Talk:nonverbal communication

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

nonverbal communication

If domestic animal wasn't worth keeping as a SoP, this ain't either. --Hekaheka 18:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This refers to specific things such as body language, facial expressions, etc. This is not immediately obvious from its parts. Keep. ---> Tooironic 22:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Check (deprecated template usage) non-verbal and try to figure out what "nonverbal communication means"! --Hekaheka 11:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete unless someone convincingly shows which forms of non-verbal communication are not part of this term, i.e. proving it isn't merely SoP. Equinox ◑ 02:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep, because it's a set phrase. How do you guess that this is the phrase to be used for expressing this idea, and that other ways of expressing it would be less understandable, because not standard? This makes it a real word, in the linguistic sense of word. Lmaltier 05:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What evidence can you present for your assertion that it is a set phrase? By my reckoning tt is not. It does not meet the non-coordination test. See this Google Books search, which has many instances of coordination of "nonverbal" while it modifies "communication".

The balance of your argument seems to be equivalent to the translation target argument. As I look at all the unmet {{trreq}}s, I see the point. I do recall getting chastised for inserting too many trreqs because it overwhelmed the translators with "low priority" requests. My sentiments correspond.

If we are to keep such NISoP entries we need some way of informing whatever monolingual English users we may still have that the term being retained for translation has no special sense for decoding. It would be very helpful if this could be made clear in every place in Wiktonary where the MWE appeared without a gloss: Categories, Derived and Related terms, Synonyms, Wikisaurus, as a definiens, when linked or appearing as a gloss for a non-English entry, etc. Would the best way be to have a different font, color, bold, italics, guillemets? DCDuring TALK 10:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete, oddly enough you guess it from nonverbal + communication. Clever, eh? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of hits on OneLook. And we do keep SoPs if they are set phrases, e.g. specific phenomena. ---> Tooironic 22:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I don't know. Is sending digital images over the internet to another person a case of non-verbal communication? I don't think so. But it is an instance of communication that is non-verbal in the sense of not based on words or not using words as a means of transmission. The same seems true of using flags or morse code, but that is a bit equivocal, as it is words that are being send. From what I understand, non-verbal communication refers only to facial, postural, gestural, and vocal signs that one person sees and hears when facing and hearing another person. OTOH, this narrowing of meaning can already be part of "non-verbal". On yet another note, the examples given by DCDuring of "nonverbal and verbal communication" do not refute the hypothesis that "nonverbal" collocates exclusively or mainly with "communication". But as a matter of fact "nonverbal" also collocates with "behavior", and "learning", as in "nonverbal learning disorder" and "nonverbal learning disability". --Dan Polansky 08:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a field of study, and there is no other name for this field of study, I think, this is the standard name. This is sufficient to make it a set phrase. And, of course, Dan Polansky is right, sending an image or a message over the Internet is not called non-verbal communication. Lmaltier 05:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm pretty sure that neither of you have read non-verbal. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I would argue for its inclusion because we do include arguably SoP constructions which also happen to be set phrases and fields of study, e.g. translation studies, women's studies, etc. ---> Tooironic 23:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

kept, no consensus -- Liliana • 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)