Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Among Married Couples, Outline Example

Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Among Married Couples

• Adler & Proctor (2013) describe different forms of communication such as interpersonal, identity, interpretation/perception, nonverbal reactions, and symbolism.
• This paper will explore how each represents culture/language structure in relationship paradigm through studying how language syntax is used on various levels of communication.
• Adler & Proctor (2013) will help in the discussion of different communication styles that are intrinsic and relevant to the canon of communication theory.

In studying a couple’s paradigm it’s important to relate narrative to how a relationship functions (Fisher, 1987).  Fisher defines narrative as a way to inform people how we’re feeling not just reveal to others about the actions and plot of the day.

• Fisher’s (1987) relevance to the paper will help expound on the idea of Homo narrans and how narration is key to proper communication through it’s use as a sequencing tool.
• Sequencing leads to an understanding of consequence through analysis of action and reaction. In a couple’s relationship, this dynamic helps to expound upon who dominates a conversation and thereby who “rules to roost” in a sense (Cahn, 2013, p. 1-2).
• Alpha behavior may be seen in communication style (both on a verbal as well as a nonverbal scale) and reveal how a relationship may be dominated more by one party of the relationship as opposed to both; or, conversely, how the relationship is shared-dominant, or otherwise.
• Homo narrans are defined in a relationship as the core party that revels in the intimacy of a relationship as opposed to the non-communicative party, that may feel a depth of emotion but is unable to express it verbally, thus, making them rely more heavily on nonverbal forms of communication.

Rochberg-Halton (1982) defines symbolic interactionism in his work and relates this to how couples use symbols to communicate to each other (in the form of flowers, hugs, affection, physical confrontation, etc.) (such symbols are interpreted through specific culture of the couple.

• Each individual in a relationship can redefine their role in a relationship through symbolic interactionism and through the individual’s understanding of a system (this has to do with shifting dynamics in a relationship either power, breadwinner, affectionate one, etc.).
• This shifting of power or dynamic is best expressed through Searle’s (1998) work in the speech-act theory.
• The speech-act theory paves the way for understanding “couple speak” in which a person, who is defined as a conscious being, is fully aware of their actions, reactions, and patterns of thought/behavior/actions in relation to another person, and such elements may have a positive or negative affect on the other individual which in turn may have a positive or negative effect on the relationship as a whole.

References

Adler, R., & Proctor II, R. (2013). Looking out, looking in. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Cahn, D.D. (2013). Intimates in Conflict: A Communicative Perspective. New York City: State University of New York.

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

Rochberg-Halton, E. (Autumn 1982). Situation, Structure, and the Context of Meaning. The Sociological Quarterly. Vol. 23, No. 4. Pp. 455-476.

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