The term 'nonverbal communication', as it is currently employed, is most frequently used to refer to all of the ways in which communication is effected between persons when in each other's presence, by means other than words. It refers to the communicational functioning of bodily activity, gesture, facial expression and orientation, posture and spacing, touch and smell, and of those aspects of utterance that can be considered apart from the referential content of what is said. Studies of 'nonverbal communication' are usually concerned with the part these aspects of behavior play in establishing and maintaining interaction and interpersonal relationships. (Kendon 1981a: 3)
A third characteristic of 'nonverbal communication' is that messages that are at the center of interest (whether in fact conveyed by words or not), are typically those messages that are not given excplicit formulation. They are the messages that may be inferred from or are implied by a person's actions. It is for this reason, in particular, perhaps, that such 'nonverbal' codes as sign language are not usually regarded as being part of the purview of 'nonverbal communication' studies. Sign language, like spoken language, is a vehicle for highly 'detachable' messages and it no more seems to 'embody' what it conveys than spoken language does. It can be considered abstractly, in its own right, and it is employed consciously for explicit communicational purposes. (Kendon 1981a: 4)
Writers such as Birdwhistell and Scheflen, and also Bateson and Ruesch, use the term 'communication', thus, to refer to the process of conveying information in any form whatever. This is the sense of the term intended by Shannon and Weaver (1949) and other information theorists. In this sense of the term, the focus is entirely upon the effect of the behavior upon a perceiver of it. No reference is made to the intentions or motives or causes that may lie behind the behavior that is perceived to occur. Ekman and Friesen, however, are proposing to include in the definition of the term 'communication' a reference to what was intended by the person in producing the behavior in question. This is a different, and more restricted, sense of the term that the usage of it that had come to be proposed by those influenced by communication theory. (Kendon 1981a: 8-9)
Freedman provides a very perceptive discussion of the problems inherent in any project of this sort. He points out that, for example, quite apart from the fact that it is probably impossible to devise a machine that will objectively record all aspects of behavior, if something like this were to be achieved we would have no way of interpreting such a record. Bouissac's totally objective record, it appears, seeks to describe bodily movement as a succession of spatial volumes. Freedman reminds us that the human body is organized into distinguishable anatomical systems that tend to be employed differentially with respect to different communicational functions. A totally nonselective recording system that did not make such anatomical discriminations would present insuperable problems for interpretation. (Kendon 1981a: 15)
A gesture is usually deemed to be an action by which a thought, feeling, or intention is given conventional and voluntary expression. Gestures are thus considered to be different from expressions of emotion, involuntary mannerisms, however revealing, and actions that are taken in the pursuit of some practical aim [instrumental action, intrinsic coding], however informative such actions may be. (Kendon 1981a: 28)Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V. 1981. "The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 57-105. The Hague: Mouton.
An act has idiosyncratic meaning if there is some regularity in the information associated with its occurrence but the association is peculiar to a single individual. (Ekman & Friesen 1981: 62)Isegi idiosünkraatne tähendus nõuab regulaarsust.
We must admit that there may be actions which are meaningless - random activity or noise, movements which have no regularities in either their encoding or decoding, not even for a single person. (Ekman & Friesen 1981: 62)"Kordumatu on tähendusetu" põhimõte.
We would expect that emblems are usually learned much like verbal material. Emblems can be shown in any area of the body, although in the U.S. emblems are primarily shown in the face and hands. Emblems can be based upon what we will later describe as affect displays and adaptor nonverbal behaviors; for example, raising of the brows and horizontal forehead wrinkle which are usually part of the surprise affect display can be emblematic, if the culture pays specific attention to and prescribes a very specific meaning to a facial behavior, although the emblematic meaning might be different from the affect. (Ekman & Friesen 1981: 73)Näoembleemid. Ameeriklaste naeratus ligineb emblemaatilisusele.
The EVOKING STIMULI which elicit and affect may well differ from one culture to another. Tomkins has argued that while there are at least some unlearned affect evokers, social learning teaches the individual a number of associations between events, memories, anticipations and affect. (Ekman & Friesen 1981: 81)
Facial behavior in general, and affective displays in particular, receive great attention and external feedback from the other interactant, in terms of direct comments on facial behavior. While people do not continually look at each other's faces, for to do so would be to start flirtations, power struggles or questions of suspicion or distrust, the face receives more visual attention from the other person than any other part of the body, and we are more likely to comment on a facial expression. (Ekman & Friesen 1981: 85)
We are not at all certain about the coding principles involved in regulators; some are obviously intrinsically coded, like shifts in posture to bring about greater or lesser attention, or more or less distance. But we suspect that there are many iconic and arbitrarily coded regulators. (Ekman & Friesen 1981: 91)
We use the term ADAPTORS because we believe these movements were first learned as part of adaptive efforts to satisfy self or bodily needs, or to perform bodily actions, or to manage emotions, or to develop or maintain prototypic interpersonal contacts, or to learn instrumental activities. Thus we distinguish and will separately discuss self-adaptors, alter-adaptors, and object-adaptors.Pyoatos, Gernando 1981b. "Forms and Functions of Nonverbal Communication in the Novel: A New Perspective of the Author-Character-Reader Relationship". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 107-149. The Hague: Mouton.
The confusing aspect of these adaptors is that while they were first learned (usually in childhood) as part of a total adaptive pattern where the goal of the activity was obvious, when these actions are emitted by the adult, particularly during social conversation, only a fragment of the original adaptive behavior is seen. These fragments or reductions of previously learned adaptive acts are maintained by habit. When originally learned the adaptor was associated with certain drives, with certain feld emotions, with expectancies, with types of interpersonal interaction, or in a given setting. When the adaptor appears in the adult it is because something in the current environment triggers this habit; something has occurred currently which is relevant to the drive, emotion, relationship or setting originally associated with the learning of the adaptive pattern. (Ekman & Friesen 1981: 92-93)
...a substantial part of the printed text is aimed at describing nonverbal activities which are produced either simultaneously with words or alternating with them; (Poyatos 1981a: 108)
Vocal-Verbal [verbaalne], Vocal-Nonverbal [parakeeleline], and Nonvocal-Nonverbal [kineesiline] forms of communication (Poyatos 1981a: 109)
...ritualistic and etiquette behaviors, occupational activities, general task-performing activities, and activities conditioned by clothes, hairdo, furniture, etc. (Poyatos 1981a: 133)
But those personal features, which are not at all difficult to invent and handle throughout the story, must be put to good use in two ways that represent some of the writer's most important responsibilities towards the reader.Freedman, Norbert 1981. "Toward a Mathematization of Kinetic Behavior: A Review of Paul Bouissac's La Mesure des Geses". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 151-164. The Hague: Mouton.
First, those featurest must reflect, not a random inventory of easily replacable linguistic, paralinguistic, or kinesic characteristics, but a conscious selection that may give the characters the necessary consistency as credible people. To say that a character must look real to us may be the personal view of many, and not of many others, but we should expect him to maintain that unique personality from the beginning to the end of the story, in a progressive, logical way, just as we become gradually acquainted with real-life people. (Poyatos 1981a: 136)
...we have come to recognize siz characters -- six models: an expressive behavior model in which movements are embedded in personal strivings, conscious as well as unconscious drives; a dyadic model in which body movements are regulated by the forces inherent in the interpersonal relationships (frequently power relationships); an ethnological model in which the motions of the body are a dance regulated by the code of the culture; an information processing model in which movements are part and parcel of cognitive structure and of the processing of thought; a choreographic model in which the actions of the body are construed as an expression of the capabilities of skeletal musculature; and, more recently, Bouissac's attempt at what we shall only half-facetiously term the acrobatic model. Like all models, each is a myth, some more productive than others. Each of these models is tenable; each has its heuristic advantages; none can be viewed to be true or false; none is all encompassing. (Freedman 1981: 151)
Bouissac arrives atht the conclusion that the linguistic translation of corporal dynamic behavior is essentially ascientific because any description is a selective reconstruction of events: not only does it involve the selection of points of the body already contained in natural language (arms, legs, feet) but there is always a mix of models (political, geometric, etc.), each invoked as it suits the describer. Recognizing these limitations in the linguistic description of events, the question must nevertheless be raised that, in spite of the mix of models, natural description provides the investigator with the continuing resource for the discovery of intrinsic units of behavior and the discovery of functional relationships. (Freedman 1981: 153)
The recording of a behavioral sequence, be it an acrobatic act or social interchange, comprises a tremendous range of phenomena infinitely more complex than the horse's gait in Muybridge's work. The movements range in locus, in size (from micro-to macrokinetic), in speed, and in rhythm. On strictly technical grounds, it seems difficult to envisage a machine which can appropriately record all these attributes of behavior. Can a machine simultaneously monitor posture, limb activity, eye blink, and facial display and describe all of these in terms of volumes in space? It would seem that each of these behaviors operates in a very different space, time, and dynamic dimensions. Yet even if such a machine were feasible, can the resultant data be interpreted without reference to the anatomy of the behaving organism? (Freedman 1981: 160)
In sum, the unitized corporal sequences derived by Bouissac's machine [TACS] would lack validity for they do not encompass cross-channel units of behavior; they would tend to digitalize what is essentially analogic or metaphoric and would attribute a quasi-linguistic structure to kinesics which is often not warranted by the facts of behavior. (Freedman 1981: 162)Seaford, Henry W. Jr. 1981. "Maximizing Replicability in Describing Facial Behavior". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 165-195. The Hague: Mouton.
0
Collet, P., Marsh, P. 1981. "Patterns of Public Behavior: Collision Avoidance on a Pedestrian Crossing". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 199-217. The Hague: Mouton.
Despite the everyday nature of pedestrian avoidance behavior, and the important question which is raised concerning interpersonal coordination, the phenomenon has not, at least until very recently, received the attention it deserves. (Collett & Marsh 1981: 199)
Apart from instances of 'blind coordination' (that, solutions achieved in the absence of 'monitoring'), the individual processes which simultaneously maintain lane formation and ensure against collision are the processes of MONITORING and what Goffman has termed EXTERNALIZATION or BODY GLOSS. Body gloss refers to those observable body movements which, whether they be performed consciously or unconsciously, serve to offer an ongoing commentary on someone's likely behaviour to those who approach and those who follow him. A pedestrian's monitoring processes will therefore involve his watching (and probably listening to) both people who move in the same direction as himself and those who approach him, and the more well-defined the streaming, the more easily he will be able to ignore oncomers. In this sense, streaming may be seen as a corporate and informally constituted means of reduced monitoring and locomotor problems of individual pedestrians. (Collett & Marsh 1981: 200)
Negative values of the index indicate that the subject was turned towards, and positive values away from, the person that he or she was passing. We refer to these two orientations as 'open' and 'closed' passes respectively. A pass index of zero indivates a 'neutral' pass. (Collett & Marsh 1981: 204)
...a great deal of pedestrial behaviour may be inadvertently rather than intentionally communicative. Coordinations may also arise in the absence of communication, through adherence to rule by convention or through actions, which are not culturally prescribed, but which have some type of biological or physical base. (Collett & Marsh 1981: 213)
Two important notions of 'rule' can be distinguished. First there is the idea of the rule as it can be said to guide behaviour. In this case members of a community must be able to articulate the rule and/or recognize instances of its breach. Some would argue that recognition of a breach is, in itself, a sufficient condition for saying that particular behaviour is rule-guided. The second sense of rule involves the idea of the rule as an explanatory device employed by professional observers to account for regularities in behaviour among the members of a community. (Collett & Marsh 1981: 213)Givens, Davis 1981. "Greeting a Stranger: Some Commonly Used Nonverbal Signals of Aversiveness". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 219-235. The Hague: Mouton.
Anthropologists have described numerous standardized greetings, such as the Polynesian embrace, the Afro-American long distance greeting, the Papuan genital-pressing salutation, and Japanese bowing. These greeting activities, which can be used with friends and strangers, may be construed as cultural solutions to the problem of social tension, as standardized recognition signals serving partially to ease the anxiety of initial meeting periods. (Givens 1981: 219)
...unfocused interaction, as evidenced by a definite phase of social contact, was accompanied by various combinations of the following activities: lip-compressing, lip-bite, tongue-show, tongue-in-cheeck; downward, lateral, and maximal-lateral gaze avoidance; hand-to-face, hand-to-hand, hand-to-body, and hand-behind-head automanipulations; and postures involving flexion and adduction of the upper limbs. These behaviors were initiated during the contact-phase and were terminated abruptly after social contact with the stranger was stopped. Unlike affiliative nonverbal units, such as smiling, touching, embracing, and so on, the above activities correlated with non-contact, and seemed to signal that contact would not be well received. (Givens 1981: 222)
Self-touching activity occurred most frequently in contact situations, in settings where interaction was more likely to be initiated or prolonged. When quick avoidance was possible there was little or no automanipulation. At the Public Market, head-scratching, hand-to-nose, hand-to-ear, adjust-glasses, and other automanipulations were performed when the initial contact phase of recognition was prolonged, i.e., when gaze contact was kept up beyond a few seconds or when close physical proximity was protracted somewhat longer than the quick pass-by. Men, for example, were observed to automanipulate as they gazed steadily at other shoppers while the latter walked by them. Or a shopper would automanipulate while facing and waiting for someone to move out of the way. In these cases there seemed to be more of a likelihood that waiting and/or gazing might elicit a reaction in the stranger, a reaction that could entail possibly uncomfortable social interaction. (Givens 1981: 227)
By way of pure speculation it might be hypothesized that the aversive signals are used most frequently by individuals who are more likely to use submissive-like nonverbal units, especially those held by the author to derive from the shoulder-shrugging complex (Givens 1977). That is, there may be an empirical relationship between submissive and aversive nonverbal presentations. By contrast, dominant-like individuals might be expected to experience less anxiety in the presence of strangers and would be less likely to automanipulate or to respond with aversive facial expressions of gaze avoidance. And in some cases the dominant or high status person experiencing little or no stress in the presence of a low status stranger... (Givens 1981: 232)Schiffrin, Deborah 1981. "Handwork as Ceremony: The Case of the Handshake". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 237-250. The Hague: Mouton.
In modern society, kinship position is no longer the main determinant of social relationships and behavior appropriate to those relationships; status in groups other than the fmaily plays a great role in determining one's range of contacts and relationships. Thus traditional avoidance signs and joking relationships are replaced, and then re-applied to individuals other than kin. (Schiffrin 1981: 240)De Long, Alton J. 1981. "Kinesic Signals at Utterance Boundaries in Preschool Children". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 251-281. The Hague: Mouton.
0
Argyle, M., Ingham, R., Alkema, F., and McCallin, M., 1981. "The Different Functions of Gaze". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 283-295. The Hague: Mouton.
0
Beattie, Geoffrey W. 1981. "Sequential Temporal Patterns of Speech and Gaze in Dialogue". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 297-320. The Hague: Mouton.
It was suggested that there are certain social pressures on individuals in conversation to comply to certain behavioral standards regarding amount of gaze, and lenght of glances, if they wish to make a favorable impression. (Beattie 1981: 317)Kendon, Adam 1981b. "Some Functions of the Face in a Kissing Round". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 321-356. The Hague: Mouton.
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 commentary and supplement to what is being said. If we watch the faces of listeners too, we can see that nods, smiles, frowns, and raised eyebrows appear frequently in some circumstances. Such facial behavior probably plays an important part in the regulation of the behavior of the speaker. Similar observation on the regulatory functions of facial behavior have been made by Ekman and Friesen (1969. (Kendon 1981b: 323)
The facial patterns F[emale] shows in this sequence are far different from what expects to see in seriously erotic or passionate kissing. It is as if F is regulating the amount of arousal M[ale] can achieve by herself offering displays that do not otherwise fit the immediate context. Thus she turns to M with vigor and approaches him with 'fierce' faces. Yet, for but 9/24 of a second, just before their lips touch, F's face is posed for passionate, not for playful, kissing. Here, perhaps, she hints at passions someday (or sometime) to be aroused. Perhaps we see here an instance of what appears to be a common principle of courtship: the continued interest of the other partner is maintained, and even heightened, by fleeting displays of behavior that belong to later stages of the courtship program. If F can hint to M what possibilities the future holds in store for him, she can hold his interest. (Kendon 1981b: 341)
A central problem in any investigation of interaction from this point of view will be to see how, in terms of the functioning of observable behavior, the 'working consensus' for a given behavioral system is established and maintained [etogeenne perspektiiv]. In particular, this means that we must identify those aspects of behavioral function which serve to control or regulate the behavior of the participants in relation to the currently established pattern of relationship. This requires that we not only look for regularities in a behavioral relationship, but also that we look close at places where these regularities change. (Kendon 1981b: 344)
Courtship is the process by which a more or less stable relationship is formed between individuals of the opposite sex, within which mating can take place. Since the relationship is to be one within which mating occurs, many of the behaviors which serve to establish and maintain the pair-bond that is the outcome of courtship are similar to behaviors that precede mating. An important feature of the behavior of courtship, indeed, appears to be that it should create some degree of sexual arousal in the partners. It seems that the 'kissing round' of the sort we have studied in this paper, which is obviously so characteristic of a certain stage of courtship, has this function. (Kendon 1981b: 350)Rosenburg, Marc 1981. "The Case of the Apple Turnover: An Experiment in Multichannel Communication Analysis". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 357-368. The Hague: Mouton.
Related to and implied by the first constraint is the second requirement, namely, that intrapsychic states (motives, feelings, intentions, etc.) not be invoked as causes or explanations of observed behavior: The emphasis here is interactional: one is concerned with what goes on between persons, not with what supposedly happens inside them.
The basic axiom on which this research rests is that metacommunication cannot not occur. The commonsense notion of interpersonal communication as synonymous with information sharing fails to take into account that people label their statements. That is, we not only make statements to each other, but we also (and necessarily) make statements about these statements. These labeling statements constitute the metacommunicational level of human interaction. By classifying the kind of statement that one is making, one also necessarily expresses an expectation of a particular (and appropriate) kind of response from the other. A joke implies a laugh, a question implies an answer, a move to 'change the subject' requires the agreement of the other, and so on.
By labeling one's own statements and thereby implying the expectation of a particular kind of response, a person acts to define his relationship with the other. If the expectation is met, then we say that the other has agreed to the proposed relationship definition. If the expectation is not met, it is because the other has proposed a different relationship definition. This, in turn, may be accepted or rejected by the first person, and so on throughout the stream of interaction.
In task-oriented situations, in which persons are attempting to reach some decision about a substantive issue, it is communicationally efficient to keep relationship battles (rejections of proposed relationship definitions to proposals of alternative definitions) to a minimum. Formal rules of procedure, such as those used in parliamentary debates or in classroom, are intended to serve just this function. In less formal contexts, these rules often have to be negotiated through the interaction. It is clear, however, that with a finite amount of time in which to reach substantive decisions, the more time spent in negotiating the rules, the less time there will be for dealing with the issue. (Rosenburg 1981: 358)
The ensuing twenty-one seconds of verbal silence points up one of the advantages of thinking in terms of levels of communication. For those who concern themselves solely with the content of communication, this duration must be seen as one in which the couple is 'not communicating'. From out viewpoint, however, communication cannot not occur. Or, to quite Birdwhistell, "Nothing never happens."
This twenty-one seconds, however wrought with tension it may be, marks the duration of a mutually agreed upon relationship definition. It is a difficult relationship to change. If we construe it as "We are not communicating", then we see this couple as enmeshed in one of the now classical paradoxes of communication. (Rosenburg 1981: 363)
This agreement, if strictly adhered to, could not be renegotiated by the wife, for to initiate a renegotiation of the rules would constitute a violation of those rules. (Rosenburg 1981: 364)Poyatos, Fernando 1981b. "Gesture Inventories: Fieldwork Methodology and Problems". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 371-399. The Hague: Mouton.
By GESTURE I understand a conscious or unconscious body movement made mainly with the head, the face alone, or the limbs, learned or somatogenic, and serving as a primary communicative tool, dependent or independent from verbal language; either simultaneous or alternating with it, amd modified by the conditioning background (smiles, eye movements, a gesture of beckoning, a tic, etc.).
MANNER, although similar to gesture, is a more or less dynamic body attitude that, while somatogenically modified, is mainly learned and socially codified according to specific situations, either simultaneous or alternating with verban language (the way one eats at the table, greets others, coughs, stretches, etc.).
POSTURE is a conscious or unconscious general position of the body, more static than gesture, learned or somatogenic, either simultaneous or alternating with verbal language, modified by social norms and by the rest of the conditioning background, and use less as a communicative tool, although it may reveal affective states and social status (sitting, standing, joining both hands behind one's back while walking, etc.).(Poyatos 1981b: 375)
...if an inventory of gestures is meant to contribute to mutual knowledge and understanding among men, it should undoubtedly help its users not only in detecting the more conspicuous levels of a society, but in performing their appropriate repertoires, and this could not be achieved unless the gestures, manners and postures of the rustic are observed, compared with those of the urbanites and recorded in each semantic or situational label (dismissal, beckoning; table manners, hand-shakes; sitting, standing) as separate culturemes. (Poyatos 1981b: 382-383)
Still photography:Film:
- basic posture positions
- mono-kinemorphemic movements
- non-elaborate, simple gestures
(Poyatos 1981b: 385)
- parakinesic qualities
- direction of movement
- formation of the movement
- multi-kinemorphemic movements
- elaborate kinesic constructs
- kinesic pausal features
- continuous eye movements
I have elsewhere proposed and defined the CULTUREME as: any portion of cultural activity sensorially or intellectually apprehended in signs of symbolic value, which can be divided up into smaller units or amalgamated into larger ones. (Poyatos 1981b: 387)
[semiotic point of view:] FREE (emblems, illustrators, affect displays); BOUND (self-adaptors, object-adaptors, alter-adaptors). (Poyatos 1981b: 389)Johnson, H. G., Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V. 1981. "Communicative Body Movements: American Emblems". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 401-419. The Hague: Mouton.
0
Sparhawk, Carol M. 1981. "Contrastice-Identificational Features of Persian Gesture". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 421-458. The Hague: Mouton.
Pronation and supination refer to the direction of the palm as a result of wrist rotation. If the hands are positioned horizontally, pronation refers to downward (and inward) direction of the palms, and supination refers to upward (and outward) direction. (Evicende for the contrastiveness or palm direction will be presented in the discussion of signation, below). As for the wrist itself, pronate wrist appears as a point of reference in 'what time is it' and contrasts with the whole wrist in 'bracelet'. This constitutes only an analogous contrast, however, and no gesture involving contact with the 'palm side' of the wrist (supinate wrist) appears in this collection. (Sparhawk 1981: 429)Kirk, L., and Burton, M. 1981. "Physical versus Semantic Classification of Nonverbal Forms: A Cross-Cultural Experiment". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 459-481. The Hague: Mouton.
0
Rosenfeld, H. M., Shea, M., and Greenbaum, P. 1981. "Facial Emblems of 'Right' and 'Wrong': Topographical Analysis and Derivation of a Recognition Test". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 483-501. The Hague: Mouton.
0
Smith, J. W., Chase, J., and Lieblich, A. K. 1981. "Tongue Showing: A Facial Display of Humans and Other Primate Species". In Adam Kendon (ed.), Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture : selections from Semiotica. Pp. 503-548. The Hague: Mouton.
0
Huvitav kirjandus:
- Mahl, G. G., 1968. "Gestures and Body Movements in Interviews". Paper presented at the Third Research in Psychotherapy Conference (Chicago, June 1966); in Vol. III, American Psychological Association).
- Tomkins, S. S. 1962. Affect, Imagery, Consciousness, Vol. 1, The Positive Affects (New York, Springer).
- Tomkins, S. S. 1963. Affect, Imagery, Consciousness, Vol. 2, The Negative Affects (New York, Springer).
- Poyatos, Fernando 1976. Man Beyond Words: Theory and Methodology of Nonverbal Communication. Oswego: New York State English Council.
- Bateson, G., and M. Mead 1942. Balinese Character. New York: New York Academy of Sciences
- Bär, E. 1974. "Compte rendu: Context Analysis in Psychotherapy", Semiotica 10, 255-81
- Watzlawick, P., J.H. Beavin, and D.D. Jackson 1967. Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes (New York: W.W. Norton)
- Laban, R. 1966. Choreutics. London : MacDonald and Evans.
- Pike, Kenneth L. 1975. "On Kinesic Triadic Relationship in Turn-Taking", Semiotica 13/4, 389-95
- Wundt, Wilhelm 1973. The Language of Gesture, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok. THe Hague : Mouton
- Masters, W. H., and V. E. Johnson 1966. Human Sexual Response (Boston : Little, Brown)
- Smith, W. John 1965. "Message, Meaning, and Context in Ethology". American Naturalist 99, 405-09
- Smith, W. John 1974. "Zoosemiotics: Ethology and the Theory of Signs", in: T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics 12 (The Hague: Mouton), 561-626.
0 comments:
Post a Comment