Institute of Linguistics and Literary Studies, College of Nyíregyháza
granville.pillar@nyf.hu
Abstract:
This paper hypothesises that the medium of video, which combines visually-mediated non-verbal (paralinguistic) behaviour and contextual input with auditory-mediated verbal language, is more effective as a teaching tool than audio disc in enhancing L2 learning. It explores the signifi cance of an integrated, total body communication approach to L2 teaching, learning and testing, which considers the synthesis of verbal language conveyed through phonetic articulation (lexicon) and perceived through the acoustic channel, and paralinguistic behaviour conveyed through a combination of body movements (kinesics and proxemics) and perceived through the optical channel, and vocal articulation (prosodics) perceived through the paraverbal channel. It is widely acknowledged that foreign language learning is better facilitated by exposure to multi-channel input (i.e. auditory verbal stimuli combined with concomitant non-verbal visual stimuli), although most of the current models of L2 instruction and testing place little importance on paralinguistic behaviour, and are therefore in need of extension. The fi ndings from an empirical inves-tigation would seem to suggest this. Such fi ndings have major implications for L2 teaching methodology in general, but would be especially pertinent to distance learning and self-education programmes which rely heavily on single-channel input (auditory verbal stimuli) through the use of audio-CDs for instruction, listening comprehension and testing purposes.
Key Words: paralanguage, kinesics, proxemics, prosodics, paraverbal
Introduction
The body and voice become more involved when we are expressing our-selves than when we simply understand. Language is not the manipulation of tongue, teeth, hard and soft palates to form plosives, fricatives, labiodentals, alveolars and palato-alveolars. Language is the whole body. When we express ourselves we use affective melodies, intonations, pauses, rhythms, gestures, facial expressions and physical movements. It is „I” who am speaking, both body and spirit (Dickinson, Levêque and Sagot, 1975, p.20).
A Framework of Interpersonal Communication
Communication is fundamental to human beings. Language is the most elabo-rate mechanism and transactional tool in human communication. Interaction is the most basic, most important and most complex aspect of this communication and it is through social interaction that information or a message can be emit-ted and received. The early framework of communication conceived by Aristotle viewed communication in relationship to three points of reference: the speaker, the speech, and the audience (Hesselgrave, 1991). More complex models have emerged over the centuries, but by far the most widely used model is the „cy-bernetic” model, based on the works of Shannon and Weaver (1949) and Wie-ner (1954). This model, which has grown out of very early telecommunication
KRISZTINA PECSORA
and computer technology, has spawned more contemporary models embracing a broader perspective of communication to include various elements such as sender or source, receiver or respondent, message, channel, media, code, encode, decode, feedback and context. Hesselgrave (1991, p. 51) proposes such a model and aptly illustrates how these main elements of communication are drawn together to form a basis for a model of communication. Figure 1 shows a modifi ed version of Hes-selgrave’s (1991) model to illustrate the system of interpersonal communication.
Figure 1
The Process of Interpersonal Communication (Adapted from Hesselgrave, 1991) In this contemporary cybernetic model, the ideal form of interaction incor-porates the various elements to explain and describe the interpersonal communi-cation process. The sender encodes a message into a coded system and emits it through verbal and/or non-verbal behaviour by means of a medium or a combi-nation of different media. The process of encoding involves using the mind and body to express ideas and impulses into a coded system. The receiver perceives the information through the acoustic and/or optical channel, reverses the encoding process (decoding) and turns the code back into a message. Feedback is an indica-tor of the receiver’s response to the message. The context or setting gives support to the meaning of the message.
There are, however, many other factors that can affect communication, not least of which is the „commonness” of the codes used between the sender and the receiver. Unless mutually shared codes are used, communication will be ineffec-tive. In other words, if the sender speaks in a language which is unknown to the receiver, then the message will not be understood or memorised. In the case where the receiver is not a native speaker of the language being spoken by the sender, it
198
is necessary for the sender to employ all available non-verbal strategies to make the message more meaningful and more memorable.
In the context of L2 learning, learners, therefore, need to rely more on non-verbal communicative behaviour than in fi rst language (L1) learning. Other fac-tors such as smell, temperature and touch can also infl uence the effectiveness of communication, but the most fundamental aspect of interpersonal oral communi-cation which seems to have been ignored in L2 pedagogy is the extent to which learners can utilise non-verbal behaviour and the optical channel in the encoding and decoding of the target language to enhance communicative competence.
Paralinguistic Behaviour and Social Interaction
Within the fi eld of L2 learning, it is generally accepted by linguists, language teachers and researchers that a broadening of the paradigm of communication to include a framework which integrates verbal and non-verbal (paralinguistic) be-haviour is essential to the development of L2 communicative competence. Stevick (1982) expresses the interrelationship between verbal and non-verbal behaviour quite succinctly: “if verbal communication is the pen which spells out details, nonverbal communication provides the surface on which the words are written and against which they must interpreted” (Stevick, 1982, p.163).
Wolfgang (1979) maintains that social interaction in the context of L2 teach-ing and learnteach-ing is effected simultaneously on three different levels: verbal, non-verbal and cultural, with the third moderating the other two. Neither non-verbal nor non-verbal behaviour can be fully expressed or understood in isolation. Put more simply, verbal and non-verbal behaviour are interdependent, used simultaneously and are culture bound.
In order to identify the signifi cance of the use of non-verbal behaviour in L2 oral communication and how it can be mediated, it is important to construct a real-istic and practical framework of the human communication process. An essential characteristic of this framework is that it should recognise all relevant aspects of interpersonal communication through the unifi cation of L2 verbal and non-verbal structure and content.
Such a framework of communication is expressed by Poyatos (1976; 1982) and focuses on ‘total body communication’. Poyatos (1976) suggests that there are a number of ways in which the human body is capable of emitting and re-ceiving information. In face-to-face social interaction, whether it be intracultural (within a culture) or intercultural (between cultures), information and meaning are conveyed by the body primarily through gesturing and phonetic articulation and perceived through the optical, paraverbal and acoustic channels. Poyatos (1976) emphasises the communicative status of these channels and proposes a triple structure through which human interaction is realised:
GRANVILLE W PILLAR
It is in interaction that we encounter the numerous channels we use con-sciously or subconcon-sciously for the conveyance of messages which I have subsumed as Total Body Communication, this including verbal-vocal (lexical language), nonverbal-vocal (paralanguage) and, above all, nonverbal nonvo-cal (kinesics, proxemics, thermal change, etc.) forms (Poyatos, 1976, p.4).
Figure 2 illustrates how the oral message is conveyed by a combination of phonetic and vocal articulation and body movements through the auditory, non-lexical and visual modes, and is perceived by the acoustic, paraverbal and optical channels respectively. This perception of the message involves the multi-channel stimuli being delivered via both the
Figure 2.
Integrated Multi-Channel Framework (Adapted from
Poyatos, 1976)
optic and acoustic nerves to the parts of the brain responsible for the inter-nalising of the information and the processing of language comprehension (Wer-nicke’s area) and speech production (Broca’s area). This neurobiological bi-modal system of language processing advances a neuroscientifi c perspective which ar-gues that the brain structures and neural networks responsible for these processes are seen as being critical to explaining why the exposure to multi-sensory input through the medium of video can enhance intake, and ultimately comprehension and language production (Pillar, 2013).
Paralinguistic Behaviour and Meaning
The pivotal question which needs to be addressed in the verbal/non-verbal dichot-omy is to what degree paralinguistic behaviour contributes in conveying meaning in communication. Studies in verbal communication carried out by Mehrabian and Ferris (1967) provide fi gures for the total weight of impact of a message: 7% verbal