Gesture-first theories of language propose the transparent intelligibility of deictic and iconic gestures. The gestures of a man with a three-word vocabulary are used to investigate gesture without accompanying language. Rather than being transparent, the rich intrinsic meaningfulness of deictic and iconic gestures produces a surplus of possible referents. The task of working out their meaning delays movement to subsequent action, and thus creates selective pressure for the emergence of arbitrary, rather than inherently meaningful, signs. Analysis then turns to Kendon’s argument that meaning and action are accomplished through the way in which talk, gesture, and phenomena in the environment mutually elaborate each other, with the semiotic possibilities of each of these resources mutually constraining the others.
1991Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1995“Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man.”Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (3): 233–260.
2003“Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia.” In Conversation and Brain Damage, C. Goodwin (ed.), 90–116. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
2004“A competent speaker who can’t speak: The social life of aphasia.”Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14 (2): 151–170.
2006“Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia.” In Roots of Human Sociality, N. Enfield and S.C. Levinson (eds), 96–125. London: Berg Press.
2007a“Environmentally coupled gestures.” In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language, S. Duncan, J. Cassell, and E. Levy (eds), 195–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2007b“Interactive footing.” In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, E. Holt and R. Clift (eds), 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2009“Embodied hearers and speakers constructing talk and action in interaction.”Cognitive Studies 16 (1): 51–64.
2011“Contextures of action.” In Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, J. Streeck, C. Goodwin and C.D. Lebaron (eds), 182–193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2012“The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge.”Journal of Pragmatics 46: 8–23.
1980“Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences.”Sociological Inquiry 50: 303–317.
1995Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kegl, J., Senghas, A., and Coppola, M
1999“Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony and Development, M. DeGraff (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1990a“Behavioral foundations for the process of frame-attunement in face-to-face interaction.” In Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters, A. Kendon (ed.), 239–262. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1990b“Spatial organization in social encounters: The F-formation system.” In Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters, A. Kendon (ed.), 209–238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2019. Between the Red and Yellow Windows: A Fine-Grained Focus on Supporting Children’s Spatial Thinking During Play. SAGE Open 9:1 ► pp. 215824401982955 ff.
2022. Negative Requests Within Hair Salons: Grammar and Embodiment in Action Formation. Frontiers in Psychology 12
Trasmundi, Sarah Bro
2018. Book review: Sarah J White and John A Cartmill, Communication in Surgical Practice. Discourse & Communication 12:4 ► pp. 447 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 september 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.