Skip to main content
×
Home

Separating viewpoint from mode of representation in iconic co-speech gestures: insights from Danish narratives*

  • ANNE THERESE FREDERIKSEN (a1)
abstract
<span class='sc'>abstract</span>

During narrative retelling, speakers shift between different viewpoints to reflect how they conceptualize the events that unfolded. These viewpoints can be indicated through gestural means as well as through verbal ones. Studies of co-speech gestures have inferred viewpoint from gesture form, i.e., how entities are mapped onto the (primarily manual) articulators, but the merits of this approach have not been discussed. The present study argues that viewpoint is more than gestural form. Despite connections between the two, many other factors may influence a gesture’s form. Assessing viewpoint from gesture form alone limits the applicability of gestural viewpoint as a window onto speakers’ event conceptualization and introduces unnecessary differences in the categorization of viewpoint across gestures types. The present study examines iconic co-speech gestures in Danish narratives, and makes explicit the means used to infer gestural viewpoint. The approach advocated here ensures that the notion of viewpoint can be applied in a principled way to all or most iconic gestures.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Separating viewpoint from mode of representation in iconic co-speech gestures: insights from Danish narratives*
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Separating viewpoint from mode of representation in iconic co-speech gestures: insights from Danish narratives*
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Separating viewpoint from mode of representation in iconic co-speech gestures: insights from Danish narratives*
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Anne Therese Frederiksen, UCSD Linguistics Department, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0108. e-mail: a.t.frederiksen@gmail.com
Footnotes
Hide All
*

I am grateful to the participants who contributed their narratives to the dataset examined in this study. I would also like to thank everyone who helped develop my thinking on the subject of viewpoint with discussions or comments on previous versions of the manuscript, especially Fey Parrill, Kensy Cooperrider, and Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen. All remaining mistakes are my own.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Aarons D., & Morgan R. (2003). Classifier predicates and the creation of multiple perspectives in South African Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 3(2), 125156.
Bahan B., & Supalla S. (1995). Line segmentation and narrative structure: a study of eye gaze behavior in American Sign Language. In Emmorey K. & Reilly J. S. (Eds.), Language, gesture, and space (pp. 171194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baker C., & Padden C. (1978). Focusing on the nonmanual components of American Sign Language. In Siple P. A. (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 2757). New York: Academic Press.
Bavelas J., & Chovil N. (1997). Faces in dialogue. In Russell J. & Fernández-Dols J. (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression (pp. 334346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bavelas J., Gerwing J., & Healing S. (2014), Including facial gestures in gesture-speech ensembles. In Seyfeddinipur M. & Gullberg M. (Eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action in utterance (pp. 1534). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Beattie G., & Shovelton H. (2001). An experimental investigation of the role of different types of iconic gesture in communication: a semantic feature approach. Gesture, 1(2), 129149.
Beattie G., & Shovelton H. (2002). An experimental investigation of some properties of individual iconic gestures that mediate their communicative power. British Journal of Psychology, 93(2), 179192.
Borghi A. M., Glenberg A. M., & Kaschak M. P. (2004). Putting words in perspective. Memory & Cognition, 32(6), 863873.
Brentari D., Coppola M., Mazzoni L., & Goldin-Meadow S. (2012). When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30(1), 131.
Brentari D., Renzo A. D., Keane J., & Volterra V. (2014). Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 95123.
Brown A. (2008). Gesture viewpoint in Japanese and English: cross-linguistic interactions between two languages in one speaker. Gesture, 8(2), 256276.
Brunyé T. T., Ditman T., Mahoney C. R., Augustyn J. S., & Taylor H. A. (2009). When you and I share perspectives: pronouns modulate perspective taking during narrative comprehension. Psychological Science, 20(1), 2732.
Bryant D., & Tversky B. (1999). Mental representations of perspective and spatial relations from diagrams and models. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(1), 137156.
Cassell J., & McNeill D. (1991). Gesture and the poetics of prose. Poetics Today, 12(3), 375404.
Clark H. H. (2016). Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review, 123(3), 324347.
Debreslioska S., Özyürek A., Gullberg M., & Perniss P. (2013). Gestural viewpoint signals referent accessibility. Discourse Processes, 50(7), 431456.
DeLancey S. (1981). An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language, 57(3), 626657.
Dudis P. (2004). Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 223238.
Earis H., & Cormier K (2013). Point of view in British Sign Language and spoken English narrative discourse: the example of ‘The Tortoise and the Hare’. Language and Cognition, 5, 313343.
Emmorey K., Tversky B., & Taylor H. (2000). Using space to describe space: perspective in speech, sign, and gesture. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2(3), 157180.
Engberg-Pedersen E. (1993). Space in Danish sign language: the semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum.
Engberg-Pedersen E. (1995). Point of view expressed through shifters. In Emmorey K. & Reilly J. (Eds.), Language, gesture and space (pp. 133154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Engberg-Pedersen E. (1999). Eye gaze in Danish Sign Language monologues: forms, functions, notation issues. Paper presented at the 3rd Intersign Workshop, Siena.
Engberg-Pedersen E. (2015). Perspective in signed discourse: the privileged status of the signer’s locus and gaze. Open Linguistics, 1(1), online <10.1515/opli-2015-0010>.
Fridlund A. (1997). The new ethology of human facial expression. In Russell J. & Fernández-Dols J. (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression (pp. 334346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs R. W. J. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science, 1st ed. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Glenberg A. M., & Kaschak M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558565.
Hostetter A., & Alibali M. (2008). Visible embodiment: gesture as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15(3), 495514.
Hostetter A., & Alibali M. (2010). Language, gesture, action! A test of the Gesture as Simulated Action framework. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 245257.
Kaschak M. P., & Glenberg A. M. (2000). Constructing meaning: the role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 508529.
Kendon A. (2004). Gesture: visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kita S., & Özyürek A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 1632.
Liddell S. (1998). Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(3), 283314.
Liddell S. (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lieberman A., Hatrak M., & Mayberry R. (2014). Learning to look for language: development of joint attention in young deaf children. Language Learning and Development, 10, 1935.
Lillo-Martin D. (1995). The point of view predicate in American Sign Language. In Emmorey K. & Reilly J. (Eds.), Language, gesture and space (pp. 155170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lillo-Martin D. (2012). Utterance reports and constructed action in sign and spoken languages. In Pfau R., Steinbach M. & Woll B. (Eds.), Sign language: an international handbook (pp. 365387). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Loew R. (1984). Roles and references in ASL: a developmental perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Masson M. E. J., Bub D. N., & Warren C. M. (2008). Kicking calculators: contribution of embodied representations to sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(3), 256265.
McNeill D. (1992). Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Metzger M. (1998). Eye gaze and pronominal reference in American Sign Language. In Lucas C. (Ed.), Pinky extension and eye gaze: language use in deaf communities (pp. 170181). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Morgan G., & Woll B. (2003). The development of reference switching encoded through body classifiers in British Sign Language. In Emmorey K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign language (pp. 297310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Müller C. (1998). Iconicity and gesture. In: Santi S. (Ed.), Oralité et Gestualité: Communication Multimodale, Interaction (pp. 321328). Montréal/Paris: L’Harmattan.
Müller C. (2014). Gestural modes of representation as techniques of depiction. In Müller C., Cienki A., Fricke E., Ladewig S., McNeill D., & Bressem J. (Eds.), Body – language – communication: an international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.2) (pp. 16871702). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Padden C. (1986). Verbs and role shifting in American Sign Language. In Padden C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, Sign (pp. 4457). Silver Spring, MD: NAD.
Parrill F. (2009). Dual viewpoint gestures. Gesture, 9(3), 271289.
Parrill F. (2010). Viewpoint in speech–gesture integration: linguistic structure, discourse structure, and event structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(5), 650668.
Parrill F. (2012). Interactions between discourse status and viewpoint in co-speech gesture. In Dancygier B. & Sweetser E. (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: a multimodal perspective (pp. 97112). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Perniss P. (2007). Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: the use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua, 117(7), 13151338.
Perniss P. M., & Özyürek A. (2008). Representations of action, motion, and location in sign space: a comparison of German (DGS) and Turkish (TID) Sign Language narratives. In Quer J. (Ed.), Signs of the time: selected papers from TISLR 8 (pp. 353378). Hamburg: Signum.
Sandler W., & Lillo-Martin D. C. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 39(4), 377409.
Stanfield R. A., & Zwaan R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12(2), 153156.
Stec K. (2012). Meaningful shifts: a review of viewpoint markers in co-speech gesture and sign language. Gesture, 12(3), 327360.
Streeck J. (1993) Gesture as communication I: its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs, 60(4), 275299.
Streeck J. (2009). Gesturecraft: the manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stukenbrock A. (2014). Pointing to an ‘empty’ space: Deixis am Phantasma in face-to-face interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 7093.
Sweetser E. (2012). Introduction: viewpoint and perspective in language and gesture, from the ground up. In Dancygier B. & Sweetser E. (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: a multimodal perspective (pp. 124). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser E., & Stec K. (2016). Maintaining multiple viewpoints with gaze. In Dancygier Barbara, Lu Wei-lun, & Verhagen Arie (Eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (Vol. 55, pp. 237258). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Thompson S. A., & Suzuki R. (2014). Reenactments in conversation: gaze and recipiency. Discourse Studies, 16(6), 816846.
Zwaan R. A. (1999). Situation models: the mental leap into imagined worlds. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 1518.
Zwaan R. A., Stanfield R. A., & Yaxley R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13(2), 168171.
Zwaan R. A., & Taylor L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135(1), 111.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 10
Total number of PDF views: 54 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 450 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 10th January 2017 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.