The question mark after the heading of this paper is intentional, since one of the questions under consideration is whether nonverbal communication qualifies as a language. The other major focus of this paper is the extent to which nonverbal communication components represent universals, whether of a type of language or of a symbol system that is not truly language.
There is considerable disagreement about the nature of nonverbal communication and whether it qualifies as language. Taking a strong position that nonverbal communication is not language, but more closely resembles nonverbal communication systems of other animals is Robbins Burling (1993).
Burling stated from the beginning that human beings have two fundamentally different forms of communication systems. One includes language, and the other represents most nonverbal communication. Burling clearly distinguished nonverbal gesture call systems, as he termed them, from language, claiming that they could not have even served as the base for the development of language. Instead, he indicated, nonverbal communication represented a non language communication system and that many animals have similar systems, but no language.
On the other hand, many researchers and theorists work under the starting assumption that nonverbal communication is equivalent to nonverbal language, presenting some of the same opportunities and difficulties. For example, in their work Nowicki and Duke (1992) indicated that they believed that there are receptive and expressive nonverbal language equivalents to receptive and expressive verbal language. In addition, they indicated that some social and personal problems resulted from the fact that children, and adults, failed to master these receptive and expressive nonverbal language equivalents and, thus, are likely to experience low self esteem, high anxiety and depression, and social maladjustment. They termed the problem dyssemia, represen...