Kineesika ja konteksti arvustused

Järgnevad on raamatuarvustuste lugemistest kogutud infokillud Birdwhistelli teose kohta. Antud valik arvustusi pärineb internetiarhiivist jstor.org

Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communication by Ray L. Birdwhistell
Review by: Edward E. Hunt, Jr.
American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Aug., 1971), pp. 948-950

Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/671381 .

Kultuurilisti mustreid uurivatest teadlastest kõneles ka Margaret Mead Semiotica esimeses köites ja seal tõi ta üles sama ülemineku:
Kinesics, linguistics, and ethology are now undergoing what Birdwhistell calls a "phenomenological revolution" through the use of cinema, television, and tape recordings, and particularly equipment for replaying events in slow motion and still pictures. This instrumentation reveals a wealth of subtle, almost instantaneous kinesic patterns and allows the study of body regions both piecemeal and in combination with each other and with speech. (Hunt 1971: 948)
Birdwhistelli notatsioonisüsteemi võib nimetada ka "kinegraafiliseks tähestikuks".
Birdwhistell rightly considers kinesics as more than "paralinguistic" behavior. To him, communication has many channels such as body contact, olfaction, taste, and proprioception, but speech and kinesics so far are the most feasible channels for study. Indeed, he uses somewhat similar concepts in linguistics and kinesics, which I interpret as follows: Kine: a limited class of motion in one body region (equivalent to phone in linguistics); Kineme: a class of alternative, substitutable kines (allokines), not necessarily in the same body region (analogous to phoneme); Kinemorph: an assemblage of kines in a given body region (comparable to natural class in the theory of sound production); Kinemorpheme: one or more kinemes which contribute minimal isolable meaning to a kinesic communication (similar to morpheme in linguistics). (Hunt 1971:949)

Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communication. by Ray L. Birdwhistell; Erving Goffman; Dell Hymes
Review by: Weston La Barre
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 77, No. 5 (Mar., 1972), pp. 999-1000

Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776944 .

The fear of data is the beginning of wisdom. And these data are formidable indeed, with a virtually clinical complexity. The reader ready to protest at the horrendously difficult kineme-notation system should keep this complexity in mind and remember that serious involvement with kinesics is no easy amateurism but often sheer hard work. (La Barre 1972: 999)

Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communication by Ray L. Birdwhistell
Review by: Adam Kendon
The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 441-455

Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1420845

By this systemic view of communication, anything that anyone does in the presence of another must be considered as potentially part of the system. Speech and gesture, posture and orientation, touch and relative position in space - all must be taken into account if we are to comprehend communication. We cannot at the outset of our investigations decide not to attend to certain aspects of behavior. So long as it is detectable by the other, it must be presumed communicative until proven otherwise. That is, though we must exclude nothing at the outset, one of the outcomes of our work would be to show what aspects of behavior are not part of the system. (Kendon 1972: 442)

In Birdwhistell's approach, one begins not with an interest in the emotions but with an interest in the face itself. One would ask first, What are the various things the face does? One would then proceed to determine, by careful observation, the various settings in which repeatedly observed units of facial behavior can be seen to occur, and the question would always be, WHat functions for the interaction do these differentiable units of facial behavior have? From this point of view, in other words, the question of what inner state is supposedly made manifest in the face is not relevant. What is relevant is what difference different facial displays make to the organization of the occasions of interaction in which they occur. (Kendon 1972: 444)

Birdwhistell himself, in the book here reviewed, offers an essay on the smile. In it he points out how the smile in itself ia s highly complex phenomenon, with a wide variety of social functions, and that to consider it merely, in this phrase, as a "visible transform of an inner physiological state" would be to miss entirely its significance as a social signal. He also refers, in various places in the book, to how movements in the face may be brought into play in association with speech, and to how these movements, along with movements of the head and libs, have a complex relationship both with the structuring of the speech as an activity and also with its content. Facial displays can serve to mark out points of emphasis in speech, they can serve to mark off whole segments of speech as distinct units or as contained or embedded units, and they can also provide a sort of commentary on what is being said. If we watch the faces of listeners, too, we can see that nods, smiles, frowns, raised eyebrows, appear frequently in some circumstances and are an important part of the repertoire of the listeners' behaviors and serve to regulate the behavior of the speaker. (Kendon 1972: 445)

Siit ilmneb oluline punkt: eristus nö traditsioonilise (afekte uuriva psühholoogilise) lähenemise ja Birdwhistelli rajatud interaktsioonilise lähenemise vahel:
...Ekman's investigations follow the traditional approach - that he is interested in the face only insofar as it seems to allow one to apprehend the inner states of the individual. He does not ask, as Birdwhistell would, How is the face used in interaction? Nor do his findings contribute to any answer to this. When Ekman uses the phrase 'expression of emotion,' he uses it in the traditional sense that the emotion is something 'inside' the individual that 'comes out' on the face in a particular way. Birdwhistell, on the other hand, approaching behavior in terms of its communicative function, rarely discusses emotion as such. (Kendon 1972: 445-446)

Siit ilmneb, et kineemilistel konstruktsioonidel on raamistik, ehk pidevad aspektid käitumisest nagu poos ja suhteline positsioon ruumis. See meikib väga palju senssi ja teisalt ütleb, et Judi Jamesi tõlgendus, et transfix on "vesteldes liikumatuks jäämine kui teine vahele segab", on kineesika seisukohast väär:
A stance, it will be seen, is not a construction of smaller elements but an element in its own right, an element which, as I have indicated, functions to 'frame' sequences of constructions. It is important that this be brought out, for some readers of Birdwhistell get the impression that he regards all of body motion, as it functions in communication, as beuing built up of elementary units, or kinemes. On the contrary, the constructions that do emerge from combinations of kinemes must be joined together and they must always occur within a 'transfixing' frame, which is supplied by such enduring aspects of behavior as posture and relative position in space. (Kendon 1972: 449)

In some ways, Birdwhistell's view of meaning is closest to that known as the context-of-situation theory, originally stated by Malinowski (1923) and later developed by J. R. Firth (1957). (Kendon 1972: 454)
  • Dittman, A. T., and Llewellyn, Lynn A. 1969. Body movement and speech rhythm in social conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11:98-106
  • Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1970. Ethology: The biology of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson
  • Malinowski, B. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In The meaning of meaning, by C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, appendix 3. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
  • Scheflen, A. E. 1964. The significance of posture in communication systems. Psychiatry 27:316-331
  • Scheflen, A. E. 1965. Stream and structure of communicational behaviour. Philadelphia: Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute.


Post a Comment