Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-hzqq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T21:13:42.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gesture and language: Distinct subsystem of an integrated whole

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2017

Susan Goldin-Meadow  and
Diane Brentari
Susan Goldin-Meadow
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637. sgm@uchicago.edu http://goldin-meadow-lab.uchicago.edu Center for Gesture, Sign, and Language, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637. dbrentari@uchicago.edu http://signlanguagelab.uchicago.edu
Diane Brentari
Affiliation:
Center for Gesture, Sign, and Language, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637. dbrentari@uchicago.edu http://signlanguagelab.uchicago.edu Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The commentaries have led us to entertain expansions of our paradigm to include new theoretical questions, new criteria for what counts as a gesture, and new data and populations to study. The expansions further reinforce the approach we took in the target article: namely, that linguistic and gestural components are two distinct yet integral sides of communication, which need to be studied together.

Information

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e74
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alibali, M. W., Flevares, L. M. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1997) Assessing knowledge conveyed in gesture: Do teachers have the upper hand? Journal of Educational Psychology 89:183–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alibali, M. W. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1993) Gesture–speech mismatch and mechanisms of learning: What the hands reveal about a child's state of mind. Cognitive Psychology 25:468–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Archangeli, D., Baker, A. & Mielke, J. (2011) Categorization and features: Evidence from American English /r/. In: Where do phonological features come from? Cognitive, physical and developmental bases of distinctive speech categories, ed. Ridouane, R. & Clements, G. N., pp. 175–95. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. & Ayers, G. (1997) Guidelines for ToBI Labelling. Version 3. The Ohio State University Research Foundation. Available at: http://ling.ohio-state.edu/Phonetics/main.mod.html.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. & Hirschberg, J. (1994) The ToBI Annotation conventions. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University and AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories.Google Scholar
Benedicto, E. & Brentari, D. (2004) Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of Classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(4):743810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Cho, P. W. & Senghas, A. (2016) Handshape complexity as a precursor to phonology: Variation, emergence, and acquisition. Language Acquisition. doi: 10.1080/10489223.2016.1187614.Google ScholarPubMed
Brentari, D., Di Renzo, A., Keane, J. & Volterra, V. (2015a) Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. TopiCS 7:95–123. doi: 10.1111/tops.12123.Google ScholarPubMed
Brentari, D., Falk, J., Lee, J., Chatzikonstantinou, T. & Giannakidou, A. (2015b) The role of prosody in the production and perception of imperatives: Data from American Sign Language & English. Presentation LINGUAE, Institut Jean Nicod.Google Scholar
Capirci, O., Iverson, J. M., Pizzuto, E. & Volterra, V. (1996) Communicative gestures during the transition to two-word speech. Journal of Child Language 23:645–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartmill, E. A., Hunsicker, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014) Pointing and naming are not redundant: Children use gesture to modify nouns before they modify nouns in speech. Developmental Psychology 50(6):1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, S. W., Duff, M. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (under review) Rethinking memory and learning: Gesture as a vehicle for non-declarative knowledge. Psychological Review.Google Scholar
Coppola, M. & Senghas, A. (2010) Deixis in an emerging sign language. In: Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, ed. Brentari, D., pp. 543–69. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. (2006) A historical linguistic account of sign language among North American Indian groups. In Multilingualism and sign languages: From the great plains to Australia; Sociolinguistics of the Deaf community, Vol. 12, ed. Lucas, C., pp. 3–35. Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. (2005) Gesture in signing: A case study from Taiwan sign language. Language and Linguistics 6(2):279–318.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. (1969) The repertoire of nonverbal behavioral categories. Semiotica 1:49–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010) Widening the lens on language learning: Language in deaf children and adults in Nicaragua. Human Development 53:235–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Butcher, C. (2003) Pointing toward two-word speech in young children. In: Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, ed. Kita, S., pp. 85–107. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Goodrich, W., Sauer, E. & Iverson, J. (2007a) Young children use their hands to tell their mothers what to say. Developmental Science 10:778–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., McNeill, D. & Singleton, J. (1996) Silence is liberating: Removing the handcuffs on grammatical expression in the manual modality. Psychological Review 103:34–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mylander, C. (1998) Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature 91:279–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Mylander, C. & Butcher, C. (1995) The resilience of combinatorial structure at the word level: Morphology in self-styled gesture systems. Cognition 56:195–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, S., Namboodiripad, S., Mylander, C., Özyürek, A. & Sancar, B. (2015b) The resilience of structure built around the predicate: Homesign gesture systems in Turkish and American deaf children. Journal of Cognition and Development 16:55–88. doi 10.1080/15248372.2013.803970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Singer, M. A. (2003) From children's hands to adults’ ears: Gesture's role in the learning process. Developmental Psychology 39(3):509–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keane, J. (2014) Towards an articulatory model of handshape: What fingerspelling tells us about the phonetics and phonology of handshape in American Sign Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Kelly, S., Kravitz, C. & Hopkins, M. (2004) Neural correlates of bimodal speech and gesture comprehension. Brain and Language 89(1):243–60. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15010257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendon, A. (1980b) Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In: Relationship of verbal and nonverbal communication, ed. Key, M. R., pp. 207–28. De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. & McNally, L. (2005) Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2):345–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. (1984) Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 307:161–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lai, C. (2009) Perceiving surprise on cue words: Prosody and semantics interact on right and really. In: Proceedings of INTERSPEECH'09 – 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Brighton, United Kingdom, September 2009, pp. 1963–66, ed. Uther, M., Moore, R. & Cox, S.. International Speech Communication Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992) Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Namy, L., Campbell, A. & Tomasello, M. (2004) The changing role of iconicity in non-verbal symbol learning: A U-shaped trajectory in the acquisition of arbitrary gestures. Journal of Cognition and Development 5(1):37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, A. J., Supalla, T., Fernandez, N., Newport, E. L. & Bavelier, D. (2015) Neural systems supporting linguistic structure, linguistic experience, and symbolic communication in sign language and gesture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112(37):11684–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novack, M. A., Congdon, E. L., Hemani-Lopez, N. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014) From action to abstraction: Using the hands to learn math. Psychological Science 25(4):903–10. doi: 10.1177/0956797613518351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okrent, A. (2002) A modality-free notion of gesture and how it can help us with the morpheme vs. gesture question in sign language linguistics, or at least give us some criteria to work with. In: Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, ed. Meier, R. P., Quinto-Pozos, D. G. & Cormier, K. A., pp. 175–98. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padden, D., Meir, I., Hwang, S.-O., Lepic, R., Seegers, S. & Sampson, T. (2013) Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13:287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., Steinbach, M. & Woll, B. (2012) Handbook of sign language linguistics. Mouton.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2007) The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33:165–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissman, L. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (in press) The development of causal structure without a language model. Language Learning and Development.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. (1991) Autolexical syntax. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (1989) Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. (2009) Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica 174:241–75.Google Scholar
Senghas, A. (2003) Inter-generational influence and ontogenetic development in the emergence of spatial grammar in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cognitive Development 18:511–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senghas, A. & Coppola, M. (2001) Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science 12:323–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P., Pierrehumbert, J. & Hirschberg, J. (1992) ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 2:867–70.Google Scholar
Singleton, J. L., Goldin-Meadow, S. & McNeill, D. (1995) The cataclysmic break between gesticulation and sign: Evidence against an evolutionary continuum of manual communication. In: Language, gesture, and space, ed. Emmorey, K. & Reilly, J., pp. 287–311. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Strickland, B., Geraci, C., Chemla, E., Schlenker, P., Kelepir, M. & Pfau, R. (2015) Event representations constrain the structure of language: Sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112(19):5968–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supalla, T. (1982) Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion in American Sign Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. (2010) The semantics–phonology interface. In: Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, ed. Brentari, D., pp. 357–82. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar