Frans Kruger 77

TheUseofNonverbalCommunicat
ion
i
ntheFor
eignLanguageClassr
oom:
A Pi
lotSt
udy

Fr
ansKr
uger
Hanguk University of Foreign Studies

Abst
ract
It has been estimated that up to 82% of the communication techniques
employed by teachers in the classroom is nonverbal, while up to 90%
of all communication occurs through nonverbal behaviour. Surprisingly,
ESL/EFL research has been overwhelmingly preoccupied with verbal
aspects of language while very little research examines how ESL/EFL
teachers use nonverbal behaviour to enhance their students’ compre-
hension in the language classroom. Similarly, very little research has
focused on the role that different forms of nonverbal communication
play in second language learning. In this article I will provide an overview
of what constitutes nonverbal communication, followed by the result
of a pilot study that was conducted to investigate the effects of visual
cues on EFL learners' listening comprehension. It was found that there
exists a positive relationship between the use of gestures in the English
as a foreign language (EFL) classroom and learner listening
comprehension.

Keywords: Foreign Language Classroom, Nonverbal Communication,

Gesture, Listening Comprehension.

I
.Int
roduct
ion
Kellogg and Lawson (1993) estimate that up to 82% of the communica-
tion techniques employed by teachers in the classroom are nonverbal,
while other researchers such as Neuliep (2003) has postulated that as
78 The Use of Nonverbal Communication

much as 90% of all communication occurs through nonverbal behaviour.

Taking the above figures into consideration, it is thus surprising that
“linguists and SLA researchers have been overwhelmingly preoccupied
with verbal aspects of language” (Lazaraton, 2004, p.80) and that
“virtually no empirical studies have been conducted which systematically
examine how FL teachers use nonverbal behaviours in ways that enhance
comprehension of FL input” (Allen, 2000, p.156). Similarly, McCafferty
(1998) has pointed out that very little research has focused on the
role that different forms of nonverbal communication play in second
language learning, although it has been considered to be potentially
important. In this article I wish to contribute to our understanding of
how the use of nonverbal communication in the foreign language class-
room can enhance or hinder students’ comprehension of the material
being presented. I will follow an integrationist approach as put forth
by Gullberg and McCafferty (2008), working from the premise that
language, and in the context of the present study, nonverbal communica-
tion specifically, is contextually situated. In other words, meaning during
the communication process is made “... in relation to the specifics
of who we are, where we are, who we are talking to, and what we
are talking about...” (Gullberg & McCafferty, 2008, p.134).
In order to examine the role that nonverbal communication plays
in the English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom, the article will
be divided into four sections. In the first section I will provide an
overview of what constitutes nonverbal communication after which I
will focus on ‘gesture’ as one aspect of nonverbal communication.
Section two will deal with the use of nonverbal communication in
the classroom, with specific reference to the foreign language classroom
context. For the purpose of investigating how the use of nonverbal
communication in the EFL classroom can either enhance or hinder
students’ comprehension, I conducted a pilot study that will be discussed
in the third section of the article. The fourth section will consist of
some concluding remarks.

I
I.An over
view ofnonver
balcommuni
cat
ion
 Frans Kruger 79

Canale (1983) defines communication as the exchange and negotiation

of both verbal and nonverbal information between two or more
individuals. Innoue (2007) expands on this definition by stating that
at any given time, verbal and nonverbal communication involves multiple
messages that are sent via multiple signal systems. At present most
researchers believe that nonverbal communication is highly cultural
specific and that it is, to a certain degree, employed unconsciously
(Lazaraton, 2004). Wardaugh (1985) argued that although much of non-
verbal behaviour is unconscious, it is learned and therefore specific
to the cultural group in which it was learned. This learning process
usually occurs through enculturation. Brown (2000, p.262-263) expands
on Wardaugh’s argument, stating “... the expression of culture is so
bound up in nonverbal communication that the barriers of culture learning
are more nonverbal than verbal ...there is tremendous variation cross-cul-
turally and cross-linguistically in the specific interpretation of gestures”.
It should be kept in mind that the nonverbal behaviour employed by
the individuals in a culture is heterogeneous and that intercultural variation
does occur. It has been argued by Fiksdal (1990, p.47) that “(N)onverbal
behaviour is inherently ambiguous because it is highly dependent on
context for its interpretation ... since gestures are culturally and in-
dividually grounded”.
Although nonverbal communication plays such a prominent role
during the communication process, it should not be interpreted in isolation,
as nonverbal and verbal communication are inextricably linked. When
one considers the use of gesture, it can be noted that it is systematically
linked with speech (McNeill & Duncan, 2000). Thomas and Tchudi
(1998, p.133) argue that “(B)ody language is ...inextricably bound to
our use of spoken languages as a way of accentuating, highlighting
and amplifying what we mean”. It is the interplay between the nonverbal
and verbal aspects of language that generate and carry meaning when
communication occurs. The meaning that is generated is not done by
the speaker in isolation, but rather by a conjoint interpretive effort
of the speaker and interlocutor or audience that functions in direct
relationship to the particular linguistic and social context in which it
occurs (Sime, 2006). This is because gestures “...form meaningful, often
nonredundant combinations with the speech segments with which they
80 The Use of Nonverbal Communication

synchronize ...to express the same underlying idea unit but ...not necessa-
rily ...identical aspects of it” (McNeill & Duncan, 2000, p.142).
Turning our attention to the different forms nonverbal behaviour
manifests itself in, Table 1 illustrates the seven categories nonverbal
behaviour can be divided into when following the framework proposed
by Allen (2000). This framework is largely based on the hypothesis
put forward by Burgoon et al. (1989) and Ekman (1980). Due to the
scope of this article, the main focus of the further discussions will
be on gestures/ kinesics. The category of nonverbal behaviour that
Allen (2000) defines as ‘kinesics’ is to a certain degree similar to
what other researchers have defined as ‘gestures’, although it should
be noted that some of these researchers have applied the term ‘gestures’
to entail the use of hand movements specifically (Allen, 1999; Capper,
2000; Choi & Lantolf, 2008; Gullberg, 2006; Gullberg & McCafferty,
2008; Lazaraton, 2004; Lee, 2008; McCafferty, 2008; Molinsky,
Krabbenhoft, Ambady & Choi, 2005; Sime, 2006; Sueyoshi & Hardison,
2005; Yoshioka & Kellerman, 2006).

TABLE 1
Categories of nonverbal behaviour
(adapted from Allen 2000, p.160-161)
Category Description
Kinesics Body Movements
Natural features including, hair, facial structure,
Physical appearance
body type, clothing, etc.
Haptics Touch used to communicate meaning
Proxemics Space used to communicate meaning
Chronemics Time used to communicate meaning
Auditory behaviour including pitch, volume, silence,
Vocalics
laughter, sighs, cough
Artifacts Physical objects used to communicate meaning

Within gesture studies, gestures can be defined as “...symbolic move-

ments related to ongoing talk and to the expressive effort or intention”
(Gullberg, 2006, p.104). Furthermore, gestures are viewed as being
 Frans Kruger 81

multi-functional, and capable of being directed, at times simultaneously,

at the self or at others. Self-directed gestures functions include organising
thought for expression, or enhancing the message conveyed. The functions
of other-directed, or interactional, gestures include regulating turn-taking,
eliciting feedback, agreeing, and drawing attention (Gullberg, 2006).
Gestures are viewed as central to language-in-use and in the way
that meaning is made between people and with the self; for certain
parts of language require gesture to be meaningful (Gullberg, 2006;
Gullberg & McCafferty, 2008). It has also been noted that speech and
gesture are inclined to express the same idea at the same time (Gullberg,
2006; McNeill, 1992). The exact nature of the relationship between
gesture and the verbal aspect (speech) of communication is still however
debated. Some researchers view speech as performing a primary function
with gesture performing an auxiliary function. Within this group, re-
searchers are still debating the exact role that gesture plays as an auxiliary
to speech (Gullberg & McCafferty, 2008; Krauss, Chen & Gottesman,
2000). Some researchers tend to view gestures as facilitating lexical
retrieval, whilst others view gestures as “...facilita[ting] the representation
of content to be verbalised” (Gullberg, 2006, p.106). On the other end
of the spectrum there are researchers that view speech and gesture
to be equal, with one group of these researchers viewing speech and
gesture to have the same cognitive origin, while the other group views
gesture and speech to be a result of a common communicative intention
(Gullberg, 2006; Gullberg & McCafferty, 2008). Gullberg (2006) has
pointed out that gesture phase analysis is of crucial importance if we
are to understand the exact relationship between speech and gesture.
There is a number of classification systems used for gestures, but
the majority of them adhere to the principles as proposed by McNeill
(1992). McNeill recognizes four different categories of gestures; deictics,
iconics, metaphorics and beats. Furthermore, he argues that gestures
adhere to three principles: a) gestures are used only during speech,
and almost all of the time by the speaker; b) gesture and speech are
synchronous and “semantically and pragmatically coexpressive”; and
c) speech and gesture “develop together in children”. Allen (2000)
proposes categorising gestures into five groups: emblems, illustrators,
affect displays, regulators, and adapters. Emblems refer to body move-
82 The Use of Nonverbal Communication

ments that are cultural specific, and carry a defined meaning (Allen,
2000; Gullberg, 2006). Examples of emblems include tapping the side
of head with the second finger on right hand several times meaning
‘think about it’, and curling the fingers and thumb toward the palm
on the right hand with the second finger sticking out while placing
the right hand alongside the right ear and twirling the finger and hand
in counter-clockwise circle meaning ‘you are crazy’ (Molinsky etal,
2005).
In contrast to Allen (2000), and to a lesser extent McNeill (1992),
Kendon (1988) proposes a model whereby gestures are viewed as a
continuum that refers to the different levels of language for which
gestures are employed. The first level of this continuum is gesticulation.
Gesticulation refers to hand and arm gestures that are idiosyncratic
and spontaneous, occurring during speech. On the second level of this
model we find language-like gestures. These types of gestures are similar
to gesticulation, but unlike gesticulation they are grammatically integrated
with speech. Gestures without speech that are employed to tell a story
are referred to as pantomime. Similar to Allen (2000), Kendon recognizes
emblems, describing them as ‘italicized’ speech. The last category identi-
fied by Kendon is sign-language; a set of gestures that have developed
into a recognised linguistic communication system.
From the brief overview of the classification system for gesture
proposed by Allen, McNeill and Kendon, it becomes evident that certain
differences and similarities exist as to what constitutes a gesture, and
how it should be classified. Emblems are differs from other gestures
in being conventionalized and cultural-specific, while the other recog-
nised types ofgestures tend to be performed more spontaneously and
unconsciously during speech acts (Gullberg, 2006). If one takes into
consideration the relationship that exists between verbal and nonverbal
communication and the nature of nonverbal communication, a key ques-
tion arises for both learners and teachers of a language. Can nonverbal
behaviour, such as gestures which form such an integral part of language,
be learned and/or taught in the same way that the verbal aspects of
language are? Similarly, what role does nonverbal behaviour, and specifi-
cally gestures, play in the language classroom?
 Frans Kruger 83

I
II
.Gest
ureinlear
ning/t
eaching asecond
orf
orei
gn language
It has been argued (Gullberg, 2006; Lazaraton, 2004) that although
the characteristics of gestures are subject to individual variation, there
exists uniformity within language groups. These various gesture reper-
toires are not only shaped by cultural conventions and norms, as well
as by the structure of the spoken language, but they are culturally
transmitted and learned. Different language groups express meaning
differently depending on the language, which in turn influences the
form and distribution of gestures. The different patterns of the distribution
of gestures between languages have been aptly illustrated by Choi and
Lantolf (2008) and Yoshioka and Kellerman (2006). Gestures are thus
differently employed by different language groups to express meaning.
As such the appropriate usage of gestures within a language group
is culturally determined. The gesture repertoires that are available to
a language group are thus shaped by a complex interplay between
culture and linguistics, “...where conventionalized, explicit aspects inter-
act with less conscious and more automatized ones” (Gullberg, 2004,
p.108).
In recent years there has been a focus on communicative competence
through approaches such as Communicative Language Teaching
(Schmidt-Faijik, 2007). Holliday (1994) has argued that the
“communicative approach already contains potential for culture-sensi-
tivity”. In language classrooms where the communicative approach is
utilized, an opportunity arises to introduce the target culture, for fluency
in the target language is not only based on the linguistic elements
of the language, but also in understanding the role that culture plays
in successful communication. This would give rise to the opportunity
to introduce aspects of the target culture’s nonverbal behaviour, such
as gestures, in the language classroom. Knowledge of the nonverbal
and verbal aspects of the target language thus helps learners to become
more proficient in communicating in the target language (Allen, 1999).
According to Neu (1990), L2 learners who act nonverbally more like
speakers of the target culture are perceived to be more proficient in
the target language than L2 learners who do not act nonverbally like
84 The Use of Nonverbal Communication

the target culture, although being more proficient linguistically in the

target language.
Present studies of the use of gestures by L2 learners suggest that
it may fulfil a variety of functions, as opposed to only overcoming
lexical shortcomings in speech as is the common assumption (Allen,
1999; Gullberg, 2004; Gullberg & McCafferty, 2008; Lee, 2008). The
fact that studies have shown that L2 learners use gestures generally
more in their L2 than their L1, may indicate the multiple functions
that gestures fulfil (Gullberg, 2006; Gullberg & McCafferty, 2008; Stam,
2006). Some of the functions that gestures fulfil for L2 learners include
eliciting words from interlocutors, managing coreference problems, meta-
linguistically signaling a problem, establishing temporal relationships,
managing discourse coherence, and gaining control over the linguistic
form of the L2 (Gullberg, 2006; Gullberg & McCafferty, 2008).
McCafferty (2008) points out that mimetic gesture may play a role
in L2 lexical acquisition. L2 learners may not feel comfortable to use
a word, but through iconic gesture, may be able to materialize their
understanding of the word and thus communicate it to an interlocutor.
This is in a way similar in the way that iconic gesture may be used
during the childhood of L1 speakers, for the relationship between iconic
gesture and lexical development during childhood in L1 speakers have
been successfully argued by Donald (2001). The relationship between
comprehensible input and language acquisition has been under debate
(Krashen, 2002) but studies conducted with L2 learners indicate that
the use of gestures to enhance input in the classroom has been shown
to facilitate comprehension and thus acquisition of the target language
(Gullberg & McCafferty, 2008).
Allen (1999) has argued that gestures can facilitate either bottom-up
or top-down comprehension. In a bottom-up approach a learner focuses
on the message in order to extract and identify individual features to
form a pattern. During this process gestures can assist a learner “by
providing movement, making the message more vivid, and providing
imagery value” (Allen, 1999, p.472). In a top-down approach correlations
are searched for between new information and information stored as
mental concepts. It is in this process that gestures can activate already
stored mental concepts the learner may have by providing additional
 Frans Kruger 85

contextual information (Allen, 1999). It has been suggested by Green

(1971) and Saitz (1966) that dialogues presented together with the appro-
priate foreign culture gestures, heighten the learners’ attention. Gestures
also facilitate recall of information by “presenting it in a more descriptive
context, enhancing the semantic involvement during the encoding proc-
ess, and providing redundancy” (Allen, 1999, p.473). Instruction models
that involve body movements, such as the auto-motor unit and Total
Physical Response, are based on the premise that actions associated
with words will facilitate retention. Apart from facilitating learner com-
prehension through “heightening attention, providing additional context
and facilitating recall” (Allen, 1999, p.471), gestures also serve as an
effective classroom management tool.
Gestures do not however fulfil multiple functions in interpersonal
communications only, but in intrapersonal communications as well.
It has been shown by Lee (2008), that speech and gestures are closely
related in intrapersonal speech behaviour. Vocate (1994) has asserted
that private speech, which is produced as overtly vocalized utterances,
involve interactional communication between the selves “I” and “Me”,
and between the self and the text. Lee (2008) found that during ob-
servations of students’ studying, the students produced speech and coex-
pressive gesticulation in either their L1 or L2; thus regulating their
learning to establish meaning for the self, to assist in memorization,
and to monitor their own private speech.
Morgan (1990), Long (1989) and Richardson (1979) argued that
nonverbal communication is especially important to beginner learners,
as it can supplement, reinforce or modify the communicative input
message (McCafferty, 2008). Learners with lower foreign language profi-
ciency thus tend to benefit more from the use of gesture by the teacher
than learners with higher foreign language proficiency level (Gullberg,
2006). Based on the evidence on the multiple functions gestures are
employed for, it has been suggested (Allen, 1999) that language teachers
should be made aware of their use of gestures (and in a wider context,
their nonverbal behaviour) to make use of it more effectively in the
classroom.
86 The Use of Nonverbal Communication

I
V.Pi
lotSt
udy
In the present study, the main objective was to establish if there
exists a positive relationship between the use of gestures in the English
as a foreign language (EFL) classroom and learner listening compre-
hension by controlling both the input content and the background
knowledge. In order to assess the listening comprehension of the learners,
a multiple-choice comprehension task was employed. This method of
testing was chosen to “minimize the confounding of listening with
other skills such as speaking and writing” (Sueyoshi & Hardison, 2005,
p.667) and to manage the available time in which to conduct the pilot
study. Two conditions were created from a video-recorded lecture for
the current research; an audio-only condition and an audiovisual
condition. In the audio-only condition no visual cues were visible to
the learners, while the learners that were in the audiovisual condition
could listen to the speaker while observing the gestures and facial cues
used. In preparing the pilot study, the size of each group was taken
into account to maximize the participants’ ability to clearly hear, and
in the audiovisual condition, observe the speaker.
The use of a video-recorded lecture was decided upon as it meant
the exactly the same account would be given in each condition. The
content was presented in the style of a “conversational lecture”
(Flowerdew & Tauroza as cited in Sueyoshi & Hardison, 2005, p.668)
as opposed to the reading of a scripted text. This lecture style was
chosen as it is typically used in academic settings and has been used
in other studies (Hardison, 2005; Sueyoshi & Hardison, 2005). The
individual gestures employed by the speaker were not analyzed, as
it fell outside the scope of the present study.
A total of 56 secondary school EFL learners took part in the study,
all of whom spoke Korean as their L1. All participants attended the
same vocational high school in Gangwon Province, South Korea, and
were either 16 or 17 years old. After inquiring which learners were
willing to participate in the study, four groups of participants (n=56;
male=32, female=24), with proficiency levels ranging from low to high
intermediate, were randomly assigned to each of the two conditions.
The two groups that took part in the audio-only condition consisted
 Frans Kruger 87

of 13 participants each (n=26; male=17, female=11), while the two

groups that took part in the audiovisual condition consisted of 13 and
18 participants respectively (n=31; male=15, female=13).
The material that was used during the study was an account of
the researchers’ personal experience with wild animals in South Africa.
The reasons why this particular topic was chosen was to avoid any
prior knowledge the participants might have regarding the topic, as
well as to ensure that a sufficient amount of gestures would be used
by the speaker (Sueyoshi & Hardison, 2005). During an informal post-task
survey, participants agreed that the topic of the listening task were
of interest to them. Through generating the material that would be
used for the pilot study, I was able, to a certain degree, to present
comprehensible input as argued by Krashen (1991, 2004). The listening
task was composed to address the aim of the study of whether there
exist a positive relationship between gesture and listening comprehension.
The task designed for this purpose was a multi-choice questionnaire
that consisted of three sets of five multiple-choice questions, with four
options each.

FIGURE 1
Mean scores for listening comprehension task
88 The Use of Nonverbal Communication

After the task was completed, the mean scores for all four groups
were calculated independently for the two created conditions. The number
of correct answers was used (total correct answers = 15). The results
are shown in Figure 1. The mean scores for the audio-only condition
are: M = 5, SD = 3.32 and M = 6.538, SD = 3.36. For the audiovisual
condition the mean scores were: M = 9.167, SD = 4.66 and M =
8.231, SD = 4.48 respectively. It is evident from Figure 1 that participants
in the groups that were in the audiovisual condition and received visual
cues (gestures and facial expressions) received higher mean scores than
the participants that was in the audio-only condition.
In the audio-only condition the low mean scores may indicate that
visuals such, as gestures and facial cues, play an important part in
making input comprehensible for learners with lower a proficiency in
EFL. To determine whether the difference in mean scores for the listening
comprehension between the four groups were significantly different
an unpaired T-test was conducted. The raw data collected from the
task was processed through a statistical online program from GraphPad
Software (GraphPad Software, 2008). The results of the online t-test
indicate that there is a significant difference between the Audio-only
condition groups and the audiovisual condition groups (two-sided t-test,
t(55) = 2.6191, p = 0.0114). No significant difference exists in the
mean scores between the groups that were in the audio-only condition
(two-sided t-test, t (24) = 1.1755, p = 0.2513) or the groups that were
in the audiovisual condition (two-sided t-test, t(29) = 0.7254, p = 0.474).
During the listening task presentation the speaker was instructed
not to use any emblems, as emblems are culturally very specific and
speech independent (Molinsky et al, 2005). This was done in order
to generate data about how the speech-associated gestures (deictics,
iconics, metaphorics and beats) assisted the participants in making the
input more comprehensible. These gestures possible aided the audiovisual
condition participants in clarifying meanings and concepts expressed
verbally by providing additional contextual information; facilitating recall
of lexical items previously learned; heightening the attention of the
learners; and making the learners actively involved in making sense
of the gestures used through processes of selecting (Allen, 1999; Sime,
2006).
 Frans Kruger 89

V.Concl
usi
on
In this article I have illustrated the prominent role that nonverbal
behaviour plays during communication. Nonverbal behaviour is however
not universal, but rooted within the cultures that they appear. Within
a culture, the meaning of nonverbal behaviour is contextually situated.
The process of meaning making during communication consists of a
dynamic interplay between the speaker, recipient, and the context in
which the interaction occurs. Nonverbal communication is inextricably
linked with verbal communication by accentuating, highlighting and
enlarging on what is being said. Within the different forms of nonverbal
behaviour, I focussed on gestures. Gestures are multi-functional and
can be directed at the self or at others. Within the classroom, gestures
are utilized by learners to elicit words from interlocutors, manage corefer-
ence problems, metalinguistically signal a problem, establish temporal
relationships, manage discourse coherence, and gain control over the
linguistic form of the L2.
In order to investigate whether gestures can facilitate input to make
it more comprehensible to the learner, I conducted a pilot study in
which two conditions were created, an audio-only and audiovisual
condition. The results indicated that there was a significant statistical
difference between the two groups of participants, with the audiovisual
condition group scoring higher in the post-task test. It thus seems that
the gestures used by the speaker assisted the audiovisual condition
participants in clarifying meanings and concepts expressed verbally
by providing additional contextual information; facilitating recall of
lexical items previously learned; heightening their attention; and by
making the participants actively involved in making sense of the gestures
used through processes of selecting.

Ref
erences
Allen, L.Q. (1999). Functions of Nonverbal Communication in Teaching
and Learning a Foreign Language. The French Review, 72(3),
469-480.
90 The Use of Nonverbal Communication

Allen, L. Q. (2000). Nonverbal Accommodations in Foreign Language

Teacher Talk. Applied Language Learning, 11, 155-176.
Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching
(4thed.). White Plains, NewYork: Longman.
Burgoon, J., Buller, D.B., & Woodall, W.G. (1989). Nonverbal
communication: The unspoken dialogue. NewYork: Harper & Row.
Byon, A.S-P. (2005). Apologizing in Korean: Cross-cultural analysis
in a classroom setting. Korean Studies, 29, 137-166.
Canale, M. (1983). From Communicative Competence to Communicative
Language Pedagogy. In J.C. Richards and R.W. Schmidt (Eds.),
Language and Communication. London: Longman, 2-27.
Capper, S. (2000). Nonverbal communication and the second language
learner: some pedagogical considerations. The Language Teacher
Online, 24, 19-23. [Retrieved August 31, 2008]. Availableat
http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2000/05/capper
Choi, S., & Lantolf, J. P. (2008). Representation and embodiment of
meaning in L2 communication: Motion Events in the Speech and
Gesture of Advanced L2 Korean and L2 English Speakers. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 191-224.
Donald, M. (2001). A mind so rare. New York: Norton.
Eisenstein, J., and Davis, R. (2004). Visual and linguistic information
in gesture classification. In R. Sharma, T. Darrell, M.P. Harper,
G. Lazzari, and M. Turk (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Multimodal Interfaces. Pennsylvania: State College,
113-120. [Retrieved September 24, 2008]. Available at
http://rationale.csail.mit.edu/publications/Eisenstein2004Visual.pdf
Ekman, P. (1980). Three classes of nonverbal behavior. In W. von
Raffler-Engel (Ed.), Aspects of non-verbal behavior. Lisse: Swets
& Zeitlinger, 89-102.
Fiksdal, S. (1990). The right time and pace: A microanalysis of cross
cultural-cultural gatekeeping interviews. Norwood, NewJersey:
Ablex.
Flowerdew, J. & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers
on second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 17, 435-458.
GraphPad Software. (2008, September 29). QuickCalcs T-test Calculator.
 Frans Kruger 91

http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/ttest1.cfm
Green, J.R. (1971). Kinesics in the FL classroom. Foreign Language
Annals, 5, 62-68.
Gullberg, M. (2006). Some reasons for studying gesture and second
language acquisition (Homage à Adam Kendon)*. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44, 103-124.
Gullberg, M., & McCafferty, S. G. (2008). Introduction to gesture and
SLA: An Integrated Approach. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 30(2), 133-146.
Hardison, D.M. (2005). Contextualized computer-based L2 prosody
training: Evaluating the effects of discourse context and video input.
CALICO Journal, 22, 175-190.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Innoue, Y. (2007). Cultural Fluency as a Guide to Effective Intercultural
Communication: The Case of Japan and the U.S. Journal of
Intercultural Communication, 5. [Retrieved August 20, 2008].
Available at http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr15/inoue.htm
Jungheim, N.O. (1991). A Study on the classroom acquisitions of gestures
in Japan. The Journal of Ryutsu Keizai University, 26(2), 61-68.
Kellogg, P. & Lawson, B. (1993). Envoy: Your personal guide to
classroom management. Battle Ground: Michael Grinder.
Kendon, A. (1988). How gestures can become like words. In F. Potyatos
(Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication.
Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 131-141.
Krashen, S.D. (1991). The Input Hypothesis: An update. In J.E. Alatis
(Ed.), Linguistics and Language Pedagogy: The State of the Art.
Washington: Georgetown University Press, 409-431.
Krashen, S. (2002). The comprehension hypothesis and its rivals. Selected
papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English
Teaching/Fourth Pan Asian Conference. Taipei: Crane Publishing
Company, 395-404.
Krashen, S.D. (2004). Why support a delayed-gratification approach
to language education? The Language Teacher, 28(7), 3-7.
Krauss, R.K., Chen, Y., & Gottesman, R.F. (2000). Lexical gestures
and lexical access: A process model. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language
92 The Use of Nonverbal Communication

and Gesture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 261-283.

Lazaraton, A. (2004). Gesture and Speech in the Vocabulary Explanations
of One ESL Teacher: A Microanalytic Inquiry. Language Learning,
54, 79-117.
Lee, J. (2008). Gesture and private speech in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 169-190.
Long, D.R. (1989). Second Language Listening Comprehension: A
Schema-Theoretic Perspective. Modern Language Journal, 73,
32-40.
McCafferty, S.G. (1998). Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech.
Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 73-96.
McCafferty, S. G. (2008). Mimesis and second language acquisition:
A Sociocultural Perspective. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 30, 147-167.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What hands reveal about thought
. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, D., & Duncan, S.D.(2000). Growth points in thinking-for-
speaking. In D.McNeill (Ed.), Language and Gesture. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 141-161.
Mohan, B., & Helmer, S. (1988). Context and second language
development: Preschoolers’ comprehension of gestures. Applied
Linguistics, 9(3), 275-292.
Molinsky, A. L., Krabbenhoft, M. A., Ambady, N., & Choi, S. Y.
(2005). Cracking the Nonverbal Code: Intercultural Competence
and Gesture Recognition Across Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 36, 380-395.
Morgan, A.P. (1990). French Immersion Program: Testimony of a First
Grade Teacher. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 33-43.
Neu, J. (1990). Assessing the role of nonverbal communication in the
acquisition of communicative competence in L2. In R. Scarcella,
E.S. Andersen, & S.D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative
competence in a second language. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,
121-138.
Neuliep, J. (2003). Intercultural communication – a contextual approach
(2nd edition). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Prasad, R., Mannes, M., Ahmed, J., Kauri, R., & Griffiths, C. (2004).
 Frans Kruger 93

Adjusting teaching styles and practice to accommodate the needs

of international students, Working papers No.8. School of
Foundational Studies, AIS St. Helens, Auckland. [Retrieved July
21, 2008]. Available at
http://www.crie.org.nz/research_paper/Adjusting_R.Prasad.pdf
Richardson, J.P. (1979). Nonverbal Communication in the Teaching
if Foreign Languages. Babel, Journal of the Australian Federation
of Modern Language Teachers’ Association, 15, 23-32.
Saitz, R.L. (1966). Gestures in the Language Classroom. English
Language Teacher, 21, 33-37.
Sime, D. (2006). What do learners make of teachers' gestures in the
language classroom? International Review of Applied Linguistics
in Language Teaching, 44, 211-230.
Schmidt-Faijik, R. (2007). Introducing non-verbal communication to
Japanese university students: Determining content. Journal of
Intercultural Communication, 15. [Retrieved August 28, 2008].
Available at http://www.immi.se/intercultural/ Stam, G. (2006).
Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
44, 146-167 & 169-171.
Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D.M. (2005). The Role of Gestures and
Facial Cues in Second Language Listening Comprehension.
Language Learning, 55, 661-699.
Thomas, L., & Tchudi, S. (1998). The English language: Anowner’
smanual. Longman Publishers.
Vocate, D.R. (1994). Self-Talk and Inner Speech: Understanding the
Uniquely Human Aspects of Intrapersonal Communication. In D.R.
Vocate (Ed.), Intrapersonal communication: Different voices,
different minds. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 3-32.
Wardaugh, R. (1985). How conversation works. Oxford: Blackwell.
Yoshioka, K., & Kellerman, E. (2006). Gestural introduction of Ground
reference in L2 narrative discourse. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44, 173-188 & 190-195.
94 The Use of Nonverbal Communication

Frans Kruger
Hanguk University of Foreign Studies
mail.franskruger@gmail.com

Received: 2009.09.30.
Peer reviewed: 2009.10.15.
Accepted: 2009.11.05.