Source: CICB Center of Intercultural Competence (www.cicb.net). Further source (in german language): "Handbuch Interktulturelle Kompetenz" (handbook intercultural competence, 2 volumes), ISBN 3-280-02691-1 and ISBN 3-280-05081-2. As Author of the book and founder of the institute (CICB) I agree licensing under GFDL of the here mentioned text (if possible with indication of source). --User: Mike2000. Email: baumer@cicb.net.
Can we remove some buzzwords from this thing? "Steeringly"? What is that? Perle 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Done -- Mike2000 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this topic is related to nonverbal communication, but is not a type of nonverbal communication. There should be a link to nonverbal communication as a related topic, but not inclusion in the category. Cbdorsett 08:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Metacommunicative competence can be unerstood as part (or also as generic term) of nonverbal communication. Although I'm open to remove the category, I suggest to keep it. -- Mike2000 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't merge it.
These terms are very different from each other. Although there are a correlation and some common aspects, I wouldn't merge these two definitions. -- Mike2000 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think you hit the nail on the head, there. If Wikipedia were a dictionary, your point would be well taken. However, an encyclopedia is a collection of articles about subject areas, and each article talks about all the related concepts within one area. So I still think they should be merged. This does not mean that the two concepts will be written into one, just that they will appear in the same article, being contrasted and compared. This will promote understanding of both concepts. Cbdorsett 05:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- PLEASE please stop this urge to merge! Consider where the logic takes you. Firstly, para-language is in any case, by definition (para- vs meta- and language vs. communication), a subset of meta-communication not the other way around. Secondly if these two are to be merged then why not merge the two into Language? Why not then merge Linguistics into language together with Grammar and semantics, and as all are bio-physical constructs we could merge all bio-physical ineteractional subjects into one area. We can proceed with impeccable logic like this until wikipedia becomes one immense article, inmpossible to read, and only making any sort of sense to the authors. The point of Wikipedia is not to set out the taxonomy of reality but to serve as a repository of indormation and the success of that depends on it being searchable and usable. The guide for editing should not be "there's a link let's merge" but "what is the positive benefit of mergeing as opposed to simply linking?". Yes, there will be duplication of information, but that is unimportant by comparison. Leave the article be and allow it to grow, not least because it is an extremely important and yet unpromoted subject, that I for one value. LookingGlass ( talk) 06:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- p.s. as the article is so short at the moment, those who want any mergeing couild simply cut 'n paste the bits they want to merge to where they think these should occur. LookingGlass ( talk) 06:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I fear this article may go the way of a many others I have valued on Wiki over the years, and be merged or otherwise dismembered. I find the meta-framework of language provided in the intro: simple, logical and useful in many ways. It seems so elementary that similar models must abound, though I have not found any as clear. Sadly I fear the article may about to be lost. So, to whoever eluciated such clarity - a sincere and heartfelt thank you: Thank you! LookingGlass ( talk) 17:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Forgot I'd already written this! Over a year and still can't seem to fix that simple list in my brain: verbal, paraverbal, nonverbal, extraverbal. Thanks for keeping the reference alive! LookingGlass ( talk) 18:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Source: CICB Center of Intercultural Competence (www.cicb.net). Further source (in german language): "Handbuch Interktulturelle Kompetenz" (handbook intercultural competence, 2 volumes), ISBN 3-280-02691-1 and ISBN 3-280-05081-2. As Author of the book and founder of the institute (CICB) I agree licensing under GFDL of the here mentioned text (if possible with indication of source). --User: Mike2000. Email: baumer@cicb.net.
Can we remove some buzzwords from this thing? "Steeringly"? What is that? Perle 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Done -- Mike2000 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this topic is related to nonverbal communication, but is not a type of nonverbal communication. There should be a link to nonverbal communication as a related topic, but not inclusion in the category. Cbdorsett 08:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Metacommunicative competence can be unerstood as part (or also as generic term) of nonverbal communication. Although I'm open to remove the category, I suggest to keep it. -- Mike2000 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't merge it.
These terms are very different from each other. Although there are a correlation and some common aspects, I wouldn't merge these two definitions. -- Mike2000 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think you hit the nail on the head, there. If Wikipedia were a dictionary, your point would be well taken. However, an encyclopedia is a collection of articles about subject areas, and each article talks about all the related concepts within one area. So I still think they should be merged. This does not mean that the two concepts will be written into one, just that they will appear in the same article, being contrasted and compared. This will promote understanding of both concepts. Cbdorsett 05:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- PLEASE please stop this urge to merge! Consider where the logic takes you. Firstly, para-language is in any case, by definition (para- vs meta- and language vs. communication), a subset of meta-communication not the other way around. Secondly if these two are to be merged then why not merge the two into Language? Why not then merge Linguistics into language together with Grammar and semantics, and as all are bio-physical constructs we could merge all bio-physical ineteractional subjects into one area. We can proceed with impeccable logic like this until wikipedia becomes one immense article, inmpossible to read, and only making any sort of sense to the authors. The point of Wikipedia is not to set out the taxonomy of reality but to serve as a repository of indormation and the success of that depends on it being searchable and usable. The guide for editing should not be "there's a link let's merge" but "what is the positive benefit of mergeing as opposed to simply linking?". Yes, there will be duplication of information, but that is unimportant by comparison. Leave the article be and allow it to grow, not least because it is an extremely important and yet unpromoted subject, that I for one value. LookingGlass ( talk) 06:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- p.s. as the article is so short at the moment, those who want any mergeing couild simply cut 'n paste the bits they want to merge to where they think these should occur. LookingGlass ( talk) 06:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I fear this article may go the way of a many others I have valued on Wiki over the years, and be merged or otherwise dismembered. I find the meta-framework of language provided in the intro: simple, logical and useful in many ways. It seems so elementary that similar models must abound, though I have not found any as clear. Sadly I fear the article may about to be lost. So, to whoever eluciated such clarity - a sincere and heartfelt thank you: Thank you! LookingGlass ( talk) 17:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Forgot I'd already written this! Over a year and still can't seem to fix that simple list in my brain: verbal, paraverbal, nonverbal, extraverbal. Thanks for keeping the reference alive! LookingGlass ( talk) 18:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)