European International Journal of Philological Sciences
72
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
83-86
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
28 March 2025
ACCEPTED
24 April 2025
PUBLISHED
30 May 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue 05 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
The Nominative and
Communicative Features
of Paralinguistic Means in
Modern Linguistics
Tamilla Annazarova Dilshod qizi
Independent researcher of the Higher School of Turkic Studies, Tashkent
city, teacher of Oriental University, Tashkent State University of Oriental
Studies, Uzbekistan
Abstract
: This article analyzes the nature of
paralinguistic means, their types and their role in the
communicative process on an important scientific basis.
G.V. Kolshansky divided paralinguistic means into
phonational, kinetic and graphic types based on a
structural approach and consistently revealed their
structural aspects. Phonation means include sound
properties such as tone, timbre, speed of speech; kinetic
means include gestures, gestures and div movements;
graphic means include graphic forms expressed in the
text. The study presents the views of E.M. Vereshchagin
and V.G. Kostomarov on paralinguistic and nonverbal
communication, and highlights the reflection of
gestures and facial expressions in different languages,
their semantic loads and naming. The inclusion of
nonverbal units in the phraseological system is justified
by G.E. Kreidlin's proposals on gestural phraseology. The
article highlights the theoretical and practical
importance of paralinguistic elements in the field of
linguistics and communication and creates a solid
methodological foundation for scientific research in this
area.
Keywords:
Paralinguistics, phonation, kinetics, graphics,
non-verbal means, div language.
Introduction:
In his research, G.V. Kolshanskiy studied
paralinguistic means from a structural (nominative)
approach, analyzing them as pure units separate from
external factors influencing language. He examined
their internal structure and interrelated characteristics.
Based on this, he classified paralinguistic means into
three types: phonational, kinetic, and graphic.
Phonational paralinguistic elements include voice
timbre, speech rate, pitch, sound fillers that replace
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
84
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
pauses, other melodic features of speech, as well as
dialectal, idiolectal, and social pronunciation features.
Kinetic components consist of gestures, hand
movements, div language, speaker positioning
during speech, silence, and similar behaviors. Graphic
components involve graphic forms that, in written
speech, emphasize words, concepts, terms, or
expressions in text. Kolshanskiy’s ideas in the field of
paralinguistics laid a foundational basis for future
researchers and were later expanded and studied from
different perspectives.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY
According to E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov,
the verbal expression of actions is called nomination.
The nomination of facial expressions or gestures is
usually represented by a full word or word
combination. Gestures, movements, and their names
typically vary with changes in language. Multilingual
individuals also exhibit changes in kinetic and
paralinguistic behaviors when switching languages.
Interestingly, the change in non-verbal code happens
as naturally as language switching itself.
They assert that facial expressions and gestures, like
any phenomena of reality, can be described through
spoken language. Such behaviors may either naturally
reflect a person’s internal emotional state or be
deliberately used to transmit information to another
person. For example, waving a hand may symbolize
resignation or indifference; shaking the head side-to-
side may imply disagreement or suspicion toward the
interlocutor. G.E. Kreydlin suggests calling such
expressions gesture-based phraseologisms or gestural
phrasemes. While phraseological units are typically
understood as fixed expressions conveying a single
meaning, in free combinations, each semantically
loaded component retains its individual meaning.
Vereshchagin and Kostomarov also note that there are
many gestures that either supplement speech or
replace it entirely. However, not all such gestures are
universally understood. Some are culturally specific
and only recognizable within certain nations or ethnic
groups, while others are more broadly recognized.
Examples include: opening one’s arms to mean
“welcome”; scratching the back of the head to imply
“hesitation or thoughtfulness”; or turning one’s back
to express “disrespect.”
It should be noted that the meaning of gestures is
rarely absolute or universal. First, many gestures may
be interpreted differently depending on context;
second, their interpretation can shift due to the
influence of other non-verbal elements in speech. Non-
verbal means do not have a fixed interpretation and
are often tied to national and cultural characteristics.
Even the most stable behaviors become ingrained in
each ethnic group’s language system, but these same
elements might be understood differently in another
culture’s context.
Ca
rroll I. Izard noted: “Studies of emotional facial
expressions across different nationalities show that
emotions such as joy, surprise, sadness, anger, disgust,
and fear are innate. They are expressed and understood
similarly by all people. Even illiterate individuals or
those with little exposure to modern culture can
understand these feelings. Interest, dislike, and shame
are similarly universally understood. These nine primary
emotions and their corresponding expressions are
fundamental to human interaction, free of linguistic or
cultural variation.” This conclusion allows us to regard
emotionally expressive paralinguistic tools in literature
as universal instruments, marking a new step in this field
of research.
According
to
I.N. Gorelov, the concept
of
communication refers to the exchange of thoughts,
ideas, information, and messages. It is a form of mutual
influence developed throughout human cognitive and
labor activity. Language, through its communicative
function, demonstrates its symbolic nature and serves
as a mechanism for individuals to find their place in
society. Communication can be defined as the process
of coding and decoding information in a particular
sequence by the sender and receiver essentially, the
transmission of information from one or more
individuals to others.
Kolshanskiy emphasized that “the decoding mechanism
is a specific message perceived through mediated
perception in two stages. The first stage is the reflection
of pure verbal structure; the second involves a chain of
conclusions aimed at interpreting semantic elements
not explicitly present in the verbal structure.” In order
to understand a message fully, it is essential to include
not only its conceptual content but also emotional,
ethnological, and other components.
Unlike other linguistic tools, communicative tools play a
crucial role in addressing interpersonal communication
issues. In various studies in linguistics, ethnolinguistics,
cultural linguistics, and psychology, such tools are often
referred to as kinesic behaviors or kinesics. Kinesics is
studied across fields such as anthropology, psychology,
sociology, and others, as it relates to different aspects
of human activity. The inclusion of these tools in
linguistic research is justified by their constant reflection
in speech and their interpretation as specific
phenomena. As stated in the “Prague Linguistic Circle
Theses”, “the systematic study of behaviors that
accompany
and
supplement
the
speaker’s
communication with the listener is appropriate within
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
85
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
the c
ommunication process.”
RESULTS
It is well-known that the majority of human activity
consists of communicative interactions, which
determine individuals’ lifestyles. The main instrument
facilitating such interactions is text. Although various
approaches to text analysis interpret it differently, if
we view a text as a reflection of the relationship
between author and recipient, then any text may be
regarded as discourse. Discourse is not only a unit of
speech communication but also of communicative
interaction.
When analyzing a specific person’s spoken
text, we observe that it is first produced by the speaker
(communicator) and then transmitted to the recipient.
The transmitted information is structured according to
the rules of language and therefore meets textual
requirements.
The
relationships
between
communicants are of great importance. Upon
receiving the message, the recipient responds, and as
a result, a specific communicative interaction is
established. In this process, the communicants'
characteristics and the context of the communication
play a critical role.
The communicative approach to paralinguistic means
refers to the meaning relationships acquired through
their mutual interaction within speech. The study of
the nominations of paralinguistic elements in literary
texts reveals that they are primarily used in the
author's narrative. Both verbal and non-verbal tools
that create dialogic acts participate in the complete
verbal representation of communication.
The success of communication is significantly
influenced by the communicants’ mutual relationship
and the communicative context in which the act
occurs. Therefore, tools of interaction including
paralinguistic elements
—
are employed to facilitate
and manage communication. As previously stated,
mutual understanding between communicants is
crucial when using non-verbal means. Paralinguistic
elements not only add additional meaning to speech
but also provide information about the speaker's age,
social background, and character traits.
CONCLUSION
At the core of paralinguistic studies lies the human
factor, that is, an anthropocentric approach. In global
linguistics, research into paralinguistic means has
primarily been carried out through the emerging fields
of
semiotics,
linguocentrism,
psycholinguistics,
sociolinguistics, and linguocultural studies. These
studies make it possible to examine the signs used in
human communication, the semantic, pragmatic, and
syntactic relationships between verbal and non-verbal
means, and the ways they are used together in
communicative processes.
Among these studies, the works of G.V.
Kolshanskiy and G.E. Kreydlin have made a significant
contribution to the development of the field. While
Kolshanskiy focused on the classification and
characteristics of paralinguistic means, Kreydlin
concentrated on their mechanisms and modes of
expression.
According to the primary classification, paralinguistic
means can be divided into three groups phonational,
kinetic, and graphic based on their internal structure
and interrelation. However, when studied within the
scope of different fields, they may also be further
categorized according to the specifics of those fields.
The communicative approach to paralinguistic
means focuses on the meaning relations formed
through their interaction in speech. In fully verbalizing
the communicative process, both linguistic and non-
linguistic tools that generate dialogic acts participate.
Paralinguistic elements not only carry additional
meanings in speech, but also serve as a source of
information about the speaker's identity, including their
age, social origin, and personal characteristics.
REFERENCES
Верещагин, Е.М. О своеобразии отражения мимики
и жестов вербальными средствами (на материале
русского языка) [Текст] / Е.М. Верещагин, В.Г.
Костомаров // Вопросы языкознания. П1981.№ 1. С.
36 47.
Крейдлин, Г. Е. Невербальная семиотика [Текст]:
язык тела и естественный язык / Г. Е. рейдлин. М.:
Новое литературное обозрение, 2004. 584 с.
Изард, К. Эмоции человека / К. Изард. М.: МГУ, 1980.
С.113.
И.Н.Горелов.
Невербальные
компоненты
коммуникации. Москва, 2009.
-
104 с.
Словарь иностранных слов. М.: Русский язык, 1981.
-
624 с.
Колшанский, Г.В. Функция паралингвистических
средств в языковой коммуникации / Г.В. Колшанский
// Вопросы языкознания. 1973.
-
№ 1.
-
С. 16
-25.
Fidan, Mehmet (2009). İletişim Kurmak İstiyorum,
Tablet Yayınları, Konya. Freedman, J.L., D.O. Sears, J.M.
Carlsmith (2003). Sosyal Psikoloji, (Çev. Ali Dönmez),
İmge Kitabevi, Ankara.
-129 s.
Freedman, J.L., D.O. Sears, J.M. Carlsmith (2003). Sosyal
Psikoloji, (Çev. Ali Dönmez), İmge Kitabevi, Ankara.
-122
s.
Günay Karaağaç. Dil bilimi terimleri sözlüğü. Ankara
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
86
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
2013. -321 s.
58. Gürüz, Demet ve Ayşen Temel Eğinli. Kişilerarası
İletişim Bi
lgiler-
Etkiler Engeller, Nobel Yayınları,
Ankara, 2011. -213 s.
Gürzap, Can (2012). Söz Söyleme ve Diksiyon, Remzi
Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2011.
-142 s.
Hanna M. S., Wilson G. L. Communication in Business
and Professional Settings. N. Y. 1998. -325 s.
İmamova Holida. Türkçe Ve Özbekçede Nezaket
Anlatan Paralinguistik (Dil Ötesi) Olaylarin Mukayeseli
Çözümlemesi. Turkish Studies International Periodical
for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or
Turkic Volume 11/10 Spring 2016, 345 p. DOI Number:
http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9528 ISSN:
1308-2140, ANKARA- TURKEY
Karaçay, Timur (2012). Matematik ve Dil, (Güleda
Yücedoğan, Şükran Gölbaşı, Hasan Aydın, Erkut Sezgin,
Berna Atak), Mantık, Matematik ve Felsefe
Sempozyumu 10. Yıl Derleme Kitabı, İstanbul Kültür
Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
- 365 s
Argyle M. The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour.
Harmondsworth, 1967. Rosenfeld H.M. Instrumental
Affiliative Functions of Facial and Gestural Expres-sions
// Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996.
vol.1. №4. –
320 p
Birdwhistell, R.L. Introduction to kinesics / R.L.
Birdwhistell. Louisville: Univ. of Louisville Press, 1952.
214 p.
Birdwhistell, R.L. Kinesics and context: Essay on div
motion
communication
/
R.L.
Birdwhistell.
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania
Press, 1970. 338 p.
