Human Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal

Nature of Human (Speech) Communication

• Communication is ever-evolving, transactional, irreversible, situational, contextual, complex, and symbolic

Communication Modes

• The Semantic Triangle explains how symbols are used in communication

Semantic Triangle Aspects

• Referent: the physical object or its concrete manifestation
• Thought: the concept built based on the referent
• Symbol: the sign used to communicate about the referent

Verbal Communication

• Involves using structured language as symbols to represent what humans mean

Language Characteristics

• Language is arbitrary, ambiguous, and abstract
• It is rule-governed by phonology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics
• Language can define, evaluate, organize perceptions, formulate thoughts, and enable self-reflection

Verbal Communication Standards

• Clarity, directness, appropriateness, and vividness are important

Nonverbal Communication

• Uses symbols other than written or spoken language which can be body appearance or movements

Body Movements

• Body movements can be emblems, illustrators, affect displays, regulators, or adaptors
• Can integrate with verbal messages through accenting, complementing, contradicting, regulating, or substituting

Face Communication

• Expresses 8 primary affects which are happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, disgust, contempt, and interest
• Affect blends are mixes of primary emotions
• Facial management involves masking, intensifying, neutralizing, de-intensifying, or stimulating emotions

Eye Communication

• Evaluated based on duration, direction, and focus (eye contact and avoidance)

Listening Cyclical Process

• A cyclical process: Receiving -> Understanding -> Remembering -> Evaluating -> Responding

Effective Listening Barriers

• Include pseudolistening, selective listening, defensive listening, ambushing, insulated listening, insensitive listening, and stage hogging

Effective Listening Strategies

• Listen actively for total meaning with empathy and an open mind

Types of Listening

• Discriminative, appreciative, critical, and empathic listening

Argumentation

• Is a discussion involving disagreement using logic and facts to support or refute a point

Argument

• A reason or set of reasons supporting a conclusion, linking with an unstated assumption

Argumentation Theory of Reasoning

• Reasoning exchanges arguments
• Reasoners can be biased or objective based on the interactive context
• Argument evaluation benefits from debate and conflict leading to better outcomes

Debate

• Is a formal, organized public speaking event is held within a set context or structure
• It provides participants the opportunity to present and defend arguments

Standard Debate

• Has two opposing teams arguing on a specific topic (motion or proposition)

Debate Teams

• One team argues for the motion (affirmative)
• The other argues against the motion (negative)

Debate Method: Asian Parliamentary Motion

• A topic given for debate

Policy Motion

• Typically phrased as "This house will/would [do X]"
• Purely normative and does not need to argue if policy is likely to be enacted
• Both teams assume fiat rule

Government Policy Motion

• Convinces judges that the policy should be implemented
• Present the problem, propose the decision and mechanize the proposal

Opposition Policy Motion

• Defends status quo or counter-proposal
• Addresses the same problem and defends status quo/presents counter-proposal

Value Judgement Motion

• Typically phrased as TH believes that [X], supports/opposes, regrets
• Does not need a proposal and model
• Defining key players + setting up standards are important

Government Value Judgement Motion

• To argue that the statement is true; provide context + define important terms/key players + standardize concepts + prove why the motion is true

Opposition value Judgement Motion

• Argues the motion is false and provides reasons why the government failed to uphold its standards

Actor Motion

• Typically phrased as TH, as [actor], would do [X]
• Model/standards consider an actor's knowledge, value, and interest
• Debate defends why motion aligns/doesn't align with actor's interests

Government Actor Motion

• Establishes student perspectives and defend the motion with student interest
• Defends why the motion is in line with interests of students by establishing model/standards

Opposition Actor Motion

• Argues students have different interests VS what government established or a proposals do not address listed interests

Speech length

• The length of speech are 7 minutes, maximum is 7 minutes 15 seconds
• Allowed time for POI: 1st min to 6th min
• Maximum POI speech: 15 seconds

Roles

• Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, Deputy Prime Minister, Deputy Leader of Opposition, Gov't Whip, Opposition Whip, Gov't Reply, Opposition Reply

Prime Minister

• Defines key terms, outlines the case/arguments, and discusses the split arguments to be discussed as agreed by the team

Leader of Opposition

• Refutes arguments given by PM, gives alternative solutions, and discusses the split

Deputy Prime Minister

• refutes rebuts arguments presented by the LO, proves further that their arguments are better and explains government's case

Deputy Leader of Opposition

• Supports the rebuttals forwarded by the LO, refutes/rebuts the arguments given by the DPM, further supports the opposition arguments and alternatives by discussing the split

Government Whip

• Supports arguments by giving examples/analysis and sums up all government arguments while emphasizing why arguments are better

Opposition Whip

• Supports first two speakers, extends rebuttals, and sums up all opposition arguments from opposition bench

Reply Speakers

• Offers biased adjudication or biased judging delivered in a 4-minute speech

Adjudicator

• Delivers an oral adjudication

Point of Information (POI)

• Is a brief interruption (15 seconds max) offered to the speaker from opposition by standing and saying "Point sir/madam"

Point of Information (POI) Form

• Takes the form of a question, explanation, or rebuttal

Surface Level Adjudication Standards

• Burden of Fulfillment: which side had a better performance in answering basic questions about their stance? - Likelihood: Which side did a better job at proving their presented benefit/harm will happen? - Consistency: Which side had more consistency when it comes to their arguments?

Deeper Level Adjudication Standards

• Substantiation: Which side gave better explanation of arguments? - Depth of Analysis: Which side had more thorough analysis of arguments? - Engagement: Which side comparatively considered the other side’s arguments?