For this paper I have chosen to look at one particular area of non verbal communication, touch, as I believe it is considerably more important than research so far has deemed it to be. The first section establishes some of the differences between verbal and non verbal communication, and how they are related to each other. The second section defines tactile codes (haptics) and exemplifies uses of haptics as a means of communication on. The third section describes how tactile codes differ in different cultures. The final section of this paper shows how differences in tactile codes can create barriers to communication and suggests some means of avoiding those barriers.
Verbal versus non verbal communication.
Though there are several areas where verbal and non verbal codes overlap
they also have quite distinct attributes. Verbal communication, whether
spoken or written uses easily identifiable elements, words, that are arranged
in patterns according to established rules. Though verbal communication
is initially learnt by imitation of parents and/or other caretakers, it
is considered natural that the formal rules are taught in schools and that
in order to learn the verbal language of another culture it is necessary
to study vocabulary and grammar. Thanks to the clearly outlined formal
rules, there are established ways to quantify and thus analyze verbal messages.
Verbal communication lends itself well to discussion of abstract ideas. The code is structured to enable messages such as "One of her ancestors, who lived two hundred years ago in Australia, was known for her strong views on the lack of religious tolerance in the lower classes". Not only does this sentence communicate information regarding issues distant in time and space from the sender (speaker), the term "religious tolerance" relates a highly abstract concept and the sentence does not in any way relate to the speaker - it is all about someone who has been dead for a long time.
Whereas studies have been done to delineate the elements of non verbal communication, most of these are much less easily identifiable than their verbal counterparts. Emblematic non verbal messages have almost direct verbal translations (see Harper ix) and even for these codes, it is difficult to identify each specific element. An example of this would be a person in a movie theater waving at someone and pointing at an empty chair. The waving can be translated to mean "come here" and pointing at the chair translates to "I have saved a seat for you" or "here is an empty seat", but it is hard to determine smaller elements than that. Other non verbal messages are almost impossible to translate other than as complete structures, which makes it very difficult to quantify and analyze non verbal communication.
Non verbal code is not taught in any school and there are no dictionaries or grammar books from where to learn non verbal language. Whether assumed innate or simply not considered at all, it is simply taken for granted that correct non verbal communication will take place. Non verbal code, of whatever category, serves more to communicate emotions than abstract ideas; there is no way to express the concept of "religious tolerance" non verbally. Nor is it possible to communicate information or concepts that are distant in time or space from the sender - imagine trying to express "last week" using posture or body movement. Non verbal code is often divided into several subsections. Some of these are paralanguage (non language sounds and things such as pitch, tempo etc), kinesics (body movement and posture), proxemics (use and perception of space as an element of communication), chronemics (use and perception of time as an element of communication), iconics (signs and symbols used for communication) and haptics (the use of touch as a communication tool).
Understanding and using haptics.
Harper states that "body contact and touching are proxemic phenomena"
(295) and that seems reasonable considering that any use of touch requires
a distinctive use of space - namely that of infringing on the receiver's
personal space. Thus some aspects of haptics can be analyzed in terms of
their proxemic value, but tactile messages can be used in variety of ways
which mere proxemic codes will not allow for. Touch is one of the first
communication tools humans experience. Klepp notes that "Infants are sensitive
to touch as soon as they are born" and caretakers "touch the newborn in
a loving way to pacify them" thus communicating their loving emotions.
(20) According to Jandt it is also one of the most automatic. He says that
"of all senses, touch, ... relates most directly to automatic, reflex-arc
reactions. Virtually all these sensations lead to responses initiated before
the brain consciously begins to react" (135). Grandin on her part points
out the chemical reactions induced by touch, and how vital touch is for
normal development (83-85).
Thus touch to some extent really is instinctive and the need for it
very basic for the nurture and humanity of growing beings. This does not
mean that tactile codes are simple. Though we never learn them officially
the rules for touching are very intricate.
First of all our perception of tactile communication depends on the
context. Professionally we will allow touch and not interpret it to have
any specific meaning. Going to a dentist, doctor or gynecologist we find
it reasonable to be touched in very intimate places. Similarly there are
certain actions and situations when touch is either interpreted as accidental
or formalized to the point of neutralizing any separate meaning. The relationship
between the people who touch is also a relevant context. When family
members and close friends use touch, it will be perceived as communication
but interpreted very differently than if a stranger used the same tools.
Secondly our perception of touch is dependent on frequency. If touching
is notably more or less frequent than is considered normal in a particular
context, the perceived meaning changes.Only when context and frequency
has been determined can the specific message be interpreted. Then it is
possible to know whether a caress of a cheek is a friendly gesture or a
romantic invitation and whether a hand reaching out for a shoulder implies
a desire for intimacy, initiates a dance or is simply a part of a medical
examination.
Cultural differences.
Understanding haptics in a different culture adds another layer of
complications as culturally determined differences occur on at least three
levels. Most cultures have sets of context that determine the perception
of tactile communication, but the structure and details of the context
vary. In Portugal an uncle would be considered a close family member and
his use of touch be interpreted in that context. An uncle in Sweden would
only qualify as an acquaintance and the interpretation of his haptic communication
be modified accordingly. A crowded elevator is a context where many kinds
of touch would be considered accidental rather than intentional and meaningful,
but the definition of crowded varies. In Sweden an elevator would really
have to be packed full for touching to be discounted. It might only take
half that amount of people for an elevator in Portugal to be considered
full enough to justify the interpretation of physical contact as accidental.
Frequency of touch also varies significantly between different cultures. Harper refers to several studies, one of which examined touching in coffee houses. During a one hour sitting 180 touchings were observed for Puerto Ricans, 110 for French, none for English and 2 for Americans. (Harper 297). In order to know if someone was touching more frequently than normal it would be necessary to first know what is normal in that culture. Finally, each separate act of touching means different things in different cultures. A kiss on the cheek in France, Portugal and several other countries is considered a greeting gesture which signifies nothing more than a polite upbringing in a culture like Sweden the same gesture would be interpreted as either overly intimate or affected. On the other hand, a hug is considered an appropriate greeting between friends in Sweden, whereas in Portugal it would be deciphered as a sexual invitation or, at the least, signifying bad manners. Jandt relates that two men holding hands will in some countries be a sign of friendly affection, whereas in the United States the same tactile code would probably be interpreted as a symbol of homosexual love (85).
Building and breaking barriers.
As mentioned earlier tactile communication is assumed to be instinctive
and not culturally distinct, so if it is considered at all correct interpretation
is simply assumed. As long as we remain in our own cultural subgroup this
idea is never put to the test everybody else will have been conditioned
with the same interpretation of the nonverbal codes - but if we attempt
to communicate with someone from a different cultural environment, misunderstandings
are almost inevitable.
Hall, talking about different perceptions and uses of space, describes
it as follows "as one travels abroad and examines the ways in which space
is handled, startling variations are discovered-differences which we react
to vigorously. Since none of us is taught to look at space as isolated
from other associations, feelings cued by the handling of space are often
attributed to something else. (161).
Because the interpretation of nonverbal communication is taken for granted it might be some time before we even realize there is a communication barrier to overcome. "The associations and feelings that are released in a member of one culture almost invariably mean something else in the next. When we say that some foreigners are 'pushy', all this means is that their handling of space releases this association in our minds" (Hall 161). Tactile communication can thus be a "false friend" - messages that are recognized and, assuming sameness, are thought to be understood.
As with all kinds of communication awareness is essential for improvement.
This of course is difficult as so much of nonverbal communication in general
and haptics in particular, is nonintentional communication. Although we
might be aware of taking the hand of someone in pain we usually do not
structure our tactile messages or decide consciously what goes where to
say what.
Understanding that different languages and cultures use nonverbal signs
differently, that French haptics have to be learnt and translated just
as French words is a major step to overcoming that barrier.
First of all though, we need to become conscious of our own haptic codes. Understanding how and when what kind of touch is used as a communication tool in our culture, haptic usage in other cultures can be observed and compared. Assuming there are different meanings to similar signs, and asking people in the new cultural environment for detailed and specific interpretations not only of their haptic codes but also of the contextual rules we can learn the foreign code and avoid or at least minimize nonverbal barriers to communications.
Conclusion.
There are several significant differences between verbal and non verbal
language. One of them is the difficulty to quantify and analyze non verbal
communication, such as haptics. Even considering only one culture, several
separate elements such as context and frequency have to be determined before
decoding of specific haptic messages are made. To interpret haptic codes
from another culture is even more difficult, as there are cultural differences
in all the separate elements. Furthermore, tactile communication is present
from birth and is developed almost to the point of instinct. This creates
the assumption that haptic codes are comfortable and reliable friends,
which can make haptics a very insidious barrier to communication. Not only
might we misunderstand tactile communication, we might not even realize
there is a risk of miscommunication.
In order to overcome the barriers created by misinterpretation of haptic
codes in intercultural communication it is necessary to realize that what
seems instinctual is really learned, culturally specific code and with
that knowledge as a base to increase awareness of the potentials for miscommunications.
When you understand and are aware of haptic codes in your own culture,
how they are used and how they are interpreted you can compare them with
the codes and contextual rules of other cultures and begin to not only
speak foreign languages, but truly communicate with and understand foreign
cultures.
Fall 1999
Grandin, Temple. Thinking in Pictures. New York: Vintage Books, 1996.
Hall, Edward T. The Silent Language„ 1959. New York: Anchor Books,
1990.
Harper, Robert G., Arthur N. Wiens and Joseph D. Matarazzo. Nonverbal
communication: The State of the Art. Wiley Series on Personality Processes.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1978.
Jandt, Fred E.. Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc., 1995.
Klemm, Andreas P. "Nonverbal Behavior and Cross-Cultural Communication."
Diss. University of Texas at Arlington, 1983.