What is the 'not face'? Everyone has one, say scientists.

Researchers have identified a universal facial expression of negation that could provide clues into the evolution of language. 

Courtesy of Benitez-Quiroz et al.
Researchers tested the hypothesis that compounding the expressions of negative moral judgment (anger, disgust, contempt) yields a grammaticalized universal facial expression of negation: the "not face". Shown on top are the three facial expressions of anger, disgust and contempt and their corresponding AUs. The AUs with an outer box are the ones that are combined to express negation (bottom image).

When speaking, your face may be saying more than you know, and it's speaking a language just about anyone can understand.

One particular facial expression transcends language barriers, researchers at Ohio State University found. They dubbed the universal expression the "not face" because it punctuates negative sentiments, much like the word "not."

The "not face" is a combination of a furrowed brow, pressed lips, and a raised chin. The researchers found that people make this expression when expressing a negation such as "I do not agree" or "I am not going to the party." 

And this facial expression is independent of language. Subjects made the "not face" whether they were speaking English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, or American Sign Language (ASL), the researchers report in a paper published in the journal Cognition.

Not only did the research subjects make the "not face" when making negative statements, some of the ASL speakers also used the "not face" instead of signing the word "not."

The "not face" is a sort of facial grammatical marker, something that indicates the grammatical function of a phrase, like adding -ed at the end of a verb to change the tense, says study author Aleix Martinez, a cognitive scientist at Ohio State University. 

And that makes this facial expression part of language, he says. "Grammatical markers are part of the grammar. The grammar is what defines human language," Dr. Martinez tells The Christian Science Monitor in an email. "Other forms of communication are not considered a language because they do not have grammar."

Discovering that the "not face" is universal could unlock the mysterious origins of human language. 

"Language (i.e., grammar) is one of the most surprising cognitive abilities of humans," Martinez says. "Almost everything else we have can be traced back through evolution, except language. How’s that our closest living relatives do not have it? Do they have some components of it? Primates can communicate nonverbally, is that where language evolved from?"

"We hypothesize that the answer is yes," he says. "Our hypothesis is that facial expressions of emotion (which is a type of nonverbal communication) evolved into grammatical markers (i.e. language). This provides a viable evolutionary route for the development of human language."

To test for a facial grammatical marker, researchers filmed subjects as they had a conversation in their native language. Then they looked at the videos frame by frame to identify exactly which facial muscles were moving when. 

The "not face" is a combination of three different expressions Martinez had identified in a previous study: anger, disgust, and contempt. The furrowed brow comes from anger, the raised chin is from disgust and the pressed lips is from contempt. 

These illustrate the evolution of communication, says Martinez. "Facial expressions are assumed to have evolved for sensory regulation and as a protective mechanism. For example, disgust is thought to protect us from germs; note it involves closing the mouth, nostrils, and eyes. Anger contracts the muscles of the face, potentially protecting us from punches or in a fall," he says. 

But expressions of disgust and anger have evolved to respond to less physical, or more "moral" scenarios, like when someone insults you or has an opinion you find repulsive, Martinez explains. So the "not face," the universal marker of negation, may be a compound of those moral expressions.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.