Objectives for Chapter 2
1. Distinguish between speech, language , and communication.
2. Explain why the production of human sound is something of a dangerous proposition.
3. List and explain the three necessary components for competent language use in humans.
4. Explain hw much of language is innate versus learned.
5. Explian linguistic relativity.
6. Be able to describe the attributes of children's nonverbal communication across all the various categories.
7. Explain Communication Accomodation Theory in terms of children's communication.
8. Explain Speech Act Theory in terms of children's communication.
9. Explain Expectancy Violation theory in tems of children's communication.
10. Distinguish between linguistic and communication competence.

    This section focuses on language acquisition. It is not intended to be a comprehensive introduction to linguistics. Rather, it should provide readers with a good idea of how we become verbally competent. Few things are as central to being human than language use. That is not to say that humans are the only animals capable of language use. It has been demonstrated for example, that some primates are capable of using American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate novel ideas rather than simple mimicry. However, few creatures are as adept or as creative in their use of language as humans. This section begins with a discussion of the necessary components for language. Bear in mind that they are in no particular order. It then looks at how language is acquired in humans and details the timeline for verbal abilities. Finally, it deals with the issue of linguistic relativity; the idea that language influences thought.
    At this point it is important to make several distinctions. We tend to use the terms, speech, language, and communication interchangeably. However, they do not refer to the same things. Speech refers to the production of sounds. It is a psychomoter activity that requires the ability to get the physical mechanisms of speech to operate in the way that our brain commands. There are several parts to the speech apparatus. Obviously the lungs play an important role in speech in that they provide an outflow of air to the other speech mechanisms. Above that, there is a collection of moveable and immoveable articulators that function to shape the flow of air into sounds as it is expelled from our lungs. It is significant to note that human anatomy is adapted to the production of sound—at a cost. Humans are among the only creatures that can choke to death. In other mammals, the passage leading to the stomach (esophagus) and the airway leading to the lungs (trachea) are widely separated. That is to say, in most mammals, the airway is located much higher in the throat to safeguard against the introduction of food into the lungs (aspiration). The drawback is that they have a rather limited ability to shape sound. This was demonstrated when two researchers attempted to teach chimpanzees to speak. After extensive training, the animals were able to produce barely three recognizable words. It later occurred to the Gardners’s, another pair of researchers, that perhaps sound production was not the ape’s forte’ and they went to American Sign Language with much greater success.
    The location of the trachea and esophagus creates immanent danger. The swallow reflex is the only thing that saves humans from dying every time they eat. It is triggered by a withdrawal of the tongue to the back of the throat. When it touches a specific location. The reflex is triggered and a small flap of tissue called the epiglottis closes off the airway and opens the esophagus. Most people take this mechanism for granted but in the aftermath of a stroke or head injury, the swallow reflex can be lost. This poses a life threatening condition that requires intervention. Not surprisingly, the people best able to diagnose and treat impaired swallow function are speech language pathologists. Because of their extensive training in the anatomy and mechanics of speech production, they are often able to suggest adaptations that reduce the risk of aspiration.
    Choking to death? Aspiration pneumonia? Why would nature take such risks with the survival of an organism? In the case of humans, the ability to shape sounds to produce speech and language offered tremendous advantage. This faculty must be so central to our survival that the anatomical design risks were worth it. This has lead many linguists to conclude that speech and language are biological adaptations that are little different from walking upright, having opposable thumbs, and binocular vision. Verbal communication is a uniquely human development that, as far as we know, doesn’t occur naturally in other organisms.
Humans are capable of producing a wide variety of sounds however, most languages use a relatively small number sounds. The way sounds are produced depends on the actions and coordination of the moveable and immoveable articulators. The moveable articulators consist of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (top of the throat), soft pallet/vellum, tongue and lips. The immoveable articulators are the hard pallet, alveolar ridge, teeth or dentition and the sinus cavities. The larynx is controlled by the Vegas nerve which, oddly enough descends from the cervical spine and into the chest cavity before reaching the larynx. It is the interaction of all of these parts that produces the variety that is found in human speech.

Necessary Components

    Phonetics. Before one can speak a language, he/she has to be able to make the sounds that are needed to produce that language. This is largely a psychomoter activity, meaning that it depends on proper coordination between the brain and the physical structures that produce speech sounds. As infants, we make a wide variety of sounds. At this point in our development, we are capable of making virtually any sound in any human language. The problem is that we don’t have control over our vocal hardware. As was noted in Chapter 1, “Baby Babble” while seemingly senseless, plays an important part in the process of gaining control over the mechanisms of speech. In fact, by the tenth month, baby babble begins to take on the rhythms, sounds, and tones of the language(s) the infant is exposed to.
    The English language is composed of roughly 45 sounds. With these 45 sounds, English speakers are able to speak the language in its entirety (aside from the use of foreign words). However, we do not simple wake up one day with the ability to make all the sounds we need. Rather, some sounds are more difficult to make than others. Vowel sounds are the easiest to produce so that most baby babble is composed of vowel sounds along with an uncontrolled variety of consonant articulations.
    Once we begin to acquire a language, our ability to generate all human language sounds is compromised. We tend to develop a sort of “psychomoter memory” with the sounds that the language(s) we speak utilize. Sounds that do not occur in our language(s) tend to become very difficult to produce. This often becomes apparent when we attempt to learn a new language as adults. For most English speakers, the “rr”, tongue roll in Spanish is difficult to seamlessly produce in the middle of a word. Yet, any Spanish-speaking child is capable of it. While it is often the target of humor, most adult Japanese have considerable difficulty producing the English “L” sound. The reason for the difficulty is that the sound simply does not exist in the Japanese language just as the “rr” sound in Spanish does not exist in English. As such, our psychomoter abilities tend to be restricted as we acclimate to a specific language in childhood. This is what produces accented speech. Our attempts to produce the authentic sounds of a second language tend to be thwarted by our first language. That is, we tend to make the closest sound we can from our first language. So, an English speakers attempt to produce “rr” comes out as a simple “r” instead. Similarly, a Japanese speakers attempt to produce the English “l” comes out as an “r” sound; a sound that does exist in Japanese.
    By the age of three years 90% of children are able to produce the sounds of  b, m, n, f, w, h, and hw. By four years of age most are able to produce the p, d, g, k, and t sounds. By 5 years of age, they should be able to produce the sounds for v, s, z, and sh. Additionally, they are able to make the sound used in Zsa Zsa, and the y sound in yellow. At about 5 ½ years, 90% of children can make the ch sound in chair and the r sound in round. By six, most have added the d and j combination in jello along with the l sound. By 6 ½ years of age, the remaining consonant sounds of  the th in thing, the th in that, and the middle sound of monkey arrive. It is important to keep three things in mind. First, the acquisition of sounds is a function of biological maturation. In other words, children will acquire sounds only as fast as their level of maturity allows. If they are not biologically ready, they will not be able to make the sounds. The second thing to remember is that although kids may be able to make the individual sounds, they may not be able to produce compound consonants until later. For example a five year old may be able to make the t sound and the r sound but be unable to combine them in the word “truck.” In most cases they substitute the f sound. The third and final thing to remember, is that the ages given above should be considered to have an error rate of plus or minus two years. There is no need to worry too much about a six year old that can’t make the ch sound in chair. If they arrive at the age of eight without the sound, then there is cause for concern. However, most school systems and Speech Language Pathologists prefer to intervene sooner than the two year error rate. Most articulation problems can be fixed.

    Syntax/Grammar. The next critical component that is required for competent language use is an ability to use the rules that apply to languages. Not all languages have the same rules. However, there is a surprising degree of similarity among the roughly 5000 languages currently spoken in the world today. Syntax is important in that language must take our experiences and translate them into a medium that is very different from those experiences. Specifically, when something happens it is non-linear. If we observe a man reading a book, the man, the book, and the act of reading exist simultaneously. The problem is that when we try to share the experience using language, we are faced with converting the non-linear experience into the linear format of language. As a result, the actors, actions, and acted upon have to be specified linguistically. Generally, languages can be broken into two “grand schemes.” The first is referred to as a sequential language scheme. These types of languages rely on the order in which words occur in sentences to determine who or what the actor is and who or what is acted upon. English, Spanish, and French are all sequential languages. A sentence such as, “The man is reading the book” differs from the sentence, “The book is reading the man.” This is due to the difference is word sequencing. The same words can be rendered meaningless if sequenced in a different way still: “Reading book the is the man.” In order to use a sequenced language, a user must acquire the rules and apply them properly.
    The second grand syntactic scheme is referred to as “inflection.” Inflected languages change the endings of words to indicate the actor and acted upon. In a Latin-like language, the suffix “-um” might identify the actor while “-a” might identify what is acted upon. Similar systems are used to some extent in Greek, Cyrillic (Russian), German, and Japanese. What is important to remember is that sequence matters very little. In a Latin-like language, the statement “The man read the book.” can be spoken as “The manum read the booka” or “Read the booka the manum, or “The manum the booka read,” or The booka the manum read.” Each of the preceding statements has the same meaning. Actor and acted upon, are identified by the inflections that are applied to the words and have nothing to do with which word shows up where in the sentence.
    Bear in mind that languages are not exclusively, sequential or inflected. Most languages contain elements of both. For example, English is primarily a sequential language. However, when we wish to make an object plural, we often add an “-s” or “-es” to the end of the word. These are English inflections. Similarly, Spanish, inflects words to indicate negation, plurality, tense, and so forth. Further, there may be normative forms of expression. For example, there is no reason why we could not say, “The red, big truck.” The fact of the matter is that we don’t. For some reason we almost invariably say, “The big, red truck.”
    One might be tempted to argue that word meaning contributes to syntax. That is, we can use what words mean to figure out what someone is saying regardless of the syntax. However, Noam Chomsky coined a phrase that spawned something of a cottage industry in linguistics. It is interesting in that it clearly demonstrates that syntax and meaning (semantics) are unrelated. The phrase, “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” is a grammatically valid and correct English sentence. It is also nonsense and void of meaning. In short, the correct use of syntax has a separate and distinctly different function from meaning. Another way of saying this is to say that the language doesn’t care what you say. It is only concerned with whether or not the rules are followed.

    Semantics. The third and final ingredient in language use is semantics or meaning. One of the most significant aspects of semantics is the fact the words and meaning are completely arbitrary. There is no compelling reason for the word chair (either writing or spoken) to be associated with the object. That set of sounds or symbols can just as easily refer to any other object. Similarly, objects can be referred to by a variety of words. If you lived in Germany, you would refer to a tree using the word “baum.” In English, its a “tree.” The difference in terms is arbitrary and does not change the object itself. Even young children understand this idea. Children will routinely make up new “words” to refer to objects. Most of us had idiomatic names for the trappings of childhood. Favorite blankets through the years have earned a variety of monikers including “bubby,” mookie, and so forth. Further, as children increase their sophistication with language, they learn that new words can be substituted for the old ones with little difficulty as long as others were aware of the substitution. A new word, “slock” can be substituted for hand. As long as others are aware of this, the statement, I hurt my slock” makes perfect sense. A caveat to the notion of arbitrary language will be discussed later in the chapter. Specifically, linguistic relativity suggests that while words and their meanings are unrelated, the phonetic aspects of words can affect us psychologically.
    There are a number of ways to think about semantics. The most obvious way is to think in terms of definitions. If we look in a dictionary, we can find out what words mean. However, this represents only one level of meaning. Denotative meaning is the standard, agreed upon definition for a word. It is the part of semantics that most language using communities agree on. It is the perhaps the easiest to understand as well. However, consider that there are roughly 500,000 words in the English language. It changes as some words fall from use and others are created. Of that 500,000, the average person knows about 40,000. When we consider that the 500 most commonly used words have over 5000 denotative definitions, it is amazing that when someone speaks, anyone understands them. Considering that a good number of the 500 most common words are terms like, “is”, “and”, “a”, “the” , and “from”, that the system works becomes even more amazing.
    Denotative meaning is only one aspect of semantics. Yet another is the idea of connotative meaning or affective meaning. This refers to how we feel about words and the ideas they represent. Take for example, the word “mother.” A denotative definition of mother might be something like, “a female, biological parent.” However, this definition doesn’t begin to capture the meaning of the term. Most people have strong feelings associated with their mothers. For many college students, the term is associated with love, affection, nurturance, but also money, dinner, and laundry. However, what kinds of affective meanings might an abused child have with regard to the term mother? Frustration? Anger? Betrayal? Our affective meanings are associated with our experiences so that while each of us may share denotative meanings for words, unless we have similar experiences, we are unlikely to share connotative definitions.

Characteristics of Acquisition

    There is a considerable degree of debate among people who study language as to whether language is learned or innate. In some circles, it has taken the form or an either/or argument. For example, among behaviorists in psychology, human beings are thought to come into the world as “blank slates.” Specifically, other than a few rudimentary abilities like, grasping, suckling, and swallowing, humans are born without a great deal of knowledge. Therefore, they have to learn the skills they need to survive, including language. Most linguists argue that much of language acquisition is innate. That is, we are born with the ability to use language and do so as a natural part of our development. They argue that humans are pre-wired for language use. Learning then is a relatively minor part of language acquisition. In truth, it is almost certainly a combination of learning and innate ability or potential. This leads to two additional questions, “How much is innate?” and “How much is learned?”

    What is Innate? Many linguists would argue that children do not learn language from their parents. Rather, they believe that language grows in human children as a result of an internal, natural, knowledge of language. At the core of this idea is the suggestion that language use is a product of natural selection—that humans are biologically adapted to use language. So to say that they are “good” at language is similar to saying that they are good at having arms or growing hair. It is simply a feature of being human. In addition to the phonological adaptations discussed above, linguists and speech/language specialists argue that the human brain is designed for language use and acquisition. Various structures and spatial relationships between areas of the brain are specifically dedicated to the understanding and production of speech and language. Yet even the specific structures in the brain are variable from person to person. That is, speech and language centers are not always located in exactly the same places on everyone. What is even more amazing is the outcome of hemispherectomy procedures.
    The human brain can be divided into two halves called hemispheres. In extreme cases, children with severe seizure disorders have one of the two hemispheres removed. For these children who may have upwards of seventy-five to one hundred seizures a day, the procedure is a last resort. Depending on which hemisphere is removed (speech is usually a left brain activity), the ability to speak is lost. However, the brain appears to “rewire” itself over a period of time and the children develop near normal language abilities. It appears that the brain knows what connections are needed and adapts to the available brain matter. This stands in stark contrast to the outcomes of brain injuries and strokes in older people. For adults, a brain injury that results in the loss of language is most often permanent—the neuro-pathways set. In children, these pathways are fluid and changeable. Incidentally, the procedure is most successful on the very young (five or six). It has been performed on at least one ten year old and a fifteen year old. Both have made remarkable recoveries but with greater difficulty than their younger counterparts.
    Linguists like Noam Chomsky, have suggested that human languages are very similar to each other. They argue that they are similar in the same way human faces are similar. All have certain normative characteristics like two eyes, a nose, and a mouth. What’s more they are consistently arranged across the species. The differences we see in faces are the result of more subtle attributes such as nose shape and size. The same may be true of languages. Chomsky and others believe that most human languages are overwhelmingly similar and that they differ in only the most subtle ways. They propose that human language has a “universal grammar” that we are born knowing. It is a collection of concepts that exist independent of any specific language but apply to all languages. For example, if we take two balls and an empty box and we place one ball inside the box and the other outside the box and we ask a child which ball is “near” the box, they will invariably say that the one outside the box is “near” the box. Chomsky would argue that the concept that says that an object inside of a box isn’t near the box but rather part of the box, is an example of a pre-existing knowledge that is part of the language faculty. It is a very sophisticated distinction that doesn’t seem to be taught but rather seems to exist in the child far beyond their experiences.
    The presence of a universal grammar helps to explain a number of language acquisition tendencies that are very difficult to explain from a learning perspective. For example, children commit a multitude of linguistic errors that they never hear other language users commit. They tend to over apply syntactical rules. In English, we add the suffix “ed” to make a verb past tense. But not all verbs operate this way. A verb like “to go” is irregular so that we use a different word all together, “went,” to express past tense. Yet, we frequently hear children use words such as “go-ed” or “went-ed” to express the past tense. Clearly language is not merely a matter of imitation since competent language models do not use these words. Further, if language is matter of imitation, then children are perhaps more likely to acquire the words they hear most often. Yet, the most frequently used words in English are words like, is, a, and, the, to, and so forth. These are among the last words that children learn to use. Children apparently recognize that the relationship among certain elements of language, namely nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs are essential to understanding and they first gain skill with these before polishing their speech with detail.
    Perhaps children learn language by analogy so that they might hear two statements such as “I painted a house red” and “I painted a house green.” By analogy they might correctly conclude that they can say “I painted a house yellow/beige/white” or any other color. They might then hear a statement such as “I painted a blue house.” By analogy it seems as though it’s possible to switch from “I painted a house blue” to “I painted a blue house” without altering the meaning. So by analogy one should be able to say “I saw a green house” and “I saw a house green.” Clearly the latter is not a valid sentence and we rarely, if ever, hear children make these sorts of mistakes when, by reason of analogy, they are perfectly valid mistakes. Most attempts to discover analogical explanations for language acquisition suffer a similar fate.

    What is Learned? Vocabulary, pronunciation, specific syntax for the language are almost certainly leaned. When the magnitude of the task is considered, human language acquisition is nothing short of amazing. For example, the average person knows somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 words. This is an enormous figure and doesn’t even begin to consider the ways in which this myriad vocabulary can be assembled and extended. Each language has a set of rules, also referred to as syntax or grammar. As was mentioned above, each language user has to figure out which rules apply to the language they are acquiring.
    They also need to learn all of the idiomatic phrases. These are valid language structures that exist for no apparent reason. They are simply accepted as conventional grammatical phrases even though they don’t seem to make sense to nonusers of the language. For example, the Spanish language has an idiomatic phrase for the verb phrase, “to have to.” It consists of the conjugated form of the verb “to have” or tener, plus the word for “what” or que, plus the infinitive form of whatever verb you have to do. So, to say, “I have to go,” one would say, “Yo tengo que ir.” It cannot be literally translated to English (I have what to go.) and as such is an idiomatic rule for expressing the notion of “having to do something.”
    We also learn how to pronounce the words we learn. While there appears to be some innateness to pronunciation, it appears to be very limited. For example, when we make the sound associated with the English letter “F,” we do so by touching our bottom lip to our top teeth. If fact, every language that contains the “F” sound produces it in this way. This is in spite of the fact that there is no anatomical or phonetic reason for why we couldn’t make the same sound by touching our top lip to our bottom teeth. It’s simply not done that way. However, beyond these sorts or regularities, word pronunciation is likely learned via modeling.
    Accents result from variations in pronunciation from one group or language users to another. It is important to remember that there is no “correct” pronunciation. Virtually everyone has an accent. It simply depends on whether your manner of speech is the norm. The Brooklyn accent isn’t an accent at all in Brooklyn. But, drop it in West Texas and it becomes one. We tend to look at national newscasters and argue that they have no accent. It would be more correct to say that they’re accent is preferred for a national audience. Every accent is a legitimate way of pronouncing language. Just as a language community has to agree upon the vocabulary and object referents, the users need to be able to recognize the words based on the pronunciation. The members of an accent community all understand each other.

Normative Development. What constitutes normal language development is somewhat variable. Given that language is a biological faculty, it is necessarily governed by biological maturation. This becomes very clear when we look at phonetic development. The articulation of language sounds is a pychomoter skill. It involves the coordination of the mind and the physical structures required for articulation. Just as children are not born walking, they are not born speaking either. Further, early attempts at locomotion are halting, slow, and unpolished. Our sense of balance is immature, or coordination is poor, as so forth. However, we gradually become proficient. The same is true of speech. Our first efforts are primitive, simple, and flawed. We gradually refine our skills and most of the time we achieve a relative degree of perfection. What is important to understand is that we do not walk or speak until we are biologically ready to do so. This also places limits on what children are able to do at any given point in their development. As such our language development proceeds only as fast as our biology will allow. Because of this, there is a high degree of variation in terms of what “normal” development is. Children who are less biologically mature may also be less linguistically mature as well.
    We must also recognize that biology, while a strong force, is not the only variable affecting development. How a child orients his/herself affectively to speech is also an issue. While increasingly a biological issue, a child who views communication with apathy, or ambivalence may not demonstrate language acquisition regardless of biological readiness. Traits such as Communication Apprehension, Willingness to Communicate, and Verbal Aggression may bear directly on the speed at which a child develops language.

    Linguistic Relativity. One of the most interesting, and controversial theories of human language is referred to as linguistic relativity or the Saphir-Whorf hypothesis. It is rooted in the idea that language and thought are inseparable and so language influences the way we think. It is believed by some that it is language that allows humans to think the way they do. Our concepts then are rooted in language. That we think in terms of past, present, and future, categorize objects, perform computations, and think rationally is due to the faculty of language. This begs the question…can there be thought without language? Answer the following question: How many windows are in your apartment or home? Most people produce and answer by doing a visual walk through their apartment. They imagine themselves in the living room and count the windows. Then they go to another room and count the windows there. That appears to be thought without language…or is it? Is the concept of window, counting, and arithmetic computation tied to language? Which came first, the chicken (language) or the egg (thought)?
    Regardless of how we answer the question, linguistic relativity is a matter of social and educational policy today. In the preceding paragraphs we said that languages are easily acquired by children between the ages of two and four. If we had any intention of making people bilingual, we wouldn’t wait until middle school to introduce them to foreign language. At that point, fluency in a second or third language is hard to come by without vigilant study and practice. Many universities and colleges require as many as 12 hours of a foreign language for graduation and most students do not become proficient in their chosen languages. Is this some scam to bilk students out of hard earned dollars and keep foreign language professors in their jobs. Quite the contrary, if linguistic relativity is the case and language influences thought, then through exposure to a foreign language, students gain exposure to a foreign way of thinking. It is exposure to another culture through language.
    Linguistic Relativity can also be found at the core of so-called “political correctness.” The belief is that if we eliminate sexist, racist, or other “ist” terms from the language, we ultimately alter the way people think. Through the generations, perhaps through language the nature of a society can be altered and a myriad of evils vanquished. However, the question remains as to whether these “isms” are the product of language or is language the result of the negative cognitions and affect? Often, words are hijacked and taken from a seemingly innocuous form of expression to an offensive epithet. The term bitch refers to a female dog and the American Kennel Club uses the term in exactly that way, with no malice. Nonetheless, when aimed at a female human it takes on a very different meaning. When aimed at a male human, the meaning changes yet again. Even the most inoffensive vocabulary can be co-opted. Take the example of a group of executives who had recently been through a sensitivity training workshop in which colored jellybeans were used to represent EEO protected groups. Rather than using Asian, African American, etc., the workshop leaders used green jellybeans and blue jellybeans and so forth. The executives were later recorded in a company meeting saying things like, “Well, you know those purple jelly beans are lazy.” No one was using explicitly racist or sexist language but the intent was clear. They simply agreed which color jellybean referred to each group of people they wished to discuss and made the inoffensive, offensive.

    Unlike language, almost all of nonverbal communication must be learned through cultural exposure. What’s more, the correct use of nonverbal communication is based on sensitivity to a large number of contextual cues that are alarming in their subtlety. In general, most children under the age of ten are unable to attend to and accurately interpret the nonverbal behaviors of others. At the same time, they do not have the psychomotor skills necessary to properly execute most nonverbal behaviors that are called for. As a result, they have a great deal of difficulty with nonverbal communication and routinely make mistakes. Fortunately most adults don’t expect children to have a great deal of skill in this area. In fact we frequently come to cherish their mistakes and list them in family lore. We seem to intuitively adapt our own behavior to accommodate their shortcomings by exaggerating and simplifying our nonverbal cues.
    Although nonverbal communication has to be learned, we receive very few lessons. Rather, it appears to be the result of modeling and integration. It is often interesting to watch children play at being adults. They frequently engage in nonverbal behaviors that are appropriate to the role they are playing. While exaggerated and perhaps “ham-handed” it suggests an awareness that mothers, fathers, teachers, and police officers differ in terms of their actions. Yet, when it comes to their own conduct, outside of a role, they do not use appropriate cues until they are older. Their behavior may be corrected by adults (Don’t pull your dress over your head!), but they quickly forget the lessons and resort to behaviors that come more naturally. As they mature, children seem to unconsciously integrate nonverbal behavior into their normative repertoire. This is readily apparent when it comes to gender appropriate behaviors.
    Human infants are born rather gender neutral in terms of their appearance and actions. In other words, without looking to secondary sex characteristics, its difficult to tell on the basis of behavior or appearance what gender an infant is. One study randomly dressed infants in blue (male) or pink (female) clothing, regardless of their true gender. They then noted the way people reacted to the children without knowing their true gender. They found a marked difference in terms of the way people interacted with the children in blue or pink. When they thought they were holding a female infant, they were more gentle and soft spoken. With infants they thought to be male, participants were louder, harsher, and handled the children more roughly. These findings seem to suggest that nonverbal gender training may begin in infancy. As such, it is unlikely that we devote a great deal of cognitive energy toward the evaluation of how others shape our behavior.
    One of the basic tenants of science is reductionism. Reductionism says that we should examine the smallest aspects of a phenomenon first. Thorough knowledge of the small parts can then be added together to produce knowledge about the larger parts. As social scientists the same approach has been used to study nonverbal communication. The field has broken the many aspects of nonverbal communication into smaller parts or categories. Each category has been studied individually and will be dealt with here in the same way. However, it is important to keep in mind that nonverbal communication is part of a whole system with both verbal and nonverbal elements. None of these individual cues occur in isolation from each other. In fact, it is very difficult to separate verbal and nonverbal communication since most nonverbal communication occurs in the presence of verbal communication and makes little or no sense without it. It is important to keep this in mind as these categories of nonverbal communication are discussed. Although we look at them individually, they are interpreted and function as a whole.
    One final note before we begin this discussion. Nonverbal communication is often referred to as “body language.” Nonverbal communication in no way resembles language. It has neither syntax, nor a consistent performance component such as phonetics. Although it is meaningful, it is seldom meaningful all by itself. As we shall see, we depend heavily on the verbal communication that accompanies it as well as the context in which it occurs to determine the significance of nonverbal activities. As such, the term body language is a misnomer and should not be used to refer to this area of study. Communication as a field has a difficult enough time defining itself without creating confusion of this sort.

    Kinesics. Kinesics refers to the study of how gross body movements communicate. The term gross refers to the movement of large parts of the body such as the head, arms, legs, and trunk, rather than the micromomentary movements of the face. Kinesics is often sub-divided into categories: emblems, illustrators, regulators, adapters, and affect displays.
Emblems are the gestures that are used as direct verbal equivalents (waving to say hello, thumb to forefinger for okay). Once again, these are culturally based so that no all gestures are pan-cultural. Similarly, some cultures have unique emblems. In some cases, innocuous or meaningless behaviors can be offensive to other cultures. For example, it is impolite to sit so that the bottoms of your feet face Saudi Arabians. Still other prosocial gestures can have opposite meanings in other cultures. Older generations of Saudis would be appalled by the North American children’s game of, “I’ve got your nose” since the accompanying gesture of thumb between the first two fingers roughly correlates with the American “middle digit.” Each culture teaches these gestures to its children. The correct and smooth performance of these gestures has to be practiced. They are largely a matter of psychomotor coordination. As well as figuring out the communication rules that govern their appropriate use. Initially, their attempts at emblems are forced and exaggerated. As neurological development continues and they practice gesture, they become more refined in terms of their execution.
    Illustrators are the hand, arm, and body movements that accompany speech in order to clarify, reiterate, and/or add emphasis to verbal communication. Illustrators operate at a much lower level of awareness than emblems. In fact, most of the time we are oblivious to our illustrators and perform them as a matter of course. They are most likely learned through modeling our family members and those around us. As with all other forms of nonverbal communication, there is a strong cultural component. Some cultures are very enthusiastic illustrators while others consider such vigorous arm waving distracting and somewhat threatening. With children, we find that their illustrative behaviors are often exaggerated and graceless compared to adult communicators.
    Regulators are nonverbal cues that govern turn taking in conversation. They fall into several classes: turn yielding, turn maintaining, turn requesting, and turn denying. Regulators operate at an even lower level of awareness than illustrators. Their subtlety also makes them difficult for children to encode and decode. At this level children tend to be very literal. They view our turn denying cues (oblique body position, facing away from them, lack of eye contact) as having not heard them. They do not see those cues for what they are—an effort to communicate that it’s not their turn to talk. They figure that since we didn’t hear them, they need to talk louder and more insistently. At times it may seem as though no matter how many times we tell a child not to interrupt, they continue to do so. One of the authors was speaking with a neighbor and the neighbor’s four year old daughter. Her mother became increasingly annoyed with the way the child constantly talked over the adults in the interaction and finally told her, “Stop interrupting us. Can’t you see that other people are talking?” To which the little girl innocently replied, “But I don’t want him to talk. I wanna talk.” The notion of taking turns in play can be difficult enough for children to understand. In conversation it most often eludes them.
    Adapters are unconscious behaviors that involve the manipulation of self or objects in order to alleviate anxiety or boredom. For adults, these are often manifested as hair twirling, playing with keys or change, biting nails, and so forth. While adult observers view these behaviors negatively, they are rarely sanctioned. Children may also engage in similar sorts of behaviors but are also more likely to place objects in inappropriate orifices or touch themselves in less than ideal places and under embarrassing circumstances. Children are poor self-monitors and adaptive behaviors are among the least monitored behaviors by adults much less children.

    Proxemics. Proxemics refers to the potential communicative value of how humans use space. Humans consider space in two ways: territory and personal space. Territoriality refers to the way humans, and animals for that matter, lay claim to areas and objects. Personal space is the amount of space around our bodies that we find necessary and comfortable.
Although we rarely think about it and consider it to be an animal characteristic, humans are highly territorial. History is replete with examples of territorial behavior in humans. The Roman Empire expanded its borders to increase the area of its control and access to resources. The crusades were an attempt to “wrest the Holyland from the infidel Turks.” At one time European nations spent fortunes to ensure that the sun never set on their empires. More recently, Germany needed Libenspruam in the Rhineland in the 1930’s and sought control of lands traditionally occupied by German peoples. Libenspruam translates roughly as breathing space. Lest this seem like a purely western preoccupation, there was the East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere and the advances of the Japanese into China and Indochina in the middle of the twentieth century. After World War II, the Soviet Union maintained a military presence in the Balkan states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. They also occupied Poland, Checkoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and what was Yugoslavia. After having had their territory invaded by Prussia, France, and Germany all within a couple hundred years, they kept these lands at the end of the war as a buffer zone between potential aggressors and the Russian homeland. Right or wrong, humans are territorial on a grand scale and willing to fight and die by the thousands to defend or acquire territory. Whether it has been for the sake of security, ideology, access to valuable resources, or ethnic/cultural purity, the ultimate issue is the area or space.
    On a smaller scale, humans are every bit as territorial. Most cultures have strong notions of ownership and the theft of someone else’s property is harshly sanctioned. We go considerable trouble and expense to establish the rightful ownership of territory. One is amazed at the territorial lengths required to buy a home. We pay lawyers to search the history of the property to ensure that someone else doesn’t have some claim to it and then we often insure that person’s research. We then pay a surveyor to measure the exact dimensions of the property. The property gets inventoried, and precise dates of occupancy are settled on. Several thousand dollars later, it’s done. Similar technicalities surround the purchased of other valuable properties, such as cars, trailers, boats, and jewelry. One need only look at our laws to see that there are hundreds upon thousands of statutes that govern the sale and transfer of goods from one person to another. This alone should suggest the importance that we place on territory.
    We are even territorial on an interpersonal level to the extent that we will even lay claim to what is essentially public property and not subject to ownership. It is infuriating when someone steals “our” parking space. In fact it isn’t ours at all. We consider seats in bars and restaurants to be ours as well as space at the beach. To the extent that we are in temporary custody of these things, we consider them to belong to us, at least for the moment. In some cases, we might even be willing to defend this territory in the same way we might defend our legitimate possessions. While the ownership of highly valuable objects are formally and therefore easily established, the day to day, informal, and interpersonal notions of territorial ownership are more difficult to negotiate. Not surprisingly, children run into difficulty. Refrains of “MINE!!” can be heard between siblings and playmates from a very young age. Sharing is among the most daunting notions that parents have to face with their children. They don’t seem to come by it naturally.
    Like other aspects of nonverbal communication, territoriality is complicated. There are a variety of levels of ownership, a variety of levels of territorial violations, a number of relational factors to consider, circumstantial issues, and a variety of potential responses to territorial violations. Clearly, this is a multidimensional issue that calls for considerable emotional and cognitive skill. In terms of levels of ownership, property can be primary, secondary, or public. Primary property refers to objects and space that is almost exclusively under the control of an individual. Cars, clothing, toothbrushes, jewelry, etc. tend to be considered primary territory since a single person typically makes use of these things exclusively. Secondary territory refers to territory that may be owned by a single person, but that others have access to [clarify]. Public territory is space and/or objects that are not exclusively owned by anyone. They may be public property such as library table, or they may be privately owned but publicly used such as a restaurant seating. We tend to be more forgiving when the public space we’ve claimed gets encroached on as compared to our primary space. Although it is important to keep in mind that public brawls have begun over much less. Other issues get factored in as well. We tend to more tolerant of encroachment by friends as opposed to strangers and those closest to us can get away with most anything up to and including using our toothbrush in a pinch. Yet we also consider the current state of the relationship as well. Are we angry with them or is their behavior habitual. For example, a roommate who consistently borrows clothes, uses our razor blades, or eats our Oreo’s gets tiresome in a hurry--particularly if we’re already angry with them for something (anything) else. We might also consider the future value of the relationship (do I need their goodwill later?) and the past too (am I in their debt?). We also have to take into account why the territory was encroached on. If a roommate borrows our car without asking because they’re too lazy to move them to get to their own, that’s perceived differently than if they took it to rush a bleeding person to the emergency room. Further, we are more tolerant of encroachment if the person demonstrates humility and social politeness before or after the fact. An individual who acts as if they have a right to our property and makes no apology for the breech of etiquette is more likely to meet with a harsh response than someone who is apologetic and contrite.
    In order to process this multitude of factors, a degree of emotional composure and cognitive development is required. For young children (and some adults), who lack both of these things, territorial invasion frequently produces less than prosocial responses. Humans, like most animals, have two fundamental responses to threats—fight or flight. There are varying degrees of each. The most extreme form of fight response is physical violence and territorial encroachment can produce it. It is perhaps a more common response in young children since they may not possess alternative behaviors. A more limited fight response is to posture and make threats of physical retaliation without actually resorting to violence. However, in poker terms, it is a bluff that might be called. The most common response to territorial encroachment is flight. Most adults take all of the above factors into account and ultimately abandon the territory. For the sober among us, there is very little territory, especially public territory, that is worth risking serious injury for and that cannot be reclaimed later. Children, on the other hand, may not see the hazards and feel they have few alternatives.
    Personal space is the transportable space that surrounds us. It is the amount of space that we require in order to feel comfortable in a given set of circumstances. Hall attempted to determine the distances at which North Americans were comfortable interacting. He found that they used five different types of personal space. The distance from 0 to 18 inches was referred to as Intimate space; 18 inches to 4 feet was labeled Personal space; 4 feet to 8 feet was called Sociocommunicative distance; 8 feet or greater was labeled Public space. These distances hint at the further complications involved in the correct use of personal space. The first consideration has to do, once again, with the relationship between the interactants. Intimate space is reserved for people with whom we have very close relationships such as parents and lovers. Personal space is where we put friends and sociocommunicative distance is the distance we do business at. Public distance is where we put everyone else when communicating. Just as with other aspects of nonverbal communication, this typology (list) of interaction distances is mediated by other factors. What topic we are discussing appears to matter. One study looked at business interactions with the realization that business associates don’t have exclusively business-based conversations. The researchers noticed that when the topic was personal in nature (How are the kids? Did you get that house bought?) participants interacted in Personal space. However, when the topic shifted to business or a negotiation, they increased their interaction distance to Sociocommunicative. It appears as though when we are having friendly conversations with safe topics, we don’t mind others being in our Personal space. When the conversation turns to more contentious or confrontational topics, we prefer to place them at least at arm’s length.
    Its interesting to note that when we communicate with strangers or we speak about confrontational topics, we place others far enough from us that they cannot touch us and presumably injure us. Rarely do strangers and business associates attack each other but we feel more comfortable that way nonetheless. If we turn to Berger and Calabrese’s, Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT), we find a plausible reason for this behavior. URT suggests that interactions are driven forward by a desire to reduce unpredictability in interactions. It argues that unpredictability causes anxiety and is something that people try to avoid. When we interact with strangers, we know very little about them and their likely reactions to what we say. As such we keep them at a safe distance as a result of the increase in anxiety. Similarly, when we speak on contentious topics, even with people we know fairly well, we become less certain of their responses and more uncomfortable in the interaction.
    In a similar vein, Predicted Outcome Value Theory (POV) developed by Sunnafrank, argues that we engage in conversations that we believe will produce positive results for us. Here again, if we perceive a negative or unclear outcome, we experience increased anxiety. This would also explain the need for increased interaction distances depending on topic and relationship. To the extent that we think conflict in likely to produce a negative outcome, we are likely to engage in avoidance behaviors. Similarly, if we have no idea what the outcome might be, we ere on the side of caution and open the gap between ourselves and our enigmatic conversational partner.
    A third factor that has to be considered in the use of personal space is the physical environment. More specifically, how much space is available? Our personal space needs are in part, determined by our freedom to act. When space is limited, we have to accept less space than we might like. We’re hardly intimate with people on elevators with us but we tolerate the decreased amount of space in the short run. We also tend to make adjustments that at least create an illusion of space. Avoiding eye contact, silence, maximizing the space between people, and speaking in hushed tones are all methods that increase the sense of space even if the actual space is lacking.
    Just as with other complicated nonverbal forms, children often have a poor sense of what constitutes appropriate use of space. Oblivious to the cultural norms, they routinely invade the space of others, talk about the wrong topics at the wrong distances, and fail to compensate for close quarters. They also tend not to engage in the compensating behaviors given above. At the same time they may experience anxiety of their own in restricted spaces--particularly if they don’t know others in the area. As adults, we take the complexity for granted and in most cases manage our behavior correctly. Children are often blissfully unaware of the rules, break them with abandon, and wonder what their parents are saying when they correct their conduct. It is not until they are pre-teens that they are able manage their spatial behaviors. It is also the point at which adults begin to hold them responsible for spatial norms. One study looked at the reaction of adults to the behavior of young children and pre-teens in a theater line. The researchers used child and pre-teen confederates and told them to violate the space of the adults who were waiting in line. They later asked the adults to evaluate their perceptions of the children. The older children were perceived significantly more negatively than the young children were even thought they were performing the same behaviors. At a young age, adults appear willing to indulge the mistakes that children make in their use of space. Once they pass a certain age (approximately 10), adults cease to find their behavior cute and perceive it as obnoxious and subject to sanction.

    Haptics. Haptics refers to the potential meaningful uses of touch. In humans, touch is arguably the most arousing form of communication available to us. It is difficult to ignore when others touch us and it almost always produces a response both physiologically and socially. Yet, it is also the most ambiguous form of communication that we use. There are a large number of factors that must be considered before we can accurately determine what any touching behavior might mean. It is this combination of power and ambiguity that makes the issue of touch…well…touchy. In children, it is important to realize that they view touch as another sense that can be used to explore the world. The earliest part of their development makes extensive use of touch as a vehicle for discovery. One of the first things any young child does when confronted with an intriguing object is reach for it. In modern households with their multitude of hazards, this tendency requires constant vigilance on the part of parents. It terms of haptics, it means that children touch not to violate social rules, but to discover an interesting world.
    If you were asked to put down this book and touch five people at random, it’s a safe bet that you would touch most of them in the same way. You would likely reach from a distance, touch them on their arm or shoulder, pat them a couples of times, lightly, and move on to the next person. Although these are simple actions, they speak volumes about touch behaviors. Where we touch someone on their body is a critical issue. In every culture there are appropriate and inappropriate places to touch. In U.S. culture the hands, arms, and upper part of the shoulders tend to be relatively safe. The knee or lower part of the leg might be appropriate if sitting down. Face, head, chest, stomach, upper leg, feet, rump and genitals are generally off-limits to everyone except our most intimate relations (more on this later). A second issue in determining the meaning of touch is related to how we touch others. How long touch lasts, whether it is hard or soft, rapid or lingering all have to be considered when engaging in or interpreting touch behavior. A soft, lingering touch on an intimate part of the body conveys quite a different sense than a hard rapid, pat on the shoulder. Yet, there is still more that has to be considered. Namely, who is doing the touching? The relationship between people determines the degree of freedom we have with regard to virtually all elements of touch behavior. Our most intimate relations have the highest degree of freedom while strangers should take great care with their touch.
    Research by Hall categorized touch as functional, social, friendship, intimate, and sexual. His category scheme is based in largely on our attention to the type of relationships that we have and the sorts of touch that accompany those relationships. Functional touch refers to situations in which we are touched as an object rather than a person. Physicians, dentists, hair stylists, all engage in touch as a part of their occupation. Many of the people touch others in unusual and personal ways. In spite of these seeming violations of location, and type of touch, we tolerate their actions because there is a practical, functional reason for their touch. We trust that their touch is associated exclusively with the performance of some necessary task and we take great offense if that trust is breached. In fact, inappropriate touch by professionals is not only against their respective codes of ethics, many are criminal. Social touch refers to the polite and public ways that people touch each other in greeting or departure. For the U.S. this is best represented by the handshake. This class of touch is culturally agreed upon and well known throughout the society. Friendship touch is the sort of touch that is considered acceptable between people with more than a casual relationship. It is based on the assumption that there is positive affect and good will between the interactants and that their relationship has developed socially and emotionally. Intimate touch is reserved for only the closest relationships so that there are only a handful of people with whom we exchange this type of touch. Typically it is used to express warmth, affection, love, caring and other strong emotions. Although they are most often positive emotions, we may also feel more able to express negative emotions this way as well. Finally, sexual touch, although most often associated with intimacy, isn’t always. Strictly speaking, the satisfaction of sexual desires and intimacy may or may not be related to each other.
    The final issue to be considered in the evaluation of touch is the context in which the touch occurs. Intimate touch is appropriate between intimates but not under all circumstances. Similarly, functional touch is appropriate between physicians and patients but only within the confines of a medical situation. Glandular palpation in a restaurant is generally not acceptable. And while it may be okay for teammates to pat each others’ rumps after a good play, the same behavior, between the same people, at a post game celebration might evoke a less accepting response.
    In summary, the interpretation and execution of touch as a mode of communication involves knowledge of socially acceptable places to touch, qualities of touch, relational status, and contextual sensitivity. It is little wonder that touch is ambiguous in spite of its strong impact. It should come as not surprise that these subtleties are usually lost on children. In terms of all of the aforementioned dimensions of touch, children routinely violate social norms. They touch others in the wrong places, at the wrong times, and in the wrong manner. However, embarrassing these mistakes may be, we tend to allow for the fact that they simply lack the cognitive ability to attend to all of the complex issues surrounding the use of touch. It is also important to consider that for the earliest stages of human development, touch is a primary means of sensory stimuli. Children touch things to learn about them. Very young children are not yet as visually biased as adults. Touch is still a primary sensory channel and they use it extensively. We spend a good deal of time reminding them to keep their hands to themselves, but to little effect. It is not until the age of ten to twelve that they understand the issues and rules and reflect on their own behavior in light of them.

    Face and Eye. Although facial expression and eye behavior, also known as occulesics, are often treated separately, they are very difficult to separate. After all, given anatomy it’s next to impossible to consider a face without considering the eyes as well. This section will begin by treating the face as a whole, particularly its role in the expression of emotion. Later, the quasi-unique functions of the eyes will be covered.
    The primary communicative function of the face is to convey emotion. It is also one of the only channels of nonverbal communication that is pan-cultural. That is, the most basic facial expressions are found the world over and at most every stage of life. If you were to jump out from behind the Great Wall of China and surprise one of the locals, he or she will have the same facial expression as the New Yorker you surprised on the Brooklyn Bridge. The eyes open wide, brow goes up, head snaps back, and the jaw drops open. People the world over smile, laugh, cry, show disgust, etc., in the same basic ways. What’s more, the same is true over most of the life span. Children and the elderly alike, express their emotions facially in the same manner. However, while it may seem as though we’ve hit upon an elusive common ground for communication, the issue is much more complicated than it might initially seem. Beyond the most basic emotions represented by the SADFISH acronym (sadness, anger, disgust, fear, interest, surprise, and happiness), there is a great deal of variation when we look at the display rules that govern the expression of emotions.
    We are not always free to show the emotions we feel when we feel them. Our culture places limits on the types and the intensity of the emotions we are able to display publicly. For example, in U.S. culture it is inappropriate to weep in public in all but the most extreme circumstances. Even at the funeral of a loved one, where public grief is expected, there is still the expectation (at least in Caucasian circles) that emotional displays will be muted or subdued rather than expressing the sort of all-consuming sadness that we may actually feel. It other cultures it would be bad form not to show very strong signs of grief at a funeral lest others might infer that the death was not important. In other situations, we are expected to substitute our true emotions for more socially acceptable ones. Its always interesting to watch televised award shows like the Oscars. It is common practice to place all of the nominees on split screens so that the reactions of the winners and losers alike can be seen. While we expect to see a good deal of elation on the part of the winners, it is also expected that the losers will be good sports, smiling and clapping for the winners. It was all the more interesting in 1998 when Samuel L. Jackson was seen to clearly mouth the word “shit” after the best actor award went to Tom Hanks. On still other occasions we are expected to maintain a neutral mien. For example, when we’re dressed-down by our boss, we might like to express anger and frustration, yet protocol demands that we assume a neutral expression indicative of attentive listening and emotional composure.
    While these display rules are known by most adults, like other aspects of nonverbal communication children are not well versed in their application. Young children in particular tend to be emotionally transparent. What they feel is what they express in large part because they have difficulty controlling their emotions and more importantly, don’t see the need to. In a sense, the need to control emotions is an artificial and arbitrary notion. As such, it isn’t a natural part of development but a learned part. Once again, in order to use display rules correctly, children have to attend to a wide variety of subtle cues from other people and from the context. Although they improve from the age of three on, they do not become accomplished until the age of ten to twelve. Adolescence however, adds further dimensions to emotionality with the emergence of sexuality and further cognitive development. Additional information on this part of development will provided in Chapters 8 and 9.
    Not only do children show some difficulty encoding facial information in appropriate ways, they also lack expertise in terms of decoding it as well. This is further complicated by the great deal of sophistication that adults demonstrate in terms of their use of display rules. In addition, adults use a wide range of micromomentary facial expressions along with affect blends and partials. Micromomentary expressions are incredibly brief but highly meaningful facial behaviors. Rolling ones eyes at someone takes only the briefest amount of time but speaks volumes in terms of your opinion of the person and/or what they are saying. We also use them during ongoing discourse to indicate exaggeration or irony. They are easy to miss for those who are aware of their use. For those less skilled, they may not be seen as important. Affect blends are combinations of emotions that appear in facial expressions. For example, if struck along side the head with a wet mackerel, you might blend the emotions of surprise, fear, and disgust. Such blends of emotion are that much more difficult to decode than simple SADFISH emotions since fear may appear in the eyes, while disgust might show in both the eyes and the lower face. Partials are often the result of our attempts to mask or substitute emotions. We may succeed in controlling the lower part of our face, but fail to control the emotions expressed in the eyes. These mixed messages are difficult enough for adults to decipher. Children once again have difficulty.
    It’s interesting to observe the reactions of adults when they interact with children. It is almost as if the adults understand the limited decoding abilities of children. Adults can be seen to exaggerate their facial expressions. When they smile, they smile in a very obvious way, the eyes open wide and brighten and the smile is much larger than what is called for in adult conversation, subtlety is forgotten. Similarly, when adults wish to convey gravity, they demonstrate the same sorts of overdone facial cues. The brows furl into a scowl and the eyes darken, the mouth tightens, and so forth. In both cases, vocalizations are accompanied by exaggerated happy and sad vocal qualities (another channel for emotional transmission). In any case, adults try to make their emotional states clear and obvious by simplifying their facial expressions and making them obvious by over-performing them. What’s even more amazing is that this is done almost universally, without any sort of training. Adults seem to quickly respond to the fact that young children have limited decoding abilities when it comes to nonverbal communication.
    There are several explanations for why children have a difficult time with facial expressions and emotions. One argument is that they simply lack experience in both encoding and decoding nonverbal cues. This is based on the belief that nonverbal communication is learned. While this is certainly part of the issue, it is mediated by another factor. While children are among the most complex and exotic creatures, they may simply lack the cognitive development needed to process the myriad cues that they are faced with. Their view of human emotion is likely situated in a relatively simple set of schemata. The term schema is used to describe the categories that people use to classify their experiences. They can range from very simple to very complex. For example, most people have a way of classifying four wheeled, self-propelled vehicles—a car or automobile. Yet, we have many additional ways of thinking about them. We can classify them as sedans, coupes, convertibles, station wagons, minivans, hoopdies, 6-4’s, and a multitude of others. These represent our schemata for the object. We do the same sort of thing with activities and people. Adults usually have comparatively more complex and elaborate schema systems than children. They are far more sophisticated in the ways they classify the world around them. Adults tend to have gradations of friendship relationships so that they may have a large number of acquaintances, a few friends, fewer good friends, and only a single best friend. Children, on the other hand, may have a single schema for non-familial relationships. As a result, everyone who is not family is their friend equally. The distinctions between, friends, acquaintances, and best friends are unnecessary in their view. It is not until later, when they have had more experiences with social relationships that they see the need for more elaborate labels and types of relationships. The same can be said for their schema for emotions. While adults have elaborate schema for describing emotional states in themselves and others, children tend to have fewer, simpler schemata for them. Adults distinguish between depression, melancholy, the blahs, disgruntlement, and apathy, children classify all of these states as simply sadness. It is not until, they have more experience with emotions and gain the cognitive elaborations necessary to make the distinctions, that they are able to encode or decode these emotions into their behavior. At the same time, it is important to remember that most displays of emotion occur at a very low level of awareness of the part of senders and receivers.
    Eye behavior, also known as occulesics, is difficult to separate from the face as a whole. Nonetheless, there are a number of significant eye behaviors that warrant attention. Perhaps the most significant way in which humans use their eyes is in conversational turn-taking. It is the opening move in most conversations. Like touch, making eye contact with another person produces a high degree of activation. People in a room covertly look at the other people in the room. Yet no one wants to get caught because then we have to acknowledge the other person and account for our eye contact. Complete strangers speak to each other in the most banal manner simply because one of them looked for “too long” at the other while they were walking down the street. They may never see each other again, but some sort of greeting is required once we have held the gaze of another person for a protracted period. What is a protracted amount of time? It is almost certainly measured in fractions of seconds.
    Turn yielding, turn requesting, turn maintaining, and turn denying are managed with the body but they are primarily managed with the eyes. It is partially through the subtle use of the eyes that conversations in the U.S. are made to go smoothly for the participants. We tend to look more when we listen than when we speak. As such, we can maintain our turn at talk by avoiding the eye contact of others. When we’re ready to yield the floor, we re-engage eye contact. When listening, we might maintain eye contact with the other person to deny a turn at talk and encourage them to continue speaking.
    One of the most potentially disturbing aspects of eye behavior is staring. While it might seem a simple matter to define staring, it is actually very difficult to distinguish between staring, gazing, or say, leering. Much of it is relational and contextual as well as behavioral. What is virtually axiomatic is that extended eye contact produces arousal in humans. Whether an individual is gazing or staring at another person, they will almost certainly produce a strong response in the target. Mutual gaze over a candle lit dinner is substantively different than a stare-down in a bar, but the fact that both produce strong emotions in the participants is hard to deny. One type of eye contact may produce violence while the other…well it doesn’t produce violence anyway.
    It is important to remember that humans’ sensory preferences are heavily weighted in favor of visual and auditory stimuli. As a result, once children reach the age of three or four, they rely more heavily on their eyes to explore the world around them. Their first and natural impulse when they see something that grabs their attention is to look at it--even if it’s the hairy mole on a stranger’s chin. Children stare at the things that interest them and the fact that staring is an antisocial behavior for adults doesn’t count for much. Parents find themselves continuous telling their children not to stare at other people and children generally don’t understand why. If it’s different or unusual or interesting why not look at it? “Because its impolite and rude.” The subtext is also that it’s dangerous. Intense staring in most animals is viewed as aggressive behavior and while children are rarely at hazard from others as a result of their eye behavior, they will be as young adults.

    Vocalics. As was alluded to above, the attributes of the voice are a second channel through which emotions are conveyed. Vocalics, also known as paralanguage or paralinguistics, can be thought of in at least two ways. The first deals with the fixed attributes of voice. Is it nasal, breathy, deep and sonorous, thin and weak, loud, soft, etc.? In fact there are probably twenty or more features of the human voice that can be thought of as relevant to vocalics. These features of voice are most often associated with the anatomy of our vocal mechanisms but may also be the result of practiced behaviors. This may be particularly true of children as they try to imitate others in life or media. In this respect, it is important to be aware of vocal qualities for their ability to point out potential physical problems, consistent vocal quality can be indicative of athsma, chronic sinusitus, allergies, vocal cord polyps, dental malformations, deafness, or a variety of more serious problems. Due to a child’s small stature the vocal anatomy is smaller than that of an adult. This means that children have inherently higher pitched voices than adults overall. During puberty and early adolescence, young adults, particularly males, may experience a period in which their vocal mechanisms undergo rapid growth. This can produce a variety of vocal control problems. Mainly those associated with pitch.
    A second way of thinking about vocalics is in terms of the transient characteristics of voice that allow us to convey or clarify meaning, or convey emotions. Many factors have to be processed in order to perform in a vocally correct manner (given the culture). Here again, we see an alarming degree variation in adult vocalizations. We consider the physical space and adjust our volume accordingly. We take into consideration the topic we are discussing and who might hear, and we adjust accordingly. We look at the relationship we have with our audience (singular or plural) and determine the correct nuances of voice that will accomplish our goals. These are just few of the things we examine as we begin to use our voice. And again, children tend to be simple and transparent in terms of their encoding and decoding. They speak in inappropriate tones in the wrong venues and use the loudest voices to discuss the most private matters. They whisper from across the room and they shout directly into an ear. We are charmed and embarrassed by their vocal antics and it reveals their inability to properly use their voice. Young children playing with each other are often surprised when their parents magically figure out the mischief they’re about to get into. Often as not, their parents have overheard their plans since they don’t attend to their voice as carefully as an older child or adult would.
    For children and adults alike, the most obvious emotion to detect in the voice is anger. Although anger is also seen in facial expression as well, it is often confused with other emotion such as disgust or fear. When the vocal dimension is added, anger becomes clear. This represents something of a contradiction in emotional expression. Why are the majority of emotions expressed facially while anger tends to be most clear through voice? It may be that anger in other people or animals for that matter, represents a hazard to be avoided. The sounds of anger may simply carry further than facial expressions. This would allow others to avoid the hazard without being seen—sort of like a rattlesnake’s rattle.

    Chronemics. Every culture has its notions about time. How we communicate using time is called chronemics. As adults we take our understanding of time for granted without considering how abstract and artificial it really is. Cultures vary widely in terms of their understanding of time. Western Europeans became very regimented and meticulous about chronemics not because they desperately needed to get to appointments on time, but because of their interest in global navigation. In order to know where you are on the planet, you need to know the time. The more accurate the estimate of time, the more accurately a ship’s position can be fixed. In fact, the most important piece of a sailing ship was the chronometer or the ship’s clock and once underway, the most important task was to keep it wound and running. A ship that lost its chronometer was lost at sea. Early timepieces were driven by springs. This presented a problem in that when the spring was freshly wound it ran fast. Toward the middle of the spring’s tension, it might run accurately and toward the time it needed winding, it ran slow. As a result, they were rather inaccurate. What was worse, was that over the course of a lengthy voyage, the inaccuracies grew the longer the ship was at sea. This is what drove much of the Western European obsession with accurate measurement of time. Today, we use atomic clocks that lose only a second or less over the course of a century. The main purpose of these devises is still to fix global position.
    At the other end of the spectrum, Navaho Indians really couldn’t care less what the exact time is. They don’t organize their lives around a precise notion of time. Rather, they do things “at the right time.” This is a comparatively loose notion of time that is difficult for outsiders to understand. Nonetheless, Navahos know when the right time comes to have meeting and everyone understands it in much the same way westerners understand 1:00 pm. When the right time comes, people go to the meeting. Naturally, this has an impact on how they view being early or late as well.
    The abstractness of time makes it a difficult issue for children to grasp. To the dismay of parents on long car trips, a child’s grammatical and semantic understanding of the interrogative “when” precedes their understanding of the answer. “We’ll be there in four hours,” means very little to someone with no comprehension of what four hours refers to. Television, for all its alleged evils, has provided parents with an answer. Although children may not have feel for how long an hour is they do have an understanding of how long their favorite TV shows last. Hence, “We’ll be there in four Barney’s (Teletubbies, Sesame Streets) likely constitutes a more meaningful reply to, “When are we gonna be there?” Schools begin to teach children how to tell time as early as kindergarten with reasonable success. They often limit the instruction to half-hour increments but need to provide both analog and digital formats. In a very short period of time, children accept the way we structure and organize time without a realization as to how contrived it actually is.
    If formal time is abstract, informal time raises the bar by an order of magnitude. Statements such as, in a little while, after a bit, soon, and later, can be found throughout everyday language. Yet they represent a significantly more ambiguous expression of time. They are relative and, like so much of nonverbal communication, require a greater degree of sensitivity to the context, and knowledge of the sender or receiver. If a mother is at the next door neighbor’s house and tells her child on the phone that she will be home in a while, that’s a very different unit of time that if she says the exact same thing when she is out of the country. It also involves consideration of the circumstances under which the statement is made. A conversation might be broken off easily while helping a neighbor re-shingle his house involves a great deal more time. “I’ll be home in a bit,” may mean something different depending on what an individual is currently doing with their time. It also helps to have experience with the sender or receiver. What have they meant by, “in a second” in the past or how have they interpreted it in the past? To complicate matters further, we often use terms from formal time in an informal manner. We say things such as, in a second, or just a minute, or I was standing there for days. We don’t mean these things literally but it takes a good deal of social and linguistic awareness to understand the true meaning of these kinds of utterances. It is not surprising then that children do not inherently know how to use or interpret informal time until they are seven to ten. Once they do begin to understand they make take great pleasure in counting the seconds out loud for us when we say, “in a minute,” one, two, three, four…. Later, time may become a battleground when their friends take center stage in their social lives.

Children and Communication Accommodation Theory

    Howard Giles and others developed a theory of verbal interaction that looked at the way in which people made efforts to match each other’s verbal communication. The theory has recently expanded to include nonverbal communication as well. It was noted in previous research that people often began to mimic each other’s nonverbal behaviors as quickly as ten seconds into a conversation. Communication Accommodation Theory now encompasses the full range of communication behaviors and takes note of two communication tendencies. These tendencies are rooted in the Principle of Homophily. It is nearly axiomatic that we prefer to interaction with people who are similar to ourselves. The first tendency is referred to as Convergence. When we are positively disposed toward another person, we begin to communicate in a way that is similar to the other person. We might, match their rate of speech, gesture as they do, use a similar vocabulary, match their accent, and so forth. These things occur at a low level of awareness for both the sender and receiver. Convergence says to the other person, “See, I’m similar to you. I speak as you speak. I behave as you behave.” It is an effort to take advantage of the Principle of Homophily by making ourselves appear to be similar to the other person and so engender their liking. It also has the benefit of making the other person more comfortable and more willing to talk.
    The second communication tendency that Communication Accommodation Theory takes note of is referred to as Divergence. This too makes use of homophily but works in the opposite direction. When we do not wish to encourage a relationship with another person, we allow our behaviors to diverge from theirs. We speak differently than they do. We gesture differently. Whatever they are doing, we don’t. In short, we are trying to communicate our difference from them. The effect of divergence is the opposite of convergence. It is designed to make others uncomfortable and to discourage them from engaging us in a lengthy conversation.
    To the extent that children have limited nonverbal ability, It is unlikely that they make extensive use of these strategies on either a conscious or unconscious level. Although there is very little empirical research on the subject, given the factors mentioned previously it would seem unlikely. In order to utilize communication accommodation it would require attention to the full range of contextual variables such as time, status differential, and circumstances. It also requires knowledge of emotional states and ability to encode and decode the same. Previous discussions have suggested that these are areas in which young children are lacking in both knowledge and skill. It is therefore unlikely that they demonstrate a great deal of proficiency in the use or interpretation of convergent or divergent behaviors. This almost certainly due to the issues surrounding nonverbal rather than verbal communication. Children very rapidly develop linguistic acumen that shows an awareness of the subtleties and abstractions inherent in language. Yet, the same cannot be said of nonverbal communication. If language is as natural as growing hair, and nonverbal communication must be learned through experience and trial, we should expect that any set of behaviors that require the integration of both would depend on the slowest one to be acquired. While this is highly speculative, we can hypothesize that by the early teens, young adults should begin recognizing and using the principles of Communication Accommodation Theory.

Children and Speech Act Theory

    Searle developed a theory of verbal communication that placed utterances into one of four categories. Utterance Acts are thought to be meaningless articulations such as clearing one’s throat, coughing, sniffing, etc. They contribute nothing meaningful to the ongoing discourse in which they occur. Propositional Acts are designed to label or identify things. “This is a dog. We are walking. Today is Tuesday.” They have no other communicative purpose but to make a simple identifying statement about objects and actions. Illocutionary Acts call for some action. They can be interrogatives, “Where are we? What day is it?” or commands, “Pass the salt. Pick that up.” In any event, they call for verbal or physical action on the part of the target. Perhaps the most interesting speech acts are Perlocutionary Acts. Perlocutionary Acts are utterances that have meanings beyond their literal, grammatical form. For example, if we ask someone, “Do you have the time?” this is grammatically and interrogative that requires a yes or no response. “Do you have the time?” “Yes, I do.” Yet we do not understand it or respond to it in that way. Rather, we recognize this utterance as a request for the time of day. Similarly, if someone asks, “Are you stupid?” they aren’t expecting the yes or no response that the grammar of the question literally asks for. Instead, we interpret the question to mean, “You are stupid.” Our discourse is replete with such statements. When a superior says to a subordinate, “Can you have this assignment done by the end of the week?” Its form is that of a question. And yet, it is really the polite phrasing of a command.
    How do we come to understand these utterance types for what they are? Searle argues that in order to correctly determine the true meanings of what people say, we must figure out what their intentions are. Someone clearing their throat in a room full of talking people may simply be clearing their throat and therefore performing an utterance act. In this case their behavior can rightly be ignored and conversation in the room can continue. However, if they intend to call a meeting to order or take control of the floor, they are performing a perlocutionary act and extraneous conversations should then cease. The behaviors may be identical but the intent behind them is different. In order to classify any utterance properly, we have to determine what the speaker is attempting to do by making the utterance. How then do we determine an individual’s intent? Certainly some of it is the result of conversational convention. It is almost idiomatic in nature such that all speakers of English would know, as a result of common use, that the question, “Do you have the time?” is a request for the time. On the other hand, sometimes we must turn to the context and situation to determine another’s agenda. If a stranger passing us on the street asks us, “Do you have anything in your fridge?” we would likely be unable to figure out the significance of the question. If we’re sitting with a friend watching TV and the friend asks, “Do you have anything in the fridge? We would probably understand this to be a request for food with several levels of understanding needed. First, it says, “I’m hungery,” and then, “Do you have anything I can eat?”
    In either case, experience with the conventions of language and/or the interpretation of contextual cues is required. As with many communication theories, there is precious little research on children. We would expect that children would recognize and be able respond to propositional and illocutionary acts by age three or four. However, perlocutionary acts are likely to take longer to understand, perhaps six or seven and maybe later for acts with multiple levels of understanding. The degree of inference required to determine communication motives is likely to elude younger children yet come with social and conversational experience.

Children and Expectancy Violation Theory

    Judy Burgoon has studied nonverbal communication extensively. She argues that correct nonverbal communication is based on meeting the expectations of others. In most cases, the people around us and society as a whole have beliefs about what the correct modes of behavior should be for a given situation and context. When our behavior is in line with those beliefs, our behavior receives no notice. However, if our behavior deviates from those expectations, our behavior is viewed as aberrant and may be subject to social sanctions. The achievement of nonverbal communication competence then, is to correctly read the context and figure out what the expectations of the people around us are so that we can select and execute those actions. This is no small feat and again requires social knowledge and experience. Experience that most young children do not possess. As was alluded to above, children’s expectancy violations are usually indulged. Unless they are particularly egregious, adults recognize their social inexperience and lack of self awareness to the extent that their conduct is not sanctioned.

Linguistic versus Communication Competence

    A later chapter will deal with communication competence in greater detail. For the moment it is important to distinguish between linguistic competence and communication competence. In general communication competence is a much broader concept. Linguistic competence precedes communication competence. It refers to the acquisition of the syntactic, phonological, and semantic aspects of language use. As we said at the beginning of this chapter, children gain linguistic competence very early in life. By the age of four, they are generally proficient in syntax and semantics. The phonetic aspect of language should be complete by the age of twelve at the very latest. Although we continue to acquire new vocabulary and phraseology as we grow older, the vast majority of what will happen linguistically is a “done deal” by the time we are in our early teens.
    Communication competence is an exceedingly difficult concept to define in a concise manner. It encompasses a broad range of cognitive, affective, and behavioral dispositions. It includes linguistic competence but also includes nonverbal communication, having appropriate emotions toward communication, being able to accurately analyze communication contexts and environments, being able to read the emotional states of others, being able to accurately foresee the possible interpretations of actions, and the possible consequences of carrying them out. It further involves the ability to anticipate the range of sanctions that might result from a given course of communication action. If that weren’t enough, it refers also to the interpretation of the behaviors of others as well. In order to do all these things, we need to be several people at once. That is, when we engage in conversations, we must consider at least six points of view. There is first ourselves: (1.) who we actually are; (2.) who we want others to think we are; and (3.) who we think the other person thinks we are. We also have to consider the other person: (4.) who they think they are; (5.) who they want us to think they are; and (6.) who they actually are. We must also have a sufficient repertoire of behaviors that we are capable of actually performing and that we can draw from.
    While linguistic competence is absolutely an important and essential part of communication competence, communication competence takes many years to achieve and continues to change over course of the lifespan. Each phase of our lives presents us with new possibilities in terms of thinking and feeling about social situations and new ways of behaving in them. The remainder of this book will address the issues surrounding communication and the changeable road to competence. The most important thing to remember about linguistic versus communication competence is that linguistic competence alone does not make someone a communication competent. It is a fallacy to think so. Yet it is a common one. Most people view speech and communication as one in the same. They are not. Most laymen believe that because they can speak, they are competent communicators. They are wrong.

References
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mounton Publishers