Content uploaded by Jana Bressem
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jana Bressem on Mar 26, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI ./sem--Semiotica ; : –
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
New insights into the medium hand:
Discovering recurrent structures in gestures
Abstract: This paper shows that an analysis of gestures based on the four param-
eters hand shape, orientation, movement, and position in gesture space, intro-
duced for the notation of sign language (Battison 1974; Stokoe 1960) can uncover
recurrent patterns and structures in gestures. By presenting two studies we argue
for a discovery procedure that rests upon a systematic description of gestures ap-
plying the four parameters and upon a clear discrimination between form and
meaning in the analytical process. Using this methodological framework it is pos-
sible to uncover clusters of recurrent forms and a systematic variation of form and
meaning in a recurrent gesture.
Keywords: gestures; form-based analysis; discovery procedure; recurrence in
gestures; grammaticalization; grammar of gesture; gesture-sign interface
Silva H. Ladewig: European University Viadrina. E-mail: mail@silvaladewig.de
Jana Bressem: Chemnitz University of Technology. E-mail: jana.bressem@phil.tu-chemnitz.de
... we can, from the stream of audible sounds and the visible motions ... detect, isolate,
and describe the nature of the linguistic and kinesic behavior. Thus we may be able to dis-
cover and describe our discoveries ...
– Birdwhistell (1970: 97)
Introduction
Almost y years have passed since William C. Stokoe, in his publication “Sign
Language structure” (1960), put forward the argument that signs in sign lan-
guages can be broken down into a list of meaningless units that combine with
each other to form the lexical items of a sign language. Accordingly, similar to
spoken languages, signed languages exhibit a structural level that corresponds to
the phonological level in spoken languages. By introducing three main aspects of
signs, i.e. hand shape (designator), location (tabula), and movement (signation),
and the values of these three aspects as distinctive phonological units (called
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
cheremes analogous to phonemes), Stokoe showed that by substituting one of the
feature values minimal pairs in sign languages can be identied (see also Stokoe
et al. 1965). With Battison’s (1974) expansion by the aspect of “orientation,” sub-
sumed in Stokoe’s dierentiation under the term designator, and the designation
of the units as “parameters” by Klima and Bellugi (1979), Stokoe’s notion of the
dierent aspects of sign languages has persisted in subsequent work on sign lan-
guages ever since. The four parameters of signs have not only been fruitful for the
notation of sign languages. They have turned out to be fruitful for the character-
ization of gestures as well. Therefore, they were and still are adapted in gestures
studies. The idea of using the four parameters of sign language as a tool for de-
scribing gestures seems to be logical as we are dealing with a visual medium in
both cases, thus having to overcome comparable obstacles in their analysis. How-
ever, the notion of the four parameters as used for the description of gestures
diers from the one found in sign language linguistics.
In studies on sign language the four parameters are understood as categories
of the phoneme inventory, meaning that each parameter has particular values,
which are distinctive units of a language, i.e. phonemes. In gesture studies, how-
ever, the four parameters are mainly understood as a grid for notating gestural
forms and hardly as categories of the phoneme inventory. Moreover, it is widely
debated whether gestures and gestural meanings are composed of isolated fea-
tures (Calbris 1990, 2003, 2008; Kendon 2004; Müller 2004; Webb 1996, 1998) or
whether they are holistic or “global” in nature, i.e., the features of a gesture are
determined by the meaning of the whole (McNeill 1992, 2005; McNeill and Duncan
2000; Parrill 2008; Parrill and Sweetser 2002, 2004; for a discussion see Kendon
2008).
Although the idea that gestures show dierent meanings due to contrasting
features was introduced into the study of gestures very early (see for example de
Jorio 2000 [1832]; Wundt 1921; Neville 1905), the four parameters were only selec-
tively included into the study of gestures. Moreover, studies implementing the
parameters as a means for description vary in the degree to which the four param-
eters are applied. Some studies include a detailed description of all four param-
eters (e.g., Becker 2004; Bressem 2007, 2013; Ladewig 2007, 2010, 2011a; Müller
1998; Mittelberg 2006, 2007; Neumann 2004; Poggi 2002, 2008; Sparhawk 1978;
Webb 1996) whereas others focus on one or more parameters (e.g., Calbris 1990;
Harrison 2008; Kendon 2004; Müller 2004; Teßendorf 2008).
Accordingly, what we would like to suggest in this paper is that the four
parameters of sign language can and should be used as an instrument for a sys-
tematic description of gestural forms. We will show that they have the potential to
be applied as an analytical device, which a) detects new and unknown patterns
and structures in gestures and b) allows for a renement and specication of
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
already-identied or familiar phenomena. Furthermore, we suggest a description
of gestures from a linguistic-semiotic perspective (see below). The two studies pre-
sented below show two possible ways of applying this form-based approach. The
rst study focuses on the various hand shapes, orientations, movements, and po-
sitions in gesture space describable in the use of gestures by German speakers.
They will be investigated without referring to possible meanings attached to
them. Furthermore, the recurrent use of gestural forms and clusters will be shown.
The second study investigates the recurrent cyclic gesture (Ladewig 2007, 2010,
2011) and demonstrates that the position of gesture space, a parameter oen ne-
glected in the depiction of gestures, dierentiates variants of this gesture. Fur-
thermore, the movement size was found to contribute to one gestural variant of
the cyclic gesture.
In the following section, we will present the methodological and analytical
background of the studies. Aer presenting both studies, we will discuss the pro-
cedure and the results in the light of gesture studies, (cognitive) linguistics and
sign language linguistics.
The four parameters of sign language as a
description framework – a linguistic-semiotic
perspective
A linguistic-semiotic approach to the study of gestures is grounded in the assump-
tion that language is inherently multimodal (see for instance Fricke 2012; Müller
2007, 2008). Furthermore, speech and gesture are understood as being insepara-
bly connected (Kendon 1980, 2004; McNeill 1985, 1992, 2005). Consequently, it is
assumed that speech and gesture are based on comparable principles such that
gesture and speech show similar as well as diverging patterns and structures in
their set up. A linguistic-semiotic approach therefore aims at a) discovering struc-
tures in gestures and giving an account of a “grammar” of gesture (Fricke 2012;
Muntigl 2004; Müller 1998; Müller et al. 2005; Müller et al. 2013 and b) at describ-
ing the relation of speech and gesture in conjunction from the perspective of a
multimodal grammar (Fricke 2012; see also Bressem 2012; Ladewig 2012). The
focus of a linguistic-semiotic approach is centered on examining possible struc-
tures, patterns, and regularities in gestures while having the following assump-
tions in mind:
. Gestures show regularities and structures (Fricke 2012; Kendon 1996, 2004;
Mittelberg 2006, 2010; Müller 1998, 2010; Müller et al. 2013 Webb 1996, 1998),
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
. Gestures have the potential to contribute information to the ongoing talk
that is not conveyed in speech (Becker 2004; Beattie and Shovelton 1999;
Bergmann and Kopp 2006; Brookes 2001, 2004; Calbris 1990, 2003; Cassell
and Prevost 1996; Fricke 2010, 2012; Gerwing and Alison 2009; Harrison
2008, 2009; Kendon 2004; Kipp 2004; Kopp et al. 2004; Ladewig 2007, 2011,
2012; Lascarides and Stone 2009; Lausberg and Sloetjes 2009; Lücking et al.
2010; Martell 2005; Müller 1998, 2004, 2010; Payrato 1993; Poggi 2002; Sowa
2006; Sowa and Wachsmuth 2001; Webb 1996, 1998),
. Gestures are (to some extent) compositional (Becker 2004; Bressem 2012;
Calbris 1990, 2003; Fricke 2010, 2012; Kendon 2004; Kopp and Wachsmuth
2004; Ladewig 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012; Müller 2004; Müller et al. 2013)
. Gestures combine to larger units (Bressem 2012; Fricke 2012; Kopp et al. 2004;
Müller et al. 2013).
Precursors to this linguistic-semiotic approach have their origins in studies con-
ducted in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which implicitly assume
or explicitly mention gestural contrastivity established through dierent param-
eters (see for example de Jorio 1832 [2000]; Wundt 1921; Neville et al. 1905). It is
furthermore grounded in analyses conducted in the 1970s that substantiate the
hypothesis that the meaning of a gesture is achieved through the combination of
dierent features or parameters (e.g., Efron 1972; Sparhawk 1978).
A linguistic-semiotic approach goes hand in hand with a particular analytical
and methodological procedure. It emerged from the work of the FU Gesture
Project as well as of the interdisciplinary project “Towards a grammar of Ges-
ture” (Togog). The method has been used and expanded by its members in their
own studies (Becker 2004; Bressem 2007, 2013; Ladewig 2007, 2010, 2011; Müller
2004, 2010; Tag 2008; Teßendorf 2008; see also Bressem et al. 2013) and is largely
characterized by the following attributes: 1) The minimum requirement for a
form-based characterization is an annotation of the four parameters hand shape,
orientation, movement, and position in gesture space (“four feature scheme” Beck-
er 2004: 62). It is based on the observation that all four parameters are realized at
all times while gesturing. 2) The examination of the form is given a higher prior-
ity within the analysis procedure. Accordingly, a separate analysis of form, mean-
ing, and function of gestures is proposed, which results in a segmentation and
coding of gestural forms irrespective of speech. 3) The meaning of a gesture is
1 http://www.berlingesturecenter.de/berlingestureproject/fugestureproject.html
2 When no movement is performed as is in a hold, the parameter movement is characterized as
“not realized” (Becker 2004: 60–61).
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
reected in its form such that the modication of a gestural form may entail
changes in the meaning of a gesture.
Based on these considerations we will present a three-step procedure that
shares commonalities with the approach by others mentioned above but focuses
particular aspects more strongly (e.g., form description, separation of speech and
gesture) and follows a slightly dierent analytical systematic (cf. Müller 2010).
.Analyzing gestures – a 3-step procedure
..Form description-gesture only (no sound)
The rst step in the analytical procedure focuses solely on gestures’ forms. For
that reason, gestures are analyzed irrespective of speech, meaning that during
this step of analysis the sound is turned o. In order to describe gestures’ forms
gestural movement sequences are described in terms of gesture phases (e.g.,
Kendon 1980; Bressem and Ladewig 2011). The gesture phases, at least the strokes
and holds, are described by way of the four parameters hand shape, orientation,
movement, and position in gesture space. Of course, the possibility to concentrate
on particular parameters or aspects of gestural forms depends on the research
question. However, if one wants to use the proposed method as a discovery pro-
cedure to detect structures and patterns in gestures, no parameter should be
excluded from the description.
..Form in relation to gestural meaning – gesture only (no sound)
The second analytical step is to investigate the semantic content conveyed by the
gestural form only. As many scholars of gestures have pointed out, a gesture does
not only and not always convey the same meaning expressed in the spoken utter-
ance. More precisely, the fewest number of gestures transmits redundant infor-
mation to that expressed in speech (Bressem 2012). Gestures can, for instance,
convey complementary information (Bavelas et al. 2002; Calbris 1990; Fricke
2012; Hostetter et al. 2007; Kendon 2004; Sandler 2003; Scheen 1973) or new
information (e.g., Ladewig 2011b). Furthermore it was found that a “topic of [a]
conversation is easily decoded from the gestures” (Streeck 1988: 72). The presen-
tation of gestures without their spoken contexts was even deployed as a tech-
nique for getting “an initial indication of the gesture’s independence from
speech” and possible ranges of meaning (Brookes 2004: 191).
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
What becomes clear from these remarks is that gestures have the potential to
convey information on their own and that researchers seem to have an idea of
what images a gesture can convey. We suggest to consider this interpretation pro-
cess of gestural meanings, which is oen pursued implicitly, as one step in the
reconstruction of a gesture’s meaning and consequently as a separate step of
analysis. We refer to the meaning that is conveyed by the gestural form only as
“inherent meaning.” It reduces the range of meanings a gesture can carry in its
spoken contexts and is composed of the meanings conveyed by the four parame-
ters and their underlying image schematic and motor patterns. Accordingly,
parameter realizations alone or in co-occurrence generate a geometric gure vis-
ible in the hands themselves and/or in the traces they leave in gesture space
(Bressem 2012; Ladewig 2012; Mittelberg 2006, 2010; Müller 2010; Sowa 2006).
Such a geometric gure already conveys very basic and schematic information.
Regarding the parameter hand shape, for instance, a rounded hand shape might
transmit the semantic information of a “round prole” (Sowa 2006), a at hand
can convey the information of a “surface” (Becker 2004). Regarding the parame-
ter movement, a motion from le to right conveys the information of a “straight
line from le to right.” Co-occurring with a at hand oriented downwards, the
semantic information of “a surface extending from le to right” might be con-
veyed (see also Sowa 2006). Together with the notions of image schematic and
motor patterns (e.g., Cienki 1998; Mittelberg 2006, 2010) underlying the gestural
form, the inherent meaning becomes more complex. Accordingly a at hand ori-
ented upwards can carry the inherent meaning of a “surface oering support.” A
st can carry the meaning of “a roundish prole enclosing an entity.”
.. Forms and meanings of gestures in relation to speech – gesture
andspeech
In the third analytical step, gestures’ forms and meanings are brought together.
The form-meaning analysis of gestures is related to the analysis of the spoken
3 With respect to iconic gestures researchers have referred to the notion of a inherent meaning
as “inherent content” (Kopp et al. 2004), “internal imagery” (Sowa 2006), “inherent meaning
potential” (Bohle 2007), “underspecied meaning” (Lascarides and Stone 2009) or “context-
independent meaning” (Müller 2010). The semantics of recurrent and emblematic gestures is
designated in terms of a “basic or inherent meaning” (Sherzer 1991), a “semantic theme” (Kendon
2004; Müller 2004) or a “semantic core” (Ladewig 2007, 2010, 2011; Teßendorf 2008).
4 This relationship between form and semantics does not hold for all gesture types. In some
cases of emblematic gestures the relationship between form and meaning can be described as
opaque.
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
utterance. More specically, the results yielded by step 1 and 2 are related to the
ndings of a context-of-use analysis and the determination of the (sequential)
position, for instance (see also Ladewig 2007, 2010; Müller 2010). In so doing, the
meaning and function of a gesture within its spoken context can be determined
and context as well as form variants can be detected; at least for recurrent ges-
tures or emblems. Correlations of form and context can be systematically in-
vestigated over a number of instances of recurrent gestures or emblems since the
application of the four parameters avoids an unsystematic description of gestures
and a confusion of categories as each parameter is described separately. This
third step also allows for conclusions on the semiotic processes involved in the
meaning-creation process of a gesture.
. Using the four parameters as analysis tool –
two form-based studies
The research question that guides both analyses is whether and to what degree
speakers of German make use of recurrent gestural forms and how these ges-
turalforms are distributed. The goal is to detect patterns and regularities in the
use of gestures by a) focusing on the physical appearance of gestures in the
rstplace and b) by extracting the phenomena from the data itself. In order to
answer these questions, we chose a qualitative approach using a descriptive
statistics for the following reasons: 1) As the investigation of conversational phe-
nomena is in the focus of the studies, the analyses are based on conversational
situations, in which these phenomena were expected to occur in a most natural
and unaected way. Accordingly, the data were not produced in an experi-
mental setting but naturally occurring conversations were recorded. 2) As the
phenomena were to some degree unknown in their forms and distribution (see
below), we needed to apply a bottom-up approach, i.e. a strictly inductive per-
spective on the analysis of gestures. We believe that only a qualitative analysis
oers sucient scope for the discovery of gestural patterns and regularities,
allows for a constant reection on the method and the phenomena under investi-
gation, and encourages the inclusion of relevant sequential as well as contextual
information. 3) In order to be able to conduct an experimental study or a quantita-
tive analysis, the phenomena under investigation should be analyzed in detail in
advance using a qualitative approach. 4) Due to the complex and ne-grained
method (cf. Section 2.1), we had to use a small data set upon which our analyses
were based.
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
..Recurrent form features in gestures
The study to be presented in the following section aims at a description of the use,
distribution and clusters of gestural form features in German speakers (see also
Bressem 2007). In particular, the analysis addresses the following three questions:
. Which hand shapes, orientations, positions, and movements do German
speakers use in naturally occurring conversations?
. How are the realizations of the four parameters distributed?
. Is it possible to detect frequent co-occurrences of parameter realizations?
The study concentrates on a characterization of the physical appearance of the
“communicative movements of the hand and arms” (Müller 1998: 13, our transla-
tion). It focuses on the various types of hand shapes, orientations of the hand,
movements, and positions in gesture space that are observable when watching
people gesture. Possible meanings associated with these form features will not be
of interest.
Although in a few cases gestures are also investigated based on their forms
only (see below), analyses on gestures have usually aimed at kinesic features in
relation to semantic themes (see for example Calbris 1990; Kendon 2004;
Mittelberg 2006; Müller 2004), meaning that gestures’ forms are mostly analyzed
in dependency on the accompanying speech. At this point, the present study ties
in with the existing research and examines whether regularities and structures in
the use of gestures can be detected by separating form and meaning. By detach-
ing gestures from speech, the study tries to explore what kinds of form-based
patterns are extractable from the various types of gestures occurring in natural
conversations and what kinds of conclusions about the nature of gestures’ forms
can be drawn on the basis and ndings of such a perspective. If it is possible to
show that gestures may build recurring structures on the basis of form and mean-
ing, as previous analyses have suggested, then it should also be possible to nd
patterns on the level of form only.
The study was based on two dyadic naturally occurring conversations
(altogether y minutes), in which three female and one male speaker were free
to talk about a subject of their choice and did not know that gestures were the
subject of investigation (see Müller 1998: 177).
A qualitative, bottom-up approach and a small data set were deliberately
chosen for the study to detect possible structures and patterns. As such, the study
aimed at reporting tendencies in the use of gestural form features.
5 I would like to thank Cornelia Müller for giving me the opportunity to work with her data.
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
The analysis proceeded along the following analytical steps: 1) Regardless of
the type of gesture (for an overview of gesture classications see Fricke 2007;
Kendon 2004; Müller 1998) each instance in which the speakers were gesticulat-
ing was coded. 2) The form-based characterization of the strokes and holds was
done using a notational system combining approaches from gesture as well as
sign language studies for the description of form features (see Bressem 2013). For
the coding of the gesture phases as well as the description of the gestural form
features the annotation soware ELAN was used. Using this methodological pro-
cedure, 566 strokes and 55 holds were coded. 3) These 623 occurrences were made
the basis for the evaluation of the use, distribution and co-occurrence of the ges-
tural form features. The evaluation was done using a descriptive statistic.
The following section will briey discuss the results of the study by choosing
a particular example to illustrate the results, namely, the at hand. (For a more
detailed account on the study see Bressem 2007.)
.. Which hand shapes, orientations, positions, and movements do German
speakers use in naturally occurring conversations? How are the
realizations of the four parameters distributed?
Altogether, the analysis documented thirty dierent hand shapes that were used
by the four speakers in the corpus (cf. Figure 1 for an overview of the hand shapes).
These thirty hand shapes include ones used by all the speakers as well as those
used by single speakers only. However, if the question is centered on possible
characteristic hand shapes for all speakers, only gestural forms used by all speakers
are of interest.
Out of the thirty dierent hand shapes, the four speakers used only six hand
shapes recurrently (cf. Figure 2). Thus, seemingly only a small portion was used
recurrently by all speakers. However with 84% of all occurrences, these six hand
shapes make up the majority of the documented hand shapes. Therefore, congu-
rations used by single speakers make up only a small part of the documented
hand shapes (16%), suggesting that the six recurrent ones maybe characteristic
hand shapes for German speakers.
Although all speakers used the six hand shapes recurrently, their use also
varies. As can be seen in Figure 2, the “at hand” and the “lax at” hand are used
proportionally more oen than the rest, making them the two most commonly-used
hand shapes of the four speakers.
The initial picture of a vast variety of thirty dierent hand shapes has shied
towards a small number of particular forms. Contrary to the initial impression,
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
Fig. 1: Overview of the hand shapes used by the four speakers
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
according to which German speakers seem to vary immensely in their use of hand
shapes, the speakers barely dier in their use and seem to fall back on particular
congurations recurrently. Individually-used hand shapes only constitute a small
portion of the hand shapes, singling out possibly characteristic gestural forms
not only for the four speakers investigated but also for German speakers in
general.
Similar results were also yielded for the parameters orientation, movement,
and position. For each one of them we were able to document a range of possible
parameter realizations of which all speakers in the corpus used some recurrently.
For the parameter orientation, we documented ve recurrent types of orienta-
tions used by all speakers: “Palm Lateral Towards Center” (PLTC), “Palm Up”
(PU), “Palm Down” (PD), “Palm Vertical Away Body” (PVAB) and “Palm Vertical
Towards Body” (PVTB) (McNeill 1992). Regarding the parameter movement, all
speakers used the following types of movements: “straight,” “arced,” “circle,”
“wrist,” and “wrist rotation.” Other than for the remaining parameters, in which
a clear dierence between forms used by all speakers and forms used by single
speakers only could be detected, for the direction of movement the number re-
mains almost the same across speakers. Out of sixteen documented directions of
movement, fourteen recurred across speakers indicating that the speakers are not
Fig. 2: Overview of the hand shapes used by the four speakers
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
as limited here but rather have a vast range of possible types of directions at
hand. Regarding manner of movement, i.e., the markedness of the movement with
respect to particular movement features, the following types were documented
for all speakers: reduced, enlarged, accelerated, decelerated, and accentuated.
Regarding the parameter position, ve recurrent ones could be identied encom-
passing the region between the face and the lap of the speaker, i.e., “periphery
upper,” “center upper,” “center center,” “center lower,” and “periphery lower.”
Consequently, the study was able to answer the rst two questions, namely,
which types of parameter realizations are used and how are they distributed. The
analysis showed that all speakers used the majority of gestural forms, and that
gestural forms used by single speakers constitute only a small portion.
.. Is it possible to detect frequent co-occurrences of parameter
realizations?
For four out of the six recurrent hand shapes a range of possible clusters, i.e.,
simultaneous occurrence of four parameter realizations, was documented for the
four speakers. The amount of clusters thereby varied from ve clusters for the
“spread at hand” to een for the “at hand.”
The cluster that was documented most oen for the “at hand” can be seen
in Figure 3. In 16.4% of all cases, the speakers used the at hand co-occurring
with a “PLTC” orientation, a “straight” movement “downwards” while the hands
were positioned in the gesture space ranging from “periphery upper” to “periph-
ery lower.” For the remaining three hand shapes, clusters could be detected as
well (Figure 3). Interestingly, these hand shapes show a similar co-occurrence of
form features as the at hand, i.e., “PTLC,” “straight” movement, “down.” Only
the conguration “2 stretched” was used most oen with a movement “upwards.”
Concluding, we can state that the recurrent hand shapes repeatedly co-
occurred with three types of parameter realizations. Consequently, there seems to
be agreement across hand shapes with which type of gestural forms they occur.
Moreover, the agreement in the use of gestural forms gives the impression that
the co- occurrence of a “PLTC” orientation and a “straight” movement might be a
characteristic co-occurrence of parameter realizations in German speakers.
Thus it was not only possible to extract the hand shape at hand as a fre-
quently used conguration for German speakers but it was also possible to show
that this hand shape co-occurs with a limited set of gestural forms recurrently.
Speakers therefore not only display a systematic use of forms on the level of one
parameter but also on the level of four.
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
..The cyclic gesture and its variants
The following study focuses on a recurrent gesture: A recurrent gesture is used
repeatedly in dierent contexts and its formational and semantic core remains
stable across dierent contexts and speakers. Recurrent gestures show a stable
form-meaning relationship but do not have a word-like status like emblems
(Ekman and Friesen 1969). They are not as conventionalized as emblems but
more conventionalized than spontaneous, idiosyncratic gestures (McNeill 1992)
since they show a particular form coming with a particular meaning. Accordingly,
recurrent gestures can be dened as an independent gesture type which numerous
studies have shown (Brookes 2001, 2004; Harrison 2008; Kendon 1995, 2004;
Müller 2004; Seyfeddinipur 2004; Teßendorf 2008). Furthermore, on a continu-
um from gesture to sign language (Kendon 1988; McNeill 1992, 2005) recurrent
gestures can be positioned between idiosyncratic gestures and emblems (Fricke
2012; Ladewig 2007, 2012). Whereas McNeill suggests that “gesticulation at the
Fig. 3: Most frequent clusters for 4 of the 6 recurrent hand shapes
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
end of the continuum is unlike language” (McNeill 1992: 41), which means that
idiosyncratic gestures are regarded global-synthetic, non-combinatoric, showing
no standards of form, the study presented by Bressem (see above) has already
shown that spontaneous co-speech gestures can be segmented into single form
parameters. In the following we are going to show that a recurrent gesture carries
linguistic properties such as segmentability and distribution of gestural variants
over dierent contexts of use.
The analysis is part of a larger study conducted in 2006. It starts from a par-
ticular movement pattern, namely, the continuous circular movement of the
hand, performed away from the body, i.e. outward (Figure 4), which had been
observed frequently in everyday German discourse. This movement pattern was
dened as the formational core of this recurrent gesture. Although the gesture
was found to distribute over a stable set of contexts of use (see below), only one
meaning or rather one semantic core could be reconstructed, namely, cyclic
continuity (see also Calbris 1990; Müller 2000, 2004) being based on the image
schema cycle (Johnson 1987). Based upon these considerations this recurrent
gesture was termed the “cyclic gesture” (see also Ladewig 2007, 2010, 2011).
Fig. 4: The cyclic gesture
In the following section we will give a summary of the analysis according to which
we reasoned to a variation of form and context in the case of the cyclic gesture.
The data upon which the study is based consist of ten hours of naturally oc-
curring conversations in which altogether twelve German speakers (seven female
and ve male speakers) participated. Everyday conversations between people
6 I am grateful to Mathias Rolo for providing the drawing (http://www.mathiasrolo.de).
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
who know each other were videotaped (family relations, friends). The subjects
were of all ages ranging from the age of twenty-one to the age of eighty. The re-
cordings were not prepared in advance, which basically means that the camera
was set up when people held a conversation. Neither were the conversations re-
stricted to a topic nor to task (except for eighty minutes of a parlor game). Our
concern was to collect data that are as natural as possible.
Although the occurrence of the gesture to be investigated was known, we did
not conduct an experiment as form, meaning, and function of the phenomenon
had not been studied in depth before. Accordingly, a qualitative and bottom-up
approach was chosen to detect forms and patterns of the gesture under investiga-
tion. In order to quantify the results and make tendencies of a form-and-context
variation visible, a descriptive statistics was used.
In the rst step of the analysis, the data were sied through without speech,
identifying all gestures exhibiting the continuous outward movement. Aer-
wards, a corpus of 56 cyclic gestures were identied that were distributed over the
following “contexts of use” (see Figure 5):
– 37 cyclic gestures during a word or concept search,
– 12 cyclic gestures in the context of descriptions,
– 6 cyclic gestures in the context of a request,
– 1 cyclic gesture in the context of an enumeration.
In a form-based analysis based on the four parameters, including a description
ofthe movement size, followed by an analysis of speech (cf. Section 1 and 2.1)
the semantic core as well as variants of the cyclic gesture were gured out.
Allsteps of analysis were conducted in Elan. The form-based analysis and the
context-of-use analysis were then related to each other in order to investigate
whether the variation of gestural forms correlate with the variation of context of
use. The ndings are summarized in the following.
7 The term “context of use” that is dened with respect to a particular procedure of investigating
recurrent patterns (Kendon 2004; Scheen 1973; see also Birdwhistell 1970) was broadly charac-
terized as “the ‘discursive situation’ in which a recurrent gesture occurs. Basically, we deter-
mined the speech activity that the speaker conducted while s/he was using the cyclic gesture. It
contributes to a gesture’s meanings and functions and is useful in order to group the variants of
a recurrent gesture” (Ladewig 2007, 2011).
8 The movement size was dened with respect to the body parts involved, i.e. forearm, hand,
single ngers, and the stretching of these parts. The feature “large” applied to a stretched hand
and/or the use of the forearm during the performance of the rotating motion. The feature
“medium” applied when the hand was held relaxed, “small” when no more than one or more
ngers were used.
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
As pointed out above, 55 instances of the cyclic gesture were distributed over
three contexts of use: word/concept searches, descriptions, and requests. Since
the number of instances was too low in the context of enumerations, we could not
include this variant into a systematic description. In its primary use, the context
of a word/concept search, the cyclic gesture presents the searching activity as a
continuous activity, thereby reecting the semantic core of cyclic continuity. It
fullls a performative function, more precisely a meta-communicative function,
showing that the speech activity of searching for a word/concept is in progress. At
the same time it functions as a turn-holding device: While the speaker is search-
ing for a word or concept, s/he uses the cyclic gesture in order to not lose the right
of speaking. This variation of context, meaning, and function correlates with
variation of form: It was found that this context variant was typically performed
with an open hand oriented towards the speaker’s body (PBOH, 41%).
The typical position in gesture space was determined following McNeill’s di-
vision of gesture space into concentric squares (McNeill 1992: 89, cf. Figure 5).
Since determining one typical position resulted in an unclear listing of dierent
positions, they were combined into arrays such as “periphery upper right to cen-
ter right.” For the cyclic gesture used in the context of a word/concept search, the
Fig. 5: Arrays of gesture space adapted to McNeill (1992: 89)
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
speaker’s central gesture space was found to be preferred, i.e., in 84% of all cases
the gesture was positioned in the gesture space “periphery upper center to center
center.” The gesture space ‘periphery upper right to center right’ (8%) has been
used just as rarely as the gesture space ‘periphery upper le to center le’ (5%).
The movement size did not vary substantially in that no tendency towards a typi-
cal size could be found (Figure 6).
In the context of descriptions the cyclic gesture is used with “referential function”
(Müller 1998), i.e., it visualizes semantic aspects of ongoing actions or events. In
most cases, i.e. in ten out of twelve instances, the cyclic gesture was used to refer
to abstract things or events. Additional meanings besides the semantic core of
cyclic continuity reected in the formational core come with additional parameter
realizations: Like the cyclic gesture used in the context of a word/concept search,
this variant was typically performed with an open hand oriented towards the
speaker’s body (62%). Interestingly, this context variant also showed a strong ten-
dency towards being positioned in a particular gesture space: It was primarily
Fig. 6: Context and form variants of the cyclic gesture
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
used in the right periphery of the speaker’s gesture space, that is in 58% of the
cases (“periphery upper right to center right,” Figure 5). 42% of the gestures were
positioned in the central gesture space (“periphery upper center to center cen-
ter”). With respect to the “movement size” no preference could be observed.
The cyclic gesture in the context of requests fullls a “performative function”
(Müller 1998), i.e., the gesture performs a speech act or an “interactional move”
(Kendon 1995: 274): It invites the interlocutor to continue an ongoing (speech)
activity. It basically “cranks up” his/her (speech) activity. This context variant
was typically performed with an open hand oriented towards the speaker’s body
(60%). Like the cyclic gestures used in the context of a word/concept search and
of a description, this variant showed a typical position in gesture space, namely,
the right periphery of the speaker’s body (“periphery upper right to center right,”
67%, Figure 6). In 33% of the cases this context variant was positioned in the
central gesture space (“periphery upper center to center center”). Furthermore, in
80% of the cases it was performed with a large movement size.
As can be seen, the three variants show a similar realization with respect to
the parameters hand shape and orientation. All variants were used with a PBOH.
However, they dier from each other with respect to their positions in gesture
space and movement size. The ndings suggest a systematic variation of form and
context within the cyclic gesture.
Summary
In this paper, two phenomena and a particular methodological approach to these
phenomena were presented. Starting from the assumption that each feature a
gesture is composed of might be of importance in the creation of its meaning, we
used the four parameters of sign language to describe a) all strokes and holds that
were used by the speakers in the whole data set of the rst study and b) all in-
stances of a particular gestural form that were identied in a data set by means of
one parameter, i.e., movement, in the second study. By way of using the four
parameters hand shape, orientation, movement, and position in gesture space, we
were able to discover and describe recurrent patterns in gestural forms, namely,
a) recurrent forms and clusters of form features German speakers make use of
recurrently and b) a recurrent gesture and its variants that show a systematic vari-
ation of form and context. Using the four parameters as a descriptive framework
goes along with a particular approach to the data: The annotation of the param-
eters was done irrespective of speech, i.e., the sound was turned-o during this
analytical step. In doing so, scholars of gestures are able to capture character-
istics that are specic to the medium itself without attaching meaning to it that
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
results from the process of interpreting speech and gesture. Using this method-
ological approach, we discovered the following patterns in gestures.
The rst study investigated the use of gestural forms by German speakers in
naturally occurring conversations. The study was able to show that a) German
speakers have standardized gestural forms which they use recurrently, b) that the
co-occurrence of hand shapes with other gestural forms such as orientation or
movement is not random, and c) that speakers make use of clusters which depend
on particular hand shapes and their co-occurrence with other specic gestural
forms.
The second study investigated the recurrent gesture, showing the stable for-
mational core of the continuous circular outward movement coming with the
semantic core of cyclic continuity. The cyclic gesture, as it was termed, was found
in the context of a word/concept search, a description, and a request. The context
variants dier from each other with respect to the position in gesture space and
the movement size: The cyclic gesture used in the context of a word/concept
search was primarily positioned in the speaker’s central gesture space. The other
two variants were both typically performed in the right periphery of the speaker’s
gesture space but they diered from each other in the movement size. Accord-
ingly, the cyclic gesture used in the context of requests was preferably performed
with a large circular movement. The other variant did not show a tendency to-
wards a particular movement size. From the results we reasoned to a systematic
variation of form and context.
Discussion
Following from the results of the studies presented, the four parameters of sign
language should not only be considered as a useful tool for describing gestures
systematically but also as carrying the analytic power to be used as a discovery
procedure through which new phenomena can be detected. This potential lends
itself to dierent research questions from various disciplines such as (cognitive)
linguistics, anthropology, ethnography, psychology, and cognitive science as it
sets the focus on the forms of the gestures and integrates other analytic aspects
step by step into the analytical process. The approach is thereby usable for
9 The term discovery procedure was rst introduced into the study of language by Bloomeld
(1978 [1933]). In order to be regarded as scientic, linguistics had to conne itself to statements
about observable structures relying on a “bottom-up” procedure applied to a corpus.
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
descriptive as well as experimental approaches to the analysis of gestures and
thus builds an appropriate framework for pursuing various analytical perspec-
tives on gestures.
The rst study addressed the question of recurrence on the level of form only
by investigating repeatedly-used gestural forms and their co-occurrences. Gener-
ally speaking, the study has presented possible results on the question of “how
far (within a given cultural group) gesturers are patterned and consistent in the
movement patterns and the hand shape forms they use” (Kendon 1996: 8). The
study is another step in testing the claim of whether the use of gestural forms is
idiosyncratic and thus whether each speaker improvises his/her own forms. The
results thereby hint at the fact that gestural forms are not just individual improvi-
sations of single speakers but are rather produced by repeatedly using particular
hand shapes, orientations, movements, and positions. Taking the argument a
step further, the documented hand shapes, orientations, etc., could be regarded as
a possible repertoire of gestural forms for German speakers. The high frequency
of use, especially of the forms used by all speakers, thereby suggests “entrench-
ment” (Langacker 1987, 2008), i.e. a “wiring in” (Geeraerts and Grondelaers
2002:312) on the level of form only. The results of the analysis thus point at a
possible standardization or conventionalization of gestural forms for German
speakers.
Apart from rst conclusions on the issue of standardization and convention-
alization of form features used by German speakers, the study also approaches the
question of form variants and a possible type-token relation of the documented
gestural form features (see Lyons 1980; CP; Becker 2004; Fricke 2012; Parrill
2008;see Crasborn 2001 for a similar question in sign language). Regarding the
parameter realizations found for movement direction, for instance, it needs to be
questioned whether the documented directions can all be considered as separate
types of movement directions or whether we are dealing with articulatory vari-
ants, i.e. tokens of a particular type of movement direction. One thus has to raise
10 The six recurrent hand shapes documented in the corpus show noticeable similarities to the
set of unmarked hand shapes documented in sign languages (Battison 1978; Klima and Bellugi
1979; Sandler and Lillo-Martin 2006) not only with respect to their form but also their use and
behavior. They have a high frequency of occurrence in a wide range of contexts, function less
restrictively and have a “wider distribution and more freedom of co-occurrence than the more
marked, more complex hand shapes” (Battison 1978: 208). The striking similarities between the
recurrent hand shapes and the set of unmarked hand shapes hint at the fact that the use of hand
shapes in gestures and signs may rest upon comparable and potentially “universal” structures
for the visual medium.
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
Fig. 7: Overview of approach, results of the two studies, and implications for gesture studies
and sign language studies
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
the question whether movement directions such as “diagonal upwards” and “ver-
tical upwards” reect a type-token and not a type-type dierentiation. Challeng-
ing the dierentiation of type-token relations in gestural forms would be at the
core of addressing their use beyond the single individual and enhance existing
work on form variants in gestures.
The second study takes up the question of recurrence, entrenchment, and
conventionalization at the point at which the rst study reaches its explanatory
power, i.e., the relation of form, meaning, and function in a recurrent gesture.
Looking at this phenomenon from a cognitive-linguistic viewpoint we may argue
that this stable form-meaning pairing is entrenched in the individual minds of the
speakers since frequency of use correlates with entrenchment (Langacker 1987,
2008) or, more specically, frequency of use with regard to a specic meaning or
function (Geeraerts et al. 1994). An entrenched unit can become conventionalized
for the members of a speech community (Langacker 1987, 2008). Two dierent
types of frequency eects have been distinguished in cognitive linguistics: 1)
token frequency and 2) type frequency. “While token frequency gives rise to the
entrenchment of instances, type frequency gives rise to the entrenchment of more
abstract schemas” (Evans and Green 2006: 118). With respect to the cyclic ges-
ture, the formational and semantic core can be considered the type that is instan-
tiated in particular contexts of use, the tokens. These instances are entrenched
and conventionalized to a certain degree as they occur in particular contexts of
use with particular parameter realizations. Furthermore, the degree to which the
semantic core is extended varies in the dierent variants. Whereas the cyclic ges-
ture used in the context of a description can be performed in order to represent all
kinds of continuous events or actions, the cyclic gesture used in a word/concept
search reects the ongoing searching activity, in most cases, but can also reect
the nding of the word or concept or the recovery of speech uency. The cyclic
gesture used in requests is restricted to only one possible application: It is used to
crank up the interlocutor’s ongoing (speech) activity. Continuity is reected in the
ongoing activity of cranking. This variant has the smallest range of extension and
is most constrained in its form as position in gesture space and movement size
were found to be the features that contribute to this variant. Accordingly, it can
11 What is of particular interest with respect to these dierent variants is that a similar phenom-
enon has been described for Italian Sign Language (LIS) (Wilcox 2004, 2005, 2007; Wilcox, Rossini
& Pizutto 2010). The sign IMPOSSIBLE in LIS is “made with the ‘H’ hand shape, index and middle
finger extended together. The forearm is upright, extended at a 45-degree angle from the signer’s
body, with the ‘H’ hand shape pointed upright. The forearm and hand are moved in small circles”
(Wilcox 2005: 30). This sign was found to show distinct “pronunciations,” i.e. “modifications
tothe dynamic movement contour and location of the sign, as well as a distinct set of facial
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
be argued to be the most entrenched and conventionalized variant. In order to
give an account for the dierences in forms and applicabilities of the dier-
entvariants we can certainly argue for dierent degrees of conventionalization
(see also Kendon 2004; Neumann 2004; Seyfeddinipur 2004) reected in these
variants as “entrenchment and conventionalization are inherently matters of
degree ...” (Langacker 2008: 38).
Type frequency gives rise to the entrenchment of more abstract schemas.
Accordingly, with respect to the cyclic gesture we could argue that the core, which
can be considered the gestural type of the cyclic gesture, becomes entrenched
and gives rise to a more abstract schema, namely, that continuous events can be
represented by circular movements. Evidence for this idea could be searched for
in conventionalized linguistic systems that make use of the manual modality,
namely, sign languages. In fact, the continuous clockwise rotation has been ob-
served in sign language as a marker of aspect (Klima and Bellugi 1979) or aktion-
sart (see Wrobel 2007). So one could argue that the gestural movement pattern
used to represent continuous events has its origin in the gestural marking of the
aktionsart “continuity” (see Müller 2000; see also Duncan 2002; Parrill 2000).
With these concluding remarks, ranging from immediate methodological
and theoretical contributions to the analysis of gestures in gestures studies, the
paper contributes to a better understanding of the set up of the gestural modality
itself. We wish to have shown that by improving the awareness of analytical per-
spectives, methods and approaches in analyzing gestures, insights into the com-
municative medium “hand” are enhanced. Questions such as entrenchment and
standardization of form and meaning as well as possible structures of grammati-
calization from a linguistic-semiotic perspective thereby not only contribute to
gesture studies but also open ways for “a comparative semiotics of kinesic expres-
sion” (Kendon 2008: 360) and possible commonalities in sign languages (see also
Wilcox 2004, 2005, 2007).
markers” (Wilcox 2005: 30). Interestingly, similar to the cyclic gesture the sign IMPOSSIBE in LIS
varies according to movement size and position in gesture space thereby “indicating various degrees
of impossibility” (Wilcox 2004: 60) that are “analogous to prosodic stress” (Wilcox et al. 2010:
352). Wilcox argues that gestures may grammaticize and enter the linguistic system of sign lan-
guage as grammatical morphemes, proposing two routes from gesture to language (Wilcox 2004,
2005, 2007). On their way into the linguistic system, they pass either the lexical-item stage (rst
route) or the prosody stage (second route). He and his colleague consider the sign IMPOSSIBLE
asan example which “illustrates the entry of manner of movement as a gestural quality into the
linguistic system as prosodic stress” (Wilcox et al. 2010: 352). Klima and Bellugi (1979) argue that
manner of movement is used to mark temporal aspect in ASL or LIS. These ndings then qualify
for the argumentation that manner of movement enters the linguistic system and becomes gram-
matical as aspect would mark the endpoint of the second route.
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
Acknowledgments: This paper is based on a presentation given at the workshop
“Gestures: A comparison of signed and spoken languages” at the DGfS annual
meeting in Bamberg 2008. We would like to thank the participants of the work-
shop for helpful comments, especially Sherman Wilcox for inspiring thoughts
and discussions on the nature of gestures and sign language. Special thanks go to
Cornelia Müller for her support and encouragement during the conduction of the
studies. The paper was written within the project “Towards a grammar of gesture:
evolution, brain, and linguistic structures” which was funded by the Volkswagen
foundation (see http://www. togog.org).
References
Battison, Robin. 1974. Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language
Studies 5. 1–19.
Battison, Robin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok
Press.
Bavelas, Janet, Christine Kenwood, Trudy Johnson & Bruce Phillips. 2002. An experimental
study of when and how speakers use gesture to communicate. Gesture 2(1). 1–17.
Birdwhistell, Ray. 1970. Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bloomeld, Leonard. 1978 [1933]. Language. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Beattie, Georey & Heather Shovelton. 1999. Do iconic hand gestures really contribute anything
to the semantic information conveyed by speech? An experimental investigation.
Semiotica 123(1/2). 1–30.
Becker, Karin. 2004. Zur Morphologie redebegleitender Gesten. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin
thesis.
Bergmann, Kirsten & Stefan Kopp. 2006. Verbal or visual? How information is distributed across
speech and gesture in spatial dialogue. In D. Schlangen & R. Fernández (eds.),
Proceedings of Brandial 2006, the tenth workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of
dialogue, 90–97. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
Bohle, Ulrike. 2007. Das Wort ergreifen – das Wort übergeben: explorative Studie zur Rolle
redebegleitender Gesten in der Organisation des Sprecherwechsels. Berlin: Weidler.
Bressem, Jana. 2007. Recurrent form features in coverbal gestures. http://www.janabressem.
de/Downloads/Bressem-recurrent form features.pdf (accessed 28 June 2013).
Bressem, Jana. 2012. Repetitions in gestures: Structures, functions, and cognitive processes.
Frankfurt (Oder): European University Viadrina dissertation.
Bressem, Jana. 2013. A linguistic perspective on the notation of form features in gestures. In
Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha
Teßendorf (eds.), Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on
Multimodality in Human Interaction. (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication
Science 38.1.), 1037–1060. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Bressem, Jana & Silva H. Ladewig. 2011. Rethinking gesture phases. Semiotica 184(1/4). 53–91.
Bressem, Jana, Silva H. Ladewig & Cornelia Müller. 2013. Linguistic annotation system for
gesture analysis (LASG). In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke Silva H. Ladewig,
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
David McNeill & Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.), Body – Language – Communication: An
International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. (Handbooks of Linguistics
and Communication Science 38.1.), 1098–1124. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Brookes, Heather. 2001. The case of the clever gesture. Gesture 1(2). 167–184.
Brookes, Heather. 2004. A repertoire of South African quotable gestures. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 14(2). 186–224.
Calbris, Geneviève. 1990. The semiotics of French gestures. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Calbris, Geneviève. 2003. From cutting an object to a clear cut analysis: Gesture as the
representation of a preconceptual schema linking concrete actions to abstract notions.
Gesture 3(1). 19–46.
Calbris, Geneviève. 2008. From le to right ...: Coverbal gestures and their symbolic use of
space. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and gesture, 27–53. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Cassell Justine & Scott Prevost. 1996. Distribution of semantic features across speech and
gesture by humans and computers. In Proceedings of the workshop on the integration of
gesture in language and speech, October 7–8, Wilmington.
Cienki, Alan. 1998. Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric
expressions. In Jean-Pierre König (ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap,
189–204. Stanford: CSLI.
Crasborn, Onno. 2001. Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in sign language of
the Netherlands. Utrecht: LOT.
De Jorio, Andrea. 2000 [1832]. Gesture in Naples and gesture in classical antiquity, Adam
Kendon (trans.). Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Duncan, Susan. 2002. Gesture, verb aspect, and the nature of iconic imagery in natural
discourse. Gesture 2(2). 183–206.
Efron, David. 1972. Gesture, race, and culture. Paris & The Hague: Mouton.
Ekman, Paul & Wallace V. Friesen. 1969. The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories,
origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica 1(1). 49–98.
Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Fricke, Ellen. 2007. Origo, Gesten und Raum: Lokaldeixis im Deutschen. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Fricke, Ellen. 2010. Phonaestheme, Kinaestheme und multimodale Grammatik: Wie
Artikulationen zu Typen werden, die bedeuten können. Zeitschri für Sprache und
Literatur, 41(1). 70–88.
Fricke, Ellen. 2012. Grammatik multimodal. Wie Wörter und Gesten zusammenwirken. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Peter Bakema. 1994. The structure of lexical variation:
Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk & Stefan Grondelaers. 2002. Structurings of word meaning I. An overview. In
Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job & Peter R. Lutzeier (eds.), Lexikologie-
Lexicology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und
Wortschätzen. An international handbook on the nature and structure of words and
vocabularies 1, 284–291. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Gerwing Jennifer & Meredith Allison. 2009. The relationship between verbal and gestural
contributions in conversation: A comparison of three methods. Gesture 9(3). 312–336.
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
Harrison, Simon. 2008. The expression of negation through grammar and gesture. In Jordan
Zlatev, Mats Andrén, Marlene J. Falck & Carita Lundmark, Studies in language and
cognition, 405–419. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Harrison, Simon. 2009. Grammar, gesture, and cognition: The case of negation in English.
Bordeaux: University of Bordeaux dissertation.
Hostetter, Autumn B., Marhta W. Alibali & Sotaro Kita. 2007. I see it in my hands’s eye:
Representational gestures reflect conceptual demands. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 22(3). 313–336.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Kendon, Adam. 1980. Gesture and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In Mary
R.Key (ed.), Nonverbal communication and language, 207–288. The Hague: Mouton.
Kendon, Adam. 1988. How gestures can become like words. In Fernando Poyatos (ed.),
Crosscultural perspectives in nonverbal communication, 131–141. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
Kendon, Adam. 1995. Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern
Italian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 23. 247–279.
Kendon, Adam. 1996. An agenda for gesture studies. Semiotic Review of Books 7(3). 7–12.
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kendon, Adam. 2008. Some reflections on the relationship between “gesture” and “sign.”
Gesture 8(3). 348–366.
Kipp, Michael. 2004. Gesture generation by imitiation: From human behavior to computer
character animation. Boca Raton: Dissertation.com.
Klima, Edward. S. & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Kopp, Stefan, Paul Tepper & Justine Cassell. 2004. Towards an integrated microplanning of
language and iconic gesture for multimodal output. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI’04), 97–104. New York: ACM Press.
Kopp, Stefan & Ipke Wachsmuth. 2004. Synthesizing multimodal utterances for conversational
agents. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 15(1). 39–52.
Ladewig, Silva H. 2007. The gesture family of the cyclic gesture – systematic variation of form and
context. http://www.silvaladewig.de/publications/papers/Ladewig-cyclic_gesture.pdf
(accessed 2 July 2013).
Ladewig, Silva H. 2010. Beschreiben, auordern und suchen – Varianten einer rekurrenten
Geste. Zeitschri für Sprache und Literatur 41(1). 89–111.
Ladewig, Silva H. 2011a. Putting a recurrent gesture on a cognitive bases. CogniTextes 6.
http://cognitextes.revues.org/406 (accessed 28 June 2013).
Ladewig, Silva H. 2012. Syntactic and semantic integration of gestures into speech – Structural,
cognitive and conceptual aspects. Frankfurt (Oder): European University Viadrina
dissertation.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lascarides, Alex & Matthew Stone. 2009. A formal semantic analysis of gesture. Journal of
Semantics 26(4). 393–449.
Lausberg, Hedda & Han Sloetjes. 2009. Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES–ELAN
system. Behavioral Research Methods 41(3). 841–849.
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
Lücking, André, Kirsten Bergmann, Florian Hahn, Stefan Kopp & Hannes Rieser. 2010. The
Bielefeld Speech and Gesture Alignment Corpus (SaGA). In Michael Kipp, Jean-Claude
Martin, Patrizia Paggio & Dirk Heylen (eds.), Proceedings of the LREC 2010 workshop:
Multimodal corpora–advances in capturing, coding and analyzing multimodality, 92–98.
http://embots.di.de/doc/MMC2010-Proceedings.pdf (accessed 14 August 2010)
Lyons, John. 1980). Semantik, vol. 1. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Martell, Craig. 2005. FORM: An experiment in the annotation of the kinematics of gesture.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
McNeill, David. 1985. So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review 92(3).
350–371.
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
McNeill, David. 2005. Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, David & Susan Duncan. 2000. Growth points in thinking-for speaking. In David McNeill
(ed.), Language and gesture, 141–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mittelberg, Irene. 2006. Metaphor and metonymy in language and gesture: Discoursive
evidence for multimodal models of grammar. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.
Mittelberg, Irene. 2007. Methodology for multimodality: One way of working with speech
andgesture data. In Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson &
Micheal J. Spivey (eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics, 225–248. Amsterdam, NY: John
Benjamins.
Mittelberg, Irene. 2010. Geometric and image-schematic patterns in gesture space. In Vyvyan
Evans & Paul Chilton (eds.), Language, cognition, and space: The state of the art and new
directions, 351–385. Chilton: Equinox.
Müller, Cornelia. 1998. Redebegleitende Gesten: Kulturgeschichte, Theorie, Sprachvergleich.
Berlin: Arno Spitz.
Müller, Cornelia. 2000. Zeit als Raum. Eine kognitiv-semantische Mikroanalyse des
sprachlichen und gestischen Ausdrucks von Aktionsarten. In Ernest W. B. Hess-Lüttich
&Walter H. Schmitz (eds.), Botschaen verstehen. Kommunikationstheorie und
Zeichenpraxis. Festschri für Helmut Richter, 211–228. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Müller, Cornelia. 2004. Forms and uses of the palm up open hand: A case of gesture family? In
Cornelia Müller & Roland Posner (eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of everyday
gestures, 233–256. Berlin: Weidler.
Müller, Cornelia. 2007. A dynamic view on gesture, language and thought. In Susan Duncan,
Justine Cassell & Elena T. Levy (eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language,
109–116. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Müller, Cornelia. 2008. Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Müller, Cornelia. 2010. Wie Gesten bedeuten. Eine kognitiv-linguistische und
sequenzanalytische Perspektive. Zeitschri für Sprache und Literatur 41(1). 39–68.
Müller, Cornelia, Heddad Lausberg, Ellen Fricke & Katja Liebal (2005). Towards a grammar of
gesture: Evolution, brain, and linguistic structures. Berlin: Antrag im Rahmen der
Förderinitiative “Schlüsselthemen der Geisteswissenschaen Programm zur Förderung
fachübergreifender und internationaler Zusammenarbeit.”
Müller, C., S.H. Ladewig & J. Bressem. forthcoming. Towards a grammar of gesture: A form-
based view. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill
and Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.), Body – Language – Communication: An International
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Silva H. Ladewig and Jana Bressem
Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. (Handbooks of Linguistics and
Communication Science 38.1.), 707–733 Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Muntigl, Peter. 2004. Modelling multiple semiotic systems: The case of gestures and speech. In
Eija Ventola, Cassily Charles & Martin Kaltenbacher (eds.), Perspectives on multimodality,
31–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Neumann, Ranghild. 2004. The conventionalization of the ring gesture in German discourse. In
Cornelia Müller & Roland Posner (eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of everyday
gestures, 217–223. Berlin: Weidler.
Neville, Henry. 1905. Gesture. In Robert D. Blackman (ed.), Voice, speech, and gesture:
Apractical handbook to the elocutionary art, 103–169. London: Charles William Deacon.
Parill, Fey. 2000. Hand to mouth: Linking spontaneous gesture and aspect. http://mcneilllab.
uchicago.edu/pdfs/parrill_BA.pdf (accessed 28 June 2013).
Parill, Fey. 2008. Form, meaning, and convention: An experimental examination of metaphoric
gestures. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor and gesture, 225–248.
Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Parrill, Fey & Eve Sweetser. 2002. Representing meaning: Morphemic level analysis with a
holistic approach to gesture transcription. http://gesturestudies.com/les/
isgsconferences/Contributions/Parrill/Eve-Fey.html (accessed 28 June 2013).
Parrill, Fey & Eve Sweetser. 2004. What we mean by meaning: Conceptual integration in gesture
analysis and transcription. Gesture 4. 197–214.
Payrato, Louis. 1993. A pragmatic view on autonomous gestures: A rst repertoire of Catalan
emblems. Journal of Pragmatics 20. 193–216.
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne,
P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s
papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]
Poggi, Isabella. 2002. Symbolic gestures: The case of the Italian gestionary. Gesture 2(1).
71–98.
Poggi, Isabella. 2008. Iconicity in dierent types of gestures. Gesture 8(1). 45–61.
Sandler, Wendy. 2003. On the complementarity of signed and spoken languages. In Yonata
Levy & Jeannette Schaeer (eds.), Language competence across populations: Towards a
denition of SLI, 383–409. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scheflen, Albert E. 1973. How behavior means. New York: Gordon & Breach.
Seyfeddinipur, Mandana. 2004. Meta-discursive gestures from Iran: Some uses of the “Pistol
Hand.” In Cornelia Müller & Roland Posner (eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of
everyday gestures, 205–216. Berlin: Weidler.
Sherzer, Joel. 1991. The Brazilian thumbs-up gesture. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 1(2).
189–197.
Sowa, Timo. 2006. Understanding coverbal iconic gestures in object shape descriptions. Berlin:
Akademische Verlagsgesellscha Aka GmbH.
Sowa, Timo & Ipke Wachsmuth. 2001. Interpretation of shape-related iconic gestures in virtual
environments. In Ipke Wachsmuth & Timo Sowa (eds.), Gesture and sign language in
human-computer interaction, 21–33. Berlin: Springer (LNAI 2298).
Sparhawk, Carol. 1978. Contrastive-identicational features of Persian gesture. Semiotica
24(1/2). 49–86.
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign language structure. Bualo, NY: Bualo University Press.
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
New insights into the medium hand
Stokoe, William C., Dorothy C. Casterline & Carl G. Croneberg. 1965. A dictionary of American
Sign Language on linguistic principles, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Press.
Streeck, Jürgen. 1988. The signicance of gesture: How it is established. IPrA Papers in
Pragmatics 2(1/2). 60–83.
Tag, Susanne. 2008. Simultaneous constructions in co-speech gestures. Unpublished
manuscript.
Teßendorf, Sedinha. 2008. Pragmatic and metaphoric gestures – combining functional with
cognitive approaches. Unpublished manuscript.
Webb, Rebecca. 1996. Linguistic features of metaphoric gestures. In Lynn Messing (ed.),
Proceedings of WIGLS: The workshop on the integration of gesture in language and
speech, October 7–8, 79–95. Delaware: Applied Science and Engineering Laboratories
Newark.
Webb, Rebecca. 1998. The lexicon and componentiality of American metaphoric gestures. In
Serge Santi, Isabelle Guaitella, Christian Cavé & Gabrielle Konopczynski (eds.), Oralite et
gestualite: Communication multimodale, interaction, 387–391. Paris: L’ Harmattan.
Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. Gesture and language: Cross-linguistic and historical data from signed
languages. Gesture 4(2). 43–75.
Wilcox, Sherman. 2005. Routes from gesture to language. Revista da ABRALIN 4(1–2). 11–45.
Wilcox, Sherman. 2007. Routes from gesture to language. In Elena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea &
Raaele Simone (eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs,
and methodologies, 107–131. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Wilcox, Sherman & Paolo Rossini. 2010. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Diane
Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 332–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wrobel, Ulrike. 2007. Raum als kommunikative Ressource eine handlungstheoretische Analyse
visueller Sprachen. Frankfurt: Lang.
Wundt, Wilhelm. 1921. Völkerpyschologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von
Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. Volume 1: Die Sprache. Leipzig: Engelmann.
Bionotes
Silva H. Ladewig (b. 1978) is an academic assistant at the European University
Viadrina 〈mail@silvaladewig.de〉. Her research interests include multimodal lan-
guage, gesture studies, sign language linguistics, and language and cognition.
Her publications include “Body – Language – Communication: An International
Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. (Handbooks of Linguistics
and Communication Science 38.1.), Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.” (with
C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, D. McNeill, S. Teßendorf 2013).
Jana Bressem (b. 1979) is an academic assistant at the Chemnitz University of
Technology 〈jana.bressem@phil.tu-chemnitz.de〉. Her research interests include
gesture studies, multimodal grammar, sign languages, and language and cogni-
tion. Her publications include “A repertoire of recurrent gestures of German”
(with C. Müller 2013).
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
Bereitgestellt von | TU Chemnitz
Angemeldet | 134.109.194.175
Heruntergeladen am | 19.02.14 12:42
