Keywords: communication, dialogue, verbal and non-verbal means of communication, replica-reaction, function, communicative act


The relevance of the article is detedmined by the interest of linguists in verbal and non-verbal means of communication.

The purpose of the article is to examine the functional unity of verbal and non-verbal means of communication, which manifest themselves in the fact that they perform the same basic functions of communicationinformational, pragmatic and expressive.

The object of analysis in the article is the English-language works containing dialogical unity. The subject of the description is the ratio of verbal and non-verbal means in the process of communication, as well as the comparison of various non-verbal means in different paralinguistic systems. The article discusses the features of functioning in real communication of non-verbal means that play a significant role: they can either duplicate the verbal means of communication, or replace them. To non-verbal means are included: a) conventional gestures adopted in a particular society; b) involuntary facial expressions and body movements, reflecting certain emotions; c) all sorts of pauses arising in the process of communication. The usage of non-verbal means in the description of acts of communication in fiction contributes to the creation of a realistic picture of real communication and serves as a characterological tool reflecting the emotional state of a particular character. The description of the gesture is usually included in the line of replicas in the dialogue and, as a rule, includes not only lexical units, denoting the gesture itself, but also some of the surrounding words, giving it a certain modality.

The function of replacing a word in a situation when, for reasons of social etiquette, it is not recommended to use verbal means, for example, when persuading subordinates of a superior, words are not recommended, while shrugging is quite acceptable. In this substitutional function, non-verbal means can be used to express a plea and horror for the purpose of greater expression. The function of self-adaptation, which is often realized unconsciously, with the help of gestures – self-adapters in situations of nervous tension.

The default function, when explicit means of expression-words are not used; instead, non-verbal means are used, where the situation allows indefinite interpretation. Thus, raised eyebrows with a neutral expression of a face can mean surprise, joy, and approval due to the syncretism of this sign.

Paralinguistic means can be arbitrary and non-arbitrary, although it is not always possible to establish a clear boundary between these two types. Paralinguistic means may be conventional, i.e. enter a non-verbal sign communication system (for example, a shrug as a sign of misunderstanding, a nod, a sign of consent, etc.). They may also be individual, i.e. do not enter the specified system. Paralinguistic signals can duplicate verbal information or functionally replace it.

The study of the corpus of dialogues in the English-language prose allows us to conclude about a very specific function of the means of non-verbal expression in the structure of the communicative act: paralinguistic means often act as a kind of frame, indicating the beginning and end of the dialogue. Paralinguistic means can be arbitrary and involuntary, although it is not always possible to establish a clear boundary between these two types.

Author Biography

I.P. Suima, Oles Honchar Dnipro National University,Ukraine

Candidate of Science (Philology), associate professor



1. Беркнер С. С. (1960) Некоторые явления взаимодействия реплик в английской диалогической речи. Москва. 288 с.
2. Гальперин И. Р. (1965) К проблеме дифференциации стилей речи. Проблемы современной филологии. Москва. С. 68-73.
3. Кухаренко В. А. (1988) Интерпретация текста. М.: Просвещение. 192 с.
4. Леонтьев А. А. (1979) Высказывание как предмет лингвистики, психолингвистики и теории коммуникации. Синтаксис текста. Москва. С. 18-36.
5. Меньшиков И. И. (2012). Типология респонсивных предложений в современном русском языке / Избранные труды по лингвистике. Днепропетровск : Новая идеология. 326 с.
6. Михайлов Л. М. (1984) Диалогическое единство как коммуникативная единица. Всесоюзная научная конференция «Коммуникативные единицы языка». Тезисы докладов (12-13 декабря). М.: МГПИШ им. М. Тореза». С. 79-80.
7. Николаева В. Д. (1986) Структурно-семантические и прагматические особенности трехчленных диалогических единств в английском языке. Киев. 168 с.
8. Падучева Е. В. (1982) Прагматические аспекты связности диалога / Изв. АН СССР. Москва. Т. 41. С 305-313.
9. Теплицкая Н. И. (1975) Некоторые проблемы диалогического текста. Москва. 31 с.
10. Трофимова Е. A. (1964) Приемы выражения взаимосвязи реплик диалогической речи. Москва. 15 с.
11. Cusack D. (1976) Say No To Death. Kiev: Dnipro Publishers. 381 p.
12. Maugham W.S. (1980) Cakes and Ale: or The Skeleton in the Cupboard. Moscow: Progress. 236 p.
13. Shaw B. (1966) Pygmalion. London: Penguin Books. 156 p.
14. Shaw B. (1966) Doctor's Dilemma. London: Penguin Books. 189 p.
How to Cite
Suima, I. (2019). INTERACTION OF VERBAL AND NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATIVE UNITS. Linguistics. Lingvoculturology, 13, 145-156. Retrieved from