There is an adage intimating that it is actions and not words that best communicate internal views. Sociologists contend that culture is uniquely influenced by environmental conditions. Consequently, societies sharing environmental features have similar norms and vice versa. Historically, migration became necessary to facilitate trade and create new communities. Currently, these fundamentals have not changed and this increase the likelihood of distinct cultures interacting in daily life. Cultural sensitivity in nonverbal determines whether people access basic services and undertake their civic obligations. Therefore, developing cultural sensitivity in the use of nonverbal communication is essential for effective communication.
The element of nonverbal communication is entrenched communication behaviors that people rarely take the time to question. For example, people commonly point when verbally giving directions as if the gestures repeat that which is being expressed orally. It is for the benefit of this discussion that a definition of nonverbal communication. From the previous example, it is obvious that these are communication forms that do not require the use of words. In addition, they can be intentional or otherwise. There is an argument that body language, another example of nonverbal communication, makes up a significant part of one’s oral communication (Ivy & Wahl, 2014). Furthermore, this communication form has two general classifications, there are forms that are produced by the body and then there are those that are produced by environmental factors like time and space (Gamble & Gamble, 2013). Not only does this further highlight the importance of understanding this communication form, but it also suggests that different cultural lenses assign different meanings to them.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is also necessary to establish the importance of nonverbal communication forms. Going back to the example in the previous paragraph, it is obvious that they are used to repeat or complement verbal instructions. This is the case in giving directions. They can also be used to convey the meaning of different words as is the case with the verbal tone (Ting-Toomey, 2012). Conversely, they can also contradict a verbal message. For example, a shake of the head contradicts a stated positive message. Nonverbal communication forms are also typically used to control verbal communication. Silence can be used to mark the end of a speech or to invite reflection and verbal contributions from other people. Finally, these behaviors can also take the place of verbal communication for various reasons (Ivy & Wahl, 2014). For example, noise can significantly limit oral expression and invite the use of nonverbal communication forms. Equally, those with biological hearing challenges resort to using nonverbal codes with standardized meaning to communicate. Hence, there are different uses of the nonverbal communication forms and their meanings are implied from the context in which they are used.
From the uses stated above, it is clear that nonverbal communication often accompanies verbal communication. Under such circumstances, they provide the perspective from which the actual meaning of a piece of verbal communication is obtained. Nonverbal cues facilitate the interpretation and understanding of a piece of verbal communication (Gamble & Gamble, 2013). It is readily apparent that there are various distinct cultural groups and intercultural activities are increasingly becoming the norm. Not only can a nonverbal signal have more than one meaning, but it is also true that the same cue presents different meanings depending on the recipients’ cultural background. For example, an attempt to avoid eye contact will be interpreted through cultural lenses and an appreciation of the sender’s immediate setting (Ivy & Wahl, 2014). Cultures socially construct norms for expressing emotions, relationships, and attitudes using nonverbal cues. Depending on the context, looking away to avoid eye contact could be the sender’s way of expressing being busy and unavailable or their sense of embarrassment. Equally, it is possible to send multiple nonverbal signals at the same time. Along with the situation, cultural norms dictate that gender and personality differences, relational distance and socioeconomic status are the other elements that must be used in interpreting and understanding nonverbal cues (Ivy & Wahl, 2014). Therefore, there is an inherent complexity in deciphering nonverbal signals even those that used among people from the same cultural background.
There are generally up to 6 forms of nonverbal communication signals. Ivy and Wahl (2014) assert that body movements, touch, space, eye contact, physical appearance, facial and vocal cues are these broad forms. For the purposes of brevity, this discussion shall not expound on each form. Skin color, body type, weight and hair color, for example, comprise physical appearance. There is an argument that people with larger body frames command relatively more attention because their physique implies significant physical power (Gamble & Gamble, 2013). Also, people use clothing and ornaments to communicate their cultural heritage. There is an argument that adornments are cultural artifacts that convey background and the choice of what to wear is an exercise in cultural communication. As a nonverbal communication form, physical appearance comprises several elements that underlie its complexity.
Related to physical appearance are facial expressions. Ivy and Wahl (2014) assert that how people dress are expressions of their cultural background. Likewise, how people express their emotions is also a function of their cultural backgrounds. While the face is capable of communicating numerous distinct expressions, there are some that have cross-cultural meaning. This is the case for happiness, surprise, anger, interest, and disgust. Conversely, there are cultural groups that are normally not emotionally expressive and their members are conditioned not to recognize some of these sensations (Ivy & Wahl, 2014). Consequently, when such people interact with others from expressive cultural backgrounds, they may initially find it difficult to communicate effectively.
It is readily obvious that eyes are the most expressive part of any facial expression. This is also evidenced by its distinct categorization from facial expressions. As mentioned previously, nonverbal cues can convey various pieces of meaning in one cultural setting. Likewise, eye contact signals respect, attention, honesty and attraction. Equally, lack thereof conveys fear, a lack of respect or loss of interest (Ivy & Wahl, 2014). Specifically, in Western cultures, people use eye contact to express attention, interest, and honesty in conversations. Consequently, not only is maintaining the gaze appropriate behavior, but it is necessary to complete the meaning conveyed verbally. This is why people from such backgrounds become readily suspicious of those who fail to establish or hold eye contact. Conversely, people from Eastern and African cultural backgrounds avoid making eye contact out of respect and this behavior is informed by positions occupied in the social hierarchy. This discussion previously mentions differences in social status and relational distance as some of the factors influencing how meaning is created (Ivy & Wahl, 2014). Therefore, the use of eye contact is a marker of cultural backgrounds.
Descending from the eyes is the mouth and it is the source of vocal cues. Fundamentally, it is not what is said that is distinct, but it is how it is said. This distinction has led researchers to develop different categories. Accent refers to how people from different cultural backgrounds pronounce words (Ivy & Wahl, 2014). For example, it is readily evident that English is widely spoken across the US. However, obvious distinctions exist between the accents of those who live in the north and those who live in the south. Equally, emphasizing the accent on a different part of a sentence or word introduces a meaning that is different from the literal one typically contained in the words (Ivy & Wahl, 2014). Not only does this example signal the complexity of sorting out paralanguage cues, but it is also emblematic of the general sophistication surrounding nonverbal communication.
Arguably, the most important part of discussing these communication forms is to understand their impact on daily life and improve cultural sensitivity. This is increasingly becoming a necessity given the globalization and technology trends. It stands to reason that intercultural interactions will become the norm, this increases the need for cultural competency and flexibility. From the complexity discussed above, it is obvious that there is a need to practice flexibility in interpreting these signals as initial interpretations are typically limited by cultural conditioning (Ivy & Wahl, 2014). Focusing on the signals improves the likelihood of revealing the intended meaning. Likewise, concentrating on how someone verbally expresses themselves is more effective than focusing on what they are saying. The ultimate goal of cultural sensitivity is to help people become more aware and adaptive to the appropriate nonverbal norms for a particular setting or community (Ivy & Wahl, 2014). Therefore, discussing nonverbal communication forms strengthens understanding and interpretation of its numerous forms.
The ability to communicate effectively is a necessity whose value has expanded with the rise of globalization and technology. The likelihood of intercultural interactions has increased accordingly. Not only are nonverbal cues complex in cross-cultural use, but they convey numerous meanings even in normal use by members of one cultural community. Fundamentally, cultural norms determine how to assign meaning to these signals. Furthermore, gender and personality differences, interpersonal distance as well as socioeconomic status are some of the factors to consider when assigning meaning in intercultural interactions. For an effective interpretation of a cross-cultural interaction, it is necessary to focus on the signals as well as how the accompanying words are pronounced.
References
Gamble, T. K., & Gamble, M. (2013). Interpersonal communication: Building connections together . Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Ivy, K., D. & Wahl, T., S. (2014). Nonverbal Communication for a Lifetime (2nd ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2012). Communicating Across Cultures (1st ed.). New York City: Guilford Press
