The Journal of Communication, Vol. 22 (4)

Arvatavasti tuleb viitamisel lisada artikli autori ja pealkirja järele just selline lausung: The Journal of Communication, Vol. 22 (4), December 1972

Randall P. Harrison and Mark L. Knapp, Specia Issue Editors. Towards an Understanding of Nonverbal Communication Systems

Mitteverbaalse suhtlemine ja kommunikatsioonimudelid:

Historically, scholars have long wrestled with "models" for communication which, on one hand, could sort out the most crucial variables, while, on the other hand, capturing the richness and complexity of human interaction. Implicitly and explicitly, these models have influenced the way researchers have appraoched the communication process. And, conversely, they present an interesting historicla sketch of the assumptions man has held about communication.
To touch just a few: (a) Aristotle talked about the speaker-speech-audience; (b) Lasswell asked: who says what in which channel to whom with what effect? (c) Shannon investigated the source-transmitter-channel-receiver-destination; (d) Berlo emphasized source-message-channel-receiver. Each of these has proven a useful intellectual tool. But these models have been most appropriate in analyzing communication systems which are linear, directional, one-way, source-oriented, single-channel, where messages are verbal rather than affective, and where the primary concern has been on the transmission of information or influence, rather than on other possible communication outcomes. Currently, we see a growing interest in communication systems, total communication ecology, affective as well as cognitive consequences, and pluralistic communication outcomes. The interest in nonverbal symbolism has fed upon and in turn stimulated these new concerns. (Harrison & Knapp 1972: 342)

Kaks olulist küsimust, mis Tartu-Moskva koolkonna sõnades kõlaks järgnevalt: Kui mitteverbaalne suhtlemine oleks semiosfäär siis (a) kus asub selle piir verbaalse suhtes ja (b) kuidas eristada (heterogeenseid) käitumisi mis on motiveeritud ja mis ei ole:

This array presents an exciting and challenging domain. but it also reflects a lot of intellectual confusion, particularly when researchers try to move from speculation to investigation. The confusion exists at two levels: (a) where to draw the boundary between verbal and nonverbal; and (b) where to chart the far perimeter between communication and non-communication. (Harrison & Knapp 1972: 343)

Selleks ajaks oli juba selge, et mitteverbaalset suhtlemist uuritakse erinevatelt platvormidelt, üks on lingvistilise suunaga ja on harjunud mõtlema keelestruktuurides ning teine on psühholoogilise suunitlusega ja on huvitunud märgist:

Perhaps one final ambiguity is worth noting. Increasingly, there has been a move toward specifying the signs and sign patterns used in nonverbal communication. (This at least sorts out observable communication systems from the less observable, e.g., mental telepathy, extrasensory perception, casting spells, etc.) But there is still a theoretical difference between the linguistically oriented researches, who is used to thinking of language system or structure, and the psychologically oriented researcher who is happy with looking at a stimulus, e.g., a sign. (Harrison & Knapp 1972: 345)

Väga tähtis on ka küsimus kuidas eristada signaale mida märkavad osalejad ja mida märkavad jälgijad/uurijad:

Increasingly, however, there is a recognition that there may be nonverbal acts or events which are "sign-vehicles" or "markers" (i.e., perceivable stimuli for some observer). But these markers may or may not be "signs" for a given receiver. (i.e., they may or may not have "sign value" or "meaning". This is an open question for investigation and not an assumption which can be made without empirical exploration. (Harrison & Knapp 1972: 345)

Just nagu bahavioreme ja acteme, tabab nagu välk selgest taevast mind järjekordne tähelepanuta jäänud termin:

Another anthropologist, Roger Wescott, has suggested "coenesis/coenesics" as a label to blanket paralanguage, proxemics, posture, facial expression, body movement, intonation, and interactional events. This label is supported by Adam Kendon, who feels that "nonverbal communication" is too vague, and that more specific, and less negative, terminology should be used. (Harrison & Knapp 1972: 346)

Paul Ekman and Walace V. Friesen. Hand Movements

Jälle näen mina autokommunikatsioonist kõnelemist, sel puhul mitteverbaalset laadi:

People have experiences as individuals when alonge, changes in feelings and mood. Nonverbal behavior may then be the only source of information about their experience, since people rarely speak when alone; and nonverbal behavior may be an especially rich source in such circumstances, because when the individual is alone his nonverbal behavior is less subject to inhibition or control for social reasons. If we are to understand the infleunce of social rules about nonverbal behavior in interpersonal interactions, particularly about the management of what we have defined as affect displays and self-adaptors, we msust also examine the individual when he is alone. (Ekman and Friesen 1972: 354)

Loomuomane (intrinsic) käitumine on mulle varem silma jäänud, siit sain ka tähenduse - need on tegevused mis tähistavad iseennast:

We distinguished three types of coding. An arbitrarily coded act has no visual resemblance to its significant; the movement in no way looks like or contains a clue to what it means. An iconically coded act carries the clue to its decoding in its appearance; the sign looks in some way like what it means. An intrinsically coded act is like an iconic one, visually related to what it signifies, but here the act does not resemble its significant; it is its significant. For example, if one person hits another during conversation, the hitting act is not iconic but intrinsic, the act is the significant. (Ekman and Friesen 1972: 356-357)

Kaheksa erinevat illustraatori tüüpi:

• batons: movements which accent or emphasize a particular word or phrase
• ideographs: movements which sketch the path or direction of thought
• deictic movements: pointing to an object, place, or event
• spatial movements: movements which depict a spatial relationship
• rhythmic movements: movements which depict the rhythm or pacing of an event
• kinetographs: movements which depict a bodily action, or some non-human physical action
• pictographs: movements which draw a picture in the air of the shape of the referent
• emblematic movements: emblems used to illustrate verbal statements, either repeating or substituting for a word or phrase

(Ekman and Friesen 1972: 360)

Enesetapu embleemid erinevates kultuurides:

Many messages are emblematic in more than one culture, but a different movement is used in each culture. With many of these the message involves a use of tools. For example, in the U.S. the emblem for suicide is placing the hand on the temple, with the index finger, with the hand in the "gun-shooting" emblem position (index finger extended, thumb raised and moved towards and away from the index finger, and the other fingers curled into the palm). In the Fore of New Guinea the emblem for suicide is grabbing the throat with an open hand and pushing up, a representation of hanging, which is how these people commit suicide. In japan the suicide emblem is either to plunge one fist into the stomach, a representation of hari-kari, or to draw the index finger across the neck, a representation of slitting the throat. (Ekman and Friesen 1972: 365)

Mida lotmaanias võiks nimetada haptiliseks autokommunikatsiooniks, kannab hea lapsena mitmeid nimesid:

All have a category similar to our self-adaptors; Rosenfeld [24] called this category self-manipulations, Mahl [21] called it autistic, and Freedman and Hoffman [15] called it body-focused. All agree that this behavior related to negative feelings. There is disagreement about the specific negative feelings involved, their functions and meanings, and the usefulness of drawing further distinctions within this sphere of activity. (Ekman and Friesen 1972: 372)

See oli huvitav artikkel. Nad jätsid oma täielikust tüpoloogiast palju välja mahukuse tõttu, kuid see-eest korvasid pildi ja mõne hea faktoidiga. Näiteks, et valetavad inimesed suunavad avatud peopesi "teadmatuses" kauem/rohkem üles (kvantitatiivselt), valetades väheneb illustraatorite kasutamine, masenduses/tüdimuses/väsimuses väheneb illustraatorite kasutamine samuti ja žest mis Argyle raamatust leitud tabeli järgi Kolumbias ja USAs (allikas: Saitz and Vervenka 1972) kannab tähendust 'faux pas' tähendab Ekmani ja Frieseni järgi samas ka enesetappu. Terviklikum tähendus oleks vististi "mul on nii häbi oma normi-hälbiva käitumise tõttu, et sooviksin teha enesetappu" (juhul, kui see žest on suunatud enda käitumisele muidugi).

Phoebe C. Ellsworth and Linda M. Ludwig. Visual Behavior in Social Interaction

Visuaalne interaktsioon (silmkontakt) on tuttav sõnapaar ühest aimekirjanduslikust kehakeeleõpikust. Siis pidasin seda juba tähelepanuväärseks kontseptiks.

The study of visual behavior in social interaction (or "eye contact," or "gaze direction," or "visual interaction") has become increasingly popular during the last decade; interest is high, articles are numerous, and the topic is clearly eligible for review. (Ellsworth and Ludwig 1972: 375)

Other research has been concerned with higher-level interactive functions of visual behavior within the relationship, and thus has typically varied the visual behavior of one interactant and observed its effects on the other. Most broadly conceived, these studies involve the influence of one member's visual behavior on the behavior of another member. The behavior influenced can be verbal or nonverbal, and the manipulated visual behavior can be conceived as a stimulus or as a reinforcer. When dealing with questions of influence, it is also possible to ask how the visual behavior of one member affects the cognitions of the other member: what does he think about the person looking; what sorts of attributions does he make. Finally, it is possible to study the communicative aspects of visual behavior, where "communication" implies that the sender's visual signal is intentional, and the receiver's interpretation assumes that intentionality. This is an area which has not yet been researched successfully, probably largely due to the difficulty of dealing with intentionality as a variable in psychological research. (Ellsworth and Ludwig 1972: 376-377)

Perhaps as a consequence of the importance of visual behavior in maintaining dominance hierarchies in primates, several studies have examined correlations between interpersonal dominance and visual behavior in humans. Strongman and Champness [51] paired ten subjects with each other in all combinations of two. The pair interacted briefly with each other and the frequency of breaking eye contact first was taken as a measure of submission. On each trial, the subject having fewer visual submissions was defined as the dominant member of the pair. The investigators found a highly consistent dominance hierarchy. Although a wide range of within-subject variation was found, it seemed to be operating within limits imposed by the dominance hierarchy. Argyle [1] suggested that dominant and/or socially poised persons look more at ohters than submissive and/or socially anxious persons. (Ellsworth and Ludwig 1972: 381)

The "information-seeking" function [2] of visual interaction is variously labelled "monitoring" [31], or "feedback" [1, 4]. The question subsumed under these rubrics are somewhat similar to those asked by researchers who study individual differences: the focus of attention is the person doing the looking - what he is looking for, why he is looking, what he sees, and how he uses it. Argyle and Kendon [3] have put forth a model of social interaction as a serial motor skill. The social skill performer uses the verbal and nonverbal cues of others in the interaction to change and correct his performance, in much the same way as the motor skill performed uses perceptual feedback from the environment to correct his performance [1]. In social interaction each person is continually looking for feedbacks from the others in order to modify his behavior [1, 3]. (Ellsworth and Ludwig 1972: 386)

Mõned üldised tähelepanekud, mis on huvitavad, kuid ei vääri viidetega tsiteerimist. Naised sõltuvad visuaalsest käitumisest suhtlemisel rohkem: vaatavad rohkem ja tunnevad end vaadatuna rohkem kui mehed. Sellest järeldati, et with regard to visual appearance females are the performers and males the audience. Huvitav on see, et järjepideva vaataja tõstab vaadatava vererõhku rohkem kui see, kes väldib pilku. Silmside tõstab vererõhku!
Viidetest leidsin kaks peaaegu järjestikkust tuttavat nime: (1) Simmel, G. (tahaks öelda, et see on George Simmel) avaldas 1921. a teose "Sociology of the Senses: Visual Interaction" ja (2) Tomkins, S. S. 1963. "Affect, Imagery, Consciousness".

Allen T. Dittman. Developmental factors in Conversational Behavior

Mõned väga üldised sõnakõlksud mis tutvustavad uurimisssuunda:

In this paper I shall be discussing a number of topics which have been related to nonverbal communication over the years: encoding and decoding speech, feedback in social interaction, the development of communication skills, and the usefulness of coded information sources for efficiency in communication. (Dittman 1972: 404)

Siin on diskussioon sellest, kuidas kuulaja vastused (listener responses) on nii verbaalsed kui mitteverbaalsed, neil ei ole loomuomast (intrinsic) ega ka sümboolset tähendust, nad ei moodusta keelt, kuid funktsioneerivad signaalidena:

Listener responses (LR) comprise a borderline group of behaviors between the verbal and nonverbal. Some of them consist of linguistic forms ("Yeah," "I see," and the like), while others do not (head movements and some types of smile). They are all discrete events, arbitrary in the sense that they have no intrinsic meaning, and yet they are not symbolic in the sense of having reference. Thus they do not qualify as a "language," but are perhaps best described as specific signals that the listener is paying attention to the speaker, is keeping up with him, or that he has understood what was just said. The variety of LRs, especially the nonverbal ones, has not been studies in any grat detail, and it is not known to what extent different classes of them serve similar functions in conversation. (Dittman 1972: 405)

Kui verbaalne ja mitteverbaalne vastus olid samaaegsed, näis sel olevat sotsiaalne funktsioon (kõnevooru nõudmine või kõneleja tagassidevajadusele vastamine):

It was in our study of the relationship between nods and vocalizations that we found the possibility of using these responses as ways of getting at social regulation. The nod and the vocalization coincided far more frequently than chance prediction from their individual frequencies, and when they did coincide, they appeared to have a social function: a signal to the speaker that the listener now wants the floow, or a specific response to the speaker's need for feedback. (Dittman 1972: 409)

Siin kasutatakse kvantitatiivseid meetodeid, et uurida laste kuulamisvastuseid, mida on oluliselt vähem kui täiskasvanute puhul. Kuid sellega järeldused ka enam-vähem piirduvad. Arutlus on märksa huvitavam, sest tuuakse üles Piageti eristus egoistliku ja sotsiaalse suhtlemise vahel ning Meadi sotsiaalse mina konstrueerimisest. In fact, arutlus on igati põhjalikum kui artikli sisu, kuid vastuste asemel esitab hoopis rohkem küsimusi.

Howard M. Rosenfeld. The Experimental Analysis of Interpersonal Influence Processes.

Siin hoiatab uurija ilma empiiriliste tõestusteta käitumistele tähenduste omistamisest:

An assumption of the present paper is that classifications of behavior in the field of communication tends to be based excessively upon arbitrary and superstitious beliefs, rather than on empirical evidence of the functional organization of behavior. Virtually any distinct response may be assigned a unique personal or social meaning. Interpretations of responses on such gratuitous grounds as face validity (for example, the inference that the act of scratching oneself represents a self-deconstructive motive) may have heuristic value as hypotheses to be validated by empirical criteria; but too often a deceptively plausible hypothesis becomes uncritically accepted as a statement of fact. (Rosenfeld 1972: 425)

Lk 437 jutustatkse anekdootlikust eksperimendist, kus 40 paari (õpilane ja õpetaja) suhtlesid läbi ühendatud televiisorite. Õpetaja pidi õpilasele selgeks tegema mingi vaevuhoomatava kontsepti läbi sõnapaaridest õige valimise. Punktiskoori peeti elektroonilise näidikuga. Tuli välja, et edukad olid need paarid, milles õpetaja ja õpilane suutsid mitteverbaalsete signaalide abil õigeid ja valesid vastuseid eristada.
Sellest katsest said uurijad teada, et naeratuse roll on informatsiooni edastamisel vähemtähtis kui näiteks noogutused või kokkusurutud huuled.

O. Michael Watson. Conflicts and Directions in Proxemic Research.

Autor tsiteerib kohe alustuseks Halli definitsiooni prokseemikast, öeldes, et see huvitub nii "mikroruumis" toimimisest (inimestevahelised kaugused) kui ka sellest kuidas inimene suhestub oma elukeskkonnaga nt linnaruumid majade vahel - mida mina tean jalakäijate dünaamikana (pedestrian dynamics). Ta toob välja ka selle, et hilisemates kirjutistes asetab Hall rõhu mitte inimestevahelistele kaugustele vaid sellele kuidas inimesed oma meelte abil neid kaugusi reguleerivad (mis näib olevat semiootiline küsimus). Prokseemilise käitumise muutujad on määratletud järgnevalt:

1. Postural-Sex Identifiers. Thhis variable is scored to indicate the sex of the interactants and whether they are standing, sitting, squatting, or prone.
2. Sociofrugal-Sociopetal Axis. This variable concerns the relation of the axis of one person's shoulder to that of another person. Scoring is from fac-eto-face behavior to back-to-back.
3. Kinesthetic Factors. This variable is scored to indicate the distance of one person from another in terms of the potential for touching the other person. The scoring range is from within body contact distance to just outside reaching distance.
4. Touch Code. This variable is scored to provide for the amount and kind of touch which takes place during an interaction.
5. Visual Vode. The coding of this variable provides an index of the amount of visual contact during an interaction, from eye-to-eye to gazing off into space.
6. Voice Loudness. The measurement of the intensity of a person's voice during an interaction.
7. Thermal Code. The measurement of this variable provides information concerning the detection of thermal radiation or conduction from an interactant's body.
8. Olfactory Code. The measurement of this variable is concerned with the detection of undifferentiated body and breath odors.

(Watson 1972: 444-445)

Katseid mõjutavate muutujate kategooriad on Watsonil hästi huvitavad:

Included in the category of environmental characteristics are those features of the physical environment which are external to the interaction but which may play a role in influencing the interaction (e.g., light, temperature, noise, available space, etc.). Interactant characteristics are, of course, attributes of the interactants themselves, and include physical factors (height, weight, disfigurement, etc.), physiological factors (states of fatigue, anger, excitement, etc.), personal factors ("personality properties"), social factors (status, role, etc.), and interpersonal factors (past relationships between the interactants, degree of acquaintance, etc.). (Watson 1972: 447)

Lk 452 leidsin sõnad "definition of the situation", mis annab märku, et autor on arvatavasti lugenud Goffmani. Tal on selle kohta öelda nii palju, et kõik eelnevalt üles rivistatud faktorid võivad mõjutada osaliste olukorramääratlust. Samal leheküljel on ka märk ajastust, mil kõnealiseid katseid sooritati (60ndad) - välisõppuritega uurimuses osalesid ainult meessoost katsealused, sest "sel ajal ei olnud piisavalt naisssoost välisõpilasi". Selle kommentaariga tuli lagedale üks autori juhendatavatest doktoriõppuritest ja lehekülje allmärkuses on kena avaldus sotsiaalsest survest: "it is hoped that seeing his name in print will inspire Mr. Griswald to finish his dissertation."

Lk 453, alapeatüki "Directions in Proxemic Research" alguses kohtan ootamatult väga tuttavat sõna, millele järgneb arutlus Kenneth Pike'i kahest tuntuimast mõistest:

For me to explicate what I feel should be some directions in proxemic research, it is necessary to point out gaps that exist in our knowledge of proxemic behavior as a system of nonverbal communication. I will attempt to achieve this goal by discussing proxemic behavior within two contexts: levels of analysis in proxemic research, and proxemic behavior as a process of semiosis.
Using as an analogy the analytical distinction made by linguists between phonetic and phonemic approaches to sound systems, the terms "etic" and "emic" have been coined by Kenneth Pike, and applied to two different approaches, or levels of analysis, to the study of systems of human behavior [14]. The etic approach involves viewing system of behavior from outside the system, using criteria which are external to the system: ". . . phenomenal distinctions judged appropriate by the community of scientific observers." [12:575] The etic approach provides an initial base from which the observer can begin his analysis of the system.
The emic approach, on the other hand, is concerned with studying behavior from inside a single, culturally specific system of behavior. Criteria used in an emic description are drawn from the contrasts made within the system itself and are relevant to the internal functioning of the system. Emic distinctions are those that are recognized as meaningful to the "users" of the system themselves. (Watson 1972: 453-454)

Edasi läheb diskussioon niivõrd huvitavaks (märgiteoreetiliseks), et ma pidin järgnevad kolm lehekülje (koos viidetega sh) suisa sisse skanneerima:

Randall P. Harrison, Akiba A. Cohen, Wayne W. Crouch, B. K. L. Genova and Mark Steinberg. The Nonverbal Communication Literature.

1971 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation!

Proxemic Behavior: A Cross-Cultural Study, Michael Watsoni sulest, ilmus "Approaches to Semiotics" seerias Sebeoki toimetusel.

Muud teosed kirjanduse-artiklist kui ka ajakirja algusest:

Thomas Sebeok - Animal Communication
Robert Hinde - Non-Verbal Communication
Albert Scheflen - Body Language and the Social Order
Roger W. Wescott - Introducing coenetics
Ashley Montagu - Tocuhing: The Human Significance of Skin
Robert Sommer - Personal Space

Conclusion: This has been an epic read!