Linguistic analyses of Mandarin Chinese and English have detailed the differences between the two languages in terms of the devices each makes available for expressing distinctions in the temporal contouring of events — verb aspect and Aktionsart. In this study, adult native speakers of each language were shown a cartoon, a movie, or a series of short action sequences and then videotaped talking about what they had seen. Comparisons revealed systematic within-language covariation of choice of aspect and/or Aktionsart in speech with features of co-occurring iconic gestures. In both languages, the gestures that speakers produced in imperfective aspect-marked speech contexts were more likely to take longer to produce and were more complex than those in perfective aspect speech contexts. Further, imperfective-progressive aspect-marked spoken utterances regularly accompanied iconic gestures in which the speaker’s hands engaged in some kind of temporally-extended, repeating or‘agitated’ movements. Gestures sometimes incorporated this type of motion even when there was nothing corresponding to it in the visual stimulus; for example, when speakers described events of stasis. These facts suggest that such gestural agitation may derive from an abstract level of representation, perhaps linked to aspectual view itself. No significant between-language differences in aspect- or Aktionsart-related gesturing were observed.
We conclude that gestural representations of witnessed events, when performed in conjunction with speech, are not simply derived from visual images, stored as perceived in the stimulus, and transposed as faithfully as possible to the hands and body of the speaker (cf. Hadar & Butterworth, 1997). Rather, such gestures are part of a linguistic-conceptual representation (McNeill & Duncan, 2000) in which verb aspect has a role. We further conclude that the noted differences between the systems for marking aspectual distinctions in spoken Mandarin and English are at a level of patterning that has little or no influence on speech-co-occurring imagistic thinking.
Abner, Natasha, Kensy Cooperrider & Susan Goldin-Meadow
2015. Gesture for Linguists: A Handy Primer. Language and Linguistics Compass 9:11 ► pp. 437 ff.
Bressem, Jana, Nicole Stein & Claudia Wegener
2022. Multimodal language use in Savosavo. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)► pp. 173 ff.
Cienki, Alan
2022. The study of gesture in cognitive linguistics: How it could inform and inspire other research in cognitive science. WIREs Cognitive Science 13:6
CRUZ, Fernanda Miranda da
2017. INTERAÇÃO CORPORIFICADA: MULTIMODALIDADE, CORPO E COGNIÇÃO EXPLORADOS NA ANÁLISE DE CONVERSAS ENVOLVENDO SUJEITOS COM ALZHEIMER. Alfa : Revista de Linguística (São José do Rio Preto) 61:1 ► pp. 55 ff.
Everett, Daniel L.
2015. On resilience, homesigns and nativism: a response to Goldin-Meadow. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30:8 ► pp. 919 ff.
2021. What can cognitive linguistics tell us about language-image relations? A multidimensional approach to intersemiotic convergence in multimodal texts. Cognitive Linguistics 32:4 ► pp. 529 ff.
Hart, Christopher & Bodo Winter
2022. Gesture and legitimation in the anti-immigration discourse of Nigel Farage. Discourse & Society 33:1 ► pp. 34 ff.
Hinnell, Jennifer
2018. The multimodal marking of aspect: The case of five periphrastic auxiliary constructions in North American English. Cognitive Linguistics 29:4 ► pp. 773 ff.
Hinnell, Jennifer & Fey Parrill
2020. Gesture Influences Resolution of Ambiguous Statements of Neutral and Moral Preferences. Frontiers in Psychology 11
Huette, Stephanie, Bodo Winter, Teenie Matlock, David H. Ardell & Michael Spivey
2014. Eye movements during listening reveal spontaneous grammatical processing. Frontiers in Psychology 5
Jehlička, Jakub & Eva Lehečková
2020. Multimodal Event Construals: The Role of Co-Speech Gestures in English vs. Czech Interactions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 68:4 ► pp. 351 ff.
2010. The Dynamics of Metaphor: Foregrounding and Activating Metaphoricity in Conversational Interaction. Cognitive Semiotics 10:6 ► pp. 85 ff.
Navarretta, Costanza & Lucretia Oemig
2019. Big Data and Multimodal Communication: A Perspective View. In Innovations in Big Data Mining and Embedded Knowledge [Intelligent Systems Reference Library, 159], ► pp. 167 ff.
Saddour, Inès
2017. A multimodal approach to investigating temporality expression in L2: What does gesture analysis reveal?. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 55:3
Sawyer, R. Keith
2022. The Dialogue of Creativity: Teaching the Creative Process by Animating Student Work as a Collaborating Creative Agent. Cognition and Instruction 40:4 ► pp. 459 ff.
Stam, Gale
2006. Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 44:2
Suppes, Alexandra, Christina Y. Tzeng & Laura Galguera
2015. Using and Seeing Co-speech Gesture in a Spatial Task. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 39:3 ► pp. 241 ff.
2008. CONTRIBUTIONS OF SIGN LANGUAGE RESEARCH TO GESTURE UNDERSTANDING: WHAT CAN MULTIMODAL COMPUTATIONAL SYSTEMS LEARN FROM SIGN LANGUAGE RESEARCH. International Journal of Semantic Computing 02:01 ► pp. 5 ff.
Sherman Wilcox
2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed language. cogl 15:2 ► pp. 119 ff.
Wu, Suwei
2019. The Tool Noun and Tool Verb Alternation in Gesture. Multimodal Communication 8:2
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 may 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.