In some situations nonverbal signals are more effective than speech at communicating meaning. Linguistic barriers can make verbal communication uncertain or misleading in some cross-cultural situations. One reason is that people from different countries have different communicative norms, leading to a person’s words being misinterpreted.

In some cross-cultural encounters the participants have different mother tongues and when this is the case meaning may be distorted or lost.

When the wife of a Russian manager assigned to an expatriate post in Bulgaria complained to a Bulgarian doctor about depression, it was difficult to make an accurate diagnosis. The patient spoke no Bulgarian and the doctor spoke very little Russian.
However, the doctor was able to establish the severity of the patient’s depression by using nonverbal communication:
I let the patient know that I was interested and involved in her problem not by words but by nonverbal signals – by smiling and maintaining eye-contact and a relaxed body posture. I spoke to her quietly in Bulgarian, with occasional Russian words interspersed –
the purpose was not to give information but to suggest that there was no need to be anxious or alarmed.
The patient’s own nonverbal behaviour, especially her facial expressions, gestures and body posture, supplied much of the information I needed for my diagnosis. Her face was sad, almost tearful, her body movements were sluggish and retarded. She spoke very quietly, in Russian, with long pauses between the phrases – a sign of nervous exhaustion.
I read these nonverbal signals as indicating of a chronic depressive disorder, and this was confirmed when she showed me some old prescriptions for drugs. The class of drugs on the prescription and the sheer number of them made it clear that I should refer the patient to a psychiatrist. Subsequently the psychiatrist found that the lady was suffering from a major depressive disorder that required treatment based on a combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.

1 To what extent was the doctor right to put so much emphasis on nonverbal communication during the consultation?
2 Is it likely that the doctor would have reached similar conclusions if an interpreter had been used?
3 What would have been the advantages and disadvantages of using an interpreter in this particular situation?