MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
5
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN USING NONVERBAL MEANS IN
COMMUNICATION
Dehqonboyeva Madina
Second-year student of Master’s Degree
Andijan state institute of foreign languages
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14824742
Annootation.
This article studies verbal and nonverbal means of
communication in liguistics. It discusses cultural differences of using nonverbal
means in communication.
Keywords:
communication, pragmatics, cultural differences, verbal and
nonverbal means.
The participation of nonverbal tools in the speech process and their ability
to express various nuances of meaning depending on the speaker’s
communicative goals are, on one hand, related to their pragmatic function, and
on the other hand, to the cultural characteristics of the language speaker. The
reason, function, relationship to the speech situation, and role in achieving
pragmatic effect of nonverbal tools necessitate a discussion in the field of
linguistic anthropology. Scholars have two main viewpoints regarding the
cultural variation of nonverbal tools: the first group of scholars asserts that
nonverbal tools are a universal language understandable by all humans, while
others reject this idea. For instance, Charles Darwin defined gestures as innate
and universal, Quintilian emphasized that hand movements are a common
language for all humans, and scholars like Eibl-Eibesfeldt and A. Kostis also
considered nonverbal tools to be universal. However, scholars like R.
Birdwhistell, M. Argyle, P. Ekman, and D. Morris did not agree with this
perspective [1].
Professor R. Birdwhistell emphasized that there are 250,000 facial
expressions, which are manifested in two ways: common to all cultures and
specific to each culture. However, due to the linguistic differences between
cultures, nonverbal tools also exhibit cultural distinctions alongside verbal ones.
In our view, nonverbal tools that reflect a person's inner emotions are universal
for all, whereas a person's external relationship to the environment, their way of
showing, explaining, or expressing their thoughts varies according to culture.
Moreover, nonverbal tools reflecting inner emotions can be both innate and
universal, while culturally differentiated gestures are linked to human behavior
and upbringing. It would be appropriate to conditionally categorize them as
natural and social nonverbal tools [2].
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
6
In today’s globalization process, there is a growing demand for all nations
and ethnic groups to consolidate and unite in pursuit of their common interests
and goals. The struggle between good and evil has reached a new qualitative
stage: the battle of ideas and concepts has intensified. Geographically speaking,
the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan has historically been home to
numerous representatives of different nations and ethnic groups, each with its
own language, religion, culture, history, customs, and values. This, in turn, leads
to linguistic diversity. These nations also have their own specific forms of verbal
and nonverbal communication. It is well known that in sociolinguistics,
intercultural communication and the study of nations help connect one nation
with another. For this reason, intercultural communication, or more simply, the
exchange of intercultural communication, is becoming increasingly important.
Alongside the growing popularity of Uzbek customs, values, and communication
culture, which are characteristic of the Uzbek people, the country provides all
opportunities for other ethnic groups to develop their own languages and
preserve their national and religious values [3].
It is also encouraging to see that representatives of other ethnicities and
nations are respecting Uzbek national holidays, values, and traditions. In the
process of following them, they are increasingly adopting nonverbal
communication tools alongside verbal ones in their speech, which should be
seen as a positive development. However, in Uzbek, there are certain subtle
paralinguistic tools that may not be understood or recognized with ordinary
communication time and scope. For instance, we c
an take as examples the
celebrations of “Navruz – the common holiday,” “Memory and Honor Day,” or
“Independence Day.” In these rituals, representatives of various nationalities can
be seen skillfully using paralinguistic tools in local, regional dialects, which is a
reflection of nonverbal communication being established. For example, showing
"the hand turning while stirring sumalak," "moving the hand vertically to wave
the flag," "inviting to eat with the right hand fingers" and "greeting by placing
the right hand on the chest" are gradually becoming part of the national
etiquette of Uzbekistan [5].
However, it should be noted that some Uzbek regional customs and values
might create misunderstandings among representatives of other nationalities or
even among fellow Uzbeks if they are not familiar with them. Therefore, the
growing interest in studying nonverbal tools that emdiv national culture,
customs, and forms of speech is becoming increasingly important. It is worth
highlighting the formation and development of fields like linguoanthropology
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
7
and linguoculturology in this context. Research has shown that paralinguistic
tools are the most effective means of preserving national culture, customs, and
values. They help convey subtle forms of communication that cannot easily be
described with words to future generations. Additionally, nonverbal tools play a
crucial role in understanding various art forms, such as music, theater,
sculpture, painting, poetry, and craftsmanship.
Thus, nonverbal tools have become the object of research not only for
linguists but also for sociologists, psychologists, cultural scholars, philosophers,
historians, art critics, literary scholars, and professionals from other fields.
It should be noted that the culture, spirituality, and customs of each nation
are defined by their contribution to universal human values and world
civilization. Not only in the East but also worldwide, the national culture of the
Uzbek people, one of the ancient nations, has a long history. Every action and
condition of the Uzbeks is characterized by a wealth of life experience
accumulated over centuries. Therefore, every nonverbal tool used in Uzbek
communication serves to fully reveal the worldview, character, culture,
spirituality, cognitive abilities, moods, and communicative intentions of the
people. In other words, what a person wants to say is apparent in every gesture
and facial expression. However, Americans’ moods (whether good or bad) can
only be determined from their smile, while it is more difficult to ascertain other
aspects of their emotional state. They believe that a smile on the face during
communication expresses respect and sincerity toward the conversation
partner. On the other hand, the English tend to show seriousness, and the
Russians are not accustomed to smiling without reason, as seriousness is
predominant in their communication. In their view, constantly displaying
politeness is seen as a way of hiding one’s true character traits and, to some
extent, expressing cunning.
The system of customs expressing nonverbal communication plays a crucial
role in introducing the national culture of a people to the world. Some
researchers consider nonverbal tools related to customs to be equivalent to
language and attribute specific national meanings to them. For example, T.
Nikolaeva suggests that national customs and culture, which have been passed
down from generation to generation, should be studied just like language.
References:
1.
Darvin Ch. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals – London:
John Murray. 1st edition, 1872; Eibl-Eibesfeldt. Ethology, the biology of
behavior. Hold. – New York, 1970; Kostić A. Govor lica.Niš:Filozofski fakultet.
2006.
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
8
2.
Ekman P. Emotional and conversational nonverbal signals. – Netherland,
2004. – P. 40; Burrow J. Gestures. In Gestures and Looks in Medieval Narrative. –
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Studies in Medieval
Literature, pp. 12), 2002. – Р. 12; Michael Argyle. Bodily communication. –
Cambridge University Press. – P. 75.
3.
Stella Ting-Toomy. Communicating Across Cultures, First Edition. – New
York, 1999.
4.
Николаева Т., Успенский Б. Языкознание и паралингвистика //
Лингвистические исследования по общей и славянской типологии. –М.:
Наука, 1966. –С. 65.
5.
Pazilova, N., & Iskhakova, A. (2023). ON THE STUDY OF PHRASEOLOGISMS
IN MODERN ENGLISH. Models and methods in modern science, 2(12), 51-53.
6.
Muhammadqosimovna, P. N. (2023). Semantic Peculiarities of Homonymy
in English and Uzbek. Texas Journal of Philology, Culture and History, 14, 19-23.
7.
Pazilova, N., & G‘Opurova, X. (2022). Analysis of written and spoken texts
in English and Uzbek. Science and innovation, 1(B8), 964-969.
8.
Pazilova, N., & G’ofurova, G. (2022). SPECIFIC FEATURES AND THE
PROBLEMS OF ALLITERATION IN MODERN ENGLISH AND UZBEK. Theoretical
aspects in the formation of pedagogical sciences, 1(5), 242-249.
