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