I certify that this assignment is my own work, based on my personal study and/or research, and that I have acknowledged all material and sources used in the preparation of this assignment, whether they be books, articles, reports, lecture notes, any other kind of document, electronic or personal communication. I also certify that the assignment has not previously been submitted for assessment in any other unit or at any other time in this Unit, unless by negotiation, and that I have not copied in part or whole or otherwise plagiarised the work of other students and/or persons.
I have read the SCU policy on plagiarism and understand its implications. Signed: Teagan Kluska Date: 28/03/2013 The dynamics of communication are segmented into three major categories; they are verbal, non-verbal and discourse. Communication is required to effectively facilitate the large array of interpersonal and intrapersonal skills while facilitating collaboration and cooperation. The communication event cited for analysis was in the Brisbane Magistrate Court between a barrister and his client.
Several different verbal and nonverbal communication skills were displayed as the conversation took a threatening and dangerous tone. Various noise barriers and nonverbal codes were used throughout the argument witnessed with the invasion of personal space, excessive use of assorted hand gestures and the tension expressed through eye contact. “When woman under stereotype threat adopt a more masculine communication style, they are less warm and likeable and evaluations indicate less willingness to comply with requests” (Bowden, Hippel, Schochet, Wiryakusuma 2011 pg. 1312-1324).
This abstract from an article of studies undertaken at the University of Brisbane were proven correct as the client whom was a female had to be restrained after security had been called. She had began to invade the personal space of her barrister and discretional noise barriers to general public were broken through the use of increased tone and threatening illustrator and emblem hand gestures being used. The communication theory describes a communication channel, and outlines how a sender encodes a message, delivers it through a channel to a receiver who then interprets it and gives a response through a message of their own.
It depends on each persons perceptive ability as to how well the message will be communicated. There is also a convincing point to be raised within the theory describing how noise can affect the way a message is received (De Janasz, et al. 2009). In this occurrence the lady communicating with her barrister may not have felt that her message was being conveyed as much as she wanted therefore using sensible and basic discretion when speaking had proven irrelevant and ineffective to the woman and as a result the conversation broke barriers as she accused her barrister of doing an incompetent job in her case.
The lady began to raise her voice and use hostile and explicit language to intimidate her lawyer and through his reaction in body language, turning to a defensive stance we could see he became threatened. As DeVito, JA (1995) states ‘throughout your interpersonal communications, your face communicates especially your emotions’ and this was made evident as the change in the barristers facial expressions made it evident that the lady client had succeeded in her intimidation attempt.
The barrister then proceeded to use hand gestures in signal to the security guards around the area who then began to draw closure to the lady intern threatening her personal space in an attempt to control the situation. As Martin, J & Nakayama, T (2007) states, ‘gestures are simply arm and hand movements that communicate nonverbally’. Gestures however play a big part in communicating your point across, with there being four different kinds; emblems, illustrators, regulators and adaptors.
When the barrister became overwhelmed with the feeling of being threatened he used emblems, which are gestures that have a specific verbal translation. He used a small hand motion as to call the security guards over without the lady noticing as she was using firm and close proximity eye contact with the barrister. After security approached and restricted the lady she attempted to use body force as well as using verbal forms of communication by yelling “are you evicting me, are you evicting me” at the security guards but also using nonverbal and vocal elements like the voice quality changing and loudness increasing further.
The roles had reversed on the lady and she was now feeling intern how she made the barrister feel. After the security guards had approached the situation the use of nonverbal and nonvocal elements came into play. The security guards were wearing a full uniform with a variety of security devices i. e. a gun, baton and communication device for further assistance if needed. The lady soon realised she had lost control of this situation as the uniforms represented authority figures and she proceeded to stop restraining.
As cited in Jessica Rangel’s (2011) report there are many comparisons to see how men and women handle stressful situations differently and all of them really depend on the type of problem or situation that they are facing, it was clear in this situation that the male barrister and female client both took different approaches to the situation. The female in the situation took a confronting and forward approach which then took two men wearing security uniforms to help her subside and reevaluate her approach where as the male arrister took a defensive stance at first however then proceeded to call security over in attempt to end the argument. In conclusion during my observation there was a variety of verbal and nonverbal forms of communication displayed by both the male and the female. It was an interesting observation to make as the situation took place in a building with strict discretionary rules and regulations as well as it was between a male and female where the female was aggravating the male and as stereotypes suggest, it is not looked upon that a male reacts back in such way.
The other interesting factor is that generally the barrister and client should work together for higher chance of success in given case however it seemed as though the relationship between the two was not strong and the woman had no interest in maintaining a healthy relationship with her barrister despite further work on her court case may have been necessary.
It can be established that as the lady was personally invading the barristers space as well as using firm eye contact it may not have been safe for him to have verbally called over for security, therefore in the aforementioned theories and being employed to this given situation it shows that the use of nonverbal communication such as the hand gestures being used were also a very effective means of communication.