Question One
Indeed, a smile is a nonverbal form of communication. This is essentially because through a smile, one is able to show his or her inner feelings and emotions. Naturally, a smile communicates approval or happiness with something. In fact, nonverbal communicators have learnt to distinguish two broad categories of smiles. The first category is the genuine smile that is supposed to communicate one’s happiness to the recipient. Such a smile is usually natural and authentic. The other type of smile is the false smile usually lacking in authenticity and natural taste. The latter smile is usually pretentious and hypocritical and a recipient can pick several unwritten messages from such a smile. It essentially serves to communicate the disapproval and pretence of the communicator. It suggests to the recipient that the communicator is merely accommodating him or her and doing her best to be friendly despite obvious challenges. In that light, it has to be appreciated that a smile can indeed suffice for purposes of communication.
Question Two
Basically the synchronization of nonverbal behaviour in my case has come up naturally. I have learnt to be able to communicate applying both the nonverbal and verbal cues in a synchronized and coordinated way. The essence of communicating in sync perhaps lies in the fact that ordinarily, the communicators have the inherent tendencies of observing the nonverbal behaviours even in cases where communication is largely verbal in nature. This realisation has compelled me into synchronizing my nonverbal behaviour into my ordinary speech. In other cases, I have belaboured successfully to put up a face that is in consonance with whatever I am communicating verbally. The beauty of communication lies in the use of either or both nonverbal and verbal cues to convince your audience. I have learnt that nonverbal behaviour because of its natural flow plays a fundamental in convincing one’s audience. It is more effective than the verbal communication hence need to synchronise it in ordinary communication.
Part B
Question One
Phonology essentially looks at the sound effect in language. From the first instance, therefore, the speaker has to have a good grasp and internalization of the sound to be able to articulate his or her point effectively. Otherwise, the presence of poor accuracy exposes the speech to all manner of interpretations which in themselves could be distortions. The remedy lies in practice by the nonnative. The beauty of language is that it can be learned. A nonnative speaker simply has to go over a sequence of practice sessions so as to adequately learn a new phonology. Accuracy comes with continued familiarity with the language. A speaker would soon be able to grasp the sound effects and effectively communicate without any distortions. On the other hand, learning a new phonology can also be tackled through examination of similarities and differences between the phonology in one’s native language and that of the foreign language. Drawing a comparison helps in identifying the distinctions and such would be helpful in effective communication.
Question Two
When semantics causes confusion, the end result is that the different interpretation by both sides would lead to the speaker’s message being distorted such that the two parties would not be at consensus. Recently, I had intended to get my friend’s pen with no intention of returning it. So when I requested for it I used the word borrow. She interpreted that to mean the literal borrowing. Essentially, according to her it meant I would have to return her pen which I had no intention to anyway. Some confusion ensued with my friend expecting her pen back while I had no intention of returning it.
Question Three
Ludwig Wittgenstein was emphasizing on the need to be able to communicate. He ties down the ability to communicate with the ability to get one’s things done. One has got to be able to communicate fully so as to be able to successfully maneuver his or way in life. Essentially, it is by language that one is able to interact with others in a society. In that strain, therefore, Wittgenstein argues that the limits of his world are his language. This is because over and above language, he is unable to achieve anything.
References
Hargie, O., & Tourish, D. (2012). Key Issues in Organizational Communication. New York: Routledge.
Yates, V. (2007). Communication. New York: Heinemann Library.
