Skip to main content

What is the difference between verbal language and non-verbal communication?

Both forms of communication transmit meanings. Both forms of communication include components which are learned. Language is learned, and people in difficult cultures may learn culture-specific gestures, like shrugging to communicate "I don't know." Language is a quintessentially symbolic communication system, but nonverbal communication isn't entirely lacking in symbols. For instance, in my culture, shaking the head from side to side is an arbitrary gesture that stands for the concept "no." That's symbolic communication.


There are many distinctions between these two forms of communication. Here are some, suggested by the work of Charles Hockett.


Structure


Language has structure—all languages have a syntax or grammar; rules of how to put together the units of language into a statement or utterance. Nonverbal communication has no such rules for stringing together units of meaning.


Displacement


With language, we can talk about things that aren't tangible, aren't present in the here and now, and might not even exist. Nonverbal communication is highly restricted. When you come home from school or work, you might be able to communicate that you are sad through nonverbal gestures, but you most likely can't communicate what events earlier that day are responsible for your sadness unless you use sign language. There are nonhuman communication systems that include limited displacement. Specifically, bees can communicate to each other about the location of food by performing a symbolic dance. I think it's difficult to find examples in human nonverbal communication (as opposed to examples that involve human sign language and other types of language that do not employ spoken words).


Productivity


With language, we can combine words to express new meanings. We can say things that nobody has ever said before, like "Gerbils are not willing to sit still and receive instruction for learning to read." Nonverbal communication is extremely limited in this respect. You might be able to communicate something new insofar as, say, nobody before has ever communicated the idea that your Aunt Mildred stinks, but language permits you to say things about Aunt Mildred that may never before have been expressed about any person.


Reflexiveness


You can use language to talk about language (as we are doing here). You can't use nonverbal communication to talk about nonverbal communication.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.