MINISTRY OF NATIONAL EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF PITEŞTI FACULTY OF THEOLOGY, LETTERS, HISTORY AND ARTS AGENCE UNIVERSITAIRE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE ALLIANCE FRANÇAISE DE PITEŞTI CENTRE DE RECHERCHE SUR L’IMAGINAIRE IMAGINES CENTRUL DE REUŞITĂ UNIVERSITARĂ LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE EUROPEAN LANDMARKS OF IDENTITY __________________________________________________ LANGUE ET LITTÉRATURE REPÈRES IDENTITAIRES EN CONTEXTE EUROPÉEN __________________________________________________ LIMBA ŞI LITERATURA REPERE IDENTITARE ÎN CONTEXT EUROPEAN SELECTED PAPERS OF THE 14th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE FACULTY OF THEOLOGY, LETTERS, HISTORY AND ARTS Piteşti, 14-16 June 2019 No. 24/2019 University of Piteşti Press 1 DIRECTOR / DIRECTEUR DE PUBLICATION: Ștefan GĂITĂNARU EDITOR-IN-CHIEF / RÉDACTEUR EN CHEF: Liliana SOARE ASSOCIATE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF / RÉDACTEURS EN CHEF ADJOINTS: Valentina STÎNGĂ, Liliana VOICULESCU SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE / COMITÉ SCIENTIFIQUE Liliana AGACHE, “I. Iordan – Al. Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest, Romania Stefan BARME, University of Vienna, Austria Petre Gheorghe BÂRLEA, “Ovidius” University of Constanța Grigore BRÂNCUŞ, The Romanian Academy, University of Bucharest, Romania Didi-Ionel CENUŞER, “Lucian Blaga” University, Sibiu, Romania Gheorghe CHIVU, The Romanian Academy, University of Bucharest, Romania Francis CLAUDON, Paris XII University, France Luc COLLÈS, The Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium Jean-Louis COURRIOL, “Jean Moulin” University, “Lyon 3”, Lyon 3, France Dan DOBRE, University of Bucharest, Romania Cécile FOLSCHWEILLER, INALCO, Paris, France Daniela FRUMUŞANI, University of Bucharest, Romania Alexandru GAFTON, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi, Romania Ravil GARIPOV, Bachkire State Pedagogical University, Russia Ştefan GĂITĂNARU, University of Piteşti, Romania Corina-Amelia GEORGESCU, University of Piteşti, Romania Yvonne GOGA, “Babeş-Bolyai” University, Romania Brian IMHOFF, Texas A&M University, USA Andrei IONESCU, University of Bucharest, Romania Andres Kristol, Neuchâtel University, Switzerland Diana LEFTER, University of Pitești Lucie LEQUIN, Concordia University, Canada Milena MILANOVIC, The Institute of Foreign Languages FLS, Belgrade, Serbia Alexandrina MUSTĂŢEA, University of Piteşti, Romania Nasser Rashidi, Shariz University, Iran Cristiana TEODORESCU, University of Craiova, Romania 2 PEER-REVIEW COMMITTEE / COMITÉ DE LECTURE Marinela BURADA, “Transilvania” University of Braşov, Romania Diana CÂMPAN, ”1 Decembrie 1918” University, Alba Iulia, Romania Rodica-Gabriela CHIRA, “1 Decembrie 1918” University, Alba Iulia, Romania George CONSTATINESCU, University of Craiova, Romania Simona Diana CONSTANTINOVICI, West University, Timişoara, Romania Oliviu FELECAN, North University of Baia Mare, România Mihaela Dana GHEORGHE, “Transilvania” University of Braşov, Romania Luminiţa HOARŢĂ CĂRĂUŞU, „Al. I. Cuza” University, Iaşi, Romania Adrian IANCU, “Lucian Blaga” University, Sibiu, Romania Gina MĂCIUCĂ, “Ştefan cel Mare” University, Suceava, Romania Ileana MIHĂILĂ, “University of Bucharest, Romania Ioan MILICĂ, “Al. I. Cuza” University, Iaşi, Romania Cristinel MUNTEANU, “C. Brâncoveanu” University, Piteşti, Romania Steluţa STAN, “Dunărea de Jos” University, Galaţi, Romania Dumitru TUCAN, West University, Timişoara, Romania George Bogdan ŢÂRA, West University, Timişoara, Romania EDITORIAL COMMITTEE / COMITÉ DE RÉDACTION Lavinia GEAMBEI Diana-Adriana LEFTER Marina TOMESCU The conference took place under the high patronage of the Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie, and the proceedings were published with its financial assistance. La conférence s’est déroulée sous le haut patronage de l'Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie, qui a financé la parution des actes. ISSN 2344-4894 ISSN-L 1843-1577 University of Piteşti Press Târgul din Vale Street, 1, 110040, Piteşti, Romania Tél.: +40 (0)248 218804, int. 149,150 3 CONTENTS KEY SPEAKERS / SESSION PLÉNIÈRE Ionel BUȘE Felicien Rops – de l’ironie artistique à la crise de la modernité………………. 9 ROMANIAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE / LANGUE ET LITTÉRATURE ROUMAINE Lavinia BĂNICĂ Irony As The Main Instrument Of Literary Expression In The Epic Burlesque (Țiganiada by Ion Budai-Deleanu)………………………………….…………... Marilena Filofteia COSTESCU Gheorghe Asachi, a Pioneer of the National Theatre...................................... Nicoleta CRÎNGANU The Ironic Projection of Alterity in Tthe Novel Europolis by Jean Bart....... Andreea DAMIAN (ZAMFIR) Aspects of the Folk Influences in the Minulescian Poetry………………….. Adina DUMITRU Forms of Irony in Contemporary Social Discourse ...............……………... Ștefan GĂITĂNARU The Syntactic Code and the Structures of the Poetic Imaginary…………… Lavinia-Ileana GEAMBEI Aspects de l’ironie dans le roman Întâlnirea de Gabriela Adameşteanu......................................................................................................... Sorin IAGĂRU-DINA Revisiting the Past, Rethinking the Present: Ironical Aspects of Rereading ,,Minor” Forerunners in Marin Sorescu and Mircea Cătărescu’s Theoretical, Critical and Literary Texts………………………………………………………. Olga IRIMCIUC Valenze semantico-simboliche dell’ironia nel romanzo Compito per domani (Temă pentru acasă) di Nicolae Dabija.................................................... 5 21 25 32 39 45 51 62 70 77 Andreea Gabriela IVAȘCU (ANDREI) Stylistic Dimensions of The Teachings Of Neagoe Basarab to his Son Theodosius………………………………………………………………………. 83 Valentin-Iulian MAZILU "Pavel Anicet. The Hypostasis of the Brutalized Young Man or the Irony of Fate"…………………………………………………………………………….. 94 Lili MOCANU (VÂRTOPEANU) George Coșbuc - Theses and Antitheses in the Folklor Research………….. 103 Marius Romulus SĂLĂGEAN Myth and Symbol in the Writing of Mihail Sadoveanu....................... 109 Alina-Mariana STÎNGĂ (ZARIA) The Absurd of Max Blecher’s Imaginary…………………………………... 115 COMPARATIVE LITERATURE. COMMUNICATION AND CULTURAL STUDIES / LITTÉRATURE COMPAREE. COMMUNICATION ET ETUDES CULTURELLES Pompiliu ALEXANDRU, Cristina Daniela ALEXANDRU Du sourire de Mona Lise au sourire de Bouddha………………………….. Odette ARHIP, Cristian ARHIP Humor and the Narrative Structure of Advertising………………………… Carmen DOMINTE Syllepsis – an Instrument for Comic and Irony…………………………….. Horia DUMITRESCU About The Laughter of Joy and the Laughter of Mockery in the Holy Scripture of The Old Testament…………………………………………………. Gheorghe GÎRBEA Irony and Humour in The Biblical Canon………………………………….. Ana-Maria IONESCU Irony in Contemporary Romanian and British Media Discourses – a Socio-Cultural and Linguistic Approach……………………………………….. Ion ISAROIU Musical Culture of Byzantine Origin in the 17th Century and the First Half of the 18th Century………………………………………………………………. 6 121 128 137 145 154 165 173 Valentina MARINESCU Humor in Medical Advertising……………………………………………... Carmen-Andreea ONEAȚĂ The Bourgeois Drama. The Importance of George Lillo’s Drama for Denis Diderot’s Writings………………………………………………………………… Dan-Niculae PODARU The Importance of Iconicity in the Luxury Watches Industry……………… Simona RODAT Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Laughter and Smile as Ways of Nonverbal Communication…………………………………………………………………. Anda-Anca RODIDEAL Use and Consequences of Humour and Irony in the Online Activities of Digital Native Children…………………………………………………………. Mihai-Ionuț RUSEN The Sculptural Language in the Context of Contemporary Visual Arts Imaginary and Irony in Artistic Research. Irony as a Means of Translating the Imaginary……………………………………………………………………….. Roger Cristian SAFTA The Laughter of Abraham and of Sarah……………………………………. Ioana SILISTRARU Surgical Patients' Narratives Research Hypothesis Testing In Narrative Medicine………………………………………………………………………… Dragos Ciprian VIRSESCU The Representation of Women in Ideology……………………………………… Caroline ZIOLKO Affiche, humour et francite : Savignac (1907-2002)………………… 189 194 202 210 220 228 241 253 263 272 SPANISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE AND PERFORMING ARTS / LANGUE ET LITTÉRATURE ESPAGNOLES ET ARTS DU SPECTACLE Bogdan CIOABĂ Quelques considérations sur la mise en scène du Don Juan de Molière………………………………………………………………………………… Diana-Adriana LEFTER Ironie de l’histoire et auto-ironie de l’écriture dans Yo, el supremo de Augusto Roa Bastos…………………………………………………………….…….. 7 280 292 Lavinia SIMILARU Conservar la ironía en la lengua meta, ¿una misión imposible para el traductor?........................................................................................................... Sorina Dora SIMION Documenta y literatura…………………………………………………………... Andreea Daniela ȚACU Aspectos éticos y estéticos de la sátira………………………………………… 8 298 305 315 SOCIO-CULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF LAUGHTER AND SMILE AS WAYS OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION Simona RODAT* Abstract: Smile and laughter are universal means of transmitting nonverbal messages. Smile is a very complex expression capable to transmit a wide range of information, denoting a wide range of emotions and feelings, such as pleasure, joy, happiness, satisfaction, promise, sociability, amusement, but also cynicism, embarrassment, emotional pain, slyness, shame and sarcasm. However, the interpretation of the meaning of the smile also varies from one culture to another, or even from one subculture to another. Instead, laughter seems to have more universal human connotations and interpretations, because it is the expression of some basic universal human emotions, such as joy, cheerfulness, pleasure, happiness. Laughter is generally the expression of good mood, but, more than that, it can also cause good mood. That is why laughter is also used as part of some therapies. However, the vocal component of laughter, considered part of paraverbal communication, may have specific cultural determinations. For example, when people accentuate by laughing a certain vowel, they want to express, at least in European culture, different mental states and behavioural intentions, which are decipherable only when the codes of communication and their meanings are known. Significations and interpretations of laughter and smile are thus functions of the socio-cultural context. The present paper deals with these aspects, highlighting the social and cultural dimensions of these two suggestive components of nonverbal communication. Keywords: laughter; smile; nonverbal communication; paraverbal communication Introduction Nonverbal communication is a significant part of human communication. It includes all messages that are not expressed by words and which can be decoded, creating meanings. Facial expression, eyesight, gestures, touching, artefacts, appearance, use of space and time, paralanguage etc. are all components of nonverbal communication, each of them having attached specific systems of symbolisation, as well as significations considerably dependent on the society and culture. Nonverbal messages can repeat, contradict, replace, complete or emphasize the message transmitted by words. There exists evidence according to which people are more impressed by the implicit (non-verbal) than the explicit (verbal) information that they receive (Proverbio, Calbi et alii, 2014). Especially people’s intentions and beliefs can be inferred from how they move their bodies or modulate their facial mimicry (Ekman, Friesen, 2003). Nonverbal communication has a huge arsenal of means of expression, which, in many cases, can be constituted in real nonverbal languages, whose elements have their own meanings and systems of rules and regulations. Most of the time, these languages accompany the articulated language, supplementing, accentuating, repeating or contradicting it, but sometimes they are used stand-alone, independent of the articulated language, being able to transmit messages without having to use words (Knapp, Hall et alii, * Adventus University, simona.rodat@uadventus.ro 210 2013; Santer, 2014). More generally, this type of communication allows the disclosure of emotions, organizes the representation of the self and locates the individual within his/her social activities (Caune, 2000: 41). The face is the most expressive part of the body and its expression is an invaluable means of communication (Tran, Stănciugelu, 2003: 92). Usually the face, and especially the eyes and mouth, are most intensely watched during communication. Facial expression is also the most complex form of nonverbal communication, given that it reflects the emotional experiences of a person. Thus, facial expression fulfils an intrapersonal and interpersonal regulatory function. The present paper addresses laughter and smile as essential components of facial mimicry, which is one of the most expressive and suggestive means of transmitting nonverbal messages. Also, because laughter is most of the time accompanied by sound elements, it can be as well regarded as a form of paraverbal communication. In the paper there are highlighted particularly the social and cultural dimensions of these two significant components of nonverbal communication. Laughter as a mimicry means of communication Mimicry refers to that part of our face that moves: forehead, eyebrows, nose, cheeks, mouth, lips. The fundamental emotional reactions and expressions (joy, sadness, surprise, wonder, worry, fear, anger, etc.) are reflexively expressed, through innate neuromuscular mechanisms, common to all people. The innate and universal character of the expression of fundamental affections has been emphasized since the late 1960s by Paul Ekman. Following a series of experiments conducted between 1967-1969, which also included a tribe from Papua New Guinea, investigated compared to a group in New York, Ekman concluded that there were similarities between the two groups both in decoding emotional expressions, and in using different expressions (Ekman, 2002: 377-382). These similarities have been explained by the author through the fact that each affect or emotion triggers a set of nerve impulses that activate certain facial muscles, and their movement leads to displaying an emotional expression consistent with the respective affective experience. This vision was not new, however, as Ekman was a successor to Charles Darwin who noted, as far back as the 19 th century, in his well-known work The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872, first edition; 1890, second edition), the universality of human nonverbal expressive means. Yet, not every human nonverbal expression is universal, spontaneous and natural. As people’s cognitive skills (perception, thinking) develop – even from childhood –, they learn and become able, through conscious control of facial musculature, to intensify, attenuate, neutralize or even deliberately compose certain emotional expressions, which are not always consistent with their actual feeling or experience. It is, however, about expressing complex emotions, which lends itself to such control required by social rules, norms and various circumstances. For example, happiness, sadness, annoyance, embarrassment, abashment can be alleviated or even hidden by the control of facial muscles, when the social situation demands it. 211 In general, laughter is considered to be the expression of some basic universal human emotions, such as joy, pleasure, gladness, happiness, which makes its connotations and interpretations universal human. The interest in laughter and smile is not new. The study of these expressions concerned both philosophers and scientists, who tried to understand their meaning and essence. Since the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin ([1872], 1890: 207) assessed that smile and laughter are universal and innate, and laughter seems, first and foremost, to be the expression of mere joy or happiness. This can certainly be seen in children playing and laughing almost permanently. In support of the idea that the smile and the laughter are innate, but also that they are ways of expressing moods, Darwin has provided a number of relevant examples, among them being the stories about the first smile and the first laugh of his own new-born children. As another argument to show the innate, but also universal character of laughter and smile, Darwin brought up the case of Laura Bridgman, who, due to early blindness and deafness, could not acquire any expression through imitation. And yet, when a letter from a beloved friend was communicated to her in tactile language, she reacted as all people do: she laughed and clapped her hands, and her cheeks flushed (Darwin, op. cit.: 207). This example shows, Darwin pointed out, that some emotional reactions, such as laughter, are not learned through imitation from other people, but are simply part of the baggage with which all people are born. While the reasons for which people laugh are varied, the mechanism of the laugh is always the same: the sound of the laugh is produced by a deep inspiration, followed by short and interrupted spasmodic contractions of the thorax, especially the diaphragm (ibidem: 211). Hence the phrase: “laughter holding both his sides”. During laughter the mouth is more or less wide open, with the mouth angles pulled back, as well as slightly up, and the upper lip is somewhat raised. The retracted corners of the mouth can be best noticed in the moderate laugh, but especially in the big smile, that epithet showing how the mouth is enlarged. In addition to the zygomatic muscles and those controlling the upper lip, orbicular muscles above and below the eyes, which contract more or less, are involved when we laugh (ibidem: 212). Sometimes people laugh moving the whole body; especially in such situations, expressions such as: “to laugh with all one’s heart”, “to roll on the floor laughing”, “to laugh until one cries”, “to laugh until tears run down one’s cheeks”, “to laugh oneself to tears”, “to laugh out loud”, “to laugh oneself sick” or even “to laugh oneself to death” are used. However, all this has to do with the muscular contractions that accompany laughter and with the stimulation of the secretion of endorphin substances, which maintain and/or amplify the joy (Chelcea, Ivan et alii, 2005: 61). Some studies have focused on assessing the intensity of laughter in humans. Claudia Schäfer (apud Prutianu, Danieluţ, 2004: 231) has considered that we can evaluate the intensity of the laughter on a scale from 1 to 10 after the non-verbal manifestations gradually introduced: 1) First the smile and then bursting out laughing. 2) The mouth opens wider and wider. 3) The corners of the mouth move more and more sideways, towards the ears. 4) The nose is wrinkled. 5) The sound is getting closer to shouting or barking. 212 The eyes close “with tears” and the skin around them creates many small stripes. The head falls more and more towards the back and the shoulders raise. A swinging movement of the body appears. The person is self-embracing, enclasping her/his body with her/his hands. It triggers a certain way of foot stamping. However, what is certainly universal and innate is the fact that laughter and smile are most often the expression of good mood and positive emotions (Ştefănescu, 2009: 96). Asked what he means by “being in good mood”, one child replied: “to laugh, talk, and kiss” (Darwin, 1890: 216). It would be difficult, indeed, as Darwin points out (ibidem), to give another definition “truer and more practical” of the term good mood. To all humans, the expression of joy and cheerfulness seems to be the same and is easily recognizable. Moreover, another universal phenomenon, which manifests “freely” to all people, is the accompaniment of laughter by tears (ibidem: 218). In fact, the other basic emotions – surprise, sadness, horror, anger, disgust – can also be read on the face of all people as well as joy (Chelcea, Ivan et alii, 2005: 65). Laughter is the expression of good mood, but, more than that, laughter can also cause good mood. That is why it is also used as part of some therapies, especially for people living or working in a stressful environment or for persons having to overcome stressful situations, but also for children with chronic diseases, such as cancer or HIV/AIDS. 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Laughter as component of paraverbal communication Paraverbal communication or paralanguage (the combination of para + language meaning “beside the language”) is a term that designates the vocal part of nonverbal communication. It can be understood in a broader sense, as in D. McQuail’s definition (1999: 88): “paralanguage includes acts such as laughter, crying, grumbling, yawning, hissing, whistling, etc., but also the features of the voice such as intonation, timbre, voice quality, accent, features whose variations are understood as reinforcing verbal meanings, or associated with certain significations”. But paralanguage can be also understood in a narrower sense, which takes into account only the characteristics of the voice: “the physical, vocal characteristics of verbal communication, that is, those elements of verbal communication that have no meaning established at the semantic and syntactic level (Watson, Hill, 1993: 137). S. Chelcea, L. Ivan and A. Chelcea (2005: 81) consider that the more general meaning of paraverbal communication is expressed by the term “extralinguistic elements”, that is, all those manifestations (including laughter, crying, coughing, etc.) that carry information about the transmitter, about his/her personality and about his/her mood during the conversation. According to the same authors, the term paraverbal communication or paralanguage refers to: a) the phonetic characteristics of the voice – the intonation, the accent, the intensity, the timbre; b) laughter, crying, breathing; c) unconscious repetition of certain sounds, which often shows anxiety or worry; d) articulation of words; e) the rhythm, the flow and the structuring of the speech, the pauses during the speech. Paralanguage is, through all these ways (voice indices) of transmitting information, an important means of nonverbal communication. It achieves multiple functions, from 213 communicating the emotional states of the transmitter, to providing the interlocutor with additional and diverse information about the social belonging of the speaker, about the level of education, the area from which he/she originates, but also about the intentions, attitudes towards the interlocutor and/or the situation etc. To the above are added also other vocal signals, such as small gasps of surprise, murmurs of approval or disapproval, mutterings of interest or encouragement of the interlocutor, sounds of “fill-in” (vocal fillers like “îîî", “ăăă”) that many times betrays the speaker’s preoccupation with finding the right formulation, sometimes possibly his/her confusion or a more difficult ideation. Paralanguage is an important channel in direct, face-to-face communication, but especially in telephone-mediated communication, when we lack the visual non-verbal cues (mimicry, gestures) that complement the meaning of the message (Ştefănescu, 2009: 130). Besides the emphasis on certain words, the intensity, the rhythm and the timbre of the voice, the grammatical and non-grammatical pauses, etc., the paraverbal communication also includes a series of sonic manifestations without verbal content: mumbling, hissing, yawn, smack (tchick), grunt, cough, belch (burping), whistling, sigh, moan, groaning, crying, but also the sonorous component of the laughter, which can be significant in communication. According to M. Bucă (1985: 247) the laughter can be (in terms of sound): sharp, bleated, humming, rumbling, chuckling, clear, convulsive, crystalline, snuffled, gurgled, stuttered, thick, guttural, hoarse, raucous, wheezy, roared, intense, intermittent, muffled, low, soft (quiet), clogged, murmured, melodious, neighed, squeaky, prolonged, shrunken, plangent, jerky, jumped, drily, syncopal, loud, proclamatory, shaking, broken, strident, reedy, thin, hissed, gleeful, noisy, rampageous. As for the significance of the sound component of the laughter, it has specific cultural determinations (Chelcea, Ivan et alii, 2005). According to Vera F. Birkenbihl (1999: 196-198), in European culture, when they laugh, people emphasize a certain vowel, expressing, with an acceptable probability, different mental states and behavioural intentions. According to this author, the ways of laughing in European culture and their likely meanings are as follows: 1) Laughter “in A”: “Hahaha” expresses joy and lack of stress; it is the primordial, “healthy”, contagious laughter. 2) Laughter “in E”: “Hehehe” (bleated laughter) expresses contempt, mockery, a threat; it is not contagious. 3) Laughter “in I”: “Hihihi” (giggling) is often involuntary and expresses a malicious, restrained joy. 4) Laughter “in O”: “Hohoho” is associated with amazement and contempt; sometimes expresses a certain dose of mistrust. 5) Laughter “in U”: “Huhuhu” expresses fear and terror (and it could hardly be said that it is a laugh). V. F. Birkenbihl points out, however, that it is difficult to classify laughter and that its interpretation must take into account the concrete situation in which people are laughing. Horst H. Rückle (1999) argues, instead, that the type of vowel, the degree of nervous tension, and the intensity of sound give additional information about the naturalness and content of the laugh. By containing a sound component, laughter can be heard even at a distance. It can thus have a stronger social function and draw attention to the person that 214 expresses some emotions. Both smiling and laughter are the most common responses to humour (Frank, Ekman, 1993). Smile as significant way of expression in nonverbal communication and social interactions While the reasons for laughter are most often clear – the joy, delight, happiness, fun, hilarity, etc., in the case of the smile they are not so visible. Moreover, the smile is an expression or a gesture more complex and subtler than the laugh, and its meanings can be very different. Smiling can express positive emotions (Ekman, 1973), but also discomfort (Woodzicka, LaFrance, 2001), shame (Keltner, 1995), or even an unhappy state (Ekman, 2009). What all forms of a smile have in common is the facial expression that involves the contraction of Zygomaticus major muscle (Rychlowska, Jack et alii, 2017). But not all smiles are equal. Through the social-functional assessment of smiles, it was established that the different forms of smile serve basic social functions, such as expressing rewarding behavior, affiliation and social connections, but also social hierarchies and their negotiation (idem). Through the simulation-of-smiles model (SIMS), at least three smile subtypes have been delimited, each defined by its role in solving the major adaptive problems of life in society (Keltner, Gross, 1999; Niedenthal, Mermillod et alii, 2010; Rychlowska, Jack et alii, 2017): reward smile, displayed by individuals to reward others, but also themselves, and to communicate positive intentions and experiences; such smiles are symmetrical and are accompanied by eyebrow raising (Rychlowska, Jack et alii, 2017: 1263); affiliative smile, by which people signal appeasement, or by which they create or maintain social relations and bonds; these smiles are bilateral, too, and involve lip pressing; dominance smile, through which individuals negotiate their status within or across social hierarchies; such smiles are asymmetrical and involve nose wrinkling, and upper-lip and cheek raising (ibidem). According to the studies accomplished by Rychlowska, Miyamoto et alii (2015) and Rychlowska, Jack et alii (2017), individuals associate distinct facial-expression patterns with reward, affiliative and dominance smiles. Also, different smile types convey different social messages, communicating positive feelings (the reward smiles), social connectedness (the affiliative smiles), or superiority (the dominance smiles). Thus, the social functions of smiles are divided by individuals in different cultures (Rychlowska, Miyamoto et alii, 2015) in three categories consistent with the distinctions proposed in the simulation-of-smiles model (SIMS). Paul Ekman and Wallace V. Friesen (1982: 241) distinguished between “true”, “natural” or “congruent” smiles and “false” or “artificial” smiles. They identified 18 types of smiles that are not simulated. True or congruent smiles last longer and involve the participation of both face and eye muscles (Zygomaticus major and Orbicularis oculi). True or congruent/ natural smiles are also called Duchenne smiles, after French anatomist G. B. Duchenne, who observed in 1862 that muscle Orbicularis oculi is recruited into spontaneous, true smiles, but not in posed smiles (Jensen, 2014). True smiles are produced by the Zygomaticus major muscle, which, by contraction, pulls the corners of the mouth to 215 the ears and causes Orbicularis oculi to lift up the cheek and bring on wrinkles around the corner of the eyes, the so-called wrinkles “at the tail of the eyes” or the “crow’s-feet” wrinkles. In contrast, in the case of false smiles, only one muscle – Zygomaticus major – is contracted, while the muscle that closes the eyelids, Orbicularis oculi, is not (Zygomaticus major can be easily controlled deliberately by most of the people, in comparison to Orbicularis oculi, especially its outer part, which is harder or impossible to control). Therefore, false smile is a non-congruent type of smile (Frank, Ekman et alii, 1993). Such smiles, though “false”, can function as friendly smiles, being important as social markers (Jensen, 2014). Moreover, false smiles can be used to mask non-congruent emotions or to hide intentions that are not supposed to be known to others. Another type of smile that has been analyzed and measured is play smile, which is expressed during play activities, such as role play or play fighting. This type of smile has social functions too, the most important being the signalling of friendliness and the fact that the participants in the game feel good together, in a state of relaxation and/or safety (Cohen, 2006). Some authors (e.g. Bateson, 2000) consider that, in game situations, such a smile is a marker among others that indicates that the activity is a play or pretence activity, and not a real one. Usually, play smiles are longer than other types of smiles, given the specificity of the play situation (Lillard, 2007). In such circumstances the participants to the game indicate with a smile that the role they play (in role play), or the threats to others (in play fighting) is/are not real, but pretended, so that the distinction between reality and pretence is emphasized by the long smile (Jensen, 2014). A typology of smiles has also been made by Horst H. Rückle (1999: 151-154). His classification includes eight types of smiles: a) relaxed smile, that expresses joy, love, appreciation of another, being free of tension and usually accompanied by the brightness of the eyes; it is characterized by extending upwards the mouth corners, from little to very much (“wide smile”), with the lips either stuck or half-open; b) sweetish, honeyed smile, that expresses kindness, the desire to please someone; it is marked by the stretching and thinning of the lips; c) the snigger/ smirk (stated also by the idiom “to laugh up one’s sleeve”), that appears in situations where the person has a hidden joy, but also when he or she is forced to restrain the expression of feelings; it can also indicate a will and is characterized by tensioned and tight lips; d) “crooked” smile, when one corner of the mouth is pulled down and the other up, can express a forced kindness, but also an internal conflict; e) resigned, condescending smile, that expresses one’s helplessness; it is marked by the forward brushing of the lower lip, being often accompanied by raising and shaking the shoulders and/or tilting the head to the right; f) depreciative, ironic smile, characterized by retracting the corners of the mouth slightly downwards, most often expresses disagreement, accompanied by a hidden, unspoken thought; it can also express agreement and disagreement at the same time; such a smile may be accompanied by a slight movement of the head, either from left to right or from top to bottom; g) fabricated, tormented/ harassed smile, that usually accompanies embarrassment or shame, appears and disappears quickly, being assisted, to some people, by the blush of the cheeks (“flushing of the face”); in this type of smile, the corners of the mouth are straight, and the lips remain glued, in a horizontal position; h) the smile that expresses fear, that appears as a reaction, often 216 involuntarily, to a sudden emotion of fear; in this case, the lips are drawn laterally, the mouth is slightly open, and the corners of the mouth are drawn to the ears. Conclusions Beyond their innate nature, laughter and smile have significant socio-cultural dimensions, making them essential social markers. Laughter and smile serve basic and complex social functions, such as rewarding behaviour, bonding socially, and negotiating hierarchy. In other words, they are not just expressions with individual account, but they fulfil important functions in social interactions. By smiling people are able to convey a lot of information and express a wide range of emotions and experiences, from joy, pleasure, satisfaction, happiness to promise, embarrassment, cynicism, all closely linked to the social context in which the individuals live. However, the interpretation of the meaning of the smile varies, too, from one culture to another or even from one subculture to another, the smile being the expression of emotions or feelings that lie on a continuum from the simplest, such as pure joy, to the most complex and subtle, like slyness, cynicism, embarrassment, shame, irony, sarcasm. Moreover, smiles can be not only natural, spontaneous, but also false and staged, that is, learned on a social level and used to transmit or, on the contrary, mask or hide certain information in different social situations. Although laughter is, more than smile, innate and universal, being mostly a spontaneous expression of good mood or a natural reaction to humour, social life has led inclusively to the development of forms of laughter that are not an expression of a cheerful disposition, but learned, played or impelled ways to hide another state of mind, many times a joyless one, like shyness or shame, but also even anger. Therefore, one should not be deceived by somebody’s smile or laughter, understanding it unilaterally or simplistically. Individuals should not be “interpreted” solely on the basis of information transmitted by a unique communicative signal, including laughter and smile, but the entire communicative context in which the respective signal occurs must be taken into account. Furthermore, at least when they are known, correlations with the personality traits of the one who laughs or smiles should be made, in order to draw near to the true meaning of the message transmitted. Bibliography Bateson, Gregory, Steps to an ecology of mind, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2000. Birkenbihl, Vera F., Semnalele corpului. Cum să înțelegem limbajul corpului, Bucureşti, Editura Gemma Pres, 1999. Bucă, Marian, Dicţionar de epitete al limbii române, Bucureşti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, 1985. Caune, Jean, Cultură şi comunicare, Bucureşti, Editura Cartea românească, 2000. Chelcea, Septimiu; Ivan, Loredana, and Chelcea, Adina, Comunicarea nonverbală: gesturile şi postura, Bucureşti, Editura Comunicare.ro, 2005. Cohen, David, The Development of Play, Third Edition, East Sussex, Routledge, 2006. Darwin, Charles, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, Second Edition, Edited by Francis Darwin, London, John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1890. 217 Ekman, Paul (Ed.), Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review, Cambridge, MA, Malor Books, 1973. Ekman, Paul, Introduction, Afterword and Commentaries to Charles Darwin’s The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, Third Edition, London, Harper Collins; New York, Oxford University Press, 2002. Ekman, Paul, Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage, London, W. W. Norton, 2009. Ekman, Paul and Friesen, Wallace V., „Felt, false and miserable smiles”, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6(4), 238-252, 1982. Ekman Paul and Friesen, Wallace V., Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Clues, Los Altos, CA, ISHK, 2003. Frank, Mark G. and Ekman, Paul, „Not all smiles are created equal: the differences between enjoyment and nonenjoyment smiles”, Humor – International Journal of Humor Research, 6 (1), 9– 26, 1993. Frank, Mark G.; Ekman, Paul, and Friesen, Wallace V., “Behavioral markers and recognizability of the smile of enjoyment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 83-93, 1993. Jensen, Mikael, “Smile as Feedback Expressions in Interpersonal Communication: A First Acquaintance Context”, SSKKII-publications, Technical report 2014.02, SCCIIL Center for Interdisciplinary Research, Department of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, 2014. Keltner, Dacher, “Signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct displays of embarrassment, amusement, and shame”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 441-454, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.441, 1995. Keltner, Dacher and Gross, James J., “Functional accounts of emotions”, Cognition & Emotion, 13(5), 467–480, doi:10.1080/026999399379140, 1999. Knapp, Mark L.; Hall, Judith A., and Horgan, Terrence G., Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction, Eighth Edition, Boston, MA, Wadsworth Publishing, 2013. Lillard, Angeline, “Guided Participation: How Mothers Structure and Children Understand Pretend Play”, in Göncü, Artin and Gaskins, Suzanne (Eds.), Play and Development. Evolutionary, Sociocultural, and Functional Perspectives, New York, London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 131154, 2007. McQuail, Denis, Comunicarea, Iaşi, Institutul European, 1999. Niedenthal, Paula M; Mermillod, Martial; Maringer, Marcus, and Hess, Ursula, “The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) model: Embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(6), 417-433, doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000865, 2010. Proverbio, Alice Mado; Calbi, Marta; Manfredi, Mirella, and Zani, Alberto, “Comprehending Body Language and Mimics: An ERP and Neuroimaging Study on Italian Actors and Viewers”, PLoS ONE, 9(3), e91294. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091294, 2014. Prutianu, Ştefan and Danieluţ, Mădălina, “Mesajul transcultural al vocii umane”, Caiete sociologice, 2, 229-237, 2004. Rückle, Horst H., Limbajul corpului pentru manageri, Bucureşti, Editura Tehnică, 1999. Rychlowska, Magdalena; Miyamoto, Yuri; Matsumoto, David; Hess, Ursula; Gilboa-Schechtman, Eva; Kamble, Shanmukh; Muluk, Hamdi; Masuda, Takahiko, and Niedenthal, Paula Marie, “Heterogeneity of long-history migration explains cultural differences in reports of emotional expressivity and the functions of smiles”, PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(19), E2429–E2436, doi:10.1073/pnas.1413661112, 2015. Rychlowska, Magdalena; Jack, Rachael E.; Garrod, Oliver G. B.; Schyns, Philippe G.; Martin, Jared D., and Niedenthal, Paula M., “Functional Smiles: Tools for Love, Sympathy, and War”, Psychological Science, 28(9), 1259-1270, 2017. 218 Santer, Frederik, “Nonverbal Communication. Gestures, Postures, Movements”, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/340056, 2014. Ștefănescu, Simona, Sociologia comunicării, Târgoviște, Editura Cetatea de Scaun, 2009. Tran, Vasile and Stănciugelu, Irina, Teoria comunicării, Bucureşti, Editura Comunicare.ro, 2003. Watson, James and Hill, Anne, A Dictionary of Communication and Media Studies, London, Edward Arnold, 1993. Woodzicka, Julie A. and LaFrance, Marianne, “Real Versus Imagined Gender Harassment”, Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 15-30, doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00199, 2001. 219