PRAGMATICS AND NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION
BY TIM WHARTON
Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2009, 219 pp.
Re iewed by
MANUEL PADILLA CRUZ
Uni e si y o Se ille
1. In oduc ion
Reade s will ce ainly ind in his ecen olume a mos imely wo k ha
s esses he impo ance ha non- e bal phenomena and elemen s lying be ween he
linguis ic and non-linguis ic, he coded and non-coded, ha e in communica ion.
Thus, Wha on undoub edly ed esses he balance in hei a ou a e decades in
which hey ha e been incomp ehensi ely elega ed o a second plane in linguis ics
and o he neighbou ing disciplines. By explo ing wha and how such phenomena
and elemen s con ibu e o communica ion, he b ings o he p agma ic a ena a wide
ange o i ems ha ha e o en me con o e sial accoun s o escaped sys ema ic
linguis ic desc ip ion bu , pa icula ly, missed p agma ic uni a y explana ions. The
ollowing sec ions summa ise each o he chap e s his olume comp ises, a e
which ollows a c i ical e alua ion.
2. “Na u al P agma ics”
The book opens wi h his in oduc o y chap e (: 1-17), whe e Wha on s a s
by clea ly explaining he easons ha encou aged him o w i e his mos in e es ing
wo k: con olled o unconscious ocal, acial and bodily ges u es –which he e e s
o as ‘na u al non- e bal beha iou s– a e omnip esen in human communica ion
and la gely con ibu e o o bias ou unde s anding o discou se. Al hough hey
ha e been app oached om di e en amewo ks, such as unc ionalism,
con e sa ional and discou se analysis, sociology o an h opology, hey ha e no
been app oached om a cogni i e pe spec i e ha un eils how hey migh in e ac
wi h linguis ic p ope ies o u e ances. Such an app oach mus answe he
ollowing ques ions:
a) Wha is he ela ion be ween na u al non- e bal beha iou s and
in en ional communica ion?
b) How a e non- e bal beha iou s in e p e ed?
c) Wha do hey con ey?
d) Wha is he ela ion be ween na u al non- e bal beha iou s and hose non-
e bal beha iou s ha a e no na u al? (: 3-4)
The answe s o hese ques ions depend on he de ini ions o no ions such as
na u al, language, p agma ics and communica ion, so Wha on explains his
concep ions he eo . Based on G ice (1957), he applies he e m ‘na u al’ o he
way in which non- e bal communica ion means, and akes ‘na u al meaning’ o be
synonymous wi h ‘na u ally indica es’, as opposed o ‘non-na u al meaning’, o en
used o e e o a bi a y o con en ional meaning. By ‘language’, he unde s ands
an In e nal, Indi idual, In ensional objec consis ing o a men ally ep esen ed
g amma go e ned by inna ely de e mined p inciples, so he adhe es o he
cogni i e, Chomskyan iew. Finally, as ega ds ‘p agma ics’ and ‘communica ion’,
Wha on adop s he ele ance- heo e ic app oach o language use, which cen es on
os ensi e-in e en ial communica ion and he p ocesses aking place in
comp ehension (Spe be and Wilson 1986, 1995).
3. “Na u al and non-na u al meaning”
The second chap e (: 18-37) begins wi h a sec ion dedica ed o G icean
meaningNN. Wha on a gues ha , o G ice, cases o meaningNN con ain a basic
laye cons i u ed by in o ma ion poin ed ou , which canno be de i able wi hou a
second laye o in o ma ion ha amoun s o he in en ional poin ing o ha i s
laye o in o ma ion. He also commen s on he es s de ised by G ice o dis inguish
be ween cases o meaningN and meaningNN – pa aph asing and di ec ly quo ing (:
21-22). Nex ollows a sec ion whe e Wha on challenges he G icean desc ip ion
o meaningNN as equi ing an in ended esponse om he audience, he audience’s
ecogni ion o he in en ion o p oduce ha esponse, he communica o ’s in en ion
ha he audience ecognises he in en ion o p oduce ha esponse and he
audience’s ecogni ion o he communica o ’s in en ion o p oduce a desi ed
esponse. He also cha ac e ises in en ional communica ion as “[…] delibe a e and
open […]” (: 29) in he sense ha he communica o le s he audience know
some hing and encou ages hem o hink ha she has done so o some eason.
Thus, he dis inguishes i om me e cases o showing, in which he e is no eal
in en ion o eason on he pa o he communica o o communica e any hing,
al hough he audience may d aw hei own conclusions. Wha on concludes his
chap e by claiming ha beha iou s ha can be ega ded as cases o meaningN can
be delibe a ely shown and “[…] ec ui ed o use in o e in en ional
communica ion” (: 33).
4. “P agma ics and he domain o p agma ic p inciples”
The hi d chap e (: 38-69) opens wi h a sec ion ha summa ises some o he
basic ene s and undamen al claims o ele ance heo y (Spe be and Wilson 1986,
1995): he cogni i e p inciple o ele ance, he no ions o ele ance, in o ma i e
in en ion, cogni i e en i onmen , s ong and weak communica ion and s ong and
weak implica u e. As a consequence o he di e en ways whe ewi h
communica o s make mani es hei in o ma i e in en ion, Wha on p oposes he
exis ence o a con inuum o cases be ween showing and meaningNN, a one ex eme
o which a e cases o pu ely spon aneous showing, while a i s o he ex eme a e
cases o au hen ic linguis ic coding. In be ween lies a wide a ie y o cases in
which mo e o less di ec /‘na u al’ and indi ec /‘coded’ e idence mix o a ious
deg ess (: 43-47).
Then, Wha on add esses he p oblem o he seman ic unde de e minacy o
u e ances and explains he ele ance- heo e ic no ion o explica u e and i s
implica ions o p agma ic heo y. Since he concep ual s uc u es ob ained by
decoding may be so imp ecise no only a he sen ence le el, bu a wo d le el oo,
hey mus be in e en ially de eloped, adjus ed o ‘ ine- uned’. Openly shown
na u al beha iou s, like shi e s, in ona ion o gaze di ec ion, Wha on a gues, may
a ec he ou come o he p ocesses o lexical adjus men aking place when
explica u es a e de eloped, hus con ibu ing o explici u h-condi ional con en
and guiding hea e s o ce ain conclusions (: 51). In o he cases, such beha iou s
con ey a i udinal in o ma ion, which may also be con eyed in a mo e explici way
by ecou se o linguis ic elemen s, such as sen en ial ad e bs, which in ol e
encoding. Fo his eason, na u al beha iou s also con ibu e o highe -le el
explica u es, bu in a less explici way.
Finally, Wha on in oduces he dis inc ion be ween ansla ional and non-
ansla ional ac i a ion o concep s, pa allel o he ele ance- heo e ic dis inc ion
be ween concep ual and p ocedu al meaning/exp essions/encoding (e.g.
Blakemo e 1987, 2002), and eminiscen o he speech-ac - heo e ic be ween
desc ibing and indica ing (Aus in 1962; Sea le 1969). T ansla ional ac i a ion o
concep s is based on he exis ence and usage o a code, and amoun s o igge ing
o a concep when decoding akes place. Howe e , whe eas he no ion o
p ocedu al meaning/exp essions/encoding amoun s o ins uc ions cons aining he
comp ehension p ocess by educing he sea ch space o ele an in e p e a ions,
non- ansla ional ac i a ion “[…] does con ain a coded elemen ha poin s he
hea e in a di ec ion hey would no eliably ake unless hey knew he code” (: 61).
This new dis inc ion sugges s a ein e p e a ion o p ocedu al encoding in e ms
no jus o ins uc ions, bu o “[…] he managemen o le els o ac i a ion (e.g. o
concep ual ep esen a ions, compu a ions o expec a ions” (: 65), and o p ocedu al
exp essions as in ol ing di e en ac i a ions: in e en ial ules, concep ual
ep esen a ions (e.g. con ex ual assump ions o classes o candida e e e en ), o
expec a ions o pa icula ypes o cogni i e e ec s (: 65).
5. “In e jec ions and Language”
Wha on applies some his new dis inc ion and his showing-meaningNN
con inuum o he analysis o in e jec ions in Chap e 4 (: 70-106). His majo aim in
his chap e is o answe hese h ee ques ions:
a) Wha do in e jec ions communica e?
b) How do in e jec ions communica e?
c) A e in e jec ions pa o language?
The au ho s a s by men ioning he con o e sy be ween he concep ualis and
he non-concep ualis iews o in e jec ions, desc ibing he majo ypes o
in e jec ions –p ima y and seconda y– and sugges ing wo gene al c i e ia o
cha ac e ise hem. Then, he discusses he p oblems he inds in he concep ualis
app oach: (i) di icul ies o ind sa is ac o y de ini ions o in e jec ions, (ii) hei
agueness, (iii) hei con ex -dependence, (i ) hei na u alness and spon anei y, ( )
hei lack o app op ia e synonymous concep ual coun e pa s, and ( i) hei non-
u h-condi ional na u e. These p oblems lead him o claim ha in e jec ions a e
no concep ual elemen s.
In he ollowing sec ions, Wha on e iews an h opologis E. Go man’s (1981)
desc ip ion o in e jec ions as esponse c ies, his classi ica ion o hem and his
p oposal conce ning a con inuum be ween p ope ly linguis ic and non-linguis ic
esponse c ies, o be ween ‘displaying’ and ‘saying’ –simila o Wha on’s
showing-meaningNN con inuum– al hough Go man’s di e s in ha i seems “[…]
o be based on he assump ion ha all communica ion in ol es a leas some
elemen o coding” (: 83). E en i Wha on assesses Go man’s con ibu ion
posi i ely, he c i icises Go man o no add essing how in e jec ions communica e
o p esen a clea al e na i e o he concep ualis app oach (: 84). Fo his eason,
he hen explo es he possibili y ha in e jec ions a e analysed as non- u h-
condi ional indica o s o “[…] highe -le el explica u es con aining he ype o
speech-ac o p oposi ional-a i ude in o ma ion he hea e is expec ed o in e ” (:
85). Thus, he seeks o ind an answe o he ques ion abou wha in e jec ions
communica e.
Howe e , his analysis also poses some p oblems and seems qui e es ic i e,
o in e jec ions do no always appea in discou se wi h adjacen p oposi ions ha
could yield he lowe -le el explica u es o be subsequen ly embedded unde
highe -le el explica u es (: 87-88). Based on Rey’s (1980) wo k on emo ional
s a es, eelings and sensa ions, he s a es ha he ques ion abou wha in e jec ions
communica e equi es di e en answe s: in some cases, hey would con ey
in o ma ion exploi able o highe -le el explica u es; in o he cases, emo ional
a i udes o p oposi ions and no p oposi ional-a i ude o speech-ac desc ip ions,
and, inally, in o he cases, eelings o sensa ions (: 88-89).
Nex , he u ns o he ques ion abou how in e jec ions communica e. Since
in e jec ions do no pass he es s abou concep uali y, he sugges s a p ocedu al
analysis, acco ding o which in e jec ions “[…] encode p ocedu al in o ma ion
which ‘poin s’ in he gene al di ec ion in which ele ance should be sough ” (: 90).
The p ocedu es in e jec ions encode, Wha on says, ac i a e “[…] a ious
a i udinal concep s o classes o concep s, bu no in he s anda d ansla ional
way” (: 90). Acco dingly, wow migh ac i a e a i udinal desc ip ions ha ing o do
wi h deligh , su p ise o exci emen ; eh a a ie y o in e oga i e p oposi ional-
a i ude desc ip ions; huh dissocia i e a i udes, e c. P osodic in o ma ion and
pa alinguis ic in o ma ion would de e mine he pa icula a i ude in ol ed and i s
in ensi y. Wi h his p oposal Wha on bo h esol es he p oblems he concep ualis
accoun has and p ese es he in ui ions ha in e jec ions ha e a coded elemen and
a e mo e han na u al displays (: 91).
In o de o answe he ques ion whe he in e jec ions a e pa o language, he
au ho akes in o accoun hei ‘pa alinguis ic’ na u e, which places some o hem
close o ges u es; hei phonological a ypicali y, which p e en s some o hem om
being epo ed by e bs o saying, and hei syn ac ic independence and non-
p oduc i i y. He concludes ha in e jec ions cons i u e such a he e ogeneous
ca ego y, ha a sa is ac o y answe canno be gi en. Finally, Wha on closes his
chap e by examining he na u alness o in e jec ions. Quo ing om Go man,
Da win (1872), Sapi (1970), he shows ha in e jec ions occupy di e en posi ions
along a con inuum o na u alness, jus as hey occupy di e en posi ions along he
showing-meaningNN con inuum. Since some o hem a e ins inc i e and seem o be
caused by ce ain s a es o mind, hey may be iewed as de elopmen s o na u al
beha iou s and, hence, as mo e na u al (: 99). O he mo e s ylised, iconic
in e jec ions, on he con a y, combine elemen s o coding and showing, which
sepa a e hem om bo h p ope cases o showing and saying, espec i ely (: 100-
101). A e his, Wha on e y accu a ely and clea ly summa ises his answe s o
he ques ions abou in e jec ions.
6. “Na u al codes”
A e in oducing wha semio ics and he social sciences unde s and by code, in
he i h chap e Wha on (: 107-138) discusses wo examples o na u al codes –
hose used by honeybees and e e monkeys– and compa es hem o some human
na u al beha iou s –smiles, c ying and shi e ing. He con ends ha some o hese
beha iou s –smiles– ca y ‘ ac i e’ meaning, as hey indica e some hing abou

hei p oduce s, and may con ey messages wi hou e e ence o hei p oduce s’
in en ions. This does no exclude ha in some cases hei p oduce s moni o hem
and may consciously p oduce, ake o exagge a e hem, which is possible hanks o
“[…] he adap i e unc ions o he beha iou s hemsel es” (: 113). Wha on hen
explains he di e ence be ween signs and signals – he la e ’s communica i e
unc ion– and a gues ha some human na u al beha iou s –e.g. smiles– ha e
e ol ed as signalling ac i i ies because hey ca y o indica e some meaning,
whils o he s –e.g. shi e s– do no wo k in he same way and a e jus na u al signs
(: 114-115). Whe eas human na u al signs mus be in e p e ed in in e en ial e ms,
human na u al signals in ol e a ce ain elemen o coding, o hey igge o
speci ic men al o emo ional s a es co esponding o communica o s’ men al o
emo ional s a es (: 115). Howe e , human na u al signals a e special in ha hei
in e p e a ion is also supplemen ed by in e en ial p ocesses.
Nex , Wha on e lec s on he ype o in o ma ion na u al codes con ey. In
o de o do so, he commen s on he dis inc ion be ween digi al and analogical
coding, and illus a es ha many human beha iou s a e in e p e ed analogically on
he g ounds o sub le disc imina ions o some o hei ea u es. Mo eo e , he s a es
ha analogue encoding lines up wi h he Pei cean no ion o index, i.e. a
ep esen a ion ela ed o an objec in a p opo ional o causal way. Ne e heless, he
also acknowledges ha , in addi ion o he no ions o analogue encoding and index,
some hing mo e is necessa y o accoun o “[…] wha he in o ma ion con eyed
by human na u al codes looks like in cogni i e e ms” (: 122).
His nex s ep is o e iew he concep ualis app oach o acial exp essions, mo e
speci ically, Wie zbicka’s (2000) analysis in e ns o a ‘Na u al Seman ic
Me alanguage’. Al hough he inds poin s o ag eemen be ween his au ho ’s wo k
and his iew, he inds he same p oblems men ioned in his e iew o in e jec ions,
which s em om Wie zbicka’s basing he analysis on he coding-decoding model
and elega ing in e ence o a seconda y o mino ole. He i s ly admi s ha “[…]
he e may be a coded elemen s o some acial exp essions” (: 124), bu he con ends
ha , o hese exp essions o communica e, hey do no necessa ily ha e o encode
any hing bu o be exploi ed in e en ially. Secondly, Wha on conside s ha he
concep ual s uc u es wi h which Wie zbicka cha ac e ises acial exp essions a e
en i ely digi al and all sho o cap u ing wha na u al codes con ey, hei con ex -
dependence and analogici y. Thi dly, he inds i ha d o accoun o wha acial
exp essions communica e on he g ounds o encoded uni e sal concep s, as, om a
ele ance- heo e ic s andpoin , no all concep s a e lexicalised and, in he case o
hose lexicalised, hey mus always be na owed o b oadened.
Finally, Wha on concludes his chap e a guing ha , al hough na u al signals
such as acial exp essions and a ec i e ones a e no pa o a linguis ic code, hey
a e coded and may be bes analysed in non- ansla ional e ms, as hey do no
con ibu e o he u h-condi ional con en o u e ances, do no combine
composi ionally wi h o he elemen s and a e ex emely con ex -dependen . Thus,
as in he case o in e jec ions, na u al signals con ibu e o he cons uc ion o
highe -le el explica u es and con ey a i udinal o emo ional in o ma ion (: 128-
131). The e o e, he e would be di e en ypes o bo h linguis ic and non-linguis ic
de ices encoding non- ansla ional in o ma ion (: 133). Fu he mo e, he sugges s
ha some na u al beha iou s may make mo e implici o explici con ibu ions o
communica ion, so hey would also be placed along a con inuum o
explici ness/implici ness, and ha hey a e in e p e ed by “[…] specialised, pe haps
dedica ed, neu al machine y […]” (: 132).
7. “P osody and ges u e”
The six h chap e (: 139-154) is dedica ed o wo phenomena indispensable o
unde s and wha we say and ou a i udes: p osody and ges u e. As ega ds he
o me , Wha on says ha p osodic inpu s ange om he na u al o he linguis ic
and in e ac wi h in o ma ion om di e en sou ces. Al hough hei e ec s highly
depend on con ex , p osodic inpu s con ey in o ma ion abou emo ions o a i udes,
c ea e imp essions o al e he salience o some in e p e a ions. Acco dingly,
p osody in e ac s wi h lexical i ems so as o ine- une hei meaning (: 141-142),
and unexpec ed s ess pa e ns, cos lie in e ms o p ocessing e o , di e hea e s
om expec able in e p e a ions owa ds al e na i e ones (: 142). Discussing
Gussenho en and his colleagues’ ideas abou inc eased a icula o y p ecision, he
a gues ha his is a na u al sign exploi able in os ensi e-in e en ial communica ion
inasmuch as he saliency o he speake ’s e o may a ac he hea e ’s a en ion
owa ds some assump ions and depa u es om expec ed pi ch anges, al hough
inc easing p ocessing e o , may dec ease e o o a i e a in ended
in e p e a ions (: 143-144).
As in he case o in e jec ions o ace exp essions, Wha on also pu s o wa d in
his chap e ha bo h na u al and p ope ly linguis ic p osodic signals –lexical
s ess, lexical one and g amma icalised aspec s o sen ence s ess and in ona ion–
encode p ocedu al o non- ansla ional in o ma ion “[…] acili a ing he e ie al
o ce ain ypes o syn ac ic, seman ic o concep ual ep esen a ion” (: 146), and
join ly in e ac wi h o he linguis ic signals, na u al signals and na u al signs.
Ne e heless, he also concedes ha all p osodic inpu s may no be coded and ha
some o hem may only s abilise in some languages o cul u es, hus becoming
emblems, which accoun s o c oss-cul u al a ia ions in hei in e p e a ions.
Conce ning ges u e, Wha on inds clea co espondences wi h bo h he e bal
and p osodic con inua he discusses in p e ious chap e s. On he basis o ‘Kendon’s
con inuum’, which he akes om McNeill (1992), he shows ha ges u es may
ange om mo e o less na u al oo. Thus, we ha e ges icula ion, spon aneous
mo emen s accompanying speech; language-like ges u es, which a e in eg a ed
in o speech and con ibu e o i s in e p e a ion; pan omimes, which esemble
objec s o ac ions; emblems, which a e cul u e-dependen ges u es con eying
posi i e and nega i e meanings, and sign languages, which a e ule-go e ned
languages (: 149-151). Reg e ing ha p agma ics has g ea ly igno ed he ole o
ges u es in communica ion, Wha on a gues ha he dis inc ions he aces in he
book can be ex ended and applied o he s udy o ges u e om a p agma ic
iewpoin , as hey can be used o e ly. Acco dingly, he concludes his chap e by
sugges ing ha ges icula ions a e na u al signs aimed o help he hea e and,
he e o e, a e in e p e ed in e en ially. They may be exploi ed in os ensi e-
in e en ial communica ion because hey may con ey in o ma ion i he speake
uses and shows hem in en ionally (: 153).
8. “Mind eade s”
The se en h and penul ima e chap e (: 155-170) unde lines he impo ance ha
he a ibu ion o men al s a es o o he indi iduals has in bo h cogni ion and
communica ion, and e iews he ex ensi e li e a u e e idencing mind- eading.
Wha on de o es some pages o summa ise con ibu ions on he consequences ha
impai men s in mind- eading abili ies ha e on, e.g. au is ics (: 156-158). He also
unde lines Dan Spe be and Dei d e Wilson’s p oposal ha e bal comp ehension
migh be ca ied ou by a mechanism o module o ming pa o ou mind- eading
abili y and speci ically dedica ed o he in e p e a ion o os ensi e s imuli (: 159-
160). A e his, he add esses some c i icism agains ele ance- heo e ic claims
abou he ole o mind- eading by B eheny (2006) and Recana i (2002), and
p o ides e idence suppo ing ha in bo h e y basic ac s o os ensi e-in e en ial
communica ion, in which communica o s gi e di ec e idence o hei in en ion o
in o m o hei audience, and o he ac s o os ensi e communica ion in which he
e idence p o ided is indi ec , a ibu ion o men al s a es is essen ial o ecognise
wha has been shown and why, as well as wha has been said and why,
espec i ely.
Since mind- eading plays such a c ucial ole in communica ion, Wha on
concludes ha people ha ing p oblems eading o he indi iduals’ minds will also
ha e p oblems unde s anding ges u es and o he non- e bal beha iou s
in en ionally employed in in e ac ion (: 163-164). Fo his eason, he nex e iews
some expe imen s ha show ha au ism and igh hemisphe e damage esul in
p oblems o unde s and emo ional, a i udinal, ina icula e and in insic p osody
and con as i e s ess (: 165-167), and sugges s wo es cases aimed a
in es iga ing he p osodic di icul ies a ising in au ism, Aspe ge ’s synd ome and
igh hemisphe e damage (: 168).
9. “The showing-meaningNN con inuum and beyond”
Finally, Wha on ounds up his wo k he las chap e (: 171-194). He s a s by
ema king ha he con inua p oposed by Go man, Gussenho en and Kendon a e
based on he code model, whils he con inuum he p oposes in his book is based
on he ole played by he in e en ial a ibu ion o in en ions. Fo his eason, he
calls he o me ypes o con inua ‘Code-con inuum’ (C-con inuum) and his
‘Os ensi e beha iou -con inuum’ (O-con inuum) (: 171-172). Bo h con inua
ep esen he e idences used in communica ion, which ange om cases o display
o hose o linguis ic coding. Howe e , he C-con inuum canno explain how
communica i e beha iou s a e used and he a ied ways in which di e en
beha iou s can be exploi ed o con ey in o ma ion. On he con a y, he ad an age
o his O-con inuum is i s applicabili y o he elemen s included in he C-
con inuum, as i can accoun o he os ensi e uses o language o display and o
display o meanNN (: 173). Besides, he O-con inuum cap u es diach onic e olu ion
o some phenomena, as “[…] i can ep esen he luidi y and cons an change ha
esul s in exp essions coming o o m pa o language” (: 174). Ne e heless, as
Wha on acknowledges, mo e esea ch is needed so as o elucida e i i “[…] has
an e olu iona y-diach onic as well as a his o ical-diach onic dimension” (: 175).
The au ho goes on o deal wi h he deba e be ween hose who con end ha
communica ion began as a coding-decoding ac i i y and hose who a gue ha i
equi ed me a ep esen a ional abili ies, and gi es sound easons abou why
me a ep esen a ional abili ies migh ha e de eloped be o e, independen o
communica ion (: 176-179). A e his, he also add esses he p oblem abou why
communica ion migh ha e s abilised, ollowing Dan Spe be , who a gues ha his
migh ha e happened in a pano ama in which ac o s such as he de elopmen o
he human abili y o p esen a gumen s o conclusions he audience is in ended o
d aw o he abili y o e alua e he a gumen o o he s concu ed and laid he
ounda ions o he de elopmen o complex me a ep esen a ional abili ies and a
logical ocabula y (: 180-183).
Owing o he mani old unce ain ies abou he eme gence o language, he s a es
ha we can only accoun o i in e ms o my hs, so he hen e iews one sugges ed
by G ice himsel . This my h po ays he e olu ion o language and communica ion
as a sequence o s ages in which human beings we e able o a ibu e and ecognise
in en ions behind ce ain beha iou s in which hey used p og essi ely less di ec
e idences o hei in en ions un il hey eached a poin a which communica ion did
no need o depend on na u al connec ions be ween os ensi e s imuli and in ended
meanings (: 184-190). Finally, Wha on closes his chap e summa ising how he
has answe ed he ini ial ques ions ha mo i a ed his book and sugges ing ha his
ideas may be ex ended and applied o o he disciplines, such as cogni i e science,
psychology, discou se analysis, sociolinguis ics, aes he ics o music.