nonverbal communication

As an area of study, nonverbal communication appears to labor under two problems of definition. The “nonverbal” label defines the area negatively: that communication which occurs without words. The other commonly applied label, “body language,” defines the area by analogy to language, but again in a kind of neg­ ative analogy to language—language enacted by the body rather than the voice, language typically without a grammar or vocabulary. While both definitions suffer limitations, most people do understand that communi­ cation study and research encompasses a very wide scope of human behavior. The scope of the subject mat­ ter also expands with a consideration of the disciplines that attend to it. Researchers have approached nonver­ bal communication from several disciplinary perspec­ tives, with anthropology, psychology, and communica­ tion representing the most active.

In the introduction to their handbook oriented to the psychological approaches, Matsumoto, Hwang, and Frank (2016a), opt for the widest definition, noting that researchers “embrac[e] the idea that NVC [nonverbal communication] encompasses almost all of human communication except the spoken or written word . . . . In this handbook, we define NVC as the transfer and exchange of messages in any and all modalities that do not involve words“ (p. xix).

While this review will also broadly define the nonverbal area, it will not address studies of sign lan­ guage, a specialized kind of nonverbal expression and one intended to function as a language with defined grammar and vocabulary.

A. Background and overview Hinshelwood (2015) presents a history of early

psychological work in nonverbal communication, recounting Freud’s explorations of unconscious trans­ fer of meaning and his correspondence about it with Jung and Ferenczi. This and other observations led to the acceptance of both a cognitive (and conscious) communication system and something else, what today

many refer to as nonverbal communication (p. 129). Hinshelwood then describes the development of study of animal “calls and gestures” (p. 130) as a communi­ cation system, though a non­linguistic one. He further describes it: “This is a second system, characterized by reference, action, and emotional arousal. It exists in parallel to our cognitive linguistic system” (p. 131), one that we share with animals.

Some years before Freud, Charles Darwin suggest­ ed an animal origin for nonverbal actions—especially emotional expression—something that eventually evolves into more sophisticated human communication (Jabr, 2010). Frank and Shaw (2016) specifically review nonverbal communication in the light of evolution, ask­ ing how human evolution might account for various aspects of nonverbal communication. They identify non­ verbal communication as signs, signals, and symbols; they include both the voluntary and involuntary quality of these actions. For example, they suggest that some nonverbal communication may simply signal fear, but that this, in turn, could be used to pass a message to other members of a group and thus function as danger signals (p. 55). Over time these evolved into more complex sig­ nifications. The evolutionary approach usually merits discussion in most introductory works.

As indicated in these psychological and anthropo­ logical approaches, nonverbal communication study reflects mixed origins. Manusov (2016) offers an overview of the “heritages” that led to current studies: linguistic, sociological, cultural, ethnological and psy­ chological. These key disciplines each take a slightly different approach.

The 1950s and 1960s saw the beginnings of a more systematic exploration of nonverbal behaviors with researchers like Hall (1959, 1966) exploring anthropological or cultural differences in the use of space (proxemics); Birdwhistell (1955, 1970) examin­ ing gestures; Ekman (1964, 1965) attending to facial expression; and Argyle and his colleagues (1965, 1968) studying gaze (Patterson, 2014, p. 172). Patterson notes

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 3

Nonverbal Communication

Paul A. Soukup, S.J. [email protected]

1. Introduction

that these studies tended to focus only on a single chan­ nel of communication, partly due to the difficulty of measurement (p. 173). This period also saw the emer­ gence of some theories of nonverbal communication: the equilibrium theory of nonverbal intimacy (Argyle & Dean, 1965) and various affect­based theories (Patterson, 2014, p. 173). Beginning in the 1970s com­ munication scholars like Knapp (1978) attempted to bring these approaches together under the overarching rubric of communication.

Research in the latter part of the 20th century focused more on nonverbal behavior as “automatic processes” through which people manage everyday life (Patterson, 2014, p. 175). In his 2014 review, Patterson asks whether researchers have done too much work on the individual parts or channels of nonverbal behavior and not enough on the larger view:

How might we pursue important research ques­ tions and, at the same time, employ methods and measures that maximize the ecological validity of our results? I suggest that we frame nonverbal communication as a kind of adaptive system, serving social goals and constrained by several determinant factors (Patterson, 2011). Furthermore, in this system, the importance of both interaction settings and patterns of behavior (not isolated components) should be recognized. Finally, understanding nonverbal communication in interactions requires attention to the simultane­ ity of sending and receiving processes. (p. 176)

To this end, Patterson proposes four characteristics for future research: “an emphasis on the functions of non­ verbal communication”; a consideration of the antecedent factors of nonverbal communication, such as “biology, culture, gender, and personality”; an understanding of the settings in which the communica­ tion occurs; and a “focus on patterns of behavior” (2014, pp. 176–177).

Work on the various functions of nonverbal com­ munication has begun. Matsumoto, Hwang, and Frank (2016a), suggest these four functions for nonverbal behavior:

First, NVC can define communication by pro­ viding the backdrop for communication and by explaining or characterizing the context or set­ ting within which people will interact and behave . . . Second, NVC can comment on ver­ bal communication—that is, the actual words used—because NVC can occur when people are also talking. . . .Third, NVC can regulate our interaction episodes. Much of our conversations

are regulated by nonverbal cues so subtle that the average person does not notice them. Nodding, smiling, looking concerned or empa­ thetic are all NVBs that occurred during conver­ sations and signal the talker that the listener is listening and tracking the conversation. . . . Finally, NVC can be the message itself because it can occur without any words being spoken simultaneously. (p. xxi).

Parts of this approach appears in many studies, espe­ cially those examining the channels or contexts of non­ verbal behavior, since the behaviors themselves can fulfill several functions.

More specialized works focus on nonverbal com­ munication as a subset of pragmatics, that is, the study of language in use. Linguists often see nonverbal behaviors as qualifiers of the verbal; the pragmatics include tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, and so on. Wharton (2009) places such pragmatics in theo­ retical context and then suggests principles for their study, a taxonomy of pragmatic nonverbal behavior, and the codes and actions that allow people to under­ stand one another.

B. Method and plan This review presents work published on nonver­

bal communication between 2007 and 2018, examining peer reviewed journal publications, but also key books. Searches of the EBSCO Communication Source data­ base of over 600 journals, of library catalogues, and of Google Scholar yielded about 500 qualifying entries.

This review will first introduce some of the mate­ rials available for studying nonverbal communication, then present a short section on more theoretical writing about it. The next section will present research on non­ verbal behaviors sorted by channel—face and eyes, gestures, touch, paralinguistics, and body language. Section 5 reviews studies sorted by the contexts in which researchers have examined nonverbal communi­ cation. The next section will review some of the func­ tions under which scholars have studied nonverbal communication: expressing emotion, deception and detecting deception, and language study. The last major section will review studies that propose or explain the various research methods scholars use.

While these groups do reflect the contents of the various studies, one should note that many of the studies could well fit into more than one group: a study of facial expression, for example, could also examine the functions of those expressions. However, to make this review more concise, individual studies

4 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

typically appear only once, though any decision about listing studies does manifest an inherent problem with the area.

Despite the number of studies, even a review of this length cannot aim to exhaust this important and growing area of communication research.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 5

2. Sources

In addition to the the journal articles, wich form the primary sources of data for this review, a number or scholars present summarires of work in accessible form in handbooks, overviews, textbooks, websites, and data depositories.

A. Handbooks and overviews Many handbooks of communication or psychol­

ogy include a section on nonverbal communication. Most of these chapters serve as reviews of relevant lit­ erature, summarizing key findings for others interest­ ed in the topics of the particular handbooks. For exam­ ple, Horowitz and Strack’s (2011) handbook on inter­ personal psychology features a chapter on “the role of nonverbal communication and interpersonal relations“ (Gifford, 2011). This chapter both describes and defines nonverbal behavior, offering a brief history of the studies of nonverbal behavior; some review of the theoretical approaches (particularly evolutionary bases for nonverbal behavior); a summary of the social psychological theories for nonverbal communi­ cation; several research methods, including decoding messages; and areas of complexity and influences on nonverbal communication. The latter include vari­ ables such as gender, culture, decoding ability, and decodability. The overview sketches various contexts for nonverbal communication, particularly relation­ ships, which introduces areas of study such as power and dominance, deception, and computer mediated communication. Finally Gifford introduces material on using nonverbal behavior in interpersonal areas. His review of relevant theories includes the historical move from one channel studies to more complex examples such as interaction adaption theory as well as different functional perspectives and finally parallel processing theories.

Westland (2015) offers a more general overview to “verbal and nonverbal communication in psy­ chotherapy,” presenting some of the research on the neurological foundations for nonverbal communica­ tion, then the research in child development dealing

with nonverbal areas, and finally research on the com­ plementarity of verbal and nonverbal communication. Other chapters cover material on nonverbal communi­ cation’s role in manifesting emotions and on how ther­ apists should attend to bodily signals. The NATO Advanced Study Institute on the Fundamentals of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication (Esposito, 2007) offers a fairly comprehensive introduction in the context of exploring biometric identification, pre­ senting papers in the proceedings of a conference on that theme.

Hook, Franks, and Bauer (2011) provide multi­ ple perspectives on social psychology’s role in com­ munication, addressing nonverbal communication in several chapters. De­Graft Aikins (2011) offers an introduction to the ways nonverbal communication figures in what she calls “multicultural life.” Some very helpful charts map out different kinds of non­ verbal behavior against key areas of influence. These include physical appearance, kinesics (movement), face and eye behavior, paralinguistics, proxemics (personal distances or space), and haptics (touch) mapped against cultural, gender, and personality and individual differences. Each cell of the chart gives a brief summary of key understandings. Highlighting cultural differences and every­day interaction, de­ Graft Aikins walks the reader through the multi level dimensions of nonverbal behavior in these various settings. In their chapter on evolution and communi­ cation, Franks and Dhesi (2011) include theories of the development of communication from nonverbal to verbal expression. A related book, but one directly addressing the social psychology of nonverbal communication comes from Kostić and Chadee (2015). Its chapters include material on the neurology and neuroscience of nonverbal expression and inter­ pretation; on vocalics and facial expression; and on nonverbal communication connected with romantic relationships, the expression of emotion, political campaigns, workplace interactions, psychology, and online settings.

Nelson and Brown (2012), whose handbook address­ es gender issues in communication, include material from studies of gender differences in nonverbal behavior; the findings, they argue, show how these behaviors both sup­ port gender roles and limit people in those roles.

B. Textbooks Many publishers offer textbooks for college

courses on nonverbal communication. These include new editions of the classic work by Mehrabian (1972/2017) as well as updated texts by well­known scholars: Burgoon, Guerrero, and Floyd (2010/2016), DeVito (2013), Moore, Hickson, and Stacks (2013), Matsumoto, Frank, and Hwang (2013), and Ivy and Wahl (2014). In addition some reprints of older texts are still available, such as those by Pease and Pease (2004) or Late and Eaves (2007).

C. Journals Given the scope of work on nonverbal communi­

cation, a number of specialized journals have become the locus for publishing much research: The Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Gesture, and Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment. In addition, more general communication studies journals often publish relevant work: Human Communication Research, Communication Studies, Speech Communication, and the Journal of Linguistic Anthropology.

D. Online resources In addition to the handbooks and textbooks, a

number of online resources exist, but of varying detail and quality, with general sites (Blatner, 2009; Givens, 2016a) or occupationally specific ones (Nurse Jon, n.d.)

6 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

3. Theory

Nonverbal behaviors have given rise to a fairly substantial body of theory, ranging from the evolution­ ary descriptions of the origins or purpose of the pro­ duction and interpretation of these kinds of human activities to works dealing with larger questions of embodiedness as the condition of human life. A two­ volume collection, Body, Language, and Mind (Ziemke, Zlatev, & Frank, 2007; Frank, Dirven, Ziemke, & Bernardez, 2008) offers a comprehensive set of essays addressing questions of embodiment or “the bodily basis of phenomena such as meaning, mind, cognition, and language.” While not exclusively about nonverbal communication, the material does sit­ uate it in terms of linguistics, semiotics, cognition, phi­ losophy, and communication (see Ziem, 2011, for a review of both volumes). A more specifically language oriented theoretical approach comes from de Ruiter (2007), who compares understanding of nonverbal behavior based on three assumptions:

These assumptions have profound consequences for theories about the representations and pro­ cessing involved in gesture and speech produc­ tion. I associate these assumptions with three simplified processing architectures. In the Window Architecture, gesture provides us with a “window into the mind.” In the Language Architecture, properties of language have an influence on gesture. In the Postcard

Architecture, gesture and speech are planned by a single process to become one multimodal mes­ sage. . . . The Language Architecture and the Postcard Architecture differ from the Window Architecture in that they both incorporate a cen­ tral component which plans gesture and speech together, however they differ from each other in the way they align gesture and speech. (p. 21)

Pollio, Finn, and Custer (2016) take phenomenologi­ cal philosophy as their starting point for an empirical investigation into the meaning the body as it interacts with language systems. Mondada (2016) also consid­ ers the body, but from the starting point of social interaction. “Putting the body at the center of atten­ tion . . . repositions language as one among other modalities, and invites us to consider the involvement of entire bodies in social interaction, overcoming a logo­centric vision of communication, as well as a visuo­centric vision of embodiment” (p 336).

Irvine (2016) challenges “the gesture­first hypotheses about the evolution of language” (p. 221) by raising questions about key assumptions about the pre­conditions of language that depend on symbol use in early hominids. Irvine argues that the vocal channel offers greater possibility than the non­ verbal one. For more detail on the historical develop­ ment of theoretical approaches to nonverbal study, see Keating (2016) who provides a fairly detailed account of this area.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 7

4. Channels

“Channels” refers to places or behaviors people observe as sources of meaning. These include (follow­ ing the order of Matsumoto, Hwang, & Frank, 2016a) the environment (Patterson & Quadflieg, 2016) from which people draw cues for behavior or proper acting; personal appearance (Re & Rule, 2016); facial expres­ sions (Hwang & Matsumoto, 2016); voice and vocal characteristics (Scott & McGettigan, 2016); gesture (Cartmill & Goldin­Meadow, 2016); gaze (Adams & Nelson, 2016); smell (Haviland­Jones, Wilson, & Freybert, 2016); and posture and gait (Matsumo, Hwang, & Frank, 2016b). The more recent journal publications include work on face and eye behavior, gesture, touch, paralinguistics, and body.

A. Face and eyes The human face provides an extraordinary

amount of information, which people use for every­ thing from managing interactions to expressing emo­ tions and ideas. People signal liking by what they look at (Schotter, Berry, McKenzie, & Rayner, 2010 ); peo­ ple signal dominance and submission by eye gaze (Tang & Schmeichel, 2015); people make judgments of the attractiveness of others based on gaze direction (Ewing, Rhodes, & Pellicano, 2010), with direct eye contact leading to greater liking; people react more strongly to direct eye contact, showing more embar­ rassment, for example (Drummond & Bailey, 2013); and, although people think that they cannot detect deception because “liars avoid eye contact,” “meta­ analyses of deception literature have shown a non­sig­ nificant relationship between gaze and deception” (Mann, Vrij, Leal, Granhag, Warmelink, & Forrester, 2012, p. 205). Eye behavior appears so important and so central to human interaction and serves so many multiple essential functions that robotic researchers use nonverbal studies to assist in designing robot eyes that will provide eye contact and direct joint attention in a naturalistic manner (Onuki, Ishinoda, Tsuburaya, Miyata, Kobayashi, & Kuno, 2013; Mohammad & Nishida, 2013). Similar work by Foster and Oberlander (2007) led them to develop “a system that uses corpus­ based selection strategies to specify the head and eye­ brow motion of an animated talking head” (p. 305).

The eyebrows also play a large role in human sig­ naling, particularly in regulating conversation. Flecha­ García (2010) noted that “eyebrow raises occurred more frequently at the start of high­level discourse seg­ ments than anywhere else in the dialogue, and more frequently in instructions than in requests for or acknowledgments of information. Interestingly, con­ trary to the hypothesis queries did not have more rais­ es than any other type of utterance. Additionally, as predicted, eyebrow raises seemed to be aligned with pitch accents” (p. 542).

Other facial expression research has established that people mimic the expressions of others, with com­ plementary smiles occurring more quickly (Riehle, Kempkensteffen, & Lincoln, 2017). Ruiz­Soler and Beltran (2012) conclude that people typically follow a hierarchy in decoding facial expression, with the eyes and mouth appearing more important than the nose and chin. People find it easier to decode expression in dynamic interactions than in a single frame, suggesting that change plays a key role in interpreting others’ facial expressions (Bould & Morris, 2008), results con­ firmed by Schmidt, Bhattacharya, and Denlinger’s (2009) work on smiles and Sato and Yoshikawa’s (2007) studies of emotional arousal. Swerts and Krahmer (2008) also found that people more quickly decode expressions of prominence accompanied by verbal utterances. Similarly, Ruusuvuori and Peräkylä (2009) examine facial expression and verbal expres­ sion in storytelling, concluding “that facial expression can stretch the temporal boundaries of an action” and thus build up shared understanding (p. 377).

People make use of facial expression to draw conclusions about the emotions of others, with evi­ dence showing that they automatically process emo­ tions and have trouble when contradictory verbal cues appear (Preston & Stansfield, 2008). Not surprisingly, some people have the ability to create a Duchenne smile (one that involves both mouth and eyes), a help in persuading others (Gunnery & Hall, 2014). People can reliably understand six “universal expressions of emotion (happiness, sadness, fear, disgust, anger, and surprise)” based on facial expression, even at different distances (Smith & Schyns, 2009, p. 1202), and they

use a combination of decoding strategies based on cat­ egories and dimensions (Mendolia, 2007) or structures and variants (Why & Huang, 2010) to accomplish this. Even in crowded spaces, like subway cars, humans retain this ability, though they adjust the use of percep­ tual cues due to enforced proximity (Aranguren & Tonnelat, 2014). People also judge the likeliness of aggressive behavior based on face width to height ratios, an implicit judgment that Carré, McCormick, and Mondloch (2009) attribute to evolutionary forces.

However, some factors do affect people’s abilities to interpret facial expressions or create bias in the inter­ pretation: mood (Forgas & East, 2008), power (Civile & Obhi, 2016), culture (Krys, Vauclair, Capaldi, Lun, Bond, Domínguez­Espinosa, Torres, Lipp, Manicam, Xing, Antalíková . . ., 2016; Hess, Blaison, & Kafetsios, 2016), and intergroup bias (Becker, Neel, & Anderson, 2010).

Finally, researchers have experimented with peo­ ple’s abilities to encode emotion through facial expres­ sion. Visser, Krahmer, and Swerts (2014) studied the display of surprise in children and adults, finding that age, social context, and the cause of the surprise mod­ erated the expressions. Namba, Kagamihara, Miyatani, & Nakao (2017) examined the expression of sadness, noting studies have shown “that drooping of the lip corners, raising of the chin, and oblique eyebrow movements (a combination of inner brow raising and brow lowering) express sadness,” but that controlled studies have not necessarily connected people’s experi­ encing sadness to these clues. Their study indicates that the same facial actions can also indicate other emo­ tions, including fear, anger, or disgust (p. 203). Other studies indicate no differences in the spontaneous expression of emotion between healthy and mentally ill participants (Peham, Bock, Schiestl, Huber, Zimmermann, Kratzer, Dahlbender, Biebl, & Benecke, 2015). However, “accurate recognition of facial expressions of negative emotions (anger, contempt, disgust, fear, and sadness) predicted less conflict engaging behaviors during conflict with . . . romantic partners,” something that leads to greater relational sat­ isfaction (Yoo & Noyes, 2016, p. 1).

B. Gestures Gesture seems almost synonymous with human

communication, inseparable from speech. As such it has attracted a great deal of study. In fact, for centuries scholars have debated a “gesture theory of language.” Wilcox (2009) reviews the contribution of William C. Stokoe to this thinking, describing his “semantic phonol­ ogy.” Armstrong (2008) situates the history more broad­

ly, identifying “common themes running through gestur­ al theories of the origin of language such that iconic vis­ ible gesture is more natural than speech as a communi­ cation device that solves the problem of accounting for the origin of arbitrary signs”; at the same time he acknowledges a lack of fossil evidence but counters by noting that “the first linguistic units are representations of objects and events in the world” (p. 289). Irvine (2016) challenges this view, “by identifying constraints on the emergence of symbol use.” She notes that

Current debates focus on a range of pre­condi­ tions for the emergence of language, including co­ operation and related mentalizing capacities, imi­ tation and tool use, episodic memory, and vocal physiology, but little specifically on the ability to learn and understand symbols. [She argues] that such a focus raises new questions about the plau­ sibility of gesture­first hypotheses, and so about the evolution of language in general. . . . [and] that existing uses of gesture in hominid communities may have prohibited the emergence of symbol use, rather than “bootstrapped” symbolic capaci­ ties as is usually assumed, and that the vocal channel offers other advantages in both learning and using language. (p. 221)

Nuessel (2007) and Wilcox (2012) offer critiques of the various positions in the gesture and language debates. By necessity, the gesture theory of language approach­ es take a diachronic stance in regard to gestures. Other diachronic approaches include different variables. In a festschrift Seyfeddinipur and Gullberg (2014) include essays dealing with gaze and gesture, with the latter encompassing cultural and situational approaches that take a generally diachronic view.

As noted earlier, the handbook edited by Matsumoto, Hwang, and Frank (2016a) takes the position that nonverbal behavior in general—and gestures in particular—can function either to moder­ ate other communication or to stand alone as com­ munication messages. Most of the studies of gesture in this line tend to take a synchronic approach. Several other literature reviews illustrate this. Willems and Hagoort (2007) review the neuroscience literature on co­speech gestures to explore how ges­ ture links to other communication channels. Wagner, Malisz, & Kopp (2014) focus their review on current understanding of “manual and head gesture form and function, of the principle functional interactions between gesture and speech aiding communication, transporting meaning, and producing speech. Furthermore, we present an overview of research on

8 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

temporal speech­gesture synchrony, including the special role of prosody in speech­gesture alignment” (p. 209). They also include material on research methods and tools utilized in gesture analysis. Kipp, Neff, & Albrecht (2007) offer a detailed look at an “annotation scheme for conversational gestures” while Kong, Law, Kwan, Lai, & Lam (2015) report on a coding system that allows annotations; they present the resulting database of speech and gesture based on those annotations. Gawne and Kelly (2014) “look at whether gesture categorizations have any resonance with the ways that people other than ges­ ture researchers approach bodily movement,” finding that non­experts had a broader understanding of ges­ ture and spontaneously grouped gestures according to form or function (p. 216).

Gestures can and do convey meaning; are they simply signs? Can they also function as an index or a symbol? Kendon (2008) offers an introduction to the historical roots of the gesture­sign distinction, connect­ ing it to structuralist linguistics, a formalist model of language, and a confusion with sign language. Poggi (2008) examines gestures in terms of iconicity, distin­ guishing stable gestures from spontaneous ones. Streeck (2008) takes up the idea of iconic gestures, ask­ ing how people represent things in the world. After reviewing prior work on gestural representation, he offers a heuristic based on the activities of human hands: “hands depict by enacting their familiar, ‘real­ world’ capacities as users, transporters, experiencers, assemblers, molders, and shapers of things” (p. 285). Masson­Carro, Goudbeek, and Krahmer (2017) explore how different input sources (prior knowledge, the visual presence of an object, a written description) affect the production of iconic gestures; among other things they found that speakers strategically adapt their use of iconic gestures to the task at hand. Where others examine gestures’ describing things, Cooperrider and Núñez (2009) investigate how gestures represent time. Noting that American English speakers typically ges­ ture time as moving from left to right, they “suggest a classification of American English speakers’ transver­ sal temporal gestures into five types— placing, point­ ing, duration­marking, bridging, and animating” and offer ideas for experimental and cross­cultural studies of the idea (p. 181). In an even more specific look at the meaning of gestures, Anderson (2014), employing Goffman’s idea of loose coupling, examines taxi hail­ ing and the levels of meaning present in this seeming­ ly simple process. Jerca (2018) turns to indexical

meaning in her analysis of American footballers’ “tak­ ing a knee” as a social protest.

A great number of the recently published studies explore how gestures complement verbal expression. Wagner, Malisz, and Kopp (2014) introduce a special issue of the journal Speech Communication with an overview of how gesture and speech interact, focusing on form and function, synchrony, and prosody. They also “provide a summary of tools and data available for gesture analysis and describe speech­gesture interac­ tion models and simulations in technical systems” (p. 209). Researchers have explored a number of permuta­ tions of speech­gesture interactions: the coordination of gesture with gaze (Lund, 2007); the ability to see the conversation partner (Kimbara, 2008); the conditions under which addressees attend to gestures (Gullberg & Kita, 2009); the timing of addressee focus on the face vs. co­speech gestures (Beattie, Webster, & Ross, 2010); the kind of information in the speech (Hostetter & Skirving, 2011); the amount of repetition in the spo­ ken interaction (Hoetjes, Koolen, Goudbeek, Krahmer, & Swerts, 2015); temporal, structural, and pragmatic synchrony with paralinguistic characteristics (Loehr, 2012); the temporal distance of the topic, that is, dis­ cussing a close future event vs. a distant future event (Wessler & Hansen, 2017); the interaction of gesture with intonation and gaze (Cameron­Faulkner, 2014); the substitution of gesture for motion words (Chui, 2011); and the effects of other variables such as age and communicative ability (Alamillo, Colletta, & Guidetti, 2013). The speech partners can also influence each other’s gestures through shared knowledge of a topic (Holler & Stevens, 2007), through mock impo­ liteness (McKinnon & Prieto, 2014), or through the use of negation (Harrison, 2014). The purpose of the dis­ course, as for example in a closing argument in a court case, also influences the use and perception of co­ speech gestures (Matoesian & Enola Gilbert, 2016).

A number of researchers used different experi­ mental procedures to examine the relationships between speech and gesture. Skipper, Goldin­ Meadow, Nusbaum, and Small, (2007) used neu­ roimaging data to explore how the brain processes dif­ ferent kinds of co­speech gestures, finding support for semantic retrieval theories. Through a series of exper­ iments Cutica and Bucciarelli (2015) found that ges­ tural information uptake is non­deterministic. Using the Bielefeld Speech and Gesture Alignment Corpus, Kok (2017) explored which classes of words were more likely to be accompanied by gestures— “unspe­

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 9

cific spatial lexemes, various deictic words, and parti­ cles that express difficulty in word retrieval or formu­ lation” (p. 1). Holler, Shovelton, and Beattie (2009) varied the viewing conditions (face­to­face vs. video recordings) to measure the amount of information expressed by iconic hand gestures, finding that the face­to­face setting proved more effective. Flack, Naylor, and Leavens (2018) video recorded naturalis­ tic interactions to track how and how frequently peo­ ple pointed when giving directions.

Gestures can help people think and, indeed, help to organize one’s train of thought (Cutica & Bucciarelli, 2011). Hostetter, Alibali, and Kita (2007) found support for the Information Packaging Hypothesis, which “holds that gestures play a role in conceptualizing infor­ mation for speaking. According to this view, speakers will gesture more when describing difficult­to­concep­ tualize information than when describing easy­to­con­ ceptualize information” (p. 313). Similarly, Pine, Gurney, and Fletcher (2010) experimentally supported the semantic specificity hypothesis, “whereby a gesture is integrally associated with the semantic properties of the word it accompanies. Where those semantic proper­ ties include a high motor component the likelihood of a gesture being produced is increased, irrespective of communication demands” (p. 169). People also use ges­ tures more frequently to assist narratives where size or relative position form important elements (Beattie, Webster, & Ross, 2014)

Mutual knowledge affects the frequency of ges­ ture. Where interlocutors share knowledge, they use fewer gestures (Holler & Stevens, 2007). On the other hand, gestures help to create shared mental models (Cutica & Bucciarelli, 2011), something that Singer, Radinsky, and Goldman (2008) also found with 6th grade students working on a science project. Gesture helps with recall: Cook, Yip, and Goldin­Meadow (2010) supported the hypothesis “that gesturing during encoding led to better recall, even when the amount of speech produced during encoding was controlled. Gesturing during encoding improved recall whether the speaker chose to gesture spontaneously or was instruct­ ed to gesture” (p. 465). Galati and Samuel (2011) also produced experimental support that gestures assist peo­ ple in recalling the gist of a narrative. Gesture also plays a role in activating visuospatial working memory (Smithson & Nicoladis, 2014). Church, Garber, and Rogalski’s (2007) experiments led them to conclude that gesture “might have a different status in memory than speech” (p. 137).

In addition to expressing ideas and aiding recall, gestures help to manage conversations. Kok, Bergmann, Cienki, and Kopp (2016) offers a theoreti­ cal model of how gestures serve multiple functions, including conversational management and semantic support. Goldin­Meadow (2010) found empirical sup­ port for both: Learners used gestures to signal readi­ ness in instructional settings and to support their think­ ing. Arnold (2012), who also focused on an instruc­ tional setting, found that gestures organized the inter­ actions of the speakers and structured the organization of the conversation. Chui (2009) describes the role of gesture to maintain conversational coherence and to regulate turn­taking among speakers, something that Yang (2011) also documents in the practices of Mandarin Chinese. In the context of an art auction, Heath and Luff (2007) considered how gestures pace the interactions. Conversational interruptions elicit their own sets of gestures and other nonverbal respons­ es, often differentiated by gender or power relations (Farley, Ashcraft, Stasson, & Nusbaum, 2010).

Finally, several researchers explore more techni­ cal aspects of gestures. Bressem and Ladewig (2011) map out gesture phases by tracking the articulation of gestures. Feller and Gellatly (2016) experimentally determined that gesture processing is obligatory—the brain cannot ignore even irrelevant gestures. Givens (2016b) explores how the neurological system process­ es the palm up gesture. The gesture can “express degrees of emotional helplessness, cognitive uncertain­ ty, prosodic emphasis, and social deference. By them­ selves or in combination with other hand movements— such as reaching, showing, and pointing—palm­up cues are used to begin speaking turns, ask questions, request favors, and share personal opinions, feelings, and moods” (p. 235). Parrill (2010) explores how ges­ tures establish viewpoint in narratives.

C. Touch Many studies of touch have noted that “touching or

holding someone by the arm while asking for something increases our chances of having our request fulfilled” (Dolinski, 2010, p. 179). However, Dolinski reports experimental evidence that indicates that cultural differ­ ences affect this behavior. Similarly, Webb and Peck (2015) report individual differences, something that they studied with the aid of the “comfort with interpersonal touch” scale. Among other things, they distinguish between initiating touch and receiving touch and note differences in judging touch based on approach or avoid­

10 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

ance situations. Men often associate touch by women with courtship behavior and respond more positively (Guéguen, 2010). In experiments utilizing a mechanical device that replicated handshakes, Bailenson and Yee (2007) found that “for any given participant, a metric that took into account position, angle, speed, and accel­ eration of the hand movements correlated highly within individuals across two handshakes”; that gender predict­ ed specific metrics, and that an “interaction [existed] between gender and mimicry, such that male participants liked people who mimicked their handshakes more than female participants did” (p. 225).

D. Paralinguistics Nonverbal qualifiers occur in spoken language

through paralinguistic cues such as tone, volume, pitch, or even silence (Jõemets, 2014; Acheson, 2008). Volume, along with conversational distance, can affect people’s perception of bullying (Pavlich, Rains, & Segrin, 2017). Intonations vary by language, playing different roles (Aoju, 2009) as does silence (Bruneau, 2008); both can complicate second language learning. Vocal qualities express emotion and to such a degree that experimental participants could distinguish between spontaneous expressions of emotion and those of actors (Juslin, Laukka, & Bänziger, 2018). The major types of vocal expression appears stable over a number of languages (Anikin, Bååth, & Persson, 2018).

Paralinguistic qualifiers even occur in written language—a phenomenon more apparent as people carry on “conversations” via written media like email or social media. Richards and Fink (2017) found that ink color influenced judgments, with red ink evoking more negative emotions.

People simultaneously communicate both verbal­ ly and nonverbally and usually congruently, though occasionally they send mixed or incongruous mes­ sages. Grebelsky­Lichtman (2014, 2017) studied par­ ent­child interactions to test a theoretical framework on how individuals decide which channel to favor. Grebelsky­Lichtman (2014) found that young children (4 years) typically tend to congruent communication patterns, though they did exhibit non­congruent pat­ terns, especially if the parent showed non­congruent communication. Grebelsky­Lichtman (2017) proposes a two­stage model of expressiveness and responsive­ ness that identifies context and interaction in the process, including communicator gender. Among the findings she reports that boys responded more than girls to the nonverbal channel and that children

“attach[ed] dominance to the channel with the positive content” (p. 647).

E. Body Humans quickly make inferences about one

another from the body (body shape, posture, move­ ment). In fact, popular culture often refers to gesture, touch, and expression collectively as “body lan­ guage,”with books promising to teach one how to “read a person like a book” (Nierenberg & Calero, 1971/2001). A quick online search will reveal dozens of web sites and blogs offering simple techniques for revealing hidden meanings. This review will not directly address these materials but will instead men­ tion a few more detailed and original studies that focus on the body as a locus on nonverbal communi­ cation.

Based on three experiments, Bahns, Crandall, Gillath, and Wilmer (2016) concluded “Nonverbal cues in the torso communicate information about similarity of attitudes, behavior, and personality; the center of the body plays a surprisingly central role in early­stage person perception and attraction” (p. 151).

Andersson (2018) presents an unusual and quite interesting approach to nonverbal communication in his history of “body language” in the 19th century. He focuses the work on what we can learn from nonver­ bal communication about people and their history, but in so doing he provides information about nonverbal behaviors, setting the whole work in the context of “the culture of nonverbal communication in the 19th and early 20th centuries” (p. 23). He explains the project in this way:

A historical study of the body and, more specif­ ically, of body language, is a contradiction in terms, for the historian cannot observe the sub­ ject directly. And yet any history that leaves out the way people carry themselves, or dress or devote themselves to various physical activities, is bound to be incomplete. The human body is, in perhaps the most obvious way, at the mercy of the forces of nature at the same time as it is a tool of social identification and cultural adaptation. (p. 10)

Andersson calls attention to bodily poses and gestures, using photographs from the era as evidence. Chapters include examinations of both posed portraits and more spontaneous urban photos, with case studies of people with walking sticks, with hands in pockets, with arms akimbo, and so on.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 11

12 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

5. Contexts

Most of the contexts here examine deal with the generally interpersonal area of communication. However, Todd and Funder (2016) remind us of the intrapersonal contexts for nonverbal expression. They offer a history of the role of personality, outlining the impact on nonverbal expression and reception of key personality indicators such as extroversion, neuroti­ cism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (p. 167).

A. Interpersonal interaction Nonverbal behaviors help to define and manage

interpersonal relationships, from their very beginnings to their ends. People learn how to process social signals and then carry them out, often without conscious reflec­ tion. Burgoon, Magnenat­Thalmann, Pantic, and Vinciarelli (2017) provide a detailed discussion of social signal processing, including chapters on the dif­ ference between social and biological nonverbal sig­ nals; signals conveyed via the voice, facial expression, gesture, and bodily aesthetics; signaling deception; con­ flict signals; signaling via computer­mediated commu­ nication; designing robotic systems for social signaling; and using various measurement tools to assist with or automate the study of social signaling. Their book aims to connect what we know about human nonverbal behavior with human­machine interaction. Vicaria and Dickens (2016) offer a meta­analysis of nonverbal stud­ ies on interpersonal coordination. “Topics discussed include producing prosocial behaviors and facilitating harmonious interactions through interpersonal coordi­ nation; measuring its effects on intrapersonal behavior such as mood, need to belong, and interpersonal such as prosocial behavior outcomes; and robust positive effects of interpersonal coordination” (p. 335).

Relationships form the context for most commu­ nication, and scholars have examined nonverbal behaviors at different stages of relationship, in differ­ ent kinds of relationship (but especially in romantic and sexual relationships), and in the media employed in relationships. Dohen, Schwartz, and Bailly (2010) introduce a special issue of Speech Communication that reviews work on face­to­face relationships. Stressing that all communication involves both verbal and nonverbal components, they note that the research

examines the setting of communication, the tasks ambitioned by the interlocutors, the general environ­ ment, and the roles of each partner. They write, “The present issue aims at synthesizing the most recent developments in this topic considering its various aspects from complementary perspectives: cognitive and neurocognitive (multisensory and perceptuo­motor interactions), linguistic (dialogic face­to­face interac­ tions), paralinguistic (emotions and affects, turn­tak­ ing, mutual attention), computational (animated con­ versational agents, multimodal interacting communi­ cation systems)” (p. 477). Prinsen and Punyanunt­ Carter (2010) offer an overview of nonverbal behav­ iors at different stages in an interpersonal relationship: “casual dating, exclusively dating, long term relation­ ship, cohabitation while in a long term relationship, and marriage” (p. 1), recording changing patterns of the kind and timing of the nonverbal expressions.

Farley (2014) reports a study of nonverbal reac­ tions to an attractive stranger, asking about their types and functions in terms of relationship status, finding that mimicry of nonverbal signals occurs unconscious­ ly and works as a relationship maintenance mecha­ nism. Other studies examined people’s ability to judge romantic interest from nonverbal stimuli (Place, Todd, Penke, & Asendorpf, 2009), the effects of a woman’s smile on men’s courtship behavior (Guéguen, 2008), interpretation of hand holding (Bodie & Villaume, 2008), flirting styles (Watkins & Hall, 2014; Hall & Xing, 2015), cues that lead to sexual encounters (La France, 2010), and nonverbal components of discus­ sions of HIV status before heterosexual encounters (Bowleg, Valera, Teti, & Tschann, 2010).

Asking about nonverbal aspects of maintaining relationships, Spott, Pyle, and Punyanunt­Carter (2010) found that the “longevity of the relationship and overall relationship satisfaction . . . are positively correlated to the use of positive nonverbal behaviors” (p. 29). Doohan (2007) examined the nonverbal behaviors of spouses as they listened as their partners described rela­ tional difficulties to a counselor, finding that “both hus­ bands and wives enacted nonverbal listening behaviors that demonstrated negative emotion and nonverbal involvement. Results also indicated that “displays of negative emotion predicted relational dissatisfaction for

husbands” but not for wives (p. 24). Samp and Monahan (2009) added alcohol to the mix of discussing relational problems, finding that intoxication led to more agitated and less positive nonverbal expression.

A number of other studies focused on same­sex involvement. Gore (2009) experimentally asked individ­ uals to interact with a same­sex confederate who varied levels of self­disclosure. “Results revealed that men attended to verbal information to evaluate the appropri­ ateness of their own personal disclosure, whereas women attended to both verbal and nonverbal cues to evaluate the conversation partner and the appropriate­ ness of their own personal disclosure” (p. 279). Knöfler and Imhof (2007) asked whether sexual orientation affects nonverbal behaviors, finding “that in dyads which include a homosexual person nonverbal behavior is different from that displayed in dyads consisting of heterosexual participants only in terms of self­touch, body posture, body orientation, and gaze” (p. 189). Cassidy and his colleagues have examined the nonverbal culture of social networking sites aimed at the LGBTQ community, proposing a measure they called “participa­ tory reluctance” due to the perceptions of the purpose of the sites (Cassidy, 2016; Cassidy & Wang, 2018).

To better accomplish these kinds of study, sever­ al have proposed different research methods and tools. Fujiwara and Daibo (2014) offer a combination of video recording and software analysis to count and code distinct nonverbal behaviors. Won, Bailenson, Stathatos, and Dai (2014) report a study in which they used the Kinect computer vision algorithm to measure the strength of an association between nonverbal syn­ chrony and interpersonal creativity

B. Gender Nonverbal studies have long noted gender differ­

ences in expression and interpretation (Nelson & Brown, 2012). La France, Henningsen, Oates, and Shaw’s (2009) meta­analysis of men’s and women’s judgments of flirting behaviors notes the prior work “suggest[s] that men decode verbal and nonverbal communication cues differently than do women, and this difference results in men’s tendency to rate indi­ viduals more highly in levels of these social­sexual constructs than do women” (p. 367). Their own re­ examination of the data found consistent, but different, effects on the ratings of female and male participants. Farris, Treat, Viken, and McFall (2008) suspect that something other than gender differences in perceiving sexual intent occurs. Their study confirmed that “men

were more likely than women to misperceive friendli­ ness as sexual interest, but they also were quite likely to misperceive sexual interest as friendliness” (p. 349), a result that indicates difficulties in interpretation rather than perception. In an examination of Mandarin Chinese speakers, Yang (2010) found clear differences in the gestures of female and male speakers, though each group could use the other’s gestures, which Yang argues may have intercultural implications. Bailey and Kelly (2015) found gender differences in yet a third area: power hierarchies. Their study varied the poses of male and female confederates in order to elicit ratings of power. Katsumi, Dolcos, Kim, Sung, and Dolcos (2017) noted differences on the appraisals of hand­ shakes in social interaction, differences they attributed to both gender and cultural background

C. Health and medical Nonverbal communication plays an important

role in health communication and medical diagnostics. The former area attends to patient­caregiver interac­ tions while the latter assists medical personnel in eval­ uating symptoms. Introductory texts on health commu­ nication typically provide an overview of the various communication situations (provider­patient, medical team communication) as well as information of verbal and nonverbal approaches, gender, and intercultural issues (Pagano, 2017).

One of the more difficult communication tasks for medical staff involves presenting negative medical news. Cavallaro (2017) offers a general discussion of the issue, addressing communication with patients and family members; the book includes material on non­ verbal aspects of those conversations. Henry, Fuhrel­ Forbis, Rogers, and Eggly’s (2012) meta­analysis of studies of medical staff and patients’ nonverbal behav­ ior indicated that “both clinician warmth and clinician listening were associated with greater patient satisfac­ tion. . . . Physician negativity was not related to patient satisfaction . . . but greater nurse negativity was associ­ ated with less patient satisfaction” (p. 297). They rec­ ommend that clinical training include modules on non­ verbal expression of warmth and listening. D’Agostino and Bylund (2014) also offer an overview of medical thinking in the move to more patient­centered care and then offer a study of nonverbal accommodation in an effort to improve physician­patient communication. Several years earlier Mast (2007) argued that physician training should incorporate nonverbal training, point­ ing out that “The way the physician behaves nonver­

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 13

bally affects patient outcomes, such as, for instance, patient satisfaction. Affiliative nonverbal behavior (e.g., eye gaze and proximity) of the physician is relat­ ed to higher patient satisfaction” (p. 315). These kinds of nonverbal sensitivity also lead to an increase of “patient enablement” and better care outcomes (Pawlikowska, Zhang, Griffiths, van Dalen, & van der Vleuten, 2012). Using the Critical Role Theory, Ledford, Canzona, and Cafferty (2015) examine differ­ ent contexts of medical consultations and the roles patients expect from clinical personnel. Physicians used more appropriate gestures in situations with clear­ er role definitions (p. 36), which led to increased patient satisfaction (p. 37).Where patients expressed mixed­role expectations, both physician response and patient satisfaction decreased.

Many medical conversations include discussions of pain and much of the key information comes across through both verbal and nonverbal descriptions. Rowbotham, Holler, Lloyd, and Wearden (2012) sought to understand the balance between the verbal and nonverbal channels though a semantic feature analysis; they found that medical personnel need to attend more to the nonverbal gestures of the pain expe­ rience. Rowbotham and her colleagues also present a follow­up study evaluating different tools to assess the expression of pain and describing the role of co­speech gestures (Rowbotham, Lloyd, Holler, & Wearden, 2015). Other research does show that patients can more accurately describe pain, depending on the nonverbal behavior or medical staff (Ruben & Hall, 2016). Supportive nonverbal behavior does influence the sub­ jective experience of pain. Ruben, Blanch­Hartigan, and Hall (2017) present experimental evidence that “Participants interacting with the high nonverbal sup­ port physicians showed increased pain tolerance and a reduction in the amount of pain expressed compared to those interacting with the low nonverbal support physi­ cians. For subjectively rated pain, a gender difference existed such that for men, high physician nonverbal support decreased pain ratings and memory of pain, but for women, high physician nonverbal support increased pain ratings and memory of pain” (p. 970).

A more specialized aspect of this communication arises when health care workers need an interpreter to facilitate interactions with, for example, non­English speaking patients. Miletich (2015) points out the importance of nonverbal sensitivity in these interac­ tions and the added training needed for interpreters.

Other research indicates the importance of non­ verbal immediacy when medical personnel request tis­ sue donation. In addition to persuasive strategies (appeals to altruism, for example), requesters’ nonver­ bal behaviors and family members’ nonverbal immedi­ acy predicted the likelihood of donation (Siminoff, Traino, & Gordon, 2011). Similar demonstrations of the importance of nonverbal communication appeared in studies of those recruiting participants for clinical trials (Morgan, Occa, Mouton, & Potter, 2017).

Nonverbal cues can assist clinicians in diagnosis. Courbalay, Deroche, and Descarreau (2017), noting that nonverbal pain behaviors assist in estimating lower back pain, report a study of whether “facial expressions and guarding behaviors (including speed of the move­ ment and lifting strategy) contribute to the prediction of pain intensity and disability in patients” with chron­ ic lower back pain and the degree to which clinicians attend to such actions (p. 289). Decoding facial expres­ sions and the emotions indicated assists in diagnosing depression in adolescents, though some gender differ­ ences emerged (Beek & Dubas, 2008a, 2008b). Limits in processing facial expressions of emotion also appear in adolescents with schizotypal disorders (Wickline, Nowicki, Bollini, & Walker, 2012).

Nonverbal communication plays a central role in both the communication behaviors of and the treat­ ments for people suffering from aphasia. Rose, Raymer, Lanyon, and Attard (2013) provide a review of 23 studies of gesture treatments for those suffering from aphasia caused by strokes.

Rose (2013) introduces a special issue of the jour­ nal, Aphasiology, which offers a detailed overview of the state of the research. She offers this summary:

The first article by de Ruiter and de Beer (2013) presents an erudite account of the main compet­ ing theories of gesture, speech and language interaction, setting the stage for three studies that follow (Cocks, Dipper, Pritchard, & Morgan, 2013; Hogrefe, Ziegler, Wiesmayer, Weidinger, & Goldenberg, 2013; Sekine, Rose, Foster, Attard, & Lanyon, 2013) examining gesture pro­ duction in aphasia and the participant variables that impact on production patterns. Two studies then follow (Marshall et al., 2013; Rose, Raymer, Lanyon, & Attard, 2013) that examine gesture as a therapeutic modality for restoration of language function and communication com­ pensation. The final study (Rogalsky et al., 2013) examines the brain­behavior relationships that underpin gesture comprehension, challeng­

14 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

ing accounts of the role of mirror neurons in action comprehension. (pp. 1010–1011).

Building on the well known phenomena that peo­ ple with aphasia try to communicate in every alterna­ tive way to speaking, Rautakoski (2011) presents a research study of how those with aphasia and their partners perceive their communicative attempts. “They also perceive that the use of these different communi­ cation methods can further be increased by training and by guiding the communication partner to facilitate and support the use of them” (p. 344). The kinds of gestures used by those with aphasia can possibly provide infor­ mation about the damage to the language system and thus help in determining treatment options: for exam­ ple, iconic gestures (Cocks, Dipper, Middleton, & Morgan, 2011) or co­verbal gestures (Carlomagno, Zulian, Razzano, De Mercurio, & Marini, 2013). The use of iconic gestures by aphasia patients can also pro­ vide information about the relationship between spo­ ken language and gesture, providing a theoretical basis for treatment (Dipper, Pritchard, Morgan, & Cocks, 2015). Several have proposed treatment options involving nonverbal communication for those with severe aphasia (Nykänen, Nyrkkö, Nykänen, Brunou, & Rautakoski, 2013; de Beer, Hogrefe, de Ruiter, 2018). Others have more generally worked to measure the reliability and validity of the instruments used to measure verbal and nonverbal communication among aphasiacs (van der Meulen, van de Sandt­Koenderman, Duivenvoorden, & Ribbers, 2010).

Some brain imaging studies have mapped injuries to specific parts of the brain to impairment of the use of spontaneous gestures (Göksun, Lehet, Malykhina, & Chatterjee, 2015). Mol, Krahmer, van de Sandt­ Koendermanb, Oetting, and Blake (2013) found that the ability to use gestures degraded with more severe aphasia, suggesting a link between verbal language and co­speech gesture. A later study by van Nispen, van de Sandt­Koenderman, Sekine, Krahmer, and Rose (2017) attended to gesture types, asking whether the gestures provided information absent from (“essential”) or com­ plementary to the verbal information, find that about 20% of gestures were essential—pointing, iconic ges­ tures, and emblematic gestures. Rose, Mok, and Sekine (2017) further demonstrated the effectiveness of pan­ tomime gestures in increasing message comprehen­ sion, a finding confirmed by an experiment conducted by van Nispen, Mieke, van de Sandt­Koenderman, and Krahmer (2018). Based on experimental work, Cocks, Byrne, Pritchard, Morgan, and Dipper (2018) warn,

though, that not all gestures work in conversations with patients with aphasia; they suggest preparing conversa­ tional partners with information about classes of ges­ ture. Other research groups report progress in teaching patients the use of gestures in treatment protocols (Johnson, Taub, Harper, Wade, Bowman, Bishop­ McKay, Haddad, Mark, & Uswatte, 2014).

Other groups have investigated whether nonver­ bal expression decreases along with verbal abilities in those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Hydén (2011) investigated general noise­making, finding “The analysis of selective examples shows that noises may be fitted into the conversational interaction to a certain degree and in some instances is also responsive to interaction” (p. 135). Another group found that com­ plementary gestures help caregivers communicate with Alzheimer’s patients, but with mixed results; some strategies proved more successful, typically those with low cognitive complexity—one direction at a time, closed­ended question, etc. (Wilson, Rochon, Mihailidis, & Leonarda, 2012). Ellis and Astell (2018) present a model of adaptive interaction for those deal­ ing with people with dementia. They write, “this book is not about trying to ‘fix’ people who have dementia. While we explain the many challenges individuals with dementia face, we see that the solutions lie in enabling the people around them to make adaptations to the ways in which they communicate and to include the people with dementia as fellow human beings in the social world” (p. 16). Their system of “adaptive inter­ action” describes a nonverbal approach.

Other medical studies of nonverbal behavior have examined the development trajectories of children with specific language impairment—“the presence of lan­ guage deficits in the context of adequate nonverbal skills”—indicating different patterns of nonverbal skills (Conti­Ramsden, St Clair, Pickles, Durkin, Oetting, & Hadley, 2012, p. 1716) and the ability of children with Fragile X syndrome to comprehend gestures (Thurman, Kover, Brown, Harvey, & Abbeduto, 2017).

D. Children Many of the studies of nonverbal behavior in chil­

dren originate in medical or psychological studies, either for diagnosis or for treatment plans The largest group of such work addresses children with autism spectrum disorders. “Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by the early onset of impair­ ments in reciprocal social interaction and communica­ tion and restricted repetitive behaviors or interests”

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 15

(Chiang, Soong, Lin, & Rogers, 2008, p. 1898). Given the links between verbal and nonverbal communica­ tion, the role of nonverbal behaviors in social interac­ tion, and the importance of gaze in coordinating com­ municative attention, many research groups turn to nonverbal behaviors in children as a diagnostic tool and also as a way to more comprehensively understand human communication in general.

Nonverbal behavior offers insights into normal development in children and helps to establish devel­ opmental profiles for at­risk children. Crais, Watson, and Baranek (2009) offer a set of tools to assess prelinguistic gestures. Sowden, Perkins, and Clegg (2008) place this communication development into a larger context:

Research suggests that initially gesture and speech form two independent systems which combine together temporally and semantically before chil­ dren enter the two­word period of language devel­ opment. However, little is known about gesture development in children’s disordered speech. . . . Early indications suggest that whilst both gesture and speech development is delayed in children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD), the developmental trajectory is the same as for typi­ cally developing children. (p. 804)

“Joint attention,” skills used to share experiences with others, describes another area of delayed development. Researchers have described when such behaviors emerge in children as well as the markers for them (Paparella, Goods, Freeman, & Kasari, 2011). Maljaars, Noens, Jansen, Scholte, and van Berckelaer­ Onnes (2011) provide a baseline understanding of joint attention by comparing children with normal develop­ ment patterns to those with autism spectrum disorders:

Results indicated that in typically developing children the proportion of communication for the purpose of joint attention was much higher than for behavior regulation, whereas in children with autism the opposite pattern was seen. Low­ functioning nonverbal children with autism mainly communicated for behavior regulation and not or only rarely for declarative purposes. Generally, this subgroup used the least complex forms to communicate. Low­functioning verbal children with autism differed from typically developing children only in the rate, not in the proportion of communication for specific func­ tions. Combinations of three different commu­ nicative forms were used by verbal children with

autism less frequently than by typically develop­ ing children. (p. 601)

Other baseline studies explore how different areas of development influence the use of gestures (Manwaring, Mead, Swineford, & Thurm, 2017), the use or non­use of gaze (Wiklund, 2012), baseline com­ parisons among children with autism spectrum disorder and other language disorders (Philofsky, Fidler, & Hepburn, 2017), the calibration of measurement tools (Ellawadi & Weismer, 2014)

Other research groups look specifically at one or another kinds of nonverbal behavior: co­speech ges­ tures (Sowden, Clegg, & Perkins, 2013), hand ges­ tures that refer to absent objects (So, Lui, Wong, & Sit, 2015),

The study of nonverbal behavior in children has led to treatment options for those with autism spectrum disorder. Ingersoll and Lalonde (2010) report some success with “reciprocal imitation training,” a kind of behavioral intervention in the context of play. Similarly, Franco, Davis, and Davis (2013) also based successful interventions on play. Russo­Ponsaran, Evans­Smith, Johnson, Russo, and McKown (2016) successfully modified a commercially available facial emotion training tool to teach high functioning autism spectrum children to improve their nonverbal abilities to recognize the emotions of others.

Researchers know that gesture and language go together in childhood development. In fact, several studies indicate “that child gesture at 14 months was a significant predictor of vocabulary at 42 months” (Wray, Saunders, McGuire, Cousins, & Norburya, 2017, p. 969). Wray and her colleagues concluded that gesturing is important in language development and examined how children with language impairment compensate with gestures. In another study, Wray, Norbury, and Alcock (2016) indicate that “Specific lan­ guage impairment (SLI) is diagnosed when language is significantly below chronological age expectations in the absence of other developmental disorders, sensory impairments, or global developmental delays” (p. 174). In addition, “impaired grammar and phonology are considered the outstanding clinical features. However, children with SLI may also face various lexical­seman­ tic difficulties, including problems with receptive and expressive vocabulary, lexical processing, and word learning” (Vogt & Kauschke, 2017, p. 3213). While both research groups note a connection between these two communication systems, Vogt and Kauschke (2017) found that while teaching both typically devel­

16 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

oping children and those with SLI with iconic co­ speech gestures helped them learn new words, the tech­ nique helped the “children with SLI exploit the non­ verbal information provided through iconic gestures to build deep semantic knowledge.” (p. 3224). SLI chil­ dren also benefitted from gestures that enhanced prag­ matic communication (Kirk, Pine, & Ryder, 2011). However, other studies found that using verbal strate­ gies and nonverbal cues did not help SLI school chil­ dren’s performance (Eichorn, Marton, Campanelli, Scheuer, 2014). Lüke, Ritterfeld, Grimminger, Liszkowski, and Rohlfing (2017) reinforced the diag­ nostic findings as they determined that children with delayed language will show a slower acquisition of fin­ ger pointing gestures. Through empirical observations O’Neill and Chiat (2015) distinguished children with “receptive­expressive language delay (R/ELD) and expressive­only language delay (ELD)” based on their use of gestures, finding the former group weaker in both gesture and comprehension, thus suggesting another diagnostic avenue in working with children with delayed language (p. 1319).

Similarly the spontaneous use of gestures in young children can help in diagnosing other language deficits, such as those caused by sex chromosome tri­ somies (Zampini, Draghi, Silibello, Dall’Ara, Rigamonti, Suttora, Zanchi, Salerni, Lalatta, & Vizziello, 2018). Children with Down Syndrome (DS) and Williams Syndrome (WS) also show differences in understanding the intent of some communicative ges­ tures, with the DS group better able to interpret gaze (John & Mervis, 2010). Compared to typically develop­ ing children, DS children show delayed development of pragmatic communication, though their nonverbal com­ munication is stronger than their verbal skills, an obser­ vation leading Smith, Næss, and Jarrold (2017) to rec­ ommend more emphasis on the components of prag­ matic communication in early school years for DS chil­ dren. Thanks to brain plasticity, two­year old children with brain injuries show the same gesture­speech link as other children, though more so for simple sentences than for complex ones (Özçalişkan, Levine, Goldin­ Meadow, Bavin, & Naigles, 2013).

Others have directed their research to typically developing children. Some focus on parent­child inter­ action. Grebelsky­Lichtman (2014) explored congruent or incongruent uses of verbal and nonverbal channels in order to develop a model to assess communication pat­ terns. She continued refining the model by looking at parental responses to children’s nonverbal incongru­

ence (2015). Schofield, Parke, Castañeda, and Coltrane (2008) measured gaze between parents and children, noting some intercultural differences. Attention to the face provides insight into others’ emotions, and children learn to recognize emotion from watching their parents. Dunsmore, Her, Halberstadt, and Perez­Rivera (2009) explored some of the variables involved in the process, including parental attitudes toward emotions. The abili­ ty to identify facial expression improves with age throughout childhood, varying as well with the intensi­ ty of emotion (Montirosso, Peverelli, Frigerio, Crespi, & Borgatti, 2010). Researchers have established that adults can more quickly identify angry expressions than calm ones, often based on the V­shaped brow; LoBue and Larson (2010) conducted similar studies with pre­ school children, finding similar results. They attribute this bias to the danger signals reflected in the angry face. Mui, Goudbeek, Swerts, and Hovasapian (2017) found cultural and social factors in children’s smiles while playing, comparing Dutch and Chinese children. Goodwin and Alim (2010) observed how sets of ges­ tures worked to create identities in preadolescent peer groups by harnessing cultural tropes.

Many research groups have examined children and gestures: how infants’ understand gestures directed to others (Gräfenhain, Behne, Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2009); how gestures can reflect a toddler’s learning state (Capone, 2007); how 18­ to 30­month old tod­ dlers use a head shake as a gesture as part of their lan­ guage (Andrén, 2014); how 16­ to 20­month old chil­ dren in different cultures use gestures as they acquire language (Jensen de López, 2010); how children change co­speech gestures as they age (Colletta, Pellenq, & Guidetti, 2010); how children use gestures in during tasks (Pine, Lufkin, Kirk, Messer, 2007); how young children (ages 3–4) differ from and resemble adults in their use of gestures to describe a travel route (Austin & Sweller, 2018); how children’s use of ges­ tures predicts their narrative storytelling skills (Demir, Levine, & Goldin­Meadow, 2015); how and when chil­ dren begin to use gestures to clarify ambiguous pro­ nouns, acquiring this skill at around age 7 (Goodrich Smith & Hudson Kam, 2015); and how even older chil­ dren (7–9 years) cannot filter out misleading gestures, over­relying on them (Kirk, Gurney, Edwards, & Dodimead, 2015).

E. Education and pedagogy Immediacy. Perhaps as a consequence of the

location of research, the use of nonverbal behaviors in

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 17

educational settings has received consistent attention, particularly in relation to “immediacy.” “Nonverbal immediacy refers to those behaviors that reduce physi­ cal or psychological distance between communicators” (Malachowski & Martin, 2011, p. 142.). These studies have generated a fairly robust knowledge set that indi­ cates that nonverbal immediacy behaviors strongly cor­ relate with student engagement in classes (Dixson, Greenwell, Rogers­Stacy, Weister, & Lauer, 2017, pp. 37–38). Similar results occurred in Pakistan (Hassan, 2007), India (Shams, Khan, Zainab, Shah, & Farid, 2016), and Spain (Fortanet­Gómez, Ruiz­Madrid, 2014), leading to advice that teachers receive training for more effective use of nonverbal behaviors in the classroom. In public speaking classes in the United States, Malachowski and Martin (2011) found positive links “among instructors’ perceptions of their nonverbal immediacy, confirmation, caring, and perceived student nonverbal responsiveness in the classroom. In addition, a negative relationship was found between instructors’ perceptions of their CA [communication apprehension] and perceived student nonverbal responsiveness” (p. 141). Instructor nonverbal immediacy also had a posi­ tive impact on ninth­grade Hispanic students’ affective learning, “regardless of the level of feedback sensitivity provided,” thus aiding overall learning (Martin & Mottet, 2011, p. 1). Nonverbal immediacy works together with other variables to affect student learn­ ing—both affective and cognitive. Comadena, Hunt, and Simonds (2007) found a relationship between teacher clarity and teacher immediacy and between teacher immediacy and teacher caring behaviors.

Communication researchers have long known that students make very quick judgements about teach­ ers early in a school term. In exploring the possible basis for such judgements, Horan, Houser, Goodboy, and Frymier (2011) found that nonverbal immediacy plays a significant role in students’ predicted outcome value of courses and correlates with other predictors such as communication skills, prosocial power use, and confirmation (p. 80). Nonverbal immediacy also mod­ erates a negative impact of poor or ineffective instruc­ tor communication (Sidelinger, Nyeste, Madlock, Pollak, & Wilkinson, 2015). However, instructor non­ verbal immediacy did not significantly limit student texting in class, with Wei and Wang (2010) attributing such texting to out­of­class habit and strong gratifica­ tions from texting itself (p. 489).

Hood and Lander (2016) focus attention on online courses, studying the differences between a recorded

lecture featuring voice­over slides and a recorded live lecture with the instructor visible. Noting differences on a number of linguistic and nonlinguistic dimensions, they conclude that students receive more information in the recorded lecture due to the richer mix of channels. Dixson, Greenwell, Rogers­Stacy, Weister, and Lauer (2017) explored the impact on nonverbal immediacy behaviors in online courses. These included the use of “emoticons/figurative language, color, cohesion, visual imagery, and audio in course design; response latency, length, time of day, and message frequency in forums; and type and promptness of feedback via grading and email” (p. 37). As expected from the social presence theory, they found that immediacy behaviors correlated with student engagement; however, they also found that online instructors did not make use of these as much as they might. Other studies indicate that students may place too much weight on easily noticeable nonverbal behavior in online courses. Tatum, Martin, and Kemper (2018) found that students evaluated teacher immedia­ cy based solely on how quickly a teacher responded to questions or postings in an online course.

Holding immediacy and other nonverbal behav­ iors constant, Findley and Punyanunt­Carter (2007) investigated the impact of gender on nonverbal behav­ iors. Among other things, they found “few gender dif­ ferences in the student responses; instead, the major dif­ ference occurred in the nonverbal behaviors students identified for male and female instructors” (p. 245), with the largest differences in those nonverbal behav­ iors students identified “as causing feelings of content­ ment and nervousness” (p. 251). Yeşil (2008) also found gender differences in a study of student behavior in Turkish classroom debates: “(1) students were nega­ tively affected by facial expression, gesture, and physi­ cal appearance of other debaters and highly negatively affected by their intonation; (2) female debaters were negatively influenced to a greater degree by nonverbal behavior than males were; (3) four dimensions of non­ verbal behavior all had significantly positive relation­ ships with another; and (4) there was a significant rela­ tionship between the family environment in which stu­ dents were raised and the degree to which they were affected by other debaters’ intonation” (p. 893). Zhukov (2013) notes gender differences in college­level music instruction: “Deceit cues were the most frequent among the non­verbal behaviors, with the males displaying more gestures of deceit than the females. Other gender differences include the female students’ using courting signals towards both teacher groups, and the female

18 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

teachers showing interest towards the male students” (p. 466). Zhukov also recorded examples of mixed mes­ sages, where negative nonverbal behaviors contradicted positive verbal statements.

Since increasing appropriate instructor nonverbal gestures promotes student learning, Alibali, Young, Crooks, Yeo, Wolfgram, Ledesma, Nathan, Breckinridge Church, and Knuth (2013) offered a tuto­ rial on teaching with gestures to a seventh­grade math­ ematics teachers and noted improved student learning in a before­ and after­comparison of teaching. On the other side of the desk, student nonverbal appropriate­ ness can reveal weaknesses in learning. Studying sec­ ondary school level ESL students, Zhengdong Gan and Davison (2011) noticed that higher scoring students used gestures “well synchronized with the flow of speech, turn­taking, as well as other nonverbal behav­ ior such as eye contact and facial expression, whereas the gestural behavior of the lower­scoring group appeared to be an outward sign of language difficulties, disfluency, tension, and lack of confidence, and largely bore no association to the verbal speech” (p. 94).

Training teachers in sensitivity to student non­ verbal cues can make teachers more effective. Gregersen (2007) offered foreign language teachers instruction on recognizing student anxiety, a process that improved their ability to make more fine­grained interpretations of student behaviors and adjust their foreign language instruction.

Pedagogy. Pedagogy here refers to teaching mate­ rials intended for college­level communication courses. With courses in areas such as interpersonal communica­ tion, fundamentals of communication, nonverbal com­ munication, interviewing, and organizational communi­ cation, most departments teaching communication offer modules if not full courses in nonverbal communication. The National Communication Association encourages its members to share resources and ideas about teaching. A number of such resources address different channels or contexts of nonverbal communication.

Following the research on social presence theory, teachers have developed materials to teach students how to more effectively use online resources and course materials. Kelly and Claus (2015) present an online teaching activity to help students better under­ stand emotional expression and nonverbal awareness in asynchronous classrooms.

Chang (2006) offers a module to make students more attentive to intercultural patterns on nonverbal behavior and their expression of “relational levels of

meaning” (p. 97). Chang (2015) includes both cultural norms and gender norms of nonverbal communication in a learning module. Harper’s (2006) proposal focuses on gait—how walking relates to attitudes. Clasen (2008) calls attention to built environments—house plans and their effect on communication. Following Goffman’s ideas about the presentation of self, George (2013) helps students to a greater self awareness of how they change their nonverbal communication in different settings, thus changing the “face” they present in those settings. Sills (2014) proposes a module to teach about silence, a key aspect of nonverbal interaction. Schmidt­ Fajlik (2007) reports a larger study in intercultural lan­ guage instruction that explored which aspects of non­ verbal communication to present to Japanese university students studying English. Whalen (2010) provides a summary of teaching modules presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Business Communication that focus on nonverbal training for business.

Simones, Schroeder, and Rodger (2015) offer a study of the gestures between teacher and student in one­on­one piano lessons. Among other things, they note the role of “spontaneous co­musical gestures” (p. 103). Ping Yang (2015) provides an in­depth review of the nonverbal communication issues faced by faculty and staff in Australia, arguing that better knowledge and practice will lead to better educational outcomes.

Damnet and Borland (2007) suggest using Australian and U.S. films to teach Thai students com­ petence in interpreting the nonverbal behavior accom­ panying normal verbal discourse, using results of an empirical study to support their position.

F. Intercultural contexts Intercultural communication scholars examine

the many ways that people cross cultural boundaries: face­ to­face, via technology, in the mass media of film and television. These scholars call attention to nonver­ bal behaviors since people often take these for granted until something goes wrong—an approach to the topic that many introductory texts highlight (Landers, 2016).

Historical documents provide an interesting source of the awareness of nonverbal communication. Subramani (2010) analyzes the ancient Tamil scripture, Tirukkural by Tiruvalluvar (dated between 300 BCE and 400 CE), whose couplets address facial expres­ sions, eye behaviors, and other nonverbal behaviors. Davies (2018) does something similar for the Bible. Buja (2015) examines European travelers’ accounts from the 17th to the 19th centuries that incidentally

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 19

describe nonverbal behaviors in Persia and India, pay­ ing particular attention to descriptions of clothing and rituals. Both Subramani and Buja also give detailed contexts of contemporary nonverbal studies. Bonvillian, Ingram, and McCleary (2009) turned to the journals of the 16th century North American explorers Bernal Díaz del Castillo and Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca where they found that “signs and gestures were widely employed and often proved effective as a means of communication between members of early Spanish­ led expeditions and the indigenous peoples of North America. Also, manual signing, rather than being a sys­ tem of communication introduced by Europeans . . . was evidently already firmly established and widely used by Native Americans throughout much of North America at the time of their first contacts with European explorers” (p. 156).

Many studies highlight nonverbal practices in spe­ cific non­U.S. cultures or differences in the nonverbal behaviors between particular countries or cultures. Itu (2009) sets the context with an overview of general cul­ tural differences in nonverbal behavior. Sekine, Stam, Yoshioka, Tellier, and Capirci (2015) polled undergrad­ uates in five countries about their gesture use and about their stereotypes of gesture use in other countries, find­ ing “that people from different cultures hold the com­ mon view that specific language speakers produce larg­ er gestures than other language speakers do. It indicat­ ed that regardless of the participants’ cultures, they tend to believe that Indo­European language speakers, espe­ cially Italian speakers, produce larger gestures more fre­ quently than East Asian language speakers such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean” (p. 102). Jarmołowicz­ Nowikow (2014) identifies some distinctively Polish gestures for pointing out individuals or things. In an experiment with Italian and Japanese toddlers, Pettenati, Sekine, Congestrì, and Volterra (2012) found some small differences in representational gestures, but conclude that a common developmental stage remains untouched by culture. Williams and Hughes (2005) report observations on Italian adults in public spaces and argue that gender, context, and situation influence the nonverbal actions. With an eye to better integrating immigrants from India, Gallo (2015) offers an overview of the nonverbal gestures of people from South India (Dravidian languages) in contrast with those from North India (Aryan languages). Arun, Mathew, & Bailoor (2014) describe hand gestures in Malayalam. Barker (2016) used an interview technique to gather informa­ tion from Swedes living in the U.S. and U.S. citizens

living in Sweden about communication patterns in the two cultures and identified differences in both verbal and nonverbal approaches, including openness to strangers, conversational regulation, eye contact, and emotional display (pp. 19–21). Hooijschuur, Hilton, and Loerts (2017), working in Holland, used gestures as an indicator of native speakers of a language. In an earlier experiment, Gregersen, Olivares­Cuhat, and Storm (2009) found connections between competence in a sec­ ond language and the kinds of gestures used by the speakers. Sharifabad and Vali (2011) focused on Persian English­as­a­foreign­language students and American native speakers, finding no differences in kinesics but some in frequency of facial expression over gestures. Wing Chee So (2010) added an element of complexity by comparing gesture frequency among Chinese­speak­ ing monolinguals, English­speaking monolinguals, and Chinese­English speaking bilinguals.

The English monolinguals overall produced more representational and nonrepresentational gestures than the Chinese monolinguals, sug­ gesting that American culture is a relatively high­gesture culture and Chinese culture is a rel­ atively low­gesture culture. When speaking in English, the bilinguals resembled the English monolinguals regarding the frequency of both representational and nonrepresentational ges­ tures. When speaking in Mandarin­Chinese, the bilinguals produced more representational ges­ tures than the Chinese monolinguals but more or less the same number of representational ges­ tures as the English monolinguals. In contrast, the bilinguals and the Chinese monolinguals produced similar number of nonrepresentational gestures. (p. 1335).

Hee Sun Park and Guan (2009) compared both verbal and nonverbal apology strategies between Chinese and English speakers, finding that the Chinese speakers used different strategies towards in­group and out­ group apologies. In another study of bilingual vs. monolingual speakers, Gruber, King, Hay, and Johnston (2016) turned to New Zealand to compare English­Māori bilinguals with English monolinguals, noting some differences in hand, head, and eyebrow gestures. Japanese and American pedestrian behaviors (acknowledging one another, glance, coordinating actions, level of focus) showed some differences (Patterson & Montepare, 2007; Patterson, Izuka, Tubbs, Ansel, Tsutsumi, Anson, Aoki, Arbaugh, & Lareina, 2009). Using an experiment with nonsense syllables, Jiang, Paulmann, Robin, and Pell (2015)

20 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

compared English and Hindi listeners to measure how they identified vocal markers of emotion; native speak­ ers proved more adept, but greater proficiency in the second language led to faster processing.

Young­Ok Lee (2009) introduces the idea of chronemics, or time, in a cross­culture comparison of Korean and English speakers, noting the “perception and use of time is comparatively studied in a metaphor­ ical expression” (p. 119). Lebedko (2016) also chose time as the nonverbal point of comparison between Russians and Americans, finding evidence of what she calls differences in cognitive systems.

Adamo (2011) calls attention to the varieties of dress in Nigeria as constituting a semiotic system.

The nonverbal gesture category of emblems show differences across cultures. Matsumoto and Hwang (2013) constructed a catalogue of such emblems based on coders and decoders from six world regions. Only a small group of the emblems were similar across all cul­ tures. Such variation can lead to misinterpretation, something that Ntuli (2012) demonstrates from recent South African history where even close cultural groups misunderstand each other.

As with all things, children learn language and nonverbal behaviors from home and culture. Bowen and Montepare (2007) found that “Negative forms of expressiveness in families and a poor quality of home life contribute more to children’s inability to under­ stand nonverbal communication than do cultural differ­ ences or parenting styles” (p. 185).

Cultural differences also appear in virtual spaces. Hasler and Friedman (2012) compared how Asian and European users interacted through avatars, finding that the Asian group kept a larger speaking distance than the Europeans (consistent with cultural norms) but that they adapted to the European norms when interacting with European avatars.

G. Translation and interpretation Face­to­face language translation involves both

verbal and nonverbal components. Palkowska and Wolańnska (2008) propose measures for the assess­ ment of translation quality, noting that the users them­ selves make poor judges since they lack ability in both languages. However, they do argue that users expect translators to actively incorporate paralinguistic cues. Successful translation will involve nonverbal func­ tions, especially those tied to discursive formations; key elements include speaker’s gaze, head nods, smil­ ing, tone, rhythm, pauses, and so on (Yang, Sasaoka, & Zhan, 2011). Grice’s theories of pragmatics can inform

translation studies, providing theoretical grounding for understanding gestures and connecting them to speak­ er meaning (Dynel, 2011). The misapplication of ges­ tures or the use of culturally ambiguous gestures can interfere with translation, as a case study of Chinese immigrants in Catalonia shows (Vargas­Urpi, 2013).

Other forms of translation also involve nonverbal cues since some languages incorporate body idioms or, like Slavic languages, include phrases that have a head­ word relationship (Andreici, 2016). More generally, transcriptions and translations of evidentiary hearings in court cases lose required accuracy without some nonverbal components signaling the speaker’s inten­ tion or mood (Chakhachiro,, 2016). Viewers of Japanese anime animation report a preference for sub­ titling over dubbing, particularly when subtitles include explanation of nonverbal cues (Caffrey, 2008). Carpenter (2014) offers a larger context of the contem­ porary inclusion of nonverbal elements in all languages and of the construction of nonverbal languages (sym­ bolic language, art, music, etc.). Another translation situation arises with the growing popularity of printed t­shirts. Caldwell (2017) suggests using methods from social semiotics and systemic functional linguistics to ground understanding the impact of, for example, English language slogans in cross­cultural settings.

H. Politics Political communication study has included the

role of nonverbal communication at least since the 1960 U.S. Presidential campaign debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon where famously those who heard the debate on the radio felt that Nixon won while those who watched it on television overwhelm­ ing opted for Kennedy. Most pundits attributed this to the appearance of the two candidates (Kopacz, 2006; Gong & Bucy, 2016). This focus on appearance, par­ alinguistic expression, and gestures has become a com­ monplace in political communication study, even in international politics (Predescu & Seceleanu, 2011; Rus, 2011). Kopacz (2006) provides an overview of how nonverbal communication study has merged with political communication study, suggesting that the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion offers a helpful theory to better understand political communi­ cation practices. A number of researchers propose some other ways to understand how nonverbal actions influence. Grebelsky­Lichtman (2010) argues that the disjunction between the verbal and nonverbal channels used by television interviewers and politicians predicts political standing. Laustsen and Petersen (2016) pres­

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 21

ent a fairly sophisticated model that connects nonver­ bal qualities with ideology, where a “dominant face” proves more pleasing to conservative audiences but a non­dominant one better for liberal audiences. Labuschagne (2017) and Tak, Kaid, and Khang (2007) remind readers that culture, as well, plays a role in pro­ viding a context in interpreting political gestures.

Better tools and more video sources have led to a more detailed analysis of politicians’ appearance and gesture in campaign speeches (Kindblom, 2009), of tel­ evision “image bites” (brief images when a candidate does not speak) (Bucy & Grabe, 2007), of balanced or unbalanced news reporting (Banning & Coleman, 2009), of reaction shots of news readers or audiences (Haumer & Donsbach, 2009), of news framing of non­ verbal cues (Manusov & Harvey, 2011), and of politi­ cal advertising (Tak, Kaid, & Khang, 2007).

Montepare (2010) introduces a special issue of the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior focused on political communication. The key study by Olivola and Todorov (2010), with the memorable title, “Elected in 100 mil­ liseconds,” reports that people’s quick judgments of candidate appearance predicted voting. The issue includes commentaries that explore the evolutionary rationale for such quick judgments (Riggio & Riggio, 2010); that urge the application of consumer culture theories and branding theories to the complexity of vot­ ing behaviors (Lieb & Shah, 2010); and that attempt to refine the predictive model of the effects (Verhulst, Lodge, & Lavine, 2010). A study, related to the topic of quick judgments though not published in the special issue, explores the impact of facial features on attitudes to politicians and their platforms (Maoz, 2012).

Finally, as expected from the attention given to the Kennedy­Nixon debates, nonverbal scholars still focus on political debates. Recent studies attend to the varying levels of politeness expressed by gestures in debates as indicators of argumentative effectiveness (Weger Jr., Seiter, Jacobs, & Akbulut, 2010); to expectancy violation through congruent or incongruent gestures (Gong & Bucy, 2016); to the background non­ verbal behaviors, that is, behavior when a debater is not speaking (Seiter, Weger, Kinzer, & Jensen, 2009); and to continuous response measurement of audience judg­ ments based on verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Nagel, Maurer, & Reinemann, 2012).

I. Journalism News presenters on television cannot turn off

their nonverbal behavior, and that behavior can influ­

ence their audiences (Florea, 2012). Beginning with media bias effects, Babad and Peer (2010) experiment­ ed with different ways to counteract the effect in tele­ vision interviews through cognitive remedies or through images of a relaxed interview subject. Replication in several countries showed a consistency of the results across cultures. Zhengrui Han and Hongqiang Zhu (2018) show how contemporary news presenters, rather than attempting a neutral counte­ nance, use eyebrow flashes to signal different messages of solidarity with their viewers.

J. Workplace Nonverbal behaviors influence and convey com­

munication in the workplace, something noted in both academic studies (Gorman, 2011) and popular works, such as those promising insights into reading other peo­ ple (Hogan, 2008) or improving work performance (Perkins, 2008); most general academic studies of work­ place communication include at least some introduction to the nonverbal behavior. For example, Chesebro (2014) covers elements such as evolutionary explana­ tions for nonverbal expression, the role of socialization and emotional expression in recognizing nonverbal cues, the functions of nonverbal behaviors, and adapting to the behaviors of others in the workplace.

Consistent with other business communication approaches, researchers investigate superior­subordinate communication, noting that superior immediacy serves as an intervening variable between superior communica­ tion competence and subordinate communication satis­ faction (Madlock, 2008), between superior verbal aggression and subordinate perception of superior cred­ ibility (Teven, 2010; Lybarger, Rancer, & Lin, 2017), and between employee emotion and motivation for com­ munication with superiors (Jia, Jiuqing, & Hale, 2017).

Other studies look at the success of job training on adolescents’ verbal and nonverbal communication skills (Olszewski, Panorska, & Gillam, 2017); at the relation of nonverbal cues and interview performance (DeGroot & Gooty, 2009); at the role of nonverbal cues on intercultural business practices, both face­to­face (Self, 2009) and via conference calls (Halbe, 2012); and at the role of nonverbal communication in office romance (Cowan & Horan, 2014).

K. Marketing and sales Grewal, Roggeveen, Puccinelli, and Spence (2014)

introduce a special issue of the journal, Psychology & Marketing, with articles that examine key issues in the

22 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

role of nonverbal cues in retail sales. Different contribu­ tors point out the importance of “visual atmospherics (e.g., color, brightness), auditory atmospherics (e.g., music type, tempo, and volume), olfactory atmospherics (e.g., scent), tactile atmospherics (e.g., ability to touch merchandise), and taste atmospherics (e.g., ability to sample merchandise)” (p. 469), with several examining auditory nonverbal cues. Kidwell and Hasford (2014) look at interaction components—facial expression, eye contact, perceived similarity—as influences on customer behavior. Nonverbal behaviors influence clients, with studies examining how well sales personnel understand customer nonverbal expressions (Puccinelli, Motyka, & Grewal, 2010), how well customers respond to sales per­ sonnel clothing and nonverbal cues (Bashir & Rule, 2014), the effect on sales when front­line employees match nonverbal emotions to clients (Lim, Lee, & Foo, 2017), the role of head­nodding in building client trust (Oshima, 2014), and the awareness of nonverbal behav­ iors in online interactions (Hoesch, 2016).

Nonverbal behaviors also appear in advertising, but not without problems. DeRosia’s (2008) experi­ ment found that consumers had to actively work to interpret nonverbal metaphors and behaviors. Iyanga­ Mambo (2017), examining a one­day recording of the Multimodal Analysis of TV database of British televi­ sion, reports strong evidence of gendered characters in both the verbal and nonverbal areas. “Male characters are characterized by a more powerful and distant pro­ file than females, who employ more physical attention­ seeking communicative techniques” (p. 95). Others work to develop more neutral avenues in which brand representatives can use “textual paralanguage” on online platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram (Luangrath, Peck,& Barger, 2017).

L. Computer­mediated communication At first consideration, the ideas of nonverbal com­

munication and computer­mediated communication (CMC) do not seem to interact; on second thought, one realizes that much of contemporary CMC employs images, avatars, and nonverbal typographic symbols. Montepare (2014) introduces a special issue of the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior by highlighting how nonverbal researchers have explored the computer envi­ ronment. Reports in that journal include studies of iden­ tity management (Lueders, Hall, Pennington, & Knutson, 2014), attachment style and emotional reaction (Fleuriet, Cole, & Guerrero, 2014; Miller, Denes, Diaz, & Buck, 2014), and the interaction of user characteris­

tics and transgression management (Samp & Palevitz, 2014). All of these studies examined Facebook users. Lueders and her colleagues (2014) used standard per­ sonality and social skills tests to measure the accuracy of people’s judgments of personality based on Facebook profiles, depending only on the nonverbal cues present­ ed. Fleuriet, Cole, and Guerrero (2014) examined emo­ tional responses to “jealousy inducing” Facebook posts, comparing verbal only posts with those that included “text plus either an attractive or unattractive photo of the sender, a winking face emoticon, words in all capitals, or triple exclamation points” (p. 429). The nonverbal ele­ ments, combined with attachment style and gender, pro­ duced different emotional responses. Miller and col­ leagues (2014) confirmed those findings related to attachment style, though their prompt consisted of pho­ tos showing different degrees of touch. Samp and Palevitz (2014) examined how those with different lev­ els of relational power responded to “perceived relation­ al transgressions by partners on Facebook, distinguish­ ing between face­to­face responses versus those that are expressed nonverbally (through monitoring or mainte­ nance behaviors) on the site” (p. 477).

Before the rise of social media sites like Facebook, nonverbal researchers had already begun to pay attention to the “paralinguistic” qualities of online written text. Ledbetter and Larsson (2008), studying emotionally supportive cues in email, found that “that female senders use more emotional nonverbal cues than do male senders, yet nonverbal cue usage is not associated with the recipient’s support satisfaction” (p. 1089). Riordan and Trichtinger (2017) report less opti­ mistic results with email, noting that both senders and receivers overestimate accuracy of interpreting both verbal and nonverbal cues. Antonijevic (2008) turned to Second Life, a virtual environment that allows prox­ emic and kinesic actions through avatars, comparing “user­defined and predefined nonverbal cues” and finding “that user­defined [nonverbal communication] has stronger potential to enhance online interaction” (p. 221). Morgan (2018) summarizes these kinds of stud­ ies, offering practical advice for interacting in the vir­ tual worlds of email, conference calls, video chats, webinars, texting, online chats, and so on.

Online interaction has also popularized the use of “emoticons,” that is “graphic signs, such as the smiley face, that often accompany computer­mediat­ ed textual communication” (Dresner & Herring, 2010, p. 249). Dresner and Herring (2010) apply speech act theory to argue that emoticons have illocutionary

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 23

force as well as serving as emotional indicators. Thompson and Filik (2016) provide a demonstration of this in their report of several experiments in which emoticons served as “the principal indicators of sar­ castic intent . . . compensating for the absence of non­ verbal cues in written communication” (p. 105). Park, Baek, and Cha (2014), using a big data sample to look at emoticon usage on Twitter in different cultures, found that “people within individualistic cultures favor horizontal and mouth­oriented emoticons like :), while those within collectivistic cultures favor ver­ tical and eye­oriented emoticons like ^_^” (p. 333). Given some limitations, they acknowledge that their study probably has greater methodological signifi­ cance than practical use. Schandorf (2013) goes beyond emoticons to examine range on paralinguistic features that serve phatic functions in the online world—ranging from buttons to share or rate content (“like’) to subscribe to various feeds.

Another class of CMC involves human­computer interaction, often in the contexts of games, shopping agents, or learning. Here, too, researchers have attended to nonverbal behaviors. Pelachaud (2009) focused on gesture studies to create an embodied conversational agent, building a set of six parameters to inform anima­ tions. Mol, Krahmer, Maes, and Swerts (2009) further explored this idea by contrasting gestures in human face­ to­face interaction with human­machine interactions. Balzarotti, Piccini, Andreoni, and Ciceri (2014) investi­ gated the role that emotional attunement plays in human­ computer exchanges. Drawing on research that shows how humans signal such attunement nonverbally, they constructed an experiment in which a computer simulat­ ed understanding people’s emotions. “Results showed that if participants were aware of interacting with an agent able to recognize their emotions, they reported that the computer was able to ‘understand’ them and showed

a higher number of nonverbal behaviors during the most interactive activity” (p. 283). Tong and Walther (2015) test the concepts of interpersonal expectancy in CMC in channels with and without nonverbal components. Haans, Bruijn, and IJsselsteijn (2014) explored the impact of touch in human­computer interactions. “With two experiments (one with an informed and one with a blind confederate) and a meta­analysis, we demonstrate that stimulation through a tactile display can induce sim­ ilar helping behavior as actual interpersonal physical contact. This virtual Midas touch effect suggests that electro­mechanical stimuli are processed in ways similar to actual touch” (p. 301). Beilharz (2011) goes further in her explorations of using embedded chips to control music; as part of the background, she reports on a num­ ber of ways to incorporate gesture into human­computer interaction (from physical controllers to motion sensor devices). Hrişcă (2012) offers a review of relevant liter­ ature on “body language” studies in order to develop an artificial body.

Each of these studies presents ideas on incorporat­ ing nonverbal aspects on the design of future computer mediated communication. Other researchers look at such possibilities in specific contexts. Youngvorst and High (2018) suggest using technological features to incorporate verbal and nonverbal cues into online sup­ port. D’Mello and Graesser (2009) report on developing hardware to detect bodily indicators of “boredom, con­ fusion, delight, flow, and frustration” during machine tutoring sessions (p. 123). Focusing on the other direc­ tion, Baylor and Kim (2009) had the instructional hard­ ware use an animated agent that could mimic human facial expressions and gestures. They found mixed results with facial expression reinforcing learning of attitudes but gestures more important when learning procedures, suggesting that machine interaction style should match the desired learning outcomes.

24 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

6. Specific Functions

Nonverbal actions can serve many functions, from expressing message content to commenting on messages, to expressing emotion, to regulating interac­ tions, as have appeared in many of the previous sec­ tions. Without attempting a comprehensive review of all the functions of nonverbal communication, this sec­ tion will present research on only three: emotional expression, deception, and language learning.

A. Expressing emotion People express emotion nonverbally, particularly

though facial expression. Research already cited in specific contexts (health, education, marketing, and so on) has highlighted some of the work in this area of nonverbal study. In introducing their experimental work, Kever, Grynberg, Eeckhout, Mermillod, Fantini, and Vermeulen (2015) provide a helpful context of

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 25

how researchers theorize emotion. They note, for example, that “current theories of embodied emotion suggest that knowledge about an emotion concept involves simulations of bodily experienced emotional states relevant to the concept” (p. 582). To test this, they measured emotional arousal triggered by the pro­ cessing of emotional words, finding support for the general theory. Some more general examinations of emotion consider facial mimicry, a theory that holds that “perception of emotional facial expressions may activate corresponding facial muscles in the receiver” (Künecke, Wilhelm, & Sommer, 2017, p. 221). Künecke and her colleagues report on testing this, not with people’s reactions to photographs—the tradition­ al method—but in face­to­face interaction, recording the participants’ facial electromyograms. Their results accorded with the Emotion Mimicry in Context theo­ ries. Jones and Wirtz (2007) examined a more expan­ sive understanding of emotional matching, focusing on nonverbal immediacy. While they found spontaneous matching, the levels of immediacy did not influence the perceptions of that matching.

People typically show great ability to recognize emotion in others. Miles and Johnston (2007) report two experiments where people successfully distin­ guished between “enjoyment and non­enjoyment” smiles, judging the former as markers of happiness. Merola (2007) found that people—in this case, ath­ letes—can recreate emotions through nonverbal expression, combining emotional states with sensory­ motor ones. People can also express and recognize emotion in such human activity as crying, which can also have a discursive function (Ladegaard, 2014). Sighing also has several functions, from emotional expression to conversational regulation (Hoey, 2014).

Do these abilities change with age? Montepare (2011) provides added context in this area of research into the nonverbal expression of emotion, introducing a special issue of the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior on ageing. Articles in the issue report on the limitations in studying differences between younger and older adults in expressing emotion by focusing solely on the underlying neurophysiological paths rather than look­ ing for broader measures of context and perception of emotion (Isaacowitz & Stanley, 2011). As is usual in such special issues, other researchers respond to these concerns by more detailed studies of neural functions (Phillips & Slessor, 2011) and an attempt to combine the neuropsychological with attention to ecological questions (Ruffman, 2011). Charles and Campos

(2011) conclude the issue by suggesting that no one theory will explain all age­related differences and that researchers would do well to consider both culture and gender together with age.

B. Deception and detecting deception Nonverbal researchers have long investigated

deception, taking up the popular belief that careful observers can detect deception through nonverbal “leak­ age.” More recent studies continue to examine decep­ tion. Novotny, Carr Frank, Dietrich, Shaddock, Cardwell, and Decker (2018) summarizing past views and research, argue that detecting deception is a process aided by nonverbal behaviors that arouse suspicion. In two experiments, they found “that those asked about suspecting a lie cited nonverbal behaviors significantly more often than those asked about discovering a lie. Thus, in contrast to previous research, these findings suggest the importance of behavioral clues (e.g. verbal and nonverbal behavior), specifically in the early stage of lie detection” (p. 41). Looking for specific nonverbal indicators of deception, Cohen, Beattie, and Shovelton (2010) found that “participants produced significantly fewer iconic gestures when describing plot­line events deceptively than when narrating comparable episode units truthfully” (p. 133). Often the kinds of gestures used did not correspond to semantic information.

As early as Darwin, people have suspected that facial expression can give away the attempt to lie. Porter, ten Brinke, and Wallace (2012) summarize prior research and use video cameras to record leakage of emotion in facial expression. Based on a frame by frame analysis they concluded, “In general, emotional leakage lasted longer in both the upper and lower face during high­intensity masked, relative to low­intensity, masked expressions” (p. 23); they also noted that untrained observers could not identify these clues to deceptive communication. And good deceivers can mask the clues. Okubo, Kobayashi, and Ishikawa (2012) found that a posed or fake smile could hide other facial clues to emotion and thus deception. Popular culture does not necessarily help. The televi­ sion show, Lie to Me, features a scientist who uses the ability to detect deception nonverbally. Experimental participants who view the show “were no better at dis­ tinguishing truths from lies but were more likely than control participants to misidentify honest interviewees as deceptive”; if anything, the show made them more suspicious of all communicators (Levine, Serota, Kim, & Shulman, 2010, p. 847).

Can people learn how to detect deception? A meta­analysis of 30 studies (Hauch, Sporer, Michael, & Meissner, 2016) showed some effects of training:

a small to medium training effect for detection accuracy . . . and for lie accuracy . . . , but not for truth accuracy . . . . If participants were guided by cues to detect the truth, rather than to detect deception, only truth accuracy was increased. Moderator analyses revealed larger training effects if the training was based on verbal con­ tent cues, whereas feedback, nonverbal and par­ averbal, or multichannel cue training had only small effects. Type of training, duration, mode of instruction, and publication status were also important moderators. (p. 283)

Kádár (2017) reminds readers that the perception of nonverbal indicators of deception has links to the per­ sonality of the observer and suggests two­fold training in self­knowledge and classification of facial signs. Employing the construct of “sensory­processing sensi­ tivity.” Gearhart (2014) found no significant differ­ ences in decoding deception between sensitive and non­sensitive participants.

Other deception studies include newer technolog­ ical tools. Using pattern recognition software on previ­ ous sets of data, Burgoon, Proudfoot, Schuetzler, and Wilson (2014) discovered a number of indicators of deception. Burgoon, Schuetzler, and Wilson (2015) report that another computer program, one that ana­ lyzes kinesic behavior, found “that the quantity and quality of patterns distinguish truths from untruths” but sometimes in counterintuitive ways (p. 1). Given the rise of videoconferencing, Dunbar, Jensen, Tower, and Burgoon (2014) asked whether the mode of communi­ cation (face­to­face vs. videoconference) affected the ability to detect cheating; among other things they found that the videoconference disrupted the deceivers’ ability to deceive by altering their rhythm of communi­ cation. Do deceivers prefer one communication chan­ nel over another? Van Swol and Braun (2014) com­ pared face­to­face situations with text chat in a finan­ cial game setting. “Distributors used text chat more for deceptive offers; receivers were more accurate at detecting deception through text chat than face­to­ face” (p. 1139). Deceptive behavior appeared more fre­ quently in texting, at least as reported by undergradu­ ate students in an anonymous survey. “Results indicate that among undergraduate students, text messaging is an interpersonal form of communication that circum­ vents professionalism and power. Further, undergradu­

ate students were much more likely to engage in decep­ tive texting with family and friends, but did so with sig­ nificantly less frequency in the organizational setting” (Wise & Rodriguez, 2013, p. 342).

Organizational settings provide other opportuni­ ties for study deception. De Waele and Claeys (2017) examined crisis communication, where typical corpo­ rate responses occur in televised settings. Public assessment of organizational credibility often rests on the interpretation (whether accurate or not) of nonver­ bal cues. Their study of 160 recordings of crisis responses found that “several nonverbal cues of decep­ tion occur in audiovisual crisis communication and that their occurrence depends on the crisis type, the source, and the crisis communication format” (p. 680).

Each of these approaches to deception detection through nonverbal cues suggests further research; at the moment, the most promising avenues seem to rest in the application of technology to the study.

C. Language study Linguistics and language study seeks to develop

coding schemes and methods to include nonverbal behaviors (paralinguistics and gestures) into their work (Adolphs & Carter, 2007). Ross (2018) proposes including interaction competences (turn­taking, eye contact, paralinguistics) in assessment measures of lan­ guage competence, applying a test case to Japanese and English speakers. Cormanski (2017) refers to this as a “grammar of the body,” which speakers must master along with linguistic grammar. Busà (2015) refers to something similar in second language learning and encourages its inclusion in the syllabus. Kimura and Kazik (2017) draw on Sociocultural Theory to ground their classroom incorporation of such grammar of the body while others propose classroom exercises such as storytelling that bridges the gap to appropriate gesture (Tabensky, 2008). In a more specialized consideration, Eriksen (2011) discusses the case of negation of non­ verbal predicates—something that follows a different grammar from the linguistic one in many languages.

Anchoring a special issue of the Journal of Child Language, Iverson (2010), based on a review of relevant literature argues “that motor acquisitions provide infants [0–18 months] with an opportunity to practice skills relevant to language acquisition before they are needed for that purpose; and that the emer­ gence of new motor skills changes infants’ experi­ ence with objects and people in ways that are rele­ vant for both general communicative development

26 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

and the acquisition of language” (p. 229). This non­ verbal “pre­language” idea garners both support (Oller, 2010; Taylor, 2010) and criticism (Adolph,

Tamis­Lemonda, & Karasik, 2010), with all discus­ sants providing additional research materials to back their claims.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 27

7. Methodologies and Coding

The last section of the Matsumoto, Hwang, and Frank handbook (2016a) reviews different method­ ological approaches to studying nonverbal behavior. One of the difficulties, as one chapter heading has it, lies in “measuring the dynamic stream of display” of nonverbal behavior. Nonverbal communication, like a spoken language, is ongoing behavior and encompass­ es the full range of the human body, from facial expres­ sion to posture to movement. How one records such material for study provides the focus for the chapter (Buck & Miller, 2016) and for this section of the review. Nonverbal researchers have to contend not only with bodily expression but also with proximity, odors, vocal inflection, and so on—as well as how humans manage to perceive and decode all of these things simultaneously.

Nonverbal researchers long struggled with how to record and code different nonverbal behaviors. Since those behaviors occur simultaneously, every researcher runs the risk of missing something by focusing on some­ thing else. Early approaches to nonverbal study chose a single channel; research attempted to describe and then categorize what took place in, for example, gesture or eye behavior or touch or posture. Some attempted to photograph or video record people, but these early attempts lacked a naturalistic setting. More recent study has taken advantage of improved recording technologies that allow researchers to perform close analyses of nat­ uralistic interactions recorded in situ.

Before one can apply any technologies, researchers must specify what to code. And knowing what channels matter becomes an important first step since adding different modes or channels of nonverbal behavior complicates the coding task. Mondada (2018) offers an overview of key principles involved in tran­ scribing conversations. She “discusses classic and con­ temporary challenges for transcription and analysis, such as beyond gesture and gaze, body arrangements in interactional spaces, larger groups, material environ­ ments, mobile settings, silent activities, and animal encounters. [The essay] also highlights the diversity of

multi­modal practices involved: mobilizing occasioned material resources, movements not only of the upper (head, gesture) but also the lower (feet, legs, posterior) parts of the body, haptic contacts, touching objects and co­participants, and camera movements” (p. 85). She also notes the necessity of coding the order in which the nonverbal behaviors occur within conversations. Adolphs and Carter (2007) report on a multi­modal (linguistics and nonverbal) project at the University of Nottingham, which seeks to expand current linguistic databases to include nonverbal behaviors. They initial­ ly focus on gestures that accompany talk, particularly head nods. In addition to recording language examples they plan to include video that researchers can stream along with verbal data. Jaime (2018) proposes a theo­ retical framework for including clothing as a category or channel of nonverbal communication, arguing “that clothing: a) is a non­linguistic sign that sends at least 19 different messages, b) complies with all the struc­ tural elements for the existence of [nonverbal commu­ nication], c) is present as an expression mechanism in other species, and d) supports the verbal system by executing five functions” (p. 85).

Researchers continue to test different methods of assessing nonverbal behavior. Gross, Crane, and Fredrickson (2010) employed actors to demonstrate a variety of emotions in order to develop methods to assess both the expression of and interpretation of emotion in simple bodily movements. Their project involved motion capture photography to record a range of emotions associated with the act of knocking. They concluded that the “results demonstrate the efficacy of selecting movement trials in which target emotions are felt and recognized in assessing bodily expression of emotion. By limiting body movements to a single task, the effect of positive and negative emotions on qualita­ tive and quantitative movement characteristics could be determined more specifically” (p. 246). They also note that though the actors recognized the target emo­ tions, observers only recognized them in a few trials (p. 223). But how much does the work of trained

observers resemble the sensitivity of ordinary individ­ uals? Gawne and Kelly (2014) found some differences:

We asked 12 participants to conceptualize their own categories of gesture and then analyze a short video that contained a predetermined vari­ ety of bodily movements. We found that non­ analysts had a wider conception of what consti­ tuted gesture than analysts. In regards to the cat­ egorizations of gesture that non­analysts made, there were a range of schemas, which we broad­ ly categorized as being “form­based” and “func­ tion­based.” (p. 216)

One might reasonably ask whether the non­analysts are in the early stages of discovering categories, which the scholars had already done, or whether the scholars have become too specialized, with too many non­intuitive categories. Acknowledging the complexity of nonver­ bal behaviors (“head movements, facial expressions and body gestures”), Theobald, Mangini, Spies, Brick, Cohn, Boker, and Michael (2009) present their system “where the effects of manipulating individual compo­ nents of nonverbal visual behavior during live face­to­ face conversation can be studied” through video frame rate analysis (p. 369).

Computer­assisted coding involves the frame­by­ frame display of interactions along with the ability to annotate multiple aspects through repeated viewing. Allwood, Cerrato, Jokinen, Navarretta, and Paggio (2007) describe a “multi­modal annotation scheme dedi­ cated to the study of gestures in interpersonal communi­ cation” (p. 273). Focusing on turn management, sequenc­ ing, and feedback, they tested their proposed categories on video clips in three Nordic languages and offer the coding scheme to other researchers. These include con­ tinuation/contact (where speakers acknowledge one another), signaling perception and understanding, atti­ tudes/emotion, turn management (trading the turn to talk), and different kinds of gestures (pp. 275–278).

Similar approaches offer coding systems for emo­ tional expression. Dael, Mortillaro, and Scherer (2012) propose the body action and posture coding system (BAP), which describes the articulation of anatomical units and the form and function of units (pp. 101–102). They also provide a very helpful review of past sys­ tems for coding body movement and emotion, begin­ ning with the early work of Ekman and Friesen and Birdwhistell (pp. 98–100). Their proposed system also employs a computer assisted display of recorded inter­ actions; initial studies applying it to a standard data set found solid intercoder reliability.

A number of scales of nonverbal behavior exist, particularly in the health communication area. The Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired helps in diagnostics and treatment (Mokkink, Kno, Zekveld, Goverts, & Kramer, 2009) and includes a section on nonverbal strategies. The Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scale—Developmental Profile pro­ vides an instrument for parental and clinical use in assisting with the evaluation of children at risk of devel­ opmental delay (Eadie, Ukoumunne, Skeat, Prior, Bavin, Brethertonk, & Reilly, 2010). The Patient Emotion Cue Test (PECT) provides training for medical personnel in recognizing emotional cues of their patients. It “consists of 47 video clips depicting emotion cues that systematically vary in intensity of both verbal and nonverbal contents. The PECT assesses the provider’s ability to detect and identify patients’ emo­ tion cues accurately” (Blanch­Hartigan, 2011, p. 370). The Relational Communication Scale for Observational Measurement “is a 34­item instrument designed to measure the nonverbal communication of physicians interacting with patients” (Gallagher, Hartung, Gerzina, Gregory, & Merolla, 2005). Gorawara­Bhat, Cook, and Sachs (2007) present validity testing results for the NDEPT (nonverbal communication in doctor­elderly patient transactions) in an attempt to develop a tool to evaluate nonverbal dimensions in geriatric medicine.

In a more specialized context, Shikanai, Sawada, and Ishii (2013) developed and tested the Movements Impressions Emotions Model for dance as a way to evaluate the expression of emotion. Key movements included “Frequency and Velocity of Upward Extension, Frequency and Velocity of Downward Movements, Turning or Jumping, and Body Closing” (p. 107).

La France, Heisel, and Beatty (2007) have attempted to explore the accuracy of the use of various coding systems for nonverbal behavior. After finding “a substantial negative correlation between effect size and sample size” in a meta­analysis of studies on non­ verbal behavior they tested whether the cognitive load hypothesis could account for observer error. They note, “The decision to increase the number of nonverbal cues observers coded created 26% more errors, and over time observers made 10% more errors” (p. 11).

Given the intensity of this kind of coding and the possibility of error, some have explored automating the process. Frauendorfer, Schmid Mast, Nguyen, and Gatica­Perez (2014) offer an example from a job inter­ view setting to show “how nonverbal social sensing,

28 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

defined as the automated recording and extracting of nonverbal behavior via ubiquitous social sensing plat­ forms, can be achieved. More precisely, we show how and what kind of nonverbal cues can be extracted and to what extent automated extracted nonverbal cues can be validly obtained” (p. 231). To escape the need for human

coders, they had test subjects wear sensing devices such as eye­trackers or movement sensors (p. 232). They found that their technology and overall model compared well with human coders and urge further development of such systems.Others have developed similar automated systems, as mentioned in the section on contexts.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 29

8. Conclusion

Nonverbal communication research over the last 10 years has continued much as it had begun: in inter­ disciplinary cooperation. While much of the research described here takes place with a communication focus and often appears in communication journals, a good deal of the study takes place in psychology, linguistics, anthropology, and health; it finds publication outlets in medical journals as well as in those of the social sci­ ences. Recent work also continues its applied focus.

The recent nonverbal research area also continues to manifest some of the same difficulties that it faced all along. That is, the behaviors it describes occur in multiple channels, with multiple effects, simultaneous­ ly communicating in themselves and commenting on other communication channels. This leads to a kind of dualism within the research itself. The researcher must describe the subject area by the channel(s) in which the communication takes place and by the function(s) that it serves. Much of the time both channel and function do not conveniently appear singly. And since all of the nonverbal behaviors occur simultaneously (and often with verbal linguistic communication), the researcher must make some choices on how to describe the phe­ nomena and present the material.

Among the noteworthy things emerging from this more recent period of nonverbal research are the devel­ opment of new methodologies and the particular focus on nonverbal communication in health communication circles. Health communication researchers have one of the most applied approaches: They see nonverbal behavior as both a diagnostic tool and a treatment tool. Given the seriousness of the issues, either in early life with child language development, or in late life due to aphasia or dementia, the nonverbal behaviors form a life changing part of communication itself. Other com­ munication researchers also include applied situations for nonverbal behavior, for example, in education, business, or marketing.

The new methodological tools used by nonverbal communication researchers very clearly indicate that

much more occurs nonverbally than the unassisted human observer notices. Very complex behaviors take place below the fully conscious encoding or decoding by an individual and have significant impacts on the communicators. One the one hand, one can only mar­ vel at what and how humans accomplish in their com­ munication; on the other, one wants to describe it and measure its impact and meaning. Researchers have developed new video tools to record interactions and computer analysis programs to detect different kinds of nonverbal behaviors and, at times, even to interpret them. Clearly these go far beyond what the average individual can consciously do (though that same aver­ age individual manages his/her communication quite well). In many ways this fact simply highlights and reinforces earlier observations that the ordinary observer does not notice even what a trained observer might. And the computer­assisted studies notice what a trained observer cannot.

At the other end of the spectrum, new research approaches have led scholars to recover and draw con­ clusions from descriptions of behavior in past texts and artwork. They might also ask whether human behavior has changed over the centuries and cultures.

The new methodologies suggest an area of research into how seemingly hidden nonverbal action influences human behavior. How can we assert that things not even noticed by many individuals affect their behavior? Indeed the measurement and descrip­ tion of individual activities—whether minute changes in facial expression, the influence of odors, the detec­ tion of slight changes in tone, or a level of tension in posture—do indicate that these affect us. What is it in human communication and behavior that allows these individually unnoticeable things to have any impact on a person‘s behavior? Does bringing these behaviors under conscious control change their impact? Will attention to nonverbal actions improve medical diag­ nostics? Teaching? Interpersonal relationships? Workplaces? Much remains to do.

References

Acheson, K. (2008). Silence as gesture: Rethinking the nature of communicative silences. Communication Theory, 18(4), 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j .1468­2885.2008.00333.x

Adamo, G. E. (2011). Nigerian dress as a symbolic language. Semiotica, 2011(184), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/ semi.2011.019

Adams Jr., R. B., & Nelson, A. J. (2016). Eye behavior and gaze In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 335–362). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Adolph, K. E., Tamis­Lemonda, C. S., & Karasik, L. B. (2010). Cinderella indeed—A commentary on Iverson’s “Developing language in a developing body: the relationship between motor development and lan­ guage development.” Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S030500090999047X

Adolphs, S., & Carter, R. (2007). Beyond the word. European Journal of English Studies, 11(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570701452698

Alamillo, A. R., Colletta, J.­M., & Guidetti, M. (2013). Gesture and language in narratives and explanations: The effects of age and communicative activity on late multimodal discourse development. Journal of Child Language, 40(3), 511–538. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0305000912000062

Alibali, M. W., Young, A. G., Crooks, N. M., Yeo, A., Wolfgram, M. S., Ledesma, I. M., … Knuth, E. J. (2013). Students learn more when their teacher has learned to gesture effectively. Gesture, 13(2), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.2.05ali

Allwood, J., Cerrato, L., Jokinen, K., Navarretta, C., & Paggio, P. (2007). The MUMIN coding scheme for the annotation of feedback, turn management, and sequencing phenomena. Language Resources & Evaluation, 41(3/4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10579­007­9061­5

Anderson, D. N. (2014). The taxicab­hailing encounter: The politics of gesture in the interaction order. Semiotica, 2014(202), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem­ 2014­0047

Andersson, P. K. (2018). Silent history: Body language and nonverbal identity, 1860–1914. Montreal: McGill­ Queens University Press.

Andreici, M. T. (2016). Body idioms in Russian and Serbian languages. Scientific Bulletin of the Politehnica University of Timisoara. Transactions on Modern Languages / Buletinul Stiintific Al Universitatii Politehnica Din Timisoara. Seria Limbi Moderne, 15(1), 15–22.

Andrén, M. (2014). Multimodal constructions in children: Is the headshake part of language? Gesture, 14(2), 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.14.2.02and

Anikin, A., Bååth, R., & Persson, T. (2018). Human non­lin­ guistic vocal repertoire: Call types and their meaning. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42(1), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­017­0267­y

Antonijevic, S. (2008). From text to gesture online: A microethnographic analysis of nonverbal communica­ tion in the Second Life virtual environment. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180801937290

Aoju Chen. (2009). Perception of paralinguistic intonational meaning in a second language. Language Learning, 59(2), 367–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467­ 9922.2009.00510.x

Aranguren, M., & Tonnelat, S. (2014). Emotional transac­ tions in the Paris subway: Combining naturalistic videotaping, objective facial coding, and sequential analysis in the study of nonverbal emotional behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(4), 495–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0193­1

Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye­contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304.

Argyle, M., Lalljee, M., & Cook, M. (1968). The effects of vis­ ibility on interaction in a dyad. Human Relations, 21(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676802100101

Armstrong, D. F. (2008). The gestural theory of language origins. Sign Language Studies, 8(3), 289–314.

Arnold, L. (2012). Dialogic embodied action: Using gesture to organize sequence and participation in instructional interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(3), 269–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08351813.2012.699256

Arun, P. T., Mathew, M. M., & Bailoor, P. (2014). A study of hand gestures in adult speakers of Malayalam. Language in India, 14(10), 198–210.

Austin, E. E., & Sweller, N. (2018). Gesturing along the way: Adults’ and preschoolers’ communication of route direction information. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919­017­0271­2

Babad, E., & Peer, E. (2010). Media bias in interviewers’ nonverbal behavior: Potential remedies, attitude simi­ larity, and meta­analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(1), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919­009­0078­x

Bahns, A., Crandall, C., Gillath, O., & Wilmer, J. (2016). Nonverbal communication of similarity via the torso: It’s in the bag. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­016­0227­y

Bailenson, J., & Yee, N. (2007). Virtual interpersonal touch and digital chameleons. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31(4), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919­007­0034­6

30 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Bailey, A., & Kelly, S. (2015). Picture power: Gender versus body language in perceived status. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(4), 317–337. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10919­015­0212­x

Balzarotti, S., Piccini, L., Andreoni, G., & Ciceri, R. (2014). “I know that you know how I feel”: Behavioral and physiological signals demonstrate emotional attune­ ment while interacting with a computer simulating emotional intelligence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919­014­0180­6

Banning, S. A., & Coleman, R. (2009). Louder than words: A content analysis of presidential candidates’ televised non­ verbal communication. Visual Communication Quarterly, 16(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15551390802620464

Barker, G. G. (2016). Cross­cultural perspectives on intercul­ tural communication competence. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2015.1104376

Bashir, N. Y., & Rule, N. O. (2014). Shopping under the influ­ ence: Nonverbal appearance­based communicator cues affect consumer judgments. Psychology & Marketing, 31(7), 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20715

Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal com­ munication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.008

Beattie, G., Webster, K., & Ross, J. (2010). The fixation and processing of the iconic gestures that accompany talk. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 29(2), 194–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09359589

Beattie, G., Webster, K. A., & Ross, J. A. D. (2014). Do speakers really unconsciously and imagistically ges­ ture about what is important when they are telling a story? Semiotica, 2014(202), 41–79. https://doi.org/10 .1515/sem­ 2014­0033

Becker, D. V., Neel, R., & Anderson, U. S. (2010). Illusory conjunctions of angry facial expressions follow inter­ group biases. Psychological Science, 21(7), 938–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610373374

Beek, Y., & Dubas, J. (2008a). Age and gender differences in decoding basic and non­basic facial expressions in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s10919­007­ 0040­8

Beek, Y., & Dubas, J. (2008b). Decoding Basic and non­ basic facial expressions and depressive symptoms in late childhood and adolescence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919­007­ 0041­7

Beilharz, K. (2011). Tele­touch embodied controllers: Posthuman gestural interaction in music performance. Social Semiotics, 21(4), 547–568. https://doi.org/10 .1080/10350330.2011.591997

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1955). Background to kinesics. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 13(1), 10–18.

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics in context: Essays on body motion communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Blanch­Hartigan, D. (2011). Measuring providers’ verbal and nonverbal emotion recognition ability: Reliability and validity of the Patient Emotion Cue Test (PECT). Patient Education & Counseling, 82(3), 370–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.11.017

Blatner, A. (2009). About nonverbal communication. Retrieved February 18, 2019 from https://www.blat­ ner.com/adam/level2/nverb1.htm

Bodie, G. D., & Villaume, W. A. (2008). Men and women hold­ ing hands revisited: Effects of mutual engagement and hand dominance on attributions of cross­sex handhold­ ing. Communication Research Reports, 25(4), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090802440089

Bonvillian, J. D., Ingram, V. L., & McCleary, B. M. (2009). Observations on the use of manual signs and gestures in the communicative interactions between Native Americans and Spanish explorers of North America: The accounts of Bernal Díaz del Castillo and Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca. Sign Language Studies, 9(2), 132–165.

Bould, E., & Morris, N. (2008). Role of motion signals in recognizing subtle facial expressions of emotion. British Journal of Psychology, 99(2), 167–189. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712607X206702

Bowen, E., & Montepare, J. (2007). Nonverbal behavior in a global context dialogue: Questions and responses. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31(3), 185–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­007­0031­9

Bowleg, L., Valera, P., Teti, M., & Tschann, J. M. (2010). Silences, gestures, and words: Nonverbal and verbal communication about HIV/AIDS and condom use in Black heterosexual relationships. Health Communication, 25(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10 .1080/10410230903474019

Bressem, J., & Ladewig, S. H. (2011). Rethinking gesture phas­ es: Articulatory features of gestural movement? Semiotica, 2011(184), 53–91. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2011.022

Bruneau, T. J. (2008). How Americans use silence and silences to communicate. China Media Research, 4(2), 77–85.

Buck, R., & Miller, M. (2016). Measuring the dynamic stream of display: Spontaneous and intentional facial expression and communication. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 425–458). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bucy, E. P., & Grabe, M. E. (2007). Taking television seriously: A sound and image bite analysis of presidential campaign coverage, 1992­2004. Journal of Communication, 57(4),

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 31

652–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460­2466.2007 .00362.x

Buja, E. (2015). Travelling to the East: A nonverbal communi­ cation account. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 7(2), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/ausp­ 2015­0047

Burgoon, J. K, Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2010) Nonverbal communication. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Burgoon, J., Magnenat­Thalmann, N., Pantic, M., & Vinciarelli, A. (2017). Social signal processing. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Burgoon, J., Proudfoot, J., Schuetzler, R., & Wilson, D. (2014). Patterns of nonverbal behavior associated with truth and deception: Illustrations from three experi­ ments. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(3), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0181­5

Burgoon, J., Schuetzler, R., & Wilson, D. (2015). Kinesic patterning in deceptive and truthful interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0190­4

Busà, M. G. (2015). Teaching learners to communicate effec­ tively in the L2. Lingue e Linguaggi, 15, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1285/i22390359v15p83

Caffrey, C. (2008). Viewer perception of visual nonverbal cues in subtitled TV anime. European Journal of English Studies, 12(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10 .1080/13825570802151439

Caldwell, D. (2017). Printed t­shirts in the linguistic land­ scape: A reading from functional linguistics. Linguistic Landscape: An International Journal (LL), 3(2), 122–148. https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.3.2.02cal

Cameron­Faulkner, T. (2014). The interaction of gesture, intonation, and eye­gaze in proto­imperatives. Journal of Child Language, 41(4), 842–860.

Capone, N. C. (2007). Tapping toddlers’ evolving semantic representation via gesture. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 50(3), 732–745.

Carlomagno, S., Zulian, N., Razzano, C., De Mercurio, I., & Marini, A. (2013). Coverbal gestures in the recovery from severe fluent aphasia: A pilot study. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46(1), 84–99. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.08.007

Carpenter, E. (2014). Not since Babel. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 71(3), 272–278.

Carré, J. M., McCormick, C. M., & Mondloch, C. J. (2009). Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1194–1198. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467­9280.2009.02423.x

Cartmill, E. A., & Goldin­Meadow, S. (2016). Gesture. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp.307–334). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cassidy, E. (2016). Social networking sites and participatory reluctance: A case study of Gaydar, user resistance, and

interface rejection. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2613–2628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815590341

Cassidy, E., & Wang, W. Y. (2018). Gay men’s digital cul­ tures beyond Gaydar and Grindr: LINE use in the gay Chinese diaspora of Australia. Information, Communication & Society, 21(6), 851–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1437201

Cavallaro, M. J. (2017). How to present negative medical news in a positive light: A prescription for health care providers. Ocala, FL: Atlantic Publishing Group, Inc.

Chakhachiro, R. (2016). Contribution of prosodic and par­ alinguistic cues to the translation of evidentiary audio recordings. Translation & Interpreting, 8(2), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.108202.2016.a04

Chang, Y. (2006). Nonverbal communication in friends. Communication Teacher, 20(4), 97–99.

Chang, Y. (2015). Cultural norms and nonverbal communication: An illustration. Communication Teacher, 29(4), 191–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2015.1057749

Charles, S. T., & Campos, B. (2011). Age­related changes in emotion recognition: How, why, and how much of a problem? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35(4), 287–295. doi:10.1007/s10919­011­0117­2.

Chesebro, J. L. (2014). Professional communication at work: Interpersonal strategies for career success. New York: Routledge.

Chiang, C.­H., Soong, W.­T., Lin, T.­L., & Rogers, S. (2008). Nonverbal communication skills in young children with autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 38(10), 1898–1906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803­ 008­0586­2

Chui, K. (2009). Conversational coherence and gesture. Discourse Studies, 11(6), 661–680. https://doi.org/10 .1177/14614445609347230

Chui, K. (2011). Do gestures compensate for the omission of motion expression in speech? Chinese Language & Discourse, 2(2), 153–167.

Church, R. B., Garber, P., & Rogalski, K. (2007). The role of gesture in memory and social communication. Gesture, 7(2), 137–158.

Civile, C., & Obhi, S. (2016). Power eliminates the influence of body posture on facial emotion recognition. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(4), 283–299. https://doi .org/10.1007/s10919­016­0233­0

Clasen, P. (2008). House plans and communication flow. Communication Teacher, 22(4), 107–110. https://doi .org/10.1080/17404620802154667

Cocks, N., Byrne, S., Pritchard, M., Morgan, G., & Dipper, L. (2018). Integration of speech and gesture in aphasia. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 53(3), 584–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460­ 6984.12372

Cocks, N., Dipper, L., Middleton, R., & Morgan, G. (2011). What can iconic gestures tell us about the language sys­ tem? A case of conduction aphasia. International Journal

32 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

of Language & Communication Disorders, 46(4), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682822.2010.520813

Cocks, N., Dipper, L., Pritchard, M., & Morgan, G. (2013). The impact of impaired semantic knowledge in spon­ taneous iconic gesture production. Aphasiology, 27, 1050–1069.

Cohen, D., Beattie, G., & Shovelton, H. (2010). Nonverbal indi­ cators of deception: How iconic gestures reveal thoughts that cannot be suppressed. Semiotica, 2010(182), 133–174. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2010.055

Colletta, J.­M., Pellenq, C., & Guidetti, M. (2010). Age­ related changes in co­speech gesture and narrative: Evidence from French children and adults. Speech Communication, 52(6), 565–576. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.specom.2010.02.009

Comadena, M. E., Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). The Effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and car­ ing on student motivation, affective and cognitive learn­ ing. Communication Research Reports, 24(3), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090701446617

Conti­Ramsden, G., St Clair, M. C., Pickles, A., Durkin, K., Oetting, J., & Hadley, P. (2012). Developmental tra­ jectories of verbal and nonverbal skills in individuals with a history of specific language impairment: From childhood to adolescence. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 55(6), 1716–1735.

Cook, S. W., Yip, T. K., & Goldin­Meadow, S. (2010). Gesturing makes memories that last. Journal of Memory & Language, 63(4), 465–475. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jml.2010.07.002

Cooperrider, K., & Núñez, R. (2009). Across time, across the body: Transversal temporal gestures. Gesture, 9(2), 181–206. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.9.2.02coo

Cormanski, A. (2017). Jouer du corps?: Réflexions sur le statut et la place du corps­énonciateur de l’apprenant dans le processus d’apprentissage des langues [Body talk: Reflections on the status and place of the stu­ dent’s enunciator­body in the process of language learning. Synergies Espagne, 10, 153–169.

Courbalay, A., Deroche, T., & Descarreaux, M. (2017). Estimating pain and disability in virtual patients with low back pain: The contribution of nonverbal behav­ iors. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(3), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­017­0254­3

Cowan, R. L., & Horan, S. M. (2014). Love at the office? Understanding workplace romance disclosures and reactions from the coworker perspective. Western Journal of Communication, 78(2), 238–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2013.866688

Crais, E. R., Watson, L. R., & Baranek, G. T. (2009). Use of gesture development in profiling children’s prelinguis­ tic communication skills. American Journal of Speech­ Language Pathology, 18(1), 95–108.

Cutica, I., & Bucciarelli, M. (2011). “The more you gesture, the less I gesture”: Co­speech gestures as a measure of

mental model quality. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35(3), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­011­ 0112­7

Cutica, I., & Bucciarelli, M. (2015). Non­determinism in the uptake of gestural information. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(4), 289–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919­015­0215­7

D’Agostino, T. A., & Bylund, C. L. (2014). Nonverbal accommodation in health care communication. Health Communication, 29(6), 563–573. https://doi.org/10 .1080/10410236.2013.783773

D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2009). Automatic detection of learner’s affect from gross body language. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 23(2), 123–150. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08839510802631745

Dael, N., Mortillaro, M., & Scherer, K. (2012). The body action and posture coding system (BAP): Development and reliability. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36(2), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919­012­0130­0

Damnet, A., & Borland, H. (2007). Acquiring nonverbal competence in English language contexts: The case of Thai learners of English viewing American and Australian films. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication (John Benjamins Publishing Co.), 17(1), 127–148.

Davies, J. A. (2018). Lift up your heads: Nonverbal commu­ nication and related body imagery in the Bible. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.

de Beer, C., Hogrefe, K., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2018). Features of semantic content expressed via gesture by people with aphasia. Aphasiology, 32, 18–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02687038.2018.1486377

De Waele, A., & Claeys, A.­S. (2017). Nonverbal cues of deception in audiovisual crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 680–689. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.06.004

de Ruiter, J. P. (2007). Postcards from the mind: The rela­ tionship between speech, imagistic gesture, and thought. Gesture, 7(1), 21–38.

de Ruiter, J. P., & de Beer, C. (2013). A critical evaluation of models of gesture and speech production for under­ standing gesture in aphasia. Aphasiology, 27, 1015–1030.

de­Graft Aikins, A. (2011). Nonverbal communication in everyday multicultural life. In D. Hook, B. Franks, & M. W. Bauer (Eds.), The social psychology of commu­ nication (pp. 67–86). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York : Palgrave Macmillan.

DeGroot, T., & Gooty, J. (2009). Can nonverbal cues be used to make meaningful personality attributions in employment interviews? Journal of Business & Psychology, 24(2), 179–192.

Demir, Ö. E., Levine, S. C., & Goldin­Meadow, S. (2015). A tale of two hands: Children’s early gesture use in nar­

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 33

rative production predicts later narrative structure in speech. Journal of Child Language, 42(3), 662–681. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000914000415

DeRosia, E. D. (2008). The effectiveness of nonverbal symbolic signs and metaphors in advertisements: An experimental inquiry. Psychology & Marketing, 25(3), 298–316.

DeVito, J. (2013). The nonverbal communication book. Dubuque, IA: Kendall­Hunt.

Dipper, L., Pritchard, M., Morgan, G., & Cocks, N. (2015). The language­gesture connection: Evidence from aphasia. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 29(8–10), 748–763. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2015.1036462

Dixson, M. D., Greenwell, M. R., Rogers­Stacy, C., Weister, T., & Lauer, S. (2017). Nonverbal immediacy behav­ iors and online student engagement: Bringing past instructional research into the present virtual class­ room. Communication Education, 66(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1209222

Dohen, M., Schwartz, J.­L., & Bailly, G. (2010). Speech and face­to­face communication—An introduction. Speech Communication, 52(6), 477–480. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2010.02.016

Dolinski, D. (2010). Touch, compliance, and homophobia. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(3), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­010­0090­1

Doohan, E.­A. (2007). Listening behaviors of married couples: An exploration of nonverbal presentation to a relational outsider. International Journal of Listening, 21(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904010709336844

Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the non­ verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249–268. https://doi .org/10.1111/j.1468­2885.2010.01362.x

Drummond, P., & Bailey, T. (2013). Eye contact evokes blushing independently of negative affect. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37(4), 207–216. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10919­013­0155­z

Dunbar, N., Jensen, M., Tower, D., & Burgoon, J. (2014). Synchronization of nonverbal behaviors in detecting mediated and non­mediated deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(3), 355–376. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10919­014­0179­z

Dunsmore, J., Her, P., Halberstadt, A., & Perez­Rivera, M. (2009). Parents’ beliefs about emotions and children’s recognition of parents’ emotions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10919­ 008­0066­6

Dynel, M. (2011). Turning speaker meaning on its head: Non­verbal communication and intended meanings. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19(3), 422–447.

Eadie, P. A., Ukoumunne, O., Skeat, J., Prior, M. R., Bavin, E., Bretherton, L., & Reilly, S. (2010). Assessing early communication behaviours: structure and validity of the Communication and Symbolic Behaviour Scales­ Developmental Profile (CSBS­DP) in 12­month­old

infants. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45(5), 572–585. https:// doi.org/10.3109/13682820903277944

Eichorn, N., Marton, K., Campanelli, L., & Scheuer, J. (2014). Verbal strategies and nonverbal cues in school­ age children with and without specific language impairment (SLI). International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49(5), 618–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460­6984.12103

Ekman, P. (1964). Body position, facial expression, and ver­ bal behavior during interviews. Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(3), 295­301.

Ekman, P. (1965). Differential communication of affect by head and body cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(5), 726­735.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cul­ tures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124–29. doi:10.1037 /h0030377

Ellawadi, A. B., & Weismer, S. E. (2014). Assessing gestures in young children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 57(2), 524–531. https://doi.org/10.1044/2013_JSLHR­ L­12­ 0244

Ellis, M., & Astell, A. (2018). Adaptive interaction and dementia: How to communicate without speech. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Eriksen, P. K. (2011). ‘To not be’ or not ‘to not be’: The typology of negation of non­verbal predicates. Studies in Language, 35(2), 275–310. https://doi.org/10.1075/ sl.35.2.02eri

Esposito, A. (Ed.). (2007). Fundamentals of verbal and non­ verbal communication and the biometric issue, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on the Fundamentals of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication and the Biometric Issue, Vietri sul Mare, Italy, 2006. Washington, DC: IOS Press.

Ewing, L., Rhodes, G., & Pellicano, E. (2010). Have you got the look? Gaze direction affects judgements of facial attractiveness. Visual Cognition, 18(3), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280902965599

Farley, S. (2014). Nonverbal reactions to an attractive stranger: The role of mimicry in communicating preferred social distance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0174­4

Farley, S. D., Ashcraft, A. M., Stasson, M. F., & Nusbaum, R. L. (2010). Nonverbal reactions to conversational interrup­ tion: A test of complementarity theory and the status/gen­ der parallel. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(4), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­010­0091­0

Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008). Perceptual mechanisms that characterize gender dif­ ferences in decoding women’s sexual intent. Psychological Science (0956­7976), 19(4), 348–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467­9280.2008.02092.x

34 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Feller, S., & Gellatly, A. (2016). Obligatory processing of irrelevant gesture. Gesture, 15(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.15.1.03fel

Findley, M., & Punyanunt­Carter, N. (2007). The impact of gender on instructor nonverbal communication from the perspectives of learner affect and learners’ percep­ tions of instructor. Human Communication, 10(3), 243–257.

Flack, Z. M., Naylor, M., & Leavens, D. A. (2018). Pointing to visible and invisible targets. Journal of Nonverbal Beh­ avior, 42(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­ 017­0270­3

Flecha­García, M. L. (2010). Eyebrow raises in dialogue and their relation to discourse structure, utterance function and pitch accents in English. Speech Communication, 52(6), 542–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2009.12.003

Fleuriet, C., Cole, M., & Guerrero, L. (2014). Exploring Facebook: Attachment style and nonverbal message char­ acteristics as predictors of anticipated emotional reactions to Facebook postings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0189­x

Florea, M. (2012). Verbal and non­verbal language in televi­ sion. International Journal of Communication Research, 2(4), 300–306.

Forgas, J. P., & East, R. (2008). How real is that smile? Mood effects on accepting or rejecting the veracity of emotional facial expressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32(3), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919­008­ 0050­1

Fortanet­Gómez, I., & Ruiz­Madrid, M. N. (2014). Multimodality for comprehensive communication in the classroom: Questions in guest lectures [Multimodalidad para la Comunicación Completa en el Aula: Preguntas en Clases Magistrales Invitadas]. Iberica, 28, 203–224.

Foster, M. E., & Oberlander, J. (2007). Corpus­based gener­ ation of head and eyebrow motion for an embodied conversational agent. Language Resources & Evaluation, 41(3/4), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10579­007­ 9055­3

Franco, J. H., Davis, B. L., & Davis, J. L. (2013). Increasing social interaction using prelinguistic milieu teaching with nonverbal school­age children with autism. American Journal of Speech­Language Pathology, 22(3), 489.

Frank, M. G., & Shaw, A. Z. (2016). Evolution and nonverbal communication. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 45–76). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Frank, R. M., Dirven, R., Ziemke, T. & Bernardez, E. (Eds.). (2008). Body, language, and mind: Volume 2: Sociocultural situatedness. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Franks, B., & Dhesi, J. (2011). Evolution and communica­ tion. In D. Hook, B. Franks, & M. W. Bauer (Eds.),

The social psychology of communication (pp. 229–246). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York : Palgrave Macmillan.

Frauendorfer, D., Schmid Mast, M., Nguyen, L., & Gatica­ Perez, D. (2014). Nonverbal social sensing in action: Unobtrusive recording and extracting of nonverbal behavior in social interactions illustrated with a research example. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­ 0173­5

Fujiwara, K., & Daibo, I. (2014). The extraction of nonver­ bal behaviors: Using video images and speech­signal analysis in dyadic conversation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(3), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919­ 014­0183­3

Galati, A., & Samuel, A. G. (2011). The role of speech­gesture congruency and delay in remembering action events. Language & Cognitive Processes, 26(3), 406–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.494846

Gallagher, T. J., Hartung, P. J., Gerzina, H., Gregory, S. W., & Merolla, D. (2005). Further analysis of a doctor­ patient nonverbal communication instrument. Patient Education & Counseling, 57(3), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.06.008

Gallo, G. (2015). L’importanza dei linguaggi non verbali nella cultura Indiana. Lingue e Linguaggi, 16, 621–647.

Gawne, L., & Kelly, B. F. (2014). Revisiting significant action and gesture categorization. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(2), 216–233. https://doi.org/10 .1080/07268602.2014.887406

Gearhart, C. C. (2014). Sensory­processing sensitivity and non­ verbal decoding: The effect on listening ability and accu­ racy. International Journal of Listening, 28(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2014.880867

George, A. J. (2013). Presenting the self: An interactive approach to teaching interpersonal awareness and main­ taining face. Communication Teacher, 27(2), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2012.752512

Gifford, R. (2011). The role of nonverbal communication in interpersonal relations. In L. M. Horowitz, & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic inter­ ventions (pp. 171–190). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Givens, D. B. (2016a). Center for nonverbal studies. Retrieved February 17, 2019 from http://www.center­ for­nonverbal­studies.org/1501.html

Givens, D. B. (2016b). Reading palm­up signs: Neurosemi­ otic overview of a common hand gesture. Semiotica, 2016(210), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem­ 2016­0053

Göksun, T., Lehet, M., Malykhina, K., & Chatterjee, A. (2015). Spontaneous gesture and spatial language: Evidence from focal brain injury. Brain & Language, 150, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.07.012

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 35

Goldin­Meadow, S. (2010). When gesture does and does not promote learning. Language & Cognition (De Gruyter), 2(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2010.001

Gong, Z. H., & Bucy, E. P. (2016). When style obscures sub­ stance: Visual attention to display appropriateness in the 2012 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 83(3), 349–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03637751.2015.1119868

Goodrich Smith, W., & Hudson Kam, C. L. (2015). Children’s use of gesture in ambiguous pronoun inter­ pretation. Journal of Child Language, 42(3), 591–617. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000915000045

Goodwin, M. H., & Alim, H. S. (2010). “Whatever (neck roll, eye roll, teeth suck)”: The situated coproduction of social categories and identities through stancetaking and transmodal stylization. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 20(1), 179–194. https://doi.org/10 .1111/j.1548­1395.2010.01056.x

Gorawara­Bhat, R., Cook, M. A., & Sachs, G. A. (2007). Nonverbal communication in doctor–elderly patient transactions (NDEPT): Development of a tool. Patient Education & Counseling, 66(2), 223–234. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.pec.2006.12.005

Gore, J. (2009). The interaction of sex, verbal, and nonver­ bal cues in same­sex first encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(4), 279–299. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10919­009­0074­1

Gorman, C. K. (2011). Avoiding mixed messages: Understand the impact of body language. Strategic Communication Management, 15(4), 32–35.

Gräfenhain, M., Behne, T., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2009). One­year­olds’ understanding of nonverbal gestures directed to a third person. Cognitive Development, 24(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.10.001

Grebelsky­Lichtman, T. (2010). The relationship of verbal and nonverbal behavior to political stature: The politi­ cal interviews of Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Journal of Political Marketing, 9(4), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2010.518057

Grebelsky­Lichtman, T. (2014). Children’s verbal and non­ verbal congruent and incongruent communication dur­ ing parent­child interactions. Human Communication Research, 40(4), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/ hcre.12035

Grebelsky­Lichtman, T. (2015). Parental response to child’s incongruence: Verbal versus nonverbal primacy in parent­ child ionteractions. Communication Monographs, 82(4), 484–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1041538

Grebelsky­Lichtman, T. (2017). Verbal versus nonverbal prima­ cy. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 34(5), 636–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516651158

Gregersen, T. (2007). Breaking the code of silence: A study of teachers’ nonverbal decoding accuracy of foreign language anxiety. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 209–221.

Gregersen, T., Olivares­Cuhat, G., & Storm, J. (2009). An exam­ ination of L1 and L2 gesture use: What role does profi­ ciency play? Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540­4781.2009.00856.x

Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A. L., Puccinelli, N. M., & Spence, C. (2014). Retail atmospherics and in­store nonverbal cues: An introduction. Psychology & Marketing, 31(7), 469–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20708

Gross, M. M., Crane, E. A., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Methodology for assessing bodily expression of emo­ tion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(4), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­010­0094­x

Gruber, J., King, J., Hay, J., & Johnston, L. (2016). The hands, head, and brow. Gesture, 15(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.15.1.01gru

Guéguen, Nicolas. (2008). The effect of a woman’s smile on men’s courtship behavior. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 36(9), 1233–1236. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.9.1233

Guéguen, N. (2010). The effect of a woman’s incidental tac­ tile contact on men’s later behavior. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 38(2), 257–266.

Gullberg, M., & Kita, S. (2009). Attention to speech­accom­ panying gestures: Eye movements and information uptake. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(4), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­009­0073­2

Gunnery, S., & Hall, J. (2014). The Duchenne smile and per­ suasion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0177­1

Haans, A., Bruijn, R., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2014). A virtual Midas touch? Touch, compliance, and confederate bias in mediat­ ed communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(3), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­ 0184­2

Halbe, D. (2012). “Who’s there?”: Differences in the fea­ tures of telephone and face­to­face conferences. Journal of Business Communication, 49(1), 48–73.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City: NY: Doubleday.

Hall, J., & Xing, C. (2015). The verbal and nonverbal correlates of the five flirting styles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(1), 41–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0199­8

Harper, V. B. (2006). Walking the walk: Understanding non­ verbal communication through walking. Communica­ tion Teacher, 20(3), 61–64.

Harrison, S. (2014). The organisation of kinesic ensembles associated with negation. Gesture, 14(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.14.2.01har

Hasler, B. S., & Friedman, D. A. (2012). Sociocultural conven­ tions in avatar­mediated nonverbal communication: A cross­cultural analysis of virtual proxemics. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41(3), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2012.728764

36 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Hassan, M. M. T. (2007). Nonverbal communication: The language of motivation for Pakistani students. Language in India, 7(8), 6–6.

Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). Does training improve the detection of decep­ tion? A meta­analysis. Communication Research, 43(3), 283–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534974

Haumer, F., & Donsbach, W. (2009). The rivalry of nonverbal cues on the perception of politicians by television viewers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 262–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150902907918

Haviland­Jones, J., Wilson, P, & Freybjerg, R. (2016). Signs, signals, and symbols in olfactics. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 363–386). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2007). Gesture and institutional inter­ action: Figuring bids in auctions of fine art and antiques. Gesture, 7(2), 215–240.

Hee Sun Park, & Xiaowen Guan. (2009). Cross­cultural compar­ ison of verbal and nonverbal strategies of apologizing. Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, 2(1), 66–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513050802603471

Henry, S. G., Fuhrel­Forbis, A., Rogers, M. A. M., & Eggly, S. (2012). Association between nonverbal communica­ tion during clinical interactions and outcomes: A sys­ tematic review and meta­analysis. Patient Education & Counseling, 86(3), 297–315.

Hess, U., Blaison, C., & Kafetsios, K. (2016). Judging facial emotion expressions in context: The influence of cul­ ture and self­construal orientation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s10919­ 015­0223­7

Hinshelwood, R. D. (2015). Words and calls: The uncon­ scious in communication. Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, 6(2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1386/ejpc.6.2.127_1

Hoesch, L. (2016). Profil und Selbstverständnis des Onlineberaters in der Ehe­, Familien­ und Lebensberatung. Eine Studie am Beispiel des Bistums Münster. E­Beratungsjournal, 12(2), 88–98.

Hoetjes, M., Koolen, R., Goudbeek, M., Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2015). Reduction in gesture during the production of repeated references. Journal of Memory & Language, 79, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.10.004

Hoey, E. M. (2014). Sighing in interaction: Somatic, semi­ otic, and social. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 47(2), 175–200. https://doi.org/10 .1080/08351813.2014.900229

Hogan, K. (2008). The secret language of business: How to read anyone in 3 seconds or less. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Hogrefe, K., Ziegler, W., Wiesmayer, S., & Goldenberg, G. (2013). The actual and potential use of gestures for com­ munication in aphasia. Aphasiology, 27, 1070–1089.

Hogrefe, K., Ziegler, W., Wiesmayer, S., Weidinger, N., & Goldenberg, G. (2013). The actual and potential use of gestures for communication in aphasia. Aphasiology, 27(9), 1070–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038 .2013.803515

Holler, J., Shovelton, H., & Beattie, G. (2009). Do iconic hand gestures really contribute to the communication of semantic information in a face­to­face context? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(2), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­008­0063­9

Holler, J., & Stevens, R. (2007). The effect of common ground on how speakers use gesture and speech to rep­ resent size information. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 26(1), 4–27.

Hood, S., & Lander, J. (2016). Technologies, modes, and peda­ gogic potential in live versus online lectures. International Journal of Language Studies, 10(3), 23–42.

Hooijschuur, L., Hilton, N., & Loerts, H. (2017). Gesture use and its role for nativeness judgements. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10 .1075/dujal.6.1.02hoo

Hook, D., Franks, B., & Bauer, M. W. (Eds.). (2011). The social psychology of communication. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Horan, S. M., Houser, M. L., Goodboy, A. K., & Frymier, A. B. (2011). Students’ early impressions of instructors: Understanding the role of relational skills and messages. Communication Research Reports, 28(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.541362

Horowitz, L. M., & Strack, S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assess­ ment, and therapeutic interventions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Hostetter, A., & Skirving, C. (2011). The effect of visual vs. verbal stimuli on gesture production. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35(3), 205–223. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10919­011­0109­2

Hostetter, A., Alibali, M., & Kita, S. (2007). I see it in my hands’ eye: Representational gestures reflect conceptual demands. Language & Cognitive Processes, 22(3), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960600632812

Hrişcă, A. M. (2012). “The silent language” of an artificial body. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Communicatio, 6(1), 5–20.

Hwang, H. C., & Matsumoto, D. (2016) Facial expressions. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 257–288). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hydén, L.­C. (2011). Non­verbal vocalizations, dementia, and social interaction. Communication & Medicine (Equinox Publishing Group), 8(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v8i2.135

Ingersoll, B., & Lalonde, K. (2010). The impact of object and gesture imitation training on language use in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Speech,

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 37

Language & Hearing Research, 53(4), 1040–1051. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092­4388(2009/09­0043)

Irvine, E. (2016). Method and evidence: Gesture and iconic­ ity in the evolution of language. Mind & Language, 31(2), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12102

Isaacowitz, D. M., & Stanley, J. T. (2011). Bringing and eco­ logical perspective to the study of aging and recogni­ tion of emotional facial expressions: Past, current, and future methods. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35, 261–278. doi:10.1007/s10919­011­0113­6.

Itu, M. (2009). Aspecte non­verbale in comunicarea interculturală. Annals of Spiru Haret University, Journalism Studies, 10, 153–157.

Iverson, J. M. (2010). Developing language in a developing body: The relationship between motor development and language development. Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 229–261. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0305000909990432

Ivy, D. K., & Wahl, S. T. (2014). Nonverbal communication for a lifetime (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Pub Co.

Iyanga­Mambo, E. (2017). Gender­based verbal and nonver­ bal communication: A case study of spokespeople in British TV advertisement testimonials. Southern Journal of Linguistics, 41(2), 95–118.

Jabr, F. (2010). The evolution of emotion: Charles Darwin’s little­known psychology experiment. Scientific American. Retrieved February 19, 2019 from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the­ evolution­of­emotion­charles­darwins­little­known­ psychology ­experiment/

Jaime, J. R. (2018). Social cognition study: Clothing and its link as an analysis element of nonverbal communica­ tion [Estudio en Cognición Social: El Vestuario y Su Vinculación Como Elemento de Análisis en la Comunicación No Verbal]. Revista de Comunicación ‘Vivat Academia,’ 143, 85–110. https://doi.org/10 .15178/va.2018.143.85­110

Jarmołowicz­Nowikow, E. (2014). How Poles indicate peo­ ple and objects, and what they think of certain forms of pointing gestures. Lingua Posnaniensis, 56(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.2478/linpo­2014­0005

Jensen de López, K. (2010). Gesture en route to words: Evidence from Danish and Zapotec children and their caretakers [Gestos en camino hacia las palabras: Evidencias a partir de niños daneses y zapotecos y sus cuidadores]. Acción Psicológica, 7(2), 45–58

Jerca, A.­M. (2018). Taking a knee in American football: A semiotic case study. Language & Semiotic Studies, 4(1), 40–49.

Jia, M., Jiuqing Cheng, & Hale, C. L. (2017). Workplace emotion and communication: Supervisor nonverbal immediacy, employees’ emotion experience, and their communication motives. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318916650519

Jiang, X., Paulmann, S., Robin, J., & Pell, M. D. (2015). More than accuracy: Nonverbal dialects modulate the time course of vocal emotion recognition across cul­ tures. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance, 41(3), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000043

Jõemets, V. (2014). Human voice: Its meaning and textuali­ ty outside the verbal and the musical. Semiotica, 2014(198), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem­ 2013­0114

John, A. E., & Mervis, C. B. (2010). Comprehension of the communicative intent behind pointing and gazing ges­ tures by young children with Williams Syndrome or Down Syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 53(4), 950–960. https://doi.org/10 .1044/1092­4388(2009/08­0234)

Johnson, M. L., Taub, E., Harper, L. H., Wade, J. T., Bowman, M. H., Bishop­McKay, S., … Uswatte, G. (2014). An enhanced protocol for constraint­induced aphasia therapy II: A case series. American Journal of Speech­Language Pathology, 23(1), 60. https://doi .org/10.1044/1058­0360(2013/12­0168)

Jones, S. M., & Wirtz, J. G. (2007). “Sad monkey see, mon­ key do:” Nonverbal matching in emotional support encounters. Communication Studies, 58(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970601168731

Juslin, P. N., Laukka, P., & Bänziger, T. (2018). The mirror to our soul? Comparisons of spontaneous and posed vocal expression of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­017­ 0268­x

Kádár, M. E. (2017). Introduction to profiling: The process of reading of nonverbal signs. Journal of Media Research, 10(1), 70–87.

Katsumi, Y., Dolcos, S., Kim, S., Sung, K., & Dolcos, F. (2017). When nonverbal greetings “make it or break it”: The role of ethnicity and gender in the effect of handshake on social appraisals. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(4), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919­017­0257­0

Keating, C. F. (2016). The life and times of nonverbal com­ munication theory and research: Past, present, future. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 17–42). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kelly, S., & Claus, C. J. (2015). Practicing nonverbal aware­ ness in the asynchronous online classroom. Communication Teacher, 29(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17404622.2014.985597

Kendon, A. (2008). Some reflections on the relationship between ‘gesture’ and ‘sign.’ Gesture, 8(3), 348–366.

Kever, A., Grynberg, D., Eeckhout, C., Mermillod, M., Fantini, C., & Vermeulen, N. (2015). The body language: The spontaneous influence of congruent bodily arousal on the awareness of emotional words. Journal of Experimental

38 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Psychology. Human Perception & Performance, 41(3), 582–589. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000055

Kidwell, B., & Hasford, J. (2014). Emotional ability and nonverbal communication. Psychology & Marketing, 31(7), 526–538. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20714

Kimbara, I. (2008). Gesture form convergence in joint description. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­007­0044­4

Kimura, D., & Kazik, N. (2017). Learning in­progress: On the role of gesture in microgenetic development of L2 grammar. Gesture, 16(1), 126–150. https://doi.org/10 .1075/gest.16.1.05kim

Kindblom, L. (2009). Analysis of video filmed speeches published on the Internet in the American Democratic Party primary election. American Communication Journal, 11(4), 1–12.

Kipp, M., Neff, M., & Albrecht, I. (2007). An annotation scheme for conversational gestures: How to economically capture timing and form. Language Resources & Evaluation, 41(3/4), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579­007­ 9053­5

Kirk, E., Gurney, D., Edwards, R., & Dodimead, C. (2015). Handmade memories: The robustness of the gestural misinformation effect in children’s eyewitness inter­ views. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­015­0210­z

Kirk, E., Pine, K. J., & Ryder, N. (2011). I hear what you say but I see what you mean: The role of gestures in chil­ dren’s pragmatic comprehension. Language & Cognitive Processes, 26(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01690961003752348

Knapp, M. L. (1978). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Knöfler, T., & Imhof, M. (2007). Does sexual orientation have an impact on nonverbal behavior in interpersonal communication? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31(3), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­007­ 0032­8

Kok, K. I. (2017). Functional and temporal relations between spoken and gestured components of language: A corpus­ based inquiry. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.01kok

Kok, K., Bergmann, K., Cienki, A., & Kopp, S. (2016). Mapping out the multifunctionality of speakers’ ges­ tures. Gesture, 15(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1075 /gest.15.1.02kok

Kong, A., Law, S.­P., Kwan, C., Lai, C., & Lam, V. (2015). A coding system with independent annotations of gesture forms and functions during verbal communication: development of a Database of Speech and GEsture (DoSaGE). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0200­6

Kopacz, M. A. (2006). Nonverbal communication as a per­ suasion tool: Current status and future directions. Rocky Mountain Communication Review, 3(1), 1–19.

Kostić, A., & Chadee., D. (Eds.). (2015). The social psy­ chology of nonverbal communication. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Krys, K.­M/, Vauclair, C., Capaldi, C., Lun, V., Bond, M., Domínguez­Espinosa, A., … Cenko, E. (2016). Be careful where you smile: Culture shapes judgments of intelligence and honesty of smiling individuals. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­015­0226­4

Künecke, J., Wilhelm, O., & Sommer, W. (2017). Emotion recognition in nonverbal face­to­face communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(3), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­017­0255­2

La France, B. H. (2010). What verbal and nonverbal communi­ cation cues lead to sex?: An analysis of the traditional sexual script. Communication Quarterly, 58(3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2010.503161

La France, B. H., Heisel, A. D., & Beatty, M. J. (2007). A test of the cognitive load hypothesis: Investigating the impact of number of nonverbal cues coded and length of coding session on observer accuracy. Communication Reports, 20(1), 11–23.

La France, B. H., Henningsen, D. D., Oates, A., & Shaw, C. M. (2009). Social­sexual interactions? Meta­analyses of sex differences in perceptions of flirtatiousness, seductiveness, and promiscuousness. Communication Monographs, 76(3), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03637750903074701

Labuschagne, P. A. (2017). Non­verbal and paralinguistic political communication in sport: An analysis of images of Springbok rugby. Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory & Research, 43(1), 80–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02500167.2017.1307243

Ladegaard, H. J. (2014). Crying as communication in domestic helper narratives: Towards a social psychol­ ogy of crying in discourse. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 33(6), 579–605. https://doi.org/10 .1177/0261927X14538823

Landers, M. (2016). Culture crossing: Discover the key to making successful connections in the new global era. Oakland: Berrett­Koehler Publishers.

Late, D. L., & Eaves, M. H. (2007). Successful nonverbal communication: Principles and applications (4th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2016). Winning faces vary by ideology: How nonverbal source cues influence election and communication success in politics. Political Communication, 33(2), 188–211. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1050565

Lebedko, M. (2016). Time talks: Anthropocentrism of time across Russian and American cultures. Intercultural Communication Studies, 25(1), 133–145.

Ledbetter, A. M., & Larson, K. A. (2008). Nonverbal cues in e­mail supportive communication. Information,

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 39

Communication & Society, 11(8), 1089–1110. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13691180802109022

Ledford, C. J. W., Canzona, M. R., & Cafferty, L. A. (2015). Clinical communication in context: Applying cogni­ tive role theory in a study of physician non­verbals. Florida Communication Journal, 43(1), 29–40.

Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., & Shulman, H. C. (2010). The impact of Lie to Me on viewers’ actual ability to detect deception. Communication Research, 37(6), 847–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362686

Lieb, K., & Shah, D. (2010). Consumer culture theory, non­ verbal communication, and contemporary politics: Considering context and embracing complexity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­010­0085­y

Lim, E., Lee, Y., & Foo, M.­D. (2017). Frontline employees’ non­ verbal cues in service encounters: A double­edged sword. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 657–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747­016­0479­4

LoBue, V., & Larson, C. L. (2010). What makes an angry face look so . . . angry? Examining visual attention to the shape of threat in children and adults. Visual Cognition, 18(8), 1165–1178. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506281003783675

Loehr, D. P. (2012). Temporal, structural, and pragmatic syn­ chrony between intonation and gesture. Laboratory Phonology, 3(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/lp­ 2012­0006

Luangrath, A. W., Peck, J., & Barger, V. A. (2017). Textual paralanguage and its implications for marketing com­ munications. Journal of Consumer Psychology (Elsevier Science), 27(1), 98–107. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcps.2016.05.002

Lueders, A., Hall, J., Pennington, N., & Knutson, K. (2014). Nonverbal decoding on Facebook: Applying the IPT­ 15 and the SSI to personality judgments. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(4), 413–427. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10919­014­0195­z

Lüke, C., Ritterfeld, U., Grimminger, A., Liszkowski, U., & Rohlfing, K. J. (2017). Development of pointing ges­ tures in children with typical and delayed language acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 60(11), 3185–3197. https://doi.org/10.1044/ 2017_JSLHR­L­16­0129

Lund, K. (2007). The importance of gaze and gesture in interactive multimodal explanation. Language Resources & Evaluation, 41(3/4), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579­007­9058­0

Lybarger, J. E., Rancer, A. S., & Lin, Y. (2017). Superior–subordinate communication in the work­ place: Verbal aggression, nonverbal immediacy, and their joint effects on perceived superior credibility. Communication Research Reports, 34(2), 124–133.

Madlock, P. E. (2008). Employee satisfaction: An examina­ tion of supervisors’ communication competence. Human Communication, 11(1), 87–100.

Malachowski, C. C., & Martin, M. M. (2011). Instructors’ per­ ceptions of teaching behaviors, communication apprehen­ sion, and student nonverbal responsiveness in the class­ room. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.565275

Maljaars, J., Noens, I., Jansen, R., Scholte, E., & van Berckelaer­Onnes, I. (2011). Intentional communication in nonverbal and verbal low­functioning children with autism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 44(6), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2011.07.004

Mann, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P., Warmelink, L., & Forrester, D. (2012). Windows to the soul? Deliberate eye contact as a cue to deceit. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36(3), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­012­ 0132­y

Manusov, V. (2016). A history of research on nonverbal commu­ nication: Our divergent pasts and their contemporary lega­ cies. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 3–16). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Manusov, V., & Harvey, J. (2011). Bumps and tears on the road to the presidency: Media framing of key nonver­ bal events in the 2008 Democratic election. Western Journal of Communication, 75(3), 282–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2011.571650

Manwaring, S. S., Mead, D. L., Swineford, L., & Thurm, A. (2017). Modelling gesture use and early language development in autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 52(5), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1460­6984.12308

Maoz, I. (2012). The face of the enemy: The effect of press­ reported visual information regarding the facial fea­ tures of opponent politicians on support for peace. Political Communication, 29(3), 243–256. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.694987

Marshall, J., Roper, A., Galliers, J., Wilson, S., Cocks, N., Muscroft, S., & Pring, T. (2013). Computer delivery of gesture therapy for people with severe aphasia. Aphasiology, 27, 1128–1146.

Martin, L., & Mottet, T. P. (2011). The effect of instructor nonverbal immediacy behaviors and feedback sensi­ tivity on Hispanic students’ affective learning out­ comes in ninth­grade writing conferences. Communi­ cation Education, 60(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10 .1080/03634523.2010.496868

Masson­Carro, I., Goudbeek, M., & Krahmer, E. (2017). How what we see and what we know influence iconic gesture production. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(4), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­017­0261­4

Mast, M. S. (2007). On the importance of nonverbal com­ munication in the physician­patient interaction. Patient Education & Counseling, 67(3), 315–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.005

Matoesian, G., & Enola Gilbert, K. (2016). Multifunction­ ality of hand gestures and material conduct during

40 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

closing argument. Gesture, 15(1), 79–114. https:// doi.org/10.1075/gest.15.1.04mat

Matsumoto, D., Frank, M. G., & Hwang, H. S. (Eds.). (2013). Nonverbal communication: Science and appli­ cations. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. (2013). Cultural similarities and differences in emblematic gestures. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s10919­012­0143­8

Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Frank, M. G. (Eds.). (2016a). APA handbook of nonverbal communication. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. C., & Frank, M. G. (2016b). The body: Postures, gait, proxemics, and haptics. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 387–401). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McKinnon, S., & Prieto, P. (2014). The role of prosody and gesture in the perception of mock impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 10(2), 185–219. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr­ 2014­0009

Mehrabian, A. (2017). Nonverbal communication. New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1972).

Mendolia, M. (2007). Explicit use of categorical and dimen­ sional strategies to decode facial expressions of emo­ tion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­006­0020­4

Merola, G. (2007). Emotional gestures in sport. Language Resources & Evaluation, 41(3/4), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579­007­9052­6

Miles, L., & Johnston, L. (2007). Detecting happiness: Perceiver sensitivity to enjoyment and non­enjoyment smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31(4), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­007­0036­4

Miletich, M. (2015). Accounting for nonverbal communica­ tion in interpreter­mediated events in healthcare set­ tings. Translation & Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts (TTMC), 1(2), 162–181. https://doi.org/10 .1075/ttmc.1.2.02mil

Miller, M. J., Denes, A., Diaz, B., & Buck, R. (2014). Attachment style predicts jealous reactions to viewing touch between a romantic partner and close friend: Implications for Internet social communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 10.1007/s10919­014­0196­y.

Mohammad, Y. F. O., & Nishida, T. (2013). Learning where to look. Interaction Studies, 14(3), 419–450. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.14.3.06moh

Mokkink, L. B., Kno, D. L., Zekveld, A. A., Goverts, S. T., & Kramer, S. E. (2009). Factor structure and reliabili­ ty of the Dutch version of seven scales of the commu­ nication profile for the hearing impaired (CPHI). Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 52(2), 454–464.

Mol, L., Krahmer, E., Maes, A., & Swerts, M. (2009). The communicative import of gestures: Evidence from a comparative analysis of human­human and human­ machine interactions. Gesture, 9(1), 97–126. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.9.1.04mol

Mol, L., Krahmer, E., van de Sandt­Koendermanb, M., Oetting, J., & Blake, M. (2013). Gesturing by speakers with apha­ sia: How does it compare? Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 56(4), 1224–1236. https://doi.org/ 10.1044/1092­4388(2012/11­0159)

Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366. https://doi.org/10 .1111/josl.1_12177

Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878

Montepare, J. (2010). Politics and nonverbal cues: A natural pairing—Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 81–82. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s10919­010­0086­x

Montepare, J. (2011). Aging revitalizes nonverbal chal­ lenges. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35(4), 259–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­011­0119­0

Montepare, J. (2014). Nonverbal behavior in the digital age: Explorations in Internet social communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(4), 409–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0194­0

Montirosso, R., Peverelli, M., Frigerio, E., Crespi, M., & Borgatti, R. (2010). The development of dynamic facial expression recognition at different intensities in 4­ to 18­year­olds. Social Development, 19(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467­9507.2008.00527.x

Moore, N.­J., Hickson, M., & Stacks, D. W. (2013). Nonverbal communication: Studies and applications (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Morgan, N. (2018). Can you hear me? How to connect with people in a virtual world. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Morgan, S. E., Occa, A., Mouton, A., & Potter, J. (2017). The role of nonverbal communication behaviors in clinical trial and research study recruitment. Health Communication, 32(4), 461–469. https://doi.org/10 .1080/10410236.2016.1140266

Mui, P., Goudbeek, M., Swerts, M., & Hovasapian, A. (2017). Children’s nonverbal displays of winning and losing: Effects of social and cultural contexts on smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­016­0241­0

Nagel, F., Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2012). is there a visual dominance in political communication? How verbal, visual, and vocal communication shape view­ ers’ impressions of political candidates. Journal of

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 41

Communication, 62(5), 833–850. https://doi.org/10 .1111/j.1460­2466.2012.01670.x

Namba, S., Kagamihara, T., Miyatani, M., & Nakao, T. (2017). Spontaneous facial expressions reveal new action units for the sad experiences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10919­017­ 0251­6

Nelson, A., & Brown, C. D. (2012). The gender communica­ tion handbook: Conquering conversational collisions between men and women. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Nierenberg, G. I., & Calero, H. H. (2001). How to read a per­ son like a book. New York: Barnes and Noble.Digital. (Originally published 1971)

Novotny, E., Carr, Z., Frank, M. G., Dietrich, S. B., Shaddock, T., Cardwell, M., & Decker, A. (2018). How people really suspect and discover lies. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10919­017­ 0263­2

Ntuli, C. D. (2012). Intercultural misunderstanding in South Africa: An analysis of nonverbal communication behaviour in context. Intercultural Communication Studies, 21(2), 20–31.

Nuessel, F. (2007). Gesture and language. Semiotica, 2007 (166), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1515/SEM.2007.068

Nurse Jon. (n.d.). Types of nonverbal communication. Speechmastery.com. Retrieved February 17, 2019 from https://www.speechmastery.com/types­of­non­ verbal­communication.html

Nykänen, A., Nyrkkö, H., Nykänen, M., Brunou, R., & Rautakoski, P. (2013). Communication therapy for people with aphasia and their partners (APPUTE). Aphasiology, 27(10), 1159–1179. https://doi.org/10 .1080/02687038.2013.802284

O’Neill, H., & Chiat, S. (2015). What our hands say: Exploring gesture use in subgroups of children with language delay. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 58(4), 1319–1325. https://doi.org/ 10.1044/2015_JSLHR­ L­14­0187

Okubo, M., Kobayashi, A., & Ishikawa, K. (2012). A fake smile thwarts cheater detection. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36(3), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s10919­012­0134­9

Olivola, C., & Todorov, A. (2010). Elected in 100 millisec­ onds: Appearance­based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 83–110. doi:10.1007/s10919­009­0082­1.

Oller, D. K. (2010). Vocal motoric foundations of spoken language—A commentary on Iverson’s “Developing language in a developing body: The relationship between motor development and language develop­ ment.” Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909990456

Olszewski, A., Panorska, A., & Gillam, S. L. (2017). Training verbal and nonverbal communication interview skills to

adolescents. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 38(4), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740116678095

Onuki, T., Ishinoda, T., Tsuburaya, E., Miyata, Y., Kobayashi, Y., & Kuno, Y. (2013). Designing robot eyes for communicating gaze. Interaction Studies, 14(3), 451–479. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.14.3.07onu

Oshima, S. (2014). Achieving consensus through profession­ alized head nods: The role of nodding in service encounters in Japan. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177 /2329488413516207

Özçalişkan, Ş., Levine, S. C., Goldin­Meadow, S., Bavin, E. L., & Naigles, L. R. (2013). Gesturing with an injured brain: How gesture helps children with early brain injury learn linguistic constructions. Journal of Child Language, 40(1), 69–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000220

Pagano, M. P. (2017). Health communication for health care professionals: An applied approach. New York: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.

Palkowska, K., & Wolańnska, M. (2008). Importance of nonverbal communication in simultaneous interpret­ ing. Scientific Bulletin of the Politehnica University of Timisoara. Transactions on Modern Languages / Buletinul Stiintific Al Universitatii Politehnica Din Timisoara. Seria Limbi Moderne, 7(1­2), 37–40.

Paparella, T., Goods, K. S., Freeman, S., & Kasari, C. (2011). The emergence of nonverbal joint attention and requesting skills in young children with autism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 44(6), 569–583.

Park, J., Baek, Y. M., & Cha, M. (2014). Cross­cultural compari­ son of nonverbal cues in emoticons on Twitter: Evidence from big data analysis. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12086

Parrill, F. (2010). Viewpoint in speech­gesture integration: Linguistic structure, discourse structure, and event struc­ ture. Language & Cognitive Processes, 25(5), 650–668.

Patterson, M. (2014). Reflections on historical trends and prospects in contemporary nonverbal research. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­013­0171­z

Patterson, L. M., Izuka, Y., Tubbs, E. M., Ansel, J., Tsutsumi, M., & Anson, J. (2009). Replication of the “Passing encounters East and West; Comparing Japanese and American pedestrian interactions” (2007). Human Communication, 12(2), 173–186.

Patterson, M., & Montepare, J. (2007). Nonverbal behavior in a global context dialogue questions and responses. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31(3), 167–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­007­0029­3

Patterson, M. L., & Quadflieg, S. (2016). The physical environ­ ment and nonverbal communication. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 189–220). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

42 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Pavlich, C. A., Rains, S. A., & Segrin, C. (2017). The nonverbal bully: Effects of shouting and conversational distance on bystanders’ perceptions. Communication Reports, 30(3), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2017.1315439

Pawlikowska, T., Zhang, W., Griffiths, F., van Dalen, J., & van der Vleuten, C. (2012). Verbal and non­verbal behavior of doctors and patients in primary care con­ sultations—How this relates to patient enablement. Patient Education & Counseling, 86(1), 70–76.

Pease, B., & Pease, A. (2004). The definitive book of body language: The hidden meaning behind people’s ges­ tures and expressions. New York: Bantam Dell.

Peham, D., Bock, A., Schiestl, C., Huber, E., Zimmermann, J., Kratzer, D., ... Benecke, C. (2015). Facial affective behavior in mental disorder. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(4), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­015­ 0216­6

Pelachaud, C. (2009). Studies on gesture expressivity for a virtual agent. Speech Communication, 51(7), 630–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2008.04.009

Perkins, P. S. (2008). The art and science of communication: Tools for effective communication in the workplace. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons,

Pettenati, P., Sekine, K., Congestrì, E., & Volterra, V. (2012). A comparative study on representational gestures in Italian and Japanese children. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­011­ 0127­0

Phillips, L. H., & Slessor, G. (2011). Moving beyond basic emotions in aging research. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35(4), 279–286. doi:10.1007/s10919­011­ 0114­5.

Philofsky, A., Fidler, D. J., & Hepburn, S. (2007). Pragmatic language profiles of school­age children with autism spectrum disorders and Williams Syndrome. American Journal of Speech­Language Pathology, 16(4), 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058­0360(2007/040)

Pine, K., Gurney, D., & Fletcher, B. (2010). The semantic speci­ ficity hypothesis: When gestures do not depend upon the presence of a listener. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(3), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­010­ 0089­7

Pine, K. J., Lufkin, N., Kirk, E., & Messer, D. (2007). A micro­ genetic analysis of the relationship between speech and gesture in children: Evidence for semantic and temporal asynchrony. Language & Cognitive Processes, 22(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960600630881

Ping Yang. (2015). Intercultural nonverbal communication competence: Meeting body language challenges in facilitating and working with students from culturally diverse backgrounds in the Australian higher educa­ tion context. Journal of Communications Research, 7(1), 81–95.

Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2009). The ability to judge the romantic interest of others. Psychological Science (0956­7976), 20(1), 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467­9280.2008.02248.x

Poggi, I. (2008). Iconicity in different types of gestures. Gesture, 8(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.8.1.05pog

Pollio, H., Finn, M., & Custer, M. (2016). The nature and mean­ ing of body concepts in everyday language and theoretical discourse. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(3), 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936­015­ 9369­z

Porter, S., ten Brinke, L., & Wallace, B. (2012). Secrets and lies: Involuntary leakage in deceptive facial expres­ sions as a function of emotional intensity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s10919­ 011­0120­7

Predescu, E., & Seceleanu, A. (2011). Messages non verbaux chez les gens politiques. Communication & Marketing / Revista De Comunicare Si Marketing, 2(3), 29–42.

Preston, S., & Stansfield, B. (2008). I know how you feel: Task­irrelevant facial expressions are spontaneously processed at a semantic level. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8(1), 54–64.

Prinsen, T., & Punyanunt­Carter, N. M. (2010). The differ­ ence in nonverbal behaviors and how it changes in dif­ ferent stages of a relationship. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 35(1), 1–7.

Puccinelli, N. M., Motyka, S., & Grewal, D. (2010). Can you trust a customer’s expression? Insights into nonverbal communication in the retail context. Psychology & Marketing, 27(10), 964–988.

Rautakoski, P. (2011). Training total communication. Aphasiology, 25(3), 344–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02687038.2010.530671

Re, D. E., & Rule, N. O. (2016). Appearance and physiog­ nomy. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 221–256). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Richards, A. S., & Fink, E. L. (2017). Attributional chromat­ ics: How does the color of written communication affect interpersonal perceptions? International Journal of Communication, 11, 1683–1704.

Riehle, M., Kempkensteffen, J., & Lincoln, T. (2017). Quantifying facial expression synchrony in face­to­ face dyadic interactions: Temporal dynamics of simul­ taneously recorded facial EMG signals. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(2), 85–102. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10919­016­0246­8

Riggio, H. R., & Riggio, R. (2010). Appearance­based trait inferences and voting: Evolutionary roots and implica­ tions for leadership. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 119–125. doi:10.1007/s10919­009­0083­0.

Riordan, M. A., & Trichtinger, L. A. (2017). Overconfidence at the keyboard: Confidence and accuracy in interpreting affect in e­mail exchanges. Human Communication Research, 43(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12093

Rogalsky, C., Raphel, K., Tomkovics, V., O’Grady, L., Damasio, H., Bellugi, U., & Hacek, G. (2013). Neural

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 43

basis of action understanding: Evidence from sign lan­ guage aphasia. Aphasiology, 27, 1147–1158.

Rose, M. (2013). The emerging clarity of the roles of gesture in communication and interventions for people with aphasia. Aphasiology, 27(9), 1010–1014. https://doi .org/10.1080/02687038.2013.826473

Rose, M. L., Mok, Z., & Sekine, K. (2017). Communicative effectiveness of pantomime gesture in people with aphasia. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 52(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460­6984.12268

Rose, M. L., Raymer, A. M., Lanyon, L. E., & Attard, M. C. (2013). A systematic review of gesture treatments for post­stroke aphasia. Aphasiology, 27(9), 1090–1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2013.805726

Ross, S. (2018). Listener response as a facet of interactional competence. Language Testing, 35(3), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758125

Rowbotham, S., Holler, J., Lloyd, D., & Wearden, A. (2012). How do we communicate about pain? A systematic analysis of the semantic contribution of co­speech ges­ tures in pain­focused conversations. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s10919­011­0122­5

Rowbotham, S., Lloyd, D. M., Holler, J., & Wearden, A. (2015). Externalizing the private experience of pain: A role for co­speech gestures in pain communication? Health Communication, 30(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10410236.2013.836070

Ruben, M., & Hall, J. (2016). Healthcare providers’ nonverbal behavior can lead patients to show their pain more accurate­ ly: An analogue study. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(3), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­ 016­0230­3

Ruben, M. A., Blanch­Hartigan, D., & Hall, J. A. (2017). Nonverbal communication as a pain reliever: The impact of physician supportive nonverbal behavior on experimentally induced pain. Health Communication, 32(8), 970–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1196418

Ruffman, T. (2011). Ecological validity and age­related change in emotion recognition. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35(4), 297–304. doi:10.1007/s10919­011­0116­3.

Ruiz­Soler, M., & Beltran, F. (2012). The relative salience of facial features when differentiating faces based on an inter­ ference paradigm. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­012­0131­z

Rus, F. C. (2011). Communication—Instrument of politi­ cians. Journal of Media Research, 4(1), 13–22.

Russo­Ponsaran, N., Evans­Smith, B., Johnson, J., Russo, J., & McKown, C. (2016). Efficacy of a facial emotion training program for children and adolescents with autism spec­ trum disorders. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(1), 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­015­0217­5

Ruusuvuori, J., & Peräkylä, A. (2009). Facial and verbal expressions in assessing stories and topics. Research

on Language & Social Interaction, 42(4), 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296499

Samp, J., & Monahan, J. (2009). Alcohol­influenced nonver­ bal behaviors during discussions about a relationship problem. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(3), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­009­0069­y

Samp, J., & Palevitz, C. (2014). Managing relational trans­ gressions as revealed on Facebook: The influence of dependence power on verbal versus nonverbal responses. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(4), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0197­x

Sato, W., & Yoshikawa, S. (2007). Enhanced experience of emotional arousal in response to dynamic facial expressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­007­0025­7

Schandorf, M. (2013). Mediated gesture: Paralinguistic com­ munication and phatic text. Convergence: The Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 19(3), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856512439501.

Schmidt, K., Bhattacharya, S., & Denlinger, R. (2009). Comparison of deliberate and spontaneous facial movement in smiles and eyebrow raises. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10 .1007/s10919­008­0058­6

Schmidt­Fajlik, R. (2007). Introducing non­verbal communica­ tion to Japanese university students: Determining con­ tent. Journal of Intercultural Communication, (15), 2–2.

Schofield, T. J., Parke, R. D., Castañeda, E. K., & Coltrane, S. (2008). Patterns of gaze between parents and chil­ dren in European American and Mexican American families. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32(3), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­008­0049­7

Schotter, E. R., Berry, R. W., McKenzie, C. R. M., & Rayner, K. (2010). Gaze bias: Selective encoding and liking effects. Visual Cognition, 18(8), 1113–1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506281003668900

Scott, S., & McGettigan, C. (2016). The voice: From identi­ ty to interactions. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal com­ munication (pp. 289–306). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Seiter, J. S., Weger, H., Kinzer, H. J., & Jensen, A. S. (2009). impression management in televised debates: Te effect of background nonverbal behavior on audience per­ ceptions of debaters’ like ability. Communication Research Reports, 26(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10 .1080/08824090802636959

Sekine, K., Rose, M., Foster, A., Attard, M., & Lanyon, L. (2013). Gesture production patterns in aphasic dis­ course: In­depth description and preliminary predic­ tions. Aphasiology, 27, 1031–1049.

Sekine, K., Stam, G., Yoshioka, K., Tellier, M., & Capirci, O. (2015). Cross­linguistic views of gesture usage. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, (12), 91–105.

44 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Self, W. R. (2009). Intercultural and nonverbal communica­ tion insights for international commercial arbitration. Human Communication, 12(2), 231–237.

Seyfeddinipur, M., & Gullberg, M. (Eds.). (2014). From ges­ ture in conversation to visible action as utterance: Essays in honor of Adam Kendon. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Shams, F., Khan, N., Zainab, B., Shah, K., & Farid, N. (2016). Non­verbal communication and its effect on students at secondary level in District Boner, Pakistan. Language in India, 16(2), 59–66.

Sharifabad, M. R., & Vali, S. (2011). A comparative study of native and non­native body language: The case of Americans’ kinesics vs. Persian English speakers. Journal of Intercultural Communication, (26), 6–6.

Shikanai, N., Sawada, M., & Ishii, M. (2013). Development of the movements impressions emotions model: Evaluation of movements and impressions related to the perception of emotions in dance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10919­013­0148­y

Sidelinger, R. J., Nyeste, M. C., Madlock, P. E., Pollak, J., & Wilkinson, J. (2015). Instructor privacy management in the classroom: Exploring instructors’ ineffective communication and student communication satisfac­ tion. Communication Studies, 66(5), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2015.1034875

Sills, L. (2014). The silent unit. Communication Teacher, 28(4), 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2014.939678

Siminoff, L. A., Traino, H. M., & Gordon, N. H. (2011). An exploratory study of relational, persuasive, and non­ verbal communication in requests for tissue donation. Journal of Health Communication, 16(9), 955–975. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.561908

Simones, L., Schroeder, F., & Rodger, M. (2015). Categorizations of physical gesture in piano teaching: A preliminary enquiry. Psychology of Music, 43(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735613498918

Singer, M., Radinsky, J., & Goldman, S. R. (2008). The role of ges­ ture in meaning construction. Discourse Processes, 45(4/5), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802145601

Skipper, J. I., Goldin­Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H. C., & Small, S. L. (2007). Speech­associated gestures, Broca’s area, and the human mirror system. Brain & Language, 101(3), 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.02.008

Smith, E., Næss, K.­A. B., & Jarrold, C. (2017). Assessing pragmatic communication in children with Down syn­ drome. Journal of Communication Disorders, 68, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2017.06.003

Smith, F. W., & Schyns, P. G. (2009). Smile through your fear and sadness. Psychological Science (0956­7976), 20(10), 1202–1208.

Smithson, L., & Nicoladis, E. (2014). Lending a hand to imagery? The impact of visuospatial working memory interference upon iconic gesture production in a narra­

tive task. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(2), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0176­2

So, W­C., Lui, M., Wong, T.­K., & Sit, L. T. (2015). The use of hand gestures to communicate about nonpresent objects in mind among children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 58(2), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR­L­14­0213

Sowden, H., Clegg, J., & Perkins, M. (2013). The develop­ ment of co­speech gesture in the communication of children with autism spectrum disorders. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 27(12), 922–939. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2013.818715

Sowden, H., Perkins, M., & Clegg, J. (2008). The co­devel­ opment of speech and gesture in children with autism. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 22(10/11), 804–813. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200801919745

Spott, J., Pyle, C., & Punyanunt­Carter, N. M. (2010). Positive and negative nonverbal behaviors in relation­ ships: A study of relationship satisfaction and longevi­ ty. Human Communication, 13(1), 29–41.

Streeck, J. (2008). Depicting by gesture. Gesture, 8(3), 285–301.

Subramani, R. (2010). Insight through body language and non­verbal communication references in Tirukkural. Language in India, 10(2), 261–271.

Swerts, M., & Krahmer, E. (2008). Facial expression and prosodic prominence: Effects of modality and facial area. Journal of Phonetics, 36(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2007.05.001

Tabensky, A. (2008). Non­verbal resources and storytelling in second language classroom interaction. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 321–348. https://doi.org/ 10.1558/japl.v5i2.321

Tak, J., Kaid, L. L., & Khang, H. (2007). The reflection of cultural parameters on videostyles of televised politi­ cal spots in the US and Korea. Asian Journal of Communication, 17(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10 .1080/01292980601114570

Tang, D., & Schmeichel, B. (2015). Look me in the eye: Manipulated eye gaze affects dominance mindsets. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­015­0206­8

Tatum, N. T., Martin, J. C., & Kemper, B. (2018). Chronemics in instructor­student e­mail communication: An experimental examination of student evaluations of instructor response speeds. Communication Research Reports, 35(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1361396

Taylor, C. L. (2010). Early motor development is part of the resource mix for language acquisition—A commentary on Iverson’s “Developing language in a developing body: The relationship between motor development and lan­ guage development.” Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909990468

Teven, J. J. (2010). The effects of supervisor nonverbal immediacy and power use on employees’ ratings of

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 45

credibility and affect for the supervisor. Human Communication, 13(2), 69–85.

Theobald, B.­J., Mangini, I., Spies, J. R., Brick, T. R., Cohn, J. F., Boker, S. M., & Michael, M. (2009). Mapping and manipulating facial expression. Language & Speech, 52(2/3), 369–386.

Thompson, D., & Filik, R. (2016). Sarcasm in written com­ munication: Emoticons are efficient markers of inten­ tion. Journal of Computer­Mediated Communication, 21(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12156

Thurman, A. J., Kover, S. T., Brown, W. T., Harvey, D. J., & Abbeduto, L. (2017). Noncomprehension signaling in males and females with Fragile X Syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 60(6), 1606–1621. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR­L­15­0358

Todd, E. R., & Funder, D. C. (2016). Personality. In D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang, & M. G. Frank (Eds.), APA handbook of nonverbal communication (pp.163–185). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tong, S. T., & Walther, J. B. (2015). The confirmation and disconfirmation of expectancies in computer­mediated communication. Communication Research, 42(2), 186–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466257

van der Meulen, I., van de Sandt­Koenderman, W. M. E., Duivenvoorden, H. J., & Ribbers, G. M. (2010). Measuring verbal and non­verbal communication in aphasia: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the Scenario Test. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45(4), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820903111952

van Nispen, K., Mieke, W. M. E., van de Sandt­ Koenderman, E., & Krahmer, E. (2018). The compre­ hensibility of pantomimes produced by people with aphasia. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 53(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460­6984.12328

van Nispen, K., van de Sandt­Koenderman, M., Sekine, K., Krahmer, E., & Rose, M. L. (2017). Part of the message comes in gesture: How people with aphasia convey infor­ mation in different gesture types as compared with infor­ mation in their speech. Aphasiology, 31(9), 1078–1103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2017.1301368

Van Swol, L. M., & Braun, M. T. (2014). Channel choice, justification of deception, and detection. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1139–1159. https://doi.org/10 .1111/jcom.12125

Vargas­Urpi, M. (2013). Coping with nonverbal communication in public service interpreting with Chinese immigrants. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 42(4), 340–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2013.838985

Verhulst, B., Lodge, M., & Lavine, H. (2010). The attrac­ tiveness halo: Why some candidates are perceived more favorably than others. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10919­009­0084­z

Vicaria, I., & Dickens, L. (2016). Meta­analyses of the intra­ and interpersonal outcomes of interpersonal coordina­ tion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(4), 335–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­016­0238­8

Visser, M., Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2014). Contextual effects on surprise expressions: A developmental study. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(4), 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­014­0188­y

Vogt, S. S., & Kauschke, C. (2017). With some help from others’ hands: Iconic gesture helps semantic learning in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 60(11), 3213–3225. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR­L­ 17­0004

Wagner, P., Malisz, Z., & Kopp, S. (2014). Gesture and speech in interaction: An overview. Speech Communication, 57, 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2013.09.008

Watkins, J. L., & Hall, J. A. (2014). The association between nonverbal sensitivity and flirting detection accuracy. Communication Research Reports, 31(4), 348–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2014.963220

Webb, A., & Peck, J. (2015). Individual differences in interper­ sonal touch: On the development, validation, and use of the “comfort with interpersonal touch” (CIT) scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology (Elsevier Science), 25(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.07.002

Weger Jr., H., Seiter, J. S., Jacobs, K. A., & Akbulut, V. (2010). Perceptions of debater effectiveness and appropriateness as a function of decreasingly polite strategies for responding to nonverbal disparagement in televised political debates. Argumentation & Advocacy, 47(1), 39–54.

Wei, F.­Y. F., & Wang, Y. K. (2010). Students’ silent mes­ sages: Can teacher verbal and nonverbal immediacy moderate student use of text messaging in class? Communication Education, 59(4), 475–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2010.496092

Wessler, J., & Hansen, J. (2017). Temporal closeness pro­ motes imitation of meaningful gestures in face­to­face communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(4), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­017­ 0256­1

Westland, G. (2015). Verbal and non­verbal communication in psychotherapy. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company.

Whalen, J. (2010). Selections from the ABC 2009 Annual Convention, Portsmouth, Virginia. Business Communication Quarterly, 73(3), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569910376378

Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and non­verbal communica­ tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Why, Y. P., & Huang, R. Z. . (2010). Facilitative and interference effects of facial expressions on familiarity as a function of repetition priming frequency. Visual Cognition, 18(7), 945–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506281003693577

46 — VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS

Wickline, V., Nowicki, S., Bollini, A., & Walker, E. (2012). vocal and facial emotion decoding difficulties relating to social and thought problems: Highlighting schizotypal personality disorder. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­011­0125­2

Wiklund, M. (2012). Gaze behavior of pre­adolescent children afflicted with Asperger Syndrome. Communication & Medicine (Equinox Publishing Group), 9(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v9i2.173

Wilcox, S. E. (2009). William C. Stokoe and the gestural theory of language origins. Sign Language Studies, 9(4), 398–409.

Wilcox, S. (2012). Gesture and language, gesture as lan­ guage, language as gesture: Comments on Loehr and Fais et al. Laboratory Phonology, 3(1), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1515/lp­2012­0008

Willems, R. M., & Hagoort, P. (2007). Neural evidence for the interplay between language, gesture, and action: A review. Brain & Language, 101(3), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2007.03.004

Williams, D. E., & Hughes, P. C. (2005). Nonverbal com­ munication in Italy: An analysis of interpersonal touch, body position, eye contact, and seating behaviors. North Dakota Journal of Speech & Theatre, 18, 17–24.

Wilson, R., Rochon, E., Mihailidis, A., & Leonarda, C. (2012). Examining success of communication strategies used by formal caregivers assisting individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease during an activity of daily living. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 55(2), 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092­4388(2011/10­0206)

Wing Chee So. (2010). Cross­cultural transfer in gesture fre­ quency in Chinese­English bilinguals. Language & Cognitive Processes, 25(10), 1335–1353. https://doi .org/10.1080/01690961003694268

Wise, M., & Rodriguez, D. (2013). Detecting deceptive communication through computer­mediated technolo­ gy: Applying interpersonal deception theory to texting behavior. Communication Research Reports, 30(4), 342–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2013 .823861

Won, A., Bailenson, J., Stathatos, S., & Dai, W. (2014). Automatically detected nonverbal behavior predicts cre­ ativity in collaborating dyads. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(3), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­ 014­0186­0

Wray, C., Norbury, C. F., & Alcock, K. (2016). Gestural abil­ ities of children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 51(2), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1111 /1460­ 6984.12196

Wray, C., Saunders, N., McGuire, R., Cousins, G., & Norbury, C. F. (2017). Gesture production in language impairment: It’s quality, not quantity, that matters. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 60(4), 969–982. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR­L­16­0141

Yang, C­S., Sasaoka, A., & Zhan. C. (2011). Non­verbal information structure in consecutive interpreting. Compilation & Translation Review, 4(2), 55–78.

Yang, P. (2010). Nonverbal gender differences: Examining gestures of university­educated Mandarin Chinese speakers. Text & Talk, 30(3), 333–357. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/TEXT.2010.017

Yang, P. (2011). Nonverbal aspects of turn taking in Mandarin Chinese interaction. Chinese Language & Discourse, 2(1), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.2.1.09yan

Yeşil, R. (2008). Evaluation of body language behavior in a class debate. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 36(7), 893–902. https://doi.org/ 10.2224/sbp.2008.36.7.893

Yoo, S., & Noyes, S. (2016). Recognition of facial expres­ sions of negative emotions in romantic relationships. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919­015­0219­3

Young­Ok Lee. (2009). Perceptions of time in Korean and English. Human Communication, 12(1), 119–138.

Youngvorst, L. J., & High, A. C. (2018). “Anyone free to chat?” Using technological features to elicit quality support online. Communication Monographs, 85(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1426871

Zampini, L., Draghi, L., Silibello, G., Dall’Ara, F., Rigamonti, C., Suttora, C., … Vizziello, P. (2018). Vocal and gestur­ al productions of 24­month­old children with sex chro­ mosome trisomies. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 53(1), 171–181.

Zhengdong Gan, & Davison, C. (2011). Gestural behavior in group oral assessment: A case study of higher­ and lower­scoring students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10 .1111/j.1473­ 4192.2010.00264.x

Zhengrui Han, & Hongqiang Zhu. (2018). Stance markers in television news presentation: Expressivity of eyebrow flashes in the delivery of news. Semiotica, 2018(221), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem­2016­0138

Zhukov, K. (2013). Interpersonal interactions in instrumen­ tal lessons: Teacher/student verbal and non­verbal behaviours. Psychology of Music, 41(4), 466–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735611430434

Ziem, A. (2011). Review of Tom Ziemke, Jordan Zlatev & Roslyn M. Frank (Hg.). 2006. Body, Language and Mind. Volume I. Embodiment (CLR 35.1). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. xiii, 460; Roslyn M. Frank u. a. (Hg.). 2008. Body, Language and Mind. Volume 2. Sociocultural Situatedness (CLR 35.2). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. vi, 436 S. Zeitschrift Für Rezensionen Zur Germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft, 3(2), 291–296. https://doi.org/10.1515/zrs.2011.057

Ziemke, T., Zlatev, J., & Frank, R. M. (Eds.). (2007). Body, language and mind: Volume 1: Embodiment. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS VOLUME 38 (2019) NO. 1 — 47

Copyright of Communication Research Trends is the property of Centre for the Study of Communication & Culture and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.