Verbal and Nonverbal Communication

Verbal and nonverbal communication are part of the complete interaction process and, in practice, are inseparable. For research purposes, verbal and nonverbal communication can, however, be looked at as distinctive objects of study. Verbal communication, i.e. what is being said or written, has traditionally been the focus of Linguistics. Nonverbal communication, i.e. how something is being said or written or done, is one of the focuses of Communication science.

In the field of Intercultural Communication, Edward T. Hall was the first scholars to carry out systematic empirical studies and classification of nonverbal communication. He also emphasized the out-of-conscious level of information exchange. Hall defined nonverbal communication as communication that does not involve the exchange of words.

2.3.1 Verbal Communication

In this section we will discuss

· low and high context communication processing

· communication styles

· cultural speaking rules

· politeness

· perception, interpretation and evaluation

- Low and high context communication processing

The concepts high-context communication and low-context communication originate from Edward T. Hall and are widely used today.

In low-context communication, verbal communication gets emphasized. Information is coded in words that are expected to correspond relatively accurately to what is meant. Nonverbal communication is generally not very contradictory to verbal communication. Anger or sadness, for instance, can visually be seen and verbally heard.

In high-context communication, only a part of information is expressed verbally. A great portion of a message is being "read" from the context: the person, his appearance and nonverbal behaviour, personal history, the communicative situation, and the interaction process. These kinds of messages are often called metamessages. Metamessages are interpreted with the help of certain cues which carry cultural meanings. A smile, for instance, is a cue for interactional interpretation. In many cultural contexts it may mean well-being or happiness; in some cultures, a smile is also being used in certain situations to express embarrassment or even hate (e.g., China, Japan). Differing interpretations of these contextual cues can be a source of intercultural misunderstandings.

For verbal communication, rhetorical organization can be a contextual cue. In Anglo-Saxon cultures, for instance, people expect the main points of a presentation to be mentioned at the very beginning of the presentation. We will discuss contextual cues (also sometimes called orientation cues) more in the section on nonverbal communication.

Communication styles

In Intercultural Communication studies, the following styles of verbal communication have, among others, been identified (e.g., Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey 1988; Gudykunst 1998):

· direct/indirect communication style

· elaborate/succinct communication style

· personal, or person-centered/contextual communication style

· instrumental/affective communication style

These styles are present in all cultures, and the use of different styles varies depending on the context (e.g., formal or informal situation, personal distance or current relationship of the interactants). Culturally, one particular style might however be considered more appropriate in a given situation. In Finland, for instance, direct, succinct and instrumental styles are in general preferred when presenting information in professional contexts. There are, however, situations when Finns may become very indirect also in professional contexts. These involve, for instance, occasions where there is a need to express criticism.