section four

This page forms part of the Transcultural Health resource, published in 2004, and is preserved as a historical document for reference purposes only. Some information contained within it may no longer refer to current practice. More information

Any exploration of interpersonal communication involves looking at a variety of levels of interaction. It is therefore important that we are explicit about which level we are analysing, which theoretical sources we are using, and how relevant these are to the situation we are examining.

Four examples of levels of analysis are the following:

Micro: - this level involves the small signals that we give to each other; eye contact and the amount of gaze one gives and receives, eyebrow raises and wry smiles that let you know when someone is joking.
Multiple-channel synchronisation: - the ability we have to combine different elements or channels of communication. The fine-grained meshing of interaction.
Cultural or Intra-cultural: - when communication is taking place with others who are at ease and familiar with a shared normative framework.
Intercultural: - communication between people socialised and enculturated in different ways from each other, who do not necessarily share the same meanings for words, actions, gestures.

In this section we will focus on levels one and two.

Micro level

As we have seen, all communication has multiple activities embedded within it. We are also well able to infer many possibilities of meaning from just the words that are being used. However, different cultures may have different rules dictating behaviour in such situations, in fact when confronted with even a small difference we can feel slightly anxious and a little reactive.

Suppose that the person speaking is slurring their words. It is possible that they are drunk, have just been to the dentist, or perhaps have had some form of stroke. It is also possible that they are sucking on a boiled sweet. The extent to which you are sensitive to all of these possibilities will dictate the kind of response you give.

Needless-to-say, the person who is sensitive to a wide range of possibilities for potential meaning, will have a broader range of categories available to apply to understanding others. Alternatively we might say that increasing our sensitivity, broadens or widens our categories of acceptability with regard to social propriety.

For example, a person speaking to us may have a clipped, nasal, middle-class accent and even sound as if their statement is a command; or they may speak slowly, quietly and reassuringly. They may move their bodies (use kinesics) to be side-on in orientation to you; or move physically closer to you (proxemics) - because of a hearing impairment perhaps. Again, this will influence the nature and quality of your response, and perhaps the way you feel towards this individual. All of these are channels of communication.

We are giving off and receiving information all the time. Communication is a two-way flow of signals.

Channels of communication

Let us begin our analysis of this 'flow' by breaking communication down into two areas: the verbal and the non-verbal. These two flows of communicative information or 'channels' are the means by which we signal our messages to each other.

Verbal Channels

1. Phonemes, morphemes, and grammar:
The phoneme is the most basic unit of speech. It is a basic sound, which tends not to be meaningful in itself but is a component of larger, understandable units of speech called morphemes. Some phonemes are a, b, p, c, ch, ck, h, eh, and the sounds they make when we pronounce them. When we link them together into morphemes they become meaningful, as in 'ch/op', 's/a/ck', 'm/i/ll', 't/oa/d', 'c/a/r/i/b/ou', 'minky' or even 'substantiate'. These are then built into meaningful sentences or utterances. These three elements are the very basic parts from which we construct meaning.

2. Intonation:
Our tone of voice can change the meaning of what we say. Intonation in speech is made up of the patterns of pitch and stress which mark the boundaries between units. Add to this volume, accent and pace, and we already have a very complex meshing of elements crowding into each sentence we speak.

3. Paralinguistics:
Between the endings of words are punctuations in speech - pauses, sighs, coughs, clearings of the throat, uhms, aahs. Vocal punctuation, in fact, fills some pauses and leaves others unfilled.

Non-verbal channel

4. Kinesics:
In addition, one is also continually receiving non-verbal information from the appearance, proximity, eye contact, hairstyle, age, ethnicity, and gender of the other person(s). We are constantly approaching and leaving social situations. We gesture at each other whilst we are in them, adding other layers of meaning to our words. Even the way we label gender is often based on the way a person moves within a culture; it is possible to take on so-called masculine and feminine postures.

A person's body and facial movements, their posture and bearing all tell us much about them that their words alone may deny. The lines in a person's face; smiles; frowns; movements of the eye, the whole dynamic union expresses more than one often dares to acknowledge.

Some individuals begin to move closer to us and we feel repulsed, another makes us smile and hold out our arms. Each channel to which we are attuned gives another layer of meaning. Is he listening? Does she actually care about what I am saying? Is he being earnest? The drooping shoulders of a child may mean that he/she feels unwell, actually feels truly sad, or is trying to pry another hour of television viewing out of a birthday evening.

Intermeshing

Within these two basic channels of communication - the verbal and the non-verbal - lies an array of smaller component channels. Indeed, the communicative process depends very much on a complex intermeshing of incredibly subtle (and not so subtle) gestures, intonations, changes in volume, comings and goings, of which we are all generally aware, but perhaps not entirely 'tuned-into'. So rather than thinking of only two channels of communication, we need to recognise that, potentially, there are many channels of communication involved in the regulation of social interactions.

Notwithstanding the complexity of the channels of communication revealed by Fraser and others, human beings learn and develop a wealth of experience in dealing with the complexities of social interaction. And it is therefore easy to see how very intricate and detailed our working knowledge of communication and interaction already is. After-all, we must all learn to balance the competing demands of roles and identity, in a series of different contexts, juggling words and meanings, making and taking impressions upon and of the social whirl around us. And that is just in terms of the culture/cultures into which we are already socialised. But how do we do this?

The next section of this module examines Michael Argyle's 'social skills model' as a way of demonstrating how our skills in communication are based on our cumulative experience of repetition, feedback, fine tuning and learning which results in our action becoming routine and unconscious.

Exercise 4.1 Reflective activity

Think of a recent occasion at work when someone's verbal communication seemed to be 'at odds' with their non-verbal communication. Note down your answers to the following questions.

What did their verbal communication tell you?
What did their non-verbal communication tell you?
What alternative explanations did you offer yourself for their apparently contradictory behaviour?
How did you respond to them? (Consider both your verbal and non-verbal responses)
Which channel of communication (i.e. verbal or non-verbal) did you find most influenced your response? And why?
On reflection, was that the correct or most effective response? Why?
If confronted with the same (or similar) situation again, would you respond in the same way or differently?
What does this tell you about your own verbal and non-verbal communication?

Exercise 4.2 Group activity

Discuss how, in your community of practice, a colleague might effectively indicate their disagreement with an instruction in such a way that they could not be easily challenged.