East Asians choose emoticons that emphasize the eyes (e.g. (n_n), (-_-)). This may be rooted in previous studies that suggest Americans tend to focus on the lips, whereas East Asians tend to focus on the eyes when interpreting another person’s emotions (Yuki & Maddux, 2006). One theory is that this difference may have arisen because American culture values overt emotional expression, whereas East Asian culture values emotional concealment. Since the eyes are harder to control than the mouth, it is harder to conceal emotions when they engage the eyes – hence, it makes sense to pay more attention the eyes rather than the mouth in a culture where emotional concealment is normative.
As previous posts mentioned, one function of facial movements and gestures is to convey emotion. I agree with this, but would like to add yet another function of facial movements and gestures: to convey adherence to socio-cultural codes of politeness and respect. This function is definitely not innate nor universal. In American culture, for example, it is customary to greet other people with a handshake; in other Western cultures, with a kiss on the cheek. Where I come from in the Philippines, we do neither; we are, however, expected to greet elders by bringing the back of his hand to one’s forehead.
This post reminds me of what I am most comfortable speaking and understanding, Hawaiian Creole English (HCE), and the "shaka". HCE, in its various forms of fluency, is likely the most spoken language in the state of Hawai'i, with large enough differences from English to make it unintelligible to one only versed in English.
ReplyDeleteThe shaka is an important hand gesture in HCE, locally known as Pidgin, although that name is misleading. It has a plethora of different meanings, many of which have no translation in English. This gesture is a important part of HCE, and as Griffin made an example of in his third paragraph, is a gesture that can be understood with no accompanying sound.
I think gestures can still be a unique and crucial factor in an auditory-vocal language. It seems strange to classify the shaka gesture as a part of an auditory-vocal language, but it would be more odd to: a) communicate the ideas the shaka does using English or HCE b) categorize the shaka into a signed language.
Point being, I agree with Griffin that our current language is a mix of auditory-vocal and visual-gestural. I hope HCE can help to illustrate that for something other than American English.