Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-01T00:02:55.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - A Toolbox of Methods for Gesture Analysis

from Part II - Ways of Approaching Gesture Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2024

By
Cornelia Müller
Edited by
Alan Cienki
Alan Cienki
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Get access

Summary

This chapter offers a toolbox of Methods for Gesture Analysis (MGA). Developed in the context of research on emerging protolinguistic structures in cospeech gestures, the present version of MGA differs from earlier publications (Bressem, Ladewig, Müller 2013; Bressem 2013) in offering sets of tools for gesture analysis that adapt flexibly to different research questions. Essential starting points for MGA are an understanding of hand gestures as temporal forms embedded in a dynamically unfolding context and an understanding of context that itself varies with the adopted framework. The baseline for any chosen tool is a microanalysis that entails some account of the form of the gesture (as temporal form), i.e. ‘form analysis’,and some analysis of how a gesture, a sequence of gestures, a multimodal sequence is placed in a given temporally unfolding context-of-use, i.e. context-analysis. Macroanalyses of gesture dynamics are briefly introduced. MGA offers a toolbox with a flexible set of tools that encourages critical reflection on the insight that can be gained from analyzing gestures in multimodal communication and interaction.

Keywords

cognitive linguisticsconversation analysiscross-cultural comparisonempirical methods in multimodality researchgesture and signmultimodal interactionnonhuman primatespragmaticssemioticsvisual language
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Gesture Studies , pp. 182 - 216
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

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.)

References

Andrén, M. (2010). Children’s gestures from 18 to 30 months. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1700528&fileOId=1700711Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. F., Stokoe, W. C., & Wilcox, S. E. (1995). Gesture and the nature of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bartenieff, I., & Lewis, D. (1980). Body movement. Coping with the environment. New York, NY: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
Bohle, U. (2007). Das Wort ergreifen – Das Wort übergeben. Explorative Studie zur Rolle redebegleitender Gesten in der Organisation des Sprecherwechsels [Taking the floor – handing over the floor. Exploratory study on the role of gestures accompanying speech in the organization of speaker turns]. Berlin, Germany: Weidler Verlag.Google Scholar
Boutet, D. (2001). Approche morpho-dynamique du sens dans la gestuelle conversationnelle [Morpho-dynamic approach to meaning in conversational gestures]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Boutet, D. (2010). Structuration physiologique de la gestuelle: Modèle et tests [Physiological structuring of gestures: Model and tests]. Lidil, 42, 77–96. https://doi.org/10.4000/lidil.3070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutet, D., Morgenstern, A., & Cienki, A. (2016). Grammatical aspect and gesture in French: A kinesiological approach. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 20(3), 132–151. Retrieved from https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/14745/13784Google Scholar
Boutet, D., Morgenstern, A., & Cienki, A. (2018). Looking ahead: Kinesiological analysis. In Cienki, A. & Iriskhanova, O. K. (Eds.), Aspectuality across languages. Event construal in speech and gesture (pp. 143–160). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bressem, J. (2013a). A linguistic perspective on the notation of form features in gestures. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 1079–1098). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bressem, J. (2013b). Transcription systems for gestures, speech, prosody, postures, and gaze. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S., (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 1037–1059). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bressem, J. (2021). Repetitions in gesture: A cognitive-linguistic and usage-based perspective. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressem, J., & Ladewig, S. H. (2011). Rethinking gesture phases: Articulatory features of gestural movement? Semiotica, 184(1/4), 53–91. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2011.022 Retrieved from www.janabressem.de/Downloads/Bressem-Ladewig%202011-gesture%20phases.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bressem, J., Ladewig, S. H., & Müller, C. (2013). Linguistic Annotation System for Gestures (LASG). In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 1098–1124). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bressem, J., Ladewig, S. H., & Müller, C. (2018). Ways of expressing action in multimodal narrations: The semiotic complexity of character viewpoint depictions. In Hübl, A. & Steinbach, M. (Eds.), Linguistic foundations of narration in spoken and sign languages (pp. 223–250). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressem, J., & Müller, C. (2014a). The family of Away gestures: Negation, refusal, and negative assessment. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 1592–1604). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bressem, J., & Müller, C. (2014b). A repertoire of German recurrent gestures with pragmatic functions. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 1575–1591). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bressem, J., & Müller, C. (2017). The “Negative-Assessment-Construction”: A multimodal pattern based on a recurrent gesture? Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressem, J., Stein, N., & Wegener, C. (2017). Multimodal language use in Savosavo: Refusing, excluding and negating with speech and gesture. Pragmatics, 27(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.2.01breGoogle Scholar
Bressem, J. & Wegener, C. (2021). Handling talk: A cross-linguistic perspective on discursive functions of gestures in German and Savosavo, Gesture, 20(2), 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.19041.breCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. (1933). Ausdruckstheorie. Das System an der Geschichte aufgezeigt [Theory of expression: The system explained by its history]. Jena, Germany: Fischer.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. (2008). Metaphor and talk. In Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 197–211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P., & Stanley, N. (2009). The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor & Symbol, 24(2), 63–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480902830821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2013). Cognitive linguistics. spoken language and gesture as expressions of conceptualization. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 182–201). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cienki, A. (2017). Ten lectures on spoken language and gesture from the perspective of cognitive linguistics: Issues of dynamicity and multimodality. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A., & Iriskhanova, O. K. (Eds.). (2018). Aspectuality across languages: Event construal in speech and gesture. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (Eds.). (2008a). Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (2008b). Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 483–501). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (2014). Ways of viewing metaphor in gesture. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. (Vol. 2, pp. 1766–1781). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Corballis, M. C. (2013). Gesture as precursor to speech in evolution. In Müller, C., Cienki., A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 466–480). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuffari, E., & Jensen, T. W. (2014). Living bodies: Co-enacting experience. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook of multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 2016–2025). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (Eds.). (2012). Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, G. (2008a). Cinema 1. The movement image. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. (2008b). Cinema 2. The time image. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. D. (2002). Gesture, verb aspect, and the nature of iconic imagery in natural discourse. Gesture, 2(2), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.2.2.04dunCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. D. (2006). Co-expressivity of speech and gesture: Manner of motion in Spanish, English, and Chinese. In Proceedings of the 27th Berkeley Linguistics Society Annual Meeting (pp. 353–370). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v27i1.3181Google Scholar
Efron, D. (1972). Gesture, race and culture. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. (Original work published 1941)Google Scholar
Eisenstein, S. M. (1998). The montage of film attractions. In Taylor, R. (Ed.), The Eisenstein reader (pp. 35–52). London, UK: British Film Institute. (Original work published 1924)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Fricke, E. (2007). Origo, Geste und Raum. Lokaldeixis im Deutschen [Origo, gesture and space. Local deixis in German]. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricke, E. (2014). Deixis, gesture, and embodiment from a linguistic point of view. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook of multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 1803–1823). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fuchs, T. (2017). Intercorporeality and interaffectivity. In Meyer, C., Streeck, J., & Jordan, J. S. (Eds.), Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gullberg, M. (1998). Gesture as a communication strategy in second language discourse: A study of learners of French and Swedish. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lund University, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Horst, D., Boll, F., Schmitt, C., & Müller, C. (2014). Gesture as interactive expressive movement: Inter-affectivity in face-to-face communication. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 2112–2125). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jensen, T. W., & Greve, L. (2019). Ecological cognition and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(1), 1–16. http://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1591720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappelhoff, H. (2013). Ausdrucksbewegung und Zuschauerempfinden. Eisensteins Konzept des Bewegungsbildes [Expressive movement and audience perception. Eisenstein’s concept of the movement image]. In Curtis, R., Koch, G., & Siegel, M. (Eds.), Synchronisierung der Künste [Synchronization of the arts] (pp. 73–84). Munich, Germany: Fink.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappelhoff, H. (2014). Artificial emotions: Melodramatic practices of shared interiority. In Campe, R. & Weber, J. (Eds.), Rethinking emotion: Interiority and exteriority in pre-modern and contemporary thought (pp. 264–288). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappelhoff, H., & Müller, C. (2011). Embodied meaning construction: Multimodal metaphor and expressive movement in speech, gesture, and feature film. Metaphor and the Social World, 1(2), 121–153. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.1.2.02kapCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (1980). Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In Ritchie Key, M. (Ed.), Nonverbal communication and language (pp. 207–227). The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1981). Geography of gesture. Semiotica, 37(1/2), 129–163.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1992). The negotiation of context in face-to-face interaction. In Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 323–334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (2015). Gesture and sign: Utterance uses of visible bodily action. In Allen, K. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics (pp. 33–46). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kennedy, A. (2013). Laban based analysis and notation of body movement. In Müller, C., Cienki., A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 941–957). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kita, S. (1997). Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics, 35, 379–415. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.2.379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kita, S. (2003). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kita, S., van Gijn, I., & van der Hulst, H. (1998). Movement phases in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by human coders. In Wachsmuth, I. & Fröhlich, M. (Eds.), Gesture and sign language in human-computer interaction (pp. 23–35). Berlin; Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, S. C., Fuchs, T., Summa, M., & Müller, C. (2012). Body memory, metaphor and movement. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladewig, S. H. (2014). The cyclic gesture. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 1605–1618). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ladewig, S. H. (2020). Integrating gestures: The dimension of multimodality in cognitive grammar. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1993). Gesture and speech. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1964)Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandel, M. (1977). Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In Friedman, L. A. (Ed.), On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language (pp. 57–107). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2005). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge. (Original work published 1945)Google Scholar
Meyer, C., Streeck, J., & Jordan, J. S. (Eds.). (2017). Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2007). Methodology for multimodality: One way of working with speech and gesture data. In Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S. & Spivey, M. J. (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 225–248) Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2014). Gestures and iconicity. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 1712–1731). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2017). Multimodal existential constructions in German: Manual actions of giving as experiential substrate for grammatical and gestural patterns. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2019a). Peirce’s universal categories: On their potential for gesture theory and multimodal analysis. Semiotica, 228, 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2019b). Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates form, function and schematic patterns in gesture. Frontiers of Psychology, 10, article 254. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mondada, L. (2013a). Conversation analysis: Talk and bodily resources for the organization of social interaction. In Müller, C., Cienki., A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 218–226). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2013b). Multimodal interaction. In Müller, C., Cienki., A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 577–588). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Morris, D., Collett, P., Marsh, P., & O’Shaughnessy, M. (1979). Gestures: Their origins and distribution. London, UK: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (1998a). Iconicity and gesture. In Santi, S. (Ed.), Oralité et gestualité: Communication multimodale, interaction [Orality and gestures: Multimodal communication, interaction] (pp. 321–328). Paris, France: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (1998b). Redebegleitende Gesten: Kulturgeschichte, Theorie, Sprachvergleich [Co-speech gestures: Cultural history, theory, cross-linguistic comparison]. Berlin, Germany: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2004). Forms and uses of the Palm Up Open Hand: A case of a gesture family? In Müller, C. & Posner, R. (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures (pp. 233–256). Berlin, Germany: Weidler.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2007). Gestures in human and nonhuman primates: Why we need a comparative view. In Liebal, K., Müller, C., & Pika, S. (Eds.), Gestural communication in human and nonhuman primates (pp. 233–256). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. (2009). Gesture and language. In Malmkjaer, K. (Ed.), Routledge’s linguistics encyclopedia (pp. 214–217). Abington, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2010). Mimesis und Gestik [Mimesis and gesture]. In Koch, G., Voss, C., & Vöhler, M. (Eds.), Die Mimesis und ihre Künste [Mimesis and its arts] (pp. 149–187). Munich, Germany: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2013). Gestures as a medium of expression: The linguistic potential of gestures. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 202–217). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2014a). Gestural modes of representation as techniques of depiction. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 1687–1702). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2014b). Ring-gestures across cultures and times: Dimensions of variation. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 1511–1522). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2015). Using gestures with speech: Variable cognitive-semantic and pragmatic relations. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University, 6(717), 452–466. Retrieved from www.vestnik-mslu.ru/Vest-2015/Vest15-717z.pdfGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. (2016). From mimesis to meaning: A systematics of gestural mimesis for concrete and abstract referential gestures. In Zlatev, J., Sonesson, G., & Konderak, P. (Eds.), Meaning, mind and communication: Explorations in cognitive semiotics (pp. 211–226). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2017a). How recurrent gestures mean: Conventionalized contexts-of-use and embodied motivation. Gesture, 16(2), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.2.05mulCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. (2017b). Waking metaphors: Embodied cognition in discourse. In Hampe, B. (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition in discourse (pp. 297–316). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. (2019a). Gesture and sign: Cataclysmic break or dynamic relations? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, article 1651. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01651Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2019b). Metaphorizing as embodied interactivity: What gesturing and film viewing can tell us about an ecological view on metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34 (1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1591723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C., Bressem, J., & Ladewig, S. H. (2013). Towards a grammar of gesture: A form-based view. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 707–733). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C., & Kappelhoff, H. (2018). Cinematic metaphor: Experience – affectivity – temporality. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, C., & Ladewig, S. H. (2013). Metaphors for sensorimotor experiences: Gestures as embodied and dynamic conceptualizations of balance in dance lessons. In Borkent, M., Dancygier, B., & Hinnell, J. (Eds.), Language and the creative mind (pp. 295–324). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, C., Ladewig, S. H., & Bressem, J. (2013). Gestures and speech from a linguistic perspective: A new field and its history. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 55–81). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C., & Tag, S. (2010). The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction. Cognitive Semiotics, 6, 85–120. https://doi.org/10.3726/81610_85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nùnez, R., & Sweetser, E. (2006). With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistics comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 401–450. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özyürek, A., & Kita, S. (1999). Expressing manner and path in English and Turkish: Differences in speech, gesture, and conceptualization. In Hahn, M. & Stoness, S. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty first annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 507–512). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Allen, S., Brown, A., Furman, R., & Ishizuka, T. (2008). Development of cross-linguistic variation in speech and gesture: Motion events in English and Turkish. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1040–1054. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.1040CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parrill, F., Bergen, B. K., & Lichtenstein, P. V. (2013). Grammatical aspect, gesture, and conceptualization: Using co-speech gesture to reveal event representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(1), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrill, F., Lavanty, B., Bennett, A., Klco, A., & Demir-Lira, O. E. (2018). The relationship between character viewpoint gesture and narrative structure in children. Language and Cognition, 10(3), 408–434. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2018.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrill, F., & Sweetser, E. (2004). What we mean by meaning: Conceptual integration in gesture analysis and transcription. Gesture, 4(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.4.2.05parCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plessner, H. (1982). Die Deutung des mimischen Ausdrucks: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom Bewußtsein des anderen Ichs [The interpretation of facial expression: A contribution to the understanding of the consciousness of the other self] [in cooperation with Buytendijk, Frederik J. J.]. In Dux, G., Marquard, O., & Ströker, E. (Eds.), Helmuth Plessner. Gesammelte Schriften [Helmuth Plessner: Collected Writings] (Vol. 7: Ausdruck und menschliche Natur [Vol. 7. Expression and human nature], pp. 67–129). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp. (Original work published 1925)Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, R. (2005). Zur multimodalen Struktur von turn-taking [The multimodal structure of turn-taking]. Gesprächsforschung – Online Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion [Conversation Studies – Online Journal on Verbal Interaction], 6, 17–61.Google Scholar
Schoonjans, S. (2018). Modalpartikeln als multimodale Konstruktionen: Eine korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen [Modal particles as multimodal constructions: A corpus-based analysis of the co-occurrence of modal particles and gestures in German]. Berlin, Germany: DeGruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, J. (1973). Verbal and nonverbal deixis: The pointed lip gesture among the San Blas Cuna. Language in Society, 2(1), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500000087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought to language” to “thinking and speaking”. In Levinson, S. C. & Gumperz, J. J. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stec, K., & Sweetser, E. (2016). Maintaining multiple viewpoints with gaze. In Dancygier, B., Wei-Iun, L., & Verhagen, A. (Eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (pp. 237–257). Berlin, Gemany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers, No. 8. Buffalo, NY: Department of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo. Republished (2005) in The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eni001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft. The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. (2017). Self-making man: A day of action, life and language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., & Hartge, U. (1992). Previews: Gestures at the transition place. In Auer, P. & di Luzio, A. (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 135–158). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 36–149). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. In Proceedings of the 17th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 480–519). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teßendorf, S. (2013). Pragmatic and metaphoric: Combining functional with cognitive approaches in the analysis of the “brushing aside gesture”. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 1540–1557). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. (2009). Symbol and symptom: Routes from gesture to signed language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.04wilCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S., & Occhino, C. (2016). Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(3), 371–404. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S., Shaffer, B., Jarque, M. J., Segimon, J. M., Pizzuto, E., & Rossini, P. (2000). The emergence of grammar from gesture: A cross-linguistic study of modal verbs in three signed languages. Paper presented at the Seventh Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. (1973). The language of gestures. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2014a). Human uniqueness, bodily mimesis and the evolution of language. Humana Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies, 27, 197–219.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2014b). Image schemas, mimetic schemas and children’s gestures. Cognitive Semiotics, 7(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2014-0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×