Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Among Married Couples, Annotated Bibliography Example

Adler, R., & Proctor II, R. (2013). Looking out, looking in. Boston: Wadsworth CengageLearning.

There are many forms of communication that are paired with humans’ capacity for emotion. Adler and Proctor (2013) examine these forms of communication (and why humans feel the need to communicate) and break them down into their different forms (e.g. interpersonal, identity through communication, interpretation/perception, nonverbal reactions, and symbolism). The authors report on communication by first understanding the syntax of common language and the barriers that can present as well as focusing on cultural structure of language, syntax, and pragmatic rules.

The authors combine current research and scholarship in their book. They approach the subject from a critical standpoint and seek to define, outline, and expound on various components of verbal and nonverbal language. The book is heavy on theory but balances that with an easy voice that makes understanding esoteric research easier. The authors use popular references (e.g. films, artistic paintings, television shows, etc.) that further make the material accessible.

The reference will be used in the literature review as a way to further understand the various levels and forms of communication so that the reader can better understand the references that will be made in the research as well as the definitions. The book is key to understanding core components of communication as it combines theory with practical measures. The theories that are presented in the book are intrinsic (i.e. connecting scholarship with practical measures) and relevant and as such add structure to the literature review (as well as the book serving as a type of canon on communication).

Fisher, W.R. (1987). Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of   Reason,Value and Action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Fisher’s (1987) collection of essays demonstrates the prevailing theories in communication ranging from ancient to more modern forms and discourse. Fisher takes an in-depth look into the importance of narration as an integral part of humanity’s understanding and contribution to history. Fisher argues for an aesthetic understanding of communication (e.g. as a way to inform other people about how we’re feeling, or, in a sense, the more poetic, less rhetorical/theory based side of human existence and experience). Fisher tries to expound on his theory that Homo narrans (humans as story tellers) are in essence the harbingers of our humanity (e.g. poetry or voice allows for expression).

Fisher’s theory is that narration is the foundation of human communication; as such, he doesn’t venture into other areas of communication and so his application to this research will be finite and focused. Fisher’s chronological approach to communication (he goes back into the classical era and brings it to modernity) is beneficial because it allows for a wide scope in examining verbal and nonverbal communication between people. Fisher seeks to encompass all forms of communication and in so doing, some parts of the book are repetitive but still there is no lacking in worth and application from his research.

Fisher’s work will be included in the literature review as his scope in examining communication from ancient to modern times will allow for a more comprehensible look into the paper’s own research. It isn’t necessary to use Fisher in the research as he doesn’t directly apply his theories to married couple but humanity and is therefore too general.

Rochberg-Halton, E. (Autumn 1982). Situation, Structure, and the Context of Meaning.

The Sociological Quarterly. Vol. 23, No. 4. Pp. 455-476.

Rochberg-Halton (1982) defines symbolic interactionism in his work. This relates to the signs and symbols present in everyday life: human interactions (verbal and nonverbal) base their interpretation on such symbolism (culturally weighted). Rochberg-Halton goes on to define symbolic interactionism and structuralism and to combine these two theories into a school of thought whereby how humans understand a system (such as society, job, or marriages) and the concepts and traditions that underlie that system. Rochberg-Halton emphasizes meaning on both of these school’s of thought.

Rochberg-Halton’s range and inclusivity bring about a certain authority to the subject. His incorporation of such dominating figures as Saussure, Mead, and Durkheim promise a strong foundation by which to build a theory. Rochberg-Halton’s claims may be difficult to believe at first, but the inclusion of, and combination of other great thinkers make for a strong connection. The only drawback is that the research doesn’t include any experiment by which to test his theory nor does it include any methodology by which to further investigate his theories.

Rochberg-Halton’s work will be included in the literature because he presents such wide ranging and figurehead theorists in his work. How Rochberg-Halton approaches meaning as a platform for misinterpretation coincides with this researcher’s theory on the importance of proper communication. Rochberg-Halton’s theory is needed as a basis for understanding structuralism and symbolic interactionism but is necessarily needed for research purposes in the paper (hence it’s inclusion in the literature and not the actual paper).

Searle, J. R. (1998). Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. Basic Books. New York.

Searle (1998) presents a new way to discuss the speech-act theory. Searle also rejects the dualism of the mind-body theory (popularized by Descartes and other Enlightenment thinkers) and instead states that there is a communication between the two that in turn functions to create a conscious person full of reactions and intent (on both a verbal and a nonverbal level). Searle relates these theorize to social constructivism in a comprehensible manner.

Although Searle doesn’t pull previous theorists into his research and theory by expounding on their theories, he does incorporate these theories into a new realm of thought. Searle’s theories are inclusive and as such lend to certain credibility in his work. Searle stretches his intentions by including sociology, psychology and philosophy into a whirlwind read and thus there is something lacking in structure and focus simply because there is so much (the book could have been longer due to these reasons) ground to cover the theories fall somewhat flat (although they are still usable).

Searle’s theories will be used in the literature review as a way to approach biological naturalism as well as to offer a better understanding of where we are chronologically in discussing forms of communication by way of better understanding the self (body/mind). In finding the right form of communication (verbal vs. nonverbal) Searle’s theory about consciousness being a biological phenomenon is applicable to the literature review as it offers a way to understand a fundamental problem when dealing with communication (as in, if there is no way to calculate consciousness, how can we be expected to better express or communicate?).