Download INTRODUCTION - What the body knows: Performance Practice as

INTRODUCTION
The field of communication is a broad one comprising different modes and different
approaches. Verbal Languages, Dance, Art, and Music are examples of different modes
of communication; English, Modern Dance, Painting, and Jazz Music are examples of
different approaches. However, regardless of how wide and varied the field of
communication is, all the modes have one common goal: expressing and deciphering
ideas.
Communication is a layered procedure often times using one or more modes to achieve
its aim. For example, an advertisement in a magazine might use a photograph and a
slogan as means of delivering an idea. In this case the communication process relies on
two modes: visual and verbal; the intended result being the comprehension of a complex
message. Even though the past decades have seen verbal language in the predominate
position of use, the movement towards globalization and the rapid advancements being
made in technology are placing emphasis on other modes of communication such as
visual and kinesic. The focus of this move toward other modes of communication is to
aid in making the message clearer. In an attempt to ‘globalize’ our ideas and messages we
use different modes of clarification because not all the inhabitants in our ‘global village’
understand and speak the same language. Consequently, a more diversified approach to
communication needs to come into play; hence multimodality has become an essential
concern. Just as Howard Gardner (in 1993) used his idea of Multiple Intelligences to steer
education into a ground-breaking direction which allowed educators to understand that
there is more than one way to obtain knowledge (intelligence), a similar premise has
emerged in the field of language and communication; it is referred to as multimodality
1
(the use of more than one mode of communication simultaneously). Multimodality helps
present a clearer more universal message thus enhancing both expression and translation.
Coincidently, the emergence of multimodality corresponds with linguistic analysts and
researchers facing the limitations of linguistic grammars: “Consequently one is forced to
look at new semiotic grammars that are sensitive to the characters and contours of
specific modalities and responsive to their interplay in texts…” (Macken-Horarik, 2004,
p. 5). The emergence of new semiotic grammars has been discussed in the works of
Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen and more specifically in their book titled Reading
Images: the Grammar of Visual Design (1996). Kress and van Leeuwen focus on the idea
of analyzing multimodal texts using terminology that would be compatible with any of
the modes of communication. For example, while analyzing a drawing containing text,
the analyst would draw upon semiotic terminology, which comprises all modes of
communication, not just a grammar for verbal language which would leave the nonverbal
unanalyzed. In further explanation of their work, Kress and van Leeuwen discuss how
‘visual lexis’ expresses aesthetic and pragmatic descriptions. They refer to grammar
generally being studied in isolation from meaning. However, this is not the case in their
study. They choose to see grammar forms as “resources for encoding interpretations of
experience and forms of social (inter)action” (Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996, p.1). Kress
and van Leeuwen were influenced by the work of M.A K. Halliday. In his book,
Introduction to Functional Grammar, Halliday has done extensive research on grammar
and states, “A language, then, is a system for making meaning: a semantic system, with
other systems for encoding the meanings it produces.” In other words, it is meaning
which determines structure. (Halliday, 1985, p 17). If so, then any communicative form
2
could be considered a language. Accordingly, a language will also have a form of
grammar.
Grammar generally implies the semantic and syntactical meaning of the written language.
Nevertheless, spoken language also has a ‘grammar’. This grammar is more concerned
with the message rather than the specifics of how the message is delivered. Studies done
within this area of communication are considered as pragmatic studies. Pragmatics is the
relation of signs to their users and interpreters (Horn and Ward, 2004, p. xi0), or as
Stalnaker mentions in his article Semantics, pragmatics [is] “the study of linguistic acts
and the context in which they are performed” (Stalnaker, 1972, p. 383). H.P. Grice played
an essential role in the development of a systematic framework for pragmatics (Horn and
Ward, 2004, p. xi). Grice formulated the principle of cooperation in speech acts (Grice,
1957). Within this principle he set up ‘maxims’ which govern the rules of oral
communication. These maxims are followed by any person engaging in conversation.
In view of the fact that there are new ways to study and evaluate communication, and
researchers in linguistics and communication have pondered new territory such as
grammars for visual designs, it seems relevant to ‘move down the track’ to instigate a
‘grammar’ for kinesics (specifically dance).
The focus of this paper is on the aspect of dance as a language particularly because dance
contains and expresses meaning. It highlights the reason why dance can be considered a
language and has a grammar. In addition, it critically evaluates two descriptions of dance
as a language, one by Anne Hutchinson and the other by Judith Lynne Hanna.
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Grammar in Language
One can look at the world of language from different perspectives: that of a linguist, a
grammarian, a visual designer, or a lay man. In an article tilted A Linguist to the Lay
Audience, Raven McDavid says, “Everyone has opinions, even prejudices, on some of the
details of language he uses….Differences in the acceptability of particular details, or
whole varieties, of language are recognized in almost every society” (McDavid, 1985, p.
280). This is not surprising to hear nor difficult to understand and accept. We need only
take a look at some of the different methods, forms, and theories of language and
communication to realize the truth in the suggestion of difference.
Halliday, for example, refers to grammar as being theory-based and natural. He says that
there is no theory-free description of grammar and grammar is a natural relationship
between wording and meaning. He also says “Grammar is really lexis and lexis is really
grammar”. He refers to grammar and lexis as complementary perspectives. However, he
does not define language as a code. He explains that even though at time he has used this
word code to refer to language, he does not perceive language as “meanings waiting
around to be encoded”. He states, “The meaning is created in language” (1985, p. xii). He
describes grammar from a functional rather than a formal perspective because he believes
it is a better description of how language works. He believes that language has evolved to
gratify human requirements; the manner in which language is structured with regard to
these requirements is functional and not random. Functional grammar, he explains, is a
grammar that is ‘natural’ and can be clarified by reference to the manner in which the
language is used. Thus, the structure emerges from the functions that language serves.
4
Halliday also explains that the fundamental components of meaning in language are
functional components. These components, referred to as metafunctions, are expressions
of the two most general and universal purposes (which underlie all languages):
‘ideational’ or reflective (being able to understand the environment) and ‘interpersonal’
or active (to act on the others in the environment). Combined with the above mentioned
metafunctions is the ‘textual’ (creating relevance to context) metafunction, which
“breathes relevance into the other two”. In addition, Halliday describes functional
grammar as being a grammar which interprets all the parts of a language (such as phrases,
clauses, lexicon, etc.) as organic configurations of functions. In other words, “each part is
interpreted with respect to the whole.” (Halliday, 1985, p. xiii). Finally, Halliday explains
that in functional grammar, language is construed as a structure of meanings which go
together with forms that can express these meanings. In other words, instead of asking the
formal grammar question “what do these forms mean?” one would ask, “How are these
meanings expressed?” (Halliday, 1985, p. xiv).
Language, as stated previously, is a form of communication. This form has a written and
an oral structure. A lot has been covered in the field of written language and studies in the
field of oral communication have very quickly caught up. With the invention of the tape
recorder, collecting and studying data on oral communication has become easier and
more exact. One interesting study in this area of language and communication is by H. P.
Grice. Grice developed a theory based on the premise that a speaker may express an idea
through an utterance that is quite different from what the sentence means in its standard
written form. For example, take the sentence ‘My foot is killing me’; it does not mean
what it does in its written form. It means ‘my foot is hurting me’, or ‘I am in pain because
5
of my foot’. However the syntactic meaning of the first sentence is: ‘My foot is
murdering me, or causing my death’. The meaning of this utterance is more important
than the grammatical structure of the sentence. Grice (and his followers) worked on
developing a structure for the study and analysis of spoken texts. The primary theory is
referred to as Implicature. Grice began with a common premise which is that every
speaker (when involved in a conversation) follows principles of cooperation. What this
means is to: “contribute to what is required by the accepted purpose of the conversation”
(Grice 1975). Based on this premise Grice then established four maxims which explicate
how to be cooperative:
1. Maxim of Quality: do not say what you believe to be false or unjustified.
2. Maxim of Quantity: give as much information as is required
3. Maxim of Relation: be relevant
4. Maxim of Manner: avoid obscurity and ambiguity
(Grice, 1975 pp. 26-30)
The following example clarifies Grice’s premise of cooperation:
Tom is helping his mom change the baby’s diaper. He hands his mom one diaper
(quantity), he hands her a clean one (quality), he hands her a diaper rather than the
baby cream (relevance) and he does not take all day to do so (manner).
Grice spoke of exceptions to the rule of cooperation like when a speaker so obviously
fails to obey the maxims that the listener must assume the speaker means something
different. For example, a speaker saying “What a nice day!” in the middle of a storm. He
called these flouting the maxims. The Maxim of Quality is often flouted in metaphors and
irony (Grice, 1975, pp. 26-30). Grice states that in any spoken communiqué, the
aforementioned principle of cooperation and maxims are observed. If we consider
6
grammar to be a set of rules to follow in order to properly communicate in any given
language, this would imply that Grice’s maxims are a form of grammar.
Grammar in Other Modalities
If we have forms of grammar for written language and spoken language, then it would
not be surprising if other modes of communication also had grammars. One modality
which has been the subject of many studies is visual communication. In Reading Images:
The Grammar of Visual Design (1996), Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen discuss
the relevance of a grammar for other communicative modalities other than language.
They describe the manner in which people, places and things depicted in visual design
combine together to make visual statements rather than simply vocabulary. They focus on
the fact that visual communication is becoming more and more crucial in the field of
public communication. What was once considered the field of specialists only (visual
design) is now more predominant in the public domain (Kress and van Leeuwen 1996,
pp.1-3). More and more people are developing the sense that structure and analysis are
needed to ‘speak and comprehend’ the language of the visual. “Inevitably this [need] will
lead to new, and more rules, and to more formal, normative teaching. Not being ‘visually
literate’ will begin to attract social sanctions and “Visual literacy’ will begin to be a
matter of survival, especially in the workplace” (Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 3).
Just as functional grammar begins with the question of meaning, the grammar of visual
design begins with the understanding of meaning. The recognition and awareness of the
message when communicated visually comes from the function of the visual and the
awareness and perception of the viewer. Kress and van Leeuwen also make the point that
7
visual grammar is not universal. The grammar of visual design is a culturally specific one
(Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 3). Just as different cultures have different verbal
languages, they also have different spatial perspectives as well.
Another viewpoint of grammar comes from Ann Hutchison in her book, Labanotation:
The System of Analyzing and Recording Movement (Hutchinson, 1970). Claiming that
movement has a grammar and syntax, she says: “Dance is a language of expressive
gestures through which non-verbal communication can be achieved. Like verbal
language, it has basic parts of speech” (Hutchinson, 1970, p.17). Hutchinson classifies
the basic elements of movements into three categories: nouns (Table 1), adverbs (Table
2) and verbs (Table 3). She states that though there are adjectives, they occur so rarely
that they are better not mentioned (Hutchinson, 1970, p.17). Hutchinson’s idea about
adjectives and their occurrence can be disputed because movements themselves are
adjectives in dance. For example:
An arm
(a body part, a noun)
Moves in a circle
(a circling arm, an adjective)
It moves slowly
(dynamics, an adverb)
It is in motion
(an action, a verb)
The verbal language equivalent becomes: The circling arm is moving slowly.
Some might argue that the movement itself should be considered a noun as well, but this
makes the relevance of the movement with respect to the body more difficult to
understand. When the body part is the noun, the movement gives more meaning to it.
Similar to the function of an adjective in verbal languages. Green, might in and of itself
8
be used as a noun in particular cases but when used with the word tree it gives ‘tree’ more
meaning. Hence in the above example, a circle can be a noun but when used as a
movement that is done by the ‘arm’, it is an adjective. Below are the Tables which show
Hutchinson’s divisions.
Table 1: Hutchinson’s Description of Nouns in Dance Language
NOUNS
The individual parts of the body which move
A partner or other person to whom movement is related
Parts of the room to which the performer must proceed or toward which gestures are
directed
Objects or properties which are carried or handled
Table 2: Hutchison’s Description of Adverbs in Dance Language
ADVERBS
Timing: Sudden or Sustained, or any specific time value
Dynamics: Use of energy flow, Flow of movement, Inner attitude
Degree of Action: Degree of rotation, Distance covered, etc…
Manner of
Performance:
Physical Modification: initiation of the action, part of
the body leading, guidances, sequential actions
2. Spatial Modification: deviations in paths, variations in
positions
1.
9
Table 3: Hutchinson’s Description of Verbs in Dance Language
VERBS
An Action
Absence of action: stillness
Contraction
Extension
Rotation
Spatial Actions
Direction
Motion
Toward
Mode of Progression
Motion Path
Away
Supporting Jumping
In
Other:
Balance Loss of
Balance;
Falling
Results of Actions
Relationship
To person,
object etc
Visual Design
To space, to a
spot
To body
Shape made by
body
Linear design,
trace forms
Hutchinson compares dance to a traditional schema of grammar. She takes the grammar
divisions and shows what in dance is the equivalent of this term or division. Nouns being
things like ‘a person to whom the movement is related’ or a verb being ‘an action’.
However, she does not make any reference to meaning. Hutchison has provided a simple
classification of formal resources without any link to meaning. This is equivalent to a set
of word classes and sub-categories of word classes in verbal language. The main area of
10
communication and purpose of language is to express and clarify meaning. Hutchinson
however, does not take that into consideration in her explanation of dance as a language.
Another researcher who has done extensive work in the field of non-verbal
communication is Judith Lynne Hanna. Paying particular attention to dance, she has
worked primarily on the basis of dance being a communicative tool. Gathering
information about dance and comparing it to aspects of language she has been able to
build a solid foundation for dance as an entity of human behavior and thus a tool for
interaction. Hanna explains that dance may be used for many communicative situations
such as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Providing information necessary to preserve cultural patterns.
Providing information necessary to help attain goals.
Providing information necessary to help in adapting to a new environment.
Providing information to help in integration or change.
(Hanna, 1979, p. 26)
The information provided could be relevant to a person, a group or a society at large.
Dance may also support or refute the intended meaning by using repetition,
augmentation, illustration, linguistic, paralinguistic, or other non-verbal communication
forms (Hanna, 1979, p. 26) (see the table below).
Table 4: Definition and Examples of Dance Communication Styles/Techniques
Repetition
Augmentation
Illustration
Linguistic
Paralinguistic
Other Non-Verbal Communication Forms
A movement (phrase) can be repeated. This will
emphasize the main idea.
A movement (phrase) can exaggerate or highlight
the main idea.
A movement (phrase) can depict the idea. A replica
of the thought or idea being expressed.
Verbal language or linguistic forms of
communication can be added to the kinesic
language to further exemplify the idea.
The voice or use of voice could be added to the
kinesic communication to further exemplify the
idea.
Example Visuals, Props, Music can all be used to
add to the movement. These will help in clarifying
the idea.
11
Regardless of the style of dance used, it is important to note that within a given culture
there are varying degrees of comprehension. Issues such as age, sex, occupation,
political belief can allow for margins of difference in understanding symbols of
movement. This idea once again highlights the point that not all people ‘see’ and
comprehend things the same way. In fig.1 (p.13) we can see variations levels of
understanding. Some of the dance ‘behavior’ has a shared or common meaning with the
spectator and some is intended to be interactive in that it attempts to evoke a response
from the spectator. However both the dancer and the spectator possess the dance
information. They both belong to the dance culture. Ray Birdwhistell explains in his
Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion, “humans move and belong to movement
communities just as they speak and belong to speech communities….there are kinesic
[body motion] languages and dialects which are learned by cultural members just as
speech is learned” (1970, 39-40). We cannot expect the cultural outsider to have the
same information as the dancer or the spectator, just as in speech communities we do not
expect people from outside the community to understand what is being conveyed,
particularly if they do not understand the language.
12
Dance Culture Fig. 1
Cultural Outsider
DANCE
INFORMATION
Dancer
Spectator
In addition, a beginning dance student may know less than the dance initiate who in turn
knows less than the dance expert (Hanna, 1996, p. 26). Fig. 2 (p. 14) illustrates this point.
We can see how the cultural outsider has no connection to the dance information, and the
dance expert has all the information. The dance initiate and the non-initiate have varying
degrees of information which are relatively less that the dance expert and somewhat more
than the cultural outsider. In other cases some of the meaning is aimed toward a few and
some is unintentional or has a latent meaning. Again this is shown in Fig. 2. In such cases
we can say the meaning is transcendent (i.e. the meaning has gone beyond the dance).
These are the effects that are carried over to the cultural outsider.
13
Dance Culture Fig. 2
Noninitiate
DANCE
INFORMA
TION
Cultural
Outsider
Dance Expert
Dance Initiate
Taking the communication potential found in dance a step further, Hanna used a set of
design features of language (Hockett and Ascher 1964) and analyzed the similarities
which exist in dance. Both forms of communication require the same mental capacity and
ability for conceptualization, imagination and recollection. The comparison between the
verbal form and the non-verbal one would be clearer if we think of dance more as poetry
than prose (Hanna, 1996, p 86). The following table shows the list of features used,
marks the similarities (X) and explains the differences. As for the similarities both have:
directional reception which means that the signal/message can be heard (or seen) by any
person within earshot or view; interchangeability which means that the sender and
receiver may be the same person; arbitrariness which means that there is no essential or
natural relationship between the sign and its referent; discreteness which is the ability for
14
all the communication essentials to be broken down into finite sets of elements that can
contrast with one another (i.e. phonemes); displacement which is the ability to make
reference to some thing which is not in the ‘here and now’; productivity which means that
any message which has not previously been sent can be understood with the use of
previously learned and recognized elements of communication; duality of patterning
means that both have a system of physical action and a system of meaning (the use of
both of these can produce an infinite number of meaningful structures); cultural
transmission; ambiguity; affectivity; all three of these deal with expressions of internal
states of being -whether they are true or false- as well as referential relationships with the
social, cultural and physical worlds; and finally both have a range of sizes of potential
communicating participants. It is worth noting that productivity involves grammars.
These are theoretical and in dance it is what the performers know about the innate form
of communication and how competent they are in a linguistic/dance movement (Hanna,
1996, p. 86). This is often referred to as the langue of movement.
Table 5: Hanna’s comparison of Design features of Language and Dance
Features
Language
Dance
Directional reception
X
X
Interchangeability
X
X
Arbitrariness
X
X
Discreteness
X
X
Displacement
X
X
Productivity
X
X
Duality
X
X
15
Cultural transmission
X
X
Ambiguity
X
X
Affectivity
X
X
Range of sizes of potential
communicating participants
Channel
X
X
Time and Space
Vocal /auditory channels
Predominate
Temporal dimension
Motor/visual-kinesthetic
channels predominate
Time and space dimensions
Feedback
Speaker can hear self
Dancer cannot see self
Involvement
Total involvement in
communication act is not
necessary
Minimal units of phoneme
and morpheme agreed upon
by linguists
Greater ease in
communication
Detailed syntax governing
sequences exists for many
languages
Fuller involvement required
in dance
Minimal units
Complex logical structures
Syntax
Lack or agreement about
minimal units
Greater difficulty in
communication
Syntax exist for few dances
In addition to the similarities which Hanna summarized, there are seven dissimilarities
between dance and verbal language.
1. The motor/visual –kinesthetic channels are predominate in dance; whereas
vocal/auditory channels are predominate in language.
2. Language exists in a temporal dimension whereas dance involves temporal as
well as three other dimensions in space.
3. Speakers have the ability to have greater feedback because they can hear
themselves speak whereas dancers cannot see themselves dance.
16
4. Involvement in the act of speaking is such that the speaker may be doing
something else while speaking however in dance the dancer is more involved in
the communication act and therefore must focus only on it.
5. Dance has more difficulty in expressing more complex logical structures than
verbal language does.
6. There are differences in the study of dance and language. Linguists agree on the
minimal units of verbal language, such agreements do not exist in dance.
7. Syntax: The detailed syntax which governs language has yet to be worked out for
dance.
It is worthy to note that the reason such detailed work has not been carried out in dance is
not because of any intrinsic phenomena in dance, but rather due to a relative lack in
studies (Hanna, 1996, pp. 86-88).
DISCUSSION
Dance contains and expresses meaning. It has structure, codes and several other basic
foundations of language. However, dance is lacking a formal syntax. Dancers find it easy
to communicate with one another due to the common knowledge they obtain through
their experience and studies in the field, and not due to simply being exposed to dance.
This does not mean that exposure may not help in comprehension, but it cannot help in
mastering the langue of dance. For example, take a woman who immerses herself in a
culture where she does not speak the language, after a period of exposure to the language
she will develop a sense of comprehension and ability to communicate in the new
language; but she will not master the grammar of the language. Pragmatics refers to this
as acculturation. A non-dancer may develop a sense of comprehension of dance by being
17
exposed to it, but he/she will not master the language of dance. In order for dance to be
an easily accessible language mode it must have a more universal structure and syntax.
And currently this does not exist. Hutchinson made a bold attempt at defining a structure
by classifying movement features into formal grammar units. However, her main
objective was to construct a system of notation. In her attempt, (which she built upon
from the earlier works of Rudolph Laban) she neglected the most important area in
communication which is meaning. This contrasts with the studies of Halliday and Grice.
Halliday stresses the fact that language structures emerge from the functions that they
serve, hence meaning is fundamental. Grice stresses the fact that the meaning of any
utterance is more essential than its grammatical structure. Hutchinson, however, focused
primarily on developing a system of signs and symbols which could help in notating
movement, in other words an alphabet of movement. Hutchinson also neglected to
categorize movements themselves even though movements are the lexemes of dance; the
basic units of meaning. Without movement and meaning dance ceases to be
communicative and therefore not a language. Hanna, on the other hand, focused primarily
on meaning and left syntax to be covered in other studies. Hanna’s primary focus was to
clarify and highlight how dance is a natural human communicative behavior. If we use a
combination of Hutchinson and Hanna’s work and add to it the needed syntax features, a
dance grammar can be designed. As a starting point, dance movements must be
categorized as part of the syntax and meaning must be integral in formulating these
categories. An area of inception could be the quality of gesticulation of a movement, for
example: flexion/extension; contract/release; sharp/flow; angular/circular; etc. Individual
movements could then be placed in each category. This could be a basis for lexical
18
structure. Movements could be grouped together into types for example, the above list of
gesticulation are contrasts (each is the opposite of the other). This could be a starting
point for developing the syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes of dance. Such a
development could answer questions such as: What kind of movements can be substituted
for each other (syntax), and in what order do the movements occur (paradigm) so that
they convey a meaning? Another area of inception could be to use a model similar to the
one developed by Grice for speech. Based on implication, movements situations could be
arranged to fit within categories. These categories would help to define the pragmatics of
dance. In the pragmatic domain of communication we see that semantics and syntax are
interdependent. The same concept could exist in dance when we focus on its
communicative properties. According to Charles Morris, dance is considered meaningful
behavior in three domains: pragmatics, semantics, and syntactics (Morris, 1955).
However, not enough studies have been done to substantiate dance syntax.
Hanna mentions six modes of transmitting meaning which can be utilized in dance:
1. Concretization: imitation or replica
2. Icon: representation of original
3. Stylization: arbitrary gestures which are the result of convention
4. Metonym: motional perception of one thing for another
5. Metaphor: one idea expressing another, analogy
6. Actualization: a dancer dancing in terms of self
(Hanna, 1979, pp. 41-42)
Because meaning can depend on context as well, Hanna mentions eight spheres which
she believes encompass all meaning in the movement field. These spheres are:
19
1. Event: situation
2. Body: the total human body in action
3. Whole Performance: the total spatial pattern
4. Discursive Performance: sequences of the unfolding movement phrases
5. Specific Movement: the actual movement
6. Intermesh with other Medium: the linkage of movement with other communication
media such as song, music, poetry, readings, costumes and props
7. Vehicle for other Medium: dance as a means of expression for another medium
such as the background in a poetry reading
8. Presence: the charisma or magic of the performance
(Hanna, 1979, p. 44)
Hanna states that these devices are signs which may function as signals to convey
meaning and existence in any thing, event, or condition having to do with the present,
past or future, particularly when they are directly related to the action they signify
(Hanna, 1979, p. 44). For example in an Indian Rain Dance, the dancer may use
concretization (ex. imitating rain) to encode the meaning of the motor expression being
used in the dance. This is what is meant by the syntax of dance, yet this syntax is still
deficient because the rules dictating how the movements and structures may be combined
are not clear. So far, based on the studies of Rudolph Laban (1940) and Anne Hutchinson
(1954,1970) there are four categories of dance movement (see table 6). Hanna suggests
that with more studies these categories may be modified or supplemented (Hanna, 1979,
p. 45). These categories can be investigated further and may be a starting point for
developing a formal, more accessible syntax for dance movement.
20
Table 6: Dance Movement Data Categories and Subdivisions
SPACE
RHYTHM
DYNAMICS
USE OF BODY
Direction
Tempo
Space
Posture
Level
Duration
Flow
Locomotion
Amplitude
Accent
Locomotion
Gesture
Focus
Meter
Projectional Quality
_______________
Grouping
______________
______________
_______________
Shape
______________
_______________
_______________
Finally, another area of focus could be the design features of language which were
established by Hockett and Ascher. Hanna made reference to them and compared the use
of dance to the use of verbal language. The similarities found could help in establishing
syntax for dance. Particularly in the area of productivity because this involves grammar.
Productivity in dance, according to Hanna, is what dancers know about the form of dance
being used and to what degree are they capable of using it. Several of the above
mentioned concepts can be expanded and developed into syntax of dance. Dance has
potential to attain the ultimate goal of communication: delivering the message
Conclusion
Languages across the world have similarities in structure and form. These similarities
allow them to be related to and help in the function of communication. When we think of
a grammar of a language we think of so much more than its rules and regulations; we
think of a common structure which makes language both accessible and reasonable to the
users. Does this apply to any form of communication, or is it exclusively a language
concern? We see that the idea of communication begins with a common purpose and
21
awareness of a situation. This ought to be the case for any structure in all modes of
communication. Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996) postulated a grammar for visual design
which relies on a common awareness and understanding. Grammars for other areas like
dance have only been implied and still the implication revolves around common areas of
understanding and function. With body awareness and visual design becoming more and
more predominate in the world we live in, we need to have an approach which will allow
us to be more fluent in both usage and comprehension of alternative methods of
communication. Globalization has broadened the horizon of education. We must develop
innovative methods and techniques which will both enrich and empower the new
generation to meet the challenges of tomorrow. If we do not develop our methods and
configurations of communication such a goal may be harder to achieve. We need to look
at the multimodality of communication. Kinesic modes ought to be included as a part of
the schema. Currently, it is only logistics which keeps us from referring to them as
language.
22
References
Birdwhistell, R.L. (1970) Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communication
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
Gardner, H. (1993) Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice New York:
Basic Books
Grice, H. P. (1957) ‘Meaning’ Philosophical Review, vol. 66, pp. 377-388
Grice, H. P. (1975) ‘Logic and Conversation’ Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts
ed P. Cole and J. Morgan. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in H. P. Grice,
ed Studies in the Way of Words Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
(1989) pp. 22-40
Halliday, M. A. K. ( 1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed.
London: Arnold Press
Hanna, J. L. (1979) To Dance is Human: A Theory of Nonverbal Communication
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Hockett, C. F. and R. Ascher (1964) ‘The Human Revolution’ Current
Anthropology, vol. 5 no. 3 pp.135-168
Horn, L.R. and G. Ward (2004) The Handbook of Pragmatics.
United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers
Hutchison, A. (1970) Labanotation: The System of Analyzing and Recording Movement
USA: Theatre Arts Books
Kress, G. (2000) ‘Multimodality’ Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design
of Social Futures. eds. Bill Cope & Mary Kalantzis. London: Routledge
Kress, G. and T. van Leeuwen (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual
Design. London: Routledge
Laban, R. (1966) Choreutics. London: MacDonald and Evans Ltd
McDavid, R. I. Jr. (1985) ‘A Linguist to the Lay Audience’. The English Language
Today, ed Sidney Greenbaum. Oxford: Paragon
Morris, C. (1955) Signs, Language and Behavior. New York: Braziller
Stalnaker, R. C. (1972) ‘Semantics’ Semantics of Natural Language. eds. Donald
Davidson and Gilbert Harman. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pp. 380-397
23