Verbal and nonverbal communication are seen in terms of interacting streams of spontaneous and symbolic communication, and posed "pseudo-spontaneous" displays. Spontaneous communication is defined as the nonintentional communication of motivational-emotional states based upon biologically shared nonpropositional signal systems, with information transmitted via displays. Symbolic communication is the intentional communication, using learned, socially shared signal systems, of propositional information transmitted via symbols. Pseudospontaneous communication involves the intentional and strategic manipulation of displays. An original meta-analysis demonstrates that, like verbal symbolic communication, nonverbal analogic (pantomimic) communication is related to lefthemisphere cerebral processing. In contrast, spontaneous communication is related to the right hemisphere.A general theory of communication should account for the natural biologically based aspects of communication as well as its learned and symbolically structured aspects. Further, such a general theory should include a feedback process-explanations of message production alone or message reception alone, although potentially useful, are incomplete. A corollary of these two criteria is that a general theory of communication should account for the coevolution of symbolic and nonsymbolic feedback processes and their integration into systems of communication characteristic of the human species. Whereas the explication of such a general theory is beyond the scope of this article, developmental interactionist theory (Buck, 1984(Buck, , 1989(Buck, , 1994 does aim to offer such an integrated view. The current article poses how developmental interactionist theory deals with the topic of this special issue of Journal of Communication-the relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication.Ross Buck (PhD, University of Pittsburgh) is a professor of communication sciences and psychology at the University of Connecticut, where C. Arthur VanLear (PhD, University of Utah) is an associate professor of communication sciences.

This study investigated three levels of self-disclosure (public, semiprivate, privatepersonal) in the socialpenetration process. The study addressed three questions.(1) What is the nature of changes in the three levels of disclosure over time? (2) Is self-disclosure reciprocated at the three levels of intimacy? (3) Does reciprocity vary over time and, ij so, how does it vary? Same-sex zero-history dyads participated in a six-week longitudinal study. The half-hour taped conversations were submitted to interaction analysis. Polynomial trend analyses and Markov analyses were used to analyze the data. The results showed: (1) a convex quadratic trend for private-personal disclosures over time; (2) reciprocity at the same level of intimacy as an interactional norm (especially at the beginning and endof the relationship); (3) a cyclicalfluctuation ofreciprocalinteractsover time. These results were interpreted as elaborating the social penetration process. INCE Berlo (1960), communication scholars have offered their ideas concerning what it means to view communication S as process and decried the lack of process research (Alex ander, 1975;Berlo, 1977;Smith, 1972). One result of the process debate was the recognition of the need for longitudinal research (Bochner, 1978;Miller, 1978;Rossiter & Pearce, 1975) and concern for how behaviors are patterned over time (Ellis, 1979;Fisher, 1978). Concurrent