An Agenda For Gesture Studies

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 19

19.04.

2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

Go to Semiotic Review of Books Home Page


Go to SRB Highlights
Go to SRB Archives

SRB Archives
This article appeared in Volume 7 (3) of the Semiotic Review of Books.

An Agenda for Gesture Studies


Adam Kendon
To skip to a particular section of the article, simply click on a topic below. To return to this point in the
article, use the "Back" function of your browser.

Introduction
What is 'gesture'?
Towards a 'Gesture Kinetics'
The Shapes of Gesture ['morpho-kinetics of gesture]
What kinds of information do gestures encode?
The significance of gesture
Gesture and Situation
Gesture, Language and Culture
References
Some items for an introductory bibliography of gesture studies

Although interest in gesture is of very long standing (see Kendon 1982, Schmitt 1984, 1990 for discussions
of the history of gesture studies), it is only within the last decade and a half that the relevance of its study to a
number of important theoretical issues has again become apparent. For much of this century gesture has been
regarded, at best, as a rather trivial aspect of human expression. As a result, despite the large number of
books and articles that have been published on the topic since publishing began, we still appear to be on the
edge of an unknown territory. This Agenda is an attempt to lay out what appear to be the more important
lines of investigation that still need to be pursued in regard to gesture. It is based on a document written (in
April 1995) as a personal response to a list of questions about gesture that was circulated privately by Steven
Levinson of the Cognitive Anthropology Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at
Nijmegen.

A. What is 'gesture'?
In everyday discussion we all think we know what we mean by 'gesture.' The problem is to make explicit on
what this knowledge is based.

I propose a series of studies to explore how people perceive and differentially attend to one another's
activities in interaction. One approach is simply to have people look at films of others in interaction and have
them describe what they see. If you do this (as I have done - see Kendon 1985) I expect you will find a great
deal of consistency in that people will tend to treat separately activities (typically of hands and arms, but not
always and not only) that they perceive as "part of what the person is trying to say." People seem quite
willing to see such activities as "foreground" and to treat things like posture shifts as background, and report,
only after prodding, various self-touchings, fiddly movements, etc. that, in daily life, we routinely disattend
in one another. (cf. Goodwin and Goodwin 1986).

This 'strand' of activity (which we also refer to when we use the term 'gesture' or 'gesticulation') has certain
characteristics which distinguish it from other kinds of activity (such as practical actions, postural
projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 1/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

adjustments, orientation changes, self-manipulations, and so forth). These include:

Gestures are 'excursions': phrases of action recognized as 'gesture' move away from a 'rest position'
and always return to a rest position (cf. Schegloff 1984).
'Peak' structure: Such excursions always have a 'centre' (recognized by naive subjects as the 'business'
of the movement, what the movement actually 'does' or what it was 'meant for'). This (since Kendon
1980) has been referred to by some as the 'stroke' of the gesture phrase
Well boundedness: phrases of action identified as gesture tend to have clear onsets and offsets. This is
in contrast to orientational changes or posture shifts which sometimes can be quite gradual and have
no 'peak' structure.
Symmetry. If you run a film of someone gesturing backwards it is remarkable how difficult it seems to
be to see the difference from when you run the film forwards. This suggests that gesture phrases have a
symmetry of organization that practical actions, posture shifts (and of course spatial movements, etc.)
do not have.

I think it would be worthwhile to pursue a programme of research on the perception of action to try to
identify what appear to be the movement features that people rely upon to separate 'gesture' (actions
perceived as produced to 'say something', etc.) from other kinds of actions. I think computer construction of
abstract movement patterns could be exploited usefully here. Following the discoveries of Michotte (1950)
on the 'perception of causality' and the somewhat more recent work of Johanssen (1973) on the perception of
biological motion, I think one could profitably explore the parameters of movement configurations that are
distinguished as 'gesture' or 'gestural' in contrast to those that are not.

B. Towards a 'Gesture Kinetics'


Such a programme of work could be linked to, and would contribute importantly, to research on what might
be called the 'kinetics' of gesture (in parallel to 'phonetics'). We really have little explicit knowledge about
how gestures are organized as physical actions (cf. the remarks on this point in Armstrong, Stokoe and
Wilcox 1995). I have mentioned a few features under A above,but these are only the merest hints. (These
features, by the way, will apply whether or not gesture is being deployed in relation to speech or is being
deployed on its own).

An important part of the 'kinetics' research should include a study of just how gesture phrases are organized
in relation to speech phrases. In Kendon (1972, 1980) I showed that there is a consistent patterning in how
gesture phrases (which I tried to define in terms of the perceptually marked 'stroke' - which is analogous to
the central syllable of a David Crystal (Crystal and Davy 1969) 'tone unit' - and the 'preparation' and
'recovery' phases of action) are patterned in relation to the phrases of speech (viewed as intonation units,
breath groups - specifically David Crystal 'tone units'). I showed that just as, in a continuous discourse,
speakers group tone units into higher order groupings and so we can speak of a hierarchy of such units, so
gesture phrases may be similarly organized. For example, over a series of tone units linked intonationally or
by an absence of pauses into a coherent higher order grouping, the co-occurring gesture phrases are also
linked. We can see this because they all use the same hand, or there are no full recoveries between gesture
phrases, or there is a thematic character to the handshapes used; and then over the next set of linked tone
units the speaker organizes his gestural phrases in a contrasting way, using a different hand, different
handshape themes, etc.

It has always seemed to me that a lot more careful work on how gesture phrases and speech phrases are
organized needs to be done. Studies are needed that look at different aspects of how the gesture phrases are
organized and different aspects of how the tone units are organized (e.g. intonation patterns, types of pauses,
how tone-units are subordinated to one another, etc.) in relation to one another.

Work of this sort would certainly reveal one kind of hierarchical organization in gesture - and when looked at
in relation to speech it would also show the extent to which this hierarchical organization in gesture as action
can be mapped on to the hierarchical organization of speech, not only considered phonetically (from
segmental sound to tone unit and tone unit groupings, and beyond) but also as considered from the point of
view of phrase, sentence, discourse structuring; or from a semantic point of view.

projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 2/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

There remains a controversy about the way in which gesture as an activity is related to speech. Some
investigators appear to consider it simply as a kind of 'spill-over' effect from the effort of speaking, others see
it as somehow helping the speaker to speak, yet others see it as determined by the linguistic choices a
speaker makes as he constructs an utterance. An opposing view is that gesture is a separate and distinct mode
of expresison with its own properties which can be brought into a cooperative relationship with spoken
utterance, the two modes of expression being used in a complementary way (see Kendon 1983). Careful
studies of just how the phrases of gesture and the phrases of speech are related would throw useful light on
this issue (cf. the recent dissertations of McClave 1991 and Nobe 1996).

C. The Shapes of Gesture


['morpho-kinetics' of gesture]
Phrases of action recognized as 'gesture' also have content, in the sense that in these phrases of action we see
many varieties of movement shapes, locational changes, hand-shape types, etc. However, these movements,
hand-shapes, etc. are patterned and are probably pretty consistent from one speaker to the next.

It is often said that gesticulation is idiosyncratic, each speaker improvising his own forms. So far as I know,
no one has ever really tested this claim. My own experience in gesture-watching suggests to me that people
are far more consistent in what they do gesturally than this 'idiosyncrasy' claim would lead one to imagine.
One's own experience in noticing differences in 'gesture style' from one culture to another, the work of David
Efron (1972), etc. actually confirms this point. It suggests that there are inter-individual similarities in the
patterning of gestural action and that such patterns are socially shared - hence there is conventionalization to
a degree affecting all kinds of gesturing - but that different social groups, different cultures, have rather
different patternings.

One useful line of investigation would be to see how far (within a given cultural group) gesturers are
patterned and consistent in the movement patterns they use and the handshape forms they use. Genevieve
Calbris (1990) in her Semiotics of French Gesture has gone some way towards attempting something like
this. Thus she distinguishes a variety of movement patterns - curved,looping, circular, etc. - the planes in
which these are done, the handshapes employed (open hand, spread hand, single digits projecting, etc. ) and
shows, or at least suggests, how there may be certain semantic consistencies to such gestural forms.

It is in this connexion that one might examine the issue of 'compositionality.' For instance, the hand held so
that the thumb and index finger are bent to touch each other at their tips (the 'ring' hand) recurs in unstaged
conversations that I recorded in various locales near Salerno in Italy. It occurs in contexts that suggest it
marks precision, exactitude (Kendon 1995a). A horizontal movement of the hand may signify totality,
inclusiveness, a full range of something. For example, a speaker refers to the full range of precise medical
tests that had been sent to her, combining 'ring' hand with horizontal leftward movement as she does so.
Again, sharp horizontal movement of hand with palm facing downwards often occurs in contexts where the
speaker is expressing the idea of something cutting off, something finished, something not possible. A hand
held so only thumb and index finger are extended is, in Italy (also France) used in a lexical gesture that
means 'telephone'. A speaker, referring to an unsuccessful telephone call says "no one responded" and, as he
does so, moves the "telephone" hand, held palm down, rapidly to the right. He thus combines a gesture
expressing "cut off" with one referring to "telephone."

Examples of this sort can be multiplied. Several are described in de Jorio's (1832) treatise on Neapolitan
gesture. Calbris also describes many examples of this sort. Clearly there is compositionality in gesture in the
sense that we can see re-combinations of components. How far it extends, whether there are restrictions on
this, whether there is any sort of hierarchical structure to such combinations - all this remains for further
exploration. Rebecca Webb of the University of Rochester is about to complete a dissertation on this topic
(Webb 1996). Using material gathered from recordings of U.S. TV talk shows, she has been able to
demonstrate a high degree of consistency in the way in which speakers use a variety of handshapes.

D. What kinds of information do gestures encode?

projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 3/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

The various typologies of gesture that have been put forward are in part attempts to classify gestures in terms
of the information they encode, albeit at very general levels. These typologies are often logically
inconsistent, in many cases formed on the basis of rather hasty observation with a good admixture of 'folk'
categories thrown in. One of the best is that put forward by David Efron(1941/1972). Ekman and Friesen's
paper of 1969, one of the most cited in the literature, presents Efron's ideas in a more systematic way, but
some of the subtlety of Efron's original discussion is lost. A useful survey of some of the various typologies
that have been proposed and how they may be related to the terminology set up by Efron has been published
by Rimé and Schiaratura (1991). Here we set out in broad terms what appear to be the main ways in which
gestures are used.

Gestures (i.e. phrases of bodily action that have those characteristics that permit them to be 'recognized' as
components of willing communicative action)may be:

utterances on their own


they may be employed as components of utterances in alternation with speech
they may be employed in conjunction with speech

Each of these possibilities will now be discussed briefly.

Gesture used alone: When gestures are employed as utterances all by themselves they tend to assume a
highly conventionalized form. Every speech-community has a repertoire of such forms (sometimes referred
to as 'emblems') however, from one community to another (as well as within a given community), there
seems to be much variation in the extent to which gesture is used as a mode of utterance on its own.
Accordingly, there is variation in the size of the repertoire of gestural forms that people can recall in a
'citation' context.

One useful line of work could be to gather such lists of 'citable' or 'quotable' gestures from different cultures
and try, insofar as one can, to identify contexts of use for them, and to compare the glosses members of the
communities in which they are observed or from which they are collected. Preliminary work along these
lines (Kendon 1981, Payrató 1993) suggests that there may be a typical and rather restricted range of
communicative functions that such 'quotable gestures' are said to fulfill.

However, remarkably little is really known about these forms. Above all, we badly need studies of their uses
in context. First attempts along these lines can be found in Sherzer (1991, 1993); and Kendon (1995a).
Incidentally, if we undertake such studies, we find that such gestures are often commonly deployed within
the contexts of spoken utterance, either in alternation with speech or co-deployed with it. In terms of how
they are used they do not seem to constitute the easily separable category they have so often been assumed to
be.

Gesture co-produced with speech: Most utterances involve the use of speech and so the most frequent
environment in which we observe gesture is as a component of spoken utterance.

Gesture may be used in alternation with speech: Sometimes gesture serves as a separate utterance,
immediately after a speaker has finished speaking. Sometimes a speaker may be observed to leave a sentence
unfinished in speech, but use a gesture to complete it.

Collections of examples of this sort of thing could be useful, especially if properly contextualized. This could
give us some clues as to at least some of the ranges of uses to which speakers put gesture.

Gesture in conjunction with speech: This is what has often been called 'gesticulation' and in recent years
has attracted the most attention (see McNeill 1992). In considering the relationship between gesture and
speech, when they are used in conjunction, from the point of view of what 'meaning' each aspect of the
utterance appears to be encoding, it is important to recognize the great variety of ways in which gesture is
used. Generalizations about 'why people gesture' need to be qualified in many ways - and one thing that must
always be taken into consideration is what the meaning role of the gesture-phrase is in relation to the
meaning of the speech.

There are important and difficult methodological problems here. How do we 'know' what meaning role
gesture is playing? Quite without apology, personally I use my 'common sense' and then (because I use video
projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 4/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

recordings) show my interpretations to others - and by discussion we can reach a consensus. Such a
procedure can certainly be defended, however there are others who would prefer a more 'objective' method.
But 'objective' methods carry their own problems.

Different ways in which gesture is used as an integrated (non-alternating) component of spoken


utterance: Any utterance whatever is produced in some sort of social situation, it is produced under the
guidance of some pragmatic aim, it plays a role in the interactional setting, it has a content that is being
conveyed, etc. It has multiple functions, thus and, accordingly, it has multiple components which address
these functions. Jakobson's (1960) ideas about this were basically along the right lines. In looking at gesture
as a component of spoken utterance we may see that, variously, it also serves in relation to these various
components of the utterance. For virtually any function that you can think of, examples of gestures can be
found that fulfill it.

Content: For representation of aspects of content. Depicting path of movement, a mode of action (slicing a
wolf's stomach open with an axe, etc. - from a recording of someone telling the story of Little Red Riding
Hood. See Kendon 1993a), depicting relations in space between objects or entities - these are what McNeill
(1992) has called 'iconic' gestures.

Such content that is represented may not be descriptions of actual or possible actions, events, spatial
relationships, of course, but may be 'as if' entities, actions, spatial relationships that serve as metaphors for
concepts at any level of abstraction (cf. McNeill 1992; Calbris 1990; Kendon 1993b).

It is my hunch (but only a hunch) that the more abstract and metaphorical the content the gesture pertains to,
the more likely we are to observe consistencies in the gestural forms employed. To the extent that metaphors
are socially conventionalized, to this extent also we may find that gestures used to represent metaphorical
concepts will show social conventionalization also.

Probably, when faced with some very strange scene or picture that you are asked to describe, insofar as you
use gesture to do so and insofar as you actually try to map gestural forms onto the images you seek to
represent, you may tailor your actions to the individual concreteness of the thing being described and so may
be quite individual in how you do this.

Even here, I suspect, we are going to observe certain consistencies: e.g. fists being used to represent smallish
solid objects, flat open hands being used to represent surfaces, extended index fingers being used to represent
long thin objects, or being used to depict alignments or directions of orientation, etc. The reason for this is
fairly obvious: insofar as the hands are being used to make graphic images of something, they will be shaped
accordingly. It is most unlikely that I will use a bunched hand to represent something thin and flat, a hand
with the fingers spread and pointing up to represent a smooth surface, etc.

It would be useful here to take a look at Penny Boyes Braem's attempt at a 'semantic phonology' in American
sign language (Boyes-Braem 1981), and its subsequent application in studies of Italian Sign Language by
Virginia Volterra, Elena Pizzuto, Elena Radutzsky (see Volterra 1987; Radutzsky 1992). I think their
demonstration of the consistency with which semantically based classes of signs share handshape and other
features would prove very reminiscent of what speaking gesturers do as they represent things.

Pointing: Many gestures have a pointing component, as well as many that seem to be 'pure' points. What is
pointed to can be actual objects in the world that surrounds the participants (actual object pointing), objects
can be pointed to that can have a physical location, and do, but are not immediately present (removed object
pointing), objects that can have real locations in space, but which are not present but which are given
locations for the purposes of current discourse (virtual object pointing), and then there can be pointing to
things that cannot in fact have any sort of object status at all and can have no location (metaphorical object
pointing).

An interesting observation about pointing gestures is that they vary in what body part is used to accomplish
them (head, lip, chin, elbow, foot, arm+hand) and, when the hand is used, the handshape also may vary
(index finger, open flat hand held palm up, open flat hand held palm facing laterally, thumb). In addition, in
pointing, the movement may not simply be linear, but can follow various patterns. Calbris (1990) has made
the observation that there are semantic implications for what body part or hand-shape is used in pointing and

projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 5/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

she has an instructivediscussion on this. There are also semantic implications for what pattern of movement
is employed.

Pointing gestures - or rather, gestures which have a clear pointing component - offer themselves as a
relatively simple kind of gestural action where, by examining the combinations of movement, body part and
handshape types employed, we might rather readily gather data that can bear on the issue of
'compositionality' in gesture.

For example, two people are standing looking at a mountain panorama. One is explaining the names of the
mountains to the other. By extending his arm full length, with an index finger, he directs his recipient's
attention to the various peaks. But as he does so, within the frame of each successive pointing gesture, he
moves his hand in a way that suggests now a curved contour, now a more jagged one. He thus combines
depictive movement with pointing.

There may be restrictions on what can be combined with what. Thumb points are always to the side of the
pointer, or behind him. They are not combined with depictive movements. The open flat hand with palm up
may be used to point to someone, but it points not to him as an object but to him for what he stands for, for
example it may to point him for what he has said. The open hand, palm held vertically, is commonly used
when people are explaining paths of movement (giving directions of where to walk) and here depiction of
movement path is combined with pointing action. However, an open hand with palm held facing downwards
is not used for this purpose, etc.

We already know something of cultural differences in pointing gestures. Systematic analysis comparing data
from one culture to another might be a good way to give precise illustration to cultural differences in gesture.

Discourse structure: Gesture phrases pattern with the stress and intonational structure of the speech they co-
occur with in such a way as to have a visual rhythmic character that seems to mark out the rhythmic
organization of the utterance. There is, thus, a dimension of discourse structure marking to be observed in all
co-speech gestures. However, we do seem to find instances where the forms of the gesture phrases seem to
pattern consistently with: aspects of discourse structure such as topic vs. comment; 'central' or 'logically
crucial' topic, vs. topic against which it is being compared [For examples of this see Kendon 1995a].

Or a certain kind of spatialization of the gesture performance, so that different components of a discourse are
given different spatial locations. In such cases we might speak of a form of deixis or pointing. It would be
worthwhile collecting verbal expressions that reflect this sort of thing. For instance, we often say, in English
"On the one hand, so-and-so, on the other hand, so-and-so" - and such a spatialized expression will be
observed in co-occurring gesture, if there is any.

'Reality status': In conversations people quite often make statements for the sake of proposing something for
discussion, not because they actually mean to report a real event; or the event they describe is being used to
illustrate a point and it is not being related for its own sake. What is referred to in such speech can have a
sort of 'provisional' status, an 'as if' status, a 'subjunctive' status. There may be gestural ways in which such
statuses of something being said is indicated.

According to some current observations, looking at a conversation recorded near Salerno, presenting the
hand, palm up seems to mark what is said as an "example" as an "opinion" as an "illustration"

Also in this material I have instances of a conventionalized form being used as a way of indicating that what
is being said is only to be read as "an idea" or "what one might think" not what the speaker believes to be the
case.

Speech-act marker gestures: Examples in Kendon (1995a) are described of gestural forms that appear to be
used as a way of marking an utterance as an appeal, a question, etc.

One might speak of this aspect of gesture as 'rhetorical' because it was this aspect of gesture that was so
extensively considered by Quintillian and also by the 17th and 18th century treatises on the "art of gesture".

Interaction regulation: Another aspect of gesture use has to do with regulating the organization of the
interaction. People use gesture to indicate to a speaker that he should stop talking, to 'push away' what
projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 6/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

another is saying, to indicate they want the next turn, to show they think the discussion should stop, and the
like. Of course, insofar as gestures may indicate type of speech act, 'reality status' of what is being said, even
exposition of content, they play a part in the structuring of the conversation, however there do appear to be
sets of gestures that people may use that are rather more specialized as interactional regulatory gestures.

Two points to be stressed: What I have said here is, of course, but an indication of some of the different
ways in which gesture is employed by speakers. I do this because I think that any gesture project must
recognize these multiple functions and an important component of what it should be engaged in is to map
these out. There is great complexity and subtlety here (see Calbris again).

Secondly, this is not meant to be even the beginnings of a typology. Rather, it is meant to suggest some of
the various functional dimensions of an utterance to which gestures contribute. Gestures vary in the extent to
which they are 'weighted' along each of these dimensions, so they vary in the position they would occupy in
a multi-dimensional space (of course, we can - and Jakobson would - say exactly the same thing about the
spoken component). Those gestures that consistently occupy extreme ends of these dimensions (with little
weighting on the others) get distinguished as "types" - but I don't think a typological way of thinking is very
helpful. Rather, it tends to obscure the complexity and subtlety.

E. The significance of gesture


My approach to gesture starts from the position that gestures, like spoken utterances, are voluntary actions.
They are not like emotional reactions and they are not like digestion or breathing. People engage in gesture,
as they engage in speech, as part and parcel of their effort to "say something", to engage in some sort of
social action, to play their part in an explicit, willing, fashion in the give and take of social interaction.

Questions remain, however: what level of control guides gesture? to what extent do they count in conveying
what a person is saying to others? and when, as appears to be the case, gestures appear even when the
addressee can't be seen by the speaker, do they nevertheless play a role for the gesturer himself?

It seems clear that there can be no simple answer to any of these questions.

Level of control: This would include the issue of "consciousness". Personally, I am not sure how important
this is. It is true that if you ask someone what gesture they just performed when in full rhetorical flight the
chances are they will not be able to tell you and may even claim they didn't gesture.

But this may be just because, in our society, most of the time, we don't pay separate attention to gesture and
therefore we don't monitor it in such a way that would allow us to recall just what we did. Exactly the same
might be tried asking people to repeat, without warning, what they just said in speech. The chances are that
they would give you the sense of what they said, but rarely the exact words.

I think if experiments along these lines were conducted, exact words uttered would tend to be more
recallable than exact gestures. But once people had their attention drawn to gestures they could begin to
recall them much as they could recall their words, at least some of the time.

And some gestures would be much more readily recalled than others. The more recallable, the more
conventionalized.

Because (according to me) gestures are an integral part of the enterprise of the utterance, they are no more
(or less) recallable than, say, the movements we make with our legs and our bodyas we sit in a chair or as we
get up. We will readily report that we "got up", and the like, but the exact details of how we did this we don't
recall, as a rule. In the same way, we may readily recall that we "said so-and-so" but we won't recall exactly
how we did so (as a rule), and this applies to gestures as well as to words. Thus the alleged
"unconsciousness" of gesture is not special to gesture, but applies to all voluntary activity (including
speaking - it only doesn't seem to apply here for two reasons: 1. we get almost immediate feedback in the
same channel of production - we hear what we say. 2. Because speech has a special status in our society and
therefore, in certain circumstances, at least, words uttered become specially important. If gestures 'uttered'
had a special importance - as they did in legal contexts in the Middle Ages - see Schmitt 1990; Hibbitts 1992
- then they would also be recalled). What we are conscious of, and what we can tell other people about, is
projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 7/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

what we are attending to and what we are aiming to do. Attention to how we do these things is not usual,
however it does occur, of course, and we can train ourselves to attend to our own actions in this manner. The
degree to which people are conscious of and able to report about how they do what they do will vary
individually, from moment to moment, and perhaps there are cultural differences, also. For example, I have
the strong impression that Southern Italians are much more willing and able to tell you about their gestures
than Englishmen are (in large part, it is not that Englishmen gesture less than Italians as it is that English
culture teaches one to disattend gesture - in consequence Englishmen believe they do not gesture much).

Conveying information to others: Obviously, this is a very important question. There are great
methodological difficulties attending its investigation because, in everyday interaction, people don't respond
to gesture separately, they take it in as part of a complete package. Krauss et al. 1991 report an experiment in
which an attempt was made to see if 'conversational gestures' convey any information in their own right
about what the speaker was saying. In this experiment only the gestures that people made in the course of
speaking were shown to panels of judges. However, speakers divide what they have to 'say' between gesture
and speech and co-speech gestures are not 'designed' to be understood separately from the speech they are
associated with. Krauss and his colleagues, in a sense, were testing the hypothesis that they might be, but this
was really an inappropriate hypothesis. Actually they did find consistencies in judgments of meaning and
showed that such gestures do convey information - albeit (and not surprisingly, given the character of his
experiment) of a very general kind.

See Kendon (1994) for what I have said about this issue in the past and for a review of relevant experiments
and other studies on this problem.

Gestures for the benefit of the gesturer: Some investigators seem to think that this is all gestures are good
for. I do not agree with these people, however. Just as it is sometimes helpful to say something outloud to
oneself, so it may very well be useful to gesture to oneself. You get a feel for what it is you are thinking
about, a sense of how something might look, etc.

F. Gesture and Situation


Insofar as gesture is an integral part of the 'enterprise of utterance' and insofar as the kinds of utterances
people produce, the 'register' they employ, and so forth, varies with the 'situation', so we should expect there
to be significant variation in how gesture is employed in one situation as compared to another.

At a macroscopic level, anyone setting out to collect material relevant to a study of how gesture is used in
everyday life should seek to sample diverse kinds of interactions. Lamedica (1987) compared different kinds
of public speakers and showed they used gesture differently according to whether they were a politician, a
preacher, a university lecturer, and so on. His is the only study I know of that is like this: that suggests that
different kinds of speaking tasks will entail not only different kinds of topic, kinds of presentation of
material, but different kinds of gesture usage.

Obviously, situations can be compared on numerous dimensions (Goffman's discussion of 'social occasions'
has always seemed to me to be especially useful as a starting point - see Goffman 1954, 1963) and just as
work has been done that bears on how speakers adapt theirlanguage, mode of speaking, and the like,
according to situation, so studies of this sort ought to be expanded to include gesture.

At a microscopic level one should incorporate the analysis of gesture into the analysis of conversational
structure. As people like Schegloff, Goodwin, and so on have shown, speakers are very adept at adapting
their utterances to the momentary needs of the conversational circumstance. This has been called 'recipient
design'. We may expect this to extend to gesture. Indeed, we can find highly suggestive examples.

Thus, in the Italian conversations I have been studying, one finds instances of a speaker re-stating something,
for example first for the benefit of one specific recipient, then for the benefit of the wider group - he designs
his utterance differently in each case, and this includes the way he uses gesture. Examples of this sort (to me,
at least) are convincing evidence for the view that gesture is part of a speaker's resource deployment as he
hones his utterance to the demands of circumstance. Close comparative analysis of examples of this sort of
thing ought eventually to lead us to a more refined understanding of what role gesture is playing in the
interaction.
projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 8/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

G. Gesture, Language and Culture


That there are cultural differences in gesture is well known but there is little in the way of detailed
documentation. Efron (1972) still remains the most thorough demonstration. The issue of whether the
differences he observed (between Italian speakers and speakers of Yiddish) are to be attributed to differences
in language or culture or both were not addressed by him, however.

Birdwhistell (1970) maintained that there would certainly be kinesic differences that might be related
language differences. Creider (1986) offered some intriguing observations on gesture differences between
speakers of different East African languages. The work mentioned above, in which gesture phrasing is
examined in detail in relation to the phrasing of speech should obviously be done cross-linguistically to
establish to what extent patterns established in English are found in speakers of other languages or whether,
for instance, differences in phrasal organization (stress-timed vs. syllable timed languages, etc.) make a
difference.

The detailed study of narrations of comparable material by speakers of different languages, such as Sotaro
Kita (1993) and others are pursuing (e.g. Müller 1994), is clearly of great relevance to the issue of the nature
of the interface between gesture and language. Issues of word order and gestural organization also need to be
pursued.

Among the differences reported by Efron between Italians and Yiddish speakers was that the Italians used an
extensive vocabulary of 'symbolic gestures', whereas the Yiddish speakers did not. A difference of this sort
suggests that part of the difference perhaps lies in what communicative circumstances prevail commonly for
the Italians as compared to the East European Jews which leads to favouring differently the different uses of
gesture. For example, gesture as a means of communication has a number of properties, such as silence,
ability to transmit over long distances, ability to be used in a concealed manner, ability to use it for one
interchange while carrying on with another, and so forth, that may make its elaboration highly adaptable in
certain circumstances. It may be that in traditional Italian urban culture or, more specifically, in the culture of
Naples (where gesture use is especially rich), the ecology of everyday interaction is such that it particularly
favours the use of gesture. Ideas along these lines as they apply to the situation in Naples I have briefly
alluded to in Kendon (1995b). See also the discussion in Chapter 14 of Kendon (1988). This suggests that
comparative micro-ecological studies of interactional occasions would be highly useful.

References
Armstrong, David F., William C. Stokoe, and Sherman E. Wilcox(1995) Gesture and the Nature of
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970) Kinesics and Context: Essays in Body Motion Communication. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.

Boyes-Braem, Penny Kaye (1981) Features of the Handshape in American Sign Language. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms
International.

Calbris, G. (1990) Semiotics of French Gesture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Creider, C. A. (1986) "Interlanguage comparisons in the study of the interactional use of gesture." In
Semiotica 62(1/2):147-163.

Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1969) Investigating English Style. London: Longmans and Co.

de Jorio, Andrea (1832) La mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire napoletano. Naples: Fibreno.

Efron, D. (1972) Gesture, Race and Culture. The Hague: Mouton & Co.

Ekman, Paul , and Wallace Friesen (1969) "The repertoire of non-verbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage
and coding." In Semiotica 1(1):49-98.
projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 9/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

Goffman, E. (1954) Communcation conduct in an island community. University of Chicago Doctoral


Dissertation.

Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in public places. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1986) "Gesture and co-participation in the activity of searching for a
word." In Semiotica 62(1/2), 51-75.

Hibbitts, Bernard J. (1992) "Coming to our senses: Communication and legal expression in performance
cultures." In Emory Law Journal 41(4):873-960.

Jakobson, R. (1960) "Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics." In T.A. Sebeok, ed., Style in Language.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 350-377.

Johansson, G. (1973) "Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis." In Perception
and Psychophysics 14: 201-211.

Kendon, A. (1972) "Some relationships between body motion and speech. An analysis of an example." In
Studies in Dyadic Communication. A. Siegman and B. Pope, eds. Pp. 177-210. Elmsford, New York:
Pergamon Press.

--- (1980) "Gesticulation and speech: two aspects of the process of utterance." In The Relationship of Verbal
and Nonverbal Communication. M.R. Key, ed. Pp. 207-227. The Hague: Mouton and Co.

--- (1981) "Geography of gesture." In Semiotica 37(1/2):129-163.

Kendon, Adam (1982) "The study of gesture: Some observations on its history." In Recherches
Sémiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry 2(1):45-62.

--- (1985) "Behavioural foundations for the process of frame attunement in face-to-face interaction." In
Discovery Strategies in the Psychology of Action. G.P. Ginsburg, M. Brenner, and M. von Cranach, eds, Vol.
229-253. London: Academic Press.

--- (1988) Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, Semiotic and Communicative Perspectives.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--- (1990) Conducting Intraction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--- (1993a) "Space, time and gesture." In Degrès (74):3a-16a.

---(1993b) "Human gesture." In Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution. K.R. Gibson and T.
Ingold, eds. Pp. 43-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--- (1994) "Do Gestures Communicate? A Review." In Research on Language and Social Interaction
27(3):175-200.

--- (1995a) "Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation." In
Journal of Pragmatics 23(3):247-279.

--- (1995b) "Andrea De Jorio - The first ethnographer of gesture?" In Visual Anthropology 7: 375-394.

Kita, Sotaro (1993) Language and thought interface: A study of spontaneous gestures and Japanese
mimetics, Department of Psychology, University of Chicago.

Krauss, R. M., P. Morrel-Samuels, and Christina Colasante (1991) "Do conversational gestures
communicate?" In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61(5):743-754.

Lamedica, N. (1984) "Gesto e linguaggio nel discorso in pubblico." In P. E. Ricci-Bitti, ed. Comunicazione e
Gestualità. Milan: Franco Agnelli.

projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 10/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

McClave, Evelyn Zebrowski (1991) Intonation and Gesture. Ph. D., Linguistics, Georgetown University.

McNeill, D. (1992) Hand and Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Michotte, A. E. (1950) "The emotions regarded as functional connections." In Feelings and Emotions. M.L.
Reymert, ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Morris, D., et al. (1979) Gestures: Their Origins and Distribution. London: Jonathan Cape.

Müller, Cornelia (1994) "Semantic structure of motional gestures and lexicalization patterns in Spanish and
German descriptions of motion-events." In CLS 30: Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society, Chicago, Illinois, 1994. Vol. 30, pp. 281-295. Chicago Linguistic Society.

Nobe, S. (1996) Cognitive Rhythms, Gestures and Acoustic Aspects of Speech. Ph. D., Department of
Psychology, University of Chicago.

Payrató, Lluís (1993) "A pragmatic view on autonomous gestures: A first repertoire of Catalan emblems." In
Journal of Pragmatics 20:193-216

Radutzky, Elena (1992) Dizionario bilingue elementare della lingua italiana dei segni. Rome: Edizioni
Kappa.

Rimé, B., and L. Schiaratura (1991) "Gesture and speech." In Fundamentals of Nonverbal Behavior. R.S.
Feldman and B. Rimè, eds. Pp. 239-281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E.A. (1984) "On some gestures' relation to talk." In Structures of Social Action: Studies in
Conversation Analysis. J.M. Atkinson and E. J. Heritage, eds. Pp. 266-296. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Schmitt, Jean-Claude (1990) Il gesto nel medioevo (Italian translation of La raison des gestes dans
l'Occident médiéval. 1990. Paris: Gaillmard). Rome: Laterza.

--- (1984) "Introduction and general bibliography." In History and Anthropology 1(1):1-28.

--- (1990) Il gesto nel medioevo (Italian translation of La raison des gestes dans l'Occident médiéval. 1990.
Paris: Gaillmard). Rome: Laterza.

Sherzer, J. (1991) "The Brazilian thumbs-up gesture." In Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 1(2):189-197.

--- (1993) "Pointed lips, Thumbs up, and Cheek Puffs: Some Emblematic Gestures in Social Interactional
and Ethnographic Context." In SALSA I:196-211.

Volterra, Virginia, ed. (1987) La Lingua Italiana dei Segni: La comunicazione visivo-gestuale dei sordi.
Bologna: Il Mulino.

Webb. Rebecca (1995) "Linguistic properties of metaphoric gestures." In Dissertation Proposal. Department
of Linguistics and Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, New
York.

Adam Kendon studied biological sciences and social psychology at the universities of Cambridge and
Oxford. He has taught at Oxford, Cornell, Connecticut College and the University of Pennsylvania and has
held research posts in Pittsburgh, New York, Canberra, Bloomington, Philadelphia and Nijmegen. He is
currently a Visiting Professor at the Istituto Universitario Orientale in Naples. In his research he has been
interested in the analysis of communication conduct in face-to-face interaction (see his Conducting
Interaction, Cambridge University Press 1990) and, more recently, in the study of gesture. After completing
a major piece of work on the sign languages in use among the Australian Aborigines (see his Sign Languages
of Aboriginal Australia, Cambridge University Press 1988), he has turned to studies of gesture in Southern
Italy. Most recently he has published 'Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern
Italian Conversation' (Journal of Pragmatics , 1995) and 'Andrea de Jorio - the first ethnographer of gesture?'
(Visual Anthropology 1995). His work has received support from the National Science Foundation, the
projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 11/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and the Istituto Italiano per gli studi filosofici of
Naples, and he has been a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation of New York.

[email protected]

Some items for an introductory bibliography of


gesture studies.
compiled by Adam Kendon

This bibliography is meant as a guide for someone interested in becoming acquainted with the literature in
gesture studies. Most of the items included contain large bibliographies. It is organized topically. Since some
items listed pertain to more than one topic, duplicate entries appear occasionally. To skip to a particular
section of the bibliography, simply click on a topic below. To return to this point in the article, use the "Back"
function of your browser.

History of Gesture and History of Gesture Studies


Studies of the relationships between gesture and speech
Functions of gesture in interaction and the problem of their communicative import
Studies of conventional gestures and conventionalization in gesture
Gesture in independence from speech: Sign languages primary and alternate and Gesture Systems

History of Gesture and History of Gesture Studies


Austin, Gilbert (1802). Chironomia or, a Treatise on Rhetorical Delivery. London: Cadell andDavis.
[Reprinted in 1966 by Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardville, Illinois. Edited with a
Critical Introduction by Mary Margaret Robb and Lester Thonssen].
[A textbook, highly influential in the last century, which contains a comprehensive presentation of the
tradition of 'chironomia' (the art of gesture) as it extends from Quintilian to the end of eighteenth century. It
also contains Austin's own notation system, which is highly insightful and could be useful for modern
researchers].

Bremmer, J. and Roodenburg, H. (eds). (1991) A Cultural History of Gesture. Cornell University Press.
[An extremely interesting collection of essays on different aspects of gesture and how it has changed over the
course of history within Europe].

De Jorio, Andrea (1832). La mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire napoletano. Napoli: Fibreno
[Available in an anastatic reprint from Arnaldo Forni, Bologna. See Kendon 1995, below, for an account of
this work].

Efron, David (1972). Gesture, Race and Culture. The Hague: Mouton and Co. [Originally published in 1941
by Kings Crown Press, New York].
[A classic study of central importance in the development of modern gesture studies].

Hibbitts, Bernard J. (1992). "Coming to our senses: Communication and legal expression in performance
cultures." In Emory Law Journal, 41: 873-960.
[A highly interesting discussion of the way ritualized gesture played a central role in legal transactions
before comprehensive literacy].

Kendon, A. (1982). "The study of gesture: Some observations on its history." In Recherches
Sémiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry, 2(1), 45-62.
[An attempt to explain why the study of gesture languished from the end of the nineteenth century until the
beginning of the 1980s, despite the explosion of 'nonverbal communication' studies from 1955 onwards].

projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 12/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

--- (1995). "Andrea De Jorio - The first ethnographer of gesture?" In Visual Anthropology, 7: 357-374.

Knowlson, J. R. (1965). "The idea of gesture as a universal language in the 17th and 18th centuries." In
Journal of the History of Ideas, 26(495-508).

Schmitt, J-C. (1990). La raison des gestes dans l'Occident médiéval. Paris: Gaillmard.
[An important study of the role of gesture in medieval society, especially in religious contexts].

--- (1984). "Introduction and general bibliography." In History and Anthropology, 1(1), 1-28.
[A brief but valuable survey of the history of the study of gesture. Contains a useful bibliography].

--- (1992). "The rational of gestures in the West. A history of from the 3rd to the 13th Centuries." In F.
Poyatos, ed.Advances in Nonverbal Communication. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 77-
95.
[Summarizes the main conclusions of La raison des gestes].

Siegel, J. P. (1969). "The Enlightenment and the evolution of a language of signs in France and England." In
Journal for the History of Ideas, 30, 96-115.

Tylor, Edward B. (1865). Researches into the Early History of Mankind and the Development of Civilization.
London: John Murray.
[The first five chapters deal with language and discuss gesture, gesture as used by the deaf, picture writing,
and spoken language].

Wundt, Wilhelm (1973). The Language of Gestures. Translated from Wundt, W. Völkerpsychologie: Eine
Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 2
(Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag) by Thayer, J. S., Greenleaf, C. M. and Silberman, M. D. The Hague:
Mouton

Studies of the relationships between gesture and speech


Birdwhistell, R. L. "Body motion accompaniments to spoken American English." In R. L. Birdwhistell,
Kinesics and Context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970.
[An early summary of observations making clear the systematic nature of body-motion as it co-occurs with
speech. The book Kinesics and Context collects all of Birdwhistell's important writings on kinesics and it is a
landmark in the modern ethnographic study of gesture].

Feyereisen, Pierre, and Jaques-Dominique de Lannoy (1991). Gestures and Speech: Psychological
Investigations. Cambridge: Cambridge University [Contains a very large bibliography].

Freedman, N. (1972). "The analysis of movement behavior during the clinical interview." In Studies in
Dyadic Communication. A.W. Siegman and B. Pope, eds. Pp. 153-175. New York: Pergamon Press.

--- (1977). "Hands, words and mind: On the structuralization of body movements duringdiscourse and the
capacity for verbal representation." In Communicative Structures and Psychic Structures: A Psychoanalytic
Approach. N. Freedman and S. Grand, eds. Pp. 109-132. New York and London: Plenum Press.
[This is a good survey of Norbert Freedman's work which well repays study. He is the only researcher to my
knowledge who has attempted to examine systematically the occurrence of both self-touching movements
and gesticulations in relation to spoken discourse].

Kendon, A. (1972). "Some relationships between body motion and speech. An analysis of an example." In
Studies in Dyadic Communication. A. Siegman and B. Pope, eds. Pp. 177-210. Elmsford, New York:
Pergamon Press.

--- (1980). "Gesticulation and speech: two aspects of the process of utterance." In The Relationship of Verbal
and Nonverbal Communication. M.R. Key, ed. Pp. 207-227. The Hague: Mouton and Co.
[Contains the development of the terminology of 'gesture phrase', with its components 'preparation', 'stroke',
'recovery' and to demonstrate the heirarchical or multiple-level organization of gesticulation].
projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 13/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

--- (1983). "Gesture and speech: How they interact." In Nonverbal Interaction. J.M. Wieman and R.P.
Harrison, eds. Pp. 13-45. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
[A comprehensive review up to 1982].

--- (1993). "Human gesture." In Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution. K.R. Gibson and T.
Ingold, eds. Pp. 43-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McNeill, D. (1985). "So you think gestures are nonverbal?" In Psychological Review 92:350-371.
[This paper presents McNeill's ideas in a relatively brief form and is still valuable as an introduction].

--- (1992). Hand and Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Morrel-Samuels, Palmer, and Robert M. Krauss (1992). "Word familiarity predicts temporal asynchrony of
hand gestures and speech." In Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition
18(3):615-622.

Rimé, B., & Schiaratura, L. (1991). "Gesture and speech." In R. S. Feldman & B. Rimé (Eds.),
Fundamentals of Nonverbal Behavior, (pp. 239-281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[Contains a useful summary of the theories of gesture-speech relationships of Norbert Freedman, David
McNeill and Adam Kendon and a presentation of Rimé's own views].

Functions of gesture in interaction and the problem of their


communicative import.
Atkinson, M. and Heritage, John, eds. (1984). Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
[This is an excellent anthology of work in the tradition of Conversation Analysis. Papers that deal with
gestures include E. Schegloff "On some gestures' relation to talk" and C. C. Heath "Talk and recipiency:
sequential organization in speech and body movement"]

Fornel, Michel de (1992). "The return gesture: some remarks on context, inference and iconic gesture." In
Peter Auer and Aldo di Luzio, eds. The Contxtualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.
159-176.

Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York:
Academic Press.
[Although not primarily concerned with gesture, is important because of its view of conversational
organization and the role of posture and orientation in this].

Goodwin, C. (1986). "Gesture as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation." In Semiotica
62(1/2):29-49.
[Among other things this is valauble for the clear presentation of the methodological difficulties attendant on
the study of the role of gesture in interaction].

Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harkness Goodwin (1992). "Context, activity and participation." In The
Contextualization of Language. P. Auer and A. di Luzio, eds. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

--- (1986). "Gesture and co-participation in the activity of searching for a word." In Semiotica 62(1/2):51-75.

Haviland, J. B. (1993). "Anchoring, Iconicity and Orientation in Guugu Yimithirr Pointing Gestures." In
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 3(1), 3-45.

Heath, C. C. (1986). Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
[An exceptionally valuable study demonstrating how an integrated approach to interaction can be
accomplished. Follows an orientation heavily informed by ConversationAnalysis].

projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 14/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

Heath, Christian (1992). "Gesture's discrete tasks: Multiple relevancies in visual conduct in the
contextualization of language." In The Contextualization of Language. P. Auer and A. di Luzio, eds. Pp. 102-
127. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kendon, A. (1985). "Some uses of gesture." In D. Tannen & Muriel Saville-Troike (Eds.), Perspectives on
Silence, (pp. 215-234). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

--- (1994). "Do Gestures Communicate? A Review." In Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27(3):
175-200.
[This article should be useful for those who want to know the 'lay of land' on this issue].

--- ed. (1994). "Special Issue: Gesture and Understanding in Social Interaction." In Research on Language
and Social Interaction, 27 (3): 171-267

--- (1995). "Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation." In
Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 1-31.

Krauss, R. M., Morrel-Samuels, P., & Colasante, C. (1991). "Do conversational gestures communicate?" In
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(5), 743-754.

Sherzer, J. (1972). "Verbal and nonverbal deixis: the pointed lip gesture among the San Blas Cuna." In
Language in Society, 2(1), 117-131.

--- (1991). "The Brazilian thumbs-up gesture." In Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 1(2), 189-197.

--- (1988). "The significance of gesture: how it is achieved." In Papers in Pragmatics, 2: 60-83.

--- (1992). "Previews: gestures at the transition place." In P. Auer & A. d. Luzio (Eds.), The
Contextualization of Language, (pp. 135-157). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

--- (1993). "Gesture as Communication I: Its Coordination with Gaze and Speech." Communication
Monographs, 60(4), 275-299.

--- (1994). "Gesture as communication II: The audience as co-author." In Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 27(3), 239-267.

Studies of conventional gestures and conventionalization in gesture.


Calbris, G. (1990). Semiotics of French Gesture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
[The first two chapters of this book present cross-cultural judgement studies of French 'emblems' presented
in 'citation' context. The remainder of the book is a highly innovative analysis of the semiotic properties of
gesture - based mainly on 'naked eye' observations in a wide variety of situations. For an extended discussion
of this book see Kendon, A. (1992). Abstraction in gesture. Semiotica, 90: 225-250].

Driessen, H. (1991). "Gestured masculinity: body and sociability in rural Andalusia." In J. Bremmer & H.
Roodenburg (Eds.), A Cultural History of Gesture, (pp. 237-249). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University
Press.

Efron, D. (1972). Gesture, Race and Culture. The Hague: Mouton & Co.

Ekman, Paul , and Wallace Friesen (1969). "The repertoire of non-verbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage
and coding." In Semiotica 1(1):49-98.
[A classic and much-cited paper. The typology established here, derived from David Efron, has been
extremely influential].

Kendon, A. (1981). "Geography of gesture." In Semiotica, 37(1/2), 129-163.


[An essay Morris, et al.'s Gestures: Their origin and distribution].

projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 15/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

--- (1984). "Did gesture have the happiness to escape the curse at the confusion of Babel?" In A. Wolfgang
(Ed.), Nonverbal Behavior: Perspectives, Applications, Intercultural Insights, (pp. 75-114). Lewiston, New
York: C. J. Hogrefe.
[A comprehensive rerview of cultural comparative studies of gesture].

--- (1992). "Some recent work from Italy on quotable gestures ('emblems')." In Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology, 2(1), 72-93.

Meo Zilio, Giovanni, and Silvia Mejia (1980-1983). Diccionario de Gestos: España e Hispanoamérica. 2
vols. Volume 1 (1980), 2 (1983). Bogot�: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.

Morris, D., Collett, P., Marsh, P., & O'Shaughnessy, M. (1979). Gestures: Their Origins and Distribution.
London: Jonathan Cape.
[An attempt to survey the meaning and use of twenty symbolic gestures in Westrn Europe. Despite
methodological shortcomings, and although they require some care in their interpretation, the findings are of
considerable interest . Containsmuch interesting material on the history of the gestures studied. It has a very
useful bibliography. See Kendon's 'Geography of gesture' (1981) for an extended discussion]

Payrató, L. (1993). "A pragmatic view on autonomous gestures: A first repertoire of Catalan emblems." In
Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 193-216.
[A useful study. The paper also includes a comprehensive bibliography].

Ricci Bitti, P. E., & Poggi, I. (1990). "Symbolic nonverbal behavior: talking through gestures." In R. S.
Feldman & E. B. Rimé (Eds.), Fundamentals of Nonverbal Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Saitz, Robert L., and Edward J. Cervenka (1972). Handbook of Gestures: Columbia and the United States.
The Hague: Mouton and Co.

Sherzer, J. (1972). "Verbal and nonverbal deixis: the pointed lip gesture among the San Blas Cuna." In
Language in Society, 2(1), 117-131.

--- (1991). "The Brazilian thumbs-up gesture." In Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 1(2), 189-197.
[One of the very few studies of an 'emblem' in its contexts of use].

Sparhawk, C. M. (1978). "Contrastive-identificational features of Persian gesture." In Semiotica, 24(1/2), 49-


86. [An interesting attempt to apply Stokoe's 'cheremic' analysis to a set of 'emblems' used in Persia].

Gesture in independence from speech: Sign languages primary and


alternate and Gesture Systems.
Primary Sign Languages

The literature on primary sign languages (i.e. sign languages used in deaf communities) is now very large. I
list only a few books which are good starting points and which contain useful further references.

Emmorey, Karen, and Judy Reilly, eds. (1995). Language, Gesture and Space. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Friedman, L. H., ed. (1977). On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language. New York:
Academic Press.
[A pioneering collection. Mandel's article on iconicity and conventionalization and De Matteo's article on the
visuo-spatial dimensions of sign language are especially interesting].

Isenhath, John O. (1990). The Linguistics of American Sign Language. Jefferson, North Carolina:
McFarland.

projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 16/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

[A recent and clearly written survey of the main features of ASL lexicon, morphology, syntax. Contains a
bibliography].

Klima, Edward A. and Bellugi, Ursula (1979). The Signs of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
[Probably still the best book for anyone wishing to become introduced to the fundamentals of modern
research on primary sign languages].

Kyle, Jim G. and Woll, Bencie (1985). Sign Language: The Study of Deaf People and their Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[A useful introductory survey, covering applied aspects as well as theortical aspects. Emphasis is mainly on
British sign language]

Siple, P. (editor). (1978). Understanding Sign Language through Sign Language Research. New York:
Academic Press.
[An important collection of articles. Newport and Supalla's "How many seats in a chair?" is especially
important for its pioneering insights into sign language morphology].

Stokoe, W.C. (1978). Sign Language Structure. Revised Edition. Silver Spring, Maryland: Linstok Press.
[This is a revision of Stokoe's pioneering analysis, originally published in 1960. The first attempt to develop
a lingusitic analysis of a primary sign language using methods and concepts from Structural Linguistics.
Stokoe was much influenced by Trager and H. L. Smith and W. A. Austin. It remains wll worth reading
today].

Supalla, T. (1986). "The classifier system in American Sign Language." In Noun Classes and Categorization.
C. Craig, ed. Pp. 181-215. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Volterra, Virginia, ed. (1987). La Lingua Italiana dei Segni: La comunicazione visivo-gestuale dei sordi.
Bologna: Il Mulino.
[A pioneering collection of studies of Italian sign language. Makes interesting use of the 'semantic
phonology' approach of Boyes-Braem].

Volterra, V. and Erting, C. J. (1990). From gesture to language in hearing and deaf children. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
[A highly interesting collection that brings together work on the development ofsigning in very young deaf
children and the development of gesture use in very young hearing children. Raises the issue of the
differnces between 'gesture' and 'sign.']

Isolated primary sign languages


('Home sign systems')
Studies of isolated sign languages are comparatively rare. They have not attracted the degree of attention
they deserve. Main studies are the following:

Goldin-Meadow, S, and C. Mylander (1990). "Beyond the input given: the child's role in the acquisition of
language." In Language 66(2):323-355.
[This is a useful survey and presentation of Goldin-Meadow's work on sign systems 'created' by children
born deaf who are raised by parents' choice withut sign language. Susan Goldin-Meadow has a very large
bibliography].

Jepson, J. (1991). "Urban and rural sign language in India." In Language in Society 20:37-57.

Kendon, A. (1980). "A description of a deaf-mute sign language from the Enga Province of Papua New
Guinea with some comparative discussion. Part I: The formational properties of Enga signs." In Semiotica
32:1-32; Part II: The semiotic functioning of Enga signs. Semiotica 32:81-117; Part III: Aspects of utterance
construction. Semiotica 32:245-313.
[Descriptive analyses of a sign language used in the upper Lagiap valley in the Enga Province of Papua New

projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 17/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

Guinea as this could be derived from the signing of one deaf young woman and a hearing Enga who knew
the sign language. Limited in ethnographic background but rich in the detail of the analysis].

Kuschel, Rolf (1973). "The silent inventor: the creation of a sign language by the only deaf mute on a
polynesian island." In Sign Language Studies 3:1-27.

Washabaugh, W. (1986). Five Fingers for Survival. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, Inc.
[An ethnographic and linguistic study of 'isolated' deaf on Providence Island in the Carribean].

Yau, Shun-chiu (1992). Creations gestuelle et debuts du langage: Creation de langues gestuelles chez des
sourds isoles. Paris: Editions Langages Croisés.
[Reports studies of 'isolated' deaf signing from Canada and elsewhere. Includes interesting theoretical
discussions and a very comprehensive bibliography].

Alternate sign languages & gesture systems


Systems of gesture developed among hearing people for use as an alternative to speech where speech is not
possible either for environmental or ritual reasons or possibly (in the case of the Plains Indians of North
America) because spoken languages are mutually unintelligible are here termed 'alternate sign languages.'
'Gesture systems' such as systems of gesture used in work environments are more limited. There is no sharp
distinction to be drawn. References to both are included here.

Farnell, Brenda (1995). Do You See What I Mean?: Plains Indian Sign Talk and the Embodiment of Action.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
[There is a CD-ROM published in parallel with this book which demonstrates the notation system used
(Labanotation), shows several signed narratives, and demonstrates analyses].

Johnson, R. E. (1978). "A comparison of the phonological structure of two northwest sawmill languages." In
Communication and Cognition 11:105-132.

Kendon, A. (1984). "Knowledge of sign language in an Australian Aboriginal community." In Journal of


Anthropological Research, 40: 556-576.

--- (1988). Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, Semiotic and Communicative Perspectives.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--- "Signs in the cloister and elsewhere." In Semiotica, 1990, 79: 307-329.
[An essay review of Monastic Sign Languages, J. Umiker-Sebeok and T. A. Sebeok, eds., Mouton De
Gruyter, 1987. Includes comparative discussion of monastic and other sign languages with Warlpiri sign
langauge].

Mallery, G. (1972). Sign Language among North American Indians Compared with that among Other
Peoples and Deaf-Mutes. The Hague: Mouton.
[Reprinted from the Smithsonian Institution publication of 1881. A classic work. Of considerable historical
interest, and still useful today].

Meissner, M., and S.B. Philpott (1975). "The sign language of sawmill workers in British Columbia." In Sign
Language Studies, 9: 291-308.
[The only comprehensive report on a 'workplace' sign system kown to me].

Morford, Jill, P., Jenny L. Singleton, and Susan Goldin-Meadow. (1995). "The genesis of language: how
much time is needed to generate arbitrary symbols in a sign system?" In Language, Gesture, and Space. K.
Emmorey and J. Reilly, eds. Pp. 313-332. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[Reports recent experiments on how speakers, requestd not to use speech, can create something like a sign
system within a very short space of time]

Sebeok, T. A., and D. J. Umiker-Sebeok, eds. (1978). Aboriginal Sign Languages of the Americas and
Australia. Volume 1: North America: Classic Comparative Perspectives. Volume 2: The Americas and
Australia. London and New York: Plenum Press.
projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 18/19
19.04.2019 An Agenda for Gesture Studies

[Contains most of the published material on North American sign languages and almost all that had been
published on Australian Aboriginal sign languages up to 1978. Mostly of historical interest. For Australian
Aboriginal sign languages the standard reference is now Kendon (1988)].

Singleton, Jenny L., Jill P. Morford, and Susan Goldin-Meadow (1993). "Once is not enough: Standards of
well-formedness in manual communication created over three different timespans." In Language 69(4):683-
715.
[Reports recent experiments on how speakers, requestd not to use speech, can create something like a sign
system within a very short space of time]

Umiker-Sebeok, J. and Sebeok, T. A., eds. Monastic Sign Languages. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
[Contains almost all of the known publications on this topic including the study by Barakat of the Cistercian
sign system in use in St. Joseph's Abbey, Massachusetts, which is the only study of a living monastic sign
language].

Wright, Cheryl (1980). Walpiri Hand Talk. Darwin: Northern Territory Government Department of
Education.
[A remarkable photographic dictionary of Warlpiri sign language recorded from Ali-Curung]

Go to Semiotic Review of Books Home Page


Go to SRB Highlights
Go to SRB Archives

projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/srb/gesture.html 19/19

You might also like