Content uploaded by Curtis Lebaron
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Curtis Lebaron on Oct 30, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
499
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Research on the Relationship Between
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication:
Emerging Integrations
By Stanley E. Jones and Curtis D. LeBaron
The authors argue for an integrated approach in which verbal and nonverbal
messages are studied as inseparable phenomena when they occur together. Ad-
dressed are assumptions of various forms of this type of research, potential rela-
tionships of quantitative and qualitative studies, current trends found in the inves-
tigations included in this special issue, and recommendations for further work.
Orientation
During everyday communication, especially face-to-face interaction, vocal and
visible behaviors are typically coordinated in ways that provide for their mutual
performance. When people talk, they also locate their bodies, assume various
postures, direct their eyes, perhaps move their hands, altogether behaving in ways
that constitute an interactive event. Historically, however, verbal and nonverbal
messages have been studied separately, as though they were independent rather
than co-occurring and interrelated phenomena. The primary purpose of this ar-
ticle is to call for more integrated approaches to the study of verbal and nonverbal
communication so that more holistic understandings of social interaction may
emerge. The eight articles that follow this essay provide examples of how such
research might be conducted.
Scholars from communication and allied fields have long recognized the need
for integrated approaches to the study of verbal and nonverbal behavior. There is
an historical record of criticism against research that isolates verbal and nonverbal
behaviors from one another. Writing about linguistic research, Adam Kendon (1977)
argued that theories of language derived from a study of only speech should be
thought of as special language theories, whereas general language theories would
show how different aspects of behavior (visible and audible) function together.
Stanley E. Jones is professor emeritus at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He has taught courses
and conducts research on nonverbal communication and related topics. Curtis D. LeBaron is an assis-
tant professor at the Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University. He teaches and
conducts research on communication within institutional and organizational settings.
Copyright © 2002 International Communication Association
500
Journal of Communication, September 2002
Similarly but conversely, Margaret Mead (1975) criticized nonverbal research for
neglecting linguistic phenomena and pointed, for example, to Paul Ekman’s Dar-
win and Facial Expression (1973) as a “discipline-centric approach.” While Ekman
advanced a theory that the meanings of certain facial expressions are universal,
Mead argued that members of cultures derive meaning from facial expressions by
relating them to the context in which they occur, including both verbal and non-
verbal behaviors.
Another recurring criticism is that the terms “verbal” and “nonverbal” are them-
selves outdated and no longer useful. Some time ago, Kendon (1972) observed,
“It makes no sense to speak of ‘verbal communication’ and ‘nonverbal communi-
cation.’ There is only communication” (p. 443). More recently, Streeck and Knapp
(1992) suggested that the classification of communication as either “verbal” or
“nonverbal” is “misleading and obsolete” (p. 5). Although we generally agree with
such criticisms, we refer to “the relationship of verbal and nonverbal communica-
tion” here because this wording is likely to be recognizable to our readers—
connoting a holistic study of communicative forms to see how they work in
concert. Our reference to “emerging integrations” is intended in two senses: (a)
the interplay of messages conveyed in different sensory modalities; and (b) the
potential for different research traditions often regarded as incompatible to in-
form one another and even, at times, to be used in coordination with one an-
other.
Among scholarly books, the tradition of focusing on either verbal or nonverbal
communication separately continued through the 1990s, as seen in books that
deal with discourse and conversation analysis (e.g., Beach, 1996; ten Have, 1999;
van Dijk, 1997) and those focused on nonverbal behavior (e.g., Feldman, 1992;
Poyatos, 1992). However, some recent scholarly books deal with concepts and
studies involving interrelationships of different message modalities, including vol-
umes devoted to quantitative research (e.g., Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995) and
those concerned with qualitative work (e.g., Auer & Di Luzio, 1992; Duranti, 1997;
Leeds-Hurwitz, 1995; Sigman, 1995).
Progress toward studying verbal and nonverbal behavior together may have
been impeded by certain factors. One problem is the linear format of journals and
books, which is somewhat at odds with reporting the complexities of multidimen-
sional interactions. It is much easier to present verbal transcripts or statistical
tables than it is to describe and analyze integrations among varied message mo-
dalities. Another impediment is that there is not widespread agreement about how
holistic analyses should be conducted. Especially apparent is the split between
quantitative and qualitative research because studies employing these methodolo-
gies are generally directed to different audiences and published in different jour-
nals (e.g., the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior and Research on Language and
Social Interaction). Rarely are both kinds of research published side by side, as
they are in this special issue, and even more rarely are they compared in terms of
their assumptions, objectives, and potential contributions to communication theory.
Obviously, in this essay we cannot resolve the definitional, epistemological, and
methodological issues that are being debated in the field of communication and
that impinge on the relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication.
501
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
What we can offer are concepts and interpretations that may help to initiate a
dialogue on these issues. In the next section, we provide a brief history of re-
search on verbal-nonverbal communication, and we identify some common as-
sumptions about the nature of communication and corresponding research strate-
gies found in different approaches. In the third section, we address potential
relationships between quantitative and qualitative studies. Section four previews
the articles in this special issue to highlight assumptions, theory development, and
research strategies of scholars in current research. The final section makes recom-
mendations for future research, including (a) that videotaped data be used in all
observational studies of face-to-face interaction, and (b) that researchers publish
not only their written analyses of data but also the actual videotaped recordings
upon which those analyses are based, so that these can be inspected by readers
and other scholars. These recommendations are demonstrated by this special is-
sue, which includes a CD-ROM containing video clips from several authors.
A Brief History of Verbal-Nonverbal Research:
Assumptions and Strategies
Although a distinction between verbal and nonverbal behavior is centuries old,
rigorous study of the relationship of verbal and nonverbal messages began in the
1960s among mostly quantitative researchers. Many of these early investigations
were based on a “channel summation” model, which depended upon a couple of
key assumptions. First, this model assumed that verbal and nonverbal behaviors
are generally different kinds of messages with rather different meanings and po-
tential functions (effects). Hence, various kinds of verbal and nonverbal messages
were coded separately as conveying different kinds of meanings. Second, this
model assumed that the total meaning or impact of messages conveyed in differ-
ent channels can be derived from the frequency, intensity, or relative weighting of
acts summated across channels.
One common type of channel summation research was “channel reliance,” an
approach that was designed to determine what kinds of cues (verbal, vocal, facial,
etc.) were more influential in determining observer perceptions (see, for example,
Bugental, Kaswan, & Love, 1970; Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967; Mehrabian & Wiener,
1967). Thus, verbal and nonverbal message combinations were the independent
variables, and the dependent variables were the responses of persons exposed to
those messages. Subsequent research showed that the channel summation model
was too simple, especially when it was used to create formulas for the relative
contributions of different channels to the overall impressions of observers. For
example, Hegstrom (1979) found that the effects of messages in different channels
did not account for general assessments of audiences in an additive manner;
rather, meaning depended on the particular combination of messages conveyed
in different channels (for a review of channel reliance studies, see Burgoon, Buller,
& Woodall, 1996).
In another version of the channel summation model, situational factors were
manipulated to see how subjects pursued certain goals (verbal and nonverbal
502
Journal of Communication, September 2002
behaviors thus being dependent variables). For example, Knapp, Hart, Friedrich,
and Shulman (1973) induced subjects to converse with another person and
then engage in leave-taking, the objective being to assess the frequency with
which the leave-taker employed an array of different verbal and nonverbal
behaviors. The implicit assumption was that frequent behaviors were more
important in achieving closure to the conversation. As Streeck and Knapp
(1992) have pointed out, such early studies were commonly flawed in the
following ways:
the use of stimuli which were not derived from naturalistic observation; a
focus on the behavior of a single interactant without a freely responding part-
ner; the assumption that judgments of third party observers are isomorphic
with the judgments made by interactants themselves; the assumption that the
sum of isolated parts of the interaction process is . . . [equivalent to] the whole;
the general inattention to the location of behavior in the stream of interaction;
and others. (p. 4)
Although Streeck & Knapp’s criticisms apply to many quantitative studies of the
1960s and 1970s, other investigators attempted relatively “naturalistic” studies in
which people conversed (without a script) and variables were not manipulated.
Underlying this type of research was a “sequential co-relational” model of the
communication process, which assumed that the meaning or impact of behaviors
was derived from their sequential or simultaneous relationships, or both. For ex-
ample, a series of turn-taking studies was initiated by Duncan (1972) and contin-
ued by others (e.g., Cegala, Sydel, & Alexander, 1979; Duncan & Fiske, 1977).
After analyzing only two interviews, Duncan (1972) identified certain “turn-relin-
quishing” signals (linguistic, paralinguistic, and kinesic) whereby speakers could
give the conversational floor to the other person (the sequential relationship). The
more relinquishing behaviors exhibited (more or less simultaneously, the co-rela-
tional aspect), the greater the likelihood that speakership would change. Duncan
did not regard the meaning or effect of behavior as inherent. For instance, he
observed that if a speaker held a gesture in midair while pausing, no change in
speakership would occur, even when various relinquishing behaviors were exhib-
ited—the “turn-suppressing” gesture in effect canceling out the meaning or effect
of the other behaviors.
Some qualitative scholars in the 1960s and 1970s took a still more complex
view of communication processes. They rejected not only the notion that verbal
and nonverbal behaviors have inherent meaning, but also the use of contrived
situations and the practice of focusing on one subject’s behaviors apart from the
influence of interaction partners. They considered how entire episodes of interac-
tion were organized and how different behaviors functioned in combination as
people coordinated meaningful patterns of interaction. Much of this research
adhered to a “structural” model of communication (Kendon, 1990) designed
to discover cultural determinants of behavior. Shared assumptions were (a)
that the meaning or function of behaviors is derived from the total observable
context of the acts (other behaviors and social situations), and (b) that people
communicate primarily by enacting cultural rituals or programs together.
503
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Prominent versions of this perspective include ethnographic studies of the type
originated by Erving Goffman (e.g., 1963, 1967) and the tradition of “context
analysis” exemplified by the work of Albert Scheflen (e.g., 1964, 1965, 1973) and
Adam Kendon (e.g., 1990). For example, Goffman (1967) described the ways
people coordinate their actions to establish culturally expected respect for one
another in the process of performing ritualistic “facework.” Kendon and Ferber
(1973) identified six stages in programs of human greetings in formal situations,
also finding variations on this pattern in less formal situations, such as when
people have seen each other recently. This tradition of studying cultural influ-
ences has been carried beyond the 1970s (e.g., Erickson, 1992; Streeck, 1983),
sometimes with the purpose of exploring how programs from different cultures
may create problems during cross-cultural interactions (e.g., Erickson & Shultz,
1982; Gumperz, 1982, 1992).
In recent years, research on the relationship between verbal and nonverbal
communication has advanced as new and more complex approaches have been
introduced. A major current trend is to emphasize mutual or co-active influences.
Although it is still common, among quantitative studies, for verbal and nonverbal
behaviors to be coded as separate messages assumed to have distinct meanings,
some researchers are attending to the interplay of messages between interactants,
rather than merely the behaviors of one person in an interaction. Somewhat con-
trived situations are often used in such studies, but the new emphasis on mutual
influence contrasts with the traditional experimental approach in which a confed-
erate performs certain planned behaviors in order to see the effects on the other
person(s). Increasingly, research subjects interact spontaneously, within the con-
straints of the situation. For example, when Manusov, Winchantz, and Manning
(1997) had subjects engage in cross-cultural, face-to-face interactions, they found
that the congruence (matching) of communicative behaviors increased over time.
Another example is the work of Judee Burgoon (and associates) based on an
“interaction adaptation” paradigm (e.g., Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995; Burgoon
& White, 1997). The objective is to explain how psychological predispositions are
related to the ways interactants respond to situational factors and especially to
one another’s behaviors. Thus, an assumption underlying these studies is that
interactants do influence one another, often toward either divergence or congru-
ence of behaviors, depending in part on a variety of potentially impinging factors,
including cultural backgrounds, attitudes toward the interaction, and characteris-
tics of the social situation.
Qualitative scholars have increasingly employed “microanalytic” methods, such
as conversation analysis and allied approaches, which are especially sophisticated
in notions of interactivity. Researchers typically examine naturally occurring com-
munication involving two or more people who exchange messages on a real-time
basis, with the focus being how people behave (an interactional question) rather
than why (a cognitive question). These analysts emphasize that each speaking
turn has consequences for others because talk is designed to reflect on prior turns
and project future ones. Hence, verbal and nonverbal messages are not seen as
inherently meaningful because communicative behaviors are subject to inference
and open to negotiation among participants. Behaviors accomplish social actions
504
Journal of Communication, September 2002
by virtue of their placement and participation within sequences of actions. When
investigators do make inferences about individual, relational, institutional, or cul-
tural influences, they generally do so only on the basis of clear internal evidence—
such as from direct observation of behavior in interactions (e.g., Streeck, 1982),
from ethnographic interviews with the participants (e.g., Leeds-Hurwitz, Sigman,
& Sullivan, 1995), or from a combination of such methods, as when participants
are asked to view themselves on videotape to bring about “stimulated recall” (e.g.,
Erickson & Shultz, 1982). The model of communication implied by these mi-
croanalytic studies has been described as “emergent” or “performative” (Leeds-
Hurwitz, Sigman, & Sullivan, 1995). Although similar to the “structural” model
(described above) in certain ways, the focus of the emergent model is not
restricted to the study of cultural rituals or programs. Rather, an added as-
sumption may be identified as follows: People not only utilize structural forms,
but they also co-construct and negotiate meanings and rules in their ongoing
interactions.
Microanalytic studies of the relationship between verbal and nonverbal com-
munication usually take one of two forms. One approach involves detailed study
of a collection of similar interactive instances. For example, Goodwin (1980) ex-
amined dozens of excerpts from videotaped data and explicated subtle forms of
coordination between utterance-initial restarts and shifts in participants’ eye gaze
toward the speaker; thus, restarts, often thought to be a problem of encoding,
were found to be functional in that they reflected speaker responses to evidence
of listener attentiveness. Employing examples of interactions from different cul-
tures, Streeck (1993) demonstrated that a speaker may draw special attention to
the significance of an iconic (figurative) gesture during an explanation by momen-
tarily looking at his or her gesticulating hand, thus drawing the gaze of the listener
to that gesture and helping to clarify the speaker’s meaning. The other approach
involves detailed analysis of a single excerpt from a videotaped record. For ex-
ample, LeBaron and Streeck (1997) examined an entire police interrogation in
which the officers moved their bodies in strategic ways while speaking meta-
phorically about the interrogation room (and participants’ maneuvers within it),
saying, for example, “You’re locked in a room and you’re looking for a window,
a door, or some way out—there’s not one.” The analysis shows how the suspect’s
confession was interactively brought about.
Our brief review of research on verbal and nonverbal communication is but a
broad overview of a wide range of topics pursued and approaches employed.
Obviously, some approaches are topically related but incompatible because of
their underlying assumptions. For instance, a researcher could not treat behaviors
as meaningful in themselves, to be manipulated or counted (according to the
channel summation model), and at the same time regard behaviors as meaningful
only in context (as with context analysis). It is also clear that some approaches to
research have evolved into or been subsumed by others. For instance, the as-
sumptions of the early “sequential co-relational” model (e.g., turn-taking) are not
inconsistent with later approaches to mutual influence; rather, the first seems to
have been absorbed by the complexities of the second. In some cases, mergers
among methods have been explicitly proposed and accomplished. For example,
505
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Heath (1986) combined Scheflen’s structural approach (albeit revised) with the
emergent or performative approach of conversation analysis, toward a microanalysis
of vocal and visible forms co-occurring during videotaped medical consultations
(also see Leeds-Hurwitz, Sigman, & Sullivan, 1995). Another relatively major and
ongoing issue is the relationship between quantitative and qualitative research
traditions, which is considered next.
Regarding Quantitative and Qualitative Research
By design, this special issue includes both quantitative and qualitative studies. We
hope to promote dialogue across this methodological divide, which has become
unfortunately (perhaps unnecessarily) wide. Traditionally, the quantitative and
qualitative paradigms have been regarded as fundamentally at odds, seemingly
irreconcilable in their different understandings of the world. Nevertheless, we
agree with James Anderson (1987), who saw hope for a “middle ground” or even
a “synthesis” of sorts (p. 47).
In a paper entitled “Quantitative Versus Qualitative?,” Janet Bavelas (1995) ar-
gued that the distinction between the two kinds of research, as it is commonly
conceived, involves a number of false, dichotomized assumptions. Among these
are notions that quantitative studies are objective whereas qualitative studies are
subjective, that quantitative research is deductive and qualitative is inductive, and
so on (artificial vs. naturalistic, generalizable vs. not generalizable, internally vs.
externally valid, etc.). Take generalizability, for example. In theory, this is a strong-
hold of quantitative methods because qualitative studies often involve small samples
of incidents for analysis. However, by the standards that scholars using statistical
methods impose upon themselves, the generalizability of a study is limited to the
population from which subjects for a study have been selected, and then only if
the subjects have been drawn at random (or matched, in some cases) and in
sufficient numbers to justify making statements about a larger population (a con-
dition seldom met). Of course, it could be argued the other way around, that
qualitative studies are more generalizable because they are more naturalistic, less
artificial. Neither approach can lay exclusive claim to generalizability of findings.
Perhaps the stickiest issues, the points at which scholars from different traditions
are most likely to argue against “the other side,” involve epistemological distinctions.
According to common conceptualization, quantitative researchers are “positivists”
or “objectivists” because they regard reality as something “out there” and (with the
right methods) discoverable. By contrast, qualitative researchers are said to be
“interpretivists” to the extent that they regard reality as something “socially
constructed” and humans (hence researchers) as necessarily symbol-using beings
(hence unable to access reality directly). In the practice of research, however,
these distinctions tend to blur, especially in the realm of verbal-nonverbal research
where both quantitative and qualitative investigators routinely use video recordings
as a basis for making “direct” observations of human behavior. Compared to studies
without firsthand observation (e.g., use of surveys and informant interviews), or,
in cases where firsthand observations are reported but there is no ability to replay
506
Journal of Communication, September 2002
or reexamine an event (e.g., field notes), video technology seems to bring the
investigator closer to the details of the “original” event. Video recording requires
cinematic choices that are interpretative acts by their very nature, yet both qualitative
and quantitative researchers tend to treat such records as nonproblematic
representations of what actually happened. In short, sometimes the methodological-
epistemological divide seems bigger in principle than it does in practice.
To some extent, both quantitative and qualitative scholars make reality claims,
though the realities they envision may be different and the manner of their expla-
nations may contrast. Quantitative scholars are more likely to make conclusions
about multiple incidents in a corpus of data, implying that the behaviors observed
are not idiosyncratic or specific to certain encounters. Qualitative scholars are
more likely to analyze the details of a single case or of a specific set of interac-
tions, thereby documenting at least one way that some communicative phenom-
enon may be interactionally achieved, usually avoiding questions about how fre-
quent or commonplace the phenomenon may be. Ultimately, however, establish-
ing a basis for intersubjective agreement is the strategy for making reality claims in
both traditions. Thus, quantitative researchers operate as interpretivists when ob-
servers rate the effect of certain messages, often achieving interrater reliability
through training and discussion among raters. Qualitative researchers, although
sometimes acknowledging their interpretive role in creating a view of observed
events, employ multiple examples and elaborate descriptions toward persuading
the reader that the study is accurate (hence, objective).
A renowned qualitative researcher, Emanuel Schegloff, has argued that there is
no inherent contradiction between conversation analysis and quantitative research
(1993), but he cautions that researchers should follow certain procedures that are
too often neglected. To illustrate, Schegloff reviewed a study in which frequencies
(per minute) of laughter were counted by investigators as evidence of “sociabil-
ity.” Schegloff rightly argued that “per minute” calculations are an inadequate
basis upon which to evaluate sociability and suggested that behaviors be counted
according to whether they occur in “environments of possible relevant occur-
rence” (p. 103)—that is, places where such behaviors would be appropriate in an
interaction. Thus, laughter, if it occurred during or after a funny remark, could be
interpreted as “sociable,” whereas some other sorts of laughter may be offensive
(as documented in a study by Jefferson, Sacks, & Schegloff, 1987). In part, Schegloff
was objecting (albeit in different terms) to the notion embraced in some quantita-
tive studies that verbal and nonverbal behaviors have meanings in themselves.
Instead, he proposed that behaviors be counted as having a certain function only
when they can be seen to occur within an interactive context that provides for
that function.
One implication of Schegloff’s ideas is that when the two methods are used
together, most often quantitative analyses would follow qualitative studies, oper-
ating as a test or extension of those prior conclusions. This is not to suggest that
qualitative and quantitative investigators often approach data in complementary
ways. However, there are cases where quantitative methods have been used to
test, extend, or examine some aspect of prior conclusions from qualitative studies.
For example, LaFrance and Mayo (1976) conducted a series of two studies about
507
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
racial differences in eye gaze behaviors during face-to-face conversations. First,
they looked frame by frame (“microanalytic structural”) at recordings of one Black-
Black and one Black-White conversation, which showed that the Blacks face-
gazed more when speaking, while the one White subject face-gazed more when
listening. Second, LaFrance and Mayo used a much larger sample based on obser-
vations of public behavior (not videorecorded), which demonstrated statistically
that there was less face-gazing by listening Blacks than listening Whites. A num-
ber of quantitative studies have investigated a phenomenon originally documented
in qualitative research (context analysis) by Scheflen (1964), namely that postural
congruence is indicative of communicative identification or empathy (Bavelas,
Black, Chovil, Lemery, & Mullett, 1988; LaFrance, 1982, 1985; LaFrance &
Broadbent, 1976). One discovery of this quantitative research was that pos-
tural congruence is indicative of empathy only when behaviors are mirrored,
not when postures are identical in form, a finding that constituted a refine-
ment of Scheflen’s concept.
Finally, qualitative methods have occasionally been used to test and reformu-
late conclusions based on quantitative data. For example, Beattie (1983) treated
Duncan’s (1972) quantitative study and Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson’s (1974)
qualitative study of turn-taking as simply alternative approaches to getting at the
same phenomenon—employing qualitative data analysis as a way of combining
and revising both sets of conclusions. Thus, although a quantitative-to-qualitative
investigative sequence is far less common than the reverse, Beattie’s study illus-
trated the potential for testing hypotheses or prior findings by qualitative means, a
possibility suggested some time ago by Glaser and Strauss (1967).
Current Approaches to Verbal-Nonverbal Analysis:
Studies Presented in This Issue
When planning this special issue, we solicited articles from scholars known for
their work on the relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication. We
made no attempt to impose a particular theme, method, or perspective on the
contributors—except to ask that they examine both visible and vocal behaviors
and consider theoretical issues related to such joint examination. In addition, a
balance in the numbers of qualitative and quantitative studies was sought. The result
is that a broad array of studies is represented, demonstrating various new ways of
approaching assumptions and research strategies in this flourishing area of research.
Buck and VanLear’s article is arguably the most theoretical of the contributions
to this issue. Drawing on a meta-analysis of research on the effects of brain dam-
age on communicative abilities, they challenge a traditional assumption that ana-
logically codified messages are monitored exclusively by the right hemisphere, a
notion that has been employed by some theorists to justify the study of nonverbal
behavior as a separate and distinct form of communication. Basing their position
on tests of pantomime reception and expression, Buck and VanLear propose that
“pseudo-spontaneous communication” (intentionally manipulated nonverbal mes-
sages), like verbal symbolic behaviors, are processed by the left brain, whereas
508
Journal of Communication, September 2002
“spontaneous” (nonmanipulated) cues are sent and received by the right hemisphere.
Implications for the exchange of relational messages are explored in the article.
Qualitative conversation-analytic studies are sometimes accused of being
“atheoretical” because they proceed inductively and emphasize emergent pro-
cesses and patterns, sometimes eschewing reference to structural factors external
and prior to the interaction itself (see discussion of emergent and structural above).
However, in the article “Closing Up Closings,” LeBaron and Jones combine struc-
tural and emergent approaches in their microanalytic study of a chance reunion
occurring in a beauty salon. Employing the constructs of “ritual enactment,” “mul-
tiple conversational involvements,” and “differential ritual enactment,” they argue
that conversational closings may be best understood by considering the dynamics
of interaction as they grow out of the cultural-structural and situation-specific
contexts in which they are embedded.
The potential for integration of qualitative and quantitative research is demon-
strated in the Bavelas, Coates, and Johnson study of “Listener Responses as a
Collaborative Process.” In developing their hypotheses that a speaker’s face-gaze
tends to elicit responses from listeners and that once those responses have been
obtained, speakers will tend to withdraw gaze, the investigators draw on previous
qualitative findings concerning this phenomenon while conducting their own pre-
liminary qualitative analysis. They show statistically that the predicted patterns
occur with considerable regularity and conclude that the results demonstrate that
conversational participants exhibit a rather precise degree of coordination in their
audible and visible acts.
Streeck’s groundbreaking article, “Grammar, Words, and Embodied Meanings,”
argues that a primary function of some speech particles may be to connect linguis-
tic to bodily means of expression. In developing his position, Streeck focuses on
two words with somewhat parallel functions, “so” in German and “like” in Ameri-
can English. He relates the functions that these words have as interaction devices
to their grammatical history—notably “like” has undergone development over
time that kept it close to roles relating to embodiment. He then gives microana-
lytic examples of how these terms are used in naturally occurring interaction, both
“so” (German) and “like” (English) being prototypically connected to gestural
behavior. His most detailed example involves a conversation between two boys,
ages 9 and 10, who relive their experiences concerning a horror movie they have
both seen, using “like” in connection with their gestural expressions in which they
act out the appearance and actions of characters in the film.
Two studies in this collection involve qualitative microanalytic studies of medical
interviews. Heath’s paper on “Demonstrative Suffering” contains numerous ex-
amples of diagnostic interviews in a physician’s office in which the patient dra-
matizes symptoms by means of gestural (re)enactments in order to portray the
pain he or she has experienced, an especially important type of information
when the symptoms themselves are not clearly in evidence at the time of the
diagnosis. Heath notes that in some cases the doctor responds to such non-
verbal messages or provides opportunities for gestural-verbal elaboration on
the patient’s experiences, whereas, in other cases, the doctor appears to disre-
gard those messages.
509
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Beach and LeBaron’s paper on “Body Disclosures” examines a single but re-
vealing episode from a medical encounter: a health appraisal interview in which
the patient becomes visibly and audibly emotional when reporting personal prob-
lems and when confirming childhood sexual abuse. Analysis shows how the patient’s
body and the medical file are used as central communicative resources through
talk and visible actions (facial expressions, eye gaze, hand gestures, touch, pos-
tures, shifting bodily orientations, use of tissue and records). Delicate moments
are shown to be collaboratively produced, as attention given to the patient’s
body gets transformed over the course of the history-taking interview. It is ob-
served that attending to the patient’s expressed and exhibited problems is not
tantamount to abandoning a medical agenda but an inevitable and valuable re-
source for generating a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s bio-psycho-
social health.
Manusov and Trees’s study concerning the effects of nonverbal listener re-
sponses on the verbal accounting process as speakers attempt to justify their
handling of problematic situations is presented in an article appropriately titled,
“Are You Kidding Me?” This study employs an innovative approach to coding and
statistically analyzing nonverbal-verbal interaction data. Verbal accounts that oc-
curred both before and after evaluations by listeners were coded with categories
traditionally used in the account-giving literature, from mitigating or more aggra-
vated behaviors, and raters assessed facial and vocal expressions of listeners sepa-
rately (as they occurred in conjunction with verbal responses when applicable)
along a number of dimensions (negative to positive affect, confusion to under-
standing, etc.). Then, statistical tests were used to determine the degree to which
accounting behaviors following initial accounts were influenced by listener re-
sponses. Among other results, Manusov and Trees found that more “negative”
nonverbal messages could predict the use of justifications, internal excuses, and
facework moves. Besides the fact that past studies of accounting practices have
been concerned only with verbal behaviors, this study is unique in that verbal
behaviors by listeners were analyzed separately from the nonverbal cues by means
of transcripts so that the investigators were able to show that the certain vocal and
facial responses could explain accounters’ verbal reactions above and beyond
what could be explained from verbal exchanges. In addition, it is worth noting
that the authors supplement their quantitative analyses with qualitative data in the
discussion section of the paper to bolster their interpretations of the results.
The last study in this series is Burgoon, Bonito, Dunbar, Ramirez, Kam, and
Fischer’s complex exploratory study of the effects that different technological and
nonmediated means of communication have on subject evaluations of their inter-
actions and interaction partners. The authors’ methods return us in part to an old
approach, but in a distinctive and new way. That is, their study is related to the
original “channel reliance” approach in that the effects of different sensory mo-
dalities are compared, but it is different in that the channel variations examined
are differentially mediated forms of communication, such as those that people use
everyday. In contrast, the traditional channel reliance studies involved unrealistic
circumstances intended to simulate face-to-face conditions in which message com-
binations were artificially manipulated to test subject interpretations. In the Burgoon
510
Journal of Communication, September 2002
et al. study, subjects were asked to engage in a decision-making task with a
partner (confederate) under different communicative circumstances, depending
on whether they met face-to-face or they interacted via written text only (when
partners are in different rooms), proximal text (by computers, but positioned
side-by-side), audioconferencing, or videoconferencing. The results show that
different forms of mediation and nonmediation have different advantages and
disadvantages; generally, proximal conditions created more favorable evalua-
tions of the exchange and distal circumstances enhanced task performance.
Looking across the studies in this collection, we see many parallels in findings,
even though we made no attempt to solicit articles thematically. For example,
both the Streeck and the Heath studies are concerned with gestural embodiments
of speakers’ experiences not directly observable in the here and now: Streeck
looks at the reenactment of movie scenes (and other events); Heath reports on
demonstrations of symptoms and suffering during medical interviews. Both au-
thors suggest that gestures are structurally related to language and that they may
convey information not readily translatable into words. Similarly, Beach and
LeBaron describe a patient’s emphatic and rhythmic chopping gestures (iconic)
when she talks about her personal difficulty of living “different parts” (perform-
ing for others, wearing masks, etc.). Thus, the arguments presented by these
authors suggest that iconic gestures are much more than mere expressions of
inner states or redundant accompaniments of verbal behaviors. One way of look-
ing at the Buck and VanLear study is that it supports the perspectives offered by
these gesture-attending authors. That is, the brain hemisphere research shows
that speech and pantomimic (iconic) gestures are related, not just structurally,
but also neurologically, suggesting that both kinds of behaviors are intentional
and symbolic by their very nature.
The most evident parallel is that six of the eight articles involve investigations
of mutual influence. This takes different forms in the different studies, but most
consider the dynamic interplay of two or more persons in their exchanges of
verbal and nonverbal messages. Some authors focus mostly on speaker behav-
iors, although not to the exclusion of two-way influences. For example, Bavelas,
Coates, and Johnson emphasize the way that speakers cue listener responses by
means of face gazing, although it also shows that the listener’s responses in turn
serve to cue speakers to discontinue gaze as they proceed with verbalization.
Heath draws special attention to the ways medical patients present their health-
related experiences verbally and nonverbally, but consideration is nevertheless
given to the effects of the interviewing physician’s responses. The Manusov and
Trees study, on the other hand, focuses on the influence exerted by the person
who is ostensibly in the listener’s role as his or her responses affect the subse-
quent account offered by the speaker.
Speaker-listener roles are less analytically separable in the other studies. In the
Streeck study, the boys who are acting out the movie scenes switch off in terms
of who is speaking and listening, playing off of one another. In the Beach and
LeBaron analysis of a medical assessment interview, although the interviewer
exerts influence by asking questions, the patient also regulates the conversation
by means of emotional displays and signaling when the interviewer can return to
511
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
the agenda. In the LeBaron and Jones study, the process examined is still more
complex because they analyze not only the mutual influence between the two
women engaged in a chance reunion, but also how onlookers exert influence on
the course of that conversation.
As already noted, two of the articles are about medical interviews. In recent
years, an increasing number of communication researchers have entered into
institutional and organizational settings to explicate the communicative practices
whereby participants’ institutional goals are pursued and realized. Research on
verbal and nonverbal communication has contributed to this enterprise. The prob-
lematic nature of medical interview situations, especially as seen in the common
observation that busy physicians may not attend adequately to the needs of
patients, is well known. In the examples provided by Heath, the physician is
sometimes attentive, sometimes not. In the Beach and LeBaron study, the medi-
cal professional is remarkably attentive. Authors of both studies conclude that
when the medical interviewer does attend to the patient’s verbal and nonverbal
messages, a more comprehensive understanding of the patient’s emotional and/
or physical condition is obtained, and diagnosis—by implication, treatment—is
improved. These studies also show how such attentiveness is interactively ac-
complished.
Two studies in this volume consider physical surrounds and material objects
of face-to-face interactions. Research on the effects of environmental cues related
to perceptions and interactions has a long history in the nonverbal communica-
tion literature, and, in context analysis research, environments have traditionally
been treated as cues providing information about program behaviors and the
social situation. The Beach and LeBaron and the LeBaron and Jones articles
contrast with these earlier perspectives: Rather than looking at physical spaces
and objects as primarily influential factors, these authors treat these elements as
resources available for utilization by interaction participants. For instance, Beach
and LeBaron show that the arrangement of the consultation room is used by the
participants to accomplish transitions, as when the interviewer looks toward the
medical file (sitting on the top of a cabinet) as a possible means of returning to
discussion about the health questionnaire. At another point, the crying patient
glances toward a box of tissues—a subtle action that prompts the interviewer to
ask if she would like a tissue; handing the tissue to the patient then serves to end
the focus on her feelings and continue discussion of the questionnaire. The LeBaron
and Jones study of beauty salon interaction shows the ways the hairdresser coaxes
a client back into the swivel chair by patting the back of the chair and by holding
a comb in midair—objects used to imply a resumption of the hairdressing activity.
We submit that these parallels among articles give evidence of convergence of
findings in the study of relationships among verbal and nonverbal behaviors.
That is, when detailed analyses of face-to-face interactions are conducted with a
holistic perspective, it is likely that similar patterns will be discovered in separate
studies. Perhaps such results are most likely to emerge when inductive approaches
are employed. However, as Bavelas (1995) has pointed out, there are different
ways of being inductive, and neither qualitative nor quantitative studies have
exclusive rights to the claim of being inductive.
512
Journal of Communication, September 2002
Recommendations for Future Research
In this final section, we are not primarily concerned with the programmatic con-
tent of future research because, as the present collection demonstrates, there are
many fruitful lines of investigation already underway and likely to be continued.
Nevertheless, a few of these trends are noted here. The study of mutual influence
seems especially important if we are to develop an explanatory theory of interper-
sonal communication. Mutual influence is especially complex and subtle in face-
to-face situations because visible forms of communication occur simultaneously
with one another and with vocal messages, and exchanges among persons can
occur both sequentially and instantaneously. We do not claim the superiority of
either qualitative or quantitative methods, but we do suggest that these methods
should be used together much more commonly than they have been in the past.
Typically, microanalytic qualitative studies have been followed by separate quan-
titative studies to test or extend a particular finding. However, we suggest that
qualitative and quantitative methods can be used together, so that when the oc-
currence of certain behaviors is quantified, they are considered in the context of
what is going on in the interaction at that time, along the lines recommended by
Schegloff (1993). Two other trends seem noteworthy and laudable. First, some
analyses go beyond a study of specific behaviors to consider the surrounding
social and material environments, examining how these may influence inter-
action and how participants may use their surrounds as communicative re-
sources. Second, research that attends to the interface of verbal and nonver-
bal behaviors and technological means of communication seems likely to be
increasingly important.
Our primary concern in this section is more basic than the question of trends:
We draw attention to issues of data and what kinds of data are most appropriate
for research on the relationship of verbal and nonverbal communication. In our
opinion, the issue of whether verbal and nonverbal communication should be
studied separately or together has been resolved. We agree with Ray Birdwhistell,
who reportedly said, “studying nonverbal communication [by itself] is like study-
ing non-cardiac physiology” (cited in Knapp, 1978, p. 3). To systematically ignore
either vocal or visible behaviors in a study of face-to-face interaction is to stunt
understanding of the phenomena under investigation.
Occasionally, research traditions may need to reexamine and move beyond
their origins. The study of “nonverbal communication” emerged in the 1960s,
largely in reaction to the overwhelming emphasis placed upon verbal behavior in
the field of communication. At about the same time, conversation analysis began
to emerge as another and quite different approach to detailed analyses of human
interaction. A founder of conversation analysis, Harvey Sacks (1984), began with
a tape recording of interaction as a “good enough” record, acknowledging that
“other things, to be sure, happened, but at least what was on tape happened” (p.
26). What was good enough then, whether it be a record of nonverbal or vocal
behaviors considered alone, may no longer be sufficient at this juncture in the
evolution of research on face-to-face communication. We recommend that com-
plete audiovisual records be the basis for future research in this area.
513
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Suppose that a researcher has a videotaped recording of human interaction,
wants to analyze this data, and will begin with a qualitative analysis (whether or
not quantitative methods will follow). We suggest that at least three different
conclusions could result from examining vocal and visible behaviors in their inter-
relationships. One possibility (although we think it unlikely) is that little new
information will be gained beyond what the observer could tell from a transcript
of the interaction. Perhaps what interests the researcher most is an intellectual
exchange between certain persons in a seminar or a professional meeting—how
ideas are presented by higher and lower status individuals and how they respond
to one other, for example. It could be that the ways verbal and nonverbal behav-
iors are integrated in this exchange shed little light on the issue of central interest,
that visible behaviors are largely predictable from the verbal record and do not
provide any new insights about how this sort of interaction is conducted. The
investigator could report this lack of “newsworthy” information about the verbal-
nonverbal interface in the interaction, providing a few examples, or perhaps the
lack of information about the verbal-nonverbal interface is itself telling and worth
discussing. At the very least, the investigator will find that the dialogue is easier
to understand and transcribe as a result of having a videotape to inspect (rather
than simply an audiotape) and will have satisfied himself or herself that a verbal
transcript is an adequate means of representing the communication.
Another possible outcome is that examination and description of both vocal
and visible behaviors provides additional evidence for an interpretation based
primarily on the investigator’s analysis of verbal communication. In this sense,
nonverbal behaviors serve to complement or clarify verbal messages, and their
inclusion in a description helps to bolster an argument. For example, in the Goodwin
(1986) account of an interaction in which a narrator’s story is modified by audi-
ence participation, the verbal exchanges are important, but so are the visible
actions of the narrator’s wife. Goodwin describes especially her use of gaze as she
draws others into the act of challenging the narrator’s version of the events, de-
scriptions that serve to clarify how the transformation of the story is accomplished,
convincing the reader that the story was indeed co-constructed.
A third possible outcome is that the investigator discovers what can be under-
stood only by considering the ways verbal and nonverbal messages are integrated
with one another. This requires that the researcher entertain the possibility of such
an outcome in the course of examining the data because the interplay between
vocal and visible behaviors is often subtle and repeated examination of the audio-
visual record may be necessary. As Paul ten Have (1999) has noted, in the conver-
sation analytic tradition, even when videotapes are used, investigators usually
start with an audio transcription so that “the verbal production by participants is
seen as the base-line for understanding of the interaction, with selected visual
details being added to this understanding [later]” (p. 9). One way to avoid the trap
of focusing primarily on verbal communication may be to observe the videotape
repeatedly before committing to the use of a particular transcription system.
To illustrate this third possible outcome, we examine an excerpt of videotaped
data (LeBaron, 1996) in which the interplay between vocal and visible behaviors
seems especially salient. The setting is a group therapy session involving five
514
Journal of Communication, September 2002
clients who have been convicted of sexually deviant crimes (e.g., rape) and two
therapists. One of the clients (“Ethan”) has been appointed as group leader for
this particular session, and his duties include keeping the minutes, monitoring the
time, and generally ensuring that clients adhere to group rules. When our moment
begins, another client (“Stan”) is reading aloud from his homework, giving the
group a detailed description of his crime and subsequent arrest. Gradually, the
intonation pattern of Stan’s voice changes as he begins to talk “spontaneously”
about his experience rather than read from his homework, which violates a group
rule: Clients are supposed to read only what they have written, not speak im-
promptu. The group’s vocal interaction has been transcribed as follows (transcrip-
tion symbols are explained in the Appendix):
Stan: I was scared when I was arrested (0.5) and I (0.3) felt very u:h (8.0)
very ba:d (.) (°when°) (0.2) when I was handcuffed and u:h (0.2) I
felt (0.4) .hhh y’know (2.0) like my li(h)fe was o:ver (2.2)
Ethan: U:m (.) d’you write that down or what
Stan: Yeah =
Therapist: = ((guffaw)) =
Stan: = I did
Therapist: Tha(h)t’s a real good question
Stan: .hhhh Well (0.2) don’t tell me to look up when I’m talking and then
you know (.) and not- (.) not look do:wn and you know (.) you know
so I’m saying (I-)
Therapist: Stan
(1.0)
Therapist: Put a sock in it.
(2.2) ((Stan shuffles papers))
Therapist: Why did you ask that question (Ethan)
Ethan: U::m (0.2) because uh he u:m (0.4) if the question- I guess felt he: (.)
he wa- I: didn’t (.) it sounded like he was trying to explai:n . . .
After it becomes evident that Stan is talking and not reading, Ethan (the group
leader) asks, “d’you write that down,” suggesting through his question that Stan
has violated a rule. The therapist immediately laughs or guffaws, and then compli-
ments Ethan’s utterance (“real good question”). Stan responds loudly and defen-
sively until the therapist addresses him abruptly (“Stan . . . put a sock in it”). The
therapist then asks Ethan why he asked his question. Ethan has some difficulty
accounting for his question, but eventually attributes it to Stan’s behavior (i.e., “. . . it
sounded like he was trying to explain. . . .”).
The vocal record does not tell the complete story. Looking at the transcript, it
would appear that Ethan asserts his role as group leader upon noticing Stan’s viola-
tion of a group rule—in fact, that is how Ethan describes his own behavior (“. . . it
sounded like he was trying to explain. . . .”). A close examination of the video-
tape, however, shows that the therapist turned and oriented directly toward
Ethan seconds prior to Ethan’s question. Here is a more holistic depiction of
the interaction:
515
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Stan: I was scared when I was arrested (0.5) and I (0.3) felt very u:h (8.0)
very ba:d (.) (°when°) (0.2) when I was handcuffed and u:h (0.2) I
((therapist looks at Ethan, see Figure 1))
felt (0.4) .hhh y’know (2.0) like my li(h)fe was o:ver (2.2)
Ethan: U:m (.) d’you write that down . . . .
The therapist, by shifting his orientation away from Stan and toward Ethan, signals
a juncture that arguably prompts Ethan to behave in some way. By directing his
gaze at Ethan, the therapist cues Ethan to respond, and within seconds Ethan
censures Stan with the question, “d’you write that down. . . .” Moreover, when the
therapist asks Ethan, “Why did you ask that question,” the therapist thereby quashes
the fact that he prompted Ethan’s question nonverbally. In response to the thera-
pist, Ethan might have said, “I asked Stan that question because you were looking
at me as though I was to do something.”
Such findings may have considerable practical value. The stated purpose of this
particular therapy program is to “increase clients’ self-awareness, self-monitoring,
and self-control.” Within this therapy for “self,” the therapists (and clients) regard
good acts of leadership by clients as an individual accomplishment—evidence
that a certain “self” is making progress toward rehabilitation, moving closer to-
ward completion of the program. By effacing the subtle visible behaviors whereby
group leaders are prompted, participants may interactively collude in the myth
that group leadership is an individual attainment. In a day when recidivism rates
for sex offenders are extremely high and worrisome, researchers might want to
scrutinize both the vocal and the visible behaviors whereby clients are interac-
tively brought to “recovery.” The so-called “talking cure” is also a nonverbal un-
dertaking.
In summary, we recommend that future studies of face-to-face interaction be
grounded in audiovisual records, if possible, so that analysts may examine the
ways vocal and visible behaviors are associated with each other. This is not to say
that videotape (or film) provides a perfect record of an event. As Jacoby and Ochs
(1995) have emphasized, human interaction is “contingently dynamic and unfold-
ing in interactional time” and researchers who use recordings (and transcriptions)
Figure 1. The therapist turns and looks at Ethan (participants’ images altered).
516
Journal of Communication, September 2002
should not treat that record as complete (p. 179). Obviously, camera angles, cam-
era scope, the absence of other sensory input (e.g., smell), and so forth reflect
choices made by the observer and constraints imposed by technologies. It is also
true that the act of recording may potentially influence interaction, although there
are ways of mitigating this problem. Nevertheless, we maintain that audiovisual
technologies put researchers in the best possible position to conduct holistic analyses
capable of producing maximally insightful arguments and conclusions. Further-
more, when researchers provide their audiovisual data along with their analyses
and conclusions, others can inspect the original data and draw their own conclu-
sions, resulting in a more rigorous and empirical social science.
Because a CD-ROM accompanies this special issue, we offer a final comment
about technology and its relationship to research on verbal and nonverbal com-
munication. Communication research has always been heavily influenced by tech-
nology. Transcripts, photographs, audiotapes, films, videotapes, and now digital
technologies facilitate research because they render as “strange” human commu-
nication practices, allowing us to catch ourselves in the process of representing
ourselves and altogether perceive communication anew. In addition to facilitating
research, technologies have affected conceptions of communication, descriptions
of phenomena, the construction of arguments, and, of course, the conclusions
that researchers reach. Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead (1942) reported using
photographs in their anthropological work because photographs could capture
and present behavioral events better than verbal descriptions. Adam Kendon studied
talk until 1963, when he “discovered” film and began to analyze embodied inter-
action: “It became apparent at once that there were complex patterns and regu-
larities of behavior, and that the interactants were guiding their behavior, each in
relation to the other” (Kendon, 1990, p. 4). Using multimedia software, LeBaron
(1998) digitized and closely examined audiovisual recordings, then discovered
similarities among hand gestures because the computer provided a nonlinear en-
vironment within which to work, making it possible to analyze multiple video-
taped images simultaneously, juxtaposing them on the screen. Increasingly so-
phisticated technologies, such as tools for transcribing, indexing, and analyzing
video and visual images, are on the horizon. Although research technologies should
not be overvalued—they will never replace a well-trained analyst’s discerning and
interpreting eyes and ears—their impact on communication research should not
be underestimated.
The CD-ROM accompanying this special issue contains most of the authors’
audiovisual recordings, giving readers access to the videotaped data upon which
the journal articles are based. Those who put the CD into their computer will see
a menu of journal articles (in PDF format) that include hyperlinks to various video
clips. Users will notice that some video clips have been digitally modified to
protect research subjects by masking their vocal and visible identities. These modi-
fications were made using Adobe Premiere, which is a common video editing tool
that, like a variety of other software programs, comes with options and features
that are also useful for analysis. For example, digitized clips can be looped, slowed,
or “zoomed in” for more careful study; audio and video tracks may be separated,
as needed; audio data may be graphically displayed; locations within the data can
517
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
be marked and numbered; and so forth. Digital technology allows for detailed and
repeated examination of recordings without damage to audio and videotapes.
Some programs now exist and others are under development that link video clips
to text transcriptions. In general, our argument is that scholars now have the
insights and the tools necessary to make major strides in the study of face-to-face
interaction.
Appendix: Transcription Conventions
Timing
Brackets [ ] Marks temporal overlap among utterances.
Equal sign = Indicates the end and beginning of two sequential
“latched” utterances that continue without an interven-
ing gap.
Timed silence (1.8) Measured in tenths of a second, a number indicates
silence occurring within (i.e., pauses) and between
(i.e., gaps) speakers’ turns at talk.
Micropause (.) A timed pause of less than 0.2 sec.
Delivery
Period . Indicates a falling pitch or intonational contour.
Question mark ? Rising vocal pitch or intonational contour at the
conclusion of a TCU.
Exclamation ! Marks the conclusion of a TCU delivered with em-
phatic tone.
Hyphen - An abrupt (glottal) halt.
Colon(s) : Indicates sound stretching or sustained enunciation of
a syllable.
Greater than/ > < Portions of an utterance delivered at a noticeably
less than signs < > quicker (> <) or slower (< >) pace than surrounding talk.
Degree signs ° °Marks speech produced softly or at a lower volume.
Capitalization HEY Represents speech delivered more loudly than sur-
rounding talk.
Underscore hey Underscoring indicates stress on a word, syllable, or
sound.
Arrows Marks a rise or fall in intonation.
Other
Out breath Hhh Audible expulsion of breath (linguistic aspiration) as in
→
→
518
Journal of Communication, September 2002
laughter. When aspiration occurs within a word, it is
set off with parentheses.
In breath •hh Audible inhalation is marked with a preceding dot.
Parentheses ( ) Text enclosed in parentheses represents transcriber
doubt. Empty parentheses represent untranscribed talk
or unknown speaker.
Double (( )) Transcript annotations.
parentheses
References
Anderson, J. (1987). Communication research: Issues and methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Auer, P., & Di Luzio, A. (1992). The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bateson, G., & Mead, M. (1942). Balinese character: A photographic analysis. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences.
Bavelas, J. B. (1995). Quantitative versus qualitative? In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches to
communication (pp. 49–62). New York: Guilford Press.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1988). Form and function in motor
mimicry: Topographic evidence that the primary function is communicative. Human Communica-
tion Research, 14, 275–299.
Beach, W. (1996). Conversations about illness: Family preoccupations with bulimia. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Beattie, G. (1983). Talk: An analysis of speech and non-verbal behaviour in conversation. Milton Keyes,
UK: Open University Press.
Bugental, D. E., Kaswan, J. W., & Love, L. R. (1970). Perceptions of contradictory meanings conveyed
by verbal and nonverbal channels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 647–655.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1996). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken
dialogue (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. Å., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction pat-
terns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burgoon, J. K., & White, C. A. (1997). Researching nonverbal message production: A view from inter-
action adaptation theory. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication
theory (pp. 279–312). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cegala, D., Sydel, S., & Alexander, A. (1979). An investigation of eye gaze and its relation to selected
verbal behavior. Human Communication Research, 5, 99–108.
Duncan, S. D., Jr. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 283–292.
Duncan, S. D., Jr., & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research methods and theory.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ekman, P. (Ed.). (1973). Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review. New York:
Academic Press.
519
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Erickson, F. (1992). They know all the lines: Rhythmic organization and contextualization in a conver-
sational listing routine. In P. Auer & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 365–
397). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews. New
York: Academic Press.
Feldman, R. S. (1992). Applications of nonverbal behavioral theories and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New
York: Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor Press.
Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning.
Sociological Inquiry, 50, 277–302.
Goodwin, C. (1986). Audience diversity, participation, and interpretation. Text, 6, 283–316.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethink-
ing context (pp. 229–252). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, C. (1986). Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Hegstrom, T. G. (1979). Message impact: What percentage is nonverbal? Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 43, 134–142.
Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 28, 171–183.
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In G.
Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 152–205). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Jones, S. E. (1979, November). The study of relationships between verbal and nonverbal communica-
tion. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Speech Communication Association, San
Antonio, TX.
Jones, S. E. (1994). The right touch: Understanding and using the language of physical contact. Cresskill,
NJ: Hampton Press.
Kendon, A. (1972). [Review of the book Kinesics and context by Ray Birdwhistell.] American Journal
of Psychology, 85, 441–455.
Kendon, A. (1977). Studies in the behavior of social interaction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused interaction. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kendon, A., & Ferber, A. (1973). A description of some human greetings. In R. P. Michael & J. H. Crook
(Eds.), Ecology and behavior of primates (pp. 591–668). London: Academic Press.
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Knapp, M. L., Hart, R. P., Friedrich, G. W., & Shulman, G. M. (1973). The rhetoric of goodbye: Verbal
and nonverbal correlates of human leave-taking. Speech Monographs, 40, 182–198.
LaFrance, M. (1982). Posture mirroring and rapport: Analysis by the cross-lag panel technique. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 42, 66–70.
520
Journal of Communication, September 2002
LaFrance, M. (1985). Postural mirroring and intergroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 11, 207–217.
LaFrance, M., & Broadbent, M. (1976). Group rapport: Posture sharing as a nonverbal indicator. Group
and Organizational Studies, 1, 328–333.
LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1976). Racial differences in gaze behavior during conversations: Two sys-
tematic observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 547–552.
LeBaron, C. (1996, May). Prompts for leadership and social learning during group therapy. Pa-
per presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Chi-
cago, IL.
LeBaron, C. (1998). Building communication: Architectural gestures and the embodiment of
new ideas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, UMI, AAT 98–
38026.
LeBaron, C., & Streeck, J. (1997). Built space and the interactional framing of experience during
a murder interrogation. Human Studies, 20, 1–25.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1995). Social approaches to communication. New York: Guilford Press.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W., & Sigman, S. J. (with Sullivan, S.). (1995). Social communication theory:
Communication structures and performed invocations, a revision of Scheflen’s notion of pro-
grams. In S. J. Sigman (Ed.), The consequentiality of communication (pp. 163–204). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Manusov, V., Winchantz, M. R., & Manning, L. M. (1997). Acting out our minds: Incorporating
behavior into models of stereotype-based expectancies for cross-cultural interactions. Com-
munication Monographs, 64, 119–139.
Mead, M. (1975). [Review of Darwin and facial expression by Paul Ekman.] Journal of Communica-
tion, 25(1), 209–213.
Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S. R. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two
channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 248–252.
Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 6, 108–114.
Poyatos, F. (1992). Advances in nonverbal communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social
action (pp. 21–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-
taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Scheflen, A. E. (1964). The significance of posture in communication systems. Psychiatry, 27, 316–331.
Scheflen, A. E. (1965). Quasi-courtship behavior in psychotherapy. Psychiatry, 28, 245–257.
Scheflen, A. E. (1973). Communicational structure: Analysis of a psychotherapy transaction.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Lan-
guage and Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.
Sigman, S. J. (1995). The consequentiality of communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Streeck, J. (1983). Social order in child communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Streeck, J. (1993). Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communica-
tion Monographs, 60, 275–299.
521
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Streeck, J., & Knapp, M. L. (1992). The interaction of visual and verbal features in human communica-
tion. In F. Poyatos (Ed.), Advances in nonverbal communication (pp. 3–23). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.
