1310
VII. Body movements – Functions, contexts, and interactions
Schmitt, Reinhold 2005. Zur multimodalen Struktur von turn-taking. Gesprächsforschung ⫺ Online
Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 6: 17⫺61.
Schmitt, Reinhold 2006. Videoaufzeichnungen als Grundlage für Interaktionsanalysen. Deutsche
Sprache 34(1⫺2): 18⫺31.
Selting, Margret and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2000. Argumente für die Entwicklung einer Interaktionalen Linguistik. Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 1: 76⫺95.
(www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de)
Selting, Margret and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2001. Forschungsprogramm Interaktionale Linguistik. Linguistische Berichte 187: 257⫺287.
Ulrike Bohle, Hildesheim (Germany)
92. Proxemics and axial orientation
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction
A selective and critical overview of the research
Outlook
References
Abstract
The regulation of distance and the body orientation of communicating partners is a semiotic
resource, which is relevant, or can be assumed to be relevant, in every co-present interaction
situation. As this overview of the research shows, this is borne out by a systematic study of
the correlation between proxemic activities and axial alignment, and the development of
specific interactive tasks.
1. Introduction
An elaborate and secret code that is
written nowhere known by none, and understood by all.
(Sapir 1928: 137)
Non-verbal signals such as facial expressions, gestures, and physical movements that are
learnt or acquired in the course of socialization, and enculturation frequently occur in
communicative situations in conjunction with verbal signals. However, whilst the structure of a language involves discrete units (sounds, words, phrases, constructions, and
expressions among others), non-verbal signals must first be identified as such, in order
to be able to interpret their meaning in context ⫺ if they are not grasped intuitively as
a result of strong conventions (see Grammer 2004: 3448⫺3449). Thus non-verbal, as
well as verbal, signals act as a signifier: they can be perceived and interpreted and therefore lead to conclusions (inferences) of a contingent (index), causal (symptom), associative (icon), or rule-based type (symbol) (see Keller 1995: 113⫺132). Relevant components
of the context for interpretation of non-verbal signals are, firstly, aspects of the comMüller, Cienki, Fricke, Ladewig, McNeill, Bressem (eds.) 2014, Body Language Communication (HSK 38.2), de Gruyter, 13101323
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
92. Proxemics and axial orientation
1311
municative situation (including the characteristics and features of the interlocutors), as
well as the verbal signals always involved a concurrent understanding of non-verbal
signals (see Grammer 2004: 3474).
In this way, the production of a structure of interaction order comprises different
types of signals and signs and is also involved in their mutual interaction. Non-verbal
signals are therefore not just interpretable due to a given context, but at the same time
they provide the conditions of the context under which the verbal part of the communication is interpreted. Non-verbal signals are also understood correspondingly as contextualization cues (see Auer 1986; Auer and di Luzio 1992; Gumperz 1982, 1992).
Until recently, studies of the connection between verbal and non-verbal signals in the
comprehension process have been carried out principally within the field of kineticmotor behavior in communication (Birdwhistell 1952, 1967, 1970), in particular studies
of facial expressions (Ehlich and Rehbein 1982; Ekman, Friesen, and Ellsworth 1974;
Ekman, Friesen, and Hager 2002; Huber 1983; Scherer and Wallbott 1979 among others)
and of gestures (Argyle 1972; Armstrong, Stokoe, and Wilcox 1995; Egidi 2000; Ekman
and Friesen 1969; Feyereisen 1997; Feyereisen and de Lannoy 1991; Hübler 2001; Kendon 1972, 2002; Kresse and Feldmann 1999; McNeill 1992, 2000; Morris 1995; Müller
1998; Müller and Posner 2004; Scheflen 1976; Schmauser and Noll 1998 among others).
In contrast, two aspects of non-verbal behavior, as related to the verbal part of communication, have rarely been studied specifically: proxemics behavior (see Hall 1969,
1974, 2003), that is, the spatial relationship between interacting participants (for an overview, see Aiello 1987) and axial orientation, that is, leaning towards or away from the
communicating partner with the head or body. Contributions to research in this area
stem mainly from sociologists, anthropologists, ethnographers, or psychologists. They
can be distinguished, in that they focus more on the identification and categorization of
non-verbal activities and the development of new concepts, and less on the interplay
with the verbal aspects of communication.
The reason for this is that many of these pieces of research are based on a working
definition of the research into the non-verbal (explicitly or implicitly) that can be attributed to the most prominent researcher in proxemics behavior, Edward T. Hall: “Nonverbal communication, defined (by Hall) as communication that does not involve the exchange of words” (Rogers, Hart, and Miike 2002: 10). From this perspective, it is the
emotional and interpersonal attitudes expressed in proxemics and axial behavior, above
all, that have come to the fore.
In case studies, however, it is the interaction of distance and axial orientation with other
non-verbal components that has been investigated (Argyle and Ingham 1972; Kendon
1973). Nevertheless, there are few in-depth studies of the link between such non-verbal
activities as regulating distance and forward inclination concurrently with verbal activity,
in terms of the organization of discourse or thematic control. More recently, however, a
concept of discourse analysis has been established under the term multimodal interaction,
in which the observation of participants focuses equally on verbal and non-verbal aspects
of communication, in terms of the construction of an interactive order by all those involved
and this anthroposemiotic term also encompasses proxemics and axial orientation (see,
e.g., contributions in Schmitt 2007).
How the relationship between non-verbal and verbal signals is to be evaluated in
principle remains controversial: are non-verbal activities such as the regulation of interactive distance and forwards inclination ⫺ analogous to the differentiation in the func-
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
1312
VII. Body movements – Functions, contexts, and interactions
tions of hand gestures in connection with the spoken language, according to Ekman and
Friesen (1969) ⫺ complementary to speech (or contrastive) or do they also function as
substitutes for verbal activities (as emblems)? In general terms, the question is: what
possible communicative functions do non-verbal behaviors like interactive distance and
inclination regulation fulfill?
The following selective and critical overview of research seeks to ascertain if, and to
what extent, distance behavior and axial orientation are considered in research that also
considers the verbal element of communication. In so doing, the focus rests on studies
in which conclusions are made, or at least inferred, about tendencies or preferences in
the body positioning of interlocutors in two or more person discourses. The presentation
is only an approximate organization according to discipline and methodological approach to the phenomena. A clear delineation of the disciplines involved is not always
possible, because of the interconnection of scientific theories.
2. A selective and critical overview o the research
2.1. Semiotics
Rauscher (1986) outlines the intentional use of non-verbal signals as an example of
distance regulation. From the semiotic perspective, interactive distance is portrayed as a
sign system that not only uses signs (products) intentionally, but whose intentional use,
in hindsight, is also the subject of reflection (see also Ravelli and Stenglin 2008). The
“language of space” as proxemics communication schema can be reconstructed as follows: “Sender A, at an interactive distance Dx, as opposed to other possible interactive
distances D1…. Dn represents D1…n ⫽Dx, intends to communicate an item E by Dx to
Receiver B, to which E attributes conventional meaning Dx. The intention of A involves
that B recognizes this intention” (Rauscher 1986: 449). (All German direct quotes were
translated into English in order to ensure a more even flow of language). The problem
here is that the “distance-meaning-pairing” (Dx J E) is assumed to be conventionally
established ⫺ expressed in the construction grammar paradigm, this would correspond
to “proxemic constructions”. The phenomenon of distance, in particular, leads to the
assumption that the measurable element (distance) could result in specific meanings being attributed. Since distance between interacting partners cannot be proved fundamentally in terms of fixed classifications and boundaries, and is much more negotiated and
assigned relevance interactively, models of interaction distance as a signal system with
physically measurable elements is not an accurate representation of the relational or
dynamic character of personal space behavior. A “semiotic” use of proxemics relationships can be explained, similar to the cited reconstruction of Rauscher, but primarily
with the aid of the so-called Grice’s Basic Model (see Grice 1979; Meggle 1981; Rolf
1994). This would have the advantage that the same model could be applied to both
verbal and non-verbal behavior in describing how meaning is attributed.
2.2. Anthropology and social psychology
The existence of four distance zones, first described by Hall (1969), which regulate proximal behavior and reflect or determine the combined roles and status of the interlocutors
is undisputed. As a result of work by the anthropologist Hall, the various culturally
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
92. Proxemics and axial orientation
1313
conditioned dimensions of the zones of intimate proximity, personal space, social space,
and public space can be distinguished. With the exception of public space, these distance
zones have biological origins to a certain extent, ethological findings indicate that they
are a part of all specific forms of territorial behavior (see for example, the difference
between flight, defense, and critical distance of Hediger 1934). The respecting of these
distance zones is mutually required by the interlocutors; deliberate encroachments are
either sanctioned or a part of verbal discussion. In order to discover more precisely how
the interlocutors handle these distance zones when they are part of a two or more person
discourse, it should be observed that, dependent on the cause of the interaction, the role
and status of the interlocutors, the physical spatial arrangement is either accepted as a
pre-established rule (and generally observed in the course of the interaction) or negotiated. The latter is particularly valid in communicative situations in which the interacting
partners have the possibility of adopting a (physical) position for discourse freely, or
change position, such as communicating while standing. It can be deduced from these
cases that certain positions (distancing or leaning towards or away from) are favored in
certain constellations and that this also correlates, in part, with particular interactive
tasks, i.e., that interactive distance behavior and axial orientation interact systematically
with the respective verbal aspect of the communication.
Argyle (1975) also highlighted that this spatial aspect, particularly forwards or backwards inclination, plays a significant role in communication when he linked the knowledge of behavioral research, ethnology, and experimental social psychology. Thus, he
indicates that the distance between interlocutors is also controlled by the extent to which
they are able to perceive auditory and kinetic signals: “If another person is too close
only part of him can be seen; if he is too far away his facial expression cannot be seen.
Orientation also affects how much can be seen; however, if he adopts the best orientation
for seeing ⫺ head-on ⫺ the looker is also fully exposed himself, perhaps more than he
wants to be” (Argyle 1975: 155). This last remark makes it clear that it is assumed, of
course, that not just physical, but also cognitive and social psychological factors could
be responsible for the adopting or changing of certain physical positions during discourse. Spatial behavior is always “encoded and decoded in terms of interpersonal attitudes, and in other ways, […] though it may not be intended to communicate at all”
(Argyle 1975: 312; see also Kalverkämper 1998: 1341). Argyle (1975: 300⫺306) also observes that distance behavior and axial orientation are connected by a kind of inverse
relationship: a frontal orientation is linked to a greater distance, a side-by-side orientation to a smaller distance. Experiments confirm the preference for certain axial positioning in different social relationships with the interacting partner: competition with a faceto-face orientation, cooperation with a side-to-side orientation (see Cook 1970; Sommer
and Becker 1969). Incidentally, the latter can be used, to a certain extent, as a somatic
explanation of how the expression of solidarity (“to stand shoulder-to-shoulder”) may
have arisen. The favored conversation position when sitting at a triangular table is a
ninety-degree orientation (except for culturally determined special conditions, see Argyle
1975: 307⫺312 on this topic). Thus the positioning “across the corner”, which suggests
both cooperation, as well as competition, and which enables a shared perception of
events and processes external to the discourse, and moreover, is open to further potential
interlocutors. These are important indicators that certain formations are influenced by
both the type of social relationship and the opportunity for verbal communication.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
1314
VII. Body movements – Functions, contexts, and interactions
2.3. Psychology
In psychology, the regulation of distance and axial orientation as articulated elements
of speech-related behavior within the parameters of research into emotion has been
studied mainly for diagnostic purposes (see Wallbott 2003: 561). According to the wellknown functional classification of Ekman and Friesen (1969), non-verbal behavior can
be divided into five categories (illustrators, adaptors, emblems, regulators, and affect
representations). It is certain body postures that are adopted above all within the category of affect representations, however, it can be assumed that distance and axial orientation as “dynamic body postures”, as understood in the interactive role, can also be
adopted by the role of regulators. Salewski (1993) considers in depth the spatial distance
behavior in interaction, as it is developed within the concept of “personal space” (Hayduk 1981a, 1981b, 1983). The concept of personal space describes the existence of an
intra-individual constant, but an inter-individually different personal sphere, which has
the value of a personal trait. According to the justified criticism of Patterson (1975,
1976), the personal space concept should be re-categorized as an interpersonal space
concept. Personal space is only visible because it is damaged at its boundaries; however,
such a crossing of boundaries can only be initiated by others (by the bordering or overlapping of the personal space) ⫺ but probably also by representatives of others like
cameras, as might be studied experimentally. Recently, Salewski proposed a model which
might explain the adoption of a particular interaction space that can be measured.
Knowles (1980) affiliative conflict theory appears to be a suitable candidate. At its core
this theory is based on the equilibrium theory of Argyle and Dean (1965), which says,
that eye-contact and interaction space behaviors arise from a need to balance affiliation
and keeping distance. Knowles (1980) considers the tendency to approach as fulfilling
the desire for contact and feedback above all, whereas the tendency to keep one’s distance is motivated by the fear of rejection by others or of the unwilling and public
exposure of inner states. The motives for approaching and keeping distance mentioned
here probably explain not just the maintaining of particular interaction zones, but go
some way to explaining that observable actions of the interlocutors are responsible for
their positioning. With respect to the above empirical study and its criticism of the personal space concept, Salewski (1993: 71⫺96) concludes that personal space behavior is
not only an interpersonal phenomenon, but also that even “the expectation of one interlocutor causes the other to display a particular personal space behavior”. This correlation between the interpersonal relationship and its assumption and interaction space
behavior respectively has already been documented by Leipold (1963). He was able to
prove that interaction space behavior correlates systematically with the expected attitude
of the other: if one interlocutor believes that the other has a negative attitude towards
him, he will maintain a physical distance (independently of how the other behaves
towards him in an actual communication situation); if he/she believes that the other has
a positive attitude, he/she will seek physical proximity. Leipold designed his experiment
using the roles of teacher and pupil. However, it cannot be ruled out that, even under
non-institutional and outside laboratory conditions, personal spaces are linked systematically to the ideas and constructions that the interlocutors mutually assume, in relation
to the presence or absence of affinity ⫺ independently of whether these are justified or
not. With regard to axial orientation, Knapp (1979: 324) expands on Leipold’s findings,
by observing that if communication takes places while standing, the shoulders of the
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
92. Proxemics and axial orientation
1315
person with higher status tend to be directed towards the person of lower status. However, this occurs independently of the quality of the attitude towards the person of higher
status. The findings identified here indicate a fundamental assumption that interaction
space and axial orientation are influenced and directed by various factors, which can
strengthen or hinder potential outcomes. Such factors include cultural norms and conventions, situational elements (cooperation and competition), personality variables (gender, age, status, popularity etc.), as well as non-proxemic, non-verbal behaviors (facial
expression and gestures among others) and, of course, verbal communication elements
(see Hayduk 1983, for a structured overview of this topic).
2.4. Psychotherapeutic research
In the field of psychotherapy, Scheflen (1964) in particular, has drawn attention to the “significance of posture in communication systems”. Scheflen adopts Birdwhistell’s view that
“the communication system as a whole [is] an integrated arrangement of structural units,
originating from kinesic, tactile, verbal and other elements” (Scheflen 1964: 320). That elements appear next to each other is by no means coincidental, indeed the interaction between individual elements is coordinated or synchronized, as, for example, the movements
of the head, eyes, and hands with the change in intonation at the end of verbal phrases. In
this context, Scheflen also describes aspects of posture that are used analogously in larger
units of communication. In addition to the standardized configurations of posture, he includes markers for “points, positions and presentations” (Scheflen 1964: 320⫺324), as well
as indicators for the relationships between interlocutors. If the interlocutors form a group,
they define themselves through their body position and the placing of their limbs. “If group
members are standing or are able to move the furniture, they will tend to form a circle”
(Scheflen 1964: 326), in order to demarcate a territory within which to interact. The group
action to create such an “enclosure” is directed towards the equilibrium of the group. It
serves to maintain social control within the group (see Scheflen 1976: 38⫺50). By adopting
particular (body) positions for discourse, access to the group and availability within the
group is regulated. Scheflen (1964: 326) sees this as the realization of the inclusive and noninclusive function of (body) posture (in relation to others). He differentiates further between interactive (face-to-face orientation) and complementary (side-to-side orientation)
types of activity, although here he only considers particular seating arrangements and no
forms of discourse in which positions are freely adopted. In this context, Scheflen makes
the pertinent observation, that if particular postures are imitated directly or reproduced as
a mirror image by the interlocutors, this reflects viewpoints or roles ⫺ further evidence that
non-verbal signals can function as cues or aids to contextualization or interpretation of the
“uptake”. If we consider the focus of the most recent studies of non-verbal processes in
psychotherapy, it can be noted that other non-verbal elements (for example, smiling, touching, or various modes of expressing emotions) are emphasized, and interaction space behavior and axial orientation have been relegated to a place of medium interest (see, for
example, Hermer, and Klinzing 2004).
2.5. Non-verbal communication
In his study of the role of visible behavior in the organization of social interaction,
Kendon (1973: 35⫺37) states that there are two significant conditions for the spatial
arrangement of groups of people: the adoption or maintenance of a particular distance
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
1316
VII. Body movements – Functions, contexts, and interactions
away from the other interacting participants, as well as an axial orientation, which
means that leaning towards the other interlocutors is only enabled by turning the head
at an angle of less than 90 degrees. Such “configurations” indicate the status of those
involved. “The particular form that the configuration as a whole assumes reflects the
type of occasion and the kind of role relationships prevailing in the gathering” (Kendon
1973: 37). Circular configurations often indicate equal rights. Triangles, semi-circles, or
parallelograms “tend to have a ‘head’ position at which the member with the most rights
to participation is usually located” (Kendon 1973: 39). At the same time, the distance
between the interacting participants in similar configurations can vary according to the
environment. Thus, groups in public spaces often move closer together than in private
spaces, because in “open” spaces the territory demarcated for interaction by the group
has to withstand potential intruders (see Kendon 1973: 37⫺38). Exactly how such configurations originate, what dynamics they exhibit and how they disband ⫺ is the desired
research focus, following Kendon’s work. With respect to the roles of the participants
in multi-person discourses, Kendon distinguishes between speakers, active listeners, nonaxial listeners, and those that have temporarily withdrawn from the interaction (see
Kendon 1973: 52⫺54). Speaker and active listeners are connected by a so-called axis of
interaction (this term can be traced back to a work by Watson and Potter 1962), whose
origin is the coordination of movement and interactive synchronicity, which is regulated,
above all, by a change of speaker (see also Condon and Ogston 1966, 1967). In a detailed
study, Kendon and his colleagues, using analysis of film footage of a seated, multi-person
group, were able to establish that interacting participants demonstrate responsiveness or
general communicative availability in an impersonal way to the dominant or current
speaker in a group, by the synchronized movements of the interacting participants (this
may only be the rhythm of performing particular head, hand, or body movements).
Comparable observations of actions and behavior patterns of interacting participants
who are standing and therefore less restricted in their movement have indicated that
synchronizing sequences of movement is the key communicative function ⫺ apparently
independent of which form of behavior is affected. According to the classification of
functions by Ekman and Friesen (1969), patterns of interactional synchronized behavior
are classified as regulators. In this respect, Kendon (1990a) stresses that body positioning
and axial orientation in the formation promotes a focused interaction, which the joint
action both frames and structures: “there is a systematic relationship between spatial
arrangement and mode of interaction” (Kendon 1990a: 251).
2.6. Linguistics
In her search for a linguistic explanation for non-verbal communication, Kühn concludes
that “from the correlation of the multi-dimensional nature of physicality and the multimodality of the response to physicality” (Kühn 2002: 208) there are three basic principles
of the fundamental structure and organization of non-verbal communication: the coordination principle (temporal coordination of body and language), the choreography principle (the relationship of body movements to one another), and the proxemics principle
(personal and shared communication spaces). With regard to the coordination principle,
Kühn points out the interesting fact that, next to the synchronized interaction of language and body, asynchronous cases can also be observed, for example, when gestures
precede speech (see also anticipatory gestures as noted by McNeill 1985; Streeck and
Knapp 1992). Comparable explanations can be assumed for some of the actions in con-
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
92. Proxemics and axial orientation
1317
nection to proxemics and axial orientations: in addition, coming towards or moving
away, forwards and backwards inclination can precede and anticipate speech. As far as
the choreography principle is concerned, Kühn (2002: 216⫺231) stresses that any attempt at a reproducible analysis of inter-subjective movements has been unsuccessful.
The spectrum of research here stretches from the meticulous measurement of physical
size to psychological or liberal artistic interpretations. What can be confirmed is that
“choreographic” body movements, coordinated with speech, make the process of reception on the part of the communicating partners easier, since these structural aspects of
verbal communication help the interlocutors to clarify or explain the tasks and requirements of the way in which discourse is organized. Kühn sees the proxemic principle,
above all, as bringing about the defense of personal space and in the take up and release
of interactional space. In this way, the proxemics principle, in concrete terms, depicts
the fundamental acceptance of research into politeness, as expressed by Brown and Levinson (1978) for example. The need for proximity and forwards inclination, as well as
the need for distance and backwards inclination can all be seen as realizations of ambivalent interest, that Brown and Levinson (1978: 66⫺70) attribute to each interlocutor: on
the one hand, the need to be acknowledged and valued by others, on the other, the
desire to remain undisturbed and unimpeded in one’s own actions.
The empirical basis for Kühn’s study is a discourse group with a fixed, semi-circular
seating position, opened towards the camera. In this way she takes the penetration of
the gesturing space of the other (e.g., to negotiate the right to speak) and changes in the
axial orientation (for example, to address the group or for thematic positioning) into
account. Thus personal space in interactive situations, in which the interlocutors are able
to adopt their body positions freely, the specific sequence of movements agreed together
and the “dancing” with or against one another, cannot be observed. In all, Kühn’s observations demonstrate clearly that distance regulation and axial orientation can be used
as contextualizing cues, along with other indicators.
2.7. Multi-modality
Originating from the idea of interaction as the multi-modal production of an interactive
structure by all those involved (see Deppermann and Schmitt 2007: 16⫺20; Hausendorf,
Mondada, and Schmitt 2012), non-verbal elements of communication have become an
increasing focal point in recent years ⫺ doubtless due to the technical advances made in
the collection and processing of empirical data (the focus on so-called context analysis
can already be seen in the work, for example, of Kendon 1990b and of Kress and van
Leeuwen 2001 and Norris 2004 among others). In order to do justice to the now complex
documentation on interaction processes, it is worth moving beyond the focus placed on
the verbal: “prosody, facial expression, eye contact, gestures and body posture should
be afforded the same methodological standing in future, that the analysis of verbal expression currently enjoys” (Schmitt 2004: 1). In this connection, some studies of interaction in multi-modal forms have taken as their theme specifically the interaction distances,
the spatial arrangements of the bodies of the interlocutors and their axial orientation,
also as regards the relevance for the concurrent verbal communication. With respect to
establishing an interaction order (in the sense of Goffmann 1983), Mondada (2007), in
comparison with other detailed studies, showed that verbal actions are suspended,
slowed down, or delayed, in order to shape the shared interactive space by reorganizing
the physical positioning, such that an appropriate continuation of communication is
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
1318
VII. Body movements – Functions, contexts, and interactions
enabled (for example, producing a shared line of sight when giving directions, including
corresponding pointing gestures). The results of the cross-sectional studies show clearly
that body positioning in the interaction space is the product of both an interpersonal and
an intrapersonal coordination. The latter is particularly evident, in that the formatting of
the corresponding remark indicates signs of the demands of the non-verbal actions occurring at the same time. Mondada concludes that: “the orientation of participants in
the interaction space is not a given, simply existing, already present, but rather, it must
be actively created by them” (Mondada 2007: 84). It can be assumed, that even these
acts of formation can generally be correlated systematically with the (verbal) interaction
tasks present at the time, i.e., that not only linguistic expressions demonstrate signs of
the creation process of an appropriate interaction space, but that proxemics and axial
behavior are also actions that result in the production of expressions related to interaction tasks and only then can continued communication be facilitated. Tiittula (2007)
studied the organization of glances in a side-by-side position with three interlocutors
during a business dialogue and concluded that: “different interaction constellations and
the status of those involved are initiated and terminated through the organization of
looks and body postures” (Tiittula 2007: 248). In this situation, a change to the axial
orientation also proves to be closely connected with the different task-specific verbal
requests, (in the above study, products are presented, checked, orders are taken, etc.).
Furthermore, the changes in the physical orientation correlate with the exchange of
phases of business-motivated actions and non-business related types of orientation (for
example, the explanation of certain words in the other language), which is accompanied
by a change in the mode of interaction. The focus of the analysis carried out by Tiittula,
though primarily concerned with how looks are organized, is nevertheless evidence that
the physical orientation of the interlocutors is also systematically linked to verbal interaction tasks and demands. Taking the example of dance teachers, who observe individual pairs during the dance lesson and briefly interrupt and correct them, Müller and
Bohle (2007) propose a prototype for the preparatory steps in establishing an interaction
space. They are making a detailed study of how the pre-conditions for a focused interaction are created together by those involved, through body orientation and positioning
within the space. Müller and Bohle identify the positioning and orientation of the pelvis
and the feet as the physical actions, by which the three interlocutors in the above example
established a triangle formation together, to which all have equal access. The task for
the third person (dance teacher) is formulated as follows: “How do I gain entry into an
existing interaction space for two people and in a face-to-face orientation?” (Müller
and Bohle 2007: 133). Opening up focused interaction as a structural principle of social
interaction is also valid in everyday situations. If people standing start a discourse in an
unstructured open space, they form polygons, depending on their number. In this way,
it can be seen that the tendency to re-shape the established interaction space to facilitate
the entry and exit of those involved, i.e., by ensuring that accessibility for all is guaranteed by creating the new formation together (Müller and Bohle 2007: 151⫺160). Müller
and Bohle consider the role of the verbal element only in as far as they show that the
production of a “fundament of focused interaction” (the title of their text) is the shared,
coordinated action of those involved, which precedes and facilitates verbal exchanges.
The transition between physical action and individual, concrete linguistic utterances in
the interaction space is not studied in detail, however.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
92. Proxemics and axial orientation
1319
2.8. Conclusion
This overview of the research indicates that results or simply incidental comments of proxemic behavior and axial orientation are spread over various disciplines and embedded in
different methods of investigation and key questions. Research addressing the question as
to what connection there is between non-verbal and verbal actions is not yet concluded.
The trend in current research seems to be to perceive both as elements of the same process
(Wallbott 2003). In order to analyze how verbal and non-verbal communication mesh together, however, it is also necessary to understand and classify non-verbal signals specifically. To do this, as Wallbott (2003: 579) highlights, it is essential: “not only to observe nonverbal behavior and language at a macro level, but to attempt to study in ‘micro-analyses’
the point-by-point relationship between both behaviors over the course of time”. The basis
for this must be an appropriate transcription of the non-verbal behavior (see for example,
Hausendorf, Mondada, and Schmitt 2012, for more recent analyses).
3. Outlook
In studying personal space or proxemics actions and axial orientation as part of human
communication systems, it is evident that related behavior and action are both significant. As behavior, these non-verbal elements of communication are symptoms; as actions
they are symbols. Rauscher (1986) argues that only in cases of intentional use can proxemics be part of a semiotic study: “as far as our actions are affected, the conscious application of proxemics relations, as a signal for the receiver to use socially established
paradigms with regard to space, or for which the receiver accepts the sender’s intention
in this situation, on the basis of such paradigms” (Rauscher 1986: 441). If we disregard
the problems behind them what count among semiotics, it becomes clear that in the
intentional use of proxemic and axial symptoms, a metamorphosis of signals can be
demonstrated, as construed by Keller (1995: 160⫺173). Particular (physical) discourse
positions can be adopted intentionally and consciously in relation to specific communication states or interaction functions. Behavior as a natural, qualifying adaptation to the
physical and socio-cultural environment is instrumentalized, that is, used intentionally, in
order to be recognized and understood as such. In this context it concerns a symbolizing
of symptoms, as a result of which Keller (1995: 165⫺167) insists that: “the assumption
of communicative intentions, which in particular cases do not need to be present, including the development of collective knowledge, enables a symptom to become a symbol”
(Keller 1995: 167). Thus, for example, the integration of a person in an already formed
circular constellation is a sign of group membership and a symbol of social success in
the collective knowledge. Should integration in a discourse circle be forced, with the aim
of making social success apparent, this can also be termed a staging of symptoms (Keller
1995: 166). If a someone places himself in a discourse circle in order to be accepted as
a potential interlocutor (see Sager, central trunk orientation, 2000: 557), this indicates
that he is adopting the role of an interlocutor in that particular group, with which rights,
but also duties, are associated (see also Kendon 1973: 37⫺38). Principles of courtesy are
valid here, for example, that a person answers when a question is posed, and also the
communicative demands, for example, the principle of conditional relevance, which limits the spectrum of possible replies (see Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). If a person
is accepted physically, in this sense, into a discourse circle, however without the intention
of taking advantage of the corresponding rights or fulfilling his obligations, benefits
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
1320
VII. Body movements – Functions, contexts, and interactions
from the communicative function of a symptom that has become a symbol. It allows
social success to be recognized, which still functions, even if he disqualifies himself, in
whatever way, within the discourse circle.
From an intercultural perspective, a distinct and further area opens up for considering
connections. An intercultural comparison of the preferred (physical) discourse positions
could provide information on the extent to which personal space behavior and axial orientation in intercultural communication causes irritation or misunderstanding. Hall already
remarked that: “One of my earliest discoveries in the field of intercultural communication
was that the position of the bodies of people in conversation varies with the culture” (1969:
150). He goes on to describe how an Arabic friend found it impossible to talk to him while
they were walking side by side (see also Schmitt 2012 on walking as a cultural practice), as
it was deemed impolite in his culture to look at the partner in the conversation out of the
corner of the eyes. Culturally specific differences of this type, in intercultural communication situations in which discourse positions are freely adopted and can be altered, are particularly evident, when irritations or misunderstandings arising from the negotiation of
“somatic” discourse formation are implicitly evaluated or have an explicit verbal theme
(see Kühn 2002: 289 on the status of so-called reception indicators).
Acknowledgements
This paper would not have been possible without Svend F. Sager. It was through his
considerations of the transcription of proxemic behavior and axial orientation (Sager
2000, 2001) as well as in personal conversation that the basis of this mutual project was
facilitated, in terms of searching for options for presentation, descriptive categories, and
methods of analysis for activities of this type at the “display circle”.
4. Reerences
Aiello, John R. 1987. Human spatial behavior. In: Daniel Stokols and Irwin Altman (eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Volume 1, 389⫺504. New York: John Wiley.
Argyle, Michael 1972. Soziale Interaktion. Köln: Kiepenheuer and Witsch.
Argyle, Michael 1975. Bodily Communication. London: Methuen.
Argyle, Michael and Janet Dean 1965. Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28(3):
289⫺304.
Argyle, Michael and Roger Ingham 1972. Gaze, mutual gaze and proximity. Semiotica 6(1): 32⫺49.
Armstrong, David F., William C. Stokoe and Sherman Wilcox 1995. Gesture and the Nature of
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Auer, Peter 1986. Kontextualisierung. Studium Linguistik 19: 22⫺47.
Auer, Peter and Aldo di Luzio (eds.) 1992. The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Birdwhistell, Ray L. 1952. Introduction to Kinesics. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute.
Birdwhistell, Ray L. 1967. Some body motion elements accompanying spoken American English.
In: Lee Thayer (ed.), Communication: Concepts and Perspectives, 53⫺76. Washington, DC: Spartan Books.
Birdwisthell, Ray L. 1970. Kinesics and Context. Essays on Body Motion Communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena.
In: Esther N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness. Strategies in Social Interaction, 56⫺289.
Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
92. Proxemics and axial orientation
1321
Condon, William S. and William D. Ogston 1966. Soundfilm analysis of normal and pathological
behaviour patterns. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 143(4): 338⫺347.
Condon, William S. and William D. Ogston 1967. A segmentation of behaviour. Journal of Psychiatric Research 5(3): 221⫺235.
Cook, Mark 1970. Experiments on orientation and proxemics. Human Relations 23(1): 61⫺76.
Deppermann, Arnulf and Reinhold Schmitt 2007. Koordination. Zur Begründung eines neuen
Forschungsgegenstandes. In: Reinhold Schmitt (ed.), Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen
Interaktion, 15⫺54. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Egidi, Margreth (ed.) 2000. Gestik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Ehlich, Konrad and Jochen Rehbein 1982. Augenkommunikation. Methodenreflexion und Beispielanalyse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ekman, Paul and Wallace V. Friesen 1969. The repertoire of nonverbal behaviour: Categories,
origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica 1(1): 47⫺98.
Ekman, Paul, Wallace V. Friesen and Phoebe C. Ellsworth 1974. Gesichtssprache. Wege zur Objektivierung menschlicher Emotionen. Wien/Köln/Graz: Böhlau.
Ekman, Paul, Wallace V. Friesen and Joseph Hager 2002. Facial Action Coding System (FACS).
The Manual on CD-Rom. Salt Lake City: A Human Face.
Feyereisen, Pierre 1997. The competition between gesture and speech production in dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language 36(1): 13⫺33.
Feyereisen, Pierre and Jacques-Dominique de Lannoy 1991. Gesture and Speech. Psychological Investigations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, Erving 1983. The interaction order. American Sociological Review 48(1): 1⫺17.
Grammer, Karl 2004. Körpersignale in menschlicher Interaktion. In: Robert Posner, Klaus Robering and Thomas A. Sebeok (eds.), Semiotik. Ein Handbuch zu den zeichentheoretischen Grundlagen von Natur und Kultur, 3448⫺3487. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Grice, H. Paul 1979. Sprecher-Bedeutung und Intention. In: Georg Meggle (ed.), Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, 16⫺51. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, John J. 1992. Contextualization and understanding. In: Alessandro Duranti and Charles
Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, 229⫺252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, Edward T. 1969. The Hidden Dimension: Man’s Use of Space in Public and Private. London:
Bodley Head.
Hall, Edward T. 1974. Handbook for Proxemic Research. Washington, DC: Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication.
Hall, Edward T. 2003. Proxemics. In: Setha M. Lown and Denise Lawrence-Zúniga (eds.), The
Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture, 51⫺73. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Hausendorf, Heiko, Lorenza Mondada and Reinhold Schmitt (eds.) 2012. Raum als interaktive
Ressource. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Hayduk, Leslie A. 1981a. The shape of personal space: an experimental investigation. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science 13(1): 87⫺93.
Hayduk, Leslie A. 1981b. The permeability of personal space. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science 13(3): 274⫺287.
Hayduk, Leslie A. 1983. Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological Bulletin 94(2): 293⫺335.
Hediger, Heini 1934. Zur Biologie und Psychologie der Flucht bei Tieren. Biologisches Zentralblatt
54: 21⫺40.
Hermer, Matthias and Hans G. Klinzing (eds.) 2004. Nonverbale Prozesse in der Psychotherapie.
Tübingen: DGVT-Verlag.
Huber, Richard 1983. Das kindliche Un-Tier. Vom Affenjungen, das nicht mehr Tier werden wollte.
München: Selecta-Verlag Idris.
Hübler, Axel 2001. Das Konzept „Körper“ in den Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaften. Tübingen/Basel: Francke.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
1322
VII. Body movements – Functions, contexts, and interactions
Kalverkämper, Hartwig 1998. Körpersprache. In: Gert Ueding (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der
Rhetorik, Band 4, 1339⫺1371. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Keller, Rudi 1995. Zeichentheorie. Zu einer Theorie semiotischen Wissens. Tübingen/Basel: Francke.
Kendon, Adam 1972. Some relationships between body motion and speech. In: Aron Siegman
and Benjamin Pope (eds.), Studies in Dyadic Communication, 177⫺216. Elmsford/New York:
Pergamon Press.
Kendon, Adam 1973. The role of visible behaviour in the organization of social interaction. In:
Mario von Cranach and Ian Vine (eds.), Social Communication and Movement, 29⫺74. London/
New York: Academic Press.
Kendon, Adam 1990a. Conducting Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kendon, Adam 1990b. Some context for context analysis. A view of the origins of structural studies
of face-to-face interaction. In: Adam Kendon, Conducting Interaction, 15⫺49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kendon, Adam 2002. Some uses of the head shake. Gesture 2(2): 147⫺182.
Knapp, Mark L. 1979. Nonverbale Kommunikation im Klassenzimmer. In: Klaus R. Scherer and
Harald G. Wallbott (eds.), Nonverbale Kommunikation: Forschungsberichte zum Interaktionsverhalten, 320⫺329. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz.
Knowles, Eric S. 1980. An affiliative conflict theory of personal and group spatial behavior. In:
Paul B. Paulus (ed.), Psychology of Group Influence, 133⫺138. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen 2001. Multimodal Discourse ⫺ The Modes and Media of
Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
Kresse, Dodo and Georg Feldmann 1999. Handbuch der Gesten. Wien/München: Deuticke.
Kühn, Christine 2002. Körper-Sprache. Elemente einer sprachwissenschaftlichen Explikation non-verbaler Kommunikation. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Leipold, William D. 1963. Psychological distance in a dyadic interview as a function of introversionextraversion, anxiety, social desirability, and stress. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Dakota.
McNeill, David 1985. So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review 92(3): 350⫺371.
McNeill, David 1992. Hand and Mind. What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago/London:
University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, David (ed.) 2000. Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meggle, Georg 1981. Grundbegriffe der Kommunikation. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Mondada, Lorenza 2007. Interaktionsraum und Koordinierung. In: Reinhold Schmitt (ed.), Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Kommunikation, 55⫺93. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Morris, Desmond 1995. Bodytalk. Körpersprache, Gesten und Gebärden. München: Wilhelm Heyne.
Müller, Cornelia 1998. Redebegleitende Gesten. Kulturgeschichte ⫺ Theorie ⫺ Sprachvergleich. Berlin: Berlin Verlag.
Müller, Cornelia and Ulrike Bohle 2007. Das Fundament fokussierter Interaktion. Zur Vorbereitung und Herstellung von Interaktionsräumen durch körperliche Koordination. In: Reinhold
Schmitt (ed.), Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Kommunikation, 129⫺165. Tübingen:
Gunter Narr.
Müller, Cornelia and Roland Posner (eds.) 2004. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gestures. The Berlin Conference. Berlin: Weidler Verlag.
Norris, Sigrid 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction. A Methodological Framework. New York/
London: Routledge.
Patterson, Miles L. 1975. Personal space ⫺ time to burst the bubble? Man-Environment Systems
5(2): 67.
Patterson, Miles L. 1976. An arousal model for interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review 83(3):
235⫺245.
Rauscher, Josef 1986. Wann und mit welchen Gründen wird Proxemik zum Gegenstand der Semiotik. In: Klaus D. Dutz and Peter Schmitter (eds.), Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung der Semiotik. Fallstudien, 439⫺452. Münster: MAkS-Publikationen.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38
92. Proxemics and axial orientation
1323
Ravelli, Louise J. and Maree Stenglin 2008. Feeling space. Interpersonal communication and spatial
semiotics. In: Gerd Antos and Eija Ventola (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication,
355⫺393. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rogers, Everett M., William B. Hart and Yoshitaka Miike 2002. Edward T. Hall and the history
of intercultural communication. The United States and Japan. Keio Communication Review 24:
3⫺26.
Rolf, Eckard 1994. Sagen und Meinen. Paul Grices Theorie der Konversations-Implikaturen. Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50(4): 696⫺735.
Sager, Svend F. 2000. Kommunikatives Areal, Distanzzonen und Displayzirkel. Zur Beschreibung
räumlichen Verhaltens in Gesprächen. In: Gerd Richter, Jörg Riecke and Britt-Marie Schuster
(eds.), Raum, Zeit, Medium ⫺ Sprache und ihre Determinanten. Festschrift für Hans Ramge zum
60. Geburtstag., 543⫺570. Darmstadt: Hessische Historische Kommission.
Sager, Svend F. 2001. Probleme der Transkription nonverbalen Verhaltens. In: Klaus Brinker, Gerd
Antos, Wolf Heinemann and Sven F. Sager (eds.), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 2. Halbband, 1069⫺1085. Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter.
Salewski, Christel 1993. Räumliche Distanzen in Interaktionen. Münster/New York: Waxmann.
Sapir, Edward 1928. The unconscious patterning of behavior in society. In: Ethel S. Dummer (ed.),
The Unconscious: A Symposium, 114⫺142. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Scheflen, Albert E. 1964. The significance of posture in communication systems. Psychiatry 27(4):
316⫺331.
Scheflen, Albert E. 1976. Körpersprache und soziale Ordnung. Kommunikation als Verhaltenskontrolle. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Scherer, Klaus R. and Harald G. Wallbott (eds.) 1979. Nonverbale Kommunikation: Forschungsberichte zum Interaktionsverhalten. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz.
Schmauser, Caroline and Thomas Noll (eds.) 1998. Körperbewegungen und ihre Bedeutung. Berlin:
Berlin Verlag.
Schmitt, Reinhold 2004. Bericht über das 1. Arbeitstreffen zu Fragen der Multimodalität am Institut
für Deutsche Sprache in Mannheim. Gesprächsforschung ⫺ Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 5: 1⫺5. (http://www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de)
Schmitt, Reinhold (ed.) 2007. Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Kommunikation. Tübingen:
Gunter Narr.
Schmitt, Reinhold 2012. Gehen als situierte Praktik: „Gemeinsam gehen“ und „hinter jemandem
herlaufen“. Gesprächsforschung ⫺ Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 13. (http://
www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de)
Sommer, Robert and Franklin D. Becker 1969. Territorial defense and the good neighbour. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 11: 120⫺122.
Streeck, Jürgen and Mark L. Knapp 1992. The interaction of visual and verbal features in human
communication. In: Fernando Poyatos (ed.), Advances in Nonverbal Communication. Sociocultural, Clinical, Esthetic, and Literary Perspectives, 3⫺24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tiittula, Liisa 2007. Blickorganisation in der side-by-side-Positionierung am Beispiel eines
Geschäftsgesprächs. In: Reinhold Schmitt (ed.), Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Kommunikation, 225⫺261. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Wallbott, Harald G. 2003. Nonverbale Komponenten der Sprachproduktion. In: Theo Herrmann
and Joachim Grabowski (eds.), Sprachproduktion, 561⫺581. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Watson, Jeanne and Robert J. Potter 1962. An analytic unit for the study of interaction. Human
Relations 15(3): 243⫺263.
Jörg Hagemann, Freiburg (Germany)
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 04.04.16 11:38