Editor for this issue: Martin Jacobsen <marty
linguistlist.org>
Some time ago I posted a query; I was looking for a source for either or both of the claims that (a) 65% of all information in English speech is not in the words but in the NVC and (b) the same thing holds for at least 90% of all *emotional* information. (That is, information such as "I respect/don't respect you" or "I intend/don't intend to deceive you" and so on). Almost every response I got said something roughly like "That's in my grad school notes, too, but without a source; when you find it, I'd like to have the citation." Here's the closest thing to a source -- still woefully inadequate -- that I've been able to locate: "The separate effects of verbal, vocal, and facial components of attitude were assessed by Mehrabian and Wiener (1967) and by Mehrabian and Ferris (1967). Taken together, the results of these studies suggest that the combined effect of these variables is a weighted sum of their independent effects expressed in terms of the following equation: A/total = .07 A/verbal + .38 A/vocal + .55 A/facial where A/total is the attitude inferred on a degree-of-liking scale from the three-channel communication, A/verbal is the attitude communicated in the verbal componnt only on the same scale, and so on." This is on pp. 84-85 of Nonverbal Comunication: Survey, Theory, and Research; by Daniel Druckman, Richard M. Rozelle, and James C. Baxter; Sage Publications 1982. The articles cited are: Mehrabian, A. and M. Wiener (1967), "Decoding of inconsistent communications," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6:109-114; Mehrabian, A. and S.R. Ferris (1967), "Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels, " Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31:248-252. Also recommended (along with a batch of unpublished manuscripts I won't list because they're unlikely to be findable) is DePaulo et al., 1980, "Detecting deception: Modality effects," in L. Wheeler (ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 1; Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. My own initial interest was sparked by a NY Times piece (4/8/86) by Daniel Goleman titled "Studies Point to Power of Nonverbal Signals" reporting on research by Peter Blanck , which included this sentence: "How a judge gives his instructions to a jury was perceived to double the likelihood that the jury would deliver a verdict of guilty or not guilty -- even when on the surface the judge's demeanor seemed perfectly impartial." I went next to the report of this research -- which I recommend to you; it is "The Appearance of Justice: Judges' Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in Criminal Jury Trials," by Peter David Blanck, Robert Rosenthal, and LaDoris Hazzard Cordell; Standard Law Review 38:1 (November 1985), pp. 89-164. Blanck and associates have continued to pursue this line of research over the years in additional articles; excellent work, in my opinion. It turns out that much, if not all, of the NVC material that is truly useful in my work is in the judical/legal literature, or in the literature of space and aviation medicine (where the need to judge emotional status and reliability of pilots/astronauts from voice alone can obviously be critical,). Useful sources, despite the dates: "Using Communication Cues to Evaluate Proespective Jurors During the Voir Dire," by David Suggs and Bruce Dennis Sales; in Arizona Law Review Vol. 20 (1978), pp. 629-642 "Judges' Nonverbal Behavior in Jury Trials: A Threat to Judicial Impartiality," in Virginia Law Review, Vol. 61 (1975), pp. 1266-1298. "Invariances in the Acoustic Expression of Emotion During Speech," by Leda Cosmides; Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 9 (1983), pp. 864-881. "Vocal Indicators of Psychological Stress," by Harry Hollien; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 347 (1980), pp. 47-72. (You will all be familiar with the work of Paul Ekman). Throughout the literature, everyone appears to me to be taking for granted -- as fact -- that at least for American English, nonverbal communication carries far more of the message, especially the emotional message, than the words. I agree with that presumption; I think it's absolutely correct. But no one cites sources for their presumption. I had hoped that Linguist-List would be able to fill the gap; I thought perhaps it would turn out to be back to Jakobson, or some such eminence. I continue to be willing to be enlightened on the subject; please just write me directly at the address below if you can provide information. Suzette Haden Elgin oclsMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueipa.net