Communication is far more than the exchange of words. Every time human beings speak, they commit what Sociolinguistics call a speech act (Searle, 1969). This means that people engage in something that involves not just what is said, but also how this is said, and what comes with it (Austin, 1962). In Sociolinguistics, the following expressions are used instead:
- verbal component (what is said): the uttered words, also including punctuation in the written text.
- para-verbal component (how it is said): the tone of voice, pitch, rhythm, gestures, facial expressions, posture, gaze, and physical distance.
- extra-verbal component (what comes with it): the context in which communication occurs including who speaks, to whom, in what place, at what time, under what circumstances, and with what shared background.
The amount of information delivered by para-verbal and extra-verbal components contributes to the general meaning of the speech act in three main manners (Gumperz, 1964):
- it can confirm the verbal message,
- it can add information,
- it can completely change – even negate – it.
Now, this complexity is crucial in institutional settings like parliamentary debates, where the success of communication can influence diplomacy, law, and international relations. And because the verbal, para-verbal and extra-verbal components form a single speech act, if only the verbal one is recorded in reports, a vast amount of information disappears, thus making understanding potentially partial or completely wrong (Eugeni, 2021). For example, a sentence like “That was clever” can be said to sincerely stress someone’s clever words (confirming the verbal component), praise them (adding to the verbal component), ironically tease them (distorting the verbal component), or reproach them (negating the verbal component). If the tone of the speaker is not recorded in the report, a reader doesn’t know how to interpret it.
Let’s now consider another example in which the omission of para-verbal and extra-verbal elements can alter the meaning of a parliamentary report. During a plenary session, an MP concludes a controversial speech and other MPs applaud. The minutes simply read: Applause. At first glance, this seems to indicate approval. Yet, the applause may be slow, exaggerated, and accompanied by ironic smiles from the opposition benches. Here, the para-verbal component (rhythm, facial expression), and the extra-verbal component (political rivalry, tension in the chamber) are essential to properly interpret what may look like consent as mockery. The information loss is not marginal in this case, as it conveys the opposite impression of the speech act.
Understandably, this loss can have serious repercussions, as the reader may think the speech happened in a calm and rational setting, while the actual session may have been heated and confrontational. This shows that while a fully verbatim report is a useful and essential service to guarantee transparency of institutional debates, it remains an incomplete artifact. To compensate for this, tools have been historically added to the written language: first, punctuation; then formatting (bold, italics, capitalisation, indentation, speaker identification); and today emojis. These tools still only partially manage to render para-verbal and extra-verbal information. Just think of the many times you had your words misunderstood during a written conversation via email or direct messages with friends or colleagues!
So, how can we move to a report that is more complete and accurate? While it would be odd to see emojis in reports, our colleagues from the United States have also been fighting the increasingly common practice of videorecording to replace written-only reports because recordings also miss contextual information and cannot render the nuances of what comes with what is said, and can be easily manipulated if trimmed, decontextualised or faked. Although this is understandable, I think that it is time for an alternative form of reporting, ideally incorporating all components of a speech act.
Carlo Eugeni is Tiro’s scientific adviser.
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eugeni, C. (2021). What does ‘verbatim’ mean? Tiro 2/2021. URL: https://tiro.intersteno.org/2021/12/what-does-verbatim-mean/
Gumperz, J. J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist 66 (6), Part 2: 137–153.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
