Speakers perform manual gestures in the physical space nearest them, called gesture space. We used a controlled
elicitation task to explore whether speakers use gesture space in a consistent way (assign spaces to ideas and
use those spaces for those ideas) and whether they use space in a contrastive way (assign different spaces to
different ideas when using contrastive speech) when talking about abstract referents. Participants answered two questions designed
to elicit contrastive, abstract discourse. We investigated manual gesture behavior. Gesture hand, location on the horizontal axis,
and referent in corresponding speech were coded. We also coded contrast in speech. Participants’ overall tendency to use the same
hand (t(17) = 13.12, p = .001, 95% CI [.31, .43], d = 2.53) and same location
(t(17) = 7.47, p = .001, 95% CI [.27, .47], d = 1.69) when referring to an
entity was higher than expected frequency. When comparing pairs of gestures produced with contrastive speech to pairs of gestures
produced with non-contrastive speech, we found a greater tendency to produce gestures with different hands for contrastive speech:
(t(17) = 4.19, p = .001, 95% CI [.27, .82], d = 1.42). We did not find
associations between dominant side and positive concepts or between left, center, and right space and past, present, and future,
respectively, as predicted by previous studies. Taken together, our findings suggest that speakers do produce spatially consistent
and contrastive gestures for abstract as well as concrete referents. They may be using spatial resources to assist with abstract
thinking, and/or to help interlocutors with reference tracking. Our findings also highlight the complexity of predicting gesture
hand and location, which appears to be the outcome of many competing variables.
Beattie, Geoffrey & Heather Shovelton. 2002. An
experimental investigation of some properties of individual iconic gestures that mediate their communicative
power. British Journal of
Psychology 931. 179–192.
Beattie, Geoffrey & Heather Shovelton. 2005. Why
the spontaneous images created by the hands during talk can help make TV advertisements more
effective. British Journal of
Psychology 96(1). 21–37.
Bavelas, Janet Beavin & Nichole Chovil. 2000. Visible
acts of meaning: An integrated message model of language in face-to-face dialogue. Journal of
Language and Social
Psychology 19(25). 163–194.
Beer, Randall. 2000. Dynamical
approaches to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 4(3). 91–99.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman
grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. Does
language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive
Psychology 431. 1–22.
Casasanto, Daniel & Roberto Bottini. 2014. Mirror
reading can reverse the flow of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General 143(2). 473–479.
Casasanto, Daniel & Kyle Jasmin. 2010. Good
and bad in the hands of politicians: Spontaneous gestures during positive and negative
speech. PLoS
ONE 5(7). e11805.
Cienki, Alan. 1998. Metaphoric
gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric
expressions. In Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.), Discourse
and cognition: Bridging the
gap, 189–204. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Cienki, Alan & Cornelia Müller (eds.). 2008. Metaphor
and gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clark, Herbert H.1996. Using
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert H.2003. Pointing and
placing. In Sotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing:
Where language, culture, and cognition
meet, 243–268. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crasborn, Onno & Han Sloetjes. 2008. Enhanced
ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. In Onno Crasborn, Thomas Hanke, Eleni Efthimiou, Inge Zwitserlood & Ernst Thoutenhoofd (eds.), Construction
and exploitation of sign language corpora: 3rd workshop on the representation and processing of sign
languages, 39–43. Paris: ELDA.
Ford, Cecilia E.2000. The treatment of contrasts in
interaction. In Elizabeth Cooper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause,
condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse
perspectives, 283–312. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gullberg, Marianne & Sotaro Kita. 2009. Attention
to speech-accompanying gestures: Eye movements and information uptake. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior 331. 251–277.
Gunter, Thomas C., J. E. Douglas Weinbrenner & Henning Holle. 2015. Inconsistent
use of gesture space during abstract pointing impairs language comprehension. Frontiers in
Psychology 6(80). 1–10.
Hinnell, Jennifer & Sally Rice. 2016. “On
the one hand…”: Opposition and optionality in the embodied marking of stance in North American
English. Paper presented at the International Society for Gesture
Studies, Paris.
Hostetter, Autumn B. & Martha W. Alibali. 2008. Visible
embodiment: Gesture as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review 15(3). 495–514.
Kita, Sotaro (ed.). 2003. Pointing:
Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The
contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor
and
thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors
we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy
in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Le Guen, Oliver & Lorena I. Pool Balam. 2012. No
metaphorical timeline in gesture and cognition among Yucatec Mayas. Frontiers in
Psychology 31. 1–15.
Matlock, Teenie, Kevin J. Holmes, Mahesh Srinivasan & Michael Ramscar. 2011. Even
abstract motion influences the understanding of time. Metaphor and
Symbol 261. 260–271.
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand
and mind: What gestures reveal about
thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, David (ed.). 2000. Language
and gesture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, David. 2005. Gesture
and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, David. 2008. Unexpected
metaphors. In Alan Cienki & Cornelia Müller (eds.), Metaphor
and
gesture, 155–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McNeill, David, & Laura Pedelty. 1995. Right
brain and gesture. In Karen Emmorey & Judy Reilly (eds.), Language,
gesture and space, 63–85. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Müller, Cornelia. 2004. Metaphors:
Dead and alive, sleeping and waking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nuñez, Rafael & Eve E. Sweetser. 2006. With
the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial
construals of time. Cognitive
Science 30(5). 401–450.
Özyürek, Asli. 2002. Do
speakers design their cospeech gestures for their addressees? The effects of addressee location on representational
gestures. Journal of Memory &
Language 461. 688–704.
Perniss, Pamela & Asli Özyürek. 2015. Visible
cohesion: A comparison of reference tracking in sign, speech, and co-speech gesture. Topics in
Cognitive Science 71. 36–60.
Ping, Raedy & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2010. Gesturing
saves cognitive resources when talking about nonpresent objects. Cognitive
Science 341. 602–619.
Priesters, Matthias. 2013. Functional
patterns in gesture space. Institut für Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft der RWTH Aachen. Thesis.
So, Wing Chee, Sotaro Kita & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2009. Using
the hands to identify who does what to whom: Gesture and speech go hand-in-hand. Cognitive
Science 331. 115–125.
Stec, Kashmiri & Mike Huiskes. 2014. Co-constructing
referential space in multimodal narratives. Cognitive
Semiotics 7(1). 31–59.
Sweetser, Eve E.1992. English metaphors for language:
Motivations, conventions, and creativity. Poetics
Today 13(4). 705–724.
Sweetser, Eve E.1998. Regular metaphoricity in
gesture: Bodily-based models of speech interaction. Actes du 16 Congres International des
Linguistes 51.
van Gelder, Tim. 1998. The
dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences 211. 615–665.
Cited by (10)
Cited by ten other publications
Khasbage, Yash, Daniel Alcaraz Carrión, Jennifer Hinnell, Frankie Robertson, Karan Singla, Peter Uhrig & Mark Turner
2024. The Red Hen Anonymizer and the Red Hen Protocol for de-identifying audiovisual recordings. Linguistics Vanguard 9:1 ► pp. 229 ff.
Opazo, Paloma, Alan Cienki, Bert Oben & Geert Brône
2024. Gesture alignment in teacher–student interaction: a study concerning office hour consultations using English as the lingua franca. Frontiers in Communication 9
Zhang, Icy (Yunyi), Tina Izad & Erica A. Cartmill
2024. Embodying Similarity and Difference: The Effect of Listing and Contrasting Gestures During U.S. Political Speech. Cognitive Science 48:3
Emir Özder, Levent, Demet Özer & Tilbe Göksun
2023. Gesture use in L1-Turkish and L2-English: Evidence from emotional narrative retellings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 76:8 ► pp. 1797 ff.
Khasbage, Yash, Daniel Alcaraz Carrión, Jennifer Hinnell, Frankie Robertson, Karan Singla, Peter Uhrig & Mark B. Turner
2022. The Red Hen Anonymizer and the Red Hen Protocol for De-Identifying Audiovisual Recordings. SSRN Electronic Journal
2022. Observers use gesture to disambiguate contrastive expressions of preference. Language and Cognition 14:1 ► pp. 19 ff.
Debreslioska, Sandra & Marianne Gullberg
2020. The semantic content of gestures varies with definiteness, information status and clause structure. Journal of Pragmatics 168 ► pp. 36 ff.
Hinnell, Jennifer & Fey Parrill
2020. Gesture Influences Resolution of Ambiguous Statements of Neutral and Moral Preferences. Frontiers in Psychology 11
Li, Heng & Yu Cao
2019. The Body in Religion: The Spatial Mapping of Valence in Tibetan Practitioners of Bön. Cognitive Science 43:4
Stec, Kashmiri & Lars Bo Larsen
2018. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video, ► pp. 5 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 december 2024. 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.