Chapter 3: Verbal Communication
SummaryIn this module, we defined verbal communication as an agreed-upon and rule-governed system of symbols used to share meaning. These symbols are arbitrary, ambiguous, and abstract. The rules that dictate our use and understanding of symbols include phonology, semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics. As you recall there are distinct differences between written and spoken forms of verbal communication in terms of levels of formality, synchronicity, recording, and privacy. Yet, new technologies are beginning to blur some of these differences. Finally, verbal communication is central to our identity as humans and it allows us to define reality, organize ideas and experiences into categories, help us think, and shape our attitudes about the world.
- What kinds of definitions do you have for yourself? What do you think would happen if you changed some of your self-definitions?
- How do advances in technology impact verbal communication? What are some examples?
- How does popular culture impact our verbal communication? What are some examples?
- When you use text messages or email, are you formal or informal?
- To what extent do you believe that verbal communication drives thought, or vice versa?
- connotative meaning
- denotative meaning
- verbal communication
Blumer, H. (1961). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62-65.
CBS NEWS. (2000, April 25). Birth of a language. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/birth-of-a-language/
Collins, K. (2015). Sexting, vaping, and photobombing reach Oxford English Dictionary. In WIRED. Retrieved from http://www.wired.co.uk/article/sexting-vaping-photobombing-new-words-oxford-english-dictionary
Du Bois, J. W. (2010, February 2). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359-410.
Duck, S. (1994). Maintenance as a shared meaning system. Communication and Relational Maintenance. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Hussein, B. A. (2012). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis today. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2, 642-646.
Lucy, J. (2010). Through the window of language: Assessing the influence of language diversity on thought. THEORIA : An International Journal for Theory, 20, 299-309.
Maxwell, A. (2004). Magyarization, language planning, and Whorf: The word as a case study in linguistic relativism. Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and InterlanguageCommunication,23(4), 319-37.
Nelson, K., & Shaw, L.K. (2002). Developing a socially shared symbolic system. Language, Literacy, and Cognitive Development: The Development and Consequences of Symbolic Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ogden, C. K., Richards, I. A.. (1923). The “meaning of meaning” a study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. NY: Harcourt Brace.
Perlovsky, L. (2009). Language and emotions: Emotional Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis. Neural Networks,22(5), 518-526.
Sapir, E. (1933). Communication. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. NY: Macmillan.
Sapir, E. (1958). Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Simpson, B. (2011). Examination of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis through the perspective of the comparison and contrast of the Chinese and Maya languages. UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Sindoni, M. G. (2014). Through the looking glass: A social semiotic and linguistic perspective on the study of video chats. Text & Talk, 34, 325-347.
Whorf, B. L. & Carroll, J.B. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings. Cambridge, MA: Technology of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
All images not credited otherwise were created by H. Rayl and are available under the CC-BY 4.0 license.