International Journal Of Literature And Languages
29
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
29-31
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue06-09
Nonverbal Communication: Classification of Gestures
and Their Gender Analyses
Rakhmatulleyeva Umida Khomidovna
The teacher of Natonal University named after Mirzo Ulugbek University, Interfaculty of english language department, Uzbekistan
Received:
12 April 2025;
Accepted:
08 May 2025;
Published:
10 June 2025
Abstract:
The nonverbal components of communication are viewed from a gender perspective. When studying
male and female versions of speech behavior, only communicative, lexical, morphological and syntactic
preferences are revealed without taking inti account the peculiarities of the situation of communication between
men and women, stratification variables (status, role, motivation, attitudes, norms as existing stereotypical
representations concerning the verbal and nonverbal behavior of men) and women in linguistic genderology.
Keywords:
Oculesics, chronemics, proxemics, auscultation, olfaction, masculinity, gender feature, semantic
feature.
Introduction:
The classification of non-verbal reflection
systems proposed by G. E. Kreidlin. The researcher
refers to non-verbal semiotic subsystems such non-
verbal means as: prosody (voice and tone), kinesics,
ocular, haptic, gastric, olfaction, proxemics and
chronology. Let’s make a classification of no
n-verbal
semiotic codes based on the works of G. E. Kreidlin.
Table 1.
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
30
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
According to the table, the classification of semiotic
means by G. E. Kreidlin is the most complete, since it
takes into account almost all the main non-verbal
means of communication, but the author overlooks in
his classification such a system of reflection of non-
verbal behavior as silence and fan language. G. G.
Pochepsov points out that silence is a sign endowed
with a definition of content. Silence can also be
communicatively meaningful [2, 44].
We are primarily interested in communicatively
meaningful silence, which can be divided into several
types. According to V.V. Bogdanov, the first type of
such silence is due to the universal law of verbal
communication, which states that in a dialogue the
roles of the speaker and the addressee are performed
by both communicants alternately. The change of roles
means that at a certain period of time only one
communicant has the right to speak, while the other is
waiting for his turn and the corresponding signal. Such
silence is defined as “silence of the addressee” or
“silence of hearing” [3, 22]. Silence of the second type
can be called the silence of the “speaker” or “silence
instead of speaking”, since in this case the one to whom
the speaker is supposed to speak is silent. The third
type of silence is due to the laws of syntactic
construction of a coherent text and finds its expression
in an ellipsis. In this case, the ellipses denote not so
much silence as non-pronunciation (omission) of a
syntagmatically redundant component [4, 22-23].
Silence can serve many functions. It can be used both
to explain the relationship between messages and to
break the relationship. Emotionally, being silent can
heal and it can hurt. It can cause stress and discomfort.
Silence can be judged on agreement and disagreement.
Its main functions are: communicative, expressive,
informative and pragmatic. We tend to consider silence
as a semiotic sign that performs a communicative
function. Compare in the following cases the
expression of communicative and informative
functions, in cases where silence can sound louder than
words: “Тушимда Хизр пайғамбар оғзимга муборак
тупукларидан туфладилар. Бу гапдан устоз қатийлик
билан бош чайқаб дедилар: Янглиш айтяпсан.
Аслида Хизр пайғамбар сенинг бетинга тупурганлар,
гапдан тинмай оғиз очиб турганинг учун тупуклари
оғзинга ҳам тушган бўлиши эҳтимол” [5, 302].
The analysis of nonverbal means in the gender aspect
allows us to single out another type of semiotic signs-
“fan language”. By U. Norman classifies the language of
the fan as an exotic means of communication that has
a cryptographic character, a secret meaning. Teaching
believes that with the help of this little fan an
indispensable attribute of social life, a lady could make
an appointment (and even agree on its exact time),
reproach a gentleman for an unchecked promise or ask
for a petition. To do this, it was necessary to hold the
fan in your hands in different ways, open it varying
degrees or point your finger at a certain part of it [3,
207].
A number of auxiliary languages can also be indicated,
such as: the language of flowers the language of the
drum, the languages of the whistling, and the language
of sea signals, the language of the semaphore, etc. The
language of flowers was a widespread language among
women. By the arrangement of the flowers in a
bouquet, it was possible to convey certain information.
Drum language is the language that was used by the
people of Africa. With the help of striking a stick on
drums, it was possible to convey information about a
campaign, a tribal meeting, etc. The whistle tongue is
widespread on the Homer Islands. The whistle also
transmits information that can be heard within
fourteen km. The language of marine signals, the
language of traffic lights, semaphores-these sign
systems are not widely used and do not convey
extensive information, although they also perform a
communicative function. Among them, the exception
may be the language of the fan, as the most common
means of communication among women, although this
language is of a salon-boudoir nature. Despite this, its
communicative value is obvious.
Gestures are classified according to different
parameters. Among them is the parameter of the
translation principle. Based on this, the researcher V. V.
Andriyanov divides all the gestures of national culture
into three groups: 1) gestures-realities, specific to a
given culture: 2) equivalent gestures (gestures in which
the forms are the same, but the meanings are different,
gestures in which the forms are different and the
meanings and coincide); 3) aryl signal-gestures
identical in terms of content and expression [6, 51].
The
parameters
of
conventionality,
non-
conventionality, descriptiveness, objectivity, spatiality
lie in the classification of Z.Z. Chansheva, who
distinguishes the following types of gestures as: a)
symbolic; b) conditional (prescriptive, prohibiting,
affirmative, negative); c) pictorial (subject, indicative,
quantitative); d) expressive (modal, emotional) [7, 36].
The feature of functionality underlies the classification
of gestures proposed by K.M. Abishcheva: a) socially
marked gestures (performing the function of social
orientation); b) phatic gestures (performing a contact
supporting function); d) emotional (realizing an
expressing function) e) pictorial (actualizing the
pictorial function) f) symbolic (performing a symbolic
function) [8, 193-196].
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
31
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
V.M. Behterov suggests the following classification of
facial expressions and gestures: 1) facial expressions
and gestures of an offensive nature (for example,
gestures of anger, cruelty, etc.); 2) facial expressions
and gestures of an active defensive nature (for
example, nature of disgust, contempt, waving away,
etc.); 3) facial expressions and gestures of a passive-
defensive
nature
(for
example,
gestures of
helplessness, submission, humiliation); 4) facial
expressions of concentration; 5) visual expression; 6)
symbolic facial expressions [9, 29].
T.M. Nikolayeva divides gestures according to the
parameter of convention and non-convention into two
large groups: 1) conventional-gestures, which are not
always clear to the uninitiated; 2) non-basic-these are
gestures that are clear to everyone (pointing gestures;
showing gestures; emphasizing gestures; rhythmic
gestures) [10, 7].
According to the principle of productivity-non-
productivity A.V. Filippov distinguishes individual,
mutual and individual-mutual gestures. The former is
produced by only one person, the latter by two people
[11, 18]. Without pretending to draw up an exhaustive
classification of gestures, we propose a classification of
gestures, which takes into account the main
parameters, such as: 1) convention-non-convention; 2)
functionality; 3) semantic feature; 4) by structure; 5)
gender characteristic 6) by the nature of cultural
marking 7) according to typological basis.
CONCLUSION
The proposed method of studying gender analysis,
taking into account the interdisciplinary approach,
methodological principles of different sciences,
reliance on constructive theories of knowledge for
gender contributed to the development of the
theoretical foundations of gender studies. The new
ontology of gender linguistics as sociolinguistic and
cultural construct, epistemology and methodology
open up prospects for further research in this area.
REFERENCES
Kreidlin G. Y. Nonverbal communication of men and
women. Moscow, 2005. P. 118.
Pochepsov G. G. Silence as a speech act or how to do
things without words. Collection of scientific papers. -
1985. P. 87.
Norman B. Y. Fundamentals of linguistics. -Mn, Bel.,
Fund Sorosa, 1996.P-22.
Pochepsov G. G. Theory and communication practice.-
M:Center, 1998. P.22-23.
Tohir Malik. Felicity. -T., 2018. P. 302.
Andriyanov V. V. Comparative characteristics of
Russian
and
French
gestures//National-cultural
specificity of speech behavior. -M., 1977. P. 51.
Chansheva Z. Z. Interaction of linguistic and non-
linguistic factors in the process of speech
communication. Ufa: BSU, 1984. P. 36.
Abisheva K. M. Socio-linguistic contactology. Almaty,
2001. P.193-196.
Bekhterov V. M. Selected works on personality
psychology: in 2 volumes. Psyche and life: Publishing
house of St. Petersburg University, 1999. P. 29.
Nikolayeva T. M. Non-verbal means of human
communication and their place in language teaching //
The role and place of regional studies in the practice of
teaching Russian as a foreign language, Moscow State
university, 1969. P. 7.
Filippov A. V. Sound language and “sign language”. N.
K. Krupskaya, 1975. P. 18.
