The problem of understanding which gestures make sense, what kind of sense they make, and how they achieve this result, obviously belongs to the range of issues that traditionally have been addressed by semiotics. It is usually accepted that gestures, as opposed to gesticulation, are signs by definition in as much as they signify, gesticulation being all sorts of movements with no specific intentional meaning. But the situation is murkier than it may appear at first. If "signifying" is taken to mean "being interpreted" rather than "deliberately communicating" some information, then gesticulation can be construed by an observer as symptom (e.g., motor pathology, insecurity), signal (e.g., distress, frustration), or sign in the fullest sense of the term (e.g., calling for attention, pretending any of the above). In all these cases the distinction between gesticulation and gesture dissolves. On the other hand, gesturing is most of the time so spontaneous, and is usually so intimately woven into speech that this behavior can hardly be considered to be consciously planned. This, however, does not disqualify gestures as objects relevant to semiotics in as much as the information that is thus conveyed influences the behavior of the interacting agents. (Paul Bouissac)